The corporate media narrative that unvaccinated people are filling up the hospitals and dying from COVID is quickly falling apart, perhaps faster than they even expected.
WXYZ TV Channel 7 in Detroit asked their viewers on their Facebook Page last Friday to direct message them if they lost a loved one due to COVID-19 if they refused to get one of the COVID-19 vaccines.
This is a clear indication that they are getting desperate to find these stories, and are having a difficult time finding them.
I don’t know if they got any such stories through direct messaging, but the post on their Facebook Page, as of the time of publication today, had received over 182,000 comments, and they seem to be all comments of those who have lost loved ones after receiving a COVID shot, and comments asking them why they are not covering that story.
I paged through many dozens of the comments, and did not see a single one stating that they lost someone to COVID after refusing a COVID-19 shot.
People who have been silenced and censored on Facebook and other Big Tech platforms took advantage of the opportunity to share their stories instead. It is amazing that Facebook left these up, but after so many had commented, it would probably have been an even bigger story if they had taken down the post and comments.
I wonder what WXYZ will do now? Will they do what most corporate media companies do, fueled by almost unlimited resources from their billionaire Wall Street owners who are almost all connected to the pharmaceutical industry, and just go out and hire actors instead to do the story and make them up?
Here are a few screen shots of the comments that are representative of what people are posting, in case they do take this down.
The mainstream media is hell-bent on instilling climate fear among the masses. This means that they can never get over their obsession with weather events in the Arctic, which is one of their favorite subjects for projecting a climate catastrophe.
The Greenland Ice Sheet has been of great interest to climate alarmists. Any small change in ice sheet mass is promoted in the media as a product of man-made climate change. Last week, media outlets across the globe claimed that there has been rain for the first time at the Greenland summit.
“Rain fell at the normally snowy summit of Greenland for the first time on record,” read CNN’s headlines. Others went a step further and declared it a sign of climate doomsday. “Rain On Greenland Ice Sheet, Possibly A First, Signals Climate Change Risk,” read another headline.
Unfortunately, for the mainstream media, climate history nearly always comes back to haunt their claims of unprecedented events. Records reveal that this is not the first rainfall in Greenland, and certainly not the first on the Greenland summit peak, which stands at around 10,000 feet.
Records Show Past Rain Events in Greenland
A 1975 report prepared for National Science Foundation (NSF) by Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, at the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory documented the summer climate at Greenland ice sheet. It showed at least two rainfall events have occurred, once in 1933 at 8,840 feet and again in 1950 at a much higher altitude. The 1950 rainfall event was above 9,500 feet and very close to the Greenland summit peak, thus contradicting mainstream media claims of unprecedented rainfall at the summit.
The NSF report states, “According to Hogue (1964) heavy rainfall seldom occurs above 6,000 ft on the Greenland ice sheet. However, at Watkins (75°N, 48°W, and elevation 8,840 ft) rain was reported to have occurred in July 1933. Hogue also notes that in the Centrale-Eismitte area, drizzle and rain were each reported once in a three-year period, on 20 and 21 June 1950, respectively.”
The site of the previous rainfall event, Centrale-Eismitte, is close to the 9,800-feet mark where the current rainfall event occurred. It would be a pure lie — or gross ignorance — to claim that rainfall at such an altitude has never occurred before at Greenland.
Headlines That Portray an Incomplete Reality
Besides misleading the public on the “first-time rain event,” these media outlets have also concealed the reality of the situation in Greenland, especially in 2021.
This year, Greenland’s surface mass balance (SMB) was higher than the 30-year average during many days of the year. SMB is the net balance between the accumulation and ablation on a glacier’s surface, typically denoted by mass gain and mass loss.
Data on Greenland’s SMB is available at Polar Portal, where Danish research institutions display the results of their monitoring of the Greenland Ice Sheet and the sea ice in the Arctic.
SMB data for 2021 show that there has been no significant melting and there was also a surprising gain in the SMB during the summer months, which is usually the melting season.
During July and August, the total accumulation of SMB (as measured in gigatons) was higher than the 30-year average (1981-2010). This can be attributed to the unexpected gain in SMB during the summer months.
So not only has the media lied to the public about the “never-before” rainfall event, it has also withheld the truth about the above-average SMB that was witnessed during the past 50 days.
This endless parade of lies about Greenland and the Arctic will likely continue. Even above-average snow accumulations will be kept out of the news and one-time warm weather events (especially during the melt season) will be used as “proof” for global warming.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Contributing Writer to the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Va., and holds a master of science degree in environmental science from the University of East Anglia, England. He resides in Bengaluru, India.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has reportedly rejected a Republican complaint claiming Twitter gave Democrats an in-kind contribution by blocking a New York Post story about Joe Biden’s son Hunter ahead of the 2020 vote.
The New York Times, which broke the news of the FEC decision on Monday, editorialized by describing the story as “unsubstantiated.” The commission has yet to officially publish the ruling or any explanations.
Twitter executives “credibly explained” that they had commercial reasons for blocking the distribution of an article revealing the existence of Hunter Biden’s laptop and its contents, and had not coordinated with his father’s presidential campaign to do so, according to the Times. The decision “provides further flexibility to social media giants like Twitter, Facebook and Snapchat to control what is shared on their platforms regarding federal elections,” the paper opined.
The Republican National Committee, which had accused Twitter of making a de facto contribution to the Democrats by banning the distribution of the article, said it was “weighing its options for appealing this disappointing decision.”
Editorializing by the Times was met with derision from commenters across the political spectrum, who pointed out that the Biden laptop had been confirmed as authentic. After the election, Hunter himself said it “could have been” his, and admitted to “losing” another.
“[We]’ve all seen the videos from the laptop of him smoking crack with our own eyes,” tweeted Donald Trump Junior. “This is why the corporate media has lost all credibility.”
“The only ‘unsubstantiated article’ that was circulating on Twitter at the time was the one from Politico declaring Hunter Biden’s laptop was ‘Russian disinformation’,” Fox News media reporter Joseph Wulfsohn pointed out.
“We all remember when Twitter blocked every major media outlet from sharing unsubstantiated articles about Trump being a Russian asset/blackmail victim virtually every day for 3+ years,” noted the Grayzone’s Aaron Mate – sarcastically, because that never actually happened.
After the New York Post revealed the existence of a laptop Biden abandoned in a Delaware repair shop, and quoted some emails from it suggesting he was trading on the family name overseas, Twitter first blocked the story from being shared under its newly established “hacked materials” policy, then locked the Post’s account. The lockout lasted for over two weeks and was only lifted a few days before the election.
The Biden campaign responded to the story by calling it “Russian disinformation,” citing a letter by former intelligence officials – the same ones behind the original ‘Russiagate’ assessment – and denying the laptop’s authenticity.
Twitter appears to have used stories about a “hacker” threat, seeded by the FBI, to justify their reaction. According to the Times, the company told the FEC they had “received official warnings throughout 2020 from federal law enforcement that ‘malign state actors’ might hack and release materials associated with political campaigns and that Hunter Biden might be a target of one such operation.”
At least four FEC commissioners had to have voted to reject the RNC complaint. While it is currently chaired by a Democrat, three of the commissioners are Republicans appointed by President Donald Trump, and one is an independent appointed by President George W. Bush.
IN HER INTRODUCTION to ‘A State Of Fear’, Laura Dodsworth writes, “We don’t like to believe we can be manipulated, let alone that we have been manipulated – this book may hurt.”
Hurt it will, pitilessly exposing by turns the damage that fear has done to us over the past year, the way that terror eclipses reason or common-sense, and the way it has been weaponised to control us by the Government’s behavioural scientists. If you care about the future of liberty and democracy in the UK, this book will not help you sleep at night. It may however find a place at the top the pile on your bedside table: its hard-hitting chapters read once with shock and maybe, for some, a degree of incredulity, but then referred to again with increasing belief and conviction as a new revelation, campaign or headline brings home a key theme or passage.
It’s well researched and rigorously factual, but passion and anger shine through every page. They turn it from a dry analysis into a page-turning thriller in which we repeatedly discover ourselves as protagonist, victim, or supporting cast. The anecdotes and observations resonate with moments from our own lives over the past eighteen months, making personal the revelations about the polished levers and engines which generated them.
In a book about fear, perhaps the most frightening point of all is just how easy it now is to control a democratic society through the levers of behavioural science. Without debate or public consent, the Government has built capabilities in department after department to control how we think, feel, and act subliminally using cutting-edge psychology, research and communication. The advent of Covid-19 turbocharged these teams, which were headed by the SPI-B behavioural science committee and handed almost unlimited power and money. As the discipline with the greatest representation on SAGE, behavioural scientists carried more weight in the pandemic even than virologists and medical experts.
Likely anticipating the charge that she has succumbed to the dark theories of those who smell conspiracy in every action of Government, Dodsworth has rigorously researched and checked her claims. What emerges is comprehensive, informative and authoritative: page after page rings true and makes one nod as an anecdote of the past year strikes a chord.
Dodsworth vividly illuminates not just the effects fear has had, but how it influences us and why we are so prone to these extreme reactions. The expert insight and personal testimony show both how fear was created and how it took control of the population, often driving victims to extremes of behaviour that they view in hindsight as totally out of character.
Little here is speculative: the book deals in what we can see and know of events over the past year. It draws on highly-placed sources, though sadly many of those with real inside knowledge are quoted anonymously as they were too frightened of losing their careers to go on the record. This inevitably raises questions over the credibility of their claims, but it’s impossible to dismiss what they say because the substantiation is robust, the evidence convincing, and it so often chimes with personal experience.
At one point, a source in Government is quoted as saying,
“Hancock is quite paranoid and a total ‘wet’. He’s a real panicker.”
This will surprise few people – we can all see Hancock’s shortcomings – but these moments of recognition are important in building our understanding of the way in which politicians moved so quickly from championing freedom to enforcing repression. ‘The fear spread from the health department to the other departments and they all fell under the spell of the SAGE scientists foretelling doom’.
This was a different kind of fear to that felt by the public: fear not of the illness itself, but of its political fall-out. Politicians were terrified of failing in any step which might later be found to have saved lives. The virus might not represent a deadly threat to the vast majority of British people, but it could certainly be lethal to their own prospects for electoral success.
An insider tells Dodsworth that ministers fear ‘they’ll get hauled through the press for their own mistakes and that’s worse for them than ruining people’s businesses.’
This spectre still stalks Whitehall. I’m told that from March 2020 onwards, any Civil Servant minded to reject tough restrictions has simply been asked, ‘what will you tell the Inquiry?’ Few are brave enough to resist that threat. Yet it only works one way – deaths and suffering from Covid-19 may bring retribution. Deaths and suffering caused by restrictions are so unimportant to the decision-makers that they have not even bothered to consider whether the harm of measures may outweigh the benefits. Recovery has been campaigning since its launch for the coming Covid-19 inquiry to be comprehensive, investigating the full impact of the measures taken, positive and negative: this is why it’s so important.
We now know beyond question that the consequences of the Government action will be devastating for many, from the thousands who have not been treated or diagnosed with cancers over the past year to the millions whose livelihoods have gone. The mental health impact alone has been enormous and experts warn that some will bear the scars for life – including many children. This is vividly brought to life via the personal experiences which preface each chapter of the book.
Yet fear sells above all else. Broadcasters have enjoyed unprecedented viewing figures while Covid-19 has raged. An Ofcom report in September found that the average UK adult spent 6 hours 25 minutes watching content in April 2020 – up by an hour and a half from 2019.
That kind of power over eyeballs brings huge influence and profits, so broadcasters who gorge on drama and sensation grow fat. The reporters who provide it win pay rises and awards. For them, the best scientist is not the most accurate or eminent expert, but the one who produces the most wild and exciting prediction: the one which will really get viewers scared.
Reporters rush from No.10 conference to Covid ward with breathless anticipation of a child at a theme park racing from the dodgems to a rollercoaster. It’s what happens next that matters: the next scary number, the next variant. Checking whether the last prediction came true is dull. Boring old cancer and heart disease may be the bigger killers, but they’re old news. No-one has pushed a camera in the face of the grieving relatives of a cancer patient who was turned away for treatment or a worried oncologist. If you want to be heard, you have to talk Covid.
The pressure on Government is no longer to do what is best for the country, but what is best for the story. Over and over again, this leads to poor decision-making. Leaders are rewarded not for good policy, but for media-friendly sound-bites. Today, the business of Government has become less about doing what is right and more about doing what will play out best on the airwaves. Managing the opinion of the country has become more important than managing the country. Behind closed doors, our leaders have taken the logical next step.
Dodsworth reveals how successive governments have assembled a vast interconnected machine for producing and weaponizing fear with the explicit aim of controlling behaviour. Those who operate it argue that their intentions are good.
It’s the old paternalist thinking with a high-tech upgrade. People can’t be trusted to make the correct choices if they are given access to information and left to decide for themselves. So they must be subliminally ‘nudged’ in the right direction (or, during Covid-19, bludgeoned). Information which might disrupt the narrative is suppressed. Those who choose for us won’t admit the possibility that they could get it wrong. We, the ordinary people, are fallible; they are not. As Dodsworth says,
“Nudge is clever people in government making sure the not-so-clever people do what they want.”
All this was already happening prior to Covid-19. Yet it was little studied. A colossal machine was assembled out of public sight without any consideration as to the ethics and consequences, since those involved saw their goals as good and the ends as justifying the means.
As Dodsworth finds, its workings are wrapped in shadow. Attempting to dissect its component parts, she identifies some of the departments involved, but beyond confirming their existence, no-one in Government will answer her questions. In a book which contains many shocks, not least is how much of all this is being hidden from us in our supposedly free and democratic society. Not only are our strings to be pulled without our conscious knowledge, the details of how and why we are being manipulated must be hidden from us, lest we see through the tricks and hold the puppet-masters to account.
Behavioural science regards the mass of humanity as no more than rats in a maze, to be prodded down one alley and forbidden another. The scientists wish to control the rats: they do not accept that the rats should have any control over them.
These are disturbing claims, but the more they are researched, the more substantiation can be found. For example, she refers to the questionable role of Ofcom in enforcing a distorted narrative across the broadcast media, citing the guidance issued to broadcasters on 23 March 2020. This says that any report featuring content around Covid-19 which ‘may be harmful’ will be subject to statutory sanction.
As she points out, these comparatively innocuous words in practice force broadcasters to censure a huge amount of critical content, even where it is accurate, especially where it tends to calm fears or reassure people, since fear has been used to maximise compliance with restrictions.
An online search reveals that this was followed by additional Ofcom guidance on 27 March 2020, which is chillingly explicit. For example, it prohibits the broadcasting of ‘medical or other advice which… discourages the audience from following official rules and guidance.’ There’s no ambiguity here. Ofcom is telling broadcasters that they cannot allow informed, expert opinion, no matter how accurate or important, if it conflicts with the official guidance. This is extraordinary.
It gives added bite to her central point: ‘any regulator charged with upholding freedom of expression – as is the case with Ofcom – should proceed to restrict that freedom only on a closely reasoned basis. That is something Ofcom has manifestly failed to do.”
In the process, it has turned our theoretically impartial broadcasters into mere cheerleaders for restrictions. She argues that what they report is no longer news: “There is a word for only sharing information which is biased and used to promote a political cause: propaganda.”
Could the BBC have done more to preserve its integrity? When reporting restrictions were imposed on it during the Gulf War, it prefaced reports with a reminder that restrictions were in place. It could have done the same here, alerting viewers to the controls on pandemic reporting. It chose not to do so and therefore the public is unaware that anything has changed.
Her interview with Piers Robinson, Co-Director of the Organisation for Propaganda Studies, concludes with the stark warning, ”It is not inconceivable that we are walking into an absolute nightmare in which freedom of speech and debate become significantly curtailed.”
It’s one of many moments in the book where you catch yourself thinking, ‘can this really be happening?’ It’s hard to believe that we have lost so many freedoms without a whisper from the supposed parliamentary Opposition, or that a leader who has championed our liberties so loudly in the past has moved so decisively to remove them.
‘A State Of Fear’ is essential reading if you want to understand how majority backing for the uniquely repressive response to Covid-19 was engineered so quickly. It’s a deeply troubling tale. However, it raises broader concerns about a world in which the combined power of psychology, technology, media and research are increasingly being used to dictate our choices without our knowledge or consent.
These questions go to the heart of our humanity and the kind of world we want for ourselves and our children. How many of us really want to live in fear, even if it means we are protected from our own misjudgements? Can governments be trusted with subliminal tools so powerful that they can instruct us what to think? With ‘A State Of Fear’, Laura Dodsworth has launched a vital debate.
Recovery formed last October to campaign for the Five Reasonable Demands for good government during Covid-19, a moderate, balanced alternative to the Government’s damaging approach to Covid-19, which experts have warned will end up costing many more lives than it saves and the Government itself says has already cost the country as much as the entire Second World War.
Jon Dobinson, is a co-founder and Campaign Director of Recovery, and MD of award winning advertising agency Other. He is a former D&AD judge and Chair of the Creative Jury of the International Business Awards.
There’s been an absolutely brutal campaign against Ivermectin in the public press. I thought it was time to deploy my background as a Toxicologist to review the known toxicity of Ivermectin. Fortunately, a world-class review paper on Ivermectin came out in 2021 by Jacques Descotes, a prominent toxicologist working at the behest of Medincell.
That comprehensive review of Ivermectin reveals that it is among the safest and most well-tolerated drugs ever introduced to the market.
In this episode I walk through the expert review of Ivermectin by Jacques Descotes MD, PharmD, PhD which was conducted in early 2021. We discuss the safety, toxicity, and known side effects and drug interactions, few and mild as they are. The conclusion is that “Ivermectin human toxicity cannot be claimed to be a serious cause for concern.”
A warning is appropriate. Reading this article with a large amount of medical science information will likely increase your anxiety and fear. The views of many distinguished medical experts paint a bleak view of COVID vaccines.
The likely reaction to the science is very different than the fear constantly propagated by the evil Dr. Fauci and his supporters. Here is the difference: They want you to fear the COVID virus and to accept vaccination, masking, lockdowns, school closings, and other forms of medical tyranny. With extensive data and expert assessments, this manifesto defines a vaccine dystopia.
It is a terrible condition where fear of the virus is replaced by fear of the vaccines – supposedly the remedy for the virus. This manifesto supports a different solution to the virus: Give greater attention and importance to a host of treatment protocols that can and should replace unsafe vaccines.
Another dimension to revolting against the vaccine dystopia is the need to reclaim personal medical freedom – your right to determine what medicine and vaccine to put into your body, not the government, especially when the government has a biased, one-sided view of vaccine safety.
Introduction
We are at the edge of history, in a global society where there is great suffering and injustice because of the widespread commitment to getting the entire population jabbed with COVID vaccines that the government claims are safe.
As shown below, in truth there are ever-increasing deaths and harmful health impacts from all the COVID vaccines. But governments do not give credence to the many awful health impacts of the vaccines, no matter how many esteemed physicians and medical researchers present evidence for stopping vaccination efforts.
The political and medical establishments keep using the same insensitive argument. No matter how many people die from the vaccines – often within days of getting jabbed – those in power proclaim that more lives are saved from using the vaccines against COVID than are lost due to them.
So many thousands of people worldwide have died from the jabs, probably 100,000 or more based on data from CDC, the European Union, and other nations. But negative vaccine impacts are largely ignored by big media, the public health system, and authoritarian politicians.
Sneaking into the public limelight are some famous people dying from the shots from the realms of sports, entertainment, and politics. But these are easily forgotten or ignored. Or seen as exceptions, statistically speaking.
In our quickly evolving vaccine dystopia, the vaccinated are granted many rewards and the unvaccinated are shamed, castigated, and bullied.
We have not yet reached the critical inflection point where the many medical voices against vaccines (given below) prevail. Their voices are suppressed by big media; their medical science arguments and data are ignored. The result is that most of the population remain victims and slaves to massive propaganda about the benefits of vaccines.
Ignored are not only the ill vaccine effects but also the enormous financial benefits obtained by makers of vaccines. Medical experts are unable to win the battle despite their science-based critiques of the vaccines. Yet what else can they do than to keep offering their expert medical advice?
Insanity is often defined as maintaining behavior that is proven wrong, destructive, and unhealthy. In our nascent vaccine dystopia, those with power keep pushing more vaccinations even as the death toll and harmful health impacts keep mounting, and vaccine effectiveness shrinks.
Keep pushing more shots as if a magical solution to COVID will emerge. Medical experts say it will not. COVID will never be completely eradicated. Proven cheap, safe and effective treatments using generic medicines like ivermectin must be seen as safe and effective alternatives to vaccines.
Perhaps over time vaccine-induced deaths and serious adverse health impacts will become so visible that the powerful vaccine machine will grind to a halt. Why? Because authoritarian and dystopian societies eventually collapse. However, only after incredible numbers of people have died and suffered.
The many anti-vaccine medical experts cited below will have little pleasure from being ignored and criticized for so long only, eventually, to be seen as correct. Some kind of revolution is needed to overturn the multi-pronged vaccine empire.
Below are data, scientific judgments, and new studies and analyses that present compelling evidence against mass COVID vaccination. This is all we can do right now to fight vaccine dystopia and nourish the needed revolution.
New analysis of all major vaccines
Physician J. Bart Classen published an extremely valuable analysis. He examined clinical trial data from all three of the major vaccine makers and found their vaccines cause more harm than good. Here are highlights from his article.
Data were “reanalyzed using ‘all-cause severe morbidity,’ a scientific measure of health, as the primary endpoint. ‘All-cause severe morbidity in the treatment group and control group was calculated by adding all severe events reported in the clinical trials.
Severe events included both severe infections with COVID-19 and all other severe adverse events in the treatment arm and control arm respectively. This analysis gives a reduction in severe COVID-19 infections the same weight as adverse events of equivalent severity. Results prove that none of the vaccines provide a health benefit and all pivotal trials show a statically significant increase in ‘all-cause severe morbidity’ in the vaccinated group compared to the placebo group.”
In other words, he found that each of the vaccines caused more severe events in the immunized group than in the control group. No safety.
This was his main conclusion:
“Based on this data it is all but a certainty that mass COVID-19 immunization is hurting the health of the population in general. Scientific principles dictate that the mass immunization with COVID-19 vaccines must be halted immediately because we face a looming vaccine induced public health catastrophe.”
Manipulation of data
So many actions are pure fraud, designed to deceive the public and push a media story that makes unvaccinated people look bad.
The trick used by CDC that was revealed in some publications, but not big media, is to count the deaths of fully vaccinated people as unvaccinated if the deaths occurred within 14 days of their final vaccination.
Their goal was to make unvaccinated people look like pandemic culprits causing the continued spread of COVID. Indeed, what big media did produce to influence public opinion was that unvaccinated people were the problem.
All this to convince more people to get vaccinated.
In truth, the medical reality is that vaccinated people are dying for two reasons. Some are inflicted with serious health impacts from the vaccines themselves, such as blood clots that kill people from strokes and other maladies. Second, many are victims of breakthrough COVID infections that can cause death because vaccines over time become increasingly ineffective in protecting against COVID.
One astute critic said this: “This means if someone was hospitalized, admitted to ICU, required mechanical ventilation, or died within two weeks of getting the jab they are being counted as ‘unvaccinated,’” said Kelen McBreen. “The entire [CDC] report can basically be tossed into the trash thanks to the inclusion of the recently vaccinated in the unvaccinated category,” wrote McBreen.
“This intentionally misleading data is now being used to infringe on the rights of the people of California and across the entire United States as vaccine mandates and passports are being rolled out nationwide.”
To add more context to what CDC has done, consider the following report of a revelation by a whistleblower.
In sworn testimony, she claimed to have proof that 45,000 Americans have died within three days of receiving their COVID-19 shot.
The declaration is part of a lawsuit America’s Frontline Doctors (AFD) against U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra. That is a remarkably higher number than CDC has reported.
According to the whistleblower’s sworn document, she is “a computer programmer with subject matter expertise in the healthcare data analytics field, an honor that allows me access to Medicare and Medicaid data maintained by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).”
After verifying data from the CDC’s adverse reaction tracking system VAERS, the whistleblower focused only on individuals who died within three days of receiving their shot.
“It is my professional estimate that VAERS (the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) database, while extremely useful, is under-reported by a conservative factor of at least 5,” she added. She came to that conclusion by examining the Medicare and Medicaid data in respect to those who died within three days of vaccination.
It should be noted that some years ago a Harvard study found that the system could be undercounting by a factor of 10 to 100.
Her statement also made an important point regarding how the COVID pandemic is not being managed the way previous vaccines have been treated. “Put in perspective, the swine flu vaccine was taken off the market which only resulted in 53 deaths,” said the statement.
EXAMPLE OF WHY 12 -DAY CDC PRACTICE IS FRAUDULENT
Back in January, there was a news story about the death of 56-year old Florida doctor Gregory Michael who died from a rare autoimmune disorder he developed on December 21 three days after receiving the Pfizer vaccine. His wife said that in her mind his death was 100% linked to the vaccine.
One doctor came forward publicly to say he also believed the vaccine caused the victim to develop acute idiopathic-thrombocytopenic-purpura (ITP), the blood disorder, and brain hemorrhage that killed him.
Dr. Jerry L. Spivak, an expert on blood disorders at Johns Hopkins University, who was not involved in Dr. Michael’s care, said “I think it is a medical certainty that the vaccine was related. It happened and it could happen again.”
His medical reasons were that the disorder came on quickly after the shot, and “was so severe that it made his platelet count ‘rocket’ down.” Over the following months, huge amounts of medical research documented vaccine-induced blood problems, including the one that hit the Florida physician.
There is still more to the data corruption designed to send a deceitful message to the public. A July story noted: “a physician contacted the Globe and said testing protocol from Scripts [health care system] is indicating that they aren’t testing the vaccinated in the hospitals – they are only testing the unvaccinated for COVID despite the many COVID breakthrough cases reported.
The physician contacted another hospital and reported to the Globe : ‘They HAVE NOT been testing the vaccinated for COVID routinely like they have the unvaccinated, but they JUST changed their policy to begin doing this.’ Unbelievable! So all this BS in the newspapers has been spewing about the vaccinated NOT having COVID BECAUSE THEY DON’T TEST FOR IT!”
All this was done very likely in hospitals all over the nation so that big media could push the story that there was a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”
There is still more corruption to acknowledge.
In 2020 CDC issued new instructions for medical examiners, coroners, and physicians to give more credit for COVID as the cause of death. Pre-existing conditions or comorbidities were to be recorded in Part II rather than Part I of death certificates.
This was a major rule change from the 2003 handbooks to be used for reporting deaths. This single change resulted in significant inflation of COVID-19 fatalities by instructing that COVID-19 be listed in Part I of death certificates as a definitive cause of death regardless of confirmatory evidence, rather than listed in Part II as a contributor to death in the presence of pre-existing conditions, as would have been done using the 2003 guidelines.
The result was significant inflation in COVID fatality totals by as much as 1600% above what they would be had the CDC used the 2003 handbooks. It comes down to what many people now understand, namely so many people die with COVID but not FROM COVID.
As a final example of data corruption and shortcomings, consider what was revealed at a recent meeting of nurses. They explained what they are facing in their hospital work, which also helps explain why so many nurses and physicians have refused vaccination.
One nurse said she ran an ER department, and that it was tragic that they were seeing so many heart attacks and strokes, and that it is obvious that they are related to the COVID-19 shots. Another nurse stated that she was never trained about how to submit a report to VAERS about vaccine adverse events, and did not even know it existed until she did some research on her own.
She said there is pressure to NOT report vaccine injuries and deaths, and it takes about 30 minutes to fill out the report, which few will do.
In our blossoming vaccine dystopia, you cannot trust information coming from big media, the government, and the medical establishment.
British and other International data show vaccine truths
A new report with detailed data from Public Health England provides some startling numbers. For the period of February 1 through August 2, there were COVID Delta variant cases for 47,000 people who had received 2 vaccine doses, and for 151,054 people who were unvaccinated.
In the first group of vaccinated people, there were a total of 402 deaths. In the second much larger group with more than three times unvaccinated people, there were just 253 deaths. In other words, of the total COVID deaths 61 percent were in fully vaccinated people.
To get the death rate you divide the number of deaths by the total number of infection cases. That gives a death rate of .86 percent among the vaccinated and .17 percent among the unvaccinated.
That is an amazing difference. The death rate among vaccinated was just over five times greater than that for the unvaccinated.
Five times greater! In other words, unvaccinated people who got infected were enormously safer from death. Proving that COVID vaccines are not safe.
How can we explain this huge difference in terms of medical science?
It should also be noted that it was determined that the measured viral load in both groups was the same. So, why are vaccinated people dying more frequently than the unvaccinated? Here are some plausible explanations.
First, there is something very dangerous and unsafe in the COVID vaccines associated with spike proteins that are causing people to die at a higher rate.
For example, as discussed elsewhere, all current vaccines have been associated with serious blood problems, notably both large and microscopic blood clots. Many people have died from brain bleeds and strokes, for example.
There are also many, many other types of adverse side effects causing a host of medical problems.
Two famous virologists warned against using the current vaccines because they are fundamentally unsafe and could be killing people. They envisioned a vaccine dystopia and loudly proclaimed that the mass vaccination program should be halted.
Instead, they advocated the use of treatments using generic medicines like ivermectin, as detailed in Pandemic Blunder. As well as strengthening natural immunity.
Second, it is reasonable to believe that most unvaccinated people have acquired natural immunity from some prior COVID infection. And that natural immunity is far more protective than the artificial or vaccine immunity obtained from jabs. Their natural immunity translates to fewer deaths.
Yet the US like many other countries does not give credit for natural immunity on a par with vaccine immunity when it comes to COVID passports and mandates. Though a few nations do the right thing by honestly following the science.
Third, vaccinated people are susceptible to breakthrough infections, which means that they are not protected against infection after they have been originally infected. Phony and dangerous COVID vaccines do not destroy the virus, nor prevent transmitting it to others. Some breakthrough infections are lethal.
Putting aside problems with CDC data, the death rate found in the UK for vaccinated people translates to about 1,300 deaths for vaccinated Americans. Indeed, an August report revealed that new CDC data indicated 1,507 people of those fully vaccinated died.
It seems like these figures are only for breakthrough infection deaths because the CDC VAERS database indicates more than 6,000 vaccine deaths (through August 27) that are reported as vaccine adverse effects. [But nearly 14,000 deaths apparently when non-US data are included.]
A higher death rate from COVID for vaccinated people in the US compared to other countries might be related to a generally unhealthier population with more serious health conditions, notably high levels of obesity.
Just days ago, it was reported that West Virginia saw a 25 percent increase in deaths of people that are fully vaccinated over the last eight weeks. At the same time, it was reported that in Massachusetts 144 people fully vaccinated also died from COVID, an 80 percent increase from several weeks earlier, and that new total translates to about 4,800 for the whole nation.
In New Jersey, there was a 16 percent increase in breakthrough deaths recently.
The new data from England involving very large numbers of people should be headline news. But the biased and dishonest big media suppress this kind of critical data. Why?
Clearly, if vaccinated people die at a much higher rate than unvaccinated people, then why should people be enthusiastic about being vaccinated for initial shots or later booster ones? They should not. This is especially true for the millions of people who have natural immunity.
Data from other countries merits attention because of still more proof of the deficiencies of the COVID vaccines.
In August director of Israel’s Public Health Services, Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis announced half of all COVID-19 infections were among the fully vaccinated.
Signs of more serious disease among fully vaccinated are also emerging, she said, particularly in those over the age of 60.
A few days later, Dr. Kobi Haviv, director of the Herzog Hospital in Jerusalem, reported that 95 percent of severely ill COVID-19 patients are fully vaccinated and that they make up 85% to 90% of COVID-related hospitalizations overall.
In Scotland, official data on hospitalizations and deaths show 87% of those who have died from COVID-19 in the third wave that began in early July were vaccinated.
In Ireland, 18 percent of COVID deaths were in fully vaccinated people.
There is only one rational conclusion from examining all the foreign data: COVID vaccines are both unsafe and ineffective.
Great article on vaccine failure
This recent article displays a lot of wisdom about COVID vaccines; here are some excerpts.
“The Corona vaccines don’t work very well. Ubiquitous statistics showing that the vaccinated enjoy substantial protection against serious illness and death seem wrong. In some cases, they are probably manipulated. They are certainly confounded by the different testing regimes to which the vaccinated and the unvaccinated are subjected. Once you forget the specifics of efficacy and look at the broader picture, it is easy to see where we are. The vaccines have not reduced Corona mortality compared to the same time last year in any jurisdiction that I know of. Countries with high vaccination rates are now seeing the same number of deaths, or more, as they had at the beginning of September 2020.
“The vaccinated remain substantially protected against serious illness or death, but the unvaccinated are entering the hospital and dying at very high rates indeed as if to compensate. Thus Israel has maintained the same case fatality rate of around 0.7%, before and after mass vaccination.
“Vaccines against coronaviruses have been used in animals for decades, and none of them work very well. Generally, they begin to fail after a few months. Despite their technical sophistication, our mRNA and vector vaccines against SARS-2 are no different. They had some success when they were first rolled out, but if anything that probably made things worse.
“Our universal vaccination campaigns worked just well enough to speed up the evolutionary processes that are always and everywhere optimizing Corona.” That means the virus keeps outwitting us.
“It is impossible to believe that this failure was not foreseen. The scientists who developed the vaccines knew for sure how things would play out. That’s why they concluded the trials after three or four months and vaccinated their controls. It’s why they have been talking about boosters from the very beginning. It’s why, if you listened carefully, you never heard Zero Covid sloganeering coming from Team Vaccine. Only the comparative morons on Team Lockdown ever talked like that.
“Our politicians and our new public health dictators, on the other hand, remained oblivious to the limited potential of the vaccines. They continue to insist on universal vaccination and green passes, while it is obvious that these will do nothing to influence the course of the pandemic.
“Corona policy in every western country has unfolded more or less according to the same script, devised by the World Health Organisation at the end of February 2020. The final act was supposed to be the wide-scale eradication of Corona after mass vaccination. It is now clear that this will never happen. For the first time since March 2020, there is no obvious international consensus on the way forward.
“A few countries, or perhaps even a few prominent politicians or public health pundits who do not have their heads up their asses, could change everything. Everyone who is not crazy needs to start insisting on the same simple message:
“We have to live with Corona, it will always be with us. Biannual boosters for the entire population will not solve anything. They will only reduce the effectiveness of vaccines by encouraging antigenic drift. The vaccines are, at best, a solution for the elderly and the vulnerable only. Everyone will get Corona, even the vaccinated, and children need to get it while they are still young and while it poses no risk to them. In this way, SARS-2 will become an unimportant virus in the coming years.”
But will that happen before we suffer through a vaccine dystopia?
This article gave no attention to treatments, but here is one of the many comments that addressed this issue well:
“When do the powers that start focusing on TREATMENTS for those who contract covid, regardless of vaccination status?? No other infection, condition, disease, etc… don’t have treatment options, except for covid… they, the powers that be, go so far as to block treatment options or make them incredibly hard to get.
“It’s past time to make the various treatments readily available… they don’t have to be 100% successful, but we should be given the choice to try them!!”
Vaccine dystopia seen by some esteemed scientists
If the material above has made you depressed, you may not want to keep reading. Some great medical scientists have gone public with very negative views of the future because of mass COVID vaccine use.
Chief among these forecasters of vaccine doom is Dr. Judy Mikovits. She became widely seen as a conscientious whistleblower when she talked about “mass murder” and said that 50 million Americans will die because of the vaccines.
Her medical science credentials are impeccable, including a long stint at the National Cancer Institute. Her views may seem extreme to some people, but they are based on a deep scientific understanding and are consistent with the highly frightening forecasts of other scientists and physicians.
Here are some of her views:
“Most people don’t realize the [COVID] vaccines do not prevent infection. You’re injecting the blueprint of the virus and letting a compromised system try to deal with it. And worse, it doesn’t go in the cells that a natural infection would, that have lock and key receptors, gatekeepers, so that only certain cells can be infected, like the upper respiratory tract for a coronavirus. Now you’re making it in a nanoparticle which means it can go in every cell without that receptor. So, can you imagine the damage of bypassing God’s natural immunity and allowing the blueprint for coronavirus that also has components of HIV in some strains, meaning you can infect your white blood cells. So now you’re going to inject an agent into every cell of the body. I just can’t even imagine a recipe for anything other than what I would consider mass murder on a scale where 50 million people will die in America from the vaccine. The numbers from the XMRV’s (xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus) and the vaccine injuries for the (past) 40 years support that.”
Her warning that these injections can cause death is confirmed by Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, an award-winning researcher and former head of the Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene in Germany; he was a professor of virology and microbiology for 30 years in Germany.
In the statement shown below, he warns that by taking these injections, killer lymphocytes already present in our body will cause an auto-immune attack with terrible consequences for our health and even death. He made this statement:
“The big, big danger about this vaccine is you are shooting the gene of the virus into your body. It is going to go through the body and go to entering cells that you don’t know. These cells are going to start making, not the whole virus, but virus protein, and these cells are going to put the waste of that spike protein in front of their cells. And the killer lymphocytes will see the waste, and, you know, anyone who does not understand there is going to be an autoimmune attack because the killer lymphocytes are already there. It is with this that I will say, “Bye bye,” (death) because you don’t realize what you are going to do. You are going to plant the seed of autoimmune reactions.”
Dr. Sherri Tenpenny is board certified in emergency medicine and osteopathic manipulative medicine and author of several books on the impact of vaccines. When she was specifically asked about the forecast from Dr. Mikovits, she said:
“If they don’t die, they’re going to be seriously injured. There are some things in life that are worse than death, you know, having to live with chronic inflammatory drug induced hepatitis, you know, having chronic seizure disorders, having debilitating autoimmune diseases. Some people are so sick it would be merciful if they died.”
Add to these views the warnings from Dr. Michael Yeadon, former Vice President of Pfizer with a Ph.D. in respiratory pharmacology, and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, former head of the Public Health Department in Germany and a doctor of pneumology. They sent an urgent petition to the European Union demanding a halt to COVID-19 vaccine studies due to safety concerns.
They specifically identified the following serious side effects:
Infertility
Allergic, potentially fatal reactions due to polyethylene glycol (PEG) which is contained in the vaccine.
Exaggerated immune reactions, especially when the vaccine recipient is confronted (later in life) with the real “wild” virus. They report that these exaggerated immune reactions to corona vaccines have long been known from experiments with cats. 100% of the vaccinated cats died after catching the wild virus.
Here are a few more examples of dire predictions about the COVID vaccines:
Dr. Luc Montagnier, a French virologist and recipient of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine for his discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is worth listening to. He has a doctorate in medicine and has received more than 20 major awards. Montagnier refers to the mass vaccine program as an “unacceptable mistake” and is a “scientific error as well as a medical error.” His assertion is that “The history books will show that… it is the vaccination that is creating the variants.”
In other words: “There are antibodies, created by the vaccine,” forcing the virus to “find another solution” or die. This is where the variants are created. It is the variants that “are a production and result from the vaccination.” He is talking about the mutation and strengthening of the virus from a phenomenon known as Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE).
ADE is a mechanism that increases the ability of a virus to enter cells and cause a worsening of the disease. His bottom line: “Faced with an unpredictable future, it is better to abstain.” But most people will find it extremely difficult to resist all the coercion and vaccine mandates.
As to the much talked about and hope for herd immunity, he has said: “the vaccines Pfizer, Moderna, Astra Zeneca do not prevent the transmission of the virus person-to-person and the vaccinated are just as transmissive as the unvaccinated. Therefore, the hope of a ‘collective immunity’ by an increase in the number of vaccinated is totally futile.”
Dr. Vanden Bossche has considerable credentials that make his views worth consideration. He has a Ph.D. in Virology from the University of Hohenheim, Germany, and has held faculty appointments at universities in Belgium and Germany. He was at the German Center for Infection Research in Cologne as Head of the Vaccine Development Office.
He has said: “Given the huge amount of immune escape that will be provoked by mass vaccination campaigns and flanking containment measures, it is difficult to imagine how human interventions would not cause the COVID-19 pandemic to turn into an incredible disaster for global and individual health.”
He talks about selective viral ‘immune escape’ where viruses continue to be shed from those who are infected [both vaccinated and nonvaccinated] because neutralizing antibodies fail to prevent replication and elimination of the virus.
A frightening forecast by Bossche is that the worst of the pandemic is still to come. Hard to believe considering all the bad news propaganda about cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. But he thinks we are now experiencing the calm before the ultimate storm. Imagine a new wave of infection far worse than anything we’ve seen so far is how Bossche thinks. How does this happen?
There will be more mutants or variants to which the adaptive immune system from vaccine shots provides little resistance. At the same time, there will be decreased innate or natural immune effectiveness. Unless people take a number of steps to boost their natural immunity.
Here is his big picture view: “There is only one single thing at stake right now and that is the survival of our human race, frankly speaking.” This too is a very strong view. The “mass vaccination program is… unable to generate herd immunity.” If true, there is little hope of seeing the COVID pandemic ending.
In a public comment to the CDC on April 23, 2021, molecular biologist and toxicologist Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay, Ph.D., called on CDC to immediately halt Covid vaccine production and distribution. Citing fertility, blood-clotting concerns (coagulopathy), and immune escape, Dr. Lindsay explained to the committee the scientific evidence showing that the coronavirus vaccines are not safe.
She holds a doctorate in biochemistry and molecular biology from the University of Texas, and has over 30 years of scientific experience, primarily in toxicology and mechanistic biology. “I strongly feel that all the gene therapy vaccines must be halted immediately due to safety concerns on several fronts,” she said.
Also noted was that “Covid vaccines could induce cross-reactive antibodies to syncytin [a protein], and impair fertility as well as pregnancy outcomes.” Yet another issue was this: “there is strong evidence for immune escape, and that inoculation under pandemic pressure with these leaky vaccines is driving the creation of more lethal mutants that are both newly infecting a younger age demographic, and causing more Covid-related deaths across the population than would have occurred without intervention.
That is, there is evidence that the vaccines are making the pandemic worse.”
Dr. Theresa Deisher warned about the dangers of mRNA permanently re-writing our genetic code by making changes to our DNA. She graduated with honors and distinction from Stanford University and obtained her Ph.D. in Molecular and Cellular Physiology from the Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford University. “The vaccines that are messenger RNA (mRNA), what they do is they act like a virus and they hijack the cell’s machinery to turn that mRNA into the protein. Now, messenger RNA can also be what’s called reverse transcribed into DNA. Okay, an RNA virus uses a reverse transcriptase in our cells to make itself into DNA and permanently insert into the genome. Viruses can do that. There is a possibility that the messenger RNA could be made into DNA and be permanently inserted. It doesn’t have all of the efficient components of a virus but the spontaneous possibility is there. In a gene therapy trial, the experts said the danger is 10 to the minus 13 (which is one in a trillion). Four of nine boys (participating in the trial) had DNA insertions and developed leukemia. Four of nine is a lot different from one in a trillion.”
Dr. Johan Denis, a medical doctor and homeopath from Belgium, warns, “This vaccine is just not proven safe. It has been developed too quickly. We have no idea what the long-term effects will be. It needs much more investigation. There is no hurry or emergency. It might possibly change your DNA. This is irreversible and irreparable for all future generations.”
A report in May by 57 top scientists and physicians sent a clear message about COVID vaccines. “The recently identified role of SARS-CoV-2 glycoprotein Spike for inducing endothelial damage characteristic of COVID-19, even in absence of infection, is extremely relevant given that most of the authorized vaccines induce the production of Spike glycoprotein in the recipients.
Given the high rate of occurrence of adverse effects, and the wide range of types of adverse effects that have been reported to date, as well as the potential for vaccine-driven disease enhancement, Th2-immunopathology, autoimmunity, and immune evasion, there is a need for a better understanding of the benefits and risks of mass vaccination, particularly in the groups that were excluded in the clinical trials.”
“Despite calls for caution, the risks of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination have been minimized or ignored by health organizations and government authorities.”
“In the context of these concerns, we propose halting mass-vaccination and opening an urgent pluralistic, critical, and scientifically-based dialogue on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among scientists, medical doctors, international health agencies, regulatory authorities, governments, and vaccine developers.”
Conclusions
Ponder this for a while: Even though we probably have entered vaccine dystopia can we still save humanity and our society?
So many people have already been jabbed and for those who have died and been stricken with various health problems, it is too late. But many millions have not yet been jabbed. And now many millions must accept or reject booster shots.
Many have strong natural immunity from prior COVID infection that the weight of scientific evidence says is better than vaccine immunity. For them, vaccine shots are unnecessary and potentially dangerous.
All COVID vaccine decisions are difficult. How informed are people really? Is consent just a mindless formality? Sign and get jabbed. Then what?
But the more you know about vaccine data and science, the more likely you will be motivated to seek alternatives to the vaccines. It will be hard work to regain medical freedom. The pro-vaccine army that permeates all big media will keep saying that vaccines are needed to save lives.
They conveniently ignore all the deaths and adverse health impacts. The unknown is whether these will increase enough to show the folly of their argument. Will the vaccine doomsayers be proven correct?
If the forces of evil pushing medical tyranny prevail, then a very dark vaccine dystopia probably awaits us.
About the author: Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn, author of Pandemic Blunder and many articles on the pandemic, worked on health issues for decades. As a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, he directed a medical research program between the colleges of engineering and medicine. As a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, he directed major studies on health-related subjects; he testified at over 50 U.S. Senate and House hearings and authored hundreds of articles and op-ed articles in major newspapers. He has served as an executive volunteer at a major hospital for more than 10 years. He is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and America’s Frontline Doctors.
First, access to hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine was restricted. The chloroquine drugs only work during active viral replication. While extremely safe at prescribed doses, and used daily for years by hundreds of thousands of patients with rheumatoid arthritis or lupus, overdose can be fatal.
Awareness of these facts led to the FDA restricting the use of hydroxy Clora Quinn to only hospitalized patients, in whom it would no longer be effective. 3 large multi Center, multi nation clinical trials were designed to give patients excessive amounts of hydroxychloroquine, leading to predictable increased arrhythmias and probably deaths. Most of the early and large clinical trials were flawed deliberately by either using the drug too late or using too much. That’s how the initial literature supported avoiding hydroxychloroquine for Covid. Later studies that used appropriate doses and gave the drug to patients early during the first week of illness showed almost uniformly excellent results.
Congruent with controlling much of the research, FDA and about 30 states imposed other restrictions. Maine has one of the least severe restricts, but still not good enough. In my state I can prescribe HCQ for early treatment but not for prophylaxis, even though the prophylactic dose is only about 1/6 of the treatment dose for lupus, and therefore extremely safe.
Like hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin is also a licensed drug in the United States which physicians can (supposedly) prescribe freely. Fortunately, unlike HCQ, it is not toxic when given much more frequently than is necessary for parasites–which often require only one dose. It has been used over 3 billion times since 1987, without a prescription, for parasitic diseases. It is derived from a streptomycetes soil bacterium. According to Wikipedia:
Ivermectin not only works during viral replication, but also is effective later in the illness. This meant that the tricks that had been used to make hydroxychloroquine look bad would not be effective for ivermectin. Furthermore, there have been dozens of independent studies showing the drug’s safety and effectiveness for Covid. The powers that be had not gotten into the game early with fake studies and fake publications. I have previously linked to a metanalysis by Bryant, Lawrie et al., and another by Pierre Kory et al.
I suspect the powers that be, like Fauci, were also somewhat gun-shy about trying their tricks to stop the public getting effective treatment for Covid again. Would they be outed by media this time around?
As more and more people began to obtain ivermectin, and thereby were able to discard their fear of Covid, also discarding any desire for vaccination, the bad guys apparently decided that despite the risk, they had to act.
This time a very concerted movement of FDA, CDC, Pharmacy chains, state medical boards, and drug wholesalers occurred together, beginning around August 25, 2021. I wrote about this earlier in a piece titled “The Mess Media.” Let me lay out and expand on what happened.
At least 4 doctors in 3 states were suddenly publicly charged by their medical boards for prescribing ivermectin for Covid, and this made national news. Immediately thereafter the CDC sent out an Emergency memo titled Severe Reactions to Ivermectin. However the 4 papes said absolutely nothing about any adverse reactions to ivermectin prescribed by doctors. Instead, it was claimed that one internet purchaser and one consumer of veterinary ivermectin developed neurologic symptoms and were hospitalized.
FDA produced a famous tweet: “You are not a horse” about people taking veterinary ivermectin, and put up a warning on its website. FDA has yet to acknowledge reviewing the literature on ivermectin for the treatment of Covid.
Then lies about the huge number of calls to poison control centers were disseminated nationally. The Associated Press reported that 70% of calls to Mississippi’s poison center were for ivermectin. Soon the AP corrected itself, when Mississippi’s chief epidemiologist sait it was only “about 2%.”
An actual Oklahoma doctor was interviewed by a TV station and claimed that there were so many ivermectin overdoses coming to ERs that people arriving with gunshot wounds were having to wait. This story made the international news, was covered by tweets from Rachel Maddow, and Rolling Stone did a story about it–using a photo of a long line of patients, allegedly waiting to be seen in an ER.
This story apparently had too many legs. One hospital where the doctor worked issued a statement that it had seen absolutely zero ivermectin overdoses, and there were no lines of patients waiting for care. The story was a complete fabrication, harking back to the Lancet paper on the dangers of the chloroquine drugs.
Within a few days, Walgreens’ and CVS’ corporate offices told their staff to stop filling ivermectin scripts. Cardinal Health, a distributor for many pharmacies, told those pharmacies (including my local Hannaford’s) the drug was on backorder and Cardinal had no idea when it would be available. Cardinal formed a business relationship with CVS in 2014. I do not know if that is relevant or not.
Amerisource-Bergen and McKesson are the two other large drug wholesaler-distributors in the US. In 2018 they controlled 95% of the US market.
I just bit the bullet and drove around surveying local pharmacists. McKesson is not making ivermectin available to Osco or Walmart pharmacies. No one local seems to source ivermectin through Amerisource.
I do understand how multiple pharmacists expressed concerns about losing their license were they to fill the script. What a sad situation. The Big Lie wins, at least for now.
Ben Rich repeats the BBC’s frequent lie, that climate change is making hurricanes stronger, expressed of course in the usual “scientists say” way. These are his exact words:
“Climate scientists believe that global warming is making them stronger”
It is of course true that some scientists say this, but equally many hurricane experts maintain the opposite, something you might have thought the BBC would have reported.
And, given this is supposed to be a “Climate Check”, you might have thought the BBC would actually have provided some facts, rather than just opinions. The IPCC were quite clear in their last Assessment Review, AR5:
IPCC AR5
They could find no evidence whatsover of any “significant observed trends” in tropical cyclone activity over the past century. All they could find was an increasing intensity of North Atlantic hurricanes since the 1970s, which hurricane experts such as Chris Landsea believe is part of the multidecadal cycle, the AMO. This is borne out by the fact no that robust trends in major hurricanes has been found in the North Atlantic in the past 100 years.
Little has changed in the latest AR6, which can still find no long term trends.
One particular omission in the video is the role of wind shear, high level winds which act to break up hurricanes. While Rich mentions this factor, he omits to tell viewers that scientists believe that global warming will increase wind shear.
This Climate Check has little to do with facts, and is little more than propaganda.
THE British historian Guy de la Bédoyère claims that ‘Australia is falling apart’. Off Guardian suggests that we are ‘going full fascist’. Daily reports in France, Russia and everywhere in between and beyond, hover between pity, amusement and disbelief. How did this happen – in Australia? The overseas storytelling can barely keep up with the never-ending stream of new announcements designed to grind us into the ground. But on and on it goes.
There is, at last, a book-length account of Australia’s eighteen months of madness that will either warm the hearts of Covid realists, remind us of all the Covid policy absurdities or perhaps simply provide yet more chilling evidence of the sinister forces at work that are changing us irrevocably.
Unfolding Catastrophe: Australia (Sense of Place Publishing, 2021), by John Stapleton, restores – though perhaps only a little – the faith we ought to have in the journalist class, so utterly diminished by their sitting out the crushing of our lives (at best) and their active collaborating in the spread of Covid propaganda (at worst).
Recognising early on the biggest story of all of our lives, Stapleton set out to record in graphic detail and with authenticity the developing catastrophe, from the toilet paper crisis at the start to the emerging apartheid regime for those who refuse the State Injectible.
Stapleton records with palpable astonishment the now familiar litany of harms that have been done, not only to the body politic, but to our core values, indeed, to our very sense of our country. Our place. They include the impositions of lockdowns that do not work but cause harm beyond telling; the ‘wildly inaccurate’ modelling that predicted catastrophe and instead merely delivered fame and riches for those involved; the succession of non-medical interventions with no basis in science and without popular understanding that this is the case; the low information voter; the punitive policing; the absence of real leadership in the crisis; the incoherent messaging from the top; the disaster that is ‘National Cabinet’; magic money tree economics; the relentless announcables; the Covid cronyism; the entrenching of power by the political class.
This all amounts to ‘a radical social experiment going against decades of epidemiological wisdom’. It has been, Stapleton suggests, ‘demonic’. Not just stupid and deranged, but evil. It has caused, as we now see in all our empty churches, ‘spiritual damage’. Earthly lives gone, and souls lost. A sad tale of deceit and compliance, of induced fear, isolation, economic deprivation, destroyed friendships and civil fracture. A creepy but unmistakable feel of the Biblical End Times, the streets empty. Astonishing submissiveness. A story of manufactured narratives, of a ‘disinformation feedback loop’ as Stapleton reports, his previous faith in the scepticism of his countrymen utterly destroyed. Societal dysfunction. Many ‘conspiracy theories’ across the internet have proved to be spot on.
The book draws upon a broad range of expert observers, who include journalists of every colour and distinguished academics such as the Spectator’s Ramesh Thakur, a breath of fresh air amid the fetid atmosphere of secular decline. Ramesh’s call on the Covid response, as reported by Stapleton: ‘The greatest mistake in history’. World War One is right up there, but this call is no exaggeration.
Rational argument simply does not work with our rulers. Copious evidence relating to the policy disasters of the pandemic never breaches the walls of the bubble. As Stapleton said in an interview with Sydney Criminal Lawyers, ‘it all fell on deaf ears’.
Is the tide of opinion turning against the ever-increasing crush of medical technocracy? Stapleton has cautious optimism. Speaking up for those of us who, mercifully, live outside the cities, he says: ‘But there are no cases or virtually no cases in this area. Nobody knows anybody who has died.’ Pennies may, at last, be dropping. Crisis? What crisis? It is a case-demic of a very mild strain of the initial virus, without the remotest hospitalisation crisis
Chillingly, as Stapleton says, ‘All of this has been done in secret, and in our name.’ The parliaments rarely sit. Public Health Orders trump democratic processes. Reasons are never given for policy actions beyond formulaic tosh. We never signed up for this.
Steve Waterson, one of the few consistently sane voices in the corporate media, describes the book as a ‘devastating indictment of Australia’s response to the Covid pandemic’. I am glad Waterson didn’t confine himself to ‘Australian governments’, for we are, all of us, complicit in this truly diabolical attack on everything we have all lived for. Stapleton uses the term ‘manipulated’ and ‘held hostage’ to describe our corporate media’s role in the fiasco.
Stapleton, alone, it seems, among our publishers and authors, has taken a stand – for freedom, common sense, perspective and Aussie values. His is a stand for life itself. His work shames his colleagues who have chosen to sit quietly in the corner these past eighteen months, or worse, to join in the chanting for the Covid Fascist State. This book is the methodical work of a brave truth-teller who is willing to call a spade a bloody shovel, in the best tradition of fair-dinkum journalism.
As the first draft of history, this magnificent book should be marked ‘essential reading’. Normally one might add here: ‘Send a copy to your member of parliament’. Alas, I fear, in this case, such a course of action would be pointless. Our rulers are in and settled, on a good wicket, and they intend to bat on.
A ‘signal collapse and rearrangement of society’? Who on earth could disagree?
While the mainstream media has, by and large, dismissed the theory that SARS-CoV-2 was created and leaked from a high-security biocontainment lab in Wuhan, China, a number of high-ranking U.S. officials are sticking to it, and there’s probably good reason for this.
On the whole, if the virus was actually a natural occurrence, a series of improbable coincidences would have had to transpire. Meanwhile, a series of highly probable “coincidences” point to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) being the most likely source, and to dismiss them as a whole simply doesn’t make sense.
Media Struggle to Prop Up Unproven Zoonotic Theory
I first mentioned that the outbreak had the hallmarks of a laboratory escape in an article we posted February 4, 2020. On the upside, some members of the media are now finally starting to inch toward more honest reporting on this — probably because U.S. officials keep leaning that way.
That doesn’t mean some aren’t still trying to defend the official narrative. Take The New York Times, for example. The original headline of its March 26, 2021, article about Dr. Robert Redfield, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, read: “Ex-CDC Director Favors Debunked Covid-19 Origin Theory.”1
Three days later, that headline was toned down to: “The CDC’s Ex-Director Offers No Evidence in Favoring Speculation That the Coronavirus Originated in a Lab,”2 with a correction notice noting that the earlier headline “referred incorrectly to a theory on the origins of the coronavirus. The theory is unproven, not debunked.”
Well, the truth is, all other theories are equally unproven — and are riddled with far more holes. The theory that the virus arose through natural mutation, for example, looks like Swiss cheese in comparison to the lab-leak theory.
In a February 16, 2021, article3 in Independent Science News, molecular biologist and virologist Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., and Allison Wilson, Ph.D., a molecular biologist, reviewed the evidence for a laboratory origin and the reasons why a zoonotic origin “will never be found.” I also summarized their review in March 2021 article, which explains that:
The chance of a person from Wuhan being patient zero is approximately 1 in 630, based on calculations that take into account the population size of Wuhan, the global population and the fact that coronavirus-carrying animals are found virtually all over the world
Taking into account that there are 28 Alpha- and Beta-coronavirus species with members that affect humans, the chance of Wuhan hosting a SARS-related coronavirus outbreak is 17,640 to 1
No credible theory for natural zoonotic spillover has been presented, to date
There are at least four distinct lab origin theories, including the serial passage theory (which proposes the virus was created by serial passaging through an animal host or cell culture). There’s also a variety of evidence for genetic manipulation
A third theory is that SARS-CoV-2 is the result of vaccine development, and the fourth is the Mojiang miners passage theory, which proposes a precursor to SARS-CoV-2 sickened the miners, and once inside these patients, it mutated into SARS-CoV-2
No matter which way you look at it, the half-baked idea brought forth by the World Health Organization’s investigative team, that the virus somehow naturally evolved in some unknown part of the world and then piggy-backed into Wuhan on top of frozen food, is held together by even fewer facts.
Among the more compelling “coincidences” that hint at lab-origin are the facts that the WIV has admitted storing and working with bat coronaviruses collected significant distances away from the lab, and that it’s the only biosafety lab in China that studies human coronaviruses. These viruses include RaTG13,4 the closest known ancestor to SARS-CoV-2, obtained from miners who fell ill with severe respiratory illness after working in a Mojiang mine in 2012.
WHO COVID Report ‘Totally Flawed’
In a March 30, 2021, opinion piece in The Washington Post,5 Josh Rogin accurately points out that the WHO’s report6 on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is so flawed, “a real investigation has yet to take place.” We simply cannot count that report as the result of a true investigative effort.
“Determining the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus should have nothing to do with politics,” he writes.7 “It is a forensic question, one that requires thorough investigation of all possible theories, and one that should encompass both the scenario that the virus jumped from animals to humans in nature as well as one related to human error in a Wuhan lab.
But a fatally flawed investigation by the World Health Organization and Chinese officials and experts only muddies the waters, and it places the WHO further at odds with the U.S. government and the Biden administration.”
As noted by Rogin and many others, the investigation was far from independent and transparent, as China was allowed to select its members, who then relied on their Chinese counterparts when it came to data collection. It’s no surprise then that this team decided the natural origin theory is the most credible, while the lab-accident theory is summarily dismissed as unworthy of further consideration and study.
In a March 25, 2021, CNN interview,8 Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated, “We’ve got real concerns about the methodology and the process that went into that report, including the fact that the government in Beijing apparently helped to write it.” Rogin adds:9
“Specifically, declassified U.S. intelligence, confirmed by Blinken’s own State Department,10 alleges that the WIV was conducting undisclosed research on bat coronaviruses, had secret research projects with the Chinese military, and failed to disclose that several lab workers got sick with COVID-like symptoms in autumn 2019.”
Someone’s Not Telling the Truth
According to the WHO report, the labs “were well-managed, with a staff health monitoring program with no reporting of COVID-19 compatible respiratory illness during the weeks/months prior to December 2019.” “In other words, the WHO is saying the U.S. intelligence is wrong,” Rogin writes.11
Not a word is mentioned in the report about U.S. government claims that the WIV engaged in the very research required to create a novel coronavirus with the specific affinity to infect human cells.
Recently, Shi Zhengli, who heads bat coronavirus research at the WIV, spoke at a Rutgers University seminar, calling the WIV’s research “open” and “transparent.” Former deputy national security adviser Matthew Pottinger disagrees. In an interview with Lesley Stahl on “60 Minutes,” he said:12
“There was a direct order from Beijing to destroy all viral samples — and they didn’t volunteer to share the genetic sequences. There is a body of research that’s been taking place, conducted by the Chinese military in collaboration with the WIV, which has not been acknowledged by the Chinese government.
We’ve seen the data. I’ve personally seen the data. We don’t know [why the military were in that lab]. It is a major lead that needs to be pursued by the press, certainly by the WHO.”
As noted by Pottinger, Shi published studies showing how bat coronaviruses were manipulated to render them more infectious to humans, and the U.S. government has in the past received reports of safety concerns due to lax standards at the WIV.
“They were doing research specifically on coronaviruses that attach to the ACE2 receptors in human lungs just like the COVID-19 virus,” Pottinger told Stahl.13 “It’s circumstantial evidence. But it’s a pretty potent bullet point when you consider that the place where this pandemic emerged was a few kilometers away from the WIV.”
US State Department Suspects Lab Leak
In a March 21, 2021, interview with Sky News Australia,14 David Asher, former lead investigator for the U.S. State Department’s task force that looked into the origins of COVID-19, also stated that the data they collected “made us feel the Wuhan Institute was highly probably the source of the COVID pandemic.”
According to Asher, three workers at the WIV who worked with the RatG13 coronavirus — the closest relative to SARS-CoV-2 identified to date — appear to have actually been the first cluster of cases of COVID-19. They fell ill with symptoms consistent with COVID-19 as early as October 2019. At least one of the workers required hospitalization.
He also pointed out there is evidence in the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 suggesting it’s been synthetically altered. It has the backbone of a bat coronavirus, combined with a pangolin receptor and “some sort of humanized mice transceptor.” “These things don’t naturally make sense,” Asher said, adding that experts around the world agree that the odds of this configuration occurring naturally are “very low.”
Another troubling indicator that something was amiss at the WIV was the Chinese government’s taking down of a WIV database in September 2019. According to the Chinese, this was done because of “thousands of hacking attempts.”
However, Asher pointed out many other databases were taken offline around the same time as well.15 The Chinese even tried to remove data posted in a European database containing viral sequencing from patients exhibiting COVID-19-related symptoms. Interestingly, those sequences included adenovirus, which is a vaccine vector. This, Asher said, could indicate that SARS-CoV-2 is part of a vaccine developed in response to a biological weapon.
In an earlier article16 by The Sun, Asher is quoted saying the WIV “was operating a secret, classified program,” and that “In my view … it was a biological weapons program.” He stops short of accusing China of intentional release, however, which also would not make sense from a bioweapon point of view. Instead, he said he believes it was a weapon vector that, during development, “somehow leaked.”17
A March 27, 2020, assessment report by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency also concluded SARS-CoV-2 was likely an accidental release from an infectious diseases laboratory, but stops short of calling it a biological weapon.18 Asher also told Sky News19 he’s never seen a more systematic cover-up, and The Sun 20 quotes him as saying that “Motive, cover-up, conspiracy, all the hallmarks of guilt are associated with this.”
Former FDA Commissioner Weighs in on Lab Origin
March 28, 2021, former FDA commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb, now a board member of Pfizer (producer of one of the COVID vaccines), weighed in on the origin of the pandemic in a “Face the Nation” interview, saying:21
“It looks like the WHO report was an attempt to try to support the Chinese narrative … You know, the lab leak theory doesn’t seem like a plausible theory unless you aggregate the biggest collection of coronaviruses and put them in a lab, a minimum-security lab in the middle of a densely-populated center and experiment on animals, which is exactly what the Wuhan Institute of Virology did.
They were using these viruses in a BSL-2 lab and, we now know, infecting animals. So that creates the opportunity for a lab leak. It might not be the most likely scenario on how this virus got out, but it has to remain a scenario. And I think at the end of the day, we’re never going to fully discharge that possibility. What we’re going to have here is a battle of competing narratives.”
WHO Enters Damage Control Mode
In response to growing critiques, WHO director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and 13 other world leaders have joined the U.S. government in expressing “frustration with the level of access China granted an international mission to Wuhan.” As reported by The Washington Post, March 30, 2021:22
“Ghebreyesus said in a briefing to member states … that he expected ‘future collaborative studies to include more timely and comprehensive data sharing’ — the most pointed comments to date from an agency that has been solicitous toward China through most of the pandemic.
He said there is a particular need for a ‘full analysis’ of the role of animal markets in Wuhan and that the report did not conduct an ‘extensive enough’ assessment of the possibility the virus was introduced to humans through a laboratory incident …
The United States, Britain, South Korea, Israel, Japan and others issued a joint statement23 … expressing concern. ‘Together, we support a transparent and independent analysis and evaluation, free from interference and undue influence,’ it reads …
Tedros said24 … that mission team members raised concerns to him about access to raw data needed for the report … ‘The team reports that the first detected case had symptom onset on the 8th of December 2019. But to understand the earliest cases, scientists would benefit from full access to data, including biological samples from at least September 2019,’ he said.”
WHO Investigation Team Accused of Spreading Disinformation
In a March 2020 interview with Independent Science News,25 molecular biologist Richard Ebright, Ph.D., laboratory director at the Waksman Institute of Microbiology and member of the Institutional Biosafety Committee of Rutgers University and the Working Group on Pathogen Security of the state of New Jersey, called out the members of the WHO-instigated investigative team as “participants in disinformation.”
Ebright was one of 26 scientists who signed an open letter26 demanding a full and unrestricted forensic investigation into the origins of the pandemic, published in the Wall Street Journal and French Le Monde, March 4, 2021. When asked to describe the shortcomings of the WHO-China team’s investigation, he responded:
“A credible investigation would have had Terms of Reference that: 1) Acknowledged the possibility of laboratory origin, 2) Ensured access of investigators to records, samples, personnel, and facilities at the Wuhan laboratories that handle bat SARS-related coronaviruses,
3) Enabled collection of evidence, not mere meet-and-greet photo-ops, 4) Authorized an investigation of months, not mere days, and 5) A credible investigation also would have had conflict-of-interest-free investigators, not persons who were subjects of the research and/or closely associated with subjects of the investigation …
It is crucial that any team reviewing the issues include not only research scientists, but also biosafety, biosecurity, and science policy specialists.”
Ebright, who has repeatedly called the WHO mission “a charade,” stated that “its members were willing — and, in at least one case, enthusiastic — participants in disinformation.” Importantly, the terms of reference for the investigation were prenegotiated, and did not include even the possibility of a laboratory origin. He’s also highly critical of the inclusion of Peter Daszak, whose conflicts of interest alone are enough to invalidate the investigation.
“Daszak was the contractor who funded the laboratory at WIV that potentially was the source of the virus (with subcontracts from $200 million from the US Department of State and $7 million from the US National Institutes of Health), and he was a collaborator and co-author on research projects at the laboratory,” Ebright noted.
What Do We Know?
While another signer of the open letter, Dr. Steven Quay, claims to have calculated27 the lab-origin hypothesis as having a 99.8% probability of being correct, Ebright is unwilling to assign relative probabilities to either theory. Rather, he insists a truly thorough forensic investigation and analysis is what is required, as there is biological evidence going in both directions. He explains:
“The genome sequence of the outbreak virus indicates that its progenitor was either the horseshoe-bat coronavirus RaTG13, or a closely related bat coronavirus.
RaTG13 was collected by Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2013 from a horseshoe-bat colony in a mine in Yunnan province, where miners had died from a SARS-like pneumonia in 2012, was partly sequenced by WIV in 2013-2016, was fully sequenced by WIV in 2018-2019, and was published by WIV in 2020.
Bat coronaviruses are present in nature in multiple parts of China. Therefore, the first human infection could have occurred as a natural accident, with a virus passing from a bat to a human, possibly through another animal. There is clear precedent for this. The first entry of the SARS virus into the human population occurred as a natural accident in a rural part of Guangdong province in 2002.
But bat coronaviruses are also collected and studied by laboratories in multiple parts of China, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Therefore, the first human infection also could have occurred as a laboratory accident, with a virus accidentally infecting a field collection staffer, a field survey staffer, or a laboratory staffer, followed by transmission from the staffer to the public.
There also is clear precedent for this. The second, third, fourth and fifth entries of the SARS virus into human populations occurred as a laboratory accident in Singapore in 2003, a laboratory accident in Taipei in 2003, and two separate laboratory accidents in Beijing in 2004.
At this point in time, there is no secure basis to assign relative probabilities to the natural-accident hypothesis and the laboratory-accident hypothesis. Nevertheless, there are three lines of circumstantial evidence that are worth noting.
1. First, the outbreak occurred in Wuhan, a city of 11 million persons that does not contain horseshoe-bat colonies; that is tens of kilometers from, and that is outside the flight range of, the nearest known horseshoe-bat colonies. Furthermore, the outbreak occurred at a time of year when horseshoe bats are in hibernation and do not leave colonies.
2. Second, the outbreak occurred in Wuhan, on the doorstep of the laboratory that conducts the world’s largest research project on horseshoe bat viruses, that has the world’s largest collection of horseshoe-bat viruses, and that possessed and worked with the world’s closest sequenced relative of the outbreak virus …
3. Third, the bat-SARS-related-coronavirus projects at the Wuhan Institute of Virology used personal protective equipment (usually just gloves; sometimes not even gloves) and biosafety standards (usually just biosafety level 2) that would pose very high risk of infection of field-collection, field-survey, or laboratory staff upon contact with a virus having the transmission properties of SARS-CoV-2.”
Who’s Qualified to Opine on Viral Origin?
When asked “What would you say to the scientists who declined to comment on the open letter because it does not come from virologists?” Ebright responded:28
“The claim is unsound. There were virologists among the signers of the Open Letter. There even were coronavirologists among the signers of the Open Letter. More important, COVID-19 affects every person on the planet. Not just virologists …
Microbiologists and molecular biologists are as qualified as virologists to assess the relevant science and science policies. Virology is a subset, not a superset, of microbiology and molecular biology. The sequencing, sequence analysis, cell culture, animal-infection studies and other laboratory procedures used by virologists are not materially different from the procedures used by other microbiologists and molecular biologists.”
Is Gain-of-Function Research Ever Justifiable?
Clearly, getting to the bottom of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is crucial if we are to prevent a similar pandemic from erupting in the future. If gain-of-function research was in fact involved, we need to know, so that steps can either be taken to prevent another leak (which is not likely possible) or to dismantle and ban such research altogether for the common good.
As long as we are creating the risk, the benefit will be secondary. Any scientific or medical gains made from this kind of research pales in comparison to the incredible risks involved if weaponized pathogens are released, and it doesn’t matter if it’s by accident or on purpose. This sentiment has been echoed by others in a variety of scientific publications.29,30,31,32
Considering the potential for a massively lethal pandemic, I believe it’s safe to say that BSL 3 and 4 laboratories pose a very real and serious existential threat to humanity.
Historical facts tell us accidental exposures and releases have already happened, and we only have our lucky stars to thank that none have turned into pandemics taking the lives of tens of millions, as was predicted at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Seeing how scientists have already figured out a way to mutate SARS-CoV-2 such that it evades human antibodies, having a frank, open discussion about the scientific merits of this kind of work is more pertinent than ever before.
If SARS-CoV-2 really was the result of zoonotic spillover, the easiest and most effective way to quash “conspiracy theories” about a lab origin would be to present compelling evidence for a plausible theory. So far, that hasn’t happened, and as noted by Latham and Wilson, the most likely reason for that is because the virus does not have a natural zoonotic origin, and you cannot find that which does not exist.
Summary
Ideally, we need to reevaluate the usefulness of the WHO. Strong evidence indicates it is heavily influenced, if not outright controlled by Bill Gates. On the whole, it seems it would be far wiser to decentralize pandemic planning from the global and federal levels to the state and local levels. Both medicine and government work best when individualized and locally applied.
Sadly, even though this is clearly the best strategy for successfully addressing any truly serious infectious threat, the likelihood of this happening is very close to zero.
This is largely due to decades of careful planning by the technocrats that have carefully placed their surrogates in virtually every arena of global government, finances and media, which allows them to easily dictate their propaganda campaigns and censor or deplatform virtually anyone who disagrees and seeks to provide a balanced counter-narrative.
MANY of us in the UK who have been writing about the Covid-19 vaccines (and have declined them) have found ourselves fighting what I call ‘data wars’.
Although it is necessary to engage in these wars, in this article I explain why we need an additional tactic to defeat those who are using highly selective scientific data to impose a political will and a ‘new normal’ of social control.
We need to start with the obvious, for which we do not need the nitty-gritty of data, such as this tweet from the editor of TCWDefending Freedom:
As a scientific technical writer, I am very aware that scientific data – and language, terminology, jargon and marketing copywriting – can be used to ‘prove’ almost anything. It is easy to blind people, including scientists, with science.
Much scientific data today is dubious. In our times of huge proliferation of science, the majority of published studies cannot be replicated independently by peers. In other words, published science is not necessarily true. The journal Nature calls this situation a ‘crisis’.
Furthermore, much data that is passed off as science cannot, by its very nature, be replicated and tested, such as so-called behavioural science and data modelling, that we might call crystal-ball science.
Equally concerning is that most scientific experiments fail, and details are hardly ever published, meaning that science does not properly learn from its failures. This is sometimes called ‘publication bias’. Science, of all academic disciplines, is vulnerable to the pressure of ‘publish or perish’. In other words, we must always be cautious of scientists armed with data.
Commerce (not least Big Pharma), government, and the colluding mainstream media can simply pick the scientific data they want to believe or they want the public to believe. At no time has this been more obvious than since early 2020, when large corporations were given political permission and public funding to do ‘warp speed’ science despite, as noted, the knowledge that there was already a crisis of scientific integrity.
Hence we suddenly see the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ditching its credibility by giving unprecedented licenced approval-to-market of a vaccine still undergoing clinical trials, trials which themselves have been short-cut (such as no blinded control group).
There is much commercial incentive and political pressure now to do novel science, such as novel testing methods and novel vaccines. And there is much disincentive to publish experiments and data on treating Covid-19 with existing treatments. Experts advocating treatments such as ivermectin and asthma inhalers are easily hidden from public view by the mainstream media and by the social media barons.
In the data wars, each side picks its experts. For instance, in the last week of August one could have picked a Japanese report claiming that the Delta variant will acquire complete resistance to the mRNA vaccines, or an Oxford University report telling you that the vaccines are effective against the Delta variant.
Powerful tyrants and sophists in the governments of Canada, USA, Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, Israel etc, have agreed with the most powerful media on which data are to prevail in the new and internationalist political movement sloganised ‘Build Back Better’.
Politicians know they need the approval of the social media barons, who are internationalist, secularist and woke, convinced that the meaning of life is climate change and utopian science, including, in the words of the UK government, ‘genetic engineering and brain-computer interfaces’.
Israel is one of several highly vaccinated nations – with Iceland, Gibraltar and Seychelles – that, despite initial claims of success, now rank amongst the most diseased nations. Common sense, therefore, informs us that the vaccines don’t work, and have not achieved what the vaccine designers, manufacturers and promoters said they would achieve a year ago (including herd immunity). We do not need sophisticated data to make the point. It is obvious that the situation today in Israel is unexpected, and contrary to what Big Pharma and the world’s political leaders told us to expect. We have the right to start asking whether mass vaccination has caused augmented virulence of the virus in their society.
In the meantime, Israeli scientists, politicians and journalists blindly offer data insisting the vaccines are working. We are told that people simply need to be ‘topped up’ with more of the synthetic spike-protein toxin. According to Israeli PM Naftali Bennett, the double-jabbed are now considered unvaccinated (and denied the Green Pass). Worse, Bennett blames ‘vaccine refusers’ for endangering the whole nation. And as the triple-jabbed Israelis find themselves hospitalised with Covid-19, the plan now is quadruple jabbing.
Denial of the obvious in politics and the media typically begins, ‘We always knew the vaccinations were not 100 per cent effective, but . . .’ Then public figures of science – such as the UK’s Jonathan Van-Tam – make spurious, implausible and wildly inconsistent claims such as that the vaccines have saved 100,000 lives, and 60,000 lives, and 10,000 lives. Even the implausible data are inconsistent!
In many advanced nations, we are now witnessing extreme political and intellectual face-saving. Expect more lies. This lack of truth, honour and honesty in public life is extremely dangerous, as I wrote here for TCW Defending Freedom. Science and medicine have lost their integrity. Health authorities have lost their integrity. Politics has lost its integrity. Trust between doctors and patients has become very fragile.
Over the next few months I expect the UK government and its henchmen at Sage to produce data to prove that we need triple jabs, then quadruple jabs . . .
I suggest that it is time for everyone, regardless of profession and expertise, to challenge all this scientific nonsense with truth and common sense.
This is another fairy tale to scare the kids which comes around once a year without fail:
The number of weather-related disasters to hit the world has increased five-fold over the past 50 years, says the World Meteorological Organization. … Full article
In fact, according to the BBC’s own chart, the number of disasters has declined in the last decade, hardly supporting their story.
But why do disasters seem much more common now than in the 1970s, when even the IPCC says there is no evidence that weather is getting more extreme? Simple- better reporting systems mean that we record weather events now that would have been missed in the past.
We have, of course, been down this road before! The WMO data comes from Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) database EM-DAT. CRED, who only began publishing data in 1998, themselves warned in 2004 that earlier data was incomplete:
Despite this warning, false claims that weather disasters are on the increase keep being made. Last year, it was the UN, and the before it was the left wing IPPR. And as surely as night follows day, their claims are faithfully trumpeted by the BBC and the rest of the gullible [alarmist] media.
Millions of people suffer and die from the effects of radiation exposure from decades of nuclear weapons testing. Their experience should give serious pause to those who continue to embrace the viability of a nuclear deterrent. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
The NSF report states, “According to Hogue (1964) heavy rainfall seldom occurs above 6,000 ft on the Greenland ice sheet. However, at Watkins (75°N, 48°W, and elevation 8,840 ft) rain was reported to have occurred in July 1933. Hogue also notes that in the Centrale-Eismitte area, drizzle and rain were each reported once in a three-year period, on 20 and 21 June 1950, respectively.”
Aletho News 