Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The Covid evidence dismissed by the BBC as ‘conspiracy-laden’

By Sally Beck | TCW Defending Freedom | January 27, 2022

ALLEGED evidence of negligence in handling the Covid vaccination rollout by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) submitted to the Metropolitan Police has been dismissed by the BBC as a ‘conspiracy-laden criminal complaint’.

The BBC further claim that the four-hour oral testimony given to officers at Hammersmith and Fulham Police Station by three legal and one medical professional alleged ‘genocide’ and ‘depopulation’.

‘This is not true,’ said Philip Hyland, the lawyer whose testimony police heard. ‘I was quite careful not to say genocide and depopulation. I said negligence, misfeasance, corporate manslaughter and misconduct in a public office, but not genocide or depopulation.’

On January 7, the BBC published an article headlined ‘Anti-vax protests: “Sovereign citizens” fight UK Covid vaccine rollout’. It said: ‘Conspiracy-laden criminal complaints have recently been filed with the police in the UK and also the International Criminal Court, alleging ‘genocide’ and ‘depopulation’ via vaccinations.’

On January 18, Mr Hyland wrote to Alistair Coleman, one of two journalists – Shayan Sardarizadeh was the second – who co-authored the piece, complaining that they had failed to check details of the complaint with the Met Police or with him. ‘This breaches standard journalistic practice,’ he said via email. The BBC’s own editorial guidelines are clear that he should have been given his ‘right to reply’.

The complaint to the ICC was nothing to do with Mr Hyland and was submitted by Hannah Rose Law. It does mention genocide and depopulation, but Mr Hyland’s concern is with the MHRA. He said: ‘They have failed to follow up vaccine concerns. They have also failed to withdraw bad batches [known in the trade as “hot lots”] of vaccines when there are known issues with several. But I did not accuse them of murder, conspiracy to murder, genocide, gross negligence manslaughter, or crimes against humanity as stated in a ‘Public Announcement’ shared on social media on January 7.’

It was December 20, 2021, when he presented his evidence, with solicitor Lois Bayliss, of Broad Yorkshire Law, Dr Sam White, a former partner from a Hampshire GPs’ practice, and former police officer Mark Sexton. They were given a crime number by the Met, 6029679/21, to show that the police are taking it seriously and intend to investigate.

Despite this, Reuters fact checkers say the Met have not opened a criminal investigation. They give the impression that the police are not looking at evidence, which is misleading. The police are reviewing all testimonies and documents and will assess the strength of evidence for any potential case. It is then up to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to decide whether that evidence is strong enough to make arrests and take the case to trial.

Mr Hyland said that his oral evidence was received by ‘a young, intelligent officer, PC Irvine. I gave a four-hour oral statement. PC Irvine asked intelligent questions and he was already aware of much that we were talking about. None of it was a surprise; none of it was new. He wasn’t shocked.

‘He was young, bright and a good listener. He grasped what we told him. I couldn’t fault him.’

He then provided a secure portal for the team to upload evidence, and case developments are being overseen by Detective Sergeant Mallett.

Ms Bayliss has been gathering witness statements from those who allege they are vaccine-injured, and from potential expert witnesses in the US and the UK. She said: ‘We have subsequently uploaded 103 statements regarding vaccine associated deaths and injury, and 13 from identifiable whistleblowers, medical experts and scientists.’

To build his case, Mr Hyland investigated our medicines regulatory authority, specifically the alleged negligence of June Raine, chief executive of the MHRA. He said: ‘The charge against the MHRA is that they negligently conducted themselves and have caused British citizens real harm and suffering.

‘They have failed to act on any of the Yellow Card reports they have received. There are currently 2,000 deaths reported and 500,000 adverse events. They should have stopped the programme before the deaths reached 100 and launched a thorough investigation.’

The Yellow Card data show that 1 in 120 people have reported an event they considered serious enough to spend 40 minutes filling out a Yellow Card form. ‘This may be just the tip of the iceberg,’ said Ms Bayliss, ‘as the MHRA admit they receive information from around 10 per cent of those damaged.’

The figure is low because some doctors find they cannot access the Yellow Card scheme from their hospital computers, while others do not know about it. Members of the public are generally not informed about Yellow Card and most who complain to their GP that they think they have suffered a serious adverse event are told that the vaccine is an unlikely cause and their symptoms are put down to ‘coincidence’, as the Royal College of General Practitioners has not issued them with any advice.

If the coincidence theory held water, you would expect an even spread of reports across the three vaccinations used in Britain. We have Pfizer-BioNTech’s experimental mRNA jab introduced in December 2020, and Oxford/AstraZeneca’s more traditional one which has been available since January 2021. Plus the new kid on the block, Moderna’s mRNA jab introduced in April 2021.

Although we began using it four months after Pfizer and three months after AstraZeneca, Moderna is clocking up 50 per cent more Yellow Cards than AZ, who have 60 per cent more reported injuries than Pfizer.

Oxford/AstraZeneca has been received by 24.9million people and the Yellow Card scheme shows that 1 in 103 have been impacted, while Pfizer-BioNTech’s has been received by 25.3million people and Yellow Card shows that 1 in 162 people have been impacted.

Moderna has been given to 1.6million people and its Yellow Card reporting rate shows that 1 in 50 people have been impacted. On average, 1 in 120 people have suffered an adverse reaction.

‘In our view, we have enough evidence to show gross negligence,’ said Mr Hyland. ‘It is clear that the MHRA have failed to follow up concerns about vaccine injury and they failed to withdraw harmful batches when they knew about the issues.

‘They also exaggerated the risk of Covid by failing to distinguish the difference between dying with Covid, which is when someone has other illnesses, or of Covid, which is when the patient has no other illnesses.’

Covid-19, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, has a low fatality rate: less than one per cent of those who contract it. The Office of National Statistics has revealed under a Freedom of Information request that only 13,597 deaths in England and Wales out of 140,000 attributed to Covid were caused by Covid alone. The bulk of deaths were of people with comorbidities.

‘New evidence is coming in all the time,’ said Mr Hyland, ‘including from those who have suffered psychological harm caused by the mandates.

‘The alleged criminality that appears to have gone on is like nothing we have ever seen before and has resulted in people being injured, some permanently, and dying. There were safe treatments which were ignored by the MHRA but there must have been heavy political pressure to authorise the vaccine as the Prime Minister had pre-ordered millions of doses.

‘History will show this to be one of the world’s biggest-ever scandals.’

We contacted the two BBC journalists for comment but they did not respond.

January 27, 2022 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy suggests Joe Rogan should be censored

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | January 27, 2022

The US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy has suggested that Big Tech platforms should censor even more COVID “misinformation” on social media.

Speaking on MSNBC, Murthy said that online platforms have a role to play when it comes to censoring “misinformation” and ensuring that the public gets “accurate” information.

Murthy made the comments on MSNBC when host Mika Brzezinski pushed for a comment on the “best ways to push back on misinformation about COVID that continues to be aggressively pushed, whether it be Joe Rogan’s podcast or all over Facebook.”

“We can have the best science available, we can have the best public health expertise available. It won’t help people if they don’t have access to accurate information,” Murthy responded. “People have the right to make their own decisions, but they also have the right to have accurate information to make that decision with.”

Murthy added that Big Tech giants have an “important role to play” as they are the “predominant places where we’re seeing misinformation spread.”

“This [is] not just about what the government can do,” he went on to say. “This is about companies and individuals recognizing that the only way we get past misinformation is if we are careful about what we say and use the power that we have to limit the spread of misinformation.”

January 27, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | Leave a comment

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, at Least Not on Mainstream Media

By Madhava Setty, M.D. | The Defender | January 26, 2022

More than 30,000 people gathered Sunday near the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in our nation’s capital to protest COVID vaccine mandates.

Attendees were treated to nearly four hours of impassioned, poignant and uncensored speeches from more than 20 speakers who helped spearhead the movement for medical freedom.

Rather than attempting to summarize their commentary on the purported safety and efficacy of COVID vaccines, departures from accepted practices of informed consent around medical intervention and rapid erosion of the patient/doctor relationship from Big Pharma interference, I will instead list some pearls that might easily get overlooked but should not go forgotten.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Children’s Health Defense chairman and chief legal counsel, elucidated the single most important point of Pfizer’s six-month trial data.

He explained that more participants died in the vaccine group compared to placebo group, and one vaccine recipient perished from COVID during this period compared to two in the placebo group — hence Pfizer can claim its product provides 100% efficacy against COVID death.

But at what cost?

Four times as many people died of cardiac arrest in the vaccine group than placebo. We can thus conclude the risk of dying from a cardiac arrest is 300% greater if you get vaccinated — a fact that goes unacknowledged by our medical authorities and legacy media.

Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) spokesperson and board-certified critical care physician Dr. Pierre Kory expressed his frustration in trying to publish rigorous peer-reviewed data on the undeniable efficacy of the early COVID treatment protocol FLCCC formulated during the desperate early days of the pandemic.

This led him to emphatically conclude, “Every policy out of our agencies has been written by the pharmaceutical industry … It’s a war. A war on repurposed drugs.”

Dr. Robert Malone, in his typically measured fashion, reminded us that our authorities and vaccine manufacturers have nearly 100% indemnity from vaccine-related injury and that it is our job to protect our kids, not theirs.

Unfortunately, the magnitude of vaccine risks is yet unknown. Still, “If there is risk,” Malone said, “there must be choice.”

Steve Kirsch took the podium two hours into the program and recounted his introduction into the vaccine-hesitant sphere and described the abject refusal of any authority to answer a single one of his questions.

However, Kirsch’s biggest point was not his attack on tightlipped and avoidant medical authorities.

Kirsch offered a very reasonable counterargument to the mainstream push to accept these vaccinations out of a moral obligation to our community. Do we in fact have an obligation to others that can be mandated? On what moral grounds can this be enforced?

Kirsch said:

“Nobody has the right to mandate that I must risk my life to save other people that I don’t know. It’s unethical and immoral. I will not voluntarily choose to deprive my kids of their father.”

These points are important for every person in the world to consider, regardless of which side of the vaccine debate you are on.

Of course, these sentiments predictably resonated with those in attendance. But is that good enough? Will vaccine mandate proponents ever have the opportunity to hear this perspective?

Perhaps not.

One needs only to listen to how legacy media covered the rally. In this three-minute clip — “Anti-Vaccine Mandate Protests During Omicron Surge” — NBC News gave its viewers a glimpse of what this event signified.

The reporter said:

“Thousands rallying on the National Mall for the ‘Defeat the Mandates’ protest featuring some of the nation’s most prominent anti-vaxxers…”

Then the camera immediately cuts to protesters complaining:

“… we tried to get a burger last night but couldn’t because we didn’t have a proof-of-vaccine card.”

Are these really the most prominent spokespersons of the movement explaining why mandates are not just scientifically unfounded but unethical?

Another protester stated on camera he is not “anti-vax” but chooses not to get the jab because these vaccines are experimental. However, the NBC News reporters said, “That’s not true, COVID vaccines are fully approved, more scrutinized than any vaccine in history…”

Of the three COVID vaccines currently authorized for emergency use, only the Pfizer Comirnaty formulation has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

However, that formulation has not been made available in this country. There isn’t a single person in this country who has been inoculated with a fully approved COVID vaccine. (Consider yourselves fact-checked, NBC News.)

The idea COVID vaccines have been “more scrutinized than any vaccine in history” is a frank lie. The vaccine trials were rushed, poorly designed, offered no meaningful age stratification and used a participant pool that was younger and healthier than those who succumb to serious COVID.

The trials effectively ended several months after they began when the participants were unblinded and offered the vaccine, making any long-term efficacy or safety comparisons impossible.

Moreover, federal agencies responsible for scrutinizing the vaccines have done just the opposite, allowing serious, life-threatening and fatal adverse events to go unacknowledged and uninvestigated.

Despite the magnitude of expert opinion on hand, NBC News chose not to seek it. NBC did not interview one of the physicians, scientists, healthcare advocates or vaccine-injured who spoke at the rally.

A free press, dedicated to balanced reporting and an intrepid pursuit of the facts is our only guardian against tyranny. It is their job to pose difficult questions and demand answers. It is their job to give a voice to the dissenter and the whistleblower.

This is why Del Bigtree’s finale was so salient. Bigtree got large reactions from the crowd when he drew upon Lincoln’s words and Bible quotations, framing the issue as a struggle between good and evil and leading the crowd in a chant for freedom. His comments will likely draw criticism from mainstream pundits that continue to frame the anti-mandate movement as one that is based in ideology and not science.

But it was his admonishment of the mainstream media that will reverberate most in the weeks and months ahead.

Bigtree said:

“For those of you who are standing here quietly today, I know who you are. I know you work for The New York Times. I know you work for the Washington Post and you are here trying to support us quietly… You should have written about us. You should have told the truth!”

The revolution will not be televised. At least not on NBC News.

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

January 27, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Solidarity and Activism | , , | Leave a comment

Live and Unplugged – True Covid History given to Irish Nurses Group!

Ivor Cummins | January 26, 2022

My recent talk to Irish Nurses and Mother’s Group – no punches pulled – please share!

NOTE: My extensive research and interviewing / video/sound editing and much more does require support – please consider helping if you can with monthly donation to support me directly, or one-off payment: https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=69ZSTYXBMCN3W

– alternatively join up with my Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/IvorCummins

January 27, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | Leave a comment

The problem with bougiecrats is that they just tick boxes, they don’t ever *think*

By Toby Rogers | January 26, 2022

The New York Times assigned four of their top national political reporters to write a long story about Biden’s First Pandemic Year. The article is an unwitting case study in everything that is wrong with the Biden administration, the public health establishment, and the corporate media.

“Highly respected infectious disease expert(TM)” Rochelle Walensky knows almost nothing about viruses nor infectious disease

From the article:

Dr. Rochelle Walensky was stunned. Working from her home outside Boston on a Friday night in late July, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had just learned from members of her staff that vaccinated Americans were spreading the coronavirus.

Vaccines had been the core of President Biden’s pandemic strategy from the moment he took office. But as Dr. Walensky was briefed about a cluster of breakthrough cases in Provincetown, Mass., the reality sank in. The Delta variant, which had ravaged other parts of the world, was taking hold in the United States. And being vaccinated would not, it turned out, prevent people from becoming infected with the variant or transmitting it.

It was a “heart sink” moment, Dr. Walensky recalled in a recent interview.

I am not a medical doctor nor scientist. But I’ve been warning since April 2020 that SARS-CoV-2 was not a good candidate for a vaccine because it mutates too fast. This was known to everyone who paid even minimal attention to the data. There has never been a successful vaccine for the common cold nor HIV — and SARS-CoV-2 was engineered to have pieces of both of those viruses. And the flu vaccine, depending on the year, is often less than 50% effective (some years the effectiveness drops into the teens or even single digits). All of these vaccines fail for the same reason that coronavirus vaccines are failing — the virus mutates too fast.

Did Rochelle Walensky honestly not know the rate at which this virus was mutating?

It sounds like they never contemplated the possibility that the vaccines might fail.

That also likely means that Walensky has no idea what antibody dependent enhancement is, why it’s a problem, nor does she know how to spot antibody dependent enhancement if it’s happening in the population.

Bougiecrats just execute the plan. They do not think. They just tick boxes. That is not what the U.S. needs in the midst of this crisis.

Fauci is a malevolent force inside the government and he is wrong about everything

We already knew this but the article drives it home:

Fauci pushed for a national vaccine passport system.

Fauci pushed for vaccine mandates for domestic air travel.

Fauci pushed for the vaccine mandates that eventually became the OSHA, CMS, and federal worker vaccine requirements. Thankfully the OSHA vaccine mandate was recently struck down by the Supreme Court and the federal worker mandate was stayed last Friday by a federal judge in Texas.

One reason that the Biden administration was not prepared for the Delta and Omicron variants was because Fauci assured them that “the vaccine push would be able to, for the most part, nullify a Delta surge.”

Fauci is literally the Pandemic’s Wrongest Man Elf.

Six people dictate coronavirus policy for 330,000,000 Americans. Five of the six are completely rotten

Biden’s Pandemic team consists of six people:

Jeff Zients, an economist and former management consultant with no scientific nor medical background;

Xavier Becerra, a lawyer with no scientific nor medical background;

Janet Woodcock, the woman who gave us the opioid epidemic that kills more Americans every year than the Vietnam War;

David Kessler, who is a decent guy (not sure how they let him on the team);

Tony Fauci, who funded the creation of the virus that killed more Americans than all foreign wars combined; and

Rochelle Walenksy, who looks like she’s always on the verge of a nervous breakdown and is clearly unfit for purpose.

This is the point that I keep coming back to again and again:

Would you rather have six captured bureaucrats imposing their diktats on 330,000,000 people? Or would you rather have the one-million professionally-active doctors and 210,000,000 adults in this country using logic and reason to solve this problem using their best judgement?

It is profoundly unAmerican to give six corrupt unelected bureaucrats this much power. And it is absolutely the wrong way to make scientific decisions. No wonder the Biden administration gets everything wrong when it comes to coronavirus.

Ron DeSantis lives rent free inside Biden’s head and he is the reason we do not have a national vaccine passport system

The article states that the Biden administration, in March of 2021, began planning for a national vaccine passport system. We all saw the trial balloons that they floated in the press. But then they scuttled the plan when they saw that Governor DeSantis opposed it and was using it to build opposition to the administration. The Biden administration fears losing to DeSantis in the 2024 election and so they have scaled back their totalitarianism somewhat in hopes of not giving him more ammunition.

The reporters at the NY Times are dumb fascist clowns that have their thumb on the scale for Pharma

The NY Times is one of the best jobs in journalism. And the four senior reporters assigned to this article exemplify the total intellectual and moral collapse of the bourgeoisie.

The first five paragraphs of the article are all about how the vaccine does not stop the Omicron variant. The very next sentence reads,

Mr. Biden and his team have gotten much right, including getting at least one dose of a vaccine into nearly 85 percent of Americans 12 and older…

Did they not read the five paragraphs before about how the vaccine does not work? How is an 85% vaccination rate a success when the vaccine does not actually stop the virus? In fact, the best evidence shows that these vaccines have negative efficacy, something that these crack “reporters” do not seem to realize.

Throughout the article, the reporters chide Biden for not pushing harder for vaccine and mask mandates and more testing. They claim “a chorus of voices inside and outside the government” pushing for such measures — but strangely they never cite any sources by name who are part of this “chorus”. Apparently that’s the script and they are sticking to it regardless of whether they have to manufacture such claims.

Furthermore these stenographers for the cartel never once ask about vaccine effectiveness/risks, the fact that most masks make no difference, and the 90% false-positive rate from tests that their own newspaper reported on in August 2020. I guess they don’t trust the NY Times either.

They are also addicted to the “overwhelmed hospitals” narrative — they just sprinkle it in for a dash of flavor whenever their rhetoric starts to sag. They never question the firing of doctors and nurses with natural immunity and critical thinking skills. Nor do they examine the possibility that vaccine failure and vaccine injury might contribute to whatever patient surges might exist.

They live inside the Pharma-directed metaverse and they have no plans to ever leave or question any of its assumptions.

Conclusion

The reason why RFK Jr., Del Bigtree, Alex Berenson, and Joe Rogan have bigger audiences than the NY Times is because they tell the truth.

The reason why the Biden administration is a complete and total failure is because it is filled with bougiecrats who do not think, they just execute the plan and wait around for their participation trophy.

None of the bourgeois institutions that caused this problem (from the corporate media to the government to the public health establishment) are capable of correcting course based on new data. They are guided by ideology, not facts. The only solution is revolution. Let’s make it happen.

January 26, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Leave a comment

Americans’ Rejection of Coronavirus Shots Is a Reason for Hope for the Country

By Adam Dick | Ron Paul Institute | January 26, 2022

For over a year, Americans have been subjected to relentless pressure to take experimental coronavirus “vaccine” shots and, more recently, to even have the shots given to children who have a miniscule risk of becoming seriously sick or dying from coronavirus. The shots are widely available, free for the taking, and nonstop marketed by politicians, government bureaucrats, and people in the media as “safe and effective.”

But, many Americans have been smartly rejecting claims pushed on them by government and media. Americans have done their own investigating and found that the shots have known serious dangers, as well as additional likely serious dangers yet unknown because of the lack of proper examination of consequences of taking the rushed into distribution shots. Many Americans have also learned that the shots do not stop people from getting, spreading, and dying from coronavirus. Plus, many Americans know people who have been hurt by the shots.

A large percentage of Americans have just said no to the drug pushers from the beginning. So strong has been the conviction of many individuals against taking the purported miracle drugs that they have said “no” even though it means they will be fired from their jobs due to vaccine mandates and excluded from many activities due to vaccine passports.

Many other Americans, who took the initial shots after giving in to the pushers or after giving the pro-shots propaganda the benefit of the doubt, have since declared, “no more.” Some were hurt by the shots they took and do not want to go through more of the same or worse. Others investigated the shots, learning about the drugs’ safety and efficacy deficits. Others, who never bought the propaganda in the first place but allowed themselves to be pushed into the initial shots, are adamant in their rejection of more.

You will not find much objective discussion in the big money media about the safety and efficacy of the experimental coronavirus vaccine shots. But, you will find recognition that resistance to the vaccine push has been strong and widespread, even if the topic is brought up just to belittle the resisters. One example of that recognition is a Tuesday Associated Press article by Mae Anderson that begins with the following observations regarding the Americans choosing to decline taking the shots:

The COVID-19 booster drive in the U.S. is losing steam, worrying health experts who have pleaded with Americans to get an extra shot to shore up their protection against the highly contagious omicron variant.

Just 40% of fully vaccinated Americans have received a booster dose, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And the average number of booster shots dispensed per day in the U.S. has plummeted from a peak of 1 million in early December to about 490,000 as of last week.

Also, a new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that Americans are more likely to see the initial vaccinations — rather than a booster — as essential.

‘It’s clear that the booster effort is falling short,’ said Jason Schwartz, a vaccine policy expert at Yale University.

Overall, the U.S. vaccination campaign has been sluggish. More than 13 months after it began, just 63% of Americans, or 210 million people, are fully vaccinated with the initial rounds of shots. Mandates that could raise those numbers have been hobbled by legal challenges.

Vaccination numbers are stagnant in states such as Wyoming, Idaho, Mississippi and Alabama, which have been hovering below 50%.

It seems to be quite frustrating for the big money media and authoritarians in government that so many Americans are choosing to make up their own minds not to take the shots, or not to allow the shots to be given to their children, instead of just doing as they are told. That exercise of independent decision making in the face of intense pressure to go along, though, reassures people who highly value freedom that there is yet hope for the country.

Copyright © 2022 by RonPaul Institute.

January 26, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Myocarditis Risk Increases Up To 133-FOLD Following Covid Vaccination, Study Finds

By Will Jones | The Daily Sceptic | January 26, 2022

A study published this week in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) has found that the risk of myocarditis (heart inflammation) after receiving an mRNA Covid vaccine (Pfizer or Moderna) was dramatically increased across many age groups and was highest after the second vaccination dose in young men.

The study found myocarditis reports were highest after the second vaccination dose in males aged 12 to 15 years at 70.7 per million Pfizer doses, compared to an expected rate of 0.53 per million, amounting to a 133-fold increase; in males aged 16 to 17 years at 105.9 per million Pfizer doses, compared to an expected rate of 1.34 per million, amounting to a 79-fold increase; and in young men aged 18 to 24 years at 52.4 per million Pfizer doses and 56.3 per million Moderna doses, compared to an expected rate of 1.76 per million, amounting to a 30-fold and 32-fold increase respectively. The full results are shown in the table below and a selection are depicted in the chart above.

The study comprised a review of reports of myocarditis to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) that occurred after mRNA Covid vaccination between December 2020 and August 2021 in people over 12 years old. The researchers adjudicated and summarised the reports and compared the rates to expected rates of myocarditis using 2017-2019 data. For those under 30 they conducted medical record reviews and clinician interviews to investigate clinical presentation, test results, treatment, and early outcomes.

They found that out of 192,405,448 individuals receiving a total of 354,100,845 mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine doses during the study period, there were 1,991 reports of myocarditis to VAERS, of which 1,626 met their case definition of myocarditis. Among the 1,626 cases, the median age was 21 years and the median time to symptom onset was two days. Males comprised 82% of the myocarditis cases for whom sex was reported, and where timing was reported, 82% occurred after the second vaccination dose.

The charts showing myocarditis cases by age and symptom onset are shown below.

Oster et al 2022

Oster et al 2022

Regarding deaths, the researchers write:

Among persons younger than 30 years of age, there were no confirmed cases of myocarditis in those who died after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination without another identifiable cause and there was one probable case of myocarditis [in those who died] but there was insufficient information available for a thorough investigation. At the time of data review, there were two reports of death in persons younger than 30 years of age with potential myocarditis that remain under investigation and are not included in the case counts.

The authors note that a difference between vaccine-related myocarditis and virus-related myocarditis was that the former comes on more quickly; they also note that it appears to be milder:

The onset of myocarditis symptoms after exposure to a potential immunological trigger was shorter for COVID-19 vaccine-associated cases of myocarditis than is typical for myocarditis cases diagnosed after a viral illness. Cases of myocarditis reported after COVID-19 vaccination were typically diagnosed within days of vaccination, whereas cases of typical viral myocarditis can often have indolent courses with symptoms sometimes present for weeks to months after a trigger if the cause is ever identified.

The major presenting symptoms appeared to resolve faster in cases of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination than in typical viral cases of myocarditis. Even though almost all individuals with cases of myocarditis were hospitalised and clinically monitored, they typically experienced symptomatic recovery after receiving only pain management. In contrast, typical viral cases of myocarditis can have a more variable clinical course. For example, up to 6% of typical viral myocarditis cases in adolescents require a heart transplant or result in mortality.

To what extent are these differences a reporting artefact, where adverse event reports are only made when a reaction occurs within days of a vaccination, but otherwise the link is unnoticed or dismissed?

The authors note that underreporting is likely, “given the high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination”, and therefore “the actual rates of myocarditis per million doses of vaccine are likely higher than estimated”.

Another recent study found post-vaccination myocarditis adverse events were underestimated by the VAERS definition.

A third recent study, from Oxford University, found that myocarditis risk following Covid vaccination was up to 14 times higher than that following COVID-19 infection. It has been suggested that that study underestimated the risk following vaccination. It should also be noted that since vaccination provides little protection against infection the idea that the risk following vaccination is instead of and not as well as the risk following infection is not sound.

Myocarditis is not the only serious side-effect of these vaccines, and the vaccines do not protect well against infection or transmission. This means it is increasingly clear that the current Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccines do not have the efficacy and safety profile that would make giving them to children and young people worthwhile or ethical.

January 26, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Flawed CDC Study Wrongly Concludes COVID Vaccines Safe in Pregnancy

By Madhava Setty, M.D. and Jennifer Smith, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 25, 2022

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) earlier this month recommended women who are pregnant, recently pregnant, who are trying to become pregnant now or who might become pregnant in the future get the COVID-19 vaccine.

The CDC made the recommendation after concluding, in a Jan. 7 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, that data support the safety of COVID vaccination during pregnancy.

By comparing COVID vaccination during pregnancy to those unvaccinated during pregnancy, the agency determined COVID vaccines were not associated with preterm birth or with delivering a child who was born smaller or less developed than expected, also known as small-for-gestational-age (SGA).

In this article, we examine flaws in the CDC study that led to the agency’s wrongful conclusion regarding COVID vaccines for pregnant women.

First, some background.

Including pregnant women in clinical trials

Pregnancy is a precarious time not just for the expectant mother but most importantly the developing fetus. Expectant mothers are advised not to drink alcohol or caffeinated beverages and not to eat raw foods such as sushi and deli meats.

A lot of medications are contraindicated during pregnancy including simple pain meds like non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (Ibuprofen), antidiarrheals, decongestants, antihistamines, nasal sprays and expectorants.

Women are advised not to take these medications during pregnancy because they pose potential risks to the developing fetus.

For decades, expectant mothers have been considered a vulnerable group to be shielded from potential harms of research for the sake of their fetuses’ health.

In 1977, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued guidelines excluding pregnant women and women “with childbearing potential” from phase I and phase II clinical trials, where new drugs are tested for safety and efficacy.

This view stemmed, in part, from tragedies caused by two now-infamous drugs that were widely prescribed to pregnant women in the mid-20th century: thalidomide, which caused thousands of children around the world to be born with flipper-like limbs and other birth defects, and diethylstilbestrol, which was linked to higher rates of cancer in both mothers and the daughters born to them.

This view changed however in 1993, with the passage of the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act, which sought to increase gender and racial diversity in clinical trials.

Federal regulations currently require any study involving pregnant women to meet 10 criteria, including that, “where scientifically appropriate,” data first be collected on pregnant animals and non-pregnant human subjects to assess risk, and that any risk to mother or fetus be “the least possible for achieving the objectives of the research.”

Reproduction toxicity studies in animal models hinted at dangers early on

While the companies developing the COVID-19 vaccines have done preliminary studies in animals, their studies were limited to rodents. The vaccine makers did not conduct studies on non-human primates, recognized as the closest animal models to humans regarding genetics, physiology and behavior.

Nevertheless, Moderna’s own Assessment Report to the European Medicines Agency Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use on March 11, 2021, included a study for reproductive and developmental toxicology on female rats during gestation.

The report noted (page 50: Reproduction Toxicity) an increase in the number of fetuses with common skeletal variations of one or more rib nodules and one or more wavy ribs. Additionally, the number of pups born to vaccinated rats was lower than the number in the unvaccinated rats.

Most importantly, the authors explicitly stated, “In this study, no vaccine dose was administered during the early organogenesis [the period during embryonic development of an animal when the main body organs are formed], to address the direct embryotoxic effect of the components of the vaccine formulation.”

One month earlier, Pfizer reported in its Feb. 19, 2021, Assessment Report to the same committee that pregnant rats demonstrated a greater-than-2x increase in pre-implantation loss in exposed animals compared to controls.

The authors of the Pfizer report further stated (Page 50: Reproduction Toxicity) that “a very low incidence of gastroschisis, mouth/jaw malformations, right-sided aortic arch, and cervical vertebrae abnormalities” occurred in litters of exposed rats, and that these findings were within historical control data.

This finding brings up an important question: Why compare the incidence of these major congenital abnormalities with “historical” controls and not with the controls themselves?

As late as April 2021, the CDC still maintained there was limited data surrounding the safety of COVID vaccines for women who were pregnant or breastfeeding. The agency advised women who were pregnant or breastfeeding to consult with their physician before getting vaccinated.

But were obstetricians made aware of the potential safety signals appearing in animal models?

And how were physicians able to decide whether or not a COVID vaccine was appropriate for their pregnant patients if the CDC wasn’t offering any guidance at that time?

CDC’s latest study: a closer look at the details

Using data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink — a CDC vaccine safety monitoring system the public cannot access — the CDC study identified 46,079 pregnant women with live births and gestational age.

Of those, 10,064 (21.8%) received ≥1 COVID vaccine doses during pregnancy from Dec. 15, 2020, to July 22, 2021.

Nearly all (9,892, or 98.3%) of the pregnant women included in the study were vaccinated during the second or third trimester.

The authors found that among unvaccinated women, the rate of premature births was 7% compared to 4.9% in those who had received either one or both vaccine doses.

The rate of small-for-gestational-age in both vaccinated and unvaccinated mothers was equal (8.2%).

The authors thus conclude that “… receipt of COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy was not associated with increased risk for preterm birth or SGA at birth.”

5 flaws in the CDC analysis

On closer examination, we identified the following five deficits in the CDC study:

  • Cohorts were not well matched. There were greater than three times more African American women in the unvaccinated group than in the vaccinated group. The CDC acknowledges the African American race is a risk factor for preterm birth and may be as high as 50% greater than in white women.

There were also greater than 50% more mothers in the unvaccinated group classified as having inadequate prenatal care. Obesity, also a risk for preterm birth, was also overrepresented in the unvaccinated group (29% vs 23.9%) compared to the vaccinated.

  • No adjustment for mothers with a history of preterm birth of SGA. The authors did not address this potential confounder.
  • COVID infection, another potentially important confounder, was present in the unvaccinated group at a 25% greater incidence than in the vaccinated cohort (3.5% vs 2.8%). There was no mention of when in the pregnancy the infection was detected. Viral infections early in pregnancy are particularly deleterious to the developing fetus. This should have been an important risk factor to quantify independently, especially when establishing a risk-versus-benefit ratio of vaccination.
  • The CDC data indicate a 7.7% risk of preterm birth in mothers having received one of two vaccines. This represents a 10% greater risk than in unvaccinated pregnancies. This increased risk is not mentioned in the discussion. Moreover, the adjusted Hazard Ratio (aHR) in this population is given as 0.78, indicating a 22% risk reduction in preterm birth in vaccinated mothers, seemingly conflicting with the raw data. (A request for clarification from the corresponding author was not answered).
  • The most glaring deficit in the CDC analysis is the scarcity of vaccinated mothers who received a vaccine in the first trimester in this study. The risk of untoward outcomes (birth defects, miscarriages) in pregnancy is greatest during the first third of pregnancy, a time when crucial embryonic structures are developing. This is the period of time where maternal health is particularly important, and exposure to toxins, infections and certain medicines must be minimized or eliminated entirely if possible.

Only 172 of more than 10,000 (1.7%) vaccinated mothers in the study received a vaccine in the first trimester. The incidence of preterm birth and SGA were not mentioned in this small cohort because of limited numbers.

Nonetheless, the authors arrive at the stunning conclusion: “CDC recommends COVID-19 vaccination for women who are pregnant, recently pregnant (including those who are lactating), who are trying to become pregnant now, or who might become pregnant in the future (4) to reduce the risk for severe COVID-19–associated outcomes.”

CDC not required to provide access to its data or subject its analysis to peer review

The Vaccine Safety Datalink uses data reported from nine large healthcare organizations, serving only 3% of the U.S. population. The system collects electronic health data from each participating site.

This database is accessible only to researchers outside the CDC and only by request. Requests may be accommodated after a research proposal is submitted and approved by the Research Data Center of the National Center for Health Statistics.

CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports can, as in the case of the agency’s analysis of COVID vaccine safety in pregnant women, be based on data that is not necessarily publicly available.

The agency’s analyses are not subject to peer review. Nevertheless, the reports are often widely cited as the official scientific position.

Conclusions

The CDC’s determination that COVID vaccination is safe in pregnant women is unfounded.

Cohorts were poorly matched. There was an inexcusably low representation of women who were vaccinated early in their pregnancy in their analysis. This is a period where any exposure to medical interventions will have a greater potential for risk to the fetus.

Broadly recommending vaccination for all pregnant women including those who are trying to become pregnant is particularly unwarranted.

This report places the CDC’s purported commitment to its mission of disease control and prevention on full display. The agency’s conclusions arrive more than a full year after the CDC authorized COVID vaccinations and are based on retrospective data alone.

In other words, the CDC is willing (and apparently allowed) to make safety determinations only after the experimental vaccines have been widely and indiscriminately deployed.

This is a shocking departure from the higher standards of prudence that are demanded during pregnancy, a time where two lives are potentially at risk and poor outcomes can lead to a lifetime of potential consequences.

It should be noted that several of the authors of this study reported potential conflicts of interest.

One author reported institutional research funding from Pfizer, and another from Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson. A third author has a career grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Madhava Setty, M.D. is senior science editor for The Defender.

Jennifer Smith, Ph.D. holds a doctoral degree in mIcrobiology and molecular cell sciences.

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

January 26, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Creating Records By Hiding The Past

Tony Heller | January 20, 2022

Almost all of the claimed climate records the press keeps touting were created by erasing the past – when weather was at least as extreme as it is now.

Also on Youtube

January 26, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | Leave a comment

CDC “Pivoting its language” on vaccination status

Moving forward people will need regular boosters to be “up to date”, & they won’t be using the term “fully vaccinated” anymore.

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | January 25, 2022

Dr Rochelle Walensky, director of the US Center for Disease Control, told the media on Friday that the CDC is intending to “pivot the language” regarding the Covid19 vaccines.

Speaking to the press briefing, Dr Walenksy had a very obvious message she really wanted to hammer home :

And what we really are working to do is pivot the language to make sure that everybody is as up to date with their COVID-19 vaccines as they personally could be, should be, based on when they got their last vaccine. So, importantly, right now, we’re pivoting our language. We really want to make sure people are up to date. That means if you recently got your second dose, you’re not eligible for a booster, you’re up to date. If you are eligible for a booster and you haven’t gotten it, you’re not up to date and you need to get your booster in order to be up to date.

(You can watch the full briefing here.)

It’s pretty clear that “say “up to date”, not “fully vaccinated”, was underlined in the memo. As was “pivot the language”, but what does it actually mean?

Well, that should be clear, it means people who were “fully vaccinated” will soon be “not fully vaccinated”.

(Side note here, but can we take a moment to appreciate the term “pivot the language”? That is some nice newspeak, beautiful. Up there alongside “enhanced interrogation”.)

The use of the term “up to date” in place of “fully vaccinated” is likewise deliberately crafted political language, turning a hard-and-fast reality into an ever-extending continuum. Normalising the open-ended nature of the new “vaccinations”.

We did warn you this would happen, you will NEVER be full vaccinated.

The good news is that this could be the breaking point for a lot of people who have gone along peacefully up until now, and if you doubt that just look how nervous Walenksy is in saying it, and listen to how much trouble she’s going to avoiding the phrase “not fully vaccinated”.

She knows this is going to alienate a lot of people. Could be our side is about to get some considerable reinforcements.

January 25, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

Have Lockdown Sceptics Won the Argument?

By Edward Chancellor | The Daily Sceptic | January 25, 2022

Now that Covid restrictions are being rolled back, various commentators are declaring victory over the miserable virus. Lockdowns, we are told, worked. Only a fool could argue otherwise.

Devi Sridhar, the Chair of Global Public Health at Edinburgh University, who was formerly an exponent of the Zero Covid strategy of completely eradicating the virus, has recently announced in the Guardian that “delaying and preventing infection as much as possible through this pandemic was a worthwhile strategy. In early 2020, there were few treatments, limited testing and no vaccines. The costs of those lockdowns were big, but the effort to buy time paid off”.

At the other end of the political spectrum, Tom Harwood of GB News says much the same. Lockdown sceptics, he writes in CapX, are “bizarrely claiming victory now that restrictions are coming to an end”. The sceptics, Harwood asserts, ignore the success of vaccines. “There is a blindingly obvious distinction between the need for non-pharmaceutical interventions amongst a non-immune population, verses [sic] one with incredibly high levels of immunity.” He points to a lower death toll from the Omicron variant which appeared after the “stupendously successful vaccine rollout”. In conclusion, Harwood writes that to “deny lockdowns worked to reduce spread is to deny logic”.

Let’s examine the logic. If lockdowns bought time for the rollout of vaccines, then we would expect fewer Covid deaths in places that locked down early and fast. That is the case in Australia and New Zealand, which early in the pandemic sealed their borders against the virus. But the trouble with this policy, as our Antipodean friends are discovering, is the difficulty of exiting. Their policy of national self-isolation has lasted nearly two years, and continues in large measure even after most of their population has been vaccinated.

By contrast, in Europe there is no evidence that lockdowns significantly reduced Covid deaths. Sweden, which never locked down, has the same number of deaths per million as Austria, which did (see chart below). It’s true that Swedish deaths ran higher somewhat earlier than Austria, but this ‘bought-time’ doesn’t appear to have changed the final tally.


The evidence from the United States points to a similar conclusion: the Covid death rate (as a share of the population) in Florida, which largely avoided lockdowns, is slightly below the U.S. national average and far below that of New York, which had (and continues to impose) relatively tough restrictions.

It’s true that mass vaccination has reduced the risk of hospitalisation and death from Covid. But lockdown exponents imply that vaccines alone are responsible for the decline in the infection fatality rate. The evidence from South Africa, whose vaccination rate is around a quarter of the European average (49 doses per 100 people versus 180, or 27%), suggests otherwise.

It appears that either Covid has evolved to become less virulent, as the South African doctors suggested back in December, or South Africa’s population has built up strong natural immunity from prior infection – a possibility overlooked by most commentators. It seems likely that both factors have played a role in reducing the virulence of the disease. Even if lockdowns had succeeded in reducing Covid deaths until the vaccine rollout that wouldn’t necessarily justify their imposition. From the start, lockdown sceptics were concerned about the collateral damage caused by closing down the economy, shuttering schools, neglecting conventional health care and forcing people to isolate in their homes for months on end. They railed in vain against the cruelty of lockdowns: mothers giving birth alone, old people dying alone or left for months without visitors in nursing homes, the damage to children’s education, funerals unattended, small businesses crushed and so forth. Finally, the public appears to be waking up to these cruelties. Hence, the fury at the hypocrisy of Downing Street officials who imposed harsh rules for the nation which they didn’t scrupulously follow themselves.

Then there are lockdown’s immense financial costs. At the time, these could be ignored since governments financed them with interest-free loans from central banks. But all that money-printing is now fuelling inflation that will lead to further immiseration in the coming years. The sceptics argued that lockdowns were never subject to a proper cost-benefit analysis which took social and economic costs into account. That remains the case. Thus, not only has there been no ‘victory’ in the war on Covid – on the contrary, the highly contagious Omicron variant appears to be overcoming all attempts to constrain it  – but the argument over lockdowns has yet to be decisively won by either side, so that lockdowns are either accepted as a tool of sound public health policy or roundly condemned as a colossal mistake. The sceptics’ work continues.

Edward Chancellor is a financial journalist and the author of Devil Take the Hindmost: A History of Financial Speculation (1998).

January 25, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Testing Healthy People is Stupid

Compulsively testing and quarantining healthy athletes is even stupider

eugyppius | January 25, 2022

It’s the last week of the 2022 European Men’s Handball Championship, held this year in Slovakia and Hungary, and the players just can’t stop testing positive for Corona. Iceland, where handball attracts enormous interest, had eleven players sidelined after positive tests last week. Their star goalie, Björgvin Páll Gústavsson, emerged from isolation to play against Croatia yesterday, only to test positive again this morning. It’s back to quarantine for him, as he waits for a PCR confirmation. Nobody is actually too sick to play, but the alternative – spreading Omicron to a bunch of other athletes who will get it one way or another anyway – is unthinkable.

Mass containment is a set of policies that require people to act crazy all the time. Omicron is everywhere; locking up a few athletes isn’t going to slow it down. To that comes the fact that these handball players are all totally healthy; their risk of severe outcome is so low, it’s essentially unquantifiable. And on top of it all, all these precautions plainly do nothing. Everyone is testing positive anyway.

Somehow, it’s always the people at least risk who have to put up with the most Corona nonsense. Kids have spent almost two years alternating between prolonged social isolation and antiseptic prisons once known as schools. Professional athletes are probably the most heavily tested demographic in the world. The lower-risk working-age population bears the brunt of the vaccine mandates, capacity limits, and hygiene rules. Meanwhile, if you’re a sedentary retiree and you don’t care about going to the pub, your life has hardly changed since all this started.

Containment has been denuded of every conceivable goal; not even the people directing the circus can explain why we are doing this anymore. If you ask leading vaccinators like Karl Lauterbach, they’ll tell you it’s because we need to ward off hypothetical future variants – a laughable justification, which will always spring eternal. It’s time to put an end to this. It’s time to stop the testing and the masks and the vaccinating, it’s time for the hystericists to shut up and go home.

January 25, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »