Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

THE BIG TECH BATTLE FOR FREE SPEECH IS HEATING UP

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | September 21, 2022

The battle with Big Tech for free speech is heating up! States are passing bills to stop the social media censorship, and legislators are holding investigative hearings, while a recent lawsuit including several State Attorneys General is making headway.

BIDEN DECLARES AN END TO THE PANDEMIC

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | September 21, 2022

Suddenly, Biden announces the pandemic is over as the narrative is now collapsing from all sides. From boosters to kids shots, the vaccine push is faltering as lawsuits pile up to remove the last covid restrictions.

WHO HANDED THE KEYS TO FAUCI?!

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | September 21, 2022

September 27, 2022 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | , , | Leave a comment

How the CDC Uses Math to Hide COVID Vaccine Harm

By Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D. | The Defender | September 23, 2022

Last week, The Epoch Times reported that Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), admitted the CDC had stopped monitoring the safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines using a method of analysis called proportional reporting ratio (PRR).

Walensky promised to resume the monitoring.

What The Epoch Times missed is that PRR is a fraudulent measure of vaccine harm,  designed by the CDC expressly for the new COVID-19 vaccines to disguise the devastation the vaccines are causing.

Why? Because PRR measures the pattern of different vaccine side effects, but it is indifferent to the number of people reporting those side effects.

If some completely new vaccine side effect appears with the introduction of a new vaccine, PRR will catch that.

But the COVID-19 vaccines are associated with huge numbers of people reporting side effects on an unprecedented scale — and, by design, PRR misses this completely.

For example, if one person in a million dies from vaccine A and one person in a thousand dies from vaccine B, then vaccines A and B can have exactly the same PRR score!

PRR is a single number that compares the variety of different side effects for a new vaccine to the variety of side effects from past vaccines.

Of course, there have been many vaccines with different side-effect profiles in the past, and it is difficult to stand out among such a diversity of profiles.

Where the new mRNA vaccines do stand out is the unprecedented number of bad outcomes, including deaths, reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

Of all the reports in the 30-year history of VAERS, two-thirds of them were from the COVID-19 vaccines, introduced in the U.S. in December 2020.

This includes three-fourths of all deaths reported to VAERS and three-fourths of all hospitalizations.

Since the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccines, reports to VAERS have skyrocketed off the charts.

Credit: OpenVAERS

These numbers represent only the reports VAERS has processed and posted. Jessica Rose, Ph.D., has reported that VAERS is months behind in posting these reports because its staff has not increased, while its workload is roughly 50 times greater since the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines.

The sheer volume of VAERS reports, including deaths, should have set off alarm bells within weeks after the vaccines were introduced.

Reporting only PRR and not the actual count provided a convenient cover for “business as usual.”

I am grateful to Mathew Crawford for pointing this out in an article last year.


Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D., has a background in theoretical physics. Since the 1990s, he is best known for his contributions to the biology of aging, including many articles and two books.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

September 26, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Evidence of harm

By Steve Kirsch | September 21, 2022

A short collection of key pieces of evidence showing the COVID vaccines are not “safe and effective.” Not even close. They are the most deadly vaccines we’ve ever produced.

Executive summary

Here’s a high level collection of some of the most compelling pieces of evidence I’ve seen to date. This is not an exhaustive list, but just the key pieces of data that are impossible to explain if the vaccines are safe and effective.

I’ve divided the collection into sections and I’ve tried to limit each section to the most compelling data points. So don’t be disappointed if your favorite item isn’t mentioned in this article; I wanted to keep it short enough to be read..

I’ll try to keep this updated over time. It can be found in the Reference section of my Substack.

The phase 3 clinical trial data

  1. The Pfizer trial 6 month report showed absolutely no all-cause morbidity or mortality benefit. There were no all-cause benefits at all. It was all negative. Ask your doctor why you should take a new, unproven medical intervention that is not shown to have an overall benefit. Even if there was a benefit of fewer COVID infections (which is seriously suspect due to the gaming below), the fact that the total all-cause numbers for both mortality and morbidity were negative means the intervention should not be recommended by any doctor.
  2. The Pfizer trial 6 month report showed that more people died (and were injured) who got the drug than who got the placebo. In other words, the cure was worse than the disease. The drug maker claimed that none of the people in the vaccine group were killed by the vaccine. They do not reveal the tests they did and explain how they were able to make that assessment. Why the secrecy here, especially in light of the study by Bhakdi and Burkhardt showing that trained medical examiners missed the causality link in 93% of the cases they looked at? The Pfizer vaccine had 4X as many cardiac arrests in the treatment group than the placebo (see page 12 of the Supplemental Appendix). This lines up very well with the numerous cardiac-related problems related to the vaccine as documented in the study by Retsef Levi and in the VAERS data which showed that the “cardiac arrest” reports were elevated by a factor of 93X higher than the annual baseline rate (VAERS reports from all vaccines combined in previous years). For some reason, the CDC wasn’t able to detect that signal (it was only 100 times higher than normal so they ignored it for some reason; they won’t let me ask them about it). In short, the claims from the manufacturer that none of the deaths were caused by the vaccine are highly suspect since all the evidence for those claims remains hidden from public view for some reason.
  3. The Pfizer trial 6 month report showed that at best, the drug saved only 1 COVID life per 22,000 recipients. This means that at best, after vaccinating 220M Americans, we might save 10,000 lives from COVID. But the VAERS reports show an excess death toll of well over 10,000 people and that’s before applying the minimum estimated under-reporting factor of 41. So there isn’t a mortality benefit: it’s actually the reverse. Furthermore, VAERS reports will likely only be filed for deaths in temporal proximity to the shot and is highly unlikely to report those deaths happening 5 months after the shot which appear to be the bulk of the deaths. This makes the comparison even worse. In short, we aren’t anywhere close to saving any lives at all.
  4. The Classen paper analyzed the clinical trial data for all three US vaccines and confirmed the lack of any overall benefit. There was an increase in morbidity which was highly statistically significant in all three vaccines. It concluded, “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.” This is exactly right.
  5. The paper by Christine Stabell Benn entitled, “Randomised Clinical Trials of COVID-19 Vaccines: Do Adenovirus-Vector Vaccines Have Beneficial Non-Specific Effects?” confirmed that there was no mortality benefit by taking the COVID mRNA vaccines. “Based on the RCTs with the longest possible follow-up, mRNA vaccines had no effect on overall mortality despite protecting against fatal COVID-19.” See this article by Daniel Horowitz for more information. In other words, these vaccines have no death benefit. Period. Full stop. This is exactly what the Canadian analysis below showed.
  6. Serious adverse reactions, including paralysis, were not reported to the FDA and there were other very serious discrepancies in the trials. For some reason, nobody seems to be interested in exploring or explaining these very serious issues. Some are very clear cut such as the case of Maddie de Garay who was one of 1,000 kids in the clinical trial. She’s paralyzed now and has to eat with a feeding tube. The FDA and Pfizer never investigated, but reported her results as mild abdominal pain in the trial results. This is fraud. Also, there were 5 times as many exclusions in the treatment arm as in the placebo arm of the trial: 311 vs. 60. Do the p-value computation on that one and you’ll find that it could not possibly have happened by chance (1e-40). It means the trial was not blinded. Why didn’t anyone in the medical community ever point this out? Nobody will tell me.
  7. Pfizer admitted to clinical trial fraud in federal court. Their defense was that the FDA was in on it.

Official government data

  1. The VAERS data, which is the official adverse event reporting system used by the US government, shows that an estimated hundreds of thousands have died and millions have been injured. If these weren’t caused by the vaccine, what caused them? Why are there more adverse events reported for these vaccines than for all other vaccines in history combined? Nobody can answer that question. See this tutorial and this recent confirmation and this article on VAERS and causality. Here’s how these numbers were calculated. Here is independent confirmation of the estimates by Dr. Naomi Wolf who used different datasets. No fact checker was interested in contacting me to challenge the facts since I always insist on recording any calls. Also, the causality of events was confirmed by the Israeli safety studies, but nobody wants to look at those.Can you spot the unsafe vaccine? People at the CDC don’t see any problem with this mortality chart: all the vaccines look perfectly safe.
  2. The US Social Security Death Master File showed a 60% increase in the all-cause death rate in September 2021 vs. September 2020 for ages 18 to 55. According to the insurance companies, it wasn’t COVID. COVID kills only a small fraction of people in this age range so even if the COVID death rate doubled, it would be a minor blip on the all-cause death rate. A five month delay in death vs. vaccination was discovered in multiple countries, not just the US. Different studies found nearly identical delays. Also, I find it very troubling that the insurance companies aren’t asking the family of the policyholders who died whether they were vaccinated with the COVID vaccine and when. They don’t want to collect this information for some odd reason. So let’s be clear that a 60% increase in all-cause death rate makes this intervention extremely dangerous. I’m not aware of anything that comes close to killing people in such massive numbers. The CDC is silent on this. They don’t even want to show the public this chart:

  3. US disability rose dramatically soon after the vaccines rolled out (Y axis is Z-score). A 3 sigma increase is hard to explain.
  4. As of Sep 2, 2022, the vaccination rate in Israel is now just 2.4%. They used to be one of the world’s most vaccinated countries. Today, very few people in Israel are considered to be vaccinated. If the vaccines are so beneficial, why has nearly the entire country shifted from extremely pro-vax to extremely anti-vax in such a short period of time?

Statements from government officials

  1. The Israeli Ministry of Health revealed in a confidential meeting with scientists that the reason that they never notified the people of Israel about the safety issues from the vaccines was because of budget/staffing issues. Apparently, while they had millions of dollars to promote the vaccines as safe and effective, they forgot to budget for the possibility they were wrong.

Independent expert reports solicited by government officials

  1. The Israeli vaccine safety data showed very clearly the side-effects are serious, long-lasting, and caused by the vaccines. Secondly, it showed that the Israeli authorities and the worldwide mainstream media are covering it all up. It also showed that US officials were not interested in seeing credible COVID vaccine safety that didn’t go along with the narrative. I tried to find out why, but nobody would talk to me. Harvard Professor Martin Kulldorff, a widely respected authority on vaccines, when asked why these people wouldn’t want to see the data, replied, “I don’t know.” This is the single most damaging report in the history of the COVID vaccines. Nobody wants to talk about it. They are hoping it will die. It won’t. Some people claim Israeli used a broad mix of vaccines, but that’s not true. Over 90% of the reports are from Pfizer, the bulk of the others are from Moderna. See also Israeli Investigators Find COVID-19 Vaccines Cause Side Effects: Leaked Video.
  2. The Canadian report prepared for the Liberal Party of Canada (Trudeau’s party) showed no benefit for infection, hospitalization, and death for those under 60. “The empirical evidence investigated in this report from PHO and PHAC does not support continuing mass vaccination programs, mandates, passports and travel bans for all age groups.” You can’t have a vaccine that doesn’t work in Canada work in other countries. The authors of the report had to hide their identities for fear of retribution. The statistics analyzed were those from Ontario which is not a small province (15M people). Naturally, the mainstream press ignored the report. Nobody has shown where the experts who wrote this made a mistake. The conclusion of the report is supported by independent analysis done by Mathew Crawford of the data from San Diego County, San Diego County Data Busts a Hole in Vaccine Efficacy Narrative. So apparently, the results are not limited to Ontario.

Pre-prints from highly credible sources

  1. The Harvard-Hopkins-UCSF study showed it is unethical to mandate vaccination for college students and anyone younger. The study clearly said, “University booster mandates are unethical.”
  2. The Thailand study did blood tests before vs. after the jab and determined that nearly 30% of young adults experienced cardiovascular injuries after the jab. How is that safe? And why didn’t anyone in the US ever do such a study? Do we not want to know? This was a simple blood test before and after the vaccine. Why did they not notify parents as soon as the study was published?
  3. The study by Bhakdi and Burkhardt showing 93% of deaths after vaccination were caused by the vaccine
  4. The data showing the vaccines cause prion diseases shortly after vaccination. This is impossible if the vaccines are truly safe. See the paper on ScienceOpen.com (after ResearchGate removed it).
  5. Determinants of COVID-19 Vaccine-Induced Myocarditis Requiring Hospitalization by Jessica Rose and Peter McCullough showing the myocarditis caused by the vaccine have distinct biomarkers.

Papers published in peer-reviewed medical journals

  1. The Fraiman-Doshi paper looked at serious adverse event rates and found that the vaccines may not be as safe as has been claimed, but they cannot do a proper analysis because they are not allowed to see the data. “Full transparency of the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial data is needed to properly evaluate these questions. Unfortunately, as we approach 2 years after release of COVID-19 vaccines, participant level data remain inaccessible.” You have to wonder: if the vaccine is so safe, why are the drug companies hiding the data?
  2. The Levi cardiac arrest rate elevation paper showed a troubling correlation between vaccine doses and increased cardiac events from January–May 2021. When they tried to get data after May 2021, they were refused access. This begs the question: if the vaccines are perfectly safe, what are they trying to hide?
  3. There are over 1,250 papers published in the scientific peer-reviewed literature showing the vaccines cause significant adverse events.
  4. The Walach paper found that the vaccines harm more people than they save.
  5. This news article published in the BMJ showed that 10 out of 100 deaths in elderly people they examined were “likely” caused by the vaccine. Funny, in America we think the number is 0. They can’t both be right. Someone should investigate why we have different results. This is very important. In fact, with a deeper investigation, over 90% of the deaths thought by medical examiners not to be caused by the vaccine were shown to be caused by the vaccine. This suggests that the US isn’t looking at the deaths.
  6. My colleagues and I are not misinformation spreaders according to this paper published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.

Articles by respected vaccine experts interpreting the data

Are the Covid mRNA Vaccines Safe? was written by Harvard professor Martin Kulldorff who until recently was on vaccine committees of the FDA and CDC. He concluded:

Fraiman and colleagues have produced the best evidence yet regarding the overall safety of the mRNA vaccines. The results are concerning. It is the responsibility of the manufacturers and FDA to ensure that benefits outweigh harms. They have failed to do so.

Articles on court rulings and expert opinion

Canadian court decisions on the constitutionality of Covid measures are invalid due to jurisdictional errors of law reviews court decisions on COVID and emphasizes the courts’ repeated over reliance on government expert testimony. Courts are supposed to find the truth and not rely on government representations or propaganda.

Articles debunking bogus studies in the peer-reviewed scientific literature

  1. The Watson et al. “modeling study”: did “COVID vaccinations” really prevent 14 million deaths? The original paper was clearly bogus since the vaccines kill more people than they save. This article examines the paper claiming the vaccines have been ridiculously effective.

Autopsy reports

There are specialized tests required to diagnose a death from the COVID vaccine.

The CDC has never told any medical examiner in the US about these tests.

So the medical examiners aren’t implicating the vaccine in any of the deaths.

The question is we know what the tests are, we know there is solid evidence from multiple countries that the vaccine causes death, yet we refuse to even consider the possibility that the vaccine caused the deaths. Why?

Retracted papers published in peer-reviewed journals

This paper, A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products, was retracted because the publisher didn’t like the result. So he unilaterally decided to retract the paper. This is unethical.

Here’s the “withdrawn” notice.

Here is the backstory as well as this censorship update.

The publisher hasn’t fixed the problem in over a year despite assurances it would be quickly resolved.

Here is another retracted paper that was correct:

Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19? by Ron Kostoff
“Compared with the 28,000 deaths the CDC stated were due to COVID-19 and not associated morbidities for the 65+ age range, the inoculation-based deaths are an order-of-magnitude greater than the COVID-19 deaths!

That is basically what I found: the vaccines kill >10X more people than the number of COVID deaths that they save. The paper passed peer review and was published. The editor of the journal quit after he was overridden by the publisher on the retraction.

The reason cited for the retraction:

  1. The use of key terminology, specifically the key terms “inoculation” and “vaccination” diverges from common use and are incorrect, indicating clear evidence of bias.
  2. Publicly available data from the United States Center for Disease Control (U.S. CDC) were concluded by the external reviewers to be misinterpreted to make the erroneous conclusion that the vast majority of reported deaths due to COVID-19 are actually due to other comorbidities. Such an egregious misinterpretation and misrepresentation are unacceptable.

This is completely bogus for two reasons:

  1. The editor could have easily normalized the terminology to eliminate any perceived “bias.” They simply ask the author to do a quick search and replace.
  2. The vast majority of COVID-19 deaths were in fact due to other comorbidities. For example, the New Mexico death records where COVID-19 was listed as the cause of death and 5 out 6 were not consistent with a COVID death. If anyone wants to challenge me on that, I have access to the death data. In Massachusetts, only 10% to 20% of the deaths listed as COVID were actually caused by COVID. Most people don’t have access to the death data, but I do. So I wonder if the journal is interested in fixing their error?

Hard-to-explain anecdotes

Can anyone explain how these anecdotes are possible?

  1. Why don’t Dr. Paul Offit (FDA vaccine outside committee) and Professor Grace Lee (Chair, CDC vaccine outside committee) want to see the Israeli safety data? They are deliberately avoiding answering the question. Why?
  2. In Canada, the #1 cause of death is now “unexplained.” See Deaths with unknown causes now Alberta’s top killer: province. If it isn’t the vaccine, what is causing this?
  3. There is data from over 1,000 vaccine injured people where 10% of the injured report 30 or more symptoms that are unique to the vaccine injured. How is that possible if the vaccine is so safe? Marsha Gee was perfectly healthy before her COVID vaccine. Less than 1 hour after her first Pfizer shot she experienced severe symptoms and experiences 78 of symptoms common with other vaccine injured. If Marsha wasn’t injured by the COVID vaccine, what caused all these symptoms?
  4. Why is it illegal to analyze the vaccine vials? Why hasn’t a single medical institution done an analysis of the content of the vaccines to see if there are placebos with saline solution and the amount of mRNA degradation, rendering the vaccines useless? Why the secrecy here? If we knew what was in the vaccines would this cause harm? How?
  5. Why are prominent people risking their careers to obtain fake vaccine cards? We know top people at Mass General Hospital have fake vaccine cards. We’ve heard that people at the highest levels of the DoD can get fake vaccine cards. It is well known that the CEO of a large pharmaceutical company bought a fake vaccine card. Why would he risk spending years in jail if the vaccines are perfectly safe?
  6. The Died Suddenly group on Facebook was adding users at 20,000 per day making it the fastest growing group in Facebook history. They had to throttle the growth rate due to attempts by the British military to infiltrate the group to cause it to be shut down.
  7. The average age of the people reported dead in the Died Suddenly group has been trending younger and younger over time. How can you explain that? The only worldwide massive intervention that goes to younger people is the COVID vaccine.
  8. The embalmer data (such as The Epoch Times article and this interview). These clots are not blood clots, but they are clots embalmers never saw before mid-2021 (since they take 3 months or more to form into large sizes). If the vaccines are not causing these killer clots, what is? They can be found in up to 93% of the embalming cases.
  9. Insurance company data from insurance companies worldwide:
    1. Adults Aged 35–44 Died at Twice the Expected Rate Last Summer, Life Insurance Data Suggests
    2. Millennials Experienced ‘84 Percent Rise of Excess Mortality’ Into Fall 2021: Former BlackRock Portfolio Manager
  10. Wayne Root’s wedding: 200 guests, half vaxxed, half unvaxxed. Only the vaxxed got injured (26%) or died (7%). I surveyed my readers and collected data from over 600 readers who collectively reported very similar stats. That’s hard to explain if there isn’t a huge effect.
  11. My neurologist stats: 11 years without needing to do a single VAERS report; this year, she needs to file 1,000 VAERS reports on 20,000 patients in the practice. How can anyone explain that if the vaccine is perfectly safe with mild, short term effects? This is similar to the 4.5% rate of neurological injury reported earlier by the Israeli Ministry of Health.
  12. The polling results using third party polling firms (so not my followers) consistently show that more people died from the vaccine than from the virus. The mainstream media refuses to do similar surveys and most survey firms refuse to even ask the questions.
  13. Ten different surveys I did all showed the vaccines are more harmful than helpful.
  14. Doctors in Canada died at a rate that was more than 10X normal after getting the fourth dose of the vaccine. And those are just the ones we know about.
  15. The fact that Paul Offit isn’t going to get the latest booster even though the CDC says he should. Why should any of us take the shot if Paul Offit is refusing to take the shot? He’s arguably the world’s most respected authority on vaccines and sits on the FDA outside advisory committee?
  16. Why are health authorities removing safety data on the latest shots? If they are so safe, why not release the data?
  17. Google searches show people became interested in topics related to vaccine safety before they became popular on social media
  18. When I ask data/statistics experts such as Joel Smalley and Professor Norman Fenton whether they’ve seen any credible data proving the vaccines are safe and effective, they are unable to cite a single reference.
  19. A local news station (WXYZ-TV) asked people to report on unvaxxed loved ones that became sick and died and instead they got hammered with hundreds of thousands of people saying they lost loved ones to the jab. See my video on the WXYZ-TV story and also this video.
  20. Woman collapses and dies 7 minutes after Booster shot… The stunning thing is the Twitter video documents that the pharmacy workers have been instructed to not bring it up when briefing patients and, if asked, not to comment on the death. Do you think they are looking out for your best interest by withholding adverse events like death 7 minutes after the shot from the public? That should never happen. Have you ever seen a video like this before the COVID vaccines rolled out? The death was ruled as “natural causes” which means it was from internal organ failure as opposed to being hit by a truck. However, the internal organ failure was due to an external event (vaccinated).

Cancers

  1. Turbo-cancer is being reported now. It’s impossible to explain. Never been seen before.
  2. A reader wrote: I work in the financial services industry in Toronto. A co-worker of mine was recently diagnosed with cancer. He has been getting treated at Sunnybrook hospital for it. The doctors there told him they’ve seen a significant spike in cancer cases well above what could be explained by people missing getting screened due to the pandemic. What’s more though is that they catalogue the vaccine status of every cancer diagnosis and the spike in the number of cases is only occurring in those who are vaccinated– apparently they are researching it to try and find out why the vaxed have seen a spike in cancers vs the unvaxed who haven’t- obviously they are not ready to go public with this but they know about it and are researching it fwiw

Books

  1. Turtles all the way down: Vaccine science and myth shows the vaccines are not nearly as safe as people think. This is the most damaging book ever written showing the safety of the vaccines is highly questionable. There isn’t a single risk-benefit trial on all cause mortality and morbidity vs. placebo for any of the 70 approved vaccines even though they’ve had 60 years to do this. If the vaccines are truly beneficial, why do you think it’s never been done for any vaccine? A team of Israeli scientists wrote this book over 5 years. It was recently translated into English and is available through purchase on Amazon.
  2. Dissolving Illusions: the history of vaccines shows they did a lot less than people think; probably next to nothing.
  3. The Real Anthony Fauci: illustrates the corruption in the medical community today. For example, they created a more accurate adverse event reporting system (ESP:VAERS) system and then scrapped it after it showed all the vaccines were unsafe.

Slide presentations

  1. Vaccine Secrets: a 20 minute slide presentation from CHD
  2. The CCCA presentations:
    1. Stop the shots,
    2. More Harm Than Good
    3. Dispelling the Myth
  3. My mega-presentations:
    1. What I learned during the pandemic
    2. The elephant in the room
    3. Vaccine Policies
    4. Vaccine Essentials
    5. All you need to know
    6. Things you need to know
    7. 180 questions they can’t answer

Fact checks

Once I established a policy of always recording calls with “fact checkers,” I’ve not had a single call from them trying to refute anything I’ve written.

None of the drug companies that make these products will refute anything I’ve written or supply a representative to debate me or any of my colleagues in a live debate. They have immunity from liability and they are not willing to be held accountable in the court of public opinion either.

  1. The COVID lies by Dr. Michael Yeadon

Mitigation measures: masks, vaccines, lockdowns, social distancing, 6 foot rule, …

This was a very well done study, but it is of course attacked by the pro narrative people. We’d love to have an open debate about this study, but the other side doesn’t want to talk about it in a neutral forum.

A LITERATURE REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF LOCKDOWNS ON COVID-19 MORTALITY

Masks don’t work at all. See this article which has plenty of references. If anything, masks are more likely to hurt you than to benefit you.

There is no study at all on the 6 foot distance rule. They just made that one up.

Origin of the virus investigation

Professor Jeffrey Sachs was tasked by The Lancet to lead an independent investigation into the source of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. After he determined it came from US biotechnology, all of a sudden nobody wanted to pursue the investigation any further.

Conflicts of interest

Tony Fauci gets paid every time you get a Moderna shot. He won’t disclose how much he makes and you can’t get via FOIA (it’s blacked out). If the Republicans get control of the Senate, that will change. Watch this video from Sept 20, 2022 of Rand Paul commenting on this as well as the well founded accusation that Fauci created the virus in the first place and then desperately tried to make it look like it came from nature after top scientists said it was a lab leak (watch the video at 2:00 onwards). Rand Paul called it, quite rightly, “the biggest cover-up in the history of science.”

The question you have to ask yourself is why is Fauci keeping his funding of the gain of function research and also his compensation for each vaccine dose a secret?

Tony Fauci was the primary reason that all early treatments were ignored by the government. It appears he did that because it would cut into his revenue stream.

Early treatment options

Early in the pandemic, two physicians, George Fareed and Brian Tyson, developed a treatment protocol using a variety of safe, low cost drugs and supplements with little to no side effects that had a near 100% success track record in preventing hospitalization, death, and long haul COVID if the patient started treatment shortly after realizing they were infected. They’ve treated over 10,000 patients. They wrote a best-selling book about it.

Today, more than two years later, the FDA and the CDC have not returned their calls.

Questions for lawmakers

  1. Why can’t we have open forums where our public health officials can be challenged by experts who disagree? Is there proof that having open debate results in worse outcomes?
  2. Why doesn’t anyone want to see the Israeli safety data?
  3. Why isn’t anyone asking for Fauci’s unredacted emails?
  4. Is there a scientific reason that the CDC is ignoring me and all the experts I work with?
  5. Questions I’d love to ask Congresswoman Anna Eshoo… that she’ll never answer

Questions I’d like to ask the CDC

  1. Why hasn’t anyone calculated the minimum VAERS under-reporting factor (URF)?
  2. Did the propensity to report change in 2021 vs. previous years. What is the new number in 2021 and 2022 compared to previous years? How did you calculate it?
  3. Why do John Su and Tom Shimabukuro never talk about the URF in the ACIP meetings?
  4. There were over 14,000 excess deaths reported in VAERS. That’s before the URF is applied. If these weren’t caused by the vaccine, what caused them?
  5. If these vaccines are so safe, why are there more adverse events reported for these vaccines than for all other vaccines in history combined?
  6. I found thousands of adverse events that are elevated by these vaccines compared to all other vaccines combined in previous years. How many adverse events did the CDC find?
  7. There was a dramatic rise in adverse events reported in the VAERS system for the COVID vaccines. How could this not be a serious safety concern? The propensity to report did not increase. If you believe the propensity to report did increase, what data do you have to support that?
  8. My neurologist has been in practice for 11 years. She has 20,000 patients in her multi-physician practice. In that time, she’s never had to report a single event to VAERS. With the COVID vaccines, she now needs to make 1,000 reports. If the vaccines are safe and effective and most all the symptoms are mild and short term, how do you explain this? Her event rate similar to the 4.5% injury rate that the Israeli MoH found. So her reporting rate is more than 10,000 times higher than for any other vaccine. Couldn’t that be the explanation for the higher rate of VAERS reports? Doesn’t this suggest that the propensity to report is much lower this year because there are so many more events and doctors simply don’t have the time to report them all?
  9. The NEJM pregnancy paper by Tom Shimabukuro noted that the results on safety for pregnant women was preliminary since many of the women were still pregnant. What was the final result and why wasn’t it published?
  10. There was an analysis of the VAERS data by Hannah Rosenblum published in the Lancet. It never goes into explaining why there were elevated reporting rates and also the nature of the reported events are not normal background events. Couldn’t the elevated reporting rates be caused by a dangerous vaccine? Does she want to look at the Israeli safety data? If not, why not? The Israeli data directly contradicts the conclusion of the paper. Shouldn’t we figure out which conclusion is correct?
  11. Why does Carol Crawford not answer my questions about an open discussion with the top vaccine misinformation spreaders to resolve our differences and reduce vaccine hesitancy?
  12. Why does Martha Sharan ignore my emails and phone messages when I attempted to ask for permission to talk to the authors of the Rosenblum paper? Can’t she reply with the reason questions are not allowed?

The unanswered questions

Questions I’d love to get the answer to. These were asked, but never answered.

  1. Why did the CDC never publish the follow up on the NEJM pregnancy paper by Tom Shimabukuro?
  2. The CEO of Moderna was asked how the 19 nucleotide sequence from a Moderna patent got into the SARS-CoV-2 genome. That sequence is never found in a virus. How did it get in this one? The CEO said he’d look into it, but never reported the explanation. I’d love to know what it was.
  3. Why hasn’t any Democratic committee chairman asked the NIH for Tony Fauci’s unredacted emails? Don’t we want to know the truth about whether there was a deliberate cover-up? If there was, shouldn’t Fauci be fired?
  4. Fauci wasn’t supposed to be funding gain of function research but he was. How is he being held accountable?
  5. How much is Fauci making every time someone gets a Moderna shot? He’s a public official… Why is this a secret?

Debates

People who disagree with the mainstream narrative are rewarded with censorship, permanent bans on posting on social media, demonetization of your YouTube account, revocation of your medical license, revocation of your medical certifications, loss of hospital privileges, loss of job, loss of funding, loss of friends, and a Wikipedia entry labeling you a “misinformation spreader” and/or “conspiracy theorist.”

This is a problem. I am not aware of any paper published in the medical literature that shows that such tactics result in better health decisions.

Should we use the same rules at the UN when nations disagree? Do you think that will result in better outcomes?

The way people resolve differences is by confronting the issues and talking through them. But we are not doing this:

  1. Why can’t we find anyone who will defend the CDC, FDA, and NIH on camera?
  2. Dr. Byram Bridle and 2 colleagues challenged Canada’s health authorities to a debate
  3. Vinay Prasad’s most important op-ed

Articles about the corruption of science

  1. The head of the CDC’s outside committee on vaccine safety does not want to see the safety data collected by the Israeli Ministry of Health.

This is objective proof of a broken system. It is indefensible. Caught on video camera. There is no reason that anyone in a position of authority on the COVID vaccines would refuse an opportunity to see the most thorough post-vaccine safety study ever done: one that shows causality of serious adverse events.

From Israeli Investigators Find COVID-19 Vaccines Cause Side Effects: Leaked Video:

Rechallenge changes a causal link “from possible to definitive,” Dr. Mati Berkovitch, head of the research team and a pediatric specialist, said at the meeting.

and

Many of the reported adverse events were found to be long-lasting, which researchers said in the meeting was surprising since the brochure handed to vaccine recipients says otherwise. They also said Pfizer officials told them that Pfizer did not know of any long-lasting symptoms.

and

In the official report later issued to the public, the MoH did not detail how researchers were caught off guard by the duration of the events and side effects. The health agency also stated that there were no new events identified.

It concludes:

The choice to omit some of the crucial findings discussed in the meeting from the public report is “a recipe to destroy” the entire vaccine program, according to Levi, an Israeli native and an expert in risk management.

“The more pro-vaccine, the more disturbed you need to be from something like this,” Levi told The Epoch Times. “And the reason is that the two most important enablers for vaccine programs … to be successful is trust and transparency, that you actually communicate to people the real risk-benefits and allow them to make choices about what they want to do. The second thing is that you take care of the people that were harmed by the vaccine because no vaccine has 100 percent safety.”

“I think we have in this example … where we violate these two very important principles,” he added. “This is a recipe to basically destroy all vaccine programs, so the more pro-vaccine you are, you should be more disturbed by this.”

How can you have the chair of a safety committee not interested in seeing important safety data? Professor Grace Lee should be removed from her position by the CDC. Why isn’t she? Does anyone care?

Why does Dr. Paul Offit ignore requests to see the same data?

According to the Epoch Times article, everyone declined to comment on the story: the scientists, the MOH officials, and the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office declined to comment on the Israeli findings.

Meta-collections

If the above isn’t enough, there are hundreds more “hard to explain” data points.

  1. List of over 1,200 papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals
  2. The safe and effective narrative is falling apart
  3. Think we got it wrong?
  4. How the authorities can INSTANTLY stop the spread of “COVID misinformation”
  5. Examining COVID Vaccine Efficacy

Using all the available evidence

There is an excellent article written in August 2020 by Norman Doidge entitled “Medicine’s Fundamentalists” which talks about the “all-available-evidence approach.” It should be read by every doctor in America. This is how medical science should work.

The precautionary principle of medicine

The precautionary principle medicine seems to have been thrown under the bus during the pandemic. It says in the face of uncertainty, one should take reasonable measures to avoid threats that are serious and plausible.

For example, the Pfizer clinical trial showed the vaccine saved only one COVID death per 22,000 injected. That means we might only save around 10,000 lives if we inject 200M Americans. So if VAERS, which is at least 41 times under reported, is showing over 12,000 deaths associated with the vaccine, any reasonable person should say that killing more than 41 people to save 1 life is nonsensical… shouldn’t we put a PAUSE on this intervention until we resolve the uncertainty?

In the current system, questioning the CDC or other authorities results in serious retribution as mentioned earlier.

Is that really the right way to handle scientific dissent?

Summary

Are the vaccines “safe and effective” as claimed?

To answer this, science requires that we look at all the available data and see whether the data is more consistent with the hypothesis of “safe and effective” or “not safe and effective.”

All the data that I and my colleagues have seen end up being placed in the “not” bucket.

We are open to being shown we got it wrong on the hundreds of pieces of evidence we have examined, but nobody is willing to discuss the data with us to resolve the issue, not even for $1M dollars.

I even went to extraordinary lengths to offer the Israeli safety data to ACIP Chair Grace Lee. Her response: she called the police on me. That pretty much tells you everything you need to know: they simply refuse to look at any data that goes against their currently held beliefs. That’s the way science works.

September 26, 2022 Posted by | Book Review, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | 1 Comment

How Fauci Channeled Cheney 20 Years After Dick Cheney Lied the US into Invading Iraq

By Sam Husseini | September 7, 2022

Twenty years ago, the “Cheney-Bush junta” — as Gore Vidal called it — launched its propaganda campaign to invade Iraq, effectively casting the dye for much of the historic period since.

On Sunday, Sept. 8, 2002, the New York Times ran on its front page the story “U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts” by Michael Gordon and Judith Miller.

The same day, then Vice President Dick Cheney appeared on Meet the Press  with Tim Russert, hyping the New York Times story as evidence that Hussein was attempting to acquire “the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge and the centrifuge is required to take low-grade uranium and enhance it into highly-enriched uranium which is what you have to have in order to build a bomb.” Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice followed Cheney’s lead on other shows.

In 2005, I confronted Miller about her reporting, asking her at if she would name the anonymous lying source who she allegedly relied on to falsely report “the best technical experts and nuclear scientists at laboratories like Oak Ridge supported” the CIA claim that the tubes were for a nuclear weapons program. In fact, it would later be established, the nuclear scientists did not support such an assessment and were effectively muzzled. When I questioned her, Miller refused to name the source that fed her this false information and Marvin Kalb, the moderator of the event, see video, ran interference, stopping further follow-ups. (See my piece “Should Media Expose Sources Who Lied to Them?”)

Many serious analysts early on deduced that the source was Cheney himself, likely through his chief of staff, Scooter Libby.

Even the mainstream Bob Simon of CBS would later remark to Bill Moyers about Cheney: “You leak a story, and then you quote the story. I mean, that’s a remarkable thing to do.”

Remarkable is actually an understatement. It’s engaging in a de facto conspiracy to deceive the U.S. public into war.

In April of 2020, a journalist asked at the daily White House press briefing: “Mr. President, I wanted to ask Dr. Fauci: Could you address these suggestions or concerns that this virus was somehow manmade, possibly came out of a laboratory in China?”

Anthony Fauci replied: “There was a study recently that we can make available to you, where a group of highly qualified evolutionary virologists looked at the sequences there and the sequences in bats as they evolve. And the mutations that it took to get to the point where it is now is totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.”

What Fauci was talking about was the piece “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2” in Nature Medicine.

That article was widely accepted by the major media as eviscerating the possibility of lab origin of Covid, shutting down debate at that critical time and continuing to hinder it to this day.

The thing is, Fauci seems to have had a serious role in that article’s appearing.

One of the few people objecting to the piece when it was first published, in the Spring of 2020 was Meryl Nass, who asked: “Why are some of the US’s top scientists making a specious argument about the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2?” She would go on to argue that the signers of the Nature Medicine article were pushed to write it.

In 2021, limited Freedom of Information Act findings showed that Fauci had at minimum effectively coordinated with the named authors of the Nature Medicine article. See Nass’ write-up and subsequent reporting by some mainstream outlets such as USA Today.

Thus, this insidious tactic of helping to plant a story pushing the line you want in a media outlet and then citing it as evidence for your case was employed by both longtime creatures of Washington at historic junctures.

There are other notable parallels. Both Fauci and Cheney have also both been leading beneficiaries of Trumpwashing.

Ashley Rindsberg makes some serious arguments in his piece, “How Dick Cheney created Anthony Fauci,” including about the buildup of US bio“defense” after 9/11 (actually the anthrax attacks) — a trend several observers have noted. Alexis Baden-Mayer traces such arguments back to 1976, when Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld apparently pressured President Ford to order massive inoculations in the Swine Flu scare, which he would be widely mocked for.

While the antiwar forces and “left” criticism of the Iraq WMD propaganda were wholly inadequate, they at least manifested themselves on the national stage to some extent. Covid origins has hardly been recognized as an antiwar issue by most and the “left” at times has actually played a detrimental role, explicitly doing the establishment’s bidding in irrationally denying or minimizing the possibility of lab origin of the pandemic.

One thing that should be kept in mind as one parses through the claims and “exposés” is that some are de facto cover stories.

The Bush administration ramped up their propaganda campaign for the Iraq invasion, as noted at the beginning of this article, in September of 2002.

Why then? Sophisticates at the time would quote Andrew Card: “From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August” said Bush’s chief of staff.

With the Bush administration cynically using the one year anniversary of 9/11 as a backdrop to launch their push for invading Iraq, the rationale articulated by Card was actually a remarkably benign motivation, a likely cover, in comparison to the war makers actual thinking.

September 26, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | 1 Comment

Most Americans Shrug Off Badgering that They Take the New Coronavirus ‘Bivalent’ Booster Shot

By Adam Dick | Ron Paul Institute | September 26, 2022

In the face of incessant media badgering to rush out and take the latest version of experimental coronavirus “vaccine” shot — the “bivalent” booster, the vast majority of Americans are saying “nope” and continuing on with their lives. Three weeks into the all-out push to have every American over 12 years old take the new shot (giving these new booster shots to younger children is up next), it appears that less than two percent of eligible Americans have done so.

The growing resistance to the coronavirus shots pushers’ propaganda gives one hope for America. With each new experimental coronavirus shot Americans are being urged to take, the percentage who acquiesce declines. The line that the shots are needed, safe, and effective has proven a farce on all counts. And the latest shot rushed into distribution has taken the previous shots’ mockery of the process for ensuring safety and efficacy to the next level. The truth is out there; increasingly Americans are seeing past the media hype and finding it.

September 26, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 1 Comment

Fact-checkers complain they’re constantly hit with lawsuits

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | September 20, 2022

Online fact checkers have great authority over what speech gets suppressed on mainstream social media platforms and a fact-check of a post on Facebook can result in that post being suppressed by as much as 95%.

Yet, despite their great power over what people can say, fact checkers are also increasingly frustrated at calls for more transparency about the way they operate and say they are being bombarded with freedom of information act (FOIA) requests and lawsuits.

The fact checkers say these requests and lawsuits are meant to drain the resources of climate change researchers and to discourage them from doing their work which is, in turn, an attempt to shut down their own speech.

“They make a point of going after the fact-checkers because, in addition to stopping regulation, they also want to prevent or discourage climate scientists from doing things that might educate the public,” said Lauren Kurtz, Climate Science Legal Defense Fund’s executive director to Bloomberg.

Kurtz’s organization provides climate researchers with legal assistance. They assist about 40 researchers annually. But this year has been busier, as they have already assisted 35 people.

One of the beneficiaries of the fund is Doug MacMartin, who was sued by Dane Wigington after he fact-checked his documentary “The Dimming,” which, according to MacMartin, is filled with conspiracy theories.

On the science fact-checking website Climate Feedback, used by social media companies to flag what it sees as science misinformation, MacMartin described Wigington’s documentary as “pure fantasy.” The plaintiff sought $75,000 in damages from MacMartin, arguing that the fact-check reduced the visibility of his documentary on Facebook, hurting its revenue.

“I mostly felt disbelief,” MacMartin recalled to Bloomberg. “A bit of shock combined with, ‘I just don’t have time for this.’”

Earlier this month, a federal court dismissed Wigngton’s lawsuit, but he plans to appeal.

Daniel Swain, a climate researcher at University of California, Los Angeles, had to deal with a FOIA request filed by a group called Energy Policy Advocates. Swain is vocal about droughts and fires in Western US. The requests sought text messages, encrypted messages, and emails related to a fact-check written by Swain and others about the book “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters,” by Steven Koonin, who worked in the Department of Energy during Obama’s era.

Swain challenged the requests using a university lawyer, arguing that it had the “presumptive intent of disrupting primary research and outreach activities by inundating climate scientists.” The records department said that the motivations of the requester were irrelevant, but was bound by law to provide the information requested.

“I spend nights and weekends compiling and going through thousands and thousands of emails because these requests are extremely broad,” he said. “In some cases they’re essentially open ended: they’re asking about multiple years, multiple keywords and multiple platforms.”

The group filing most of the requests are Government Accountability and Oversight, and Energy Policy Advocates. The two groups go by the acronyms GAO and EPA, the same acronyms used by federal agencies Government Accountability Office and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Climate Feedback and Meta are facing a $2 million lawsuit filed by Libertarian commentator John Stossel who was censored on Facebook as a direct result of a post by the fact-checker.

Climate Feedback flagged Stossel’s video “Government Fueled Fires” about the wildfires in California in 2020. The fact-check resulted in Facebook limiting the visibility of the video and we have more information on that case here.

September 25, 2022 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 1 Comment

ACADEMIA’S WAR ON DR. PAUL MARIK

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | September 21, 2022

World-renowned Critical Care Specialist, Dr. Paul Marik, joins Del to talk about the harrowing fight to keep his medical license, after treating critically-ill Covid-19 patients with lifesaving early treatments that were against hospital policy. Fellow FLCCC co-founder, Dr. Pierre Kory, joins the conversation to reflect on their first battle against Academia; the shocking struggle with a corrupt medical system to utilize a life-saving, cheap, and safe protocol for sepsis, the leading cause of death in the world.

September 25, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment

Pfizer’s Bourla has Covid Again, a Month After His Previous Bout

Vaccine Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (VAIDS)?

By Igor Chudov | September 24, 2022

Amazing news from Pfizer’s Albert Bourla.

“I have tested positive for COVID. I’m feeling well & symptom free. I’ve not had the new bivalent booster yet, as I was following CDC guidelines to wait 3 months since my previous COVID case which was back in mid-August. While we’ve made great progress, the virus is still with us.”

Mr. Bourla had his previous Covid infection in mid-August. Now he tested positive for Covid again, only a month after his previous illness. Albert is very lucky to be protected by his vaccine and previous booster doses!

Pfizer’s CEO says that he did not yet get the bivalent booster, because he wanted to wait 3 months after his most recent infection.

This is what the CDC said about this:

So, the CDC said that Bourla had a “low risk of reinfection” for three months after his last Covid — but Bourla got Covid a mere month after his previous infection.

Albert is not alone. Here’s a Redditor who is having his or her FIFTH Covid in 1.5 years:

Covid is not going anywhere.

Apparently, it is again rising strongly in the UK. The United States is usually about a month behind the UK. So, for now, the US is in the “Covid is over” phase.

Is Albert having VAIDS and is unable to get any kind of immunity?

He is definitely one person who I badly want to take his own 8-mouse booster as soon as possible.

September 24, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | 3 Comments

After 21-Year Delay, Judge Hears Evidence in Lawsuit Alleging Cellphones Caused Plaintiffs’ Brain Cancer

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | September 23, 2022

A judge this month is hearing evidence in a lawsuit filed in 2011 by a group of individuals who developed cancer, allegedly as a result of radiation from their cellphones. Depending on how the judge rules, the lawsuit could finally head to a jury trial.

Evidentiary hearings in Murray v. Motorola began Sept. 12 in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, and are scheduled to continue until Sept. 30. Expert testimony will be presented during the hearings before the case goes before a jury.

In a parallel case that may have repercussions for the D.C. case, a similar lawsuit before a federal court in Louisiana — filed by the widow of a man who died of an aggressive form of brain cancer allegedly caused by cellphone radiation — also is headed to trial.

The D.C. case is proceeding without the plaintiffs being able to present a significant category of evidence pertaining to the defendants’ liability. However, that evidence will be heard in the Louisiana case.

In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Hunter Lundy, a lawyer representing plaintiffs in both cases, discussed the evidence and expert testimony and the potential significance rulings in this case could have.

D.C. case: lawsuit filed in 2001 finally headed to a jury

In 2001 and 2002, six individuals, including Michael Patrick Murray, sued the telecommunications industry.

The six plaintiffs had developed brain tumors beneath where they held their cellphones. Additional plaintiffs joined the case in 2010, 2011 and thereafter — with the number of plaintiffs now exceeding 80, according to Lundy.

The defendants are a who’s who of major telecommunications companies, including AT&T, Bell Atlantic, Bell South, Motorola, Nokia, Qualcomm, Samsung, Sanyo, Sony, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon and many other companies.

The lawsuit also names the Federal Communications Commission and the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CITA), an industry lobbying group.

After 21 years and multiple delays, many of the plaintiffs have since died.

Despite efforts on the part of the defendants to get the lawsuit dismissed or relocated to federal court in Maryland, the case was initially remanded from the D.C. District Court to the D.C. Superior Court — where the complaints were dismissed in 2007, before being partially reinstated in 2009, by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals.

The case continued to wind through the courts, with evidentiary hearings finally beginning this year.

Lundy discussed key details about the lawsuit, stating that the plaintiffs alleged: “the radiation frequency … the microwave radiation coming out of cellphones increased the risk of individuals getting brain tumors.”

The plaintiffs further alleged that “the cell phone industry, the manufacturers and the carriers knew when these [cellphones] were put out on the market that they had dangers that they didn’t warn people about,” said Lundy.

However, Lundy said that the main thrust of the case concerns gliomas — tumors that impact the brain and spinal cord.

According to Lundy, “There are several kinds of gliomas … the most prevalent one is the glioblastoma,” a type of malignant glioma.

Other gliomas, such as acoustic neuroma, are benign, Lundy told The Defender, but form on the cerebral nerve inside the brain, growing without their victims being aware of them. Eventually, their growth leads to hearing loss and their removal results in residual brain damage.

Ultimately, most such cases result in death, said Lundy. With glioblastoma, for instance, diagnoses range from having three to four months — to five years at most — to live.

“There’s not a lot of optimism when you get a glioblastoma,” said Lundy. “And so, whether it’s directly or indirectly, [the gliomas] have a genotoxic effect which will end up having a mutagenic effect and then a tumor coming out of it.”

Referring to the plaintiffs in the D.C. case, Lundy said, “Many of them have died, and many of the cases are just death cases right up front, or the widows or family members brought the suits.”

“This is what the battle is [about] … that’s our case in a nutshell,” explained Lundy.

The victims were impacted by first-, second- and third-generation analog cellphones produced in the 1980s and 1990s. “The antennas were up at the top of the phone and some of them were operated on three watt and greater power,” Lundy said, whereas “Today you’ve got smartphones operating on a quarter watt.”

Lundy told The Defender :

“There was a long period of years in which people were getting high exposure from cellphone radiation because they were using them so much … and there wasn’t sufficient information, instruction or warning by the industry to the user of the dangers involved. That’s the thrust of the case.”

“Our argument is that if you continue to use the analogue [phones] and you use the second- or some of the third-generation [devices], you’ll see a linear effect” regarding radiation exposure and latency, Lundy added, where the effects of such radiation become apparent over time.

As an example, Lundy referred to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II, where “it was still 40 years before … you saw tremendous numbers of cancers developing.”

Although the plaintiffs were from different parts of the U.S., the initial lawsuits — later combined into the current case — were filed in the District of Columbia “because [of] the idea that the lobbying institutions of the wireless industry [are] located in D.C.,” said Lundy.

However, these lobbying groups — and the rest of the defendants — “don’t want us to have a trial in front of a jury,” said Lundy, which resulted in the defendants using a variety of delay tactics.

In 2013, a Frye hearing was held, during which, according to Lundy, the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses “had to pass a standard before they could testify in front of a jury.”

“The Frye standard had to be met where you proved that the methodology used by the expert … was generally accepted in the scientific community,” Lundy said.

In the period between 2013 and 2015, the five experts put forth by the plaintiffs were approved according to the Frye standard and a trial was held, Lundy said. However, the defendants, on appeal, were able to get the case reversed and to get the standard by which the plaintiffs’ experts were evaluated changed, to the Daubert standard.

According to Lundy, in this second standard, “you had to prove that not only was the science [accepted], you had to prove that it was reliable and that it was readily available.”

“In the interim,” according to Lundy, “we have been through several judges.”

Ultimately, the plaintiffs were not allowed to supplement the opinions of the initial experts with new witnesses and new science, unless it “somehow [was] related to the old opinion,” Lundy said. This hamstrung the plaintiffs and subsequent judges hearing the case, he added.

But “We’re going forward with other witnesses … and then the case will be submitted to the court again and there will probably be post-hearing briefs,” Lundy said. “At some point, the court will make a ruling and then both parties will have a right to appeal … and so, the process goes on.”

Louisiana case an opportunity for more expert testimony to be presented

The related case, Walker v. Motorola et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, may present an opportunity for plaintiffs to present expert testimony that was shut out of the D.C. case.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., chairman of Children’s Health Defense, is co-counsel in this case.

According to Lundy, this lawsuit has the potential to quickly go to trial.

“Ahead of what’s going on in D.C., we just want a case to go to trial somewhere … we need a ruling before people go forward,” Lundy told The Defender.

Referring to the D.C. case, Lundy said:

“We haven’t been able to get … liability document production, discussing the development of the products, the interaction between risk management and others.

“So I think in Louisiana, if we prevail, we will get the discovery [of such evidence]. It’s a different ballgame.”

In the Louisiana case, the family of Frank Aaron Walker sued the telecommunications industry, alleging the pastor’s death from an aggressive brain cancer was brought on by cellphone radiation, the health risks of which the industry has known for decades.

According to the suit, the telecommunications industry “suppressed credible cell phone safety concerns and has conspired to conceal or alter results of safety studies to make them more ‘market-friendly.’”

Walker was “a 25-year user of cell phone products,” the suit claims, before dying on Dec. 31, 2020, age 49, following “a two-year battle with glioblastoma that included extensive radiation, chemotherapy and surgery.”

During this two-year period, Walker experienced severe symptoms including “seizures, visual auras, excessive fatigue, migraines, light sensitivity, memory problems, psychological and emotional stress, anxiety, and depression,” the lawsuit alleges.

Similar to the D.C. case, the defendants in the Louisiana lawsuit include several major telecommunications industry players, such as AT&T, Cricket Communications, CITA, Motorola, the Telecommunications Industry Association and ZTE.

In a 2021 press release issued after the lawsuit was filed, Lundy stated:

“For generations, the telecom industry has fought the release of scientific studies and information regarding ties between mobile phone use and brain tumors. The industry manipulated the science to the detriment of consumers.

“With this lawsuit, Mr. Walker’s family hopes to help reveal the telecom industry’s secrets and hold them accountable for harm done to consumers.”

In the same release, Lundy alleged the telecommunications industry “downplayed, understated, and/or did not state the health hazards and risks associated with cell phones.”

The press release also quoted Walker’s widow, April Marie Walker:

“Throughout his battle with cancer, Frank never lost his faith or his sense of humor, but he suffered terribly.

“Our family’s hope now is that we can force the telecom industry to let consumers make informed choices about the products we buy.

“If the telecom industry knew holding a cell phone next to one’s head is dangerous, then the public should have known this information.”

In remarking on the broader significance of this case, Lundy said:

“There needs to be an exposure of truth. I just believe everybody should be accountable.

“We have not been allowed to do liability discovery. We have done scientific discovery and evidence about science. But we do not yet have the industry’s documents.

“I think we’ll be able … to do liability discovery here in federal court in Louisiana when we go forward.”

Industry concealed studies linking cellphone use to brain and DNA damage, plaintiffs allege

The Louisiana lawsuit also cites a significant number of scientific studies and industry actions taken since the 1980s, “including the firing, defunding or denigration of researchers who discovered adverse effects associated with cell phone use.”

According to the lawsuit:

“At all times herein mentioned, Defendants were aware of numerous studies and experiments that demonstrated the health hazards of RF radiation dating back to the late 1940s and continuing to this day, yet Defendants have consistently maintained to the public at large that cell phones are absolutely safe.”

The lawsuit alleges “scientific and medical research, published in peer-reviewed literature, has demonstrated a correlation between biological effects and the exposure to RF radiation within the radio frequency band of 300 megahertz to 2.4 gigahertz,” noting, however, that such peer-reviewed journals are not typically read by the general public.

Radiation exposure standards adopted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), initially in the 1960s, and subsequently modified in the 1980s and 1990s, “excluded cell phones,” states the lawsuit, as “the cell phone industry manipulated the research and pressured members of the ANSI Safety Committee to exempt cell phones from regulation and compliance.”

However, as scientific and public concern over radiation produced by cellular phones increased in the 1990s, “defendants, individually and through their trade associations … undertook with public fanfare to fund scientific studies to prove the safety of cell phones,” resulting in the formation of the Scientific Advisory Group in 1993.

Subsequently, industry associations CTIA and Telecommunications Industry Association hired an expert, Dr. George Carlo, to direct the Scientific Advisory Group and conduct research into cellular phone radiation. However, as the lawsuit states:

“When this industry-funded research failed to corroborate the industry’s claims of safety and, in fact, presented new evidence supporting health concerns, the industry responded by terminating the research funding and publicly disparaging Dr. Carlo as well as suppressing and minimizing the results of his studies.”

Nevertheless, numerous other scientific studies followed, calling into question the industry’s claims regarding the safety of their mobile devices. These studies are cited in the lawsuit and include:

  • A 1995 University of Washington study conducted on rats exposed to “radiation similar to the type of radiation emitted from the antenna of a cell phone,” found the radiation caused damage to DNA. The industry funded research that aimed to disprove these fundings, but which ultimately confirmed them, leading the industry to refuse to publish the results.
  • Another scientist who subsequently replicated the DNA damage found by the University of Washington research had his findings “suppressed” by the industry, pressuring him and threatening to withdraw funding.
  • A 1996 study of Air Force personnel found those exposed to RF radiation had a “risk of brain tumors 1.39 times higher … versus those not exposed.”
  • A 2000 study by Sweden’s Orebro Medical Center “found the risk of tumors developing on the same side of the head cell phone users hold their cell phones is significantly higher than it is for the other side.”
  • In 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched a decade-long multinational research study, the “Interphone Study,” ultimately finding that “the use of cell phones for a period of 10 years or more can increase the risk of glioblastomas by 40% in adults” and that “tumors are most likely to occur on the side of the head most used for calling.”
  • A 2002 Swedish study found “the risk of developing brain tumors from first-generation cell phones … was as much as 80% greater than those who did not use cell phones.”
  • Another Swedish study, in 2003, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, which in turn operates under the aegis of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “found electromagnetic fields (EMFs) emitted by certain cell phones damaged neurons in the brains of rats.”
  • A four-year study performed by Reflex, with funding from the European Union, in 2004 found that “radio waves from cell phones damage DNA and other cells in the body and that the damage extended to the next generation of cells.”

The lawsuit adds, “mutated cells are considered a possible cause of cancer,” and that the radiation levels tested in the study were within the range used by most cellphones at that time. The study ultimately “advised people to use landlines, rather than cell phones, whenever possible.”

  • A 2005 study “reported using a cell phone in rural areas might lead to the development of brain tumors.” As cellphone towers are more sparsely placed in rural locations, cellular devices tend to use higher wattage in order to achieve reception of a mobile signal.
  • A 2009 meta-analysis of 465 scholarly studies involving the relationship between cellphone radiation and cancer, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, “demonstrated a significant positive association between cell phone use and cancer” and “established the association increased with long-term cell phone use.”
  • hearing held by the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies in 2009 featured testimony from an investigator involved in the Interphone Study that was also published in the American Journal of Epidemiology.

According to the expert, there was “an elevated risk of salivary gland tumors was seen among people who used cell phones for more than 10 years, especially when the phone was usually held on the same side of the head where the tumor was found, and when use was relatively heavy.”

  • In 2011, the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) “declared the RF radiation emitted from cell phones to be ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans.’”

Also according to the lawsuit, in the period since the IARC’s 2011 declaration, “more than 1,000 additional scientific studies have been published in peer-reviewed literature further supporting the causal link between cell phone radiation, brain tumors and health effects.”

The lawsuit states that “several experts have analyzed this new information and concluded cell phone radiation should be classified as a ‘probable human carcinogen.’”

Some of these subsequent studies include:

  • A 2015 study out of Jacobs University in Germany, finding (and replicating the results of a 2010 German study) that “weak cell phone signals can promote the growth of tumors in mice,” at “radiation levels that do not cause heating and are well below current safety standards.”
  • A 2016 study by the U.S. National Toxicology Program, finding that “male rats exposed to cell phone radiation developed higher rates of cancer” and also “caused DNA breaks in the male rats’ brains.”

Remarking on these studies and on the type of testing performed by the telecommunications industry with regard to radiation produced by cellular phones, Lundy told The Defender :

“We know that, for instance, the cellphone industry, the cellphones are supposed to pass a standard called SAR — Specific Absorption Rate. They did these [tests] on mannequins.

“There’s nothing wrong with the standard. But the way they test it to comply with the standard was wrong. And they used 6’2” male mannequins to determine whether or not these phones were passing SAR, and that’s so unrealistic.

“And they’ve got instructions telling people, don’t hold [mobile devices] firm against you, hold it 5/8 of an inch away from your head. Well, nobody knows that they weren’t doing that in their mannequin testing.”

However, according to Lundy and to the lawsuit, the telecommunications industry tacitly began to address these concerns beginning in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Lundy told The Defender that “the fact that they, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, as they started making patent applications to change the design of their phones, started to move the antennas because they had a problem,” is indicative of this shift, adding:

“And we know enough to know that the London [insurance] market quit writing coverage for the wireless industry in the early 2000s, so they know something and are seeing something that we haven’t seen.”

The Louisiana lawsuit cites 13 examples of the telecommunication industry’s moves to quietly reduce RF exposure from mobile devices, dating back as early as 1991.

Lundy noted that, in the D.C. case, expert witnesses from Europe, including epidemiologists and cell biologists from countries such as Austria, Greece and Slovakia, were initially the most willing to come forward with testimony, adding, however, that “American scientists are now on board.”

Lundy: ‘The truth is going to come out’

Lundy said he’s frustrated with the legal proceedings’ slow pace:

“It’s just disappointing that the scales of justice turn so slowly. And you know, sometimes that’s the case. There’s no justice.

“But the truth is going to come out. It’s coming out now. I mean, sometimes [it] doesn’t always come out in the timing that we want it to come out, but it will come out.”

Lundy cited the long history of lawsuits involving the tobacco industry as an example of this, saying:

“The cigarette industry never lost a case for 30 or so years. But when [tobacco industry whistleblower] Dr. Jeffrey Wigand disclosed the fact that they were manipulating nicotine to addict 13-year-olds, I mean, the whole climate shifted.”

According to Lundy, truthful information regarding children’s health, in relation to the use of cellular phones, is of particular importance:

Lundy told The Defender :

“There’s other countries … that have barred the use of cellphones for kids that aren’t 16 years of age yet … we know that the skull is not fully developed until they’re 25. So we’re talking about children having radiation going into their brain very young.

“So it’s about information. It’s about warning. It’s about telling people the truth. It’s not about money over that.”

Overall, for Lundy, the broader significance of the D.C. and Louisiana cases and their outcome concerns “educating people.”

He said:

“The significance is going to educate the world. It’s going to educate people that at these radiation frequencies from these devices … they increase the risk.

“We just want to be informed. How can we be a free nation and exercise our freedom when we’re not told the truth? And I’m not trying to be political, but that’s just a fact. We’ve got a world of misinformation and it’s motivated by greed.”


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

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

September 24, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

The climate scaremongers: Were the Pakistan floods due to climate change?

By Paul Homewood | TCW Defending Freedom | September 23, 2022

ACCORDING to the BBC’s Environment Correspondent, Matt McGrath, Pakistan’s catastrophic floods last month were ‘likely made worse by global warming’. 

This claim originated from the World Weather Attribution group, who regularly publish such claims every time there is some bad weather. They base their conclusions on computer models, not on real world data. If they had looked at the actual data, they might have come to different conclusions.

According to the Pakistan Meteorological Department, most of the excess rain in August arrived on 18th/19th and 25th/26th. In fact 41 per cent of the month’s rainfall fell on these four days:

Pakistan Meteorological Department

The cause of this heavy rain was two tropical storms, which had crossed from the Bay of Bengal – BOB 06 and BOB 07. (In the Indian Ocean they are categorised as a ‘depression’ and ‘deep depression’. in Atlantic storm terminology, these would be called a tropical depression and a tropical storm respectively).

Both storms followed identical routes west from Bengal, tracking over Rajasthan before hitting the province of Sindh, the region worst affected by flooding:

http://www.pmd.gov.pk/cdpc/home.htm

Unusually, these storms did not dissipate after landfall in Bengal so wreaked havoc for days afterwards. Pakistan, needless to say, is not immune to tropical cyclones. But for two storms to hit in the space of a week, at the same location, and during the wettest month of the year is an extremely rare combination of meteorological events.

Pakistan was already experiencing a wetter than normal monsoon, courtesy of La Nina, but those two storms pushed the rainfall into record territory, the wettest August since 1961.

There is no evidence that tropical cyclones are getting more frequent or intense in the Indian Ocean, so consequently there is also no evidence that last month’s rainfall had anything to do with climate change.

What is significant, though, is the chart of annual rainfall in Pakistan, published in the State of the Pakistan Climate 2021:

http://www.pmd.gov.pk/cdpc/home.htm

Annual rainfall was clearly much less during the 1960s and 70s, the direct result of global cooling at the time. Those years of drought were a disaster for Pakistan, and the country has welcomed the increase in rainfall since, just as they do across the border in India. The wetter, the better!

It is also significant that the seven-year moving average has barely changed since the 1980s, fluctuating up and down, but with no obvious long-term trend. If global warming was really bringing more extreme rainfall, we should expect to see evidence of this in the annual figures.

You will of course hear none of this from the BBC or the climate attribution industry, which was established to promote the climate change agenda, and which routinely publishes patently unsupportable claims.

Steve Koonin, President Obama’s climate scientist, puts it best: ‘Practitioners argue that event attribution studies are the best climate science can do in terms of connecting weather to changes in climate. But as a physical scientist, I’m appalled that such studies are given credence, much less media coverage. A hallmark of science is that conclusions get tested against observations. But that’s virtually impossible for weather attribution studies. It’s like a spiritual adviser who claims her influence helped you win the lottery – after you’ve already won it.’ 

Of course, like most of climate science, the climate attribution industry has little to do with science, and everything to do with money.

The Arctic ice scam

FOR years the ‘experts’ have been telling us that the Arctic would soon be ice-free in summer.

Al Gore notoriously warned us in 2009 that ‘there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.’

He was, of course, just a politician. But a whole host of supposed Arctic scientists were all busy issuing similar warnings at the time. In 2007, for instance, Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told us that northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just five to six years. In December that year, Jay Zwally of Nasa agreed, giving the ice till 2012. A year later, in 2008, Professor David Barber went one step further, saying the ice would all be gone that very summer.

For sheer persistence in getting it wrong, however, the prize must go to Peter Wadhams, Professor and Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge:

•       In 2012, he predicted that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2015/16.

•       In 2014, he thought it might last till 2020.

•       In 2016, he confidently predicted the Arctic would be ice-free that summer (though curiously he now defined ‘ice-free’ as less than 1 million square kilometers).

All these pronouncements were designed for political propaganda purposes, not for scientific reasons, and were widely propagated by the gullible media.

For instance in an article in the Independent in June 2016 (complete with photos of a cute polar bear on a melting piece of ice) Wadhams confidently asserted: ‘My prediction remains that the Arctic ice may well disappear, that is, have an area of less than one million square kilometres for September of this year. Even if the ice doesn’t completely disappear, it is very likely that this will be a record low year. I think there’s a reasonable chance it could get down to a million this year and if it doesn’t do it this year, it will do it next year.’

Unfortunately for Professor Wadhams, the sea ice has not been melting away as ordained. On the contrary, it has been remarkably resilient. Arctic sea ice has just reached its minimum extent this week, just as it always does in September, and the provisional data shows that there is still 4.7million sq km of the stuff.

As can be seen from the chart below, this year and last had the largest extents since 2013 and 2014, and there is considerably more ice around this year than in 2007 and 2008.

https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/data-and-image-archive

There was a climate shift in the Arctic in 2007, when warm Atlantic waters entered the Arctic basin and ocean currents pushed a lot of the thicker multi-year ice out through the Fram Strait, which lies between Greenland and Svalbard, into the open Atlantic Ocean, where unsurprisingly it melted. Since 2007, much of the ice has consequently been thinner, new ice, which naturally tends to melt in summer.

Climate scientists with an agenda to peddle jumped on the bandwagon and predicted that the ice would just carry on melting. However, they ignored the lesson of history. The Atlantic Ocean regularly goes through such cyclical events, with cold and warm phases lasting about 50 to 60 years. The cycle is called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, or AMO, and it is known to have been occurring for at least the last 1,000 years.

In the 1970s, climate scientists were extremely concerned about the increase in sea ice in the Arctic, which occurred during the cold phase of the AMO. The leading climatologist of his day, H H Lamb, wrote in 1982: ‘A greatly increased flow of the cold East Greenland Current has in several years (especially 1968 and 1969, but also 1965, 1975 and 1979) brought more Arctic sea ice to the coasts of Iceland than for 50 years. In April-May 1968 and 1969, the island was half surrounded by ice, as had not occurred since 1888.’

Satellite monitoring of Arctic sea ice began in 1979, at the depth of the cold period. The climate mafia always use this period as the baseline, pretending it was the ‘norm’. That way they can attempt to fool the public that the warming in the Arctic and loss of ice since then is due to man-made global warming.

What is astonishing is that these buffoons are still in a job and living off the taxpayer. In any other field of science, to be so consistently wrong for so long would have quickly led to a well-earned oblivion.

September 24, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

Failed Zero Covid Policy Cost Australia Over $938 Billion, Report Finds

BY MORGAN BEGG | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | SEPTEMBER 22, 2022

The danger in the post-lockdown era is that in our rush to move on we forget the hard lessons that have been learned about this catastrophic public policy failure.

On the basis of alarmist modelling, often commissioned by governments and amplified by sensationalist media, panicked politicians discarded all basic ideas about proportionality and the rule of law to criminalise everyday life and exert unprecedented controls over the citizenry.

From the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, all Australian governments adopted the attitude that any public health mitigation measure was on the table, and little to no consideration was given to the costs of the measures that were adopted.

This is the subject of new research published by the Institute of Public Affairs, which for the first time in Australia calculates many of the costs of the nation’s Covid zealotry up to June 2022. In the report, Hard Lessons: Reckoning the Humanitarian, Economic, and Social Costs of Zero-Covid, we find that the total economic and fiscal cost of the Australian COVID-19 response was no less than A$938.4 billion (£550.6 billion) to June 2022. This report identifies:

  • $595.8 billion in state and federal Government to enforce Covid policies and stimulate the economy;
  • $259.8 billion in lost economic activity because of the restrictions and economic shutdowns;
  • $82.8 billion in inflation related costs due to expansive monetary and fiscal policies, a cost which is set to only increase more and more over the next couple of years.

The research also calculates how much children suffered in terms of schooling. Despite being the safest cohort in society when it comes to COVID-19, children were routinely sent home to learn remotely or not learn at all. We estimate children in the state of Victoria would have lost about 12 weeks of reading skills and 17 weeks of numeracy skills, something which for many will never be recovered.

Even on the most basic metric, lockdowns failed. In terms of the number of years of life, the costs of joblessness because of the initial nationwide lockdowns in March and April 2020 were about 31 times more costly than the maximum possible years of life saved by lockdowns throughout 2020 and 2021.

Even in the state of Victoria, whose Labor Government enthusiastically established a world-renowned Covid police state, politicians are no longer touting their pandemic response in the lead up to the state election in November.

Likewise, the former federal Liberal/Nationals Coalition Government, which was voted out of office earlier this year, rarely boasted of its Covid response.

Governments of the Covid era appear to have accepted the failure of the Covid-elimination approach, but rather than confront the reality of this failure are just pretending that it never happened.

This is not about living in the past, because the reality is we are still bearing the costs now. In terms of the resulting mental health crisis, lost learning, shuttered businesses, Government debt and inflation, we are not likely to know the full costs of the Covid response for many years to come.

Our future wellbeing as a society also demands that we remember the hard lessons of the Covid response.

We will need to deal with pandemics in the future, and it is critical to know what went wrong, and how these failures came to be.

Australians were subject to the harshest restrictions on their way of life in their history, and we should be demanding not that it should be forgotten, but that it should be remembered so that it doesn’t happen again.

Morgan Begg is the Director of the Legal Rights Program at the Institute of Public Affairs in Melbourne, Australia.

September 23, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

No, Lockdown Instigators Do Not Deserve the Benefit of the Doubt

The damage that lockdowns would cause was far too well known, uneven, and catastrophic to assume their chief instigators must have had good intentions.

By Michael P Senger | The New Normal | September 20, 2022

In the United States, some 2,000,000 people—over 1% of adult men—currently reside in prisons and jails. In America’s poorest cities, crime and law enforcement are intertwined with life to such a degree that many children grow up more familiar with the justice system than the education system. For kids who grow up in these circumstances, getting through school while staying out of jail is a feat worth celebrating.

Some of this is, of course, necessary to maintain a peaceful society in a country as open and unequal as the United States. But the American political-prison-industrial complex is also riddled with perverse incentives. As Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch put it: “We live in a world in which everything has been criminalized. And some professors have even opined that there’s not an American alive who hasn’t committed a felony under some state law.” We’ve even developed an Orwellian lexicon for this system; the term “crime of moral turpitude” is a tacit admission that America’s statutes are riddled with crimes that do not actually involve “moral turpitude”—it’s puzzling why these should be considered crimes at all.

Worse yet, an estimated 5% of convicts are actually innocent. That means there are currently some 100,000 Americans in prisons and jails who didn’t even commit the crimes for which they were charged. The sad truth is that just living in one of America’s poorest neighborhoods comes with some risk of incarceration; the more people around who are convicted, the greater the odds of becoming an innocent convict oneself. Juries do their best, but they’re beset by the usual human biases. Judges know all too well that verdicts often come down to such irrelevant factors as the defendant’s charisma, physical attractiveness, or even what the jury had for breakfast that morning.

Mass incarceration is one sad byproduct of inequality and community deterioration in the 21st century. But an even worse byproduct of that inequality is an entire caste of western elites who’ve begun to manipulate the system to exempt themselves and their supporters from the rule of law to a degree not seen since the rise of the fascist regimes of the 1930s. And in no instance has this been made more clear than in the promulgation of Covid lockdowns into policy in early 2020.

The Crime

Lockdowns, or the shutting of businesses and community spaces with the force of law, were unprecedented in the western world prior to Xi Jinping’s lockdown of Wuhan and weren’t part of any democratic country’s pandemic plan; rather, these pandemic plans suggested only voluntary social distancing measures. While lockdowns bore some facial resemblance to the voluntary social distancing measures contemplated in pandemic plans, this similarity was no coincidence, as the concept of “social distancing” in its origin was lifted by the US CDC straight from the Chinese Communist Party policy of “lockdown” as imposed during SARS in 2003. Further, some leading federal officials have disclosed that at the time they recommended temporary social distancing measures for Covid, they did so with the intent that state governors would enforce them as indefinite forced lockdowns.

As former UN Assistant Secretary-General Ramesh Thakur has documented in scrupulous detail, the harms that lockdowns would cause were all well-known and reported at the time they were first adopted as policy in early 2020. These included accurate estimates of mass deaths due to delayed medical operations, a mental health crisis, drug overdoses, an economic recession, global poverty, hunger, and starvation.

Yet regardless, for reasons we’re still only beginning to understand, some key scientistshealth officialsnational security officialsmedia entitiesinternational organizationsbillionaires and influencers advocated the broad imposition of these unprecedented, devastating policies from the earliest possible date, ostensibly to stop or slow the coronavirus as the CCP claims to have done in Wuhan, while censoring any contrary opinions, spinning a false illusion of consensus amongst an unknowing public. A report later revealed that military leaders saw this as a unique opportunity to test propaganda techniques on the public, shaping and “exploiting” information to bolster government messages about the virus. Dissenting scientists were silenced. Psyops teams deployed fear campaigns on their own people in a scorched-earth campaign to drive consent for lockdowns.

These early advocates of lockdowns inverted the definitions of key public health principles in sophisticated, Orwellian fashion. While the lockdowns they advocated were deliberately intended to overturn existing public health practices, they instructed the public to “follow the science,” leading the public to believe that their policies were grounded in established scientific practice. They used the rhetoric of equity and vulnerability to advocate policies that disproportionately harmed the most vulnerable and increased existing economic divides. They then retroactively cited the broad public support for lockdowns that had been sown by their own propaganda as justification for their propaganda in support of those lockdowns.

Ultimately, these lockdowns failed to meaningfully slow the spread of the coronavirus and killed tens of thousands of young people in every country in which they were tried. We now know the virus had already begun spreading undetected all over the world by fall 2019 at the latest and had an infection fatality rate under 0.2%.

However, the lockdowns caused the public to believe that the virus was hundreds of times deadlier than it really was. Simultaneously, the World Health Organization issued global PCR testing guidance—using tests later confirmed by the New York Times to have a false positive rate over 85%—pursuant to which millions of cases were soon discovered in every country. Additionally, the WHO issued new guidance on the use of mechanical ventilators to member nations; over 97% of those over age 65 who received mechanical ventilation in accordance with this guidance were killed.

Terrified by this surge of deaths and the psychological terror campaigns deployed by governments on their own people, populations across the western world proceeded to impose an ever-darker swathe of illiberal mandates including forced masking and digital vaccine passes for everyday activities. Young children, who were at virtually no risk from the virus, lost years of primary education in the worst education crisis since the end of the Second World War. An indefinite state of legal emergency was imposed which continues to this day. The global fight for human rights and the end of poverty was set back decades.

Over $3 trillion in wealth was transferred from the world’s poorest to a tiny number of billionaires and their supporters, predominantly in China and in the tech and pharmaceutical industries. Several key early lockdown proponents indicated that they saw Covid as an opportunity to “entrench a new idea of ​​the left … reconstructing a cultural hegemony on a new basis.” Authoritarian regimes grew more autocratic, and democratic governments took on authoritarian characteristics.

Worst of all, a norm was grafted onto western democracy that the fundamental rights to movement, work, association, bodily autonomy, and free expression, for which our forebears fought so tirelessly, can be suddenly and indefinitely suspended, without precedent, analysis, or logic, based on nothing but vague promises that doing so will “save lives” — rendering them all but moot.

Meanwhile, the lockdowns and mandates led to the deaths of over 170,000 Americans and proportionate numbers in countries that imposed them across the western world. By 2021, lockdowns had killed over 228,000 children in South Asia. Studies of excess deaths indicate that lockdowns led to several million deaths in India and proportionate numbers in other developing nations.

A million here, a million there, pretty soon you’re talking real atrocities.

These numbers do not even begin to count the total damage that will ultimately ensue due to the economic devastation of lockdowns, which we will continue to witness for many years to come. Many early lockdown proponents may never be among the 2,000,000 Americans currently residing in jails and prisons, but we can be sure that thousands more would-be innocent children will one day be added to the prison rolls as a result of the economic destruction their policies unleashed.

Ladies and gentlemen, this case ultimately comes down to whether, unlike the other 2,000,000 Americans currently in state custody, we can be sure that by virtue of their socioeconomic position and the panic over a virus which panic they deliberately stoked with their own policies, this handful of key early lockdown proponents acted in good faith when they convinced the world to adopt these unprecedented, catastrophic policies based on the belief that China eliminated the virus from an entire country by shutting down one city for two months—so sure that the question demands no further inquiry. I leave that for you to decide.

September 23, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Economics, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment