Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

YouTube to censor “new misinformation” preemptively

By Tom Parker | Reclaim The Net | February 17, 2022

YouTube, the world’s dominant video sharing platform, has already removed over one million videos for violating its strict and controversial “misinformation” rules. But in a new announcement, the tech giant has revealed that it’s going to be getting even stricter and suppressing “new misinformation” preemptively before it has the chance to gain traction.

YouTube’s Chief Product Officer Neal Mohan described how the video-sharing platform will start “catching new misinformation before it goes viral” in a blog post. The process will involve continuously training YouTube’s machine learning systems with “an even more targeted mix of classifiers, keywords in additional languages, and information from regional analysts” to identify “narratives” that YouTube’s main classifier doesn’t catch.

Mohan added: “Over time, this will make us faster and more accurate at catching these viral misinfo narratives.”

When YouTube does catch what it calls “viral misinfo narratives,” it will reduce the reach of some videos and push viewers towards “authoritative” videos (videos from brands, mainstream media outlets, and health authorities that YouTube has deemed to be authoritative) in search and recommendations.

For topics where there’s no authoritative content, YouTube is considering using news panels being developed (which direct viewers to text articles for major news events), “fact check” boxes (which direct viewers to content from fact-checkers), and new types of labels that add “a disclaimer warning viewers there’s a lack of high quality information.”

However, YouTube has yet to finalize how these labels will work because “surfacing a label could unintentionally put a spotlight on a topic that might not otherwise gain traction.”

Mohan justified these new censorship measures by claiming that “the fresher the misinfo, the fewer examples we have to train our systems” and noted that new narratives often “quickly crop up and gain views.” He added: “Narratives can slide from one topic to another—for example, some general wellness content can lead to vaccine hesitancy.”

YouTube has been proactively targeting “emerging” misinformation since at least 2020 via its “Intelligence Desk.” The Intelligence Desk initiative launched in 2018 to proactively police “inappropriate or offensive content” and in a 2020 interview, Mohan revealed that it was also being used to look “over the horizon” and “stay ahead of” emerging “conspiracy” and misinformation content before it “becomes a challenge” on YouTube.

February 17, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

David Attenborough and his ‘Great Reset’ WEF cronies hit a big Canadian roadblock

By Susan J Crockford | Polar Bear Science | February 17, 2022

In this essay, I explain in simple terms why The Great Reset concept of the WEF (which not only includes a large climate change component but is also linked to Covid-19 restrictions) is conceptually unsound but so dangerous that it sparked a Canadian uprising that is spreading around the world.

Ottawa, Canada. 11 February 2022. Donna Laframboise, BigPicNews.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) held a special virtual meeting in early June 2020 to announce the publication of a book written by Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret that laid out a grand manifesto called ‘Covid-19: The Great Reset’. This is what Schwab had to say:

We can emerge from this crisis a better world, if we act quickly and jointly. The changes we have already seen in response to COVID-19 prove that a reset of our economic and social foundations is possible. This is our best chance to instigate stakeholder capitalism – and here’s how it can be achieved.

Schwab and the WEF have promoted the concept of ‘stakeholder capitalism’ for decades but it appears that very early in the pandemic he saw the Covid-19 crisis as a perfect opportunity to implement his vision sooner rather than later. This was a red flag for me because it mirrored the actions of David Attenborough that I’d been documenting for my book, Fallen Icon: Sir David Attenborough and the Walrus Deception. Attenborough saw the shocking film footage of walrus falling to their deaths presented in the Netflix/WWF extravaganza Our Planet as the leverage he needed to kick-start an aggressive campaign to promote action on climate change and curb capitalism.

The topics may seem unrelated but statements made by Attenborough last year were barely distinguishable from those made by the Duke of Edinburgh (Prince Charles) in his support of the WEF’s plan for a total revamping of society. While some have dismissed The Great Reset as a conspiracy theory, the concept is very real but esoteric enough to invite wide interpretation.

Worryingly, as critic Justin Honse has pointed out, the WEF has not been forthcoming about the fact that the stakeholder capitalism idea is “not exactly compatible with democracy”. In addition, it’s easy to see that their aim of having huge societal changes fully implemented by 2030 – a scant eight years from now – would cause concern.

I have read Schwab and Malleret’s book. Contrary to my expectations, I did not find it to be a totally irrational rant. However, three core concepts upon which The Great Reset rests are undeniably false, which renders the manifesto invalid and the proposed ‘solutions’ colossally inappropriate as well as unnecessary:

  • That “… there is nothing new about the confinement and lockdowns imposed upon much of the world to manage Covid-19. They have been common practice for centuries.” (pg. 13)

False: Chinese-style lockdowns of millions of healthy citizens are not the same thing as localized quarantines of sick people and their contacts used in modern times to control epidemics.

  • That all previous pandemics were followed by a total reorganization of society. (pg. 13-15, and 38)

False: a reorganization of society after a pandemic has not happened since the ‘Black Death’ bubonic plague in the 1300s.

  • That future climate catastrophes – but especially ‘extreme weather’ – are inevitable unless extraordinary measures are taken to reduce emissions of CO2. (pg. 25, 141)

False: there is no plausible evidence that ‘extreme weather’ has increased in recent years, despite groundless statements to the contrary. Outputs from modelling regarding possible future conditions are not scientific facts and are based on assumptions that may not be correct.

Since these core concepts are false, The Great Reset and all the societal changes it calls for can be dismissed as ideological drivel. But the ideas are dangerous nevertheless because a large number of very rich and powerful people have bought into the plan. Attenborough and Prince Charles are only two of them: there are many others.

When Attenborough said to the WEF in January 2019, regarding his Netflix ‘Our Planet’ documentary, “If people can truly understand what is at stake, I believe they will give permission to business and governments to get on with the practical solutions,” he implied that democratic votes would be involved.

However, it is easy to see how many people would interpret ‘The Great Reset’ manifesto as a grand plan to circumvent democracy.

In part, this is because they have seen how easy it was for governments around the world to use hastily-declared public health emergency powers to enforce drastic restrictions on people’s movements and their ability to make a living, including the imposition of vaccine passports that pave the way toward more generalized digital ID systems. It doesn’t take much imagination to realize that similar legislation might be enacted to deal with a perceived climate change ‘emergency’.

This seems like a reasonable concern to me, especially when activists have already been insisting governments declare a climate emergency, which many governments have already agreed to do.

It is apparent that Schwab and his supporters realized by April 2020 that mandating the most rigid restrictions imaginable on people’s lives was not only possible in democratic countries but much easier than they anticipated – provided that populations were sufficiently frightened by coordinated media reports and government announcements.

When people around the world submitted with virtually no resistance to lockdowns imposed to protect their lives, it appeared that Schwab and his confederates assumed those same people would readily submit to mandated, communist-style restriction on their freedom to mitigate climate change since it would also be for their own good. However, convincing people that a climate emergency would require acquiescence with even more draconian regulations might be a more difficult challenge. Insisting on 100% compliance with vaccine passports and mask wearing now might make compliance with climate emergency measures and other social changes easier a few years down the line.

Vaccine passports have been defended by many as a necessary mitigation strategy to reduce illness while others have more honestly admitted they are simply a way to coerce the unvaccinated to submit. However, now that it’s apparent that none of the Covid-19 vaccines prevent infection or transmission, many people are interpreting continued insistence on vaccine passports as irrational and dangerous. They are starting to wonder if this is a ploy by governments to advance Great Reset ideology by stealth. Others simply see the danger in governments having so much power to restrict people’s lives.

And now, the assumption that people will continue to comply with mandates and restrictions has hit a giant roadblock – quite literally. A few weeks ago, working class people across Canada said they’d had enough of Covid-19 mandates and backed up their convictions with strategically parked big-rig trucks, farm tractors, and other vehicles. They amassed an astonishing amount of support very quickly, proving it was not a fringe minority opinion.

After three weeks of massive disruption across the country, the truckers continue to insist they will not stop their protests until all mandates and restrictions are lifted: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has steadfastly refused to do so, resorting instead to deriding and slandering the protesters. This week, he invoked Canada’s Emergencies Act to quell the peaceful protests even though the act was never intended for this purpose. Under this authority, Trudeau has threatened every Canadian who donated even $10 to support the peaceful truckers protest with freezing their bank accounts.

His rigid position and draconian actions are making many people wonder why. The pandemic is over and countries around the world are scrapping restrictions, mask mandates, and vaccine passports. Expanding them at this time, as Canada is doing, makes no sense as a public health measure but does if the end game is the adoption of WEF-style societal change. And now you see why I felt it was so critical to show how Attenborough manipulated the falling walrus tragedy to his advantage: he is one of the elites pushing for these WEF transformations.

No wonder the Canadian truckers Freedom Convoy has inspired citizens in other countries such as Australia and France to rise up and fight back against tyrannical ‘health’ restrictions: they understand now that it’s not about Covid-19 anymore.

February 17, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Heart threat to young men is now undeniable, but vaccinations continue

By Kathy Gyngell | TCW Defending Freedom | February 17, 2022

IT gives me no pleasure to be the fortnightly bearer of bad tidings. It gives me even less pleasure to know that TCW Defending Freedom has been the only media outlet since last July to have regularly published MHRA Yellow Card reports – the records of adverse effects from the Covid vaccines.

We commission a detailed and professional analysis of the data each time, so that we can properly track the consequences of the jabs – including the rising list of fatalities – and freely pass on the information to our readers.

We believe it remains vital that we keep the data accessible in the public domain, with the details that most people would neither be able to find or calculate on their own.

The Yellow Card headlines this week are that deaths have topped 2,000 and now stand at 2,010.

The percentage of reactions to injections stands at one in 118, up from the one in 123 recorded before Christmas.

Reported cases of myocarditis (heart muscle inflammation) are significantly up again, now at 1,941. This compares with 1,362 reported by the beginning of December.

This last development is worrying indeed. First, because of the unexplained excess young male deaths last year that the Government now acknowledges, as Dr Ros Jones reported in TCW yesterday. Second, 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.

In this context I would point readers and health professionals to the Government’s own ‘information for health care professionals’ published on January 17.

It emphasises that all suspected cases must be reported to the MHRA using the Yellow Card scheme. It specifically demands that ‘in addition, a serum sample should be collected from any patient that is suspected of experiencing myocarditis or pericarditis following any Covid-19 vaccination and sent to the UK Health Security Agency, Colindale.  Please use the code “Heart Inflammation” or “Myocarditis” for easy identification and which vaccine dose (and vaccine brand) the symptoms developed after.’

Despite this admission of urgency, we have yet to see any alert by the Government to pause the vaccine for younger men, women and children.

We can only conclude that ministers are choosing to disregard a serious risk that they themselves warn of – a worrying display of acute cognitive dissonance.

‘Anyone who develops these symptoms within ten days of a Covid-19 vaccination should urgently seek medical assistance,’ the information alert adjures.

But from the tone of the message, all is seemingly okay, because ‘the existing evidence base shows that most patients with myocarditis post-vaccination respond well to standard treatment for the acute episode, and the prognosis of the myocarditis is good’.

However, it adds that ‘it may have long-term consequences and studies are in progress to further understand the potential longer-term consequences with follow-up at three months and six months’.

Well, we’ll just have to pray that each individual strikes lucky, won’t we? Because while myocarditis may be mild, bringing few or no symptoms, it can also be severe, causing life-threatening heart failure. 

Furthermore, no one can deny that its immediate complications include ventricular dysrhythmias (abnormal heart rhythm), left ventricular aneurysm (swelling of a weakened muscular wall), congestive heart failure, and dilated cardiomyopathy (thinning of the left ventricle). Or that, despite optimal medical management, overall mortality has not changed in the last 30 years. The mortality rate is up to 20 per cent at one year and 50 per cent at five years. 

Why on Earth would any government actively inflict this hazard on healthy young people who are effectively at zero risk of dying from Covid?

Such breathtaking complacency is alarming. It is as though simply acknowledging myocarditis as a reaction makes everything all right and no further action is needed. In effect, the Government can’t ignore the problem, so it neutralises it by normalising it. That may be convenient, but it is mendacious and dangerously disingenuous.

Here is our latest MHRA Yellow Card combination reporting summary up to February 2, 2022 (data published February 10, 2022):

Adult – Primary and Booster/Third Dose, Child Administration

* Pfizer: 25.8million people, 48.7million doses. Yellow Card reporting rate, one in 158 people impacted.

* Astrazeneca: 24.9million people, 49.1million doses. Yellow Card reporting rate, one in 102 people impacted.

* Moderna: 1.6million people, three million doses. Yellow Card reporting rate, one in 45 people impacted

Overall one in 118 people injected experienced a Yellow Card Adverse Event, which may be fewer than 10 per cent of actual figures, according to MHRA.

Adult Booster or 3rd Doses given = 37,419,104 people

Booster Yellow Card Reports: 28,481 (Pfizer) + 452 (AZ) + 15,682 (Moderna) + 148 (Unknown) = 44,763.

Reactions: 469,842 (Pfizer) + 861,650 (AZ) + 117,517 (Moderna) + 4,596 (Unknown) = 1,453,605.

Reports: 163,709 (Pfizer) + 243,279 (AZ) + 35,302 (Moderna) + 1,509 (Unknown) = 443,799 people impacted.

Fatal: 717 (Pfizer) + 1,218 (AZ) + 37 (Moderna) + 38 (Unknown) = 2,010

Blood disorders: 16,694 (Pfizer) + 7,787 (AZ) + 2,405 (Moderna) + 62 (Unknown) = 26,948.

Pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis: 871 (Pfizer) + 3,026 (AZ) + 100 (Moderna) + 25 (Unknown) = 4,022.

Anaphylaxis: 648 (Pfizer) + 870 (AZ) + 87 (Moderna) + 2 (Unknown) = 1,607.

Acute cardiac: 12,094 (Pfizer) + 11,095 (AZ) + 2,965 (Moderna) + 88 (Unknown) = 26,242.

Pericarditis/myocarditis: 1,200 (Pfizer) + 428 (AZ) + 306 (Moderna) + 7 (Unknown) = 1,941

Eye Disorders: 7,700 (Pfizer) + 14,776 (AZ) + 1,445 (Moderna) + 83 (Unknown) = 24,004.

Blindness: 153 (Pfizer) + 316 (AZ) + 31 (Moderna) + 4 (Unknown) = 504.

Deafness: 284 (Pfizer) + 423 (AZ) + 48 (Moderna) + 5 (Unknown) = 760.

Spontaneous abortions: 467 + 1 premature baby death / 14 stillbirth/foetal deaths (Pfizer) + 227 + 5 stillbirth (AZ) + 60 + 1 stillbirth (Moderna) + 5 (Unknown) = 759 miscarriages.

Nervous system disorders: 78,444 (Pfizer) + 181,941 (AZ) + 19,095 (Moderna) + 834 (Unknown) = 280,314.

Strokes and central nervous system haemorrhages: 749 (Pfizer) + 2286 (AZ) + 46 (Moderna) + 15 (Unknown) = 3,096.

Facial paralysis including Bell’s palsy: 1,084 (Pfizer) + 998 (AZ) + 148 (Moderna) + 10 (Unknown) = 2,240.

Vertigo and tinnitus: 4,047 (Pfizer) + 6,888 (AZ) + 671 (Moderna) + 39 (Unknown) = 11,645.

Seizures: 1,061 (Pfizer) + 2,048 (AZ) + 248 (Moderna) + 17 (Unknown) = 3,374.

Paralysis: 493 (Pfizer) + 869 (AZ) + 97 (Moderna) + 8 (Unknown) = 1,467.

Disturbances in consciousness: 7,241 (Pfizer) + 10,897 (AZ) + 2,090 (Moderna) + 73 (Unknown) = 20,301.

Infections: 11,449 (Pfizer) + 20,029 (AZ) + 2,121 (Moderna) + 146 (Unknown) = 33,745.

Herpes: 2,139 (Pfizer) + 2,674 (AZ) + 237 (Moderna) + 23 (Unknown) = 5,073.

Skin disorders: 32,887 (Pfizer) + 53,107 (AZ) + 12,551 (Moderna) + 326 (Unknown) = 98,871

Respiratory disorders: 20,802 (Pfizer) + 29,550 (AZ) + 3,971 (Moderna) + 189 (Unknown) = 54,512.

Reproductive/breast disorders: 30,019 (Pfizer) + 20,606 (AZ) + 4,859 (Moderna) + 199 (Unknown) = 55,683.

Psychiatric disorders: 9,806 (Pfizer) + 18,268 (AZ) + 2,320 (Moderna) + 106 (Unknown) = 30,500.

Vomiting: 5,109 (Pfizer) + 11,629 (AZ) + 1,710 (Moderna) + 58 (Unknown) = 18,506

Tremor: 2,107 (Pfizer) + 9,920 (AZ) + 630 (Moderna) + 50 (Unknown) = 12,707.

Children and young people special report: Suspected side-effects reported in under-18s.

* Pfizer: 3,100,000 children (1st doses) plus 1,400,000 second doses resulting in 2,962 Yellow Cards (up 104 since last week).

* AZ: 12,400 children (1st doses) plus 9,200 second doses resulting in 254 Yellow Cards. Reporting rate one in 49.

* Moderna: 2,000 children (1st doses) and 1,200 second doses resulting in 18 Yellow Cards.

* Brand Unspecified: 18 Yellow Cards

Total = 3,114,400 children injected. Total Yellow Cards for under-18s = 3,252.

For full reports, including 346 pages of specific reaction listings, see here.

February 17, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Why Did Chris Whitty Go From Opposing Face Masks to Mandating Them With No New Evidence They Work?

By Gary Sidley | The Daily Sceptic | February 15, 2022

One of the major frustrations throughout the COVID-19 crisis has been the failure of high-profile journalists to ask ministers and SAGE scientists challenging questions about the rationale for their – often unprecedented – decisions. When they were not baying for earlier and harder restrictions, the journalists who participated in the numerous coronavirus press conferences typically restricted themselves to questions seeking clarification about the detail of a new rule or imposition rather than imploring the experts to justify the reasoning that led to their non-evidenced diktats.

I am sure I’m not alone in fantasising about the sort of questions I would like to put to the key rule-makers responsible for this extraordinary two-year assault on our basic human rights. Consider, for instance, Professor Chris Whitty, England’s Chief Medical Officer, and his belated support for requiring people to wear masks in community settings, arguably the most insidious of all the COVID-19 restrictions.

This is not an academic issue. Thanks to the Government’s relentless messaging about the purported benefits of face coverings, there is a real danger that widespread community masking – with all the attendant physical, social, psychological and environmental harms – could become a permanent feature, at least in certain sections of our society.

Prof. Whitty’s track record on the contentious issue of masking healthy people is, like that of many of the high-profile political and scientific rule-makers, characterised by contradiction. In early March 2020, he unequivocally stated that healthy people should not be wearing face-coverings. One month later, he was faltering, saying that, “The evidence is weak, but the evidence of a small effect is there under certain circumstances”. Since this time he has supported – or, at least silently colluded – with the pro-mask lobby. What changed his mind? No robust evidence supporting mask efficacy emerged in spring 2020, nor any time since, so what ‘nudged’ him to relinquish his anti-mask stance?

To clarify the reasons for his change of mind, I would be keen to be given the opportunity to ask our Chief Medical Officer the following questions:

  1. Around April/May 2020, what piece of robust real-world research made you change your mind about the ineffectiveness of masking healthy people in the community?
  1. As late as December 2020, a WHO document concluded that: “There is only limited and inconsistent scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of masking healthy people in the community.” Do you agree with the BBC Newsnight reporter Deborah Cohen that the WHO’s U-turn on masks was likely to have been the result of political lobbying?
  1. With regard to the imposition of masks, what has been the specific rationale offered to you by the Government’s behavioural scientists, such as Professor David Halpern?
  1. Is it merely a coincidence that masks powerfully help enforce the main ‘nudges’ promoted by behavioural scientists to achieve compliance with COVID-19 restrictions?
  1. Do you agree that the most robust type of scientific evidence is that provided by real-world, randomised controlled trials? If so, how can you reconcile your promotion of mask wearing with the results of such trials that consistently show that masks do not significantly reduce the transmission of respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2?
  1. Do you agree that, in a democratic free society, the evidential bar for mandating an intervention (such as masking the healthy) should be set very high? If so, do you believe that the empirical evidence for the benefits of masks as a means of reducing viral transmission reaches this threshold?
  1. There are a wide range of harms (physical, social, psychological and environmental) associated with masking healthy people, including the maintenance of inflated levels of fear that will have contributed significantly to the tens-of-thousands of non-Covid excess deaths and the current mental health crisis. Do you believe that a marginal reduction in viral transmission can compensate for this extensive collateral damage?
  1. If the Government’s behavioural scientists had not promoted masks as a way of increasing a sense of ‘solidarity’ that encouraged general compliance with the COVID-19 restrictions, can you confirm whether you would have changed your advice?

Growing numbers of people would like to hear Whitty’s answers to these important questions. Given the opportunity, I would be very happy to directly put them to our Chief Medical Officer in a public forum. Failing this, maybe a high-profile journalist will rise to the challenge. Ah, we can but dream.

Dr. Gary Sidley is a retired NHS Consultant Clinical Psychologist, a member of HART and co-founder of the Smile Free campaign.

February 17, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Texas sues to unmask travelers

RT | February 17, 2022

Forcing Americans to mask up while traveling goes beyond what US health authorities are legally allowed to do, a new lawsuit coming from Texas argued on Wednesday, demanding the end of the mandate that has been in effect for over a year now.

Congresswoman Elizabeth Van Duyne (R-Texas) filed the lawsuit in a federal court on Wednesday, joined by the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) nonprofit and the state’s Attorney General Ken Paxton. The US government was named as the defendant, along with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and their leaders.

“It is time for all mandates to be lifted, including those affecting airline passengers,” Van Duyne said, accusing the CDC of causing “untold damage” to the US with its “constantly changing science, fluctuating recommendations and oppressive need to control all aspects of society.”

The lawsuit argues that the CDC’s mask mandates amount to an abuse of power and violate constitutional authority – the same reasoning used to successfully challenge the agency’s eviction moratorium in May 2021 and vaccination mandates for cruise lines in July.

“The CDC is relying on specific and narrowly tailored provisions in the law to exercise enormously broad powers Congress has not granted the agency,” said TPPF’s senior attorney Matt Miller. The organization’s general counsel Robert Henneke also denounced the “tyranny” of the Biden administration in the name of Covid-19.

Announcing that he joined the lawsuit, AG Paxton described the mask mandate as “anti-science, virtue-signaling” and called it “not only silly, but illegal too.”

In his very first executive order, President Joe Biden mandated the wearing of face masks on federal property and announced a “100-day masking challenge.” That was 392 days ago. The requirement that travelers on planes, trains, buses and other public transit must wear face coverings went into effect on February 1, 2021 and has been extended three times since. It is currently set to expire in March, unless renewed.

February 16, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

UK approves vaccination for 5-11 year olds

with some odd decision making as to why

The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | February 16, 2022

Today, England approved COVID-19 vaccinations for children aged 5 to 11 years old. Wales and Scotland had already done so earlier in the week so England’s approval was inevitable. Approval for children in this age category, who are in a clinical risk group, was already given on 22 December 2021.

The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) have just published their independent report as to why the decision has been made.

Before I look at the report, I want to give a little background information.

In September 2021, before the Omicron variant (so a more virulent Delta was prevalent), the JCVI looked at whether to vaccinate healthy 12 to 15 years olds (those without underlying health conditions). They agreed a precautionary approach “given the very low risk of serious disease in those aged 12 to 15 years without an underlying health condition that puts them at increased risk. Given this very low risk, considerations on the potential harms and benefits of vaccination are very finely balanced”.

They acknowledged that “there is increasingly robust evidence of an association between vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis”. They say that whilst myocarditis following vaccination is self-limiting and resolves within a short time, the medium to long-term prognosis (including the possibility of persistence of tissue damage resulting from inflammation) is uncertain.

The JCVI concluded that overall “benefits from vaccination are marginally greater than the potential known harms” but acknowledged “that there is considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the potential harms. The margin of benefit, based primarily on a health perspective, is considered too small to support advice on a universal programme of vaccination of otherwise healthy 12 to 15-year-old children at this time. As longer-term data on potential adverse reactions accrue, greater certainty may allow for a reconsideration of the benefits and harms.”

So the conclusion for this older age group, on a health perspective, was not to vaccinate unless clinically vulnerable.

Fast-forward a few months, add in a more mild variant and suddenly the advice changes for an even younger age group. What has changed? Where is the longer-term data that allowed them to reconsider the benefits and harms?

From the outset of this latest advice, a cynical mind might think that they are trying to absolve themselves of all liability. The report uses lots of language such as “JCVI advises a non-urgent offer of two doses” and “informed consent”.

The report begins by saying that the “intention of this offer is to increase the immunity of vaccinated individuals against severe COVID-19 in advance of a potential future wave of COVID-19”. But concludes, “as the COVID-19 pandemic moves further towards endemicity in the UK, JCVI will review whether, in the longer term, an offer of vaccination to this, and other paediatric age groups, continues to be advised”.

So vaccination is advised to prevent severe Covid in a future wave but as we reach endemicity that future wave may never occur. It seems like this decision is based on modelling and we all know how accurate these models are at forecasting.

In summing up the key considerations they actually state the reasons why vaccination is unnecessary. “Most children aged 5 to 11 have asymptomatic or mild disease…[and] are at extremely low risk of developing severe COVID-19 disease. Of those admitted to hospital over the last few weeks comprising the Omicron wave, the average length of hospital stay was 1 to 2 days. A proportion of these admissions are for precautionary reasons”.

They continue “it is estimated that over 85% of all children aged 5 to 11 will have had prior SARS-CoV-2 infection by the end of January 2022… Natural immunity arising from prior infection will contribute towards protection against future infection and severe disease.”

The report says the vaccination is “anticipated to prevent a small number of hospitalisation and intensive care admissions. The extent of these impacts is highly uncertain.”

February 16, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

FDA official reveals Biden plan for Covid jabs — Project Veritas

Even toddlers will eventually be required to get annual Covid-19 jabs, an FDA official said in the undercover clip

© Project Veritas

RT | February 16, 2022

Investigative outlet Project Veritas has released footage of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) executive claiming that annual Covid-19 vaccine jabs are on the way, even for children under five.

In part one of a two-part undercover video series, Christopher Cole, an executive officer with the FDA and head of the agency’s Countermeasures Initiatives, told a Project Veritas reporter he is involved in the “approval process for the various” Covid vaccines. In the video released on Tuesday, Cole claimed more jabs are in the pipeline for everyone and acknowledged the “money incentive” for companies like Pfizer to promote more vaccination.

“It’ll be a recurring fountain of revenue. It might not be that much initially, but it’ll be recurring… if they can get every person required at an annual vaccine, that is a recurring return of money going into their company,” Cole said of vaccine manufacturers. At another point in the footage, the FDA official also admitted that the very companies the FDA regulates dump “almost a billion dollars a year” into its budget.

Cole said even toddlers would be included in this annual shot requirement, though he conceded that there hasn’t been enough testing on the long-term effects of the vaccines on various groups, including young children and pregnant women. Asked how he knew such a mandate could be coming, he said: “Just from everything I’ve heard, [the FDA] are not going to not approve it.”

The annual jab would be “just like the flu shot,” Cole said, and required as the effectiveness of vaccines “wanes.”

The FDA released a statement responding to Veritas’ video on Wednesday, saying Cole “does not work on vaccine matters” and “does not represent the views of the FDA.”

US President Joe Biden has not endorsed an annual vaccine jab, but Cole said the president “wants to inoculate as many people as possible.” Biden’s health officials have also floated the idea of regular jabs. White House health adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci has been open in recent talks to the idea of booster shots being needed regularly, though he has not endorsed annual shots for everyone.

“It will depend on who you are,” he told the Financial Times last week. “But if you are a normal, healthy, 30-year-old person with no underlying conditions, you might need a booster only every four or five years.”

February 16, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

The Jacinda Papers

By Guy Hatchard |  February 15, 2022

A remarkable trove of documents has been created in New Zealand by an organisation called Te Punaha Matatini—Covid-19 Modelling Aotearoa hosted by the University of Auckland but funded directly by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Covid-19 Modelling Aotearoa is headed by the wildly inaccurate Covid modeller Dr Shaun Hendy who once predicted 80,000 imminent New Zealand deaths (currently at 53 in NZ) and includes the participation of academics from universities across New Zealand.

The documents are remarkable because they indicate the genesis of the unique and blinkered pandemic perspective of our Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern which has diverged from that followed among other countries and from that found in global science publishing.

The documents in some cases exhibit in their referenced material, a lack of awareness of the extensive content of global science publishing on the pandemic.

One paper of particular interest is entitled:

Evaluating the infodemic: assessing the prevalence and nature of COVID-19 unreliable and untrustworthy information in Aotearoa New Zealand’s social media, January-August 2020


https://cpb-ap-se2.wpmucdn.com/blogs.auckland.ac.nz/dist/d/75/files/2020/09/06092020-disinformation-formatted2.final_.pdf

It is hardly remarkable that the New Zealand government uses sophisticated computer systems to closely monitor the social media content of its citizens (what government doesn’t?), but the methods used and the starting point of evaluation are highly indicative of where the repressive and controlling New Zealand Labour government Covid policy began:

  • The paper accepts a number of controversial ideas as true at face value such as the zoonotic origin of Covid-19. It describes discussion of a bioengineered origin of Covid in a Chinese lab as Xenophobia and a conspiracy trope, when it actually was, at the time the article was published, a matter of general scientific debate.
  • Table 2 (excerpted above) designates some common types of scientific discussion around Covid-19 as ‘disinformation’, most of which were actually the subject of science publishing even in mid 2020. It dismisses them as fallacious without justification. Subsequent data analysis has upheld them in large part. Yet the rejection by Ardern of their moderating tone, was and is used to stoke fear in the whole population.
  • Concepts of herd immunity since found to play a highly significant role in reducing Covid severity are dismissed as oversimplification and misrepresentation despite their verified and time-honoured role in developing human immunity.
  • Assertions that Covid-19 disproportionately affects those already ill with comorbidities or the aged (a highly verified fact) are outrageously dismissed as the result of ableism.
  • Table 3 in the paper asserts additionally that suggestions that the vaccine might have adverse effects or may alter DNA is a conspiracy theory. Subsequently there have been over 1000 papers published worldwide examining the deficiencies in mRNA vaccination safety and adverse effects reporting including evidence published late in 2020 that RNA vaccine genetic sequences can and do integrate into the human genome.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.12.422516v1
  • Mainstream scientists like Dr. Simon Thornley, media personalities like Mike Hosking, and politicians including Gerry Brownlee are described as using conspiracy theories to recruit NZers to right wing causes. All of whom should rightly have been described as high profile public figures stimulating discussion around political and scientific policies affecting a complex subject. The attempt to marginalise Ardern’s political opponents is obvious.
  • The paper rejects health and wellbeing narratives, many of which are in fact grounded in mainstream medical advice, as misleading. Thus it specifically rejects self-care options. Yet prior and subsequent research has found many of these lifestyle and dietary options to be helpful if not critical to healthy Covid outcomes and avoidence of serious illness. These include adequate rest, exercise, a balanced diet, and nutritional supplements.
  • This rejection of the value of wellbeing programmes has found its obvious conclusion in the formation of New Zealand government mandates. Yet the paper describes the suspicion that there are hidden government agendas to introduce ‘forced vaccination regimes’ as an ‘opportunistic conspiracy theory’. As we now know, these suspicions voiced early on social media are almost indistinguishable from the actual oppressive New Zealand vaccination mandates which Ardern eventually introduced denying employment and impoverishing those wishing to avoid risk and continue to make their own medical choices.

The push to introduce the censorship of scientific information and discussion that characterises the Ardern government is evident throughout the paper. Specific individual scientists tied to the government by both ideology, and in some cases by financial support, are picked out as people who should be the public’s sole sources of reliable information. These include: microbiologist Associate Professor Siouxsie Wiles, physicist Professor Shaun Hendy, and epidemiologist Professor Michael Baker.

The paper says the aim of government messaging should take the form of ‘branding’ designed to teach the public to trust the government alone. Something so close to propaganda as to be almost indistinguishable.

Emphasis in social media on ‘individual rights’ is described as an undesirable import from America. Ardern’s more recent rejection of protests as ‘imported ideas’ echoes Trudeau’s recent dismissal of protestors as ‘taking up space’, both of which hint at exclusionary agendas to come.

In conclusion the paper hints that ‘simply relying on the successful multi-faceted science and public health communication approaches of the government earlier in the pandemic will not be sufficient to debunk’ what it describes as ‘increasing prevalence of conspiracy theories about state control and individual rights’.

And continues:‘a wide-ranging response to the increasing discussion of unreliable sources, untrustworthy narrators, and conspiracy narratives in media, political, and civil society discourses is required’.

It further reports that a computational methodology and process for on-going monitoring of the prevalence of mis- and dis-information, and conspiracy narratives, within Aotearoa New Zealand’s social and mainstream media ecosystems has been established. It describes public access to a plethora of social media platforms, as a problem that needs to be addressed.

The very limited scientific outlook of Covid-19 Modelling Aotearoa is evident in the many other papers it has produced for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. In particular, their narrative has diverged in content from trends now well-understood through published data analysis around the world, including:

  • The strident saturation advertising of Covid-19 mRNA vaccination referring to its absolute safety.
  • The Ardern doctrine that the government should be the public’s only source of information.
  • The confidence Ardern extends to tentative and often subsequently falsified science without feeling the need to update policy.
  • The encouragement the government has offered to social media sites to censor content.
  • The politicisation of NZ’s Covid-19 policy.

Obviously, the paper and others may have fuelled and validated Ardern’s limited understanding of science. Science is a global, rational, empirical endeavour to arrive at truth, not a process tailor-made to support ideology.

Perhaps its most frightening consequence is Ardern’s rejection of the notion of individual health rights which has obvious historical parallels.

Guy Hatchard PhD was formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID a food testing and certification company (now known as FoodChain ID)

February 16, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Social Media Skewed Lockdown Debate According To Data Expert

By Richie Allen | February 16, 2022

Experts who spoke out against lockdowns were labelled as pseudo-scientists who possessed fringe ideas, because pro-lockdown scientists had more followers on social media, particularly Twitter.

Data Science expert Professor John Ioannidis of Stanford University, has compared the expertise of the experts who signed The Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) with those who signed The John Snow Memorandum.

The GBD argued that vulnerable people should be shielded and that everyone else be allowed to get on with their lives in order to build natural immunity against the virus. They warned lockdowns would be devastating for public health and the economy.

The signatories of the Snow Memorandum argued that it would be unethical to let the virus rip, therefore lockdown was essential.

According to The Telegraph :

In an article published in BMJ Open Research, he (Professor Ioannidis) found that both letters were authored by very influential experts, but that the John Snow Memorandum authors had a far greater reach on social media, which made it appear that their view had more support.

By November 2021, just four key signatories of the GBD had more than 50,000 Twitter followers, compared with 13 of the key authors of the JSM.

Prof Ioannidis concluded: “Both the Great Barrington Declaration and John Snow Memorandum include many stellar scientists, but JSM has far more powerful social media presence and this may have shaped the impression that it is the dominant narrative.

“GBD is clearly not a fringe minority report compared with JSM, as many social media and media allude.

“If knowledgeable scientists can have a strong social media presence, massively communicating accurate information to followers, the effect may be highly beneficial.

“Conversely, if scientists themselves are affected by the same problems (misinformation, animosity, loss of decorum and disinhibition, among others) when they communicate in social media, the consequences may be negative.”

Prof Ioannidis also said signatories of the JSM had contributed to the vilification of authors of the GBD through their tweets and op-eds.

John Ioannidis is right on when he says that social media skewed the debate in favour of the lockdown evangelicals, but he has missed one very important point. He seems to have overlooked shadow banning.

It shouldn’t have really mattered that pro-lockdown scientists had more followers on Twitter than their Great Barrington Declaration counterparts.

Twitter and Facebook worked in tandem from the outset of the scamdemic to amplify the posts of academics who supported lockdowns while at the same time limiting the reach of experts who opposed the tyrannical measures.

This meant that users were many times more likely to read pro-lockdown propaganda than they were to read the opinions of sceptics. The social media firms use not very sophisticated algorithms to ensure that their users read what they want them to read.

It’s happening today. The Welsh government has announced plans to give covid jabs to children over five years-old. England will announce later this week.

There are tens of thousands of doctors and scientists who are horrified at the prospect of jabbing young children with an unproven medicine that they do not need.

You and I know who they are, but the majority of people do not. This is because they will never see these experts in their news feeds. Free speech has no greater enemy than social media.

February 16, 2022 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Are They Finally Admitting Natural Immunity?

BY JEFFREY A. TUCKER | BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE | FEBRUARY 14, 2022

In late January, the CDC published a report that made what might have been regarded as a shocking claim. If you have had Covid, the CDC demonstrated in a chart, you gain robust immunity that is better than that of vaccination, especially concerning duration.

That should be nothing surprising. Brownstone has chronicled 150 studies making that point. What made this new chart different was that it came from the CDC, which has buried the point so deeply for so long as to amount to a near denial.

So there: the CDC says it. So nonchalant! So uneventful!

If people had understood this two years ago, plus been made more completely aware of the dramatic risk gradient by age and health, lockdowns would have been completely untenable.

The society-wide mandates and lockdowns depended on keeping the public ignorant on settled points of cell biology and immunology, plus pressuring social media companies to censor anyone who didn’t fall in line. Here we are all this time later and the truth is coming out.

Had the knowledge of risk gradients and immunities been in the forefront of policy makers’ minds – instead of wild fear and obsequious deference to Fauci – we would have focused on protecting the vulnerable and otherwise allowed society to function normally so that the virus would become endemic. We would not only have saved thousands of lives; we could have avoided the vast economic, educational, cultural, and public-health wreckage all around us.

Somehow at the time, that point was made unsayable for reasons on which we can only speculate. And yet today, the New York Times had said exactly this. In a piece by David Leonhardt called Protecting the Vulnerable, he writes:

With the Omicron wave receding, many places are starting to remove at least some of their remaining pandemic restrictions. This shift could have large benefits. It could reduce the isolation and disruption that have contributed to a long list of societal ills, like rising mental-health problems, drug overdoses, violent crime and, as Substack’s Matthew Yglesias has written, “all kinds of bad behavior.”

At the same time, there remain those who are vulnerable and they deserve protection: “They include the elderly and people with immunodeficiencies that put them at greater Covid risk. According to the C.D.C., more than 75 percent of vaccinated people who have died from Covid had at least four medical risk factors.”

You can read that again: unhealthy but vaccinated people still die. What these people need is to enjoy the protection of herd immunity, the point at which the virus exhausts itself in the face of widespread immunity.

If you have followed this debate, you know exactly the origin of that precise idea now being pushed in part by Leonhardt: The Great Barrington Declaration. This is the document on which Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci ordered a media hit back in October 2020. It advocated nothing more than traditional public health measures as a moderate solution between lockdowns and complete negligence of the virus threat.

As decent as this article is, it overlooks a huge issue, namely why would non-vulnerable populations be forced to get a non-durable vaccine with risks when natural immunity is a known option? Leonhardt doesn’t go there but he should have.

Today, even Anthony Fauci is singing a different tune. He told the Financial Times:

“There is no way we are going to eradicate this virus,” he said. “But I hope we are looking at a time when we have enough people vaccinated and enough people with protection from previous infection that the Covid restrictions will soon be a thing of the past.”

Further:

As we get out of the full-blown pandemic phase of Covid-19, which we are certainly heading out of, these decisions will increasingly be made on a local level rather than centrally decided or mandated. There will also be more people making their own decisions on how they want to deal with the virus.”

Again, this is straight out of the Great Barrington Declaration, almost to a word, but without acknowledgement.

There can be no question that early on in lockdowns, Fauci, the CDC, and the WHO all decided to bury the point that we would get to endemicity the same way we always have.

How did that happen? Paul Allan Offit is an epidemiologist who advises (or did advise) the Biden administration in the early days. He is not my favorite guy but, as things go, he is no Anthony Fauci. He seems sincere and intelligent.

Offit variously appears on podcasts. Last week, he let slip an astonishing thing. He said that early on in the pandemic, he met at the White House with Walensky, Fauci, Collins, and one other person. The topic was whether the Biden administration should recognize natural immunity to Covid — the most well-established fact about cell biology. He and one other person said absolutely. The rest said no.

Here is the remarkable clip.

Offit is fascinating in this interview because it was pretty clear to him that he was revealing something very important but he did not know whether this was going to be some kind of problem. He then proceeded to tell the story. He did not speculate about the reasons. He was smiling and laughing throughout the interview.

The immunity passports in place in three of the biggest American cities (though DC just repealed its own), the entire public sector, plus the attempt to impose them on the whole of the private sector, probably constitute the most invasive, aggressive, and controversial public policy since the Vietnam War draft. It all could have been fixed by a recognition of the immunological reality: the exposed and recovered are protected. That point of science was rejected by Fauci, Collins, and Walensky. The whole Biden administration went along.

We didn’t know until last week that this Offit meeting had even occurred. And surely this is just the tip of the iceberg. The more that time goes on, the more questions are piling up about this gang that wrecked liberty in the US after Inauguration Day 2021, a time when they could have reversed all the restrictions but instead went the other way.

Central to the concern here is what precisely happened in February 2020 to cause Fauci to forge plans to lock down the entire American economy for a virus that he previously said repeatedly could not be stopped. Why did he change his mind? We have plenty of evidence that his change of mind was related to his fear — real or imagined — that the pathogen was made in a lab and was leaked either deliberately or accidentally and that he would likely bear responsibility. Fauci and his friends were on burner phones for weeks and holding secret meetings. The HHS document ordering lockdowns were all forged in these weeks.

If the Republicans take back Congress, they are going to have a real time discovering the inner workings of the deep state here, if they find the courage to look deeply enough. That such an obvious and settled point of science became taboo for a time is truly a scandal for the ages. Now we know that it was a deliberate decision. Why? And why are we only now hearing about it, long after knowing this truth might have saved so much destruction?

Jeffrey A. Tucker is Founder and President of the Brownstone Institute and the author of many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press and ten books in 5 languages, most recently Liberty or Lockdown. 

February 16, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

New Study Confirms Ivermectin Outperforms Other Options

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | February 14, 2022

At nearly no other time in history has there been this level of fear generated across the world as experienced thus far in 2020 and 2021. The depth and breadth of the strategies used to stoke those fears has been overwhelming.

Emergency use authorizations for drugs that have not proven to be effective in trials,1,2 public mask mandates for which there is no scientific evidence3,4,5 and the suppression and censorship of health information has boosted public fear over a viral illness with a survival rate of over 99%.6

Unfortunately, many of the early effective treatment strategies that can be used at home have also fallen victim to censorship. Ivermectin is one of those strategies. In a computational analysis of the Omicron variant against several therapeutic agents, data show that ivermectin had the best results.7

Yet, as you look objectively at what’s been happening across the world, the fear being generated is not one-sided. The suppression of information by corporations, government agencies and the pharmaceutical industry is one indication of their concern and how far they’re willing to go to ensure the level of fear remains high enough to manipulate behavior.

Consider the statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2019, 4.6% of the U.S. population was diagnosed with heart disease.8 The population at the end of 2019 was 328,239,523.9 This means there were 15,099,018 people with heart disease in the U.S. in 2019. There were 696,962 people who died that year from heart disease,10 which is a death rate of 4.6%.

This is 20 times greater than the death rate from COVID-19. Yet these same agencies were not lobbying for mandates against soda or sugar-laden foods; they weren’t banning smoking and they weren’t mandating exercise — all heart disease risk factors.11

The censorship and suppression of information has hobbled early treatment of COVID-19 in many western nations. Through 2020, public health experts12,13 and the mainstream media14,15 warned against the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. Both are on the World Health Organization’s list of essential drugs,16 but the benefits have been ignored by public health officials and buried by the media.

Newest Ivermectin Study Showed Best Results Against COVID

This study on Cornell University’s preprint website has not yet been peer-reviewed. Researchers used a computational analysis to look at the Omicron variant, which has demonstrated a lower clinical presentation and lower hospital admission rates.17

After having retrieved the complete genome sequence and collecting 30 variants from the database, the researchers analyzed 10 drugs against the virus, including:

  • Nirmatrelvir
  • Ritonvir
  • Ivermectin
  • Lopinavir
  • Boceprevir
  • MPro 13b
  • MPro N3
  • GC-373
  • GC376
  • PF-00835231

The researchers found that each of the drugs had some degree of effectiveness against the virus and most were currently in clinical trials. They used molecular docking to find that the mutations in the Omicron variant didn’t significantly affect the interaction between the drugs and the main protease.

An analysis of all 10 drugs found that ivermectin was the most effective drug candidate against the Omicron variant. The testing included Nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid), which is the new protease inhibitor for which the FDA provided an emergency use authorization against COVID in December 2021.18

In other words, Pfizer released a new drug which cost the U.S. taxpayers $5.29 billion or $529 per course of treatment19 and which received an EUA despite the availability of a similar drug that has proven to be more effective and is cheaper, priced between $4820 and $9521 for 20 pills depending on your location.

How Ivermectin Works

Ivermectin is best known for its antiparasitic properties.22 Yet, the drug also has antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties. Studies have shown that ivermectin helps to lower the viral load by inhibiting replication.23 A single dose of ivermectin can kill 99.8% of the virus within 48 hours.24

A meta-analysis in the American Journal of Therapeutics25 showed the drug reduced infection by an average of 86% when used preventively. An observational study26 in Bangladesh evaluated the effectiveness of ivermectin as a prophylaxis for COVID-19 in health care workers.

The data showed four of the 58 volunteers who took 12 mg of ivermectin once a month for four months developed mild COVID symptoms as compared to 44 of the 60 health care workers who declined the medication.

Ivermectin has also been shown to speed recovery, in part by inhibiting inflammation and protecting against organ damage.27 This pathway also lowers the risk of hospitalization and death. Meta analyses have shown an average reduction in mortality that ranges from 75%28 to 83%.29,30

Additionally, the drug also prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 when taken before or after exposure.31 Added together, these benefits make it clear that ivermectin could all but eliminate this pandemic.

Early Intervention Lowers Long COVID and Hospitalization

Some people who have had COVID-19 seem to be unable to fully recover and complain of lingering symptoms of chronic fatigue. Others struggle with mental health problems. One study,32,33 in November 2020, found 18.1% of people who had COVID-19 received their first psychiatric diagnosis in the 14 to 90 days after recovery. Most commonly diagnosed conditions were anxiety disorders, insomnia and dementia.

These symptoms have come to be called long COVID, long-haul COVID, post-COVID syndrome, chronic COVID or long-haul syndrome. They all refer to symptoms that persist for four more weeks after an initial COVID-19 infection. According to Dr. Peter McCullough, board-certified internist and cardiologist, 50% of those who have been sick enough to be hospitalized will have symptoms of long COVID:34

“So, the sicker someone is, and the longer the duration of COVID, the more likely they are to have long COVID syndrome. That’s the reason why we like early treatment. We shorten the duration of symptoms and there’s less of a chance for long COVID syndrome.”

Some of the common symptoms of long COVID include shortness of breath, joint pain, memory, concentration or sleeping problems, muscle pain or headache and loss of smell or taste. According to McCullough, a paper presented by Dr. Bruce Patterson at the International COVID Summit in Rome, September 11 to 14,35 2021:36

“… showed that in individuals who’ve had significant COVID illness, 15 months later the s1 segment of the spike protein is recoverable from human monocytes. That means the body literally has been sprayed with the virus and it spends 15 months, in a sense, trying to clean out the spike protein from our tissues. No wonder people have long COVID syndrome.”

It should come as no surprise that studies have also confirmed that early intervention improves mortality37 and reduces hospitalizations.38 Perhaps one of the greatest crimes in this whole pandemic is the refusal by reigning health authorities to issue early treatment guidance.

Instead, they’ve done everything possible to suppress remedies shown to work. Patients were simply told to stay home and do nothing. Once the infection had worsened to the point of near-death, patients were told to go to the hospital, where most were routinely placed on mechanical ventilation — a practice that was quickly discovered to be lethal.

However, as the featured study39 and others have demonstrated,40 ivermectin is one of the successful treatment protocols that can be used against SARS-CoV-2.

Africa Has Lowest Case and Death Rate, Likely From Ivermectin

Across the world, countries have taken different approaches to address the spread of the virus.41 The steps taken in Africa varied depending on the country, yet the infection and death rates were relatively stable and low across the continent.42

In the last year there have been reports of small areas in the world where the number of infections, deaths or case-fatality rates have been significantly lower than the rest of the world. For example, India’s Uttar Pradesh State43 reported a recovery rate of 98.6% and no further infections.

However, the entire continent of Africa appears to have sidestepped the massive number of infections and deaths predicted for these poorly funded countries with overcrowded cities. Early estimations were that millions would die, but that scenario has not materialized. The World Health Organization has called Africa “one of the least affected regions in the world.”44

There are several factors that may influence the infection rate in Africa. A study from Japan demonstrates that after just 12 days that doctors were allowed to legally prescribe Ivermectin to their patients, the cases dropped dramatically.45

The chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association46 had noticed the low number of infections and deaths in Africa, where many use ivermectin prophylactically and as the core strategy to treat onchocerciasis,47 a parasitic disease also known as river blindness. More than 99% of people infected with river blindness live in 31 African countries.

In addition to ivermectin use in Africa, other medications are also commonly available, such as hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, which have long been used in the treatment and prevention of malaria,48 also endemic in Africa.49 In America, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko has published successful results using hydroxychloroquine and zinc against COVID-19.50,51,52

Finally, Artemisia annua, also known as sweet wormwood, is an herb used in combination therapies to treat malaria.53 It was used in traditional Chinese medicine for more than 2,000 years to treat fever. Today artemisinin, a metabolite of Artemisia, is the current therapeutic option for malaria. The plant has also been studied since the 2003 SARS outbreak for the treatment of coronaviruses, with good results.54,55

In other words, whether by design or default, the medications that have proven to be successful against the virus are commonly used in Africa for other health conditions. While Pfizer tests the short- and long-term effects of a genetic experiment on Israel’s population,56 it appears one continent has demonstrated administration of a 30-year-old, inexpensive drug with a known safety profile could reduce the cases, severity and mortality from this infection.

The question that must be asked and answered to get to the bottom of this plandemic is what is blinding mainstream media, government agencies, public health experts, medical associations, doctors, nurses, and your next-door neighbor from recognizing and speaking out in support of science?

Sources and References

February 15, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

What Will We Tell Our Children?

BY SARABETH MATILSKY | BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE | FEBRUARY 14, 2022

When I try to answer my children’s questions, I am so furious that I can barely speak.

I choose my words slowly. “Many grownups around you have failed.”

Never have I wished so strongly to be wrong than when I remember predictions I made back in March of 2020. And instead, for almost two years and counting, we have collectively failed and keep failing at the primary goal of any society: protecting our children.

The sum total of youth Covid policy comes down to this: millions of kids wearing masks in school, being told to stay away from each other and obsessively avoid germs, and receiving vaccines en masse that they likely do not need.

Why are so few of us speaking up for the children?

“Always be skeptical,” I tell my children, “of anyone who wants you to be scared. Thoughtless fear is dangerous, and one should always try to make decisions when calm. Grownups haven’t been doing a good job of this lately.”

And here is the ultimate crime against our children, perpetuated by two administrations thus far: censorship and removal of jobs and licenses from thousands of respected doctors and researchers who disagree with the dominant Covid narrative, while repeatedly ignoring and ridiculing their simple and honorable message: “Early Covid treatment saves lives.”

This censorship and canceling does not “stop misinformation:” it interrupts the scientific process itself, and leaves a bad taste in the mouths of all who wish to live in a democratic society. And yes, it is still censorship if you urge private companies to do the dirty work for you, again and again.

“Kiddos,” I say, “science is something you DO, not a dogma to be obeyed. And we can all do science, and learn how to think scientifically.”

Many have recently and repeatedly urged our children to “listen to the experts.” To which I respond: a democratic society depends upon education, and not the rote and submissive variety. If we want one of those Democracies, we owe it to our children to model the complexity and necessity of using our brains to come up with our own opinions, in addition to learning what “experts” believe.

“But Mama, they wouldn’t make kids do these things if they were DANGEROUS… would they, Mama?”

And I have to look at my children and blink away tears, because yes: in the current social moment, we adults are allowing our society to slip ever further into Pharma totalitarianism.

“Okay, but Miss Matilsky, these vaccines are safe and effective, and masks are Not a Big Deal Anyway, so why get angry now? The kids should Do Their Part to social-distance, and Slow the Spread!”

Masks are actually part of a very big deal for children, because they interfere with every aspect of normal social functioning, also a big deal is raising an entire generation of kids to believe that hiding their faces is normal, and that it plus “testing” completes their civic duty toward our collective public health.

This is both shameful and a lie. There is not and has never been evidence justifying community-wide mask wearing (and the equally shamefully enormous quantity of plastic garbage that comes from it). It would be nice if masks worked well to protect their wearers and those around them from contagious disease, but they don’t.

Study after study refutes their benefit in community settings, and we can see around us that people spread Covid even when masks are worn scrupulously, even while statistical epidemiology modeling supports the possibility that they might slow the spread if they were thicker, bigger, more widely worn.

I am reminded of the plan to use smaller dinner plates, which in turn was supposed to reduce portion sizes and therefore cause widespread weight loss! But oh, wait… this was similarly a case of wishful theories being confused with actual results.

Ultimately: no amount of ever thicker and more stringently-worn masks, nor fanatic germ-avoidance, will ever make up for the true public health measures that do increase resistance to contagious disease: ensuring access to clean water, clean air, and clean, fresh, wholesome food, not to mention meeting our human need to gather socially for work, relaxation and spiritual pursuits.

And here we grownups must stop beating around the bush, and face the most shameful fact of all: condoning regulatory capture by pharmaceutical companies has become the defining feature in Covid policy mismanagement by two administrations.

Why should we trust them with our children’s health for even one moment, let alone rely on their press releases to guide public policy?

Presidents Trump and Biden, you should be ashamed to have been taken in by these corporations so incredibly adept at manipulation. We need leaders who can identify and protect children from the effects of such bullying.

It is not for me to decide if a vaccine is the right choice for you or your child. And it absolutely is up to me to insist that anyone trying to convince me to accept a medical treatment on my child’s behalf should never promote, pressure, or discuss the matter with my child separately from me (i.e. in schools or anywhere else, or by requiring a medical treatment, test, or vaccine for admission); and not be in the business of marketing their drugs to me for profit.

We failed our children when we made them put their lives on hold while we adults squabbled for two years, and now we fail them even further, while we let politicians and epidemiologists and drug companies experiment with their bodies for reasons that leave nobody healthier, while exposing them to known and unknown risks from policies that aren’t reducing transmission, cases, or the Covid death rate.

How incredibly lonely for our children, to be masked and told to interact with others only cautiously… because so many grownups around them are so fearful and unwilling to learn some of the basic principles of cell biology and scientific inquiry that our kids are supposed to be learning in grade school.

How shameful to coerce medical treatment on those who stand to benefit the least. How on earth will we build up enough trust in our government and our systems if we can’t admit our mistakes and apologize to our children, the way we make them do when they’re wrong?

Step up to the plate, grownups. It’s the least we can do for the generation that will have to care for our messes when we’re old; it would be nice if today’s kids could have productive, meaningful, healthy lives first.

February 15, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »