Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

WHO Estimates of India’s Covid Deaths Are Highly Suspect

By Ramesh Thakur | The Daily Sceptic | May 8, 2022

On May 5th, the World Health Organisation (WHO) issued a new report estimating global excess deaths at 14.9m for two years of the pandemic 2020-21 as the true COVID-19 mortality toll, nearly triple the official toll of 5.44m. “Excess mortality” is the difference between the number of deaths that would be expected in any time period based on data from earlier years and the number of deaths that have occurred. For countries with robust data surveillance, reporting and recording systems, this poses no real difficulty. Unfortunately, these conditions are not met in many countries. Therefore their excess mortality can only be estimated and the accuracy is a function of the reliability of the methodology and modelling used in the exercise. Given the overwhelming evidence about the flaws and deficiencies of Covid-related modelling over the last two years, and the damage caused by governments trusting modelling projections over real-world data, this should immediately throw up a forest of red flags about the WHO report.

A second reason to be sceptical is the less than stellar role of the WHO in its well-known Covid-related deference to China, the abandonment of its own summary of the state of the art science on managing pandemics from October 2019, its willingness to manipulate definitions of ‘herd immunity’ in relation to vaccines and natural immunity in order to fit with the experimental pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) that came to dominate Covid policy around the world, and its self-interest in expanding its budget, authority and role in steering global health policies and management by means of a new international treaty.

A third ground for scepticism is they ascribe the total death count to the direct effects of Covid “due to the disease” and indirect effects “due to the pandemic’s impact on health systems and society”. The first part is questionable because it fails to distinguish between deaths with and from Covid. The second is disingenuous because the indirect toll of the NPIs (lockdowns, masks, induced fear, lost schooling, lost jobs, cancelled screenings and operations, aborted immunisation programs, disruptions to global food production and distribution, etc.) and vaccine-related adverse events will prove to be significantly higher than the indirect effects of the disease per se. Any study that fails to disaggregate deaths caused by the disease and by policy interventions to mitigate it lacks credibility.

Figure 1: India’s COVID-19 Deaths, Jan. 1st 2020-Mar. 27th 2022. Source: World Life Expectancy, May 8th 2022

Like many others including Will Jones on this site, I was especially struck by the new figures for India. The report pushes India up to the very top of the Covid mortality toll with 4.74m deaths, nearly 10 times more than the count of 481,486 (as of December 31st 2021), almost one-third of the world total. Sorry, but that is simply not credible.

India’s geographic diversity, population size and economic conditions make data collection especially challenging. In public lectures in Australia and Canada, to drive home the point about the scale, I usually comment that the entire Australian population is a rounding error in 1.3bn-strong India. It suffers from persistent and widespread mass poverty – India is a country of a few mega-billionaires amidst the world’s biggest pool of poor, illiterate and sick people bar none. It might be nuclear-armed, but state capacity when it comes to administration and public and social services is easily the worst of all major economies. The public sector scores high on petty corruption but low on efficiency. The public health service is risible and high quality healthcare is neither accessible nor affordable for ordinary Indians. The best doctors work in the public sector, in medium to large clinics and hospitals in metropolitan centres and as individual practitioners in most towns and villages. Consequently, health statistics are not all that reliable. But this is a general pathology, not one unique to COVID-19.

From everything I know about India, the WHO estimate does not align with overall death data, historical trends and Covid death compensation claims on the Indian Government from states. Indian experts believe that official statistics capture over 90% of all deaths. But this also means that about 10% of deaths would have been missed in previous years, yet the WHO’s ‘excess deaths’ count uses the official numbers as the baseline against which to estimate the impact of Covid. In a related vein, why would under-reporting be limited to Covid-related deaths and not, say, to suicides with its heavy social stigma and traffic accidents where the operators of overloaded buses and vans would try to drastically reduce actual numbers in order to hide the illegal loads (Figure 2)? The WHO estimates are flawed also in relying on 2019 deaths instead of using a five year average 2015-19 to wrinkle out anomalies in any given year.

Figure 2: India’s Top Dozen Killer Diseases (March 1st 2020-May 7th 2022). Top six cancers in order: oral, lung, breast, cervical, stomach, colon. Source: Chart constructed by author drawing on data from World Life Expectancy, May 8th 2022

Estimates of India’s total annual death rate range from 738 per 100,000 people by the World Bank to 1,030 per 100,000 people by World Life Expectancy. The total annual death toll therefore would be somewhere in the 10-13 million range: a very wide range. The WHO estimate of the death rate for 2021 is within the higher range from World Life Expectancy. Simply put, the WHO estimate of all-cause deaths is within any realistic estimate of the margin of error in India’s unique circumstances of scale and state capacity.

The caveats to official data notwithstanding, the WHO estimate would mean almost one-quarter additional deaths than normal. In fact it’s worse. Looking at the detailed tables, the 4.74m excess deaths is calculated from a combined excess death rate for 2020–21 of 171 per 100,00 people. This is disaggregated into 60 and 280 per 100,000 people for 2020 and 2021, respectively. That would imply a 38% jump in all cause deaths in 2021. Despite all the horror scenes we saw on TV of corpses lying in the streets and washed ashore on riverbanks, that’s just not possible. Perhaps the clue to the error lies in the title of the actual document: “Global excess deaths associated with COVID-19 (modelled estimates)” (emphasis added).

Some Daily Sceptic readers had fun with this aspect of the WHO announcement. My favourite exchange was this:

India’s own estimates of excess deaths for 2020 compared to 2019 is 480,000, of which Covid-related deaths were just under 150,000. So over 300,000 excess deaths were due to non-Covid causes, which in itself is far more believable because of the impact of the lockdown measures on exacerbating most of the conditions underlying India’s leading causes of deaths. By contrast, in 2021 the Covid-related death toll was much higher at 332,492.

Much as I have been critical in the past of official dismissals of international reports on India including weakening democratic practices, in this instance the Government is right to reject the WHO methodology of mathematical modelling based on data on 17 Indian states collected from websites and media reports: “This reflects a statistically unsound and scientifically questionable methodology of data collection for making excess mortality projections in the case of India.” As well as defective data collection methodology, the report is marred also by three critically flawed assumptions: that uncounted excess deaths occurred only in 2020-21 and not before; they occurred only for COVID-19 and not other diseases; and Covid-related deaths were due solely to the disease and not caused by policy interventions to control and eradicate it.

Ramesh Thakur is Emeritus Professor at the Australian National University’s Crawford School of Public Policy and a former UN Assistant Secretary-General.

May 8, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

FDA limits use of J&J vaccine over blood clotting disorder, but experts say Pfizer, Moderna shots pose similar risk

By Julie Comber, Ph.D. | The Defender | May 6, 2022

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Thursday put strict limits on the use of the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID-19 vaccine, citing the risk of a blood-clotting condition the agency described as “rare and potentially life-threatening.”

In a statement Thursday, the FDA said the risk of vaccine recipients developing thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) after receiving the vaccine “warrants limiting the authorized use of the vaccine.”

The FDA said it has identified 60 cases of vaccine-induced thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, including nine deaths, out of about 18 million doses administered — although the condition is likely underreported.

Women 30 to 49 years old are at the highest risk of TTS from the J&J vaccine, with about eight cases per 1 million doses of vaccine administered, according to the FDA.

According to the latest data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), between Dec. 14, 2020, and April 29, 2022, there were 13,873 reports of blood-clotting disorders following COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S.

Of those, 6,227 reports were attributed to Pfizer, 4,943 reports to Moderna and 2,662 reports to J&J.

In the U.S., 575 million COVID-19 vaccine doses had been administered as of April 29, including 339 million doses of Pfizer, 217 million doses of Moderna and 19 million doses of J&J.

The agency said the “known and potential benefits” of the J&J vaccine for preventing COVID-19 outweigh the known and potential risks for individuals 18 and older “for whom other authorized or approved COVID-19 vaccines are not accessible or clinically appropriate,” or “who elect to receive the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine because they would otherwise not receive a COVID-19 vaccine.”

The agency described TTS as “a syndrome of rare and potentially life-threatening blood clots in combination with low levels of blood platelets with onset of symptoms approximately one to two weeks following administration of the Janssen [J&J] COVID-19 vaccine.”

The updated restrictions to the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the vaccine, marketed under the Janssen brand, also apply to booster doses, CNN reported.

People who can still get the Janssen vaccine include:

  • Those who had a severe allergic reaction to the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna mRNA vaccine.
  • Those with personal concerns about the mRNA vaccines who would remain unvaccinated unless they can choose the Janssen vaccine.
  • Those with limited access to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Symptoms of TTS include shortness of breath, chest pain, leg swelling, persistent abdominal pain, neurological symptoms (like headaches or blurred vision) or red spots just under the skin called “petechiae” found beyond the site of injection.

Experts question timing, and why just J&J?

Peter Marks, M.D., Ph.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said limiting the authorized use of the Janssen vaccine “demonstrates the robustness of our safety surveillance systems and our commitment to ensuring that science and data guide our decisions.”

Marks said:

“We’ve been closely monitoring the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and occurrence of TTS following its administration and have used updated information from our safety surveillance systems to revise the EUA.

“The agency will continue to monitor the safety of the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and all other vaccines, and as has been the case throughout the pandemic, will thoroughly evaluate new safety information.”

However, Brian Hooker, Ph.D., P.E., Children’s Health Defense chief scientific officer and professor of biology at Simpson University, had a different take on the news.

“It seems like the FDA pays lip service to the fact that the spike protein can cause clotting, and to the widespread reports of clotting, by punishing Janssen, who has become the ‘whipping boy’ of the COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers through the pandemic,” Hooker said.

“I believe this is partially because of the limited use of the Janssen vaccine in the U.S. as compared to Pfizer and Moderna,” he added.

Hooker said the FDA can limit the use of the J&J vaccine without significantly impacting vaccine distribution overall, “while having the appearance of addressing the myriad vaccine adverse events caused by all the types of COVID-19 vaccines.”

As of Thursday, CNN reported only 7.7% of those considered fully vaccinated received the J&J vaccine.

Dr. Pierre Kory, founder and president of Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, told The Defender :

“My only hypothesis is this action is some attempt for the FDA to be able to claim that they took at least some action to protect the safety of the public, akin to ‘virtue signaling.’

“Having been a keen observer of their actions throughout the pandemic, I find this action to be completely insufficient and demonstrates a calculated attempt to ensure vaccinations with similarly dangerous vaccines continue.”

Dr. Meryl Nass questioned the timing of the FDA’s restriction of the EUA.

“Why did the FDA just throw the kill switch on the Janssen vaccine, when it knew of the thrombosis problems since the rollout?” Nass asked.

Nass told The Defender the FDA may have known about the thrombosis problem even before the Janssen vaccine rollout, “since the adenovirus vector platform is known to be associated with thrombosis” for “more than 15 years.”

Kory, who noted that all COVID-19 vaccines have had a high rate of adverse events, also questioned the timing of the new restrictions.

“I find the timing of this action to be both irrational and alarming given there is extensive data from around the world, much of it being censored from media and medical journals, that all the COVID-19 vaccines, not just Janssen, have long had unacceptable and diverse toxicity signals — beyond just clotting disorders from numerous pharmacovigilance databases and epidemiological and public health data reports,” Kory said.

As far back as April 2021, U.S. and European health officials were investigating whether the J&J COVID-19 vaccines were causing blood clots.

However, there was already mounting evidence the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines could cause similar adverse reactions. U.S. regulatory officials were alerted to this risk as far back as December 2020.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in December 2021 recommended the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID vaccines over the J&J vaccine due to the risk of blood clots, despite data showing the Pfizer and Moderna shots also cause blood-clotting disorders.

In January 2021, shortly after the rollout of Pfizer’s vaccine in the U.S., The Defender reported on the death of a 56-year-old Florida doctor who developed a blood-clotting disorder after the Pfizer vaccine and died 12 days later.

The Defender also reported on numerous other deaths related to blood-clotting disorders that developed after the Moderna and J&J vaccines.

The J&J vaccine received EUA on Feb. 27, 2021.

On April 13, 2021, the FDA and CDC paused use of the vaccine to investigate six reported cases of TTS.

The agencies lifted the pause only 10 days later, after confirming a total of 15 cases of TTS had been reported to VAERS, including the original six reported cases, out of approximately 8 million doses administered.

© 2022 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

May 8, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

THE VANDEN BOSSCHE WARNING

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | May 5, 2022

Acclaimed vaccinologist, Geert Vanden Bossche, sits down for his second groundbreaking interview with Del to explain why the intense pressure mass vaccination is putting on the Covid-19 virus will likely drive it to become catastrophically deadly.

May 8, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | , | Leave a comment

WHO Pandemic Treaty and the Banality of Evil

By Tessa Lena | May 6, 2022

This story is about the proposed new World Health Organization pandemic treaty that can potentially eradicate the national sovereignty as we know it. It is also about the banality of evil and the impact of our individual daily choices on the future generations and the history of the world.

