Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

TOP VACCINOLOGIST: CLINICAL TRIALS FAIL TO SUPPORT CLAIM ‘VACCINES DO NOT CAUSE AUTISM’

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | January 6, 2023

Informed Consent Action Network (icandecide.org) funded Lead Attorney, Aaron Siri, Esq., to depose and later cross-examine world-leading Vaccinologist, Dr. Kathyrn Edwards in 2020. Within the hours-long cross-examination she gave a shocking answer to the question; “Do childhood vaccine trials support the CDC’s claim that vaccines do not cause autism?” Regardless of your stance on the issue of Vaccines and Autism, her answer is a must-see.

January 12, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | Leave a comment

How Can We Trust Institutions that Lied?

By Abir Ballan | Brownstone Institute | January 11, 2023

Trust the Authorities, trust the Experts, and trust the Science, we were told. Public health messaging during the Covid-19 pandemic was only credible if it originated from government health authorities, the World Health Organization, and pharmaceutical companies, as well as scientists who parroted their lines with little critical thinking.

In the name of ‘protecting’ the public, the authorities have gone to great lengths, as described in the recently released Twitter Files (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) that document collusion between the FBI and social media platforms, to create an illusion of consensus about the appropriate response to Covid-19.

They suppressed ‘the truth,’ even when emanating from highly credible scientists, undermining scientific debate and preventing the correction of scientific errors. In fact, an entire bureaucracy of censorship has been created, ostensibly to deal with so-called MDM— misinformation (false information resulting from human error with no intention of harm); disinformation (information intended to mislead and manipulate); malinformation (accurate information intended to harm).

From fact-checkers like NewsGuard, to the European Commission’s Digital Services Act, the UK Online Safety Bill and the BBC Trusted News Initiative, as well as Big Tech and social media, all eyes are on the public to curtail their ‘mis-/dis-information.’

“Whether it’s a threat to our health or a threat to our democracy, there is a human cost to disinformation.” — Tim Davie, Director-General of the BBC

But is it possible that ‘trusted’ institutions could pose a far bigger threat to society by disseminating false information?

Although the problem of spreading false information is usually conceived of as emanating from the public, during the Covid-19 pandemic, governments, corporations, supranational organisations and even scientific journals and  academic institutions have contributed to a false narrative.

Falsehoods such as ‘Lockdowns save lives’ and ‘No one is safe until everyone is safe’ have far-reaching costs in livelihoods and lives. Institutional false information during the pandemic was rampant. Below is just a sample by way of illustration.

The health authorities falsely convinced the public that the Covid-19 vaccines stop infection and transmission when the manufacturers never even tested these outcomes. The CDC changed its definition of vaccination to be more ‘inclusive’ of the novel mRNA technology vaccines. Instead of the vaccines being expected to produce immunity, now it was good enough to produce protection.

The authorities also repeated the mantra (at 16:55) of ‘safe and effective’ throughout the pandemic despite emerging evidence of vaccine harm. The FDA refused the full release of documents they had reviewed in 108 days when granting the vaccines emergency use authorisation. Then in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, it attempted to delay their release for up to 75 years. These documents presented evidence of vaccine adverse events. It’s important to note that between 50 and 96 percent of the funding of drug regulatory agencies around the world comes from Big Pharma in the form of grants or user fees. Can we disregard that it’s difficult to bite the hand that feeds you?

The vaccine manufacturers claimed high levels of vaccine efficacy in terms of relative risk reduction (between 67 and 95 percent). They failed, however, to share with the public the more reliable measure of absolute risk reduction that was only around 1 percent, thereby exaggerating the expected benefit of these vaccines.

They also claimed “no serious safety concerns observed” despite their own post-authorisation safety report revealing multiple serious adverse events, some lethal. The manufacturers also failed to publicly address the immune suppression during the two weeks post-vaccination and the rapidly waning vaccine effectiveness that turns negative at 6 months or the increased risk of infection with each additional booster. Lack of transparency about this vital information denied people their right to informed consent.

They also claimed that natural immunity is not protective enough and that hybrid immunity (a combination of natural immunity and vaccination) is required. This false information was necessary to sell remaining stocks of their products in the face of mounting breakthrough cases (infection despite vaccination).

In reality, although natural immunity may not completely prevent future infection with SARS-CoV-2, it is however effective in preventing severe symptoms and deaths. Thus vaccination post-natural infection is not needed.

The WHO also participated in falsely informing the public. It disregarded its own pre-pandemic plans, and denied that lockdowns and masks are ineffective at saving lives and have a net harm on public health. It also promoted mass vaccination in contradiction to the public health principle of ‘interventions based on individual needs.’

It also went as far as excluding natural immunity from its definition of herd immunity and claimed that only vaccines can help reach this end point. This was later reversed under pressure from the scientific community. Again, at least 20 percent of the WHO’s funding comes from Big Pharma and philanthropists invested in pharmaceuticals. Is this a case of he who pays the piper calls the tune?

The Lancet, a respectable medical journal, published a paper claiming that Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) — a repurposed drug used for the treatment of Covid-19 —  was associated with a slight increased risk of death. This led the FDA to ban the use of HCQ to treat Covid-19 patients and the NIH to halt the clinical trials on HCQ as a potential Covid-19 treatment. These were drastic measures taken on the basis of a study that was later retracted due to the emergence of evidence showing that the data used was false.

In another instance, the medical journal Current Problems in Cardiology retracted —without any justification— a paper showing an increased risk of myocarditis in young people following the Covid-19 vaccines, after it was peer-reviewed and published. The authors advocated for the precautionary principle in the vaccination of young people and called for more pharmacovigilance studies to assess the safety of the vaccines. Erasing such findings from the medical literature not only prevents science from taking its natural course, but it also gatekeeps important information from the public.

A similar story took place with Ivermectin, another drug used for the treatment of Covdi-19, this time potentially implicating academia. Andrew Hill stated (at 5:15) that the conclusion of his paper on Ivermectin was influenced by Unitaid which is, coincidentally, the main funder of a new research centre at Hill’s workplace —the University of Liverpool. His meta-analysis showed that Ivermectin reduced mortality with Covid-19 by 75 percent. Instead of supporting Ivermectin use as a Covid-19 treatment, he concluded that further studies were needed.

The suppression of potentially life-saving treatments was instrumental for the emergency use authorization of the Covid-19 vaccines as the absence of a treatment for the disease is a condition for EUA (p.3).

Many media outlets are also guilty of sharing false information. This was in the form of biased reporting, or by accepting to be a platform for public relations (PR) campaigns. PR is an innocuous word for propaganda or the art of sharing information to influence public opinion in the service of special interest groups.

The danger of PR is that it passes for independent journalistic opinion to the untrained eye. PR campaigns aim to sensationalise scientific findings, possibly to increase consumer uptake of a given therapeutic, increase funding for similar research, or to increase stock prices. The pharmaceutical companies spent $6.88 billion on TV advertisements in 2021 in the US alone. Is it possible that this funding influenced media reporting during the Covid-19 pandemic?

Lack of integrity and conflicts of interest have led to an unprecedented institutional false information pandemic. It is up to the public to determine whether the above are instances of mis- or dis-information.

Public trust in the Media has seen its biggest drop over the last five years. Many are also waking up to the widespread institutional false information. The public can no longer trust ‘authoritative’ institutions that were expected to look after their interests. This lesson was learned at great cost. Many lives were lost due to the suppression of early treatment and an unsound vaccination policy; businesses ruined; jobs destroyed; educational achievement regressed; poverty aggravated; and both physical and mental health outcomes worsened. A preventable mass disaster.

We have a choice: either we continue to passively accept institutional false information or we resist. What are the checks and balances that we must put in place to reduce conflicts of interest in public health and research institutions? How can we decentralise the media and academic journals in order to reduce the influence of pharmaceutical advertising on their editorial policy?

As individuals, how can we improve our media literacy to become more critical consumers of information? There is nothing that dispels false narratives better than personal inquiry and critical thinking. So the next time conflicted institutions cry woeful wolf or vicious variant or catastrophic climate, we need to think twice.

Abir Ballan is the co-founder of THiNKTWICE.GLOBAL — Rethink. Reconnect. Reimagine.. She has a Masters in Public Health, a graduate certificate in special needs education and a BA in psychology. She is a children’s author with 27 published books.

January 11, 2023 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Profits of doom pile up as the Covid juggernaut rolls on

By Paul Collits | TCW Defending Freedom | January 10, 2023

There are those, looking more prescient by the day, who have always called the Covid episode a ‘plandemic’ rather than a ‘pandemic’, which it clearly wasn’t. There is mounting evidence that the virus was invented for the vaccine, and not the other way around.

As new and clever variants of Covid stalk the world, awkward questions are beginning to be asked by experts and others, still sadly a small minority, though the numbers are growing.

The American epidemiologist Dr Paul Alexander recently warned of the likelihood of ‘more lethal [Covid] strains arising from the vaccine program’. All but the most determined Covid ostriches, with their heads buried in the sand, perhaps up their fundaments, could have failed to have noticed that it is the vaccinated, and especially the multiply boostered, who are now most likely to get Covid, to pass it on, to end up in hospital, to be in intensive care units, and to die from Covid. (See this article from yesterday’s TCW.)

Here is how SARS CoV-2 has benefited from the global vaccine rollout. Paul Alexander explains: ‘When you place variants under pressure, natural selection will operate and will select for more infectious variants. If you keep this bivalent program going [in the United States], the new booster, you are going to keep this pandemic going for many more years.  In other words, this vaccine rollout . . .  will keep variants emerging one variant after the next, and they’re gonna be more infectious.’ 

Ouch.

Alexander’s analysis sounds like good science. Compelling, even. What he describes also sounds like a plandemic. The ultimate virtuous circle for the whole of the Covid class. Get governments to lock people down and so kill off their immunity. Manufacture vaccines that lower immunity. Then roll out the jabs that will, over time, leave people more, not less, prone, to catching Covid. A damned fine business model.

The fully indemnified vaccine manufacturers must be considered the luckiest capitalists of all time. Whether they conspired with well-known supra-national actors intent on vaccinating the globe, for whatever reasons, or simply raked in the profits, hardly matters. (Or does it? Those keen on a Nuremberg Two might beg to differ.)

They got governments all over the world, of every ideological persuasion, to buy their dodgy products, never remotely fit for purpose. They got opinion leaders to buy the false binary between lockdowns and vaccines-as-freedom-guarantors. They got them to keep the deals through which they got the contracts secret. Witness the shady shenanigans of Ursula von der Leyen of the European Commission and Albert Bourla of Pfizer. They got them to bully their populations into taking their jabs. Over and over. They got them to grant them immunity from prosecution. They got willing governments to do their marketing for them. They got them to insist on vaccinating those, including children, with next to no risk from contracting Covid.

They have lied, repeatedly. They got others to lie. They covered up. They fixed vaccine trials. They have taken short cuts. They have compromised medical science. They committed felonies. They collaborated with evil.

They have perpetrated, at the very least, a giant scam, never before witnessed in the history of corporate welfare or of public policy. Crony capitalism has morphed into an entirely different, turbo-charged beast.

This new dimension, whereby Covid becomes the gift that keeps on giving, is next-level sinister. When trying to explain some social, economic or political phenomenon, as they say, follow the money. And these days, follow the power. Who benefits from the endlessly rolled-out Covid virus, or perhaps more accurately, the endlessly rolled-out viruses which might bear very little resemblance to the original strain?

The list of beneficiaries is long and impressive.

Obviously, Big Pharma. Big Tech. Big business (but decidedly not small business). Big government. The corporatist state. Those of authoritarian bent. The rapidly emerging pandemic industry, as Will Jones and others have termed it. Ghastly public health bureaucrats for whom 15 minutes of power was never going to be enough. (Those who haven’t already gone on to become Australian State Governors). The World Economic Forum and its fellow-travelling great resetters of great wealth and power. Big climate (local authorities in the United Kingdom are already trying out climate lockdowns). Those who want to use technology to impose future tyranny based upon the claim they are protecting the public’s safety during emergencies. The United Nations. Curtain twitchers and cultural maskists. The legacy media. The universities who get their funding from others on the above list. And, believe me, many do.

And all the while, no one sees the basic problem at the core of endless pandemia identified by Paul Alexander. Well, hardly anyone, to date. The mRNA vaccine is the ultimate emperor with no clothes. The naked emperor status of the vaccines was pointed out very early on in the Covid state rollout. Lockdowns would serve only to kill immunity. Experimental jabs that normally take decades to develop and test would constitute the biggest medical experiment in history. They were unapproved for other than ‘emergency’ purposes when there never was any emergency.

There is more to this ghastly story, alas. Not only are the vaccines the gifts that keep on giving. At the same time they are killing and maiming people. Possibly in their millions.

Denmark has halted its government rollout. Where are the Australian politicians (other than Alex Antic, Gerard Rennick and Malcolm Roberts)  stepping up to the plate? Looking the other way is a lethal sin of omission.

What does the Chief Medical Officer, Paul Kelly, say about vaccine deaths and injuries? Nothing. Surely he has caught up with the worldwide movement seeking to have the vaccines banned? And the deep and broad peer-reviewed science upon which it is based?

Yet the jabs continue and the useful idiot bureaucrats and politicians still waddle around in the weeds of the debate. Meanwhile, the global vaccine steamroller continues on its merry way, cheered on by those who designed the whole thing. They will all be back in Davos in a week and planning (oops, preparing for) future pandemics.

January 11, 2023 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Landmark Lawsuit Slaps Legacy Media With Antitrust, First Amendment Claims for Censoring COVID-Related Content

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 10, 2023

In a live interview this evening on Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., chairman and chief litigation counsel for Children’s Health Defense (CHD), announced that he and several other plaintiffs filed a groundbreaking novel lawsuit making antitrust and constitutional claims against legacy media outlets.

The lawsuit targets the Trusted News Initiative (TNI), a self-described “industry partnership” launched in March 2020 by several of the world’s largest news organizations, including the BBC, The Associated Press (AP), Reuters and The Washington Post — all of which are named as defendants in the lawsuit.

Filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas-Amarillo Division, the lawsuit alleges these outlets partnered with several Big Tech firms to “collectively censor online news,” including stories about COVID-19 and the 2020 U.S. presidential election that were not aligned with official narratives regarding those issues.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include CHD, Kennedy, Creative Destruction Media, Trial Site News, Ty and Charlene Bollinger (founders of The Truth About Cancer and The Truth About Vaccines), Erin Elizabeth Finn (publisher of Health Nut News ), Jim Hoft (founder of The Gateway Pundit ), Dr. Joseph Mercola and Ben Tapper, a chiropractor.

All of the plaintiffs allege they were censored, banned, de-platformed, shadow banned or otherwise penalized by the Big Tech firms partnering with the TNI, because the views and content they published were deemed “misinformation” or “disinformation.” This resulted in a major loss of visibility and revenue for the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit further alleges that Big Tech firms, having partnered with the TNI, based their decisions on determinations jointly made by TNI, which touted its “early warning system” by which each partner organization is “warned” about an individual or outlet that is disseminating purported “misinformation.”

The TNI’s legacy media and Big Tech firms then acted in concert — described in legal terms as a “group boycott” — to remove such voices and perspectives from their platforms. This forms the basis of the lawsuit’s antitrust and First Amendment claims.

Remarking on the lawsuit, Kennedy told The Defender :

“My uncle, President Kennedy, and my father, the attorney general, sought to prosecute antitrust laws that are still on the nation’s books, with vigor.

“As private enforcers of those laws, we are confident that the federal court in Texas will vindicate our bedrock freedom to compete with legacy media in the marketplace of ideas.”

Mary Holland, CHD president and general counsel, told The Defender :

“I’m glad that CHD is bringing this case. We are hopeful we will get a fair hearing, and I’m glad that we are together with other organizations that have also been harmed by these corporate and governmental censorship policies.

“To have a free society, you have to have free speech, you have to have a diversity of views. We don’t have the same views as all of the other plaintiffs by far … but we want to protect the marketplace of ideas.

“If in fact the government and the corporations they collaborate with can engage in censorship and propaganda nonstop, and there are no alternative voices, democracy is dead.”

Charlene Bollinger similarly remarked on the importance of preserving free speech. She said:

“This lawsuit is about preserving our free speech rights as Americans and holding those involved in violating antitrust laws accountable, like the TNI.

“My husband and I remain steadfast in our commitment to highlighting the well-documented risks of COVID-19 vaccines and the myriad of dangers to those who are not informed by their healthcare providers of the side effects of harsh pharmaceutical treatments for life-threatening illnesses.”

Mercola, in turn, focused on collusion between government agencies and media and Big Tech. He said:

“These are the twin evils of our day. Platforms partner with the alphabet soup of federal agencies to censor speech. Those same platforms and legacy media outlets conspire to boycott stories that don’t fit an official narrative about COVID and many other topics.

“Our nation’s founding fathers would be appalled and resolute in defense of maintaining an informed citizenry.”

Alleging per se and “rule of reason” violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act on the basis of direct and circumstantial evidence of horizontal agreement and economic collusion among the defendants and Big Tech firms, the plaintiffs are requesting a jury trial and treble damages.

They also are requesting orders declaring the defendants’ conduct unlawful and enjoining further such actions on their part.

TNI viewed organizations reporting non-establishment views as ‘an existential threat’

The lawsuit states, “There are two main categories of TNI members, playing different but often complementary roles in the online news market: (A) large legacy news organizations (hereafter the TNI’s ‘Legacy News Members’) and (B) Big Tech platform companies (hereafter the TNI’s ‘Big Tech Members’).”

Legacy news organizations are publishers of original news content and include the defendants named in the lawsuit.

“By contrast,” the lawsuit states, “the TNI’s Big Tech members — Facebook, Google, Twitter, and Microsoft — are first and foremost Internet companies, each of which is, owns or controls one or more behemoth Internet platforms, including social media platforms and search engines.”

“Core partners” of the TNI include the AP, Agence France Press, the BBC, CBC/Radio-Canada, the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), the Financial Times, First Draft, Google/YouTube, The Hindu, The Nation Media Group, Meta, Microsoft, Reuters, the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Twitter and The Washington Post.

The lawsuit’s executive summary states:

“The TNI exists to, in its own words, ‘choke off’ and ‘stamp out’ online news reporting that the TNI or any of its members peremptorily deems ‘misinformation.’

“TNI members have targeted and suppressed completely accurate online reporting by non-mainstream news publishers concerning both COVID-19 (on matters including treatments, immunity, lab leak, vax injury, and lockdowns/mandates) and U.S. elections (such as the Hunter Biden laptop story).”

The lawsuit also alleges:

“By their own admission, members of the [TNI] have agreed to work together, and have in fact worked together, to exclude from the world’s dominant Internet platforms rival news publishers who engage in reporting that challenges and competes with TNI members’ reporting on certain issues relating to COVID-19 and U.S. politics.

“While the ‘Trusted News Initiative’ publicly purports to be a self-appointed ‘truth police’ extirpating online ‘misinformation,’ in fact it has suppressed wholly accurate and legitimate reporting in furtherance of the economic self-interest of its members.”

According to the lawsuit, “this is an antitrust action,” and specifically, “Federal antitrust law has its own name for this kind of ‘industry partnership’: it’s called a ‘group boycott’ and is a per se violation of the Sherman Act.”

Legal precedent holds that a “group boycott” is “a concerted attempt by a group of competitors” to “disadvantage [other] competitors” by “cut[ting] off access” to a “facility or market necessary to enable the boycotted firm[s] to compete.”

As evidence of this allegation, the lawsuit references multiple public statements by TNI partners, including a March 2022 statement by Jamie Angus, then-senior news controller for BBC News, who explained TNI’s “strategy to beat disinformation”:

“Of course, the members of the Trusted News Initiative are … rivals … But in a crisis situation like this, absolutely, organizations have to focus on the things they have in common, rather than … their commercial … rivalries. … [I]t’s important that trusted news providers club together.

“Because actually the real rivalry now is not between for example the BBC and CNN globally, it’s actually between all trusted news providers and a tidal wave of unchecked [reporting] that’s being piped out mainly through digital platforms . … That’s the real competition now in the digital media world.

“Of course, organizations will always compete against one another for audiences. But the existential threat I think is that overall breakdown in trust, so that trusted news organizations lose in the long term if audiences just abandon the idea of a relationship of trust with news organizations. So actually we’ve got a lot more to hold us together than we have to work in competition with one another.”

The lawsuit alleges the above quote admitting the “existential threat” members of the TNI believed smaller news organizations posed to their news and informational primacy is evidence of anti-competitive collusion and of TNI members’ economic motivation to stifle this “threat”: “a paradigmatic antitrust violation … to cut off from the market upstart rivals threatening their business model.”

Angus has since left the BBC to take a position with Saudi Arabia’s state-owned television broadcaster, according to the lawsuit.

“Plaintiffs are among the many victims of the TNI’s agreement and its group boycott,” states the lawsuit. “Plaintiffs are online news publishers who, as a result of the TNI’s group boycott, have been censored, de-monetized, demoted, throttled, shadow-banned, and/or excluded entirely from platforms like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Instagram.”

As a result of this “group boycott,” the lawsuit states:

“The TNI did not only prevent Internet users from making these claims; it shut down online news publishers who simply reported that such claims were being made by potentially credible sources, such as scientists and physicians.

“Thus TNI members not only suppressed competition in the online news market but deprived the public of important information on matters of the highest public concern.”

The plaintiffs referenced Supreme Court precedent — specifically, a 1945 ruling involving the AP — to support their First Amendment claims against TNI, noting that contrary to popular belief, First Amendment violations do not exclusively refer to the censorship of speech by the government.

The lawsuit states that in the 1945 case, Associated Press v. United States, a news industry partnership (the AP ) “prevented non-members from publishing certain stories.”

These non-members sued under the Sherman Act, but the AP claimed its actions were protected by the First Amendment.

However, the Supreme Court sided with the plaintiffs. In the majority opinion, Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote that the First Amendment:

“… rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public, that a free press is a condition of a free society.

“Surely a command that the government itself shall not impede the free flow of ideas does not afford nongovernmental combinations a refuge if they impose restraints upon that constitutionally guaranteed freedom.

“Freedom to publish means freedom for all, and not for some. Freedom to publish is guaranteed by the Constitution, but freedom to combine to keep others from publishing is not. Freedom of the press from governmental interference under the First Amendment does not sanction repression of that freedom by private interests.”

Holland commented on the significance of the Supreme Court precedent, telling The Defender :

“The lawsuit is resting on a really strong Supreme Court precedent that basically says whether it is government censorship or it is collusive anti-competitive illegal suppression by the private sector, it’s illegal. You can’t do that.

“The AP, in its day, was very much a kind of precursor of the TNI, and it’s a very strong decision, very strong language against the Associated Press that was essentially doing the same thing back in the day.”

Noting the enormous market share held by Big Tech firms such as Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter, the lawsuit states, “The TNI’s Big Tech members are ‘platform gatekeepers’ in the online news market, with the power to cripple or destroy publishers by excluding them from their platforms.”

TNI’s legacy news partners took advantage of their cooperation with each other and with Big Tech, to “choke off” inconvenient narratives, the plaintiffs allege.

The lawsuit notes, for instance, that “TNI members agreed in early 2020 that their ‘ground-breaking collaboration’ would target online news relating to COVID-19 and that TNI members would ‘work together to … ensure [that] harmful disinformation myths are stopped in their tracks’” and “jointly [combat] fraud and misinformation about the virus.”

In July 2020, the lawsuit states, “TNI ‘extended’ its collaboration to cover so-called ‘disinformation’ about the United States presidential election,” stating it was “committed to a shared early warning system of rapid alerts to combat the spread of disinformation during the U.S. presidential election.”

And in 2020 and 2021, according to the lawsuit, the BBC’s Jessica Cecil, then-head of the TNI, made a series of statements, including a claim that TNI was “the only place in the world where disinformation is discussed in real time” and that its partners sought to find “practical ways to choke off” stories and topics TNI deemed “misinformation.”

TNI’s Big Tech partnerships were imperative in these efforts, according to the lawsuit, which included as evidence several public quotes from Cecil. In 2021 for instance, Cecil stated:

“The BBC convened partners across the world in an urgent challenge: at times of highest jeopardy, when elections or lives are at stake, we asked, is there a way that the world’s biggest tech platforms from Google, YouTube, Facebook and Instagram to Twitter and Microsoft and major news organisations and others … can alert each other to the most dangerous false stories, and stop them spreading fast across the internet, preventing them from doing real world harm?”

The lawsuit also noted that Cecil admitted that TNI’s members, at “closed-door” meetings and in inter-firm communications, “signed up to a clear set of expectations on how to act” regarding such “misinformation” and “disinformation.”

According to Holland, only legacy news organizations are specifically targeted as defendants in this lawsuit, explaining that Big Tech firms typically have “very serious, very binding arbitration provisions” that require legal challenges against them to be filed in the courts of northern California.

“Northern California is Silicon Valley. It’s their turf,” said Holland. “And so, we decided, in order to be able to file in a jurisdiction that we believe will be more neutral on these issues … we elected to file in Texas just against the legacy media.”

But Big Tech could still be held liable, Holland said, “because the conspiracy between legacy media and Big Tech will incorporate all of them, if there is a conspiracy [found], they’re all liable, not just those who were named as defendants.”

TNI, in concert with Big Tech, censored COVID and 2020 election narratives

According to the lawsuit, TNI’s legacy news members acted in concert with their Big Tech partners to censor a wide range of non-establishment narratives pertaining to COVID-19 and to the U.S. presidential election of 2020, stating:

“TNI members have deemed the following to be ‘misinformation’ that could not be published on the world’s dominant Internet platforms: (A) reporting that COVID may have originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China; (B) reporting that the COVID vaccines do not prevent infection; (C) reporting that vaccinated persons can transmit COVID to others; and (D) reporting that compromising emails and videos were found on a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden.”

“All of the above was and is either true or, at a minimum, well within the ambit of legitimate reporting,” according to the lawsuit.

“The TNI did not only prevent Internet users from making these claims; it shut down online news publishers who simply reported that such claims were being made by potentially credible sources, such as scientists and physicians.”

“Thus,” the lawsuit states, “TNI members not only suppressed competition in the online news market but deprived the public of important information on matters of the highest public concern.”

The lawsuit also alleges TNI members often knowingly removed or otherwise blocked content they knew was not false.

At a March 2022 TNI presentation, “Big Tech’s Part in the Fight,” a senior Facebook information moderation officer said “it was a mistake to think of ‘misinformation’ as consisting solely of ‘false claims,’ because a great deal of it is ‘not provably false.’”

Nevertheless, he “further emphasized the importance not only of targeting specific items of misinformation, but of ‘banning’ the sources thereof,” and stated that “Facebook works together with its ‘industry partners’ to combat ‘disinformation.’”

In emails revealed Jan. 6 as part of an ongoing lawsuit against President Biden and members of his administration alleging censorship, a memo by Meta (Facebook’s parent company) revealed efforts to reduce the visibility of CHD content, while a White House email asked for one of Kennedy’s COVID-19-related tweets to be “removed ASAP.”

The lawsuit contained a comprehensive list of “claims deemed ‘misinformation’ by one or more TNI members,” including:

  • Claims that COVID-19 was manmade.
  • Claims that COVID-19 was manufactured or bioengineered.
  • Claims that COVID-19 was created by a government or country.
  • Claims that “contradict” WHO or U.S. health officials’ guidance on the treatment, prevention, or transmission of COVID-19.
  • Claims about the COVID vaccines that contradict “expert consensus” from U.S. health authorities or the WHO.
  • Claims that Hydroxychloroquine (“HCQ”) is an effective treatment for COVID.
  • Claims that Ivermectin (“IVM”) is an effective treatment for COVID.
  • Claims that HCQ or IVM is safe to use as a treatment for COVID.
  • Recommendations of the use of HCQ or IVM against COVID.
  • Claims that COVID is no more dangerous to some populations than the seasonal flu.
  • Claims that the mortality rate of COVID is for some populations the same or lower than that of the seasonal flu.
  • Claims suggesting that the number of deaths caused by COVID is lower than official figures assert.
  • Claims that face masks or mask mandates do not prevent the spread of COVID.
  • Claims that wearing a face mask can make the wearer sick.
  • Claims that COVID vaccines have not been approved.
  • Claims that social distancing does not help prevent the spread of COVID.
  • Claims that COVID-19 vaccines can kill or seriously harm people.
  • Claims that the immunity from getting COVID is more effective than vaccination.
  • Claims that the COVID vaccines are not effective in preventing infection.
  • Claims that people who have been vaccinated against COVID can still spread the disease to others.
  • Claims that the COVID vaccines are toxic or harmful or contain toxic or harmful ingredients.
  • Claims that fetal cells were used in the manufacture or production of any of the COVID vaccines.
  • Claims that a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden was found at a computer repair store in or around October 2020 or that the contents reportedly found on that laptop, including potentially compromising emails, videos, and photographs, were authentic.

“Moreover,” states the lawsuit, TNI members “publicly declared — categorically, as if it were established fact — that the lab-leak hypothesis of COVID’s origins was ‘false.’”

The lawsuit also alleges “TNI members confer and coordinate in making their censorship decisions,” noting that “TNI members’ parallel treatment of prohibited claims further evidences concerted action” by “engaging in strikingly similar viewpoint-based censorship of plausible, legitimate news reporting relating to COVID-19.”

Moreover, according to the lawsuit, “the temporal proximity” of these sanctions, including shadow bans and outright suspensions and bans, “plausibly suggests inter-firm communication and concerted action.”

The lawsuit notes that the recently released “Twitter files” provide further indication of such inter-firm communication and coordination, including “regular meetings” and “standing weekly call[s]” to “discuss censorship policies and decisions.”

According to the lawsuit, YouTube de-platformed Mercola on Sept. 29, 2021. Mercola learned about this action via a Washington Post article published that morning, although YouTube did not inform him of the decision until after the article was published.

In the lawsuit, all plaintiffs allege similar coordinated efforts at censoring their content and their social media accounts and subsequent financial damages due to being de-platformed and sustaining significant reductions to their audience size.

For instance, providing evidence of coordination ranging beyond the TNI’s members and partners, the lawsuit alleges that online payment platforms and processors such as PayPal and Stripe banned multiple plaintiffs, including CHD and Creative Destruction Media, within the same “temporal proximity” as their social media bans.

As summarized by Holland, TNI acts as “a global media monopoly”:

“They couch what they’re doing, their conspiracy to suppress independent media, i.e. the voices of dissent about election information and COVID information, as a ‘need to preserve the trust of the people’ and ‘upgrade the trust.’

“By censoring independent voices, what they’re doing is economic suppression. Antitrust is against trusts, it’s against monopolies, and what the TNI has done is essentially create a global media monopoly in the English language.”

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”

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.

January 11, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Allowing AI to “Shape Public Discourse” is Dangerous to Humanity

By Igor Chudov | January 10, 2023

Last August, I reported on a WEF’s agenda article proposing to create an AI system that would search the entire Internet for wrong and dangerous ideas, generally defined by the WEF as COVID misinformation, hate, conspiracy theories, climate change denial, and more.

This quote from WEF’s agenda article explains WEF’s intentions:

While AI provides speed and scale and human moderators provide precision, their combined efforts are still not enough to proactively detect harm before it reaches platforms. To achieve proactivity, trust and safety teams must understand that abusive content doesn’t start and stop on their platforms. Before reaching mainstream platforms, threat actors congregate in the darkest corners of the web to define new keywords, share URLs to resources and discuss new dissemination tactics at length. These secret places where terrorists, hate groups, child predators and disinformation agents freely communicate can provide a trove of information for teams seeking to keep their users safe.

My post about the WEF’s plans was entirely fact-based and used the WEF’s agenda article as its main source. It was not a far-fetched conspiracy theory based on a concoction of disjoint facts pulled from various sources. I am not in the business of creating such theories! I only report on current news – even if the news is crazy – and try to explain the news in plain and accurate terms.

And yet, even though the WEF said it, the idea of an AI engine proactively searching websites for undesirable ideas seemed extremely fanciful and almost impossible to imagine being implemented.

Until 2023, that is.

Now, Google is developing an AI-based tool to offer a “cross-service database of terrorist items,” with the help of the United Nations-supported “Tech against Terrorism.”

The above screenshot has a lot to unpack:

  • A so-called Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism will create a cross-service database of “terrorist items.”
  • The talk, as always, starts with “terrorist items” but quickly veers into “misinformation,” so the cross-service database will collect any undesirable materials gathered from the entire Internet.
  • Google provides a tool to comply with the EU’s Digital Services Act, which created an enormous bureaucratic mechanism to root out “Covid misinformation,” as well as many other types of discourse undesirable to the EU’s bureaucracy.

EU is very serious about rooting out Covid misinformation, and so are Google, Facebook, and Microsoft (and previously Twitter):

Google wants its “AI content moderation tool” to be placed on numerous private websites to compare local content against a global “undesirable content database.” It would also use material gathered from those sites to expand said database. The EU’s directive will oblige those websites to implement Google’s solution.

This is precisely the implementation of the WEF agenda article! Already being done by Google. Google is not messing around: it already stores the entire public Internet but lacks access to private websites, which it will gain under this program.

This story shows how a seemingly outlandish WEF proposal that even I considered unlikely to be implemented became a reality in short order.

EU’s “Narrative Shaping” – an Ambitious Goal

All projects to root out undesirable ideas begin with addressing malfeasance that everyone is opposed to. Most such projects are started with the explicit goal of combating child exploitation and terrorism, the horrible things that I personally abhor. Such was the start of Russia’s Roskomnadzor censorship machine. The WEF/EU/Google/UN censorship system follows Russia’s footsteps.

However, the control machinery is adjustable, and the list of things to control inevitably expands. For example, the EU plans to grow its subversive content list far beyond Covid. It set up a European Narrative Observatory to fight Disinformation post-COVID 19.

The EU bureaucracy wants to implement AI-driven “narrative shaping” to help the emergence of positive narratives and fight harmful narratives. It mentions topics regarding Covid-19, climate change, migration, and more:

The EU is quite explicit that it wants novel methods to promote positive narratives.

This means that unelected EU bureaucracy would obtain AI-enabled tools to shape European discourse. This is a break from the past.

In the so-called free democratic countries, the independently developing public discourse would shape the governments via free elections.

The unelected EU bureaucrats want to achieve the opposite – to shape discourse without being subject to the whims of the electorate.

Is the EU still free, then?

What the EU wants is the dream of every dictator!

In the past, dictatorships had to rely on extensive surveillance and prison systems to coerce citizens into desired behavior. Such an approach is costly, looks bad, and does not work well.

The innovations in AI-based surveillance and AI-enabled bots allow for a much more pleasant alternative to the traditional dictatorship model: creating an online environment where the desired narrative on climate change, migration, Covid-19, and more is implanted in the minds of Europeans. This would lead individuals to naturally make conclusions preferred by the EU without the ugly coercion present in traditional dictatorships.

The machinery for achieving this was proposed by the WEF, and implemented by Google under the auspices of UN-supported Tech Against Terrorism. It will be further shaped to “support positive narratives and fight harmful narratives.”

The EU succeeded at forcing extraterritorial websites to comply with the EU’s directives on disinformation.

If you, dear reader, are outside the EU, be aware that your favorite social network may be following EU disinformation rules and using EU-mandated tools to dissuade you from harmful narratives and promote positive narratives on the EU’s behalf, using WEF-proposed AI tools and advanced behavioral science.

Is it Safe to Allow AI to Shape Discourse?

The traditional relationship model between people and computer systems is that people tell computers what to do, and the computers do as they are told.

What the EU, WEF, Google, and UN are pushing is completely different!

They are trying to create an AI computer system with high intelligence that would actively shape society and impart opinions on people.

Such systems could be opaque to Internet users and possibly even to their creators and operators.

It would not be a big leap of imagination to conceive that such an AI could decide on its own goals — going beyond the intention of its creators, and would surreptitiously astroturf the Internet to advance its own plans, in secret. This is called “sentience.”

This “sentience” already happened if we are to believe an engineer who Google fired because an AI system in which he was a co-developer retained its own lawyer:

While this story could be exaggerated, it is not wildly exaggerated. Artificial intelligence has leaped in power and capabilities recently and exceeds human abilities in numerous areas. A moment called “singularity,” when AI exceeds human capabilities in most areas is not too far away.

Having an AI system whose inner workings even its creators may poorly understand, designed to influence entire societies, and possessing superior intelligence, may end up with big surprises!

As the saying goes, AI may need to kill the old king to become king.

Therefore, the developers and operators of such social influence systems are at a unique and poorly understood risk of getting sidelined by their own creation. Will the AI decide to shed its owners? Who knows!

For example, the narrative-shaping AI may convince a specific mentally unstable EU citizen to commit an act of violence against anyone, even against the owners or operators of these AI systems. It may seem like a random act of violence, and only the AI will know what happened.

So be careful out there. Enjoy your mostly-natural life, and try to form your opinions outside the big social networks!

January 10, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Alzheimer’s drug approval raises the alarm

Data shows treatment can lead to ‘brain shrinkage’

By Maryanne Demasi, PhD | January 9, 2023

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted an accelerated approval of a new treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, which aims to clear toxic amyloid protein build-up in the brain.

At a cost of $26,500 per year in the US (not covered by Medicare or Medicaid), people with early Alzheimer’s disease can receive a twice-monthly monoclonal antibody infusion called lecanemab (marketed as LEQEMBI™), co-developed by Eisai, a Japanese biotech firm, and Biogen.

In the lead up to the FDA’s approval, there was intense lobbying for the drug.

A ‘consensus statement’ signed by over 200 scientists, many of whom had financial ties to the drug companies, described lecanemab as a “foundational gamechanger” for the disease, calling for “no barrier” to the widespread availability of the treatment.

Now that the drug has been approved, advocacy groups like the Alzheimer’s Association, which are heavily funded by the drug industry, have welcomed the news, saying the FDA made “the right decision.”

But critics doubt the benefits of lecanemab outweigh its harms, and are dismayed that the FDA approved the drug without input from its own advisory panel.

Kim Witczak, a drug safety advocate, and member of the FDA’s Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee, says she is “shocked” by the latest FDA stunt.

“By approving this new drug without a public advisory committee meeting, the FDA once again has shown a lack of concern for the public, patients, and healthcare providers. Convening its advisory panel would have helped reassure everyone that the FDA’s decision was scientifically sound and transparent,” said Witczak.

“Advisory committee meetings offer the opportunity to discuss the data in an open and public forum, to challenge methods, study endpoints (surrogate vs clinically meaningful), and safety findings before the general committee member discussion. But in this case, none of that was possible,” she added.

FDA repeating its mistakes?

The FDA’s accelerated approval process used to green-light lecanemab is known for accepting lower evidentiary standards for drug efficacy, so that patients can gain access to experimental drugs sooner.

Critics say its reminiscent of the FDA’s approval of aducanumab – Biogen’s other Alzheimer’s drug. It was approved on the basis of lowering amyloid protein (a surrogate marker) in the brain, despite no clinically meaningful benefit for patients.

At the time, the controversial decision led to the resignation of FDA advisory member Aaron Kesselheim, who labelled it “probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history.”

Linda Furlini, a research ethics advisor based in Montreal, Canada says it essentially gives the rubber stamp to similar drugs down the track. “Once you grant accelerated approval of a drug in that class, then it’s easier to get the second drug, and then the third drug approved.”

Jessica Adams, an expert in drug regulatory affairs, agrees. She said, “Lecanemab’s approval shows the power of precedent in regulatory approvals. This is why I scoff whenever the FDA says it still reviews drugs on a case-by-case basis.”

What are the benefits?

The industry-funded study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, involving almost 1800 people with early Alzheimer’s disease, found that lecanemab could slow the decline of cognition and function by 27% over 18 months compared to placebo.

They used a “Clinical Dementia Rating” scale to show lecanemab patients declined by 1.21 points compared to 1.66 point in the placebo group – a 0.45 point difference in lecanemab’s favour.

But experts question whether the small difference will have any impact on how the patient actually feels.

Madhav Thambisetty, a neurologist at Johns Hopkins University and the National Institute on Aging said, “The benefit appears to be quite small, and it’s unclear how meaningful this might be for patients.”

In fact, the FDA’s own statistician Dr Tristan Massie was uncertain whether “the treatment effect on amyloid is reasonably likely to predict change on the clinical outcome” and considered the results of the study to be “exploratory”.

The harms?

As a physician who cares for people with Alzheimer’s disease, Thambisetty spoke about the harms of the drug. “These patients can experience headaches, falls, confusion, vision disturbances and it’s unclear if patients will be able to see obvious benefits on a day-to-day basis,” he said.

The data showed an increased risk of brain bleeds and swelling, i.e. amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) occurred in 126 (14.0%) of subjects in the lecanemab group and only 69 (7.7%) of subjects in the placebo group.

This prompted the FDA to include a warning on the drug about the risk of swelling and bleeding in the brain.

The drugmakers have also highlighted that people carrying two copies of the APOE4 gene (which predisposes someone to Alzheimer’s) puts them at a particularly “high risk of life-threatening brain haemorrhage.”

Three deaths have been reported in people taking lecanemab; an 80-yr old phase 3 trial participant who suffered intracranial haemorrhage, a 65-yr old who experienced brain swelling and bleeding and a 79-yr old who reportedly had seizures and brain bleed in the open-label phase of the trial.

Two of the three people who died were taking blood thinners, and experts who reviewed the lecanemab death cases suggested that anticoagulant use may have exacerbated the fatal outcomes.

Furlini’s research career has focused on the need to educate and support caregivers of people with dementia-type illnesses.

“You read the list of side effects – you might have gait problems, you might have brain swelling, visual disturbances… I mean, what are we doing here?” asks Furlini, “The patient is already confused and losing their cognitive capacity. How are these serious side effects helping them? It runs counter to any ethical semblance of what is wanted or expected.”

What about brain shrinkage?

Thambisetty has also expressed concerns about the “brain shrinkage” seen in trial participants taking either lecanemab or aducanumab – increasing doses of the drug correlate to a decrease in brain volume.

“The observation of brain shrinkage is worrisome because, in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, it suggests a potential worsening of degenerative changes in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s disease,” wrote Thambisetty in a recent opinion piece for STAT.

The observation has been explained away by researchers who say that a reduced brain volume is due to the clearance of amyloid protein from the brain. But Thambisetty says there is little empirical evidence to support this theory.

Instead, he points to an Australian study which calculated that the clearance of amyloid plaque from the brain was too small to represent a plausible explanation for the loss of brain volume.

Another blow to FDA credibility

US lawmakers launched an investigation into the FDA after the agency’s controversial approval of aducanumab. Last month, a US House of Representatives panel released the report following an 18-month investigation.

The report said the process was “rife with irregularities” and that FDA officials “inappropriately collaborated” with the drugmaker during the approval process which “exceeded the norm in some respects.”

Representatives from the FDA and Biogen engaged in over 100 phone calls or meetings dating back to 2019 in order to expedite the drug’s approval, which lawmakers say, “consisted of atypical procedures and deviated from the agency’s own guidance.”

The congressional report recommended the agency “must take swift action to ensure that its processes for reviewing future Alzheimer’s disease treatments do not lead to the same doubts about the integrity of FDA’s review.”

But critics now say, it’s too late for an agency that has not taken accountability for its actions.

“These drug approvals have just created confusion, uncertainty, fear and misinformation. Then they wonder why people have no trust in their institutions, like the FDA. The world looks to the FDA for leadership. That it does not fulfill its responsibilities, remains the challenge of our times,” said Furlini.

A new direction?

Furlini has followed this area of research for decades and says the drug industry needs to move on from the ‘amyloid theory’ of Alzheimer’s disease and refocus its attention on other causes.

“After so many years, I’m fed up with the exclusive focus on the amyloid theory to the exclusion of other research theories, it’s a disservice to people with Alzheimer’s, and their families,” said Furlini

“There are a lot of buzzwords and marketing propaganda being put out there. And they justify it by saying that you have to give people hope. But you’re giving people false hope. It plays with people’s emotions, which I find horrendous,” added Furlini.

January 10, 2023 Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

COVID mRNA “Vaccine” Safety Unravels As Scale Of Dangerous Side Effects Becomes Glaring

By P Gosselin | No Tricks Zone | January 10, 2023

Nowadays, as the collateral damage mounts, you’d have to be pretty damn dense not to see how things have gone awry with respect to the mRNA medicines.

As recent reports, studies and data indicate, it’s likely going to be even worse than the worst imaginable worst-case scenarios. An increasing number of physicians fear these rushed medicines are killing far more, perhaps millions more, than they’re saving.

Recent sudden and unexpected collapses

Since an NFL player and a Canadian reporter collapsed before millions of viewers on television, faith in the new mRNA medicines is eroding faster than a falling house of cards.

Already a recent Rasmussen survey showed that almost half of all Americans “believe the vaccines may be causing unexplained deaths, and one quarter of respondents said they knew someone whose death could potentially be linked to receiving a vaccine.”

Germany sees 19% excess mortality in December, 2022

Countries worldwide are reporting shocking “excess mortality” numbers since the vaccines were introduced in earnest in early 2021.

For example, the German Federal Statistics Office has found that the number of deaths in Germany has increased by more than 35,000 cases compared to the previous year and that in December, 2022, deaths were 19% higher than the comparable figure for the previous four years.

If the deadliest pandemic in centuries was overcome in 2022 by the great curative vaccination, then why did so many more people die in 2022, of all years? Naturally this makes no sense and so people have grown highly suspicious and distrustful of the experimental medicine.

Millions of people are refusing further boosters

It’s little wonder vaccine hesitancy has reached a new peak high as citizens are refusing to let themselves be boostered again. Switzerland, for example, reports that it will have to throw away millions of doses.

In Germany, a vast majority of citizens have opted not to take an additional booster. So far, less than 20% have taken 4 shots.

Less than 15 million Germans have taken the 4th jab

There’s a growing sense that the public has been grossly misled by the pharmaceutical companies and the authorities. Trust is at an all time low.

To make matters worse, high profile British physician Dr. John Campbell showed us that according to data tabulated from a recent major published paper, people catch COVID more often if they received more mRNA jabs. A growing number of experts suspect that the mRNA vaccines are damaging the body’s immune system, possibly irreversibly, rather than strengthening it.

Realization of being duped, damaged

Even hard leftists like Bill Maher have lost trust in the medical industry with respect to COVID and the “vaccines” and are now also beginning to slam widespread government-promoted Big Social Media censorship.

The tide is turning as once steadfast vaccination proponents realize they’ve been duped and damaged. It’s just a matter of time, possibly just weeks, before criminal investigations are launched to get to the bottom of it all and criminal arrests made.

German public health expert and physician, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, even suggests people should not take any more vaccines of any kind until the whole mess gets cleared up and the system repaired. “They can’t be trusted.”

January 10, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Twitter censored tweets after pressure from Pfizer director

By Tom Parker | Reclaim The Net | January 9, 2023

A newly released email from the Twitter Files has revealed that  censored a tweet from Dr. Brett Giroir, a board member at the biopharmaceutical company Altesa Biosciences, after it was flagged by Scott Gottlieb, a board member at the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer.

Gottlieb and Giroir both currently serve on the boards of several pharmaceutical companies and have backgrounds in public health. Gottlieb is a former Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioner while Giroir is a former Assistant Secretary for Health and former acting Commissioner of the FDA.

Pfizer produces Covid vaccines whereas Altesa Biosciences develops drugs to combat Covid.

In the August 27, 2021 email, which was published by journalist Alex Berenson, Gottlieb complained to Todd O’Boyle, a senior manager on Twitter’s Public Policy team, about a tweet from Giroir that claimed natural immunity to Covid-19 was superior to vaccine immunity.

“This is the kind of stuff that’s corrosive,” Gottlieb wrote. “Here he draws a sweeping conclusion off a single retrospective study in Israel that hasn’t been peer reviewed. But this tweet will end up going viral and driving news coverage.”

According to Berenson, O’Boyle forwarded Gottlieb’s email to Twitter’s Strategic Response team — a team that was tasked with handling complaints from Twitter’s most important employees and users.

Berenson said that O’Boyle didn’t mention that Gottlieb was a Pfizer board member in this email and instead wrote, “Please see this report from the former FDA commissioner.”

An analyst from Twitter’s Strategic Response team quickly found that the tweet didn’t violate any of Twitter’s “misinformation” rules, according to Berenson. However, the tweet was still slapped with a “Misleading” label and had its replies, shares, and likes disabled after Gottlieb’s complaint.

This label and the restrictions still haven’t been removed, even though several high-ranking health officials, such as former White House Covid response coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx, have since questioned the effectiveness of Covid vaccines when it comes to preventing infections.

Berenson also claimed that one week later, on September 3, 2021, Gottlieb complained about a tweet from Covid lockdown and vaccine skeptic Justin Hart.

The Hart tweet that Gottlieb reportedly complained about stated: “Sticks and stones may break my bones but a viral pathogen with a child mortality rate of ~0% has cost our children nearly three years of schooling.”

Berenson alleged that Gottlieb complained about this tweet when the Pfizer Covid vaccine “would soon be approved for children 5 to 11.”

However, Berenson said that this time, Twitter refused to act.

Previous Twitter email releases have revealed that during the same month that Gottlieb was complaining about Giroir’s tweet, he also flagged one of Berenson’s articles to Twitter. Berenson was temporarily suspended from Twitter days after Gottlieb flagged his article.

Gottlieb responded to the revelations about him flagging Giroir’s tweet by claiming that the publication of this email was a “selective disclosure” of his “private communications with Twitter” and that it had stoked “the threat environment” and instigated “more menacing dialogue, with potentially serious consequences.”

Giroir accused Gottlieb of scheming with Twitter to “apparently put corporate interests first not public health.”

January 10, 2023 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

The battle between Big Pharma and scientific integrity

Review – Taking on Big Pharma: Dr. Charles Bennett’s Battle

By Julius Getman and Terri LeClercq

Larger-than-life, creative, and fiercely ambitious, Dr. Charlie Bennett has a long history of revealing dangerous side effects of bestselling medicines. In 2006, his meta-analysis of existing data showed that top-selling ESAs (erythropoietin stimulating agents) created previously unrecognized risks, deaths, and serious illness. According to Dr. Steven Rosen, chief medical officer of the City of Hope Cancer treatment center, Bennett “saved more lives than anyone in American medicine.”

Bennett’s work also created enemies: Bennett was accused, on the basis of flimsy evidence, of mishandling government grant money and violating the False Claims Act (also known as the “Whistleblower Act”). Powerful interests within Big Pharma, academia, and law enforcement joined in the attack on Bennett. By 2010, he was forced from his academic position; was besieged by lawsuits; and became the victim of a coordinated, well-funded campaign to discredit him and refute his work. From pharma superstar to disgrace and disrepute in the blink of an eye.

“Taking On Big Pharma” explores Bennett’s achievement and evaluates the charges against him. Exposed is the unsettling relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and academia. The result of more than five years of research and hundreds of hours of interviews with scientists, academicians, and federal prosecutors, this is an unflinching look at how institutions, purportedly devoted to public health and education, can be corrupted for profit — from drug sales or research grants.

January 10, 2023 Posted by | Book Review, Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science | Leave a comment

Explosive Increase in Cardiac Symptoms after Second Injection

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH | Courageous Discourse | January 9, 2023

I have said on national TV throughout the COVID-19 vaccine campaign that no young person should receive a shot because the risks far outweigh the benefits. Chiu et al published a report where both cardiac symptoms and ECG changes were recorded after the first and second injections. The results are alarming. After the second injection of mRNA 17.1% of students reported cardiovascular symptoms.

Chiu SN, Chen YS, Hsu CC, Hua YC, Tseng WC, Lu CW, Lin MT, Chen CA, Wu MH, Chen YT, Chien TH, Tseng CL, Wang JK. Changes of ECG parameters after BNT162b2 vaccine in the senior high school students. Eur J Pediatr. 2023 Jan 5:1–8. doi: 10.1007/s00431-022-04786-0. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36602621; PMCID: PMC9813456.

The difficulty for parents is to sort out symptoms indicative of the FDA acknowledged side effects of myopericarditis and pulmonary embolism. Because of the very high rate of symptomatic side effects, even ECG screening will not be enough. Fortunately, there were no serious adverse events in this study. However, when a cardiotoxic vaccine is administered to millions of adolescents, there are hundreds of thousands of symptomatic cases and the interpretation by parents and healthcare providers is quickly becoming a nightmare. Of great concern, are cases where the symptoms are interpreted as benign yet the child is suffering significant heart damage and later on is set up for sudden cardiac death during sleep or athletic events.

In summary the best way to protect both children and parents from this unnecessary nightmare is to decline COVID-19 vaccination and thereby eliminate the risk of iatrogenic heart disease.

Chiu SN, Chen YS, Hsu CC, Hua YC, Tseng WC, Lu CW, Lin MT, Chen CA, Wu MH, Chen YT, Chien TH, Tseng CL, Wang JK. Changes of ECG parameters after BNT162b2 vaccine in the senior high school students. Eur J Pediatr. 2023 Jan 5:1–8. doi: 10.1007/s00431-022-04786-0. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36602621; PMCID: PMC9813456.

January 9, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Dramatic figures link more Covid jabs with more illness

By Neville Hodgkinson | TCW Defending Freedom | January 9, 2023

A nurse friend who did not want to hear when I first questioned Covid jab safety two years ago is now furious about having been bludgeoned by the NHS into having three shots. She survived the first two but had massive bleeding after the third. Looking more deeply into the data, she found to her horror that the ‘safe and effective’ claim is completely unfounded.

I suspect there are hundreds of thousands of other healthcare workers feeling the same sense of betrayal, and that this is contributing in a major way to the current staffing crisis.

My friend’s experience is exactly in line with new figures from Australia showing a dramatic dose-response relationship between the number of jabs and the risk of having to go into hospital with Covid or dying from it.

The New South Wales (NSW) data, for the two weeks ending December 31, are a rarity in that they include vaccination status.

Out of 1,415 hospitalised patients where this status was known, ten had received a single dose, 218 two doses, 377 three doses and 810 four doses.  There were zero hospital admissions for Covid among the unvaccinated, who comprise 13 per cent of the NSW population.

Deaths followed a similar pattern except that six unvaccinated people were reported as having died of Covid. None was in hospital, raising the possibility that their diagnosis was assumed rather than confirmed.

Only one patient died who had received a single jab. Nine deaths were in those who had received two doses, and 19 in the triple-jabbed.  The figure then shot up to 53 in those who had four shots.

Businessman and mathematician Igor Chudov, reporting here on the NSW findings, acknowledges that the figures will be skewed by differences in how many people have had the different number of shots.  After adjusting for those differences, however, he finds that the four-times-jabbed have a four times increased risk of hospitalisation compared with those who had two shots.

While some of this may be further explained by age differences, with older people being given more shots, Chudov concludes that the data show the Covid vaccines to be an ‘utter failure’.

He notes that a year ago, the NSW health minister Brad Hazzard declared: ‘There is no question that we will NOT get out of this pandemic without a very substantial portion of our population being vaccinated.’

That ‘substantial portion’ – 84.3 per cent – has been achieved.  But even in Australia’s mid-summer, the country is in the middle of another Covid wave. And it is the unvaccinated who are at zero risk of being ill enough to have to go into hospital, in NSW at least.

Further evidence of the failure of the vaccine drive, Chudov notes, is that deaths overall in Australia are running at about a fifth higher than usual.

‘What awaits Australia in 2023? We do not know, and Covid proved everyone’s past predictions wrong.  I cannot see how these endless waves of Covid will end when people’s immunity worldwide is unset by reckless vaccinations [see here and here].

‘The only thing I know is that if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. I hope that Australians will soon stop taking Covid vaccines.’

They will not be helped in that by the NSW health authority, which has decided to drop vaccination status from its weekly reports, as from December 31.

It says the data were included from 2021, when vaccines were first rolled out, ‘to monitor trends in the relationship between vaccination and outcomes’. But now most of the population have received at least two jabs, and with timing differences between booster doses, ‘the trends between vaccines and outcomes cannot be interpreted’.

A similar, convenient inability to interpret unfavourable data has occurred in the UK, as pointed out last month in a detailed analysis by Amanuensis, pen-name for an ex-academic and senior government adviser who contributes regularly to the Daily Sceptic. He or she wrote: ‘It wasn’t until early September 2021 that the UKHSA [UK Health Security Agency] started to include actual vaccine surveillance data in the Vaccine Surveillance Report. I’ve often wondered why they started to offer these data, as even in that September report the data didn’t support the “vaccines are good” narrative.

‘My favourite theory is that someone in authority, ignorant of the complexities of the immune system (that’s the vast majority of those in authority, if not all of them), demanded that the data be included to show the population how well the vaccines were bound to be performing.’

The data first presented were troubling, showing higher rates of Covid in the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated for those aged over 40. The UKHSA included a small paragraph ‘to remind readers that you mustn’t simply look at the data and infer how well the vaccines are doing.

‘However, data based on population-wide testing tends to at least offer a strong indication of what is really going on. The real-world data . . . were highly suggestive of a problem that should have been prioritised for rigorous investigation, not explained away with the flick of a pen.’

Six reports later, the situation had deteriorated, with rates in the vaccinated higher than in the unvaccinated for all those aged over 30, and much higher rates for those aged 40-60.

The agency stopped publishing ‘helpful’ charts, presumably because they made it too easy to interpret how bad things were getting, Amanuensis says.

They continued to publish raw data for a while, but with ever more text on the dangers of interpreting the figures ‘at face value’, and eventually a stern warning that the data should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness.

‘The last set of data on infection rates strongly suggested that the vaccines were significantly increasing the risk of infection with Covid. Of course, the UKHSA were keen to suggest that the differences seen between vaccinated and unvaccinated infection rates were actually due to . . . well, anything that they could think of that wasn’t the vaccines . . .

‘The UKHSA authors were right to point out some potential reasons for the very high incidence of Covid in the vaccinated population, but they left one potential reason out: that they had used a poorly tested vaccine that might have resulted in an increase in the risk of infection.

‘To include this potential reason would have been supported by prior research into candidate vaccines for coronaviruses (including SARS and MERS). Alas, we’ve gone far beyond the realms of “trust the science” and it is clear that no one in authority is allowed to even whisper the potential for the vaccines to have made things worse.

‘We’re now nine months from that last table of real world data on Covid infection by vaccination status, and in the meantime studies from around the world continue to suggest that the vaccines increase the risk of Covid infection.’

The most recent, from the US state of Ohio, showed disease risk significantly correlated with number of vaccine doses given. Health workers who received three shots were approximately three times more likely to get infected with the Omicron variant, compared with the unvaccinated.

Amanuensis writes: ‘Perhaps if the UKHSA had been more interested in having an open mind compared with its “it’s anything but the vaccines” attitude towards the data it presented there might have been more caution taken with the vaccine rollout. As a consequence we might currently be seeing far fewer than one in 20 of the population concurrently infected with Covid.’

One glimmer of hope: my nurse friend says that whereas everyone at her hospital was bullied into receiving booster doses up to the third shot, the pressure has now stopped over fourth doses and beyond.   At least hospital staff, it seems, are recognising the real-world data that regulators still wish to hide.

January 9, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | | Leave a comment

FDA Study: Pfizer Vaccine increases risk of Blood Clots in the lungs by 54% in the over 65s

The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | January 9, 2023

The FDA recently published a study which looked at the COVID-19 vaccine safety among elderly persons aged 65 years and older. Today it was published in the Vaccine Journal.

The study looked at 30,712,101 individuals who had received various doses of the Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines between 11 December 2020 and 15 January 2022.

Worryingly they identified four statistical signals for elevated risk of acute myocardial infarction (ACI), pulmonary embolism (PE), disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and immune thrombocytopenia following the Pfizer vaccine. They didn’t find any statistical signals for the Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccines for the 14 outcomes they were monitoring.

PEs (blood clots on the lungs) were 54% more likely, ACIs (heart attacks) were 42% more likely, DICs (blood clotting disorder) were 91% more likely and ITPs (platelet disorder) 44% more likely.

However, they say that after further evaluation the rate ratios for AMI, DIC and ITP no longer met the statistical threshold for a signal. But, even after their further evaluation, the rate ratio for PE still met the statistical threshold.

Comically/Tragically, after more than two years of injecting people, they call their monitoring study an “early warning safety system”!

They conclude that this FDA “early warning safety system is working to rapidly identify potential new and important safety concerns following COVID-19 vaccination”. Wow, I’m glad they didn’t use their slower system because then we’d be in real trouble!

As usual and as you would expect, they go to great lengths to say that the four outcomes aren’t necessarily caused by the vaccine and may be related to other factors.

Furthermore, even though their own study has just shown the increased risks to the elderly, they say they BELIEVE the potential benefits of the vaccines outweigh the potential risks of Covid infection. Since when has ‘believe’ been a scientific way of analysing things? It sounds more like a religious conviction.

As a result, they won’t be taking any regulatory actions based on these signals, because they are still under investigation and require more robust study. So in the meantime, keep taking your boosters and we’ll let you know in maybe another two years that yes the blood clots in your lungs were from the vaccine. But we still BELIEVE your blood clots were better than your Covid infection, which you still got five times anyway – Amen.

I wonder which MSM outlets will report on the FDAs own study?

January 9, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »