Del does a deep dive into the science behind the measles virus, dispelling decades of misinformation from public health agencies, as well as what is actually driving the recent measles outbreaks in the U.S. See a shocking scientific equation comparing the number of individual deaths that would occur if the measles vaccine had never been introduced based on pre-vaccine stats to the number of deaths from MMR injury.
March 2, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | Measles, NHS, UK, United States |
Leave a comment
The government has a new, $1 billion plan to combat the spread of bird flu among U.S. chickens and rising egg prices.
But some critics said the plan will just perpetuate the ineffective and harmful practice of culling birds and promote the potentially risky vaccination of chickens.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Brooke Rollins on Wednesday announced the five-pronged “$1 billion comprehensive strategy,” including funding for biosecurity measures, financial relief for farmers, actions to reduce “regulatory burdens” and increase egg imports — and “$100 million for vaccine research.”
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed published the same day, Rollins said the USDA is “working with the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, to cut hundreds of millions of dollars of wasteful spending” — that will pay for the strategy’s $1 billion price tag.
According to the op-ed, the average price of a dozen eggs increased 237% in the last four years. Rollins said the increase “is due in part to continuing outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza, which has devastated American poultry farmers and slashed the egg supply.”
The USDA did not respond to requests for comment by press time.
Chicken culls have had ‘disastrous consequences’
Some farmers and medical experts questioned the USDA’s plan, under which chicken culls will continue.
Vermont attorney and farmer John Klar said, “Economic relief for poultry farmers is appropriate, as is monitoring flocks and supporting improved biosecurity measures.” However, Klar said he is “dismayed by the fearmongering about bird flu” and fears that a “silver bullet” to tackle the crisis may not be available.
According to Rollins, about 166 million laying hens have been culled since 2022. Culling “can be an effective way to stop an outbreak,” CNN reported.
But, according to epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher of the McCullough Foundation, bird culls are ineffective.
“The single most effective action to reduce egg prices in the long-term is to stop the practice of mass depopulation, which has led to a costly and ineffective cycle that not only wastes taxpayer dollars but also worsens the spread of H5N1.”
Cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough said the USDA plan potentially incentivizes measures that have not been effective.
“By taking government money to cull healthy birds and then bring eggs to market at higher prices, big egg producers have perverse incentives to keep the poorly conceived biosecurity measures going,” McCullough said.
According to CNN, culling has contributed to higher egg prices, due to a reduced egg supply and because taxpayers are “footing the bill for the dead birds.”
Over the past three years, the U.S. government has issued $1.25 billion in compensation to farmers who have had their chickens culled. Approximately 20% of those payouts “have gone to farms that have become infected multiple times,” CNN reported.
Hulscher said these payments have had “disastrous” consequences. “Mass culling has failed to stop the spread of bird flu, caused egg prices to reach a 45-year high, and resulted in the only source of chicken-to-human transmission.”
McCullough said culling mostly healthy birds “doesn’t stop bird-to-animal transmission of the next index case coming into farms by migratory birds, mainly mallard ducks. Instead, he said, “Culling causes the spread of H5N1 from birds to mankind” and “puts the workers at unnecessary risk.”
Iowa farmer Howard Vlieger said that during a 2016 bird flu outbreak in his area, USDA officials stacked culled chickens in compost piles. Within days, infected flies made their way to nearby farms, leading to the death of a laying hen.
“They notified USDA and USDA subsequently euthanized every bird on their farm, even though the broilers were not exhibiting any sign of sickness,” Vlieger said.
Vlieger also questioned the accuracy of tests used to determine whether birds are infected. He cited the example of a neighboring farm where a chicken initially tested positive to a USDA test, but a second test was negative.
“We know the tests they use have very low reliability,” Vlieger said.
Natural immunity more effective than vaccination in birds
Klar suggested that “better policy would be to let the birds develop ‘flock immunity,’ which would be better for humans as well.”
McCullough agreed. “A healthy bird flock allowed to acquire natural immunity to the mild current H5N1 strain will essentially end the current outbreak,” he said.
Several studies have found that bird culls are ineffective in stopping the spread of viruses among birds and that allowing natural immunity to develop may be a more effective means of containing outbreaks.
A December 2024 New England Journal of Medicine study found that between March and October 2024, “All the case patients who were exposed to infected poultry were involved in depopulation activities.”
According to a March 2024 report by the European Food Safety Authority, the number of bird flu detections in birds from December 2023 to March 2024 “was significantly lower, among other reasons, possibly due to some level of flock immunity in previously affected wild bird species, resulting in reduced contamination of the environment.”
“The new plan should stop culling,” McCullough said. “Biosecurity measures should focus on protecting the workers and allowing natural immunity to settle in on American farms.”
Experts question the safety and effectiveness of vaccines for birds
The USDA plan also calls for a “hyper-focused” and “targeted and thoughtful strategy for potential new generation vaccines, therapeutics, and other innovative solutions to minimize depopulation of egg laying chickens.”
The USDA recently granted a conditional license to Zoetis for a bird flu vaccine. CNN reported that other bird flu vaccines for poultry already are licensed in the U.S.
Other vaccines, including one by Moderna, are under development. However, Bloomberg reported this week that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is “reevaluating” the $590 million contract for bird flu shots that the Biden administration awarded to Moderna.
The World Organization for Animal Health recently stated that vaccination may be necessary to stem the spread of bird flu.
According to CNN, “Poultry producers have resisted the use of bird flu vaccines, which are costly and labor intensive to administer to millions of birds,” adding that “many countries won’t accept” exports of vaccinated poultry.
Klar questioned the practice of administering bird flu vaccines to poultry, saying he “strongly objects” to the use of mRNA vaccines in birds or other wildlife.
“I am far more concerned about adverse health effects from experimental pharmaceuticals than I am about natural microbes,” Klar said.
In a December 2024 interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Dr. Leana Wen, the former commissioner of the Baltimore City Health Department and a professor of public health at George Washington University, called for the immediate approval of bird flu vaccines for humans and ramped-up testing throughout the U.S.
Over the past year, former public health officials and mainstream news outlets have also stoked fears of a bird flu outbreak among humans.
Is current bird flu strain a product of gain-of-function research?
While the USDA plan suggests that bird flu has a zoonotic — or animal — origin, McCullough cited research suggesting the current clade of H5N1 avian influenza may have originated from gain-of-function research in mallard ducks performed at the USDA Poultry Research Center in Athens, Georgia.
According to the study, the strain of the virus circulating globally was first found in mallard ducks and other wildlife in Georgia and other locations near the USDA’s laboratory in 2021 and 2022.
Gain-of-function research involves the genetic alteration of an organism to enhance its biological functions — potentially including its transmissibility.
The McCullough Foundation’s research, published last year in the journal Poultry, Fisheries & Wildlife Sciences, calls for investigations to identify laboratory leaks that may have resulted in the release of bird flu strains, and a global moratorium on gain-of-function research.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
March 1, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Economics, Science and Pseudo-Science | European Union, United States, USDA |
1 Comment
Germans who suspect that their relatives or friends have fallen for conspiracy theories can now seek official guidance, the Interior Ministry has announced. The government has launched a nationwide consultation center to combat “lies and disinformation.”
Known as the Advice Compass on Conspiracy Thinking, the service was launched on Thursday and is accessible online or by phone. According to the ministry, it aims to provide “the most tailored help and advice possible” for those seeking guidance.
The center offers consultations and can refer individuals to specialized agencies if necessary, according to Minister for Family Affairs Lisa Paus, without specifying which agencies will be involved.
Interior Minister Nancy Faeser said that an “open dialogue on equal terms” is often difficult with individuals deeply immersed in conspiracy beliefs. She hailed the initiative as “an important building block in the holistic fight against extremism and disinformation.”
Paus described conspiracy theories as “poison for our democracy” and a burden on families and colleagues. The Interior Ministry claimed that these beliefs can lead to extremist ideologies and incite violence, highlighting anti-Semitic conspiracies as a major concern.
The German authorities have been raising the alarm over the supposed rise of conspiracy theories. This trend is often linked to the Querdenker (lateral thinking) movement, which emerged during the Covid-19 pandemic to oppose lockdown measures and other government policies. Since then, Querdenker groups have organized protests against Germany’s foreign policy and weapons supplies to Kiev, which began in 2022 following the escalation of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia.
Some factions have also called for “regionality, direct democracy, and limiting the power” of the federal government. Officials and media outlets often associate Querdenker groups with conspiracy theories and far-right organizations.
In 2021, the German domestic security agency (BfV) announced it would closely monitor some Querdenker groups, claiming that they could try to “delegitimize” the state and use legitimate protest to “provoke escalation.”
The announcement of the Advice Compass came just days after the right-wing Alternative for Germany party (AfD) secured second place in snap parliamentary elections, receiving 20.8% of the vote – a significant rise from the 10.4% they received in 2021. Despite the gains, the party remains ostracized by the other major political parties and is frequently labeled ‘far-right’ by officials and media.
February 28, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | Germany, Human rights |
2 Comments
Top expert delivers a damning report accusing Merck of misleading the public about Gardasil’s ability to prevent cervical cancer
With the landmark trial against Merck adjourned until September 2025, new evidence suggests the vaccine manufacturer may have deliberately misrepresented the necessity of mass HPV vaccination.
This revelation comes from an expert report by Dr Sin Hang Lee, a pathologist renowned for his expertise in molecular diagnostics. His findings raise serious concerns about Gardasil’s efficacy and the motives behind its aggressive marketing.
Dr Sin Hang Lee, director of Milford Molecular Diagnostics, Connecticut
Does Gardasil Prevent Cervical Cancer?
Since its introduction in 2006, Gardasil has been marketed as a breakthrough in the fight against cervical cancer.
Yet, as Dr Lee bluntly states in his report, “There is no conclusive evidence that Gardasil has prevented a single case of cervical cancer in the past 18 years.”
No randomised controlled trial (RCT)—the gold standard for assessing efficacy—has ever demonstrated that Gardasil prevents cervical cancer.
Instead, Merck relied on surrogate markers of pre-cancers, such as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2/3) to claim effectiveness. This is a significantly lower evidentiary bar that was used to fast-track FDA approval.
The problem with this approach is well-documented. Many CIN2/3 lesions resolve naturally.
A Dutch study, for instance, tracked 114 women with CIN2/3 found that nearly two-thirds of cases regressed without intervention. Only one developed adenocarcinoma in situ (pre-cancer) and none progressed to cervical cancer.
Moreover, those lesions that don’t resolve naturally typically take years to progress, and they are usually detected through routine screening.
If CIN2/3 is an unreliable proxy for cancer, how can it serve as valid proof of Gardasil’s claimed efficacy at preventing cancer?
Are HPV Strains Merely Being Replaced?
Another major concern is “type replacement”—the possibility that suppressing certain HPV strains through vaccination leads to the rise of others.
For instance, a Finnish study found that while HPV strains 16 and 18 (targeted by the vaccine) decreased following vaccination, non-vaccine strains such as HPV 52 and 66 became more prevalent.
This raises an important question: While Gardasil may alter the landscape of HPV infections, does it actually reduce the overall risk of developing cervical cancer?
When Merck developed Gardasil 9 to target five additional HPV strains, a study involving 14,215 women found that those who received Gardasil 9 developed high-grade lesions at the same rate as those who received the original Gardasil (which only targeted four strains).
Despite the expanded coverage, the additional strains had no measurable impact on pre-cancers overall, adding to the uncertainty about whether these vaccines truly reduce cervical cancer incidence.
The Questionable Swedish and Scottish Studies
Two widely cited studies—from Sweden and Scotland—are often heralded as proof that Gardasil significantly reduces cervical cancer rates. However, Dr Lee highlights critical methodological flaws in his report.
The Swedish study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, compared cervical cancer rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated women.
However, Dr Lee points out that many participants (born between 1995 and 2007) were too young to develop cervical cancer during the study period (2006–2017).
Since cervical cancer takes decades to emerge, including these young women (ages 10–22)—who had zero cases—introduced a statistical bias that exaggerated the vaccine’s effectiveness.
Moreover, the study failed to account for the “healthy user effect,” where vaccinated individuals are more likely to engage in preventive health measures like regular screening, which independently reduces cancer risk.
As a result, attributing the decline in cancer cases solely to the vaccine is misleading.
A 2024 Scottish observational study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, had similar methodological issues, and was met with sensationalist media headlines: “No cervical cancer cases in HPV-vaccinated women.”
However, Dr Lee argues this claim is deeply flawed. First, the women studied were simply too young for conclusions about long-term vaccine efficacy to be drawn.
Second, Scotland’s screening programme, which detects and treats precancerous lesions before they develop into cancer, changed its entry age in 2016 during the study period.
The age at which women were first invited for screening was raised from 20 to 25, meaning there was a 5-year gap in screening for younger women. As most cancers in women under 30 are diagnosed through screening, this change could explain any decline in cancer rates, rather than the vaccine itself.
And third, just like the Swedish study, the “healthy user effect” further confounds the results.
Despite being frequently cited as definitive proof of Gardasil’s effectiveness, these studies contain serious limitations that undermine their conclusions.
Cervical cancer screening saves lives
In developed nations, around 93% of initial HPV infections resolve without medical intervention. Cervical cancer is slow to develop, with an average onset age of 54, making long-term data essential for assessing Gardasil’s true impact.
What remains incontrovertible is the lifesaving role of cervical cancer screening.
Since the widespread adoption of Pap smears in the 1950s, cervical cancer incidence in the U.S. has plummeted—from 44 per 100,000 women in 1947 to just 8.8 per 100,000 by 1970.
This dramatic decline predates the introduction of HPV vaccination in 2006.
In Australia, deaths from cervical cancer fell significantly along with incidence following the introduction of the National Cervical Screening Programme, and remained steady despite mass HPV vaccination.
Dr Nancy C. Lee, former Associate Director for Science at the CDC, testified before the U.S. Congress in 1999:
- “Cervical cancer is nearly 100 percent preventable.”
- “The most important risk factor for developing cervical cancer… is the failure to receive regular screening with a Pap smear.”
- “For a woman with CIN, her likelihood of survival is almost 100 percent with timely and appropriate treatment.”
Dr Nancy C. Lee, former Associate Director for Science at the CDC
Unlike cervical cancer, which is preventable through screening and treatable with early intervention, Dr Lee asserts the harms linked to Gardasil – such as autoimmune disorders and neurological complications – are unpredictable, difficult to treat, and often irreversible.
Did Merck Misrepresent Its Vaccine?
At the core of this legal battle is a critical question: Did Merck mislead the public about Gardasil’s true value?
Despite its widespread use, Gardasil’s long-term efficacy remains unproven, while growing evidence links the vaccine to serious harms, including autoimmune disorders and neurological complications.
For decades, cervical cancer rates have declined due to improved screening—not mass vaccination. Yet Merck has aggressively marketed Gardasil as essential for cancer prevention, even in countries where cervical cancer is already rare.
Dr Lee’s report suggests Merck selectively presented data to manufacture a false sense of necessity—one that collapses under scrutiny.
As the trial resumes in September, one question remains: Did Merck knowingly misrepresent Gardasil’s safety and efficacy, prioritising profit over public health?
February 25, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | Gardasil, HPV vaccination, Merck |
Leave a comment
Everything you need to know about our ruling class’s opinion of you. As always, these headlines are presented without commentary.
February 24, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science |
1 Comment
Are there any sources of information we can still believe?
I was late to the sceptical party. For the first 60 years of my life I was largely oblivious to the institutionalised evil operating within our world. Belatedly – since early 2020 – I have begun the painful process of piecing it all together, bit by bit. Much of my time is now spent reading books and online articles penned by authors who realised the egregious activities of our global elite long before my awakening. This ongoing research is an often painful process, not least because it constantly reminds me of my previous gullibility; I have to resist the temptation to abort this mission of discovery and store this new, eye-opening information in the filing cabinet labelled, ‘too difficult to think about’, and never open it again. But, of course, this is no longer a viable option; once some of the horrors have been seen it is impossible to unsee them.
So my journey of discovery must continue.
My world view has evolved, and long-established ‘truths’ in my mind have consecutively fallen like a row of dominoes, each piece’s descent destabilising the next in line. Let me summarise my trajectory into scepticism:
The worst pandemic of the century?
In early 2020, the mainstream media, politicians and the science ‘experts’ repeatedly informed us that a uniquely lethal pathogen was spreading carnage across the world, and unprecedented and draconian restrictions on our day-to-day lives were essential to prevent Armageddon. But I wasn’t buying it. As detailed in a previous post, I quickly formed the view that a momentous event, unparalleled in my lifetime, was unfolding; but it was not primarily about a virus.
The government lies were grotesque and frequent. Under the pretence of ‘keeping us safe’ and the – ominous – ‘greater good’, our basic human rights were trampled upon: prohibition of travel; confinement in our homes; social isolation; closure of businesses; denial of access to leisure activities; de-humanising mask mandates; directives (scrawled on floors and walls) dictating which way to walk; an arbitrary ‘stay 2-metres apart’ rule; exclusion from the weddings and funerals of our loved ones; the seclusion and neglect of our elderly; school shut-downs; children’s playgrounds sealed off with yellow-and-black tape; muzzled children and toddlers; students denied both face-to-face tuition and a rites-of-passage social life; and coerced experimental ‘vaccines’ that turned out to be far more harmful and far less effective than initially claimed. Equally egregious were the strategies deployed to lever compliance with these restrictions, namely psychological manipulation (‘nudging’), pervasive censorship across the media and academic journals, and the cancellation and vilification of anyone brave enough to speak out against the dominant covid narrative. All-in-all, a state-driven assault on the core of our shared humanity.
Prior to the covid event, I believed that Western political leaders – and their state-funded experts – were, broadly speaking, trying to improve the lives of their citizens. In 2020, everything changed; trust in our institutions ceased. If the establishment could tell such blatant falsehoods about a ‘pandemic’, what else are they lying about?
Are we really spiralling towards climate Armageddon?
In the 1970s, I recall being told that planet earth was cooling down and we were all at imminent risk of hypothermia. Over recent years, the narrative has shifted and we are now told ‘human behaviour is unequivocally warming our planet’, ‘a code red for humanity’, and ‘there is nowhere to hide’. According to Antonio Guterres (Secretary General of the United Nations), the weather has become a ‘weapon of mass extinction’.
But are we really spiralling towards a climate emergency?
My scepticisms about the veracity of the dominant climate-apocalypse story were accelerated by a key observation: just as a lucrative and extensive pandemic industry were profiting from the enduring myth that we were all at increasing risk from future deadly viruses, a similarly bloated money-making infrastructure had grown around the premise of an imminent climate catastrophe. When the livelihoods and statuses of experts are directly dependent upon maintaining a dominant ideology – be it a looming plague or a boiling planet – these ideologies will be highly resistant to erosion, and those challenging these doom-ladened stories are likely to be labelled as heretics.
And the perusal of a few relevant statistics raises major doubts about the dominant climate narrative and its forecasts of pending weather-related disasters. Hasn’t the climate always been changing since the time of Adam and Eve? What about the fact that there has been no increase in the frequency or intensity of storms? And the number of people who lose their lives to temperature extremes, or who are affected by floods, has reduced; life expectancy has increased; and the number of people living in poverty has fallen. So how do these observations fit with Guterres’ climate catastrophe prediction?
Also, why are our politically elite impoverishing us all by waging war on carbon dioxide? Historically, hasn’t this ‘greenhouse gas’ constituted a much higher percentage of our atmosphere than the current miniscule 0.04%? Is it not true that all plants and vegetation depend on carbon dioxide to grow and flourish? And don’t increases in carbon dioxide concentrations follow temperature rises rather than preceding them?
The reality is that there is little evidence of ‘climate impacts’ and no evidence of a ‘climate crisis’. The alarmist predictions – from Antonio Guterres, and many others – seem to be based on ideology rather than objective evidence. In a striking parallel with the covid event, the primary risk to our health is not from the purported source of danger (climate), but from the subsequent global policies that are impoverishing us all. And – predictably – the state-funded behavioural scientists (‘nudgers’) are deeply involved in this manipulative exercise.
Further truths begin to wobble and fall
Following the indisputable covid scam, and my growing recognition of the gaping holes in the imminent climate-catastrophe narrative, I have begun to question the veracity of the official accounts of many world events, both ongoing and historical.
For example, is the enduring war in Ukraine directly a result of the evil Putin’s expansionism, as we in the West are repeatedly told? Or is it more to do with the NATO warmongers who apparently feel obliged to keep prodding the Russian bear with threats that countries on their border will soon be welcomed into the alliance?
In April 2018, did the Syrian government really use chemical weapons on its own people in Douma (a suburb of Damascus), or was it a ‘false flag’ incident, concocted by the governments of the US, UK and France so as to legitimise the subsequent bombing of the region (aka the ‘War on Terror’)?
Pre-covid, even I believed that the assassination of J.F Kennedy in 1963 was not the exclusive work of lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald; more recent readings have confirmed that – unless a single bullet can defy the laws of physics and perform a couple of 90-degree turns – the CIA facilitated the execution. Furthermore, I now think that the recent attempts to eliminate Donald Trump – that pesky, uncontrollable president-elect – were likely to have involved elements of the deep state.
As one becomes increasingly aware of the depths of depravity to which actors within an unelected global elite are willing to sink, one even starts to question the official 9/11 narrative, of how, in 2001, four hijacked planes were used as guided missiles to hit the World Trade Centre (New York). In-depth analyses of the evidence by physicists, structural engineers and other scientific experts have concluded that all three skyscrapers were destroyed by controlled demolition – indeed, one of the three towers to collapse was not even hit by a plane, a fact largely ignored by the media and the official (inhouse) inquiry. A month following the 9/11 horrors, George W Bush led a long sought-after invasion of Afghanistan supported by an international coalition, once again raising the suspicion that the destruction of the World Trade Centre was another – evilly grotesque – false-flag event.
Is the 5G network making us sick? Are state-funded geo-engineers deploying weather manipulation techniques (such as cloud seeding) on a far greater scale than is officially acknowledged? On the 20th of July 1969, did men really walk on the moon? Is the world indeed flat? … … But perhaps my imagination is running away with me.
Is there anyone left to trust?
As I continue to dig for information to clarify what is really happening in the world, a nagging thought intrudes into my mind: can I trust the veracity of what I’m reading and hearing?
As each week goes by, more people are – understandably – questioning the reliability of the outputs of official government sources. Throughout the covid event, ministers and civil servants parroted the globalist narrative of a rampaging plague and ‘safe and effective’ vaccines. Irrespective of the reasons for their distortions (group think, gullibility, or corruption), those that still believe the utterances of our elected politicians and their ‘expert’ advisors constitute a rapidly shrinking demographic. Furthermore, an escalating number of folks are realising that many of our academics are conflicted, the future of their research departments, and often their career progressions, dependent upon recurrent funding from Big Pharma, Bill Gates and billionaires pushing a green agenda. Meanwhile, NHS public health specialists seem to have lost the propensity for independent thought, mindlessly following protocols set by global organisations. And state sponsored behavioural scientists amplify the power of the official messaging, seemingly without regard for the validity and consequences of these communications.
Beyond our national border, the high-profile mouthpieces become even less trustworthy. Ideologically driven, globalist agendas underpin the bulk of the outputs emanating from the World Health Organisation, the World Economic Forum, the European Union and the United Nations. One glaring instance of the ideologically corrupted outputs of global organisations was the WHO flip-flop on masks in summer 2020, when ‘political lobbying’ led to an abrupt reversal in the WHO’s view of the (in)effectiveness of face coverings in reducing viral spread.
As for the legacy media – purportedly the ‘fourth pillar of democracy – it seems hardly worth repeating the claim that they simply regurgitated the dominant narrative throughout the covid event and currently peddle the ongoing climate-catastrophe story. The BBC effectively function as a government mouthpiece, aided and abetted by ITV, Sky News and Channel 4.
How reliable are those who question the dominant globalist narrative?
While it is now clear that we can confidently tag almost all mainstream mouthpieces – government agencies, global organisations, academics and journalists – as unreliable, how much trust can we have in the integrity of alternative sources of information? Are the voices that are openly critical of the dominant mainstream narratives to be believed? My answer to these questions would be, ‘not always’. And there are two main reasons for this conclusion.
First, there is the potential for what is often referred to as ‘controlled opposition’: those that pretend to oppose the mainstream narratives while covertly serving the establishment, thereby appeasing the masses by fallaciously giving the impression that there is some meaningful resistance to the dominant globalist agendas. Although I believe (as discussed in an earlier article) that the term ‘controlled opposition’ is bandied around far too easily, such entities undoubtedly exist within the ubiquitous network of state-generated propaganda.
Second, we must never forget that there are multiple perceptual biases in each of us; no human being views the world in a totally objective way. Once an individual forms a strong belief – irrespective of whether it is a dominant-narrative or sceptical one – that person no longer construes the world impartially, their memories, focus of attention, and inferences all being biased in favour of maintaining existing perspectives. Furthermore, we all routinely resort to cognitive short cuts (‘heuristics’) as we navigate our complex social and physical environments, the conclusions we draw informed by snap judgements that are often mistaken.
The ubiquity of these thinking errors means that NO ONE can be impartial in perceiving, and relaying their views about, what is going on in the world. My own take on world events is shaped by bias and distortions. Similarly, my sceptical allies will be less than 100% reliable as sources of information; anyone who confidently claims to have sussed the machinations of life on this planet, to have figured out what’s going on, and to be thereby expressing an accurate account – the definitive truth – about the use of state power to control the masses, is mistaken.
So is the seeking of the truth a futile exercise?
Given that we are all treading water in an ocean of misinformation – much of it generated by government institutions and mainstream media – is my journey of discovery a pointless endeavour? As no source of information will be 100% accurate (due to corruption, censorship, propaganda, psychological manipulation, and the distorted lens of fallible humans) should I, and others, stop trying to learn more about what’s going on?
Definitely not.
While we cannot rely on any mouthpiece to provide a perfectly factual account of what is happening in our communities, what we can reasonably expect is for commentators to display integrity and honesty when giving their takes on the world around them. Thus, we should strive to identify information sources that are not on the payroll of vested interests, voices who appear to gain nothing (and potentially risk a lot) by speaking out against the dominant narratives, and those who genuinely strive to access evidence from all shades of opinion.
Taking all of these factors into consideration, which sources of information do I currently listen to and respect? The medical doctors, scientists, healthcare professionals, psychologists and well-informed laypeople, who collaboratively opposed the dominant covid narrative from the outset, definitely fall into this category of trusted sources; this alliance would include my colleagues in the Health Advisory & Recovery Team (HART), my Smile Free associates who fought (and continue to fight) the mask mandates, and all those active in the Together movement to retain our individual freedoms. For similar reasons, I always actively consider the viewpoints of media people such as Neil Oliver, Bev Turner, Sonia Poulton and Joe Rogan. Although I do not always agree with every aspect of their pronouncements, I believe their words derive from a place of integrity. Also, I have a small network of sceptical friends – drawn from across the span of the ‘left-right’ political spectrum – whose observations, and opinions, I value. Anything I read or hear from other sources I approach with caution and incredulity.
I have described some of the main mouthpieces I rely on when it comes to piecing together what is going on in the world today. (There are many others with similar credentials). While they, inevitably, will all display the universal perceptual biases that are inherent to the human condition, I am confident that no one on this list of my trusted messengers is compromised by additional layers of bias deriving from financial or vocational conflicts of interest. For the near future, these sources of information will be highly influential in shaping my understanding of the forces behind the global technocratic authoritarianism we are all having to endure.
February 24, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, UK, Ukraine |
Leave a comment
Wildfire activity in southern Europe was below average last year, according to the latest data from the EU. The trend is clearly downwards since 1980, contrary to the disinformation spewed by the establishment media.
The BBC’s Matt McGrath, for instance, recently claimed that a warmer world increased the chances of devastating wildfires occurring, while the Guardian’s Damien Carrington also falsely stated that “globally, scientists agree that climate change is increasing the global risk of wildfires starting and spreading”.
Last summer the BBC went into full propaganda mode over some fires in Greece, even though the burnt area was actually below average:
And in December, a BBC World Service broadcast falsely claimed that a warmer earth was making “deadly fires in Spain and Greece increasingly common”.
The BBC – the place where facts go to die!
Sources
1) Data for 2024 is from Copernicus: https://forest-fire.emergency.copernicus.eu/apps/effis.statistics/seasonaltrend
2) Earlier data id from the EEA: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/burnt-forest-area-in-five-4/#tab-chart_5
and EFFIS:
https://effis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports-and-publications/effis-related-publications
February 23, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | BBC, The Guardian |
Leave a comment
Banning pharmaceutical advertisements from television is just one of the many ways RFK Jr has planned to disrupt the pharmaceutical industry. Hear how new tech pharmacies are peddling compounded drugs like injectable weight loss medications without the personal care of a doctor.
February 23, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | United States |
Leave a comment
Part One (a): Are the facts, facts?
‘The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate and contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.’ – John F. Kennedy
I do not think that anyone can write about Covid without first recognising that the facts, may not actually be ‘the facts.’
My trust in medical research has been gradually draining away for the past forty years or so. I am uncertain how much remains. I do not have a handy ACME ‘trustometer’ to slap on my forehead, but I sense my levels are certainly below fifty per cent – and falling. I shall let you know when they reach zero.
There was certainly a rapid drop during Covid. Accelerated by the emergence of ‘fact checkers.’ If a group of people could be more ironically named, then I would love to hear of them. The idea that someone can be an officially verified ‘checker of the facts’ is so inimical to science that they should have been laughed out of existence the moment they appeared. Sadly not. Soviet Union anyone?
Richard Feynman believed that the very definition of science is the process of questioning, and that scientists must be sceptical. Or, as he once said. ‘Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.’ I have regularly been ‘accused’ of being a professional sceptic. My reply is usually ‘thanks, I consider that a great compliment. You, on the other hand …’
As I delved into medical research papers over the years, one painful reality emerged. Which is that you need to be wary of the findings contained therein. I came to learn that, at least in certain cases, I only needed to look at which institution the research came from and who the authors were, to know which ‘camp’ they were in. At which point I could tell you everything the paper was going to say – to paraphrase. ‘We have found that everything we previously said was absolutely correct.’ No need to read it.
Of course, this only works for areas I have been studying for many years, where the terrain is very familiar. Give me a paper on quantum physics and I would have to read the whole damned thing. Then accept that I have not the slightest idea what they are talking about.
In the world of Covid research, two camps emerged very rapidly. There was ‘establishment’ camp, or the ‘accepted narrative’ camp and the ‘alternative’ camp’. Or, as I initially thought of them, the roundheads and the cavaliers [English civil war analogy – for my overseas readers]. As far I could tell, fact checkers were fully paid-up supporters of the roundheads.
Which meant that you could write an article wildly overestimating the infection fatality rate, and nothing would be said. The fact checkers would rouse themselves momentarily, then airily wave it through. However, dare to suggest the Infection fatality rate was lower than the mainstream view, and all hell would break loose. Or, at the beginning of the Covid sage, dare to suggest that the Sars-Cov-2 emerged from a biolab in Wuhan. ‘Off with his head’.
It didn’t take too long before I decided to rename the two camps the ‘Faucistas’, and the ‘Partisans.’ Although I know there should not be two sides in a scientific discussion. We are not at war. Those who question, and probe, have a vital role to play in science.
They, we, are trying to ensure that the accepted ideas are as robust as possible. If the mainstream facts are correct, they will resist all assaults. If they cannot resist, they should wither and die, to be replaced by something far stronger. Or at least that is how I hope it works.
This is a slightly long-winded way of saying that, when it comes to Covid the first thing you have to do with any ‘fact’ is to ask where it came from. A Faucista, or a partisan. Then apply the ‘Kendrick bias constant’ to determine its validity. A figure that only exists in my head, and even I am not sure what size it is, which way round it goes, or how to use it.
You also need to accept that research is often far from clear cut, and the findings may simply be … wrong. Twenty years ago, John Ioannidis published his seminal paper called: ‘Why most published research findings are false.’ It is one of the most widely read medical research papers, ever.1
‘There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false … Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.’
The prevailing bias. I like that term. Perfectly polite yet still damning.
Was he correct, are most research findings false? Well, he has his own biases, as we all do. I still like to believe that the majority research can be relied on, at least to some extent. Boring, but reliable – yet still boring. However, there are areas where he is right about the influence of prevailing bias. Places where findings are more likely to be false than true.
I believe that Covid became one such area very quickly. Within a matter of weeks, you were a Faucista – the group which certainly had the support of the vast majority. Or you were a partisan. We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.
I believe the polarisation in this area was so rapid and intense in large part because of the huge amount of money that was getting burned, and the need to justify that cost. The UK spent around four hundred billion pounds (~$500Bn) on Covid measures. Maybe even more – I think it was more. Enough to fund the NHS, in its entirely, for three years. The figure from the US was ‘officially’ four point six trillion. Four …point …six …trillion … gasp, thud.2
In addition to the money, there was the unprecedented disruption of everyday life. Far greater than anything seen outside a full-scale war. There was also the damage to children’s education and everyone’s mental health. The other diseases left undiagnosed and untreated, the massive debt and residual damage to public services, the clampdown on human freedoms … The list is long. More harm than good? That is the question.
A huge amount was at stake. So many reputations, both scientific and political, became bound to the ‘accepted narrative’ camp. If the narrative went down, so did they, with all hands-on deck. Thus, all the measures taken had to be found worthwhile, or at the very at least, excusable. ‘It was all very difficult, no-one knew what was going on. We had to do something … A big boy made me do it.’
Very rapidly, the Faucistas built themselves a mighty citadel, bristling with armaments, and fact checkers. Everyone within that citadel became hair trigger sensitive to the slightest perceived ‘enemy’ touch. Ready to react with ruthless bombardment. Along with personal attacks on whoever stated them.
The Great Barrington Declaration for instance, which proposed focussing protection on the elderly, and allowing the virus to take its course in younger populations. Where the risk of death was exceedingly low. This was universally condemned. Along with its authors. Here is one press release, out of many, many…
20 public health organizations condemn herd immunity scheme for controlling spread of COVID-19.
‘If followed, the recommendations in the Great Barrington Declaration would haphazardly and unnecessarily sacrifice lives. The declaration is not a strategy, it is a political statement… What we do not need is wrong-headed proposals masquerading as science.’3
‘Unnecessarily sacrifice lives… Wrong-headed proposals masquerading as science …’ Who dares pop their head over the parapet after such attacks? Only the brave, or foolhardy. As for debate … you must be joking. I was invited to talk at an anti-lockdown rally in September 2020, in Edinburgh. I gave a talk. The organiser was threatened with five years in jail. Luckily that has all gone very quiet.
Sweden, alone amongst European countries, decided not to lockdown, or perhaps you could call what they did lockdown ‘lite’. Schools, restaurants and bars remained open. People travelled on public transport. This approach, too, was universally condemned. It was stated that Dr Tegnell (chief epidemiologist) and Stefan Löfven (the prime minister), were…
‘… playing Russian roulette with the Swedish population,” Carlsson said. “At least if we’re going to do this as a people … lay the facts on the table so that we understand the reasons. The way I am feeling now is that we are being herded like a flock of sheep towards disaster…
… Leading experts last week were fiercely critical of the Swedish public health authority in an email thread seen by state broadcaster SVT, accusing it of incompetence and lack of medical expertise.’4
But the Swedes held out. Which took some nerve, whilst their own medical experts were screaming blue bloody murder in the background. Things changed. Now the accepted wisdom is that the Swedish people effectively locked themselves down, without being told to. Being such a great public-spirited people. ‘Oh yes, I think that fully explains their figures … ahem, don’t you?’
Why this change in outlook? From outrage to a widely accepted explanation, and a collective shrug. I suspect it may be that, in comparison to other European countries, Sweden ended up with a death rate below that of:
- Bulgaria
- Hungary
- Bosnia Herzegovina
- North Macedonia
- Croatia
- Montenegro
- Georgia
- Czechia
- Slovakia
- San Marino
- Lithuania
- Greece
- Latvia
- Romania
- Slovenia
- UK
- Italy
- Poland
- Belgium
- Portugal
- Russia
They were within touching distance of Spain, Ukraine and France and – just to mention another Nordic country – Finland. Certainly, a long way below the US.
If lockdowns needed to be so harsh, or even instituted at all, why was Sweden not at the very top of this, and every other list? Answer, whisper it … Because lockdowns were ineffective? ‘Off with his head.’
No, don’t be silly, it is because the Swedes locked themselves down. And here is the evidence … [insert non-existent evidence here]. Memo to self. Just saying a thing does not make it true.
‘Overall, there’s no evidence that Sweden had a “voluntary lockdown”. Mobility changed far less there than in most other Western countries.’ 5
But what was it that drove the lockdowns around the world?
The Covid Infection Fatality Rate?
The accepted narrative around Covid developed very rapidly. It is a highly contagious and deadly disease with an Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of close to three per cent – you may have forgotten that figure. Perhaps you were unaware it ever existed.
The WHO provided an early estimate that eleven million Americans may die, discussed as part of a masterful essay by Jay Bhattacharya. One of the authors of the Great Barrington declaration, and now director of the National Institutes of Health. Oh, the irony. 6
The worldwide population is approximately eight billion. Using the initial WHO figures we would have seen two hundred and fifty million deaths. Equivalent to the Spanish flu – which is where I suspect the 3% figure was initially plucked from. Hospitals around the world would be overwhelmed. Millions would die if we did not act fast and hard. Something had to be done.
That ‘something’ was lockdowns. It included the widespread use of masks, restriction on travel, closed borders, closed schools, closed entertainment venues and restaurants, workplace closures, social distancing, test and trace, the rush to bring out vaccines, and so on. These actions became unquestionable and inseparable. All of them had to be equally defended.
Trying to get a handle on the Infection fatality rate
The three per cent IFR figure was downgraded rapidly and ended up hovering at around one per cent – or thereabouts. An IFR of one per cent means that, if one hundred people become infected with the SarsCov2 virus, then one will die. Is this … was this, does this remain a fact? At the start of Covid I became obsessed with trying to work out what the Infection Fatality Rate might be. Does it really matter?
I believe it drove everything. The 1% IFR is, to quote from Lord of the Rings: the one ring that finds them, and in the darkness binds them. If the IFR was 1%, then I think everyone can just about manage to assure themselves that all their actions were justifiable.
An IFR of 1% would have meant nearly three million deaths in the US, and well over half a million in the UK. Yes, it might not have been the Spanish flu, but ‘things’ obviously had to be done?
What about half a per cent? At this level the argument begins to look pretty damned shaky. An IFR of half a per cent, or below, would be the iceberg that sank the great lockdown ship Titanic. This, the IFR, is probably the most important fact that we need to establish.
Can we ever know the infection fatality rate of Sars-Cov2?
I know that most people would love a concrete fact here. Confirmation that the IFR of Covid was 0.213, or 0.934, or whatever. But I don’t think that is possible. Concrete facts here are very difficult to find. Or at least, facts that you can rely on. Read journal A you get one figure. Read journal B, and you get another. I can give you a thousand figures.
It also does very much depend on the age you are looking at. In the age group, nought to nineteen, the IFR was 0.00003% – in the first scientific paper that comes up on a Google search. That is three per million.
In the UK there are approximately twelve million in that age group. Which means that Covid may have resulted in thirty-six deaths. If, that is, everyone of that age ended up infected.7 Almost the same number who drown yearly – in that age group.
Moving back to the overall fatality figure rate, Imperial College London (ICL) in late 2022 concluded that it was 1.15%. But we already know which camp Neil Fergusion and the ICL was in. They were the original Faucistas. In this study they found that everything they said previously was absolutely correct. By the authority of … them.8
A well-known, and reasonably reliable worldwide resource is Worldometer, which kept a running count of Covid cases and deaths from every country. It stopped counting in April 2024. The grand totals on Worldometer, now frozen in time, were that there had been seven hundred million coronavirus cases worldwide, with almost exactly seven million deaths. Which represents an IFR of precisely one per cent. 9
My goodness, independent verification that Neil Ferguson and Imperial College were bang on with their modelling. Well, Ferguson did predict an IFR of 0.9% but what’s 0.1% between friends. And if we look at China on Worldometer, it tells us we had almost exactly five hundred thousand cases, with five thousand deaths. Again, an IFR of one per cent, bang on.
Case closed? Hang on, you might wish to probe a little deeper into, for instance, the Chinese figures. According to Worldometer, the population of China is around one point four billion and there were five hundred thousand reported cases of Covid. Which means that one in three hundred people caught Covid [precise figure 0.36%].
In comparison, sixty per cent of the population in Greece caught Covid. Which is two hundred times greater. This seems a remarkably large difference. The sort of difference you may struggle to believe.
What of the death rates? China ended up with four deaths per million of the population. A figure very similar to DPRK (the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), which had three deaths per million. Strange that.
In Greece, on the other hand, they had four thousand deaths per million. One thousand times higher than China.
As for total deaths.
- Greece: with a population of ten million had 37,869 deaths.
- China: with a population of one point four billion had 5,272 deaths.
Personally, I find one of these figures to be more believable than the other.
Turning back to the overall figures from Worldometer. There were just over seven hundred million reported cases of Covid in total. Which means that around 9% of the world’s population became infected. Seven hundred million out of eight billion.
This is a very long way off the ninety per cent figure that Neil Ferguson predicted in his model. He predicted 90%, Worldometer says 9%. Once again, a bit of an echoing gap.
If Worldometer is right, and only 9% of the population did become infected, and the IFR was 0.9%, the UK would never have seen five hundred thousand deaths – as predicted by Neil Fergusion in his hugely influential model.
His model was, essentially.
IFR 0.9%, percentage infected 90%. Population of the UK 69m:
69,000,000 x 0.9% x .9 = 558,900
However, if only 9% become infected, this figure falls by a factor of ten:
69,000,000 x 0.9% x .09 = 55,890
This is not a great deal more than a bad flu year.
Returning to the age group nought to nineteen, if only 9% of them became infected we would have seen four deaths instead of a possible thirty-six. Which would have made school closures and the social isolation of children virtually indefensible. Sorry, leave out the word virtually.
As you can gather, the overall rate of infection, and the IFR, are intimately linked when it comes to the overall impact of an infective disease. An issue little discussed. But do you think it might be important? Answer… yes.
Which facts are facts?
At this point I suppose I need to ask. Do you believe that the coronavirus figures collated by Worldometer are ‘facts?’ Or do you believe some of them are, and others are not. In which case, which ones would you like to believe. To quote the late, great, singer songwriter John Martyn. ‘Half the lies you tell me are not true.’
Wherever you look, there is uncertainly, and disagreement. Completely different facts and figures can be found everywhere. When it comes to IFR, John Ioannidis came up with an IFR figure of 0.23% for higher income countries.10
Nature published a figure ranging between 0.79 – 1.82% (for higher income countries). The average between 0.79 and 1.82 is 1.3%.11 As you have worked out for yourself, 1.3% is nearly six times more than 0.23%.
Which IFR is correct? Which is a fact? And why did the Nature study only look at higher income countries? Surely lower income countries should have fared worse – in that they could not afford to lockdown, and did not, and the standard of medical care would have been significantly lower, so more should have died?
I suspect lower income countries were ignored because, on paper, they all had very low death rates. Or very low reported death rates anyway. Just to choose a lower income African country at random … Chad. They reported one hundred and ninety-four covid deaths out of a population of seventeen million. Which is eleven deaths per million. In fact, according to Worldometer, Covid passed Africa by.
How could this be? In most higher income countries people of African origin were significantly more likely to die than the surrounding population. In the UK, Black British had a mortality rate of 273 per 100,000. Whereas those identifying as White, had a rate of 126. Less than half.12 [Figures from the office of national statistics, and as you may have noticed these figures demonstrate and IFR of 0.273% for Black British, and 0.126% for White British].
Given this, it is difficult to argue that Black Africans, in Africa, were genetically protected, in some way. Although, it has to be added that the average age in African countries is significantly lower than in, say, the UK – and that would have had an impact on Covid related deaths – although nothing that could remotely explain the reported figures.
I also lean towards Ioannidis because I believe him to be a well-established objective seeker of the truth. He has long been a thorn in the side of what I shall call, politely, ‘official narratives.’ Other researchers, and journals, have a strong tendency towards those twin curses of human thought. Confirmation bias and groupthink. As for the fact checkers, which figures do you think they prefer? The higher, the better.
Which leads us inevitably to the question who, or what facts, do you choose to believe … or not believe. In later articles I will tell you what I believe to be the most probable IFR for Covid. And I will tell you why this figure is reasonably accurate.
Before we reach that point, I want to highlight some more of the many issues that make it difficult to be certain about anything. There are so many of them. Just to list a few important ones:
- PCR testing – how accurate is it/was it?
- False positive, false negatives. Did they raise, or lower, the IFR?
- How do you determine if someone died of Covid – or simply died with Covid?
- How many times were people infected – and how much would this affect the IFR?
- Could you be exposed to Covid, and brush it aside, without becoming ‘infected’ or raising detectable antibodies?
- The impact of continuing to count Covid deaths for more than three years – over the lifespan of many different variants – did this create an artificially high IFR?
- What protection did vaccination provide?
- Financial benefits of diagnosing Covid, did this lead to overdiagnosis?
- Could aggressive treatment have been damaging, and possibly fatal?
- How many people reported they had Covid, when they did not?
- Which countries may have been economical with the truth about their Covid statistics?
- Does the Sarv-Cov2 virus exist?
Each of these issues represents a minefield, with conflicting ‘facts’ stretching to the far horizon. Each of them capable of shifting the IFR significantly – downwards.
Does this mean we can never really know what happened with Covid? Even to answer such a superficially straightforward a question as how many died is tricky. Indeed, most facts about Covid tend to crumble when you apply a little pressure. But I think we can navigate a course, or sorts.
Next. Starting with an easy one. Does the Sars-Cov-2 virus exist? Easy …?
1: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1182327/
2: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-106647
3: https://www.bigcitieshealth.org/newsroom-great-barrington-declaration/
4: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/23/swedish-pm-warned-russian-roulette-covid-19-strategy-herd-immunity
5: https://unherd.com/newsroom/the-myth-of-swedens-voluntary-lockdown/
6: https://www.jospi.org/article/88046-dr-jay-bhattacharya-reveals-stanford-university-s-attempts-to-derail-covid-studies?ref=truth11.com
7: https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+0.00003%25+per+million&oq=what+is+0.00003%25+per+million&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQBhhA0gEJMTUxNTlqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
8: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/207273/covid-19-deaths-infection-fatality-ratio-about/
9: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
10: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/340124/PMC7947934.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
11: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43856-022-00106-7
12: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-reported-sars-cov-2-deaths-in-england/covid-19-confirmed-deaths-in-england-to-31-december-2020-report
February 22, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Africa, Covid-19, UK |
Leave a comment
Bird flu can be very confusing. This is true because, as is so often the case with our government, those who claim to be trying to solve the problem – our so-called “public health” and “pandemic preparedness” “experts” – are actually the ones who created the problem. What is worse, they are actively seeking to perpetuate it.
In this brief article, my goal is to explain what is happening with H5N1 Bird flu in the clearest, most fundamental terms. I hope to make it so clear that all our elected officials can understand what is going on, and therefore can take action to stop it.
The key to understanding the current Bird flu panic is this: Bird flu is a complete rerun of the Covid script. There is just one twist:
Last time, with Covid, the pandemic-planning bioterrorists directly blackmailed us by taking away our civil rights, in order to coerce us to accept their unsafe and ineffective vaccines.
This time, with Bird flu, the pandemic planning bioterrorists are indirectly blackmailing us by targeting our food, in order to coerce us to accept more of their unsafe and ineffective vaccines into our food supply and those who supply it.
Here is their playbook. Learn it, and you can understand how to put an end to it.
Let’s review. What happened during Covid?
- Over many years, bioweapons scientists, under the guise of “pandemic preparedness,” genetically manipulated a bat coronavirus to be both transmissible and virulent in humans. In other words, they created a bioweapon.
- Meanwhile, they also developed and patented technologies for vaccines against that same virus. In other words, they created the countermeasure to their bioweapon.
- In late 2019, the lab-manipulated coronavirus bioweapon, SARS CoV-2, was leaked from a lab.
- While the countermeasure vaccines were rushed into production, “public health” authorities took advantage of the lab leak by denying its occurrence, while simultaneously coercing governments to impose lockdowns and other civil rights violations on the human population.
- To perpetuate the lockdowns, “public health” authorities performed indiscriminate PCR testing for the virus among the population, knowing full well this would generate countless false positives.
- The authorities used this excessive testing along with media-generated fear-mongering and governmental abuse of power, to prolong the lockdowns and the civil rights abuses.
- The lockdowns and civil rights abuses were used to blackmail the population into mass acceptance of the vaccines into their own bodies, in exchange for a return to normal life.
What is happening now, with H5N1 Bird flu?
- Over many years, bioweapons scientists, under the guise of “pandemic preparedness,” have genetically manipulated the H5N1 avian influenza virus to cross classes of animals and even become more transmissible to humans. In other words, they created a bioweapon.
- Meanwhile, they also developed and patented technologies for vaccines against that same virus. In other words, they created the countermeasure to their bioweapon.
- In early 2022, a lab-manipulated Bird flu bioweapon leaked from the USDA Southeast Poultry Lab in Athens, GA. Multiple Bird flu leaks have also occurred from other labs.
- While the countermeasure vaccines are being rushed into production, “public health” authorities take advantage of these lab leaks by denying their occurrence, while simultaneously coercing our government to impose mass slaughter of farm animals, creating food shortages for the human population.
- To perpetuate the mass slaughter and worsen food shortages, “public health” authorities are performing indiscriminate PCR testing for the virus among the animal population and farmers, knowing full well this will generate countless false positives.
- Authorities are using this excessive testing along with media-generated fear-mongering and governmental abuse of power, to prolong the mass slaughter of farm animals and the food shortages.
- The mass slaughter of farm animals and resulting food shortages are being used to blackmail the population into mass acceptance of the vaccines in their food supply, in exchange for a return to normal life.
This is not conspiracy theory. This is basic pattern recognition.
The “pandemic planners” are operating just like a moderately competent, if unimaginative, high school football coach. If you run a play, and it works, run it again. Keep running it until they stop it.
How do we stop it?
Here’s how:
- End the brutal mass slaughter of poultry flocks immediately. This disgusting, death-wish practice is directly analogous to the deadly and unconstitutional human lockdowns during Covid. It is also an act of biological terrorism. It traumatizes farmers, wastes resources, creates food shortages, is inhumane in the extreme to animals, and does nothing to stop the virus. Let the flocks develop natural immunity. Slaughtered flocks cannot develop natural immunity to a virus, just as locked-down human populations cannot either. Sound familiar?
- End the indiscriminate PCR testing for Bird flu in animals and humans immediately. A positive PCR test is like the proverbial grand jury indictment – you can get one on a ham sandwich if you try hard enough. Willy-nilly PCR testing creates innumerable false positives, which fuels the fear porn and hysteria, paralyzes decision-makers, and promotes population-wide blackmail.
- The USDA appears to be acting as a rogue agency. The USDA’s leadership needs to be thoroughly reviewed and, well, culled. All those attached to the pandemic preparedness industry, and all those perpetuating the fear-mongering, irresponsible mass PCR testing, mass slaughter of animals, etc. must be immediately removed from the agency. They represent not only a threat to animals and the food supply but to President Trump’s entire second term.
- The personnel at the CDC need a similar prompt and thorough overhaul. The CDC, while somewhat chastened by President Trump’s executive order silencing HHS agencies, and benefitting from the departure of former Director Mandy Cohen, is still led by Biden-era appointments whose past resumes raise serious doubt about their willingness to abandon the Covid-era “pandemic planning” model of public health. For example, acting director Susan Monarez, PhD’s bio shows multiple Deep State connections to the pandemic preparedness industry. Should she remain at the CDC?
- The USDA Southeast Poultry Research Lab in Athens, Ga. should be shut down and thoroughly investigated.
- The Kawaoka Bird flu lab at the University of Wisconsin, which has been doing reckless gain-of-function research for decades, and which has had multiple lab leaks, should be shut down and investigated as well.
- Brooke Rollins, the new USDA Secretary, needs to be fully briefed on H5N1 Bird flu by honest experts who are not embedded in the pandemic preparedness industry. Individuals such as Meryl Nass, MD, and Peter McCullough, MD and his team would both be excellent choices.
- President Trump should follow through on his 2024 promise to disband the redundant, Biden-created Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy (OPPR). Mr. Trump’s instinct was correct then, and it remains correct now.
- The $590 Million dollar Bird flu vaccine development contract to Moderna that the Biden administration approved a couple of days before President Trump’s inauguration should be cancelled.
- The USDA’s reported “conditional approval” of a Bird flu vaccine with Zoetis should be cancelled. Bird flu vaccination in poultry flocks has been demonstrated in other countries to select for more virulent strains. Furthermore, the CEO of Zoetis has close ties to Pfizer, BlackRock, and the Gates Foundation, all well-established bad actors during the Covid era. Beware, Mr. President.
The “pandemic preparedness” racket isn’t as complicated as it seems. Once one comes to terms with the fact that the arsonists are running the fire department – as they have been demonstrated by DOGE to be doing in so many other areas of government as well – we can recognize what is actually happening and apply the necessary solutions.
C.J. Baker, M.D. is an internal medicine physician with a quarter century in clinical practice. He has held numerous academic medical appointments, and his work has appeared in many journals, including the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine. From 2012 to 2018 he was Clinical Associate Professor of Medical Humanities and Bioethics at the University of Rochester.
February 22, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Deception, Economics, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, Susan Monarez, United States, USDA |
Leave a comment
With one stroke of his pen, President Trump accomplished what we have been fighting for over the last 4 years – an end to college and university Covid-19 vaccine mandates. He signed an executive order to halt federal funding to all schools, including colleges and universities, that still impose Covid-19 vaccine mandates on students. While there are only 15 colleges and universities left mandating these shots, the magnitude of his message to higher education leaders should not be underestimated.
Covid-19 vaccine mandates on healthy young adults were never based on scientific data or sound reasoning, but they were harshly implemented nonetheless. These policies coerced a captive population of students to choose between abandonment of their college programs and dreams for the future or complying with decisions over bodily autonomy made by the “experts.”
Beginning in the spring of 2021, colleges and universities mandated students to take shots that never protected against infection or transmission of Covid-19. These mandates were imposed with the mantra that injections were the best way to “protect our community” from severe illness and death – a claim that proved false by the summer of 2021 just prior to mandated compliance for fall 2021 enrollment.
In fact, colleges that never had Covid-19 vaccine mandates had less infections and have no recorded history of severe illnesses or death among their campus communities as compared to colleges that did. It was easy to analyze these data using the colleges’ own Covid infection and vaccination rate dashboards until most of them scrubbed the dashboards from their college websites.
Over 1,000 colleges announced Covid vaccine mandates by the summer of 2021. After a concerted campaign by No College Mandates and other advocacy groups, by the spring of 2022, colleges had slowly begun dropping them. By the summer of 2023, very few colleges imposed the mandates on faculty and staff, but students were still required to comply.
Until this executive order, which tasked our new Health and Human Services Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., to develop a plan to end these coercive policies, our nation’s entire academic apparatus seemed perfectly fine with the continued application of these mandates on students. For example, at CSU Dominguez Hills and CSU Cal Poly Humboldt, only residential students are required to show proof of Covid vaccination prior to enrollment. At Bryn Mawr, Haverford, and Swarthmore Colleges only students are required to take Covid vaccines. No other members of the college community must comply.
Coercive and mandatory policies such as these alerted many of us to the fact that student health was not at the forefront of administrators’ concerns. Somehow, they perpetuated the draconian notion that only students were to blame for spreading the SARS-CoV-2 virus and that only students must comply to put an end to the pandemic. College leaders knew such strategies were incoherent and illogical, yet they persisted almost entirely unchallenged.
From the very start, many of us lost trust in the hypocrisy of such inconsistencies. It was downright crazy for students to have to put up with such nonsense and risk injury from taking novel and needless medical treatments in the name of “protecting the community.” This is why we refused to stop shining a light on the injustice of it all.
It is with deep gratitude to President Trump and his team for keeping his promise and ending all federal funding to colleges and universities that continue these unnecessary and dangerous Covid-19 vaccine policies. There was zero science or reasoning to support them, and this new executive order might just prevent similar dictates from ever happening again.
But our work is far from done.
Healthcare students are still being forced to choose between their dreams and their autonomy to access hospitals and clinical facilities. To graduate, healthcare students must complete their clinical rotations, and hospitals and clinical facilities have required that these students take updated Covid vaccines even when faculty and staff no longer must comply. There is zero rationale for this patently retaliatory discrepancy.
In Florida, it is against the law for any “a business entity [to] require any person to provide any documentation certifying vaccination…or postinfection recovery from COVID-19, or require a COVID-19 test, to gain access to, entry upon, or service from the business operations in this state or as a condition of contracting, hiring, promotion, or continued employment with the business entity.”
When I called the University of Florida Nursing Program a few weeks ago, however, I was told students are required to receive updated Covid vaccines to complete clinical programs with some providers. Making matters worse, some colleges smugly refuse to disclose these requirements to prospective or even enrolled students, often leaving them to learn about them in the final year of their program.
Ironically, but perhaps not unexpectedly, UF Nursing posted on X just last week that there is a nationwide nursing shortage including in the State of Florida. It blows my mind that those who determine policies affecting the training of our nation’s nurses were somehow unaware that their coercive and nonsensical policies would likely lead to such shortages. After No College Mandates drew attention to this on X, UF Nursing deleted the post.
In Montana, there is a similar problem. Montana law prohibits discrimination based on Covid vaccine status yet the Emergency Medical Technician program at Helena College still requires students to take Covid vaccines to enroll.
I have reached out to representatives in both states to report the college programs that are not following state law because if there is anything I have learned over the past several years, colleges and universities will get away with these discriminatory and punitive policies for as long as they can until someone steps in to put an end to them.
It is uncertain what will happen to healthcare majors whose colleges and universities no longer require injections to enroll but whose clinical partner assignments are still requiring them to complete clinical rotations to graduate. So, while President Trump took a huge step forward to end federal funding to colleges and universities that perpetuate unscientific and unreasonable Covid vaccination, it is not nearly enough to end the coercive policies at partner facilities when the unreasonable and unconstitutional mandates remain for many healthcare students who need to complete clinical rotations at those facilities.
I would be remiss if I failed to mention that there are legislative efforts in at least 9 states* to completely ban mRNA shots. Such efforts promise to stop remaining Covid vaccine mandates dead in their tracks. Until we see those efforts make more progress, we will keep pressuring healthcare programs to end partnerships with hospitals and clinics when those facilities require students to receive Covid injections, and we will keep working with state representatives to hold clinical partners accountable for refusing to follow state law.
It is long overdue that our nation’s healthcare academies leave our healthcare students alone to make their own private decisions over what medical measures to take so they can pursue their dreams and help heal our very sick nation.
*On February 15, 2024, the Idaho Senate blocked the vote to ban mRNA vaccines so as of right now Bill S1036 is dead, and Idaho should no longer be on the map of 9 states.
Lucia Sinatra is a recovering corporate securities attorney. After becoming a mother, Lucia turned her attention to fighting inequities in public schools in California for students with learning disabilities. She co-founded NoCollegeMandates.com to help fight college vaccine mandates.
February 21, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
It has been commonplace for so long that most Americans cannot remember a time before the United States government was out running public relations campaigns urging Americans to take this or that vaccine or other pharmaceutical industry product. Now, an early action by new US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. suggests this practice may be coming to an end.
Helen Branswell reported Thursday at STAT News that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) “was ordered to shelve promotions it developed for a variety of vaccines, including a ‘Wild to Mild’ advertising campaign urging people to get vaccinated against flu” and that the CDC was informed that Kennedy “wanted advertisements that promote the idea of ‘informed consent’ in vaccine decision-making instead.”
What a major change — a transition from being a pharmaceutical company product promoter to being a promoter of, as Branswell describes informed consent in her article, “the principle that people should be notified of all the risks, as well as benefits, of any medical intervention they receive or any drug they are prescribed.”
This is a good early step by Kennedy. It clarifies a new orientation placing focus on advancing information and choice instead of pushing product. If Kennedy continues on this course, he can accomplish major advancement for health and freedom in America as his appointment suggested would be possible.
February 21, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science | Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
Aletho News
Aletho News 