Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

‘Ministry of Truth’ vs Nutritional Medicine

By Damien Downing, MBBS, MRSB | Orthomolecular Medicine News Service | January 6, 2022

Just outside the local primary school here in north London, somebody has sprayed these words on a phone or cable junction box, highly visible to the mums and tots:

COVID 1984

I often cycle past there, and have always thought “Mmm, a bit extreme”, but now I’m starting to wonder.

In George Orwell’s novel “1984,” Winston Smith works at the Ministry of Truth, which administers Newspeak, deciding what the “truth” is, propagating it, and rewriting history when necessary. Newspeak is “characterized by a continually diminishing vocabulary; complete thoughts are reduced to simple terms of simplistic meaning” according to our old friends Wikipedia. The purpose is thought control; you know the saying “The French have a word for it”? If you don’t have a word for it you struggle to think it. So words like “anti-vaxxer” polarize opinions and prevent any subtlety of thinking about viruses and vaccinations.

For two years, we at the OMNS have been stating one simple message: Nutritional therapy works on Covid, as it does on all viruses.

On January 26, 2020 the OMNS Editor in Chief, Andrew W. Saul, wrote a news release: “Vitamin C Protects Against Coronavirus.” [1] It also made recommendations for vitamin D3, magnesium, zinc and selenium, which strengthen the immune system. We have continued to repeat and expand the message again and again. And have been suspended by Facebook again and again.

Others, including highly respected front-line physicians such as Paul Marik, have also figured out the importance of these nutrients. [2] In fact we have known about the anti-infective potential of vitamin C for over 50 years, since it was reported by Frederick Klenner. [3,4] He described traditional sources such as acerola cherries, which are very rich sources of C. That puts the knowledge back way before we named it “vitamin C.”

And it makes nonsense of the narrative that there is only one solution to Covid: vaccinate, again and again.

Two years ago I failed to persuade mainstream colleagues of the utility of this. “It’s not evidence-based,” they said. Now two review papers have shown the evidence, and it’s pretty solid.

The first, in the journal Life, is called “Vitamin C Intervention for Critical COVID-19: A Pragmatic Review of the Current Level of Evidence.” [5,6] It shows clearly that “this simple vitamin saves lives when given in the right dose.” In fact, vitamin C saves about 80% of the lives of critically ill Covid patients.

With a roll-call of experts saying vitamin C can save lives, what has been the response of the authorities, the powers-that-be?

The UK’s National Health service responded back in 2020 by promising a trial of intravenous vitamin C. Until that evidence becomes available, they have continued to say that there is no good evidence that vitamin C works. Scientists including the authors of the above paper sent them studies and they still said that. Finally a freedom of information (FOI) request established that the NHS had received the papers and had ignored them, for at least a year.

But the promised international multi-center trial would fix this, right? The only problem is, apparently, that the NHS had already signed an exclusive contract with a single company to supply the vitamin C, and that company was and still is unable to provide any. So the trial still has not started. Even for a piece of fiction, you couldn’t make it up! I could lend them some tomorrow.

The second review is by my colleague, independent researcher Rachel Nicoll: “COVID-19: Presenting the case for vitamin D: A cheap, effective measure overlooked by most governments.” [7]

As always with Rachel’s writings this is very information-rich. Here’s just one sentence;

A meta-analysis of 23 studies containing 11,901 participants found that in patients with vitamin D deficiency, the risk of being infected with COVID was 3.3 times higher and the risk of developing severe COVID was around 5 times higher compared to those with more healthy vitamin D levels.

Our knowledge of vitamin D and its importance for immunity has progressed by leaps and bounds in this pandemic, but a lot of this too we have known for ages. I wrote a book about it back in 1988; there’s a team in San Diego that has been studying sunlight and health for decades. [8]

Just as modern agriculture has been depriving us of many essential nutrients, [9] modern lifestyles have been depriving us of sunlight and therefore vitamin D. Lucky you if you live somewhere sunny like San Diego, because here in London nearly everybody is vitamin D deficient. Not that things are perfect in San Diego; we all shun the sun these days, often due to scare tactics about skin cancer.

That’s a story for another time, but here’s a take-home thought about vitamin D levels. It has been shown that a population needs a vitamin D blood level above about 75 nmol/L (30 ng/ml) to stop deaths from Covid, [10] but precious few of us manage it. So what should our blood level be? Where’s the benchmark when nearly everybody is deficient? If you take our nearest evolutionary relatives, non-human primates, they have around twice that level, 125 to 200 nmol/L (50-80 ng/ml). [11,12] We’re not just falling behind them, we’re missing it by a mile. You need at least 10,000 IU per day long-term to achieve that.

Guess what comes next? When the “experts,” at least in the UK, are asked about the safety and toxicity of vitamin D, they say we should not take more than 2000 IU per day. But this is based on the UK’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) 2016 report. SACN cited a 2006 paper by Vieth as showing toxic effects above this level. However, the Vieth paper actually states that toxicity may occur at 25(OH)D concentrations beyond 500 nmol/L (200 ng/ml), levels which could not be achieved unless an individual was taking extremely high doses for a prolonged period of time (such as 30,000 IU/day for three months). [13] This warning has been misunderstood and misquoted and has given rise to a lot of pointless restriction of vitamin D intake. So even though the error about vitamin D safety was pointed out 15 years ago, and repeatedly since then, it is still being perpetuated by supposed experts.

Two years down the line, then, we at the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service are still saying the same simple message that nutrition works. And the bureaucrats at the ‘Ministry of Truth’ are still deleting it.

References

1. Saul AW (2020) Vitamin C Protects Against Coronavirus. Orthomolecular Medicine News Service. http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v16n04.shtml

2. Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance: Prevention & Treatment Protocols for COVID-19. (2022) https://covid19criticalcare.com

3. Klenner FR. (1949) The treatment of poliomyelitis and other virus diseases with vitamin C. South Med J, 111:209-214. https://www.seanet.com/~alexs/ascorbate/194x/klenner-fr-southern_med_surg-1949-v111-n7-p209.htm

4. Klenner FR. (1951) Massive Doses of Vitamin C and the Virus Diseases. Presented in the Fifty-second Annual Meeting of the Tri-State Medical Association of the Carolinas and Virginia, held at Columbia, February 19th and 20th, 1951. https://www.seanet.com/~alexs/ascorbate/195x/klenner-fr-southern_med_surg-1951-v103-n4-p101.htm

5. Holford P, Carr AC, Zawari M, Vizcaychipi MP (2021) Vitamin C Intervention for Critical COVID-19: A Pragmatic Review of the Current Level of Evidence. Life, 11:1166. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/11/11/1166

6. Holford P (2021) Twelve intervention trials conclude that vitamin C works for Covid. So why are hospitals being prohibited from using it? Orthomolecular Medicine News Service. http://www.orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v17n27.shtml

7. Health Advisory and Recovery Team (2021) COVID-19: the case for supporting the human immune system with vitamin D: Why is this simple vitamin not promoted more? https://www.hartgroup.org/briefing-covid-19-the-case-for-supporting-the-human-immune-system-with-vitamin-d

8. Mohr SB, Gorham ED, Garland CF, et al. (2021) San Diego group studying positive effects of sunlight. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Mohr+SB+Gorham+ED+Garland+CF

9. Lowther M (2020) Why are there fewer nutrients in our food? Orthomolecular Medicine News Service. http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v16n54.shtml

10. Downing D (2020) How we can fix this pandemic in a month. Orthomolecular Medicine News Service. http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v16n49.shtml

11. Power ML, Oftedal OT, Savage A, et al. (1997) Assessing vitamin D status of callitrichids: Baseline data from wild cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus) in Colombia. Zoo Biol 16:39-46. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2361(1997)16:1<39::AID-ZOO6>3.0.CO;2-C

12. Power ML, Dittus, WPJ (2017) Vitamin D status in wild toque macaques (Macaca sinica) in Sri Lanka. Am J Primatol. 79:e22655. http://www.primates.lk/health-vitamin-d-in-wild-monkeys-and-you

13. Vieth R (2006) Critique of the considerations for establishing the tolerable upper intake level for vitamin D: critical need for revision upwards. J Nutr, 136:1117-1122. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16549491

Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine

Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information: http://www.orthomolecular.org

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

Information about the first 3 matters taken up by the Board of Medical Licensure in Dr. Meryl Nass case

By Meryl Nass, MD | January 16, 2022

The Maine Board of Medical Licensure has 5 matters before it in my case. Here are the first 3:

The first 2 are complaints from private citizens, who claimed that I spread misinformation on the internet. Neither complainant knows me or is a patient. Neither complaint has anything to do with medical care. Each says the complaint was initiated after they watched me in a video. One said the information I was disseminatiog was a “danger to the public.”

The third complaint is from a midwife who complained that I gave a pregnant patient hydroxychloroquine for acute COVID without asking her, when she could have given the patient monoclonal antibodies instead.

My response is that hydroxychloroquine is approved in pregnancy and is a safe, licensed drug. Monoclonal antibodies are an experimental biologic product that have not been approved in pregnancy ; in fact, the pregnancy risks have not even been studied. The midwife apparently did not know this about the product she is prescribing in pregnancy.

Unapproved drugs have no label. For a legal description of what is known about them, one must read a fact sheet. For example, here is what the FDA-approved Fact Sheet for sotrovimab, the only commonly used monoclonal said to be effective against omicron, says about its risk in pregnancy:

“11.1 Pregnancy Risk Summary

There are insufficient data to evaluate a drug-associated risk of major birth defects, miscarriage, or adverse maternal or fetal outcome. Sotrovimab should be used during pregnancy only if the potential benefit justifies the potential risk for the mother and the fetus. Nonclinical reproductive toxicity studies have not been conducted with sotrovimab. In a crossreactive binding assay using a protein array enriched for human embryofetal proteins, no offtarget binding was detected for sotrovimab. Since sotrovimab is a recombinant human immunoglobulin G (IgG) containing the LS modification in the Fc domain, it has the potential for placental transfer from the mother to the developing fetus. The potential treatment benefit or risk of placental transfer of sotrovimab to the developing fetus is not known. The estimated background risk of major birth defects and miscarriage for the indicated population is unknown.“

On the other hand, the label for hydroxychloroquine says the following about use in pregnancy:

“Pregnancy
Teratogenic Effects: Human pregnancies resulting in live births have been reported in the literature and no increase in the rate of birth defects has been demonstrated. Embryonic deaths and malformations of anophthalmia and microphthalmia in the offspring have been reported when pregnant rats received large doses of chloroquine.”

What does CDC say about hydroxychloroquine in pregnancy?

“Hydroxychloroquine can be prescribed to adults and children of all ages. It can also be safely taken by pregnant women and nursing mothers.”

Do you think perhaps the Medical Board and the complaining midwife bothered to check this information? I think not.

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

NOAA Arctic Fraud

Tony Heller | January 9, 2022

With the Arctic melting scam collapsing in real time, the Biden administration digs in their heels and ramps up the fraud.

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

Statins Do More Harm Than Good

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | January 15, 2022

Amid the pandemic media storm in January 2021, a study1 published in the journal Atherosclerosis quietly revealed that people taking statin medications had a higher rate of cardiovascular events than those who were not on statins.2

In the study, the researchers separated the participants by assigning them a coronary artery calcium (CAC) score. This is a noninvasive CT scan designed to detect plaque buildup in your coronary arteries. It is also called a cardiac calcium score,3 calcium scan or Agatston score.4

Doctors use this score to calculate your risk of developing coronary artery disease as it measures calcified plaque within the arteries. Data has shown your risk of heart disease correlates with this score. The lower the score, the less likely you are to have a cardiac event when compared against other men and women your age. The score ranges from zero to over 400.5

  • Zero — No plaque with a low risk of a heart attack.
  • 1-10 — Small amount of plaque and less than 10% chance of heart disease.
  • 11-100 — Some plaque with mild heart disease and a moderate risk of a heart attack.
  • 101-400 — Moderate amount of plaque that may block a coronary artery, with a moderate to high risk of a heart attack.
  • 400+ — Large amount of calcified plaque is found in the coronary arteries with more than a 90% chance it is blocking an artery.

Doctors consider a CAC test if you are between 40 and 70 with an increased risk for heart disease but do not have symptoms.6 People with a family history of heart disease, who are a past or present smoker, are overweight, are inactive or have a history of high cholesterol, diabetes or high blood pressure have factors that increase their risk of heart disease.

Yet, not all physicians use the CAC score as recommended. Writing for the Texas Heart Institute, the assistant medical director, Dr. Stephanie Coulter, says, “When my high-risk patients are not taking their cholesterol-lowering statin medicine, the calcium score can be a very powerful motivator for them to follow my professional advice and prescription.”7

However, further into her article, she stresses the test is only appropriate for moderate-risk patients, and those with a low or high risk of heart disease do not benefit from the scan. The study published in Atherosclerosis indicates that even with a high CAC score, taking statins does not reduce your risk of a cardiovascular event and may, in fact, increase it.8,9

Data Show Statins Increase Your Risk for Heart Events

The researchers were working under the premise that statins do not decrease the CAC score and may increase calcification.10 They used the prognostic significance of CAC when compared against statin users in 28,025 patients ages 40 to 75 years. The researchers adjusted the data for traditional cardiovascular disease risk factors and examined the performance of CAC volume, density and area.

Nearly 11 months after the results were published, Tucker Goodrich11 extracted the data from Table 1 into a graphic representation that demonstrated only in the highest CAC score range of 400 or greater were the data nearly identical between those taking statins and those not taking statins. Otherwise, those taking statins always had more cardiac events than those who weren’t. The researchers concluded that:12

“CAC scoring retains robust risk prediction in statin users, and the changing relationship of CAC density with outcomes may explain the slightly weaker relationship of CAC with outcomes in statin users.”

The researchers acknowledged that true to the recommended use of CAC scoring, only a baseline score was known, so they were unable to evaluate whether statins influenced the progression of calcification. There was limited race and ethnic diversity within the study group.

Yet, despite the limitations of the design and the results, they believe the analysis used data from one of the largest samples available to date and provides “both real-world and investigational support for the role of CAC in risk stratifying patients taking statins.”13

Tucker Goodrich14 quotes from an article in the American College of Cardiology published January 2021, in which the writers analyzed the data. They wrote:15

“The findings confirm that CAC does have prognostic value among statin users, although the association is attenuated. Complicating interpretation is the inclusion of only fatal events and the relatively elevated, but still low, mortality rate in statin users versus non-users with a zero CAC score.

A key mechanism underlying this phenomenon is that statins increase plaque density thereby paradoxically raising the Agatston CAC score — as density is upweighted.”

There appears to be some discrepancy. First, the data that show people with a CAC score of zero — no plaque and low risk — were inexplicably taking statins. Secondly, the study acknowledges that there was one baseline CAC score taken, so how much the plaque density increased or didn’t increase in this population could not be ascertained.

And finally, the raw data showed people on statins died more frequently than those who didn’t take the drug in nearly every CAC category. However, the writers postulated that the increasing plaque density that raises the CAC score may be overcome by expanding the scoring method and investigating the protective role that densely calcified plaque may play in cardiovascular health:16

“However, this is hampered by a current lack of reference values, limited supportive research, and validation; implementation limitations include software update requirements and standardization.”

In other words, expanding the CAC scoring, which should be taken before prescribing statins and is not recommended as a follow-up since it exposes patients to the same radiation as 10 X-rays,17 may possibly alter the results enough that it reflects greater benefit to using statins.

Statins Are More Than a Colossal Waste of Money

Despite decades of statin drug use and vilification of saturated fats and cholesterol, heart disease remains the No. 1 cause of death.18 Although the researchers in the featured study do not mention it, their data support past research that shows statins are a colossal waste of money, and likely more.

In 2014, Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., produced a documentary, “Heart of The Matter: Dietary Villains.” The film exposed the myths behind the statin fad and the financial links that drove the industry. It was so thorough that vested interests convinced ABC-TV to rescind the two-part series and got the documentary expunged.19

Since the release of that documentary, the evidence against the cholesterol theory and statins has only grown. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, a general practitioner with the British National Health Service, expressed his disbelief at how widely statins are used despite research evidence they are not effective, and possibly worse. He wrote:20

“New research shows that the most widely prescribed type of drug in the history of medicine is a waste of money. One major study found that the more ‘bad’ cholesterol was lowered, the greater the risk of heart attacks and strokes.

In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, almost every other medical condition has been shoved onto the sidelines. However, in the UK last year, heart attacks and strokes (CVD) killed well over 100,000 people — which is at least twice as many as have died from COVID-19.

CVD will kill just as many this year, which makes it significantly more important than COVID-19, even if no one is paying much attention to it right now.”

What data have demonstrated is that statin medications are not inert, and in fact can damage your health while not protecting your heart. One of the side effects of lower cholesterol levels is impaired cognitive performance.21

One study22 showed patients with mild cognitive impairment had double the risk of dementia when using lipophilic statins, such as atorvastatin (Lipitor), simvastatin (Zocor), Fluvastatin (Lescol), and lovastatin (Altoprev), which dissolve more readily in fats.23

This Harvard article claims those same drugs that increase the risk of dementia may lower your risk of liver cancer, which is not a choice any patient should have to make. There is also evidence to suggest people taking statins have twice the risk of being diagnosed with diabetes than those who do not and taking the drug for longer than two years triples the risk. One of the scientists from The Ohio State University explained in a press release:24

“The fact that increased duration of statin use was associated with an increased risk of diabetes — something we call a dose-dependent relationship — makes us think that this is likely a causal relationship.”

Not all data show that people taking statins have more heart events than people not taking statins. Some, like this systematic review25 published in 2015, found that despite the added risks of dementia and diabetes, people taking statins could live an average of only 3.2 to 4.1 days longer than if they didn’t take the drug.

Your Body Requires Cholesterol to Live

The triggers for cardiovascular disease are more complex than just lowering cholesterol levels. As data have shown us, lowering cholesterol is not the panacea for avoiding heart disease and extending your life. Kendrick refutes the idea that the LDL-cholesterol hypothesis is accurate, writing:26

“For the LDL hypothesis to be correct, it requires that LDL can travel past the lining of the artery, the endothelial cells, and into the artery wall behind. This is considered the starting point for atherosclerotic plaques to form. The problem with this hypothesis is that LDL cannot get into any cell, let alone an endothelial cell, unless that cell wants it to.”

However, damage to the arterial walls can be induced by several factors, including high blood pressure, inflammation, elevated blood sugar and smoking.27 Once damaged, plaque begins to build up as a protective mechanism. The problem arises when the rate of damage and result in clot formation outpace your body’s ability to repair it.

Instead, it’s crucial that you understand how important cholesterol is to the human body. In fact, according to Zoe Harcombe, Ph.D., nutritional researcher, author and public speaker, “If you had no cholesterol in your body, you would be dead.”28

As noted by Harcombe, the notion that there is good and bad cholesterol is also wrong. LDL and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) are not even cholesterol but, rather, carriers and transporters of cholesterol, triglycerides (fat), phospholipids and proteins. “LDL would more accurately be called the carrier of fresh cholesterol and HDL would more accurately be called the carrier of recycled cholesterol,” she says.29

How to Identify and Lower Your Risk for Heart Disease

Using simple strategies at home may help normalize your cholesterol and blood sugar levels. I believe a total cholesterol measurement has little benefit in evaluating your risk for heart disease unless the total number is over 300.

In some instances, high cholesterol may indicate a problem when your LDL or triglycerides are high, and your HDL is low. You’ll be better able to evaluate your risk by looking at the two ratios below, in combination with other lifestyle factors such as ferritin and gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT) tests. To calculate your cholesterol ratios:30,31,32

  • Cholesterol:HDL ratio — Divide your total cholesterol by your HDL level. Ideally, the ratio should be below 5-to1; a ratio below 3.5-to1 is considered optimal
  • Triglyceride:HDL ratio — Divide your triglyceride level by your HDL. This ratio should ideally be below 2

However, rather than focusing on cholesterol, there are two tests far more important for assessing your CVD risk. These are the serum ferritin33 and gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT) tests.34 The GGT test can be used as a screening marker for excess free iron and is a great indicator of your sudden cardiac death risk.

To protect yourself against heart disease, here are several suggestions that help lower your insulin resistance and restore insulin sensitivity, among other heart-protective mechanisms:

  • Avoid environmental pollutants and toxins, including smoking, vaping, heavy metals, herbicides and pesticides, especially glyphosate.
  • Minimize your exposure to electromagnetic fields and wireless radiation from cellphones, Wi-Fi, routers, smart meters and more, as this kind of radiation has been shown to cause serious free radical damage and mitochondrial dysfunction.
  • Eat an unprocessed whole food-based diet low in net carbs and high in healthy fats. A ketogenic diet — which is very low in net carbohydrates and high in healthy fats — is key for boosting mitochondrial function.
  • When your body can burn fat for fuel, your liver creates water-soluble fats called ketones that burn far more efficiently than carbs, thereby creating fewer reactive oxygen species and secondary free radicals. Ketones also decrease inflammation and improve glucose metabolism.35
  • Eat nitrate-rich foods to help normalize your blood pressure. Good sources include arugula, cilantro, rhubarb, butter leaf lettuce, mesclun mixed greens, beet greens, fresh beet juice, kvass (fermented beet juice) and fermented beet powder.
  • Get plenty of non-exercise movement each day; walk more and incorporate higher intensity exercise as your health allows.
  • Intermittently fast. After you’ve become accustomed to intermittently fasting for 16 to 18 hours, you can try a stricter fast once or twice a week, when you eat a 300- to 800-calorie meal loaded with detox-supporting nutrients, followed by a 24-hour fast. So, in essence, you’re then only eating one 300- to 800-calorie meal in 42 hours.
  • If you have heart disease, consider enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP). To find a provider, see EECP.com.36
  • Get sensible sun exposure to optimize your vitamin D status and/or take an oral vitamin D3 supplement with magnesium and vitamin K2.
  • Implement heart-based wellness practices such as connecting with loved ones and practicing gratitude.

Sources and References

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

Wikipedia 2122: The Great Covid Madness

By John Ellwood | TCW Defending Freedom | January 15, 2022

THE period 2020-2022 is remembered as the Great Covid Madness.

History has witnessed many periods of mass hysteria including plagues of dancing, witch trials, alien invasion and ghostly apparitions, not to mention the Seattle Windscreen Pitting Epidemic. However, it is likely that the hysteria witnessed during the Great Covid Madness surpassed anything that had gone before or since.

The delusions included:

The belief that the UK’s National Health Service was the ‘envy of the world’.

The belief that propaganda from the BBC, state-controlled media and the Chinese Communist Party was true.

The belief that a rich software salesman was a philanthropist and also an expert on vaccines and the transmission of viruses.

Decisions by managers at so-called ‘Health Trusts’ to send hospital patients with the virus back to care homes to infect other vulnerable old people who did not have the virus.

The insatiable desire to hoard toilet paper.

Banning the sale of ‘non-essential’ items such as shoes, and closing small retailers.

The introduction of pointless and discriminatory ‘health passports’.

The reliance on the accuracy of discredited PCR and LF tests.

Everything associated with Test and Trace.

Quarantine for healthy international travellers.

The persistent belief in discredited statistics from Imperial College London and Sage.

The belief in the proven lies of politicians, and most journalists.

The belief that a dirty rag placed over the mouth and nose was healthy and could stop the inhalation of a microscopic virus.

The belief that a piece of plastic between tables in a cafe could stop the transmission of a virus.

The belief that a sitting person would not transmit a virus whereas a standing person would.

The belief that a healthy person was a threat and could transmit a virus.

The belief that flu had disappeared and that a cold was something to dread.

The banning of healthy exercises such as team sports, golf, swimming and park runs.

Picnics and sunbathing viewed as dangerous to health.

Park benches and playgrounds regarded as disease vectors.

The refusal to distribute effective anti-viral medicines.

The isolation of lonely, sick and vulnerable people.

The closure of churches.

The belief that unjabbed health-care workers posed a greater risk to patients than those who had accepted the experimental gene therapy.

The ruination of the education and life chances of young people who were in no danger from the virus.

The belief that it was safe for six people to meet but not seven or more.

The belief that the indiscriminate injection of an untested experimental gene therapy was sensible.

The belief that mixing and matching the unproven gene therapies was sensible.

The belief that subsequent injections of the experimental gene therapy (which after two injections had not stopped infection or transmission) would prevent infection by and transmission of mutations of the virus.

The refusal to acknowledge or investigate the injuries and deaths caused by the experimental gene therapies.

The dismissal of the concept of naturally acquired immunity.

Willingly sacrificing the health of children and young people on the altar of ‘Community Safety’.

The creation of an unsustainable National Debt.

Footnote:

History records that the tyranny lasted far longer than the virus. Many of those who participated in the hysteria also believed that the tiny increase in atmospheric CO2 caused by human activities would cause catastrophic climate change.

January 16, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

COVID-19: Democratic Voters Support Harsh Measures Against Unvaccinated

Rassmusen Reports | January 13, 2022

While many voters have become skeptical toward the federal government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a majority of Democrats embrace restrictive policies, including punitive measures against those who haven’t gotten the COVID-19 vaccine.

A new Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 48% of voters favor President Joe Biden’s plan to impose a COVID-19 vaccine mandate on the employees of large companies and government agencies. That includes 33% who Strongly Favor the mandate. Forty-eight percent (48%) are opposed to Biden’s vaccine mandate, including 40% who Strongly Oppose the mandate. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Voters are similarly divided over the federal government’s top COVID-19 expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci. Forty-five percent (45%) view Fauci favorably, including 28% who have a Very Favorable impression of him. Forty-eight percent (48%) have an unfavorable impression of Fauci, including 34% who have a Very Unfavorable view of him.

The even split among voters is the result of deep partisan divisions. While 78% of Democratic voters support the Biden administration’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate plan, only 22% of Republicans and 41% of voters not affiliated with either major party support the vaccine mandate. And many Democrats would support even harsher measures, including fines for Americans who won’t get the COVID-19 vaccine and criminal punishment for vaccine critics.

The survey of 1,016 U.S. Likely Voters was conducted on January 5, 2022 by the Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

The survey found that 75% of likely Democratic voters – but only 21% of Republicans and 38% of unaffiliated voters – have a favorable opinion of Dr. Fauci. Among other findings of the survey:

– Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters would oppose a proposal for federal or state governments to fine Americans who choose not to get a COVID-19 vaccine. However, 55% of Democratic voters would support such a proposal, compared to just 19% of Republicans and 25% of unaffiliated voters.

– Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democratic voters would favor a government policy requiring that citizens remain confined to their homes at all times, except for emergencies, if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a proposal is opposed by 61% of all likely voters, including 79% of Republicans and 71% of unaffiliated voters.

– Nearly half (48%) of Democratic voters think federal and state governments should be able to fine or imprison individuals who publicly question the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications. Only 27% of all voters – including just 14% of Republicans and 18% of unaffiliated voters – favor criminal punishment of vaccine critics.

– Forty-five percent (45%) of Democrats would favor governments requiring citizens to temporarily live in designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a policy would be opposed by a strong majority (71%) of all voters, with 78% of Republicans and 64% of unaffiliated voters saying they would Strongly Oppose putting the unvaccinated in “designated facilities.”

– While about two-thirds (66%) of likely voters would be against governments using digital devices to track unvaccinated people to ensure that they are quarantined or socially distancing from others, 47% of Democrats favor a government tracking program for those who won’t get the COVID-19 vaccine.

How far are Democrats willing to go in punishing the unvaccinated? Twenty-nine percent (29%) of Democratic voters would support temporarily removing parents’ custody of their children if parents refuse to take the COVID-19 vaccine. That’s much more than twice the level of support in the rest of the electorate – seven percent (7%) of Republicans and 11% of unaffiliated voters – for such a policy.

The survey also found that more black voters (63%) than whites (45%), Hispanics (55%) or other minorities (32%) support Biden’s vaccine mandate for government workers and employees of large companies.

President Biden’s strongest supporters are most likely to endorse the harshest punishments against those who won’t get the COVID-19 vaccine. Among voters who have a Very Favorable impression of Biden, 51% are in favor of government putting the unvaccinated in “designated facilities,” and 54% favor imposing fines or prison sentences on vaccine critics. By contrast, among voters who have a Very Unfavorable view of Biden, 95% are against “designated facilities” for the unvaccinated and 93% are against criminal punishment for vaccine critics.

As the Omicron variant of COVID-19 produces a spike in cases nationwide, about three-quarters of Americans are already vaccinated against the coronavirus, and two-thirds of those have gotten booster shots.

Most Americans are concerned about new variants of the COVID-19 virus, but Democrats are more concerned than others, and place more trust in vaccines to protect against the disease.

Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to the public as well as Platinum Members.

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

What Kind of ‘Experts’ Didn’t Foresee This Lockdown Devastation?

The Daily Sceptic | January 14, 2022

On Wednesday, the Telegraph published this article: “How lockdowns left babies more vulnerable to respiratory disease.” It’s all about an extra risk this winter from “respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), an infection that can in rare cases make it difficult for children to breathe.”

That really hit home. One of my oldest and dearest friends, a grandparent like myself, has had the shocking experience of seeing two of her granddaughters, both born in late 2021, being seriously afflicted. One nearly died from RSV, caught in the maternity ward after birth where it was rife and where she had not been born long enough to build up resistance. It was very touch-and-go for several weeks.

Her little cousin, born a few weeks earlier, was hit by cytomegalovirus (CMV). Her mother seems to have caught it during pregnancy and since she is a nurse the most likely place was in hospital. The little girl has no hearing in one ear and is likely to lose it in the other, and has only one kidney.

Neither of these viruses is new. RSV is very common. Most children will catch it by the age of two with few ill effects. The same applies to CMV. But some children do become seriously ill, so there is nothing to prove these two little girls wouldn’t have been among them anyway. We’ll never know, but it’s starting to look as though they may well have been two more victims of the madness that has engulfed us.

What is new is the increase in cases and the disruption of the normal cycle which would aid the natural build-up of resistance. RSV, for example, largely disappeared in the winter of 2020-21 but then reappeared incongruously to cause a surge in the summer of 2021, which has not yet abated.

Not surprisingly, the dawning realisation is that lockdowns are probably to blame. “Because of all the Covid restrictions, we’ve been spreading viruses less, so we think that everybody’s natural immunity to viruses like RSV has gone down,” said Dr. Andrew Whittamore, a GP and clinical lead at the British Lung Foundation.

This raises the whole fascinating question of how we define and understand the meaning of the word ‘expert’. That doesn’t mean substituting for a professional the opinions of someone whose education has been conducted at the University of Google, magically conferring on them brilliant insight and revelations that have escaped everyone else. But it does mean using some commonsense.

To me, as a layman, I find it utterly astonishing that the conventional experts became so suffocated and obsessed by one risk that they managed to ignore all the empirical observations and experience of their lives that might have told them that ripping up the way human society functions, and how we build up resistance to disease, might possibly generate massive problems from mental breakdowns to economic decline and cancer to reduced immunity. Forgive me for saying so, but I’d have thought that was pretty obvious. If expertise prevents an expert from seeing that, or at least standing up and saying so, then of what value is the expertise?

In the bigger picture, the possibility that RSV and CMV are going to cause more serious cases than hitherto is not an overwhelming one – albeit devastating to the parents in every instance – but it is an allegory for countless other contexts and scenarios where we have allowed the opinions of a small number of people to drive an agenda as if it was a tank into an aquarium. Taken together their cumulative impact is going to be, and already is, extremely serious.

The sheer recklessness of what has been done in the name of annihilating Covid (which didn’t happen anyway) is difficult to measure. One thing was clear from the outset: the ‘experts’ really didn’t have a clue and I’d suggest to a large extent they still don’t [or at least still can’t stand up and say so]. The best thing about Boris Johnson’s Partygate is that not only has it terminally undermined the Government’s authority and basis for locking us all down, but also it has flagged up the sheer idiotic stupidity of some of the rules that – even if one believed an initial lockdown had some benefit – were manifestly not going to make a difference.

As the high tide of the Covid Hysteria turns and gradually recedes towards the horizon it is leaving scattered across the exposed beach of our world countless shattered seashells, every one of which represents broken lives and families, wrecked livelihoods, shattered education and prospects, and a whole raft of medical consequences including these two little girls among a cascade of undiagnosed and untreated cancers and other conditions.

Let’s not fool ourselves. Covid was, and is, an extremely serious and potentially fatal illness for some people, just as flu, pneumonia, and bronchitis have always been. But it’s a rum thing to see how the people we choose to define as experts have played such an enormous part in the consequential devastation. By blinding themselves to everything except one disease they have presided over a farce of unprecedented consequences, driven along by their self-belief whether predicated on their self-professed mathematical ability to foretell the future or the conceit that they could ‘keep everyone safe’ with measures that we now know have done as much damage, or more, than the devastation they were supposed to prevent. What then, is an expert? Perhaps someone who feels they have to come up with something, anything, that makes them look like they know what they’re doing.

As for my friend, the grandmother: just after the viral storm that hit her granddaughters, she had the misfortune to choke on a piece of meat at a dinner party in December. This was no trivial incident. It nearly killed her. She was attended by paramedics and had to be dashed to hospital unconscious. She only just made it through.

What was the reason for her admission? Why of course, she was recorded with “suspected Covid”, even though the reason she was on the point of death ought to be have been obvious even to a blind man with hearing difficulties. It was as fatuous as a priest in the Middle Ages blaming her accident on evil spirits or the ‘will of God’, the catch-all diagnoses of that era.

Nothing could illustrate to me better the extent of the collective insanity that has consumed our time and for which we will all be paying for the rest of our lives – though the two little girls I started out with may well be paying for a great deal longer than most of us, as the grass grows long on the graves of the modellers and other luminaries of this present age.

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

Cover-up, deception and our chief Covid advisers

By Neville Hodgkinson | TCW Defending Freedom | January 13, 2022

MORE evidence of a damaging cover-up by top British and American scientists of the laboratory origin of the Covid-19 virus has emerged in emails released in the US under Freedom of Information laws.

Sir Patrick Vallance, the UK Government’s chief scientific adviser, and Sir Jeremy Farrar, a former senior member of the advisory body Sage and boss of the powerful Wellcome Trust research fund, are among those mentioned.

The emails show that as far back as February 2, 2020, Farrar knew the SARS-CoV-2 virus was unlikely to have arisen naturally. He suggested to Dr Anthony Fauci, America’s ‘Covid czar’, that it may have evolved ‘accidentally’ from a SARS-like virus in human tissue in the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.

But he was told by Dr Francis Collins, then director of the US National Institutes of Health: ‘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.’ Dutch virologist Dr Ron Fouchier (who has subsequently claimed that the Covid pandemic proves the necessity for animal research) wrote that ‘further debate would do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular’.

The following month Farrar was among 27 scientists who signed a letter published by the Lancet dismissing as ‘conspiracy theories’ claims that Covid-19 had a laboratory origin. The signatories included two other Wellcome scientists.

Farrar has subsequently continued to claim that ‘the best scientific evidence available’ is that the virus crossed from animals to humans.

The Lancet letter set back by more than a year official discussion around the lab origin of the pandemic – vital information for governments globally in deciding how best to respond.

Farrar was also involved in initiating a World Health Organisation inquiry, subsequently dismissed as a ‘whitewash’, which cleared the Wuhan lab of involvement. He wrote to Collins and Fauci on February 5, 2020:

Francis and Tony

Couple of things

*I spoke again with WHO this morning. I believe they have listened and acted. Let me know if you agree.

At the WHO meeting next week they will set up the Group who will ‘look at the origins and evolution of 2019n-Cov’

They have asked for names to sit on that Group – please do send any names

We can have a call this week with a core group of that to frame the work of the Group including – if you could join?

I think this puts it under the umbrella of WHO, with action this week and into next

With names to be put forward into the Group from us and pressure on this group from you and our teams next week.

*The team will update the draft today and I will forward immediately – they will add further comments on the glycans

Does that sound reasonable to you?

Jeremy

(‘Glycans’ is a reference to glycosylation, a key feature of the genetic modification that made a bat virus capable of infecting human cells.)

The email followed an urgent February 1 teleconference, involving both Vallance and Farrar, called to discuss how to respond after WHO declared Covid a global health emergency on the previous day.

Farrar issued a note warning that ‘information and discussion is shared in total confidence and not to be shared until agreement on next steps’. It went to Fauci and Vallance, copied to six others including Paul Schreier, chief operating officer at Wellcome.

The call centred on a document entitled ‘Coronavirus sequence comparison’ and was triggered by a note from immunologist Kristian Anderson of the Scripps Research Institute in California saying that the virus had features which might make it look as if it had been genetically engineered.

In addition, Fauci drew attention to a November 2015 article written by Ralph Baric, an immunologist based in the US and long-term recipient of funds from Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). The paper was described in the email as ‘Baric, Shi et al – Nature Medicine – SARS gain of function’. Shi Zhengli is the scientist who became known as ‘batwoman’ through her research into bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

‘Gain of function’ is the term used to describe laboratory modification of viruses to alter their transmissibility and infectivity.  The US government banned such research in 2014 because of concerns about the dangers it could present to human health, such as we have seen with SARS-CoV-2.

Fauci is alleged to have circumvented the ban by paying for work initiated in America to continue at the Wuhan institute.

The case against him was further strengthened this week by the release of documents showing that in 2018 a US Defense Department agency refused to fund the same research on safety grounds. The documents also reveal concern over the suppression of potential treatments such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, and about the mRNA vaccines.

The revelations of cover-up and deception at the highest level call into question whether the UK Government should continue to take advice from Farrar and Vallance over the handling of the pandemic response.

If it had been known that research by US and Chinese scientists gave rise to the pandemic, would governments worldwide have put their trust in the lockdown and mass vaccination policies that have proved so damaging? Especially when promoted by scientists such as Fauci who were among those funding the research.

Farrar, who was a member of Sage from the start of the pandemic, left the advisory body in October, saying he wanted to devote more time to the Wellcome Trust.

As Paula Jardine has described in TCW Defending Freedom, even as the Wuhan lockdown was being imposed by the Chinese government as far back as January 23, 2020, Farrar appeared at a press conference convened at the World Economic Forum in Davos by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), promoting the idea that dramatic interventions of social control might be the only way to control a pandemic pending the development of a vaccine.

Vallance, the UK’s chief scientific adviser since March 2018, is former president of research and development at the pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmith Kline (GSK). It was announced last June that he is to oversee the new National Science and Technology Council ‘to put science and technology right at the heart of policymaking and strengthen the way we work across government to reinforce the position of the UK as a science superpower’.

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

Myocarditis Tops List of COVID Vaccine Injuries Among 12- to 17-Year-Olds, VAERS Data Show

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender | January 14, 2022

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today released new data showing a total of 1,033,994 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and Jan. 1, 2022, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.

The data included a total of 21,745 reports of deaths — an increase of 363 over the previous week — and 170,446 reports of serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period — up 3,840 compared with the previous week.

Excluding “foreign reports” to VAERS, 723,042 adverse events, including 9,936 deaths and 64,406 serious injuries, were reported in the U.S. between Dec. 14, 2020, and Jan. 7, 2022.

Foreign reports are reports foreign subsidiaries send to U.S. vaccine manufacturers. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, if a manufacturer is notified of a foreign case report that describes an event that is both serious and does not appear on the product’s labeling, the manufacturer is required to submit the report to VAERS.

Of the 9,936 U.S. deaths reported as of Jan. 7, 19% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 24% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 61% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.

In the U.S., 516 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of Jan. 7, including 303 million doses of Pfizer, 197 million doses of Moderna and 18 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).

Every Friday, VAERS publishes vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed. Historically, VAERS has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Jan. 7, 2022, for 5- to 11-year-olds show:

The most recent death involves a 7-year-old girl (VAERS I.D. 1975356) from Minnesota who died 11 days after receiving her first dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine when she was found unresponsive by her mother. An autopsy is pending.

  • 14 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation).
  • 22 reports of blood clotting disorders.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Jan. 7, 2022, for 12- to 17-year-olds show:  

The most recent death involves a 15-year-old girl from Minnesota (VAERS I.D. 1974744), who died 177 days after receiving her second dose of Pfizer from a pulmonary embolus. An autopsy is pending.

  • 62 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to 17-year-olds where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death — with 96% of cases
    attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
  • 589 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis with 578 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
  • 149 reports of blood clotting disorders, with all cases attributed to Pfizer.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Jan. 7, 2022, for all age groups combined, show:

© 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 16, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

IS THE NARRATIVE BEGINNING TO COLLAPSE?

Computing Forever | January 14, 2022

Support my work on Subscribe Star: https://www.subscribestar.com/dave-cullen
Follow me on Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/hybM74uIHJKg/
Buy How is This a Thing Mugs here: https://teespring.com/stores/computing-forever-store

Sources: https://computingforever.com/2022/01/14/is-the-narrative-beginning-to-collapse/

http://www.computingforever.com
KEEP UP ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Gab: https://gab.ai/DaveCullen
Subscribe on Gab TV: https://tv.gab.com/channel/DaveCullen
Minds.com: https://www.minds.com/davecullen
Subscribe on Odysee: https://odysee.com/@TheDaveCullenShow:7

This video contains some images and videos sourced from pixabay.com, linked below:

https://pixabay.com/photos/vaccination-syringe-mask-vaccine-6576827/
https://pixabay.com/videos/octagon-abstract-lights-particle-5192/
https://pixabay.com/videos/red-ink-paint-that-bounce-drop-91074/
https://pixabay.com/videos/abstract-plexus-dark-geometric-47713/
https://pixabay.com/photos/test-tube-covid-19-mask-face-mask-5065426/
https://pixabay.com/videos/future-orange-internet-www-web-2319/
https://pixabay.com/illustrations/mouth-nose-protection-mouth-guard-5438829/
https://pixabay.com/videos/earth-globe-country-africa-asia-1393/
https://pixabay.com/videos/earth-planet-asteroid-universe-56466/

January 16, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

Meet Taylor Nichols, MD

By Steve Kirsch | January 13, 2022

He’s the co-founder of an organization, No License For Disinformation (NLFD) that is dedicated to making sure that doctors aren’t allowed to speak freely.

Here’s Taylor Nichols’ Twitter profile:

He’s an emergency medicine physician in Sacramento and co-founder of No License For Disinformation (NLFD), an organization dedicated to revoking the medical license of any doctor that tells the truth about the dangers of the vaccine, masking, and mandates. Basically, if you say anything against the narrative, NLFD will try to get your license taken away.

Note the NLFD logo on his Twitter profile.

I’d like to see NLFD focused on revoking the license of any physician that says the vaccine is safe and effective. Now that would be a great public service.

To that end, I sent Taylor a DM on Twitter inviting him to debate us on the science:

He’s responded, but won’t debate me. I asked if I could interview him in a recorded interview that we can both post. He can ask me questions and I can ask him questions. Totally neutral.

He refused. He only wants it via messages.

Why is that? Because that way, when he doesn’t know something (which is likely most of the time), he can ask other people and look it up. It’s a tacit admission he doesn’t know enough facts to engage with someone who knows what they are talking about. Other reasons people want to use documents include:

  1. They can change the topic easily and avoid answering questions they don’t like. There is nobody there to challenge them in real time.
  2. The documents in a discussion can span hundreds of pages. So nobody is going to be able to follow it.
  3. He can post his answers to a medium he has exclusive control over (in this case his Medium site) rather than a neutral video debate where nobody has control.

He refused a debate. He refused to be interviewed live. If he really wants to stop misinformation, he’s not trying very hard.

January 15, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

The stunning increase in myocarditis rates after the vaccines rolled out

By Steve Kirsch | January 14, 2022

In just a few hours, my short tweet on myocarditis Google search rates went viral. Here’s the reason why search rates skyrocketed (hint: it’s because cases skyrocketed).

I wrote this Tweet and it blew up really fast: over 100,000 views in the first 3 hours:

Of course, there were many people who wrote something to the effect of “Um. Those are Google searches. That means people searching about it. It doesn’t mean anything.”

Really?!? Nothing?!? I disagree. I think it does mean something. It confirms every other piece of data I’ve seen.

A critical thinker might ask the question, “Why would people suddenly start searching about myocarditis shortly after the vaccines rolled out and not before?”

Vaccine-induced myocarditis started making headlines starting around June 14, 2021, but it wasn’t officially confirmed even then. So that doesn’t explain the increase before that time.

The answer seems obvious: clearly, interest in the topic increased a lot shortly after the vaccines rolled out. Is there a different explanation that is more likely?

Here are some of the reasons why the interest in myocarditis went up so much:

  1. VAERS data shows that the rates of myocarditis caused by the vaccine are far greater than the rates caused by COVID (see VaccineEssentials slide 48). According to this CDC MMWR report, “During 2020, the number of myocarditis inpatient encounters (4,560) was 42.3% higher than that during 2019 (3,205).” That’s why the bars in 2019 and 2020 below are about the same height. The incidence rate caused by the vaccine is way higher than for COVID (and it wasn’t caused by “over reporting” as I’ve explained many times before). There is no other way to explain this. This chart is from a published paper by Jessica Rose that was unethically retracted by the journal publisher because it goes against the narrative. If anyone wants to debate Jessica on this, bring it on! So you are never ever supposed to see this chart below. Nobody in mainstream medicine wants to talk about it either.
  2. UK data shows the rates of myocarditis increased after the vaccines (see VaccineEssentials slide 54).
  3. All of the cardiologists (people like Peter McCullough) I’ve talked to have confirmed that the rates of myocarditis have gone up after the vaccines have rolled out compared to pre-vaccine. Do you know of any cardiologists who claimed myocarditis cases went down after the vaccines rolled out?
  4. Young kids seem to be getting myocarditis regularly now whereas you’d pretty much never see these cases before the vaccines rolled out (see VaccineEssentials slide 50)
  5. At one private school near where I live, the rate of myocarditis after the vaccine roll out was greater than 1 in 100 teenage boys, which of course is far greater than the rate from COVID.
  6. The CDC doesn’t want to talk about vaccine-caused myocarditis as this story about the tragic death of 26-year-old Joseph Keating. Nobody wants to touch it.
  7. I’d love to get an explanation of this from mainstream medical doctors, but they refuse to talk to me because I don’t believe the vaccines are safe.

The evidence says that the vaccines are much more dangerous than we’ve been told

Scientists are always looking to discover which hypothesis better fits the data that is observed.

Having multiple data points gives higher confidence in the result. If 10 data points are consistent with a hypothesis, that makes it more likely that that hypothesis is the correct one.

In the current case, all the data I’m aware of is consistent with the hypothesis that the vaccines are super dangerous and doesn’t comport at all with their hypothesis that the vaccines are perfectly safe.

Is there credible conflicting data?

If anyone would like to show me evidence of how the actual myocarditis rates plummeted after the vaccine rollout, please let me know and I’ll list that here.

January 15, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »