The Childhood Vaccination Schedule – Part One: The First Vaccine – Hepatitis B
By Michael Bryant | 21st Century Wire | September 5, 2023
Introduction
As more vaccines are added to the US childhood immunization schedule it’s imperative that there be a broader public discussion about the prominence of vaccines in public health policy, what benefits they convey and a forthright assessment of the risks involved.
Though vital to both the short and long term health of children, exploratory questions, in-depth rational discussion and comprehensive analysis about vaccines are considered off-limits for the mainstream medical establishment.
In the conventional narrative it is accepted as an article of faith that vaccines are miraculous discoveries responsible for global disease eradication and are the most important medical product for disease prevention.
For today’s pediatricians promoting and implementing the childhood immunization program has become their primary duty.
It is widely believed that if we stopped, or even reduced vaccinations, we would be going back to the dark ages. Any individual that challenges this vaccine orthodoxy is seen as a heretic.
Despite the deeply ingrained belief system of the vaccine ideology a growing number of parents and health advocates are beginning to ask many of the questions which have been swept under the rug for years.
Are all of these vaccines necessary? Are they safe? Are the diseases they are supposed to prevent truly diseases of concern?
Does the claim that vaccines are responsible for reductions in disease, disability, and death from a variety of infectious diseases fit with the facts when scrutinized?
Why such an increase in the number of vaccinations through the years? Has this escalating vaccine program produced an accompanying improvement in health outcomes?
What happens if I don’t give my child all of these vaccines? What happens if I don’t give my child any of these vaccines? What happens to children who don’t get vaccinated?
These are some of the questions parents are not supposed to ask and precisely the questions that need to be addressed.
While the information presented in this series is publicly available it is denied admittance into the public discourse by means of systematic indoctrination by a compromised media apparatus and a medical establishment which has created a mystique around vaccines while persuading the public they are the holiest of all medicinal products.
As an antidote to this institutional programming we embark upon a series of articles which take a close look at each of the vaccines on the childhood schedule and the diseases they are designed to prevent.
Our series begins with an overview of the US Childhood Immunization Schedule and a detailed look at the initial shot given to infants on the first day of life- the Hepatitis B vaccine.
The United States Childhood Immunization Schedule – An Overview
In the past few decades the childhood vaccine schedule in the United States has exploded into what is now the most aggressive childhood vaccination schedule in the world. It wasn’t always this way. Most baby boomers likely had only 2 or 3 vaccinations- polio, smallpox and DTP with never more than one shot given per visit.
With the recent addition of the COVID-19 vaccines to the childhood schedule the number of recommended injections ballooned to a regimen of 72 injections of 90 antigens by age eighteen for any child that undergoes the full immunization schedule circa 2023.
To understand how this came to pass we need to understand the history of how we got here.
The first vaccine mandate in the United States was enacted in Massachusetts in 1810 and was centered on smallpox. The legislation was essentially an ad hoc law which gave local health boards the authority to require vaccination.
The first public school mandate was issued in Massachusett in the 1850’s. At that time the only vaccine of interest was for smallpox. By the end of the 1800s most states in New England had smallpox vaccine requirements for children attending public schools.
The next significant stride in vaccine recommendations and requirements for children would arrive a century later in 1954, focusing on the polio vaccine developed by Jonas Salk.
By 1955, the polio vaccine was fully licensed and through the Polio Vaccine Assistance Act Congress appropriated funds to provide federal grants for states to purchase the vaccine and for the costs of planning and conducting vaccination programs.
This Act would become the template for the utilization of federal funds to cover various costs of vaccine programs and would provide the impetus for a mass inoculation campaign for polio.
At this time there were no codified mechanisms to mandate vaccine uptake, doctors recommendations were considered just that- guidance with no strict obligation or enforcement for adherence.
In 1962 the Vaccine Assistance Act would establish a permanent mechanism to provide ongoing financial support to state and local health departments. This Act would allow the CDC to appropriate federal funds for the provision of vaccines and establish an advisory group to assist in managing vaccination programs.
To this day the 1962 Act remains one of the most important mechanisms for aligning local and state health department immunization activities with federal funds to deliver vaccines to children.
In 1964 the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) was created under the US Public Health Service. Its mission was to review the science and evidence of vaccines given to children and to make recommendations on when those vaccines should be given and at what age.
The 1960s and 1970s saw a wave of new vaccines hit the market. A second type of polio vaccine was developed along with the first Hepatitis B vaccine. Measles vaccines were developed as a single vaccine and then combined with the mumps and rubella vaccines to create the “MMR” vaccine.
Paralleling the increase in the volume of vaccines came the creation of global immunization programs. In 1974 the World Health Organization established the Expanded Programme on Immunization which was designed to ”strengthen vaccine programmes, supply, and delivery, and ensure universal access to all relevant vaccines for all populations across the life course.”
These changes radically altered the business landscape of vaccine manufacturing. What was once a cottage industry of small pharmaceutical companies, individual investigators and physician scientists evolved into the mega corporations that exist today.
By 1977, the U.S. federal government had set up the Childhood Immunization Initiative which sought to increase vaccination rates in children against seven diseases (diphtheria, measles, mumps, pertussis, poliomyelitis, rubella, tetanus) for which vaccines had been developed. This began the process by which all 50 states would adopt mandatory school vaccinations.
In the 1980s, vaccines against Hepatitis B, Haemophilus influenzae type b, and pneumococcal disease were recommended for children at different ages. By 1983 the number of recommended injections had increased to 23 doses of 7 vaccines by age six.
In 1986, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act created a system of passive and active surveillance for cases of adverse reactions to vaccines as well as a mechanism to compensate any persons injured by vaccines.
With the passage of the 1986 Act and its implementation in 1988, a liability shield for pharmaceutical companies was created. On the heels of the 1986 Act the number of vaccines placed on the CDC schedule would escalate.
Even as the list of available vaccines was growing local and state health boards had differing opinions on when to give vaccines, which children should get them and how many should be given.
In order to standardize vaccine uptake, the first “harmonized” childhood immunization schedule was issued in 1995 by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP). combining recommendations of all three national groups.
This initial schedule included diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella, polio (oral), Haemophilus influenzae type b, and Hepatitis B vaccines. (The DTP and MMR vaccines were combination vaccines for diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis; and measles, mumps, rubella.)
Since then, the schedule has been adjusted as new vaccines have been developed, taken off the market or the risk profile for children changed.
Today, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), all 50 states have legislation requiring specific vaccines for students with exemptions varying from state to state.
These laws apply not only to children attending public schools but also to those attending private schools and day care facilities.
There are 45 states and Washington D.C. that grant religious exemptions for people who have religious objections to immunizations and 15 states which allow for philosophical exemptions.
All school immunization laws grant exemptions for medical reasons.
Six states (California, Connecticut, Maine, Mississippi, New York, and West Virginia) do not allow religious or philosophical exemptions from vaccination requirements as of 2021.
NCSL also states that the laws and regulations on vaccine requirements in all 50 states and DC follow the vaccine schedule set forth by CDC.
The trajectory of this vaccine program would result in 54 injections of 72 antigens by 2019 for US children by age eighteen who adhered to the full CDC schedule- with even more shots added as the Covid vaccines were placed on the child immunization schedule.
This dizzying array of injections in the childhood immunization schedule begins on a child’s first day of life with the Hepatitis B vaccine.
Hepatitis B – The Disease: A Case Study In Manufacturing Public Perception
The first question every parent should ask when considering the Hepatitis B vaccine is, “Does my child need a vaccine for Hepatitis B on the first day of life?”
Given the low risk of newborns acquiring the HepB infection and the ease with which pregnant mothers can be screened it’s fair to ask why a newborn would need the HepB vaccine?
Before arriving at that answer we look back at how Hepatitis B, the disease, was transformed from a relatively obscure disease which impacted a limited population into a widespread public health predicament.
The conventional characterization of Hepatitis B is as a type of viral hepatitis which causes acute and chronic liver infection. It is generally accepted that in order to contract HepB direct contact with infected blood or other body fluids is required. Transmission routes that by any standards pose little or no risk to infants.
This is in fact how public health officials characterized the disease back in 1981 when the Hepatitis B vaccine initially gained approval. The CDC’s own Fact Sheet on HepB the disease does not include newborn babies as a risk group for that disease.
The risk groups listed are, “injection drug users, homosexual men, sexually active heterosexuals, infant/children of immigrants from disease-endemic areas, sexual/household contacts of infected persons, infants born to infected mothers, health care workers and hemodialysis patients.”
What was it that changed the CDC’s earlier 1982 recommendation, which targeted only a small “at-risk” population, into a set of more aggressive policies that would result in the 1991 recommendation that all infants get three doses of HBV by 18 months of age?
And how did the HepB vaccine become compulsory for all schoolchildren in 47 states by the year 2000 even as the CDC admits that they lack proof of HepB being transmitted in a school setting?
In large part the answer to these questions lies in how the public’s perception of HepB was radically altered through orchestrated media messaging and deliberately provocative depictions of the disease by industry and public health officials. Notably the change in HepB’s image came immediately following the vaccine’s development, licensure and introduction.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, prior to the approval of the vaccine, HepB was a disease which had little to no relevance to most Americans and nowhere to be found on the media radar. Before the Hepatitis B vaccine was developed and marketed most Americans had little reason to view the disease as a threat to their health.
New cases of HepB were quite low in the 1970’s, began to rise in the 1980’s, concurrent with the AIDS crisis, and then began to fall again in the 1990’s.
By its own admission the CDC attributed this decline to, “reduction of transmission among men who have sex with men and injection-drug users, as a result of HIV prevention efforts.”
As scientific discoveries leading to the vaccine moved forward HepB acquired a more public image.
The advent of the AIDS crisis in the early 1980s, the development of genetically-engineered pharmaceuticals in the late 1980s, and the political push for health reform in the early 1990s all led to changes in how HepB was presented to Americans.
The media, medical and scientific community would all contribute in altering the image of HepB through the 1980s and 1990s. Media outlets would often conflate HepB with HIV/AIDS in order to arouse public attention and induce fear towards this obscure disease.
Provocative headlines and stories began to surface with claims that Hepatitis B was similar to HIV and possibly worse.
The historical medical view that HepB was a disease which only impacted a narrow subset of the population was replaced by hysterical media representations that anyone could be at risk of Hepatitis B.
In her article, “Do We Really Need Hepatitis B on the Second Day of Life?”, Vaccination Mandates and Shifting Representations of Hepatitis B, history of health sciences professor Elena Conis chronicles some of this history:
“Outlets from the Philadelphia Tribune to Good Housekeeping reported that a third of people with the disease were not in any of the known risk groups. Redbook warned readers that hepatitis was “spreading fast,” and the Boston Globe noted that hepatitis was spread by sharing gum, food, toothbrushes, and razors and by body piercing. New York magazine, in a feature titled, “The Other Plague,” recounted the stories of a young woman who contracted a fatal case by getting her ears pierced, a young man who was infected when mugged at knife-point, and a woman infected at a nail salon. Frequent mention of the prevalence of asymptomatic carriers heightened the sense of an immediate health threat: in the words of the New York magazine reporter, anyone could be one of the U.S.’s 1.5 million “Typhoid Marys,” unwittingly transmitting hepatitis B to people unaware of their risk.”
Such media reports citing HepB disease statistics would normally originate with statements generated by officials at the CDC.
Most of the inflated disease statistics found in the media reports were generated in the very same ACIP Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) which called for mass vaccination with hepatitis B vaccine.
In that report the CDC stated that there are an “estimated 1 million-1.25 million persons with chronic hepatitis B infection in the United States” and that, “each year approximately 4,000-5,000 of these persons die from chronic liver disease” and that, “an estimated 200,000-300,000 new [Hepatitis B] infections occurred annually during the period 1980-1991.”
To generate those statistics the CDC, in what at best would be considered duplicitous, circled back to itself citing an MMWR 1990 report as the basis for their claims. Nowhere in either report were scientific references used to support those claims.
Despite the media campaign, vaccine uptake for HepB was not rising to desired levels as vaccinating high-risk adults was proving to be difficult. This would result in a more systematic strategy at the national level.
In September of 1991 the Immunization Practices Advisory Committee (ACIP) would develop and codify a national program for the HepB vaccine- Hepatitis B Virus: A Comprehensive Strategy for Eliminating Transmission in the United States Through Universal Childhood Vaccination.
In 1992 the World Health Organization (WHO) would follow suit recommending that “all infants should receive their first dose of hepatitis B vaccine as soon as possible after birth, preferably within 24 hours, even in countries where Hepatitis B virus is of low endemicity.”
Acknowledging children were not in the at-risk group for HepB the ACIP committee lamented that “HBV transmission cannot be prevented through vaccinating only the groups at high risk of infection.”
Using this rationale they declared a blanket vaccination policy for all newborns- “a comprehensive strategy to prevent HBV infection, acute hepatitis B, and the sequelae of HBV infection in the United States.”
Earlier that year, June 11,1991 in a Boston Globe article titled, “U.S. To Urge All Children Be Vaccinated for Hepatitis B,” an official from the CDC admitted, “We do not feel that targeting adults for vaccination has worked. This will be the first time that a vaccine is recommended for children to prevent a disease that primarily occurs in adults.”
In testimony before Congress Michael Belkin summed it up neatly, “So in the CDC and ACIP’s own words, almost every newborn US baby is now greeted on its entry into the world by a vaccine injection against a sexually transmitted disease for which the baby is not at risk -because they couldn’t get the junkies, prostitutes, homosexuals and promiscuous heterosexuals to take the vaccine.”
Not to be swayed by logic, the CDC would effectuate a comprehensive HepB vaccine program and a medical product with an initial target population of drug addicts and homosexuals would become compulsory for every child in the country.
The Hepatitis B Vaccine Clinical Trials- The Devil’s In the Details
It is a near certainty that few physicians will study the details of a vaccine clinical trial found in the package inserts of each vaccine. Rarely will a pediatrician or physician initiate a conversation with a patient or parent about what those trials entailed and what else the package insert reveals.
Yet that is exactly the first place one should go to get a clear picture of the safety profile for any vaccine.
In 2017 the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) received a tip from a supporter that the clinical trials used by the FDA to license the two children’s HepB vaccines, Engerix-B and Recombivax HB, only reviewed safety data for a few days after injection.
ICAN was so stunned by this revelation that they assumed the supporter was making false claims. Upon reviewing the package inserts for both vaccines ICAN found the claims to be true.
The package insert for GlaxoSmithKline’s Energix-B vaccine, approved in 1989, acknowledges that the subjects were monitored for only 4 days after administration of the vaccine. By any standards 4 days of post-injection data is inadequate to assure a product’s safety. As noted by ICAN, “the review period for a vaccine given to infants and young children should be longer as neurological and developmental disorders are often discovered until the child is a few years old.”
A 2019 study authored by researchers at the FDA and Duke University confirmed ICAN’s position, stating that compared to licensing time period for adults, “data on drug efficacy and safety in children may require an additional 6 years.”
Another troubling facet of GSK’s pre-licensure clinical trials is that ENGERIX-B was administered to 5,071 healthy adults and children. Of the 13,495 doses administered in 36 clinical trials nowhere is it listed how many of those subjects were adults, how many were children and how many were infants.
As there were no specifics on how many individuals from each age group were involved the results of these trials are uninterpretable with respect to the risks of vaccinating infants.
While the trials for Energix-B were certainly less than rigorous the pre-licensure trials for Merck’s Recombivax HB vaccine might hold the dubious distinction for being the most unscrupulous and underpowered trials in the annals of the Pharmaceutical Industry.
In only three clinical studies, 434 doses of RECOMBIVAX HB, 5 mcg, were administered to a whopping 147 healthy infants and children (up to 10 years of age) who were monitored for a mere 5 days after each dose.
Along with the fact that 147 subjects is a grossly insufficient number upon which to base any determination on vaccine safety, the ages of the trial participants are not even listed. How many infants were in the study? Was there even a single newborn in the study?
Additionally, as is the case with virtually all vaccine clinical trials, neither of these two HepB trials used a proper randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial.
Beyond the untrustworthy nature of the composition and execution of these trials there is also the nagging problem with the difference between the noted outcomes of the clinical trials versus the post marketing experience.
In the clinical trials, effects are only studied for a few days immediately following vaccination, (with no true placebo), and only minor adverse reactions such as irritability, fever, diarrhea, fatigue/weakness and injection site pain are mentioned.
But in the “post marketing data”, which means post-approval injections in the general population, a laundry list of more serious adverse reactions such as Guillain-Barré syndrome, multiple sclerosis, encephalitis, thrombocytopenia, meningitis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, tachycardia and many more are reported.
This is one of the elemental tricks the Pharmaceutical Industry uses to conceal the nature and extent of injuries which may be attributable to the shots.
More serious adverse reactions are swept under the rug by asserting that “no causal link has been established” between the injection and these reactions.
In the trials subjects are observed for only a few days and nothing is found to cause concern.
But when the general public starts reporting real world serious adverse events, these are dismissed as no long term studies are done which could establish causal relations.
ICAN’s lawyer Aaron Siri in a 9 hour deposition brought these many problems to the attention of Stanley Plotkin, the ‘Godfather of Vaccines’, who authored what is considered the bible on vaccines,
In the deposition Siri gets Plotkin to admit that the Hepatitis B vaccine (given to babies on their first day of life), has not had an adequate safety study:
Siri asked, “How long does it say that safety was monitored after each dose?”
Dr. Plotkin responded, “Five days.”
Siri responded, “Is that long enough to detect an autoimmune issue that arises after five days?”
Dr. Plotkin stated, “No.”
Siri then asked, “Was there any control group in this trial?”
Dr. Plotkin, who had just argued how important control groups are to cause and effect, answered, “It does not mention any control group, no.”
Based on the weight of the evidence ICAN is currently petitioning the FDA to withdraw the licensure of these Hepatitis B vaccines and asserts that these vaccines should never have been approved.
Given that the utility of the Hep B vaccine for toddlers is unsubstantiated and the clinical trials are at best problematic it would seem incumbent upon the manufacturers to at least provide ironclad evidence for the safety of these products.
Is this the case?
The data tell a different story.
Dangers of the HepB Vaccine- An Open Secret
In the first months of life a child’s brain and biological systems are at critical stages of development. Throughout pregnancy parents are bombarded with directives from their physician telling them a multitude of vaccinations will be essential to protect their child from the pending torrent of infectious diseases.
In addition to the medical stipulations given by their pediatrician, parents understand that they will be faced with mandates for day care and schooling as well as ever-present societal pressures. The combination of these forces create a climate of fear and coercion intended to bring about automatic compliance.
Little to no information about vaccines are volunteered at most pediatric visits. Parents are expected to obediently trust their physician and place their faith in a medical system that assiduously claims vaccinations are necessary, safe and effective. Questions challenging the utility and safety of a vaccine are typically discouraged and dismissed.
In the United States the journey into this world of mass vaccination begins on the day of birth with the Hepatitis B vaccine.
To the extent that Hepatitis B is a danger to anyone, that risk is understood to be through sexual contact or sharing needles. A sexually transmitted risk or a needle exchange risk means there is little to no chance of Hepatitis B infection for infants calling into question the fundamental rationale for this vaccine.
Less than one percent of all HepB cases occur in children under 15 years old. In North America, Europe and Australia a mere one-tenth of one percent are said to be carriers of HepB. Of adults infected, 90-95% clear the virus on their own, without intervention.
While it is thought that infants born to mothers who are infected with HepB carry a greater risk of contracting the disease, pregnant women can easily be screened for this disease if there is a concern.
Given this risk profile, as infants and young children receiving this vaccine face little to no chance of hepatitis B infection, we have to ask, Is this vaccine worth the potential risk of neurodevelopmental disorders or other adverse impacts associated with this vaccine?
The answer to those questions can be found in answering the most important question for any medical product, “Is it safe?”
From the earliest days of development and production safety concerns have dogged the various iterations of the Hepatitis B vaccine.
The original HepB vaccine, Heptavax B, manufactured by Merck Sharp & Dolme and approved by the FDA in 1981, was unlike previous vaccines in that it contained inactivated virus collected from plasma of HepB-infected donors rather than live, weakened virus or killed, denatured virus.
Maurice Hilleman hypothesized that he could make a HepB vaccine by injecting patients with Hepatitis B surface protein using three treatments of blood serum together with rigorous filtration. To obtain the necessary plasma Hilleman collected blood from gay men and intravenous drug users—groups said to be at risk for viral hepatitis.
Hilleman believed the immune system would recognize the surface proteins as foreign, and manufacture specific antibodies which would destroy these proteins. His theory went that if the patient were infected with HepB in the future the immune system would produce protective antibodies which would destroy the viruses.
On November 16, 1981, CBS Evening News reporter Dan Rather touted Hilleman’s vaccine as the “first completely new viral vaccine in 10 years,” and hailed it as, “the first vaccine ever licensed in the United States that is made directly from human blood.”
Though lauded as a revolutionary medical achievement at the time, the original plasma derived HepB vaccine was not intended for widespread use in the US due to the fact that liver cancer was relatively uncommon in the US at the time and the cost of the vaccine was seen as prohibitive.
Excitement surrounding this novel plasma vaccine soon dissipated due to a public relations problem. It came to light that the clinical trials which tested the vaccine in the 1970s had included only gay men who had been identified as being at high risk of the infection.
The approval of the serum derived vaccine had the added misfortune of coinciding with the AIDS crisis which heightened concerns over the safety of using potentially contaminated human serum in vaccines due to fears of transmission of live HepB or other blood-borne pathogens.
As gay men and injection drug users were frequent blood donors for the vaccine this brought about fears that blood plasma could be infected and the vaccine itself could become a carrier for HIV/AIDS.
These concerns of potential contamination with human viruses led to the 1986 introduction of a second hepatitis B vaccine, Recombivax-HB. This new type of vaccine, known as a recombinant vaccine, manufactured by Merck Sharp & Dolme, was the first vaccine produced using recombinant DNA technology.
The creation of this new type of vaccine entailed inserting the gene of the HepB virus protein envelope into yeast cells, eliminating the risk of viral contamination from using human serum to produce the vaccine.
Frank E. Young, FDA Commissioner at the time, heralded this development as yet another medical marvel declaring, “This vaccine opens up a whole new era of vaccine production. These techniques should be able to be extended to any virus or parasite to produce other vaccines that normally cannot be propagated in the laboratory.”
Noting that the plasma-derived vaccine had annual sales of only $45 million, Edward E. Penhoet, president of Merck’s collaborator Chiron Corp., suggested that the new recombinant HepB vaccine would be more profitable for Merck as genetically engineered vaccines are “cheaper to produce” than those derived from human blood.
By 1989, a second recombinant hepatitis B vaccine, Engerix-B manufactured by The SmithKline Beecham Company, was approved for use in the U.S.
While the new HepB vaccines tempered anxieties surrounding the previous plasma-based vaccines a different set of problems materialized in the manufacturing processes and with certain ingredients in the HepB recombinant vaccines.
A 2005 French study, Multiple sclerosis and hepatitis B vaccination: Adding the credibility of molecular biology to an unusual level of clinical and epidemiological evidence, highlighted issues with HepB virus polymerase contamination asserting, “We reviewed evidence showing that hepatitis B vaccine HBV has a marked potential to induce auto-immune hazards, neurological as well as non-neurological. We emphasized that for a drug used as a prevention, HBV was remarkable by the unusual frequency, severity and variety of its hazards.”
The authors came to the stark conclusion that, ‘‘the principle of precaution’’ should urgently be applied [with] regard to the tiny benefit (if any) of large HepB vaccination in low-endemic countries. In addition, the benefit/ratio of this costly prophylaxis should be seriously re-assessed even in countries where the frequency of HepB is higher.”
Soon issues surrounding genetically modified yeast proteins used in the HepB vaccines cropped up.
Links to yeast-containing vaccinese and autoimmune disease were observed, creating concerns that the genetically engineered yeast in the HepB vaccines may cause children with an allergy to yeast to react severely to the vaccine.
Bioinformatics and epidemiological evidence link the yeast protein found in the Hepatitis B vaccines to numerous autoimmune disorders. Part of the study’s stark conclusion was, “Vaccine makers have refused to perform such checks, resulting in devastating consequences.”
The Hepatitis B Foundation warned, “The vaccine may not be recommended for those with documented yeast allergies or a history of an adverse reaction to the vaccine.”
The CDC’s Pinkbook on Hepatitis B identified another potential problem with latex packaging in the vaccines observing, “Some presentations of HepB vaccines contain latex, which may cause allergic reactions.”
As the first dose of the HepB vaccine is recommended and usually given on the day of birth this presents a conspicuous problem. How is it possible to know if a newborn has an allergy to yeast or latex or any of the other vaccine ingredients?
While certainly not insignificant, even more alarming safety concerns than yeast and latex allergies have been identified with certain ingredients found in the HepB vaccine.
Until the early 2000s the original gene based HepB vaccines, Recombivax and Engerix, contained the mercury preservative thimerosal, a mercury- and thiosalicylate-containing organic compound with antiseptic, bactericidal, and fungicidal properties. Certain exposures to thimerosal are known to be toxic to the central nervous system, kidneys, liver, spleen, and bone marrow. Some believe that even the tiniest amounts of methylmercury, found in thimerosal, carry a risk of adverse neuropsychological outcomes.
A 2016 longitudinal study of the relationship between Thimerosal-containing hepatitis B vaccination and developmental delays made an assessment that, “During the decade in which Thimerosal-HepB Vaccines (T-HBVs) were routinely recommended and administered to US infants (1991–2001), an estimated 0.5–1 million additional US children were diagnosed with specific delays in development as a consequence of 25 μg or 37.5 μg organic Hg from T-HBVs administered within the first 6 months of life.”
The study added, “[This] study provides compelling new evidence to confirm and extend previous epidemiological studies finding a significant relationship between organic Hg exposure from Thimerosal-containing childhood vaccines and the subsequent increased risk of a diagnosis for specific delays in development.”
A 2018 cross-sectional study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health strongly suggested that the 1990s-era thimerosal-containing HepB vaccine caused considerable harm to children concluding, “This cross-sectional study provides new evidence consistent with and extends the results from previous epidemiological and biological studies on the adverse effects of Hg exposure from Thimerosal-containing childhood vaccines. This study supports a significant about nine-fold increase in the risk of adverse effects as measured by receipt of special education services among boys receiving infant Thimerosal-containing hepatitis B vaccination.”
The study added to the chorus of voices demanding thimerosal be removed from all vaccines given to pregnant women and children.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Modernization Act of 1997 called for the FDA to review and assess the risk of all mercury-containing food and drugs.
In 1999 the FDA determined that, “under the recommended childhood immunization schedule, infants might be exposed to cumulative doses of ethylmercury that exceed some federal safety guidelines established for ingestion of methylmercury, another form of organic mercury (Ball et al., 2001). In July 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) issued a joint statement recommending the removal of thimerosal from vaccines as soon as possible.”
The statement also recommended, “a temporary suspension of the birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine for children born to low-risk mothers until a thimerosal-free alternative became available.”
Merck responded by making a new vaccine available immediately, gaining FDA approval for its thimerosal-free Recombivax HB vaccine on August 27, 1999 with distribution beginning in September.
SmithKline Beecham reformulated its thimerosal-free Engerix-B which the FDA approved in 2000.
Neal Halsey, M.D., director of the Institute for Vaccine Safety, assured the public the new Engerix-B contained only trace amounts of thimerosal (<1 mcg), which will “have no clinically relevant effects making it equivalent to a thimerosal-free product.”
While recommending newborns and infants up to the age of six months avoid vaccinations with thimerosal the CDC still allowed those over the age of six months to receive the thimerosal-containing HepB vaccines.
Even as thimerosal was being phased out of children’s vaccines, safety concerns surrounding ingredients in the Hepatitis B vaccine persisted. Disturbing reports relating to aluminum adjuvants found in the vaccines emerged and continue to this day.
In a 2008 article in Mothering magazine pediatrician Robert Sears sounded alarm bells about the dangers of vaccinations which contained aluminum adjuvants.
While embarking upon an inquiry to see if anyone had actually tested and scientifically assessed “safe” levels of injected aluminum he discovered an FDA document on aluminum toxicity which warned:
“Aluminum may reach toxic levels with prolonged parenteral administration [i.e., injected into the body] if kidney function is impaired. Research indicates that patients with impaired kidney function, including premature neonates [i.e., babies], who received parenteral levels of aluminum at greater than 4 to 5 micrograms per kilogram of body weight per day, accumulate aluminum at levels associated with central nervous system and bone toxicity. Tissue loading [i.e., toxic buildup in certain body tissues] may occur at even lower rates of administration.”
A second document produced by the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) also emphasized a daily limit of 4 to 5 mcg of aluminum per kilogram (2.2 lbs) of body weight for babies being fed an IV solution containing aluminum.
While neither of these documents mentioned vaccines specifically, both the ASPEN group and the FDA agreed that all injectable solutions for children should be limited to a maximum amount of 25 mcg of aluminum within a 24-hour period.
The FDA’s Code of Federal Regulations explicitly states, “The aluminum content of large volume parenteral (LVP) drug products used in total parenteral nutrition (TPN) therapy must not exceed 25 micrograms per liter ([micro]g/L).”
The unsettling fact regarding the HepB vaccine in regards to aluminum is that each dose, given at birth, 2 months and 6 months, is laced with 250 mcg of aluminum– far exceeding the recommended safe levels for large volume parenteral (LVP) drug products.
In a 2011 study Canadian scientists Professor Christopher Shaw and Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic asked the question, Aluminum Vaccine Adjuvants: Are they Safe?
The answers they discovered are worth quoting at length:
“Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor.
Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences.”
…
“Given that multiple aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines are often given to very young children (i.e., 2 to 6 months of age), in a single day at individual vaccination sessions, concerns for potential impacts of total adjuvant-derived aluminum body burden may be significant. These issues warrant serious consideration since, to the best of our knowledge, no adequate studies have been conducted to assess the safety of simultaneous administration of different vaccines to young children.” [Bold Added]
In a 2013 study, Aluminum in the Central Nervous System: Toxicity in Humans and Animals, Vaccine Adjuvants, and Autoimmunity, Shaw and Tomljenovic concluded, “In young children, a highly significant correlation exists between the number of pediatric aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines administered and the rate of autism spectrum disorders. Many of the features of aluminum-induced neurotoxicity may arise, in part, from autoimmune reactions, as part of the autoimmune/inflammatory induced by adjuvants (ASIA) syndrome.”
UK Professor Christopher Exley, known as Mr. Aluminum, has devoted much of his life to studying the dangers of aluminum, with a particular focus on the use of aluminum adjuvants in childhood vaccines.
With numerous studies and papers to his credit Exley is particularly recognized for his discovery which proved that cells known to populate a vaccine injection site actually take up aluminum adjuvant into their cell bodies.
Accompanying this finding was his pioneering revelation that antigens and adjuvants are taken up as separate particles. Both discoveries have implications for the possible role of aluminum adjuvants in instigating serious adverse events distant from the vaccine injection site.
Multiple studies have aligned with Exley’s findings that the intramuscularly injected aluminum vaccine adjuvant is absorbed into the systemic circulation and travels to different sites in the body such as the brain, joints and the spleen where it accumulates and is retained for years post-vaccination.
Cui Bono?
According to statistics, Hepatitis B causes death in fewer than one quarter of one percent of those infected. It is a near certainty that even that rate is an overestimate since deaths of hepatitis B infected drug addicts and alcoholics is more likely due to their habits which destroy their liver and other vital organs and not the disease.
In 1986, five years before the CDC began pushing for vaccination of all newborns, the US had documented fewer than 280 cases of hepatitis B infection in children under age 14. Newborns are probably the least likely human beings on the planet at risk of actually getting hepatitis B.
Given that most infants are not at risk for Hepatitis B in the United States and given the copious documentation linking the Hepatitis B vaccine to various pathologies (here, here and here) we return to the question: Why the fanatical push for universal HepB vaccination for children?
If we look at the HepB childhood vaccination program from a perspective of health and “saving lives” we are confronted with a world of contradictions and manipulations- none of it makes sense.
If looked at it through the lens of power, money and control everything makes perfect sense.
A 2005 letter written by Dr. Marc Girard to the Director General of the World Health Organization referenced a correspondence he had with an Indian colleague, Dr J. Puliyel, on the false data being disseminated by the WHO about the epidemiology of hepatitis B in India.
This exchange gives us insight into the processes by which a once non-existent threat is turned into a public health crisis and the motives behind this.
Girard noted that, “the mechanisms of the deception described by Dr Puliyel were exactly comparable to those I observed in my own country — and of course with the same results: a plea of “experts” to include hepatitis B vaccination in the national vaccination program, in spite of its costs and, its unprecedented toxicity.” [Emphasis added]
Dr. Girard went on to state: “It is blatant that in the promotion of the hepatitis B vaccination, the WHO has never been more than a screen for an undue commercial promotion, in particular via the Viral Hepatitis Prevention Board (VHPB), created, sponsored and infiltrated by the manufacturers.
In Sept 1998, while the dreadful hazards of the campaign had been given media coverage in France, the VHPB met a panel of “experts”, the reassuring conclusions of which were extensively announced as reflecting the WHO’s position: yet some of the participants in this panel had no more “expertise” than that of being employees of the manufacturers.” [Emphasis added]
Girard also drew attention to a 1997 interview published in the French journal Sciences et Avenir in which GlaxoSmith Beecham’s business manager admitted, “We started increasing the awareness of the European Experts of the World Health Organization (WHO) about Hepatitis B in 1988. From then to 1991, we financed epidemiological studies on the subject to create a scientific consensus about hepatitis being a major public health problem. We were successful because in 1991, WHO published new recommendations about hepatitis B vaccination.”
This cynical admission by one of the primary manufacturers of the Hepatitis B vaccine offers a glimpse into how the time honored strategy of problem-reaction-solution is applied in the Pharmaceutical Industry
The disease itself is seen as superfluous, all that is necessary is to create the perception that there is a widespread public health crisis which requires a heroic and international medical intervention in the form of a vaccine which, curiously, was already in production leading into the “crisis.”
Such a frank admission reinforces the facts surrounding the history of Hepatitis B, there was little to no problem with this disease until after the vaccine became available and for marketing reasons they had to change the image of the disease.
Tracing the breadcrumbs of the entire production of the Hepatitis B vaccine campaign a pattern emerges which appears to be a non-medical agenda that leads to the reliable predictor-follow the money.
For years vast amounts of financial and political capital were invested in the Hepatitis B vaccine as well as enormous amounts of resources allocated towards research and development. Each new HepB vaccine was hailed as a medical wonder.
Despite these efforts the medical industry couldn’t get people to take the vaccine which meant meager returns on these enormous investments.
To solve this dilemma, and address the sunk costs, the pharmaceutical industry, through its cadre of captured policy makers, invented regulations fashioned to make the vaccines compulsory thusly creating a captured customer base and guaranteeing revenue.
The “at-birth” vaccines have the added benefit, from the manufacturers perspective, of providing “vaccine training wheels” for new parents, conditioning them for a steady routine of immunization appointments.
The 12 million doses of Hepatitis B vaccine administered to children each year in the US alone represents a substantial annual income stream for vaccine manufacturers.
The NY Times reported that the average cost to fully vaccinate a child to the age of 18 in a private doctor’s office soared from $100 in 1986 to $2,192 by 2014.
To get every dose of every recommended vaccine in a private pediatricians office circa 2023 that cost now exceeds a staggering $3,000.
Heading into the 21st century the commercialization of vaccines has expanded into a colossal and profitable global enterprise, and according to International Monetary Fund chief Kristalina Georgieva, vaccine policy is now one of the most important drivers of global economic policy.
A Final Word
In two separate hearings in 1999 Michael Belkin, whose daughter died of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) immediately after receiving a Hepatits B vaccine dosage, called the HepB vaccine policy a ”bureaucratic vaccination program that is on auto-pilot flying into a mountain” and accused CDC bureaucrats of “hav[ing] a vested interest in the status quo.”
Mr. Belkin’s conclusions merit reciting in full:
-
Newborn babies are not at risk of contracting the hepatitis B disease unless their mother is infected.
-
Hepatitis B is primarily a disease of junkies, gays, and promiscuous heterosexuals.
-
The vaccine is given to babies because health authorities couldn’t get those risk groups to take the vaccine.
-
Adverse reactions out-number cases of the disease in government statistics.
-
Nothing is being done to investigate those adverse reactions.
-
Those adverse reactions include numerous deaths, convulsions and arthritic conditions that occur within days after
-
Hepatitis B vaccination. The CDC is misrepresenting hypothetical, estimated disease statistics as real cases of the disease.
-
The ACIP is recommending new vaccines for premature infants without having scientific studies proving they are safe.
-
The U.S. vaccine recommendation process is hopelessly compromised by conflicts of interest with vaccine manufacturers, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the CDC.
While Mr. Belkin was addressing the Hepatitis B vaccination specifically as an injection which may present risks for health complications, the risks of toxicity and adverse reactions for all vaccines is a question that demands far more rigorous scrutiny than has been provided to date.
We hope that this series will provide a framework for a long overdue assessment of this highly contentious medical issue.
Our next installment takes a look at the Rotavirus vaccine.
EU Chief Boasts About Vaccine Passports, Calls For More Global Digital Collaboration – Paving The Way For Digital IDs
By Ken Macon | Reclaim The Net | September 10, 2023
With an ominous call for increased global collaboration and centralization, European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen at a G20 Summit session, dubbed “One Future,” today appealed for an international regulatory body for Artificial Intelligence and digital ID systems similar to coronavirus vaccine passports.
Von der Leyen audaciously proclaimed our collective future to be digital, hence the implied necessity for global entities to draw boundaries and enforce regulations.
Von der Leyen, in her position as the EU Commission President, touched on AI and the digital landscape in her address. She acknowledged the potential dangers and gargantuan opportunities linked with advancing AI technology and emphasized the importance of channeling such explosive technology.
“Today I want to focus on AI and digital infrastructure. As it has been described, AI has risks but also offers tremendous opportunities. The crucial question is how to harness a rapidly changing technology.
“In the EU, in 2020, we presented the first-ever law on artificial intelligence. We want to facilitate innovation while building trust. But we need more. What the world does now will shape our future. I believe that Europe — and its partners — should develop a new global framework for AI risks,” von der Leyen said.
Von der Leyen praised the European Union’s move in 2020 to introduce the first legal framework on AI, a step taken with the intent of fostering innovation alongside trust. However, she insisted that this wasn’t sufficient. She suggested a multinational adoption of a coping mechanism for managing AI risks.
The EU Chief also stressed that globally accepted standards must be created under the purview of the United Nations, akin to their Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Humanity stood to benefit, she argued, if an international authority could clarify the risks and rewards related to AI, akin to the IPCC for climate concerns.
Concurrently, von der Leyen championed the concept of digital public infrastructure similar to the coronavirus passport system – a system developed by the EU as a response to the Covid saga. The World Health Organization embraced it with open arms as a global standard for combating health threats.
“Many of you are familiar with the COVID-19 digital certificate. The EU developed it for itself. The model was so functional and so trusted that 51 countries on 4 continents adopted it for free. Today, the WHO uses it as a global standard to facilitate mobility in times of health threats,” von der Leyen continued.
Alarmingly, von der Leyen praised the EU’s strides towards a bloc-wide digital identity app capable of storing a citizen’s personal information, including credit cards, driver’s license, and passport data.
These developments ring alarm bells for individuals and nations valuing free speech and privacy.
5th Circuit Upholds Injunction Against Government Censorship
We got a big win Friday in Missouri v. Biden: Appellate Court Forbids White House, CDC, Surgeon General, and FBI from Censoring Americans Online
By Aaron Kheriaty, MD | Human Flourishing | September 10, 2023
Here’s my five-minute summary and reaction to the appellate court’s decision on Friday upholding the central provisions in our injunction against the government. (I’ll post the full interview soon when it’s available.)
The unanimous three-judge panel ruled: “The White House, the Surgeon General, the CDC, and the FBI likely coerced or significantly encouraged social-media platforms to moderate content, rendering those decisions state actions. In doing so, the officials likely violated the First Amendment.” The appeals court thereby confirmed that for last several years, our Federal government has been systematically violating the highest law of the land—the United States Constitution—by censoring the protected speech of hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans tens of millions of times. News of the ruling was front page above-the-fold yesterday in The New York Times and The Washington Post, suggesting that the legacy media cannot ignore this issue any longer.
Not all the defendants in the suit were enjoined by the appellate court’s decision, which focused on the White House, the Surgeon General, the CDC, and the FBI. This is not, however, an indication that the other agencies named as defendants, such as CISA, are free to engage in censorship of protected speech. It simply means that at this early stage of limited discovery the appellate court did not think we have presented sufficient evidence to meet the very high legal bar required for a preliminary injunction. Although the injunction focuses on four agencies, the entire federal government is now on notice: any future communications between government officials and big tech are subject to subpoena and scrutiny in our case. If those come from any of the four enjoined agencies, those officials may now be subject not only to civil liabilities but to criminal penalties as well.
The ruling also confirmed that not only coercion but even “significant encouragement” by government officials to modify content is a form of unconstitutional censorship. The judges ruled that evidence we presented demonstrated both coercion and significant encouragement.
Contextualizing the scope of the violations of constitutional rights in our case, the judges noted that there are virtually no prior free speech cases of this scope and magnitude: “The Supreme Court has rarely been faced with a coordinated campaign of this magnitude orchestrated by federal officials that jeopardized a fundamental aspect of American life. Therefore, the district court was correct in its assessment—’unrelenting pressure’ from certain government officials likely ‘had the intended result of suppressing millions of protected free speech postings by American citizens.’ We see no error or abuse of discretion in that finding.”
You Should Be Very Worried About the Digital Services Act
By David Thunder | The Freedom Blog | September 9, 2023
Article 11 of The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which replicates a part of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, protects the right of European citizens to “hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers,” and affirms that “the freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.” Sadly, the fate of freedom of expression in Europe now very much hangs in the balance, as the European Union has just enacted a law that empowers the Commission to significantly restrict the ability of citizens to use digital platforms to engage in robust and sincere democratic discourse.
Under the recently enacted Digital Services Act, the European Commission may apply significant pressures upon digital platforms to curb “hate speech,” “disinformation” and threats to “civic discourse,” all of which constitute notoriously vague and slippery categories, categories that have historically been co-opted to reinforce the narrative of the ruling class. By giving the European Commission broad discretionary powers to oversee Big Tech content moderation policies, this piece of legislation holds freedom of speech hostage to the ideological proclivities of unelected European officials and their armies of “trusted flaggers.”
The stated purpose of the Digital Services Act (DSA) that has just come into force in Europe is to ensure greater “harmonisation” of the conditions affecting the provision of “intermediary” digital services, in particular online platforms that host content shared by their customers. The Act covers a bewildering array of issues, from consumer protection and the regulation of advertising algorithms to child pornography and content moderation. Among other purposes that appear in the wording of the Act, we find the fostering of “a safe, predictable and trusthworthy online environment,” the protection of citizens’ freedom of expression, and the harmonisation of EU regulations affecting online digital platforms, which currently depend on the laws of individual member States.
At a superficial glance, the Digital Services Act (DSA) might look rather innocuous. It places fairly formal requirements on “very large online platforms” such as Google, Twitter/X, Facebook and Tiktok to have clear appeals procedures and to be transparent about their regulation of harmful and illegal content. For example, section 45 of the Act reads as a fairly light touch requirement that providers of online digital services (“intermediary services”) keep customers informed of terms and conditions and company policies:
Providers of the intermediary services should clearly indicate and maintain up-to-date in their terms and conditions the information as to the grounds on the basis of which they may restrict the provision of their services. In particular, they should include information on any policies, procedures, measures and tools used for the purpose of content moderation, including algorithmic decision-making and human review, as well as the rules of procedure of their internal complaint-handling system. They should also provide easily accessible information on the right to terminate the use of the service.
But if you start to dig into the Act, you very soon discover that it is poisonous for free speech and is not in the spirit of Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which guarantees citizens the “freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.” Below, I detail certain aspects of the Act that, taken together, pose an unprecedented threat to freedom of speech in Europe:
1. DSA (Digital Services Act) creates entities called “trusted flaggers” to report “illegal content” they identify on large online platforms. Online platforms are required by the act to respond promptly to reports of illegal content provided by these “trusted flaggers” nominated by member State-appointed “Digital Service Coordinators.” The Act requires large online platforms to “take the necessary measures to ensure that notices submitted by trusted flaggers, acting within their designated area of expertise, through the notice and action mechanisms required by this Regulation are treated with priority.”
2. Strictly speaking, while digital platforms are required to respond to reports of illegal content submitted by “trusted flaggers,” it appears from the wording of the Act that the platforms have discretion to decide how exactly to act upon such reports. They might, for example, disagree with the legal opinion of a “trusted flagger” and decide not to take down flagged content. However, they will face periodic audits of their actions’ compliance with the Act by auditors working on behalf of the European Commission, and these reviews will hardly look favourably upon a pattern of inaction in the face of flagged content.
3. The Digital Services Act also requires “very large online platforms” (platforms such as Google, Youtube, Facebook and Twitter) to undertake periodic “risk mitigation” assessments, in which they address “systemic risks” associated with their platforms, including but not limited to child pornography, “gender violence” (whatever that means), public health “disinformation,” and the “actual or foreseeable negative effects on democratic processes, civic discourse and electoral processes, as well as public security.” Platforms have “due diligence” obligations under the Act to take appropriate measures to manage these risks. Unlike a voluntary code of practice, opting out is not an option, and failure to comply with these “due diligence” obligations will be subject to hefty sanctions.
4. The sanctions attached to non-compliance with the Act are remarkable. The Commission, if it deems that a large online platform such as X/Twitter has not been in compliance with the DSA, may fine said platform up to 6% of its annual global turnover. Because the idea of non-compliance is hard to quantify and pretty vague (what exactly is required in order to meet “due diligence obligations” of systemic risk management?), it seems likely that companies that wish to avoid legal and financial headaches would prefer to err on the side of caution, and put on a show of “compliance” to avoid getting fined.
5. The periodic audits envisaged by this Act will serve as a tool for the Commission to pressure large online platforms into taking action to “manage” the “risks” of disinformation and threats to “civic discourse and electoral processes,” risks which are notoriously vague and are probably impossible to define in a politically impartial fashion. The threat lurking in the background of these audits and their associated “recommendations” is that the Commission may impose multi-billion dollar fines upon online platforms for non-compliance. Because of the rather vague idea of non-compliance with “due diligence obligations,” and the discretionary nature of the financial sanctions threatened in the DSA, this Act will create an atmosphere of legal uncertainty both for online platforms and for their users. It heavily incentivises online platforms to police speech in a way that passes muster with the EU Commission, around vague categories like “disinformation” and “hate speech”, and this will obviously have repercussions for end-users.
6. According to the European Commission, “hate motivated crime and speech are illegal under EU law. The 2008 Framework Decision on combating certain forms of expressions of racism and xenophobia requires the criminalisation of public incitement to violence or hatred based on race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.” It is important to point out that the EU Commission favours expanding the categories of illegal hate speech at a Europe-wide level to include not only “race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin,” but also new categories (presumably, including things like gender identity). So illegal hate speech is a “moving target” and is likely to become ever broader and more politically charged as time goes on. According to the the European Commission’s own website,
On 9 December 2021, the European Commission adopted a Communication which prompts a Council decision to extend the current list of ‘EU crimes’ in Article 83(1) TFEU to hate crimes and hate speech. If this Council decision is adopted, the European Commission would be able, in a second step, to propose secondary legislation allowing the EU to criminalise other forms of hate speech and hate crime, in addition to racist or xenophobic motives.
7. The most disturbing aspect of DSA is the enormous power and discretion it places in the hands of the European Commission – notably, an unelected commission – to oversee compliance with DSA and decide when online platforms are non-compliant with respect to their “due diligence obligations” to manage risks whose meaning is notoriously vague and manipulable, such as hate speech, disinformation, and anti-civic discourse. The European Commission is also giving itself the power to declare a Europe-wide emergency that would allow it to demand extra interventions by digital platforms to counter a public threat. There will be no legal certainty about when the EU Commission might declare an “emergency.” Nor is there any legal certainty about how the European Commission and its auditors will interpret “systemic risks” like disinformation and hate speech, or assess the efforts of service providers to mitigate such risks, since these are discretionary powers.
8 Nor is clear how the Commission could possibly undertake an audit of “systemic risks” of disinformation and risks to civic discourse and electoral processes without taking a particular view of what is true and untrue, salutary and harmful information, thus pre-empting the democratic process through which citizens assess these issues for themselves.
9. Nor is it clear which checks and balances will be in place to prevent the DSA from becoming a weapon for the EU Commission’s favourite causes, whether the war in the Ukraine, vaccine uptake, climate policy, or a “war on terror.” The broad power to declare a public emergency and require platforms to undertake “assessments” of their policies in response to that, combined with the broad discretionary power to fine online platforms for “non-compliance” with inherently vague “due diligence obligations,” give the Commission a lot of leeway to lord it over online platforms and pressure them to advance its favoured political narrative.
10. One particularly sneaky aspect of this Act is that the Commission is effectively making disinformation illegal *through a backdoor*, so to speak. Instead of clearly defining what they mean by “disinformation” and making it illegal – which would probably cause an uproar – they are placing a “due dilegence” requirement upon large online platforms like Twitter and Facebook to take discretionary measures against disinformation and to mitigate “systemic risks” on their platforms (which include the risk of “public health disinformation”). Presumably, the periodic audits of these companies’ compliance with the Act would look unkindly on policies that barely enforced disinformation rules.
So the net effect of the act would be to apply an almost irresistible pressure on social media platforms to play the “counter-disinformation” game in a way that would pass muster with the Commission’s auditors, and thus avoid getting hit with hefty fines. There is a lot of uncertainty about how strict or lax such audits would be, and which sorts of non-compliance might trigger the application of financial sanctions. It is rather strange that a legal regulation purporting to defend free speech would place the fate of free speech at the mercy of the broadly discretionary and inherently unpredictable judgments of unelected officials.
* * *
The only hope is that this ugly, complicated and regressive piece of legislation ends up before a judge who understands that freedom of expression means nothing if held hostage to the views of the European Commission on pandemic-preparedness, the Russia-Ukraine war, or what counts as “offensive” or “hateful” speech.
P.S. Consider this analysis as a preliminary attempt by someone not specialised in European law, to grapple with the troubling implications of the Digital Services Act for free speech, based on a first reading. I welcome the corrections and comments of legal experts and those who have had the patience to wade through the Act for themselves. This is the most detailed and rigorous interpretation I have developed of the DSA to date. It includes important nuances that were not included in my previous interpretations and corrects certain misinterpretations – in particular, platforms are not legally required to take down all flagged content, and the people who flag up illegal content are referred to as “trusted flaggers,” not “fact-checkers.”).
Civil Disobedience Against Mandatory Masking Works!!
Press For Truth | September 9, 2023
Mandatory mask mandates are making a comeback for Covid-19(84) 2.0 but this will only apply to you if you allow it to!
In this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth speaks with Denis Rancourt, a PHD and former professor of physics at the University of Ottawa and researcher for the Ontario Civil Liberties Association about mandatory masking policies that are slowly but surely returning and most importantly how one can effectively engage in acts of civil disobedience when it comes to refusing to wear a mask.
To learn more visit:
Follow Denis on X:
California passes law on ‘affirmation’ of children
RT | September 9, 2023
The California State Assembly on Friday approved a bill redefining the health, safety, and well-being of children to include “gender identity or gender expression.” Critics say it will enable the state to seize children who “transitioned” without the approval of their parents.
Assembly Bill 957 was adopted with a vote of 57-16 and sent to Governor Gavin Newsom for signature. It amends Section 3011 of the Family Code to “include a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity or gender expression as part of the health, safety, and welfare of the child.”
Family courts use the health and well-being standard to make decisions as to which parent gets custody of children in divorce disputes, or in cases in which parents have their children taken away by the state due to abuse or neglect.
“That is our duty as parents, to affirm our children,” State Representative Lori Wilson, a Democrat from the San Francisco Bay Area, said in a speech on the Assembly floor.
State Senator Scott Wiener, a fellow San Francisco Democrat, co-sponsored the bill. He was behind the 2022 ‘trans refuge bill’ which gave immunity from other states’ laws to minors seeking ‘gender affirming care’ in California.
Republicans have criticized the proposal, arguing that family court judges already have the discretion to make that determination. With only 18 seats in the 80-member chamber, however, there was little they could do to stop it.
Last month, a school district in the Bay Area paid $100,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by a parent whose child was “secretly transitioned” without her knowledge or consent. Jessica Konen alleged that the Spreckels Union School District and three of its employees “secretly convinced” her daughter of being bisexual and transgender, referred to her as a boy, instructed her on binding her breasts, and allowed her to use the faculty bathroom.
Teachers allegedly encouraged Konen’s daughter to use a boy’s name, wear clothing for boys, read articles about gender transition, and “not to tell her mother about her new gender identity or new name, saying that her mother might not be supportive of her and that she couldn’t trust her mother.”
When the school eventually informed Konen, she claimed that she went along with it out of fear that the state might take the child away. The girl “began to return to her original self” after March 2020, when California switched to online lessons due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Free Speech Fears Grow After Springer Nature “Meekly Obeys” Activist Demands For Alimonti Climate Paper Retraction
BY CHRIS MORRISON | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | SEPTEMBER 7, 2023
Free speech is under attack in the politicised world of climate science and disgust at the recent cancellation of Alimonti et al. by Springer Nature continues to grow. Readers will recall that the paper written by four Italian scientists led by Physics Professor Gianluca Alimonti said past data did not point to a “climate crisis”. It was retracted on August 23rd, 20 months after initial publication, following a concerted campaign by activist journalists and scientists. Science writer Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., who first published a number of whistle-blower emails about a Springer inquiry, has returned to the fray, noting: “We should not be in a situation where activist journalists, many funded by billionaires, enlist activist scientists to demand retraction of a science article and then the world’s arguably leading scientific publisher meekly obeys. We must do better.”
Francis Menton writes the widely-read Manhattan Contrarian and he recently noted that free speech today is under assault from the Left all the time. He used the Alimonti affair as an example of this crackdown on dissent.
If you wonder why the climate alarm narrative seems so completely to dominate public discussion (even though it is utter nonsense), then you need to understand that there is an orthodoxy enforcement police operating behind the scenes. Most of the time the operation of this orthodoxy enforcement mechanism is invisible to the general public. Climate sceptics can’t get jobs in academia, and go into other careers; when sceptics write papers, they get rejected and are never heard of again. But every once in a while something happens to bring aspects of the orthodoxy enforcement mechanism momentarily into the open. That has recently occurred with respect to a paper published in a European scientific journal in early 2022.
Again regular readers will recall that the paper attracted little comment until September last year when the Daily Sceptic covered the findings in an article that attracted 9,000 retweets. Following subsequent coverage in the Australian and Sky Australia, the Guardian and state-owned Agence France-Presse (AFP) launched counterattacks. AFP ‘Herald of the Anthropocene’ Marlowe Hood said the data were “grossly manipulated” and “fundamentally flawed”. They were soon joined by a number of activist scientists including Michael Mann who sneered at his fellow academics, dismissing them as “nuclear physics dudes in Italy” from “totally unrelated fields”.
In Pielke’s latest contribution, he says it is his “strong opinion” that the sole reason to retract the paper is not to do with the analysis of the data, but the one sentence that reads: “In conclusion on the basis of observation data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet.”
The joy of the successful activists appears unconfined. Marlowe Hood recently collected £88,000 from the foundation of the green technology supporting BBVA bank. He tweeted: “It may be akin to removing a speck of dust from a rubbish heap, but I confess to taking satisfaction in seeing this egregiously bad climate study retracted. The remaining question, of course, is how it got into a Springer Nature journal to start with.”
For its part, BBVA justified its recent large payment to Hood by noting “his ability to synthesise complex scientific models and studies and explain them in simple terms”.
The final Springer retraction notice did not detail any substantive issue with the Alimonti paper, writes Pielke, only vaguely refering to the Guardian and AFP articles in the passive voice — “concerns were raised”. The journal’s year-long attempt to review the paper was “apparently invented as they went along”.
Dr. Pielke is evidently an old-school science academic and he has a mild criticism about editorialising by using the term “climate crisis”. Whether there is a climate crisis is a political judgement and not one that emerges from data and evidence. But he goes on to note that anyone familiar with peer-reviewed literature knows that editorialising is common, and in the climate literature, “absolutely pervasive”. In fact, he conducted a review of Google Scholar and found more than 300,000 papers that assert a “climate crisis”. A minor editorial comment by the Alimonti authors that passed through peer review, he observes, is no way a justification for a retraction. In his view it is one of the “most egregious failures of scientific publishing that I have seen”.
Meanwhile, another academic whistle-blower has cast further shocking light on the policing methods that evidently lie behind much climate science publishing. As the Daily Sceptic noted on Tuesday, Dr. Patrick Brown of John Hopkins University said he wrote a new paper on California wildfires in Nature according to the approved script in order to get it published. This of course involved boosting the role of ‘climate change’ and downplaying natural causes and the increasing role played by arsonists. He said he has learnt that there is a formula for success in getting papers published in high profile journals such as Nature and Science. “Unfortunately, the formula is more about shaping your research in specific ways to support pre-approved narratives than it is about generating knowledge for society,” he said. This formula, added Brown, distorts a great deal of climate science research, and misinforms the public.
Francis Menton highlights Pielke’s finding that 300,000 science papers assert the existence of a climate crisis. “A few hundred billion dollars of Government money can buy a lot of fake climate alarmism,” he concludes.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
The ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt Says The Organization Isn’t Pressuring X Advertisers
Despite telling advertisers to pause spending
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | September 7, 2023
In an interview this week on CNBC’s show Squawk Box, Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), steered a conversation toward alleging that criticism of the ADL’s social media censorship efforts were being driven by “white supremacist” factions.
The ADL recently met with Twitter CEO, Linda Yaccarino. It apparently ignited the fuse for a fast-spreading hashtag campaign: “ban the ADL.” According to Greenblatt, the culprit for this viral trend was not those that were tired of the ADL trying to censor online speech but were none other than the “white supremacists” pervading across the online platform.
The spotlight of this segment also fell on the alleged deflation of advertisement revenue on Musk’s platform, X. Musk suggested this was due to the ADL pushing for advertisers to reconsider their commercial placements. Greenblatt asserted, “we are not out there publicly or privately talking to advertisers, they will make the decisions they want to.”
Greenblatt also said that he would challenge Musk “to find a single advertiser on whom we put any pressure, because we’re simply not doing that.”
However, the ADL did call for a pause in ad spending on X following its acquisition in November.
“We did call for a pause back in November after the acquisition. And then since then, since that initial statement, what we are doing is engaging with the management of the company trying to help them make it better,” Greenblatt said of X.
“I understand they have a big business problem. I mean, Elon tweeted something I didn’t know, that the advertising revenues down 60 percent. But look, brands are big boys and girls, they will make their own decisions.”
Greenblatt also presented his stance on the divisive issue of social media censorship. His disbelief in cancel culture was clear, preferring the term “council culture.” In his words: “So someone makes a mistake you help them fix it. So what we’ve tried to do over the years with Twitter, with YouTube, with Facebook and all those platforms, with Reddit, with Discord I can go on and on is to work with them to make those platforms better.”
The EU’s best weapon against free speech isn’t working
The EU has just realized that it can’t rule the internet with an iron fist by throwing around the ‘Kremlin propaganda’ label
EC President Ursula von der Leyen speaks to the press after a meeting with Joe Biden in the White House on March 10, 2023 in Washington, DC. © Alex Wong/Getty Images
By Rachel Marsden | RT | September 7, 2023
The European Commission has concluded in a new report that despite making pinky-promises to “mitigate the reach and influence of Kremlin-sponsored disinformation,” large social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook were “unsuccessful” in doing so. What a shocker that this research by oversight advocates has ended up advocating in favor of more oversight. Russia just happens to be the most convenient scapegoat.
Using the same kind of smear tactics that the bloc has used previously – like when it included Russia alongside Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) in previous security and threat reports – this time it involved conflating “pro-Kremlin” social media accounts with those that it considers to be “Kremlin-aligned” or “Kremlin-backed.” In other words, mere disagreement with the Western narrative is enough to land anyone in the “pro-Kremlin” camp and to be considered worthy of content moderation or banning by the EU. And now they’re frustrated that social media platforms have dropped the ball on carrying out that censorship.
“Platforms rarely reviewed and removed more than 50 percent of the clearly violative content we flagged in repeated tests,” the report said. What kind of content would that be, exactly? It’s hard to tell, because their examples conflate the legitimately debatable with the patently absurd, and suggest that both warrant censorship. They cite, for example, content that accuses Ukraine of being run by Nazis – which is a legitimate concern, given that the Western press has reported extensively on the powerful role played by neo-Nazis in Ukraine, which are “aggressively trying to impose their agenda on Ukrainian society, including by using force against those with opposite political and cultural views,” according to a publication by the Washington-based Freedom House prior to the conflict, adding that “they are a real physical threat to left-wing, feminist, liberal, and LGBT activists, human rights defenders, as well as ethnic and religious minorities” in Ukraine. The Council of Europe had made similar observations.
There’s also the fact that the West trained the neo-Nazi Azov battalion to fight Russians, and that Reuters reported way back in 2018 that then-president Petro Poroshenko “would risk major repercussions” should he take action against neo-Nazis.
That kind of does sound like there’s a neo-Nazi issue that’s at the very least worthy of highlighting and debating. Yet the EU dismisses any such suggestion as Russian disinformation.
The report also takes issue with accounts “denying war crimes,” using events in Bucha as an example. I’m sorry, but was there a war crimes tribunal that we missed? We’re talking here about events taking place in the immediate fog of war. Attempting to sort through facts, realities, and manipulations is precisely the kind of thing with which social media is meant to assist. Everyone by this point knows that it’s about having access to as much raw data as possible. We expect to see a chaotic mess online – not a curated Encyclopedia Britannica set or the evening news. What makes Brussels think it is entitled to a monopoly on that process?
The report places these examples of inconvenient debates alongside a blatantly ridiculous example of sh*tposting whereby someone made up the name of a fake media outlet and announced that Ukraine was sending a radioactive cloud towards Europe. Look, if anyone is so dumb as to believe something like that, then it certainly isn’t the EU that’s going to save them from their own stupidity. Not for long, anyway. Just let them spend their entire next week digging a fallout shelter while their neighbors have a good laugh.
In a line that just begs to be read repeatedly out of sheer incredulity that someone could be so tone-deaf, the report notes that so-called Kremlin disinfo efforts are “designed to foment political and social instability among its adversaries by stoking ethnic conflict, promoting isolationism, and distracting public attention away from Ukraine and onto domestic affairs.” How dare the people of Europe insist that their leaders focus on the considerable problems faced by their own country and citizens, which have long been exacerbated by misguided national and EU-level policies, rather than riveting their attention to Ukraine! Indeed, if it wasn’t for those meddling Russians, Europe would be a utopia of sunshine and rainbows, everyone holding hands and singing Kumbaya, with nothing else for citizens to concern themselves with besides what’s happening in Ukraine.
The EU laments that “the Kremlin and its proxies captured growing audiences with highly produced propaganda content, and steered users to unregulated online spaces, where democratic norms have eroded and hate and lies could spread with impunity.” They have it all backwards. People wanting to engage in debate and discussion of topics and viewpoints that the EU — in all its arrogance as the self-appointed arbiter of truth — is keen to censor, have been driven to other platforms specifically because they support free speech in all its glory and imperfection.
“Over the course of 2022, the audience and reach of Kremlin-aligned social media accounts increased substantially all over Europe,” according to the report, adding that “the reach and influence of Kremlin-backed accounts has grown further in the first half of 2023, driven in particular by the dismantling of Twitter’s safety standards.” In other words, Elon Musk, who considers himself a “free speech absolutist,” came along and bought Twitter, leveled the playing field by opening up debate and reducing censorship, and what ended up happening is that people flooded to the platform as a refreshing alternative to the curated and censored Western establishment narrative that they’re spoon-fed elsewhere.
So what’s the EU going to do about it now? Well, mandatory compliance with its Digital Services Act is now in effect as of last month. This means that, theoretically, all the major social media platforms are obligated to work with the EU’s handpicked “civil society” actors to moderate and censor content – no doubt in alignment with the EU’s narrative. Musk should play along and take notes about the kind of censorship requests that are made of him by Brussels. Then he should publish them on Twitter in the interest of radical transparency and the kind of uncompromising defense of democracy to which the EU is constantly paying lip service as a pretext for its crackdowns on our fundamental freedoms.
Rachel Marsden is a columnist, political strategist, and host of independently produced talk-shows in French and English.
Viral RFK Jr. Video Gets Deleted By “X”: Here’s What They Didn’t Want You to See
The Pfizer clinical trials were a disaster. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. explains why.
The Vigilant Fox | September 4, 2023
“Freedom of speech, not reach,” is taking effect more than ever as Twitter (“X”) regresses to its 1.0 days. Ever since Elon Musk hired CEO Linda Yaccarino, who has close ties to the World Economic Forum, things have taken a turn for the worse.
In short, “lawful but awful” accounts and external links (especially Substack) are getting brutally deboosted. And permanent suspensions, which were promised to be reserved for unlawful speech only, have made a big comeback.
Now, Twitter (“X”) is taking further action by making undesirable videos unplayable.
What type of videos in particular? Well, mine…
After this article garnered lots of attention, the video in the tweet is now working for many people, but not everyone. X has not personally reached out or made a comment on why the video became unplayable several hours after it was uploaded.
Users also reported X was “blocking” them from retweeting. Now, that’s something reminiscent of 2021 and early 2022 — BEFORE Elon took over the platform. So, this is concerning.
So, what did Robert Kennedy Jr. say that crossed the line?
The video was a clip of RFK Jr. breaking down the Pfizer clinical trials with podcast host Brian Rose. And what he exposed, according to Pfizer’s own data, was that people who received Pfizer’s COVID vaccine showed a 23.5% GREATER likelihood of dying than the placebo group after six months.
Here’s the full breakdown, per Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.:
• In the Pfizer clinical trials, they gave 22,000 people two COVID injections and 22,000 people fake vaccines.
• Of the 44,000 in total, one person died of COVID in the vaccine group, and two people died of COVID in the placebo group. So Pfizer, with the misleading measure of relative risk reduction, called their vaccine “100% effective” because two is 100% greater than one. But from the angle of absolute risk, it took 22,000 vaccines to save just one life from COVID.
• And over a 6-month period, 21 of the vaccinated people died of all causes, whereas only 17 people died in the placebo group, a 23.5% difference.
So, what was killing those people in the vaccine group?
“It was cardiac arrest,” answered Kennedy.
“There were five cardiac arrest deaths in the vaccine group and only one in the placebo group. What that means is that if you take that vaccine, you’re [five times] more likely to die from a fatal cardiac arrest over the next six months than if you don’t. What it also means is that for every life they save by preventing a death from COVID, they are killing four people from cardiac arrest.”
“The all-cause mortality of the vaccine group was 23% higher than the all-cause mortality of the placebo group. And what do we have today currently running in the US for excess mortality? 23%, according to our numbers. I just find that curious.”
So when Pfizer presented this data to the FDA, the FDA was supposed to assess all-cause mortality, give Pfizer’s vaccine a failing grade, tell them to make a better product, and not come back until they could show it saves more lives than it kills. But instead, they rubberstamped the shots through, gave them the green light, and fast-tracked a vaccination campaign that inoculated the world with 13.46 billion doses of this stuff.
Data analyst Edward Dowd corroborated Kennedy’s findings when he did his own deep dive on the Pfizer clinical trials.
Have we only seen the tip of the iceberg for mRNA vaccine harms?
A slow-motion car crash
Health Advisory & Recovery Team | September 5, 2023
To those of us well-versed in the biology and emerging safety data relating to the injections referred to as “covid vaccines”, what is playing out before us is like a slow-motion motorway pile-up: we can see it unfolding, causing immense harm, have no idea when it will stop, and feel powerless to do much about it.
At present, it is unknown for how long this ghastly experiment will continue and how much further harm will be caused.
However, unfortunately there are reasons to believe the following may well be the case:
- It will take much longer for the harms caused to be acknowledged by the “establishment” and so the injections will continue to be administered for some time yet – albeit to smaller and smaller groups as time progresses, and with varying degrees of enthusiasm in different locations.
- Even if the injections were to stop now, it is unknown how much the harms caused thus far have actually come to light, and how much may manifest over the ensuing years or even decades.
One category of reasons for the above is essentially political. We are referring here to the complete failure on the part of those we previously relied upon to ensure pharmaceutical interventions are safe. The reasons for this are willful blindness on the part of our regulatory authorities, combined with the by now rather obvious capture of these institutions by two different interested parties:
- Politicians who will apparently stoop to anything, including installing transnational coordinated censorship regimes, to keep their monumental errors hidden; and
- Big Pharma, desperate to ensure that their bonanza continues as long as possible.
But as well as the above there are some inherent biological reasons which may hinder and delay the ending of this unprecedented catastrophe.
For a variety of reasons which are listed below, many uncertainties remain concerning the biological action of repeated doses of the mRNA products. However, what is known suggests that many of the harms they cause are mediated by inflammatory and autoimmune processes induced (potentially) throughout the body.
To recap the principal mode of action, the lipid nanoparticles carry mRNA into some of the recipient’s cells. These cells express spike protein – which is foreign to the body. The body’s immune system creates antibodies to that protein, as well as attacking and destroying the cells which express the protein.
In contrast to the original claims made – that the product would be broken down in the deltoid (shoulder) muscle with little or no distribution throughout the body, it turns out that the product DOES become widely distributed – potentially to every organ system. Of course, this should not have been surprising, since the whole point of the lipid in the lipid nanoparticles is to make them able to cross membranes and become distributed, to help with their original role as conveyors of targeted drugs to cancerous cells.
Moreover:
- The amount of spike protein produced is uncontrolled and uncontrollable, as is the duration over which it is produced. High levels of spike antibodies have been found many months after injection, suggesting continued creation of the protein.
- The spike protein produced has inbuilt differences compared to the natural version – the replacement of uridine by pseudouridine – designed to ensure the mRNA is less degradable. Other changes (eg codon optimisation) may well alter the folding characteristics of the protein produced – with unknown consequences.
- It is thought that the spike protein my translocate to the nuclei of cells… cancer
- The repeated creation of spike from multiple injections may have deleterious effects, both on the ability to fight similar viruses (so-called “tolerance” created through changing the type of antibody created) through to immune exhaustion (reducing the body’s ability to fight other pathogens or cancers)
- The LNPs themselves (notwithstanding their “payload”) may well be pro-inflammatory in themselves…
- The significance of above-tolerance levels of DNA contamination left-over from the bacterial plasmids used in the high-volume manufacturing process are as yet unknown.
Much of the harm observed appears to be inflammatory or auto-immune in nature. Both these processes are usually chronic, not acute problems. It is perfectly possible that once started, they continue for months or even years. Notably, chronic inflammation is thought to have a central role in many of the chronic pathologies increasingly suffered by Westerners over the past few decades.
Hence the tail of visible harm could manifest over a long timeframe. Moreover, because chronic inflammatory and autoimmune processes, by their nature, build slowly over time, the individual is likely to become habituated to ill effects, until a critical event occurs after some longer period.
A good example of this is with coronary artery disease. It is thought that inflammation is an important part of the pathophysiology in which a “plaque” builds up in the arterial wall. This may be asymptomatic until it ruptures causing a total blockage resulting in a “heart attack”. If the injections are accelerating this inflammatory process, the course of the pathological process may appear identical to that previously seen in many people, although it has been brought on and accelerated beyond what that person would otherwise have experienced; however, because it is within the range of possible or even probable illnesses observed, it gets dismissed as “one of those things”.
Cigarette manufacturers used to deny their products caused lung cancer by pointing out non-smokers who suffered the same fate. It was, in fact, only by rigorous epidemiological analysis that the link could be unequivocally proven. For the covid injections, it is deeply concerning that authorities seem to be doing everything possible to hinder access to the data which would permit such analyses to be performed.
Another reason why harms may be difficult to identify is that in some cases the pathological processes may be merely reducing physiological reserve, something which can go unnoticed for years or decades. Most of the body’s systems have significant inbuilt redundancy, which is why a kidney, or a significant part of the liver, can be lost while still maintaining good physiological and biochemical control. But if someone loses a kidney, they are more likely to suffer renal failure as they get older and the efficiency of their kidneys declines, and the available reserve falls away. Likewise, if part of the heart is damaged when young (eg through myocarditis), they may well make a full recovery in the short term in the sense of being physiologically normal, but be more vulnerable to suffering from heart failure (where the heart can’t pump blood around the body sufficiently) after losing some more heart muscle tissue after – say – a heart attack in middle age.
Finally, it should be noted that because of the wide distribution throughout the body (something rather obvious given the wide range of reports in the various adverse event databases), the harms appear to be manifesting in an extremely wide variety of symptoms and disorders. These will be problematic to diagnose, requiring lengthy and complex investigation, with multiple pathologies being possible. Such profiles of types of harms have not generally been observed with pharmaceutical products before; in most cases, the adverse effects are more limited in scope, and more closely temporally related to dosing (though there are some exceptions).
In conclusion
It is not possible to say whether we are at the beginning, or near the end of, the harms caused by these agents.
A combination of what may be termed “political” reasons, together with the inherent biological characteristics of the mRNA “vaccines”, all mitigate against the injections being identified and accepted anytime soon as being the causative agent of significant and sustained harms being experienced by an unacceptably large number of people.
Moreover, it remains likely that they will continue to be administered for some time yet – at least to certain groups in certain places – prolonging and exacerbating the harms already caused.
Featured Video
An Open Letter To President Donald Trump (My Response)
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Guatemala: A Test Tube of Repression
By Robert Parry | Consortium News | October 3, 2010
Last week’s grotesque revelation about American public health doctors infecting nearly 700 Guatemalans with venereal disease to test penicillin from 1946-48 marked just the start of the U.S. government’s post-World War II abuse of that Central American country.
Indeed, as troubling as the VD experiments were, U.S. administrations from Dwight Eisenhower to Ronald Reagan would do much worse, treating Guatemala as a test tube for Cold War counterinsurgency experiments that led to the slaughter of some 200,000 people, including genocide against Mayan Indian tribes. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Fact-Checking the “Placebo Control” Fact Checkers
- An Open Letter To President Donald Trump (My Response) | Candace
- Arms industry given direct influence over university courses
- Another Trump Flip Flop: From ‘Kill FISA’ to ‘Clean Renewal’
- AIPAC ‘slimeball’ Eric Swalwell leaves the stage
- UAE to close its flagship Burj Al Arab hotel for 1.5 years after Iranian strikes
- US-Israeli Mideast war damage to energy infrastructure may cost $58bln
- ‘Normalization Talks’: Lebanon No Longer Has A Government
- US Navy Confirms ‘mishap’ to $250 million spy drone downed by Iran
- Students, professors martyred in US-Israeli war of terror targeting universities and research institutes
- If Americans Knew
- Commentary: take away Israel’s biggest weapon
- The Myth of Israel as ‘US Aircraft Carrier’ in Middle East
- Israeli Media: ‘Diseases Are Everywhere’: Gaza’s ‘Catastrophic’ Healthcare Crisis Is Worsening
- Declassified Files Expose Jewish Pre-state Underground Militia’s Contacts With Nazi Germany
- No diapers, no relief: Gaza’s infants face growing hygiene crisis because of Israeli restrictions
- More US troops head into harm’s way, as cost of (Israel’s) war climbs – Daily Update
- ‘Not Acceptable’: President of Iran Condemns Trump For His ‘Desecration of Jesus, the Prophet of Peace’
- We Are the Barbarians
- Netanyahu Says the Trump Administration Gives Him Reports on Iran Talks Every Day
- Second Contractor Steps Forward to Blow the Whistle on Israeli Attacks at Gaza Aid Site
- No Tricks Zone
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
- New Study: No Linear Warming Or Glacier Retreat Along Northern Antarctic Peninsula Since 1980s
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
Aletho News 