Curing the pandemic of misinformation on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines through real evidence-based medicine
The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter – September 26, 2022
A British doctor, Aseem Malhotra, has just had a two part, peer-reviewed paper published in the Journal of Insulin Resistance. The aim of the paper was to gain a better understanding of the true benefits and potential harms of the mRNA Covid vaccines. You can read Part 1 and Part 2 in full by clicking on the links.
Dr Malhotra. a cardiologist by trade, was originally a strong Covid vaccine advocate. He volunteered in a vaccine centre, was one of the first people to be double dosed and appeared on morning television to encourage everyone to get vaccinated. He was surprised and concerned at vaccine-hesitant patients when they asked about ‘anti-vax’ propaganda.
That was until, sadly, in July 2021, his father suffered a cardiac arrest and died. His father had been the former deputy chair of the British Medical Association (BMA) and honorary vice president. The 73 year old gentleman was extremely fit and active and heart scans from a few years earlier had revealed no significant problems. Dr Malhotra was shocked to read his father’s post mortem which found that two out of three of his major arteries had severe blockages.
Aseem couldn’t explain the post mortem findings and became more concerned in November 2021 after reading a peer-reviewed abstract in Circulation Journal. In the study, the mRNA vaccine was associated with significantly increasing the risk of a coronary event within five years from 11% pre-mRNA vaccine to 25% 2-10 weeks post vaccine.
He began to question his father’s death and wondered whether the Pfizer vaccination he had received six months earlier could have contributed in some way. After six months of critically appraising the data and speaking to eminent scientists, he reluctantly concluded that, contrary to his own dogmatic beliefs, Pfizer’s vaccine was far from being as safe and effective as first thought.
Questioning the data
During his reassessment of the Covid vaccine he recalled a conversation with a cardiologist colleague who decided against vaccination due to his low personal risk and concerns about short and long term harms. His colleague was particularly alarmed that, during the trials, there had been four cardiac arrests in the vaccine group but only one in the placebo group.
Next, Dr Malhotra assessed the 95% efficacy claims. Whilst this relative risk reduction made good sales material, the true value of a treatment can only be established by looking at the absolute individual risk reduction.
This turned out to be 0.84%, in other words, in a trial of 20,000 people (10,000 in the vaccine group and 10,000 in the placebo group), 4 people in the vaccine group and 88 people in the unvaccinated group would end up testing positive for Covid. Another way to express that is that you would need to vaccinate 119 people to prevent one positive test.
This absolute risk reduction figure (0.84%) is extremely important for doctors and patients to know but how many of them were told this when they received the shot? Transparent communication of risk and benefit of any intervention is a core principle of ethical evidence-based medical practice and informed consent.
The trials did not show statistically significant reductions in serious illness or mortality and in fact there were actually more deaths (19) in the vaccine group versus the placebo group (17). Furthermore, there were only nine severe cases of Covid in the placebo group, representing 0.04%. And this was in regions specifically chosen for their high prevalence of infection.
To find protection against death, then the 119 figure above (people vaccinated to prevent one positive test) must be multiplied by the number of infections that would lead to a single death in each age group. So, Dr Malhotra calculates his rate of death from Delta was 1 in 3,000 meaning the absolute risk reduction of the vaccine protecting him from death is (1 x 3000 x 119) 1 in 357,000.
As also pointed out in a recent editorial by John Ioannidis in BMJ evidence-based medicine the inferred efficacy of the vaccine from non-randomised studies may be ‘spurious’, with bias being generated by ‘pre-existing immunity, vaccination misclassification, exposure differences, testing, disease risk factor confounding, hospital admission decision, treatment use differences and death attribution’.
What should be part of the shared decision-making informed consent discussion when any member of the public is considering taking the shot is something along these lines: Depending on your age, several hundreds or thousands of people like you would need to be injected in order to prevent one person from dying from the Delta variant of COVID-19 over a period of around three months. For the over 80s, this figure is at least 230, but it rises the younger you are, reaching at least 2600 for people in their 50s, 10 000 for those in their 40s, and 93 000 for those between 18 and 29 years. For omicron, which has been shown to be 30% – 50% less lethal, meaning significantly more people would need to be vaccinated to prevent one death. How long any protection actually lasts for is unknown; boosters are currently being recommended after as short a period as 4 months in some countries.
But how many people have had a conversation that even approaches an explanation similar to that? This is before we get into the known, unknown and as yet to be fully quantified harms.
Harms
Concerns have been raised about trial participants being limited as to the type of adverse event they could report. Furthermore, hospitalised participants were withdrawn from the trial and not reported in the final results. To make matters even worse, after two months, the FDA allowed the placebo group to be unblinded and get vaccinated, completely removing any control group with which to assess adverse events.
Dr Malhotra sticks with his field of expertise, cardiology and discusses one of the most common vaccine-induced harms, myocarditis. Whilst authorities say that myocarditis is more likely after infection than vaccination, other studies have shown the opposite. There is no evidence of myocarditis until vaccination began in 2021, a full year after millions of youngsters naturally caught Covid.
Although vaccine-induced myocarditis is not often fatal in young adults, MRI scans reveal that, of the ones admitted to hospital, approximately 80% have some degree of myocardial damage. It is like suffering a small heart attack and sustaining some – likely permanent – heart muscle injury. It is uncertain how this will play out in the longer-term, including if, and to what degree, it will increase the risk of poor quality of life or potentially more serious heart rhythm disturbances in the future.
The UK’s Yellow Card reporting system is addressed and determined to be far from adequate to cope with a rapid roll out of a brand new product. 9.7 million doses were administered before the clotting problems with AstraZeneca were detected. In Denmark, they detected the problem after only 150,000 doses.
Since the beginning of the vaccine roll-out, there have been almost 500,000 adverse events reported involving over 150,000 individuals. This shows around 1 in 120 suffer an adverse event that is beyond mild. This number is unprecedented and represents the same as the total number of reports received in the first 40 years of the Yellow Card system being active. The MMR vaccine reports around 1 in 4000 suffer an adverse event.
The paper also looks at VAERS in the US which has recorded over 24,000 deaths, 29% occurring within 48 hours of vaccination and 50% within two weeks. Before 2020 there were approximately 300 deaths recorded per year.
Of most concern is that these reporting systems are actually likely to be underestimates with one paper suggesting that only 1% of serious adverse events are ever reported to the FDA. Another analysis estimated that only 10% of serious adverse events were ever reported on the Yellow Card system.
Moreover, these reporting systems will generally miss medium and long term harms as it is more difficult to attribute to vaccination.
According to ambulance service data, in 2021 there were an extra 20,000 (20% increase) cardiac arrest calls compared to 2019 and 14,000 more than 2020 in the UK.
Similarly, a recent paper in Nature revealed a 25% increase in both acute coronary syndrome and cardiac arrest calls in the 16- to 39-year-old age groups significantly associated with administration with the first and second doses of the mRNA vaccines but no association with COVID-19 infection.
More harm than good?
One has to raise the possibility that the excess cardiac arrests and continuing pressures on hospitals in 2021/2022 from non-COVID-19 admissions may all be signalling a non-COVID-19 health crisis exacerbated by interventions, which would of course also include lockdowns and/or vaccines.
Given these observations, and reappraisal of the randomised controlled trial data of mRNA products, it seems difficult to argue that the vaccine roll-out has been net beneficial in all age groups.
Dr Malhotra concludes the first part by saying that whilst risks from vaccination remain constant, the benefits reduce over time as the virus become less virulent and variants are not targeted by outdated products. He recommends a pause and reappraisal of vaccination policies.
Pandemic of misinformation
In part 2, Dr Malhotra explores the pandemic of misinformed doctors and a misinformed and unwittingly harmed public.
According to one senior doctor in regular contact with England’s Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, most of his colleagues in leadership positions influencing health policy may not have been critically appraising the evidence and were instead relying on media stories on COVID-19 and the vaccines.
He says there are four key drivers and seven sins that are the root of medical misinformation:
There are six components essential to informed decision making: (1) description of the nature of the decision; (2) discussion of alternatives; (3) discussion of risks and benefits (in absolute terms); (4) discussion of related uncertainties; (5) assessment of the patient’s understanding; and (6) elicitation of the patient’s preference.
If the administration of the vaccine did not adhere to these principles (which is likely widespread, consistent with historical evidence), then it is also a significant breach of General Medical Council duties of a doctor to ‘give patients the information they want or need in a way that they can understand’.
The paper continues to look at institutional corruption and erosion of public trust, the failure of regulation, biased reporting in the media and censorship of legitimate scientific debate.
A hard hitting, yet sensible paper which should be read by everyone, especially doctors who lost their critical thinking skills over the last few years. Dr Malhotra is a regular on TV so will this be reported in the MSM… I doubt it.
By Tom Parker | Reclaim The Net | September 27, 2022
During an appearance at the “Goalkeepers 2022” event, investor and philanthropist Bill Gates lamented “misinformation” that was shared about him amid the coronavirus pandemic and complained that so-called misinformation about masks and vaccines reduced compliance with mandates.
“I’d say the biggest tragedy is that it [misinformation] fragmented society where certain sources, if they told you to wear a mask, that was the last thing you were going to do,” Gates said. “Or if they told you, you know, get the vaccine, particularly to protect, reduce transmission to elderly people, they didn’t comply. It is a phenomena that held us back and hurt us in a pretty dramatic way.”
Gates also dismissed “conspiracy theories” about him wanting to track people.
“This whole tracking thing, why would I want to track you?” Gates said. “I don’t know, you know. Do I have time to track all these people?”
While Gates was seemingly referring to vaccines, just one day later, at the “Forbes 400 Philanthropy Summit,” Gates admitted that he has a group dedicated to tracking what people say about him online.
“I have a group that tracks what’s on the web that’s talking about things that connect to me,” Gates said. “Overwhelmingly during the pandemic, 95% was all the conspiracy theory stuff. It is calming down now.”
At the Goalkeepers 2022 event, Gates also complained that conspiracy theories are “cynical” and look for “one bad person who’s doing all this stuff” and welcomed “trusted sources” and “fact-checkers” partnering with social media companies to slow down the spread of content that he deems to be misinformation.
Gates’ nonprofit, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to some of the Facebook fact-checkers whose content is used in warning labels that are appended to Facebook posts. When these warning labels are added to Facebook posts, their click-through rates decline by around 95%.
While Gates framed the debate around so-called misinformation and conspiracy theories as a tragedy that reduced compliance with the advice being pushed by trusted sources, he failed to mention that these so-called trusted sources have issued false or conflicting advice throughout the pandemic.
In the early stages of the pandemic, mainstream media outlets downplayed the severity of Covid and health officials in the US urged people to stop wearing masks, then later reversed their stance.
The theory that the coronavirus leaked from a Wuhan lab was initially dismissed as a conspiracy before so-called trusted sources finally admitted the lab leak theory was a possibility.
And health experts initially suggested that COVID-19 vaccines were up to 90% effective at preventing Covid before ultimately admitting that the vaccines don’t prevent infection.
Those who challenged or questioned the “trusted sources” were accused of spreading misinformation and censored by Big Tech platforms, even though many of their challenges and questions later turned out to be true.
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | September 21, 2022
The battle with Big Tech for free speech is heating up! States are passing bills to stop the social media censorship, and legislators are holding investigative hearings, while a recent lawsuit including several State Attorneys General is making headway.
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | September 21, 2022
Suddenly, Biden announces the pandemic is over as the narrative is now collapsing from all sides. From boosters to kids shots, the vaccine push is faltering as lawsuits pile up to remove the last covid restrictions.
By Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D. | The Defender | September 23, 2022
Last week, The Epoch Times reported that Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), admitted the CDC had stopped monitoring the safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines using a method of analysis called proportional reporting ratio (PRR).
Walensky promised to resume the monitoring.
What The Epoch Times missed is that PRR is a fraudulent measure of vaccine harm, designed by the CDC expressly for the new COVID-19 vaccines to disguise the devastation the vaccines are causing.
Why? Because PRR measures the pattern of different vaccine side effects, but it is indifferent to the number of people reporting those side effects.
If some completely new vaccine side effect appears with the introduction of a new vaccine, PRR will catch that.
But the COVID-19 vaccines are associated with huge numbers of people reporting side effects on an unprecedented scale — and, by design, PRR misses this completely.
For example, if one person in a million dies from vaccine A and one person in a thousand dies from vaccine B, then vaccines A and B can have exactly the same PRR score!
PRR is a single number that compares the variety of different side effects for a new vaccine to the variety of side effects from past vaccines.
Of course, there have been many vaccines with different side-effect profiles in the past, and it is difficult to stand out among such a diversity of profiles.
Where the new mRNA vaccines do stand out is the unprecedented number of bad outcomes, including deaths, reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
Of all the reports in the 30-year history of VAERS, two-thirds of them were from the COVID-19 vaccines, introduced in the U.S. in December 2020.
This includes three-fourths of all deaths reported to VAERS and three-fourths of all hospitalizations.
Since the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccines, reports to VAERS have skyrocketed off the charts.
These numbers represent only the reports VAERS has processed and posted. Jessica Rose, Ph.D., has reported that VAERS is months behind in posting these reports because its staff has not increased, while its workload is roughly 50 times greater since the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines.
The sheer volume of VAERS reports, including deaths, should have set off alarm bells within weeks after the vaccines were introduced.
Reporting only PRR and not the actual count provided a convenient cover for “business as usual.”
I am grateful to Mathew Crawford for pointing this out in an article last year.
Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D., has a background in theoretical physics. Since the 1990s, he is best known for his contributions to the biology of aging, including many articles and two books.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
By Steve Kirsch | September 21, 2022
A short collection of key pieces of evidence showing the COVID vaccines are not “safe and effective.” Not even close. They are the most deadly vaccines we’ve ever produced.
Here’s a high level collection of some of the most compelling pieces of evidence I’ve seen to date. This is not an exhaustive list, but just the key pieces of data that are impossible to explain if the vaccines are safe and effective.
I’ve divided the collection into sections and I’ve tried to limit each section to the most compelling data points. So don’t be disappointed if your favorite item isn’t mentioned in this article; I wanted to keep it short enough to be read..
I’ll try to keep this updated over time. It can be found in the Reference section of my Substack.
Can you spot the unsafe vaccine? People at the CDC don’t see any problem with this mortality chart: all the vaccines look perfectly safe.
Are the Covid mRNA Vaccines Safe? was written by Harvard professor Martin Kulldorff who until recently was on vaccine committees of the FDA and CDC. He concluded:
Fraiman and colleagues have produced the best evidence yet regarding the overall safety of the mRNA vaccines. The results are concerning. It is the responsibility of the manufacturers and FDA to ensure that benefits outweigh harms. They have failed to do so.
Canadian court decisions on the constitutionality of Covid measures are invalid due to jurisdictional errors of law reviews court decisions on COVID and emphasizes the courts’ repeated over reliance on government expert testimony. Courts are supposed to find the truth and not rely on government representations or propaganda.
There are specialized tests required to diagnose a death from the COVID vaccine.
The CDC has never told any medical examiner in the US about these tests.
So the medical examiners aren’t implicating the vaccine in any of the deaths.
The question is we know what the tests are, we know there is solid evidence from multiple countries that the vaccine causes death, yet we refuse to even consider the possibility that the vaccine caused the deaths. Why?
This paper, A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products, was retracted because the publisher didn’t like the result. So he unilaterally decided to retract the paper. This is unethical.
Here’s the “withdrawn” notice.
Here is the backstory as well as this censorship update.
The publisher hasn’t fixed the problem in over a year despite assurances it would be quickly resolved.
Here is another retracted paper that was correct:
Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19? by Ron Kostoff
“Compared with the 28,000 deaths the CDC stated were due to COVID-19 and not associated morbidities for the 65+ age range, the inoculation-based deaths are an order-of-magnitude greater than the COVID-19 deaths!”
That is basically what I found: the vaccines kill >10X more people than the number of COVID deaths that they save. The paper passed peer review and was published. The editor of the journal quit after he was overridden by the publisher on the retraction.
The reason cited for the retraction:
This is completely bogus for two reasons:
Can anyone explain how these anecdotes are possible?
Once I established a policy of always recording calls with “fact checkers,” I’ve not had a single call from them trying to refute anything I’ve written.
None of the drug companies that make these products will refute anything I’ve written or supply a representative to debate me or any of my colleagues in a live debate. They have immunity from liability and they are not willing to be held accountable in the court of public opinion either.
This was a very well done study, but it is of course attacked by the pro narrative people. We’d love to have an open debate about this study, but the other side doesn’t want to talk about it in a neutral forum.
A LITERATURE REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF LOCKDOWNS ON COVID-19 MORTALITY
Masks don’t work at all. See this article which has plenty of references. If anything, masks are more likely to hurt you than to benefit you.
There is no study at all on the 6 foot distance rule. They just made that one up.
Professor Jeffrey Sachs was tasked by The Lancet to lead an independent investigation into the source of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. After he determined it came from US biotechnology, all of a sudden nobody wanted to pursue the investigation any further.
Tony Fauci gets paid every time you get a Moderna shot. He won’t disclose how much he makes and you can’t get via FOIA (it’s blacked out). If the Republicans get control of the Senate, that will change. Watch this video from Sept 20, 2022 of Rand Paul commenting on this as well as the well founded accusation that Fauci created the virus in the first place and then desperately tried to make it look like it came from nature after top scientists said it was a lab leak (watch the video at 2:00 onwards). Rand Paul called it, quite rightly, “the biggest cover-up in the history of science.”
The question you have to ask yourself is why is Fauci keeping his funding of the gain of function research and also his compensation for each vaccine dose a secret?
Tony Fauci was the primary reason that all early treatments were ignored by the government. It appears he did that because it would cut into his revenue stream.
Early in the pandemic, two physicians, George Fareed and Brian Tyson, developed a treatment protocol using a variety of safe, low cost drugs and supplements with little to no side effects that had a near 100% success track record in preventing hospitalization, death, and long haul COVID if the patient started treatment shortly after realizing they were infected. They’ve treated over 10,000 patients. They wrote a best-selling book about it.
Today, more than two years later, the FDA and the CDC have not returned their calls.
Questions I’d love to get the answer to. These were asked, but never answered.
People who disagree with the mainstream narrative are rewarded with censorship, permanent bans on posting on social media, demonetization of your YouTube account, revocation of your medical license, revocation of your medical certifications, loss of hospital privileges, loss of job, loss of funding, loss of friends, and a Wikipedia entry labeling you a “misinformation spreader” and/or “conspiracy theorist.”
This is a problem. I am not aware of any paper published in the medical literature that shows that such tactics result in better health decisions.
Should we use the same rules at the UN when nations disagree? Do you think that will result in better outcomes?
The way people resolve differences is by confronting the issues and talking through them. But we are not doing this:
This is objective proof of a broken system. It is indefensible. Caught on video camera. There is no reason that anyone in a position of authority on the COVID vaccines would refuse an opportunity to see the most thorough post-vaccine safety study ever done: one that shows causality of serious adverse events.
From Israeli Investigators Find COVID-19 Vaccines Cause Side Effects: Leaked Video:
Rechallenge changes a causal link “from possible to definitive,” Dr. Mati Berkovitch, head of the research team and a pediatric specialist, said at the meeting.
and
Many of the reported adverse events were found to be long-lasting, which researchers said in the meeting was surprising since the brochure handed to vaccine recipients says otherwise. They also said Pfizer officials told them that Pfizer did not know of any long-lasting symptoms.
and
In the official report later issued to the public, the MoH did not detail how researchers were caught off guard by the duration of the events and side effects. The health agency also stated that there were no new events identified.
It concludes:
The choice to omit some of the crucial findings discussed in the meeting from the public report is “a recipe to destroy” the entire vaccine program, according to Levi, an Israeli native and an expert in risk management.
“The more pro-vaccine, the more disturbed you need to be from something like this,” Levi told The Epoch Times. “And the reason is that the two most important enablers for vaccine programs … to be successful is trust and transparency, that you actually communicate to people the real risk-benefits and allow them to make choices about what they want to do. The second thing is that you take care of the people that were harmed by the vaccine because no vaccine has 100 percent safety.”
“I think we have in this example … where we violate these two very important principles,” he added. “This is a recipe to basically destroy all vaccine programs, so the more pro-vaccine you are, you should be more disturbed by this.”
How can you have the chair of a safety committee not interested in seeing important safety data? Professor Grace Lee should be removed from her position by the CDC. Why isn’t she? Does anyone care?
Why does Dr. Paul Offit ignore requests to see the same data?
According to the Epoch Times article, everyone declined to comment on the story: the scientists, the MOH officials, and the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office declined to comment on the Israeli findings.
If the above isn’t enough, there are hundreds more “hard to explain” data points.
There is an excellent article written in August 2020 by Norman Doidge entitled “Medicine’s Fundamentalists” which talks about the “all-available-evidence approach.” It should be read by every doctor in America. This is how medical science should work.
The precautionary principle medicine seems to have been thrown under the bus during the pandemic. It says in the face of uncertainty, one should take reasonable measures to avoid threats that are serious and plausible.
For example, the Pfizer clinical trial showed the vaccine saved only one COVID death per 22,000 injected. That means we might only save around 10,000 lives if we inject 200M Americans. So if VAERS, which is at least 41 times under reported, is showing over 12,000 deaths associated with the vaccine, any reasonable person should say that killing more than 41 people to save 1 life is nonsensical… shouldn’t we put a PAUSE on this intervention until we resolve the uncertainty?
In the current system, questioning the CDC or other authorities results in serious retribution as mentioned earlier.
Is that really the right way to handle scientific dissent?
Are the vaccines “safe and effective” as claimed?
To answer this, science requires that we look at all the available data and see whether the data is more consistent with the hypothesis of “safe and effective” or “not safe and effective.”
All the data that I and my colleagues have seen end up being placed in the “not” bucket.
We are open to being shown we got it wrong on the hundreds of pieces of evidence we have examined, but nobody is willing to discuss the data with us to resolve the issue, not even for $1M dollars.
I even went to extraordinary lengths to offer the Israeli safety data to ACIP Chair Grace Lee. Her response: she called the police on me. That pretty much tells you everything you need to know: they simply refuse to look at any data that goes against their currently held beliefs. That’s the way science works.
By Sam Husseini | September 7, 2022
Twenty years ago, the “Cheney-Bush junta” — as Gore Vidal called it — launched its propaganda campaign to invade Iraq, effectively casting the dye for much of the historic period since.
On Sunday, Sept. 8, 2002, the New York Times ran on its front page the story “U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts” by Michael Gordon and Judith Miller.
The same day, then Vice President Dick Cheney appeared on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, hyping the New York Times story as evidence that Hussein was attempting to acquire “the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge and the centrifuge is required to take low-grade uranium and enhance it into highly-enriched uranium which is what you have to have in order to build a bomb.” Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice followed Cheney’s lead on other shows.
In 2005, I confronted Miller about her reporting, asking her at if she would name the anonymous lying source who she allegedly relied on to falsely report “the best technical experts and nuclear scientists at laboratories like Oak Ridge supported” the CIA claim that the tubes were for a nuclear weapons program. In fact, it would later be established, the nuclear scientists did not support such an assessment and were effectively muzzled. When I questioned her, Miller refused to name the source that fed her this false information and Marvin Kalb, the moderator of the event, see video, ran interference, stopping further follow-ups. (See my piece “Should Media Expose Sources Who Lied to Them?”)
Many serious analysts early on deduced that the source was Cheney himself, likely through his chief of staff, Scooter Libby.
Even the mainstream Bob Simon of CBS would later remark to Bill Moyers about Cheney: “You leak a story, and then you quote the story. I mean, that’s a remarkable thing to do.”
Remarkable is actually an understatement. It’s engaging in a de facto conspiracy to deceive the U.S. public into war.
In April of 2020, a journalist asked at the daily White House press briefing: “Mr. President, I wanted to ask Dr. Fauci: Could you address these suggestions or concerns that this virus was somehow manmade, possibly came out of a laboratory in China?”
Anthony Fauci replied: “There was a study recently that we can make available to you, where a group of highly qualified evolutionary virologists looked at the sequences there and the sequences in bats as they evolve. And the mutations that it took to get to the point where it is now is totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.”
What Fauci was talking about was the piece “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2” in Nature Medicine.
That article was widely accepted by the major media as eviscerating the possibility of lab origin of Covid, shutting down debate at that critical time and continuing to hinder it to this day.
The thing is, Fauci seems to have had a serious role in that article’s appearing.
One of the few people objecting to the piece when it was first published, in the Spring of 2020 was Meryl Nass, who asked: “Why are some of the US’s top scientists making a specious argument about the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2?” She would go on to argue that the signers of the Nature Medicine article were pushed to write it.
In 2021, limited Freedom of Information Act findings showed that Fauci had at minimum effectively coordinated with the named authors of the Nature Medicine article. See Nass’ write-up and subsequent reporting by some mainstream outlets such as USA Today.
Thus, this insidious tactic of helping to plant a story pushing the line you want in a media outlet and then citing it as evidence for your case was employed by both longtime creatures of Washington at historic junctures.
There are other notable parallels. Both Fauci and Cheney have also both been leading beneficiaries of Trumpwashing.
Ashley Rindsberg makes some serious arguments in his piece, “How Dick Cheney created Anthony Fauci,” including about the buildup of US bio“defense” after 9/11 (actually the anthrax attacks) — a trend several observers have noted. Alexis Baden-Mayer traces such arguments back to 1976, when Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld apparently pressured President Ford to order massive inoculations in the Swine Flu scare, which he would be widely mocked for.
While the antiwar forces and “left” criticism of the Iraq WMD propaganda were wholly inadequate, they at least manifested themselves on the national stage to some extent. Covid origins has hardly been recognized as an antiwar issue by most and the “left” at times has actually played a detrimental role, explicitly doing the establishment’s bidding in irrationally denying or minimizing the possibility of lab origin of the pandemic.
One thing that should be kept in mind as one parses through the claims and “exposés” is that some are de facto cover stories.
The Bush administration ramped up their propaganda campaign for the Iraq invasion, as noted at the beginning of this article, in September of 2002.
Why then? Sophisticates at the time would quote Andrew Card: “From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August” said Bush’s chief of staff.
With the Bush administration cynically using the one year anniversary of 9/11 as a backdrop to launch their push for invading Iraq, the rationale articulated by Card was actually a remarkably benign motivation, a likely cover, in comparison to the war makers actual thinking.
By Adam Dick | Ron Paul Institute | September 26, 2022
In the face of incessant media badgering to rush out and take the latest version of experimental coronavirus “vaccine” shot — the “bivalent” booster, the vast majority of Americans are saying “nope” and continuing on with their lives. Three weeks into the all-out push to have every American over 12 years old take the new shot (giving these new booster shots to younger children is up next), it appears that less than two percent of eligible Americans have done so.
The growing resistance to the coronavirus shots pushers’ propaganda gives one hope for America. With each new experimental coronavirus shot Americans are being urged to take, the percentage who acquiesce declines. The line that the shots are needed, safe, and effective has proven a farce on all counts. And the latest shot rushed into distribution has taken the previous shots’ mockery of the process for ensuring safety and efficacy to the next level. The truth is out there; increasingly Americans are seeing past the media hype and finding it.
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | September 20, 2022
Online fact checkers have great authority over what speech gets suppressed on mainstream social media platforms and a fact-check of a post on Facebook can result in that post being suppressed by as much as 95%.
Yet, despite their great power over what people can say, fact checkers are also increasingly frustrated at calls for more transparency about the way they operate and say they are being bombarded with freedom of information act (FOIA) requests and lawsuits.
The fact checkers say these requests and lawsuits are meant to drain the resources of climate change researchers and to discourage them from doing their work which is, in turn, an attempt to shut down their own speech.
“They make a point of going after the fact-checkers because, in addition to stopping regulation, they also want to prevent or discourage climate scientists from doing things that might educate the public,” said Lauren Kurtz, Climate Science Legal Defense Fund’s executive director to Bloomberg.
Kurtz’s organization provides climate researchers with legal assistance. They assist about 40 researchers annually. But this year has been busier, as they have already assisted 35 people.
One of the beneficiaries of the fund is Doug MacMartin, who was sued by Dane Wigington after he fact-checked his documentary “The Dimming,” which, according to MacMartin, is filled with conspiracy theories.
On the science fact-checking website Climate Feedback, used by social media companies to flag what it sees as science misinformation, MacMartin described Wigington’s documentary as “pure fantasy.” The plaintiff sought $75,000 in damages from MacMartin, arguing that the fact-check reduced the visibility of his documentary on Facebook, hurting its revenue.
“I mostly felt disbelief,” MacMartin recalled to Bloomberg. “A bit of shock combined with, ‘I just don’t have time for this.’”
Earlier this month, a federal court dismissed Wigngton’s lawsuit, but he plans to appeal.
Daniel Swain, a climate researcher at University of California, Los Angeles, had to deal with a FOIA request filed by a group called Energy Policy Advocates. Swain is vocal about droughts and fires in Western US. The requests sought text messages, encrypted messages, and emails related to a fact-check written by Swain and others about the book “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters,” by Steven Koonin, who worked in the Department of Energy during Obama’s era.
Swain challenged the requests using a university lawyer, arguing that it had the “presumptive intent of disrupting primary research and outreach activities by inundating climate scientists.” The records department said that the motivations of the requester were irrelevant, but was bound by law to provide the information requested.
“I spend nights and weekends compiling and going through thousands and thousands of emails because these requests are extremely broad,” he said. “In some cases they’re essentially open ended: they’re asking about multiple years, multiple keywords and multiple platforms.”
The group filing most of the requests are Government Accountability and Oversight, and Energy Policy Advocates. The two groups go by the acronyms GAO and EPA, the same acronyms used by federal agencies Government Accountability Office and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Climate Feedback and Meta are facing a $2 million lawsuit filed by Libertarian commentator John Stossel who was censored on Facebook as a direct result of a post by the fact-checker.
Climate Feedback flagged Stossel’s video “Government Fueled Fires” about the wildfires in California in 2020. The fact-check resulted in Facebook limiting the visibility of the video and we have more information on that case here.
Vaccine Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (VAIDS)?
By Igor Chudov | September 24, 2022
Amazing news from Pfizer’s Albert Bourla.
“I have tested positive for COVID. I’m feeling well & symptom free. I’ve not had the new bivalent booster yet, as I was following CDC guidelines to wait 3 months since my previous COVID case which was back in mid-August. While we’ve made great progress, the virus is still with us.”
Mr. Bourla had his previous Covid infection in mid-August. Now he tested positive for Covid again, only a month after his previous illness. Albert is very lucky to be protected by his vaccine and previous booster doses!
Pfizer’s CEO says that he did not yet get the bivalent booster, because he wanted to wait 3 months after his most recent infection.
This is what the CDC said about this:
So, the CDC said that Bourla had a “low risk of reinfection” for three months after his last Covid — but Bourla got Covid a mere month after his previous infection.
Albert is not alone. Here’s a Redditor who is having his or her FIFTH Covid in 1.5 years:
Covid is not going anywhere.
Apparently, it is again rising strongly in the UK. The United States is usually about a month behind the UK. So, for now, the US is in the “Covid is over” phase.
Is Albert having VAIDS and is unable to get any kind of immunity?
He is definitely one person who I badly want to take his own 8-mouse booster as soon as possible.
By Paul Homewood | TCW Defending Freedom | September 23, 2022
ACCORDING to the BBC’s Environment Correspondent, Matt McGrath, Pakistan’s catastrophic floods last month were ‘likely made worse by global warming’.
This claim originated from the World Weather Attribution group, who regularly publish such claims every time there is some bad weather. They base their conclusions on computer models, not on real world data. If they had looked at the actual data, they might have come to different conclusions.
According to the Pakistan Meteorological Department, most of the excess rain in August arrived on 18th/19th and 25th/26th. In fact 41 per cent of the month’s rainfall fell on these four days:
Pakistan Meteorological Department
The cause of this heavy rain was two tropical storms, which had crossed from the Bay of Bengal – BOB 06 and BOB 07. (In the Indian Ocean they are categorised as a ‘depression’ and ‘deep depression’. in Atlantic storm terminology, these would be called a tropical depression and a tropical storm respectively).
Both storms followed identical routes west from Bengal, tracking over Rajasthan before hitting the province of Sindh, the region worst affected by flooding:
http://www.pmd.gov.pk/cdpc/home.htm
Unusually, these storms did not dissipate after landfall in Bengal so wreaked havoc for days afterwards. Pakistan, needless to say, is not immune to tropical cyclones. But for two storms to hit in the space of a week, at the same location, and during the wettest month of the year is an extremely rare combination of meteorological events.
Pakistan was already experiencing a wetter than normal monsoon, courtesy of La Nina, but those two storms pushed the rainfall into record territory, the wettest August since 1961.
There is no evidence that tropical cyclones are getting more frequent or intense in the Indian Ocean, so consequently there is also no evidence that last month’s rainfall had anything to do with climate change.
What is significant, though, is the chart of annual rainfall in Pakistan, published in the State of the Pakistan Climate 2021:
http://www.pmd.gov.pk/cdpc/home.htm
Annual rainfall was clearly much less during the 1960s and 70s, the direct result of global cooling at the time. Those years of drought were a disaster for Pakistan, and the country has welcomed the increase in rainfall since, just as they do across the border in India. The wetter, the better!
It is also significant that the seven-year moving average has barely changed since the 1980s, fluctuating up and down, but with no obvious long-term trend. If global warming was really bringing more extreme rainfall, we should expect to see evidence of this in the annual figures.
You will of course hear none of this from the BBC or the climate attribution industry, which was established to promote the climate change agenda, and which routinely publishes patently unsupportable claims.
Steve Koonin, President Obama’s climate scientist, puts it best: ‘Practitioners argue that event attribution studies are the best climate science can do in terms of connecting weather to changes in climate. But as a physical scientist, I’m appalled that such studies are given credence, much less media coverage. A hallmark of science is that conclusions get tested against observations. But that’s virtually impossible for weather attribution studies. It’s like a spiritual adviser who claims her influence helped you win the lottery – after you’ve already won it.’
Of course, like most of climate science, the climate attribution industry has little to do with science, and everything to do with money.
The Arctic ice scam
FOR years the ‘experts’ have been telling us that the Arctic would soon be ice-free in summer.
Al Gore notoriously warned us in 2009 that ‘there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.’
He was, of course, just a politician. But a whole host of supposed Arctic scientists were all busy issuing similar warnings at the time. In 2007, for instance, Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told us that northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just five to six years. In December that year, Jay Zwally of Nasa agreed, giving the ice till 2012. A year later, in 2008, Professor David Barber went one step further, saying the ice would all be gone that very summer.
For sheer persistence in getting it wrong, however, the prize must go to Peter Wadhams, Professor and Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge:
• In 2012, he predicted that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2015/16.
• In 2014, he thought it might last till 2020.
• In 2016, he confidently predicted the Arctic would be ice-free that summer (though curiously he now defined ‘ice-free’ as less than 1 million square kilometers).
All these pronouncements were designed for political propaganda purposes, not for scientific reasons, and were widely propagated by the gullible media.
For instance in an article in the Independent in June 2016 (complete with photos of a cute polar bear on a melting piece of ice) Wadhams confidently asserted: ‘My prediction remains that the Arctic ice may well disappear, that is, have an area of less than one million square kilometres for September of this year. Even if the ice doesn’t completely disappear, it is very likely that this will be a record low year. I think there’s a reasonable chance it could get down to a million this year and if it doesn’t do it this year, it will do it next year.’
Unfortunately for Professor Wadhams, the sea ice has not been melting away as ordained. On the contrary, it has been remarkably resilient. Arctic sea ice has just reached its minimum extent this week, just as it always does in September, and the provisional data shows that there is still 4.7million sq km of the stuff.
As can be seen from the chart below, this year and last had the largest extents since 2013 and 2014, and there is considerably more ice around this year than in 2007 and 2008.
https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/data-and-image-archive
There was a climate shift in the Arctic in 2007, when warm Atlantic waters entered the Arctic basin and ocean currents pushed a lot of the thicker multi-year ice out through the Fram Strait, which lies between Greenland and Svalbard, into the open Atlantic Ocean, where unsurprisingly it melted. Since 2007, much of the ice has consequently been thinner, new ice, which naturally tends to melt in summer.
Climate scientists with an agenda to peddle jumped on the bandwagon and predicted that the ice would just carry on melting. However, they ignored the lesson of history. The Atlantic Ocean regularly goes through such cyclical events, with cold and warm phases lasting about 50 to 60 years. The cycle is called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, or AMO, and it is known to have been occurring for at least the last 1,000 years.
In the 1970s, climate scientists were extremely concerned about the increase in sea ice in the Arctic, which occurred during the cold phase of the AMO. The leading climatologist of his day, H H Lamb, wrote in 1982: ‘A greatly increased flow of the cold East Greenland Current has in several years (especially 1968 and 1969, but also 1965, 1975 and 1979) brought more Arctic sea ice to the coasts of Iceland than for 50 years. In April-May 1968 and 1969, the island was half surrounded by ice, as had not occurred since 1888.’
Satellite monitoring of Arctic sea ice began in 1979, at the depth of the cold period. The climate mafia always use this period as the baseline, pretending it was the ‘norm’. That way they can attempt to fool the public that the warming in the Arctic and loss of ice since then is due to man-made global warming.
What is astonishing is that these buffoons are still in a job and living off the taxpayer. In any other field of science, to be so consistently wrong for so long would have quickly led to a well-earned oblivion.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By F. William Engdahl – New Eastern Outlook – 11.04.2022
Amid the ongoing global inflation crisis, NATO heads of state and mainstream media repeat a mantra that high energy prices are a direct result of Putin’s actions in Ukraine since end of February. The reality is that it is the western sanctions that are responsible. Those sanctions including cutting SWIFT interbank access for key Russian banks and some of the most severe sanctions ever imposed, are hardly having an impact on the military actions in Ukraine. What many overlook is the fact that they are increasingly impacting the economies of the West, especially the EU and USA. A closer look at the state of the global supply of diesel fuel is alarming. But Western sanctions planners at the US Treasury and the EU know fully well what they are doing. And it bodes ill for the world economy.
While most of us rarely think about diesel fuel as anything other than a pollutant, in fact it is essential to the entire world economy in a way few energy sources are. The director general of Fuels Europe, part of the European Petroleum Refiners Association, stated recently, “… there is a clear link between diesel and GDP, because almost everything that goes into and out of a factory goes using diesel.” … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
