By Will Jones • The Daily Sceptic • October 27 2021
A public sector trade union in Cyprus has called for the suspension of rapid lateral flow tests after analysis found multiple times the permissible trace level of ethylene oxide.
The analysis by Cyprus-based Food Allergens Lab found 0.36 mg/kg of ethylene oxide in one swab, over seven times the limit of 0.05 mg/kg imposed by E.U. regulations.
According to the European Chemicals Agency, ethylene oxide is toxic, carcinogenic and mutagenic, including when inhaled. It is used to coat and sterilise PCR and rapid test nasal swabs.
A separate analysis by A-D Research Foundation in California found aluminum and silicon at concentrations as high as 7.25% and 14.06% respectively in some spots on PCR test swabs. The author, Peter Grandics, explains that aluminum and silicon can both be hazardous to health, and suggests this may explain the “rapid-onset nasal bleed and strong and lasting adverse reactions reported by the tested individuals”.
It follows concerns about why the bristles in LFT swabs so easily break away and remain in the body, as shown in this video.
As reported in the Daily Sceptic in August, Professor Anthony Brookes and Dr Kees Straatman from the University of Leicester put some material from a LFT swab under a powerful laser microscope and sent us the videos showing what they found. They explained:
To shed further light on the bristle structure of the swabs provided in LFD testing kits, we examined examples via confocal microscopy. The bristles were easy to separate from the swab itself, about 15 micrometres in diameter (the size of a large nucleus in a human cell), and clearly comprised an outer tube layer with an inner filling. The inner material does not seem to exude or flow or deviate from a cylindrical shape when the bristles are dissected, and so we would provisionally conclude this inner material is solid or semi-solid in nature.
In his paper, Peter Grandics is scathing about the standards of the manufacturers:
Our results revealed a disturbing pattern of noncompliance with regulatory requirements, combined with the lack of concern for the well-being of test subjects. It is ironic that the medical establishment that now strives to control human health is incapable of producing a safe and simple product in conformance with current regulatory standards.
Considering how widely these tests are being used and how often, Government ought to be taking much greater interest in how safe they are for human use.
By Kit Klarenberg | RT | October 27, 2021
The bureau has form for this modus operandi, after all. Just what was the role of mysterious ex-Marine Ray Epps in fomenting the invasion? And why’s he been removed from the list of suspects and not been arrested?
Ever since January 6, speculation has abounded that the US authorities either knew what was going to transpire in advance and allowed it to happen, or undercover state infiltrators played some role or other in orchestrating the upheaval.
While acknowledging that FBI informants were on the ground that day, and, indeed, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers – two far-right groups that played prominent roles in the Capitol break-in and preceding protests – both have intimate ties to the Bureau at the highest levels, the latter theory has been universally dismissed as conspiratorial nonsense.
Yet, given the agency’s history, the notion isn’t so far-fetched. After all, for decades during the Cold War, the FBI operated a dedicated counter-intelligence program, known as COINTELPRO, that sought to infiltrate, undermine and discredit activist groups and protest movements from within. A key tactic engaged in by undercover provocateurs was marshalling others to engage in violence.
More recently, in October 2020, the bureau foiled a deranged plot hatched by the Wolverine Watchmen militia group to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. It’s been revealed that 12 of the individuals involved in the doomed conspiracy were FBI informants.
Now, pro-Trump website Revolver has offered the most compelling evidence yet that undercover provocateurs of some distinction were pivotal to the events of January 6.
The website records how, by January 8, the FBI had assembled mugshots of its first 20 ‘most wanted’ Capitol rioters, offering cash rewards for successful identifications and fruitful leads. It took just three days for resourceful Antifa activists to pinpoint ‘Suspect 16’ as Arizona resident Ray Epps, a former high-ranking US Marine. Swathes of evidence supported the identification, including, somewhat amazingly, a direct admission by the man himself to his local newspaper, the Arizona Central.
Published January 11, the report discussed how Epps had been approached by the outlet and asked for comment about a widely circulated video from the night of January 5, in which someone closely resembling him boldly proclaimed to a crowd of fellow Trump supporters, “We need to go into the Capitol.” He confirmed he was that individual, but played down the significance of his comments, alleging that the “only thing” he meant was “we would go in the doors like everyone else.”
He went on to assert that the violent manner in which protesters subsequently entered was “totally, totally wrong,” but did not clarify why, in the same clip, he also declared, “I’ll be arrested” for proposing they gain entry to the building in the first place.
In the following weeks, news reports of arrests of individuals who’d busted into the Capitol were published almost daily, although Epps’ name never came up. Indeed, the FBI seems to have taken no decisive action in this regard until almost six months later, and, even then, not in a manner most would have expected. At an indeterminate point on July 1, between the wee hours of the morning and early evening, his mugshot was abruptly removed from the bureau’s most-wanted list, leaving an unaccounted-for gap between Suspects 15 and 17.
There is no indication that this was because he had been arrested. In every other case of a successful arrest, the corresponding photo of the suspect in question is slapped with an “arrested” logo, and Epps’ name doesn’t appear in the dedicated, searchable Justice Department Capitol Breach Cases database. Quite why he apparently remains at liberty is perplexing, although how he came so quickly to the FBI’s attention is no mystery.
The video referenced by the Arizona paper is one of many depicting Epps aggressively advocating the breach of the Capitol from January 5 onwards. That evening saw a law enforcement-mediated standoff between Trump supporters visiting Washington DC for the next day’s planned and widely promoted protest, and Antifa and Black Lives Matter activists.
Strikingly, an aspect of that particular clip not mentioned in the news report is the extremely hostile reaction his bold suggestion elicited from those around him. After he repeatedly advocated “going in”, other pro-Trump protesters respond with a shouted chorus of “no!”, before chanting in unison “Fed!” over and over, prompting Epps to awkwardly clarify that he meant “peacefully”.
Multiple separate clips show Epps moving between different groups in the crowd, and repeating the same routine, loudly calling for attendees to enter the Capitol building, and typically being met with indifference or even outright antipathy. In one, his audience’s exhaustion with his antics is evident – he asks for “one minute” to make his pitch yet again to another group of Trump supporters, but the throng responds that he has only “30 seconds”, despite a sympathetic protester drawing attention to Epps’ military background and calling for him to be respected.
This activity alone would surely mark him out as of interest to the FBI – after all, determining the degree to which what transpired on January 6 was planned in advance and, if so, by whom, were central initial questions in its probe that remain unanswered. However, Epps’ movements the next day, much of which was likewise captured on film, would make him one of the most valuable sources of information on the Capitol’s infiltration.
Revolver meticulously reviews numerous videos showing Epps apparently issuing orders to a masked Capitol rioter, seemingly also a former US Marine, who appears to have been armed with super-strength bear mace, to have engaged in a range of incendiary acts, and to have repeatedly provoked other protesters to commit violent acts and not back down from law enforcement. That rioter, Suspect 273 – also known as #MaroonPB – coincidentally remains at large today, too.
Even more tantalisingly, though, one clip shows Epps right on the frontline when the protest turned violent and the police barricades were broken through for the first time. Ryan Samsel, who has been blamed for kickstarting the “insurrection”, is pictured standing in front of the barricade, in a bitter showdown with the officer behind.
Epps emerges from the left of the frame, takes Samsel aside, whispers something in his ear, then vanishes. Moments later, Samsel and others begin charging at the barricades, knocking them down – a pivotal act that allowed for the eventual deluge of protesters into the Capitol. Media reports in the immediate aftermath of January 6 suggested the infiltrators’ path was effectively laid by the DC Police’s failure to deploy precautions such as ‘frozen zones’ (areas officially off-limits) and the hardened barriers commonly used for major events.
Samsel was arrested just three weeks after January 6 – conspicuously, he’s one of only a few individuals accused of comprising the large “breach team” who’s been taken into custody. According to his attorney, in prison, he’s been subjected to vicious torture, his jaw, nose and orbital bone having all been shattered, and his right eye damaged so badly he may be permanent half-blind.
Almost a year later, we’re still no closer to learning the truth about January 6. In the meantime, that date has been endlessly invoked by lawmakers, pundits and journalists as a grave attack on US values and democracy. Some have compared the event to 9/11, while the White House has likened it to the Civil War and proposed wide-ranging new domestic spying powers to avert another such catastrophe.
Consideration of how state capitol buildings have been repeatedly invaded during protests in the past, and DC’s Capitol Hill was overwhelmed at the conclusion of the 2017 Women’s March, has been entirely lacking. But that doesn’t fit the narrative many powerful people wish to perpetuate about January 6, so this staggering oversight is unsurprising. That the show trials of the 648 people charged in connection with the riot so far will shed no light on potential deep-state machinations that day is likewise almost inevitable.
Kit Klarenberg is an investigative journalist exploring the role of intelligence services in shaping politics and perceptions.
By Nebojsa Malic | RT | October 26, 2021
The newest combatant in the US ‘disinformation’ wars is a media company bankrolled by Democrat mega-donors Reid Hoffman and George Soros, and run by an operative whose astroturfed local news outfit was actual misinformation.
Good Information, Inc. launched on Tuesday as “a civic incubator committed to investing in immediate solutions that counter disinformation and increase the flow of good information online.” According to Axios, it is bankrolled by LinkedIn co-founder Hoffman, Soros, as well as Silicon Valley investors Ken and Jen Duda and Incite Ventures.
Tara McGowan, a former Democratic strategist who worked on Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s 2012 and 2016 campaigns – and ran a progressive nonprofit called ACRONYM that spent a whopping $100 million on a digital ad campaign to defeat Donald Trump in 2020 – has been put in charge of the venture.
ACRONYM was a major investor in Shadow, the outfit that mangled the results of the Iowa caucuses early on in the Democratic primary process, hurting the candidacy of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. Another of its operations, Courier Newsroom, will be sold to Good Information for an undisclosed sum; McGowan reportedly recused herself from the deal.
Ironically, Courier Newsroom was repeatedly called out for misinformation, including by NewsGuard – another major player in the “disinfo” wars – in the pages of the Washington Post, no less.
“Courier Newsroom is a clandestine political operation,” wrote NewsGuard’s Gabby Deutch, who described it as “a different, more tech-savvy form of political misinformation.”
Courier and Acronym are “exploiting the widespread loss of local journalism to create and disseminate something we really don’t need: hyperlocal partisan propaganda,” Deutch added in a February 2020 article.
None of that prevented McGowan from gushing about her new venture as something that will fix the “broken, divisive information ecosystem in which we find ourselves today” that is “an all-hands-on-deck challenge for American democracy.”
“I still believe that winning elections is necessary to preserving our democracy,” she added. “But the information crisis is bigger than politics – and requires solutions beyond it.”
To prove that her new outfit won’t be a hyper-partisan Democrat operation, McGowan cited The Bulwark, “a center-right news site founded in opposition to Trumpism,” as an example of a conservative news outlet Good Information could support. Left unsaid is that The Bulwark are “conservatives” in name only, whose obsessive hatred of Trump has them endorsing just about every Democrat running for any office in the US.
The new company’s advisory board tells a similar story, consisting of mainly Democrat activists advocating for censorship. One notable name that leaps out is Nandini Jammi, previously of the pressure group Sleeping Giants who then launched her own operation called Check My Ads. Jammi’s modus operandi is to contact advertisers and services used by people she disagrees with, and call them racist.
All of this, however, pales in comparison to the chief founder of the new venture. Hoffman publicly apologized in December 2018 for funding New Knowledge, a Democrat tech outfit advising the Senate Intelligence Committee on “Russian meddling” in US elections.
That’s because New Knowledge admitted to running a false-flag “Russian bot” campaign to get a Democrat elected in the special election for the Senate in Alabama the year prior.
Again, the only actual meddling in US elections by ‘Russian bots’ turned out to be a false flag by a Democrat-run tech company. New Knowledge has since rebranded while its operatives moved up to bigger and better things – such as the Stanford Internet Observatory, another major “disinfo” player.
Soros, of course, is well known for lavishly funding Democrat candidates and causes, from backing California Governor Gavin Newsom against the recent recall initiative to dropping massive quantities of cash into local elections for district attorneys in major US cities and counties over the past several years.
More recently, he has pivoted to condemning “false and misleading information” allegedly proliferating online.
By Toby Rogers | October 25, 2021
Where to even begin with the FDA’s preposterous risk-benefit analysis of Pfizer’s mRNA COVID-19 “vaccine” in children ages 5 to 11?
Let’s start with my bona fides. I have a year of undergraduate statistics at one of the best liberal arts colleges in America (Swarthmore). I have a year of graduate statistics at the masters program rated #1 for policy analysis (UC Berkeley). And I have a Ph.D. in political economy from one of the top universities in the world (University of Sydney). My research focus is on corruption in the pharmaceutical industry so I’ve read scientific studies in connection with vaccines nearly every day for 5 years. Earlier in my career I worked professionally tearing apart shoddy cost-benefit analyses prepared by corporations that were trying to get tax breaks, contracts, and other concessions from local government. Suffice it to say I’ve thought a lot about risk-benefit analysis and I’m better equipped than most to read one of these documents.
The FDA’s risk-benefit analysis in connection with Pfizer’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) application to inject children ages 5 to 11 with their COVID-19 vaccine is one of the shoddiest documents I’ve ever seen.
Let’s take it from the top:
🚩 COVID-19 rates in children ages 5 to 11 are so low that there were ZERO cases of severe COVID-19 and ZERO cases of death from COVID in either the treatment (n= 1,518) or control group (n= 750). So any claims you see in the press about the Pfizer vaccine being “90% effective” in children are meaningless because they are referring to mild cases from which children usually recover quickly (and then have robust broad spectrum immunity). So there is literally no emergency in this population for which one could apply for Emergency Use Authorization. Pfizer’s application should be dead on arrival if the FDA actually followed the science and their own rules. We will return to this topic below.
🚩 Pfizer’s clinical trial in kids was intentionally undersized to hide harms. This is a well known trick of the pharmaceutical industry. The FDA even called them out on it earlier this summer and asked Pfizer to expand the trial and Pfizer just ignored them because they can. (Pfizer fudged it by importing data from a different study but this other study only monitored adverse outcomes for 17 days so if anything the new data polluted rather than clarified outcomes). To put it simply, if the rate of particular adverse outcome in kids as a result of this shot is 1 in 5,000 and the trial only enrolls 1,518 in the treatment group then one is unlikely to spot this particular harm in the clinical trial. Voilà “Safe & Effective(TM)”.
🚩 Pfizer only enrolled “participants 5-11 years of age without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.” Does the Pfizer mRNA shot wipe out natural immunity and leave one worse-off than doing nothing as shown in this data from the British government? Pfizer has no idea because children with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection were excluded from this trial. This was by design. Toxic polluters have learned to not ask questions that they do not want the answers to, lest they wind up staring at their own smoking gun in a future court case.
According to an analysis by Alex Berenson:
“What the British are saying is they are now finding the vaccine interferes with your body’s innate ability after infection to produce antibodies against not just the spike protein but other pieces of the virus. Specifically, vaccinated people don’t seem to be producing antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein, the shell of the virus, which are a crucial part of the response in unvaccinated people. This means vaccinated people will be far more vulnerable to mutations in the spike protein EVEN AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN INFECTED AND RECOVERED ONCE (or more than once, probably). It also means the virus is likely to select for mutations that go in exactly that direction because those will essentially give it an enormous vulnerable population to infect. And it probably is still more evidence the vaccines may interfere with the development of robust long-term immunity post-infection.”
🚩 Did Pfizer LOSE CONTACT with 4.9% of their clinical trial participants? The FDA risk-benefit document states: “Among Cohort 1 participants, 95.1% had safety follow-up ≥2 months after Dose 2 at the time of the September 6, 2021 data cutoff.” So what happened with those 4.9% who did not have safety follow-up 2 months after Dose 2? Were they in the treatment or control group? We have no idea because Pfizer isn’t saying. Given the small size of the trial, failing to follow up with 4.9% of the participants potentially skews the results.
🚩 The follow up period was intentionally too short. This is another well-know trick of the pharmaceutical industry designed to hide harms. Cohort 1 appears to have been followed for 2 months, cohort 2 was only monitored for adverse events for 17 days. Many harms from vaccines including cancer and autoimmune disorders take much longer to show up. As the old saying goes, “you can have it quick or you can have it done right, but you cannot have both.” Pfizer chose quick.
🚩 The risk-benefit model created by the FDA only looks at one known harm from the Pfizer mRNA shot — myocarditis. But we know that the real world harms from the Pfizer mRNA shot go well beyond myocarditis and include anaphylaxis, Bell’s Palsy, heart attack, thrombocytopenia/ low platelet, permanent disability, shingles, and Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) to name a few. Cancer, diabetes, endocrine disruption, and autoimmune disorders may show up later. But the FDA does not care about any of that because they have a vaccine to sell so they just ignore all of those factors in their model.
🚩 Pfizer intentionally wipes out the control group as soon as they can by vaccinating all of the kids who initially got the placebo. They claim that they are doing this for “ethical reasons”. But everyone knows that Pfizer’s true aim is to wipe out any comparison group so that there can be no long term safety studies. Wiping out the control group is a criminal act and yet Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, and AZ do this as standard practice with the blessing of the FDA/CDC.
🚩 Given all of the above, how on earth did the FDA claim any benefits at all from this shot? You should probably sit down for this part because it’s a doozy! Here’s the key sentence:
Vaccine effectiveness was inferred by immunobridging SARS-CoV-2 50% neutralizing antibody titers (NT50, SARS-CoV-2 mNG microneutralization assay).
Wait, what!? I’ll explain. There were ZERO cases of severe COVID-19 in the clinical trial of children ages 5 to 11. So Pfizer and the FDA just ignored all of the actual health outcomes (they had to, there is no emergency, so the application is moot). INSTEAD Pfizer switched to looking at antibodies in the blood. In general, antibodies are a poor predictor of immunity. And the antibodies in the blood of these 5 to 11 year old children tell us nothing because again, there were zero cases of severe COVID-19 in this study (none in the treatment group, none in the control group). So Pfizer had to get creative! What they came up with is “immuno-bridging”. Pfizer looked at the level of antibodies in the bloodwork of another study, this one involving people 16 to 25 years old, figured out the level of antibodies that seems to be protective in that population, then figured out how many kids ages 5 to 11 had similar levels of antibodies in their blood, and then came up with a number for how many cases, hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths would be prevented by this shot in the 5 to 11 population in the future, based on the antibody levels and health outcomes from the 16 to 25 year old population. If your head hurts from that tortured logic, it should, because such chicanery is unprecedented in a risk-benefit analysis.
So when the FDA uses this tortured logic at the beginning of their briefing document, all of the calculations that stem from this will be flat out wrong. Not just wrong but preposterous and criminally wrong.
The whole ballgame comes down to Table 14 on page 34 of the FDA’s risk-benefit document. And there the red flags come fast and furious.
🚩 The FDA model only assesses the benefits of vaccine protection in a 6-month period after completion of two doses. Furthermore it assumes constant vaccine efficacy during that time period. This is problematic on several counts.
First, reducing mild cases in children is not a desired clinical outcome. As Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche points out, mass vaccination turns kids into shedders of more infectious variants.
“Under no circumstances should young and healthy people be vaccinated as it will only erode their protective innate immunity towards Coronaviruses (CoV) and other respiratory viruses. Their innate immunity normally/ naturally largely protects them and provides a kind of herd immunity in that it dilutes infectious CoV pressure at the level of the population, whereas mass vaccination turns them into shedders of more infectious variants. Children/ youngsters who get the disease mostly develop mild to moderate disease and as a result continue to contribute to herd immunity by developing broad and long-lived immunity. If you are vaccinated and get the disease, you may develop life-long immunity too but why would you take the risk of getting vaccinated, especially when you’re young and healthy? Firstly, there is the risk of potential side effects; secondarily, there is the ever increasing risk that your vaccinal antibodies will no longer be functional while still binding to the virus, thereby increasing the likelihood of ADE or even severe disease….”
Second, we know that vaccine efficacy in the month after the first dose is negative because it suppresses the immune system and it begins to wane after 4 months so all of the FDA’s estimates of vaccine efficacy are inflated.
Third, the harms of myocarditis from these shots will likely unfold over the course of years. Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA technology notes that the FDA is admitting that children will be injected twice a year forever (hence the six month time frame in the FDA risk-benefit model). But the risks of “adverse events such as cardiomyopathy will be cumulative.” So any model that only looks at a six month time frame is hiding the true adverse event rate.
🚩 The FDA/Pfizer play fast and loose with their estimates of myocarditis. First they estimate “excess” (read: caused by the shot) myocarditis using data from the private “Optum health claim database” instead of the public VAERS system (p. 32). So it’s impossible for the public to verify their claims. Then, when it comes to estimating how many children with vaccine-induced myocarditis will be hospitalized and admitted to the ICU they use the Vaccine Safety Datalink (see page 33). Why switch to a different database for those estimates? Finally, there is no explanation for how they calculated “excess” myocarditis deaths, so they just put 0. Red flag, red flag, red flag.
The FDA estimates that there will be 106 extra myocarditis cases per 1 million double-jabbed children 5-11. There are 28,384,878 children ages 5 to 11 in the U.S. The Biden administration wants to inject Pfizer mRNA shots into all of them and has already purchased enough doses to do just that (even though only 1/3rd of parents want to jab their kids with this shot). So (if the Biden administration has its way) 106 excess myocarditis cases per 1 million x 28.38 million people would be 3,009 excess myocarditis cases post-vaccination if the Pfizer vaccine is approved.
And over the course of several years many of those children will die.
Dr. Anthony Hinton (“Consultant Surgeon with 30 years experience in the NHS”) points out that myocarditis has a 20% fatality rate after 2 years and a 50% fatality rate after 5 years:
So the FDA has it exactly backwards — they want to prevent mild COVID in children which reduces herd immunity and they just flat out lie about the harms from myocarditis.
I’ve taken the liberty to correct the FDA’s Table 14 with actual real world data and extended it over 5 years. It looks like this:
A study by Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimated that VAERS only captured 1% of actual vaccine injuries. Steve Kirsch has done elaborate modeling that puts the Under-Reporting Factor of COVID-19 vaccine deaths at 41 (so multiply the above numbers by 41). And myocarditis is just one of a multitude of possible harms from COVID-19 vaccines. Dr. Jessica Rose recently calculated an Under-Reporting Factor of 31 for all severe adverse events following vaccination.
Conclusion
The Pfizer vaccine fails any honest risk-benefit assessment in connection with its use in children ages 5 to 11. The FDA’s risk-benefit analysis of Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine in children ages 5 to 11 is shoddy. It used tortured logic (that would be rejected by any proper academic journal) in order to reach a predetermined result that is not based in science. The FDA briefing document is a work of fiction and it must be withdrawn immediately. If the FDA continues with this grotesque charade it will cause irreparable harms to children and the FDA leadership will one day be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.
By Paul Joseph Watson | Summit News | October 25, 2021
Climate change activists from ‘Extinction Rebellion’ who are actually furthering the establishment narrative on climate change expressed shock that they weren’t in prison despite repeatedly blocking major roads and causing accidents.
Gee, I wonder.
61 campaigners from Insulate Britain, an offshoot of Extinction Rebellion, blocked three major roads in London yet again today and again faced angry condemnation from the general public.
They plan to continue the action ahead of the upcoming Cop26 climate change summit in Scotland, at which world leaders will gather to push the very same alarmist global warming rhetoric that they amplify.
Activists expressed shock that the government and the police have allowed them to get away with causing chaos for the past two months, including serious traffic accidents.
“Climate protest group Insulate Britain has revealed its “absolute disbelief” that its members have been allowed to repeatedly disrupt the motorway network, saying it had originally expected its campaign of direct action to last just two days,” reports the Guardian.
“As the group prepares for a fresh wave of protests this week, organisers admit they are baffled over why the police have effectively allowed them to keep closing major routes.”
A spokesperson for the group said, “We assumed that we would not be allowed to carry on disrupting the motorway network to the extent that we have been. We thought that people would basically be in prison.”
Activists previously thanked police for treating them kindly, in contrast to anti-lockdown protesters who are routinely abused by riot cops.
The answer as to why the protesters have faced kid gloves treatment is blatantly obvious.
Far from representing a “rebellion,” their actions are exactly in line with what establishment technocrats want – a global energy lockdown and a drastic reduction in living standards based on the hysteria of man-made climate change.
Insulate Britain protesters are lobbying for the precise system that is already being unrolled, they just want the government to make it even more onerous even more quickly.
The group is actually moving Britain closer to precisely what the establishment wants – a ‘green economy’ that will cause economic devastation, food shortages, energy rationing and climate lockdowns.
Just as police officers genuflected and fawned over Black Lives Matter rioters last summer, eco-activists are protected by the establishment because they are shock troops acting on behalf of the establishment.
By Meryl Nass, MD | October 24, 2021
“Because science” is new slang terminology that refers to bogus explanations or justifications for why things are done a certain way during the pandemic.
I have come to love the term because it encapsulates the contempt for the public evidenced by officials who usually know little about science but regurgitate “the science” to justify some unjustifiable policy.
Aaron Siri, a wonderful attorney, has challenged US health agencies on many of their illogical and often illegal pandemic policies.
He just posted the exchange he has had with CDC over its refusal to acknowledge the presence of immunity to COVID in the recovered.
While the whole document is interesting, the very end contains some of CDC’s “because science” answers.
Let me explain what CDC has been doing over the past year: whenever there is strong evidence that shows a CDC claim or policy is dead wrong, CDC’s “scientists” conduct a bogus study which can involve cherrypicking endpoints, choosing specially selected time periods, and a variety of other shenanigans to produce “evdience” that calls into question the real science. They have done this with masks, lockdowns, recovered immunity, and vaccines for children, that I can recall off the bat. I worked with a group of scientists who tried to reproduce the CDC’s calculations. But we couldn’t, because even though the CDC “scientists” were friendly and seemingly open, they never would provide enough information on their data set and their algorithm(s) for us to check their work. Clearly that was CDC policy, even though it flies in the face of standard ICMJE medical publication standards.
And that is what they did in this case. Despite mountains of evidence regarding the strength of recovered immunity, CDC just cited its own bogus study, while leaving the door open in case “the science” changed in the future. Where is the shame?
And, the agencies don’t mind dragging litigation on forever, since it is your money that is paying for it.
By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | October 23, 2021
Yesterday, in a press conference, the director of the CDC warned that they may have to “update” the definition of “fully vaccinated”.
At the virtual presser accompanying the approval of “mix-and-match” booster jabs, Dr Rochelle Walensky told reporters that:
We will continue to look at this. We may need to update our definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ in the future,
The “updated” definition would potentially mean only people who have had the third “booster” shot would be considered “fully vaccinated”, while people who have had the two original shots are no longer “fully vaccinated”.
Whilst the warning might just be a ploy to scare people into getting their “booster” without forcing them to, it should be noted a revised definition of “fully vaccinated” has already been adopted in other countries.
For example, it is already policy in Israel where, in early September they “updated what it means to be vaccinated,”. You now need a third shot, or else you are no longer considered vaccinated.
We wrote about it at the time, and predicted it would likely spread to the rest of the world.
In fact, figures in the alternate media have been predicting this for a while. See this clip from YouTuber WhatsHerFace back in August:
As for the potential purpose of any “updated definition”, well it would be twofold.
Firstly, it would allow them to maintain control. Forcing people to jump through hoops just to “get back” rights they once took for granted creates an atmosphere that normalises state tyranny.
Secondly, and more cynically, it would allow them to artificially manipulate statistics to flatter the vaccines’ effectiveness whilst hiding any damage they might do.
We already know that, in the US and others, you’re not considered “vaccinated” if you’re only single-jabbed, or double-jabbed for less than two weeks. So any patient infected with “Covid” in that time is considered “unvaccinated”, NOT a “breakthrough infection”.
By redefining “fully vaccinated”, they can turn millions of double-jabbed people back into “unvaccinated” people and stop them from becoming potential “breakthrough infections” and hurting the vaccine effectiveness stats.
This will, in turn, camouflage any excess mortality in those who have had the vaccine, for example due to antibody-dependent enhancement, because all those who die will officially be “not fully vaccinated”.
They’ll likely push it through soon, before this winter’s flu season hits, so any flu deaths can be “unvaccinated covid deaths”.
And for anybody out there who got double-jabbed thinking they were buying their life back, we’re sorry, but we did warn you this would happen.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Bob Finch | January 26, 2009
Insanely disproportionate use of violence against unarmed civilians… continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 