Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Florida: Highest Rates of Infection Occurring in Counties with Highest Vaccination Rates

By Bill Rice | Uncover DC | January 17, 2022

The COVID infection rate for residents of Dade County, Florida Dec. 31 – Jan. 6 was 3,796 new “cases per 100,000 population”—a rate far higher than any other county in Florida, according to the Florida Department of Public Health. This is an eye-opening statistic as 94 percent of Dade County residents age five and over have now received at least one dose of the vaccine—a vaccination rate among the highest in the country and by far the highest rate in Florida.

If vaccines are indeed “effective” at preventing infection, one might expect residents of this county to have among the LOWEST rates of infection in the nation. Instead, the infection rate in Dade County was more than twice as high as the state average of 1,807.1 cases per 100,000 residents. In data updated this week (See pages 5-7), Dade County continued to lead the state by a wide margin with 3,217 cases per 100,000 compared to the new state average of 1,958/100k.

Indeed, an analysis of the past two weeks’ data shows that residents who live in Florida’s least vaccinated counties typically have the lowest rates of COVID infection. Among Florida counties that reported the lowest infection rates two weeks ago, the average vaccination rate was 48.6 percent compared to the state average of all Florida counties of 72 percent.

In general, Florida counties with the lowest vaccination rates had the lowest infection rates. The opposite was also true. The counties with the highest vaccination rates have recently experienced the highest infection rates.

While proponents of mandatory vaccines emphasize that vaccines are “effective” at preventing “severe cases and deaths,” months after “breakthrough cases” became omnipresent, the CDC website remains replete with references stating that vaccines are effective at preventing “cases” and “infections.” For example, language at CDC sites tells us…

“ … COVID-19 vaccines are effective at preventing most infections.”

“… The risk of infection remains much higher for unvaccinated than vaccinated people.”

“ … High vaccination coverage in a population reduces the spread of the virus and helps prevent new variants from emerging.”

The following analysis presents the rates of recent COVID infection in one American state on a county-by-county basis with vaccination rates included. Readers can make their own judgments as to why the most heavily vaccinated counties are having the largest rates of outbreaks or why counties with the lowest-vaccination rates are NOT leading the state in “new cases.”

Highest Rates of Infection in Florida per County Jan. 6 – 13th

The following data shows the Florida counties that had an infection rate of 2,000 or more cases per 100,000 population in the past week. Note: State-wide, 72 percent of Floridians age five and older have been vaccinated. The “infection rate” for the entire state this past week was 1958 cases/100k population.

County (Percent Vaccinated 5+): Cases per 100,000 population

Dade (94 percent): 3,217/100k

Broward (82 percent): 2,453/100k

Alachua (69 percent): 2,392/100k

Madison (51 percent): 2,239/100k

Osceola (80 percent): 2222/100k

Monroe (82 percent): 2,154/100k

Orange: (75 percent): 2,114/100k

Polk (65 percent): 2064/100k

Hendry (58 percent): 2060/100k

Jefferson (56 percent): 2029/100k

Highest Infection Rates by County Dec. 31 – Jan. 6

The NEGATIVE correlation between vaccination rates and “cases per 100,000” was even more striking the prior week (Dec. 31 – Jan. 6 report*). Note: The “Cases per 100,000” average for the week of Dec. 31 – Jan. 6 was 1807/100k.

County (Percent vaccinated 5+): Cases per 100,000

Dade (93 percent): 3,797/100k

Broward (82 percent): 2,560/100k

Monroe (82 perent): 2,272/100k

Osceola (80 percent): 2014/100k

Palm Beach (74 percent): 1,963/100k

Orange: (74 percent): 1,917/100k

Counties Under 50 Percent Vaccination in Florida—Recent Infection Rates…

Florida has 14 counties where fewer than 50 percent of the county’s population (age 5+) is vaccinated. Here are those counties with their infection rates per 100,000 population this past week (Jan. 7 – Jan. 13).

No Florida county with a vaccination rate under 50 percent experienced “case rates” equal to or above the state average for the week (1,958 cases per 100,000 population):

County (Percent vaccinated 5+): Cases per 100,000 population

Holmes (32 percent): 1677/100k

Liberty (37 percent): 1731/100k

Calhoun (38 percent): 973/100k

Hamilton (38 percent): 1509/100k

Suwanee (40 percent): 1357/100k

Washington (40 percent): 1720/100k

Dixie (41 percent): 1081/100k

Gilchrist (43 percent): 1103/100k

Lafayette (44 percent):  966/100k

Taylor (45 percent): 1586/100k

Jackson (46 percent): 1551/100k

Hardee (47 percent): 1940/100k

Columbia (47 percent): 1647/100k

Bradford (48 percent): 1353/100k

Florida Counties with Lowest Infection Rates

Of the 18 counties with the lowest infection rates in Florida last week, 14 had lower vaccination rates than the state average of 72 percent. The average infection rate (“cases per 100,000 population”) for all Florida residents was 1,958.1/100,000 of the population.

County (Percent vaccinated 5+): Infection rate per 100,000

Glades (53 percent): 790/100k

Sumter (76 percent): 913/100k

Lafayette (44 percent):  966/100k

Calhoun (38 percent): 973/100k

Lafayette (44 percent):  966/100k

Dixie (41 percent): 1081/100k.

Charlotte (74 percent): 1101/100k

Gilchrist (43 percent): 1103/100k

Walton (58 percent): 1200/100k

Flagler (69 percent): 1259/100k

St. Johns (73 percent): 1274/100k

Nassau (63 percent): 1337/100k

Manatee (68 percent): 1337/100k

Hernando (60 percent): 1339/100k

Bradford (48 percent): 1353/100k

Suwanee (40 percent): 1357/100k

Collier (76 percent): 1369/100k

Desota (58 percent): 1384/100k

The data was even more striking the previous week (Dec. 31 – Jan. 6). The 16 counties listed below, which had the lowest infection rates in the state during this week, averaged 607 “cases per 100,000 population”—which is 66 percent lower than the state average of 1807 cases per 100,000 population.

The average vaccination rate for these 16 counties is 48.6 percent—23.4 percent lower than the state average of 72 percent. Nine of the 16 counties below have vaccination rates below 50 percent. Three counties have vaccination rates below 40 percent.

The Florida Department of Health data from Dec. 31 – Jan. 6 also shows the “new case positivity’ rates per county. Of the 16 counties below, the average “new case positivity’ percentage was 23.95 percent. The state average for all Florida residents for this same week was 31.2 percent.

Lowest Infection Rates per County Dec. 31 – Jan. 6, 2022

County (Percent vaccinated 5+): Cases per 100,000 population

Lafayette (44 percent):  295.5/100k

Dixie (41 percent): 489.9/100k

Glades (52 percent): 534.2/100k

Putnam (49 percent): 540.9/100k

Gilchrist (43 percent): 543.4/100k

Sumter (76 percent): 599.3/100k

Liberty (37 percent): 633.7/100k

Union (54 percent): 644.7/100k

Levy (53 percent): 649.8/100k

Holmes (31 percent): 653.1/100k

Desoto (57 percent): 680.1/100k

Washington (39 percent): 708.7/100k

Franklin (53 percent): 715.7/100k

Taylor (45 percent): 720.5/100k

Walton (58 percent): 768.5/100k

Columbia (46 percent): 778.5/100k

*Numbers for Dec. 31 – Jan. 6 have now been replaced with more recent data. The author believes the information he presents above is accurate as of the date it was published.

Bill Rice, Jr. is a freelance journalist in Troy, Alabama. He can be reached by email at wjricejunior@gmail.com

January 18, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Opposing Booster Shot Mandates and the Rest of the Coronavirus Crackdown at Universities

By Adam Dick | Ron Paul Institute | January 18, 2022

Across America in 2020, draconian restrictions were imposed in the name of countering coronavirus at just about every university, even though most college students, being relatively young and healthy, have been at very little risk of serious sickness or death from coronavirus.

Some people said “no thanks” to paying universities to harass and demean them with such restrictions, choosing, instead, to withdraw from or not enter college. Indeed, college enrollment in America is down over six percent — a loss of nearly a million students — since the Fall of 2019 semester that preceded the coronavirus scare. Other people grudgingly put up with the situation and tried to take advantage of opportunities they could find to experience some of the freedom universities were working hard to deny.

In the spring of 2021, many universities began announcing their plans to mandate students take experimental coronavirus “vaccine” shots. Some people hoped that the shots mandates would come with the permanent lifting of restrictions. But, at many universities it turned out to be just another requirement added on the pile.

Those shots mandates implemented by the fall of 2021 semester have been followed up at some of these universities with new mandates that the students take booster shots as well — booster shots that even European Union regulators and the World Health Organization are now advising against. The initial shots have proven ineffective and dangerous contrary to the insistence of politicians, big money media, and college administrators. The case for boosters of more of the same has become ludicrous.

Even if the shots were the miracle drug that was promised, in a free society the choice to take or not take this or other medical treatments would be left to individuals, not mandated. Over the last nearly two years of coronavirus crackdown, however, America has transitioned substantially farther from that free society ideal. Fortunately, some state and local governments have resisted this movement, and others that went along with it early on have reversed course, at least in part. This has led to the lifting of many restrictions, and the blocking of others including shots mandates, at some government-controlled universities. But, for many college students the coronavirus crackdown remains intense and threatens to grow with the addition of new mandates such as the mandate to take booster shots of the experimental coronavirus vaccines.

Students, as well as professors and other employees, at universities across America who want to challenge one of the latest additions to the coronavirus crackdown in higher education would do well to consider the strong arguments presented in a January 11 editorial by the editorial board of Chicago Thinker. The editorial presents a case against the University of Chicago’s recently announced mandate that students and employees, already required to have taken the initial coronavirus shots, take booster shots as well. The editorial board, comprised of University of Chicago students, presents in the editorial many well-reasoned arguments against the new mandate.

The editorial begins with the following statement before proceeding into detailed argument against the new mandate:

Per the University of Chicago’s newly announced booster mandate, all students and employees must obtain a booster shot by January 24. Those who do not comply will be barred from campus and restricted from attending in-person classes, among other activities.

This booster mandate is demonstrably unsafe, ineffective, unnecessary, inconsistent, and unethical. We’ve struggled beneath UChicago’s draconian COVID decrees for years, but the university’s booster mandate reaches a new height of absurdity.

UChicago Demands We Submit to Experimental Shots

UChicago claims to rely upon “expert” opinion in structuring its COVID regime. Yet, even advisory committees at the FDA and CDC initially declined to recommend the COVID booster for those under the age of 65.

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee made an official recommendation to approve Pfizer’s application for boosters only for those 65 and older and certain high-risk populations after rejecting, in a 16-2 vote, Pfizer’s application for broader approval for the general population. The committee cited a lack of data on potential adverse effects, particularly the risks of developing myocarditis and pericarditis.

However, the FDA chose to cast aside this concern and granted “approval” anyways. ​​But even this “approval” is itself questionable. The FDA only granted approval to Comirnaty, a legally distinct version of the Pfizer-BioNtech vaccine that isn’t actually available in the United States. The version of the vaccine currently available in the US remains under Emergency Use Authorization, not formal approval.

Similarly, the CDC’s initial recommendation that Americans under the age of 65 receive boosters was made against the counsel of its own Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which voted to recommend boosters only for those over the age of 65 or who have underlying conditions. Director Rochelle Walensky overruled this vote in an unusual departure from agency protocol. The committee later reversed course, recommending a booster for 12-17 year olds. But the calculus behind its sudden 180-degree turn remains unclear, given that the initial concerns regarding myocarditis and pericarditis remain unresolved.

You can continue reading the Chicago Thinker editorial here.

January 18, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

In a minority of one, the maskless would-be martyr

By Liz Hodgkinson | TCW Defending Freedom | January 17, 2022

As Nicola Sturgeon announces that the Scots may have to wear facemasks ‘for years to come’, all I can say is how glad I am that I don’t live in Scotland.

Since the new mask-wearing rules were introduced on November 30, I have refused to wear one and touch wood, fingers crossed, have got away with it.

In that time, I have been on buses, coaches, the London Underground, stayed in a hotel for three days over Christmas, been to the cinema and to the hairdresser, the beauty salon, nail bar and in many shops and supermarkets, blessedly mask-free. I have taken taxis all over the place. Only once have I been apprehended, and that was in Sainsbury’s, where a member of staff came up to me and asked: ‘Where is your mask, madam?’  I told him that I was medically exempt, and he nodded and went away.

In the hotel where I was staying, there were signs everywhere saying that masks were compulsory, and that anybody not wearing one may be reported to the authorities. Yet I did not wear one, nobody said anything and nor was I reported to the authorities.

I have also got away with not wearing a mask in a clinic where I went for hearing tests. I told the audiologist there that I didn’t believe in masks and he accepted it, although both he and the receptionist were wearing them, as were the other patients in the waiting room.

It is true that on buses I have been on the receiving end of some nasty stares, or as nasty as they can be when most of the faces and thus the expressions, of the other passengers, are hidden. It is also true that some people edge away from me as though I have got a deadly plague. My next-door neighbours, masked up to the eyeballs even when walking down the street, asked why I was not wearing a mask and I gave them the same response: ‘I am medically exempt.’  That, so far, has precluded further questioning although the truth is that I have exempted myself. I have no actual doctor’s exemption although if challenged, I have an exemption card in my wallet which I downloaded from a government site and which I can produce if demanded. So far, nobody has asked to see it.

The government website says quite plainly that if wearing a mask causes undue distress, you can exempt yourself from wearing one. In order to drive home the obvious fact that I am not wearing a mask, I make sure I am wearing bright red lipstick every time I leave the house. That way, I am making a clear statement that I am defying the rules and showing in no uncertain way that am proud to be mask-free.

We were warned that we could face on-the-spot fines of £200 if we refused to wear a mask on the London Underground. Since the end of November, I have taken the Tube many times, always maskless, and have never been confronted or asked to see proof of exemption. I decided that if I was fined, I would refuse to pay it and go to prison for my principles if it came to that. I would be a martyr for the cause! But none of the Underground staff has said a word and nor have any of the passengers. True, there are signs all over the place saying that masks are compulsory, both on trains and in stations, but I have just taken no notice.

The sad thing is that I seem to be in a minority of one. Everywhere I go, I am the only person, child or adult, who is not muzzled. It is monstrous that all secondary school pupils and children over the age of 11 have been told to wear masks in public indoor venues and on public transport. My neighbour, employed by Oxford University, says that she is required to wear a mask for work, even though most days she is the only person in the office. She also has to keep taking tests.

Actually, I am going further than not wearing a mask. I have never had a PCR or lateral flow test, not had the booster and am not going to have it, either in spite of Sir Chris Whitty telling me in the cinema that I must have it to protect myself and others. There are huge posters at bus stops and ads in every newspaper bullying me to get jabbed, but I ignore them all. And guess what? I have remained completely well, never had so much as a sniffle throughout all this so-called pandemic, while just about everybody I know who had had the jabs, the boosters, the tests and who never dares to venture out without a muzzle round their face, has had Covid or what passes for it. Most of my refusenik friends, the few I have left who are defying all the strictures, say the same.

The mask mandates in England at least are due to be reviewed on January 26 but if they are relaxed, as I expect them to be, I will place a bet here and now that the majority of people will continue to wear them and tell you that it is their choice. Such is the state of fear that governments don’t need to impose rules or threaten us with fines and imprisonment. We have become so cowed and terrified that we are imposing them on ourselves.

I just wonder how many people will be brave enough to defy the First Minister in Scotland, if she carries out her threat to make her compatriots wear masks for ever more?

January 18, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Rogue street art appears overnight in D.C., mocks Biden & Fauci’s COVID regime

“Mandate! Segregate! Subjugate!”

By Jordan Schachtel | The Dossier | January 15, 2022

I wanted to turn your attention to a handful of premier art masterpieces that have appeared overnight in Washington, D.C.

The artwork is a brilliant Soviet-style mockery of Joe Biden and Anthony Fauci COVID Mania regime. And seeing it appear in downtown Washington, D.C., the home of America’s ruling class and unquestioning COVID compliance, is the perfect setting for these absolute gems.

The first piece showcases an angry Joe Biden holding an OSHA-labeled mallet surrounded by the word “comply.” The second illustration, labeled, “good kids are compliant kids,” shows a handful of children in red masks looking up to an injection needle-surrounded Joe Biden. The third shows a sitting Joe Biden holding the coronavirus in his hand, with the caption, “Mandate! Segregate! Subjugate!” The last piece of artwork, “Trust The Scientism,” shows Anthony Fauci, dressed in clergy attire, possessing a giant hypodermic needle.

I particularly enjoy the Soviet propaganda style.

Here are the four posters lined up together, courtesy of Leigh Wolf’s Twitter page:

A DC Karen noticed the artwork and started to rip down the posters.

She was filmed desecrating the artwork by Leigh Wolf, a comms and production professional who happens to be a former colleague of mine at CRTV/Blaze Media Wolf spotted the artwork and took photos of it before it was ripped down.

I reached out to Leigh and asked if he had any inside info about how the artwork ended up in Washington D.C. Wolf told me he has no idea who put them up. I’ll post an update if I can find the artist behind these magnificent creations.

January 18, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

How Confident is the Government in its ‘Evidence’ on Masks

It turns out — not certain at all!

Health Advisory and Recovery Team | January 15, 2022

Dr Val Fraser, retired Lecturer in Teacher Education, Subject Expert for Ofqual and former OFSTED School Inspector, puts the last UK Government’s mask missive under the linguistic microscope:

What is the “material evidence” Nadhim Zahawi, Education Secretary speaks of (TalkRadio Monday 3rd January 2022) for recommending face coverings to be worn in secondary school classrooms and, more importantly, how convincing is it? The government document entitled Evidence Summary: Coronavirus (COVID-19) and the use of face coverings in education settings needs an understanding of ‘modality’ to help evaluate how robust this evidence is.

Modality is a term used in the study of grammar and linguistics to signal certainty.  Verbs qualified with modal verbs suggest whether an event or a claim is possible, probable, likely or certain.  The principal auxiliary modal verbs when placed on a continuum from possible to certain show this range: can, could, may, might, should, would, shall, must and will.

“Manchester United can win the league” is a hedging statement suggesting some caveats to be considered.  However, “Manchester United will win the league” is a definite statement of certainty and expectation. Advertisements make heavy use of modal verbs to sell their products without making claims that leave them open to legal difficulties. ‘Wrinkles can be reduced by up to 50%’ is a possibility of smoother skin that sells the product without over-promising.

Modality may also be conveyed by the use of adverbs. The famous example of “Probably the best lager in the world” steers Carlsberg away from litigation, whilst selling its product as a high quality one – “the best” is what resonates. Other adverbs making clear possibility, obligation and emphasis are: generally, maybe, perhaps, possibly, probably, promisingly, obviously, certainly, clearly and definitely. Again the range from least to most certain shows a continuum of expectation.

A document that is succinctly entitled Evidence Summary is a bold statement: the reader would expect to see certainty of claims, anchored in a secure evidence base and/or data providing concluding proof. However, an examination of the use of language in this particular document reveals a distinct hedging when it comes to the claims being made, in this case an attempt to underpin the government’s policy decision to recommend face coverings for secondary school classrooms.

Below are examples of how the document is using modality to avoid claiming any certainty for its evidence base:

  • ‘Face coverings can contribute to reducing transmission’. This is a general statement about the possibility (but not certainty) of masks helping to reduce viral spread.  There are two qualifiers in that clause: one is ‘can’: the author does not want to make a definite claim; the other is ‘contribute’: there are no claims that in and of itself masking is going to achieve a positive outcome.  This is an introductory comment and sets the tone for hedging, cautious claims and caveats. The same statement opens the main body of the text.
  • The reader is informed that the mode of transmission of the virus can be via droplets, aerosol particles and by contact. It is curious that, two years into the science studying the virus, that ‘can’ needed to be added.  A more definite statement such as ‘transmission occurs through’ would convey a more authoritative stance. Note again that possibility is being claimed not certainty. There are 17 uses of the modal verb ‘can’ revealing that this evidence submitted is peppered with a significant level of uncertainty and hedging of claims.
  • Could is used nine times. An example of this is, ‘Using a different maximum weighting threshold could result in slightly different results’. This is an alarming disclaimer for the validity of the claims provided as evidence.  ‘Could’ like ‘can’ distances the author from taking responsibility for a definite view or position.
  • We are further informed that masks ‘may further reduce risks of longer-range airborne transmission’. The term ‘may’ also indicates a possible but not a certain effect. There are 15 uses of the term ‘may’.
  • There is even less certainty in the document concerning how the Omicron variant is transmitted.  We are told it might show more airborne transmission (the reason for recommending masks now). When ‘might’ is used it is indicating guesswork.  The author is saying we simply don’t know and we have to signal that.

Modality and uncertainty are also conveyed through the use of adverbs as indicated above. An example is contained in this sentence: (researchers) ‘could explore expanding the time-period under study to potentially yield more precise estimates’.  Potentially is another term which pulls back from providing a more assertive claim for an outcome.  Moreover, this is only one of the three examples of the limitations of the evidence in that sentence: ‘could’ is used as prevaricator avoiding being drawn into a commitment to obtaining more concrete data (for the precise estimates – which in themselves, as estimates, are predictive not determined).

There are 42 uses of modal verbs and 18 uses of adverbs on the low certainty spectrum (as explained above). Why is the government presenting its findings in a tenuous and circumspect manner? Modality of language can be tracked in the methodology and findings of its ‘research’ but, more importantly, we can see the limitations of the research itself, which obliges the authors to also limit the claims they can present as evidence.

We learn from the research design that:

  • To evaluate the efficacy of face masks in schools they examined attendance rates, with no compelling rationale for this perceived correlation being offered.
  • The data collection period was from two separated out weeks in October 2021 which included some missing data.
  • They candidly state that it is a ‘preliminary, experimental analysis, which would benefit from robust external peer review to a longer timescale’.
  • They further cast doubt on their findings when they acknowledge that the results may not have any statistical significance as the differential is within a chance outcome.
  • They did not isolate the variables to be sure that face coverings were the determining factor in lowering absence rates. Further they state the study did not draw data for long enough time periods and different methodologies would have yielded different results.
  • The schools categorised as mask wearing ones were not a homogenous group in terms of their defined use.  Some used them only for communal areas and some for classroom use too but they were not differentiated for that within the categorisation.
  • Other variables such as Local Authority guidance and implementation and local rates of cases and infection were not considered.
  • The raw results showed that non-masking schools had a significantly lower absence rate and it was only after modelling that a positive outcome was found. The authors concede that using different assumptions for this modelling, different “weighting thresholds”, could result in different results.
  • They advise that a more robust study would go onto consider community COVID-19 case rates, regional data (LA, information on LA wider response to COVID-19, etc), other characteristics of pupils (proportion of pupils with SEND, etc) and any information on differential use of face coverings and would offer more reassurance about the validity of this evidence than they can currently provide.
  • They found that absence rates in the control group (unmasked) remain lower overall than those in the treatment group (masked). This is a surprising admission towards the end of the report.
  • The researchers consulted other studies.  This research method would normally give more validity to the findings, in terms of the triangulation of data with their own.  However, they had to acknowledge that the results from those were inconclusive, ‘mixed’ and the majority were observational studies, with only 2 RCTs, neither involving schools.
  • No data was available on Omicron: the variant of the virus for which the recommendations were being brought in to address.

The qualifications and caveats above reveal the report is at best a tentative proposal, which has not been subject to the usual quality assurance procedures before publication. The research design points to an insecure hypothesis between mask wearing and attendance rates which was neither explained, tested beforehand nor validated after. The methodologies did not keep the variables stable and therefore did not isolate the variable (masks) they were expecting to be able to analyse and base the claims upon. The results did not provide a secure evidence base to form a compelling case for recommending face coverings.

With these limitations in the research study, a reader would expect to see, as indeed is clear, a report sewn together with tenuous arguments, circumspect claims and qualified results and recommendations. The only way to compose such a report is prolific use of modal verbs and adverbs as indicated above.

Yet the harms of wearing face coverings in educational settings are openly stated in the report and couched in more definite measurable claims and certainty of language:

  • 80% of pupils reported that wearing a face covering made it difficult to communicate, and 55% felt wearing one made learning more difficult.
  • Wearing face coverings may have physical side effects and impair face identification, verbal and non-verbal communication between teacher and learner.
  • Almost all secondary leaders and teachers (94%) thought that wearing face coverings has made communication between teachers and students more difficult, with 59% saying it has made it a lot more difficult.
  • Research into the effect of mask wearing on communication has found that concealing a speaker’s lips led to lower performance, lower confidence scores, and increased perceived effort on the part of the listener.
  • Meta-cognitive monitoring was worse when listening in these conditions compared with listening to an unmasked talker.
  • A survey of impacts on communication with mask wearing …. reported that face coverings negatively impact hearing, understanding, engagement, and feelings of connection with the speaker.
  • People with hearing loss were impacted more than those without hearing loss. The inability to see facial expressions and to read lips have a major impact on speech understanding for those with hearing impairments.
  • The WHO reports that “the wearing of masks by children with hearing loss or auditory problems may present learning barriers and further challenges”.

Note the more certain arguments (some with precise percentages attached) in the above for the harms of mask wearing and especially for children. There are far fewer modal verbs used and the claims are, in the main, unambiguous: ‘were impacted’, ‘negatively impact’, ‘was worse’, ‘led to’. ‘made worse’, ‘more difficult’. The evidence for the harms of face coverings is measurable, precise, unambiguous and certain and the language used for presenting the evidence base, is equally unequivocal.

It would seem that Nadhim Zahawi’s promised ‘material’ evidence for his recommendations for face coverings in secondary classrooms is as flimsy as some of the cloth masks our teenagers will need to resort to using, as they do their best to cope with the challenges of learning in 2022.

In conclusion, perhaps we should ponder on the one piece of data expressed as a precise statistic, which might be driving this new guidance, namely: ‘71% of UNISON support staff thought face coverings in schools were an important safety measure’. If our Education Secretary has sacrificed children’s learning and social communication opportunities in schools, to appease Trade Unions, he will have to provide much more compelling evidence that schools are in any way unsafe for children or staff than he currently has. He has stiff opposition in the form of 150 comparative studies, peer reviewed with robust research, which come to the very definite and certain conclusion that, “to date, the evidence has been stable and clear that masks do not work to control the virus”. There is not a whisper of modality in that concluding statement either.

January 18, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

What did they know and when did they know it?

By Neville Hodgkinson | TCW Defending Freedom | January 17, 2022

WHEN the public awakens to the great betrayal of both health and science surrounding the handling of Covid, it will be important not to let anger run riot. After all, the mistakes have taken place on a global scale, even leading a nation such as Australia, which we previously thought of as civilised and sensible, to behave like a despotic banana republic both towards its own citizens and in ill-treating unvaccinated tennis players wanting to enter the country.

But that doesn’t mean we should hold back in our efforts to understand and deal with this disastrous aberration in human consciousness, whose dire consequences have been spelled out comprehensively by public health specialist Dr Alan Mordue.

One root of the global nature of the crisis, now more and more coming to light, is the extraordinary power wielded by a tiny group of scientists to dictate World Health Organisation (WHO) policy, from which the rest of the world took its lead.

Email disclosures show not only a deliberate plot to hide the laboratory origin of SARS-CoV-2, making it out to have jumped naturally from bats into humans, but how a WHO inquiry was rigged to reach the same conclusion.

This issue has immense implications. If the virus really did make a random ‘jump’ across species, we could be at risk of similar future events. Pleas to provide billions in public funds for research and development of more drugs and vaccines could be justified to help prepare for such threats to global health security.

Uncertainty arising from such a freak of nature would also justifiably have been used to argue for at least temporary measures of draconian control, to protect health services until the true threat could be assessed.

If on the other hand the virus was a laboratory escapee resulting from ‘gain-of function’ research by American and Chinese scientists – now as good as proven – would governments and the public have been so ready to trust the scientists with even more money and power? Or ‘trust the science’, as the Prime Minister kept telling us?

Jeremy Farrar, boss of the UK’s Wellcome Trust, wrote to US health chiefs Francis Collins and Tony Fauci on February 5, 2020 – almost two years ago, just after WHO had declared Covid a global health emergency – to explain how the WHO inquiry would be staffed to support the animal origin theory.

A few days earlier, Farrar had emailed Fauci and Patrick Vallance, the UK Government’s chief scientific adviser, copying in six others including Paul Schreier, Wellcome’s chief operating officer, about a teleconference called to discuss the virus’s provenance. His email said: ‘Information and discussion is shared in total confidence and not to be shared until agreement on next steps.’

That followed a late-night warning by immunologist Kristian Anderson of the Scripps research Institute in California that the virus had features which might make it look as if it had been genetically engineered in a laboratory. Anderson sent that email to Fauci on the evening of January 31, the day WHO announced an emergency, copying in only one other person – Jeremy Farrar.

As I reported last week, despite knowing a laboratory origin was likely, the group was anxious not to weaken confidence in science by allowing that possibility to reach the public. Dr Francis Collins, director of the US National Institutes of Health at the time, told Farrar: ‘I share your view that a swift convening of experts in a confidence-inspiring framework is needed or the voicers of conspiracy will quickly dominate, doing great potential harm to science and international harmony.’ 

So to protect the good name of science, the group chose a strategy that was the opposite of scientific, in that it suppressed rather than encouraged open investigation and rational discussion of evidence.

But did the motives run deeper than that?

Robert Kennedy Jr, an American lawyer and environmental activist, made the case in a recent book that a web of corruption has been polluting medical science internationally for decades, fuelled by massive misuse of public funds. As director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Fauci dispenses more than $6billion a year in taxpayer funds for research, and Kennedy says he uses this to ruin, advance or reward the careers and institutions of thousands of doctors and scientists.

As part of what Kennedy calls a ‘vaccines cartel’, Fauci also partners Bill Gates, who uses tax-deductible dollars to fund research from which the investment arm of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gains massively – including a big stake in Pfizer.

Gates has huge influence over WHO as its second-biggest funder after the US administration. That influence also extends into the heart of the British medical and scientific establishment. It includes working closely with GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the British pharmaceutical giant, for which Vallance was previously a top executive.

The Gates foundation has also given more than $250million to media companies around the world, most of whom have given unquestioning support to the Covid vaccine rollout and discriminatory, fear-inducing policies aimed at encouraging its take-up, despite its experimental nature.

Media beneficiaries in the UK include the BBC, Guardian and Financial Times. Incredibly, the UK’s Medicine & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), which approved the Covid jabs – even for children – has also received several million pounds.

A similar strategy to Gates’s has enriched and empowered Farrar’s Wellcome Trust, which distributes £1billion annually for global health research. It has an investment portfolio of nearly £30billion, growing at about 12 per cent per annum over the past decade.

Farrar was a senior member of Sage, the UK Government’s advisory body on Covid, until last October, and is a founding member of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, which gave $1billion to help Covid vaccine development.

The Wellcome Trust’s website claims to offer ‘a collection of quick and simple resources on how Covid-19 vaccines work, how we know they’re safe, and how they can be distributed to everyone around the world’.

In March last year, the British Medical Journal reported that the trust stood to gain financially from the pandemic through its investments, raising questions about transparency and accountability. A trust spokesman disputed this, saying they ‘would never make decisions or advise others about the pandemic response for a reason other than public health’.

But according to Mordue, a retired consultant in public health medicine, the public’s health has suffered immensely from the policies the UK pursued. He mourns the lack of relevant expertise among government and media spokesmen; the ‘inadequate and inaccurate’ case definition; the false ‘worst-case’ scenarios produced by modellers; the failure to protect the most vulnerable; the lack of cost-benefit analysis that would have kept society, the education system and the economy functioning while protecting the most vulnerable; and the failure to follow the principle ‘first do no harm’ in the mass rollout of an experimental vaccine. He also deplores the way a Sage sub-group deliberately sought to heighten fear and alarm as a means of driving compliance with Covid measures.

‘What has happened amounts to a betrayal of the specialty of public health and all the principles and values it used to stand for, and a betrayal of the health of the population,’ he writes.

‘What mystifies me is why my former colleagues and the UK professional body charged with developing and maintaining standards in the public health specialty, namely the Faculty of Public Health, have been so quiet through the whole of this pandemic.’

Vallance’s involvement in those crucial early decisions on how SARS-CoV-2 was to be handled, with their subsequent impact on public health decisions globally, raises questions about his fitness to continue in such a vital role as chief scientific officer for the UK.

He was revealed by the Telegraph back in in 2020 to have a £600,000 shareholding in GSK, having already cashed in more than £5million worth of shares received during his tenure at GSK as president of research and development. Claims of a conflict of interest, because of GSK’s own Covid drug and vaccine research and development, were denied by Matt Hancock, Health Secretary at the time.

Leaving aside his financial interest and affiliation to Big Pharma, it was his duty to offer rigorously objective scientific advice to the Government at a time of such crisis. Did that happen? That’s a central question that the forthcoming public inquiry into the pandemic, announced last month, will need to answer.

January 18, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

FAUCI’S NEW GOAL: CONTROL

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | January 13, 2022

Two years into the pandemic, the tired narrative of legacy media & public health authoritarians like Fauci, has almost completely reversed from driving fear of the Covid, to ‘we must learn to live with this virus’. So why have Fauci & Co. made such an abrupt ‘about face?’

January 18, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Vaccine judge whose mind ‘was already made up’

By Sally Beck | TCW Defending Freedom | January 17, 2022

PARENTS of children in the 12-17 age group want government officials to release real-time safety data for Covid vaccines. One mother is so concerned about the possibility that her three children could suffer serious adverse events that she asked the High Court on their behalf to force full public disclosure.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) admit they hold the figures but have not revealed them publicly, so last Thursday parent EF, who cannot be named for legal reasons, put her concerns to Mr Justice Jonathan Swift and asked him to direct the ONS to release the data. Her request was denied.

She said: ‘I’m not surprised. I feel as though the judge had already made up his mind.’

To those of us in court, it certainly felt as though he had and that no one dared question Health Secretary Sajid Javid’s decisions.

Television and radio presenter Beverley Turner, who helped raise over £100,000 to fund the action and who has been vilified for asking questions about the vaccine’s safety, was also there. She said: ‘It felt that the judge had already decided the outcome. He was hostile to the plaintiffs and convivial to the defendants.

‘All we’re doing is fighting for transparency and for that, we got a hostile response.’

It is known that Pfizer and Moderna’s mRNA Covid vaccines can cause the inflammatory heart conditions myocarditis and pericarditis, mostly in young males, while the Oxford/AstraZeneca can cause blood clots and strokes. We do not know to what extent, and whether children have died or been permanently disabled as the result of a Covid vaccination.

EF’s children AB and CD applied to the courts last September to halt the vaccine rollout for 12-17-year-olds and asked for a judicial review. They say they need the ONS figures to support an appeal as the application was denied.

Their mother, who is their ‘litigation friend’ EF said: ‘The court was told that only two children without diagnosed underlying conditions have died of Covid so far. Clearly Covid is not a problem for young people but the vaccine may be. All we want is honest disclosure of the figures so that parents can make an informed decision. None of us are anti-vaccine but we are concerned by the lack of safety data for Covid jabs.

‘We know the mRNA vaccines are experimental and that they are being offered under emergency use. We also know that the trials do not officially finish until 2023.

‘Many parents do not want their children to be guinea pigs.’

After reviewing the evidence, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) recommended against vaccinating 12-15-year-olds, but were overridden by the UK’s four chief medical officers.

Up to December 22, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), who assess the safety of new drugs, had received 2,546 reports of adverse events, likely to be 10 per cent of the true total, for under 18s via their Yellow Card self-reporting scheme, but give details only about heart inflammation.

A statement said: ‘As of November 17, 2021, there have been 432 reports of myocarditis and 332 reports of pericarditis following the use of the Pfizer vaccine. There have been 101 reports of myocarditis and 57 reports of pericarditis following the use of the Moderna vaccine. This is a recognised potential risk with the Covid-19 Pfizer/BioNTech Vaccine and Covid-19 Vaccine Moderna and the MHRA is closely monitoring these events.’

We know that 2.9million children have received first doses of Pfizer and 20,550 have had first doses of Moderna, while 11,600 children have received first doses of Oxford/AstraZeneca’s vaccine (though it is no longer recommended for the under 40s because that age group is more susceptible to potentially fatal blood clots). Nearly a million under 18s have received second shots.

The action was brought by solicitor Stephen Jackson of the firm Jackson Osborne and argued by barrister Francis Hoar, who endured constant interruption from Mr Justic Swift. He presented evidence to the court from consultant pathologist Dr Clare Craig.

Dr Craig said that available ONS figures relating to the number of deaths in the 15-19-year-old age group showed ‘a trend of excess non-Covid deaths in boys of that age which exceeded deaths for previous years.’

From May 1 2021 to December 30 2021, 402 male deaths were recorded, 34.6 per cent above the five-year average between 2015 and 2019. The number for females for the same period was 163, a decrease compared with the five-year average of 175.

Barrister Heather Emmerson, representing the ONS, who did not incur the wrath of Mr Justice Swift, said: ‘We do not accept a significant increase in deaths of boys compared with previous years. This is because it is statistically difficult to calculate a mean mortality rate.’

She did however accept ‘that there is a marginal increase in mortality for that period, but the figures should be treated with caution. The differences are sufficiently small that they could be caused by a delay in the registration of the death.’

Health statistician for the ONS Dr Vahé Nafilyan said in a statement that they had only 62 per cent of the data requested as 38 per cent of deaths had yet to be registered. Potentially, the mortality margin could increase by as much as 38 per cent or decrease by the same amount or somewhere in between.

An inquest is required when a coroner believes a death was due to something other than natural causes. The death cannot be registered until the coroner has reviewed the post-mortem and other evidence and has decided the cause. There is a 12-month delay for inquests currently.

Ms Emmerson said she was not confident that if the ONS released the available data the recipients would interpret it correctly – a statement the plaintiffs found patronising. ‘We have to be extremely careful about this data and the conclusions that may be drawn,’ she told the court.

She was also concerned that although data would be anonymous with no names, dates of birth or regions released, the children’s identities could be discovered, citing newspaper reports of sudden child deaths which could be linked to the data.

Mr Justice Swift said: ‘Correlation does not equal causation and the ONS information is not necessary to decide that claim.’

None of this helps parents who are also concerned that by asking reasonable questions they are being labelled as antivax. Mother of three Bev Turner said: ‘I’d never heard the term before 2021.

‘All parents want is the latest safety data that is simply not available so we do not know if the vaccines could cause neurological problems, fertility issues or other physiological problems.’

Parent EF, who has two girls aged 13 and 16 eligible for vaccination, and a son aged seven, currently too young to receive the jab, says that because of this uncertainty her children are anxious about receiving it.

‘None of them want to take the vaccine,’ she said, ‘and one of them has a friend who fainted immediately after receiving the vaccine and was then off school for two weeks. We don’t know any details other than that, but she was clearly unwell otherwise she would have been at school.

‘We have no information. They can’t tell us if the jabs cause cancer or blindness and until we know, how can we make a properly informed decision?’

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

Israel finds 4 Pfizer jabs ‘not good enough’ against Omicron

RT | January 18, 2022

A fourth dose of Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine showed dwindling effectiveness against the Omicron variant, according to a trial conducted in Israel, with one of its lead researchers saying the immunization is simply “not good enough.”

A study involving 154 medical staffers at Sheba Medical Center near Tel Aviv found that a fourth shot gave only marginal protection against the Omicron strain compared to previous mutations.

“We see an increase in antibodies, higher than after the third dose. However, we see many infected with Omicron who received the fourth dose,” said Gili Regev-Yochay, one of the head researchers on the trial, adding that while “the vaccine is excellent against the Alpha and Delta [variants],” for Omicron “it’s not good enough.”

Despite the new findings, Israeli health officials already moved ahead with fourth doses for the elderly, the immunocompromised and medical workers beginning earlier this month, with some 500,000 receiving a second booster on top of an initial two-dose regimen as of Sunday.

Though the trial is still in an early phase and the hospital did not offer specific figures, Regev-Yochay said she made its preliminary conclusions public as boosters are a matter of “high public interest,” according to the Times of Israel. She noted that giving fourth doses to high-risk residents is “probably” still the best approach, but suggested the booster campaign should be limited to an even older age group than the current over-60 guideline.

Both the World Health Organization and the EU’s drug regulator, the European Medicines Agency, have cautioned against the over-use of boosters, though for different reasons. The WHO has called for a more even distribution of vaccine doses around the world, observing that some nations are moving ahead with third and fourth shots before many in poorer countries receive their first. The EMA, meanwhile, pointed to potential adverse effects of booster shots last week, warning that repeated vaccinations in a short period of time could result in “problems with immune response.”

One of the most vaccinated countries in the world, Israel was the first to roll out fourth vaccine doses as it saw a significant spike in coronavirus infections linked to the Omicron strain. Deaths and hospitalizations have only seen a slight uptick in recent months, however, in line with findings suggesting the latest ‘variant of concern’ produces milder symptoms than previous mutations. Despite the misgivings of world health bodies, Chile, Denmark and Hungary have since followed suit in administering fourth shots, while officials in Austria have recommended them on an “off-label” basis for healthcare personnel.

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

Only a third of the signatures of the Joe Rogan censorship demand letter were doctors

By Jordan Schachtel | The Dossier | January 16, 2022

Are you seeing all of those blaring corporate press headlines targeting Joe Rogan this weekend, reporting on a letter from “270 doctors,” which described the famous podcaster as a “menace to public health”? Well, it turns out that the real arbiters of misinformation are the individuals behind the letter itself, and they are being helped along by a corrupt corporate media that is misreporting the credentials of its signatories.

It was first reported by Rolling Stone, with a story titled, “Doctors Demand Spotify Puts an End to Covid Lies on ‘Joe Rogan Experience’”

Yes, the media and Big Tech want to create the image of a hundreds-strong coalition of medical doctors who are genuinely concerned about Joe Rogan’s conversations on his massive platform.

Twitter even got in on the propaganda campaign against Rogan, adding this “medical experts” letter to their curated headlines section.

Well, I reviewed this open letter, and it turns out that only around 100 of the 270+ signatories to the letter are people with qualified medical degrees. And a large chunk of that 100 or so medical doctors are MDs employed at universities who are not in fact practitioners of medicine.

Yet part of the letter reads:

“As physicians, we bear the arduous weight of a pandemic that has stretched our medical systems to their limits and only stands to be exacerbated by the anti-vaccination sentiment woven into this and other episodes of Rogan’s podcast.”

Paradoxically, the disseminators of this petition are guilty of the very misinformation label that they’ve attached to Rogan. In fact, neither of the two reported co authors of the letter — Jessica Rivera and Ben Rein — possess medical degrees. Rivera holds a master’s degree and Rein is a PhD academic who researches psychiatry.

The letter denouncing Joe Rogan and pressuring Spotify to censor his speech has all kinds of random signatories. By my count, the letter is signed by over 50 PhD academics, around 60 college professors, 29 nurses, 10 students, 4 medical residents, and even a handful of… science podcasters.

The letter, which uses the word misinformation nine times in five paragraphs, concludes with a call for Spotify to censor Rogan as part of a policy to “moderate misinformation on the platform.”

Notably, there is no information on who or what group is behind the creation and circulation of the open letter. Rivera, the reported lead author of the letter, is associated with the far-left Rockefeller Foundation and The Atlantic, and she is a CNN contributor.

January 17, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Myocarditis Adverse Events in VAERS

America Out Loud | January 16, 2022

A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products, Jessica Rose Ph.D., MSc, BSc, Peter A. McCullough MD, MPH.

Abstract – Following the global rollout and administration of the Pfizer Inc./BioNTech BNT162b2 and Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccines on December 17, 2020, in the United States, and of the Janssen Ad26.COV2.S product on April 1st, 2021, in an unprecedented manner, hundreds of thousands of individuals have reported adverse events (AEs) using the Vaccine Adverse Events Reports System (VAERS).

We used VAERS data to examine cardiac AEs, primarily myocarditis, reported following injection of the first or second dose of the COVID-19 injectable products. Myocarditis rates reported in VAERS were significantly higher in youths between the ages of 13 to 23 (p<0.0001) with ~80% occurring in males. Within 8 weeks of the public offering of COVID-19 products to the 12-15-year-old age group, we found 19 times the expected number of myocarditis cases in the vaccination volunteers over background myocarditis rates for this age group. In addition, a 5-fold increase in myocarditis rate was observed subsequent to dose 2 as opposed to dose 1 in 15-year-old males. A total of 67% of all cases occurred with BNT162b2. Of the total myocarditis AE reports, 6 individuals died (1.1%) and of these, 2 were under 20 years of age – 1 was 13.

These findings suggest a markedly higher risk for myocarditis subsequent to COVID-19 injectable product use than for other known vaccines, and this is well above known background rates for myocarditis. COVID-19 injectable products are novel and have a genetic, pathogenic mechanism of action causing uncontrolled expression of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein within human cells.

Integrating the temporal relationship of AE occurrence and reporting, biological plausibility of cause and effect, and the fact that these data are internally and externally consistent with emerging sources of clinical data (UK Yellow Card and EU EUDRA systems, published case series), it supports a conclusion that the COVID-19 biological products are deterministic for the occurrence of myocarditis observed after injection.

Journal Pre-proof

References:

https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(20)30673-2/fulltext

https://rcm.imrpress.com/EN/10.31083/j.rcm.2020.04.264

https://www.truthforhealth.org/patientguide/patient-treatment-guide/

January 17, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Intracranial infection cases up 60-fold since vaccines rolled out

But it can’t be caused by the vaccines, masks, or swabs since all are “safe and effective” according to the CDC. My experts think it is all 3. Infectious disease docs say nothing is wrong, ignore it.

By Steve Kirsch | January 15, 2022

I got the message below from one of my followers. It’s an anecdote, but it is not an isolated incident as you’ll agree from reading the comments. A 60-fold increase in intracranial infections (5/month vs. 1 per year). Nobody can figure out why. Only started happening after the vaccines rolled out.

You won’t hear of this since the surgeons aren’t going to speak out since they’ll lose their license (as noted in the message). That doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

Steve, I got this message from my neurosurgeon friend…

“I just took care of an 11-year-old African American cheerleader (she is a “flyer” which means she is the person who is lifted up into the air during a stunt; they are usually very strong and have excellent balance while in the air) in amazing health who had a headache. She got worse and mother brought her to my hospital. She was in a coma and had a brain abscess. I had to put a tube in her head to save her life. Pure pus from her head… And MRI showed a brain abscess as well as sinusitis, and she had a tooth infection.”

So I called my friend (the anti-Vax NS) and said WTF: she said she operated in 5 kids like this in the past month! We see normally one a year. We both said at the same time, “Masks!”

So I wrote to another ped NS friend in the Midwest and this is what he just sent me:

“Yes, it is raining intracranial infections here. We just did one and have done 10-12 since October. This is weird as it’s the wrong season for them. We get them in spring and only a sprinkling of them. ENT is having a similar issue with severe sinusitis’s in kiddies. We asked ID and they just shrug their shoulders”. [Ed note: ID is short for infectious disease ]

Steve, I asked my neurosurgeon friend to call you as she is still pro vaccine despite what she is seeing with her own eyes, but she is afraid that she could jeopardize her license. The other NS recently got fired for not getting the jab, so maybe she would speak with you. Thank you.

Masks? Vaccine? COVID test swabs stuck up your nose? All three?

The vaccination status of the patients wasn’t known (since we all know that the COVID vaccines never cause any bad effects, the physicians didn’t bother to ask such irrelevant questions).

According to my neurologist, the most likely cause is the vaccine, but masks could also be implicated (sinus infection that goes to the brain). She gave it 60:40 odds, where 60% it is the vaccine, 40% it is masks. Then I asked her about the COVID test swabs they stick up your nose and she said, “YES, that is a huge possibility.”

In short, it can be a combination of things. The vaccine weakens your immune system, the masking and/or swabs can initiate the infection, and perfect storm time… you get the result we see today.

In reading the comments, it’s also a mixed bag. Some implicate masks, others the vaccine (since it crosses the BBB and can cause inflammation). But it could potentially be PCR tests as well if you get a swab placed up your nose all the way.

Of course the CDC is never going to tell you any of this.

Message from Dr. Ryan Cole

I was hypothesizing with the Mrs. I think it may be all 3.

In the lab, we saw in increase of unusual organisms on sinus infection and throat infection cultures pre-vaccine. We cultured several masks and grew several diverse organisms and environmental pathogens.

So, first, we know the masks were/are a breeding ground for an atypical mix/ratio of microbes, where they don’t belong.

Second- you and I well know that the vaccines alter the immune system’s ability to fight off many organisms. T cell and till like receptor dysregulation, lead to a weaken of our innate immune response.

Third- add to the perfect storm, of wrong flora, in the wrong location, a trauma to the nasal mucosa, allowing those organisms into a broken small vessel, adjacent to the olfactory bulb. The fatty rich nerve sheath gets secondarily colonized and allows the organisms to now climb into the usually sterile intra cranial space causing abscesses.

Children normally have a strong innate immune response. It is altered after the shots.

Kelli (the Mrs.) being reasonably mask compliant (probably microbially shifted in her flora), had a tech that ramroded her sinus and caused bleeding for our last Maui trip, where you and I spoke. After that, she had a persistent gasoline smell. She and I had Covid a month ago. While in the antibiotic azithromycin, her smell returned to normal. She has had to mask for a few things recently and the gasoline smell is returning (naso biome microbial bad shift again).

I think the cause can be one and two, two and three, or all three.

I would like to know from the neurosurgeons what organism(s) were cultured and grew from the abscess in each case, and assess the commonalities and differences of the microbial milieu.

The study would be-

Culture the throat and sinuses, to assess the microbial flora, of age controlled cohorts of

– non maskers

– persistent compliant unvaccinated maskers (Such as a school district that requires them)

-compliant vaccinated maskers.

Compare the results to the organisms reported in the cases you presented from the docs and surgeons.

Something is indeed rotten in  state of “the neuronal vaults of” Denmark.

Comments from doctors

Retired neurosurgeon wrote:

We need more data re this.

Brain abscess is typically a bacterial infection, and often can be related to otitis/ oral cavity infection. It can also be fungal. My guess is that if indeed there is an uptick in cases, the vaccine itself is unlikely to be a direct culprit; more likely some environmental factor, or potentially masking, if that can be shown to actually somehow be increasing cases of otitis media, or oropharyngeal infections, tooth decay, etc. Masking obviously is ineffective in mitigating upper respiratory dz transmission, but it’s actual harmfulness in the general healthy population running around with their faces covered with cloth beaks emblazoned with icons and butterflies, alone in their cars, and in supermarkets, etc, half off their nose, is hard to prove conclusively.

Brain abscess used to be more common a few decades ago, and has steadily decreased in frequency. We image people much sooner, and hygiene, in general, has improved. I do agree the CDC has proven quite unreliable, an understatement, in so many ways. If there is an increased incidence, it will probably be in the CDC data, they just may well not call attention to it, and hope it goes under the radar.

ER doc wrote:

I called this out a year ago. Seems like so many patients were coming into the clinic with “sinusitis” – patients tend to overcall head congestion with a cold as sinusitis, but so many patients with the same complaint. I said I thought it was the masks but everyone shrugged it off. We know that anytime there is obstruction of normal outflow from the body, bacteria tend to colonize that area. And in a few unlucky people an infection can spread. I have never seen a brain abscess in someone who was not immunocompromised or an IV drug user. It can occur with protozoal infection but very rare in US. When you mess with Mother Nature, there are consequences. There’s a reason the Greeks saw hubris as a fatal character flaw.

January 17, 2022 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »