Angela Merkel’s successor in Germany has declared that there is nothing he won’t do to battle COVID, a stark statement given previous pledges to make compulsory vaccinations legal.
Chancellor Olaf Scholz used his first address to the nation in Germany to push vaccinations, declaring that they are the only way Germany can overcome the pandemic.
Scholz added that there would be “no red lines” in the battle against the current wave of COVID, which he declared to be fueled by unvaccinated citizens.
“We will pull every possible lever,” he continued, adding “It will get better. Yes, we will win the fight against this pandemic with the biggest determination. And, yes, … we will overcome the crisis.”
He added that “our society is not divided,” and referring to people opposed to vaccinations proclaimed “We will not put up with a tiny minority of uninhibited extremists trying to impose their will on our entire society.”
While claiming “We are listening. We are looking for debate,” Scholz stated “There is in Germany today . . . denial of reality, absurd conspiracy stories, wilful disinformation and violent extremism.”
“We will counter this with the means of our democratic constitutional state. Our democracy is a democracy capable of defending itself,” the Chancellor further warned.
On Sunday, Scholz stated that he supports vaccine mandates across Germany, noting that he intends to “vote for compulsory vaccination, because it is legally permissible and morally right.”
Germany recently recorded its highest COVID death toll for 9 months, despite having mask mandates and stringent rules in many regions that banned the unvaccinated from numerous venues.
The country is preparing to follow the example of Austria by imposing new lockdown measures that will exclusively apply to the unvaccinated.
It’s the 13th December 2021. In my video dated 11th December I detailed some of the health problems which face the gullible folk who have succumbed to the lies and misinformation shared so widely and enthusiastically by governments, the medical establishment and the mainstream media.
It has been established that there is much that no one yet knows about the covid-19 jabs and the eagerness of the Medicines and healthcare products regulatory agency in the UK to licence a product about which information appeared to be lacking has never been adequately explained. We do know however that, as I was the first to reveal, the MHRA received a huge sum of money from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – which has financial links with jab producers such as Pfizer.
As far as the effect on the brain is concerned the big question is, can the lipid nanoparticles carry the mRNA jab across the blood brain barrier?
The blood brain barrier is a semi permeable barrier of cells which prevent some substances in the blood from crossing into the protective fluid around the central nervous system.
It is vital to know if this happens because if it does then all bets are off as to what might happen to the brain.
And after all, liquid nanoparticles are already used to deliver other drugs across the blood brain barrier.
If the LNPs carry the mRNA jab into the brain then the neurons, the brain cells, might be marked as foreign by the body’s immune system. And as more booster jabs are given the problem will get worse.
The worry is that brain cells might be targeted and killed by cytotoxic T cells.
It has now been established that mRNA has been found in all human tissues except the kidney. It has been found in heart, lung, liver, testicles – and brain. A Japanese study, for example, showed that the vaccine does end up in the brain.
Also worrying is the fact that researchers have called for studies to investigate any relationship between jabs and acute CNS demyelination.
How much damage will this do?
How long will it take before brain damage can be identified?
I don’t have the foggiest idea.
And nor does anyone else.
In a normal experiment with a new drug, doctors would be looking and checking all the possible problems before releasing the drug for widespread use.
But the covid-19 jabs are being rolled out to billions without any one having the faintest idea what will happen.
If you have been jabbed, the first certainty seems to be that the mRNA vaccine will enter your brain.
The second certainty is that the more covid jabs you have, the more dangerous this will be.
How many of your brain cells will die is something only time will tell. And children, of course, will be more vulnerable because they are more vulnerable anyway and because they are likely to live longer.
Some experts, advisors and regulators will tell you that the risks are small. But how can they know that? And what is small? They told us that the blood clotting problems were small.
In my view, having one of these jabs is the equivalent of taking a huge dose of LSD and waiting to see what happens. And hoping that you’re not going to end up like Peter Green for example.
And, remember, the covid-19 jabs don’t stop you getting covid-19 and they don’t stop you passing it on. According to the NHS’s own guidelines in the UK you can still get or spread covid-19 even if you have had three jabs.
The choice about whether or not to be jabbed should be yours.
But governments want to make these jabs compulsory.
If this jab were being given for a lethal disease with a 50% mortality rate then the risks might be worth taking. It’s not and they’re not.
Thank you for watching an old man in a chair. And thanks to Brand New Tube and to Muhammad Butt. Please subscribe to my channel on Brand New Tube and spread my videos about on other platforms such as Rumble, Brighteon, Odysee and Bitchute. My thanks to everyone who does this. Put this video on Twitter and Facebook too. If you get your wrist slapped regard it as a war injury. Please do translations too. All the papers and so on that I refer to can easily be found on the internet. If I give you all the links I’ll never do anything else. We do put up transcripts of the videos on both websites and when possible we add important links.
For the record, this channel has not been monetised – none of my videos ever has been. There are no ads, no sponsors and no requests for funds on videos or websites.
Don’t forget to watch my friend Dr Colin Barron’s amazing videos which are always fantastic and often incredibly funny. And visit his website www.colinbarron.co.uk
Read www.theLightpaper.co.uk for all the news considered too truthful to print by the mainstream media. An amazing 200,000 copies are distributed. That’s a bigger circulation than The Guardian. Make sure you get hold of a copy of `We are the 99%’ recorded by Darren and the Daz Band which is the anthem for the Resistance Movement. It’s vital it’s the Christmas Number One. There is a link to it on both my websites. And visit and astandinthepark.org which will give advice on how and where to stand in a park.
Please visit my own websites www.vernoncoleman.org and www.vernoncoleman.com. www.vernoncoleman.com is more old fashioned but contains hundreds of articles on animal issues, politics and much else in addition to health. You can find free books on both sites and brand new stuff is added every weekday. There are hundreds of original articles to read and, of course, the feature detailing vaccine damage is updated every week. New articles are added most days.
Vernon Coleman’s Wednesday Review will, God willing, appear here every Wednesday at 7pm. If it doesn’t then either something has happened to me or the video has been suppressed as has so much of my work these days.
We all need to pray for the truth to be shared by the many, not just the few. Whatever your religion you need to pray because the people running this fraud respect only lies but, in the way that vampires fear sunlight, they fear the truth – it is your government’s greatest enemy and our only weapon. Finally, although it may feel like it at times, please remember that you are not alone. More and more people are waking up and once they are awake they don’t go back to sleep. – which means our numbers are growing daily.
If we are going to win this war then we have to fight hard and with determination and passion and the truth. Remember, this is primarily a propaganda and media war.
Distrust the government, avoid mass media and fight the lies.
Vernon Coleman’s no 1 bestselling book Endgame explains the awful truth behind the covid fraud and the global warming fraud – and explains where we are heading. Endgame is available from Amazon as a paperback and an eBook.
This strange and mildly disturbing illustration actually accompanies the article, one of many cases where the NYT betray the sinister undertones of their agenda via accompanying imagery.
Corona has vastly expanded the ranks of pandemic planners and public health botherers. Unless something is done, these people will destroy all of society in their radical pursuit of a few viruses.
Just a few words on “Omicron is a Dress Rehearsal for the Next Pandemic”, a New York Times article by Emily Anthes, a science journalist with ties to the World Economic Forum. It’s subtitled “America’s response to the variant highlights both how much progress we have made over the past two years — and how much work remains,” and it’s every inch as awful as you’d imagine.
In the piece, Anthes laments that the United States is “woefully unprepared for the challenges ahead, starting with the most fundamental of tasks: detecting the virus.” She quotes a microbiologist to complain that “We had a delay of one to two months before we were even able to identify the presence of [Omicron] … And by that time, it had already circulated widely between multiple states and from coast to coast.” She wastes many words on the necessity of “Testing, testing, testing”; here, apparently, America still needs vastly more capacity. She and her many scientist informants also want more gene sequencing to detect variants sooner. She’s sure that all of this is absolutely necessary, even though she doesn’t know why:
Scientists are finding more Omicron cases every day, and the variant could soon overtake Delta. What comes next — what we should aim for, even — is less clear. Should we spend the winter trying to stop every infection? Protecting the highest risk people from severe disease and death? Ensuring that hospitals are not overrun?
“One thing that we’ve lacked continuously through the pandemic is a goal,” said Emily Gurley, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “We still don’t have that. Certainly, we don’t have that for Omicron.”
No realistic public health goal underpins this diagnostic mania, of course. People who test positive for Corona are sent home to suffer in untreated silence by themselves. Endlessly testing, tracing, sequencing, panicking and closing is, however, a goal in itself for people like Emily Gurley and all the other pandemicists Anthes gleefully quotes, from Eric Topol to Trevor Bedford to Ezekiel J. Emanuel. All of them want the Corona Circus to play on, and after it ends they hope for a sequel sometime soon. Never before have they enjoyed such personal and professional prominence.
Even if by some miracle all of this winds down tomorrow, this whole odious internationally networked enterprise of Virus Astrology, from virologers to sequencers to testers to planners to nudgers to vaccinators, won’t go away. They were a malign influence even before Corona, of course. In 2009, when we suffered under a small fraction of the Pandemicism that burdens us now, they succeeded in causing an international uproar over a mild strain of pandemic influenza. Now their ranks have been vastly expanded, and they are already hoping for the next opportunity to close our schools, lock us up at home and stick us full of needles.
The pandemicists are truly dangerous, and they will grind human civilisation into the dust unless we find some way of putting all of them out of work. They aren’t going to save anybody from the next pandemic; in the event it happens, they’ll just take advantage of the opportunity to expand their ranks still further and make all of our lives worse. And should novel viruses prove slow to materialise in the post-Corona era, they’ll get up to other tricks. Tricks like new and enhanced histrionics over every seasonal influenza outbreak. Tricks like the intentional release of more engineered viral pathogens to keep the grant funding flowing. Tricks like constant lunatic mass vaccination schemes against ever milder viruses. Still other tricks I haven’t considered. The pandemicists have to go.
Professor Lim, Chairman, JCVI COVID-19 subcommittee
Dr June Raine, Chief Executive, MHRARt
Hon Sajid Javid, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
Professor Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer for England
Sir Patrick Vallance, Government Chief Scientific Adviser
Dr Jenny Harries, Chief Executive, UKHSA
Dear Professor Lim, Dr Raine, Mr Javid, Professor Whitty, Sir Patrick Vallance & Dr Harries,
URGENT RE:
(I) latest government guidance re myocarditis
(II) decision to offer a second dose of Pfizer to 12-15s
(III) reckless disregard for the benefits of natural immunity in children
As a group of senior scientists and clinicians, we wrote to you only two weeks ago regarding your decision to offer a second dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to 16-17-year-olds despite lack of detailed safety data. We still await a reply, but are compelled to write again after this week’s UKHSA publication of guidance on myocarditis, coinciding with your latest unexpected advice to widen the age range for the second dose to include 12-15 year-olds. We also still awaiting a reply as to why the JCVI continue to recommend vaccination for those children who already have naturally-acquired immunity and for whom there is no possibility of any benefit from the COVID-19 vaccines.
I. Myocarditis guidelines
The following statements (in italics) from the UKHSA document require urgent clarification regarding our points (in red).
“myocarditis and pericarditis following vaccination is usually mild or stable and most patients typically recover fully without medical treatment”
This unsubstantiated assertion is not compatible with the statement made in the bullet point below. Unless these children had cardiac MRI scans and follow-up, it is impossible to state that they ‘typically recover fully’
“myocarditis – significant left ventricular (LV) fibrosis has been described in a high percentage of children admitted to hospital, with a small percentage of these having non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT)”
According to the authors, these children were not clinically distinguishable from children in other case series, also with an apparently ‘mild’ clinical course. The concerning findings on MRI were only discovered because the authors thoroughly investigated all children with serious VAEs.
“no follow-up data is available yet on hospitalised patients”
This point undermines the claim made in the first bullet point.
“the long-term consequences of this condition secondary to vaccination are yet unknown, so any screening recommendations need to be balanced against the frequency and severity of the disease with the aim to prevent complications, in particular of myocarditis (arrhythmias, long term myocardial damage or heart failure)”
As Pfizer have admitted, the children’s trials are too small to look for myocarditis, but long term studies are in progress due to report in 2025 Recommendations in paediatric patients: Why was there no consultation with the RCPCH?
“Where appropriate, thepatient should be seen face to face and this assessment should include their vital signs.”
When would it be ‘inappropriate’ to see face to face and check vital signs, in a child with any of the concerning symptoms listed?
“If patients have mild symptoms, they do not require referral to secondary care at this point.”
How would you expect a GP to determine whether myocarditis was ‘mild’ in the absence of an ECG and a Troponin level? How does such an approach match up with rigorous post-marketing surveillance of a vaccine still under emergency use authorisation?
(II) Decision to offer a second dose of Pfizer to 12-15s
There has been no new follow-up data disclosed since the JCVI decision to offer only one dose to 12-15s regarding the outcome for children with vaccine-induced myocarditis. The suggestion that the MHRA has seen no new adverse event reports of myocarditis, is perhaps not surprising given that the UK has not proceeded to a second dose known to be associated with a greatly increased risk. How does the JCVI look at the concerns outlined in the government’s own myocarditis guidance and reconcile them with their duty of care to First do no Harm?
A systematic study from Hong Kong linking all vaccinations to health records has revealed myocarditis occurring 1 in2,680 in young males after their second dose of Pfizer, and they have now dropped the second dose from their schedule. The latest FDA data similarly report 1 in 5000 for males age 16-17. How is it ethical to recommend a second dose to this cohort knowing the risks to the individual will far outweigh any benefits?
How will effective pharmacovigilance and real-time data be obtained on every child admitted with a diagnosis of myocarditis by vaccine status? How many child fatalities have you factored in as acceptable collateral damage resulting from your decision to recommend the second dose of this vaccine for a condition which poses no significant threat to this age group? The answer surely must be zero.
III. Naturally acquired immunity in children
Perhaps most pressing of all, why does the JCVI continue to disregard the obvious benefits of naturally acquired immunity? This has now been conclusively shown in adults to be much longer lasting and robust than that following vaccination . It is already known that children have good crossover immunity from previous coronaviruses, with excellent T-cell function. And it is widely recognised that their strong innate immune systems are the reason for Covid-19 being extremely mild in children. It is estimated that in England, 5.47 million 5-14-year-olds have already had SARS-CoV-2 infection (which represents 79% of the population of this age group). An international meta-analysis of re-infections post natural infection reported only 577 cases of reinfection from 22 countries over a 15-month period, including only 10 deaths, with not a single death in younger adults let alone in children. Numerous other publications have affirmed that naturally acquired immunity is robust, comprehensive and long-lasting.
Therefore, for the 80% of children who are already immune, there can be no benefit from vaccination and only the potential for serious or even life-threatening harm. For the 20% not yet infected, there are still unanswered questions about the potential for vaccination to interfere with the ability to mount a broad robust and long-lasting immunity and we risk committing these children to the theatre of ever more frequent boosters, each with its own risk of injury, which now seems to be the future for adults. Indeed, this becomes even more important with the new omicron variant. There is no point in vaccinating children with a vaccine which will cause immune imprinting to the Wuhan variant and will impede their ability to make antibodies to the new variants as they present.
We contend that any practitioner who chooses to vaccinate a child in the knowledge that they have recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection, is in breach of their professional duty of care to put their patient’s best interest first. In addition. failure of the practitioner to disclose the full contents of the UKHSA Myocarditis guidance to the patient and parent would constitute a failure to obtain fully informed consent. See GMCGood Medical Practice Guidelines.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Rosamond Jones, MD, FRCPCH, retired consultant paediatrician
Professor Anthony J Brookes, Department of Genetics & Genome Biology, University of Leicester Professor David Livermore, BSc, PhD, Professor of Medical Microbiology, University of East Anglia
Professor Angus Dalgleish, MD, FRCP, FRACP, FRCPath, FMed Sci, Professor of Oncology, St Georges Hospital, London
Dr Theresa Lawrie, MBBCh, PhD, Director, Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd, Bath
Dr Clare Craig, BMBCh, FRCPath, Pathologist
John Collis, RN, Retired specialist nurse practitioner
Professor Keith Willison, PhD, Professor of Chemical Biology, Imperial, London
Professor Richard Ennos, MA, PhD. Honorary Professorial Fellow, University of Edinburgh Professor John Fairclough FRCS FFSEM retired Honorary Consultant Surgeon
Lord Moonie, MBChB, MRCPsych, MFCM, MSc, House of Lords, former parliamentary under- secretary of state 2001-2003, former consultant in Public Health Medicine
Dr Roland Salmon, MBBS, MRCGP, FFPH, former Director, Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, Wales
Dr John Flack, BPharm, PhD. Retired Director of Safety Evaluation, Beecham Pharmaceuticals 1980-1989 and Senior Vice-president for Drug Discovery 1990-92 SmithKline Beecham
Dr Alan Mordue, MBChB, FFPH. Retired Consultant in Public Health Medicine & Epidemiology
Dr Geoffrey Maidment, MD, FRCP, retired consultant physician
Dr Helen Westwood MBChB MRCGP DCH DRCOG, General Practitioner
Mr James Royle, MBChB, FRCS, MMedEd, Colorectal surgeon Dr Elizabeth Evans MA(Cantab), MBBS, DRCOG, Retired Doctor Dr Emma Brierly, MRCGP, General Practitioner
Dr Alan Black, MBBS, MSc, DipPharmMed, retired pharmaceutical physician
Mr Anthony Hinton, MBChB, FRCS, Consultant ENT surgeon, London
Dr Greta Mushet, MBChB, MRCPsych, retired Consultant Psychiatrist in Psychotherapy
Dr Kulvinder Singh Manik MBChB, MRCGP, MA(Cantab), LLM, Gray’s Inn
Dr Rohaan Seth, Bsc (hons), MBChB (hons), MRCGP, Retired General Practitioner
Mr Ian F Comaish, MA, BM BCh, FRCOphth, FRANZCO, Consultant ophthalmologist
Dr Sarah Myhill, MBBS, Dip NM, Retired GP, Independent Naturopathic Physician
Dr Christopher Exley, PhD, FRSB, Retired professor in Bioinorganic Chemistry
Dr David Critchley, BSc, PhD, 32 years in pharmaceutical R&D as a clinical research scientist. Dr Gerry Quinn, PhD. Postdoctoral researcher in microbiology and immunology
Dr Jonathan Engler, MBChB, LlB (hons), DipPharmMed
Dr Mark Bell, MBChB, MRCP(UK), FRCEM, Consultant in Emergency Medicine
Dr Zac Cox, BDS, LCPH, Holistic Dentist, Homeopath
Dr Elizabeth Burton, MBChB, retired general practitioner
Margaret Moss, MA (Cantab), CBiol, MRSB, Director, The Nutrition and Allergy Clinic, Cheshire
Julia Annakin, RN,
Dr Noel Thomas, MA, MBChB, DCH, DObsRCOG, DTM&H, MFHom, retired doctor
Immunisation Nurse Specialist
Dr Fiona Martindale, MbChB, MRCGP, GP in out of hours
Dr Branko Latinkic, BSc, PhD, Molecular biologist
Dr Jason Lester, MRCP, FRCR, Consultant Clinical Oncologist.
Dr Sam White, MBChB MRCGP, General Practitioner, Functional medicine practitioner
Dr Holly Young, BSc, MBChB, MRCP, Consultant Palliative Care Medicine
Dr David Bramble, MB ChB, MRCPsych, MD, Retired Consultant Child & Adolescent Learning Disability
Dr. Scott Mitchell, MBChB, MRCS, Associate Specialist, Emergency Medicine
Dr Peter Chan, BM, MRCS, MRCGP, General Practitioner, Functional medicine practitioner
Dr Stefanie Williams, Dermatologist
Dr Andrew Isaac, MB BCh, Physician, retired
Dr Christina Peers, MBBS, DRCOG, DFSRH, FFSRH, Menopause specialist
Dr Michael D Bell, MBChB, MRCGP, retired General Practitioner
Dr Livia Tossici-Bolt, PhD, NHS Clinical Scientist
Dr Carmen Wheatley, D Phil, Orthomolecular Oncology
Dr Ruth Wilde, MB BCh, MRCEM, AFMCP, Integrative & Functional Medicine Doctor
Dr David Morris, MBChB, MRCP(UK), General Practitioner
Dr Jayne LM Donegan, MBBS, DRCOG, DCH, DFFP, MRCGP, HMA, Integrative Medicine practitioner
Dr Franziska Meuschel, MD, ND, PhD, LFHom, BSEM, Nutritional, Environmental and Integrated Medicine
Governments around the world have encouraged and enforced a new form of segregation based on vaccine status. This is not only dangerously inhumane; there is no scientific basis for this.
There seems to be an underlying presumption here that the unvaccinated are unclean (regardless of natural immunity) and their presence will spread disease. What if, however, existing studies reveal that there is little to no difference between the COVID vaccinated and unvaccinated in terms of becoming infected, harboring the virus (viral load in the oral and nasopharynx), and transmitting it?
As it relates to Omicron, two recent small but interesting preliminary studies show that 80% of the omicron cases were double vaccinated. Wilhelm et al. reported on reduced neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant by vaccine sera and monoclonal antibodies. “in vitro findings using authentic SARS-CoV-2 variants indicate that in contrast to the currently circulating Delta variant, the neutralization efficacy of vaccine-elicited sera against Omicron was severely reduced highlighting T-cell mediated immunity as essential barrier to prevent severe COVID-19.” Further, the CDC has reported on the details for 43 cases of COVID-19 attributed to the Omicron variant. They found that “34 (79%) occurred in persons who completed the primary series of an FDA-authorized or approved COVID-19 vaccine ≥14 days before symptom onset or receipt of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result.”
As it relates to the vaccinated and unvaccinated being similar in terms of infection, viral load, and transmission capacity, and thus no underlying evidence to separate them societally, we specifically focus on and present (and based largely on Delta variant data) the body of evidence.
1) Salvatore et al. examined the transmission potential of vaccinated and unvaccinated persons infected with the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in a federal prison, July-August 2021. They found a total of 978 specimens were provided by 95 participants, “of whom 78 (82%) were fully vaccinated and 17 (18%) were not fully vaccinated…clinicians and public health practitioners should consider vaccinated persons who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 to be no less infectious than unvaccinated persons.”
2) Singanayagam et al. examined the transmission and viral load kinetics in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals with mild delta variant infection in the community. They found that (in 602 community contacts (identified via the UK contract-tracing system) of 471 UK COVID-19 index cases were recruited to the Assessment of Transmission and Contagiousness of COVID-19 in Contacts cohort study and contributed 8145 upper respiratory tract samples from daily sampling for up to 20 days) “vaccination reduces the risk of delta variant infection and accelerates viral clearance. Nonetheless, fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts.”
3) Chia et al. reported that PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values were “similar between both vaccinated and unvaccinated groups at diagnosis, but viral loads decreased faster in vaccinated individuals. Early, robust boosting of anti-spike protein antibodies was observed in vaccinated patients, however, these titers were significantly lower against B.1.617.2 as compared with the wildtype vaccine strain.”
4) Israel, 2021 looked at Large-scale study of antibody titer decay following BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine or SARS-CoV-2 infection, and reported as “To determine the kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies following administration of two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine, or SARS-CoV-2 infection in unvaccinated individuals…In vaccinated subjects, antibody titers decreased by up to 40% each subsequent month while in convalescents they decreased by less than 5% per month. Six months after BNT162b2 vaccination 16.1% subjects had antibody levels below the sero-positivity threshold of <50 AU/mL, while only 10.8% of convalescent patients were below <50 AU/mL threshold after 9 months from SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
5) In the UK COVID-19 vaccine Surveillance Report for week #42, it was noted that there is “waning of the N antibody response over time” and “that N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination.” The same report (Table 2, page 13), shows that in the older age groups above 30, the double vaccinated persons have greater infection risk than the unvaccinated, presumably because the latter group include more people with stronger natural immunity from prior Covid disease. See also UK PHE reports 43, 44, 45, 46 for similar data.
6) In Barnstable, Massachusetts, Brown et al. found that among 469 cases of COVID-19, 74% were fully vaccinated, and that “the vaccinated had on average more virus in their nose than the unvaccinated who were infected.”
7) Riemersma et al. found “no difference in viral loads when comparing unvaccinated individuals to those who have vaccine “breakthrough” infections. Furthermore, individuals with vaccine breakthrough infections frequently test positive with viral loads consistent with the ability to shed infectious viruses.” Results indicate that “if vaccinated individuals become infected with the delta variant, they may be sources of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to others.” They reported “low Ct values (<25) in 212 of 310 fully vaccinated (68%) and 246 of 389 (63%) unvaccinated individuals. Testing a subset of these low-Ct samples revealed infectious SARS-CoV-2 in 15 of 17 specimens (88%) from unvaccinated individuals and 37 of 39 (95%) from vaccinated people.”
8) Ignoring the risk of infection, given that someone was infected, Acharya et al. found “no significant difference in cycle threshold values between vaccinated and unvaccinated, asymptomatic and symptomatic groups infected with SARS-CoV-2 Delta.”
9) Gazit et al. out of Israel showed that “SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13-fold (95% CI, 8-21) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected.”
Dr Alexander holds a PhD. He has experience in epidemiology and in the teaching clinical epidemiology, evidence-based medicine, and research methodology. Dr Alexander is a former Assistant Professor at McMaster University in evidence-based medicine and research methods; former COVID Pandemic evidence-synthesis consultant advisor to WHO-PAHO Washington, DC (2020) and former senior advisor to COVID Pandemic policy in Health and Human Services (HHS) Washington, DC (A Secretary), US government; worked/appointed in 2008 at WHO as a regional specialist/epidemiologist in Europe’s Regional office Denmark, worked for the government of Canada as an epidemiologist for 12 years, appointed as the Canadian in-field epidemiologist (2002-2004) as part of an international CIDA funded, Health Canada executed project on TB/HIV co-infection and MDR-TB control (involving India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Afghanistan, posted to Kathmandu); employed from 2017 to 2019 at Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Virginia USA as the evidence synthesis meta-analysis systematic review guideline development trainer; currently a COVID-19 consultant researcher in the US-C19 research group
Yesterday, in a statement to Parliament on the UK’s planned “vaccine passport”, Health Secretary Sajid Javid admitted the NHS Pass would require three shots for you to be considered “fully vaccinated”.
“Once all adults have had a reasonable chance to get their booster jab, we intend to change this exemption to require a booster dose,”
While many of us predicted this would be the case, it is the first time any British politician has actually said it out loud, and in front of parliament too.
All in all it seems pretty clear that, by the time 2022 rolls around, most of the Western world will require three shots in order to qualify as “fully vaccinated”.
It’s also clear that this won’t stop at three. Already, just last week, Pfizer were claiming they may need to “move up the timeline” for a fourth vaccine dose.
This change is being blamed on Omicron, with articles warning the “new variant” can “hit” the vaccinated. Fortune reports:
Omicron is making scientists redefine what it means to be ‘fully vaccinated’ against COVID
So, the third (and maybe fourth) doses are (allegedly) for Omicron…but that model can extend to perpetuity. In order to go to five, six or seven they’ll only need to “discover” more “new variants”.
It will just keep going and going.
But there is good news in all this, every time the powers-that-shouldn’t-be change the rules in the middle of the game, it’s a chance to knock people out of their media-induced hypnosis.
There are promising signs that millions of already-vaccinated will reject the booster. We can build on that.
So tell your single and double jabbed friends, try to open their eyes to the path they are starting down.
They may consider themselves “fully vaccinated”, but the government doesn’t, and never will.
mRNA vaccine protection from Covid is far weaker than natural immunity and declines very fast, according to a new study of almost 6 million people in Israel.
During the summer Covid wave, more than 140,000 Israelis who had been vaccinated but not received a booster shot became infected with Covid. Put another way, in just two months, about 1 out of every 20 vaccinated Israelis became infected with Sars-Cov-2.
Natural immunity – the protection following infection and recovery – lasts much longer, the study shows.
In fact, people who had already had Covid once had better protection from the virus more than a year later than people who had been vaccinated only three months before.
The gap was even larger in cases of severe infection.
Vaccinated people were more than five times as likely to develop severe infections than people with natural immunity. Only 25 out of roughly 300,000 Israelis with natural immunity developed severe Covid infections in the summer wave – compared to almost 1,400 vaccinated Israelis.
The difference did not result from gaps in age between vaccinated and recovered people. People over 60 benefitted even more from natural immunity relative to vaccination than did younger people.
The study also showed that giving people who had natural immunity a vaccine dose did little to lower rates of infection for them, raising the question of why they should ever be vaccinated.
Finally, the study offered a disturbing signal that vaccination may ultimately interfere with the development of lasting immunity in people who are infected after being vaccinated.
A booster shot did lower the risk of infection about to the level of peak protection from natural immunity – but because the study ended in September, it is impossible to know how long that protection may last.
All these findings come out of a database of Covid infections among almost 6 million Israelis in August and September, at the peak of the fourth Covid wave in Israel. The database contains information on essentially every Israeli over age 16 who was fully vaccinated or had previously had a Covid infection.
The paper, “Protection and waning of natural and hybrid COVID-19 immunity,” is currently available as a preprint at:
Oddly, the paper’s title does not mention waning of vaccine immunity, although the figures it presents make the severity of the problem clear. Such shyness is common among researchers presenting bad news about Covid vaccines – they will offer the data, but not highlight it.
Israel has exclusively used the Pfizer mRNA vaccine, began mass vaccinations before almost any other country, and has an excellent health care database. As a result, it has among the best information on the effectiveness of the shots. It offers far more complete data than the United States.
The vaccine failure over the summer in Israel – following apparent success in the spring – has presaged a similar pattern across the United States and Europe, and a similar desperate campaign for boosters.
In this paper, the researchers examined infection rates among five different groups of Israelis – those with natural immunity, those who had received boosters, those who were vaccinated but had not received boosters, those with natural immunity who had also received a vaccine, and those who had become infected after being vaccinated.
The researchers specifically excluded unvaccinated Israelis without natural immunity from the comparison because Israel has very few of them and they are “unrepresentative of the overall population.”
In other words, the researchers explicitly denied the validity of the comparison that vaccine advocates make when they compare Covid rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated people in places with high vaccination rates (a point I have been trying to make for months).
The researchers found that the highest rates of infection by far came in people who had been vaccinated at least six months before. They had a nearly 3 percent chance of being infected per month (the researchers present the figure as 89 per 100,000 “person-days.”)
Those people were four times as likely to be infected as newly vaccinated people. They were also seven times as likely to be infected as people who had natural immunity from an infection six to eight months before, and three times as likely as those who had natural immunity from an infection more than year before.
A single vaccination dose in people with natural immunity temporarily produced strong protection, the researchers found. But after six months, the advantage had faded to within the margin of statistical error. In other words, so-called hybrid immunity hardly appeared to exist after six months – natural immunity was once again providing the protection.
Nor did vaccination appear to stop severe disease.
Nearly every case of severe disease in the database – almost 1,400 of the roughly 1,600 cases – came in vaccinated but unboosted people. Boosters did appear to reduce severe disease significantly. Again, though, the study covered less than two months after the booster program began, when boosters should be at peak effectiveness.
Finally, the study showed that people who had been vaccinatedand then been infected and recovered were actually more likely to be infected again six months later than those who had only “pure” natural immunity.
That finding, though based on a small number of cases, adds to worrying data that mRNA vaccination may actually wrong-foot our immune systems in the long run and make it harder to build lifelong protection against Covid.
One of the big challenges in analysing the data on Covid has been definitions. What is a Covid death, what is a Covid case or infection? What the data appears to say can change radically depending on the definitions adopted.
This has been a particular issue with vaccination, as vaccination status is subject to a variety of conflicting definitions. In particular, when does someone count as vaccinated? Is it as soon as they have the needle in their arm, or do they remain ‘unvaccinated’ after that for a period of time, say seven, 14 or 21 days?
For instance, the recent ICNARC report stated the number of ICU admissions by vaccination status. But it also clarified that ‘unvaccinated’ includes those who received a jab less than 14 days prior to testing positive. This means that some (an unknown number) who were counted as unvaccinated had in fact received a dose.
This may be more than just a minor problem. For one thing, there is now a lot of evidence that people are more vulnerable to infection in the days following their jab, likely due to temporary immune suppression. This means a significant proportion of the vaccinated who are susceptible to infection with the current dominant variant are infected in the immediate post-jab period when in many studies and reports they don’t count as vaccinated. This creates a ‘survivorship bias‘ in the remaining vaccinated group that exaggerates vaccine efficacy. For instance, in a study of the U.S. nursing home population published in NEJM, once the post-jab period was included – when the vaccinated experienced higher incidence than the unvaccinated – the overall proportion of vaccinated and unvaccinated groups testing positive was the same at 6.8%. This makes it essential that all the data is presented, including for past-jab periods, and definitions are clear.
A similar problem occurs with the classification of deaths as vaccinated and unvaccinated. New analysis led by Norman Fenton, Professor in Risk Information Management, and Martin Neil, Professor in Computer Science and Statistics, both at Queen Mary, University of London, has highlighted a strange anomaly in the ONS deaths data that may be indicative of a deeper problem. They noticed that if non-Covid deaths in the unvaccinated were plotted against time over the course of the vaccine rollout then a strange spike appeared during the rollout in which the mortality rate among the unvaccinated shot up to well above the background level. The same thing happened with the non-Covid mortality rate in the single-dosed as second doses were rolled out, and the phenomenon was repeated in each age group as vaccines were administered.
Since there is no obvious reason that vaccination should impact on non-Covid mortality in this way, Prof Fenton, Prof Neil and team argue that this is evidence of a problem in the way the data is recorded or defined. In particular, if it is assumed that the unvaccinated in fact continue to die of non-Covid causes at the background rate and that the additional non-Covid deaths above that are deaths that are actually in the vaccinated but have been misclassified (owing, say, to not counting those who die within 14 days of their jab) then, they argue, a more realistic pattern emerges (see below).
In each age group there is now a spike in non-Covid deaths in the vaccinated right at the start of the rollout, which the team argue makes sense as vaccination was prioritised for the most vulnerable who are more likely to die of any cause. Indeed, it was confusing in the original data that this initial spike was absent and the vaccinated died of non-Covid causes at a lower rate than the unvaccinated despite the most vulnerable being prioritised for vaccination.
The team discovered a different problem when they looked at Covid deaths by vaccination status. Here, the vaccines appear to be highly efficacious, but there is an anomaly that may again be indicative of deeper problems in the data.
Again a spike appears in the unvaccinated mortality rate where there is none in the vaccinated. Fair enough, you might think, as the vaccines are protecting the vaccinated. However, it’s important to remember that the vaccines are not expected to work until 21 days after the first jab, yet here we have a spike in unvaccinated Covid mortality in the middle of the rollout before most of the vaccines should take effect – referring to figure 17 above we can see that the vaccine rollout in the age group peaked in week five, around the same time as the mortality rate in the unvaccinated peaked (week six), which all seems much too early.
Prof Fenton, Prof Neil and team suggest that the problem here may be in the denominator, that is to say, in how many people are supposed to be in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations when calculating the mortality rate each week. It’s important to realise that the populations here are changing fast as tens of thousands of people get vaccinated each week. Using the right figure for the right week therefore makes a big difference to the mortality rate reported. Could this anomalous spike in unvaccinated Covid deaths be an artefact of this kind of problem?
Professor Fenton thinks so. He and his team suggest that the problem may be that the relevant denominator or number of people vaccinated for each week is not how many are vaccinated in the week a person dies but in the week they were infected, which is around three weeks earlier on average. What happens if the denominators are shifted by three weeks to allow for this? (Prof Fenton demonstrates the effect of shifting denominators in a short video of a hypothetical example here.)
The effect is remarkable, as shown below (note the change of scale on the y-axis).
Shifting the population denominator estimates by three weeks means that the number of vaccinated for calculating the vaccinated mortality rate becomes much smaller, making the mortality rate much higher, while the denominator for the unvaccinated becomes much larger, making the mortality rate much lower. This massively reduces the mortality rate in the unvaccinated to low levels – to under five deaths per 100,000 people throughout the period, rather than as many as 125 per 100,000 in week six previously. Instead, a mortality spike appears in the vaccinated at the start of the vaccine rollout (though note that the scale is smaller so it only reaches 30 per 100,000 people), which makes some sense as the vulnerable were prioritised for vaccination and at this point the population of vaccinated was small, so contained a high proportion of vulnerable people. Prof Fenton and team remark that it also tallies with what we know of the increased vulnerability of the recently-vaccinated to infection, as noted above.
The shift in population estimates also greatly reduces the implied effectiveness of the vaccines in the autumn wave, where the lines are now much closer to one another, which is in line with findings from Sweden and elsewhere as vaccine efficacy wanes. Prof Fenton and team suggest that once you take into account the initial spike in the vaccinated, then this new analysis suggests there is “no reliable evidence that the vaccines reduce all-cause mortality”.
So is this what’s going on? There are certainly anomalies that need to be explained, and the analysis by Professor Fenton, Professor Neil and team makes a lot of sense. It deserves to be taken seriously by the ONS and UKHSA.
INJECTING millions of people with countless copies of a gene that instructs the body to produce a toxic protein might not seem very sensible. But it was hoped that this approach, the basis of the Covid vaccine, would help minimise damage caused by the protein – the ‘spike’ that the genetically engineered SARS-CoV-2 uses to invade our body cells – when we meet the actual virus.
Last month we reported an American heart specialist’s finding that most of his patients showed biochemical changes signalling increased cardiovascular risk in the weeks following their Covid mRNA jab. Markers for inflammation, cell death and an immune response to coronary artery injury all increased compared with results from a few months previously. The overall results indicated a ‘dramatic’ rise, from 11 per cent to 25 per cent, in the likelihood of a heart attack or similar event occurring some time over the next five years should those changes persist.
The report was presented as an abstract to a meeting of the American Heart Association (AHA), and subsequently published in Circulation, the AHA’s journal. After being made public, an ‘expression of concern’ was added to the abstract, saying there are ‘potential errors’ and it may not be reliable.
There is however every reason to take it seriously – apart from UK researchers reportedly having found similar results, which they are not prepared to publish for fear of losing research money.
Last Friday the most detailed evidence yet of the damage the vaccine can do was presented at an online symposium on Covid science organised by Doctors for Covid Ethics. This is an international group that has long opposed the mass rollout of the Covid jab, arguing in particular that the immune system may attack our own tissues when it detects the presence of the spike protein.
Thousands of deaths have been reported in the wake of the jab, but regulators claim most of these are coincidental, and have neglected detailed investigation of whether or not the vaccine was responsible.
Exactly that kind of investigation was carried out by German pathologist Professor Dr Arne Burkhardt, who has 40 years of experience in the field. He examined the tissues and organs of 15 patients where a post-mortem had been performed, an exceptional opportunity that came about because the bodies were in institutes of legal medicine and institutes of pathology.
There were seven men and eight women aged between 28 and 95. They died between seven days and six months post-injection.
In essence, Burkhardt found internal damage in most of the deceased, caused by a self-destruct process in which immune cells – lymphocytes – had invaded different parts of the body.
In five of the 15 cases, it was concluded that the correlation with the vaccination was very probable; in seven, it was probable; and in two cases it was not clear, but possible. ‘In one case we did not find any of these changes of any significance,’ Burkhardt said.
He presented slides showing how the lymphocytes infiltrated heart muscle in particular, causing inflammation. Resulting lesions were small and easily overlooked, ‘but the destruction of just a few muscle cells may have a devastating effect’, he said. ‘If the inflammatory infiltration is found where the impulse for the contraction of the heart is given, this may lead to heart failure.’
Another finding, also easily missed, was lung damage caused by the lymphocyte invasion, seen in nearly half the cases. Liver, kidney, uterus, brain, thyroid and skin also showed signs of autoimmune damage.
Summarising Burkhardt’s presentation, Canadian microbiologist Professor Dr Michael Palmer said: ‘Anybody with a medical training will see just how devastating the effect of these vaccines can be, at least in those who die after the vaccination . . . we also now know why the authorities were very hesitant to have autopsies performed on such victims.’
Elsewhere, Palmer has argued that even though deaths after vaccination are few compared with the numbers who have received the jab, ‘the total lifetime dose of these messenger RNA vaccines that you can tolerate before you die is limited. We don’t know the exact amount because there is simply not enough experimental data. That’s one of the great scandals of these vaccines, that no proper toxicity studies have been carried out.’
Animal studies have shown clearly that the jab does not just stay at the site of the injection. It circulates widely, such that the spike protein can combine with receptors in many parts of the body, and especially cells that line our blood vessels, causing both clotting and excessive bleeding. Many sudden clusters of deaths (see here and here) have been reported in the immediate wake of the vaccine drives, also observed in athletes.
Burkhardt’s findings, highlighting immune cell infiltration of tissues where the vaccine-induced spike protein has manifested, come in the wake of many warnings of such a mechanism and are supported by various studies suggesting long-term risks. These include:
· US physician Dr Patrick Whelan warned the US Food and Drug Administration a year ago, before the vaccine rollouts, that jabs based on the spike protein may themselves trigger symptoms of severe Covid, including blood clots, brain inflammation and damage to the heart, liver and kidneys. Whelan, a paediatric specialist caring for children with multisystem inflammatory syndrome, urged particular caution over giving the vaccine to children and young adults, as they normally fight off the infection in its early stages. Before any of the vaccines were approved for widespread use in humans, he said, there should be an assessment of the effects on the heart.
· The vaccine includes a modification in the RNA code aimed at synthesising abundant copies of the spike protein – running into trillions of molecules, according to this visual display produced by Dr Charles Hoffe, a Canadian doctor. He says the majority of people who receive the Covid shot ‘are getting blood clots that they have no idea they’re even having.’ The modification, along with a device that protects the RNA mechanism against immediate destruction by the body, may enable the jabs to present a bigger risk in some recipients than natural infection, since this is usually dealt with successfully by a healthy immune system. No one knows exactly how much of the protein is produced by the jab, nor how long it lasts in the body.
· Dr Robert Malone, inventor of the mRNA technology, says ‘multiple peer-reviewed references’ demonstrate that the virus’s spike protein poisons body cells (see for example here), but the vaccine developers have not demonstrated the safety of their version of the protein. Proper evaluation of the risks is still not being carried out, he says.
· Another German pathologist found from autopsies conducted on 40 people who died in the wake of the jab that 30-40 per cent were vaccine-related. Professor Peter Schirmacher believes many such deaths are missed, with doctors attributing them to natural causes.
· American cardiologist and journal editor Dr Peter McCullough has warned that the vaccine can damage heart tissue in ways that go unnoticed at first, but which create scar tissue liable to cause permanent cardiac dysfunction later in life. ‘This will go down as the most dangerous biological medicinal product rollout in human history,’ he says. McCullough has also highlighted an increase in deaths among children in the UK since the NHS began vaccinating teenagers aged 12 and over against Covid.
· An analysis of UK ‘Yellow Card’ adverse reaction data by Dr Tess Lawrie’s Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy found thousands of reports of blood clotting after the Covid jabs. Almost every vein and artery was affected, and every organ including parts of the brain, lungs, heart, spleen, kidneys, ovaries and liver, ‘with life-threatening and life-changing consequences’. Lawrie urged the UK regulators as long ago as last June to declare the vaccine unsafe for use in humans because of the deaths and adverse reactions being reported.
· A ‘chilling’ acknowledgement of the specific risks of mycocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (swelling in tissue surrounding the heart) following Covid vaccination was issued this month by the UK Health Security Agency. The agency still insists such cases are rare and that most patients recover fully, but evidence such as Burkhardt’s suggests many deaths may go unrecognised as vaccine-related.
It’s a terrible mess, and there is a desperate need for a review of the entire Covid vaccine strategy. UK pathologists, please come to the rescue!
On August 25th Biden ordered that every member of the US military (active, reserve and national guard) must perform a fundamental sacrament of the mind virus cult known as “vaccination”.
A week before the order US military Covid deaths stood at 34.
In other words, in the 4 months since the injection order as many US servicemen were deemed to have died with/from Covid as in the entire 17 months before the order was given.
In the entire vaccine-free 2020 fewer than 20 US servicemen died with/from Covid. (24 by March.)
The unvaccinated military of 2020 experienced three times fewer Covid deaths than the heavily injected military of 2021.
Even so at 2 million strong and 79 deaths, a Covid death is still rarer than a lottery win.
The Pentagon says the dead were overwhelmingly “not fully vaccinated,” but the Pentagon also doesn’t consider troops “fully vaccinated” until 14 days after the 2nd dose — that is to say until the initial period of negative vaccine efficiency has ended.
I checked the Federal Register and there has been no notice that Comirnaty has been added to the National Childhood Vaccine injury Program (NVICP). I confirmed this by checking whether Comirnaty had been added to the childhood schedule, and according to the HRSA, which manages both compensation programs, it has not.
So, if you receive the licensed Comirnaty vaccine, correctly labeled as the brand-name product and not the vaccine being fobbed off as licensed product, and you are injured, you are free to sue the manufacturer for your injury. Could this be why Pfizer wrote, “Pfizer does not plan to produce any product with these new [Comirnaty National Drug Codes] and labels over the next few months while EUA authorized product is still available and being made available for U.S. distribution.”
If, however, you receive the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine under Emergency Use Authorization, or the Moderna or J and J vaccine, you can’t sue anyone. You have the right to beg HRSA for compensation of lost wages and unpaid medical bills, period. So far, HRSA and the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program it administers have not paid out one dime for the approximately one million injuries and 20,000 deaths reported to VAERS for any COVID vaccine.
In other words, the federal government (DHHS) has not admitted a single injury was caused by a COVID vaccine. CDC says it has not linked a single death to a COVID vaccine–not even when the patient walked into the vaccination center but got carried out to the morgue. FDA doesn’t know much about myocarditis, Bell’s Palsy, thrombosis, thrombocytopenia, pulmonary emboli, etc. There are no black box warnings on any of the COVID vaccines.
HRSA, FDA, CDC and NIH are all agencies within the federal Department of Health and Human Services. They have all gotten their stories straight. They know nothing and they are just following orders. Heil HHS!
They can’t find a doggone problem in the 20 or so databases they are spending many $millions of your money to “study.”
Want to know the biggest conspiracy in the US right now? It is the HHS.
FDA has access to a bunch of electronic databases it has termed the “BEST” Initiative, and it published a plan to use them to study heart attacks, pulmonary embolism, thrombocytopenia, etc. back in July. Where are the results, FDA? What are you waiting for? (According to CDC, “More than 459 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through November 29, 2021.”). It seems clear that we aren’t supposed to be informed of FDA’s findings until everyone possible has been vaccinated, at which point the results will be irrelevant.
On August 23, 2021, FDA announced its databases were inadequate to assess myocarditis, so BioNTech would have to do it for them. Here is what FDA wrote about its inability to use VAERS and its many other databases:
As noted above, the FDA acknowledges that “We have determined that an analysis of spontaneous postmarketing adverse events reported under section 505(k)(1) of the FDCA [in other words, VAERS–Nass] will not be sufficient to assess known serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis and identify an unexpected serious risk of subclinical myocarditis.
Furthermore, the pharmacovigilance system that FDA is required to maintain under section 505(k)(3) of the FDCA [in other words, FDA’s many other databases that cost the taxpayer zillions–Nass] is not sufficient to assess these serious risks.”
NOT SUFFICIENT???
Unsaid, but implied, is that if FDA is incapable of studying thousands of reported cases of myocarditis, it probably cannot study the other serious adverse events that have been reported in conjunction with COVID vaccines.
Somehow, these HHS don’t seem all that concerned that the admitted reporting rate of myocarditis is over 20 times the average during the past 30 years. Why?
CDC has been even more shady in its analyses of safety as FDA, if that is even possible. Below, Nancy Messonier, then head of Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases at CDC, presented this list of databases that CDC would be using in the evaluation of COVID vaccine safety, on December 10, 2020. Apart from the V-safe (which they stopped talking about last January), VSD (which somehow can’t find any problems, not even myocarditis) and VAERS, all these other databases have been MIA.
NIH, whose job has never been to issue treatment guidelines, but instead to do and fund research, suddenly took over the treatment guidelines for COVID early in 2020. It formed a committee of internal and eternal “experts” to make up the guidelines. How were they chosen? That is not clear, but what is clear is that 16 of these so-called experts had current or recent financial entanglements with Gilead, the maker of remdesivir. NIH and the US Army also owned pieces of remdesivir. A number of other had financial conflicts with Merck. While NIH is the biggest single funder of medical research in the world, I cannot recall seeing a single study it funded on the safety of COVID vaccines. But somehow vaccines are its number one recommendation.
But it is not even clear that the committee is functional. The NIH has been sued to learn whether a vote was even taken by the committee regarding its ivermectin guidelines, which fly in the face of the evidence on ivermectin. How was NIH somehow authorized to issue guidelines in the first place?
Here is what has obviously occurred. All these agencies were told they had to keep quiet on vaccine problems (and perhaps problems of other COVID treatments), and they had to fiddle with their data or their analytic methods, or both, to get the required results. And there was to be NO BAD NEWS, no matter what. And no good news regarding generic treatments.
As we have seen, the so-called scientists and physicians working as bureaucrats in these agencies all caved, sucked it up, did the dirty work, kept their jobs, and betrayed their oaths and the trust of the people of the USA and the world.
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.