Deception « Aletho News

‘It Could Not Have Worked, and They Knew It’

‘Doctors & Scientists’ Episode 37

childrenshealthdefense | July 14, 2022

July 18, 2022 Posted by aletho | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | COVID-19 Vaccine | Leave a comment

Dr. Birx Praises Herself While Revealing Ignorance, Treachery, and Deceit

By Jeffrey A. Tucker | Brownstone Institute | July 16, 2022

The December 2020 resignation of Dr. Deborah Birx, White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator under Trump, revealed predictable hypocrisy. Like so many other government officials around the world, she was caught violating her own stay-at-home order. Therefore she finally left her post following nine months of causing unfathomable amounts of damage to life, liberty, property, and the very idea of hope for the future.

Even if Anthony Fauci had been the front man for the media, it was Birx who was the main influence in the White House behind the nationwide lockdowns that did not stop or control the pathogen but have caused immense suffering and continue to roil and wreck the world. So it was significant that she would not and could not comply with her own dictates, even as her fellow citizens were being hunted down for the same infractions against “public health.”

In the days before Thanksgiving 2020, she had warned Americans to “assume you’re infected” and to restrict gatherings to “your immediate household.” Then she packed her bags and headed to Fenwick Island in Delaware where she met with four generations for a traditional Thanksgiving dinner, as if she were free to make normal choices and live a normal life while everyone else had to shelter in place.

The Associated Press was first out with the report on December 20, 2020.

Birx acknowledged in a statement that she went to her Delaware property. She declined to be interviewed.

She insisted the purpose of the roughly 50-hour visit was to deal with the winterization of the property before a potential sale — something she says she previously hadn’t had time to do because of her busy schedule.

“I did not go to Delaware for the purpose of celebrating Thanksgiving,” Birx said in her statement, adding that her family shared a meal together while in Delaware.

Birx said that everyone on her Delaware trip belongs to her “immediate household,” even as she acknowledged they live in two different homes. She initially called the Potomac home a “3 generation household (formerly 4 generations).” White House officials later said it continues to be a four-generation household, a distinction that would include Birx as part of the home.

So it was all a sleight-of-hand: she was staying home; it’s just that she has several homes! This is how the power elite comply, one supposes.

The BBC then quoted her defense, which echo the pain experienced by hundreds of millions:

“My daughter hasn’t left that house in 10 months, my parents have been isolated for 10 months. They’ve become deeply depressed as I’m sure many elderly have as they’ve not been able to see their sons, their granddaughters. My parents have not been able to see their surviving son for over a year. These are all very difficult things.”

Indeed. However, she was the major voice for the better part of 2020 for requiring exactly that. No one should blame her for wanting to get together with family; that she worked so hard for so long to prevent others from doing so is what is at issue.

The press piled on and she announced that she would be leaving her post and not seeking a position at the Biden White House. Trump tweeted that she will be missed. It was the final discrediting – or should have been – of a person that many in the White House and many around the country had come to see as an obvious fanatic and fake, a person whose influence wrecked the liberties and health of an entire country.

It was a fitting end to a catastrophic career. So it would make sense that people might pick up her new book to find out what it was like to go through that kind of media storm, the real reasons for her visit, what it was like to know for sure that she must violate her own rules in order to bring comfort to her family, and the difficult decision she made to throw in the towel knowing that she has compromised the integrity of her entire program.

One slogs through her entire book only to find this incredible fact: she never mentions this. The incident is missing entirely from her book.

Instead at the moment in the narrative at which she would be expected to recount the affair she says almost in passing that “When former vice president Biden was declared the winner of the 2020 election, I’d set a goal for myself—to hand over responsibility for the pandemic response, with all its many elements, in the best possible place.”

At that point, the book skips immediately to the new year. Done. It’s like Orwell, the story, even though it was reported for days in the world press and became a defining moment in her career, is just wiped out from the history book of her own authorship.

Somehow it makes sense that she would neglect to mention this. Reading her book is a very painful experience (all credit to Michael Senger’s review) simply because it seems to be weaving fables on page after page, strewn with bromides, completely lacking in self awareness, punctuated by revealing comments that make the opposite point of what she is seeking. Reading it is truly a surreal experience, astonishing especially because she is able to maintain her delusionary pose for 525 pages.

Recall that it was she who was tasked – by Anthony Fauci – with doing the really crucial thing of talking Donald Trump into green-lighting the lockdowns that began on March 12, 2020, and continued to their final hard-core deployment on March 16. This was the “15 Days to Flatten the Curve” that turned into two years in many parts of the country.

Her book admits that it was a two-level lie from the beginning.

“We had to make these palatable to the administration by avoiding the obvious appearance of a full Italian lockdown,” she writes. “At the same time, we needed the measures to be effective at slowing the spread, which meant matching as closely as possible what Italy had done—a tall order. We were playing a game of chess in which the success of each move was predicated on the one before it.”

Further:

“At this point, I wasn’t about to use the words lockdown or shutdown. If I had uttered either of those in early March, after being at the White House only one week, the political, nonmedical members of the task force would have dismissed me as too alarmist, too doom-and-gloom, too reliant on feelings and not facts. They would have campaigned to lock me down and shut me up.”

In other words, she wanted to go full CCP just like Italy but didn’t want to say that. Crucially, she knew for sure that two weeks was not the real plan. “I left the rest unstated: that this was just a starting point.”

“No sooner had we convinced the Trump administration to implement our version of a two-week shutdown than I was trying to figure out how to extend it,” she admits.

“Fifteen Days to Slow the Spread was a start, but I knew it would be just that. I didn’t have the numbers in front of me yet to make the case for extending it longer, but I had two weeks to get them. However hard it had been to get the fifteen-day shutdown approved, getting another one would be more difficult by many orders of magnitude. In the meantime, I waited for the blowback, for someone from the economic team to call me to the principal’s office or confront me at a task force meeting. None of this happened.”

It was a solution in search of evidence she did not have. She told Trump that the evidence was there anyway. She actually tricked him into believing that locking down a whole population of people was somehow magically going to make a virus to which everyone would inevitably be exposed somehow vanish as a threat.

Meanwhile, the economy was wrecked domestically and then all over the world, as most governments in the world followed what the US did.

Where did she come up with the idea of lockdowns? By her own report, her only real experience with infectious disease came from her work on AIDS, a very different disease from a respiratory virus that everyone would eventually get but which would only be fatal or even severe for a small cohort, a fact that was known since late January. Still, her experience counted for more than science.

“In any health crisis, it is crucial to work at the personal behavior level,” she says with the presumption that avoidance at all costs was the only goal. “With HIV/AIDS, this meant convincing asymptomatic people to get tested, to seek treatment if they were HIV-positive, and to take preventative measures, including wearing condoms; or to employ other pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) if they were negative.”

She immediately hops to the analogy with Covid. “I knew the government agencies would need to do the same thing to have a similar effect on the spread of this novel coronavirus. The most obvious parallel with the HIV/AIDS example was the message of wearing masks.”

Masks = condoms. Remarkable. This “obvious parallel” remark sums the whole depth of her thinking. Behavior is all that matters. Just stay apart. Cover your mouth. Don’t gather. Don’t travel. Close the schools. Close everything. Whatever happens, don’t get it. Nothing else matters. Keep your immune system as unexposed as possible.

I wish I could say her thought is more complex than that but it is not. This was the basis for lockdowns. For how long? In her mind, it seems like it would be forever. Nowhere in the book does she reveal an exit strategy. Not even vaccines qualify.

From the very beginning, she revealed her epidemiological views. On March 16, 2020 at her press conference with Trump, she summarized her position: “We really want people to be separated at this time.” People? All people? Everywhere? Not one reporter raised a question about this obviously ridiculous and outrageous statement that would essentially destroy life on earth.

But she was serious – seriously deluded not only about how society functions but also about infectious disease of this sort. Only one thing mattered as a metric to her: reducing infections through any means possible, as if she on her own could cobble together a new kind of society in which exposure to air-born pathogens was made illegal.

Here is an example. There was a controversy about how many people should be allowed to gather in one space, as in home, church, store, stadium, or community center. She addresses how she came up with the rules:

The real problem with this fifty-versus-ten distinction, for me, was that it revealed that the CDC simply didn’t believe to the degree that I did that SARS-CoV-2 was being spread through the air silently and undetected from symptomless individuals. The numbers really did matter. As the years since have confirmed, in times of active viral community spread, as many as fifty people gathered together indoors (unmasked at this point, of course) was way too high a number. It increased the chances of someone among that number being infected exponentially. I had settled on ten knowing that even that was too many, but I figured that ten would at least be palatable for most Americans—high enough to allow for most gatherings of immediate family but not enough for large dinner parties and, critically, large weddings, birthday parties, and other mass social events.

She puts a fine point on it: “if I pushed for zero (which was actually what I wanted and what was required), this would have been interpreted as a ‘lockdown’—the perception we were all working so hard to avoid.”

What does it mean for zero people to gather? A suicide cult?

In any case, just like that, from her own thinking and straight to enforcement, birthday parties, sports, weddings, and funerals came to be forbidden.

Here we gain insight into the sheer insanity of her vision. It is nothing short of a marvel that she somehow managed to gain the amount of influence she did.

Notice her above mention of her dogma that asymptomatic spread was the whole key to understanding pandemic. In other words, on her own and without any scientific support, she presumed that Covid was both extremely fatal and had a long latency period. To her way of thinking, this is why the usual tradeoff between severity and prevalence did not matter.

She was somehow certain that the longest estimates of latency were correct: 14 days. This is the reason for the “wait two weeks” obsession. She held onto this dogma throughout, almost like the fictional movie “Contagion” had been her only guide to understanding.

Later in the book, she writes that symptoms mean next to nothing because people can always carry around the virus in their nose without being sick. After all, this is what PCR tests have shown. Instead of seeing that as a failure of PCR, she saw this as a confirmation that everyone is a carrier no matter what and therefore everyone has to lock down because otherwise we’ll deal with a black plague.

Somehow, despite her astonishing lack of scientific curiosity and experience in this area, she gained all influence over the initial Trump administration response. Briefly, she was godlike.

But Trump was not and is not a fool. He must have had some sleepless nights wondering how and why he had approved the destruction of that which he had seen as his greatest achievement. The virus was long here (probably from October 2019), it presented a specific danger to a narrow cohort, but otherwise behaved like a textbook flu. Maybe, he must have wondered, his initial instincts from January and February 2020 were correct all along.

Still, he very reluctantly approved a 30-day extension of lockdowns, entirely on Birx’s urging and with a few other fools standing around. Having given in a second time – still, no one thought to drop an email or make a phonecall for a second opinion! – this seemed to be the turning point. Birx reports that by April 1, 2020, Trump had lost confidence in her. He might have intuited that he had been tricked. He stopped speaking to her.

It would still take another month before he would fully rethink everything that he had approved at her behest.

It made no difference. The bulk of her book is a brag fest about how she kept subverting the White House’s push to open up the economy – that is, allow people to exercise their rights and freedoms. Once Trump turned against her, and eventually found other people to provide good advice like the tremendously brave Scott Atlas – it was five months later when he arrived in an attempt to save the country from disaster – Birx turned to rallying around her inner circle (Anthony Fauci, Robert Redfield, Matthew Pottinger, and a few others) plus assembling a realm of protection outside of her that included CNN reporter Sanjay Gupta and, very likely, the virus team at the New York Times (which gives her book a glowing review).

Recall that for the remainder of the year, the White House was urging normalcy while many states kept locking down. It was an incredible confusion. The CDC was all over the map. I gained the distinct impression of two separate regimes in charge: Trump’s vs. the administrative state he could not control. Trump would say one thing on the campaign trail but the regulations and disease panic kept pouring out of his own agencies.

Birx admits that she was a major part of the reason, due to her sneaky alternation of weekly reports to the states.

After the heavily edited documents were returned to me, I’d reinsert what they had objected to, but place it in those different locations. I’d also reorder and restructure the bullet points so the most salient—the points the administration objected to most—no longer fell at the start of the bullet points. I shared these strategies with the three members of the data team also writing these reports. Our Saturday and Sunday report-writing routine soon became: write, submit, revise, hide, resubmit.

Fortunately, this strategic sleight-of-hand worked. That they never seemed to catch this subterfuge left me to conclude that, either they read the finished reports too quickly or they neglected to do the word search that would have revealed the language to which they objected. In slipping these changes past the gatekeepers and continuing to inform the governors of the need for the big-three mitigations—masks, sentinel testing, and limits on indoor social gatherings—I felt confident I was giving the states permission to escalate public health mitigation with the fall and winter coming.

As another example, once Scott Atlas came to the rescue in August to introduce some good sense into this wacky world, he worked with others to dial back the CDC’s fanatical attachment to universal and constant testing. Atlas knew that “track, trace, and isolate” was both a fantasy and a massive invasion of people’s liberties that would yield no positive public-health outcome. He put together a new recommendation that was only for those who were sick to test – just as one might expect in normal life.

After a week-long media frenzy, the regulations flipped in the other direction.

Birx reveals that it was her doing:

This wasn’t the only bit of subterfuge I had to engage in. Immediately after the Atlas-influenced revised CDC testing guidance went up in late August, I contacted Bob Redfield… Less than a week later, Bob [Redfield] and I had finished our rewrite of the guidance and surreptitiously posted it. We had restored the emphasis on testing to detect areas where silent spread was occurring. It was a risky move, and we hoped everyone in the White House would be too busy campaigning to realize what Bob and I had done. We weren’t being transparent with the powers that be in the White House…

One might ask how the heck she got away with this. She explains:

[T]he guidance gambit was only the tip of the iceberg of my transgressions in my effort to subvert Scott Atlas’s dangerous positions. Ever since Vice President Pence told me to do what I needed to do, I’d engaged in very blunt conversations with the governors. I spoke the truth that some White House senior advisors weren’t willing to acknowledge. Censoring my reports and putting up guidance that negated the known solutions was only going to perpetuate Covid-19’s vicious circle. What I couldn’t sneak past the gatekeepers in my reports, I said in person.

Most of the book consists of her explaining how she headed a kind of shadow White House dedicated to keeping the country in some form of lockdown for as long as possible. In her telling, she was the center of everything, the only person truly correct about all things, given cover by the VP and assisted by a handful of co-conspirators.

Largely missing from the narrative is any discussion of the science gathering outside the bubble she so carefully cultivated. Whereas anyone could have noted the studies pouring out from February onward that threw cold water on her entire paradigm – not to mention 15 years, or make that 50 years, or perhaps 100 years of warnings against such a reaction – from scientists all over the world with vastly more experience and knowledge than she. She cared nothing about it, and evidently still does not.

It’s very clear that Birx had almost no contact with any serious scientist who disputed the draconian response, not even John Iaonnidis who explained as early as March 17, 2020, that this approach was madness. But she didn’t care: she was convinced that she was in the right, or, at least, was acting on behalf of people and interests who would keep her safe from persecution or prosecution.

For those interested, Chapter 8 provides a weird look into her first real scientific challenge: the seroprevalence study by Jayanta Bhattacharya published April 22, 2020. It demonstrated that the infection fatality rate – because infections and recovery was far more prevalent than Birx and Fauci were saying – was more in line with what one might expect from a severe flu but with a much more focused demographic impact. Bhattacharya’s paper revealed that the pathogen eluded all controls and would likely become endemic as every respiratory virus before. She took one look and concluded that he had unnamed “fundamental flaws in logic and methodology” and “damaged the cause of public health at this crucial moment in the pandemic.”

And that’s it: that’s Birx grappling with science. Meanwhile, the article was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology and has over 700 citations. She saw all differences of opinion as an opportunity to go on the attack in order to intensify her cherished commitment to the lockdown paradigm.

Even now, with scientists the world over in outrage, with citizens furious at their governments, with governments falling, with regimes toppling and anger reaching a fevered pitch, while studies pour out by the day showing that lockdowns made no difference and that open societies at least protected their educational systems and economies, she is unmoved. It’s not even clear she is aware.

Birx dismisses all contrary cases such as Sweden: Americans could not take that route because we are too unhealthy. South Dakota: rural and backwater (Birx is still mad that the brave Governor Kristi Noem refused to meet with her). Florida: oddly and without evidence she dismisses that case as a killing field, even though its results were better than California while the population influx to the state sets new records.

Nor is she shaken by the reality that there is not one single country or territory anywhere on the planet earth that benefitted from her approach, not even her beloved China which still pursues a zero-Covid approach. As for New Zealand and Australia: she (probably wisely) doesn’t mention them at all, even though they followed the Birx approach exactly.

The story of the lockdowns is a tale of Biblical proportions, at once evil and desperately sad and tragic, a story of power, scientific failure, intellectual insularity and insanity, outrageous arrogance, feudalistic impulses, mass delusion, plus political treachery and conspiracy. It is real-life horror for the ages, a tale of how the land of the free became a depostic hellscape so quickly and unexpectedly. Birx was at the center of it, confirming all of your worst fears right here in a book anyone can buy. She is so proud of her role that she dares to take all credit, fully convinced that the Trump-hating media will love and protect her perfidies from exposure and condemnation.

There is no getting around Trump’s own culpability here. He never should have let her have her way. Never. It was a case of fallibility matched by ego (he has still not admitted error), but it is a case of enormous betrayal that played off presidential character flaws (like many in his income class, Trump had always been a germaphobe) that ended up wrecking hope and prosperity for billions of people for many years to come.

I’ve tried for two years to put myself in that scene at the White House that day. It’s a hothouse with only trusted souls in small rooms, and the people there in a crisis have the sense that they are running the world. Trump might have drawn on his experience running a casino in Atlantic City. The weather forecasters come to say a hurricane is on the way, so he needs to shut it down. He doesn’t want to but agrees in order to do the right thing.

Was this his thinking? Perhaps. Perhaps too someone told him that China’s President Xi Jinping managed to crush the virus with lockdowns so he can too, just as the WHO said in its February 26 report. It’s also difficult in that environment to avoid the rush of omnipotence, temporarily oblivious to the reality that your decision would affect life from Maine to Florida to California. It was a catastrophic and lawless decision based on pretense and folly.

What followed seems inevitable in retrospect. The economic crisis, inflation, the broken lives, the desperation, the lost rights and lost hopes, and now the growing hunger and demoralization and educational losses and cultural destruction, all of it came in the wake of these fateful days. Every day in this country, even two and a half years later, judges are struggling to regain control and revitalize the Constitution after this disaster.

The plotters usually admit it in the end, taking credit, like criminals who cannot resist returning to the scene of the crime. This is what Dr. Birx has done in her book. But there are clearly limits to her transparency. She never explains the real reason for her resignation – even though it is known the world over – pretending like the entire Thanksgiving fiasco never happened and thus attempting to write it out of the history book that she wrote.

There is so much more to say and I hope this is one review of many because the book is absolutely packed with shocking passages. And yet her 525-page book, now selling at a 50% discount, does not contain a single citation to a single scientific study, paper, monograph, article, or book. It has zero footnotes. It offers no go-to authorities and displays not even a hint of humility that would normally be part of any actual scientific account.

And it nowhere offers an honest reckoning for what her influence over the White House and the states foisted on this country and on the world. As the country masks up yet again for a new variant, and is gradually being groomed for another round of disease panic, she can collect whatever royalties come from sales of her book while working at her new gig, a consultant to a company that makes air purifiers (ActivePure). In this latter role, she makes a greater contribution to public health than anything she did while she held the reins of power.

Jeffrey A. Tucker is Founder and President of the Brownstone Institute and the author of many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press and ten books in 5 languages, most recently Liberty or Lockdown. He is also the editor of The Best of Mises.

July 17, 2022 Posted by aletho | Book Review, Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, Deborah Birx, Human rights, New York Times, United States, WHO | Leave a comment

Suffer the Little Children

By Todd Hayen | OffGuardian | July 16, 2022

I have reported time and again about the insanity behind the vaccine’s approval for children, now from 6 month’s to 5 years. Every time the evildoers need to slash off another slab of meat from the body of humanity they raise the overall pain and suffering a few notches.

This is their final slash—you can’t get much younger than 6 months (unless they will want to vaccinate foetuses, but soon there won’t be any of those around to vaccinate.)

Rather than focus on the heinous act of approving an experimental injection to children who have no say in the matter, and if they did, wouldn’t even begin to comprehend the implications, I am going to focus instead on the efforts of “the agenda” to convince children and their parents it is a good idea to let the hairy monster into their beds so they can be raped by the tentacles of corporate greed and the unconscionable ugliness of human evil.

Sorry for the harshness of such a description. In my opinion it isn’t harsh enough.

I don’t think there is anything more abhorrent in the human playbook of evil than the effort to convince a child to hurt itself in order for the perpetrator of such a crime to benefit. What could be worse? Using the innocence of a child to cause harm for anyone’s benefit is at the top of Satan’s list (or whatever other name you want to give a human’s propensity to sink deeply into the shadowy muck of the dark side).

Come on people, pay attention!

(This demand is not for my readers as I am sure you all are in agreement with this presentation—unless you accidentally stumbled on this article, if so, pay attention.)

There is nothing any of you can say that will justify this tactic of coercing children to “be a superhero” or “be like Elmo” and take this jab “for humanity’s sake.” Nothing. No matter how you twist it all up to support your argument, you simply are wrong. This is evil; this is hateful, hurtful, repugnant, disgusting, and unconscionable. Try me with your argument; give me your best shot.

You can’t do it. There is nothing you can say that will get you out of this.

Again, dear shrew, it is not you this is aimed at. We are warriors for the cause; I am speaking with you here, not to you. If you have any friends or family who might benefit from this lecture, please share. I doubt if it will do much good, but we must keep trying.

Here is what I am talking about.

I will certainly not cover the dozens of examples of using a child’s innocence as a weapon to coerce them to put pressure on their parents and caregivers to be vaccinated. I will only site a few situations I have come across to make my point. If you want further details, or wish to see these examples in the broader context of their situations, of course Google search them or otherwise find the information. The details don’t really change anything, nor does the specific context. These tactics are evil at their core, regardless.

Let me start with the effort to push kids into vaccination through superhero coercion, “be a superhero” is the basic theme of this style of coercion. Bus banner ads, ads in schools, on social media, everywhere you might find a kid. “You aren’t good enough as you are, here is your chance to be better, be a superhero!” So kids, who have it hard enough in today’s cultural climate desperately trying to establish their own personal identity, have to be bludgeoned (by the authority figure “bully”) to go “this path—our path” to be “ok.” Granted, I have not seen any slogans that blatantly say “you aren’t good enough as you are” but clearly any effort in showing kids they can be “better” by identifying with a bigger than life fantasy “superhero” doesn’t need to spell it out.

Let’s just jump over the legal ramifications of all of this. Believe it or not there are laws forbidding such blatantly unethical coercion targeting young people incapable of even understanding a lick of informed consent. No one seems to think any of that ethical and legal stuff to be relevant. That’s right. Laws and ethics don’t matter much when you are about to be gobbled up by some unseen virus monster. “Quick! Get some kids on the altar so we can slash their hearts out as a sacrifice to the Boogeyman Dark Virus Monster, he is going to kill us all!!” If you want to read a bit more about this check it out here.

And how about Elmo? Elmo is the Sesame Street children’s icon, which is supposed to be an eternal 3 1/2 year old. He recently succumbed, supposedly voluntarily, to the jab. If Elmo can do it, we all can do it, yea Elmo! —The most selfless red puppet in the world… oops, I mean Muppet™. Get it?

A quote from the paediatrician that Elmo visits in the PSA:

“I learned that Elmo getting vaccinated is the best way to keep himself, our friends, neighbours and everyone else healthy and enjoying the things they love.”

Oh, please. Sorry, as we all know, that is unadulterated BS, not to mention unscientific, and also untrue. What else? Propaganda? Sure, throw that in for good measure.

Probably the most egregious example of this child coercion was the “Make a Wish” foundation’s effort to force kids into compliance by announcing their effort to ease the pain of terminally ill children was only available to those who are vaccinated.

Granted, due to pressure, they have rescinded this “rule” but come on, really? Terminally ill children need to vaccinate? Sure they do, “to save others” not so unfortunate as to be facing death… well, maybe not.

“Make-A-Wish Foundation is requiring Wish kids, their siblings (and other family members), and “any minors participating in the Wish” to be fully vaccinated before having their wishes granted.”

Nice.

You folks that don’t agree with what I am saying here have your argument put together yet? Like, vaccination is good for the little ones because it prevents Covid, which is raging? Where did you get that one? Your own eyes? Your own experience? I don’t think so.

There is nothing like that going on out there (maybe later when vaccinated people, due to destroyed immune systems, are dropping like flies and unvaccinated people are burying their vaccinated loved ones or visiting them in hospitals).

You heard it because the same people telling you all this other garbage wants you to hear it. And believe it.

Are you going to say we need herd immunity? Or that vaccinating babies is “just the right thing to do to help the community,” really? Since when has sacrificing children been the right thing to do for the community? Oh right, they used to do that to keep the bogeyman away back in cave-man days.

Well, I guess that makes sense then. The mainstream media certainly has told us about a whole bunch of invisible boogeymen. Sure, just like in the old days, we can correlate certain bad things with Covid… people HAVE died and gotten sick… but has that really been because of this new Covid Boogeyman? Could be, but really as bad as they have said? Think.

Going back to the point of this article, to condone these techniques to get kids to take this thing is unconscionable. I don’t care if people are dying on the street from this virus (they aren’t) a civil, and moral, human being does not use shame, fear, and “wanting to belong” as a tactic to get children to comply—to anything medical without clear informed consent. Ever.

Although in my opinion it is immoral and unethical to lie, manipulate and coerce parents to vaccinate their children, it is a special kind of evil to target little children as the focus of your efforts for compliance using their innocence as a tool. This is what pedophiles do, and it is wrong in every way imaginable.

I will conclude with this ubiquitous statement: There is no reason to give this vaccine to anyone, and certainly no reason to give it to children.

I could go on with all the scientific reasons, but everyone has their own brand of science so what I say will not matter. And to be honest, the REAL reasons not to vaccinate your children are not based on science, they are based on those other things that seem to be in shorter and shorter supply these days—compassion, soul, love, and simply being human.

It is just wrong to sacrifice children for any reason. Even if the world was indeed going down in flames due to some out of control virus (it isn’t) parents shouldn’t risk their children and offer them to the boogeyman as some sort of compensation.

Maybe people don’t believe they are “sacrificing” them, but they are certainly putting them at risk. It is clear the vaccines do not work as they say they do, and it is clear they are not 100% safe (if parents don’t know this they have been living under a rock and shouldn’t even have children in the first place).

Children do not need this and they do not need to take the risk. Regardless of what Elmo says.

Todd Hayen is a registered psychotherapist practicing in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He holds a PhD in depth psychotherapy and an MA in Consciousness Studies. He specializes in Jungian, archetypal, psychology. Todd also writes for his own substack, which you can read here

July 16, 2022 Posted by aletho | Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | COVID-19 Vaccine | Leave a comment

More Deaths, Injuries Revealed in Latest Pfizer Vaccine Trial Document Dump

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 14, 2022

This month’s release of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine documents by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reveals three more reports of deaths among vaccine trial participants and further instances of Pfizer downplaying serious adverse events sustained by participants and listing the injuries as “not related” to the vaccine.

Of the approximately 80,000 pages released this month, the most revelatory is a 3,611-page “confidential” document with no title — only the file name “fa_interim_narrative_sensitive.”

The document contains information about vaccine trial participants who died, who sustained adverse events during the trial or who contracted COVID-19 during the trial.

All participants listed in the document received the 30 μg dose of the BNT162b2 candidate vaccine, which the FDA in August 2021 granted Emergency Use Authorization.

The FDA on July 1 released the documents as part of a court-ordered disclosure schedule stemming from an expedited Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed in August 2021.

Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, a group of doctors and public health professionals, initially submitted the FOIA request.

Document details deaths of three trial participants

The “interim narrative” document contains reports of three clinical trial participants who died — and in all cases, the investigator ruled out the possibility the deaths were related to Pfizer’s vaccines.

One instance pertains to a 56-year-old white female in the U.S. (unique Subject ID C4591001 1007 10071101), who suffered cardiac arrest on Oct. 18, 2021, and died three days later. She was vaccinated on July 30, 2020, and Aug. 20, 2020.

The “narrative comments” accompanying the report on the woman’s death stated her death could not have been related to the vaccine, due to the amount of time that had elapsed following her second dose:

“In the opinion of the investigator, there was no reasonable possibility that the cardiac arrest was related to the study intervention or clinical trial procedures, as the death occurred 2 months after receiving Dose 2.”

The woman’s medical history did not indicate any cardiovascular problems, although ongoing obesity, gastroesophageal reflux disease and sleep apnea syndrome were listed.

The second report of a death was that of a 60-year-old white male in the U.S. (unique Subject ID C4591001 1162 11621327), who received one dose of the vaccine (on Sept. 10, 2020) and died sometime in the following three days of atherosclerotic disease.

According to the document:

“The study site received a police report indicating that the police visited the subject’s home to perform a welfare check on 13 Sep 2020 (Day 4) and found him dead.”

The participant’s medical history indicated ongoing autoimmune thyroiditis, obesity and depression, and a prior craniocerebral injury and prior hip arthroplasty.

According to the report:

“It was reported that the subject’s body was cold and had visible lividity. According to the medical examiner, the probable cause of death was progression of atherosclerotic disease. Relevant tests were unknown. Autopsy results were not available at the time of this report.

“In the opinion of the investigator, there was no reasonable possibility that the arteriosclerosis was related to the study intervention, concomitant medications, or clinical trial procedures, but rather it was related to suspected [emphasis added] underlying disease. Pfizer concurred with the investigator’s causality assessment.”

In other words, the participant’s death was attributed to a “suspected” cause, while the possibility that it was vaccine-related in any way, was dismissed.

The third death listed in the “fa_interim_narrative_sensitive” documents was listed under the section in the document listing reports from trial participants who withdrew, not those who died.

The report pertained to a 72-year-old Hispanic/Latino male in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1152 11521497) who received one dose of the vaccine, on Oct. 7, 2020.

The subject sustained vasovagal syncope (a fainting incident) on Oct. 26, 2020, and was admitted to the hospital, causing him to miss his scheduled follow-up vaccination appointment on Oct. 28, 2020.

According to the document:

“The subject was transferred to the intensive care unit. Family medical history relevant to the syncope was unknown.

“On an unspecified date, the syncope resolved and the subject was discharged from the hospital.”

He was withdrawn from the study on Nov. 6, 2020. However, according to the subject’s sister, he died of “unknown” causes on Nov. 11, 2020.

As stated by the document (dated Nov. 22, 2020):

“The cause of death was reported as unknown. It was not reported if an autopsy was performed. A death certificate might be available at a later date.”

Nevertheless, this lack of information did not prevent the study investigator or Pfizer from dismissing the possibility that the participant’s death was vaccine-related. The document states:

“In the opinion of the investigator, there was no reasonable possibility that the syncope was related to the study intervention, concomitant medications, or clinical trial procedures.

“Pfizer concurred with the investigator’s causality assessment. Per Pfizer, the syncope was most likely coincidental and associated with underlying clinical conditions.”

The document contained no reports of deaths among trial participants who received the placebo.

Investigators attribute 4 serious adverse events to vaccine, Pfizer disagrees

According to the latest document release, investigators attributed the vaccine to serious adverse events in four cases, however, Pfizer disagreed with the investigators’ conclusions in three out of the four cases.

The incidents are:

• A 53-year-old white female in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1018 10181159), who developed “lower back pain and bilateral lower extremity pain with radicular paresthesia” on Oct. 20, 2020, which was ongoing as of the date of the document (Nov. 22, 2020).

She was vaccinated on Aug. 14 and Sept. 4, 2020.

The woman’s medical history did not indicate lower back or lower extremity pain, just ongoing migraines and a prior history including a right shoulder dislocation, fibrocystic breast disease and Vitamin D deficiency.

The study investigator and Pfizer disagreed on whether the serious adverse event she experienced was related to the vaccination. As stated in the document:

“In the opinion of the investigator, there was a reasonable possibility that the lower back pain and bilateral lower extremity pain with radicular paresthesia were related to the study intervention, but not related to concomitant medications or clinical trial procedures.

“Pfizer did not concur with the investigator’s causality assessment and considered that there is not enough evidence to establish a causal relationship with the study vaccine apart from a chronological association at this time of the report.

“Based on the information currently available, it was more likely that the lower back pain and bilateral lower extremity pain with radicular paresthesia was associated with the subject’s underlying known neurological condition.”

• A 71-year-old white female in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1142 11421247) sustained ventricular arrhythmias on Oct. 14, 2020 — the same day she received the second dose of the vaccine — and which continued until Oct. 21, 2020.

The woman received her first dose on Sept. 21, 2020. Her medical history indicated she was wearing a cardiac pacemaker and was experiencing ongoing atrioventricular block (complete), atrial fibrillation and supraventricular tachycardia.

Again, the study investigator and Pfizer could not agree as to whether this adverse event was related to the vaccination. The document states:

“In the opinion of the investigator, there was a reasonable possibility that the ventricular arrhythmia was related to the study intervention based on the temporal relationship since the arrhythmias began within 24 hours of Dose 2, but not related to concomitant medications or clinical trial procedures.

“Pfizer did not concur with the investigator’s causality assessment. Additionally, Pfizer commented that there was not enough evidence to establish a causal relationship with the study intervention apart from a chronological association at this time of the report.

“In absence of evidence for an inflammatory response to study intervention, it was more likely that the ventricular arrhythmia was associated with the subject’s underlying known cardiac conditions.”

Pfizer dismissed the possibility that the vaccine may have exacerbated the subject’s existing cardiac conditions.

• A 48-year-old white female in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1178 11781107), who received one dose of the vaccine on Sept. 4, 2020, and withdrew from the study on Sept. 25, 2020.

In the interim, the participant sustained right axilla lymphadenopathy, with “at least four enlarged lymph nodes” — a condition that was still ongoing as of the document date of Nov. 22, 2020.

Her medical history indicated ongoing positional vertigo, osteoarthritis, eczema, sinus headaches, seasonal allergies and a Pitocin allergy, as well as prior menorrhagia, uterine fibroids and a past hysterectomy. In addition, her body mass index (BMI) was listed as being 36.9.

Pfizer also in this case did not agree with the study investigator’s assessment:

“In the opinion of the investigator, there was a reasonable possibility that the lymphadenopathy was related to the study intervention. Pfizer did not concur with the investigator’s causality assessment.”

• A 30-year-old Asian female in the U.S. sustained a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA).

The documents did not list any severe adverse events occurring in anyone outside the U.S., even though the documents contain reports from trials in Argentina, Brazil and South Africa.

‘Unrelated’ adverse event reports habitually dismiss possibility injuries were vaccine-related

The documents reveal a large discrepancy between the number of adverse events deemed to be related to the vaccination (four) compared to those reported to be “not related” (113 non-placebo participants).

The reports associated with each incident reveal an ongoing tendency to dismiss any possibility injuries were vaccine-related — even in instances where no alternative cause was identified or where patients had no relevant prior medical history.

In still other instances, the cause of the adverse event was attributed to itself, while in several other cases, pre-existing conditions worsened following vaccination.

A significant number of accidents and falls — and subsequent injuries — also were reported.

Instances where severe adverse events were brushed over as being “not related” to the vaccination, despite no relevant medical history, include:

• A 75-year-old white male in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1013 10131176), who was vaccinated on Aug. 13 and Oct. 7, 2020, sustained 13 adverse events between Aug. 29 and Sept. 16, 2020, many of which were ongoing as of the document date of Nov. 22, 2020.

These adverse events included congestive heart failure, acute hypoxic respiratory failure, acute renal failure, aspiration pneumonia, anemia, hypokalemia, hyponatremia, leukopenia, sepsis, small bowel obstruction and mild concentric left ventricular hypertrophy.

The participant had ongoing gastroesophageal reflux disease, hiatus hernia, hypercholesterolemia, hypertension and constipation, in addition to prior small intestinal and knee surgery.

The report attributed the patient’s adverse events to his prior surgical history. The document stated:

“In the opinion of the investigator, there was no reasonable possibility that the abdominal adhesions, small intestinal obstruction, pneumonia aspiration, and acute respiratory failure were related to the study intervention, concomitant medications, or clinical trial procedures, but were rather likely related to subject’s previous surgery.

“Pfizer concurred with the investigator’s causality assessment.”

• A 73-year-old white female in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1079 10791246) sustained a “cerebrovascular accident” (stroke), as well as expressive aphasia, on Oct. 22, 2020. She was vaccinated on Sept. 4 and Sept. 25, 2020.

Her medical history listed osteoarthritis, seasonal allergies and being postmenopausal. Nevertheless, her stroke and aphasia were deemed to be “not related” to the vaccine, although no cause was listed. Instead, the document stated, “pending medical records” with regard to the cause of her adverse events.

• A 66-year-old white female in the U.S. (unique subject ID: C4591001 1021 10211190) suffered a stroke on Nov. 2, 2020, with ongoing symptoms as of the document date on Nov. 22, 2020. She was vaccinated on Sept. 10 and Oct. 1, 2020.

Her medical history indicated ongoing gastroesophageal reflux disease, seasonal allergies and postmenopause, as well as a BMI of 28.5.

Her stroke was dismissed as being “not related” to the vaccine, although no alternative cause was listed.

• A 68-year-old white male in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1092 10921015) sustained arrhythmia atrial fibrillation and elevated troponin on Aug. 26, 2020. He received his first dose on Aug. 19, 2020, and his second dose on Oct. 6, 2020, as it required “clearance from his cardiologist.”

His medical history did not specifically indicate heart conditions. Instead, it indicated ongoing basal cell carcinoma on his nose, as well as hypersensitivity, seasonal allergies, myopia, dyslipidemia, hypertension, actinic keratosis and gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Although the study investigator wrote, in reference to the cause of his injuries, that “medical records [are] being reviewed not able to answer at this time,” the report dismissed possibility that his adverse events were related to the vaccine.

• A 45-year-old Black male in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1156 11561006) with ongoing Type 1 diabetes sustained deep vein thrombosis and a pulmonary embolism on Aug. 31, 2020. He received one dose of the vaccine, on Aug. 20, 2020, and was discontinued from the study on Sept. 8, 2020, “because he no longer met the eligibility criteria.”

Both adverse events were deemed as being “not related” to his vaccination, and were instead indicated as being “related to medical history of Type 1 diabetes mellitus.”

• A 67-year-old white male in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1178 11781015) sustained several adverse events on Oct. 10-11, 2020, including ascending aorta ectasia, diastolic dysfunction of the left ventricle and transient global amnesia. These conditions were ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020. He was vaccinated on Aug. 25 and Sept. 15, 2020.

The patient’s medical record indicated ongoing depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, hypertension, insomnia and neck pain.

While the cause of his adverse events was deemed as being “not related” to the vaccination, the study did state a cause, listing it as “possibly” having been hypertension.

• A 58-year-old Hispanic/Latino female from Argentina (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1231 12313674) sustained adverse events including panlobular emphysema, pneumonitis, and left submaxillary sialadenitis beginning on Sept. 29, 2020. The first two conditions were indicated as continuing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020.

She was vaccinated on Aug. 24 and Sept. 13, 2020. Her medical record indicated ongoing Sjogren’s syndrome and insomnia.

The cause of these adverse events was deemed as being “not related” to the vaccines, although for the first two adverse events, the stated cause was listed as “unknown,” while for the third, the cause was listed as Sjogren’s syndrome.

• A 56-year-old Hispanic/Latino female from Argentina (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1231 12314001) was diagnosed with acute coronary syndrome on Nov. 8, 2020, which was still ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020. She was vaccinated on Aug. 25 and Sept. 15, 2020.

Her medical history consisted of ongoing hypothyroidism, allergic rhinitis and asthma — but no coronary troubles.

Nevertheless, according to the study investigator, her condition was determined to be “not related” to the vaccination, although the cause was listed as “unknown.”

‘Cause unknown’ but no chance the vaccine was to blame

In other examples, adverse events were assigned no specific cause or only a “probable” cause, but investigators dismissed the possibility the vaccines may have caused the injuries.

For example:

• A 34-year-old Hispanic/Latino male from Brazil (unique subject ID: C4591001 1226 12261745) developed a Leydig cell tumor in his left testicle on Sept. 23, 2020. He received the first dose of the vaccine on Sept. 16, 2020, and second dose on Oct. 7, 2020.

His medical history listed only ongoing allergic rhinitis.

While the study investigator claimed that the adverse event was “not related” to the vaccination, the cause was listed as “unknown.”

• A 19-year-old Hispanic/Latino female from Brazil (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1231 12311281) with no indicated medical history was diagnosed with acute appendicitis and QT interval prolongation — a heart condition — on Sept. 18, 2020. She was vaccinated on Aug. 15 and Sept. 4, 2020.

These conditions were deemed to be “not related” to the vaccination, although the causes were indicated as “unknown.”

• A 41-year-old Hispanic/Latino female from Argentina (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1231 12311315) was diagnosed with anemia and malignant melanoma on Sept. 25, 2020, with symptoms continuing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020.

She was vaccinated on Aug. 15 and Sept. 3, 2020.

The adverse events were indicated as being “not related” to the vaccination, but instead due to a “probable relationship with [a] vaginal tumor under study.”

• A 44-year-old Hispanic/Latino male from Argentina (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1231 12312854) was diagnosed with supraventricular arrhythmia on Sept. 17, 2020. He received the two vaccine doses on Aug. 21 and Sept. 11, 2020.

His medical history listed only ongoing sleep apnea syndrome and a BMI of 50.4.

According to the study investigator, the arrhythmia was “not related” to the vaccines, but instead “probably” corresponded “to an accessory intraventricular line.”

• A 56-year-old mixed-race male from Brazil (unique subject ID: C4591001 1241 12411825) was diagnosed with acute pyelonephritis on Nov. 2, 2020, and hypochromic anemia two days later. Both conditions were still listed as ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020.

The participant was vaccinated on Sept. 17 and Oct. 8, 2020. His medical history listed ongoing hypertension.

According to the study investigator, these adverse events were “not related” to the vaccination. Instead, his acute pyelonephritis was due to a “possible” bacterial urinary tract infection, while the hypochromic anemia cause was “to be clarified.”

Worsening of pre-existing conditions ‘not related’ to vaccine

In other instances, participants experienced a worsening of pre-existing conditions. However, in all instances, no relation to the COVID-19 vaccine was determined.

For instance:

• A 72-year-old white male in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1092 10921187) sustained congestive heart failure on Oct. 1, 2020. He received his first dose of the vaccine on Sept. 15, 2020, and his second dose on Oct. 6, 2020.

The participant’s medical history included ongoing coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, type 2 diabetes, asthma, obesity, dyslipidemia, hypertension, insomnia and seasonal allergies. Moreover, he had previously had a defibrillator installed.

The cause of his adverse event was simply indicated as “progression of cardiovascular disease” unrelated to the vaccine. The possibility that the vaccine may potentially have precipitated the worsening of his heart condition was not considered.

• A 73-year-old white female in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1111 11111095) was reported as having sustained an “undiagnosed mental disorder” on Sept. 25, 2020, which was still ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020. She was vaccinated on Aug.11 and Sept. 1, 2020.

The participant’s medical history did not indicate any prior mental disorders or conditions. Nevertheless, the cause of the adverse event was indicated by the study indicator as being “not related” to the vaccination and instead simply due to “mental instability.”

• A 58-year-old white male from the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1109 11091387), who sustained worsening osteoarthritis of the right knee on Oct. 14, 2020, and later also experienced deep vein thrombosis on Oct. 20, 2020, which was still ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020.

The participant’s medical history indicated ongoing osteoarthritis, ongoing hypercholesterolemia, hypothyroidism, sleep apnea syndrome, rosacea and an enlarged prostate. A prior knee surgery was also listed.

Both adverse events were deemed to be “not related” to the vaccination and instead attributed to the patient’s prior knee surgery and “previous medical history.”

• A 70-year-old white female from the U.S. (unique subject ID: C4591001 1127 11271023) experienced a worsening of her asthma on Oct.1, 2020. She later also developed malignant invasive ductal carcinoma in her left breast, on Nov. 5, 2020. Both cases were still ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020.

She received her two doses of the vaccine on July 30 and Aug. 18, 2020. Her medical history, aside from ongoing asthma, also indicated a recurrent urinary tract infection and ongoing bronchitis, seasonal allergies, myopia, migraines, hypothyroidism, hypertension, insomnia, hyperlipidemia, osteoarthritis, bilateral deafness and postmenopause.

According to the document, both adverse events were “not related” to the vaccination, and instead were attributed to an “allergy” and to a “malignancy,” respectively.

Reports of multiple adverse events ignored

Other examples include cases where patients sustained multiple adverse events, many of which were entirely ignored by the study investigators’ assessments.

These include:

• A 61-year-old white male from the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1114 1114108), who sustained 10 vaccine injuries beginning on Sept. 12, 2020, after he received the first dose of the vaccine on Aug. 24, 2020, and his second dose on Sept. 30, 2020.

The adverse events he experienced included acute kidney injury, atrial fibrillation, chest pain, left ventricular hypertrophy, mitral valve regurgitation, bilateral hand pain, pulmonary hypertension, skin avulsion on his left finger, a Staphylococcal infection and tricuspid regurgitation. Several of these conditions were still ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020.

The patient’s medical history indicated ongoing peripheral neuropathy, type 2 diabetes, anxiety, depression, asthma, Staphylococcal infection, hypertension, hyperlipidemia and a prior leg amputation.

According to the study investigator, “the staphylococcal infection” was “not related” to the vaccine, but instead was connected to the patient’s hypertension, musculoskeletal causes and an “infection.” No mention was made in this assessment as to the probable causes of the other adverse events.

Some adverse events ‘caused’ by … the adverse event

In still other cases, the “cause” of participants’ adverse events was indicated as being the same as the adverse event itself.

Examples include:

• A 68-year-old white male from the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1095 10951204), who was diagnosed with bladder cancer on Nov. 2, 2020. He was vaccinated on Sept. 2 and Sept. 21, 2020.

According to the document, the participant’s ongoing medical history included hypertension, benign prostatic hyperplasia, hypercholesterolemia, angina pectoris, coronary arterial stent insertion, coronary artery disease, erectile dysfunction and osteoarthritis.

However, the cause of his bladder cancer was attributed as “cancer” and deemed to be “not related” to the vaccination and “most likely coincidental and associated with the underlying clinical conditions.”

• A 48-year-old white male from the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1124 11241106) sustained an acute myocardial infarction on Sept. 27, 2020. He previously received two doses of the vaccine, on Aug. 26 and Sept. 16, 2020.

His medical history indicated ongoing high cholesterol, gastroesophageal reflux disease and back pain.

According to the study investigator, the adverse event sustained by the participant was “not related” to the vaccination, but instead “related to cardiovascular risk,” with no further elaboration provided.

• A 73-year-old white female in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1223 12231159) was found to have a pancreatic mass on Nov. 5, 2020. She was vaccinated on Sept. 10 and Oct. 1, 2020.

Her medical records indicated ongoing osteoarthritis, menopause, gastroesophageal reflux disease, hypertension, dyslipidemia, hypothyroidism, Eustachian tube dysfunction, prophylaxis, irritable bowel syndrome, osteoporosis and benign monoclonal hypergammaglobulinemia.

The cause of her adverse event, which was indicated to be “not related” to the vaccination, was listed as “new development of pancreatic mass” without any elaboration as to the factors that may have caused it to appear.

‘Cause unknown’ but no chance the vaccine was to blame

In other examples, adverse events were assigned no specific cause or only a “probable” cause, even as the possibility that they were related to the vaccination was dismissed.

For example:

• A 34-year-old Hispanic/Latino male from Brazil (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1226 12261745) developed a Leydig cell tumor in his left testicle on Sept. 23, 2020. He received the first dose of the vaccine on Sept. 16, 2020, and second dose on Oct. 7, 2020.

His medical history listed only ongoing allergic rhinitis.

While the study investigator claimed that the adverse event was “not related” to the vaccination, the cause was listed as “unknown.”

These conditions were deemed to be “not related” to the vaccination, although the causes were indicated as “unknown.”

She was vaccinated on Aug. 15 and Sept. 3, 2020.

The adverse events were indicated as being “not related” to the vaccination, but instead due to a “probable relationship with [a] vaginal tumor under study.”

His medical history listed only ongoing sleep apnea syndrome and a BMI of 50.4.

According to the study investigator, the arrhythmia was “not related” to the vaccines, but instead “probably” corresponded “to an accessory intraventricular line.”

• A 56-year-old mixed-race male from Brazil (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1241 12411825) was diagnosed with acute pyelonephritis on Nov. 2, 2020, and hypochromic anemia two days later. Both conditions were still listed as ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020.

The participant was vaccinated on Sept. 17 and Oct. 8, 2020. His medical history listed ongoing hypertension.

Other explanations for participants’ vaccine injuries include:

• A 78-year-old white male from the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1097 10971011), who suffered from pneumonia between Sept. 20 and Oct. 5, 2020. He had previously received two doses of the vaccine, on Aug. 20 and Sept. 9, 2020.

According to the document, the cause of his pneumonia was “not related” to the vaccines. Instead, the listed cause was “pt [patient] contracted pneumonia from somewhere.”

• An 84-year-old white male from the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1097 10971084) contracted pneumonia on Oct. 7, 2020, symptoms of which were still ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020. He had previously been vaccinated on Sept. 1 and Sept. 23, 2020.

Similar to the patient above, the cause of the participant’s pneumonia was indicated as being “not related” to the vaccination. The narrative comment instead stated that “Pt [patient] contracted pneumonia from unknown source.”

Very few severe adverse events — and no deaths — were reported in other countries, although Argentina, for instance, was home to the largest of the Pfizer vaccine trials in 2020.

The next 80,000-page cache of FDA documents pertaining to the FDA’s authorization of the vaccine is set to be released on Aug. 1.

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., is an independent journalist and researcher based in Athens, Greece.

© 2022 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

July 16, 2022 Posted by aletho | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | COVID-19 Vaccine, FDA | Leave a comment

CBC whistleblower quit over COVID propaganda

By Mike Campbell | The Counter Signal | July 12, 2022

On the Trish Wood podcast, former CBC reporter Marianne Klowak said the network lost its journalistic integrity in June 2021, when COVID vaccines became widely available and mandates were on the horizon.

“I tried to push through a number of stories that were censored and cancelled. We were no longer committed to truth and honesty,” Klowak told Wood.

Klowak described how she wanted to show both sides of the vaccine debate and let viewers decide for themselves. Moreover, at the time, she was finding concerning data coming out of Israel — a country where vaccines were available months before most others like Canada — and thought it was newsworthy. CBC disagreed.

“This was at the time when Israel was reporting links between the Pfizer vaccine and heart inflammation,” Klowak continued. “And, we were talking about this in the newsroom, about this link, and what could it mean… and how the trials were on for this vaccine until 2023, and I called a meeting with the managing editor and the exec, and I said we have to be really careful on this bandwagon we’re getting on promoting this vaccine because we don’t know what the outcome is going to be in a few years down the road.”

“What if this becomes another Thalidomide?” she asked, referencing the 1950’s drug that was given to pregnant women for nausea before being recalled after birth defects were discovered to be a prevalent side effect.

But her concerns fell on deaf ears.

According to Klowak, all nuance and skepticism were thrown out the door. The CBC was on team vaccine, and that was that.

“At breakneck speed, we were cancelling one whole side of the debate. And it just happened so quickly,” she explains. “You know, I was looking around the newsroom, thinking, ‘am I the only one who’s thinking this way? Am I the only one who’s seeing this?’”

She continues, saying that she had always enjoyed her time at the CBC and thought they gave “a voice to both sides of an issue” and would let the listener “decide what the truth was in that.” But now, she said, the CBC had decided to become “intentionally misleading.”

“All of a sudden, we were eliminating one entire side, and we were saying ‘Here’s the truth,’ and to me that was misleading — and it wasn’t honest.”

Klowak said that this was the turning point for the CBC. They were repressing information the public needed to “make a decision based on informed consent,” and things “started to spiral” into outright censorship at the network.

“It was quickly becoming not safe for people to tell their stories and to have their voices heard because they would be dismissed; they’d be cancelled; they’d be belittled,” Klowak explained.

“There was this huge disconnect between I saw what we were publishing and the stories I was hearing.“

Presenting only one side

Klowak gives an example of a story that didn’t get published because CBC wanted to spin it as pro-vaccine.

She says a group of parents contacted her with vaccine concerns. For example, they thought it was unethical to encourage children to get the vaccine behind their parents’ backs. Moreover, they had vaccine liability questions.

The group referenced expert virologist Byram Bridle from the University of Guelph to show that their concerns were based on science, not mere speculation.

Shocked by the division the vaccine was causing upon families and communities, Klowak pitched the story and was given the go-ahead by her editors.

She proceeded to seek out both sides of the scientific debate regarding COVID vaccines.

In the course of her research, Klowak came across the Candian COVID Care Alliance — a group of medical experts who presented an alternative vaccine perspective supported by scientific insights and data. The group had a petition calling to suspend vaccines in youth until long-term safety trials were completed.

Thinking this was a hard-hitting story that would “punch a hole in the narrative,” her copy-editor instructed her to show a draft to the Toronto Health Unit for feedback.

While none of the data in her draft was questioned by the authorities at the Toronto Health Unit, they attacked the reputation of the COVID Care Alliance.

Klowak was subsequently asked by CBC higher-ups to take the COVID Care Alliance out of the story and to include the two voices from Toronto Health Unit who supported vaccinating young people instead.

“So at that point, I went back to management. I said you know what, ‘I can’t do this. What you’re asking me to do is journalistically unethical. It’s manipulating information. This doesn’t sit well with me,’” Klowak said.

“It was dishonest. It was a dishonest thing for me to do. It was immoral for me as well. Because not only were we cancelling credible voices, we were violating our own principles of balance and fairness.“

“I couldn’t do what they were asking me to do by censoring an entire group of credible professionals just because they had a different viewpoint on this.”

“I’m thinking, this is not right. And it was moving the story towards the narrative, and not allowing dissenting voices to be heard.”

Smearing the unvaccinated

Klowak further noted that the CBC moved from merely disregarding one side to outright smearing them with labels such as “anti-vaxxer.”

In 2021, she notes, the federal government conducted a survey to find the proportion of vaccine-hesitant Canadians, finding that 50% of the Canadian population was hesitant at the time because the vaccine was experimental and unproven.

But instead of focusing on that group of 50%, CBC framed vaccine-hesitant as borderline religious nuts who denied COVID as even being real.

“… I step in and say, what are we doing? Is that the stereotype we are creating that this is the person who is vaccine-hesitant? Why aren’t we doing one on the 50% who are concerned about [the] long-term and short-term side effects… Why aren’t we doing data dives? Why aren’t we holding Pfizer to account?” Klowak recalled.

“We were feeding fear, and anger, and division, and I thought, I just can’t be part of this anymore.“

Here is a brief sample of some of the propaganda articles that the CBC released in the latter half of 2021:

Klowak and Trish Wood further commented on CBC’s dishonest coverage of the Freedom Convoy.

“The way that group was painted and portrayed was just, you know, I was just left speechless thinking, really? Really? Do you really think these people are criminals and white supremacists? Really? It was just so disturbing to watch,” Klowak told Wood.

Klowak also says she saw videos of the Freedom Convoy that showed the protestors in an entirely better light than what the CBC was reporting.

It didn’t matter, though. The CBC had their agenda, and nothing would get in the way of it.

Ignoring the vaccine injured

More disturbing, however, Klowak says that while at the CBC, stories about vaccine injuries were rejected.

“This was the most profound form of gaslighting. You had a [person with a] vaccine injury, and yet we were hesitant to believe what they were saying was true — that they could have possibly had this experience,” Klowak said.

She then recounted interviewing a woman in her 30s who’d suffered pericarditis within two days of getting vaccinated and is still struggling with daily activities due to her condition.

She pitched the story, but, again, CBC editors wanted to spin the story towards vaccines being a good idea for women her age.

And, again, Klowak refused to run it, eventually quitting.

Klowak isn’t alone in blowing the whistle on the CBC

Klowak isn’t the only CBC whistleblower to come out this past year. In January, Tara Henley also quit and explained in her substack why she left.

“Those of us on the inside know just how swiftly — and how dramatically — the politics of the public broadcaster have shifted,” Henley said. “To work at the CBC in the current climate is to embrace cognitive dissonance and to abandon journalistic integrity.”

“It is to allow sweeping societal changes like lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and school closures to roll out — with little debate. To see billionaires amass extraordinary wealth and bureaucrats amass enormous power — with little scrutiny.”

Indeed, while CBC hosts feign ignorance on the network’s vaccine censorship, editors print corrections nearly every week, and reporters use mannequins in place of patients to make COVID look worse, it’s no surprise to see politicians these days leading “Defund the CBC” chants at their rallies.

The abysmal lack of journalistic integrity described by Klowak and Henley would tank most news organizations, but because the CBC is federally-funded and might as well have a license to mislead, it can’t fail as a company.

July 12, 2022 Posted by aletho | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | Canada, CBC, COVID-19 Vaccine | Leave a comment

Top climate scientists slam global warming “so-called evidence” as “misrepresentation, exaggeration & outright lying”

By Chris Morrison | The Daily Sceptic | July 11, 2022

Two top-level American atmospheric scientists have dismissed the peer review system of current climate science literature as “a joke”. According to Emeritus Professors William Happer and Richard Lindzen, “it is pal review, not peer review”. The two men have had long distinguished careers in physics and atmospheric science. “Climate science is awash with manipulated data, which provides no reliable scientific evidence,” they state.

No reliable scientific evidence can be provided either by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), they say, which is “government-controlled and only issues government dictated findings”. The two academics draw attention to an IPCC rule that states all summaries for policymakers are approved by governments. In their opinion, these summaries are “merely government opinions”. They refer to the recent comments on climate models by the atmospheric science professor John Christy from the University of Alabama, who says that, in his view, recent climate model predictions “fail miserably to predict reality”, making them “inappropriate” to use in predicting future climate changes.

The ’miserable failure’ is graphically displayed below. Since the observations cut-off, global temperatures have again paused.

Particular scorn is poured on global surface temperature datasets. Happer and Lindzen draw attention to a 2017 paper by Dr. James Wallace and others that elaborated on how over the last several decades, “NASA and NOAA have been fabricating temperature data to argue that rising CO₂levels have led to the hottest year on record”. The false and manipulated data are said to be an “egregious violation of scientific method”. The Wallace authors also looked at the Met Office HadCRUT database and found all three surface datasets made large historical adjustments and removed cyclical temperature patterns. This was “totally inconsistent” with other temperature data, including satellites and meteorological balloons, they said. Readers will recall that the Daily Sceptic has reported extensively on these issues of late and has attracted a number of somewhat footling ‘fact checks’.

Happer and Lindzen summarise: “Misrepresentation, exaggeration, cherry picking or outright lying pretty much covers all the so-called evidence marshalled in support of the theory of imminent catastrophic global warming caused by fossil fuels and CO₂.”

Professors Happer and Lindzen’s comments are included in a submission to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which is seeking to impose massive and onerous ‘climate change’ reporting requirements on public companies. But they form part of a wider scientific revolt by many scientists alarmed at the corruption of science to promote the command-and-control Net Zero agenda. Needless to say, these debates are largely ignored by mainstream media. Opponents of Net Zero politicised science are denounced as ‘cranks’ and ‘deniers’, labels at odds with their distinguished scientific achievements. Between them, Happer from Princeton and Lindzen from MIT have around 100 years of involvement in atmospheric science. Richard Lindzen was an early lead author for the IPCC, while William Happer was responsible for a groundbreaking invention that corrected the degrading effects of atmospheric turbulence on imaging resolution.

In their submission, Happer and Lindzen supply a basic lesson in science: “Reliable scientific theories come from validating theoretical predictions with observations, not consensus, peer review, government opinions or manipulated data”.

In the U.K., it will be interesting to see if Net Zero will feature as a major issue in the battle to find a new Prime Minister. At the moment, candidates seem to be steering a widish berth – something that can happen with virtuous green policies when actual votes are at stake. Happer and Lindzen state firmly that “science demonstrates there is no climate-related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO₂, and therefore no reliable scientific evidence supporting the proposed rule”. The rule in this case refers to the SEC climate requirement, but it could equally apply to Net Zero. Many people now accept that a rigid Net Zero policy will lead to massive falls in living standards that will disproportionately affect the poorer in society, both in the U.K. and particularly in the developing world. Contrary to the incessant attack on fossil fuels, write Happer and Lindzen, “affordable, abundant fossil fuels have given ordinary people the sort of freedom, prosperity and health that were reserved for kings in ages past”.

Such prosperity, of course, has left the building in the case of Sri Lanka, where the prospect of famine and civil breakdown face 22 million people following (among other things) the decision of the Government to ban fertiliser in the interests of climate change and saving the planet. Such a collapse, with the President hastily fleeing the country, is likely to face any modern Net Zero society that seeks to tamper with reliable and affordable energy supply, restrict diet and try to grow enough food using ‘organic’ methods. Happer and Lindzen state that reducing CO₂and the use of fossil fuels would have “disastrous consequences” for the poor, people worldwide and future generations.

Both Happer and Lindzen have long held out against the current demonisation of atmospheric CO₂, pointing out that the current 415 parts per million (ppm) is near a record low and not dangerously high. They note that 600 million years of CO₂ and temperature data “contradict the theory that high levels of CO₂ will cause catastrophic global warming”. Omitting unfavourable data is an egregious violation of scientific method. Facts omitted by those who argue there is a climate emergency include that CO₂levels were over 1,000 ppm for hundreds of millions of years and have been as high as over 7,000 ppm; CO₂has been declining for 180 million years from about 2,800 ppm to today’s low; and today’s low is not far above the minimum level when plants die of CO₂ starvation, leading to all other life forms perishing for lack of food.

Finally, the authors note that the logarithmic influence of CO₂means its contribution to global warming is “heavily saturated”. The scientists calculate that a doubling of current CO₂levels would only reduce the heat escaping to space by about 1.1%. This suggests warming of around 1°C or less. The saturation hypothesis explains, they say, the disconnect between CO₂and temperature observed over 600 million years.

July 11, 2022 Posted by aletho | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | IPCC, NASA, NOAA | Leave a comment

WHO Wants To Run the World?

By Paul Frijters, Gigi Foster, Michael Baker | Brownstone Institute | July 11, 2022

In Geneva in late May at the 75^th meeting of the WHO’s decision-making body, the World Health Assembly (WHA), amendments to its International Health Regulations (IHRs) were debated and voted upon. If passed, they would grant the WHO the right to exert unconscionable pressure on countries to accept the WHO’s authority and health policy actions if the WHO decides that there is a public health threat that might spread beyond a country’s borders.

As Ramesh Thakur, the second man at the UN for years, noted, the amendments would mean “the rise of an international bureaucracy whose defining purpose, existence, powers and budgets will depend on outbreaks of pandemics, the more the better.”

This is the first clear instance of a globalist coup attempt. It would subvert national sovereignty worldwide by putting real power into the hands of an international group of bureaucrats. It has long been suspected that the authoritarian elites arisen during covid times would try to strengthen their positions by undermining nation states, and the this 75^th jamboree is the first solid evidence of this being true.

What an opportunity then to see who is in the conspiring club. Who drafted the amendments? What was in them? Which individuals supported them or spoke out against them?

WHO were the conspirators?

The amendments on the table at the May WHA meeting had been transmitted to the WHO by the US Department of Health and Human Services on January 18, circulated by WHO to its member states (‘States Parties’) on January 20 and formally introduced to the WHA on April 12.

The proposals, according to an announcement on January 26, were co-sponsored by 19 countries plus the European Union. Even if some co-sponsors had little direct involvement in drafting them, they all would have approved in principle the overarching goal of tightening up the WHO’s authority over member states in the face of a public health event.

Loyce Pace, the HHS’s Assistant Secretary for Global Affairs – the leading US official nominally responsible for the proposed amendments – arrived at the Biden administration fresh from a stint as executive director of an advocacy organization called the Global Health Council.

That council receives funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and its members include Eli Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Abbott Labs, and Johnson & Johnson. You get the idea. Via one of the foxes-turned-chicken-guard, it appears the HHS ‘worked closely’ on these amendments with large pharmaceutical companies, who will be chomping at the bit for a more proactive (read: profitable) response to any public health emergency, real or imagined.

So the conspiring club consists primarily of the US government and its Western allies in lockstep with Big Pharma, and they are looking to undermine both the sovereignty of their own governments and that of other countries, presumably with the idea that the Western elites would do the running.

What was in them? A blizzard of acronyms and euphemisms

To understand what the US proposed at the WHA, we need first to understand how things have worked in the WHO to this point.

The IHRs in their current form have been in force as international law since June 2007. Among other things, they impose requirements on countries to detect, report and respond to ‘public health events of international concern,’ or PHEICs. The WHO Director-General consults with the state where a possible public health event has occurred, and within 48 hours they are meant to come to a mutual agreement on whether or not it actually is a PHEIC, whether or not it needs to be announced to the world as such, and what counter-measures, if any, should be taken. It’s essentially an early-warning system on major health crises. This is a good thing if it’s run by people you can trust and if it has checks and balances to rein in expansionary tendencies.

The proposed amendments would greatly strengthen the power of the WHO relative to this baseline, in a number of ways.

First, they lower the threshold for the WHO to declare a public health emergency by empowering its Regional Directors to declare a ‘public health event of regional concern’ (PHERC, italics ours) and for the WHO to put out a new thing called an ‘intermediate public health alert.’

Second, they permit the WHO to consider allegations about a public health event from non-official sources, meaning sources other than the government of the state concerned, and allow that government only 24 hours to confirm the allegations and a further 24 hours to accept the WHO’s offer of ‘collaboration.’

Collaboration is essentially a euphemism for on-site assessment by teams of WHO investigators, and concomitant pressure at the whim of WHO personnel to enact potentially far-reaching measures such as lockdowns, movement restrictions, school closures, consumption of medicines, administration of vaccines and any or all of the other social, economic, and health paraphernalia that we have come to associate with the covid circus.

Should the state’s government acceptance of the WHO’s ‘offer’ not be forthcoming, the WHO is empowered to disclose the information it has to the other 194 WHO countries, while continuing to pressure the state to yield to the WHO’s invitation to ‘collaborate.’ A non-collaborating country would risk becoming a pariah.

Third, the proposal includes a new Chapter IV, which would establish a ‘Compliance Committee’ consisting of six government-appointed experts from each WHO region tasked with permanently nosing around to ensure the member states are complying with IHR regulations.

There are more crossings-out of the existing IHR language and new language added in, but the flavour of what the US-led alliance is shooting for is a WHO that can unilaterally decide whether there is a problem and what to do about it, and can isolate countries that disagree.

Compliant WHO member states could act as a supporting cast in the isolation effort, through the distribution of their own health budgets and their ‘health-related’ policies, which would include travel and trade restrictions. The WHO would become a kind of command-and-control center for globalist agendas, pushing the produce of (Western) Big Pharma.

Why and how would this work?

We learned during covid times why it would make sense that the US and its allies are insisting on these amendments.

Lowering the bar for declaring a global (or regional) public health threat triggers a huge opportunity for Western pharmaceutical companies. As legal experts have observed: “WHO emergency declarations can trigger the fast-track development and subsequent global distribution and administration of unlicensed investigational diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines.

This is done via the WHO’s Emergency Use Listing Procedure (EULP). The introduction of an ‘intermediate public health alert’ in particular will also further incentivise the pharmaceutical industry’s move to activate domestic fast-track emergency trial protocols as well as for advance purchase, production and stockpile agreements with governments before the existence of a concrete health threat to the world’s population has been detected, as is already the case under WHO’s EULP via the procedures developed for a ‘pre-public health emergency phase’.”

You can bet that the WHO ‘expert teams’ sent in to make on-the-ground assessments, under the banner of ‘collaboration’ with the host country experiencing the health event, will be chock-a-block with operatives from the CDC and who knows what other Western agencies, all poking around potentially sensitive facilities that a host government might justifiably claim a sovereign right to keep to itself. Likewise with the ‘Compliance Committee’ proposed by the US under the new Chapter IV of the IHRs: its government-appointed members have an open-ended brief, enshrined in international law, to be busybodies.

In layman’s terms, the WHO would be turned into an international thug, with its member states offered the role of backyard gang members.

As a bonus for Western elites, the proposals are a sneaky form of rewriting history. By cementing authority within an international organisation to determine the existence of public health crises and direct potentially draconian emergency responses, Western governments would get to enshrine and legitimise their own extreme responses to the covid outbreak, as we have pointed out previously. Their backsides would thereby be given some protection from legal challenges.

The refusniks: Developing countries

The proposals were pushed primarily by Western countries: the US was joined by Australia, the UK and the EU in arguing for passage. The resistance was led by developing countries who saw it as a colonialist ambush in which their ability to set policy and respond to health threats in a manner commensurate with their domestic situations would be overridden.

Brazil reportedly went so far as to threaten to withdraw from the WHO, and the African group of almost 50 countries, along with India, argued that the amendments were being rushed through without adequate consultation. Russia, China and Iran also objected.

Failure on the first try, but the US and its allies in the West will get more shots to push it through.

How do we expect them to do this? Well, when a proposal gets bogged down inside a giant bureaucratic machine like the WHO, the inevitable response is to set up committees to work in the background and circle back with a new set of proposals to be presented at a future meeting. True to form, a ‘working group’ and ‘expert committee’ are being assembled to accept member state proposals on IHR reform by the end of September this year. These will be ‘sifted through’ and reports will be prepared for review by the WHO’s executive board in January next year. The objective is to have a fresh set of proposals on the table when the WHA convenes for the 77^th time in 2024.

Not all was lost

Salvaging something from the fact that the WHA failed to get a consensus around its biggest agenda item, the US and its allies got a small victory on the point of when they can try again – though in their desperation they needed to violate the IHRs’ own rules to accomplish it. Article 55 of the IHRs states unambiguously that a four-month notice period is required for any amendments.

In this instance, revised amendments were presented on May 24, the same day that the first lot were rejected. These were discussed, further amended on May 27 and then adopted on the same day. The approved amendments halve the two-year period for any (further) approved amendments to the IHRs to take effect. (The IHRs that came into force in 2007 were agreed to in 2005 – but under the new resolution, anything agreed to in 2024 would come into effect in 2025 rather than 2026.)

Yet, what was achieved in terms of fast-tracking the force of new amendments was lost in slow-tracking their implementation. Nations would have up to 12 months – double the previous suggestion of six months – to implement any IHR amendments that newly enter into force of law.

State of play

Where is all this going?

If the WHO takes the reins on decisions about what constitutes a health crisis, and can pressure every country into a one-size-fits-all set of responses that it, the WHO, also determines, that’s bad enough. But what about if its invitation to ‘collaborate’ with countries is backed up with teeth, such as sanctions against those who demur? And what about if it then broadens the definition of ‘public health’ by, for example, declaring that climate change falls under that definition? Or racism? Or discrimination against LBTQIA+ people? The possibilities thereby opened up for running the world are endless.

A global ‘health’ empire would bring huge harms to humanity, but a lot of power and money is pushing for it. Don’t think it can’t happen.

Paul Frijters is a Professor of Wellbeing Economics at the London School of Economics: from 2016 through November 2019 at the Center for Economic Performance, thereafter at the Department of Social Policy

July 11, 2022 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | Abbott Labs, Africa, Australia, China, Eli Lilly, European Union, Gates Foundation, Iran, Johnson & Johnson, Latin America, Merck, Pfizer, Russia, UK, United States, WHO | Leave a comment

Vast majority of Swiss citizens don’t buy into vaccine PR

Free West Media | July 11, 2022

Corona is still dividing society to a considerable extent. This was shown by a recent survey from Switzerland. The Lucerne University of Applied Sciences wanted to find out how the Swiss rate communication regarding the “pandemic” – and to what extent they trust the authorities.

The results make one sit up and take notice: 17 percent of those surveyed were dissatisfied with the government, the media and the communication of the authorities during the “pandemic”.

They believe the campaign had been a targeted control of the population by “powerful people”. Another 24 percent were satisfied with the communication from the federal government and the media, but could imagine that “there was a larger secret plan behind the global events surrounding the pandemic”.

Notably, another 24 percent were not satisfied with the crisis communication of the authorities and the media. They did not rule out the possibility that the government had deliberately concealed information in some cases.

Only the remaining 35 percent apparently had no worries, were basically satisfied and did not believe that certain issues had been kept secret. Some 65 percent, on the other hand, were suspicious and considered that secret intentions on the part of those in government were at least conceivable.

This survey is a resounding slap in the face for the state and the media.

July 11, 2022 Posted by aletho | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | Covid-19 | Leave a comment

Lies, lies, lies

By John Ellwood | TCW Defending Freedom | July 10, 2022

WHILE the public has been distracted by beer, cake and sleaze, our politicians have been consistently lying about their ruinous policies.

Here are the first 20 lies (there are many more):

They lied about Covid

They lied about the ‘vaccine’

They lied about the side effects

They lied about Covid passes

They lied about lockdowns

They lied about the pandemic

They lied about the consequences

They lied about their contracts with Big Pharma

They lied about Russia

They lied about Ukraine

They lied about carbon dioxide

They lied about the ‘climate emergency’

They lied about ‘green’ energy

They lied about heat pumps

They lied about electric vehicles

They lied about Brexit

They lied about immigration

They lied about taxation

They lied about their attack on agriculture

They lied about the influence of the WEF/Gates/all the rest

When the contenders for Downing Street open their mouths, remember the quote ‘Why is this lying b*stard lying to me?’

July 10, 2022 Posted by aletho | Deception | UK | Leave a comment

Infertility: A Diabolical Agenda

https://www.bitchute.com/video/aJDAjtkBchfw

ChildrensHealthDefense

Dr. Joseph Mercola | July 9, 2022

“Infertility: A Diabolical Agenda,” is the fourth vaccine-related documentary by Dr. Andrew Wakefield. It tells the story of an intentional infertility vaccine program conducted on African women, without their knowledge or consent.

While it’s been brushed off as a loony conspiracy theory for years, there’s compelling evidence showing it did, in fact, happen, and there’s nothing to prevent it from happening again.

The Backstory

As explained in the film, the World Health Organization began working on an anti-fertility vaccine, led by Dr. G.P. Talwar in New Delhi, India, in the 1970s, “in response to perceived overpopulation.” For 20 years, the WHO’s Task Force on Vaccines for Fertility Regulation worked with population control in mind.

In 1993, the WHO finally announced a birth-control vaccine had successfully been created to help with “family planning.”¹ The paper trail reveals that by 1976, WHO researchers had successfully conjugated, meaning combined or attached, human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) onto tetanus toxoid, used in the tetanus vaccine. As a result, when given to a woman, she develops antibodies against both tetanus and hCG.

HCG is a hormone produced by cells surrounding the growing embryo. These hormone-producing cells protect and support embryonic growth and eventually form the placenta.

As explained in the film, hCG is the first signal that tells the woman’s body she’s pregnant. In response to this signal, her ovaries then produce a second hormone, progesterone, which maintains the pregnancy to term.

By combining hCG with tetanus toxoid, it causes this crucial pregnancy hormone to be attacked and destroyed by your immune system, as it’s now misperceived as an invading pathogen. Since hCG is destroyed, progesterone is never produced and, hence, the pregnancy cannot be maintained.

So, if you’re already pregnant when taking this witches’ brew, it will likely result in a spontaneous abortion, and if you’re not already pregnant, you won’t be able to get pregnant, as this crucial pregnancy hormone is under constant attack by your immune system. Repeated doses prolong these effects, effectively rendering you sterile.

The WHO Has Been in the Depopulation Business for Decades

As detailed in a Scientific Research paper published in 2017,² “WHO publications show a long-range purpose to reduce population growth in unstable ‘less developed countries.’”

In other words, the WHO’s longstanding policy has been to support depopulation in third world countries, and they’ve studied depopulation strategies in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, The Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia and Colombia for decades.³

While creating an anti-fertility vaccine for those who really don’t want children is one thing, using deception to lure girls and young women into taking it is another entirely. As it turns out, the WHO is not above using deception and trickery to shut down fertility in populations they deem unworthy of reproduction.

The Great Deception

The central figures of the film are two Kenyan gynecologists, Drs. Wahome Ngare, and the late Stephen K. Karanja. Both state in the film that infertility is now the biggest gynecological problem in Africa. In recent years, there’s been a significant increase in women losing their pregnancies and couples who cannot conceive.

“I have seen the tears. They lose their identity. You die inside,” Antoninah Mutinda says. She knows, because she’s one of the African women whose fertility has been mysteriously impacted. After her third miscarriage, she was tested and found to have extremely high anti-hCG antibodies. She now suspects the tetanus vaccine she was given may be the culprit.

The anti-fertility vaccine was rolled out in the mid-‘90s, but despite support from the Kenyan leadership and “elite groups,” it was not popular among Kenyan women, who were concerned about the potential for abuse. They worried it might be disguised as a regular tetanus vaccine program.

Their concerns were valid because, as it turns out, this had already happened. In 1995, the Catholic Women’s League of the Philippines won a court order halting a UNICEF tetanus program that was using tetanus vaccine laced with hCG. Three million women between the ages of 12 and 45 had by that time already been vaccinated. Anti-hCG-laced vaccines had also been found in at least four other countries.

Undeterred by bad press, that same year, 1995, the Kenyan government launched a WHO tetanus campaign under the guise of eradicating neonatal tetanus. There were telltale signs that something was wrong, however, because it was already standard practice to vaccinate pregnant women against tetanus. Now, the WHO insisted women who weren’t pregnant needed the shot as well, in case they were to become pregnant.

Karanja learned of the deceptive anti-fertility campaigns in other countries during a medical conference in 1995, and became immediately suspicious of the tetanus campaign in his own country. Karanja convinced leaders of the Catholic church — one of the largest health care providers in Kenya — to test the tetanus vaccine being given, to make sure there was no foul play.

Without explanation, the WHO suddenly abandoned the campaign. Alas, 19 years later, in 2013, they were back. All girls and women, 15 to 49 years of age, were instructed to get vaccinated with a series of five injections, six months apart. This, it turns out, is the exact schedule required for the anti-fertility vaccine to produce sterility. Regular tetanus prevention requires only one injection every five to 10 years, and under no circumstance would you need five of them.

Vaccines Test Positive for Anti-hCG

The Catholic Church decided to test the vaccines, and collected three sample vials directly from clinics during the 2014 campaign. The samples were then sent to three independent laboratories for testing. As feared, they found hCG in them. Another six vials were then collected, and tested by six independent labs. This time, half were found to contain hCG.

At this point, the Catholic Church went public, urging girls and women to not comply with the vaccination campaign. In an effort to settle the dispute, an investigative committee was formed, consisting of three representatives selected by the Catholic bishops, and three government officials.

It was agreed that the nine vials already collected would be retested, along with 52 samples from a distributor who sells tetanus vaccine to the Kenyan government. This time, a more precise type of test, high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), was chosen.

Dr. Nicholas Muraguri, director of medical services for the Kenyan government, contracted agriQ Quest to perform this testing. However, he urged them to test samples provided directly by him rather than the vials previously agreed upon. AgriQ Quest decided to analyze both batches.

The vials that tested positive for hCG using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), still tested positive using HPLC, but none of the samples provided by Muraguri tested positive.

A Decades’ Long Cover-Up

Shockingly, the government then demanded agriQ Quest “alter their report to indicate that they were safe to be administered.” When agriQ Quest refused, the government, the WHO and UNICEF responded by launching a public attack, accusing the Catholic Church of “peddling misinformation.”

And, since the only samples found to contain hCG were those provided by the Church, the government accused them of tampering with the vials in an effort to undermine confidence in the vaccine.

An added twist here is that the vials that tested positive had the same batch numbers as vials that tested negative. Only later did agriQ Quest discover that these negative vials had fake labels on them. They were not, in fact, from the same lots as those that tested positive. They weren’t even made by the same manufacturer.

AgriQ Quest also claims they can prove the positive samples were not tampered with, because they did not test positive for hCG in general. The test clearly shows the hCG was conjugated with tetanus toxoid, and this cannot occur by simply adding hCG to a vial of tetanus vaccine.

The conjugation — the chemical linking or bonding — of hCG to the tetanus toxoid can only occur during the manufacturing process. This is the smoking gun that proves the neonatal tetanus vaccine campaign was a cover for a population control campaign.

Muraguri also lied when he claimed the Kenyan government had only one supplier of tetanus vaccine. As it turns out, there were two. Biological E. Limited provided a regular tetanus vaccine, while the hCG-positive batches came from Serum Institute of India — the same country where most of the WHO’s anti-fertility research had been conducted.

Both Ngare and Karanja paid a steep price for their vigilance. The medical board called them for disciplinary action. Karanja was issued a gag order, and since 2014 was not allowed to speak publicly about vaccines in Kenya. He broke that gag order for this film. April 29, 2021, Karanja died, allegedly from COVID infection.

A Truly Diabolical Agenda

Speaking for millions of women just like her, Mutinda, who has now struggled with infertility for years, says:

“To imagine there’s a system somewhere, that some people somewhere are behind my inability to carry pregnancy to term, that is a diabolical agenda!”

Before his untimely death, Karanja shared a message with the world, through the makers of this film:

“When they are through with Africa, they’re coming for you.”

Sources and References

^1, ² Scientific Research October 2017; 4(10)
³ Loveworldsat.org August 2018

July 10, 2022 Posted by aletho | Deception, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Timeless or most popular, Video | Africa, Human rights, WHO | Leave a comment

Twitter Just Lost Its Last Chance To Remain Relevant

By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | July 9, 2022

After months of drama, it would appear the fate of social media giant Twitter has been decided, and the result is an inevitable path to the internet graveyard.

Many people will question the notion that Twitter could ever actually bite the dust, but they are probably unfamiliar with the company’s dismal performance as of late. The reality is, Elon Musk’s potential buyout was their last chance to stay afloat; now that Musk has exited the deal, they face a continued and steady decline into irrelevance like many other Big Tech companies before them.

While it’s possible that Musk’s decision is merely a play for a reduced sale price, it’s probably safe to assume there is not going to be a purchase anytime soon. This sets a chain of events in motion that bode very poor for Twitter given their track record the past couple of years, but first let’s consider the current situation.

While the initial argument from Twitter execs will be that Musk “waived” his rights to change the original deal and thus he is required to buy regardless, his waiver does not extend to his rights to review Twitter’s claims about their user base. The deal itself was predicated on Twitter giving honest assessments of the percentage of users that are actually bots (fake accounts). Twitter initially claimed that bots only made up around 5% of users; it would appear that Musk has discovered this to be false, and this is the position his lawyers have asserted through the SEC.

If it turns out that a large portion of Twitter is actually fake, then Musk surely has grounds to terminate the deal. A waiver against changing the deal does not negate the original requirements of the deal according to his legal council, and this makes perfect sense.

But why is Twitter so desperate to force Musk to buy when they were so resistant before, to the point that they were willing to use a “poison pill” maneuver to dilute his shares and prevent him from gaining a majority of holdings? Why are they so insistent when most of the company was up in arms only a month ago, frothing and raging over the chance that free speech might become policy on the platform? We have to look at the company’s financial health before Musk’s purchase announcement as well as what is likely to happen now that he has dumped it.

In truth, Musk could have saved the company from a slow but accelerating implosion. Twitter’s stock has been a relatively poor performer for a few years. In 2020 at the onset of the covid pandemic, it saw a massive jump along with most other Big Tech companies on the assumption that user rates would increase along with the covid lockdowns. This did not really happen.

In Fall of 2021 their stock value began to falter, with the price plunging by more that 50% just before Elon Musk announced his majority share interest.

In April, Twitter admitted that the company “might” have been overcounting its users. People with multiple accounts had those accounts linked together, but Twitter was still counting them as separate users. They indicated that up to 2 million users were created through secondary accounts (which means there are probably many millions more that they have not found or admitted to). On top of this and the bot issues, Twitter user base was in decline anyway.

In 2019, Twitter abandoned its original method of counting users and moved to a new metric which “discounted the loss of bot accounts.” This spurs the question that is now at the core of Musk abandoning the sale: How many users on Twitter are actually fake?

In February, despite the change in its metrics, Twitter announced its user numbers had still fallen short. On top of this, the company suffered a net income loss of $1.4 billion in 2020 and a loss of $221 million in 2021. After stock declines, the only thing left for Twitter was user growth, and they didn’t have it.

Musk’s possible purchase of the company lifted share prices at a time when the platform was nearing the edge of the Big Tech abyss – The moment when a website goes the way of Myspace. With their reputation in the gutter after consistent censorship of conservatives and alternative media sources, the alienation of their user base was becoming a real problem. The platform was now known as nothing more than a “blue checkmark” cult hangout for the extreme political left; in other words, not an inviting place for anyone without pronouns in their bio. Musk moving in revitalized public interest in the company, if only for a short time.

Despite their rabid distaste for free speech, Twitter needed Musk. In order to meet Musk’s demands for user data, they dumped their entire server in his lap, maybe to bury him in so much information that sifting through it would take too long to discover anything out of order. The mainstream media actually crowed about the tactic, applauding Twitter’s action as a way to stick it to Musk.

However, they did not seem to consider the implications of ALL of Twitter’s data now in the hands of outside interests. If there is fraud at Twitter against its shareholders, then it will eventually be known. Maybe this is all that Musk wanted in the first place.

What happens next in terms of the deal is unclear. No doubt court proceedings will go on for years, but Twitter likely doesn’t have that much time. Musk dropping out of the sale will result in an immediate drop in stock price and perhaps even a violent devaluation. The question among shareholders will be this: “What did Musk discover in his analysis of Twitter user accounts? Did he find an immense number of bots?”

People will err on the side of caution and sell their shares while they can.

It’s a lose/lose situation for Twitter, because as they push the issue in court there will be discovery. In discovery all the data will be laid bare, and if Twitter is actually a hollow company with huge fake user numbers then the public is going to hear about it. Their share prices will collapse even further, there will be an SEC investigation and many lawsuits. Even if large corporate interests like Blackrock or Vanguard stepped in to shore up stock prices, none of these companies have the social influence to encourage wider buying from individual investors. They would have to take increasing losses to save a company that cannot be saved.

The result could be the expedited death of the platform.

Whether or not you like Elon Musk is not important. What’s important is the exposure of one of the biggest social media conglomerates in the world to incredible scrutiny. Twitter’s web influence has been waning for some time, but they still hold a measure of power over the flow of information within our culture. Perhaps a reckoning is at hand, and maybe the public will get a peek behind the curtain of the Big Tech empire to see how things REALLY operate.

July 9, 2022 Posted by aletho | Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | Twitter | Leave a comment

Kiev blasts calls for oversight of US military aid to Ukraine

Samizdat | July 9, 2022

Kiev has reacted angrily to a call voiced by US Congresswoman Victoria Spartz (R-Ind) to “establish proper oversight” over weapons and aid deliveries to Ukraine. The idea amounts to an attempt to “undermine” existing mechanisms of delivering aid to Ukraine amid the ongoing conflict with Russia, Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Oleg Nikolenko said Saturday.

Spartz’s stance is particularly cynical given the Ukrainian origins of the congresswoman, Nikolenko noted in a Facebook post.

“The Congresswoman should stop undermining the existing mechanisms of US military assistance to Ukraine. The Ukrainian side is interacting with American partners with maximum openness, providing them full information about the use of technology,” the spokesman said, claiming that “further bureaucratization” of the process would only help Moscow.

Rep. Spartz sent a stern message to both the US President Joe Biden and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky earlier this week, telling them to take at least “three urgent action items” she believes would help “get the situation under control.” According to Spartz, Biden must “stop playing politics, have a clear strategy and align security assistance with our strategy.” Zelensky should “stop playing politics and theater,” and “start governing” instead “to better support his military and local governments.” The third point, related to establishing an oversight mechanism, has apparently irked Kiev the most.

“Congress has to establish proper oversight of critical infrastructure and delivery of weapons and aid,” Spartz stated.

Establishing an oversight mechanism into how money destined to help would be actually spent had been demanded by US politicians before. Back in May, for instance, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul delayed the passage of the behemoth $40 billion Ukraine bill, urging the creation of the oversight mechanism.

July 9, 2022 Posted by aletho | Corruption, Deception | Ukraine, United States | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »

Seyed Marandi: Trump lost the Iran war – Must sell it as victory

Aletho News Videos

or go to

Aletho News Archives – Video-Images

From the Archives

UK Researchers: Tax Food to Reduce Climate Change

I doubt these professors have anything to fear from a food tax

By Eric Worrall | Watts Up With That? | November 19, 2016

A group of researchers in Oxford University, England have suggested that imposing a massive tax on carbon intensive foods – specifically protein rich foods like meat and dairy – could help combat climate change. […]

This proposal, from a group of people who have probably never missed a meal in their lives, is totally obscene. High income countries often have a lot of poor people who would be hard hit by increases in the price of food.

Needlessly exacerbating the risk poor people don’t get enough to eat, especially children and pregnant mothers, who are especially vulnerable to adverse health impacts from lack of protein in their diet – if this ghastly proposal is ever implemented, future generations will look upon it as a crime against humanity. – Read full article

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Aletho News

Enter your email address to receive new posts by email.

Email Address:

Join 2,450 other subscribers
Visits Since December 2009
- 7,565,555 hits
Looking for something?

Search for:
Archives
Archives
Calendar

June 2026

M T W T F S S

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30

« May
Categories

Aletho News Civil Liberties Corruption Deception Economics Environmentalism Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism Fake News False Flag Terrorism Full Spectrum Dominance Illegal Occupation Mainstream Media, Warmongering Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity Militarism Progressive Hypocrite Russophobia Science and Pseudo-Science Solidarity and Activism Subjugation - Torture Supremacism, Social Darwinism Timeless or most popular Video War Crimes Wars for Israel
Tags
Afghanistan Africa AIPAC al-Qaeda Australia BBC Benjamin Netanyahu Brazil Canada CDC Central Intelligence Agency China CIA CNN Covid-19 COVID-19 Vaccine Donald Trump Egypt European Union Facebook FBI FDA France Gaza Germany Google Hamas Hebron Hezbollah Hillary Clinton Human rights Hungary India Iran Iraq ISIS Israel Israeli settlement Japan Jerusalem Joe Biden Korea Latin America Lebanon Libya Middle East National Security Agency NATO New York Times North Korea NSA Obama Pakistan Palestine Poland Qatar Russia Sanctions against Iran Saudi Arabia Syria The Guardian Turkey Twitter UAE UK Ukraine United Nations United States USA Venezuela Washington Post West Bank WHO Yemen Zionism

June 2026
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30

Aletho News
If Americans Knew
No Tricks Zone
Contact:

atheonews (at) gmail.com
Disclaimer

This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.

This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.

Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.

Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.

The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.

The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.

Fair Use

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

DMCA Contact

This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.

If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.

We will respond and take necessary action immediately.

If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.

All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Samizdat | July 9, 2022

Featured Video

From the Archives

I doubt these professors have anything to fear from a food tax

By Eric Worrall | Watts Up With That? | November 19, 2016

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Aletho News

Visits Since December 2009

Looking for something?

Archives

Calendar

Categories

Tags

Contact:

Disclaimer

Site info