Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The Real-World Data Show the Covid Vaccines Are Ineffective

By Vasko Kohlmayer | LewRockwell | August 11, 2021

“Pfizer and BioNTech’s Covid-19 vaccine is just 39% effective in Israel where the delta variant is the dominant strain according to a new report from the country’s Health Ministry” we read in a CNBC report. Astonishment is one’s first reaction when coming across this piece of information, since it was not so long ago the vaccine manufacturers claimed their products were 92 to 98 percent effective.

The manufacturers’ initial claims, however, have been steadily revised down as real-world data has been coming in. In March of this year news came from South Africa that “AstraZeneca vaccine doesn’t prevent B1351 Covid.” A couple of months later, the Hill ran a piece by a Baylor School of Medicine virologist who observed:

“A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine provides only 51 percent protection against B.1.351 of South Africa.”

Just a couple of weeks ago, we learned that recipients of the Sinovac Biotech’s vaccine have no antibodies after six months. This effectually means that merely half a year after being injected into people’s bodies the vaccine has zero percent efficacy in protecting against Covid-19.

Even factoring for the variants, the hard data makes it quite clear that the initial claims of vaccine effectiveness were greatly exaggerated. This, of course, comes as no surprise to anyone familiar with the dynamic of the pharma industry. Drug manufacturers tend to wildly overstate the efficacy of their products, while doing their very best to understate their side effects. It is for this purpose they conduct trials that are manipulated to obtain the results they wish for. Sadly, they too often get away with it because of the corruption of the system by what is called regulatory capture. This is why the outcomes of manufacturers’ trials are almost never replicated by independent trials or real-world data.

This is what has apparently happened with the Covid vaccines. The manufacturers used the sense of emergency brought on by the Covid pandemic to conduct rushed and incomplete trials which were designed to yield the results they wanted to see. There is every reason to believe that the effectiveness of their injections was nowhere close to the 92-98% range they initially claimed even for the variants that were in circulation at that time.

Needless to say, one has a strong suspicion that even the meagre 39 percent figure is still overstated. This would only be natural, since everyone involved in the vaccination enterprise – the manufacturers, politicians, regulators, the medical establishment and corporate scientists – is trying their best to save face and reputation in the face of this fiasco. Bad though the data is, we can be quite sure that it has been massaged to soften the blow.

You can clearly observe this tendency at work in the CNBC piece which claims that even though Pfizer is only 39 percent effective, it still protects against serious disease. But this is simply not true, which you can easily see if you take the trouble to look into the data put out by the Israeli government. At roughly the same time that CNBC filed its report, the Israeli Ministry of Health published a bulletin which reported on Covid cases in the country. According to their data, there were 137 serious cases in Israel of which 95 were fully vaccinated and 42 unvaccinated or partially vaccinated (see here and here). In other words, the bulk of the serious cases was comprised of those who had received their shots. If the vaccine was as effective in protecting against heavy illness as the article claims, the numbers would look completely different. The figures published by the Israeli Ministry of Health shows that the claims of Pfizer’s efficacy of protecting against serious Covid are simply untrue.

This has been confirmed by the testimony of Dr Kobi Haviv, Director of Herzog Hospital in Jerusalem. In a recent TV interview, Dr Haviv stated that the fully vaccinated people account for about 90 percent of hospitalizations. Given that less than 90 percent of the Israeli population is fully vaccinated, it would appear that the vaccination not only does not prevent you from contracting the disease, but actually increases one’s chances of becoming a serious Covid case. Observes Dr Haviv: “yes, unfortunately, the vaccine… as they say, its effectiveness is waning.” And so it is, indeed. Dr Haviv’s interview is on YouTube so you can hear the truth straight from his mouth. It will be interesting to see how long it will take for the Establishment Censors to take it down.

Vasko Kohlmayer [email] was born and grew up in former communist Czechoslovakia. He is the author of The West in Crisis: Civilizations and Their Death Drives.

Previous article by Vasko Kohlmayer: 

The Best of Vasko Kohlmayer

Copyright © Vasko Kohlmayer

August 12, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Delta Variants, PCR Tests and Cognitive Dissonance

By F. William Engdahl – New Eastern Outlook – 11.08.2021

To paraphrase a famous quip from then Presidential candidate Bill Clinton in a debate with his Republican opponent in 1992, “It’s the vaccine, stupid!” The daily mainstream media and government narrative we are being inundated all over the world with is confusing to most, to put it mildly. So-called Delta or “Indian” variant is spreading like chicken pox we are told, but not what that “spreading” means. Unvaccinated are accused of spreading COVID-19 to those supposedly vaccinated. The USA, UK and EU are leading this confusing and deadly narrative.

Children are told by political appointees to get the jab despite official recommendation from WHO and national medical authorities such as STIKO in Germany to wait. PCR tests that define policy, but which do not tell anything about a person’s having a specific virus, are treated as a “Gold Standard” of infection. Yet as of this writing not one lab has successfully isolated purified samples of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus said to cause the COVID-19 disease. How can PCR tests be calibrated if the claimed pathogen is not clear? If we take a step back it becomes clear that we are being subjected to a deliberate worldwide operation in cognitive dissonance whose intended consequences for the future of our civilization are not being told to us.

Resolving dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is a term in psychology for a person’s experience of two contradictory or inconsistent experiences whose inconsistency causes them great stress. The stress is resolved in the brain by the person playing unconscious tricks to resolve the contradiction. The Stockholm Syndrome comes to mind. In this case it is the traditional trust in Authority—governments, WHO, CDC, RKI, Bill Gates and other self-appointed epidemiological experts, in many cases with no medical degree. These authorities are imposing draconian lockdowns, masking and travel restraints and what is rapidly becoming de facto forced vaccination with untested jabs whose adverse effects now number in the millions in the EU and USA.

The ordinary brain says, “Why would the authorities want to harm us? Don’t they want the best for us and the country or the world?” The real experiences of the past 18 months since the World Health Organization declared a pandemic over an alleged virus first proclaimed in Wuhan China suggest that either politicians and health officials across the world have lost their minds, are deliberately evil, or willfully destructive or simply corrupt. To resolve that frightening contradiction, millions of us take an experimental concoction known as mRNA genetically-edited substance assuming then they are protected against infection or severe illness from an alleged deadly pathogen called COVID-19. Some even attack those around them who view the dissonance differently and who refuse a vaccine out of distrust and caution. Yet even the ever-present Dr. Fauci in Washington admits the novel mRNA vaccines do not prevent getting the alleged disease or being infectious, only maybe helps lessen its impact. That is not a vaccine, but rather something else.

Delta Variant?

At this point it is useful to look at several demonstrated facts around this coronavirus and its apparently unlimited “variants.” The current scare in the UK and EU as well as the USA is a so-called Delta variant of the coronavirus. The only problem is that we are not being told by the relevant authorities anything useful about that variant.

Since the alleged Delta variant of an alleged but nowhere scientifically proven Wuhan novel coronavirus is being used to justify a new round of draconian lockdowns and pressure to vaccinate, it is worth looking into the test to determine if a Delta variant is present in a tested person tested with the standard WHO-recommended PCR test.

The Delta Variant back in May was originally called the Indian variant. It was soon blamed for up to 90% of new COVID-19 positive tests in the UK, which also has a significant Indian population. What is not being told is that in just two months the alleged Delta positives in India dropped dramatically from 400,000 daily in May to 40,000 in July. Symptoms were said to be suspiciously like that for ordinary hay fever, so the WHO quickly renamed it the Delta variant according to the Greek alphabet just to muddy the waters more. Similar Delta declines came in the UK. “Experts” claimed it was because terrified Indians stayed at home as only a tiny 1-3% of the population had been vaccinated. In UK experts there claimed it was because so many had been vaccinated that Delta cases plunged. If you get the impression they are just inventing explanations to feed the vaccine narrative, you are not alone.

It gets worse. Virtually no one in the UK, India the EU or the USA who is claimed to have been tested positive for Delta has had a specific Delta variant test as such a direct variant test does not exist. Complex and very costly tests are claimed to exist, but no proof is offered that they are being used to claim such things as “90% of UK cases are Delta…” Labs around the world simply do the standard, highly inaccurate PCR tests and health authorities declare it is “Delta.” There is no simple test for Delta or any other variant. If that were not true, the CDC or WHO or other health institutes should explain in detail those tests. They haven’t. Ask relevant health “experts” how they prove presence of a Delta variant virus. They cannot. Testing labs in the USA admit that they do not test for any variants.

Worthless PCR Tests

Even the PCR test itself is not a test for any virus or disease. The scientist who won a Nobel Prize for inventing the PCR test, Dr. Kary Mullis, went on TV to attack by name NIAID head Tony Fauci as incompetent for claiming the PCR tests could detect any pathogen or disease. It was not designed for that, but rather as a laboratory analytical tool for research. PCR tests cannot determine an acute infection, ongoing infectiousness, nor actual disease. The PCR test is not actually designed to identify active infectious disease, instead, it identifies genetic material, be it partial, alive, or even dead.

A January 21, 2020 published paper by two Germans, Corman and Drosten, was used to create the PCR test immediately adopted by the WHO to be the world standard to detect cases of the novel coronavirus from Wuhan. At that point a mere six persons had been identified having the novel coronavirus. In November 2020 a group of scientific external peers reviewed the Drosten paper and found an incredible number of major scientific flaws as well as brazen conflict of interest by Drosten and colleagues. The scientists noted the Drosten PCR design and paper suffered from, “numerous technical and scientific errors, including insufficient primer design, a problematic and insufficient RT-qPCR protocol, and the absence of an accurate test validation. Neither the presented test nor the manuscript itself fulfils the requirements for an acceptable scientific publication. Further, serious conflicts of interest of the authors are not mentioned. Finally… a systematic peer review process was either not performed here, or of problematic poor quality.” Yet the Drosten PCR design was immediately recommended by the WHO as the world corona test.

The PCR amplifies genetic material by using cycles of amplification until it reaches what is called Cycle threshold (Ct), the number of amplifications to detect genetic material before the sample becomes worthless. Mullis once said if you amplify by enough cycles you can pretty much find anything in anybody as our bodies carry huge numbers of different viruses and bacteria, most harmless. Even Dr. Fauci in a 2020 interviews stated that a CT at 35 or above is worthless. Yet the CDC is believed to recommend testing labs to use a CT of 37 to 40! At that level perhaps 97% of COVID positives are likely false.

Neither the CDC nor the WHO makes public their Ct recommendations, but reports are that the CDC now recommends a lower Ct threshold for testing vaccinated so as to minimize COVID positives in the vaccinated, while recommending a Ct above 35 for the unvaccinated, a criminal manipulation if it is true.

For those interested in the evolution of perverting the PCR tests to supposedly diagnose specific presence of a disease, look into the sordid history beginning in the 1980s of Fauci and his underling then, Dr Robert Gallo, at NIAID, using Mullis’ PCR technology to wrongly claim a person is HIV-positive, a criminal enterprise that resulted in unnecessary deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands of people.

Notably nearly every prominent COVID vaccine advocate from Fauci to WHO head Tedros have come out of the HIV/AIDS swamp and its fake PCR testing. The entire panic measures imposed since 2020 around the world are based on the false premise that “Positive” RT-PCR test means being sick or infected with COVID. The COVID-19 scare that emanated from Wuhan, China in December of 2019 is a pandemic of testing as many doctors have pointed out. There is no proof that a pathogenic virus is being detected by the test. Nor is there a proven reference value, or “gold standard” to determine positive. It is purely arbitrary. Do the research and you will find it.

Pushing Experimental Vaccines

If it is the case that we have destroyed trillions of dollars in the world economy since early 2020 and ruined countless lives based on worthless PCR tests and now the same fraud extends the insanity for an alleged Delta variant, the clear conclusion is that some very influential actors are using that fear to drive experimental genetic vaccines never before tested on humans nor extensively on animals.

Yet the vaccine-related official death toll in the EU and USA continue to break records. As of this writing, according to the official EU database for recording vaccine injuries, EduraVigilance, by August 2 a total of 20,595 deaths had been reported of people who previously received the experimental genetic mRNA jabs! Such numbers have never before been seen. In addition there have been reported 1,960,607 injuries and 50% of them serious including blood clots, heart attacks, menstrual irregularities, paralysis, all following COVID-19 mRNA injections. The USA data at the CDC VAERS database is being manipulated openly, but even they show more than 11,000 post-mRNA vaccine deaths. The major news media never mention this.

Authorities and politicians reply that there is no evidence the deaths or injuries were vaccine related. But they cannot prove that they were not because they prohibit doctors from doing any autopsy. If we are told to follow science, why are doctors being told by health officials to not do autopsies on patients who died AFTER receiving two mRNA vaccines? After thousands of vaccine-related deaths only one autopsy has been reported, that in Germany, and the findings were horrific. The mRNA spike protein had spread through the entire body. The CDC stopped monitoring non-severe COVID-19 cases among vaccinated people in May. That hides the alarming number of vaccinated who get seriously ill.

Something is terribly wrong when respected experienced medical experts are being banned for suggesting alternative hypotheses to the entire COVID drama. When other scientists adhering to the official line call for any criticism of Tony Fauci or other mainstream COVID doctors, they are to be labelled as doing a “Hate Crime.” Or when cheap and proven remedials are prohibited in favor of the costly deadly mRNA vaccines in which Fauci’s NIAID holds a financial interest.

Already vaccine advocates such as Fauci are speaking of the need for booster mRNA shots and warning of yet a new “Lambda variant” looming. How will they test for that? Or are we to take it on faith because he or she is said by CNN or BBC to be a “respected authority”? How far will sane citizens allow this cognitive dissonance to destroy our lives?

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University.

August 12, 2021 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

CDC’s Own Stats Show 1,270 Premature Fetal Deaths Following COVID Shots…

… But Recommend Pregnant Women Get COVID Injections

By Brian Shilhavy | Health Impact News | August 11, 2021

The U.S. CDC announced today that they have “new data” that they claim shows that the COVID-19 experimental injections are now safe for pregnant women.

Of course they have been recommending all along that pregnant women get the experimental injections, so it appears that this is just a new marketing strategy to get more pregnant women to get the shots.

The CDC admits that this “new study” of nearly 2,500 pregnant women who received an mRNA COVID-19 injection before 20 weeks of pregnancy had 13% of them suffer miscarriages. They concluded that:

the known severe risks of COVID-19 during pregnancy demonstrate that the benefits of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine for pregnant people outweigh any known or potential risks. (Source.)

A search of the CDC Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) lists 1,270 premature fetal deaths in pregnant women following one of the experimental, non-FDA approved COVID-19 injections. (Source.)

As we have previously reported here at Health Impact News, a pro-life group out of New Mexico has reported that a whistleblower who sits on a COVID-19 task force is claiming that many pregnancy complications, including preterm birth, miscarriage, and spontaneous abortions following COVID vaccines are being concealed from the public. See:

Whistleblower Reveals Many Pregnancy Complications following Experimental COVID Injections – “Vaccine Leaving a Trail of Devastated Mothers”

This whistleblower has uncovered documents that Pfizer had supplied to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) that shows their mRNA COVID vaccines did have animal trials that showed serious birth defects occurred in the rat specimens. See:

EMA Pfizer Documents on Experimental COVID-19 mRNA Shots Reveal Animal Studies were Conducted during Trials – Risks to Pregnancy being Concealed but Verified by VAERS Data

Also, at the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines (ACCV) last quarterly meeting, on March 4, 2021, the CDC supplied a report on “Maternal vaccination safety summary” for the COVID vaccines that had been granted emergency use authorization.

You can view it here.

The CDC’s own report stated:

Maternal vaccination safety summary

* Pregnant women were not specifically included in pre-authorization clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines
– Post-authorization safety monitoring and research are the primary ways to obtain safety data on COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy
* Larger than expected numbers of self-reported pregnant women have registered in v-safe
* The reactogenicity profile and adverse events observed among pregnant women in v-safe did not indicate any safety problems
* Most reports to VAERS among pregnant women (73%) involved non-pregnancy specific adverse events (e.g., local and systemic reactions)
* Miscarriage was the most frequently reported pregnancy-specific adverse event to VAERS; numbers are within the known background rates based on presumed COVID-19 vaccine doses administered to pregnant women

So even though there were “larger than expected numbers of self-reported pregnant women” reporting adverse reactions to the experimental vaccines, and even though “miscarriage was the most frequently reported pregnancy-specific adverse event,” the CDC concluded that this “did not indicate any safety problems.”

And that is what they are doing with this study, which they admit caused miscarriages in 13% of the women.

They brush all these fetal deaths aside by stating:

the known severe risks of COVID-19 during pregnancy demonstrate that the benefits of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine for pregnant people outweigh any known or potential risks. (Source.)

But what exactly are these “benefits” of receiving a COVID-19 “vaccine” that “outweigh the risks?” They admit they don’t stop transmission, they admit you can still get COVID-19 after being vaccinated, and they admit that people who are fully vaccinated are still dying.

Do You Trust the CDC?

As we have reported numerous times here at Health Impact News, the CDC is a corrupt organization that cannot be trusted. They are the largest purchaser and distributor of vaccines in the world, allocating over $5 BILLION in their budget (supplied by American taxpayers) each year to purchase and distribute vaccines from Big Pharma. See:

Should the CDC Oversee Vaccine Safety When They Purchase Over $5 Billion of Vaccines from Big Pharma?

The CDC also owns over 56 patents on vaccines, and many of their scientists earn royalties from the sale of vaccines. (Source.)

The CDC has a long history of corruption, and over the years many of their own scientists have tried to blow the whistle on this corruption only to be silenced. See some of our previous coverage on CDC corruption:

Can We Trust the CDC? British Medical Journal Reveals CDC Lies About Ties to Big Pharma

CDC Scientist Whisteblowers Confirm Corruption Within the CDC

CDC Whistleblower: CDC Covered Up MMR Vaccine Link to Autism in African American Boys

The CDC’s History of Research Fraud Regarding Vaccines and Autism

In addition, many of the directors running the CDC go on to work for Big Pharma developing vaccines after they complete their term at the CDC. See:

Former CDC Director that Approved Gardasil Vaccine and Became Head of Merck’s Vaccine Division Named “Woman of the Year”

The CDC protects the pharmaceutical industry. They get caught lying all the time. They are not your friend, they don’t care about your health, and they don’t care if your unborn baby lives or dies.

August 12, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Every woman of child-bearing age should read this warning on the Covid vaccines

By Neville Hodgkinson | TCW Defending Freedom | August 12, 2021

AN insight into the propaganda currently putting our world at risk of a Covid vaccine disaster was provided by a BBC News report yesterday, dismissing fears that the vaccines could harm fertility or cause miscarriages.

The report especially criticises Dr Mike Yeadon, the former Pfizer senior researcher who last week reiterated his concerns about particular risks from the vaccines to women of child-bearing age.

As so often in these acrimonious arguments, some of the report’s targets are ‘Aunt Sallies’ drawn from the internet. People who cannot believe their governments could be so foolhardy as to medicate millions with an experimental product post angry and often exaggerated claims.

Yesterday’s BBC ‘reality check’, however, begins by mentioning a relevant Japanese study that has caused several leading researchers (see here, here and here) much concern.  So let’s fact-check the BBC fact-checker.

Most governments, in line with World Health Organisation guidance, have not required manufacturers to show what happens to their vaccine once injected into the body. Japan appears to have been unique in requiring such a ‘biodistribution’ study, performed mainly on rats.

Under the heading ‘A study shows the vaccine accumulating in the ovaries – False’, the BBC report claims:

1.    The theory comes from a misreading of the study, which ‘involved giving rats a much higher dose of vaccine than that given to humans (1,333 times higher)’. 

In fact, the study (commissioned by Pfizer) used a 50 microgram dose, hardly more than the 30 micrograms standard dose in Pfizer’s human trial. Even if we acknowledge that rats are more than 100 times smaller than humans, the figure of 1,333 times higher is FALSE. Besides, if the study in rats was to give meaningful results, the researchers could be expected to use a proportionately larger dose in these tiny animals.

2.    ‘Only 0.1 per cent of the total dose ended up in the animals’ ovaries, 48 hours after injection. Far more – 53 per cent after one hour and 25 per cent after 48 hours – was found at the injection site. The next most common place was the liver (16 per cent after 48 hours), which helps get rid of waste products from the blood.’ 

No mention of the study’s finding that the jab was cleared at a vastly lower rate from the ovaries, in particular, as well as from the spleen and adrenals, compared with the injection site and the liver. So there IS accumulation in the ovaries. Verdict: FALSE.

3.    ‘The vaccine is delivered using a bubble of fat containing the virus’s genetic material, which kick-starts the body’s immune system. Those promoting this claim cherry-picked a figure which actually referred to the concentration of fat found in the ovaries. Fat levels in the ovaries did increase in the 48 hours after the jab, as the vaccine contents moved from the injection site around the body. But, crucially, there was no evidence it still contained the virus’s genetic material.’ 

In fact, the study itself states that the distribution in the body of the vaccine’s active component ‘is considered to depend on the LNP distribution’ – the lipid nanoparticles, or ‘bubbles of fat’ as the BBC reassuringly calls them. So once again, the BBC’s assertion is FALSE.

4.    Finally, the BBC ‘fact-checker’ challenges the claim that the study was leaked, ‘though it was in fact publicly available online’.

It is available now, but it certainly wasn’t. It was obtained through a request by international researchers to the Japanese regulatory agency. Anyone who actually looks at it will see immediately that every page is marked ‘Pfizer confidential’. And the translation is poor, indicating that it is a far from official release. Verdict: FALSE.

The BBC report goes on to criticise Yeadon, described as ‘a scientific researcher who has made other misleading statements about Covid’, for claiming that the spike protein produced by the vaccines is similar to one involved in forming the placenta. One of his concerns is that the protein might produce antibodies that could block pregnancy.

The BBC quotes a US fertility doctor who has not seen any such effect in a study of 143 of his patients, and who says he can’t see why antibodies produced in response to the vaccine could harm fertility while antibodies from a natural infection would not.

Apart from the tiny number of patients involved, compared with the billions taking the vaccine, it seems obvious that an injection now known to distribute a toxic component throughout the body could bring risks not present in a person whose immune system meets and deals with the virus naturally.

Yeadon worked for 32 years in the drug industry, leaving Pfizer ten years ago as the most senior scientist in charge of respiratory research. He went on to found his own biotechnology company, which he sold for hundreds of millions of dollars, and has been a consultant to 30 biotech start-ups.

He has said that the small minority of people who risk being killed by Covid-19 are probably better off taking the vaccine rather than not. But he spoke out again last week, at a Truth for Health Foundation conference called Stop The Shot, about the special dangers to women of child-bearing age from the gene-based vaccines.

‘We’re being lied to . . . The authorities are not giving us full information about the risks of these products,’ Yeadon said, listing three concerns about the impact of the vaccines in reproductive health, fertility and pregnancy.

‘The first is that we never, ever give experimental medicines to pregnant women.’ The thalidomide tragedy of the 1950s and 60s, in which a new product for morning sickness gave rise to at least 10,000 birth malformations, ‘taught us that babies are not safe and protected inside the uterus, which is what we used to think’.  Interference by a chemical or something else at a critical stage of development could lead irreparable damage.

‘Our government is urging pregnant women and women of childbearing age to get vaccinated, and they’re telling them they’re safe. And that’s a lie, because those studies have simply not been done. Reproductive toxicology has not been undertaken with any of these products, certainly not a full battery of tests that you would want.

‘That’s bad enough. Because it tells me there’s recklessness. No one cares. The authorities do not care what happens. But it’s much worse than that.’

Yeadon said he had seen a copy of the biodistribution report obtained from the Japanese regulator. ‘I’m entirely able to read and interpret it. And to my horror, what we find is the vaccine doesn’t just distribute around the body and then wash out again, which is what you’d hope. It concentrates in the ovaries of rats, at least 20-fold over the concentration in other background tissues like muscles.  And a general rule of thumb in toxicology is: if you don’t have any data to contradict what you’ve learned [from the animal studies], that’s the assumption you make for humans.

‘So my assumption at the moment is that these vaccines are concentrating in the ovaries of every female who has been given them. We don’t know what that will do, but it cannot be benign and it could be seriously harmful.’

His third concern, shared by a German doctor in a petition to the European Medicines Agency eight months ago, is that the spike protein produced by the vaccine ‘is faintly similar – not very strongly – to an essential protein in your placenta, something that’s absolutely required for both fertilisation and formation and maintenance of the placenta.’

The worry was that an immune response to the spike protein might cause antibodies to bind to the placental protein as well.

He said a study has just come out which reinforces that concern.  Researchers drew blood samples every few days from 15 women given the Pfizer vaccine. ‘They measured antibodies against the spike protein, which took several weeks to appear. They also measured antibodies against the placenta, and they found within the first one to four days an increase of two and a half to three times – so, 300 per cent – in the antibodies against their own placenta.

‘I think you can only expect that that is happening in every woman of childbearing potential. What the effect will be, we can’t be certain, but it can’t be benign.

‘So I’m here to warn you that if you are of child-bearing potential or younger, so not at menopause, I would strongly recommend you do not accept these vaccines.’

Pfizer themselves say on their website that available data on their Covid vaccine administered to pregnant women ‘are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy.’

That, at least, is TRUE.

August 12, 2021 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Punishing Scapegoats

By Doug E. Steil | Aletho News | August 12, 2021

Two days ago Merkel and the Bavarian minister announced stringent new measures directed against those who refuse to get their clot shot. For the past few weeks specific media have been inciting hatred against this group, based on lies, more specifically implicit premises that are untrue, as well as illogical or unwarranted conclusions:

• People who got the clot shot are immune to being infected.
• Hence, they are also incapable of infecting others.
• Asymptomatic viral transfer (with high viral load but no sickness) is very common.
• Nearly everyone with no clot shot is at equal risk to get acute viral symptoms.
• At least a 85% “vaccination rate” is required for herd immunity to end the pandemic.
• Those refusing the clot shot are guilty of prolonging the pandemic, harming society.
• These skeptics not going along are parasites who should be shunned from public life.

The recent graph from the central reporting authority in Berlin, the Robert Koch Institute, depicts a 26 week period that highlights the situation very well. The histogram data show gene sequencing information from sampling valid PCR test results, so all the false positives they got are not included here. The government pays labs 200 EUR to sequence a sample.

The gray shades represent the percentage per week that constitutes the derivatives of the virus that emerged in Wuhan, upon which the trial data associated with the clot shot temporary emergency use authorization are based. The blue shades refer to the British variant, and the red to the Indian variant, which have been renamed to get Greek letters. The South African and Brazilian variants barely play a role here.

From an epidemiological perspective it is clear that in Germany the original and British variants have essentially already been eradicated, what one would call “herd immunity” has been attained. Based on information from other countries farther along in the mass experiment, as well as recent admission by the CDC, the clot shot has no effect on the Indian (delta) variant.

Under these circumstances a plausible perception management approach could thus have been:

• Proclaim the experiment was a success because two key variants were wiped out.
• Acknowledge the clot shot is not effective against stemming the Indian variant.
• Discontinue any further inoculations, due to their potential adverse harm.
• Assert that the remaining variant has mild effects and can easily be dealt with.
• Declare an end to the so-called pandemic and the associated restrictive measures.
• Treat all people the same way, yet monitor possible viral spread with thermometers.

However, this was not done because the issue is not about public health but about instituting a totalitarian system that wants to deal harshly with those who are skeptical or critical about the false premises used to bring it on and staunchly refuse to go along with the clot shot experiment. Therefore, the consequences for those not already contaminated twice by the clot shot were instead, as follows:

• The threshold level to get an antigen test for basic activities (haircut, restaurant) was lowered from 50 to 35 (incidences per 100K population per week, based on flawed PCR test).

• People needing to get tested must pay for such tests out of their own pocket beginning October 11.

• In the future, they will likely be excluded altogether from participating in public life. It was suggested they should be shunned by private businesses (restaurants, hotels, cultural venues) as unwelcome customers.

The chosen policy is short-sighted. As the virtuous (obedient) people continue to spread the virus among each other, the skeptics will be blamed for the spread, while those newly infected who thought they were immune will be told that the clot shot is not quite 100% effective, so they will soon need to get a booster shot. Thus, another cycle of madness will be perpetuated, as the totalitarian grip tightens. Authorities want to get rid of the experimental control group consisting of those who did not consent.

August 12, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Mt. Vernon School Board Meeting – Dr. Dan Stock MD

Indiana | August 9, 2021

Dr. Dan Stock explains how the current measures to combat Covid do not work. Dr. Stock spoke at the Mt. Vernon school board meeting.

August 12, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | , , | Leave a comment

Swiss Police Threaten to Stop Enforcing COVID-19 Rules

By Paul Joseph Watson | Summit News | August 10, 2021

Police in Switzerland have threatened to stop enforcing COVID-19 rules over fears that the measures are disproportionately undermining the fundamental rights of citizens.

A group representing police officers in the Alpine country wrote a letter to the Swiss Federation of Police Officers (FSFP) warning of potential insubordination within the force over the enforcement of draconian laws.

“If the measures were to conflict with the general opinion of the population, disproportionately limiting their fundamental rights, many police officers would no longer be willing to apply them,” the group wrote in the letter.

While the letter was received favorably by lockdown skeptics, the FSFP attempted to dismiss it by claiming it only represented a small number of police officers.

Adrian Gaugler of the Conference of Cantonal Police Commanders went further, threatening the officers with sanctions if they refused to enforce the measures.

“An officer who refuses to enforce the law can be punished,” said Gaugler.

“Police refusing to enforce coronavirus measures is not unique to Switzerland,” writes Chris Tomlinson.

“Earlier this year, police in the Canadian province of Ontario rejected new powers given by the provincial government that would have allowed them to stop any motorist or pedestrian and demand to know where they live and why they were not at home.”

As we previously highlighted, after lockdown was imposed in Switzerland, calls to private investigators soared as a result of people wanting their neighbors investigated for making too much noise.

August 11, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Solidarity and Activism | , | Leave a comment

Media group Holding The Line is taking a stand against censorship

Brits being ‘coerced and controlled by fear’

By Chris Sweeney | RT | August 11, 2021

The organisation claims its numbers are growing as current and retired journalists join. Their ethos is that only one side of the Covid-19 story is reported and the government isn’t being questioned enough by the mainstream media.

A counterinsurgency is underway in the British media. Holding The Line is a group who bill themselves as ‘Journalists Against Covid Censorship’. They are not anti-vaxxers or Covid-deniers but do feel the mainstream media is only allowing certain themes and tropes to be reported. Most importantly, they are adamant that UK citizens have been manipulated and gaslighted by the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE).

One of HTL’s spokespeople, Sonia Elijah, said to RT.com: “Unfortunately, I feel the UK public have been part of a mass behavioural science experiment because these behavioural scientists know full well the power of fear. You can really control someone’s behaviour through fear.”

I feel fearmongering has really gone on in the media like the government’s Project Fear advertising campaign about if you leave your house people can die, and they did a Look Me In The Eyes campaign. If you look at the early meetings that SAGE did last year in the minutes, they did look to use the media to increase the sense of personal threat, so the media were used as a tool for fearmongering, that’s a fact.”

This fear and control is what Holding The Line wants to rally against.

Elijah said: “We feel there’s only been one official Covid narrative that has been pushed onto the public through the mainstream media. As journalists, our role is to present all the facts, not just select a few.”

Some members of the group are anonymous, for fear of losing their jobs but they are from a cross-section of the industry. The plan is to expand and begin to release their own content online to beat the censors. Elijah, an independent investigative reporter, witnessed the censorship first hand when YouTube removed a video of her interviewing Dr Robert Malone.

She explained: “I think I’m the only UK journalist to have done so as yet, he is a vaccine expert and the inventor of mRNA technology. He’s undergone systematic attacks; his whole profile is being erased online. I posted the interview on YouTube and within three hours it got taken down for violating their policy, there was nothing on it that was to do with any kind of conspiracy theory.

It was very fact driven, he was measured in his responses but because he mentioned people having adverse events from taking the vaccines, that was probably one of the reasons it got taken down. People working in the mainstream media have found a lot of their stories being blocked or censored, or just not getting published, it’s a problem.”

Holding The Line is particularly concerned with mixed messaging. Some attribute this to the changing demands of a global pandemic, but they feel there is also a more sinister reason.

Taking aim at England’s Deputy Chief Medical Officer Professor Jonathan Van-Tam, Elijah added: “When the pandemic first broke, he was saying over his 15 years, there has been no evidence of masks presenting any transmission of a virus and then they did a U-turn weeks later and mandated masks, so you’re getting this sort of flip-flopping happening. Journalists need to ask, why is this happening?

I covered the anti-lockdown protests that were hardly covered in the mainstream media in the early days and if they were covered by the BBC, they were covered as anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and they were a small group of a few thousand. When, in fact, I attended one of these protests and there were hundreds of thousands of people there from all different backgrounds.”

Virtually everyone concedes Britain has reacted ineptly to the pandemic, with over 130,000 dead but, according to Elijah, issues around testing go beyond naivety.

She took a look herself at the lateral flow tests that are being used by millions of Britons and made a startling discovery.

“These tests are produced in China by Xiamen Biotime Biotechnology, their original manufacturer,” she explained, “but they have been rebranded by Innova which is a US start-up company that has no background in any medical field and they were started up just around the time the pandemic started. They are wholly owned by Pasaca Capital which is a venture capital group funded by a US/Chinese billionaire.

The UK government has spent£3.2 billion in procurement and buying these tests. The Innova lateral test was then rebranded by the NHS, school children were given these kits and they were branded as NHS but this is the history behind it. They were proven to be highly inaccurate and very unreliable, they actually have false positive and false negative results.”

Due to issues around the tests, in June the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) urged Americans to stop using them. They advised the population to place “them in the trash” or return them to Innova. Elijah added: “Our equivalent in the UK, the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) ignored what had happened in the US and have continued to extend their emergency authorisation use for these tests. They are saying they have done their assessment and are satisfied, but they’re not publishing their findings, so they’re not being forthcoming. There are so many scandals and the people who have benefitted from these contracts have made billions.”

Pertinently that’s what Elijah thinks is behind a lot of the perceived Covid censorship: money. With many media companies struggling financially, they are clinging even harder to the backers. For example, Rupert Murdoch’s successful tabloid The Sun (once the biggest selling British newspaper) was recently given a value of zero, after Covid-19 contributed to a £200 million loss.

Elijah explained: “You have to look at who funds the mainstream media, the amount of advertising revenue they make, their sponsors, and a lot of them don’t want to bite the hand that feeds them. The independent platforms have the freedom to tell the whole story, they are not being restrained whereas in the mainstream media, you have to follow the money.

There is sort of a war on information going on right now, it’s a shame for journalists to be gagged in a way. We need to level the playing field. We are promoting best journalistic practice as a group and we feel there needs to be more room for a balanced debate, that’s what has been sorely missing in this whole Covid world.”

Other themes that Holding The Line say have been omitted from mainstream platforms are the Great Barrington Declaration and the drug Ivermectin as a way to fight Covid-19, which the FDA strongly advises against. It is true many issues haven’t received widespread coverage, but some journalists attribute this to research or facts that don’t merit the spotlight. Different platforms will choose what to run, it’s not feasible to report every possible story but professional balance is essential.

Elijah added: “It’s the way people are being coerced that I think is a bit troubling and there hasn’t been enough questioning behind that. Even the lab leak theory which has been discussed in the mainstream media, six months ago that would never have been discussed. The public are hungry to know what’s really going on.”

Chris Sweeney is an author and columnist who has written for newspapers such as The Times, Daily Express, The Sun and Daily Record, along with several international-selling magazines.

August 11, 2021 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

White House Press Secretary Claims the Shots Have Saved ‘Tens of Millions of People’s Lives’

Preposterous Coronavirus Vaccine Hype

By Adam Dick | Ron Paul Institute | August 11, 2021

Last week President Joe Biden told the coronavirus vaccines propaganda whopper that about 350 million Americans had taken shots of the experimental coronavirus vaccines. That number, of course, is greater than the United States population. Not content to leave the extreme overcounting of supposed vaccination success to her boss, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, in a Wednesday press briefing, claimed that we have “seen tens of millions of people’s lives saved who have gotten the vaccine; that data is clear across the country.”

Hmmm. Even the US government’s coronavirus death count, which is inflated by, among other things, the inclusion of people who died with coronavirus instead just people who died from it, shows well less than one million deaths since records began being kept early last year. We are supposed to believe that the giving of experimental coronavirus shots that only started rolling out in a limited fashion in December, and that tens of millions of Americans have chosen not to receive, has prevented many multiples of those deaths? Not a chance. We are not seeing that kind of coronavirus death rate anywhere in the world, including countries where comparatively very few people have taken experimental coronavirus vaccine shots.

Sure, Biden and Psaki may have just misspoken in providing these outrageously inflated numbers for people who have received or been saved by the shots. But, what do you expect? While they say to “trust the science,” what they dish out day after day is puffery dressed up as science. For example, Biden routinely touts the experimental coronavirus vaccines, some of which are not even vaccines under the normal meaning of the term, as being safe and effective for everyone, despite the reality being the shots can be both dangerous and ineffective. When people routinely say things so divorced from reality, they are bound to on occasion become carried away and make preposterous statements that can be exposed as indisputably false by the application of simple math.

When listening to politicians and their spokesmen hyping coronavirus danger and their grand plans for countering that danger, it is a good idea to keep in mind an old joke: How can you tell a politician is lying? His lips are moving.

Copyright © 2021 by RonPaul Institute.

August 11, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Joe Biden never mentioned ‘quarantine camps’ for Covid ‘high-risk’ individuals… but last year the CDC did

By Robert Bridge | RT | August 11, 2021

As a number of politicians push for ‘vaccine passports’ amid fears that a new brand of medical apartheid is coming, a re-surfaced CDC publication advocating internment camps for the ‘high-risk’ has some people fearing the worst.

Last year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a paper that floated the totally not suspicious idea of relocating “high-risk” individuals into green zone “camps.” While the proposal didn’t attract much attention at the time, as draconian anti-Covid measures are beginning to ramp up, and basic human rights and liberties are coming under attack, the document has attracted newfound attention. And not without reason, it seems.

The very first line of the document discusses the implementation of a “shielding approach in humanitarian settings… focused on camps, displaced populations and low-resource settings.” Essentially, and this will be important later on, ‘humanitarian settings’ is just another way of saying ‘camps’. Many people are quick to associate the idea of camps with the containment of refugees, for example, or illegal aliens who have breached the border. Yet the only time the word ‘refugee’ is mentioned in the paper is in reference to a camp in Kenya. At the same time, ‘camp’ and ‘camps’ are referred to about 20 times.

There is another ambiguous thing about this document, and that involves its description of “high-risk” individuals and the “general population.”

The paper reads: “In most humanitarian settings [i.e. camps], older population groups make up a small percentage of the total population. For this reason, the shielding approach suggests physically separating high-risk individuals from the general population to prioritize the use of the limited available resources and avoid implementing long-term containment measures among the general population.”

In other words, the CDC is saying that older people being held in camps (humanitarian settings), because they are in the ‘high-risk’ category, should be separated from the ‘general population’ in these facilities so as to reduce the ‘containment measures’. OK, fine. But the document never explains who makes up the general population inside the camps, and why these ‘low-risk’ individuals are being held in these humanitarian ‘green zones’ in the first place.

Either due to a careless lack of clarity or deliberate deceptiveness on the part of the CDC, it is not difficult to see how some people could interpret the inclusion of high-risk groups into these ‘humanitarian settings’ to mean the unvaccinated. But even if there is no evil intent to intern the anti-vax crowd in camps, the conditions set down for these humanitarian settings leave much to be desired. Indeed, to be avoided at all costs.

In one passage, it is stated that “monitoring includes both adherence to protocols and potential adverse effects or outcomes due to isolation and stigma. It may be necessary to assign someone within the green zone, if feasible, to minimize movement in/out of green zones.”

Would that ‘someone’ by any chance be the local police or even the US military? The document offers no clues. However, several lines later, the CDC advises that “isolation/separation from family members, loss of freedom and personal interactions may require additional psychosocial support structures/systems.”

Admitting that confinement in these settings would entail “the loss of freedom and personal interactions” strongly suggests that these individuals are being held in these facilities against their will. In fact, reading through the document, one might get the impression the CDC is talking about a maximum-security prison for the criminally insane.

Anyone who thinks being detained in one of these facilities for the ‘high-risk’ would be all fun and games may wish to take particular heed from this line, which warns: “this shielding approach may have an important psychological impact and may lead to significant emotional distress, exacerbate existing mental illness or contribute to anxiety, depression, helplessness, grief, substance abuse, or thoughts of suicide among those who are separated or have been left behind.”

Left behind? Left behind from what, exactly? The Rapture?

Finally, the authors of this document seem fully aware that their warm and cuddly humanitarian setting, which seems to more resemble a gulag than a health retreat, will not be welcomed by all members of the general population. Gee, I wonder why.

“While the shielding approach is not meant to be coercive, it may appear forced or be misunderstood in humanitarian settings,” advises the CDC, which appears overly concerned about public perceptions. “As with many community interventions meant to decrease COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, compliance and behavior change… are difficult in developed, stable settings; thus, they may be particularly challenging in humanitarian settings which bring their own set of multi-faceted challenges that need to be taken into account.”

The CDC paper references heavily from a March 2020 study authored by one Caroline Favas, entitled ‘Guidance for the Prevention of COVID-19 Infections among High-Risk Individuals in Camps and Camp-like Settings.’ Once again, any hope for clarity is dashed, as this paper, which mentions the words ‘camp’ and ‘camps’ 73 times, is written for “the displaced community itself, humanitarian actors and camp coordination/management authorities.” Few details are given as to who the ‘displaced community’ may be.

(Note: The Favas study provides a broad definition of ‘camp’ or ‘camp-like settings’ as “forcibly displaced population, including refugees and internally displaced living in high density formal or unformal settlements, under collective or individual shelters”).

What follows in the Favas study, which was published by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, occasionally comes off as one of those jargon-riddled medical tracts that are almost as painful to read as a doctor’s handwritten medical prescription. Yet, just as with the CDC paper, the Favas study is crystal clear when it acknowledges that these camps will be viewed negatively by many members of the population.

“Conversely, it is likely that the approach will not be successful if it is perceived as coercive, misunderstood or used by authorities as a pretext for forms of oppression.”

So, who will get to determine who is at high risk of Covid infection and who is not? On this tricky point, Favas, as well as the CDC, wash their hands of the process, leaving it up to ‘community members’ to decide who should be detained in these ‘humanitarian settings’.

“Identification of high-risk community members should be a community-led process, which supports and promotes community ownership of the approach,” Favas avers. “The purpose of the shielding approach and the inclusion criteria should be clearly communicated and explained to the community, so that each household can identify who among them is at risk and should be shielded, on a voluntary basis.”

Favas provides some options for how the detainees could be isolated from their families and communities, none of them terribly comforting. The first involves providing a green zone at the household level. While it may not seem so bad keeping grandma confined to a back room, the author describes the “household shelter” as either a “single shelter” or a “multi-shelter compound.”

The next type of facility is a group of shelters (with maximum 5-10 households), within a small camp area.

Finally, there are the full blown “sector” camps that would accommodate 15,000 or more people. It would be difficult to imagine a camp of such scale that would not require a high police presence, as well as virtually all of the rules and regulations of a prison.

Many people would probably scoff at the thought of Covid camps, dismissing them as the fevered dream of a ‘conspiracy theorist’. And perhaps they would be right. After all, just last month, the Associated Press debunked the claim floated in a satirical publication that Joe Biden was planning to send the unvaccinated to quarantine camps until they agreed to take the shot. Yet the increasingly befuddled US leader has made false claims in the past, like promising that Americans would be free from their mask bondage if they agreed to be vaccinated. That promise evaporated last month as the CDC backtracked, mandating mask wearing in places experiencing spikes in Covid levels, even among the vaccinated.

While some may find it irrelevant to discuss a paper that was released by the CDC last year, they may want to ask why the CDC and Caroline Favas were already discussing the possibility of ‘humanitarian settings’, i.e. camps for high-risk individuals, in early 2020, when the outbreak was still in its early stages. Some might say that was jumping the gun.

In any case, now that the CDC document has made a splash one year after its release, it would be a good time for an explanation regarding some of its more ambiguous and even outrageous suggestions. At a time when a feeling of general distrust and even paranoia of Covid measures is sweeping the globe, people need assurances that their real enemy is not the very people they elected to protect them.

Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist. He is the author of ‘Midnight in the American Empire,’ How Corporations and Their Political Servants are Destroying the American Dream.

August 11, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Leave a comment

Vaccine safety evidence

Vaccine Truth | July 20, 2021

We are not “anti-VAXers.” We were vaccinated because we believed we were being told the truth. Now we know better.

Unfortunately, the current gene-based vaccines (all vaccines on the US market today) were rushed to market without proper testing. They are dangerous and appear to have killed over 30,000 previously healthy Americans so far and disabled an equivalent number.

The Phase 3 trials were structured so that the results looked good because they were allowed to exclude unfavorable data (such as Maddie de Garay, a 12-year old girl who participated in the Pfizer trial and who is now permanently paralyzed due to the vaccine). People with a bad first reaction were allowed to drop out which doesn’t reflect the reality of “full vaccination” requirements of workplaces and schools.

We should stop the current gene-based vaccines ASAP. The risk/benefit justification isn’t there for any age group due to the poor safety profile of these vaccines compared with the alternatives.

Based on analysis of VAERS death data for vaccine deaths and CDC death data for COVID deaths, the younger you are, the less sense vaccination makes. If early treatments didn’t work at all, the toxicity of the current vaccines would only make sense for those over 30 (based data to date). However, the vaccines are too toxic and don’t meet the <50 deaths stopping criteria that we’ve used for the past 30 years, so they should never be used because we have better alternatives available today that can achieve the same goals.

We should never be giving vaccines that disable or kill previously healthy people in huge numbers if safer alternatives are available that can achieve all the same objectives.

Why would anyone in America choose to have lipid nanoparticles which deliver a toxic protein into your brain and where the long term effects are unknown, when safer alternatives are available? What parent would choose to experiment on their kids this way when safer and more effective options are available?

It is tragic that schools are requiring students to be vaccinated in order to attend classes. I’ve asked our top universities for the risk-benefit analysis to justify this action and have received nothing. If the vaccines were perfectly safe, no analysis would be needed. But they aren’t.

The rate of severe life-changing side effects appears to be well in excess of 25,000 people (the number reported disabled is comparable to the number dead). The fact that Facebook groups of vaccine victims had 200,000 users suggests that more than 1 in 1,000 are suffering from significant long-term impacts; people with minor temporary reactions have little incentive to seek out and sign up for a vaccine side-effects group.

People who claim “the clinical trials showed no significant side effects so it must be safe” have a tough time explaining how these facebook groups were so large before they were deleted. If you think the vaccines are so safe, show me the severity analysis of the 200,000 people there. These groups don’t appear with the influenza vaccine. You never see neurological effects like this in such high volume with a safe vaccine.

Some have cited the emergence of the Delta variant as changing the math to favor vaccination even if the vaccine is unsafe. But the case fatality rate (CFR) of the Delta variant is only 0.1 percent compared to the CFR of 1.9 percent for the original virus (alpha) according to UK government data. The argument that the lower CFR of delta is due to the higher number of vaccinated people isn’t very credible since the Eta variant has a 2.7 percent CFR.

Early treatments are a more effective and safer option than the current vaccines. We can achieve all of the objectives of the current vaccination program (herd immunity, eradication of the virus, re-opening our economy, ditching of masks) with fewer deaths and near zero serious side effects. In addition, we would have less problem with variants since variants are less likely to be generated if everyone is naturally immune. So why not promote early treatments? Why not give them a try for a month while we hit the pause button on the vaccines? Would that be so bad?

Allowing natural infection will impart broad natural immunity. We should instruct the population how to treat early with early treatment protocols as soon as they believe they are infected. People should have the drugs on-hand so that treatment can be started without delay after speaking with their doctor. This results in superior risk reduction in terms of fewer fatalities and side effects compared to the current vaccines.

There was never a need for masking or social distancing as COVID is very treatable when treated early. Nobody has to die or be hospitalized. We can get to herd immunity quickly this way. The key is to treat the virus early with a proven early treatment cocktail of repurposed drugs, adding novel antivirals if/when available.

Unfortunately, the NIH has unethically suppressed all early treatments in order to push the vaccine narrative. This is clear with the publication of a systematic review of ivermectin, the highest level of evidence possible. Yet the NIH and WHO pretend that it never happened. It isn’t even acknowledged that the systematic review came out. There has never been a peer-reviewed systematic review that was later overturned. This is why they are the top of the evidence pyramid.

Early treatments were never funded. When evidence came in they worked, the NIH ignored it. The corruption at the NIH and FDA should be corrected by Congress. Now.

To prove the point about the unethical suppression of early treatments, I offered $2M to anyone who could show that the NIH got it right. Nobody stepped forward.

Similarly, I offered $1M to anyone who could show that the vaccines are safe. No takers, not even the drug companies.

If a safe sterilizing vaccine can be developed, we should test it adequately for safety before deploying it. We should not cut corners on safety again; with early treatments, there is no need to rush this.

Major medical journals have lost objectivity in publishing papers that go against the “safe” narrative. For example, the NEJM rejected a Letter to the Editor pointing out a flaw in a paper showing vaccines were safe for pregnant women. The Letter showed an alarming statistic. The NEJM refused to reveal their reasoning for the rejection. Three editors quit a journal after a peer-reviewed paper was published that showed that vaccination may cause more harm than good. Those who quit provided no evidence that the paper was in error.

The censorship of legitimate medical information on social networks must end. These networks are the new “public square” and should be regulated so that people are free to express their opinions to anyone who chooses to listen. There should be heavy monetary penalties for suppressing medical information that has the potential to save lives. Social networks should be required to compensate all those people who have been harmed by their actions.

Never again should we deploy a vaccine on the American public without proper testing and without informed consent. Databases such as V-SAFE that track safety data should be made transparent. Am I the only person who thinks that is a problem?

VAERS reporting should be required and the VAERS system should be modernized so that it is easy to use and results in records with consistent field coding. There should be a smaller lag time to get records into the database, all false reports should be 100% enforced as a criminal act, and the safety signal monitoring should be much stronger.

The cost-benefit analysis of the current gene-based vaccines for anyone of any age is at best a wash according to the scientific literature (new paper published June 24, 2021). This peer-reviewed paper looked at the real cost-benefit analysis and concluded that “This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.” As far as I know, this is the most optimistic of all the papers looking at actual death rates of COVID vs. the vaccine. All the other ones are even worse for the vaccine.

Independent analysis by a statistician friend shows a similar effect. Like me, Mathew has no axe to grind here, just trying to get at the truth of the risk/benefit for the current vaccines. His conclusion: “More importantly, I also still disagree with the mass vaccination program. In particular, nearly all lives saved are in the high risk group. While vaccinating those in the low risk group might decrease spread into the high risk group, that’s asking young healthy people to act as human shields.

I also believe that when the vaccine deaths and adverse events are finally tallied and compared to either a ring vaccination strategy or combination ring vaccination and early treatment strategy, the current plan will look quite foolish and possibly even nefarious.”

Since the focus today is on getting kids vaccinated, I ran the numbers in the VAERS database for 20-24 year olds and 25-29 year olds. In both age ranges, the number of deaths caused by the vaccine outnumber the number of deaths saved. The vaccines caused 1.89 deaths per 100,000 (ages 25-29) and 1.74 deaths per 100,000 (ages 20-24).

This means the vaccines are net killing machines since they kill more people than they save (.3 to 1.0 lives per 100K saved according to the most recent CDC presentation). My calculations are in the body of this document and the calculations show no net benefit for any age group based on real-world data from the US and UK.

The comparison is even more extreme if we tell kids to ignore the current CDC advice and use an early treatment program. In that case, we can reduce the death rate by more than two orders of magnitude from COVID, so that the number of lives saved by the vaccine is fewer than 1 in 10M. This means the vaccines need to be less toxic than the influenza vaccine (which has a death rate of 1 in 10M) in order to be considered. They are not even close to that. Not by a country mile.

For older people, the numbers don’t work out either. We looked at the UK data for <50 and >50 and we found that the absolute death rate is very small for <50 group. There was a high relative risk reduction, but the absolute deaths were small. If the vaccine kills more than 1 in 1 million, it’s game over for the vaccine being useful. For age >50, the UK data shows that even if the vaccines killed nobody, it is not beneficial. So when you factor the death rate of the vaccines and early treatment as the other option, the case is extremely lopsided.

In short, because the current vaccines are so dangerous and early treatment is so effective (relative risk reduction of 100 or more with no permanent side effects), there is no reasonable case that can be made for vaccinating any age group.

Although we just looked at deaths in the analysis above, the same can be true for other side effects as well: the range and intensity of side effects from the vaccine dwarf anything seen in natural COVID. It’s even a more stark contrast when early treatment is added to the mix.

Long term, untreated vax patients and untreated COVID patients are virtually identical in terms of symptoms (thanks to Ram Yogendra for that insight). By vaccinating patients, we are essentially giving a portion of those vaccinated long hauler COVID.

The case numbers in the UK (one of the most heavily vaccinated countries) are now climbing. It suggests we should have listened to the arguments of Geert Vanden Bossche, one of the most famous scientists in the vaccine field, which are further clarified in this excellent video by Chris Martenson which points out that there are really only two ways out of the pandemic: a sterilizing vaccine (using the complete virus as the antigen) or allowing infection and treating with early treatment leading to natural immunity.

The Yellow Card system in the UK showed a similar safety signal. Independent analysis of that data by an expert in medical evidence concluded that the vaccines are unsafe for use in humans. It wasn’t a close call. The death rates from the vaccines are far greater than any absolute risk reduction.

This is taken from a very long article. Read the rest here: docs.google.com

August 11, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

How A Healthy Person Became A ‘Case’ Of Disease In 2020-21

By Dr. Judy Wilyman | Vaccination Decisions | August 11, 2021

Welcome to Vaccination Decisions Newsletter 280. This is my global newsletter sent from Perth, Western Australia that has enabled me to contribute my university research to the global debate on vaccines for the last eight years.

This came to an end on 10th October 2020 when MailChimp censored my newsletter by disabling my account. Did you know that Mailchimp has been in partnership with the US CDC since 2018?

In 2015 I completed a PhD investigating the reasons for the decline in deaths and hospitalisations (risk) to infectious diseases by 1950 in Australia – and in all developed countries. This included an investigation into the role that vaccines played in this decline.

I set up this newsletter in 2012 when I recognised that this public interest science was being suppressed from public debate in all the official channels. This is the result of powerful industry-lobby groups in Australia (and globally) that are influencing all media outlets and research institutions.

Due to this global newsletter my PhD has now been downloaded thousands of times and in March 2020 my book, “Vaccination: Australia’s Loss of Health Freedom”, became available just as everyone globally was being locked down.

This happened because in 2020-21 all the traditional measures for controlling infectious diseases were reversed for the first time in history by the World Health Organisation (WHO). This organisation, advised by the corporate-public partnerships in the GAVI alliance, including the Federation of Pharmaceutical Companies, falsely claimed that healthy (asymptomatic) people are a ‘risk’ to the community if the virus is identified in their body.

This was stated by the WHO scientists in March 2020 even though the WHO had no data to base this claim on in March 2020. Remember, this novel Coronavirus 2019 (SARS-Cov-2) only appeared in January 2020 and there was no evidence provided to support the statement that healthy people without symptoms were a risk to the community.

It was being assumed that a positive PCR result, a test that cannot diagnose disease, indicated an asymptomatic ‘case’ of disease. 

This assumption has led to journalists and health departments reporting healthy people as a ‘case’ of disease in 2020-21, wildly inflating the risk from this alleged new flu virus in the media. This false assumption has led to healthy people being locked up in quarantine for two weeks as well as to the unnecessary masking of healthy people, social distancing and isolating of the elderly.

The mainstream media is not required to list the symptoms of the ‘cases’ of disease they are reporting, and this has enabled the government to hide this fact. This allows the media to frighten the public with cases of disease that are healthy people (no symptoms), and deaths that are elderly people with co-morbidity, that die with the flu every year. The difference is that this year, the media is reporting these deaths – normally you do not hear about them.

The fact that the WHO did not have any evidence in March 2020 to support the claim that ‘asymptomatic’ people are a risk to society, is provided by Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, on 8 June 2020 – only three months after the ‘pandemic’ was declared. This WHO spokesperson appears to understand the traditional measures of controlling infectious diseases because she states that you isolate the people with symptoms and trace their contacts to prevent transmission.

However, even though she states that asymptomatic transmission is ‘very rare’, because the WHO doesn’t have any data to claim otherwise, she concludes that the WHO still advises that ‘some people without symptoms can still transmit the virus on.’

The flaw in this WHO statement is that there is a difference between transmitting the virus and transmitting disease. Whilst the virus can be passed on from a sub-clinical infection this does not lead to disease in the majority of cases in countries with good public health infrastructure.

Infection only leads to disease when there are poor environmental conditions or poor host characteristics. Hence, asymptomatic people do not transmit disease in the population, they transmit infection that is mostly beneficial when good conditions exist: asymptomatic ‘cases’ generate natural herd immunity.

This is the reason why the WHO changed the definition of ‘herd immunity’ in December 2020.

It was to claim that only vaccine created herd immunity would be successful with COVID19 disease. This was claimed without any risk-benefit data for the COVID19 vaccine: this drug had not been trialled in humans in December 2020.

The WHO changed this definition without providing any scientific evidence to support the claim that ‘vaccines can create herd immunity’ and without any scrutiny from the scientific community. Therefore, the claim has not been validated and it has been done to support the WHO’s desired outcome; to make the world reliant on vaccines.

Viruses are around us all the time and we do not need to eradicate them to live without disease. This is because viruses on their own cannot cause disease: the cause of disease from infectious agents is multifactorial.

This is where the GAVI/ WHO partnerships have deceived the public in 2020. Scientists have known since 1950 that viruses mostly cause sub-clinical infections, that never develop disease symptoms, due to improvements in public health infrastructure and nutrition.

It is these sub-clinical infections that resulted in herd immunity in the population of developed countries by 1950/60. This led public health officials to claim that ‘infectious deaths fell before widespread vaccination was implemented’ (Fiona Stanley, Australian of the Year for Public Health, 2003). Even smallpox of cases with symptoms was not controlled until after 1950 when isolation of cases with symptoms and case-tracing strategies played a significant role in the decline of this disease.

The fraudulent claims that are being made by the WHO are effectively manipulating public behaviour because the corporate-sponsored mainstream media and big tech companies are working together to censor public debate.

If this was a conspiracy theory, as the mainstream media would like you to believe, I would have hoped that the industry-lobby groups who petitioned to have my PhD removed in 2016 – after it was published on the University website – were successful. But they weren’t.

The University stood by this thesis because it provided the evidence to support the fact that global health policy is being designed by a collaboration of industry-partners. This is also supported by the extreme censorship of many doctors, scientists, and activists also providing this evidence to you in 2021. Science is only validated when it stands up to scrutiny from the community, so human health is at serious risk until we have this scientific debate.

August 11, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »