Science and Pseudo-Science

Has Le Pen paved the way for more Macron?

By Richard Ings | TCW Defending Freedom | April 23, 2022

TOMORROW the French go to the polls to finish the job begun two weeks ago and choose their next elected monarch; if opinion polls can be trusted (with their manipulative influence on voting having become a major discussion point in France over the last few weeks) it looks as if Emmanuel Macron will be returned to the throne for another five years.

If Marine Le Pen, who has never been closer to power, falls at the final fence, she will not be blameless in her failure to take advantage of the seething resentment against the present incumbent. In the traditional head-to-head television debate four days before polls open, with the chance to voice the anger felt towards Macron by her potential supporters, she chose the route of trying to out-technocrat the technocrat. The result was that the smirking, supercilious bean-counter was invited to play on his home turf, within minutes deflecting the discussion away from his record in power to Le Pen’s record in opposition. The opportunity for a reckoning on Macron’s use of state forces against his own people, his enthusiastic embrace of digital IDs to coerce people into taking a novel medical intervention and his contempt for health workers who declined it, was squandered. At the end of the confrontation, he praised the fact that it had been much more ‘controlled’ than their previous meeting in 2017. It was clear to most who had been in control throughout.

Le Pen clearly also has only herself to blame for her political programme. Having once supported lockdowns and the huge accumulation of debt associated with them, she is largely joined at the hip with Macron in her plan to borrow and spend France’s way out of a problem caused by astronomical government borrowing and spending. Her flagship policy of reducing VAT on 100 ‘essential products’ is no match for Macron’s policy of continuing to send people cheques to bail them out, both a pitiful response to the enormous economic problems his decisions have created. Meanwhile, her desire to ban the wearing of the Muslim headscarf in public spaces as a puny symbol of the fight against Islamism essentially codifies the state’s right to decide what you are permitted to wear in public (indeed, Le Pen defended its enforceability in law by pointing out that Macron had found a way of policing his mask mandates).

Her own shortcomings aside, however, Le Pen is handicapped by the fact that, although she mobilised more than 8million people to vote for her, no one is allowed to say publicly that they support her without choosing the path of ostracism. In Britain by 2019 we had become painfully aware of the phenomenon of the ‘shy Brexiteer’, unable to ‘come out’ among friends and family without attracting a torrent of insults which often included the word ‘Nazi’. That’s been the norm in France for Le Pen voters for a long, long time.

However, something not widely reported happened ten days ago when a panellist on a major television show, former Miss France Delphine Wespiser, ‘came out’ in front of millions and said she understood why people might vote for Marine, suggesting she was like ‘France’s mum’. Did she realise what a pile-on would happen in saying that? She got a taste from her colleagues in the studio, but over the next few days found herself threatened on social media for daring to ‘contribute to the normalisation of the far Right’.

Removed from the show under byzantine French rules to do with ‘political balance’, she had to come back as an unpaid guest to report how her accidentally courageous opinion had seen her receive thousands of threats, as well as the call for her to be stripped of other sources of income, such as her featured role on the TV show Fort Boyard. Not being able to make a living for having expressed a view deemed unacceptable by the media (and not even an unpopular view) was, she said, ‘the price of my freedom’, adding defiantly: ‘I’m the spokeswoman for all those unhappy about what has happened over the last five years.’

Wespiser’s small, principled stand for freedom of speech and conscience is a marker of a very positive development. Dissenters are beginning to abandon their natural reticence and defend the right to have a different ‘non-mainstream’ point of view in the public square. The form that seems to be taking at the moment is voting for Marine Le Pen. Whatever her political shortcomings, Le Pen represents the dissident point of view. Crudely expressed, she is the biggest middle finger French people can currently give to the system which has crushed and oppressed many of them over the last few years.

And if not Le Pen, who? Macron has not ruled out a return to mandatory masking, and vaccine passports remain in place for access to hospitals. Le Pen has said she will scrap the system, has called vaccinating children against Covid ‘a kind of child abuse’, and will reinstate the health-workers ‘kicked out like scum’ for refusing to take the vaccine. Macron set up an undemocratic ‘citizens’ co nvention’ on the environment (only to ignore it) while touring the country in what he called his ‘great debate’ during which he lectured an invited audience for several hours. He’s committed to continuing to bore on if re-elected. Le Pen, on the other hand, has proposed a ‘Citizen’s choice referendum’ which, while it may struggle to get passed into law, holds out the promise of a new avenue for political change.

Take her at face value or not, Le Pen has put the word ‘freedom’ front and centre of her campaign. She is making commitments that will, in however limited a way, expand the power of ordinary people to influence what happens in their country. This promise to extend and defend liberty and democracy would be hard to break in circumstances where (unlike Boris Johnson and his smug party-loyal 80-seat majority) she would have to work hard to maintain the trust of those who lent her their vote.

Moreover, the prospect of her coming to power has so spooked the European establishment that they have taken the unprecedented step of calling for the French not to vote for her in what used to be called ‘interference in national elections’ but is now, it seems, just seen as doing the morally correct thing.

With all this in mind, the French now need to consider how much of a defiant middle finger they are brave enough to give to the established order when even today’s poster-boy of ‘democracy’ Volodymyr Zelensky says he is rooting for Macron. Will they stand up to conventional opinion and take the kind of risk Delphine Wespiser, or a nation of Brexiteers, were willing to take? The door to more freedom is definitely ajar. Dare they step through it?

April 22, 2022 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | France, Human rights | Leave a comment

TSA mask mandate

By Vinay Prasad | April 20, 2022

Just imagine we had a competent CDC who ran a cluster Random Controlled Trial of cloth masking mandate in airplanes and measured spread. It could even be factorial design and test different ventilation filters. Imagine the trial was negative– a judge would not need to strike down the mandate. It would have fallen by scientific consensus.

Imagine now it were positive. We could have a discussion about the effect size, if it varies by case rate at the flight origin city or traveller origin cities. We could discuss when the tradeoff might be worth it, and when it might be not worth it.

Imagine the trial was large. It could be powered for interaction by age. Do cloth masks protect babies or is it a false reassurance? Does it protect immunocompromised? Or again, false reassurance?

Imagine the trial had arms for different rules. An ok to snack arm or a no snacking arm. Does it work with a rule modification?

We ran zero such trials. The CDC ran no studies. No one knows the answer to these questions, despite their bluster. The truth is it seems highly implausible that wearing a mask on one ear lobe, while eating pretzels for an hour works.

The CDC failed it’s social contract. It implemented a policy and never generated evidence. This turned a scientific question into a political one. Naturally battle lines were drawn.

Finally a judge comes in and throws out the mandate. Many people are upset with the judge. But the judge didn’t fail you. The CDC failed you. It never ran a trial. It never generated knowledge. It kept us in the dark. It should be no surprise that it lost it’s power and legitimacy. It proved it does not deserve the power it was was entrusted by the people. It failed to use science to reduce uncertainty. We should be ashamed of the organization. I certainly am.

April 22, 2022 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | CDC, Covid-19, United States | Leave a comment

As jabbed athletes collapse, the authorities look the other way

By Guy Hatchard | TCW Defending Freedom | April 21, 2022

THROUGHOUT 2021, attempts were made to debunk persistent reports that an unusual number of athletes were suffering cardiac events which might be related to mRNA Covid vaccination. The main theme of these fact-checking efforts was denial – athletes were not at risk and cardiac events were not happening.

In 2022 this dialogue is evolving because the numbers are growing and harder to ignore. According to an investigative report by OAN, a pro-Trump online US news site, 769 athletes suffered sudden health events between March 2021 and March 2022 with an average age of 23 years. In February, 15 top tennis players were unable to complete their matches in the Miami Open tournament.

Of necessity in the face of mounting numbers of injury reports, the fact-checking dialogue has hesitated on the brink, but on February 1 this year, the Washington Post still labelled stories of adverse effects of mRNA vaccines on athletes FALSE. Its story relied heavily on a discussion of the Danish footballer Christian Eriksen, who suffered a cardiac arrest on June 12 2021 just before half time in a match against Finland. The circulation of the apparently false story that Eriksen had been vaccinated was attributed by the Washington Post to a shady far-Right group in Austria seeking to influence their upcoming election.

Dig deeper and the story gets more murky. Few if any of the participants in this argument on both sides have verified hard facts to hand. The Washington Post, which had probably realised by February that it was quite possible that an unusual number of athletes were unexpectedly falling to the ground, decided to finish its article by asserting that the sporting collapses must be down to Covid, not Covid vaccination. Again no hard facts about actual athletes, just a polarised muck-throwing event.

As a scientist I realise that what is lacking here is reliable data. Why is it lacking? Here is the nub – the authorities are so sure they are right about the safety of vaccines that they are refusing to collect data. New Zealand has refused to institute mandatory reporting of adverse events following mRNA vaccination and other countries are in the same boat. We don’t have a lot of data to go on because it is not being collected. Sporting bodies are not counting either, or perhaps they have lost count or looked the other way.

Delving into the world of psychology, I find this unsettling. Why wouldn’t we collect data? Why aren’t we allowed to ask questions? Why isn’t the Ministry of Health counting and publishing up-to-date medical data on the frequency of cardiac and thrombotic events of all types?

There are stories in the popular press (actually not so popular these days) reporting recent excess cardiac events as due to ‘holiday heart syndrome’ or the need for young people ‘to avoid strenuous exercise’. Neither of these had been a thing until 2021. Why hasn’t the MoH quashed these speculative sallies into obfuscation by publishing data? You tell me.

The finger-pointing gets worse. One particular ‘whack-an-antivaxxer’ sport recently originated at Otago Medical School in New Zealand. A popular digest of a study of 1,000 people born in Dunedin in 1972 was reprinted in leading publications around the world. The article implied that anti-vaxxers suffered from sexual abuse, maltreatment, deprivation or neglect, or having an alcoholic parent as they were growing up. They were also described as low educational achievers likely to suffer from mental illness.

