Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Facebook “Fact Checks” Prof. Will Happer

Dubious doubters challenge eminent scientist

By Angela Wheeler | CO2 Coalition | January 13, 2025

The only way to combat censorship is to shine a light on it whenever we see it.

In censoring material that contradicts the popular – though increasingly feeble – fiction of a climate crisis, Facebook is quick to discount the credentials of one of the world’s leading scientists while honoring sources of dubious credibility.

Our latest encounter with Facebook came in a message from the platform’s corporate entity, Meta, on December 4, which read: “Your Page, CO2 Coalition, didn’t follow the rules, so it isn’t being suggested to other people right now.”

Sorting through CO2 Coalition’s vast content to find what post could have been so egregious to prompt this reprimand, we found it to be a quote from the renowned Dr. William Happer, professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University and Chairman of the CO2 Coalition Board of Directors. Dr. Happer’s provocative quote?

“Nothing but good can come from more atmospheric CO2. The Earth has experimented with much higher CO2 concentrations than today many times over the Phanerozoic eon, the last 540 million years or so, where the fossil record of life is especially good. Life flourished at four times more CO2 than today. There is no geological evidence that more CO2 will be anything but good for life on Earth.”

Facebook’s “fact check” of Dr. Happer’s quote referenced a group called Climate Feedback that, based on an appearance on CNN, said Dr. Happer “misleads about the impact of rising carbon dioxide on plant life.”

We did a little fact-checking of our own. Having seen the group’s website and a list of financial backers, we believe there is ample reason to be doubtful of Climate Feedback’s adherence to science and veracity.

According to InfluenceWatch.org, Climate Feedback has the same parent company as “the left-leaning fact-checker Politifact.” Both appear to be part of a loose amalgamation of postmodern censors, whose hallmark is to spread misinformation in the form of half-truths and outright falsehoods by accusing others of doing the same.

Perhaps in this case, Facebook’s greatest sin is its willingness to discount – or utterly ignore – Dr. Happer’s record of accomplishment.

In addition to a distinguished career at a prestigious university, Dr. Happer has received numerous awards for service in government and private enterprise. He invented a laser-based technology that made possible President Reagan’s “Star Wars” defense initiative and has published more than 200 peer-reviewed papers.

In a recent paper, “The Role of Greenhouse Gases in Energy Transfer in the Earth’s Atmosphere,” Dr. Happer and his coauthor say that whatever greenhouse warmth may be in store for the planet that “basic physics and the geological record indicate that the warming will be small and probably good for life on Earth.”

This and other statements by Dr. Happer are supported by evidence accumulated over many decades – even centuries – by myriad researchers drawing on various disciplines that include physics, geology, biology and history.

Putting up Climate Feedback’s lame challenge against such a legacy of scientific exploration would be laughable if it weren’t for its furtherance of a “green” movement that has cost the world trillions of dollars in wealth that could have been used for something useful. Billions of people suffer for lack of energy resources made more expensive and less available by a fearmongering climate agenda of the ignorant and ignominious.

Facebook also noted on the CO2 Coalition account that they “covered” the offending post “so people can choose whether they want to see it.”

We believe it behooves seekers of truth to examine posts that Facebook chooses to obscure.

February 8, 2025 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

“Seek them out and destroy them where they live”

Remembering Merck’s Australian doctor hit list

By John Leake | Courageous Discourse | February 3, 2025

This evening I pondered the news of Caroline Kennedy’s hit letter against her cousin, RFK, Jr., and the fact that she was the Biden Administration’s Ambassador to Australia, and the fact that she has served as a powerful ambassador for Merck’s Gardasil vaccine.

The association of Australia and Merck reminded me of the company’s “seek out and destroy” campaign against Australian doctors who expressed concern that the company’s blockbuster Vioxx seemed to be causing heart attacks and strokes. As was reported by CBS in May 2009:

Merck made a “hit list” of doctors who criticized Vioxx, according to testimony in a Vioxx class action case in Australia. The list, emailed between Merck employees, contained doctors’ names with the labels “neutralise,” “neutralised” or “discredit” next to them.

According to The Australian, Merck emails from 1999 showed company execs complaining about doctors who disliked using Vioxx. One email said:

“We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live …”

During this same period in the United States, Merck was accused of concealing negative results of clinical Vioxx trials from the FDA and paying reputable doctors to put their names on research they did not conduct or write up. The company also published a fake journal, paying Elsevier to create a phony publication to serve as a marketing tool titled the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine.

Ultimately the company was found guilty of knowingly concealing data about the elevated risk of stroke and heart attack from Vioxx and agreed to pay a class action settlement to stroke and heart attack victims totaling $4.85 billion.

I wonder if the nice folks at Merck would ever yield to the temptation to overstate the benefits of the HPV vaccine and downplay its risks, as some plaintiffs have alleged. I also wonder if the company’s PR department might yield to the temptation to smear RFK, Jr. during his Senate confirmation process.

Or am I just being cynical?

February 5, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

RFK Jr. hearings were flashpoint in the heart of Washington D.C. still resonating

American Public Winning Medical Culture War

Jefferey Jaxen | February 3, 2025

Watching clips from Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s confirmation hearings in D.C. one could easily discern that a paradigm shift was rapidly underway. Only a few senators stood out as aggressively clueless or purposely ignorant to the current reality of American health and the safety science underpinning vaccines and pharmaceutical drugs.

The gap exposed in understanding, or willingness to understand, between key issues facing America and what select senators and corporate media like NY Times and Washington Post refuse to confront has been laid bare. … Read full article

February 4, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | | Leave a comment

‘Jaw-dropping’ Study Finds Vaccinated Children Have 170% Higher Risk of Autism

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 27, 2025

Vaccinated children have a 170% higher chance of being diagnosed with autism compared to unvaccinated children, according to a new peer-reviewed study.

The study also found that vaccinated children had a 212% greater likelihood of developing a range of other neurodevelopmental disorders, including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), epilepsy/seizures, brain inflammation and tic and learning disorders.

According to the study, the childhood vaccination schedule is likely a significant contributor to the higher rate of autism and neurodevelopmental conditions in vaccinated children.

The study of 47,155 9-year-old children enrolled in the Florida Medicaid program since birth was published on Jan. 23 in Science, Public Health Policy and the Law.

Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist for Children’s Health Defense, said the paper “is unignorable simply by the soundness of its methods.”

“The sheer hazards associated with severe childhood diseases is jaw-dropping,” Jablonowski said.

The paper’s authors — Anthony R. Mawson and Binu Jacob of the Mississippi-based Chalfont Research Institute — hypothesized that:

  • Childhood vaccination is associated with autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders.
  • Increasing numbers of vaccinations lead to a higher risk of autism.
  • Vaccinated preterm babies are at greater risk of neurodevelopmental disorders than unvaccinated babies.

The study’s findings confirmed the authors’ hypotheses. Experts said the results of the study cast doubt on government claims that vaccines are not linked to autism.

“The vaccine propaganda campaigns operated by our regulatory agencies, pharmaceutical companies, and legacy media continue to claim that the link between vaccines and autism has been ‘debunked,’” said epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher. He said the findings of this study “completely dismantle” this narrative.

Jablonowski noted that the study was based solely on government data. He said:

“The government has had this data for decades, professing safety while simultaneously refusing to study safety. The facade of U.S. government public health is crumbling, revealing a culprit in chronic disease in this country: willful ignorance.”

The authors of the study noted that government-sponsored studies have not compared health outcomes in vaccinated versus completely unvaccinated children. Mawson and Jacob told The Defender they hope the government will initiate such studies.

Childhood vaccination schedule likely factor in increased autism diagnoses

The study found that, across all metrics, vaccinated children had a higher rate of neurodevelopmental disorders compared to those who remained unvaccinated. According to the findings:

  • The relative risk of developing a neurodevelopmental disorder grew as the number of doctor’s visits that included vaccinations increased. Children with just one vaccination visit were 1.7 times more likely to have been diagnosed with autism compared to those who were unvaccinated.
  • Children with 11 or more vaccination visits were 340% more likely to be diagnosed with autism compared to unvaccinated children and 89% more likely to be diagnosed with autism compared to children with one vaccination visit.
  • Vaccinated children who were born preterm were 258% more likely to be diagnosed with at least one neurodevelopmental disorder, compared to children born preterm who remained unvaccinated. Nearly 40% of vaccinated preterm children were diagnosed with such a disorder, compared to 15.7% of those who were unvaccinated.
  • Vaccinated children were 419% more likely to be diagnosed with encephalopathy (brain inflammation), 525% more likely to develop tic disorders and 581% times more likely to have a learning disability, compared to unvaccinated children.
  • Among children born preterm who were subsequently vaccinated, the risk of brain inflammation and learning disabilities grew by 612% and 884%, respectively.

“While the connection between receipt of vaccines and autism has been of grave concern to many parents, this study makes it clear that even in the absence of an autism diagnosis, children’s brains are being damaged,” said biologist Christina Parks, Ph.D.

Autism prevalence has grown from 1 in 1,000 children in the 1990s to 1 in 36, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The study’s authors noted this increase is commonly attributed to greater awareness of autism-related symptoms and higher exposure to toxic chemicals.

However, the authors said their results suggest the childhood vaccination schedule may also be a key factor behind the sharp increase in autism diagnoses.

“The geographically widespread increases in ASD [autism spectrum disorder] and ADHD suggests a role for an environmental factor to which virtually all children are exposed. One such factor is routine childhood vaccinations,” the study noted.

The authors cited figures showing that the number of vaccines included in the CDC’s latest U.S. childhood schedule increased nearly threefold compared to the 1983 vaccination schedule.

“Although vaccination is said to be safe and effective for the great majority of children, a legitimate question is whether the expanded schedule could be contributing in some way to rising rates of NDDs [neurodevelopmental disorders],” the study stated.

“Any planned additions to the childhood vaccination schedule should be delayed until research to determine the safety of its impact on children’s overall health is completed,” Mawson and Jacob said.

Results indicate childhood vaccination schedule ‘needs a complete overhaul’

According to the study, the impact of vaccination on children born preterm has not been sufficiently examined.

“The possibility of adverse effects of vaccination on preterm infants may have been obscured by the primary importance placed on vaccinations for preventing neonatal infections,” the study said.

A peer-reviewed study published earlier this month found that preterm infants who received their routine 2-month vaccinations had a 170% higher incidence of apnea compared to unvaccinated babies.

The study also noted that while studies have often attempted to connect rising autism rates to specific vaccines, there has been less research exploring a possible link between the cumulative childhood vaccination schedule and autism.

“A link between vaccination and ASD could be due to the cumulative impact of all preceding vaccinations rather than to a specific vaccine alone,” the study said. “ASD and other NDDs could be triggered by the last vaccination administered or by one or more of a series of vaccinations.”

“There is an urgent need for research to identify biological mechanisms and potential causal relationships between individual vaccines, combinations of vaccines, and other potential factors associated with neurodevelopmental disorders,” Mawson and Jacob said.

Hulscher said the study suggests that the current “CDC hyper-vaccination schedule needs a complete overhaul.” He added, “Not only is it likely contributing to the autism and chronic disease epidemics, but almost all of the vaccines were licensed without proper long-term, placebo-controlled trials.”

Parks said the study’s results reinforce the importance of parental choice.

“However, there were some findings that parents may find comforting,” Parks said. “While preterm infants are extremely vulnerable to encephalopathy and seizures, if parents chose not to vaccinate them, they were statistically no more likely to develop neurodevelopmental disorders than normal-term infants.”

According to a September 2024 CDC report, vaccination rates among children born in 2020 and 2021 were lower than those for children born in 2018 and 2019. Hulscher said that an increasing number of Americans are becoming aware of the risks of childhood vaccination.

“The American public is becoming increasingly aware of the real risks of vaccines,” Hulscher said. He attributed the growing mistrust to “the COVID-19 mRNA injection debacle that killed, injured, or permanently disabled millions of people.”

Hulscher said the study’s results “warrant further study by the new U.S. administration.”

Related articles in The Defender

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

February 2, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Claims That Childhood Vaccines ‘Saved Millions of Lives’ Based on Flawed Models

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 29, 2025

Claims by public health agencies and in top medical journals that childhood vaccination prevents millions of deaths annually are based on flawed epidemiological models, according to a paper published today by Correlation, a Canadian nonprofit research organization.

The author, all-cause mortality expert Denis Rancourt, Ph.D., argues these claims are based on “tentative and untethered models of epidemiological forecasting” that produce “unlikely results.”

The models depend entirely on invalid estimates of vaccine efficacy and disease prevalence and virulence, none of which are based on real-world data concerning actual deaths, according to Rancourt.

They also fail to account for other complex factors contributing to child mortality — particularly in low-income countries, where most of these millions of infant lives are purportedly saved. These factors include nutritional deficiency, toxic exposures and poverty.

Rancourt also found that, contrary to public health claims, there are no examples in all-cause mortality data of a drop in infant or child mortality temporally associated with the rollout of a childhood vaccination program.

On the contrary, he wrote, independent observational studies have tied vaccine rollouts to increased infant or child mortality and morbidity.

In the paper, Rancourt develops an alternative model using yearly all-cause infant mortality. He estimates that childhood vaccination campaigns since 1974 may have been associated with approximately 100 million vaccine-related deaths.

However, he emphasizes that any true estimate of mortality would also have to account for other factors, such as the shifting political and economic dynamics that drive poverty and its associated health problems.

Children’s Health Defense Senior Research Scientist Karl Jablonowski said, ”Rancourt points out serious flaws in mainstream debates over childhood vaccination that are premised on errors in generalization and lead to childlike black-and-white thinking when it comes to vaccine safety.”

Jablonowski said the paper clearly demonstrates that claims vaccines have saved millions of lives globally, “hang on a few impossible assumptions.” Those include:

  • That no human can die from a vaccine (directly or indirectly).
  • That children who die from a “vaccine-preventable” pathogen were otherwise perfectly healthy.
  • That we understand how diseases spread in all contexts.
  • That all children have the same health, diet, exercise habits, access to clean water, toxin and environmental exposures, genetic disposition, etc., as the clinical trial participants.
  • That clinical trials accurately represent the risks and benefits of the vaccine.
  • That once a vaccine is developed, all other medical interventions suddenly stop working.

Rancourt said he began writing the paper to demonstrate the “ludicrous theoretical modelling exercises” behind the spectacular claims of reduced infant mortality from mass vaccination programs.

“But what I discovered is that the longstanding industry of administering vaccination programmes to save infants in low-income countries from death is scientifically baseless and a fraudulent enterprise that removes resources and attention away from urgently needed development to correct ongoing mass neocolonial exploitation,” he said.

‘Garbage in, garbage out’

Many top researchers have raised public concerns about epidemic modeling, particularly in research that serves the pharmaceutical industry.

Dr. John Ioannidis has pointed out that “epidemic forecasting has a dubious track record,” which became particularly evident during the COVID-19 period. Models can easily be compromised or skewed if they use poor data, incorrect assumptions, lack epidemiological information or fail to consider all dimensions of a given problem.

This, combined with the fact — highlighted by former editors of both The Lancet and The BMJ — that medical journals have become “an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies” has led to the proliferation of forecasting models that don’t meet even the most basic standards for modeling, Rancourt said.

In recent years, epidemiologic modelers have published many papers claiming to estimate mortality averted through childhood vaccination.

Rancourt argued these models share two fatal flaws: They are based on unreliable assumptions of vaccine efficacy and they “guesstimate” deaths avoided using disease models not anchored in real-world data.

The safety and efficacy numbers for these models always come from clinical trials, which he says are “systemically unreliable” in assessing efficacy and fail to evaluate safety.

The trials are, “overwhelmingly controlled by an industry making large profits from the vaccines, and this industry has amply, historically, consistently and repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to act fraudulently at the expense of endangering the public,” Rancourt wrote.

Also, the trials themselves introduce several biases. For example, trials are conducted with healthy children, but vaccines are administered to children with multiple vulnerabilities, particularly in low-income countries.

The trials also don’t test the vaccines against true placebos, don’t monitor children long-term for safety issues, and don’t test against disease prevention or safety in the real world.

Second, they rely on “guesstimates” of deaths averted — estimating how many children didn’t die because they got the vaccine — based on isolated models for disease contagion that aren’t validated by real-world research.

Most importantly, they fail to account for the fact that childhood mortality rates are affected by a wide range of factors — including underlying health conditions, poor nutrition and access to care — beyond simply whether a child is vaccinated or not.

“I argue that the proverbial computing term ‘garbage in, garbage out’ pre-eminently applies in these circumstances,” Rancourt said.

Breaking down claims that vaccination has saved 154 million lives since 1974

To illustrate his points, Rancourt analyzed a recent study funded by the World Health Organization (WHO) and published in The Lancet by Andrew J. Shattock, Ph.D., and colleagues.

The study concluded that “Since 1974, vaccination has averted 154 million deaths, including 146 million among children younger than 5 years of whom 101 million were infants younger than 1 year.”

Rancourt calculated this would be the equivalent of 5.7% of global deaths annually, or a 20% reduction in global infant mortality.

Rancourt said it would be a “fantastic” medical achievement. “Some might reasonably call it unbelievable.”

In addition to the WHO funding, the Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium — funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Gates-backed Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance — provided the models. Members of the research team also receive funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Wellcome Trust and other organizations with financial and political interests in promoting mass vaccination.

For The Lancet study, Shattock estimated deaths avoided by vaccination using only theoretical models for how disease spreads — with no attention to context. And then used efficacy rates from vaccine clinical trials to estimate how many children who would have gotten sick and died don’t because vaccines are present.

The study repeats that model for each of the nine vaccines it considered to arrive at the number of lives saved.

The study also estimated the numbers based on the assumption that, otherwise, infant mortality would have remained constant between 1974 and 2024. However, in reality, infant mortality had been dropping before that, which the model should have accounted for.

The study “collapses on examination of its premises,” Rancourt wrote.

The problem of poverty

Perhaps the most glaring issue, Rancourt said, is that models touting high numbers of lives saved by vaccines fail to account for the reality that child mortality is influenced by many complex factors, particularly in low-income countries.

For example, the WHO states that the measles vaccine has the greatest impact on infant mortality, accounting for most lives saved from all vaccines. However, deaths from measles are typically related to malnutrition. Mortality and morbidity rates from infectious diseases like measles decline with improved living standards.

Malnutrition also makes children more vulnerable to environmental toxins — including vaccines, Rancourt noted.

In other words, malnutrition, including of the mother, makes a child highly vulnerable to death from a wide range of infections that don’t occur or aren’t fatal in well-nourished children living in healthy environments.

Low-income countries not only lack funding for public health, Rancourt said, but vaccination campaigns divert resources away from other health priorities like clean water and basic health services.

Vaccination programs increase infant and child mortality 

Contrary to repeated claims that vaccines save millions of lives, Rancourt’s analysis of the relationship between vaccine rollouts and infant mortality rates suggests the opposite — that these programs have contributed to increased infant and child mortality.

Rancourt correlated changes in the global infant mortality rate with major vaccine rollouts between 1980-1999 and 1999-2015. During those periods, global infant mortality rates were declining, but the rate of decline slowed after the vaccine rollouts.

The deceleration became more marked in about 1992, when the hepatitis B and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines were introduced, even in low-income countries.

Had the decline in infant mortality continued at the same rate from the period before vaccine rollouts, there would have been 100 million fewer infant deaths. Instead, the rate of decline in mortality slowed precisely when the rollouts happened.

All researchers modeling the benefits of vaccination missed or disregarded this evident temporal correlation, Rancourt said.

Rancourt’s findings corroborate observational studies, including those showing the introduction of the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine in low-income countries led to a spike in infant mortality among vaccinated babies.

However, Rancourt cautioned that he was presenting the simplest possible model. A true estimate would have to adjust for the benefits of improving living conditions. It would also have to account for the impacts of “aggressive so-called globalization” in the 80s and 90s that facilitated the global expansion of industry, global vaccination campaigns and industrial agriculture, which all had varied and significant impacts on low- and middle-income countries.

Rancourt concluded the overwhelming cause of high infant mortality is extreme poverty associated with severe malnutrition and exposure to toxic living environments.

Related articles in The Defender : 

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

February 2, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Economics, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

The United States exits the WHO

WHOlly appropriate

By Dr Lisa Hutchinson | Health Advisory & Recovery Team | January 28, 2025

No one could have escaped the news that the newly inaugurated US President, Donald J. Trump has signed an Executive Order to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO). The key reasons cited for this decision include the WHO’s mishandling of decisions and policy during the Covid-19 pandemic, the failure to adopt reforms and, crucially, a lack of independence from the influence of member states or concerns relating to conflicts of interest. Trump has pledged that the US will pause the transfer of funds to the WHO as well as identify alternative partners to fulfil the necessary activities that this organization assumes. Furthermore, the US will cease negotiations with the WHO on the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) and the Pandemic Treaty. At HART, we have followed the journey of the ongoing negotiations of the WHO Pandemic Agreement.

The US exit from the WHO also ends its financial contributions to the organization, which accounts for around 22% of the WHO’s mandatory contributions. This withdrawal means the WHO has now lost its largest financial contributor of $1.3 billion. Although the withdrawal process may take up to 1 year, during this transition period, the US will cease all negotiations of the Pandemic Treaty, the IHR amendments and any prior decisions will not be legally binding. On hearing this, millions in the US and around the world have celebrated and welcomed this exit from the WHO. Not least because it removes further financial funding and could save millions from untested, harmful vaccines while also being denied access to alternative beneficial therapies in instances of any future ‘health emergencies’. Could this milestone decision be the catalyst for other nations to withdraw from the WHO?

Several have commented that the largest loser of the US exit from the WHO is Bill Gates who has contributed 88% of the total philanthropic funding for the WHO. This move by the USA could not be in further contrast with the UK: Sir Keir Starmer wishes to extend the WHO’s control over the UK by agreeing to the IHR amendments in March 2025. Last April, over 100,000 members of the British public signed a petition to end our membership with the WHO. Unsurprisingly perhaps, the UK Government ignored the petition, despite the signature count exceeding the 100,000 threshold for debate in Parliament; instead, the UK government ploughed ahead without consideration for the valid, wider concerns raised.

Some might think that the US withdrawal from the WHO is tragic. But a closer examination of how monopolies can be created by organizations such as the WHO, together with other federal agencies and collaborators, including the CDC, NIH and FDA, reveals a far more disturbing reality. Beneath the benign guise of the WHO lurks malign intentions: a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The glaring lack of transparency, undisclosed conflicts of interests and power creep that these seemingly unaccountable centralized organizations possess, are a threat to democracy. Since all countries will have different socioeconomic challenges, and the response to any global health threat would be equally varied, surely the public health and biosecurity threats to any country is the responsibility of that country: there should be no submission to a one-size-fits-all diktat. National sovereignty should be respected and not trampled on by an unelected, unaccountable body with nonsensical policies. Yet despite these concerns, the outgoing President Biden has already approached African nations directly to strengthen ties towards a global government health and security strategy.

We emphasize that the WHO is not a democratically elected body and there are grave concerns over the power it wields over sovereign nations. Any glimmers of a democracy the UK might have will be flushed away to an autocratic dictatorship, led by unelected people in positions of power, such as the Director General, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, if we do not continue to object to the IHR amendments and WHO Pandemic Treaty. As highlighted in earlier posts, the Pandemic Treaty and IRH amendments have little to do with nation states working together in circumstances where potentially harmful infectious diseases arise, but are a power grab by an authoritarian, unaccountable entity. If the Pandemic Treaty and IRH amendments succeed, the WHO would be able to declare a pandemic or international emergency even when no such emergency exists! The WHO could impose lockdowns, usher in mandatory vaccinations and other autocratic decisions, which would never be in the best interests of the public. Future furlough schemes in such ‘emergencies’ are unlikely, but the WHO would have carte blanche to decide the health decisions for every person in the UK. Incredibly, even the power to insist that every citizen carry a global health passport would be assumed by the WHO. The financial implications are grave because during the covid pandemic, WHO recommendations cost the UK £400 billion in national debt. We literally cannot afford to go down this route again! The shutting down of society and the economy for undefined, prolonged periods, as experienced in 2020 and 2021 spiralled the cost of living crisis to unprecedented levels, as well as terrorising the public and destroying the mental health of citizens, not to mention the untold devastation to our children’s education and wellbeing.

President Trump clearly concludes that the WHO is not capable or appropriately placed to make healthcare-based policy decisions that are justified for the American people. His decision to exit the WHO is a welcome sign of someone who is not intent on squandering individual and national sovereignty. In the UK, we should not sit back and allow our government to continue with the WHO IHR amendments, especially given the huge number of objections that have been willfully ignored.

There is an alternative way: we could for example support the refreshing approach of the World Council for Health (WCH), a coalition of independent health organizations and medical professionals advocating for a decentralized, holistic, and patient-centered approach to healthcare. Either way, we certainly need a more collaborative healthcare approach.

February 2, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

This One Question at RFK Jr.’s Confirmation Hearing Is Everything Wrong with Our Congress

Truthstream Media | January 30, 2025

Our First Film: TheMindsofMen.net

Our First Series: Vimeo.com/ondemand/trustgame

Site: TruthstreamMedia.com

X: @TruthstreamNews

Backup Ch: Vimeo.com/truthstreammedia

DONATE: http://bit.ly/2aTBeeF

Newsletter: http://eepurl.com/bbxcWX

February 1, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | | 1 Comment

The 99th Congress That Called Vaccines “Unavoidably Unsafe”

By Ginger Taylor | Brownstone Institute | January 28, 2025

Meet the original “Conspiracy Theorists,” Ronald Reagan and the members of the 99th Congress, who, in 1986, passed into law the “medical misinformation” that vaccines were “unavoidably unsafe” and potentially caused autism.

Last week Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) sent Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, a scathing letter accusing him of, among other things, “dangerous views on vaccine safety” and “false hysteria that vaccines cause autism.” The letter included 175 questions that she said he should be prepared to answer at his Senate confirmation hearings. But in her letter, she exposes her own ignorance of federal vaccine policy and the laws passed by her own legislative branch.

In 1986 the House of Representatives passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34) by a voice vote. Senator Warren should know that her current Senate Minority Leader Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was, at the time, a member of the House and should presumably know that the bill that was passed to give vaccine makers liability protection from civil claims when a child was killed or seriously injured by a vaccine, and placed all vaccines administered to children in the legal category of “unavoidably unsafe” medical products, which means a product that cannot be made safe for its intended use.

In 2018, Mary Holland, JD, then the Director of the Graduate Legal studies program at New York University School of Law, and now Chief Executive Officer of Children’s Health Defense, a non-profit organization founded by Kennedy, remarked on the legal standing of the safety of vaccines:

The key language about “unavoidable” side effects comes from the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 USC 300aa-22, re manufacturer responsibility (see bold text below).

That language was based on language from the Second Restatement of Torts (a legal treatise by tort scholars), adopted by most state courts in the mid-1960’s, that considered all vaccines as “unavoidably unsafe” products. The Restatement opined that such products, “properly prepared, and accompanied by proper directions and warnings, is not defective, nor is it unreasonably dangerous.”

Further the 2011 SCOTUS ruling in the Bruesewitz v. Wyeth case interpreted the highlighted text below from the National Vaccine Injury Act to find that it did not permit design defect litigation – that issue had been unclear since 1986, and different state high courts and federal circuits had decided the issue differently. So, [it] is correct that the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) never decided that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” directly, but it acknowledged that Congress considers them to be so.

Sec. 300aa-22. Standards of responsibility

(a) General rule

Except as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (e) of this section State law shall apply to a civil action brought for damages for a vaccine-related injury or death.

(b) Unavoidable adverse side effects; warnings

(1) No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.

(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), a vaccine shall be presumed to be accompanied by proper directions and warnings if the vaccine manufacturer shows that it complied in all material respects with all requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. See https://www.ageofautism.com/2018/11/the-supreme-court-did-not-deem-vaccines-unavoidably-unsafe-congress-did.html

What few know, even among their own memberships and supporters, is that the following medical authorities consider vaccines unsafe:

The American Academy of Pediatrics (“AAP”)

The American Medical Association (“AMA”)

The American Academy of Family Physicians (“AAFP”)

The American College of Osteopathic Pediatricians (“ACOP”)

The American College of Preventive Medicine (“ACPM”)

The American Public Health Association (“APHA”)

The Association of State and Territorial Healthcare Officials (“ASTHO“)

The Center for Vaccine Awareness and Research at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston

Every Child By Two, Carter/Bumpers Champions for Immunization (“ECBT”)

Immunization Action Coalition (“IAC”)

Infectious Diseases Society of America (“IDSA”)

The March of Dimes Foundation

Meningitis Angels

The National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners (“NAPNAP”)

The National Foundation for Infectious Diseases

The National Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition

The National Meningitis Association, Inc. (“NMA”)

Parents of Kids with Infectious Diseases (“PKIDs”)

The Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (“PIDS”)

The Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine (“SAHM”)

The Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (“CHOP”)

When the family of Hannah Bruesewitz, a child injured by Wyeth’s Tri-Immunol DTP vaccine, challenged the 1986 Act in the Supreme Court for the right to sue Wyeth for Hannah’s severely disabling vaccine-adverse event, these organizations filed an amicus brief in support of Wyeth, asking the court to uphold the law that protects vaccine makers from liability for injury or death arising from any vaccine licensed by the FDA and recommended for children by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (“ACIP”). They even went as far as to argue against the idea that each vaccine should be individually evaluated for the “unavoidably unsafe” status, stating in their brief

Case-by-case consideration of whether vaccines are unavoidably unsafe, on the other hand, would “undoubtedly increase the costs and risks associated with litigation and would undermine a manufacturer’s efforts to estimate and control costs.”(citing Bruesewitz v. Wyeth Inc., 561 F.3d 233, 249 (3d Cir. 2009).

Brief Amici Curiae Of The American Academy Of Pediatrics and 21 Other Physicians and Public Health Organizations In Support Of Respondent [Wyeth LLC], at 25.

The organizations’ position that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe taken before the legislative and judicial branches of the federal government has caused consternation in parents and vaccine safety and choice advocates for decades, because many of these same organizations argue the exact opposite – that vaccines are safe – when they appear before state legislatures in support of school vaccine mandates and in opposition to vaccine exemptions.

A lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry may argue over breakfast in Washington, DC that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” and then drive to Annapolis at lunchtime and testify that Maryland should remove religious exemptions to vaccines required for school entry because “vaccines are safe.”

Attempts to have these organizations explain their conflicting positions met with stonewalling.

In 2015, the Maine Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics argued for the removal of and/or restrictions to the religious and conscientious objections to mandated childhood vaccines. The Executive Director of the Maine AAP, Dee Kerry deHaas, testified in writing that this should be done because “vaccines are safe,” but when testifying in person, said that vaccines are “mostly safe.” In my response to her, as the then Director of the Maine Coalition for Vaccine Choice, I asked several questions arising from her testimony, including the following questions:

How can the AAP argue that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” in the Supreme Court in order to convince the federal government to grant you liability protection from vaccine injury, and then argue that, “vaccines are safe,” and “vaccines are mostly safe,” before this committee in order to convince the State of Maine to mandate that families receive counseling/buy vaccines from you?

Are vaccines, “safe,” “mostly safe,” or “unavoidably unsafe?”

How do such widely contradictory statements engender trust in vaccines and in pediatricians?

Her response to my questions:

Ms. Taylor,

On behalf of the Maine AAP, I acknowledge receipt of your email and list of questions. I understand that our organizations have different perspectives in the vaccine debate. Each perspective has been aired in the legislative hearings and sessions with regard to these vaccine bills in the First Regular Session of the 127th Maine Legislature.

I respectfully decline to respond to your list of proposed questions or to continue the debate with you through electronic correspondence or social media.

Dee deHaas
Executive Director
American Academy of Pediatrics, Maine Chapter

Those advocating under this nonsensical construct quip that vaccines are unsafe, but only in DC.

Parent of a vaccine-injured son, Kim Spencer of The Thinking Moms’ Revolution, noted of the vaccine industry, “their claim that vaccines are ‘unavoidably unsafe’ won them liability protection, their claim that ‘vaccines are safe’ won them school and work mandates, but their claim that both are true has won them the distrust and contempt of parents.”

Senator Warren also accuses Mr. Kennedy of having, “spread false hysteria that vaccines cause autism.” But Kennedy has only done what Warren’s Congressional colleagues did 20 years before he began in vaccine safety advocacy; promote research into the vaccine-autism link and any link between vaccines and other childhood disorders.

Congress, while giving liability protection to vaccine makers with the 1986 Act, also ordered HHS to study links between the pertussis vaccine and more than a dozen conditions, including autism:

SEC. 312. RELATED STUDIES.

(a) REVIEW OF PERTUSSIS VACCINES AND RELATED ILLNESSES AND CONDITIONS.—Not later than 3 years after the effective date of this title, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall complete a review of all relevant medical and scientific information (including information obtained from the studies required under subsection (e)) on the nature, circumstances, and extent of the relationship, if any, between vaccines containing pertussis (including whole cell, extracts, and specific antigens) and the following illnesses and conditions:

(1) Hemolytic anemia.

(2) Hypsarrhythmia.

(3) Infantile spasms.

(4) Reye’s syndrome.

(5) Peripheral mononeuropathy.

(6) Deaths classified as sudden infant death syndrome.

(7) Aseptic meningitis.

(8) Juvenile diabetes.

(9) Autism.

(10) Learning disabilities.

(11) Hyperactivity.

(12) Such other illnesses and conditions as the Secretary may choose to review or as the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines established under section 2119 of the Public Health Service Act recommends for inclusion in such review. (Ante, p. 3771).

PUBLIC LAW 99–2660—NOV. 14, 1986 100 STAT. 3755

The pertussis vaccine injury inquiry ordered by law in 1986 was undertaken by the National Institutes of Health, carried out by the Institute of Medicine, published by the National Academy of Sciences in 1991, and edited by, among others, none other than Harvard’s Harvey Fineberg, who chaired the Committee to review the Adverse Consequences of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines. PubMed (a database maintained by the United States National Library of Medicine at the National Institutes of Health) gave the following summary of the final report, titled Adverse Effects of Pertussis and Rubella

Vaccines: A Report of the Committee to Review the Adverse Consequences of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines:

Parents have come to depend on vaccines to protect their children from a variety of diseases. Some evidence suggests, however, that vaccination against pertussis (whooping cough) and rubella (German measles) is, in a small number of cases, associated with increased risk of serious illness. This book examines the controversy over the evidence and offers a comprehensively documented assessment of the risk of illness following immunization with vaccines against pertussis and rubella. Based on extensive review of the evidence from epidemiologic studies, case histories, studies in animals, and other sources of information, the book examines: The relation of pertussis vaccines to a number of serious adverse events, including encephalopathy and other central nervous system disorders, sudden infant death syndrome, autism, Guillain-Barre syndrome, learning disabilities, and Reye syndrome. The relation of rubella vaccines to arthritis, various neuropathies, and thrombocytopenic purpura. The volume, which includes a description of the committee’s methods for evaluating evidence and directions for future research, will be important reading for public health officials, pediatricians, researchers, and concerned parents. See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25121241/ (emphasis added).

The report’s cursory summary on autism was this: The report’s cursory summary on autism was this:

No data were identified that address the question of a relation between vaccination with DPT or its pertussis component and autism. There are no experimental data bearing on a possible biologic mechanism. (p. 152.)

In other words, we don’t know; no one has ever looked.

But since there was no data to prove a link, because there was no data, they decided to reject the hypothesis and conclude:

There is no evidence to indicate a causal relation between DPT vaccine or the pertussis component of DPT vaccine and autism. (Id.)

Today there is a great deal more data than there was in 1991. This report was published before the dramatic rise in autism rates in the 1990s following the rapid expansion of the number of vaccines given to children once the industry had liability protection from vaccine-induced injuries.

Now, more than 200 papers showing multiple vaccine-autism links exist. You can review those papers at https://howdovaccinescauseautism.org/.

Senator Warren and all those skeptical of Mr. Kennedy’s vaccine critique must understand that he is more informed on vaccine law than the legislators questioning him. The political talking point that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is a “conspiracy theorist” if perpetuated, must now extend to the entire Legislative branch of the US Government starting with Democrats like former Congressman Henry Waxman, who wrote and introduced the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

Senator Warren might also consult with other current members of the US Congress who held seats when the 1986 Act was passed, such as Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Hal Rogers (R-KY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Chris Smith (R-NJ, who also sponsored the Combating Autism Act of 2006), and most notably, her own fellow Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, Ed Markey. Warren, like most politicians and doctors, does not understand that the presumption at the foundation of American vaccine policy, and the landmark law that has underpinned that policy for 39 years, is that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. does.

Ginger Taylor is an author, speaker, writer and activist. She writes on the politics of health, vaccination, informed consent and both corporate and government corruption from a biblical perspective.

February 1, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

MY LETTER TO SEN BILL CASSIDY, MD

The HighWire with Del Bigtree | January 31, 2025

Del has a message for Senator Bill Cassidy, who headed the second of two fiery hearings of RFK Jr. for head of HHS.

January 31, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | | Leave a comment

RFK Jr. Pushes Back on Chronic Disease, Autism and Agency Corruption

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 30, 2025

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. hit back at Congress members who attacked his stance on vaccines and the chronic disease epidemic, suggesting today during his second U.S. Senate hearing to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that several members have accepted donations from Big Pharma.

One day after his first confirmation hearing in the Senate Finance Committee, which included an exchange with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) about onesies sold on the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) website, Kennedy testified before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, for which Sanders is a ranking member.

During an exchange with Sanders, Kennedy said, “Corruption is not just in the federal agencies, it is in Congress too. Almost all the members of this panel … including yourself, are accepting millions of dollars from the pharmaceutical industry.”

This was one of several contentious moments during today’s meeting, which also focused on vaccine safety, the chronic disease epidemic and conflicts of interest in scientific research.

Kennedy frequently questioned the effectiveness of U.S. public health agencies in addressing the chronic health epidemic, which he said has come at a great cost both in terms of fatalities and the epidemic’s economic burden.

“The focus is on infectious disease, and we almost altogether ignore chronic disease, which causes 92% of the deaths in this country,” Kennedy said. Noting that the U.S. had a disproportionate percentage of COVID-19-related deaths during the pandemic, Kennedy said it is because “we are the sickest people on earth.”

Kennedy pledged to reverse this trend, if confirmed as HHS secretary, by emphasizing transparency and “good science.”

‘I’m pro-good science’

Unlike yesterday’s hearing, today’s hearing focused extensively on Kennedy’s views on vaccines and vaccine safety. Kennedy responded to claims he is “anti-vaccine” and “anti-industry.”

“I’m neither. I’m pro-safety. I’m pro-good science,” Kennedy said. “We should always follow the evidence no matter what it says.” Kennedy said he wouldn’t “impose” his opinions on HHS scientists. Instead, he would support examining “all the data” by empowering HHS scientists to do their job.

“We will have the best vaccine standards, with safety studies,” Kennedy said.

Much of the discussion about vaccines centered on rising autism rates, with Kennedy noting that they have increased from 1 in 10,000 to as high as 1 in 34, calling this an “explosion” that public health agencies have long overlooked.

Kennedy referred to a recent peer-reviewed study of 47,000 9-year-olds to respond to claims by members of the committee that the link between autism and vaccines has been definitively debunked. The study found that autism rates were higher among vaccinated children and increased as the number of vaccinations grew.

“Why don’t we know what’s causing this epidemic?” Kennedy asked. “Why hasn’t CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] been looking at other hypotheses to determine the etiology of why we’ve had this dramatic 1,000% increase in this disease that is destroying our kids?”

Several members of the committee openly agreed with Kennedy’s stance on autism.

“1-in-36. If that’s not a pandemic, then what is?” asked Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.). “Can any of you guys with a straight face say that we shouldn’t look at every aspect to what we’re putting in our kids, be it from the food to the vaccines?”

“I just want to follow the science where it leads, without presupposition,” said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

‘We need a trustworthy government’

Kennedy also addressed the COVID-19 vaccines, stating that mandates and a lack of public trust in their safety have contributed to waning vaccination rates.

“If we want uptake of vaccines, we need a trustworthy government,” Kennedy said. “That’s what I want to restore to the American people and the vaccine program. I want people to know if the government says something, it’s true. It’s not manipulative.”

Kennedy responded to claims by some committee members that the COVID-19 vaccines saved millions of lives, pointing out that this statement can’t be made definitively because public health agencies “don’t have a good surveillance system.”

Kennedy cited a 2021 lawsuit he filed against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over its approval of the COVID-19 vaccines, as an example of deficiencies in the safety testing by public health agencies.

“I filed that lawsuit after CDC recommended the vaccine for 6-year-old children without any evidence that it would benefit them and without testing,” Kennedy said.

Kennedy said he would “support the vaccine program” — but by ensuring “that we have gold-standard, evidence-based science.”

‘A generation of kids’ has been ‘written off’

Kennedy suggested that agency capture and the entanglement of Big Pharma with drug regulation and safety, have adversely affected Americans’ health outcomes.

“Prescription drugs are now the third-largest cause of death in our country … Americans are getting less and less healthy. Seventy percent of pharmaceutical profits globally come from our country, which has 4.2% of the world’s population. We’re the only country that allows full-scale pharmaceutical ads on TV,” Kennedy said.

“A generation of kids” has been “written off” as a result of factors such as “misplaced institutional loyalty” and “entanglements with the drug companies,” Kennedy said.

“Our country will sink beneath a sea of desperation and debt if we don’t change course and ask the fundamental question, ‘Why are healthcare costs so high in the first place?’ The obvious answer to that question is chronic disease,” Kennedy said.

According to Kennedy, “a very little, low percentage” of the budget of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is devoted to studying chronic disease — and the toxins that cause them. He vowed to change this if confirmed.

“We are allowing these companies — because of their influence over this body, over our regulatory agencies, to mass-poison American children. And that’s wrong. It needs to end,” Kennedy said. “The president’s pledge is not to make some Americans healthy again, but to make all Americans healthy again.”

Kennedy’s message drew the support of some of the committee’s members including Paul, who in a post on X said, “RFK Jr. has my vote.” Despite his contentious series of exchanges with Kennedy, Sanders also expressed support for Kennedy’s agenda to “Make America Healthy Again.”

According to Kim Mack Rosenberg, general counsel for CHD, today’s hearing was “a courtesy hearing.” Yesterday’s hearing before the Senate Finance Committee “is the decisive vote that will take the final vote to the Senate floor.”

Kennedy will then require a simple majority vote in the Senate to be confirmed as HHS secretary. If confirmed, Kennedy will lead a department that oversees 13 public health agencies, including the CDC, FDA and NIH.

Related articles in The Defender

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

January 30, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

The scourge of prosocial censorship

By John Ridgway | Climate Scepticism | January 25, 2025

On 30th April 2014 a Swedish meteorologist caused shock waves to reverberate across the international community of climate scientists. This was not because he had made a major discovery, nor had he been involved in a scientific scandal. But what he had done was to commit the cardinal sin of joining the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). The reason why to some this was so shocking was because he wasn’t just any old Swedish meteorologist; he was Professor Lennart Bengtsson, the former head of research at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts before becoming its director until 1990. He had then moved on to become director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. Amongst his many accolades he had been awarded the Milutin Milankovic Medal in 1996, the René Descartes Prize for Collaborative Research in 2005, and the 51st International Meteorological Organization Prize of the World Meteorological Organization in 2006. In 2009 he was made an honorary fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society in recognition of his contribution to meteorology.

Only a fortnight later the same Swedish meteorologist caused an aftershock by resigning from the same foundation. The self-appointed guardians of scientific truth at DeSmog will tell you that it was because he hadn’t quite realised what a shower of reprobates he had joined and so he quickly learned to regret his actions. However, this is what Bengtsson said in his resignation letter:

“I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF… Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.”

Bengtsson’s censorious colleagues seemed quick to prove his point by denouncing his accusation that they had denounced him. Gavin Schmidt, for example, dismissed his reference to McCarthyism as being “ridiculous”, suggesting instead that it was the brave scientists such as himself who were the real victims of a witch hunt.

Appalling though it may seem that Professor Bengtsson should have been treated this way, he cannot claim to have not seen it coming. Earlier that same year a paper, in which he had the temerity to suggest that the projected warming was unlikely to be anywhere near as bad as others had maintained, was rejected by the scientific journal Environmental Research Letters on the basis that his findings were “less than helpful“. By way of clarification, the peer reviewer concerned added the reproof, “actually it [the paper] is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate-skeptic media side“. When Bengtsson and others, such as meteorologist Hans von Storch, condemned the rejection as scandalous, the journal’s publisher was eager to play down the comments made by the peer reviewer, claiming instead that the paper simply did not meet the journal’s high standards. Yes, that old chestnut.

What Bengtsson had in fact been subjected to is prosocial censorship. It is a form of censorship in which work is rejected, and individuals cancelled, not because the work is substandard or flawed, but because it threatens to undermine a cherished ideology or someone else’s concept of societal safety and harmony. Such censorship is never portrayed as such, of course; the reason given is always that the individual(s) concerned were peddling substandard work leading to harmful misinformation.

For example, if you were to be an Emeritus Professor of Risk with an international reputation for expertise in forensic statistics, but you then produced work that called into question government figures that seemed to be misrepresenting the severity of a pandemic or the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, you could expect your career to be cancelled on the basis that you are peddling harmful misinformation.

If, for example, you were to be a consultant psychiatrist and psychotherapist with more than fifteen years of experience pioneering psychotherapy for patients with gender dysphoria, but you then dared to say that everything in your professional experience had led you to the inescapable conclusion that transgender activists were guilty of promoting inappropriate physical interventions to deal with a basically psychological problem, then you could expect to be denounced as “the most evil dangerous Nazi Psychiatrist in the world” — and a transphobe for good measure.

If, for example, you were a physicist at CERN with a bright future ahead of you, but were then to suggest that the unbalanced gender representation within your field had nothing to do with patriarchy and everything to do with inherent gender traits, then you could expect to be vilified as a misogynist and ostracised by your fellow scientists.

And if, for example, you were to be a prominent climate scientist who had pointed out that self-censorship was rife within your field and that it was responsible for the absence of papers published in prominent journals that quantify both the climatic and non-climatic causations of wildfires, then you could expect the likes of the Grantham Institute’s Bob Ward to bleat that “Unfortunately, his bogus narrative has predictably been seized upon by the opponents of action to tackle climate change“. Worse still, none other than Professor Ken Rice (think poor man’s Sabine Hossenfelder) would be moved to refer to you as if you are now dead to them:

“Given that there can be preferred narratives within scientific communities, it is always good for there to be people who are regarded as credible and who push back against them. Even if you don’t agree with them, they can still present views that are worth thinking about. In my view, Patrick used to be one of those people.” [His emphasis]

Oh, the shame of it all!

In the above examples, the common narrative is one of a previously respected expert who had sadly fallen from grace because they couldn’t help themselves and had allowed their toxic opinions to compromise their ability to stick to the truth. As a consequence, they instantaneously transform into incompetent bad actors who are a danger to society, heartily deserving of prompt and emphatic prosocial censorship.

To be clear, these are not isolated examples. A recent research paper published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences argued that both self-censorship and the prosocial censorship of colleagues are commonplace within the sciences — and the problem is only getting worse. Some of the figures make for grim reading:

A recent national survey of US faculty at four-year colleges and universities found the following: 1) 4 to 11% had been disciplined or threatened with discipline for teaching or research; 2) 6 to 36% supported soft punishment (condemnation, investigations) for peers who make controversial claims, with higher support among younger, more left-leaning, and female faculty; 3) 34% had been pressured by peers to avoid controversial research; 4) 25% reported being “very” or “extremely” likely to self-censor in academic publications; and 5) 91% reported being at least somewhat likely to self-censor in publications, meetings, presentations, or on social media.

There are, however, trends to be observed. Censorship is more of a problem in the social sciences than within STEM faculties. Women are keener to censor than are their male colleagues. And whilst right-leaning academics are more likely to engage in self-censorship, the left-leaning are far more likely to approve of the prosocial censorship of a colleague. Since prosocial censorship biases both the selection and promotion of staff members, it follows that the system is currently structured in such a way as to entrench the preponderance of left-leaning academics in senior positions. Worse still, the appetite for prosocial censorship is greater within the ranks of the PhDs than it is within faculty staff, suggesting that – to borrow a turn of phrase favoured by climate scientists – the problem is baked in for the future.

As the terminology suggests, those who advocate prosocial censorship will often do so for what they perceive to be the best of possible motives. Most commonly, the intention is to prevent research from being appropriated by “malevolent actors to support harmful policies and attitudes”. Sometimes the research is considered too dangerous to pursue, and in many other cases the censorship is aimed at protecting vulnerable groups. However, no matter how well-intended, the censorship comes with many obvious risks, the clearest of which is the possible suppression of the truth in the cause of a ‘greater good’.

At its most petty, all that may be at stake is one person’s reputation at the expense of a competitor. At its most extreme, prosocial censorship could involve a “wilful blindness of authorities” covering up a heinous crime for fear of offending a section of society, or for fear of giving encouragement to a right-wing that is assumed to be looking for any excuse to destabilise. Somewhere in the middle are the concerns harboured by the climate sceptic. Whilst we understand that science is not supposed to operate by consensus, we would, nevertheless, like to believe that an emergent consensus is the result of a developing common knowledge, rather than the result of social engineering enabled by prosocial censorship. Unfortunately, knowing that Professor Bengtsson’s experiences are far from unique does nothing to encourage such a belief. And, when all is said and done, that is the greatest shame of all. Prosocial censorship may seem a good idea, but it isn’t in the least bit desirable when it undermines the integrity of a discipline and causes widespread distrust amongst the wider community.

January 28, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

NY Times, Again, Tries to Normalize Injecting Kids With Neurotoxins

By Jefferey Jaxen | January 26, 2025

Normalizing neurotoxic vaccine adjuvants has been a bread and butter staple for corporate media for over a decade. 15 years ago it was local KEYE TV CBS Austin who, with a straight face and The Science™-like authoritative tone, told you that injecting mercury ‘helps kids.’

Now, our friends at the New York Times just ran the headline, Yes, Some Vaccines Contain Aluminum. That’s a Good Thing.

In the article, the NY Times admits, “… aluminum adjuvants are found in 27 routine vaccines, and nearly half of those recommended for children under 5.”

Meanwhile, back in reality, aluminum adjuvants are literally toxic to the human body, causing cellular and nerve death. The corporate media and public health experts will tell you that the aluminum is just in the shots for a little bump… just to kick up the inflammation a notch.

Aluminum adjuvants also cause immune dysregulation, and are used in labs to induce autoimmunity in mice.

Yet aluminum adjuvants are included in 27 shots for children under 5 boasts the NY Times.

Harmful… helpful… or both?

To settle some of the controversy, attorneys representing the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) asked the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to produce the studies relied upon to claim injected aluminum is safe.

It took HHS (CDC’s parent agency) nearly three and a half years to come up with its final response in 2022, stating it could not locate a single study.

ICAN’s attorneys also sent the same request to the NIH, which responded the same way, conceding that no records were found.

If the science is ‘robust’ and ‘settled’… where is it?

As far as amounts, we know it’s just a small, precise amount of neurotoxin to kick off inflammation in the body… right?

Back in 2021, top aluminum researchers measured the aluminum content of thirteen infant vaccines and compared it to what the manufacturer’s data claimed was in the shots. The researchers found the following:

If researchers were able to independently verify the neurotoxic aluminum content in test samples, surly the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is actively monitoring them to ensure both efficacy and safety. Right?

In 2021, ICAN submitted a petition asking the FDA to:

“… publicly release documentation sufficient to establish that the aluminum content in each Subject Vaccine is consistent with amount provided in its labeling”

The FDA has yet to release said documentation.

Until manufactures are able to switch the current class of vaccine tech over to next- generation mRNA platforms, the aluminum-adjuvanted shots appear to need defending at all costs.

Disingenuous corporate media outlets and public health experts are using the public’s lack of understanding on this subject to construct hit-pieces in the run-up RFK Jr’s confirmation hearing this Wednesday and Thursday.

Meanwhile, another longtime staple of deceptive media has made a sudden comeback this week as the inaccurate and ignorant slur ‘anti-vax’ is being slung across headlines.

No real journalist would use that word… especially now post-pandemic in the wake of failed shot mandates and delayed compensation for harms caused by the COVID shots in the CICP.

The ‘anti-vax’ industry talking point has become an intellectually lazy attempt to neutralize opposition to greater inconvenient truths. No serious person uses it anymore and expects to not endure rightful scorn and ridicule. It most likely is having the opposite effect whenever it is floated.

January 28, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »