Time to Rethink the Core Question: What Is Health Care?
By Alan Lash | Brownstone Institute | January 5, 2023
By now we’ve all heard many stories of health policy makers, medical institutions, and even doctors seemingly act against the best health interests of the people and their patients. Doctors ignoring the real facts that Covid was never that dangerous for large swaths of the population, and equally ignoring that the vaccinations may cause serious harm. “Safe and effective,” they keep repeating.
Last month Alex Berenson provided details of yet another example of a 14-year-old girl named Yulia Hicks. Duke University surgeons took her off of the kidney transplant list because she is not vaccinated. We were horrified in hearing such examples a full year ago, but incredibly they continue.
Most of us have personal stories of close friends and family acting in equally peculiar ways. In my case, a doctor very close to me advised my daughter to get vaccinated in the summer of 2021 without talking to me at all. He didn’t know anything about her medical history or circumstances that would have potentially made the vaccine dangerous for her.
I challenged him, and he apologized, but he essentially shrugged off anything I said about the relative unnecessity for her to even take the vaccine, given that Covid was not dangerous for her. My facts didn’t seem to matter. He also shrugged off any potential long-term effects, even as I pointed out the obvious, that many such effects could not even be known at that time.
These stories go on and on, and extend to opinions of friends and family outside of health care. “You just have to take it,” we are told.
What is this disconnect? Why are there so many people who believe that it is ok to demand that a girl be vaccinated before she receives other life-saving treatment? Surely, they do not wish her harm. Why are potential risks of the vaccines just ignored by a large part of the medical community? How can they see significant numbers of cases of myocarditis in young men, and not pause for a moment to consider the impact that the vaccine might have on their lives and families?
I do not believe that all of these doctors think that when they advise these young men to take the vaccine, that they are intentionally trying to cause them harm. In fact, these doctors themselves believe that they are doing what is best for their patients.
But how is this possible? How can one group of doctors prescribe the opposite as another group of doctors and both believe that they are acting in the best interests of their patients, when all the same data points are there for everyone to see? I believe that the answer to these questions lies in the central definition of health care itself, and the worldviews that create this definition.
One worldview, the one I possess, is that health care is at essence an individual doctor/patient relationship. The doctor assesses the individual needs of the patient, whether physical or psychological, and plans treatment based on that. In Yulia’s case, my answer is obvious: the doctors must ignore their vaccination policy in the best health interests of one specific patient. It doesn’t even matter to me whether she had Covid before. Her parents’ refusal to get the vaccine, for whatever reason, is all I need to know. Clearly this worldview means there is a different treatment for each individual.
The other worldview, seemingly held by so many inside the healthcare system, does not rely on an individual assessment to understand health care. They view health care as being a general policy that applies to the entire population. If they have determined that in general vaccination is better than not being vaccinated, then they must require that everyone be vaccinated.
They say that if their policy choice is correct, then they must just accept that there are some people who will not benefit or even be harmed by the policy. The statistics are all that matter. If they follow those, then they are in fact doing what is best for everyone. Doctors can claim that they are in fact working to help people. Their statistics prove it to them.
This worldview has been brought into stark relief in the past two years with the various policies around Covid, but it has been taking root for quite some time. My father died in 2010, but in the years before his death, doctors had him on a wide variety of medications, so that every day he literally swallowed a handful of pills.
What were they for? High blood pressure, blood clot prevention, predisposition to diabetes. Note that none of these are conditions from which he suffered in his life, they are all numbers, measurements, and statistics. He wasn’t being treated as an individual with a specific problem that needed to be addressed. He fit in this category, and that other category, and so the solution is a handful of pills every day, just like everyone else in those categories.
But what happens when the statistics don’t bear out the policy decision? We have an immediate example with the Covid vaccinations. All-cause mortality has been on a frightening rise, and it’s becoming more and more difficult to ignore the possibility that the vaccines could have actually caused this. Assuming that there is a connection, surely this flies in the face of the worldview that the vaccination program has been good for all of society. If the overall numbers of deaths have increased, doesn’t that mean that the vaccination program was a failure? Isn’t that the very definition of a public health policy failure? Again, in this case, many doctors seem to be unaware of this fact. How can that be?
As baffling as this is, I think this too fits well within the worldview. When the medical community completely controls all health care decisions, that defines the success. Another way to think about it is to say that the overarching grand scheme is precisely to remove all decision-making from the individual about their own health care. In this sense, the vaccination program has been a success, regardless of myocarditis, nervous disorders, or even excess mortality.
Of course things will not go perfectly well all the time, and there may be more harm than good in a particular campaign. But overall, if people just trust what they are told to do by the medical establishment, we will all be better off over the long run. They will just have to do better next time.
But here we are now at a problem that cannot be solved. There is no reconciliation of the two worldviews.
The health policy worldview determines its success only in the fact that they have controlled the individual health decisions. Any mistakes in policy will be taken into account in the next decision. There never is a policy failure as long as the decision-makers remain in charge to tell us what is best.
The individual worldview requires that each patient be treated uniquely, with a personal relationship with a doctor viewing their needs and desires as important and unique. This attitude is wholly counter to centralized control of all health care decisions.
Where are we going? As much as I’d like to think people will ultimately reject top down control of their health care, that’s not what we’ve seen happen. The trend has been in place for at least several decades, and the emotional reaction against personal choice and individual care has been shockingly powerful in the past two years. This is despite solid and growing evidence that the vaccination campaign has been a failure in improving the health of the population. My hope is that there will be some change in attitude or some big event to get us back to health care for individuals, but I can’t think of what that will be.
Alan Lash is a software developer from Northern California, with a Masters degree Physics and a PhD in Mathematics.
Internal CDC Emails Claim Assistant Secretary For Health Blocked Release Of Fluoride Review
By Derrick Broze | The Last American Vagabond | January 5, 2023
Newly released emails reveal that leadership within the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institute of Health acted to prevent the release of a long-delayed review of fluoride’s toxicity by the National Toxicology Program. The emails specifically claim that Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine intervened to stop the release of the NTP review, also known internally as a monograph.
An email dated June 3rd, 2022, shows Nicole Johnson, Associate Director for Policy, Partnerships and Strategic Communication in CDC’s Oral Health Division contacting Jennifer Greaser, a Senior Public Health Policy Analyst in CDC’s Washington office. Johnson states:
“The latest we heard (yesterday) is that ASH Levine has put the report on hold until further notice.”
ASH Levine refers to the U.S. Assistant Secretary of Health, Rachel Levine.
The emails were released as part of the ongoing legal dispute between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and plaintiffs Food and Water Watch, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), and others who are seeking an end to water fluoridation Throughout the historic lawsuit the plaintiffs have argued that the practice violates the EPA’s Toxic Substances Abuse Act.
Hearings for the lawsuit began in June 2020, but were delayed for more than two years after U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen put the proceedings on hold pending the release of the NTP’s review of all of the available research on fluoride. The NTP had previously claimed the review would be available in May 2022. However, the review has not been made public and hearings have been delayed and rescheduled as the judge awaited the NTP’s conclusions.
In late October 2022, Judge Chen ended the two year stay on the lawsuit when he ruled that the NTP review could be viewed in its unpublished form to better inform his final decision. However, due to concerns from the EPA, Judge Chen ruled that the report could not be made public unless the NTP releases it.
On December 14, 2022, the plaintiff’s filed several exhibits with Judge Chen, including a redacted version of the NTP’s assessment of fluoride’s neurotoxicity and internal emails between the CDC and the NTP which were obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests.
What do the #FluorideEmails reveal?
Michael Connett, attorney for the plaintiffs, outlined the findings of the emails in several exhibits submitted to Judge Chen. “These emails confirm that the NTP considered the May 2022 monograph to be the NTP’s final report,” Connett writes. “They also confirm that the CDC was opposed to the NTP releasing the report, and that leadership at the top levels of the Department of Health Human Services intervened to stop the report from being released.”
As Connett notes, on April 28, 2022, Dr. Mary Wolfe, the Director of NTP’s Office of Policy, Review and Outreach, emailed Casey Hannan, the Director of CDC’s Division of Oral Health, and stated that the NTP’s “analysis and conclusions are set”. Dr. Wolfe also let Hannan know that the NTP had reviewed the CDC’s submitted comments, but still planned to release the review “mid/late May” 2022.
In a May 11, 2022 email, Wolfe again notifies Hannan and the CDC that the NTP has “set May 18, 2022 for publication of the monograph. The monograph will be posted to the NTP website, and we will email a notice of the posting to NTP listserv subscribers.”
However, later that day and the following day, Dr. Karen Hacker, the Director of CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), tells Dr. Wolfe that there is concern within the CDC about publishing the NTP review without an additional review by “NIH leadership”. Hacker also asked about the potential of a “interagency review” by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Dr. Wolfe subsequently told the CDC that “we (the NTP) believe the current findings, as stated in the monograph, reflect the scope of our evaluation and the available scientific literature and no revision is needed”.
Meanwhile, while Dr. Wolfe was defending the work of the NTP, internal emails among officials at the CDC’s Division of Oral Health reveal that the CDC was already preparing to prevent the release. A May 12, 2022 email from Hannan states:
“The May 18th release date for [the monograph] is almost certainly not going to happen. OASH and NIH OD are pretty clearly going to get more involved.”
OASH is a reference to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health, the second highest office in the Department of Health and Human Services, while NIH OD refers to the NIH’s Office of the Director, the highest office within the NIH. The current Director of the NIH is Lawrence A. Tabak.
Jay Sanders, Education & Outreach Director with the Fluoride Action Network, told The Last American Vagabond he believes the emails “reveal a concerted effort at the highest level of the U.S. public health bureaucracy to squash a key report on fluoride neurotoxicity”. Sanders also stated the emails “show the lengths these agencies are willing to go to to protect their pet project, fluoridation, from any scientific scrutiny.”
Together with the June 3rd, 2022 email, these communications point to direct intervention from the head of the NIH and the Assistant Secretary for Health at the Department of Health and Human Services.
The emails confirm what has long been suspected. Namely, that government officials at some level were preventing the release of this important review on the toxicity of fluoride. The CDC interference comes on top of an already unusual process employed by the NTP to evaluate the data on the safety of water fluoridation.
“This report, which has now been reviewed 4 times, is now going to be reviewed a 5th time by the NTP,” Fluoride Action Network attorney Michael Connett stated during the October 2022 hearing. “There will be at least 5 separate peer review processes extending over 4 years. This is, to put it mildly, exceptionally unusual.”
The next hearing in the #FluorideLawsuit takes place on January 12, 2023 at 2:30 PM US Eastern.
US regulator fast-tracks dementia drug
RT | January 6, 2023
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Friday fast-tracked the approval of lecanemab, a drug to treat the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease. Made by Japanese drugmaker Eisai and Biogen and marketed as Leqembi, the drug allegedly delays cognitive decline caused by the disease, though trials have shown some alarming side effects.
While a clinical trial of lecanemab’s efficacy in early Alzheimer’s published in November found it slowed cognitive and functional decline better than a placebo, the researchers noted that it was “associated with adverse events” and recommended “longer trials” to “determine the efficacy and safety of lecanemab in early Alzheimer’s disease” – an unusual call for caution in a study co-funded by the drug’s manufacturers.
Around 17% of those who took lecanemab experienced brain bleeding during the trials, while nearly 13% suffered brain swelling or effusions, compared to 9% and 2% in the placebo group respectively, according to the New England Journal of Medicine study. Some 7% of the trial participants stopped taking the drug due to the side effects.
Lecanemab’s high price point – $26,500 for a year’s worth of treatment – has also raised concerns. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review suggested $20,600 as the price ceiling, arguing a cost-effective rate could be as low as $8,500. The company suggested it could lower the dosing frequency to cut costs.
Biogen is no stranger to controversy over its Alzheimer’s drugs. In 2021, several FDA board members resigned over concerns that Aduhelm, which the company had developed as the first drug designed to target the plaque buildup then believed to be the underlying cause of Alzheimer’s, had not demonstrated sufficient efficacy in treating moderate-to-severe dementia. While not a single member of the advisory panel responsible for reviewing the drug supported its approval, the FDA did so anyway, side effects and $56,000 annual price tag notwithstanding.
A congressional investigation that concluded last week found the approval process “rife with irregularities,” noting the FDA had “inappropriately collaborated” with the company it was supposed to be regulating.
Last year, it emerged that parts of the research that established the current plaque-based disease model of Alzheimer’s were possibly fraudulent, suggesting that the amyloid plaques found in the patients could be a symptom, rather than the cause, of the illness.
Masks – again
Despite the absence of evidence, governments want us to mask up again. Why?
By Tom Jefferson and Carl Heneghan | Trust the Evidence | January 3, 2023
Those who thought they had seen the last mask mandates were badly mistaken.
It starts with the message on masking, and let’s see how the public reacts. It won’t be long before governments resort to reintroducing compulsory mask use to address the “winter crisis”. They say masks will decrease the number of respiratory infections that are the major cause of the recurring winter crisis.
Readers will recall that in early December, we challenged the evidence base cited by Lord Markham as proof that masks work. We wrote:
‘According to the UKHSA, the official scientific rationale for mask mandates in the community is based on a review last updated in the summer of 2021 of 28 studies, two of which are trials and the rest studies of abysmal quality. The review, identified through a Parliamentary Question, is in two parts: the main body and supplementary tables reporting the data. The problem is that the review is full of errors: the two parts do not match and appear to have been written separately and not even proofread.’
Most of the studies in the review are observational, making claims such as an 80 per cent reduction in cases after mask introduction – making masks use a miracle, not a human intervention. If that were the case, SARS-CoV-2 had been sent packing years ago, and with it, all the other respiratory viruses.
We also cited the co-author of Mr Hancock’s pandemic memoir, revealing that Johnson, Whitty and Hancock knew from the start that masks do not do the job, and yet they went ahead and coerced Britons to wear them.
The reality is different. Clinical trials in various settings – across vastly different ranges of circulation rates – from low influenza-like illness to pandemics have failed to show any effect. Which tallies with everyone’s personal experience of mask “protection”. So, why the sudden reintroduction?
Something odd is happening. We live in a world with more information and reactive media that fails to grasp the reality of the problem. Managing the message becomes more important than fixing the problem, particularly when you know you won’t be in your job much longer. Masks are a distraction.
The reality is a merry-go-round as new ministers, advisors, and experts pop up. They look to a simple solution to gloss over rather than fixing the long-term structural problems in the NHS.
We learnt this painful lesson with Tamiflu in the Swine flu Pandemic. Ministers reiterated, as did public health officials, that what mattered is they needed to be seen to be doing something. Whether it was evidence-based or not was immaterial. A complex problem requires a simple fix – a highly visible one: masking fits the bill perfectly.
Part of the problem is officials go unchallenged, no one asks for the evidence, and if they do, they feel intimidated – as an anonymous BBC reporter disclosed. You can virtually state anything in this modern era. By tomorrow the media will have moved on.
However, for now, let’s follow the jungle cry: do something! What? It does not matter; we have to be seen to be doing something!!!!
Review of studies: The science we’re meant to be following pervasively obfuscates the risk of mRNA jabs for young men
Of the few studies that even attempt to assess population-wide risk of myocarditis following vaccination, nearly three-fourths neglect to include proper stratifiers
eugyppius: a plague chronicle | January 6, 2023
This review, co-authored by Vinay Prasad, sets out to assess the literature on the risk of myocarditis in young men following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. Of 758 articles considered, the vast majority (89%) didn’t attempt any systematic risk assessment at all, and only 29 looked at population-wide risk. Of this meagre number, only eight properly stratified adverse events by sex, age, dose and vaccine manufacturer. This matters enormously, because the risk of myocarditis is heavily concentrated in men under forty following their second Pfizer or Moderna vaccination.
By failing to break out these specific categories, scientists can write studies that overlook the risk of the vaccines for younger men, effectively by spreading their heightened risk across broader subgroups or even the whole population:
This chart indicates the highest myocarditis incidence found in each of the studies reviewed. The fewer the stratifiers, the lower the stated incidence. M: male, D2: dose 2.
By looking only at men, or only at which dose, or only at which vaccine, you can reduce the highest stated incidence of myocarditis enormously, putting you in an excellent position to argue that, yes, myocarditis is a rare side effect from vaccination, but the risk of myocarditis from infection is greater.1 This is a game that is played at both ends, with complementary studies that massively overestimate the rate of myocarditis from Covid by considering only documented infections. Almost everyone with a severe outcome will have an official positive test at some point, while vastly fewer people who recover without incident will bother. A similar tactic, would be inflating the risk of severe outcome by looking only at hospital patients, or inflating the case fatality rate by looking only at those receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
The problem isn’t that a memo went out from Science Headquarters instructing researchers to cover up the obvious fact that the vaccines are clearly and beyond all cavil a bad deal for males under 40. It’s rather that science is subordinate to broader political, social and cultural forces, all of which incentivise research showing that the vaccines are safe and effective, and disincentivise research showing anything else. One kind of finding will get you promotion and grant funding, the other will – in the best case – simply be ignored. Cast in this light, the sheer paucity of studies looking at population-wide risks from vaccination in the first place begins to look deeply ominous. This is an entire area nobody wants to look into, for fear of what they might find.
It will be a long time indeed before we have any clarity on exactly how risky the vaccines are, and for whom.
1 At this point, it is convenient for the vaccinators to forget that their elixirs do not actually prevent infection, in service of presenting the false alternative.
Name & Shame – Companies Discriminating Against The Unvaccinated
Time to boycott
The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | January 5, 2023
Almost a year ago, I wrote about the companies discriminating against their employees just because they were unvaccinated against Covid-19. I suggested boycotting those companies until they changed their policies.
Hopefully some of this pressure made these companies see sense, as a lot of these discriminatory policies have now been removed.
However, a year on and some companies have found a loop hole, making them appear less discriminatory. Now, they can’t be seen to be discriminating against their unvaccinated employees because they will only employ vaccinated individuals in the first place!
So it’s time to name and shame again. If you know of any companies that are still treating their unvaccinated employees differently or only employing vaccinated individuals, then add their names in the comments sections below (please add a link to their policy for verification).
Below is a list of companies, that I have compiled, that require vaccination for employment. I have only included large companies but there are thousands of examples of small companies that also require vaccination. These are for jobs including administrators, care home workers, chefs, dentists, plumbers, nurses, software engineers and support workers to name but a few.
I find it amusing how many of these companies have equal opportunities sections in their job listing postings. Equal opportunities for anyone except the unvaccinated!
And if anyone from any of these companies reads this post, I would highly recommend that you remove your policies for two reasons. Firstly for discriminatory reasons connected to any future employment law issues and secondly, you don’t want to have pushed vaccination on employees, just in case it turns out that the vaccines weren’t as safe and effective as you thought.
I would also be interested in hearing from anyone who has been turned down from a job or interview if they are unvaccinated.
A selection of companies requiring or encouraging Covid-19 vaccination for employment.
- Accenture (Accenture requires all new employees to be fully vaccinated against Covid-19 as a condition of employment);
- Amazon (Workers in New York City who perform in-person work or interact with the public in the course of business must show proof they have been fully vaccinated against COVID or request and receive approval for a reasonable accommodation, including medical or religious accommodation);
- American Red Cross (As a condition of employment with American Red Cross, you are required to provide proof that you are fully vaccinated for COVID 19 or qualify for an exemption, except in states where it is prohibited by law);
- AstraZeneca (AstraZeneca requires all US employees to be fully vaccinated for COVID-19 but will consider requests for reasonable accommodations as required by applicable law);
- Carnival UK (To keep everyone on board fit and well, colleagues who visit or work on our ships must be fully vaccinated, including boosters);
- CBS Studios (Must be fully vaccinated to work on-site. (To be considered fully vaccinated: 2 weeks after their second dose in a 2-dose series, such as the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, or 2 weeks after a single-dose vaccine, such as Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen vaccine);
- Chainalysis (All employees are required to have or obtain a COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of employment at Chainalysis, unless an exemption has been approved. All employees shall be required to report their vaccine status);
- Citi (Citi requires that all successful applicants for positions located in the United States or Puerto Rico be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 as a condition of employment and provide proof of such vaccination prior to commencement of employment);
- Coca-Cola ( all new employees must be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and provide Coke Canada with proof of vaccination);
- Coles (As part of that commitment, you will need to be vaccinated against COVID-19 before joining the team at Coles, unless you’re medically exempt);
- Fitch Learning (part of Fitch Group) (UNITED STATES ONLY: As part of its continued efforts to maintain a safe workplace for employees, Fitch requires that all employees who receive a written offer of employment on or after October 4, 2021 be fully vaccinated (as defined by the CDC) against the coronavirus by the first day of employment as a condition of employment, to the extent permitted by applicable law);
- Jefferies Group LLC (It is Jefferies’ policy that all employees and visitors be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to enter any Jefferies office or participate in any Jefferies or client event in person. Should an offer of employment be made, your acceptance of that offer means that you will comply with this policy);
- Levi Strauss (LS&CO requires proof of being fully vaccinated for COVID-19 as a condition of commencing employment, except in those jurisdictions where prohibited by law);
- Live Nation (Currently, we strongly encourage employees to be fully vaccinated or have received a negative COVID test within [24] hours of entering an office);
- Marella Cruises (Please note that all applicants must be fully vaccinated against Covid-19).
- Ministry of Defence (We therefore encourage all our employees and prospective ones to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 subject to any exemptions that may apply);
- NHS (Whilst COVID-19 vaccination is not currently a condition of employment, we do encourage our staff to get vaccinated. If you are unvaccinated, there is helpful advice and information available by searching on the ‘NHS England’ website where you can also find out more about how to access the vaccination);
- NSF International (NSF requires all employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 as a condition of employment, with exceptions only as required by law);
- OmniAb (New hires based in the US will be required to demonstrate that they have been fully vaccinated and boosted for COVID-19 or qualify for a medical or religious exemption or accommodation to this vaccination requirement);
- Overseas Adventure Travel (All trip leaders are required to be double vaccinated and boosted (as are all of our passengers));
- Paypal (Depending on location, this might include a Covid-19 vaccination requirement for any employee whose role requires them to work onsite);
- Qantas Airways ( It is the intention of the Qantas Group to require employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and this is being explored in all our international locations);
- Universal Music Group (All UMG employees are currently required to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or provide proof of a negative PCR or Antigen test before entering any Company offices unless they have been approved for an exemption or unless prohibited by applicable law);
- Visier (As part of this commitment, we require all employees to be fully vaccinated for COVID-19 or qualify for an exemption);
- ZE UK (Accordingly, following with provincial and federal vaccination’s approach, we require that all of our employees to be fully vaccinated and provide their proof of vaccination or substantiated grounds for exemption);
Torsades de Pointes and Cardiac Arrest after COVID-19 Vaccination
Primary Arrhythmia without Myocarditis is a Demonstrated Mechanism of Sudden Death
By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH | Courageous Discourse | January 5, 2023
Torsades de pointes (French for “twisting of the points”) is one of several types of life-threatening heart rhythm disturbances than can cause cardiac arrest. When case reports capture this rhythm in a fortunate survivor of a cardiac arrest it is noteworthy particularly as our CDC VAERS system indicates 16,155 Americans through December 23, 2022, have died within a few days of taking of the COVID-19 vaccines.
Drs Abrich and Olshansky reported a 65-year old woman with hypertension, a left bundle branch block with a prolonged QT interval, and a mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction after at two dose series of the Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. She came to specialty evaluation because she completely passed out while sitting. An implantable loop recorder was inserted in the chest to monitor the rhythm and then five months later she took a booster and 12 hours later went into full blown cardiac arrest. She required prolonged CPR and 14 shocks of the heart to be revived. There was no evidence of myocarditis. She had a rocky hospital course and was discharged to an inpatient rehabilitation facility.
The lessons learned from this case are: 1) syncope (passing out) after vaccination can indicate a serious arrhythmia, 2) when there are abnormal heart tests (ECG and echocardiography) after two shots, boosters are ill-advised and can be fatal, 3) COVID-19 vaccination can cause a primary cardiac arrest without myocarditis and may explain cases of “died suddenly” when the autopsy does not reveal and obvious known vaccine injury (myocarditis, blood clot, VITT, etc).
OpenVAERS: VAERS COVID Vaccine Adverse Event Reports, Accessed January 5, 2023
USA – The United States of Anti-science
TSA extends requirement to be vaccinated to enter the USA
The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | January 4, 2023
The ‘United States of Anti-Science’ headline is not meant to insult any American readers or the American people in general. However, I have no problem with insulting the priests of anti-science who seem to be making the rules in the country.
Whilst most of the rest of the world opened up last year, the US Transportation Security Administration (part of the department of Homeland Security) still had a Security Directive in force which required that a non-US citizen must be double-jabbed to enter the country.
This was meant to expire on 8 January 2023. Hooray, let’s all book flights to the US!
Not so fast. Yesterday, an Emergency Amendment was approved, continuing the ridiculous rules until 10 April 2023.
This means that unvaccinated non-US citizens will still not be able to visit friends and family. Even if they are fit and well, they are barred from the country, whilst a vaccinated person who could actually have Covid is welcome.
Raging Covid fever but drowning in lipid nanoparticles – Welcome to the USA! Healthy with immunity from a natural infection months ago – Good riddance!
It will probably be claimed that the Emergency Amendment is necessary due to large numbers of cases in China. But vaccinated Chinese people are still allowed into the country with negative tests whilst an unvaccinated person from a country with hardly any Covid is not.
And we all know that being vaccinated does not mean you don’t get Covid or transmit it to others, probably the opposite in fact.
Utter madness. Complete anti-science.
However, when comparing both documents, I did notice that there is a difference in the wording of the text. The original Security Directive used “aircraft operators” whilst the new Emergency Amendment uses “foreign air carriers”.
Is this a loop hole? Maybe unvaccinated non-US citizens can fly in on a US plane but not a foreign one. Maybe unvaccinated travellers weren’t being checked for their vaccination status anyway. But for most people it is a big risk if you might be sent straight back home again.
And over in California, Assembly Bill No. 2098 has gone into effect meaning that doctors can lose their medical licenses if they don’t follow the state narrative.
The bill declares the following state narrative:
- the amount of people that have died from COVID-19;
- the unvaccinated risk of dying from COVID-19 is 11 times greater than those who are fully vaccinated;
- vaccines are safe and effective;
- misinformation and disinformation have placed lives at serious risk;
- some of the most dangerous propagators of inaccurate information regarding the COVID-19 vaccines are licensed health care professionals. (Well at least they got one point right!).
If you thought doctors were unable to think critically before this, imagine how bad it will be now.
USA – The land of the free*
(*If fully vaccinated and complying with the state narrative)
Transmission Denied
The perils of state-sanctioned censorship laid bare
Health Advisory & Recovery Team | December 24, 2022
How will we look back on 2022? For all but the most die-hard Zero Covid addicts (who had to wait until China punctured this illusion only a few weeks ago), victory was declared over Covid early in the piece when the government backed down from its obscene NHS injection mandate in February and ‘Plan B’ restrictions were also subsequently rescinded.
Yet peace, of course, was subsequently shattered by a confected – albeit shockingly deadly and costly – crisis in Eastern Europe, providing a helpful smokescreen for those that wished to obscure the obvious fallacies propping up the mainstream Covid narrative.
Of course, for most lockdown sceptics, Covid-19 should never have had a name, nor should it have been a ‘thing’. Had we had our way, the UK might now have the financial muscle to invest in schools, hospitals, updating creaking infrastructure, … this list feels endless, not dissimilar to the climb we face to reclaim the lost ground since society leaped off the cliff and into the abyss of draconian non-pharmaceutical interventions in March 2020.
These days, of course, it is fashionable to decry the harms of the over-zealous response, almost as if there had been no dissenting voices or opinions at the time. Unfortunately this is another convenient smokescreen, as the true scale of falsehoods shared by official information campaigns – or should we call them disinformation campaigns co-ordinated by officials – is now becoming impossible for even the most ardent Covidean Cultists to ignore.
We have previously reported on very strange goings-on in the upper echelons of the institutions co-ordinating various aspects of the ‘pandemic response’. Senior personalities and shadowy nameless characters that populated government committees such as SAGE – riven with conflicts of interest and serving many masters, the precise opposite of the ‘public servants’ they were portrayed as – favoured both corporate tyranny and crony capitalism. Actions speak louder than words: achieving good outcomes for people they are meant to be serving seem not to have been the top of their agenda.
This just replicated what happened across the Western world. Consider the treatment meted out on three ‘centrist’ senior academics (hailing from Stanford, Oxford and Harvard, no less) behind the Great Barrington Declaration, an attempt to promote a rational response to the grand panic so as to minimise collateral damage. A senior honcho within US National Institutes of Health smeared them as ‘fringe epidemiologists’ and stated that there “needs to be a quick and devastating published take down of its premises”:
Various such rent-a-quote ‘take downs’ duly appeared in the following days, and a rival rallying flag – the John Snow Memorandum – was hastily erected, receiving the blessing of various official mouthpieces such as Rochelle Walensky, the head of the CDC, as well being promoted in The Lancet. The John Snow Memo was merely a totem – a weak document that has laughably failed to stand the test of time – and it was correctly critiqued at the time. It is littered with hostage to fortune statements such as “Japan, Vietnam, and New Zealand, to name a few countries, have shown that robust public health responses can control transmission, allowing life to return to near-normal, and there are many such success stories”. Oops.
But despite these clangers, the ‘women and children last’ brigade were given a free pass by the mainstream press to use the John Snow Memorandum as a stick to beat — and silence — those that fought to limit collateral damage. Mission accomplished: pharma profits maximised.
This all came to light back in 2021… it is old news, though it is noteworthy that even lockdown sceptic Isabel Oakeshott recently mislabelled the centrist creed as the ‘Barrington Declaration’ (perhaps assuming the ‘Great’ was self-aggrandisement, rather than the more prosaic fact of being a geographical label referring to Great Barrington, Massachusetts, where the Declaration was signed).
A new development is that Anthony Fauci, head of the NIA, is now unable to recall these matters when providing an ‘on the record’ legal deposition, stating that he didn’t “have time to worry about things like the Great Barrington Declaration”… despite writing a few days after the above email from Collins that he had “come out very strongly against the Great Barrington Declaration”.
And following on from confirmation of the active suppression and censorship of the Great Barrington Declaration and its authors, the new owner of a recently acquired social media company seems to have unearthed information that led to this exchange:
This is not merely playground politics – it is a matter of life and death. As fashionable as it is to subsequently admit that lockdowns – and the associated excesses which led to such terrible collateral damage – were a mistake, this was known before they were enacted. The shenanigans cost lives, livelihoods, and robbed families of last goodbyes.
It is tempting to see the debacle of recent years as a great misadventure – part of life’s rich tapestry that contributes to the furtherment of human knowledge. Lockdowns – ah, a failed experiment, but we didn’t know any better!
The sad – if unpalatable – truth is that not only should that experiment never have happened, it was known to very many powerful people that the experiment – and its compounding consequences and associated harms – should never have been promoted. It was a grand self-immolation that happened to enrich various characters that were not necessarily acting in your best interests. As more painful truths come to light, we owe it to our children and children’s children to continue to dissect these discredited lockdown policies, and those that promoted them. Watch this space.
How to hide adverse events
FDA compared apples and oranges
Health Advisory & Recovery Team | December 24, 2022
The FDA have finally conceded that the mRNA vaccinations increase the risk of pulmonary embolism. The study that led to this conclusion had a very odd methodology. Using this same methodology other risks were dismissed in an unjustified way. There are two FDA studies which use this same methodology. The first reported on people vaccinated aged 12-64 years and the more recent publication was for those aged 65 years and over. The study on the younger population used insurance databases whereas for the older population it was a medicare database.The studies are repeatedly described as being “rapid” and even “near-real time monitoring” even though nearly two years had passed before they were published.
Imagine you want to see if the risk of a certain condition was higher after vaccination was introduced compared to before. Data from voluntary reporting systems can act as an alarm signal but an accurate measure is better derived from comparing how common the condition is to how common it was in the past.
Ideally, the total number of people diagnosed with the condition for a period after vaccination would be compared to a similar period in a previous year. The MHRA set out to carry out such analysis once a week because of the unprecedented nature and size of the rollout. They have not published any findings.
The FDA chose to only look for 28 days for most conditions. The tally was compared to a 28 day period pre-covid. No justification is given for this short window. For comparison, when the Pandemrix vaccine was rushed out for swine flu in 2009, there was an 8 month lag between vaccination and onset of narcolepsy that was so devastating for the young people affected. (Narcolepsy is a condition where there is sudden paralysis or sleep meaning that a normal life is not possible). It is now known that the spike protein circulates for at least 4 months after vaccination and there has been a post mortem study showing characteristic vaccine induced inflammation of the coronary arteries leading to death 4 months after the last dose. The FDA only looked at the risk for the first 28 days.
Let’s say there was a condition where there were more cases in that 28 day period than in a random 28 day period used as a control. This would be very concerning because of a phenomenon called the “healthy vaccinee effect”. People tend to postpone vaccination when they are unwell such that every condition would be expected to be less common in the period immediately after vaccination. To measure the size of this effect it is important to include conditions in the analysis for which there is no expectation of an association as a control. For example, this group included coeliac disease as a control diagnosis. The FDA did not include a control condition.
The FDA methodology did not make a straightforward comparison. Instead they removed all the people who did have the condition but had not got a complete medical record for 365 days prior to the condition being noted. This might have been more justifiable if they had also removed people from the historical data who had not had an intact record for 365 days, but they did not.
They then removed all the people with the condition after the vaccine who had had a diagnosis of that condition in the 365 days prior to vaccination. They did not do the same for the control group.
If vaccination causes an increased risk of myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism or other clotting problems then it would not be unreasonable to suspect that people who already had a propensity for those conditions would be at highest risk. Not only was their data removed but no separate analysis was reported for this group.
Having removed these people from the vaccination group the scales tipped such that there was only a slight difference between the control group (including people with bad records and previous history) and the post vaccination group (excluding those people). Even then the risk after vaccination was still higher in most of the groups analysed than in the control group.
The FDA then compared the vaccination group with data on people who had had an influenza vaccination. Again, they do not state that they excluded people who had not got an intact medical record or who had had that condition recently. Finally, they managed to tip the scale enough to claim that the vaccines were safe for myocardial infarctions and clotting issues but not pulmonary embolisms in the over 65 year olds. The rate of transverse myelitis was 4 to 7 times higher in those 12-64 year olds given Janssen (an adenovirus vaccine similar to Astrazeneca) but the FDA still concluded they “identified no safety signals.” … Full article
Featured Video
The Source of America’s Wars – Kristol Clear
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Is Israel to blame for the Iraq War?
American Goy | March 10, 2008
I am so tired of this old canard that “Israel had nothing to do with USA’s war with Iraq – in fact, it officially advised America against it”.
Bullshit. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Israel’s priority lies in destroying chances of peace between Iran, US: Ex-UN nuclear chief
- Ceasefire for all or for none: Iran shuts Hormuz over Lebanon attacks
- Strait of Hormuz is Iran’s ‘nuclear weapon’ that forced US retreat: Medvedev
- Energy crisis will last for months – Kremlin envoy
- Europe’s quiet role in the war on Iran
- Forty days that shook the Empire: How Iran turned the tables on US and prevailed
- Netanyahu unilaterally declares Lebanon outside of ceasefire deal
- Israeli leaders: ‘Not a single goal’ achieved in war with Iran
- What on earth just happened? Trump, Iran, and the unlikely ceasefire
- Alberta Bill Would Fine Political Deepfakes $10,000 Without Satire Exemptions
- If Americans Knew
- Gazans face a triple crisis: severe shortages of water and bread, healthcare in tatters
- NY Times reports how Netanyahu took the US into Iran War
- A sigh of relief over Iran, but Gaza and Lebanon in dire straits – Daily Update
- Thousands dead and neighborhoods razed to the ground: Aid agencies fear southern Lebanon is becoming the new Gaza
- The war the US is fighting for Israel could cost trillions
- ‘Cigarette Burns, Nail Wounds’: Toddler Tortured in Gaza to Coerce Father
- Trump Says US Sent ‘a Lot of Guns’ to Protesters in Iran
- Israeli forces destroy 17 UN peacekeeper cameras in south Lebanon
- US-Israeli strikes ‘completely destroy’ synagogue in Tehran
- Archbishop for US Military Says Iran War Is Unjust Under Catholic Teaching
- No Tricks Zone
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
- Former Pfizer Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz Tells Bundestag Hearing Pfizer Vaccine Should Have Never Been Approved
- Energy Expert: Germany’s Nuclear Phaseout Was A “500 Billion Euro Mistake”
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
Aletho News 