By Drago Bosnic | November 1, 2022
In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the United States effectively became a police state. Government control and direct surveillance, the legality of which remains questionable at best, has been the norm ever since. With the advent of new technologies and the expansion of the so-called Big Tech (Alphabet/Google, Amazon, Apple, Meta/Facebook, etc.), the government managed to acquire unprecedented access to the personal information of not just its own citizens, but hundreds of millions of others around the world as well.
For decades, Big Tech denied any involvement with US agencies, despite it being common knowledge for the vast majority of users. However, the level of cooperation and integration between the US government and the aforementioned Internet giants (all of which are private companies) has been truly staggering.
Back in August, while on the Joe Rogan podcast, Meta/Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted that the FBI worked with the company to suppress so-called “Russian propaganda” shortly before the Hunter Biden laptop scandal was published by the New York Post. However, new reports now indicate that this Big Tech-US government collusion goes much deeper, according to the leaked documents acquired by The Intercept. Their investigation revealed that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is “quietly broadening control over speech it considers dangerous.” Years of internal DHS memos, emails, and documents — obtained via leaks and an ongoing lawsuit, as well as public documents — illustrate an expansive effort by the agency to influence tech platforms.
According to the report, the work, much of which remains unknown to the American public, came into clearer view earlier this year when DHS announced a new “Disinformation Governance Board”, a panel designed to police misinformation (false information spread unintentionally), disinformation (false information spread intentionally), and malinformation (factual information shared, typically out of context, with harmful intent) that allegedly threatens US interests. While the board was widely ridiculed, immediately scaled back, and then shut down within a few months, other initiatives are underway as DHS pivots to monitoring social media now that its original mandate — the war on terror — has been wound down.
Behind closed doors, and through pressure on private platforms, the US government has used its power to try to shape online discourse. According to meeting minutes and other records appended to a lawsuit filed by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, a Republican who is also running for Senate, discussions have ranged from the scale and scope of government intervention in online discourse to the mechanics of streamlining takedown requests for false or intentionally misleading information, The Intercept reports.
During a March 2022 meeting, FBI official Laura Dehmlow warned that the “threat of subversive information on social media” could undermine support for the US government – stressing that “we need a media infrastructure that is held accountable.” Interestingly, Dehmlow’s insistence on preventing the fall of support for the US government is clearly a priority over telling the truth. What’s more, the US agencies seem to have a strict bias towards certain power structures within the US establishment, primarily those dominated by the DNC neoliberals and partially the GOP neoconservatives. This was particularly noticeable during Donald Trump’s presidency, when undermining the 45th US president through disinformation and conspiracy theories such as the alleged “Russian election meddling” wasn’t seen as a “threat to our democracy”.
Expectedly, the Big Tech companies denied involvement. Twitter told The Intercept that they “do not coordinate with other entities when making content moderation decisions” and that they “independently evaluate content in line with the Twitter Rules.” However, the claim doesn’t seem very convincing given the sheer amount of coordinated efforts by the Big Tech companies (seemingly unrelated, as they are all officially separate private entities) to suppress so-called MDM (misinformation, disinformation, malinformation). Having every Big Tech corporation banning or restricting millions of users in a virtually identical manner can only be described as a cooperative effort directed by the same authority. The Intercept report indicates that this authority is none other than the US government itself.
The issue at hand is the fact that various interest groups within the US establishment are controlling what hundreds of millions of people get to see as the “undeniable truth”, or worse yet, billions when taking the global scale into account. Whether it’s the election meddling designed to push their preferred candidates or promoting wars around the world, these entities should be denied such a tremendous amount of power.
The so-called “struggle against MDM (misinformation, disinformation, malinformation)” has become the No. 1 pretext to suppress any information deemed as such. This has gone so far that private companies are now fining their customers, with PayPal deducting $2500 from anyone’s account for “spreading MDM”. It’s clear that such a level of control is quite uncomfortable, to say the least. The question is, where does it stop?
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
November 1, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Deception, Timeless or most popular | Amazon, Apple, DHS, Facebook, FBI, Google, Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
Samizdat | November 1, 2022
Former US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton filed court papers on Monday in a bid to compel Donald Trump to pay her more than $1 million. According to the motion, she is demanding compensation for money spent fighting a lawsuit that alleged she had engaged in a conspiracy to undermine Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign by claiming he colluded with Russia.
Clinton’s legal team described Trump’s civil action, which was dismissed earlier this year, as frivolous and “a political stunt,” according to a filing in a federal court in Florida. Lawyers argued that it should result in sanctions in the form of $1.06 million that would be used to cover legal fees and costs.
“A reasonable attorney would never have filed this suit, let alone continued to prosecute it after multiple defendants’ motions to dismiss highlighted its fundamental and incurable defects,” Clinton’s attorneys wrote.
In March, Trump filed a lawsuit alleging that Clinton, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, and a number of other people had entered a malicious conspiracy to accuse his campaign of colluding with Russia in an effort to harm his electoral chances. At the time, Trump claimed the rumors had cost him over $24 million.
However, in September Judge Donald Middlebrooks, who was appointed by Bill Clinton, the former US President and Hillary Clinton’s husband, threw out the lawsuit, arguing that it was nothing more than a “political manifesto.” He also noted that Trump filed the suit too late and failed to provide evidence for the alleged conspiracy. The former president has appealed the ruling.
Commenting on Clinton’s move, Trump’s attorney Alina Habba, denied the allegations, describing them as politically motivated. “This motion, conveniently filed one week prior to election day, is nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to score political points,” she said in a written statement, as quoted by the Hill.
In 2016, the United States accused Russia of interference in the presidential election to harm Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and boost the Republican candidacy of Donald Trump, an allegation which has been vehemently denied by Moscow. US authorities also investigated whether Trump and his campaign colluded with Russia, but failed to find evidence to bring any conspiracy or coordination charges.
November 1, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Russophobia | Hillary Clinton, United States |
Leave a comment
Del revisits the momentous case ICAN took against the CDC and reveals the data they withheld from their own Covid-19 vaccine injury reporting system, V-Safe.
November 1, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | COVID-19 Vaccine, United States |
Leave a comment
Yesterday we published the first part of our extract from Robert F Kennedy Jnr’s book, The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health, a critical look at Anthony Fauci, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden. This second part continues to report on horrific drug trials carried out on children.
***
Warning: Some of the following details are distressing.
***
Two years later, [investigative reporter Celia] Farber would follow the trail of child casualties left by Dr Fauci’s Aids branch, DAIDS, in Uganda, exposing the pattern of abusing African mothers and children.
After the BBC documentary aired, AP reporter John Solomon made his own efforts to calculate the number of children who died in Dr Fauci’s Aids drug experiments. Solomon’s May 2005 AP investigation revealed that at least 465 New York City foster children were subjects in NIAID’s [US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases] trials and that Dr Fauci’s agency provided fewer than one-third (142) of those children with an advocate – the minimum legally mandated protection.
A March 2004 letter from Vera Sharav to Dr David Horowitz, director of FDA’s [Food and Drink Administration] Office of Compliance, charged Dr Fauci’s HIV drug trials with numerous violations of federal law, including NIAID’s failure to protect the rights and safety of foster children, particularly during the perilous Phase 1 stages in which drug companies determine toxicity effects by exploring maximum tolerance levels. Sharav accused Dr Fauci’s team of illegally failing to provide state wards and orphans with independent guardians to represent their interests and protect their rights during brutal, dangerous, and often agonizingly painful experiments.
The 2004 FDA investigation of Dr Fauci’s AIDS research division urged the head of NIH to insist on better management from NIAID. ‘The overall management of this Division requires careful review,’ the report said. A May 2005 Congressional hearing also concluded that NIAID’s experiments had violated federal statutes.
In testimony before Congress, NIAID and its local partner – New York City’s Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) – sought to justify the unethical research practices by claiming they were providing first-class, cutting-edge treatments to HIV-infected children who could otherwise not afford expensive medicines.
However, AHRP’s [Alliance for Human Research Protection] investigation revealed that many of the children NIAID subjected to Dr Fauci’s experiments were perfectly healthy and may not even have been HIV-infected. Those investigations focused on thirty-six of the trials. For obvious reasons, clinical trials virtually always occur in hospital settings with trained medical personnel, doctors and nurses, in attendance. However, ICC [Incarnation Children’s Center] was a non-medical facility. The decision to allow experiments with highly toxic drugs at an orphanage devoid of medical personnel was, itself, a stunning act of malpractice. Subsequent events suggest that the decision was deliberate, calculated to avoid scientific and ethical objections that might have put Pharma PIs [principal investigators] at odds with trained medical professionals. Publicly, NIAID pretended it would permit pharmaceutical companies to conduct their dangerous dose tolerance experiments only on children who had terminal Aids and were therefore likely to die anyhow. However, AHRP found that NIAID was quietly allowing its Pharma partners to experiment not only on children with laboratory-confirmed HIV infection, but also those ‘presumed’ to be infected. In other words, NIAID required no proof that these children actually had HIV. AHRP accused NIAID of exposing children who might never have developed Aids to lethal risks and the horrific adverse effects of highly toxic drugs for purposes that were not therapeutic, but purely experimental.
On March 8, 2004, NIH [National Institutes of Health, of which Fauci’s NIAID is a division] rejected a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the adverse event reports from NIAID’s trials conducted at ICC, citing FOIA’s ‘trade secrets’ and ‘privacy’ exemptions. AHRP then filed a complaint on March 10 with the FDA and the Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP), charging that NIAID was depriving foster children of legally mandated federal protections against research risks. Two subsequent investigations validated AHRP’s complaint.
John Solomon’s AP investigation finally brought Dr Fauci’s experiments to national prominence. AP identified at least forty-eight Aids experiments NIAID conducted on foster children in seven states – mostly in violation of the federal requirement that NIAID provide those children with an advocate. In addition to the Dapsone trial that killed at least ten children, NIAID sponsored another study testing a combination of adult antiretroviral drugs. AP reported that of the fifty-two children in the trial, there were twenty-six moderate to severe reactions – nearly all in infants. The side effects included rash, fever, and dangerous drops in infection-fighting white blood cells.
From the outset, Dr Fauci’s experiments served his vain obsession to develop an HIV vaccine. (Despite these expenditures of tens of billions of dollars, he has failed – for forty years – to develop an HIV vaccine that was safe or effective for human use.) Medical records that NIAID ultimately and reluctantly released proved that Dr Fauci’s PIs were testing his dangerous vaccines on children from one month to eighteen years old. AP writer John Solomon confirmed that despite contrary requirements in official NIAID protocols, NIAID was knowingly allowing its Pharma partners to violate NIAID’s written study protocols by conducting these experiments on children with and without proof of HIV infection.
For example, published reports acknowledge that NIAID, Genentech, and Micro-Genesys co-sponsored a vaccine trial code-named ACTG #218. The ACTG #218 protocol states ‘Patients must have: Documented asymptomatic HIV infection,’ and the ‘Expected Total Enrolment’ was seventy-two. However, an internal report acknowledges that NIAID was allowing the companies to openly violate those requirements: ‘125 immunized children proved to be HIV uninfected’. Another report stated: ‘A total of 126 children were not infected’. NIAID’s final analysis acknowledged that ACTG #218 ‘showed no clinical benefit to vaccine recipients’.
Another HIV Phase 1 vaccine trial, ACTG #230, tested two experimental vaccines, one by Genentech, another by Chiron/Biocine. This time, the protocol openly declared: ‘Accepts Healthy Volunteers’. As Solomon discovered, the ‘volunteer’ subjects of that unethical experiment were newborns aged three days or less. NIAID randomized these infants to one of three doses of either experimental HIV vaccine or placebo. These reports validate AHRP’s concerns that Dr Fauci experimented on infants and children who were never at risk of Aids, and that he exposed them to deadly risks and agonizing discomforts in a speculative drug and vaccine exercise that offered absolutely no potential benefit for them.
Dr Fauci was certainly aware of the peril to which he was subjecting his gallant infant ‘volunteers’. Most of the drugs that his PIs tested on these children were previously approved for adults with Aids and carried Black Box warnings of potentially lethal side effects: Aldesleukin, Dapsone, Didanosine, Lamivudine, Nevirapine, Ritonavir, Stavudine, and Zidovudine.
Finally, even in cases when the children were genuinely ill, Dr Fauci’s pretence that his experiments were compassionate gestures to impoverished orphans was always a sham. NIAID’s claim that their experiments were the only opportunity for those children to receive ‘life-saving’ drugs was a canard from the outset. New York State law requires that physicians provide ‘life-saving’ treatment to wards of the state, if need be, to provide treatment ‘off-label’.
Furthermore, drug companies do not primarily design clinical trials to benefit the individual subjects. Their purpose is to gain safety and efficacy information that may prove helpful for subsequent patients and be profitable for their bottom line. Finally, not all subjects get the ‘most promising’ drug in a trial; some get placebos.
Liam Scheff’s January 2004 article, The House that AIDS Built, ignited an outraged internet controversy, prompting the New York Press to publish a follow-up article by Scheff,Inside Incarnation. Scheff’s detailed descriptions are worth reading if only to understand the sacrifices that Dr Fauci demanded from his venturesome ‘volunteer’ babies for ‘the greater good’.
Scheff’s chronicle suggests that Dr Fauci and his PIs purposefully took advantage of Incarnation Children’s Center’s status as a non-medical facility. The PIs had free rein to engage in conduct that experienced professional nurses and doctors would have flagged as unethical and illegal.
When children declined to take the toxic drugs, NIAID and its Pharma partners arranged to surgically implant feeding tubes in their bellies to force obedience. Scheff wrote, ‘When Mimi [a staff member with no medical background] started at ICC, the tubes were used infrequently. “But when the kids got older, a lot of them started to refuse the medication,” she recalled. “Then they started coming in with the tubes more and more. Kids who refused too much, or threw up too much, they’d get a tube. First it was through the nose. But then it was more and more through the stomach. You’d see a certain child refusing over and over, and one day they’d come back from the hospital from surgery, and they had a tube coming right out of their stomach. If you asked why, the doctors said it was for ‘compliance’ – the regimen. Got to keep up the regimen,” said Mimi. “Those were the rules”.’
Mimi describes how children suffered – and how some died: ‘One girl, a six-year-old, Shyanne . . . She was the most delicate little flower – beautiful, polite, full of life. Her family never gave her meds. So, Administration for Children’s Services brought her into ICC . . . she came in and started the meds. And it was three months, maybe three months. And she had a stroke. She could not see. She was this normal girl, singing, jumping, playing. Then, poof, stroked out. Blind. We were freaked out. Then, in a few months, she was gone – dead.’
Between 1985 and 2005, NIAID and its Pharma partners conscripted at least 532 infants and children from foster care in New York City as human subjects of clinical trials testing NIAID’s experimental Aids drugs and vaccines. ICC and the medical research centers that conducted the trials received substantial payments for hosting the experiments, from both the National Institutes of Health and the manufacturers of the drugs. Among those companies were Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Micro-Genesys, Biocine, Glaxo, Wellcome, and Pfizer.
Further reading: https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/exclusive-an-interview-with-faucis-nemesis/
October 31, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Anthony Fauci, HIV/AIDS, Human rights, NIAID, United States |
Leave a comment
[How fewer doctors means more doctors – it’s official]
This blog has nothing to do with heart disease, or vaccines, or anything directly about medical practice at all.
However, it does have a great deal to do with data manipulation, which is something very close to my heart. It also illustrates how a ‘fact’ can be anything but.
I am also hoping to help highlight an increasingly worrying trend that now scours the planet. Namely that we are living in a world distorted to fit whatever narrative those in power are trying to stuff down our throats. Although, I continue to marvel at how anyone can spout utter, utter, nonsense, and not simply curl-up and die of acute embarrassment.
Anyway, gentle reader, let me set the scene for your delectation.
In the UK, more specifically England, doctors and nurses have been leaving the profession in droves. In particular GPs. This has caused a degree of faux concern by politicians, who always wish to claim they are the great protectors of the NHS. The NHS is inevitably a big issue at every election.
Years ago, Jeremy Hunt, the then health secretary – and slippery eel made flesh – promised he would ensure there would be five thousand more GPs within about five years(ish). The actual number of years it was going to take kept moving around as the target receded into the distance. ‘Did I say three, I meant five… or was it ten.’
Commentary on this was not complementary:
“Delivering 5,000 extra GPs in five years, when training a GP takes 10 years, was a practical impossibility that was never going to be achieved,” said Dr Chaand Nagpaul, chair of the BMA’s GPs committee.
“It was a pledge that also ignored the fact that one third of GPs are planning to retire by 2020, and the current medical graduates do not want to join an overworked, underfunded service, with more than 400 GP trainee posts left unfilled last year.”
Andrew Gwynne, the shadow health minister, said Hunt was backtracking on the pledge, and that “the Tories’ election promises are unravelling one by one”.1
Seven years, or so, have now passed since Hunt’s promise, and the number of GPs has fallen. As predicted by anyone who knew why GPs were leaving. Basically, they were all burnt out, and pissed off, and nothing was being done to make their lives easier, especially, especially not by Jeremy Hunt – who did nothing but make the job considerably more difficult. I should know, I am one. Both burnt out, and pissed off, but clinging on – for increasingly unfathomable reasons. Money, mainly.
Now, however, the UK has a new Prime Minister, a new cabinet, a new health minister and a new Chancellor of the Exchequer (one Jeremy Hunt, no less). Lo and behold, we find that the number of doctors and nurses has actually, mysteriously, who’d have thunk it … increased. Even GP numbers have increased!
‘Latest data published by NHS Digital shows that, compared to August 2021, there are also over 3,700 more doctors and over 9,100 more nurses working in the NHS.
Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Steve Barclay* said:
More healthcare staff means better care for patients, which is why it’s fantastic to see a record number of over 1.2 million staff working hard in the NHS.
With over 3,700 more doctors and 9,100 more nurses, we are really putting patients first and NHS England is developing a long-term workforce plan so we can continue to recruit and retain more NHS staff.
Thanks to all our doctors, nurses and NHS healthcare staff who work tirelessly to look after us and our loved ones and continue to inspire future generations to join this rewarding career.
The government continues to deliver on its commitment to recruit 50,000 more nurses by 2024, with 29,000 more nurses since September 2019.’ 2
[*this is a new, new, health secretary. The previous new one, began this sorry saga]
Phew, all is well. Sorted. What a remarkable thing. How has this been achieved … virtually overnight? Did they manage to compress the average training time for a fully qualified doctor from at least ten years to one month? Did they find a locked room full of 3,700 doctors and 9,100 nurses that no-one had noticed before? ‘You are now free to leave and start working. Go, go now, and tend to the sick.’
No, to understand where these figures come from, let us go back in time. Twenty-nine days from the date I wrote this blog – to be exact. We shall visit a website known as doctors.net. A place where doctors post about various things – but nothing critical of vaccines obviously. Here, twenty-nine days ago, we find this, possibly, strange post:
‘I’ve just had an email from the GMC saying the secretary of state has asked for my emergency registration to run until 2024. I doubt she had me in mind specifically. I wonder what has been foretold?’
And this one:
‘Oh. My wife tells me she has also been re-registered.’
And this one, amongst many others:
‘I’ve had the email too. They’ve also apparently restored emergency registration for the nurses, too; just after some of the ones I was working with at the vaccination centre paid to continue their registration. They are somewhat pissed off.’
What is this emergency registration of which they speak? Well, during the COVID19 panic, sorry pandemic, a number of doctors and nurses who had recently retired, (and who had handed back their registration) were unceremoniously dragged back onto the register. Thus, allowing them to keep on practicing medicine. Whether they wanted to or not … most didn’t.
These doctors and nurses didn’t need to do anything themselves, not even ask to be re-instated. It was just done. This policy was designed to help plug holes in staffing. It was known as emergency registration. As stated here, with regard to nurses:
‘The Coronavirus Act 2020 gives the Registrar a new emergency power to temporarily register a person or group of persons as registered nurses, midwives or nursing associates if the Secretary of State advises that an emergency has occurred, is occurring or is about to occur.’ 3
Then as the panic, sorry pandemic, fell away, emergency registrations began to be withdrawn.
‘Many temporary Coronavirus Act provisions remain in force. However, by default they will expire on 25 March 2022. The Government has said it will allow almost all these provisions to expire.
The following policy areas have temporary changes which are set to expire in England or (where relevant) on a UK-wide basis:
– temporary registration of health and social care professionals’ 4
Of course, getting rid of emergency registration would have the effect of (appearing to) sharply reduce the number of doctors and nurses. Even if the vast majority of those who had been plonked on the register never did an extra day’s work and remained happily retired. Yes, this was always a ‘pretend’ workforce. ‘Look at all these additional doctors and nurses we have created… who we haven’t spoken to, and we have no idea if they will ever work again …’
Anyway, the Government was dispensing with emergency registration. Then, out of the blue, it was back again. With retired doctors and nurses placed back on the ‘pretend’ doctors and nurse’s lists once more – until 2024. Which just happens to be the year of the next general election.
What is the explanation for this? Well, according to the General Medical Council in September 2022:
‘The UK government asked us to give temporary emergency registration to suitable people, as part of the response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.’ 5
[The General Medical Council (GMC) controls medical registration].
What…? We had a new COVID-19 pandemic last month? I thought it started in 2020. Did you know it was back with a vengeance? Did you? Did you hear anything about it? No, you didn’t, because it never happened. This statement is simply … not true. I would never dream of calling it a damned lie. Other’s may feel differently.
Anyway, let me take you through this from a slightly different angle.
The UK Government is desperately trying to claim they are doing everything they can to support the NHS, which is currently falling to bits, and will damage their prospects at the next election. One of the key things they wish to claim is that they are increasing the work force – especially doctors and nurses (not managers for some strange reason). However, …
‘More than 40,000 nurses have left the NHS in England in the past year, an analysis by the Nuffield Trust has revealed.
The analysis, conducted by the think tank for the BBC, said that this is the highest number and proportion of nurses leaving the NHS since trend data began.
It found that many of these nurses were often highly skilled and knowledgeable with many more years of work left.’ 6
In addition:
‘Over the last year, the NHS has lost 339 individual (headcount) GP partners and 305 salaried, locum and retainer GPs. This has created a net loss of 644 individual GPs since September 2021… There are now just 0.44 fully qualified GPs per 1,000 patients in England – down from 0.52 in 2015.’ 7
Yet, despite all these people heading for the exit, the Government now informs us that the workforce is not falling, it is going up, up, up, baby. I find this apparent conundrum to be spookily similar to my findings when studying research papers. How can various results be reconciled, when they seem directly contradictory? Heart attacks fell, but deaths from heart disease increased. In the same trial? Oh no, I must read the methodology section – usually impenetrable.
In the same way, we find the number of ‘registered’ doctors is going up, whilst the number of doctors is falling. This leaves us with two seemingly contradictory facts. Which of them is true? Or can they both be true?
In my simple little world, the true ‘fact’ is that the number of doctors is falling, rapidly. However, the Government have solved this issue by creating an equal and opposite fact. Which is that the number of doctors is going up.
They achieved this remarkable feat by bringing back the emergency re-registration of retired doctors, sharply increasing ‘pretend’ doctor’s numbers. In this weird, distorted, manipulated way we have another’ fact’ on our hands. Which is that there are more doctors on the register a.k.a. ‘more doctors.’
Which of these facts is true? Yes, in the hands of politicians, facts can become slippery little swine.
To quote John Martyn: ‘Half the lies I tell you are not true.’
In truth, once you cut through the utter steaming bullshit, I know, and you now know, what is going on – as did many doctors at the time. Here are a few more posts, from twenty-nine days ago, commenting on the re-introduction of emergency registration:
‘After a few hours to consider, I have now emailed the GMC to ask that my temporary registration be removed. FWIW (for what it is worth) I think it highly likely that this is an attempt by the government to inflate the apparent numbers of doctors available.’
Or this one:
‘It has been foretold that for purposes of political spin, they need to say that they have more doctors on the register.’
Another doctor was even more acute in their observation – twenty-nine days ago:
‘The weird thing about this is the clear and direct nature of cheating.
If – as is highly likely – this process relates to absolutely nothing at all apart from manipulating stats to misrepresent reality for political ambitions, then there would be people with job time allocated to it, meetings, emails, conclusions, notes, presentations etc.
“Are you going to the meeting about cheating the doctor numbers tomorrow?”
“Yes, I should make that meeting where we deliberately lie about how many doctors there are”
“Great, see you there. Hopefully we can cheat those figures really efficiently and get away on time!”
And lo, the game played out, exactly as predicted. One month ago, the Government very deliberately inflated figures on doctor’s numbers (and nurse’s numbers). Now they are crowing, in public, about this magnificent increase. ‘Look how brilliant we are. ‘
‘Crikey, how did you manage this totes amazeballs thing?’
‘Well, wouldn’t like to boast about it, really. Hard work, dedication … I would like to thank my team. Golly, is that the time, must dash.’
Do they think we are all completely stupid? Don’t answer that, they clearly do. Do they think no-one noticed? People were tweeting about it at the time:
‘Why has Secretary of State for Health and Social Care @theresecoffey asked the GMC @gmcuk to extend temporary registrations until 2024? Is this to prevent a sudden drop in the number of doctors on the register, causing embarrassing stats in the press?’ 8
Today, we are swimming in a sea of misinformation, and deliberately manipulated statistics. Yet, people seem to shrug their shoulders. ‘Don’t get worked up about it. Everyone is up to it, who cares. Same old, same old. The other lot are just as bad.’
It is time, I believe, for pitchforks and burning torches, and people taking to the streets in protest about the way that this world is going. So very badly wrong.
‘In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.’ George Orwell.
1: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/24/doubt-lingers-over-jeremy-hunts-pledge-5000-new-gps
2: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/record-numbers-of-staff-working-in-the-nhs
3: ‘https://www.nmc.org.uk/globalassets/sitedocuments/registration/covid-19-temporary-emergency-registration-policy.pdf
4: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/expiry-of-the-coronavirus-acts-temporary-provisions/
5: https://www.gmc-uk.org/registration-and-licensing/guide-for-doctors-granted-temporary-registration
6: https://www.nursingtimes.net/news/workforce/record-number-of-nurses-leaving-the-nhs-in-england-30-09-2022/
7: https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/nhs-delivery-and-workforce/pressures/pressures-in-general-practice-data-analysis#:~:text=%2D-,Number%20of%20NHS%20GPs%20by,FTE)%20%2D%20fully%20qualified%20GPs%20only&text=Over%20the%20last%20year%2C%20the,individual%20GPs%20since%20September%202021.
8: https://twitter.com/TheSmartGP/status/1575832771821727746
October 30, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Timeless or most popular | NHS, UK |
Leave a comment
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) took more than a year to follow up on a potential increase in serious adverse events in elderly people who received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, according to an investigative report published Tuesday by The BMJ.
According to The BMJ, in July 2021, the FDA “quietly disclosed” the findings of a potential increase in four types of serious adverse events in elderly people who had received a Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine: acute myocardial infarction, disseminated intravascular coagulation, immune thrombocytopenia, and pulmonary embolism.
The FDA disclosure lacked specific details, such as the magnitude of the increased potential risk, and the agency said it would “share further updates and information with the public as they become available.”
The FDA did not alert physicians or the public, via a press release or any other means, The BMJ investigator said.
Eighteen days later, the FDA published a study planning document that outlined a protocol for a follow-up epidemiological study for investigating the matter more thoroughly.
The BMJ said:
“This recondite technical document disclosed the unadjusted relative risk ratio estimates originally found for the four serious adverse events, which ranged from 42% to 91% increased risk. (Neither absolute risk increases nor confidence intervals were provided.)”
That was over a year ago. “More than a year later, however, the status and results of the follow-up study are unknown,” The BMJ reported, adding:
“The agency has not published a press release, or notified doctors, or published the findings by preprint or the scientific literature or updated the vaccine’s product label.”
The BMJ report also alleged the FDA has not “ publicly acknowledged other published observational studies or clinical trial reanalyses reporting compatible results.”
FDA ‘irresponsible’ for keeping information from scientific community, critics say
Critics of the FDA’s failure to warn the public voiced their concerns about the data to The BMJ and called on the FDA to notify the public immediately.
“To keep this information from the scientific community and prevent us from analysing it ourselves, is irresponsible,” said Dr. Joseph Fraiman, an emergency medicine physician in New Orleans who recently carried out a reanalysis of serious adverse events in Pfizer and Moderna’s randomized trials. “It presumes that these organisations are perfect and cannot benefit from independent scrutiny.”
Dr. Tracy Høeg, an epidemiologist and physician currently conducting COVID-19 vaccine research with the Florida Department of Health and California’s Marin County Department of Health and Human Services, told The BMJ :
“The fact that the FDA found these four safety signals means they should have followed up on the results and I don’t understand why we haven’t had more information since then.
“It has been over a year.”
Fraiman concurred. “The protocols say that they’re looking into these data further, but I’d like to know the results now, it’s been long enough. They need to view this from a public health perspective, they need to consider a person’s right to informed consent.”
“As physicians, we recommend medical therapies and we need to explain the full risks and benefits to the patient. This is not happening,” Fraiman added.
Dr. Dick Bijl, an epidemiologist in the Netherlands, pointed out, “The FDA managed to determine the efficacy of the vaccines in a short period of time, but they have not analysed the pharmacovigilance data with the same speed. If they found signals in July 2021, they should have been analysed and published within months.”
Bijl is the president of the International Society of Drug Bulletins and has campaigned for years to get safety data communicated to doctors in a timely fashion. He told The BMJ he credits his organization for prompting the World Health Organization to begin publishing regular updates about drug safety signals in its WHO Pharmaceuticals Newsletter so that all doctors can take note of them.
Bijl said:
“The FDA should have informed doctors about any early safety signals from the vaccines.
“Most doctors are not trained to, nor are they focused on, recognising side effects, especially because vaccines are generally regarded as quite safe. It’s important that doctors are told what to look out for.”
Why the delay in acknowledging safety signal study results?
The FDA’s July 2021 findings came from the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) “near real-time” surveillance system called Rapid Cycle Analysis (RCA) that the FDA used to monitor a list of 14 adverse events of special interest.
Data obtained from the RCA system is not intended to establish a causal relationship between a vaccine and adverse events but rather is intended to detect potential safety signals rapidly.
The RCA data referenced by the agency in its July 2021 disclosure study appeared to only detect safety signals associated with the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.
“The agency said the associations were not identified for the other two COVID-19 vaccines authorised in the U.S. made by Moderna and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson),” The BMJ said.
The July 2021 follow-up study protocol stated there is a “manuscript in preparation” for the original RCA study but to date, nothing has been published for either that original study or the follow-up study.
According to The BMJ, the FDA’s medical record review and statistical analyses have recently been completed, and the overall study results are “currently under internal review.”
The FDA downplayed the findings:
“The findings to date from the fully adjusted epidemiologic study on the primary series vaccinations do not provide strong support for an association between the vaccine and any of the four outcomes described in the posting to the FDA website. Additional analyses, including evaluation of booster doses, are still being conducted. Release of the study findings is expected later this fall.”
Furthermore, according to The BMJ, the FDA made no public announcement when the results from an unspecified study it conducted raised safety concerns — but instead “buried” the findings in the introduction section of an Aug. 31, 2022, research protocol document:
“In a cohort study of the third dose safety in the Medicare population where historical controls were used, we detected a statistically significant risk for immune thrombocytopenia (incidence rate ratio 1.66, confidence interval 1.17 to 2.29) and acute myocardial infarction (IRR 1.15, CI 1.02 to 1.29) among people with prior covid-19 diagnosis as well as an increased risk of Bell’s palsy (IRR 1.11, CI 1.03 to 1.19) and pulmonary embolism (IRR 1.05, CI 1.0001 to 1.100) in general.”
Additionally, a June 2022 observational study from three Nordic countries — Denmark, Finland and Norway — found statistically significant increases in thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic outcomes following both Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
Dr. Christine Stabell Benn, M.D., Ph.D., a vaccinologist and professor in global health at the University of Southern Denmark, told The BMJ of yet another study — this one done by her research group that is currently published in preprint.
“The safety signal seems to be gathering around cardiovascular and cerebral vascular events, things to do with circulation and our larger organs, and these are the same signals that appear to be popping up in the FDA surveillance data as well,” Benn said.
She added, “We don’t want to create a lot of unnecessary anxiety and we can’t say there is now proof that the vaccines cause these events because the data are of poor quality, but we can say there is a danger signal, and the medical profession needs to be alerted to this.”
Earlier this year, the CDC admitted to deliberately withholding critical data on the COVID-19 booster shots and hospital admissions, The BMJ reported.
Kristen Nordlund, CDC spokesperson, in February told the New York Times the agency had been slow to release data to the public on breakthrough infections “because they might be misinterpreted as the vaccines being ineffective.”
Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is a reporter and researcher for The Defender based in Fairfield, Iowa. She holds a Ph.D. in Communication Studies from the University of Texas at Austin (2021), and a master’s degree in communication and leadership from Gonzaga University (2015). Her scholarship has been published in Health Communication. She has taught at various academic institutions in the United States and is fluent in Spanish.
his article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
October 29, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | COVID-19 Vaccine, FDA, United States |
Leave a comment
Samizdat – 28.10.2022
Russia and China will continue to jointly address the North Korea issue. The main cause of tensions on the Korean Peninsula is the pressure exerted on the DPRK and the show of force by South Korea and the United States.
Russia remains committed to a joint plan with China for a Korean settlement.
“We will adhere to the agreed position on this issue”, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday at a plenary session of the Valdai Discussion Club.
The Russia-China action plan is based on the principle of reciprocal steps by the United States and the DPRK. These steps could be taken by the United States without damaging its reputation, and on the same basis by DPRK leaders. Moscow and Beijing believe that success in the settlement can only be achieved on the basis of reciprocal movement: action after action, step by step, gradually, and consistently.
At the same time, Moscow and Beijing have repeatedly warned that the formula, according to which North Korea must first completely get rid of its nuclear missile program and only then it will be possible to think about lifting sanctions on the DPRK and ensuring its economic development, is absolutely unsustainable.
“Our roadmap, which we proposed together with China, was that first we should build confidence through mutual meetings, and then we should take some tangible measures, including the suspension of military exercises, tests, and missile launches, and then proceed to negotiations,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said earlier, presenting a joint Russia-China plan for a Korean settlement.
The plan was put forward to the two Koreas, the United States, and Japan in the fall of 2019 after three meetings between the US and DPRK leaders in Singapore, Hanoi, and the demilitarized zone in Panmunjom ended inconclusively. These meetings were held on June 12, 2018, February 27-28, 2019, and June 30, 2019, respectively.
When answering experts’ questions at the Valdai Discussion Club related to the Korea issue, Vladimir Putin said that the unwillingness to talk and the absolutely boorish attitude to North Korea’s interests, including in the sphere of security, has led to the DPRK nuclear issue. In an interview with Sputnik, Alexander Zhebin, director of the Center for Korean Studies and member of the Russian Political Science Association, commented on the Russian president’s statements as follows:
“Vladimir Putin was referring to the boorish behavior of the United States, because the US and the DPRK had an agreement at Trump’s meeting with Kim Jong-un in Singapore that Pyongyang would not launch long-range missiles that could reach American territory, and would not test nuclear weapons. The Americans would respond to this, as recorded in the Singapore declaration, by building a new relationship. Instead, the Americans continued to impose more and more sanctions against the DPRK, which means that they have not fulfilled their part of the commitments.”
According to Alexander Zhebin, the US behaves arrogantly towards the DPRK in the UN Security Council as well:
“Each UN Security Council resolution that imposed sanctions on the DPRK stipulated that positive steps by the DPRK to reduce nuclear missile activity must be accompanied by reciprocal steps by those who imposed sanctions and lead to their partial lifting. This has not happened. On the contrary, no matter what the DPRK has done, the US has kept imposing new sanctions, both by Trump and then by Biden.”
Today, instead of negotiations, the US and South Korea are working on scenarios for destroying the top political leadership of the DPRK and the country’s control centers.
“On the one hand, the Americans say they are ready to negotiate with the DPRK at any time, anywhere, and without any conditions. However, at the same time, they have imposed unprecedentedly harsh sanctions on the DPRK and do not intend to lift them. On the contrary, they are obstructing all attempts by China and Russia to reduce the sanctions burden and start a dialog process. In fact, the invitation to negotiations is just talk. Under that guise, the US is implementing a longstanding plan according to which, eventually, the DPRK, under the weight of economic sanctions, will not survive, thus forcing Kim Jong-un to surrender.
They are not hiding the fact that large-scale military exercises carried out by the US and South Korea are used to practice the elimination of the DPRK’s top political leadership and the country’s control centers. The scale of the recent maneuvers is simply off the chart. 240 American and South Korean aircraft, including the latest F-35 stealth fighters, have been deployed off the coast of North Korea. This cannot but cause serious concern to the DPRK leadership, since everything is happening near its borders. The DPRK is very much concerned about its security,” Alexander Zhebin stressed.
The DPRK’s missile launches are a response to US and South Korean military drills, which constantly press Pyongyang to demonstrate its power, Jin Xiangdong, a researcher at Xiamen University’s School of International Relations, said in an interview with Sputnik :
“Since coming to power, the new South Korean government has conducted a series of military exercises near the Korean Peninsula. The DPRK has responded by launching ballistic missiles. The main problem with the situation on the peninsula is that the new South Korean government is constantly putting pressure on North Korea and demonstrating its power. China’s position on the Korean Peninsula issue is consistent and clear. China defends the maintenance of peace and stability on the peninsula, denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula, and the resolution of issues through dialog and consultations. Meanwhile, in general, the solution to the Korean Peninsula problem is still complicated.”
The Joint Chiefs of Staff of the South Korean Armed Forces said that North Korea fired two short-range ballistic missiles toward the Sea of Japan on Friday. The launches took place on the last day of South Korea’s Hoguk military exercises, which began on October 17. These maneuvers featured a large-scale amphibious landing exercise near the city of Pohang on the coast of the Sea of Japan.
On October 31, the Republic of Korea and the United States will launch large-scale joint air exercises. The high intensity and scale of the drills provoke growing tensions in Northeast Asia. The US threatening to give a strong response to a possible nuclear test by the DPRK has aggravated the situation.
October 28, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Economics, Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite | China, Korea, Russia, United States |
Leave a comment
GLOBALISED mainstream media equates not just with a uniform, poorly-informed world, but a manipulated world.
In Britain, the Times runs a story entitled: After centuries of cut, burn and poison, could a jab cure cancer? by Tom Whipple. Eleven thousand miles away in New Zealand, the same story appears in Stuff newspaper.
This is one of those ‘isn’t it wonderful?’ reassuring stories that unfortunately don’t look quite so rosy after close scrutiny, but like bad pennies are turning up everywhere. On the surface informative and exciting, underneath sadly lacking in that investigative depth we were expecting – and certainly over-hyped.
This particular story would not be out of place in a glossy brochure seeking investment funds for BioNTech. According to the Times article, RNA vaccine technology is rather like buying a piece of furniture from Ikea. Each person could very soon have their own personalised cancer vaccine off the shelf. What could possibly go wrong?
The tremendously hopeful note that the story strikes is based on a lot of over-simplified theory and the success (???) of the Pfizer Covid vaccine co-developed with BioNTech. It sounds reassuringly easy to design mRNA vaccines that rush to your aid and eliminate those nasty cancer cells.
Ugur Sahin and Ozlem Tureci, founders of BioNTech, are pictured in white coats, and are quoted promising: ‘We stimulate the immune system, do something magic, and the tumour disappears.’
Heady stuff, but the cited evidence is less than thin. A decorated cancer researcher who was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2007, then tried all his innovative ideas out on himself, and died in 2011. In 2020, 16 patients with pancreatic cancer were treated by BioNTech. Eighteen months later, eight have died and eight are cancer-free after 18 months. The details are sadly lacking.
What stage were they at and how does that compare with their expected prognosis? The missing piece of the jigsaw is the article’s lack of scrutiny of the safety of BioNTech’s only commercialised mRNA vaccine product – the Pfizer Covid vaccine.
If you want to ask questions and also seek answers, you will need to turn to a completely different kind of journalism. Igor Chudov is a mathematician – like the Times author – but he writes on Substack and is therefore not constrained by any editorial policy or any no-go areas dictated by the newspaper owners, their advertisers, or subtly imposed government guidelines.
Chudov has published a very different cancer story, headlined: Cancer rates are Increasing and may get much worse. Wiped out immune systems take time to manifest.
According to the article, we are seeing the first ripple of a coming storm of cancer deaths. Chudov reports the work of the Ethical Skeptic (another Substack researcher) whose analysis of figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – the public health agency of the US – has shown that the rate of US cancer deaths accelerated in 2021 and 2022, coinciding with the rollout of the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA Covid vaccine and other biotech vaccines.
It is the effect size that is surprising – 9 sigma. What does this mean? Well perhaps you can remember from your school maths lessons that for a Bell curve, two-thirds of data points lie within one standard deviation of the mean, that is known as 1 sigma. Ninety-five per cent lie within two standard deviations (2 sigma) and 99.7 per cent lie within 3 sigma.
I’m going to translate for you what the observed 9 sigma deviation from the prior pattern of cancer deaths probably implies in very simple layman terms:
1. A hugely statistically surprising number of people already infected with cancer have suffered a rapid progression of their condition to death. Covid vaccination reduced their likely longevity.
2. Some people who previously had no evidence of cancer, and possibly no lifetime expectation of cancer, are becoming ill and dying in the weeks and months following Covid vaccination. And it is not due to Covid infection – it didn’t happen in 2020.
Read Chudov’s article. It is a long read, but well worth the effort. In addition to the US data, he looks at the official UK cancer mortality data, which shows a similar increase. He also quotes another Substack author, A Midwestern Doctor, who analyses and references in detail what it is about mRNA vaccines that causes cancer. The approach is investigative, as we should expect it.
There are concerning issues that Whipple, author of the fawning Times article, chooses not to address. He failed to discuss questions that constitute the normal substance of scientific debate, but his piece was beamed around the world.
We expect the Times to ask questions, but it is not doing so. It has quietly rolled over and followed the biotech PR line. It is not alone – the mainstream media are collectively failing the sniff test.
We are being manipulated. If you want real journalism, it is flourishing elsewhere. GLOBE (the Campaign for Global Legislation Outlawing Biotechnology Experimentation) and other independents are asking vital questions that few are prepared to countenance.
October 27, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | COVID-19 Vaccine, United States |
Leave a comment
Samizdat – October 26, 2022
The conflict in Ukraine gives Western arms producers a chance to see which products fare best in a real fight against Russia, the country’s defense minister has said.
“We have a combat testing field in Ukraine during this war,” Aleksey Reznikov explained. “We have eight different 155mm artillery systems in the field … so it’s like a competition between systems” to see which one proves best.
The comments came in an interview with Politico published on Tuesday. The testing ground idea was previously expressed by Reznikov’s deputy, Vladimir Gavrilov, who claimed that some American defense contractors were fielding their prototypes in Ukraine.
Kiev expects military aid from NATO members to continue flowing into the country for years and wants to benefit more from it, Reznikov said. For example, Ukraine could start joint ventures with Poland, the UK, or Germany to produce weapons.
“We have to develop a UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) industry not only for aerial drones but also on land and in the sea because it’s the future” of warfare, he noted.
He was also skeptical about restrictions under which Ukraine’s supporters are shipping arms to Kiev. As the conflict with Russia unfolded, the US and its allies have repeatedly reconsidered previous decisions not to send heavier weapons, the defense minister pointed out.
“I’m really optimistic that Abrams tanks are possible in the future and I am sure that fighter jets like F-16s, F-15s, or Gripen from Sweden will also be possible,” he said.
Washington was initially reluctant to provide lethal aid to Ukraine out of concern that Russia would consider it an escalation but gradually reconsidered and supplied increasingly sophisticated weapons, which Reznikov sees as a favorable trend.
Western officials cited logistical issues with training Ukrainian pilots and maintenance of the fighter jets among the reasons why Ukraine can’t get F-16s or F-15s. But according to media reports, Kiev may get them in the long run.
Reznikov said European NATO allies were looking to the US in their aid decisions, so it was up to Washington to up the ante.
“After the first Abrams [arrives] I’m sure we will have Leopards, Marders, and other types of heavy armored vehicles like tanks,” he told the news outlet.
Among the weapons the US most recently designated for Ukraine are the NASAMS air defense systems. Washington is also reportedly considering sending some old HAWK surface-to-air missiles it has stockpiled to see if they are still effective.
October 27, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Deception, Militarism | European Union, Ukraine, United States |
Leave a comment
Aletho News