I am a little sceptical by nature, so I noticed that the reports were based on an article in a publication called The Conversation, which has received support during the pandemic from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The Conversation describes itself as both devoted to academic rigour and seeking to explain science to the general public. Curiously its article about the Dunedin survey contained only one quantitative piece of information – 13 per cent of the respondents were vaccine resistant. No other quantitative information was provided to support the extreme characterisation of the vaccine hesitant in the article.

I tracked down the actual study entitled ‘Deep-seated psychological histories of COVID-19 vaccine hesitance and resistance’. Seven of the ten authors were based in the USA. One of the authors disclosed that he is funded by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The survey completed in April 2021 actually found that 13 per cent of the respondents were vaccine resistant and 12 per cent were vaccine hesitant. So fully 25 per cent of the respondents were vaccine hesitant to varying degrees.

I then rapidly came across an old friend used to distort information: absolute differences versus relative differences.

Of those willing to vaccinate (note the word used is willing, not necessarily keen), 62 per cent had at least one Adverse Childhood Event (ACE). Of those hesitant or resistant to vaccination 73 per cent had at least one ACE. The difference between 62 and 73 per cent is not large in absolute terms.

Based on this small difference, Professor Richie Poulton, a Dunedin-based co-author of the study, was quoted in the Otago Daily Times as saying about the vaccine hesitant and resistant responders:

‘The childhood experiences of those surveyed ranged from sexual abuse, parental neglect, poverty, to isolation and lack of achievement in school. They covered the whole suite of difficulties you can think of that might impinge on a person’s good development. Their personality became very stress reactive – they saw danger or threat where there essentially was none.’

Now you probably did percentages at school, so do you think Professor Poulton’s comments accurately reflect the difference between 62 per cent and 73 per cent exposures to at least one ACE? Because I certainly don’t. A significant percentage of both groups experienced ACEs growing up, but they had different opinions about vaccination.

Wouldn’t it be more productive to ask: why do we have such a high rate of ACEs in New Zealand? Is our mental health service under-funded? Is our education system failing us? Is support for families sufficient?

I went further down the pages examining results of a battery of ‘questionnaires’. I found that although there were measurable differences between the two groups: ‘vaccine willing’ and ‘vaccine hesitant and resistant’, their average scores were well within the standard deviation of the mean standardised score for each test.

This means most of those responding to the survey were relatively average people. The vaccine hesitant and resistant were being falsely characterised as ill-educated social deviants. This sounds like victim blaming. So much for the academic rigour and capacity to explain science to which The Conversation proudly aspires.

Were the media comments about the study an unsupported and false attempt to discredit the unvaccinated and categorise them as outcasts and misfits without the necessary intelligence to think for themselves? The small differences between the two groups were insufficient to justify this black-and-white condemnation widely shared around the world’s media.

There were some differences in educational attainment. Some 35 per cent of the vaccine willing had a BA degree or higher, while 15 per cent of the vaccine hesitant or resistant had a BA or higher. However the Dunedin results may be misleading regarding the influence of education. A study in the USA found that people with a PhD were more likely to be vaccine hesitant, implying that a decision not to vaccinate may possibly be encouraged by the development of high level critical thinking.

In the mainstream media articles, Professor Poulton pleaded with us to feel pity for the unvaccinated, because of their supposed difficult childhood (which was in fact not so different from that of the vaccinated). Was he simply lowering our opinion of the unvaccinated by playing upon stereotypes? Subtly hammering home the current mainstream media messaging that only Right-wing extremists and selfish antisocials remain unvaccinated.

Did he realise that the unvaccinated are legitimately concerned about the vaccinated because they have been unwittingly exposed to serious but as yet unquantified medical risk?

As I am aware that Covid mRNA vaccine adverse events are running at 30-50 times higher than any previous vaccine, I would ask different questions of the data:

Were those willing to be vaccinated being misled by the inadequate content of their education?
Do prior adverse experiences provide good reason to be more cautious in future?

The Immunisation Advisory Centre at the respected University of Auckland (incidentally partly funded by pro-vaccine interests) reassuringly says:

‘Confirmed cases of myocarditis are rare. More than 80 per cent of reported cases of myocarditis following mRNA Covid vaccination have recovered quickly with rest and commonly used oral anti-inflammatory medications such as ibuprofen.’

Are you reassured by this, or have you looked at the Medsafe adverse event data where 18,000 mRNA vaccine recipients reported chest pain and shortness of breath – symptoms admitted by the Immunisation Advisory Centre to be indicative of myocarditis?

Have you concluded, like me, that as many as 80 per cent of cases of myocarditis among the vaccinated remain unreported and untreated? A ticking time bomb, of which professional athletes represent only the tip of the iceberg.

The question is, how long are our health authorities going to continue to look the other way and refuse to start counting accurately, appropriately, and retrospectively?

April 21, 2022 Posted by aletho | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | COVID-19 Vaccine, Gates Foundation, New Zealand, The Conversation, United States | Leave a comment

CDC Weighs ‘Upgrades’ to COVID Vaccines as Booster Strategy Fails

By James Lyons-Weiler | PopularRationalism | April 21, 2022

According to CNN, CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) continue to “mull over” what’s next for Covid-19 boosters, and indeed are even considering what the “upgrades” Covid-19 vaccines. There are indications that they know that “entirely different vaccine formulations could be needed”.

Currently, additional booster doses are recommended only for certain people with weakened immune systems and adults 50 and older.

CDC quoted Dr. Sara Oliver, one of CDC’s epidemic intelligence service officers with the Division of Viral Diseases, who provided a robust soundbite:

“Policy around future doses require continued evaluation of Covid-19 epidemiology and vaccine effectiveness, including the impact of both time and variants, and the ability of doses to improve this protection.”

The specifics CNN cited Oliver as seeing CDC needing to take into account include recent case counts, hospitalization rates, and vaccine effectiveness in the US, and also – shocking – including whether it’s waning over time. They also cited that she thought CDC should weigh “the impacts of circulating coronavirus variants”.

We know vaccine effectiveness is unacceptably low – and given Dr. Fantini’s results may actually be negative, indicating disease enhancement.

Oliver stated that the evolution of the virus will be an important consideration for considering “platforms” for future COVID-19 vaccinations.

It’s not hard to read between the lines here. Readers of PopularRationalism already know that the mRNA vaccines have proven to be worse than a dismal failure. This is CDC putting the word out that a second round of vaccine development is expected, and is about the closest we’ll ever see to CDC admitting the vaccination program has flopped.

And it’s surprising to see ACIP being focused on future “effectiveness”. Clearly, if newly formulated vaccines are proposed, they will be a square one in terms of the regulatory stage of development, and we should be seeing data on efficacy, which is a measure of a vaccine’s ability to reduce transmission in a prospective randomized clinical trial, not effectiveness, which is measured using real-world data.

As the real-world data on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness came in, it was quite bad, so the net was lowered from “preventing transmission” and “reducing new infections” to “producing an antibody response”.

So far, according to USASpending.Gov, the US has now spent over 3.63 trillion dollars in its response to COVID-19. According to the US Center for Economic Studies, the US suffered record-smashing loss of -9.5% of its GDP in 2020, and over 30% shrinkage in economic growth.

Nevertheless, both Pfizer and Moderna are taking a stab at vaccines meant to be available against Omicron, but it is doubted whether the variant will be around long enough to even be targeted by the new vaccines. Pfizer is hoping for a vaccine that will remain effective for more than a year, while Moderna’s non-peer-reviewed preprint containing data from their internal study of the efficacy of their bivalent vaccine was cited by CDC with the careful caveat that the preprint had “not been peer-reviewed or published in a professional journal.”

In the heyday of the pandemic, Pfizer and Moderna could get away with sending FDA assurances that they would share data mentioned in press releases once the FDA gave EUA or full-out approval. Now that the fog of the pandemic has lifted, it seems that the standard practice of labeling press releases, such as Moderna’s recent one on their bivalent vaccine as “Forward Looking Statements” is in place, so I suspect Moderna, Pfizer and the SEC got my memos.

Due to evidence of lack of efficacy and need, FDA, Pfizer and Moderna have delayed further consideration of COVID-19 vaccines for young children until June, according to Politico (SeekingAlpha, Politico).

Unfortunately, the companies are still communicating “success” as equivalent with “antibody response” when we all know (or at least my immunology students know that they really should be measuring and reporting memory B-cell responses and the degree of match between the antibodies produced by B-cells upon reinfection and whatever variant or variants have taken over after Omicron is a distant memory.

CDC also shared that Kaiser Permanente – which profits from vaccine sales – was in the driver’s seat of the CDC’s ACIP committee, with Dr. Matthew Daley, ACIP Vaccine Working Group Chairperson and senior investigator at the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Research issuing “marching orders” to the rest of ACIP to be “be more proactive than reactive” on the future of Covid-19 vaccinations.

This article is just a reminder to those who need it that #ParentsAreWatching, and that #ScientistsAreWatching, too.

April 21, 2022 Posted by aletho | Science and Pseudo-Science | CDC, Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, United States | Leave a comment

Bill Gates-Funded Biotech Firm Claims GMO Mosquito Project a ‘Success,’ But Critics Cite Lack of Proof

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | April 20, 2022

Oxitec this week announced results of the first open-air study of genetically engineered mosquitoes in the U.S.

The U.K.-based firm described the results as “positive,” but said, “Larger tests are still needed to determine whether the insects can achieve the ultimate goal of suppressing a wild population of potentially virus-carrying mosquitoes.”

The company’s self-reported results are not yet independently confirmed or peer-reviewed.

Oxitec, the recipient of a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) for “self-limited mosquito field trials,” in April 2021 launched its pilot project in the Florida Keys.

The company completed the first stage of the study with the release over seven months of nearly 5 million engineered Aedes aegypti mosquitoes.

The pilot study was conducted under an experimental use permit issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It was the first to be approved in the U.S., though the company has since received a permit to conduct a similar experiment in California.

Reporting this week on Oxitec’s announcement about its Florida results, Nature stated:

“Wild A. aegypti mosquitoes can carry viruses such as chikungunya, dengue, Zika and yellow fever, so scientists have sought ways to reduce their populations. Oxitec’s engineered males carry a gene that is lethal to female offspring.

“If all goes to plan, when released into the environment, the engineered males should mate with wild females, and their female offspring will die before they can reproduce. Male offspring will carry the gene and pass it on to half of their progeny. As each generation mates, more females die, and the A. aegypti population should dwindle.”

Oxitec’s pilot project in the Florida Keys involves releasing up to 1 billion OX5034 mosquitoes — the first genetically modified (GM) mosquito approved for release in the U.S — in Monroe County over a two-year period.

Oxitec said the mosquitoes have a “self-limiting” gene that makes the females dependent on the antibiotic tetracycline. Without the drug, they will die.

Mosquitoes require water to mature from an egg to an adult. By adding water to the boxes the mosquitoes are deployed in, both GM males and GM females will hatch.

However, with no tetracycline present in the box, the GM females are expected to die in early larval stages.

The male mosquitoes will survive and carry the gene. When they leave the boxes, according to Oxitec, the insects will fly away to mate with wild females to pass the gene to the next wild generation.

In an April 6 webinar about the Florida pilot study, Oxitec claimed the first stage of the experiment was a success.

Oxitec’s researchers collected more than 22,000 eggs from traps set as part of the pilot study, Nature reported. They found the males that hatched from the eggs typically traveled within a one-hectare area around the release box.

This represents the same range over which wild A. aegypti mosquitoes fly.

Oxitec reported all females that inherited the lethal gene died before reaching adulthood, and said researchers could determine this because mosquitoes carrying the lethal gene fluoresce under certain light.

According to Nature, however, reducing A. aegypti populations won’t reduce the need for anti-mosquito pesticides, at least in the Florida Keys, as this specific mosquito type represents only 4% of the local population.

Other mosquito types, such as the black salt marsh mosquito (Aeges taeniorhynchus), described as “more of a nuisance than a disease vector,” have much larger populations in the region.

Nature also cited other limitations of Oxitec’s study results:

“[L]arger tests are still needed to determine whether the insects can achieve the ultimate goal of suppressing a wild population of potentially virus-carrying mosquitoes

“The pilot study was not intended to determine how well the method suppresses the wild population.”

Oxitec said it plans to gather this additional data in an extension of the Florida Keys study, which requires approval from state regulators.

Thomas Scott, an entomologist at the University of California, Davis, expressed reservations about any results Oxitec’s expanded studies would provide.

Scott told Nature, “[t]here’s not enough Aedes-transmitted viral infection in the Florida Keys,” or anywhere in the continental United States, to conduct a study that would determine whether Oxitec’s GM mosquitoes actually reduce the transmission of viruses.

This would require an “enormously expensive” clinical trial, he said.

Scott said disease outbreaks can occur even when A. aegypti populations are low. It’s “just not that simple.” he said.

GM mosquito project in Brazil failed: Yale study

Although Oxitec’s CEO claimed “strong public support” from Florida Keys communities, the company’s first U.S. pilot project sparked protests and pushback from local residents.

Critics warned the promised benefits and potential negative consequences of the project — representing the largest-ever release of GM insects in the world — had not been sufficiently studied.

Oxitec in 2016 released billions of lab-grown mosquitoes in Brazil with the intent to combat the spread of Zika and other viruses.

However, according to an independent peer-reviewed study from Yale University, the continual releases of the GM mosquitoes over a two-year period failed to reduce populations of A. aegypti mosquitoes.

The Yale study also found the GM mosquitoes bred with local Aedes aegypti, resulting in the circulation of hybrid mosquitoes in the wild that could be more aggressive, more difficult to eradicate and that could increase the spread of mosquito-borne disease.

The mosquitoes released in 2016 in Brazil and other locations, including the Cayman Islands, were Oxitec’s OX513A version. The company released a different version, OX5034, in Florida.

The Yale study examining the release of OX513A in Brazil confirms some of the GM mosquitoes’ offspring — which were supposed to die and not pass new genes to the wild — survived to adulthood and reproduced with their native counterparts.

According to the study, 10% to 60% of the native mosquitoes contained genes from Oxitec.

The study’s authors concluded they did not know what impact these mixed mosquitoes have on disease control or transmission but said their findings underscore the importance of monitoring the genetics of the insects.

“The claim was that genes from the release strain would not get into the general population because offspring would die,” Jeffrey Powell, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Yale University and senior author of the study, said in a statement. “That obviously was not what happened.”

Powell added there is no known health risk to humans from these hybrids. However, “it is the unanticipated outcome that is concerning,” said Powell.

Oxitec publicly disagreed with the findings and responded on the journal’s website, telling Gizmodo that Yale’s study included “numerous false, speculative and unsubstantiated claims and statements about Oxitec’s mosquito technology.”

Oxitec’s reassurances did not assuage the fears of environmentalists and Florida residents who expressed concerns prior to the start of the Florida pilot study.

Environmental organization Friends of the Earth described the Florida Keys pilot study as a “live experiment,” noting concerns arising from the Yale study that the GM mosquitoes could reproduce with their wild counterparts.

Billions of GM mosquitoes set to be released in California

Oxitec in August 2021 received an experimental use permit from the EPA to release mosquitoes at a second study site spanning several California counties, and is constructing a research and development facility in California.

Grassroots groups concerned about the proposed California project said there are zero local cases of diseases transmitted by A. aegypti in California — and very few nationally — and no studies on the ability of GM mosquitoes to reduce the transmission of disease.

The groups also accused Oxitec of “corrupt, backdoor political lobbying” to receive EPA approvals, claiming the company “has repeatedly lied to the public [and] refused to produce information requested by the public and independent experts,” has a “concerning history of misrepresentation or failure,” and made “purposeful efforts to cover up those issues and attack … researchers who publish unfavorable findings.”

The groups also claimed a solution to mosquito-borne viruses already exists: the Wolbachia-infected mosquito, “a non-GMO biopesticide mosquito,” which has “a proven record of success.”

Other environmentalists described Oxitec’s pilot studies as a means for the firm to maximize profits, instead of an effort to eradicate mosquito-borne disease.

Oxitec conducted GM mosquito trials in some regions of India, where GM mosquitoes were released in an attempt to control dengue and the chikungunya virus.

Subramanian Swamy, a member of the Indian parliament with the country’s ruling right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party, in 2018 accused Bill Gates of “making Indians into guinea pigs,” citing the after-effects of the release of GM mosquitoes in Brazil.

The BMGF reportedly is heavily involved in the Indian trials.The involvement of the BMGF in the realm of mosquito-borne illnesses has gone as far as to propose, in 2017, alongside the Johns Hopkins Center for Communication Programs, the development of a mosquito emoji, to be “used for public health campaigns.”

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

April 21, 2022 Posted by aletho | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Gates Foundation | Leave a comment

The gene genie is out of the bottle, welcome to Eugenic Britain

By Tom Penn | TCW Defending Freedom | April 20, 2022

Is the UK now at the forefront of eugenics? Are the Covid-19 gene-therapy/altering vaccines the gateway to public acceptance of this? And has the pandemic provided cover for a takeover, not by scientific experts, but dangerous eugenicist nerds?

The Government’s head gene-gnome, Chief Scientific Adviser Patrick Vallance, recently spoke to Genomics England (a company owned by the Department of Health to provide ‘whole genome sequencing diagnostics’) on the potential future uses of genomics beyond the fields of healthcare and medicine.

The backbone to his argument was a reiteration of that contained within a report from the Government Office for Science called Genomics Beyond Health, published on January 26, 2022.

It opens with: ‘How would you feel if your genomic information made your car insurance more expensive? If you could find out whether your child was likely to excel at sport or academic pursuits, would you? Should criminal sentencing account for a person’s genomic predispositions? These are just some of the questions that we might face in the not-too-distant future.’

If government nerds are openly discussing such things and publishing their conclusions within the public forum, it means that such novel societal issues are already on their way. And, as befits the soiled morality of the new Petri Dish Epoch, it all reeks of dystopian degrees of experimentation and, well, eugenics.

Unfortunately, as a nation we appear not in the least perturbed by our new role as microbes in the ongoing phase three clinical trial that has seemingly become normal life in Britain; as exemplified by such government experiments as mask mandates, border closures, school closures and work-from-home orders under the still not ruled-out lockdown, alongside the not so experimental fear (‘nudge’ being the euphemism) programme designed to increase adherence to said measures, and the similarly experimental gene-therapy vaccines.

True to form, Genomics Beyond Health, like so many other such pandemic-era scientific reports, doesn’t concern itself with whether or not genomics should in fact have to impact our day-to-day lives at all, but acts rather as a forewarning system – ‘wrap your head around it now, people, ’cause it’s coming whether you like it or not’.

Which leads me to speculate that the current generation of ineffectual and proven-hazardous Covid-19 vaccines are nothing but a means by which – once having wormed their way on to the childhood immunisation schedule – succeeding generations will adopt the future technologies of eugenics by stealth.

Such a long-term objective simply could not be realised if the Medicines and Health products Regulatory Agency addressed its post-vaccination fatality and extreme adverse event statistics, as one would assume would be routine practice in such a so-called civilised society as ours.

The dismissal of these innocent casualties of the Covid-19 Pharmageddon, particularly as this relates to Genomics Beyond Health, lends credence to the Ministry of Defence’s unofficial view – in turn as it relates to the piecemeal augmentation of humans via their fusion with machines – that to help society face down future national security threats such as Disease X, for example, there could be a ‘moral obligation’ to utilise ‘treatments involving novel vaccination processes, and gene and cell therapies’.

Certainly, far fewer would have taken up the ‘offer’ of the current novel vaccination processes rushed out to crush Covid-19 had the number of adverse events shared the front pages alongside the manufactured case rates and spurious daily Covid death tolls.

So it should come as little surprise then, that on February 28, a month after the publication of Genomics Beyond Health, Pfizer published a complementary blueprint for how to help make the UK a world leader in the adoption of cell and gene therapies.

This is a goal they say could be delivered via ‘the creation of a Gene Therapy Taskforce, bringing together key government departments, agencies, and arm’s length bodies to work together on shared priorities and drive reform. This Taskforce should look to mirror the collaborative, rapid and results-focused approach that underpinned the (Covid-19) Vaccines and Therapeutics Taskforce.’

From pandemic to mock-endemicity. From Covid-19 Taskforce to Gene Therapy Taskforce. From unsullied human to mRNA guinea pig. From mRNA guinea pig to gene-edited superior ‘British’ citizen. From the eugenics of medicine to that of human augmentation. From the hangings of the Nuremberg Trials to a questionnaire and a fifty quid fixed penalty notice. And ultimately therefore, from reality to the Metaverse – the ever-changing climates (pun intended) of the Great Reset’s public health aspect.

Instead of addressing whether humanity should be subjected to the moral conundrums of non-health-based genomics in the first place, the report simply discusses to what conveniently loose and vague degree must the practice be regulated. ‘Will we need more regulation?’ it asks, as if it should even have to.

It continues: ‘We should also consider the impact that genomic services might have if they are offered to the public before the science is truly ready’ – a quite frivolous statement which could easily have been lifted from a pre-rollout Vaccine Taskforce report, the science behind the Covid-19 vaccines themselves long since having proved itself unready.

Yet this hasn’t stopped jabs going into the arms of children who do not require Covid-19 vaccination; the report is therefore all but informing us to expect yet more nauseating medical ethics when it comes to the gene therapies of the future.

‘Regulation on the use of genomic technologies in non-health fields is patchy, and risks being outpaced by advances in the technology … and the UK has no explicit legislation barring the use of genomic analysis in employment (or education) scenarios,’ outlines the report.

‘However, over-regulation risks stifling innovation,’ and (with doubtless a sly wink) ‘if governments hope to make more use of genomic data, that will ultimately need the public’s consent’ (read steal the public’s consent).

How can the microbe-citizens of the Petri Dish Epoch offer fully informed consent when their self-agency is being constantly diluted by the fearful water-torture dripping down upon them from an entirely captured media-pipette? Well, we already know how, don’t we – by their being hurriedly hoodwinked into believing any degree of consent crucial to saving both Granny and Great Britain.

During his discussion with Genomics England, Vallance asked (but made no attempt to answer) the question of whether genomics beyond healthcare, and the practice of assessing people’s genetic ‘liability’ within certain domains of everyday life – known as polygenic scoring – could end up going ‘Wild West’.

The domains he was referring to are such as employment (‘the selection of workers of optimal health or personality for a role’, for example), education (measuring genomic data at birth, ‘so as to enable earlier interventions to improve educational outcomes’, for example), criminal justice (‘to deter or divert those who may be predisposed to criminal behaviour’, for example), and insurance (adjusting ‘people’s car, home, or even holiday insurance’, according to polygenic scoring). It’s not eugenics though, we promise.

That what the scientists ensconced within, or in bed with, the British government are championing is in fact an unnatural system wide open to abuse, stigmatisation, apartheid and financial exploitation appears not to deter dangerous nerds such as Vallance.

He made it clear in his discussion with Genomics England that he is ‘definitely not, and the report is not, arguing for a heavy legislative hand on this, but a wise legislative look at what needs to be done, and a regulatory consideration’.

Wise like the mandates, legislation, guidance, and considerations of the pandemic, Sir Patrick?

The same dangerous nerds lied about the severity of the pandemic. They lied about the merits of locking down the country. They lied when they said that there were no early preventive treatments for Covid-19. They lied about both the safety and efficacy of the vaccines.

On top of all that, they and many of their colleagues of similarly genetically-engineered morality – the Prime Minister included – lied about how they had unequivocally not broken the pandemic rules of their own design: Those rules to which the public were ordered religiously to adhere to no matter the dire personal or societal consequences.

Why would they not be capable of lying about the real aims of using genomics beyond health and medicine, and the future rationales behind its emergency use authorisations?

How many of the nation have repeatedly swabbed around their tonsils and up their noses, and then sent their mucus off to some government-approved eugenics centre, otherwise known as a PCR testing lab? I’ve done it – at one point I wasn’t permitted re-entry to my own country without doing so. Genius.

I doubt there will be much need for commercial ancestry tests in the far future, not when everyone’s genomic family tree will by then be roughly universal: You are of 25 per cent Neuralink, 25 per cent Pfizer, and 50 per cent broadly European descent.

April 20, 2022 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, UK | Leave a comment

Most people are wrong about most things, most of the time

Brief thoughts about thinking

eugyppius | April 20, 2022

Most people are wrong about most things. This is especially true of the people who are brought to your attention by newspapers and television. It doesn’t matter how smart they are, or how well-read, or how thoroughly educated. There aren’t very many fields of endeavour where you can get ahead on the sheer strength of being right. Our expert classes succeed instead by cultivating the correct allies, publishing the right papers in the right journals, working on the right problems, winning the right grant funding, and making the right friends. People who enjoy these trivialities are precisely the people for whom being right is not a priority.

Above all, experts prefer to work within and propagate safe, consensus positions. This is because they have primarily careerist goals, which are best pursued secure from the criticism of colleagues. Being wrong is not nearly so important as seeming wrong, which can cost you promotion. Once you realise that experts are little more than consensus-establishing and -propagating professionals, statements about what the science says or what the literature shows acquire a totally new meaning.

Forget, then, about expert opinion. There is no substitute for doing your own research. In everything that matters to you, you must consider the actual theories that are presented to you for yourself. And, particularly in areas of limited evidence, you’ll be less interested in which theories are wrong (though that matters too), than in the subtler problem, of which theories are more or less probable than the alternatives.

Most of the theories that are put about, are not really theories at all. They are, instead, arguments, designed to justify or advocate for specific policies. Arguments are not genuine attempts to understand anything; they are attempts to convince other people to think in a certain way.

People assemble arguments like they would a house. They develop a program (the plan), collect evidence in favour of this program (the materials), and finally they present their program with all the evidence adduced in neat footnotes (the construction). This approach is reasonable enough, if all you want to do is persuade, but if you want to understand how a given model of reality fares against others, it is the wrong way.

April 20, 2022 Posted by aletho | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

WHO WHISTLEBLOWER ASTRID STUCKELBERGER ON THE WHO’S ‘PANDEMIC TREATY’

Alternative Media | April 14, 2022

Astrid Stuckelberger is an international health scientist with more than 25 years of experience behind her.

But the part I like is that she has also worked for the World Health Organisation (WHO) for many years, and has an intricate understanding of how the organisation operates.

She joined me for a truncated conversation about the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty and why it is extremely dangerous for everybody.

Her referenced document can be found at my website: https://jermwarfare.com/support-my-work

April 20, 2022 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | Human rights, WHO | Leave a comment

Net zero – a grim fairy tale

By Dr Deborah Ancell | TCW Defending Freedom | April 19, 2022

Dear Prime Minister

What would convince you that your ‘net zero carbon’ strategy is a fairy tale?

Let’s go back to basics. Carbon dioxide (CO₂) (not ‘carbon’) is not a pollutant. It’s a trace gas and essential for life. Only 5 per cent of CO₂ is man-made and largely through burning fossil fuels; the other 95 per cent is natural from sources such as oceans or volcanoes. More than 450million years ago (long before mankind arrived) it was 5,000 parts per million (ppm). It’s currently about 420 ppm with the anthropogenic share at 20 ppm, in other words minuscule! There is no known harm from CO₂. Consequently, there is no enemy to fight to attain ‘net zero’; no need for expensive offset schemes to mitigate its purportedly harmful effects; no need to cover the land in environmentally damaging and unsightly solar farms or wind turbines (your ‘white Satanic mills’). Neither of these alternative energy sources has recyclable parts. Birds mistake solar farms for lakes and fry as they land. Offshore windfarms kill birds and the incessant hum is believed to disorient cetaceans. Onshore, where the hum drives sane people to distraction, they kill birds, bats and insects. Discounted energy bills will not compensate for this destruction.

Restricting CO₂ increase to pursue <2^oC temperature rise by 2050 has no evidential basis. Even its inventor (Germany’s Chief Scientific Adviser Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, climatologist and member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admits that the aspirational constraint is a ‘political goal’. The IPCC is the body ‘polishing’ the UN’s climate reports to ensure they continue the drama of ‘climate emergency’ (or some such doomsday title). Actually, temperature increases precede CO₂ rises by 800 years and the residence time for CO₂ is unknown – any time from four to 1,000 years. The outcome of any economic pain you inflict now will not be visible for almost a millennium (when it will be too late to say ‘I told you so’).

Your baffling hyperbole that ‘we were the first to knit the deadly tea cosy of CO₂ that is now driving climate change’ is unevidenced. Anthropogenic atmospheric gases are not analogous to a ‘tea cosy’. Similarly, the belief that increased CO₂ will be detrimental to Planet Earth is baseless when gardeners pump extra CO₂ into greenhouses to encourage growth. In fact, a slight warming accompanying increased CO₂ should deliver a positive impact improving agricultural output. (This will be desirable given the inevitable failure of Ukraine’s 2022 crops.) Increased warming should also reduce winter heating costs (something you favour).

Governments want populations to reduce energy consumption to match restricted supply. However, demand is increasing because of the expansion of innovative, energy-hungry technologies (including the electric vehicles of which you are so supportive). This foretells a worsening supply squeeze which will increase energy prices (yes, be prepared).

In contrast, the much-derided fossil fuels currently blamed for increased CO₂ have many environmental benefits. These include saving whales from extinction (blubber no longer needed as candle fuel), improved hygiene (hot water!) and streets freed from dung-borne diseases resulting from equine transport. We don’t want to return to the 18^th century. Fossil fuels have delivered us to the life we have today and until we have sufficient substitutes, should continue to do so. However, fossil-fuel energy companies are now apologists for their products. They are hobbled by governments in thrall to increasingly vocal lobbies which cannot distinguish between anthropogenic and natural CO₂.

Irrespective, finance houses pushing the concept of a purportedly ‘warming planet’ are using ‘green’ anti-CO₂ criteria in their corporate lending risk and planning. Their endgame is to avoid investment in fossil-fuelled industries as their contribution to reducing CO₂ emissions. Choking energy investment is detrimental to economic growth. As commercial enterprises they are usurping the role of democratically-elected governments and deciding suicidal energy policies at a distance (follow the money).

CO₂ is not our enemy. With no enemy, we have no need to fight. The pursuit of distant ‘net zero’ resembles fraud on a massive, taxpayer-subsidised scale. So, given that it has no evidential basis, how can you justify your strategy?

Next time you meet Greta Thunberg, ask her two questions: ‘What percentage of CO₂ is anthropogenic?’ and ‘How do we tame Mother Nature’s 95 per cent?’ This should finish the fairy tale.

Sincerely

Deborah Ancell

April 19, 2022 Posted by aletho | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Human rights, UK | Leave a comment

The scandalous absence of child vaccine damage information

By Kathy Gyngell | TCW Defending Freedom | April 19, 2022

We have repeatedly referred at TCW to the studied silence of the mainstream media regarding the damage and fatalities associated with the Covid vaccines despite reported reactions (which may be only 10 per cent of the total), now standing at 1,480,307, and nearing the one and half million mark. Fatalities, too, continue their inexorable rise, a further sixteen deaths reported since the end of March, their total now 2,087. For full reports of vaccine adverse effects and events including 352 pages of specific reaction listings, see here.

What is worse, perhaps, than the MSM’s general state of denial is their unconcern about the shocking paucity of the child adverse reaction data published by the Medicines and Health products Regulatory Authority (MHRA). Yet under-18s have been actively encouraged to have the vaccine since the end of July 2021 in the absence of any long-term safety data and despite clear indications that younger ‘fertile’ age cohorts were proving more vulnerable in multiple respects to the vaccine. However no special monitoring system for children has been set up, or none that has been reported. Unlike its Yellow Card reporting involving adults, the MHRA does not break down the child numbers into specific adverse events, as though children were of less importance. As a result we have no way of knowing whether the reports relate to any major, life-changing side-effects such as Guillain-Barré syndrome (muscle weakness caused by the immune system attacking the body’s nerves) or Bell’s palsy (a type of facial paralysis) or to other serious side-effects reported by adults including seizures, nervous system disorders, deep vein thrombosis, menstrual disorders, and eye and ear disorders including blindness and deafness.

With the extension of the vaccine rollout to young children aged between five and 11 since the beginning of April, we have decided it is high time to highlight what is known and not known, what is reported and not reported, about the risk to children of this experimental gene therapy.

Nearly 3.5 million children (3,413,500) have already been injected, with a total dosage (1st, 2nd & boosters) of 5,626,100 jabs, and a total number of 3,735 adverse reaction Yellow Card reports. Data published by the MHRA on Thursday April 14 details:

· Pfizer – 3,400,000 children (1st doses) plus 2,000,000 second doses & 200,000 boosters resulting in 3,424 Yellow Cards

· AZ – 11,600 children (1st doses) plus 8,700 second doses & ‘extremely limited boosters’ resulting in 263 Yellow Cards – Reporting rate 1-in-44

Note: 1,500 doses (1,000 children – 1st doses) removed from last two weeks reporting

· Moderna – 1,900 children (1st doses) and 1,400 second doses and 2,500 boosters resulting in 24 Yellow Cards

Note: 200 children (1st doses) removed from last two weeks reporting

· Brand unspecified – 24 Yellow Cards

Unaccountably it appears that the number of 1st doses (1,000 for AZ and 200 for Moderna) and 2nd doses (500 for AZ) recorded has decreased since two weeks ago. Hence 1,200 children recorded as vaccinated two weeks ago are now missing. No explanation has been given for this. I understand that the MHRA is now on holiday for two weeks so we are unlikely to get any clarity on this until May.

Note too that AstraZeneca which is not recommended for under 18s appears to have been continued. MHRA reports to April 6 2022 show that 11,600 children (up from 11,496 last October) have received one or more doses of AstraZeneca, resulting in an increased Yellow Card adverse event reporting rate of 1 in 44 children (up from 1 in 49 last October). This, shockingly, is counter to the government’s own official guidance and evidence which has been available for patients and healthcare professionals, most recently updated on January 26 2022:

‘COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca is not recommended for children aged below 18 years. No data are currently available on the use of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca in children and adolescents younger than 18 years of age.’ Yet the most recent MHRA publication says:

‘The safety and efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca in children and adolescents (aged <18 years old) have not yet been established. No data are available.’

So why and to which children were these doses given? To vulnerable children prior to the main rollout? And why second or booster doses? Furthermore, whoever they are, are the 263 adversely impacted children receiving adequate care and support? Are the other children who received the AZ vaccine being checked?

Myo/pericardial effects in children

The only specific adverse effects data that has been published for children is 73 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis (inflammation of the heart) in under-18s. This is worrying not least because of the rising and unexplained death toll in young men reported elsewhere in these pages, but also because it is now well-established that the likelihood of this reaction in young men is higher than their risk of myocarditis from Covid infection; a risk which the NHS has warned as being especially the case ‘in young men under the age of 40‘.

Other adverse effects

This still leaves the bulk of 3,735 Yellow Card Reports up to this week for under-18s uncategorised. Yet MHRA themselves state that ‘the experience reported in under-18s is similar to that identified in the general population’. If we take them at their word, extrapolating from the data published on suspected adverse effects in the adult population, children and young people, are experiencing a selection of the following:

· Lymph node pain and swelling

· Heart palpitations and fluttering

· Fever, chills, fatigue and malaise

· Ear pain, tinnitus and vertigo

· Nausea, vomiting and allergies

· Eye pain, swelling and photophobia

· Blurred vision and visual impairment

· Diarrhoea, abdominal pain and distension

· Lip, mouth and facial swelling

· Pain in arm, chest, bones and jaw

· Anaphylaxis

· Respiratory infection, influenza and herpes

· Joint and muscle pain, swelling and stiffness

· Muscle spasms and twitching

· Balance disorders and arthralgia

· Fainting and dizziness

· Facial palsy, headaches and migraines

· Skin sensations, burning and numbness

· Seizures and tremors

· Anxiety, depression and insomnia

· Confusion and disorientation

· Kidney pain and hair loss

· Breast pain and menstrual disorders

· Breathlessness, wheezing and coughing

· Sweating, blisters, rashes and itching

· Haemorrhages (all types) and nosebleeds

· Embolisms and thrombosis

Given the lack of information published as to the adverse effects experienced by the 3.4 million children injected thus far, we have to ask whether their consent was truly informed? The answer has to be no, it was not.

Worryingly there are a number of potential barriers to reporting adverse effects in children. These include:

· Child or parental failure to recognise symptoms as vaccine-related

· Fear of parents of not being believed or thought to be anti-vax or of ‘making a fuss’

· Lack of understanding of potential longer-term issues

· Healthcare professionals’ lack of awareness of vaccine adverse effects

· Young people not seeking help and support especially if they took the vaccine decision themselves

· Yellow Card system awareness and accessibility

Furthermore, if the 3,735 Yellow Card Reports for under 18s is less than 10 per cent of actual figures as the MHRA indicates may be the case, in the absence of long-term safety data, how can the child vaccine rollout possibly be justified, deemed safe or ethical? Why was post vaccine monitoring not insisted on?

This weekend the Sunday Times reported a scandal that Jeremy Hunt, the former Health Secretary, claimed to be worse than thalidomide. He was not however addressing the reckless child Covid vaccine rollout but a deeply shocking investigation into child deformities caused by an epilepsy drug still being given to pregnant women that should have been stopped years ago. Hunt said that while it was ‘never comfortable’ for governments to acknowledge such injustices, the state had a moral duty to the families. ‘It’s time the British state faced up to its responsibilities,’ he said. ‘Just as we eventually did to victims of the thalidomide scandal.’

These are words we need to hear him speak about the Covid vaccines.

I pray that he and this newspaper, which tenaciously and courageously fought for the victims of thalidomide, will not stay blind to the scandal that is happening on their watch; or let years go by before they retrospectively struggle to examine the multiplicity of harms, some of which we may not know till they reach maturity, that children have been needlessly subjected to by the experimental Covid vaccines.

April 19, 2022 Posted by aletho | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | COVID-19 Vaccine, UK | Leave a comment

Few Doctors Telling Truth About COVID Vaccines

By Joel S. Hirschhorn | April 19, 2022

Nearly all physicians work for corporations that require them to take COVID vaccine shots. Most will be reluctant to tell their patients about their vaccine doubts. Also, most do not have the time to study the medical literature about the many negative aspects of the vaccines. Now comes a survey with some interesting findings.

Levels of vaccine hesitancy among physicians seem higher than expected, with 1 in 10 primary care doctors not believing that vaccines are safe, according to a new survey.

Among 625 physicians, 10.1% did not agree that vaccines were safe; 9.3% did not agree that vaccines were effective; and 8.3% did not agree that they were important, Timothy Callaghan, PhD, of Texas A&M School of Public Health in College Station, and colleagues reported online in Vaccine.

The high proportion of hesitancy among primary care doctors “was certainly a surprise for us,” Callaghan said. “We thought it might be a very small proportion of physicians who hold hesitancy about vaccines given that we have lots of evidence of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. [Talk about bias!] However, once we dug into the data, we found that concerns about vaccines in general were far more widespread in the physician population than we might have expected.”

Confidence in vaccines among physicians was still higher than in the general public, as were rates of COVID-19 vaccination, with only 5.2% still unvaccinated at the end of the survey in May 2021. But high levels of vaccine uptake among doctors could have more to do with employer regulations or perceived risks of their workplace environment, Callaghan said.

The research project was inspired by Callaghan’s own experience with one of his doctors who was not vaccinated and tried to dissuade Callaghan from COVID vaccination. Few of us have had that experience!

“It wasn’t my primary care physician, but another one of my doctors realized that I studied issues related to vaccine hesitancy, and over the course of multiple visits, tried to convince me that COVID-19 vaccines weren’t safe and weren’t worth it,” Callaghan said. “It made me question whether this was a one-off, or if we have an actual issue on our hands.”

Callaghan and colleagues conducted their survey from May 14 to May 25, 2021 among 625 physicians in family medicine, internal medicine, or general practice. They were asked how strongly they agreed with questions about safety, effectiveness, and importance of vaccines, among other factors.

Only 67.4% strongly agreed that vaccines are safe, just 75% strongly agreed they are effective, and only 76% strongly agreed they’re important, the researchers found. Good, but not good enough.

“As surprised as we were about the 1-in-10 piece, we were equally if not more surprised by the proportion of physicians strongly agreeing that vaccines in general are safe,” Callaghan said, anticipating that it would have been far higher. Guess there are doctors who see the truth.

In further analyses, Callaghan and colleagues found that higher levels of political conservatism were negatively and significantly associated with agreeing that vaccines are safe. In other words, the more conservative docs saw the truth. They also found those who had COVID-19 were significantly less likely to believe that vaccines are safe.

The team saw similar results for belief in vaccine effectiveness: physicians who were more liberal were more likely to strongly agree that vaccines are effective compared with those who were more conservative.

“Conservatives (in the public) with vaccine hesitancy, served by physicians who share their political views, may therefore miss out on opportunities to be presented with information about the benefits of vaccination; especially in rural areas where both hesitancy and self-identification with right-leaning political views are particularly high,” the researchers wrote. More pro-vaccine bias.

While political affiliation did appear to play some role in beliefs, Callaghan noted a wider problem that might be at play. “There’s not that much training on vaccines and vaccinology … in medical school,” he said. “Most medical students aren’t exposed to in-depth discussions of virology to have those strong opinions.”

“And given the clouded information environment that surrounded COVID-19 in particular, and increasingly, vaccines in general, it remains possible that [physicians] are just relying on what they’re hearing in the news and the misinformation that’s out there, as opposed to best scientific evidence,” he said. The bigger truth is that most docs do not spend time examining medical research data.

The survey also asked specifically about confidence in COVID-19 vaccines and found physician confidence split by vaccine type. While 68.7% were very confident in the safety of the Moderna vaccine and 72.7% were very confident in the safety of the Pfizer vaccine, only 32.1% were very confident in the safety of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn, author of Pandemic Blunder and many articles and podcasts on the pandemic, worked on health issues for decades, and his Pandemic Blunder Newsletter is on Substack. As a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, he directed a medical research program between the colleges of engineering and medicine. As a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, he directed major studies on health-related subjects; he testified at over 50 US Senate and House hearings and authored hundreds of articles and op-ed articles in major newspapers. He has served as an executive volunteer at a major hospital for more than 10 years. He is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and America’s Frontline Doctors.

April 19, 2022 Posted by aletho | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | COVID-19 Vaccine | Leave a comment

COVID Vaccine Mandate for Pilots Violates Federal Law, Puts Passengers at Risk, Citizen Group Warns

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | April 18, 2022

The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) COVID-19 vaccine mandate for pilots violates federal regulations and places pilots and passengers at risk, according to a letter from the California-based Advocates for Citizens’ Rights.

The letter, only recently made public, was hand-delivered in December 2021 to then-director of the FAA, U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and CEOs and legal counsel of major U.S. air carriers (American Airlines, Alaska Airlines, Delta Airlines, Southwest Airlines and United Airlines).

It includes data showing pilots across the aviation industry — including commercial, military and general aviation pilots — face increased health risks from the vaccines due to the unique nature of their profession.

The letter also states that a significant number of vaccine injuries and adverse effects involving pilots have been recorded, and in some instances have forced pilots to stop flying.

The letter claims:

Federal regulations that prohibit pilots who have received non-FDA-approved medical products, such as COVID vaccines, from flying are being violated.
Vaccinated pilots potentially are flying with abnormal health conditions that may be exacerbated by flying at high altitudes. These include heart damage and blood clotting, which could lead to stroke or cardiac arrest.
Some pilots have suffered death and serious injury following COVID vaccination.
The federal government is aware of the issues associated with the vaccines, based on complaints filed with government agencies.
The health risks to pilots from the vaccines may lead to a catastrophic event such as a plane crash, with multiple fatalities and significant legal and monetary liabilities for the government, insurers and airlines.

The letter was co-signed by a series of prominent figures, including:

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., chairman and chief legal counsel of Children’s Health Defense (CHD)
Mary Holland, CHD general counsel
Reiner Fuellmich, attorney and co-founder of the People’s Court of Public Opinion, which launched an international grand jury investigating COVID-related restrictions and mandates
Several other doctors, medical practitioners and lawyers.

In an interview with The Defender, Advocates for Citizens’ Rights attorney Leigh Taylor Dundas, lead signatory of the letter, said products authorized under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) are not fully approved by the FDA, and under EUA rules cannot be mandated.

“Our government has a long history, even with approvals and releases of products … of getting it wrong,” Dundas said. “Witness thalidomide, DDT, all sorts of things like that.”

“As a former environmental attorney and now staunch defender of basic human rights and civil liberties … I get contacted a fair amount by concerned individuals from all walks of life,” Dundas said.

“I was aware from things I had been hearing at conferences … that the inoculation was presenting severe and sometimes fatal issues to those who took it.”

Dundas said:

“I became aware that certain military personnel who were high-ranking surgeons within the U.S. armed forces were not just anecdotally becoming aware that pilots were having severe incidents of injury, but also that statistically that was being borne out by way of the database.

“At the same time, I was becoming aware of similar incidents in the civilian pilot population. So the combination of the two made me sort of pull the string and try to determine if not only was the vaccination causing an increase generally of disease and fatalities among those who took it, but if perhaps [these adverse reactions were] due to the unique combination of pilots being at altitude for long periods of time.”

Dundas said it appeared from the anecdotal, subjective data she was hearing and raw statistical data coming out of the DOD databases that these military doctors had access to — that the pilots were uniquely likely to be suffering ill effects from the vaccines.

Significant health risks for pilots

The letter, along with the accompanying documentation, references numerous instances of adverse reactions sustained by pilots and other health risks they face as a result of the COVID vaccines.

The letter quotes flight surgeon and aerospace medicine specialist Dr. Theresa Long and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, a cardiology consultant for the FAA.

Long and McCullough, who signed the letter, said:

“The risk of ‘post-vaccination myocarditis [is] not trivial.’
“The ‘aviation population is comprised of individuals with demographics that the [U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)] and FDA established (on June 25, 2021) was at greatest risk for developing post-vaccination induced myocarditis.’”

Cody Flint, also a signatory of the letter, described his experience. Flint, based in Cleveland, Mississippi, is an agricultural pilot with 10,000 hours of flight time. He testified at a Nov. 2, 2021 U.S. Senate hearing on COVID vaccine injuries about the adverse effects he sustained.

Portions of Flint’s testimony were quoted in the letter, including:

“I have been very healthy my whole life, with no underlying conditions.

“I received my first dose of the Pfizer COVID vaccine on Feb. 1 [2021]. Within 30 minutes, I developed a severe stabbing headache, which later became a burning sensation in the back of my neck.

“Two days after vaccination, I got in my airplane to do a job that would only take a few hours. Immediately after taking off, I knew that something was not right with me. I was starting to develop tunnel vision, and my headache was getting worse.

“Approximately two hours into flying, I pulled my airplane up to turn around and felt an extreme burst of pressure in my ears. Instantly, I was nearly blacked out, dizzy, disoriented, nauseous and shaking uncontrollably. By the grace of God, I was able to land my plane without incident – although I do not remember doing this.

“My initial diagnosis of vertigo and severe panic attacks – although I’ve never had a history of either of these – was later replaced with left and right peri-lymphatic fistulas, Eustachian tube dysfunction and elevated intracranial pressure due to brain swelling.

“My condition continued to decline, and my doctors told me that only an adverse reaction to the vaccine or a major head trauma could have caused this much spontaneous damage.

“I’ve had six spinal taps over eight months to monitor my intracranial pressure, and two surgeries, eight weeks apart, to repair the fistulas. I have missed nearly an entire year of my life … I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to fly again.

“… the FDA, CDC, and NIH [National Institutes of Health] refuse to acknowledge that real lives are being absolutely destroyed by this vaccine.”

The letter also refers to the case of American Airlines pilot Wilburn Wolfe, who suffered a major seizure following his COVID vaccination. Wolfe died, though not while he was on duty.

It also cites the case of a Canadian flight in December 2021 that was forced to divert back to the airport shortly after takeoff because the pilot, who was recently vaccinated, passed out.

In other testimony from the November 2021 Senate proceedings, Long said the U.S. military was aware of the risks to its pilots, but chose to proceed with its vaccine mandate for service members.

Long said:

“Last May [2021], I attended the Senior Preventative Leadership Program for the Army. When we were given an opportunity to ask the senior leaders questions, I simply asked: ‘So we skipped two years of Phase 2 trials, and three years of Phase 3 trials? We only lost 12 active-duty soldiers to COVID — yet we’re going to risk the health of the entire fighting force, on a vaccine we only had two months of safety data on?’

“The response was: ‘You’re damn right, Colonel. And you’re going to get every soldier you can to take the vaccine so I can get enough data points to determine if the vaccine is safe.’”

Long said numerous soldiers told her about “threats and intimidation” they faced to get the vaccines that were still under the EUA. She said the Army Public Health Command was “not tracking, tracing or monitoring adverse events.”

Additional testimony from Long, cited in the letter, concerned military pilots she treated for vaccine injuries:

“I saw five patients in clinic, two of which presented with chest pain, days to weeks after vaccination, and were subsequently diagnosed with pericarditis …

“The third pilot had been vaccinated and felt like he was drunk, chronically fatigued within 24 hours after vaccination, [stating] he drank a lot of coffee to ‘try and wake himself up’, and continued to fly, until he realized the problem wasn’t going away.

“After I reported to my command my concerns that — in one morning — I’d had to ground 3 out of 3 pilots due to vaccine injuries, the next day my patients were canceled, my charts were pulled for review and I was told that I would not be seeing acute patients anymore, just healthy pilots there for their flight physical.”

The letter referenced 10 reports from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) involving pilots who sustained severe injuries and side effects following the COVID vaccine. According to the letter, these 10 examples are a mere sample of the total number of injuries reported by pilots.

These injuries and symptoms included:

Heart attacks
Atrial fibrillation
Pericarditis
Brain swelling
Elevated intracranial pressure affecting the spinal cord and brain stem
Sub-arachnoid hemorrhages (brain bleeding)
Blindness

Statements from the VAERS reports include descriptions of vaccine injuries reported by pilots.

One report (VAERS ID: 1026783-1) stated:

“The physician determined … I had an allergic reaction to the Pfizer COVID vaccine [that] severely increased the pressure in my spinal cord and brain stem. That pressure causes my vision problems and ultimately ruptured my left inner ear, breaking off several crystals in the process. I cannot fly with this condition.”

Another pilot stated (VAERS ID: 1743012-1):

“Symptoms began almost immediately [post-vaccination] as constant dizziness, body aches, overall weakness. Two months later I woke up with chest pain and difficulty breathing … I was diagnosed with inflammation of the heart cavity and pulmonary arteries … I was later diagnosed with vasculitis, specifically aortitis.

“I was completely healthy prior to the vaccination and there is not a single member of my family with any of the listed conditions … [I am] awaiting a medical evaluation … to determine if I’m allowed to remain on flying status and in the military.”

Another report (VAERS ID: 1768479-1) submitted by a pilot described the following:

“[The] morning following injection, I experienced extreme dizziness and brain discomfort. Dizziness was bad enough to make walking difficult and even created motion sickness … heights of about 10 feet give bad vertigo.

“I am a pilot and aircraft mechanic and this creates an issue working on jets … brain fog is also long-lasting still [sic] and makes mental clarity difficult, which was never an issue until the day after the shot.

“My heart has created irregular heart rhythms, I have physical stress and tire easily and my muscles will shake and twitch after minimal effort … my cognitive skills seem to have diminished from the lasting brain fog.”

Another pilot reported (VAERS ID: 1358033-1): “2 days after second shot, blood clot in left arm. Hit while walking in my home. Could not lift my arm. 5 days later heart attack. Pilot with EKG yearly. Last EKG less than one month from [sic] my heart attack on April 29, 2021.”

And one pilot reported (VAERS ID: 1376453-1): “Severe vertigo experienced for four days and counting … as a professional helicopter pilot, I cannot perform my job with these symptoms.”

In one report (VAERS ID: 1702509-1), submitted by a doctor, a pilot who was also a triathlete experienced pericarditis, chest pressure and irregular heartbeat after vaccination, with pain that “radiated to [the] jaw and neck,” “pressure in the chest” and difficulty walking, despite no prior heart problems.

Another report (VAERS ID: 1245452-1) submitted by a doctor described how a 37-year-old pilot who received the Moderna vaccine, and who had no prior medical history of heart conditions, sustained atrial fibrillation and a decrease in thyroid hormones, leading to him being kept off duty.

In one case (VAERS ID: 1388581-1), a doctor who is also a commercial airline pilot reported “subarachnoid hemorrhage” and “associated nausea, vomiting and photophobia.” According to the VAERS report, the doctor “remains off work pending FAA evaluation.”

This sampling of reports from VAERS is likely only the tip of the iceberg, according to Dundas, who said:

“It’s known that there’s a 1% reporting rate to VAERS, that there’s 99% underreporting. So if you looked at what was already in there, within a few months of this [vaccine] being rolled out and mandated to the pilots, you rapidly did the math … and realized that we are absolutely destroying the health of our pilots.”

The military’s own database, Defense Medical Epidemiological Database, found similar instances of injuries, Dundas said:

“When you looked at the data that these high-ranking U.S. military doctors were seeing, what you rapidly realized is that in all of the years prior to 2021, for the five years preceding that point in time, the total cumulative number of incidents of disease and injury in this database were 1.7 million every single year.

“Then, in January 2021, the U.S. military decided to essentially mandate that their service members take the vaccine, and it was fortuitous that they did it in January; [this] made for a very clean cut in terms of analyzing the data set.

“Within the first nine months [of 2021], the total number of incidents of disease and injury in the U.S. armed forces jumped from a very stable baseline of 1.7 million per year … to almost 22 million … and the year wasn’t even over. That was just the first three quarters of 2021.

“[These were] injuries where military pilots were walking off of flight vehicles, clutching their chests, complaining of chest pain. The military refused to take that seriously and ordered the doctors who would normally be sending these soldiers for cardiac MRIs and EKGs to basically write it off as anxiety or some such [condition].”

Josh Yoder, a pilot with a major commercial airline, Army combat veteran and former flight medic, co-founded the U.S. Freedom Flyers (USFF), an organization opposing vaccine mandates for pilots.

In an interview with The Defender, Yoder said vaccine injuries among airline crews are “extremely common” and are being “actively covered up” by airline companies and the FAA.

Yoder told The Defender :

“U.S. Freedom Flyers receives almost daily communication from airline pilots who are flying with symptoms such as chest pain and neurological conditions post-vaccination. Most of them are afraid to come forward and seek medical attention for fear of losing their flight medicals.

“USFF has documented cases of blood clots, strokes, cardiac arrest, unconsciousness and sudden death among airline professionals which have been medically linked to the COVID-19 vaccinations.”

FAA ‘betting the farm’ a major catastrophe won’t occur

Dundas told The Defender the FAA is aware of these risks associated with the vaccines but is sweeping the problem under the rug.

She said the agency may be hoping “redundancy” in the cockpits of commercial airliners — meaning that two pilots are jointly in charge of flying the aircraft — will be enough to stave off a potential disaster.

“Where that analysis breaks down is during takeoff or landing,” Dundas said, “because during takeoff and landing, you’re not on autopilot. You’ve got both pilots fully engaged, but one of the pilots actively has his hands on the joystick and the controls.”

She added:

“If you’re 300 feet or 1,000 feet above, coming in for a landing … you’ve now got a massive gross muscle unit seizure as [the pilot’s] hand is on the yoke, that’s going to dip a wing and you’re going to have an entire plane full of people cartwheeling down the runway … probably with a mass fatality event at the end of the line.

“Even if you’re betting the farm, as I believe the FAA right now is, because they don’t have a choice, the water is already under the bridge on pilot redundancy. All it takes is bad timing for one of these events to occur on takeoff or landing. And you’ve got an unrecoverable airplane, [a] fatal crash, which the Department of Justice frowns upon.”

Yoder, also addressing this risk, said:

“Pilot redundancy is a critical component to aviation safety. The topic of adverse vaccine reaction and pilot redundancy is a complex one that requires in-depth analysis which the FAA has never studied.

“Critical phases of flight such as take-off or landing pose the greatest risk to passengers, should that be the moment a pilot experiences known side effects of these inoculations, such as blood clots, stroke, cardiac arrest or sudden death, which could lead to an unrecoverable event.”

FAA, airline industry violating federal regulations

In addition to numerous documented instances of pilots sustaining significant injuries and side effects — or even dying — as a result of the COVID vaccines, the letter also indicates the vaccination itself, let alone the vaccine mandates, may be in violation of federal regulations.

Specifically, the letter accuses the FAA, and the aviation industry, of:

“ … putting both pilots and the general public at risk of death and/or serious injury by operating in contravention of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, §61.53, and related guidance which together operate to disallow medical clearance of pilots who have injected or ingested non-FDA approved products — like the COVID-19 inoculation.”

The letter goes on to clarify this clause in the federal regulations prohibits aviation medical examiners from issuing medical clearances to pilots who use non-approved medical treatments, such as those that are being administered under an EUA instead of full FDA approval, and new medications fully approved by the FDA less than 12 months prior, stating that the FDA:

“ … generally requires at least one year of post-marketing experience with a new drug before consideration for aeromedical certification purposes.

“This observation period allows time for uncommon, but aeromedically significant, adverse effects to manifest themselves…”

The letter further quotes the federal regulations as stipulating:

“[N]o person who holds a medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter may act as pilot in command, or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember, while that person … [is] receiving treatment for a medical condition that results in the person being unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot operation.”

As stated in the letter:

“[P]ut simply, any pilot flying right now who has been vaccinated in the United States has almost certainly NOT [emphasis original] received an FDA-approved vaccine …

“And even were such pilots to have received an FDA-approved vaccine, under relevant federal regulations, the pilots should still not be flying for 12 more months …

“The reason for this cannot be overstated: history and common sense evince that significant time must elapse post-FDA approval to ensure that new medical products do not end up causing adverse effects (as did Thalidomide and glyphosate).

“This is particularly true when the individuals who are receiving such new, experimental medical products are spending significant amounts of time at high altitude, and are in control of large vehicles carrying hundreds of other passengers, who could all die or be severely injured should the operator suffer an adverse health event.”

As previously reported by The Defender, and as outlined in the letter, none of the COVID vaccines currently available and being administered in the U.S. have received full FDA approval.

“We’ve got the FAA, a federal regulatory body, that is charged with protecting the safety of the flying public, as well as pilot safety, ignoring their own rule and the guidance on it,” Dundas said.

“Here, we’ve got an inoculation that is wholly unapproved, at least in the U.S., and yet we’ve got major carriers … who are not just ignoring this rule, but mandating their pilots to take this. And we’re seeing hellacious, horrifying results,” she added.

Dundas said the letter clearly warns the government and airlines of the legal and financial liabilities they would face should an airline disaster occur that is traced back to an adverse vaccine-related event suffered by a pilot — especially as it would be on the record that these entities have been made aware of such a risk.

As legal precedent, she cited a $2.5 billion fine levied by the DOJ in January 2021 against Boeing for “fraud conspiracy” involving safety issues with the 737 Max airplane, stemming from Boeing’s concealment from regulators of potential safety issues involving that model of aircraft.

The settlement included payments to the families of passengers who were killed in crashes involving the 737 Max.

Dundas likened the vaccine injury data involving pilots to the internal 1977 Ford Motor Company “smoking gun” memo that revealed the company was aware of safety issues with the Pinto model of automobiles but considered it more cost-effective to pay off future victims than to issue a recall and rectify the problem.

“Essentially what I was doing with the way I crafted the letter was … I was putting all the players in the industry, the regulator, the airline companies and the insurers for the companies, on notice that you probably have a problem here based on the numbers [of adverse vaccine events affecting pilots] that we are seeing,” Dundas said.

The letter provides an estimate of the likely amount of compensation that would result from a hypothetical accident if it could be traced back to an issue the airlines and regulators were aware of: $2 million to $3 million per person.

This amount, according to Dundas, would be “separate from punitive [actions], from fines assessed by the DOJ.”

Did letter cause FAA director to resign?

In February, then-FAA director Steve Dickson suddenly announced his resignation, effective March 2022, claiming it was “time to go home” to his family.

Dickson, however, had previously faced controversy. For instance, during his confirmation as FAA director, allegations arose that during his previous tenure overseeing the pilots of Delta Air Lines, a Delta pilot was grounded in 2016 after she raised concerns regarding the airline’s approach to managing safety risk.

According to Yoder, the real reasons for his resignation may have had less to do with a desire to spend more time with his family and more to do with the hand-delivered letter he received in December 2021.

“Dickson’s resignation came on the heels of the tremendous pressure being applied to the agency via Leigh Dundas’ FAA letter, along with back-channel communication and media attention from [the] U.S. Freedom Flyers,” Yoder said.

Dickson’s promotion of unapproved experimental vaccines for pilots, which violates the FAA’s own guidance, caused a dangerous situation for not only pilots but also the flying public, Yoder said.

“Documented cases of pilots experiencing severe adverse reactions in flight accrue daily, thanks to an inept response from the FAA,” he said. “Internal reports from FAA employees reveal a scandal-ridden agency which needs to be destroyed and rebuilt from the ground up.”

“The FAA’s primary charter is safety and they have failed miserably by approving experimental vaccines for pilots with zero long-term safety studies.”

According to Yoder, the FAA, even following Dickson’s resignation, does not appear to have taken concrete actions in response to the letter.

“Rather than being proactive, the FAA and the airlines have chosen to ignore a prominent passenger safety issue,” Yoder said.

“Historically, it’s taken a fatal crash or series of near misses to execute change within the agency. Fundamental change to safety policy within the FAA is typically written in blood,” he said.

According to Dundas, a recent spate of widespread flight cancellations and protracted delays in late 2021 and up to the present — frequently blamed by airlines on such factors as poor weather — are in fact connected to pilot action in relation to the vaccine mandates, for two reasons: opposition to the mandates, and an abundance of caution by pilots who call in sick at the first sign of any symptoms of illness:

“I think it’s twofold, and I think you’re seeing two things and they’re very logical,” Dundas said, noting that pilots, along with certain other transportation employees, are technically not allowed to go on strike without first exhausting their collective bargaining remedies. That’s the federal law that’s been in existence for decades.

“But this is a cat of a different color,” Dundas said. “You are mandating, against other federal law … an inoculation that you’re not allowed to mandate, and it’s likely unconstitutional.”

“So you have a lot of sectors in transportation that are really not happy saying get the jab, get the jab or your job is going goodbye,” she said.

Dundas added:

“What you saw … were segments of these transportation sectors saying, ‘you know what, we operate heavy machinery and we are required as well by rule and law in many cases to not operate these large pieces of equipment if we are remotely under the weather.’

“So, I think you saw a convergence of two variables. I think you saw pilots who were unhappy at being made to work in unsafe working conditions … in conjunction with a pilot population that was getting now not just the first shot, but the second shot and/or the third shot and a cumulative consequence and concatenation of adverse health events.

“[T]hey [the pilots] are, in many cases, highly educated, caring human beings, [who] wake up in the morning and go, ‘You know what, I’m not 100%, I’m not fit to fly, I’m going to call out sick because I don’t want to take other people down with me if I’m about to have a stroke.’”

Dundas said a recent flight of hers from Salt Lake City was delayed for almost a full day following an adverse event affecting one of the flight attendants scheduled to work on that flight.

Dundas also cited conversations with pilots who told her “they wanted no part of the mandate.”

According to Dundas, the reasons for their opposition were described in the following terms:

“[W]e see our colleagues dying and or stroking out or having cardiovascular events that they are not recovering from.

“And so, we quit rather than sacrifice our health or possibly our lives. And now we’re flying charters [private aviation] where [COVID vaccination] is not a mandate, it’s not required.”

Letter calls on FAA, airlines to take immediate action

The letter from Advocates for Citizens’ Rights calls for immediate action by federal authorities and air carriers, including:

Medically flagging all vaccinated pilots.
Adaptation, on the part of the FAA, of a screening program requiring all vaccinated pilots to undergo medical recertification, including D-Dimer, Troponin, and EKG tests, as well as cardiac MRIs, with medical clearance issued to vaccinated pilots only if they present “a clean bill of health on ALL [emphasis added] tests.”
Medically decertifying and grounding any pilot who fails one or more of the aforementioned tests, or who otherwise displays symptoms of possible blood clotting issues or myocarditis; re-testing these pilots at six-week intervals until they return to a medically acceptable condition.
Allowing commercial aircraft to be operated only by pilots who can show a clean medical examination undertaken a minimum of five days after each COVID vaccination and booster shot, stating that “the current FAA wait time of two (2) days is insufficient to detect a significant number of blood clotting and myocarditis cases (which are manifesting more than 47 hours post-inoculation).”
Immediate investigation, on the part of the FAA, of all commercial air carriers and all insurance companies providing coverage to commercial airlines, regarding the application of federal do-not-fly regulations.
Creation, by the FAA, of “a database to track pilot adverse events in a manner similar to VAERS,” stating the likelihood that “medical adverse events post-vaccination in pilot populations are occurring at greater rates than have been tracked or monitored in either civilian or military populations …”

“[A]ny in-house counsel, any CEO, any insurance company number-cruncher, any airline regulator who reads this [letter] is going to be nothing if not clear about the fact that … there is a problem brewing,” Dundas said.

“Right now, they have completely abandoned their duty to both the pilot population and the American flying population by allowing carriers to mandate a non-FDA-approved medical intervention, in violation of their own regulations and guidance,” she added.

Yoder expressed his unease with the current level of safety of air travel as a result of the vaccine mandate for pilots, stating that passengers are taking a risk by flying.

“Every time a passenger flies with a fully vaccinated crew, they are accepting a predictable risk that their pilots have been injected with an inoculation which has known side effects of blood clots, strokes, myocarditis, all of which can lead to cardiac arrest, incapacitation and sudden death,” he said.

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

April 19, 2022 Posted by aletho | Science and Pseudo-Science | COVID-19 Vaccine, FAA, United States | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »

First Photographs Ever Taken of Iran [1848-1858] + Persepolis, Old World

Aletho News Videos

or go to

Aletho News Archives – Video-Images

Book Review

A Palantir Manifesto

By Alan Mosley | The Libertarian Institute | April 22, 2026

Palantir CEO Alex Karp’s book, The Technological Republic, is a clarion call for Silicon Valley to abandon its consumer trinkets and rush headlong into the arms of the military-industrial complex. According to Karp, America’s future depends on wielding hard power through technology—arming soldiers, AI-weaponry, and mass surveillance systems—rather than on the “soft” influence demonstrated by free markets and liberty-first principles. The book claims that “the survival of the American experiment depends on the technological revitalization of the military-industrial complex” and urges the country’s engineering talent to focus on national defense. Karp and his co-author, Nicholas Zamiska, argue that tech bros should “grow up” and start killing America’s enemies before they kill us. … continue

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Aletho News

Enter your email address to receive new posts by email.

Email Address:

Join 2,460 other subscribers
Visits Since December 2009
- 7,474,347 hits
Looking for something?

Search for:
Archives
Archives
Calendar

April 2026

M T W T F S S

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29 30

« Mar
Categories

Aletho News Civil Liberties Corruption Deception Economics Environmentalism Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism Fake News False Flag Terrorism Full Spectrum Dominance Illegal Occupation Mainstream Media, Warmongering Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity Militarism Progressive Hypocrite Russophobia Science and Pseudo-Science Solidarity and Activism Subjugation - Torture Supremacism, Social Darwinism Timeless or most popular Video War Crimes Wars for Israel
Tags
9/11 Afghanistan Africa al-Qaeda Australia BBC Benjamin Netanyahu Brazil Canada CDC Central Intelligence Agency China CIA CNN Covid-19 COVID-19 Vaccine Donald Trump Egypt European Union Facebook FBI FDA France Gaza Germany Google Hamas Hebron Hezbollah Hillary Clinton Human rights Hungary India Iran Iraq ISIS Israel Israeli settlement Japan Jerusalem Joe Biden Korea Latin America Lebanon Libya Middle East National Security Agency NATO New York Times North Korea NSA Obama Pakistan Palestine Poland Qatar Russia Sanctions against Iran Saudi Arabia Syria The Guardian Turkey Twitter UAE UK Ukraine United Nations United States USA Venezuela Washington Post West Bank WHO Yemen Zionism

April 2026
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
	1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30

Aletho News
If Americans Knew
No Tricks Zone
Contact:

atheonews (at) gmail.com
Disclaimer

This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.

This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.

Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.

Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.

The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.

The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.

Fair Use

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

DMCA Contact

This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.

If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.

We will respond and take necessary action immediately.

If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.

All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

By Joel S. Hirschhorn | April 19, 2022

Featured Video

Book Review

By Alan Mosley | The Libertarian Institute | April 22, 2026

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Aletho News

Visits Since December 2009

Looking for something?

Archives

Calendar

Categories

Tags

Contact:

Disclaimer

Site info