What’s the Deal With the World Health Organization Pandemic Treaty?

In December 2021, the World Health Organization announced their plan to develop a new pandemic treaty “strengthening” international cooperation during future pandemics. What does it mean in practical terms? The language of the announcement was vague, so we need to interpret it in context. Here’s from the horse’s mouth: (December 2021):

“In a consensus decision aimed at protecting the world from future infectious diseases crises, the World Health Assembly today agreed to kickstart a global process to draft and negotiate a convention, agreement or other international instrument under the Constitution of the World Health Organization to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.

Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General, said the decision by the World Health Assembly was historic in nature, vital in its mission, and represented a once-in-a-generation opportunity to strengthen the global health architecture to protect and promote the well-being of all people.”

More from the horse’s mouth (April 2022):

“In a consensus decision aimed at protecting the world from future infectious diseases crises, in December 2021 the World Health Assembly agreed to kickstart a global process by establishing an intergovernmental negotiating body (INB) to draft and negotiate a convention, agreement or other international instrument under the Constitution of the World Health Organization to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response …

As part of this historic decision, the World Health Assembly requested the Director-General to hold public hearings, in line with standard WHO practice, to support the work of the INB. Per the INB’s timeline, the first round of those hearings has been set for 12-13 April 2022, with a second round set for 16-17 June. This information on the modalities for the first round of hearings is also expected to apply to the second round as well.”

Lies, Lies, Lies

Let’s start with the issue of distorted language. In an honest world with no dark agendas, no Fourth Industrial Revolution, and no upside-down language, their treaty could sound like a beautiful idea. Like, what can possibly be wrong with benevolently guided, meaningful international cooperation during a time of crisis? A beautiful fairy tale, no?

Sadly, not a fairy tale at all but more like a horror movie because we are living in a world of shameless lying and upside-down language — and the words no longer mean what they are supposed to mean.

To deceive us, the bureaucrats are trying to create a feeling in our minds that they getting together to protect us, like a benevolent council of wise indigenous grandmothers — while in reality, it’s more like they are aiming to trap us, being a gang of greedy and ruthless wolves in sheep’s clothes that they are.

“Health” doesn’t mean actual health but rather the promotion of any product or interference that is desirable to the shareholders and the CEOs of pharmaceutical and technology companies.

Just like Fauci recently equated himself with science, the corporate mouthpieces equate whatever they want to sell or impose on us with “health,” and then say they are protecting our “health” while in fact, they are merely protecting their pockets.

We are living in a world where our leaders (translation: our fellow human being who have no intrinsic upper hand on us but who have gotten ahead on the basis of being extremely power-hungry) are taking full advantage of the fact that in order to do destructive things with the least resistance, then can call them “useful things that are good for the people,” and get away with it for some time. That’s the trick!

And besides, if the past two years are any indication, “international cooperation” means in practice that all WEF-affiliated leaders go ahead and throw their people under the bus in unison, to the sound of uniform messaging in the media.

“International cooperation” means that all countries do the same destructive thing, resulting in unnecessary human death and suffering, a disruption of social structures and the world economy, all to clear the way for their favorite “new normal.” That’s some international cooperation!

Public Hearings

Given the self-proclaimed historical nature of this treaty, the World Health Organization dedicated the whole two days to the first round of the public hearings (and they didn’t advertise it much). The first round took place in April 2022. The second round will be held in June of this year.

Dr. Tess Lawrie wrote a very moving article about the WHO pandemic treaty and the video comment submission by the World Council for Health.

Here are Dr. Lawrie’s comments on the proposed treaty, after she had a chance to participate in a call with the WHO (as well as UNAIDS, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the UN Environment Programme, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations) as a part of the submission process.

• Calls for ‘human security centric’ not just ‘health security centric’. Apparently, they don’t just want to control your body but every aspect of your life.

• Fast approval of emergency diagnostics – and unified regulatory registration for diagnostics. In other words, more control.

• Equitable access to vaccines and ‘a mechanism to hold violators accountable’. So if a nation concludes a vaccine is not safe – as has happened in this last pandemic – the WHO would have the power to override that and jab their population anyway.

• Vaccines should be developed within 100 days. This is absurd. Safe drugs take ten years to be adequately tested and declared safe. There are more than 3.5 million people on the WHO database who have been harmed by Covid vaccines and this may be the tip of the iceberg.

I agree that these bullet points sound like it’s about control, so no surprise that it comes with more censorship!

More Censorship

While the public comments were open, the #StopTheTreaty campaign by the World Council for Health, where Dr. Tess Lawrie is on the Steering Committee, was the talk of the town in the “freedom community.” But if you searched for it on Google, you wouldn’t know anything about it! Here’s what I wrote just a few hours after the comment period ended:

“If you search for the phrase “WHO pandemic treaty” on DuckDuckGo, #StopTheTreaty comes up among the top results. On Google though no such thing exists. If you actually search for the phrase “stop the treaty,” on DuckDuckGo #StoopTheTreaty is the number one result. Google, on the other hand, tells you everything you ever wanted to know about the 1919 Treaty of Versailles!)”

For the World Health Organization, It’s Not the First Rodeo

It is curious that it’s not the first time that the WHO is trying serve the pharmaceutical industry and various industry shareholders using “pandemic preparedness” as a legal tool.

For example, in 2009, they announced an influenza pandemic (H1N1) that activated vaccine purchasing agreements and forced participating countries to large batches of doses that they didn’t need. The rushed release of a subpar medical product led to a “narcolepsy fiasco,” among other things.

According to the report by the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly:

“The Parliamentary Assembly is alarmed about the way in which the H1N1 influenza pandemic has been handled, not only by the World Health Organization (WHO), but also by the competent health authorities at the level of the European Union and at national level.

It is particularly troubled by some of the consequences of decisions taken and advice given leading to distortion of priorities of public health services across Europe, waste of large sums of public money, and also unjustified scares and fears about health risks faced by the European public at large.

The Assembly notes that grave shortcomings have been identified regarding the transparency of decision-making processes relating to the pandemic which have generated concerns about the possible influence of the pharmaceutical industry on some of the major decisions relating to the pandemic.

The Assembly fears that this lack of transparency and accountability will result in a plummet in confidence in the advice given by major public health institutions. This may prove disastrous in the case of the next disease of pandemic scope – which may turn out to be much more severe than the H1N1 pandemic …

The rapporteur considers that some of the outcomes of the pandemic, as illustrated in this report, have been dramatic: distortion of priorities of public health services all over Europe, waste of huge sums of public money, provocation of unjustified fear amongst Europeans, creation of health risks through vaccines and medications which might not have been sufficiently tested before being authorised in fast-track procedures, are all examples of these outcomes.”

Even Forbes wrote in 2010 that “from the beginning the World Health Organization’s actions have ranged from the dubious to the flagrantly incompetent.” A poignant quote:

“The WHO’s dubious decisions demonstrate that its officials are too rigid or too incompetent (or both) to make needed adjustments in the pandemic warning system — deficiencies we have come to expect from an organization that is scientifically challenged, self-important and unaccountable.

The WHO may be able to perform and report worldwide surveillance — i.e., count numbers of cases and fatalities — but its policy role should be drastically limited.

U.N. bureaucrats pose as authorities on all manner of products, public policy and human activities, from desertification and biodiversity to the regulation of chemicals, uses of the ocean and the testing of genetically engineered plants.

However, the U.N.’s regulatory policies, requirements and standards often defy scientific consensus and common sense. Its officials are no friends of commerce, public health or environmental protection. The result is a more precarious, more dangerous and less resilient world. When it comes to pestilence, the U.N. may be the greatest plague of all.”

What’s a Pandemic, Anyway?

It’s noteworthy that just before the WHO declared a pandemic, they changed the definition of the word. From the British Medical Journal :

“WHO for years had defined pandemics as outbreaks causing “enormous numbers of deaths and illness” but in early May 2009 it removed this phrase — describing a measure of severity — from the definition.

Key scientists advising the World Health Organization on planning for an influenza pandemic had done paid work for pharmaceutical firms that stood to gain from the guidance they were preparing. These conflicts of interest have never been publicly disclosed by WHO, and WHO has dismissed inquiries into its handling of the A/H1N1 pandemic as ‘conspiracy theories.’

A joint investigation by the BMJ and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has uncovered evidence that raises troubling questions about how WHO managed conflicts of interest among the scientists who advised its pandemic planning, and about the transparency of the science underlying its advice to governments.

Was it appropriate for WHO to take advice from experts who had declarable financial and research ties with pharmaceutical companies producing antivirals and influenza vaccines?”

Boasting About the Tricks

In 2019, Marc Van Ranst, Belgian Flu Commissioner, gave a talk at the ESWI/Chatham House Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Stakeholders Conference. At around 13 minutes in, he boasted about how he “misused the fact that that the top, top football … soccer clubs in Belgium inappropriately and against all agreements vaccinated … they made their soccer players priority people.” The audience responded with laughter.

Communication and public engagement – MARC VAN RANST – 9 from ESWI on Vimeo.

“Trust WHO”

In order to understand the corruption inside the WHO, one may want to watch a pre-pandemic documentary called “Trust WHO,” produced by Lilian Franck. Among other things, it looks into various conflicts of interest as well as the examples of how the organization has been influenced by the tobacco industry and the nuclear industry.

The United Nations Has Been Hijacked

Last year, I interviewed Mary Otto-Chang, a former United Nations employee, who talked about the hijacking of the UN and the 2019 agreement between the UN and the World Economic Forum that the Fourth Industrial Revolution as a cooperation goal.

So what we are looking at is using the authority of the UN as supposedly a just and wonderful international organization that protects the people for the commercial and philosophical goals of the richest people of the world. What an intricate lie!

Banality of Evil

Most horrible things that people do to each other don’t come out of nowhere. There is usually a “warm-up” period during which evil actions are trivialized, and people’s senses are “re-trained.”

Sometimes, using upside-down language, people’s senses are re-trained to the extent of swapping out the meanings completely, where war becomes peace, and murder becomes compassion. It takes time to dehumanize entire demographics — based on a particular ethnicity, or religion, or health status, or any other arbitrary affiliation.

For example, in early Nazi Germany, there was a campaign to kill mentally disabled children, (and also do inhumane experiments on them), and the parents were often told that their children were being taken away for better care. The parents didn’t know that their children were being murdered — but the nurses who killed the disabled knew exactly what they were doing, but perhaps some of them believed that they were performing acts of mercy!

There is a powerful, must-see documentary about it, called, “The Killing Nurses of the Third Reich.” I wrote about it last year:

“The only thing that was needed for the nurses to make the transition to the horror zone was to decide that the poor suffering imbeciles had no agency. As soon as in their minds, the nurses stripped the disabled children and the mentally ill adults of their human agency and turned them into creatures akin to suffering pets, killing them became virtuous. The nurses held the disabled babies lovingly, and then killed them.”

Our Choices Matter

Something that I have been thinking about a lot over the course of my life is how our choices have long-term consequences: for ourselves, for the people around us, and even for the history of the world!

For example, to come back to the topic of pandemic preparedness, much of what happened in the U.S. in 2020 was made possible thanks to Bush’s 2005 decision to redo the pandemic preparedness plan. Who paid any attention to it back in 2005? Who could imagine that it would have such a profound impact on our lives? Nobody, probably, except for the people who planned it. And yet here we are …

Or another example. When people accept censorship against the groups that they don’t relate to, they often don’t think that the censors are coming for them next — and yet more often than not, that is exactly what happens.

Or sometimes, a choice that we make at a very young age comes back to us years later, and whatever we tried to escape stares us straight in the face, and we have to deal with it anyway.

Which is to say, courage and trying to do the right thing are not only praise-worthy, they are also very practical, especially during challenging times.

There is most certainly no formula, and no universal prescription for a time like this but it’s important to see the scammers in high chairs for who they are (including when they talk about pandemic preparedness treaties “for our own good”), and to see through them without being afraid. When we stand together, with love in our hearts, we are strong.

About the Author

To find more of Tessa Lena’s work, be sure to check out her bio, Tessa Fights Robots.

May 7, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

Meddling with modelling

Divisive and false claims that the unvaccinated are a danger

Health Advisory & Recovery Team | May 6, 2022

This paper, published in the “peer-reviewed” Canadian Medical Association Journal, quite simply represents an amoral, unethical and utterly transparent attempt to use pseudoscientific modelling to fabricate a false narrative. The apparent objective seems to be sowing divisions in society by marginalising and vilifying the unvaccinated.

The paper describes a “study” which is nothing of the sort. It actually describes a model which the authors have constructed. This is an unnecessarily complex model — and suspiciously so. The model itself has been very expertly taken apart by Jessica Rose here and Drs Rancourt and Hickey for the Ontario Civil Liberties Association here.

The authors appear to have tested their model to death to find the optimal combination of inputs which results in the “narrative” they wish to promote.

The logical flaws in this approach have been brilliantly analysed by Dr Byram Bridle, including a critique of the assumptions made for the various input parameters. Among the more egregious examples are:

(1) the model assumes 80% effectiveness against infection for the Covid injections vs omicron, whereas real-world data suggests zero — at best.

(2) the model assumes very little pre-pandemic immunity present within the community (they assume just 20% when for some time the evidence has suggested much higher levels, especially against severe illness).

(3) the model assumes no waning of efficacy at all over time, a claim not even made by the most ardent promoters of the covid vaccines.

Many news outlets — including Forbes — appear to have been taken in by this sham science and are reporting it as a bone fide “study” with no critical analysis whatsoever, this being their key message:

“The findings counter the common argument that the decision to get vaccinated is a personal one, the researchers said, as the unvaccinated are ”likely to affect the health and safety of vaccinated people in a manner disproportionate to the fraction of unvaccinated people in the population.”

One commentator on Twitter acerbically — though rather accurately — summed up the Forbes article thus:

It is quite clear that the model and the entire article has been constructed to push a political agenda, namely to neutralise the growing realisation by the population that the story they were told in relation to the Covid 19 injections is entirely false. Contrary to the authorities’ official narrative, in the context of Omicron the injections don’t reduce infections or transmission, and actually probably even increase them. Far from being a selfish act, it was in fact entirely rational — and beneficial to one’s fellow man — to decline the injection.

To use Dr Bridle’s words, the paper is actually “Fiction Disguised as Science to Promote Hatred”.

We support and join the many voices calling for this paper to be retracted.

Postscript: When Denis Rancourt, one of the authors of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association’s statement, tweeted the essence of their complaint with it, the paper’s author — David Fisman — didn’t respond by way of any form of scientific justification — he threatened legal action.

May 7, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Virologists push back on more regulation of viruses made more lethal in the lab

By Emily Kopp | U.S. Right To Know | April 27, 2022

Virologists pushed back on the possibility of tighter regulation of viruses tweaked in the lab to be more lethal at a public meeting Wednesday.

An enhanced pandemic potential pathogen is a virus or microbe that has gained increased transmissibility —  capacity to spread from person to person and reverberate throughout a population —  or virulence — capacity to cause serious disease.

Experiments that are reasonably anticipated to generate deadlier pathogens are supposed to receive heightened oversight from the Department of Health and Human Services under what is nicknamed the HHS “P3CO,” short for the pandemic potential pathogen committee.

Though established just a few years ago, critics say the committee’s work is hidden from public view, suffers from glaring loopholes and needs a reboot. Work that contributes to vaccine development or results from viral surveillance efforts in nature is exempted from this extra layer of review, for example.

Speculation by some in the U.S. intelligence community that SARS-CoV-2 may have seeped out of a lab at the pandemic’s epicenter may have prompted a public meeting to consider whether current policies are adequate. Reporting irregularities by a nonprofit partner of the lab involved in gain-of-function research on coronaviruses and funded by the National Institutes of Health called EcoHealth Alliance has also led many to conclude the P3CO needs to apply to more research projects and be more accountable to the public.

One million Americans have died of COVID-19. A review by the U.S. intelligence community last summer about whether the novel coronavirus spilled over from an animal or spilled out of a lab was inconclusive.

The Office of Science and Technology Policy and NIH cohosted the meeting Wednesday.

White House COVID-19 testing czar Tom Inglesby was harshly critical of the existing framework. His top recommendation: Scientists should be required to explain in detail the goals of undertaking such research in the first place, and why less perilous methods could not reach the same goal.

“There must be an extraordinary and public justification,” he said. “I do think there are experiments we shouldn’t do.”

But lobbying groups representing virologists and other life scientists pushed back.

“The systems of review should not be a solution looking for a problem,” said Felicia Goodrum, president of the American Society for Virology.

Goodrum said regulation risks “tying two hands behind our backs” when it comes to modeling pandemic risks.

Goodrum added that the inherently unpredictable nature of manipulating viruses means that it’s unwieldy to determine whether or not an experiment will make a virus more dangerous, so the regulations should be lax.

“We must be careful about dichotomizing research as simply either ‘risky’ or not because it is not possible to absolutely predict the biology of a virus with the committee,” she said.

But Gregory Koblentz, director of the biodefense graduate program at George Mason University, said that an EcoHealth Alliance grant that funded research that made coronaviruses more deadly by swapping their spike proteins is emblematic of lapses in oversight at NIH.

The research was not regulated as gain-of-function work, but NIH did add language to the grant requiring extra reporting if the viral engineering led to viruses that were 10 times more pathogenic. (The chimeric viruses proved to be much more pathogenic than even that threshold, but EcoHealth Alliance did not report it.) That language amounts to a “tacit admission” that NIH reasonably anticipated the work was gain of function, Koblentz said.

Stefano Bertuzzi, CEO of the American Society for Microbiology, conceded that labs should report more often to Congress and that scientists could do a better job allaying public concerns, but stated that the framework is otherwise sufficient.

Bertuzzi signaled he is concerned that Congress could step in.

Labs taking steps toward greater transparency “helps guard against well intended but sometimes overly prescriptive legislative approaches that could undermine the important work that needs to take place.”

Gigi Gronvall, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, said that the “breathless hyping of risks” overshadows strong existing biosafety measures, such as U.S. efforts to train maximum containment labs abroad.

Asked which risks have been misunderstood, Gronvall said that “there is a lot of gray” and that the proper expertise is needed to interpret gain-of-function experiments, but did not go into further detail.

Indeed, some experts called for decreased transparency for controversial research. Colorado State University Biosafety Rebecca Moritz called for limiting the scope of public records requests. U.S. Right to Know has submitted a public information request for records about the university’s research on bat coronaviruses in collaboration with EcoHealth Alliance, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

The documents raise questions about the contagion risks, for example, of shipping of bats and rats infected with dangerous pathogens.

Kanta Subbarao, director of the World Health Organization’s Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Influenza, disputed the idea that research that contributes to vaccine development or results from surveillance should be included in the framework.

Many representatives of the life science and biodefense fields emphasized weighing any regulation against lost opportunities for science. But members of the public who participated in the meeting were much more skeptical of the value of certain gain-of-function work.

Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute, said that the public should not be surprised by controversial gain-of-function experiments for the first time in scientific papers, long after the research has been approved and completed.

Chan called for controversial experiments to be published on preprint servers and the genomes of novel viruses to be deposited into publicly available databases within a year of discovery.

She also called for greater transparency from private “virus hunting” organizations and middlemen between the NIH and labs, an apparent allusion to the EcoHealth Alliance and the Global Virome Project.

Kevin Esvelt, a biologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said creating novel viruses in the lab, combined with the ease of synthesizing viruses from a genome sequence, poses a national security threat.

“More Americans have died of COVID than would perish if a Russian Topol SS-25 thermonuclear warhead were to be detonated in the center of Washington, DC,” said Esvelt. “Pandemic viruses can be more lethal than thermonuclear weapons. That makes them a proliferation concern.”

May 7, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Pfizer and FDA reveal Paxlovid fails clinical trial, as FDA tries to evade its responsibility

FDA emphasizes the drug is not approved, not even for COVID

By Meryl Nass, MD | May 2, 2022

Suddenly Pfizer’s website and the FDA want to emphasize all the problems with Paxlovid. So in the case of this drug, these two co-conspirators apparently think that disclosures will save them from something.

Just look at this language! Compare to the lack of disclosure of adverse effects long known to be due to the COVID vaccines. Have you EVER heard FDA refer to the vaccines for children as unapproved?

U.S. FDA Emergency Use Authorization Statement

PAXLOVID has not been approved, but has been authorized for emergency use by FDA under an EUA, for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in adults and pediatric patients (12 years of age and older weighing at least 40 kg) with positive results of direct SARS CoV-2 viral testing, and who are at high-risk for progression to severe COVID-19, including hospitalization or death.

The emergency use of PAXLOVID is only authorized for the duration of the declaration that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of the emergency use of drugs and biological products during the COVID-19 pandemic under Section 564(b)(1) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(b)(1), unless the declaration is terminated or authorization revoked sooner.

AUTHORIZED USE

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the emergency use of the unapproved product PAXLOVID for the treatment of mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in adults and pediatric patients (12 years of age and older weighing at least 40 kg) with positive results of direct severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral testing, and who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19, including hospitalization or death.

LIMITATIONS OF AUTHORIZED USE

• PAXLOVID is not authorized for initiation of treatment in patients requiring hospitalization due to severe or critical COVID-19
• PAXLOVID is not authorized for use as pre-exposure or post-exposure prophylaxis for prevention of COVID-19
• PAXLOVID is not authorized for use for longer than 5 consecutive days

PAXLOVID may only be prescribed for an individual patient by physicians, advanced practice registered nurses, and physician assistants that are licensed or authorized under state law to prescribe drugs in the therapeutic class to which PAXLOVID belongs (i.e., anti-infectives).

PAXLOVID is not approved for any use, including for use for the treatment of COVID-19.

PAXLOVID is authorized only for the duration of the declaration that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of the emergency use of PAXLOVID under 564(b)(1) of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act unless the authorization is terminated or revoked sooner.

IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION … continue

May 7, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

NEW DATA: VAXXED GETTING COVID MORE THAN UNVAXXED

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | May 6, 2022

BIG TROUBLE IN BEIJING

May 7, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

First ever double-blind randomised trial of Vitamin D for the prevention of Covid infections

Health Advisory & Recovery Team | May 6, 2022

A recent paper describes the first ever double-blind randomised trial of Vitamin D for the prophylaxis of Covid.

HART has been one of many voices previously highlighting the evidence for the role of Vitamin D deficiency in preventing severe outcomes from Covid infections, and questioning why the very safe and cheap measure of ensuring adequate intake was being ignored.

The new paper outlines a study conducted in healthcare workers in Mexico. They randomly allocated subjects (who were only eligible if they had not had covid)) to receive either 4000 IU of Vit D or placebo. The data from 94 Vit D recipients and 98 who received placebo, were included in the per-protocol analysis.

The double-blind study was conducted in late 2020, thus removing vaccination as a possible confounding factor. Covid infection was confirmed by the presence of a positive PCR test following swab testing performed at several time points during the follow-up period, or by positive antibody testing at day 45.

The results are quite extraordinary, demonstrating a highly statistically-significant 78% reduction in becoming infected if a member of the Vit D prophylaxis group; 6 out of 94 Vit D recipients caught Covid, compared to 24 out of 98 on placebo. Notwithstanding that the trial was conducted during a period of high prevalence, the rate of infection in the placebo groups seems high, although the trial was of healthcare workers, and nothing suggests the comparison between the 2 groups is invalidated by the apparent high rate of infection.

One particularly notable observation from the data is that the effect was seen regardless of whether the baseline Vit D level indicated deficiency or not, possibly indicating that the optimal minimum for Vit D levels might be higher than currently thought.

Several criticisms and open questions about the study can be posed. In particular, the study was (obviously) not powered to detect any effects on the incidence of severe disease, and the clinical relevance of preventing infections per se, when, regardless of vaccination status, infections appear to be a prerequisite for full, flexible and durable immunity, must be questionable.

Nevertheless, the study is notable for being randomised and double-blind, and for the magnitude of the observed effect. It integrates into the body of knowledge which is building in relation to the role of Vit D in optimal immunity, and as such supports HART’s contention that willfully ignoring the potential for reducing the burden of Covid on our society with this safe, cheap and simple measure has been nothing short of scandalous.

A detailed thread critiquing some aspects of the study can be seen here.

May 6, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

If your region was a success story with regard to COVID cases earlier, it will be a failure now, or later.

Vermont, for example…

By Meryl Nass, MD | May 5, 2022

AP: CDC: Half Of Vermont’s 14 Counties Have High COVID-19 Levels 

Half of Vermont’s 14 counties have been rated as having high community levels of COVID-19, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The rankings are based on a handful of factors including new hospital admissions for COVID-19, recent case counts, and the community’s overall hospital capacity. Washington County reported the highest number of cases per 100,000 individuals, followed by Chittenden County and Bennington County. The other counties with high community levels of the virus are Addison, Franklin, Grand Isle and Orleans. (5/1) Kaiser Health News.

So much for those high vaccination rates, coupled with people staying home. Vermont is the most rural of US states; in other words, a smaller percent of Vermont’s 624,000 residents live in cities than in any other state. So there were fewer opportunities for crowds.

The lesson is that with endemic viruses, you get it now or you get it later. Have the vaccines worked for more than a few months, it might have been different.

In Maine, I learned today that 70% of COVID deaths in the past month were in the vaccinated–the vaccine is not saving lives, despite what Rochelle may claim while batting her eyelashes and trying to appear earnest.

May 6, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Bill Seeks to Muzzle Doctors Who Tell the Truth About COVID

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | May 5, 2022

One of the most stunning parts of this pandemic has been the denial of basic science, and one of the most shocking developments from that has been the attack on medical doctors who try to set the record straight.

As reported by Dr. Jay Bhattacharya — professor of health policy at Stanford, research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research and coauthor of the Great Barrington Declaration, which calls for focused protection of the most vulnerable1 — a California bill is now threatening to strip doctors of their medical licenses if they express medical views that the state does not agree with.2

Bhattacharya’s Personal Battle

Bhattacharya has first-hand experience with this kind of witch hunt. He was one of the first to investigate the prevalence of COVID-19 in 2020, and found that by April, the infection was already too prevalent for lockdowns to have any possibility of stopping the spread.

Bhattacharya has called the COVID-19 lockdowns the “biggest public health mistake ever made,”3 stressing that the harms caused have been “absolutely catastrophically devastating,” especially for children and the working class, worldwide.4

After Bhattacharya co-sponsored the Great Barrington Declaration, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and his former boss, now retired National Institutes of Health (NIH) director Francis Collins, colluded behind the scenes to quash the declaration from day 1.5

To that end, they set out to smear and destroy the reputations of Bhattacharya and the other coauthors of the declaration. In one email, Collins referred to the three highly credentialed and respected scientists as “fringe epidemiologists” and called for a press “takedown” of the trio.6,7,8,9 I detailed this treachery in “Authors of Barrington Declaration Speak Out.”

“Big tech outlets like Facebook and Google followed suit, suppressing our ideas, falsely deeming them ‘misinformation,’” Bhattacharya writes.10 “I started getting calls from reporters asking me why I wanted to ‘let the virus rip,’ when I had proposed nothing of the sort. I was the target of racist attacks and death threats.

Despite the false, defamatory and sometimes frightening attacks, we stood firm. And today many of our positions have been amply vindicated. Yet the soul searching this episode should have caused among public health officials has largely failed to occur. Instead, the lesson seems to be: Dissent at your own risk.

I do not practice medicine — I am a professor specializing in epidemiology and health policy at Stanford Medical School. But many friends who do practice have told me how they have censored their thoughts about COVID lockdowns, vaccines, and recommended treatment to avoid the mob …

This forced scientific groupthink — and the fear and self-censorship they produce — are bad enough. So far, though, the risk has been social and reputational. Now it could become literally career-ending.”

Do You Want Your Doctor To Be Muzzled by the State?

California Assembly Bill 209811 — introduced by Assemblyman Evan Low, a Silicon Valley Democrat, and coauthored by Assembly members Aguiar-Curry, Akilah Weber and Wicks, and Sens. Pan and Wiener — designates “the dissemination or promotion of misinformation or disinformation related to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, or ‘COVID-19,’ as unprofessional conduct” warranting “disciplinary action” that could result in the loss of their medical license.

Misinformation or disinformation related to SARS-CoV-2 includes “false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.” But as far as what might constitute “misinformation” or “disinformation” is unclear and basically left open for interpretation — by the state. As noted by Bhattacharya:12

“Doctors, fearing loss of their livelihoods, will need to hew closely to the government line on COVID science and policy, even if that line does not track the scientific evidence.

After all, until recently, top government science bureaucrats like Dr. Fauci claimed that the idea that COVID came from a Wuhan laboratory was a conspiracy theory, rather than a valid hypothesis that should be open to discussion. The government’s track record on discerning COVID truths is poor.

The bill claims that the spread of misinformation by physicians about the COVID vaccines ‘has weakened public confidence and placed lives at serious risk.’ But how significant is this problem in reality? Over 83% of Californians over the age of 50 are fully vaccinated (including the booster) …

What is abundantly clear is that this bill represents a chilling interference with the practice of medicine. The bill itself is full of misinformation and a demonstration of what a disaster it would be to have the legislature dictate the practice of medicine.”

The Shanghai Model

We don’t have to guess at what life might look like if this and other bills like it are implemented, Bhattacharya warns. The drama currently playing out in Shanghai offers a clear look into what can happen when public health is dictated by the state rather than by qualified medical professionals rooted in sound science.

“Shanghai is the model for the terrifying dangers of giving dictatorial powers to public health officials,” Bhattacharya writes.13 “The harrowing situation unfolding there is a testament to the folly of a virus containment strategy that relies on lockdown.

For two weeks, the Chinese government has locked nearly 25 million people in their homes, forcibly separated children from their parents, killed family pets, and limited access to food and life-saving medical care — all to no avail. COVID cases are still rising, yet the delusion of suppressing COVID persists.

In America, many of our officials still have not abandoned their delusions about COVID and the exercise of power this crisis has allowed. As the Shanghai debacle demonstrates, of all the many terrible consequences of our public health response to COVID, the stifling of dissenting scientific viewpoints by the state might be the most dangerous.”

The Science Deniers Are in Power

As stressed by Bhattacharya, the California bill includes a number falsehoods and fails to acknowledge basic science, starting with natural immunity. High-quality studies have repeatedly shown that natural immunity is equivalent or superior to the COVID shots. Were this bill to pass, a California doctor could lose his license for taking a patient’s COVID history into account when recommending the shot.

It also negates doctors’ ability to prescribe off-label drugs for the treatment of COVID, even though this has been a common and uncontroversial medical practice for many decades. It’s not uncommon for a drug intended for one condition to be used off-label for another. But for some reason, when it comes to COVID, this practice is now deemed hazardous and unprofessional.

The bill also falsely asserts that the “safety and efficacy of COVID vaccines have been confirmed through evaluation by the federal Food and Drug Administration.” Anyone who has followed this circus over the past year realizes that the FDA has completely ignored loud and clear warning bells showing the shots are far from safe and nowhere near as effective as initially claimed.

The bill also ignores the fact that the safety depends on the individual patient’s medical history and current state of health. “For example, there is an elevated risk of myocarditis in young men taking the vaccine, especially with the booster,” Bhattacharya notes.14

Doctors have an ethical obligation to treat each patient as an individual, and to ensure each patient receives the safest and best care. Bill 2098 will turn doctors into government agents, leaving no one to advocate for patients’ health.

“The false medical consensus enforced by AB 2098 will lead doctors to censor themselves to avoid government sanction. And it will be their patients, above all, who will be harmed by their silence,” Bhattacharya warns.

Californians, Vote NO on COVID Tyranny Bills

California Bill 2098 isn’t the only bill seeking to enshrine tyranny into law. Other pending California bills include:15

Senate Bill 1390,16 introduced by Sen. Pan, which seeks to criminalize “amplification of harmful content” on social media platforms.

Assembly Bill 1797,17 introduced by Assembly member Weber, which calls for the creation of a centralized vaccination registry.

Senate Bill 1464,18 introduced by Pan, which would strip state funding from any law enforcement agency that “publicly announces that they will not follow, or adopts a policy stating that they will not follow, a public health order.”

Those funds would instead be reallocated to the county public health department. Essentially, this bill would coerce sheriffs and police officers to violate their conscience or the law, or both, in the name of “public health policy.”

Senate Bill 871,19 introduced by Pan, which would mandate all school children, ages 5 and older, be “fully vaccinated” against COVID-19. The bill would also repeal exceptions to mandatory hepatitis B vaccination to attend school, and would remove the personal belief exemption against vaccination.

Senate Bill 866,20 introduced by Wiener and Pan, which would authorize minors, 12 years and older, to consent to vaccines without the consent of a parent or guardian.

Senate Bill 1479,21 introduced by Pan, which would expand “contagious, infectious, or communicable disease testing and other public health mitigation efforts to include prekindergarten, onsite after school programs, and child care centers,” and require each school district, county office of education, and charter school to create a COVID-19 testing plan, and report testing data to State Department of Public Health.

If you live in California, please review these bills and VOTE NO. In a Substack article, Margaret Anna Alice, offers the following guidance to Californians:22

“If you are a resident of California, please consider taking the additional step of contacting your respective senators and assembly members in addition to filling out the online portal. See Californians for Medical Freedom for step-by-step instructions on how to contact your local legislators as well as what to say if you decide to call (which is recommended).

The PERK website is also a very helpful way to track the hearing dates and status of these bills. In the comments, Donald Tipon has provided additional links for opposing AB2098 and AB1797 from A Voice for Choice Advocacy.”

Front Groups Marshal the Ignorant

Regulating the medical views a doctor can and cannot have is dangerous in the extreme, and hopefully the Californians who are left to vote in that state will quash such efforts. On the national level, we must also stay vigilant against similar legislative proposals, and push back against phony front groups that promote this kind of medical tyranny.

This includes the No License for Disinformation23 (NLFD) group, which promotes the false information disseminated by the dark-money group known as the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH).

As most now know, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., a medical doctor in his own right, has been the primary challenger of Fauci’s lies, and the NLFD has been instructing individuals to report him to the Kentucky Medical Board, with the aim of getting his medical license revoked.24

An Open War on the Public

We find ourselves in a situation where asking valid questions about public health measures are equated to acts of domestic terrorism. It’s unbelievable, yet here we are. Over the past two years, the rhetoric used against those who question the sanity of using unscientific pandemic countermeasures, such as face masks and lockdowns, or share data showing that COVID-19 gene therapies are really bad public health policy, has become increasingly violent.

Dr. Peter Hotez, a virologist who for years has been at the forefront of promoting vaccines of all kinds, for example, has publicly called for cyberwarfare assaults on American citizens who disagree with official COVID narratives, and this vile rhetoric was published in the prestigious science journal Nature, of all places.25

Doctors and nurses are now facing the untenable position of having to choose between doing right by their patients and toeing the line of totalitarianism. This simply cannot go on. It’s profoundly unhealthy and dangerous in a multitude of ways.

While frustrating and intimidating, we must all be relentless in our pursuit and sharing of the truth, and we must relentlessly demand our elected representatives stand up for freedom of speech and other Constitutional rights, including, and especially, the rights of medical doctors to express their medical opinions.

Sources and References

May 6, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | Leave a comment

Klaus Schwab’s daughter wants governments to use COVID policies for climate change

By Keean Bexte | The Counter Signal | April 29, 2022

Nicole Schwab, the daughter of World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab and current WEF Co-Director of the Platform to Accelerate Nature-Based Solutions, wants governments to take advantage of COVID infrastructure and policies to fight climate change.

“Clearly, the system… is not sustainable,” began Nicole Schwab, speaking at an InTent roundtable. “So, I see it as a tremendous opportunity to really have this Great Reset and to use these huge flows of money, to use the increased levers that policymakers have today in a way that was not possible before to create a change that is not incremental, but that we can look back and we can say, ‘This is the moment where we really started to position nature at the core of the economy.’”

Schwab continues, saying that politicians and businesses have the opportunity to redesign the economies of the world with nature and “regenerative agriculture” in mind before pivoting into a discussion about “engaging youth” with climate change propaganda to create a “restoration generation” (i.e., indoctrinating an entire generation).

“And one of the key reflection points here is also around engaging youth,” Schwab continues. “And, for me, again, I come back to this shift in mindset of the restoration generation. Can we conceive of ourselves as humans — I mean, you talked about a new humanity… Can we conceive of ourselves as a restoration generation?”

“I think that’s where we need to go. I’m also hopeful that it’s possible, but I think it will take a lot of will, both political will but also in terms of the business actors, to break with business as usual… And this is about risk, and it’s about risk, and it’s about resilience because the shocks coming are going to be even worse if we don’t do it now. “

It appears the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

Nicole’s father, Klaus Schwab, has also spoken and written on redesigning society with climate policies at the fore.

In a WEF article entitled “Now is the time for a ‘great reset,’” Schwab senior lays out the three key components of the Great Reset, second of which is “equality and sustainability.”

“The second component of a Great Reset agenda would ensure that investments advance shared goals, such as equality and sustainability… Rather than using these funds… to fill cracks in the old system, we should use them to create a new one that is more resilient, equitable, and sustainable in the long run. This means, for example, building “green” urban infrastructure and creating incentives for industries to improve their track record on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics,” writes Schwab.

The environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics that Schwab mentions sound benign but are truly radical.

As part of their ESG metrics and international dietary framework, the United Nations recommends that red meat consumption be reduced to 14 grams (one bite) per day per person in the name of sustainability and ‘saving the world.’

Climate change education, as mentioned by Nicole Schwab, is another crucial ESG metric in the overall agenda.

Another all-encompassing policy of the UN’s ESGs that’s become increasingly noticeable and disastrous in countries like Canada is a carbon tax on practically everything from food to gas to heating to private businesses that don’t conform to the new normal, which will lead to pricing the average person out of their ability to use private transportation and consumption of meat products.

If you want to read more on ESGs, digital IDs, and the Great Reset, you can do so by clicking here.

May 6, 2022 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »