By Meryl Nass, MD | December 12, 2021
I checked the Federal Register and there has been no notice that Comirnaty has been added to the National Childhood Vaccine injury Program (NVICP). I confirmed this by checking whether Comirnaty had been added to the childhood schedule, and according to the HRSA, which manages both compensation programs, it has not.
So, if you receive the licensed Comirnaty vaccine, correctly labeled as the brand-name product and not the vaccine being fobbed off as licensed product, and you are injured, you are free to sue the manufacturer for your injury. Could this be why Pfizer wrote, “Pfizer does not plan to produce any product with these new [Comirnaty National Drug Codes] and labels over the next few months while EUA authorized product is still available and being made available for U.S. distribution.”
If, however, you receive the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine under Emergency Use Authorization, or the Moderna or J and J vaccine, you can’t sue anyone. You have the right to beg HRSA for compensation of lost wages and unpaid medical bills, period. So far, HRSA and the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program it administers have not paid out one dime for the approximately one million injuries and 20,000 deaths reported to VAERS for any COVID vaccine.
In other words, the federal government (DHHS) has not admitted a single injury was caused by a COVID vaccine. CDC says it has not linked a single death to a COVID vaccine–not even when the patient walked into the vaccination center but got carried out to the morgue. FDA doesn’t know much about myocarditis, Bell’s Palsy, thrombosis, thrombocytopenia, pulmonary emboli, etc. There are no black box warnings on any of the COVID vaccines.
HRSA, FDA, CDC and NIH are all agencies within the federal Department of Health and Human Services. They have all gotten their stories straight. They know nothing and they are just following orders. Heil HHS!
They can’t find a doggone problem in the 20 or so databases they are spending many $millions of your money to “study.”
Want to know the biggest conspiracy in the US right now? It is the HHS.
FDA has access to a bunch of electronic databases it has termed the “BEST” Initiative, and it published a plan to use them to study heart attacks, pulmonary embolism, thrombocytopenia, etc. back in July. Where are the results, FDA? What are you waiting for? (According to CDC, “More than 459 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through November 29, 2021.”). It seems clear that we aren’t supposed to be informed of FDA’s findings until everyone possible has been vaccinated, at which point the results will be irrelevant.
In October 2020, FDA’s Steve Anderson told us there were even more databases that would be studied.
On August 23, 2021, FDA announced its databases were inadequate to assess myocarditis, so BioNTech would have to do it for them. Here is what FDA wrote about its inability to use VAERS and its many other databases:
NOT SUFFICIENT???
Unsaid, but implied, is that if FDA is incapable of studying thousands of reported cases of myocarditis, it probably cannot study the other serious adverse events that have been reported in conjunction with COVID vaccines.
VAERS has operated for 30 years, collecting reports of vaccine adverse events. It averaged under 100 cases of myocarditis reported yearly until this year. Through November, CDC reports it received 1949 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis, in those under 30. CDC didn’t say what the total number of reports for all ages was.
Somehow, these HHS don’t seem all that concerned that the admitted reporting rate of myocarditis is over 20 times the average during the past 30 years. Why?
CDC has been even more shady in its analyses of safety as FDA, if that is even possible. Below, Nancy Messonier, then head of Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases at CDC, presented this list of databases that CDC would be using in the evaluation of COVID vaccine safety, on December 10, 2020. Apart from the V-safe (which they stopped talking about last January), VSD (which somehow can’t find any problems, not even myocarditis) and VAERS, all these other databases have been MIA.
NIH, whose job has never been to issue treatment guidelines, but instead to do and fund research, suddenly took over the treatment guidelines for COVID early in 2020. It formed a committee of internal and eternal “experts” to make up the guidelines. How were they chosen? That is not clear, but what is clear is that 16 of these so-called experts had current or recent financial entanglements with Gilead, the maker of remdesivir. NIH and the US Army also owned pieces of remdesivir. A number of other had financial conflicts with Merck. While NIH is the biggest single funder of medical research in the world, I cannot recall seeing a single study it funded on the safety of COVID vaccines. But somehow vaccines are its number one recommendation.
But it is not even clear that the committee is functional. The NIH has been sued to learn whether a vote was even taken by the committee regarding its ivermectin guidelines, which fly in the face of the evidence on ivermectin. How was NIH somehow authorized to issue guidelines in the first place?
Here is what has obviously occurred. All these agencies were told they had to keep quiet on vaccine problems (and perhaps problems of other COVID treatments), and they had to fiddle with their data or their analytic methods, or both, to get the required results. And there was to be NO BAD NEWS, no matter what. And no good news regarding generic treatments.
As we have seen, the so-called scientists and physicians working as bureaucrats in these agencies all caved, sucked it up, did the dirty work, kept their jobs, and betrayed their oaths and the trust of the people of the USA and the world.
By Gregory Wrightstone | CO2 Coalition | December 12, 2021
President Joe Biden wasted no time in politicizing the recent tornado tragedy that claimed nearly 100 lives in Kentucky, Illinois, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Missouri. Speaking less than 24 hours after the devastation of communities and lives, Biden linked the storms to man-made climate change.
“All I know is that the intensity of the weather across the board has some impacts as a consequence of the warming of the planet and climate change,” Biden said. “The fact is that we all know everything is more intense when the climate is warming. Everything. And obviously it has some impact here.”
Is that really the case? Have violent tornadoes been increasing? The answer to that question is clear, but you won’t find the answer at the agency most responsible for monitoring such things. It appears that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is playing games with tornado data. In 2017, while researching tornado data, I archived the NOAA site’s page on tornadoes and data. At the time, NOAA specifically warned that pre-Doppler radar records of tornadoes (before 1995) are unreliable:
“One of the main difficulties with tornado records is that a tornado, or evidence of a tornado, must have been observed. Unlike rainfall or temperature, which may be measured by a fixed instrument, tornadoes are short-lived and very unpredictable. A tornado in a largely unoccupied region is not likely to be documented. Many significant tornadoes may not have made it into the historical record since Tornado Alley was very sparsely populated during the early 20th Century.”
Because of this, NOAA recommended (at the time) only using the strongest tornadoes as a measure of pre-Doppler numbers and provided this chart that documented an overall decrease in the number of strong and violent storms that were categorized as >EF 3 (I have added the carbon emissions to the chart).
Accessing the very same link for NOAA today takes one to their latest iteration, which showcases a chart of ALL tornadoes dating back to 1950 and shows a steady and significant rise in the number of tornadoes from 1950 to the late 1990s. Bear in mind, that just a few years ago, NOAA specifically warned against using exactly this data because it would under-count the numbers before 1995.
Updated data on tornadoes through 2020 is available at ustornadoes.com and showcases just why using pre-Doppler data is misleading. Figure 3 shows the pre-Doppler numbers of tornadoes reported. Importantly, this is not capturing increasing actual numbers of tornadoes that occurred, but rather increased reporting.
Figure 4, below, is a chart of all Doppler-era tornadoes showing no increase at all.
All of this begs the question: Why would a government agency promote flawed data? The answer is simple: It “confirms” their preconceived notion of increasing severe weather and provides support for alarming claims of ever-increasing death and destruction.
You can be sure that Joe Biden will not be the last to use these deaths and this tornado deception to spread fear and alarm to support their plans to spend trillions of dollars to solve a non-existent climate crisis. The Biden administration should “follow the science” and get to the business of helping the victims and stop spreading misinformation.
Gregory Wrightstone is a geologist, executive director of the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Va., and author of “Inconvenient Facts: The science that Al Gore doesn’t want you to know.”
THE EXPOSÉ | DECEMBER 11, 2021
Serious questions need to be answered as to why Boris Johnson’s Government have decided to restrict the freedoms of the unvaccinated population through the introduction of Vaccine Passports, when the latest official data shows that the vaccinated population have accounted for 3 in every 5 Covid-19 cases, 3 in every 5 Covid-19 hospitalisations, and 4 in every 5 Covid-19 deaths, in England since August 16th 2021.
During a national Covid-19 briefing that took place on Tuesday December 8th, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom announced that ‘Plan B’ would be implemented in England from Wednesday December 15th, which would entail ‘working from home’ (if you can) orders, and the introduction of Vaccine Passports.
The reason given for the commencement of ‘Plan B’ is that it has to be done to protect the public from the alleged new Omicron variant of the Covid-19 virus. A variant which as of December 11th, has failed to cause a single fatality in the UK, with just several hundred cases allegedly being confirmed.
A new law will come into effect from Wednesday December 15th, which will state that Vaccine Passports will become mandatory for entry to nightclubs and other large venues, including Premier League football matches and concerts. We’re told they will be required for indoor settings of 500 people or more, outdoor settings of 4,000 people or more, and any setting with 10,000 attendees or more.
There will be many in England who believe Vaccine Passports are the answer to their prayers. Two years of misinformation, and disinformation mixed with propaganda published by the mainstream media can do that to people. But unfortunately the official data published by the UK Government proves that they are far from it, and suggests Vaccine Passports have absolutely nothing to do with protecting public health, and instead everything to do with controlling the nation.
The UK Health Security Agency (PHE) is an executive agency of the Department of Health and Social Care and recently replaced Public Health England. The Chief Executive of the agency is Dr Jenny Harries OBE, who you may recognise from the television as she has served as Deputy Chief Medical Officer for England throughout the pandemic.
The UKHSA publish a weekly ‘Vaccine Surveillance’ report which contains data on Covid-19 cases, hospitalisations, and deaths by vaccination status over a period of four weeks, and unfortunately for the vaccinated population, the official data shows that they have accounted for the majority of Covid-19 cases, hospitalisations, and deaths for at least the past four months.
We have used the following official reports for our analysis –
Covid-19 Cases
Table 8 of the latest report shows the number of Covid-19 cases by vaccination status in England. The table may have been attributed a different number in previous reports published by the UKHSA, but the following chart shows cases by vaccination status over a period of 16 weeks from 16 Aug 21 to 05 Dec 21.
The chart shows that between August and early September, the vaccinated population accounted for the majority of Covid-19 cases. However, between the middle of September and early October this switched to the not-vaccinated population accounting for the majority of cases. This is most likely due to children returning to school in September and being “encouraged” to test on a regular basis.
But between October 11th and December 5th the roles reversed again, and it is the fully vaccinated population that have accounted for the majority of Covid-19 cases in England.
This data alone puts an end to the myth that it is selfish to not be vaccinated, because it’s quite clear the jabs do not prevent infection or transmission. Which begs the question as to why Boris Johnson has decided to implement Vaccine Passports in England?
The above chart shows the cumulative number of cases by vaccination status between 16 Aug 21 and 05 Dec 21, and illustrates quite clearly that the fully vaccinated have accounted for the majority of cases since August.
What we can see from the above is that the unvaccinated had accounted for the majority of cases up to October 10th, however since this date there has been a switch with the fully vaccinated taking the lead, hitting a cumulative total of 1.5 million confirmed cases by Dec 5th.
When including the 258,387 confirmed cases among the partly vaccinated during this period, the total cases among the vaccinated population rises to 1,757,444. Whilst the number of cases among the unvaccinated population during this period of 16 weeks has amounted to 1,403,100.
Covid-19 Hospitalisations
Table 9 of the latest report shows the number of Covid-19 hospitalisations by vaccination status in England. The table may have been attributed a different number in previous reports published by the UKHSA, but the following chart shows cases by vaccination status over a period of 16 weeks from 16 Aug 21 to 05 Dec 21.
You may have heard several times this week on national television from people such as Dr Hilary, Lorraine Kelly, and Martin Kemp that “90% of the people currently in hospital with Covid-19 have not been vaccinated”.
Well it looks like they have been lying to you because the official UK Government data the fully vaccinated population have accounted for the majority of Covid-19 hospitalisation every month since at least August.
The above chart shows the cumulative number of hospitalisations by vaccination status between 16 Aug 21 and 05Dec 21, and shows just how bad things have actually been for the vaccinated population compared to the unvaccinated.
Between Aug 16 and Dec 05, the unvaccinated population accounted for 11,767 Covid-19 hospitalisations. But the vaccinated population have accounted for nearly double the amount, recording 19,730 hospitalisations, with 18,406 of those being among the 2/3 dose vaccinated population. This means the vaccinated population have accounted for 63% of Covid-19 hospitalisations since August 2021.
Covid-19 Deaths
Table 10 (b) of the latest report shows the number of Covid-19 hospitalisations by vaccination status in England. The table may have been attributed a different number in previous reports published by the UKHSA, but the following chart shows cases by vaccination status over a period of 16 weeks from 16 Aug 21 to 05 Dec 21.
The above chart proves that the fully vaccinated population have accounted for the majority of Covid-19 deaths every single month since August 2021, with things really taking a turn for the worse in October.
The highest number of Covid-19 deaths in single four week period among the fully vaccinated population has been 3,284, whereas the highest number of Covid-19 deaths among the unvaccinated population in a four week period has been just 850. That’s a 286% difference.
The above chart shows the cumulative number of deaths by vaccination status between 16 Aug 21 and 05 Dec 21, and illustrates quite clearly that this is very much a pandemic of the fully vaccinated.
Between 16 Aug 21 and 05 Dec 21 there were 3,070 Covid-19 deaths among the unvaccinated population in England, compared to 12,058 deaths among the vaccinated population during the same time frame. That is a 293% difference.
Covid-19 Fatality Rates by Vaccination Status
The official data shows the the vaccinated population have accounted for 56% of Covid-19 cases, 63% of hospitalisations, and 80% of deaths over the past 16 weeks in England.
It’s quite clear that the jabs do not prevent infection or transmission, but they are alleged to reduce the risk of hospitalisation and death. However, if this were the case then should we not be seeing a graph that looks more like this?
So why aren’t we?
It could have something to do witht he fact that the data suggests the Covid-19 injections are actually increasing the risk of death due to Covid-19 rather than reducing it by the claimed 95%.
The following graph shows the case-fatality rate among the not-vaccinated population, and the case-fatality rate among the 2/3 dose vaccinated population over the past 16 weeks.
The case-fatality rate is calculated by dividing the number of known deaths by the number of known cases among the population. As we can see from the above the case-fatality rate among the not-vaccinated population is just 0.2%, which is what is in line with the average case-fatality rate in 2020 before a Covid-19 injection was introduced to the masses.
However, the case-fatality rate among the fully vaccinated population is much higher, equating to 0.8%. Therefore the fully vaccinated are 4 times / 300% more likely to die if exposed to the Covid-19 virus based on official UK Government figures.
The following graph shows the hospitalisation-fatality rate among the not-vaccinated population, and the hospitalisation-fatality rate among the 2/3 dose vaccinated population over the past 16 weeks.
The hospitalisation-fatality rate is calculated by dividing the number of known deaths by the number of known hospitalisations among the population. As we can see from the above the hospitalsiation-fatality rate among the not-vaccinated population is 26%.
But the hospitalisation-fatality rate among the fully vaccinated population is frighteningly higher equating to a shocking 63%. This means the fully vaccinated population are 2.4 / 142% more likely to die once hospitalised with Covid-19.
So now that you know that the double / triple jabbed population have accounted for 3 in every 5 cases, 3 in every 5 hospitalisations, and 4 in every 5 Deaths over the past 4 months in England, and that the UK Government has been laughing at you since at least Christmas 2020 through their alleged Christmas parties, are you going to allow them to take away your freedom yet again in response to an alleged variant that has so far caused zero fatalities, or are you going to stand up, carry on living, and say “no” this time around?
Because this will not end until we all say it does.
By Mike Hearn | The Daily Sceptic | December 11, 2021
Today the Telegraph reported that:
Experts from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) predict that a wave of infection caused by Omicron – if no additional restrictions are introduced – could lead to hospital admissions being around twice as high as the previous peak seen in January 2021.
Dr Rosanna Barnard, from LSHTM’s Centre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, who co-led the research, said the modellers’ most pessimistic scenario suggests that “we may have to endure more stringent restrictions to ensure the NHS is not overwhelmed”.
As we’ve come to expect from LSHTM and epidemiology in general, the model forming the basis for this ‘expert’ claim is unscientific and contains severe problems, making its predictions worthless. Equally expected, the press ignores these issues and indeed gives the impression that they haven’t actually read the underlying paper at all.
The ‘paper’ was uploaded an hour ago as of writing, but I put the word paper in quotes because not only is this document not peer reviewed in any way, it’s not even a single document. Instead, it’s a file that claims it will be continually updated, yet which has no version numbers. This might make it tricky to talk about, as by the time you read this it’s possible the document will have changed. Fortunately, they’re uploading files via GitHub, meaning we can follow any future revisions that are uploaded here.
Errors
The first shortcoming of the ‘paper’ becomes apparent on page 1:
Due to a lack of data, we assume Omicron has the same severity as Delta.
In reality, there is data and so far it indicates that Omicron is much milder than Delta:
Early data from the Steve Biko and Tshwane District Hospital Complex in South Africa’s capital Pretoria, which is at the centre of the outbreak, showed that on December 2nd only nine of the 42 patients on the Covid ward, all of whom were unvaccinated, were being treated for the virus and were in need of oxygen. The remainder of the patients had tested positive but were asymptomatic and being treated for other conditions.
The pattern of milder disease in Pretoria is corroborated by data for the whole of Gauteng province. Eight per cent of Covid-positive hospital patients are being treated in intensive care units, down from 23% throughout the Delta wave, and just 2% are on ventilators, down from 11%.
Financial Times, December 7th
The LSHTM document claims to be accurate as of today, but just ignores the data available so far and replaces it with an assumption; one that lets them argue for more restrictions.
What kind of restrictions? The LSHTM modellers are big fans of mask wearing:
All scenarios considered assume a 7.5% reduction in transmission following the introduction of limited mask-wearing measures by the U.K. Government on November 30th 2021, which we assume lasts until April 30th 2022. This is in keeping with our previous estimates for the impact of increased mask-wearing on transmission.
I was curious how they arrived at this number given the abundant evidence that mask mandates have no impact at all (example one, example two). But no such luck – a reference at the end of the above paragraph points to this document, which doesn’t contain the word “mask” anywhere and “7.5%” likewise cannot be found. I wondered if maybe this was a typo but the claim that the relevant reference supports mask wearing appears several times and the word “mask” isn’t mentioned in references before or after either.
There are many other assumptions of dubious validity in this paper. I don’t have time today to try and list all of them, although maybe someone else wants to have a go. A few that jumped out on a quick read through are:
Analysis
If you’re new to adversarial reviews of epidemiology papers some of the above points may seem nit-picky, or even made in bad faith. Take the problem of the citation error – does it really matter? Surely, it’s just some sort of obscure copy/paste error or typo? Unfortunately, we cannot simply overlook such failures. The phenomenon of apparently random or outright deceptive citations is one I’ve written about previously. This problem is astoundingly widespread in academia. Most people will assume that a numerical claim by researchers that has a citation must have at least some level of truth to it, but in fact, meta-scientific study has indicated the error rate in citations is as high as 25%. A full quarter of scientific claims pointing to ‘evidence’ turn out when checked to be citing something that doesn’t support their point! This error rate feels roughly in line with my own experiences and that’s why it’s always worth verifying citations for dubious claims.
The reality is that academic output, especially in anything that involves statistical modelling, frequently turns out to not merely be unreliable but leaves the reader with the impression that the authors must have started with a desired conclusion and then worked backwards to try and find sciencey-sounding points to support it. Inconvenient data is claimed not to exist, convenient data is cherry picked, and where no convenient data can be found it’s just conjured into existence. Claims are made and cited but the citations don’t contain supporting evidence, or turn out to be just more assumptions. Every possible outcome is modelled and all but the most alarming are discarded. The scientific method is inconsistently used, at best, and instead scientism rules the day; meanwhile, universities applaud and defend this behaviour to the bitter end. Academia is in serious trouble: huge numbers of researchers just have no standards whatsoever and there are no institutional incentives to care.
Some readers will undoubtably wonder why we’re still bothering to do this kind of analysis given that there’s nothing really new here. On the Daily Sceptic alone we’ve covered these sorts of errors here, here, here, here, here and here – and that’s not even a comprehensive list. So why bother? I think it’s worth continuing to do this kind of work for a couple of reasons:
By Will Jones – The Daily Sceptic – December 11, 2021
Contrary to the claims made by Dr Rachel Clarke and Professor Stephen Powis last month and used to blame the unvaccinated for the mounting troubles of the NHS, new data out this week shows that the majority of Covid ICU admissions in October and November were among the vaccinated, not the unvaccinated.
The latest report from ICNARC shows that of Covid ICU patients in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, 50.5% in October and 50.7% in November were double vaccinated. Add to that the 2.8% in October and 1.8% in November who were single-vaccinated and you get overall vaccinated proportions of 53.3% in October and 52.5% in November. That compares to 46.7% unvaccinated in October and 47.5% in November. Note that the unvaccinated here includes people who received a vaccine less than 14 days prior to the positive Covid test, so includes some (an unknown number) who are actually single vaccinated.
This is not what the public has been led to believe by some prominent medics and newspapers.
Two weeks ago, Professor Stephen Powis, the National Medical Director of NHS England, was quoted in the Sunday Times saying: “Data shows that the overwhelming majority of people admitted to intensive care with Covid are not fully vaccinated.” A source was not provided for this claim but the article implied that it meant right now, with an opening paragraph stating: “Hundreds of intensive care beds that could be used for life-saving surgery are instead occupied by unvaccinated Covid patients, one of NHS England’s top officials has said.”
The same day the Sunday Times also printed an article by Dr. Rachel Clarke with the subheading: “Some 75% of those suffocating in intensive care with the coronavirus are unvaccinated.” In it she states: “Of the Covid patients treated in intensive care in recent months, the majority – nearly 75% according to the latest data – have chosen not to be vaccinated.”
The Guardian published a piece in November headlined “ICU is full of the unvaccinated – my patience with them is wearing thin”, written by an anonymous medic who claimed that the ICU patient population “consists of a few vulnerable people with severe underlying health problems and a majority of fit, healthy, younger people unvaccinated by choice”.
Now that the data has been released it’s clear that the claim that ICUs are “full of” the unvaccinated is highly misleading. While the unvaccinated do currently appear to be over-represented (depending how many of them are misclassified), no one now can claim that ICUs are “full of” the unvaccinated or that the unvaccinated constitute the “overwhelming majority” of Covid ICU admissions. If you spot any newspapers still peddling this misinformation, particularly it if is being used to stigmatise and pressure the unvaccinated, you can complain to IPSO here.
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | November 18, 2021
In an historic interview for The HighWire, host Del Bigtree sits down with Vaccinologist, Geert Vanden Bossche, Ph.D., D.V.M., to hear Geert’s dire warning about mass Covid vaccination of children, and the catastrophe which may follow:
HealthImpactNews | December 3, 2021
Great video compilation proving that Fauci, Gates, the CDC have lied about the effectiveness of the COVID-19 shots, that are raking in $BILLIONS for Gates and Big Pharma:
RT | December 9, 2021
The US Food and Drug Administration is cooperating with a Freedom of Information Act request for clinical data associated with Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine, but may require 75 years to do so – even longer than a prior estimate.
The FDA has insisted it cannot commit to a faster release of the medical data associated with the approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccine, according to a legal brief filed on Tuesday in response to the FOIA request. The agency reiterated that after processing 12,000 pages in about a two-month period, it will only be able to process 500 pages per month going forward. With tens of thousands of additional files up for review, plaintiffs fear the process may drag on two decades longer than the previous 55-year estimate.
Lawyer Aaron Siri sued the FDA on behalf of a group of doctors calling themselves Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, who had previously complained the FDA wasn’t supplying the data they had requested in a timely fashion. Having pointed out last month that the FDA had looked through Pfizer’s documents in a mere 108 days in order to license the vaccine, Siri questioned why the agency now required a whopping 20,000 days to make the same documents public.
Approximately 451,000 pages regarding the clinical trials for a vaccine millions of Americans are being mandated to take will remain floating in legal limbo for up to 75 years if the agency has its way, Siri warned. He called it “dystopian” for the government to pay Pfizer billions of dollars, shield it from lawsuits and require citizens to be injected with its product, only to refuse access to the documents used to grant its licensure in the first place.
The FDA has justified the unusual timetable by pointing out its Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research – the body tasked with reviewing the records – only has 10 staffers, two of whom are “new.” The FDA also complained that stepping up the pace would divert “significant resources away from the processing of other FOIA requests that are also in litigation.”
Facebook has admitted in a court of law that such fact checks are not factual at all
By Anthony Watts | Watts Up With That? | December 9, 2021
People send me stuff.
As we have previously reported, journalist John Stossel is suing Facebook after Facebook’s ‘fact checkers’ labeled climate change information that Stossel posted as “false and misleading”. In the middle of all this is the nefarious website “Climate Feedback” which has a bunch of climate zealots that write up what they claim are “fact checks” for articles, videos, and news stories they disagree with.
Facebook just blew the “fact check” claim right out of the water in court.
In its response to Stossel’s defamation claim, Facebook responds on Page 2, Line 8 in the court document (download it below) that Facebook cannot be sued for defamation (which is making a false and harmful assertion) because its ‘fact checks’ are mere statements of opinion rather than factual assertions.
Opinions are not subject to defamation claims, while false assertions of fact can be subject to defamation. The quote in Facebook’s complaint is,
“The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion.”
So, in a court of law, in a legal filing, Facebook admits that its ‘fact checks’ are not really ‘fact’ checks at all, but merely ‘opinion assertions.’
This strikes me as public relations disaster, and possibly a looming legal disaster for Facebook, PolitiFact, Climate Feedback and other left-leaning entities that engage in biased “fact checking.”
Such “fact checks” are now shown to be simply an agenda to supress free speech and the open discussion of science by disguising liberal media activism as something supposedly factual, noble, neutral, trustworthy, and based on science.
It is none of those.
Here is the court filing:
BY MIKE WHITNEY • UNZ REVIEW • DECEMBER 8, 2021
“If someone wished to kill a significant portion of the world’s population over the next few years, the systems being put in place right now would enable it.” Dr. Mike Yeadon, former Pfizer Vice President
“And this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard is coming; and now is already in the world.” 1 John 4:2–3
Question – Does the Covid-19 vaccine damage the immune system?
Answer – It does. It impairs the body’s ability to fight infection, viruses and disease.
Question – If that’s true, then why haven’t more people died after getting vaccinated?
Answer – I’m not sure what you mean? The vaccine has killed more people than any vaccine in history. “So far, in the United States, the death toll is three times higher than the total of all vaccines in the last 35 years.” That’s simply astonishing. We’ve also seen a steady rise in all-cause mortality and excess deaths in the countries that launched mass vaccination campaigns earlier in the year. Sometimes the increase is as much as 20 percent over the five-year average. That is a massive spike in fatalities, and it’s largely attributable to the vaccine. So, what do you mean when you say, “Why haven’t more people died”? Did you expect to see people clutching their hearts and dropping dead after getting jabbed? That’s a very naive understanding of how the injection works. (See: “COVID Deaths Before and After Vaccination Programs”, You Tube; 2 minutes – or try Odysee)
Question – All I’m saying is that the percentage of people that have died is quite small compared to the tens of millions that have been vaccinated.
Answer – And all I’m saying is that if the vaccine is a lab-generated pathogen – and I think it is – then it certainly was not designed to kill people on the spot. It was engineered to produce a delayed reaction that gradually but relentlessly erodes the health of the vaccinee. In other words, the full impact of the blood clots, bleeding, autoimmune issues and other vaccine-generated injuries will only be fully felt at a later date via increasing incidents of heart attacks, strokes, vascular illness and even cancer. (Check out the “latest trend of cardiac attendances by Scottish Ambulance Service – this is *excess* above the 2018/19 norm. Huge spike in summer, 500 ambulance calls per week above normal, mainly age 15-64. Was settling, then spike up again since late October.” Scottish Unity – Edinburgh Group)
Answer – The chart above shows why cardiac issues have garnered alot of attention lately, but the damage to the immune system is even more concerning.
Question – Can you explain what you mean without getting too technical?
Answer – I can do better than that. I can give you a short clip from an article that covers the latest research. Check it out:
“A Swedish lab study (titled “SARS–CoV–2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair and Inhibits V(D)J Recombination In Vitro“, NIH) released in mid-October found that the spike protein… enters the nucleus of cells and significantly interferes with DNA damage-repair functions compromising a person’s adaptive immunity and perhaps encouraging the formation of cancer cells….
“Mechanistically, we found that the spike protein localizes in the nucleus and inhibits DNA damage repair,” they wrote. “Our findings reveal a potential molecular mechanism by which the spike protein might impede adaptive immunity and underscore the potential side effects of full-length spike-based vaccines.” (“Spike protein in COVID virus and shots weakens immune system, may be linked with cancer: Swedish study“, Lifesite News )
What the researchers found is that the spike protein blocks production of the enzymes that are needed to repair broken DNA which, in turn, prevents the “proliferation” of B and T cells that are needed to fight infection.
Question – Can you explain that in plain English?
Answer – Sure. It means the vaccine short-circuits your immune system which clears the way for infection, disease and an early death. Maybe, you think you can have a long and happy life with a dysfunctional immune system, but I think you’re wrong. The immune system is the shield that protects you from all-manner of potentially-lethal viruses, bacteria and infections. It is not just the first-line of defense, it’s the only line of defense. Absent the full protection of B and T cells to fight-off foreign intruders, the prospects for survival are miniscule at best.
In order to underscore that point, check out this video of British Funeral Director, John O’ Looney, who has provided regular updates on what he is seeing on the ground 10 months following the vaccination rollout. It’s a disturbing account of the catastrophe that is now unfolding before our eyes:
(30 second mark) “So what we’re seeing is an unnaturally large number of deaths due to heart attack, stroke, aneurism; and these are all the result of thrombosis … Embolisms in the lungs the legs, various places that are causing these deaths that are well documented by the local coroners and well-documented across the country. And no one seems to be concerned about the alarming rise of (blood clots) I’ve seen more in this year than in the last 14 years…
That’s one kind of death we’re seeing, the other kind is the people that are getting sick now as their immune systems finally give up. So, they’ve had the jabs maybe 6 or 8 months ago, and it’s been eating away at their immune system, and now they’re struggling to fight off things like the common cold. So, we’re in winter and there are colds and flus around and these people can’t fight them off. The government are very quick to label it “Omicron”… but they are sick with the common cold. Their immune systems are decimated. It’s much like a cancer patient, who goes through chemotherapy and it decimates their immune system. And they have to be very careful because the common cold or flu can kill them. And this is what we’re seeing now…
We’re nearly 12 months since the first jabs began, so their immune systems are falling apart; that is the reality and that’s what I’m seeing... and they can’t cope with a cold anymore. … When I went to the meeting in Westminster in September, the scientist predicted that this is what would happen and, lo-and-behold, that’s what happening. The people are getting sick and dying… It’s frightening.” (“Omicron is ‘vaccine injury’; it’s nothing more than that.” John Looney, Rumble)
Is he right? Is the uptick in fatalities NOT another wave of Covid but the knock-on effects of a cytotoxic injection that targets the immune system leaving millions of people defenseless against routine infections and disease?
It sounds feasible and it certainly fits with the depopulation agenda which requires a hybrid biologic that doesn’t kill its target outright but basically dismantles the critical defense systems that make human survival possible. By disguising a “killer protein” as a harmless antigen, our pandemic managers have been able to access the bloodstreams of millions of people allowing them to insert a ticking time-bomb that ravages crucial T and B-cell populations leaving victims vulnerable to whatever bug happens to be circulating in the population. As Looney notes, scientists warned of this very outcome when mass vaccination was first proposed. Naturally, opposing views were ignored and censored. Here’s more from a pre-print research paper on the medRxiv server. It helps to explain the vaccine’s impact on the immune system:
“Researchers in The Netherlands and Germany have warned that Pfizer-BioNTech’s … (COVID-19) vaccine induces complex reprogramming of innate immune responses that should be considered in the development and use of mRNA-based vaccines… Following vaccination, innate immune cells had a reduced response to toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4), TLR7 and TLR8 – all ligands that play an important role in the immune response to viral infection…
“Multiple studies have shown that long-term innate immune responses can be either increased (trained immunity) or down-regulated (innate immune tolerance) after certain vaccines or infections.”…
These results collectively demonstrate that the effects of the BNT162b2 vaccine go beyond the adaptive immune system… The BNT162b2 vaccine induces reprogramming of innate immune responses as well, and this needs to be taken into account.”…(“Research suggests Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine reprograms innate immune responses”, News-Medical net )
How many people would have gotten vaccinated if they’d known it would reprogram their immune system?
Probably, no one, which is why our public health officials never broach the topic. Anything that veers even slightly from the “vaccines are good for you” narrative is omitted from mainstream coverage and erased on social media. But aren’t people entitled to know what’s going on, what is being injected into their bodies, and what impact it will have on their lives and health? Isn’t that what is meant by “informed consent” or is that another casualty of the rush to inoculate all 7 people on planet earth? Here’s a clip from a short interview with pathologist, Dr. Ryan Cole:
“When we give these shots, we can see the types of white blood cells in the body… and you have a broad array of immune cells that work together to fight off viruses and keep cancers in check. We’re already seeing the signals in the laboratory of decreases in critically important T-cells you need… in your innate immune system. These are the Marines in your body; fighting off viruses fighting cancer…. But what we’re seeing in the laboratory after people get these shots, we’re seeing a very concerning locked-in, low profile of these important killer T-cells that you want in your body. (CD8 cells) And what they do, is keep all other viruses in check.
What am I seeing in the laboratory? I’m seeing an uptick of Herpes family viruses, I’m seeing Shingles, I’m seeing Mono, I’m seeing a huge uptick in human papilloma virus… We are literally weakening the immune systems of these individuals.
Most concerning of all, is there’s a pattern of these types of immune cells in the body that keep cancer in check. Since, January 1, (in the laboratory) I’ve seen a 20X increase of endometrial cancer over what I see on an annual basis.” (“Pathologist Ryan N Cole of the Mayo Clinic on What We Are Seeing In Lab Results”, Rumble; 2 minutes)
“Herpes, Shingles, Mono, and even cancer!” What the heck is going on? This can’t be true, can it?
Yes, it is true; immuno-suppression leads to all kinds of terrible health outcomes. Some readers might recall how Canadian vaccinologist Dr Byram Bridle made similar claims in an interview just a few weeks ago. Here’s what he said:
“What I’ve seen way too much of is people who had cancers that were in remission, or that were being well controlled; their cancers have gone completely out of control after getting this vaccine. And we know the vaccine causes a drop in T-cell numbers, and those T-cells are part of our immune system and they are part of the critical weapons our immune system has to fight off cancer cells; so there’s a potential mechanism there. All I can say, is I’ve had way too many people contact me with these reports for me to feel comfortable. I would say that is my newest major safety concern, and it’s also the one that’s going to be the most under-reported in the adverse data base, because if someone has had cancer before the vaccine, there’s no way public health officials will ever link it to the vaccine.” (“Dr Byram Bridle speaks”, Bitchute, :55 second-mark)
Once again, how many people would have decided to get vaccinated if they knew that it could trigger a flare-up of dormant viruses or cancers in remission? Who would take that risk?
But they don’t know they’re taking a risk, do they, because they haven’t been told the truth. And the reason they haven’t been told the truth is because they are a target in a war of extermination that is being waged on them. Sometimes it’s very hard for people to admit to what they know to be the truth, but the truth is plain to see. Our pandemic managers and their foot-soldiers in the media, public health and government want to do us harm, want to inject us with a mysterious substance that will wreak havoc on our immune systems and shorten our lives. This isn’t just a struggle for personal freedom or bodily autonomy, it’s a battle for survival. We are defending our right to live. Here’s more from Viral Immunologist Dr. Jessica Rose:
“There are studies coming out now, and there are ample signs in the adverse events data, that these products (Covid vaccines) are not only immuno-modulating the immune system and causing hyper inflammation; there are signs now that they are very negatively effecting CD8 T-cell populations. For those who don’t know, this is extremely bad news. It’s only on a few people so far, but the data does not look good so far. These T-cells are the so-called “killer cells”. Their job… is to kill virally infected cells that are showing foreign markers on their surface. So, if these populations are depleted, then that is very bad news, because we don’t have a population of cells in the acquired immune system to remove virally-infected cells.…
There are clear signs that are starting to emerge, that there is an “immunity deficiency syndrome” coming about as a result of these products (vaccines) As a result of hyper-stimulation…T-cells being (diminished), and the ever-presence of repeated injections of a cytotoxic protein… I would never, ever recommend that someone who is immuno-compromised to ever go near these things, because I can almost guarantee you, that your condition is going to get worse. Another thing we’re seeing in VAERS is cancers coming out of remission and alot of doctors are reporting this on the ground. And–by the way– this has never happened before, not on this scale; not even close… So, there’s something going on here that warrants further investigation, and it doesn’t look good.” (“Viral Immunologist Dr. Jessica Rose explains the concerning information emerging about the compromised immunity of the vaccinated“, Odysee)
Can you see the pattern yet? Can you see how they’re all saying the same thing? Why is that, do you think?
It’s because it’s the truth, the pure, unvarnished truth.
The point we’re trying to make cannot be overstated: The vaccine is a man-made, lab-generated bioweapon that disables the body’s critical defense system which increases one’s susceptibility to disease by many orders of magnitude. With each additional injection, one is less capable of mounting a sufficient response to routine infections, flus or viruses. That’s going to lead to a tsunami of sickness that will likely overwhelm our public health system and plunge the country deeper into crisis. Is that the plan? Is that what our globalist overlords have in store for us?
We’ll see. Now check out this last clip from video by vaccinologist, Geert Vanden Bossche:
“The first thing I would like to highlight is that Covid-19 is not a disease of healthy people. People who are in good health have a healthy innate immune system that can deal with a number of respiratory viruses without any problem. These people are not only protected against the disease but can even – in many cases – prevent infection. These are people who can contribute to sterilizing immunity and to herd immunity which is very, very important. So, listen: Never, ever allow anyone or anything to interfere or suppress your innate immune system. You can do a bad job yourself by leading an unhealthy life, that is going to suppress your innate immunity, but even worse, is vaccine-induced antibodies that do suppress your innate immunity. And these vaccinal antibodies cannot substitute for it because they lose their efficacy against the virus, and become less and less effective. In contrast to the innate antibodies, they cannot prevent infection, they cannot sterilize the virus. Therefore, they do not contribute to herd immunity…
If we suppress these innate antibodies in children, it could lead to autoimmune diseases. This is an absolute “No go” We cannot vaccinate our children with these vaccines. The suppression of innate immunity is already a problem among vaccinees, and they are, indeed, going to have a difficult time controlling a number of diseases, not just Covid-19, but other diseases too …and it will require a very dramatic change in the strategies to help the vaccinees–and my heart goes out to them–because they will need extensive treatment in many cases...
… Boosting them–which means giving them a third dose– is absolutely insane, because what it will do, is increase the immune pressure of the vaccinal antibodies, on their innate immunity. So boosting is absolute nonsense; it is dangerous and should not be done….
So, what does the science tell us? It tells us that it’s innate immunity that will protect us, not the vaccine.” (“Geert Vanden Bossche on Vaccines and the suppression of innate immunity”, Rumble)
So, we now know that– along with the blood clots, the bleeding, the heart attacks, the strokes, the vascular and neurological diseases – the vaccine is also designed to eviscerate the system that protects us from illness and death, the immune system. How steeped in denial one must be not to see the evil that is now among us.
Also see: Dr. Nathan Thompson– The Covid Vaccine induces Autoimmunity, Odysee
https://odysee.com/@EndYourSlavery:8/My-Jaw-DROPPED-when-I-Tested-Someone’s-Immune-System-After-the-2nd-Jab:d
And this: Vaccine Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (VAIDS): ‘We should anticipate seeing this immune erosion more widely’” Americas Frontline Doctors https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/news/post/vaccine-acquired-immune-deficiency-syndrome-vaids-we-should-anticipate-seeing-this-immune-erosion-more-widely/
el gato malo – bad cattitude – december 8, 2021
It’s becoming truly amazing how much of the medical science of the past we never seemed to notice before only to see it seemingly all come to light at once…
pro tip: nothing says “guilty conscience” quite like 30 different people simultaneously answering, over and over again, a question they were never asked…
“he who controls the past controls the future. he who controls the present controls the past.”
and thus history and whole bodies of science do become fiction.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Paul MacRae | May 1, 2012
… Groupthink was extensively studied by Yale psychologist Irving L. Janis and described in his 1982 book Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes.
Janis was curious about how teams of highly intelligent and motivated people—the “best and the brightest” as David Halberstam called them in his 1972 book of the same name—could have come up with political policy disasters like the Vietnam War, Watergate, Pearl Harbor and the Bay of Pigs. Similarly, in 2008 and 2009, we saw the best and brightest in the world’s financial sphere crash thanks to some incredibly stupid decisions, such as allowing sub-prime mortgages to people on the verge of bankruptcy.
In other words, Janis studied why and how groups of highly intelligent professional bureaucrats and, yes, even scientists, screw up, sometimes disastrously and almost always unnecessarily. The reason, Janis believed, was “groupthink.” He quotes Nietzsche’s observation that “madness is the exception in individuals but the rule in groups,” and notes that groupthink occurs when “subtle constraints … prevent a [group] member from fully exercising his critical powers and from openly expressing doubts when most others in the group appear to have reached a consensus.”[2]
Janis found that even if the group leader expresses an openness to new ideas, group members value consensus more than critical thinking; groups are thus led astray by excessive “concurrence-seeking behavior.”[3] Therefore, Janis wrote, groupthink is “a model of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.”[4]
The groupthink syndrome
The result is what Janis calls “the groupthink syndrome.” This consists of three main categories of symptoms:
1. Overestimate of the group’s power and morality, including “an unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality, inclining the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their actions.” [emphasis added]
2. Closed-mindedness, including a refusal to consider alternative explanations and stereotyped negative views of those who aren’t part of the group’s consensus. The group takes on a “win-lose fighting stance” toward alternative views.[5]
3. Pressure toward uniformity, including “a shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgments conforming to the majority view”; “direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group’s stereotypes”; and “the emergence of self-appointed mind-guards … who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions.”[6]
It’s obvious that alarmist climate science—as explicitly and extensively revealed in the Climatic Research Unit’s “Climategate” emails—shares all of these defects of groupthink, including a huge emphasis on maintaining consensus, a sense that because they are saving the world, alarmist climate scientists are beyond the normal moral constraints of scientific honesty (“overestimation of the group’s power and morality”), and vilification of those (“deniers”) who don’t share the consensus. … Read full article
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 