Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

NEW DATA: VAXXED GETTING COVID MORE THAN UNVAXXED

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | May 6, 2022

BIG TROUBLE IN BEIJING

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

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

Health Advisory & Recovery Team | May 6, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vermont, for example…

By Meryl Nass, MD | May 5, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Seeks to Muzzle Doctors Who Tell the Truth About COVID

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | May 5, 2022

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

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

Bhattacharya’s Personal Battle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Shanghai Model

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

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

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

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

The Science Deniers Are in Power

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

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

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

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

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

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

Californians, Vote NO on COVID Tyranny Bills

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Front Groups Marshal the Ignorant

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

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

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

An Open War on the Public

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

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

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

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

Sources and References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr Coleman’s Banned Covid-19 Book Is Back

By Dr Vernon Coleman – The White Rose UK – 05/05/2022

In September 2020 I put together a 500 page book containing the transcripts of the ‘Old Man in a Chair’ videos I had made for YouTube – plus the articles I wrote in that period.

The book was called Covid-19: The Greatest Hoax in History. The subtitle was ‘The startling truth behind the planned world takeover’.

I wanted a paperback version of this book so that those who want to help spread the truth can share copies with those who might be influenced by the facts. It is important to understand – and remember – how this fraud unfolded. Only by remembering and understanding the past can we really understand the extent of the evil that has unfolded.

The book starts with material broadcast on April 28th 2020 (when my earlier book Coming Apocalypse had finished) and continues until September 2020.

The content is as startling and as accurate today as it was when I originally tried to publish it. It provides a blow by blow account and an analysis of how the hoax unfolded.

I tried to publish this book three times and three times it was quickly banned because the information it contained was considered too dangerous.

YouTube removed all the videos and eventually banned me. (I am now banned from accessing YouTube as well as having a YouTube channel.)

For two years, the only place the book was available as a paperback was Japan where the book is available as five volumes. I’m delighted that a publisher has agreed to publish an English language paperback and an eBook. The publisher is not based in the UK or the US.

Throughout the months to which these essays relate, the laws being brought in around the world were changing almost daily. The only consistent factors were the ever-growing power of the World Health Organisation and Bill Gates, and a complete lack of official interest in the science and the truth.

It was in that period that I devised my specially written triptych – designed according to the psy-op principles used on the British people – ‘Distrust the Government: Avoid Mass Media: Fight the Lies.’

I warned about the damage that would be done by the lockdowns (pointing out that they would kill far more people than covid-19, the demonization of cash (and its replacement with digital money) and the explosion in the number of Do Not Resuscitate notices being issued on the elderly and the infirm. I warned about tests being used to collect DNA. I warned about the way that our world was being changed to prepare us for the Great Reset.

Worried by the safety and effectiveness of the promised vaccine, I tried, unsuccessfully, to make a £100,000 bet with Dr Fauci (in the US) and Dr Whitty (in the UK) about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine.

Covid 19: the Greatest Hoax in History by Vernon Coleman is now available as a paperback and an eBook.

If you would like a copy please go to: www.korsgaardpublishing.com and press the button marked ‘Our Books’. You’ll then see Covid-19: The Greatest Hoax in History.

May 6, 2022 Posted by | Book Review, Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Is Australia a sovereign nation or just a state of Pfizerland?

Don’t mention the Australian vaccine: The TGA bans Aussie Professor from talking about his work

Australia has a mini Ministry of Truth already. It’s called the TGA.

JoNova | May 3, 2022

Australians can probably still get a Pfizer vaccine in chemists and carparks across Australia, but they still need to fly to Iran to get an Australian-made vaccine. The good news is that at least this week it’s legal for Australians to finally fly to Tehran without taking Pfizer or Moderna shot first — as long as they don’t fly on an Australian airline. (Not mentioning any names, Qantas!)

The people mostly responsible for this situation are the TGA (Therapeutic Goods Association). They’re supposed to be looking after Australians health but somehow all their decisions happen to be exactly what a Pfizer CEO would want. Spooky eh?  The TGA rushed the approval for the Pfizer vaccines, but still, millions of doses later, won’t release the procurement contracts, even under FOI. Signed on our behalf, and for our own good, yes? Did they even read the documents that Pfizer AND the FDA tried to hide for 75 years?

Now meet Professor Nikolai Petrovsky from Flinders University, Australia, who had already developed protein based vaccines against the original SARS in 2003 and MERS in 2012, so he was the obvious choice to develop an old fashioned protein based vaccine in Australia. (Hey, but it’s not like we want to develop our own vaccine industry, eh?).

So he went on to make a protein vaccine against SARS-2 and has got approval to use it in Iran. Last I heard (months ago) they had sold 6 million doses to Iran, apparently with great results.

With all the makings of a Great Banana Republic Australia promptly sacked Petrovsky for taking his own vaccine instead of one of the foreign ones approved by The Sacred T.G.A committee. We can’t have vaccine experts at uni picking their own vaccines can we?

Somehow the Australian government spent something like $6 billion on foreign vaccines but asked the small Australian company to pay $300,000 to get approved here. So Petrovsky ran a GoFundMe, and it was so popular it raised a million dollars.  Finally he has permission and funding to run Australian trials, but now he doesn’t have permission to talk about it. Who knew he needed that? Apparently the TGA says it will fine him $13,000 or maybe one million (convenient, eh?) if he does. (Updated: I hear it’s an $11m threat now).

If only Australians were smart enough to hear the words of Professors without “protection” by unaccountable committees?

Unfortunately, Australians can’t take the Australian vaccine in Australia, and if they fly to Iran to get it, they still can’t return to their jobs in Victoria or WA. Who voted for the TGA? This committee controls what every doctor and medical professor can say in Australia. But doctors don’t even vote for them.

For those who are interested —  Petrovsky’s “Spikogen” vax has no RNA or DNA — just protein, and there’s no Furin cleavage site, or TMP (Trans Membrane Protein) either. Those are two parts of the spike that might make it less likely to get into our cells, or to stick in the cell-membrane of our cells  and poke out. (When our cells have those viral spikes displayed they will attract the attention of wayward immune cells and thus increase the risk of myocarditis and other autoimmune reactions). As to how well it works, we hear there are very few side effects. I’ve seen no data yet. If only the Australian Government was trying to help Australian researchers?

The Ministry of Medical-Truth are the same agency that also banned all doctors in Australia from prescribing ivermectin  for Covid, because it might reduce the sales of Pfizer, I mean — because “people might not get vaccinated”.  They actually said that. They also said they banned doctors from using it because some people who weren’t doctors on social media were getting the doses wrong. Like that makes sense. And apparently we were running out of one of the most common drugs on the planet, and still are, because no one in government thought to order any more from Indiamart?

Just in case you wonder who your rulers are Australians

The links:

The TGA Advisory Committee on Vaccines

“The Committee is established under Regulation 39F of the Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1990 and the members are appointed by the Minister for Health.” The ACV was established in January 2017…

Advisory Committee on Medicines Scheduling (ACMS)   The committee that banned ivermectin.

But make no mistake, the man responsible for the TGA (at least for a few more weeks) is Greg Hunt, Minister of Health. Once upon a time he was Director of Strategy at the World Economic Forum (2000–2001). Curious.

The TGA is a disgrace. It’s time to shut it down.

If it were completely captured by Big Pharma, which decisions would it have made differently?

Being slow to approve competing drugs might be exactly what it was set up to do?

May 5, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

The Return to the Good Old Days of Ignoring CDC Recommendations

By Adam Dick | Ron Paul Institute | May 5, 2022

It has been two weeks since a United States district court struck down President Joe Biden’s mandate, imposed through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), that people wear masks when traveling via public transportation, or by taxi or ride-share service, as well as when at related locations, such as airports. After the court decision, most transportation companies and locations have been quick to make clear that people are free to leave their faces uncovered. Many people have been very happy to do just that.

The CDC, however, has not given up on hectoring people to “wear your mask.” On Tuesday, the CDC released a “media statement” titled “CDC Recommendation for Masks and Travel.” Starting off, the media statement declares that the CDC “recommends that everyone aged 2 and older – including passengers and workers – properly wear a well-fitting mask or respirator over the nose and mouth in indoor areas of public transportation (such as airplanes, trains, etc.) and transportation hubs (such as airports, stations, etc.).” Further, the CDC states that it encourages “operators of public transportation and transportation hubs to support mask wearing by all people, including employees.”

Fortunately, the response of many individuals and businesses to this advice ranges from “whatever” to “leave me alone.” More and more people have gotten over inflated fear of coronavirus that never posed a threat of major sickness or death to most people. People have also progressively become aware of the absurdity and destructiveness of forced business closures, “social distancing,” ubiquitous coronavirus testing, experimental coronavirus “vaccines,” mask mandates, and other pseudoscience actions the CDC has pushed since 2020.

America is largely back to the good old days of most people ignoring for the most part when government “public health officials” and people in the media relate CDC guidance that people do this or that. Plus, given the horrid track record of the CDC through the coronavirus scare, more people are now aware of the charade of CDC guidance than ever before. Instead of just ignoring CDC recommendations, many more people than before will feel the urge to research the recommendations and publicly challenge the recommendations when they are found wanting. There should now hopefully also be much more steadfast resistance from the start to any new effort to morph recommendations from the CDC or other so-called health experts into mandates.

Still, the CDC’s media statement this week and the US government hanging on to other coronavirus crackdown measures, including coronavirus shots and testing mandates, to the extent the measures have not been struck down by courts, show that the threat of grand scale tyranny in the name of countering a new purported health crisis remains. In addition, some state and local governments are both holding on to the remnants of coronavirus tyranny and remaining ready to jump back into much more expansive action suppressing freedom in the name of public health.

People must remain vigilant. People must spread the message that the lesson from the coronavirus crackdown is that government violations of individual rights in the name of advancing public health objectives or countering the new disease of the day must be resisted resolutely and vociferously.

People should also keep in mind that, in a variety of circumstances, doctors and other people working the medical field may provide advice that is grounded in the CDC’s priorities and runs counter to the best medical course.

The lure of evil remains strong. To ensure that respect for freedom regained from the coronavirus crackdown tyrants does not fade away, people must remain on guard against and adamantly refuse to accept new encroachment efforts. To keep what has been regained of the good old days, and even expand upon it, people must take action, starting with saying “no” to the health authoritarians at the CDC and elsewhere.

Copyright © 2022 by RonPaul Institute.

May 5, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Do the Pfizer “data dumps” really mean anything?

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | May 5, 2022

The latest batch of Pfizer’s Covid vaccine files just dropped. 80,000 pages of patient files and “trial data” and so and so on.

You can read them all here.

The question is, do they really tell us anything we don’t already know?

The big revelation doing the rounds at the minute is that the vaccines were never trialled with, and were specifically not recommended for, pregnant women.

But is this new information?

When governments started “recommending” the Covid vaccine to pregnant women in the Summer of 2021, everybody who had been paying attention knew that position was not backed up by any data at all.

OffG got temporarily banned from twitter for pointing this out.

More broadly speaking: Of course the vaccines were never tested on pregnant women, they were never properly tested on anybody.

It takes 10 years to safely produce and trial a vaccine, not 18 months. And what “trials” they claim to have done in that year and a half were a complete sham.

In a way, the “not recommended for pregnant women” disclosure is actually good for Pfizer.

Behind a facade of being legally mandated to publish these files, it’s now become public knowledge that Pfizer (allegedly) told people not to give the vaccine to pregnant women, but many countries did it anyway.

This shifts the blame (and potential legal liability) away from Pfizer and onto the governments in question.

A good example of how “forced disclosure” can be used to reinforce and direct a narrative, through a pretence of reluctance.

Going further, shouldn’t we be asking: Can we trust anything in these documents at all?

Just because Pfizer has been (apparently) legally “forced” to release them doesn’t mean they are important, relevant or even real. Who’s verifying the documents? Who’s auditing Pfizer to make sure they release everything? The US government? Some other government or agency?

Do you trust them?

The real damning documents – if such ever existed – have likely been shredded, burned and buried in 20 feet of concrete by now…and that doesn’t matter, because we already know everything we will ever need to know about these Covid “vaccines”:

  1. They were not subject to proper long-term testing.
  2. They have totally unknown long-term side effects.
  3. They allegedly “treat” a “disease” with a 99.85% survival rate.
  4. They don’t prevent infection.
  5. They don’t prevent transmission.
  6. The manufacturers are legally protected from being sued in the event they kill you.

Pfizer can release all the documents they want, nothing will change these facts…only distract from them.

May 5, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

‘Serious’ Covid vax side-effects 40 times more likely than reported – researcher

Samizdat | May 4, 2022

Professor Harald Matthes of Berlin’s Charite University Hospital said on Tuesday that he has recorded 40 times more“serious side effects” from Covid-19 vaccinations than official German sources have. As Matthes called on doctors to speak up for those allegedly injured, US pharma giant Pfizer released a tranche of data apparently showing its jab was far less effective than claimed.

Matthes has been conducting a study entitled ‘Safety Profile of Covid-19 Vaccines’ for a year, and after surveying 40,000 vaccinated people, he has noticed that one in every 125 have struggled with “serious side effects,” Germany’s MDR television network reported on Tuesday.

“The number is not surprising,” Matthes explained. “It corresponds to what is known from other countries such as Sweden, Israel or Canada. Incidentally, even the manufacturers of the vaccines have already determined similar values ​​in their studies.”

However, Matthes claimed that this risk profile is 40 times higher than that noted by the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI), the health ministry agency in charge of the country’s vaccine rollout. The PEI currently states that serious reactions occur in just 0.2 out of every 1,000 vaccine doses administered.

Some of the effects Matthes’ team have recorded include muscle and joint pain, heart inflammation, dysfunction of the immune system and neurological disorders. With 179 million vaccine doses administered in Germany thus far, Matthes claimed that there could be as many as “half a million cases with serious side effects.”

The researcher, whose hospital is regarded as the best in Germany and has treated former Chancellor Angela Merkel, said that doctors need to take action and discuss the prevalence of such side effects “openly at congresses and in public without being considered anti-vaccination.”

In the US on Tuesday, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released 90,000 pages of documents from vaccine manufacturer Pfizer relating to the safety and efficacy of its Covid-19 shot. Preliminary analysis of the document dump suggests that during the pharma giant’s own studies, 1,223 people out of 29,914 suffering adverse events died following vaccination, and that the jab reduced the absolute risk of dying from Covid-19 by less than one percent, a point that has already been highlighted by research published in The Lancet medical journal.

May 4, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

‘Original Antigenic Sin’ Mentioned in the New England Journal of Medicine

By Noah Carl | The Daily Sceptic | May 3, 2022

Suppose an individual is infected with a novel pathogen, and then sometime later is infected with a related version of the same pathogen. If ‘original antigenic sin’ is present, the individual’s immune system will respond to the antigens carried by the original version of the pathogen, resulting in weaker immunity.

The idea is that, for certain classes of pathogen, the immune system’s response to any particular exposure depends on an individual’s first exposure. If two versions of a pathogen, A and B, are circulating in a population, individuals who were first exposed to A may develop weaker immunity against B, and vice versa.

There is substantial evidence that original antigenic sin applies to influenza: those who gain immunity to one strain of influenza may develop weaker immunity to other strains.

It can also apply to vaccines. As a recent review notes, “if we only immunise to a single strain or epitope, and if that strain/epitope changes over time, then the immune system is unable to mount an accurate secondary response.”

At the end of last year, ‘mainstream’ commentators began discussing the possibility that original antigenic sin applies to the Covid vaccines. If it does, we may have vaccinated millions of young people against a version of Covid that poses little risk to them, at the cost of weakening their immunity to subsequent variants.

Now ‘original antigenic sin’ has been mentioned in the context of Covid vaccines in the pages of the New England Journal of Medicine – the world’s most ‘prestigious’ medical journal.

Noting that boosters are “not risk-free”, the American immunologist Paul Offit writes: “all age groups are at risk for the theoretical problem of an ‘original antigenic sin’ – a decreased ability to respond to a new immunogen because the immune system has locked onto the original immunogen.”

He cites a recent preprint by Matthew Gagne and colleagues, who carried out an experiment on nonhuman primates. They began by giving two groups of primates the Moderna vaccine. After 41 weeks, they gave each group a booster shot. One group received the Moderna vaccine again, while the other group received an Omicron-specific booster.

Finally, both groups were exposed to Covid. The researchers measured memory B cells and found that the Omicron-specific booster “provided no advantage” over the original Moderna vaccine. Indeed, they “did not observe a population of Omicron-only memory B cells before or after the boost that was clearly distinct from background staining”.

This means the Omicron-specific booster did not produce any detectable Omicron-only memory B cells at all, though it did trigger the production of more memory B cells specific to the original SARS-CoV-2 strain. It’s important to note, however, that both boosters did increase memory B cells (and neutralising antibodies) to some extent. (Neither was totally ineffective.)

As Gagne and colleagues note, the fact that memory B cells were no higher in the group that received the Omicron-specific booster “likely stems from the principle of original antigenic sin”. How serious this problem turns out to be will depend on several factors, not least subsequent viral evolution.

Offit writes in the NEJM that it “could limit our ability to respond to a new variant”.

May 3, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

People Die Faster After Eating These Foods

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | February 27, 2019*

The struggle with weight gain and obesity is a common and costly health issue, leading to an increase in risk for heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and cancer, just to name a few.

According to CDC figures for 2017-18, 19.3% of American children1 and 42.4% of adults2 are now obese, not just overweight. That’s a significant increase over the 1999/2000 rates, when just under 16% of children ages 6 to 193 and 30.5% of adults were obese.

Research has linked growing waistlines to a number of different sources, including processed foods, sodas and high-carbohydrate diets. Risks associated with belly fat in aging adults includes an elevated risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer.4

Researchers have actually predicted obesity will overtake smoking as a leading cause of cancer deaths,5 and recent statistics suggest we’re well on our way to seeing that prediction come true as obesity among our youth is triggering a steep rise in obesity-related cancers at ever-younger ages.

Millennials More Prone to Obesity-Related Cancers

As obesity rates rise, so do related health problems, including cancer. According to a report6 published in 2014 on the global cancer burden, obesity is already responsible for an estimated 500,000 cancer cases worldwide each year, and that number is likely to rise further in coming decades.

As reported in a Lancet study7 by the American Cancer Society, rates of obesity-related cancers are rising at a far steeper rate among millennials than among baby boomers. According to the authors,8 this is the first study to systematically examine obesity-related cancer trends among young Americans.

What’s more, while six of 12 obesity-related cancers (endometrial, gallbladder, kidney, multiple myeloma and pancreatic cancer) are on the rise, only two of 18 cancers unrelated to obesity are increasing. As noted in the press release:9

“The obesity epidemic over the past 40 years has led to younger generations experiencing an earlier and longer lasting exposure to excess adiposity over their lifetime than previous generations.

Excess body weight is a known carcinogen, associated with more than a dozen cancers and suspected in several more … Investigators led by Hyuna Sung, Ph.D., analyzed 20 years of incidence data (1995-2014) for 30 cancers … covering 67 percent of the population of the U.S. …

Incidence increased for 6 of the 12 obesity-related cancers … in young adults and in successively younger birth cohorts in a stepwise manner. For example, the risk of colorectal, uterine corpus [endometrial], pancreas and gallbladder cancers in millennials is about double the rate baby boomers had at the same age …

‘Although the absolute risk of these cancers is small in younger adults, these findings have important public health implications,’ said Ahmedin Jemal, D.V.M., Ph.D., scientific vice president of surveillance [and] health services research and senior/corresponding author of the paper.

‘Given the large increase in the prevalence of overweight and obesity among young people and increasing risks of obesity-related cancers in contemporary birth cohorts, the future burden of these cancers could worsen as younger cohorts age, potentially halting or reversing the progress achieved in reducing cancer mortality over the past several decades.

Cancer trends in young adults often serve as a sentinel for the future disease burden in older adults, among whom most cancer occurs.'”

Changes in Diet Are Driving the Obesity Epidemic

Studies10,11,12 have repeatedly demonstrated that when people switch from a traditional whole food diet to processed foods (which are high in refined flour, processed sugar and harmful vegetable oils), disease inevitably follows.

Below are just a few telling statistics. For more, see nutrition researcher Kris Gunnars’ 11 graphs published in Business Insider showing “what’s wrong with the modern diet.”13

  • Over the past 200 years, our sugar intake has risen from 2 pounds to 152 pounds per year.14 While Americans are advised to get only 10% of their calories from sugar,15 equating to about 13 teaspoons a day for a 2,000-calorie diet, the average intake is 42.5 teaspoons per day.16 It’s important to realize that it’s nearly impossible to achieve that on a processed food diet.
  • Not only that, you can’t exercise off the excess calories. For example, to burn off the calories in a single 12-ounce soda, you’d have to walk briskly for 35 minutes. To burn off a piece of apple pie, you’d be looking at a 75-minute walk.17
  • Soda and fruit juice consumption is particularly harmful, studies18,19 show, raising a child’s risk of obesity by 60% per daily serving.20 Research has also shown refined high-carb diets in general are as risky as smoking, increasing your risk for lung cancer by as much as 49%.21
  • Between 1970 and 2009, daily calorie intake rose by an average of 425 calories, a 20% increase, according to Stephan Guyenet, Ph.D.,22 who studies the neuroscience of obesity. This rise is largely driven by increased sugar and processed food consumption, and the routine advertising of junk food to children.23
  • To attract customers and compete with other restaurants, companies often add salt, sugar, fat and flavor chemicals to trigger your appetite. Unfortunately, it turns out additives and chemicals supplemented in processing kill off beneficial gut bacteria, which further exacerbates the problems created by a processed food diet.24
  • According to epidemiology professor Tim Spector, even eating a relatively small number of highly processed ingredients is toxic to your gut microbiome, which start to die off just days after eating a fast food heavy diet, suggesting excess calories from fast food may not be the only factor to blame for rising weight.
  • Processed vegetable oils, which are high in damaged omega-6 fats, are another important factor in chronic ill health. Aside from sugar, vegetable oils are a staple in processed foods, which is yet another reason why processed food diets are associated with higher rates of heart disease and other diseases.
  • Soybean oil, which is the most commonly consumed fat in the U.S.,25 has also been sh
  • “Ultraprocessed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain,” research26 concludes, showing that when people are allowed to eat as much as they want of either ultraprocessed foods or unprocessed food, their energy intake is far greater when eating processed fare.
  • In just two weeks, participants gained between 0.3 and 0.8 kilos (0.166 and 1.76 pounds) on the ultraprocessed diet, and lost 0.3 to 1.1 kilos (0.66 to 2.42 pounds) when eating unprocessed food.

As These Foods Became the Norm, so Did Chronic Illness

Unfortunately, Americans not only eat a preponderance of processed food, but 60% of it is ultraprocessed27 — products at the far end of the “significantly altered” spectrum, or what you could typically purchase at a gas station.

The developed world in general eats significant amounts of processed food, and disease statistics reveal the inherent folly of this trend. There’s really no doubt that decreasing your sugar consumption is at the top of the list if you’re overweight, insulin resistant, or struggle with any chronic disease.

It’s been estimated that as much as 40% of American health care expenditures are for diseases directly related to the overconsumption of sugar.28 In the U.S., more than $1 trillion is spent on treating sugar and junk food-related diseases each year.29

Any foods that aren’t whole foods directly from the vine, ground, bush or tree are considered processed. Depending on the amount of change the food undergoes, processing may be minimal or significant. For instance, frozen fruit is usually minimally processed, while pizza, soda, chips and microwave meals are ultraprocessed foods.

The difference in the amount of sugar between foods that are ultraprocessed and minimally processed is dramatic. Research30 has demonstrated that over 21% of calories in ultraprocessed foods comes from sugar, while unprocessed foods contain no refined or added sugar.

In a cross-sectional study31 using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey of over 9,000 participants, researchers concluded that “decreasing the consumption of ultraprocessed foods could be an effective way of reducing the excessive intake of added sugars in the USA.”

Definition of Ultraprocessed Food

As a general rule, ultraprocessed foods can be defined as food products containing one or more of the following:

  • Ingredients that are not traditionally used in cooking.
  • Unnaturally high amounts of sugar, salt, processed industrial oils and unhealthy fats.
  • Artificial flavors, colors, sweeteners and other additives that imitate sensorial qualities of unprocessed or minimally processed foods (examples include additives that create textures and pleasing mouth-feel).
  • Processing aids such as carbonating, firming, bulking, antibulking, defoaming, anticaking, glazing agents, emulsifiers, sequestrants and humectants.
  • Preservatives and chemicals that impart an unnaturally long shelf-life.
  • Genetically engineered ingredients, which in addition to carrying potential health risks also tend to be heavily contaminated with toxic herbicides such as glyphosate, 2,4-D and dicamba.

As described in the NOVA classification of food processing,32 “A multitude of sequences of processes is used to combine the usually many ingredients and to create the final product (hence ‘ultraprocessed’).” Examples include hydrogenation, hydrolysation, extrusion, molding and preprocessing for frying.

Ultraprocessed foods also tend to be far more addictive than other foods, thanks to high amounts of sugar (a substance shown to be more addictive than cocaine33), salt and fat. The processed food industry has also developed “craveabilty” into an art form. Nothing is left to chance, and by making their foods addictive, manufacturers ensure repeat sales.

Processed Food Diet Linked to Early Death

In related news, recent research34 involving more than 44,000 people followed for seven years warns that ultraprocessed foods raise your risk of early death. The French team looked at how much of each person’s diet was made up of ultraprocessed foods, and found that for each 10% increase in the amount of ultraprocessed food consumed, the risk of death rose by 14%.

This link remained even after taking confounding factors such as smoking, obesity and low educational background into account. As you’d expect, the primary factors driving the increased death rate was chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer.

Nita Forouhi, a professor at the MRC Epidemiology Unit at the University of Cambridge, who was not part of the study, told The Guardian :35

“The case against highly processed foods is mounting up, with this study adding importantly to a growing body of evidence on the health harms of ultraprocessed foods … [W]e would ignore these findings at public health’s peril.

A vital takeaway message is that consumption of highly processed foods reflects social inequalities — they are consumed disproportionately more by individuals with lower incomes or education levels, or those living alone.

Such foods are attractive because they tend to be cheaper, are highly palatable due to high sugar, salt and saturated fat content, are widely available, highly marketed, ready to eat, and their use-by dates are lengthy, so they last longer. More needs to be done to address these inequalities.”

Ultraprocessed Foods Linked to Cancer

Another French study36,37 published last year also found that those who eat more ultraprocessed food have higher rates of obesity, heart problems, diabetes and cancer. Nearly 105,000 study participants, a majority of whom were middle-aged women, were followed for an average of five years.

On average, 18% of their diet was ultraprocessed, and the results showed that each 10% increase in ultraprocessed food raised the cancer rate by 12%, which worked out to nine additional cancer cases per 10,000 people per year.

The risk of breast cancer specifically went up by 11% for every 10% increase in ultraprocessed food. Sugary drinks, fatty foods and sauces were most strongly associated with cancer in general, while sugary foods had the strongest correlation to breast cancer.

According to the authors, “These results suggest that the rapidly increasing consumption of ultraprocessed foods may drive an increasing burden of cancer in the next decades.” Study co-author Mathilde Touvier told CNN:38

“It was quite surprising, the strength of the results. They were really strongly associated, and we did many sensitive analysis and adjusted the findings for many cofactors, and still, the results here were quite concerning.”

Diet Is a Key Factor Determining Your Health and Longevity

Research39 published in 2017 linked poor diet to an increased risk of cardiometabolic mortality (death resulting from Type 2 diabetes, heart disease and stroke).

According to the authors, suboptimal intake of key foods such as fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds, and animal-based omega-3, along with excessive consumption of processed foods such as meats and sugar-sweetened beverages accounted for more than 45% of all cardiometabolic deaths in 2012. In other words, the more processed foods you eat, and the less whole foods you consume, the greater your risk of chronic disease and death.

Other research published that same year found that eating fried potatoes (such as french fries, hash browns and potato chips) two or more times per week may double your risk of death from all causes.40 Eating potatoes that were not fried was not linked to an increase in mortality risk, suggesting frying — and most likely the choice of oil — is the main problem.

In a 2013 presentation41 at the European Ministerial Conference on Nutrition and Noncommunicable Diseases by Dr. Carlos Monteiro,42 professor of nutrition and public health at the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil, Monteiro stresses the importance of creating “policies aiming the reformulation of processed foods,” and limiting children’s exposure to junk food marketing, in order to tackle the rise in diet-related noncommunicable diseases.

In my view, eating a diet consisting of 90% real food and only 10% or less processed foods is an achievable goal for most that could make a significant difference in your weight and overall health. You simply need to make the commitment and place a high priority on it. To get started, consider the following guidelines:

  • Focus on raw, fresh foods, and avoid as many processed foods as possible (if it comes in a can, bottle or package, and has a list of ingredients, it’s processed).
  • Severely restrict carbohydrates from refined sugars, fructose and processed grains.
  • Increase healthy fat consumption. (Eating dietary fat isn’t what’s making you pack on pounds. It’s the sugar/fructose and grains that add the padding.)
  • You may eat an unlimited amount of nonstarchy vegetables. Because they are so low in calories, the majority of the food on your plate should be vegetables.
  • Limit protein to less than 0.5 gram per pound of lean body weight.
  • Replace sodas and other sweetened beverages with pure, filtered water.
  • Shop around the perimeter of the grocery store where most of the whole foods reside, such as meat, fruits, vegetables, eggs and cheese. Not everything around the perimeter is healthy, but you’ll avoid many of the ultraprocessed foods this way.
  • Vary the whole foods you purchase and the way you eat them. For instance, carrots and peppers are tasty dipped in hummus. You get the crunch of the vegetable and smooth texture of the hummus to satisfy your taste, your brain and your physical health.
  • Stress creates a physical craving for fats and sugar that may drive your addictive, stress-eating behavior. If you can recognize when you’re getting stressed and find another means of relieving the emotion, your eating habits will likely improve.
  • The Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) can help reduce your perceived stress, change your eating habits around stress and help you create new, healthier eating habits that support your long-term health. To discover more about EFT, watch the video at this referenced link on substack.43

* This article has been updated with new information.

Sources and References

May 3, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »