Are you prepared to wear masks forever? Some are, but their positive attitude toward masks is a likely result of deceptive and misleading information. The resulting magical thinking relating to masks has created one of the most polarized debates in U.S. history and led to anti-maskers being labeled as “grandma killers.”1
To be clear, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has blatantly lied about masks’ effectiveness. November 5, 2021, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky tweeted, “Masks can help reduce your chance of #COVID19 infection by more than 80%.”2
But as Dr. Vinay Rasad, MPH, a hematologist-oncologist and associate professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California San Francisco, put it in the Brownstone Institute, “I don’t know how to put this politely, but it is a lie, and a truly unbelievable one at that … The idea that masks could reduce the chance of infection by 80% is simply untrue, implausible and cannot be supported by any reliable data.”3
Masks Have Meager Effectiveness, if Any
Walensky didn’t give a reference for her claim that masks reduce COVID-19 infection by 80%, but a large study4 from researchers at Yale, Stanford and the University of California Berkeley found much less impressive results from masks.
The trial involved 342,183 people from 600 villages in rural Bangladesh from November 2020 to April 2021. In villages that received masks, the number of symptomatic COVID-19 infections were 9.3% lower compared to villages without masks, or 11% lower in villages that received surgical masks instead of cloth masks.5
Why, then, hasn’t Walensky’s tweet been flagged for misinformation and targeted by “fact checkers” calling out the blatant lie? Rasad featured a tweet6 by Carnegie Mellon University mathematician Wesley Pegden, who said:7
“The head of the agency responsible for providing Americans with accurate and trustworthy information about interventions (like vaccines) that we actually know are really effective should not also be making fabricated quantitative statements in support of poorly evidenced ones.”
Antibiotic-Resistant Pathogens Live on Face Masks
While face masks continue to be recommended or mandated, little has been said about the risks inherent to covering your mouth and nose with fabric or other materials. Both cotton and surgical masks collect pathogens that may increase your risk of infectious illness — a factor that’s rarely taken into account when discussing their merits.
When researchers from the University of Antwerp, Belgium, analyzed the microbial community on surgical and cotton face masks from 13 healthy volunteers after being worn for four hours, bacteria including Bacillus, Staphylococcus and Acinetobacter were found — 43% of which were antibiotic-resistant.8
In order to best clean masks to remove the bacteria, the study found boiling at 100 degrees Celsius (212 degrees F), washing at 60 degrees Celsius (140 degrees F) with detergent or ironing with a steam iron worked best, but only 21% of survey respondents said they cleaned their cotton face masks daily.9 According to the researchers:
“Taken together, this study suggests that a considerable number of bacteria, including pathobionts and antibiotic resistant bacteria, accumulate on surgical and even more on cotton face masks after use. Based on our results, face masks should be properly disposed of or sterilized after intensive use. Clear guidelines for the general population are crucial to reduce the bacteria-related biosafety risk of face masks …”
Researchers from Germany similarly questioned whether a mask that covers your nose and mouth is “free from undesirable side effects” and potential hazards in everyday use.10 It turned out they were not and instead posed significant adverse effects and pathophysiological changes, including the following, which often occur in combination:11
- Increase in dead space volume
- Increase in breathing resistance
- Increase in blood carbon dioxide
- Decrease in blood oxygen saturation
- Increase in heart rate
- Decrease in cardiopulmonary capacity
- Feeling of exhaustion
- Increase in respiratory rate
- Difficulty breathing and shortness of breath
- Headache
- Dizziness
- Feeling of dampness and heat
- Drowsiness
- Decrease in empathy perception
- Impaired skin barrier function with acne, itching and skin lesions
Mask-Induced Exhaustion Syndrome Is Prevalent
The study referred to this cluster of symptoms as mask-induced exhaustion syndrome (MIES) and warned that children, pregnant women and those who are sick or suffering from certain chronic conditions may be particularly at risk from extended masking. While short-term effects include microbiological contamination, headaches, exhaustion, carbon dioxide retention and skin irritation, the long-term effects may lead to chronic issues:12
“Extended mask-wearing would have the potential, according to the facts and correlations we have found, to cause a chronic sympathetic stress response induced by blood gas modifications and controlled by brain centers. This in turn induces and triggers immune suppression and metabolic syndrome with cardiovascular and neurological diseases.”
Further, “it can be assumed,” they wrote, “that the potential adverse mask effects described for adults are all the more valid for children: … physiological internal, neurological, psychological, psychiatric, dermatological, ENT, dental, sociological, occupational and social medical, microbiological and epidemiological impairments …
The masks currently used for children are exclusively adult masks manufactured in smaller geometric dimensions and had neither been specially tested nor approved for this purpose.”13
Again, in taking on these unknown risks — both short- and long-term — to wear masks, the benefits are highly questionable and intended to thwart a pathogen with a low death rate for most populations:14
“[R]ecent studies on SARS-CoV-2 show both a significantly lower infectivity and a significantly lower case mortality than previously assumed, as it could be calculated that the median corrected infection fatality rate (IFR) was 0.10% in locations with a lower than average global COVID-19 population mortality rate.
In early October 2020, the WHO also publicly announced that projections show COVID-19 to be fatal for approximately 0.14% of those who become ill — compared to 0.10% for endemic influenza — again a figure far lower than expected. On the other hand, the side effects of masks are clinically relevant.”
‘The Mask of Your Enslavement’
It’s clear that the evidence in support of masks for physical protection against disease is lacking, while their potential for psychological harm is immense. Brownstone Institute highlighted the story of folk saint Escrava Anastácia, a slave of African descent who lived in Brazil during the 19th century.15
She was forced to wear a metal, muzzle-like mask during her lifetime in order to silence her from speaking out about the oppression and injustice she was facing. As written by Roberto Strongman, associate professor in the department of black studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara:16
“The apparition of Anastásia at anti-lockdown rallies represents an opportunity to understand the current medical tyranny as a form of enslavement and to forge links of solidarity between communities whose freedom is threatened across all racial groups. The claim of cooptation deserves to be unpacked for a valid claim of cultural usurpation could easily work towards severing important alliances in a divide-and-conquer model.
While there are clear specificities between the suffering of Africans under the system of chattel slavery and the deprivation of civil liberties endured by most citizens around the world during the current pandemic panic, Anastásia reminds us of certain transhistorical constants in the process of dehumanization and subjugation of populations through the gagging and muzzling of their bodies to quell their protestations.”
Strongman pointed out several undeniable reasons why face mask mandates “fashion the citizenry as slaves” and act as symbols of enslavement. Among them, they:17
- Lead to oxygen deprivation, promoting a state of physical and mental weakness
- Are symbols of submission and used as part of master-slave dynamics
- Enforce the creation of a carceral culture
- Erase personhood and homogenize the masses — “The collectivized wearing of masks results in an enforced uniformity in which the individual cedes way to the nameless collectivity as the neo-meta citizen.”18
- Are theatrical and act to conceal identities, rendering us alien to others and ourselves
- Delete facial expressions and inhibit nonverbal communication, including that necessary for social organization that can lead to revolution
- Reduce verbal output
- Are visible displays of allegiance to the “system of medicalizing technocratic control”
- Are part of preparing individuals for new societal roles — “However transitory the current regime of face masking might be, the population must face that we are beingforced to undergo a rite of passage, a process of resocialization into the new normal.”
- Promote a culture of fear
- Act as deterrents of solidarity by making your neighbor into a “nameless pathogenic vector instead of your ally”
Magical Thinking on Masks
In addition to flat-out lies, the CDC also makes nonsensical statements, like this: “Cloth masks will not protect you from wildfire smoke … They might not catch small, harmful particles in smoke that can harm your health.”19
But we are to believe that they will protect us from an aerosolized virus? “The virus is 25X smaller than a smoke particle,” wrote Steve Kirsch, executive director of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation. “So it’s like trying to stop a mosquito with a chain link fence.”20
Yet magical thinking — the belief that you can influence outcomes by doing something that has no causal connection to them — persists. Robert Dingwall, a consulting sociologist, questioned why the U.K.’s Health Security Agency expert panel used only a second-class evidence base that failed to demonstrate clear benefits on which to base their conclusion that face masks in the community help reduce transmission. He wrote:21
“The state of the face mask debate is rather as if Galileo had published his account of the heliocentric universe and then included a paragraph at the end telling the reader to ignore all the evidence because the Church had declared that everything revolved around the Earth.
In the absence of better-quality work — and we must ask why that research has not been done — some of the claims for face masks look much more like magical thinking than anything that demonstrates the sort of casual connection that might be recognizable as science.”
As the pandemic stretches on, science continues to be ignored and recommendations are primarily pushed based on emotional justifications and triggers. If science were actually followed, universal mask wearing by healthy people would not — indeed could not — be recommended.
In the beginning, health officials did, in fact, advise against masks for healthy people,22 but somewhere along the way — early on — they flip-flopped. Why? According to Strongman:23
“Just as masks function as liminal artifacts in rites of passage and as part of animal training, these covid mask are harbingers of further intrusions to our integrity.
Wearing the masks is just one step away from receiving the shots, then accepting the vaccine passports and the implantable neural links until one’s original persona is buried by a cyborg. The masks function as an empirical compliance test for the projected acceptability of future corporeal technologies of control. Where will you draw the line?”
Sources and References
November 25, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | CDC, Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
LIKE many people, I went along with the first lockdown. I wasn’t very keen, and I was somewhat critical of it, but I believed the lie that it would be a temporary one-off measure. From the time of the second lockdown, I have been vehemently opposed to the policy. While I have never denied that Covid can be a nasty life-threatening illness for some people, I am critical of the way that governments have manipulated data to exaggerate the extent of the threat.
When Covid 19 vaccines were first rolled out in the UK and around the world in late 2020, we were promised by Western governments and their teams of scientific ‘experts’ who wield enormous, unaccountable power, the media and Big Pharma that the vaccines were a game-changer and that mass vaccination would lead us back to some kind of normality. I was initially very resistant to take the vaccine because it is a new drug with no long-term data regarding side effects and risks. I also have two autoimmune conditions, and while they are easily treated, I am genetically predisposed to a third one that can be quite serious.
However, in the end, and with much hesitation due to the already known side effects and autoimmune risks, I took the Pfizer vaccine. I did so for several reasons. Firstly, I am around my elderly parents a lot, and I thought I would be protecting them as I believed the ‘experts’ that the vaccines would significantly reduce transmission.
This has turned out to be false.
Secondly, I was convinced by the data that seems to show that getting vaccinated almost entirely eradicates the chances of someone my age ending up in hospital with a severe case of Covid. Due to fitness and age, my risk of serious illness was already low, but as a neurotic who is sometimes prone to viewing the glass half empty, I admit to having moments when I worried that I might be one of those outliers for my age group cut down prematurely by Covid and so this was an added factor, but not the main one, in my capitulation. The final reason was because I currently reside in the Republic of Ireland where the government have been very keen to enforce some of the harshest lockdowns globally with draconian rules on both inward and outward travel as well as compulsory vaccine certificates for access to various sectors. Therefore, one of my main reasons for getting jabbed, while I still defended vehemently the rights of others not to do so, was that I thought I would be doing my bit to put an end to these hideous lockdowns and other excessive restrictions once and for all. Looking at what has happened in Austria and Holland and the refusal of both the UK and Irish governments to rule out more lockdowns, it is now clear how very wrong I was. Another way of putting it is that I’ve realised how easily I have been duped.
In recent weeks, I have become even more sceptical of everything that the UK and Irish governments and their appointed health experts tell me with regard to Covid-19. For a start, if they were wrong about the effectiveness of the vaccines with regards to transmission, why would I trust them with regards to how rarely serious side effects occur? There would be far more political and career capital at stake to motivate suppression of this data. I’m not accusing governments, scientific ‘experts’ or Big Pharma of doing so, merely noting that there is a much bigger price for them to pay if they didn’t.
With regards to coercive measures and the removal of rights from the unvaccinated, governments don’t even have recourse to the dubious argument that it’s for the greater good as we now know that the vaccinated can also transmit the virus. I keep making the argument to vaccine zealots that people can exercise their right to abstain from taking any medications due to the risks of side effects, but that many governments now believe this right should be removed solely with regard to Covid vaccines. There is no compelling moral argument for why Covid vaccines fall into an exceptional category that warrants the state using coercion whether it be direct (vaccine mandates) or indirect (segregation and removal of rights) to force its citizens to reluctantly take a medicine they would otherwise refuse.
The enthusiasm for vaccines and excessive restrictions are now articles of faith for their proponents. It has become an ideological stance that no amount of reasoned scrutiny can alter. Rational analysis of the extent of the threat from Covid and strategies to deal with it have been abandoned for the simplistic dogma of ‘vaccines good’ and ‘lockdowns and restrictions good’. The truth is much more nuanced than the doom-mongering analysis which permeates the mainstream media. Lockdown enthusiasts and vaccine zealots, like all ideologues, have opponents whom they despise and whom they seek to demonise. This is why only ‘far Right conspiracy theorists’ and ‘anti-vaxxers’ would have an issue with mandatory vaccines which can have serious side effects being given to children to protect them from a virus that rarely makes children very ill.
How have we reached a stage in Western liberal democracies when those of us questioning and disagreeing with extreme public health policies that strip individual citizens of their inalienable rights under false pretences are the ones deemed to be the extremists? Asking questions and being critical of government policy is now viewed by the obedient media class and the political elites and partisan scientific ‘experts’ they serve as being synonymous with the far Right. In truth, it is your democratic duty to question all government policies and especially more so those that would remove your fundamental freedoms. For any government to wish to suspend the rights of its citizenry on a temporary basis, it must first seek consent from the people after explaining the exceptional circumstances in which they seek to do so. There has been no public debate and little media scrutiny across the English-speaking world about whether the threat posed by Covid-19 meets the very high threshold that could justify temporary lockdowns and other extreme restrictions imposed on the citizenry.
If the UK or Irish government or any of the devolved administrations try to impose another lockdown, I predict there will be mass non-compliance. It is very likely that much of the population of these islands will conclude that if several lockdowns, mask mandates and ‘game changing’ vaccines have not eradicated transmission, why comply with another lockdown, possible financial ruin and separation from loved ones? What would be the purpose? As someone once said (it wasn’t actually Einstein): ‘Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.’
November 25, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, Human rights, Ireland, UK |
Leave a comment
Will we remain silent while such a dark tide slides ever closer to our own shores, one country at a time?
He who remains silent is deemed to have granted his consent – or so the old tenet goes. Will we remain silent, or will we speak up loud and clear and truthfully?
Mark Twain said history doesn’t repeat but it rhymes. For five days this week Austria locked down its unvaccinated people. Almost two million were only allowed out to work and to buy food and such.
Many of those unvaccinated were therefore working in shops and cafes and restaurants and so on – as lowly servants, if you will – but as soon as their shifts ended they could not be in those same places, certainly not as customers.
Even before getting to the morality, or otherwise, of such rules, on what planet does that strategy even make sense? They were fit to serve the vaccinated their coffees, and to bag their purchases, but they were deemed otherwise unclean and unfit to be mixing with the good, clean people.
Austrians interviewed on the street were frighteningly unconcerned, unmoved, even supportive of the social hobbling of their fellow citizens. The virus must be stopped, they shrugged, ignoring or unaware of the fact no available vaccine fully prevents catching or spreading Covid.
It seemed clear to me that the move was not about health, but about compliance and obedience – or rather yet another bid to tackle and subdue the stubborn refusal to comply and to obey.
Do as you’re told. Now the authorities have the whole population locked down once more anyway. Presumably some bright spark somewhere had the notion that stigmatising and segregating the unvaccinated might have the desired effect – but it certainly wasn’t going to halt the spread.
Not in Vienna, where a brothel offers punters “30 minutes with the lady of your choice” – and I’m quoting there – in return for taking the jab.
Here we have women placed on a par with kebabs, burgers, ice cream, lottery tickets and the rest of the freebies offered as inducements to compliance.
This is not about health – certainly not the mental and physical health of women. Trafficking of women for sex work is a feature of modern slavery across the world – but we don’t care about that, do we?
Instead we turn a blind eye while men queue up to take a medical procedure and then help themselves to a woman.
Left unsatisfied, Austria’s elected officials felt they had to flex their muscles some more – and announced that in February it will be compulsory to accept the vaccine. No jab … no alternative at all.
Other countries – Germany, the Czech Republic, Greece, Italy – are on the same path as Austria, towards locking down the unvaccinated. Perhaps those governments will also opt to make vaccination compulsory sooner rather than later.
It seems frighteningly clear to me that the authorities in Austria and elsewhere are looking for scape goats now, people to blame for a virus that won’t comply or obey either.
Infection rates in many of those countries where the greater part of the populations is fully vaccinated – with two and three doses – are rising fast.
Gibraltar is one of the most vaccinated regions on the planet – so too Israel – and yet infections continue to increase in both places.
Rather than consider the possibility that the months-long strategy is not the right one – or to at least concede it is not having the predicted effect – it is easier to push blindly ahead and point the finger of blame at someone else.
History shows bad governments often look for people to blame, often some of their own people. Uniting a large part of the population against a smaller part – giving frightened, angry people a focus for their frustrations, and also for their disgust – is as old as the hills.
If the 20th century has a lesson for us, a lesson that ought to be as permanent, as indelible as any scar, or tattoo, it is that encouraging citizens to regard a minority of their fellows as unclean, as vectors of disease, generally ends badly, badly for everyone.
In Poland in 1941 there was a propaganda campaign that spread the message that Jews spread typhus, a lethal disease. Blaming an identifiable minority for the spread of disease is a ghost we should have laid to rest long ago.
But here it is, back again. Turns out, it never went away at all. History doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes. The tone is changing across Europe now, reverting in many ways to the rhythms of an old tune. Can you hear the drums yet, and the tumbrils?
What troubles me most of all is that there has been not a word of condemnation of Austria’s decision from our leaders. Not even the sounding of a note of caution. Where too are the faith leaders. You need look no further back in history than the 20th century, when churches turned their back on those made outcasts.
Now Durham Cathedral has declared that some Christmas services will only be for those holding NHS vaccine passports. I’m not sure how that fits with Matthew 25:35 “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me.”
How on earth have we got here, and so quickly. Austria, a supposedly liberal modern democracy has decided to assume full rights over the flesh and blood of its citizens. A government in 21st century Europe has decided it has the final say over what chemicals go into the bodies of those citizens.
There is no way of denying that that is the crossing of a Rubicon. Once people have to surrender control of their bodies to the state, those people are in a different world – a world in which they are not autonomous beings, but puppets on strings. It is also likely a world from which there is no turning back.
Some will say – “Well, they can leave the country if they don’t like it. Go live somewhere else.” But where in the world to go? In the 20th century there were still places to go in the world to escape situations and regimes that had become unliveable and a threat to life.
But what if the whole world changes in the same way? What if all the world becomes Austria? I want to hear our government condemn the decision taken by their counterparts in Austria. At the very least, I want our government to promise on whatever is holy to them that no such laws will ever be passed here in Great Britain.
If they will neither condemn, nor swear an unbreakable oath, then the only conclusion to be drawn is that they are watching to see how it goes in Austria and elsewhere – perhaps with a view to following suit.
Over the last 20 months, there has grown an unmistakeable note of contempt in the words of some politicians.
Last week Health Secretary Sajid Javid had a question from someone, on Twitter, someone concerned that after having had two doses of the Pfizer vaccine, he was now being offered the Moderna variant as a booster. Javid’s reply, in its entirety, was: “So what? How about you show some respect for the NHS?” “So what?” “How about you show some respect?” Open brackets – insect – close brackets.
This level of contempt directed at someone already taking the medicine as instructed. All of this from the Health Secretary, a servant of the people when I last looked. “How about you don’t ask any questions and just do as you’re told?” From a politician elected to serve the people, at our expense, I say that’s across the line into a place elected representatives should not go.
History rhymes. We lament the chattel slavery of our past while turning a blind eye to women and children trafficked for sex, children in deadly dangerous mines in the Congo, harvesting the cobalt for our phones and electric cars, making the cheap clothes we wear once and throw away.
We turn blind eyes and deaf ears to uncounted numbers of girls raped and abused in Rotherham and other towns all over England, for fear of upsetting community relations. We promise never to forget the Holocaust while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the abuse, perhaps [citation needed] genocidal abuse, of the Uyghur Muslims in China.
We are already being encouraged to turn a blind eye to the locking down of Austria’s unvaccinated.
Will we turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to compulsory medical procedures for her citizens? Will we remain silent while such a dark tide slides ever closer to our own shores, one country at a time.
He who remains silent is deemed to have granted his consent – or so the old tenet goes. Will we remain silent, or will we speak up loud and clear and truthfully?
Martin Luther King said we have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws.
Will we speak up to withhold our consent? Will we disobey unjust laws? And if we will not – then who are we?
November 25, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular | COVID-19 Vaccine, European Union, Human rights, UK |
Leave a comment
In a November 12, 2021, blog post,1 Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., reviews how the benefits of the COVID-19 shots have been exaggerated by the drug companies and misrepresented to the public by an uncritical media. She has previously given many lectures on how the drug companies conflated absolute and relative risks for statin drugs.2
Demasi was a respected Australian science presenter at ABC television until she produced a Catalyst report on the dangers of Wi-Fi and cellphones. In the wake of the controversy it raised, she and 11 of her staff members were axed and the episode retracted.3 That was 2016. Today, Demasi is one of the few professional journalists seeking and publishing the truth about COVID-19.
Absolute Versus Relative Risk Reduction
In her post, Demasi highlights one of the most commonly used tricks in the book — conflating absolute and relative risk reduction. As noted by Demasi, AstraZeneca and Australia’s health minister, Greg Hunt, claimed the AstraZeneca injection offered “100% protection” against COVID-19 death. How did they get this number? Demasi explains:4
“In the trial5 of 23,848 subjects … there was one death in the placebo group and no deaths in the vaccinated group. One less death out of a total of one, indeed was a relative reduction of 100%, but the absolute reduction was 0.01%.”
Similarly, Pfizer’s COVID shot was said to be 95% effective against the infection, but this too is the relative risk reduction, not the absolute reduction. The absolute risk reduction for Pfizer’s shot was a meager 0.84%.
It’s worth noting that an incredibly low number of people were infected in the first place. Only 8 out of 18,198 vaccine recipients developed COVID symptoms (0.04%), and 162 of the 18,325 in the placebo group (0.88%).
Since your risk of COVID was minuscule to begin with, even if the shot was able to reduce your absolute risk by 100%, it would still be trivial in real-world terms.
According to Gerd Gigerenzer, director of the Harding Centre for Risk Literacy at the Max Planck Institute, only quoting the relative risk reduction is a “sin” against transparent communication, as it can be used as a “deliberate tactic to manipulate or persuade people.” Demasi also quotes John Ioannidis, professor at Stanford University, who told her:6
“This is not happening just for vaccines. Over many decades, RRR [relative risk reduction] has been the dominant way of communicating results of clinical trials. Almost always, RRR looks nicer than absolute risk reductions.”
Demasi continues:7
“When asked if there was any justification for misleading the public about the vaccine’s benefits to encourage uptake, Prof Ioannidis rejected the notion.
‘I don’t see how one can increase uptake by using misleading information. I am all in favor of increasing uptake, but this needs to use complete information, otherwise sooner or later incomplete information will lead to misunderstandings and will backfire,’ says Ioannidis.
The way authorities have communicated risk to the public, is likely to have misled and distorted the public’s perception of the vaccine’s benefit and underplayed the harms. This, in essence, is a violation of the ethical and legal obligations of informed consent.”
US Health Authorities Have Misrepresented the Data
U.S. health authorities, like Australia’s, are guilty of misrepresenting the data to the public. In February 2021, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Rochelle Walensky co-wrote a JAMA paper8 which stated that “Clinical trials have shown that the vaccines authorized for use in the U.S. are highly effective against COVID-19 infection, severe illness and death.”
Alas, “there were too few deaths recorded in the controlled trials at the time to arrive at such a conclusion,” Demasi writes.9 This observation was made by professor Peter Doshi, associate editor of The BMJ, during Sen. Ron Johnson’s Expert Panel on Federal Vaccine Mandates, November 1, 2021.10 During that roundtable discussion, Doshi stated that:
“The trials did not show a reduction in deaths, even for COVID deaths … Those who claimed the trials showed that the vaccines were highly effective in saving lives were wrong. The trials did not demonstrate this.”
Indeed, the six-month follow-up of Pfizer’s trial showed 15 deaths in the vaccine group and 14 deaths in the placebo group. Then, during the open label phase, after Pfizer decided to eliminate the placebo group by offering the actual shot to everyone who wanted it, another five deaths occurred in the vaccine group.
Two of those five had originally been in the placebo group, and had taken the shot in the open label phase. So, in the end, what we have are 20 deaths in the vaccine group, compared to 14 in the placebo group. We also have the suspicious fact that two of the placebo participants suddenly died after getting the real deal.
How You Express Effect Size Matters
As noted in a July 2021 Lancet paper,11 “fully understanding the efficacy and effectiveness of vaccines is less straightforward than it might seem. Depending on how the effect size is expressed, a quite different picture might emerge.”
The authors point out that the relative risk reduction really needs to “be seen against the background risk of being infected and becoming ill with COVID-19, which varies between populations and over time.” This is why the absolute risk reduction figure is so important:12
“Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population …
ARR is also used to derive an estimate of vaccine effectiveness, which is the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one more case of COVID-19 as 1/ARR. NNVs bring a different perspective: 81 for the Moderna–NIH, 78 for the AstraZeneca–Oxford … 84 for the J&J, and 119 for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.
The explanation lies in the combination of vaccine efficacy and different background risks of COVID-19 across studies: 0.9% for the Pfizer–BioNTech … 1.4% for the Moderna–NIH, 1.8% for the J&J, and 1.9% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford vaccines.
ARR (and NNV) are sensitive to background risk — the higher the risk, the higher the effectiveness — as exemplified by the analyses of the J&J’s vaccine on centrally confirmed cases compared with all cases: both the numerator and denominator change, RRR does not change (66–67%), but the one-third increase in attack rates in the unvaccinated group (from 1.8% to 2.4%) translates in a one-fourth decrease in NNV (from 84 to 64) …
With the use of only RRRs, and omitting ARRs, reporting bias is introduced, which affects the interpretation of vaccine efficacy.
When communicating about vaccine efficacy, especially for public health decisions such as choosing the type of vaccines to purchase and deploy, having a full picture of what the data actually show is important, and ensuring comparisons are based on the combined evidence that puts vaccine trial results in context and not just looking at one summary measure, is also important.”
The authors go on to stress that comparing the effectiveness of the COVID shots is further hampered by the fact that they use a variety of different study protocols, including different placebos. They even differ in their primary endpoint, i.e., what they consider a COVID case, and how and when diagnosis is made, and more.
“We are left with the unanswered question as to whether a vaccine with a given efficacy in the study population will have the same efficacy in another population with different levels of background risk of COVID-19,” the authors note.
One of the best real-world examples of this is Israel, where the relative risk reduction was 94% at the outset and an absolute risk reduction of 0.46%, which translates into an NNV of 217. In the Phase 3 Pfizer trial, the absolute risk reduction was 0.84% and the NNV 119.13 As noted by the authors:14
“This means in a real-life setting, 1.8 times more subjects might need to be vaccinated to prevent one more case of COVID-19 than predicted in the corresponding clinical trial.”
SARS-CoV-2 Specific Antibodies Pose Danger for the Obese
In related news, a recent study15 published in the International Journal of Obesity warns that “the majority of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in COVID-19 patients with obesity are autoimmune and not neutralizing.”
In plain English, if you’re obese, you’re at risk of developing autoimmune problems if you get the natural infection. You’re also at higher risk of a serious infection, as the antibodies your body produces are not the neutralizing kind that kill the virus. As explained by the authors:16
“SARS-CoV-2 infection induces neutralizing antibodies in all lean but only in few obese COVID-19 patients. SARS-CoV-2 infection also induces anti-MDA [malondialdehyde, a marker of oxidative stress and lipid peroxidation] and anti-AD [adipocyte-derived protein antigens] autoimmune antibodies more in lean than in obese patients as compared to uninfected controls.
Serum levels of these autoimmune antibodies, however, are always higher in obese versus lean COVID-19 patients. Moreover … we also evaluated the association of anti-MDA and anti-AD antibodies with serum CRP and found a positive association between CRP and autoimmune antibodies.
Our results highlight the importance of evaluating the quality of the antibody response in COVID-19 patients with obesity, particularly the presence of autoimmune antibodies, and identify biomarkers of self-tolerance breakdown. This is crucial to protect this vulnerable population at higher risk of responding poorly to infection with SARS-CoV-2 than lean controls.”
Now, these findings apply to obese people who develop the natural infection, but it makes one wonder whether the same holds true for the COVID jab. If the antibodies produced in response to the actual virus are primarily autoantibodies, will obese people develop autoantibodies instead of neutralizing antibodies in response to the COVID shot as well?
For clarity, an autoantibody is an antibody that is directed against one or more of your own body’s proteins. Many autoimmune diseases are caused by autoantibodies that target and attack your own tissues or organs.
So, this is no small concern, seeing how the mRNA in the COVID shots (and subsequent SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which is what your body produces antibodies against) gets distributed throughout your body and accumulates in various organs.17,18
Vermont’s COVID Cases Despite Highest Vaccination Rate
At this point, there’s an overwhelming amount of evidence showing the COVID shots are not working. What little protection you do get clearly wanes within a handful of months, and may leave you worse off than you were before. We’re seeing data to this effect from a number of different places.
In the U.S., we can now look at Vermont.19 At nearly 72% vaccinated, it has the highest rate of “fully vaccinated” residents in the country, according to ABC News,20 yet COVID cases are now suddenly surging to new heights.
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show Vermont had the 12th highest COVID case rate in the nation as of November 9, 2021. Over the previous seven days, cases had increased by 42%. It couldn’t have been due to a surge in testing, though, as the weekly average of tests administered had only increased by 9% in that time.
What’s more, during that first week of November, the hospital admission rate for patients who were fully vaccinated increased by 8%, while the admission rate for those who were not fully vaccinated actually decreased by 15%.
Keep in mind that you’re not considered “fully vaccinated” until two weeks after your second injection. If you got your second dose a week ago and end up in the hospital with COVID symptoms, you’re counted as unvaccinated. This gross manipulation of reality makes it very difficult to interpret the data, but even with this manipulation it is beyond obvious that the vaccines are failing.
Overall, the case rate in Vermont is FAR higher now than it was in the fall of 2020, when no one had gotten the “vaccine.” According to Vermont health commissioner Dr. Mark Levine, the surge is occurring primarily among unvaccinated people in their 20s and children aged 5 through 11 — a curious coincidence, seeing how the shots are just now being rolled out for 5- to 11-year-olds.
Levine blames the surge on the highly infectious delta variant, but delta has been around for months already. The first case of delta in Vermont was identified in mid-May 2021.21 Surely, it wouldn’t have taken six months for this most-infectious of variants to make the rounds and cause an unprecedented spike?
Two clues are given by Levine, however, when he admits that a) Vermont has one of the lowest rates of natural immunity in the U.S. and b) protection is waning among those who got the COVID shot early to mid-year. Breakthrough cases among the fully vaccinated shot up 31% during the first week of November.22
Fully Vaxxed Are Nine Times More Likely To Be Hospitalized
Coincidentally, data from physician assistant Deborah Conrad, presented by attorney Aaron Siri23 October 17, 2021, shows vaccinated people are nine times more likely to be hospitalized than the unvaccinated.
The key, however, was in what they counted as vaccinated. Rather than only including those who had gotten the shot two weeks or more before being hospitalized, they simply counted those who had one or more shots, regardless of when, as vaccinated. This gives us an honest accounting, finally! As explained by Siri:24
“A concerned Physician Assistant, Deborah Conrad, convinced her hospital to carefully track the COVID-19 vaccination status of every patient admitted to her hospital. The result is shocking.
As Ms. Conrad has detailed, her hospital serves a community in which less than 50% of the individuals were vaccinated for COVID-19 but yet, during the same time period, approximately 90% of the individuals admitted to her hospital were documented to have received this vaccine.
These patients were admitted for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to COVID-19 infections. Even more troubling is that there were many individuals who were young, many who presented with unusual or unexpected health events, and many who were admitted months after vaccination.”
Despite these troubling findings, health authorities ignored Conrad when she reached out. In mid-July 2021, Siri’s law firm also sent formal letters to the CDC, the Health and Human Services Department and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Conrad’s behalf,25 and those were ignored as well.
“This again highlights the importance of never permitting government coercion and mandates when it comes to medical procedures,” Siri writes.26
Now, one of the most shocking details gleaned from Conrad’s data collection, which Siri failed to make clear but Steve Kirsch highlights in a recent substack post is that:27
“The only way you can get those numbers is if vaccinated people are 9 times more likely to be hospitalized than unvaccinated. It is mathematically impossible to get to those numbers any other way. Period. Full stop. This is known as an ‘inconvenient truth.’”
Indeed, the more data we gain access to, the worse it looks for these COVID shots. Unfortunately, those who push them seem hell-bent on ignoring any and all data that don’t support their stance.
Worse, it seems data and statistics are being intentionally manipulated by our health authorities to present a false picture of safety and effectiveness. All such tactics are indefensible at this point, and people who believe the official narrative without doing their own research do so at their own risk.
Sources and References
November 24, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | CDC, Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, FDA, United States |
Leave a comment
An article appeared in the Guardian this week written by an anonymous NHS respiratory consultant claiming that “in hospital, COVID-19 has largely become a disease of the unvaccinated”.
Of course, there are people who have their vaccinations but still get sick. These people may be elderly or frail, or have underlying health problems. Those with illnesses affecting the immune system, particularly patients who have had chemotherapy for blood cancers, are especially vulnerable. Some unlucky healthy people will also end up on our general wards with Covid after being vaccinated, usually needing a modest amount of oxygen for a few days.
But the story is different on our intensive care unit. Here, the patient population consists of a few vulnerable people with severe underlying health problems and a majority of fit, healthy, younger people unvaccinated by choice. … If everyone got vaccinated, hospitals would be under much less pressure; this is beyond debate. Your wait for your clinic appointment/operation/diagnostic test/A&E department would be shorter. Your ambulance would arrive sooner. Reports of the pressure on the NHS are not exaggerated, I promise you. … Most of the resources that we are devoting to Covid in hospital are now being spent on the unvaccinated.
This reads to me like a blatant attempt to stigmatise the unvaccinated as selfish, a burden on society and a threat to the vaccinated. (The clue is in the headline: “ICU is full of the unvaccinated – my patience with them is wearing thin.”) Given the polling (which may not be very reliable of course) showing that 45% of U.K. adults would support an indefinite lockdown of the unvaccinated, this is all starting to look and sound rather ugly.
The most frustrating thing about this anonymously written article is it doesn’t cite any data even though its arguments are based on claims which only data can validate. It consists instead only of a single medic’s subjective impressions, with no sources provided to see if his claims holds water.
Are the hospitalised mostly unvaccinated? Not according to Government data from the UKHSA. Here is the breakdown of hospitalisations by vaccination status in England for the four weeks up to November 14th from the latest Vaccine Surveillance report.

Adding these figures up we find that 3,200 of 9,831 or 33% of Covid hospitalisations are of unvaccinated people, leaving 67% of Covid hospital patients in the vaccinated category, most of them with two doses. Focusing just on adults, we find 2,692 of 9,278 or 29% of Covid hospitalisations are unvaccinated, leaving 71% vaccinated. Seeing as just 68% of the U.K. population is double vaccinated, 67% of Covid hospital patients having received at least one dose hardly seems like a strong result. Indeed, it suggests the unvaccinated are barely over-represented in hospitals at all.
What about Covid deaths – are the unvaccinated over-represented there? Here’s the table from the same report.

Adding them up we find that 675 of 3,676 or 18% of Covid deaths in the month up to November 14th are in unvaccinated people, leaving 82% in the vaccinated, most with two doses. Only in the under-40s do deaths in the unvaccinated outnumber those in the vaccinated.
It’s hard to square this data with the picture painted by the anonymous medic. Far from COVID-19 having “largely become a disease of the unvaccinated”, with most Covid hospital resources “now being spent on the unvaccinated”, a large majority of hospitalisations and deaths are occurring in the vaccinated, not the unvaccinated.
But what about ICU admissions? And is it true that the vaccinated-sick all have underlying health issues whereas the unvaccinated-sick are all healthy?
The problem with addressing these claims is that we don’t have the data to check them out. The data on ICU admissions by vaccination status has not been updated since July as far as I can see (if you are aware of a more recent update do let me know), and I am not aware of any data on co-morbidities (again, if you are aware of any please drop me a line).
The anonymous writer states: “I can’t think of a single case offhand of a person who was previously fit and healthy who has ended up needing intensive care after being fully vaccinated. It may not stop you from catching Covid. But it can save your life when you do.” But again, this is anecdotal and therefore not terribly helpful.
It’s fair to note that much data does appear to show that the vaccines protect people well against severe disease and death, at least for several months, though some recent analysis has questioned whether such efficacy has been overestimated.
But however well the vaccines protect against severe disease, that is no excuse for turning the unvaccinated into pariahs or scapegoats and blaming them for the strains on the health service. Such moralised blaming of a minority for supposedly disadvantaging the majority (‘Can’t get a doctor’s appointment? Surgery been cancelled again? The unvaccinated are to blame!’) has a very ugly history and rarely ends well. It’s particularly odd to see this scapegoating in a supposedly liberal newspaper. It needs to stop now.
November 24, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | COVID-19 Vaccine, The Guardian, UK |
Leave a comment
Despite a preponderance of the evidence proving COVID to be a non-event for most of us, over 1 million people have fallen foul to vaccine injury. This should be enough to stop most people in their tracks. It hasn’t.
Many emerge from near death experience even more pontifical than before, denouncing the rest of us for not joining in this mortal game of Russian Roulette. Fuelling their self-righteous indignation of us, is other people’s self-righteous indignation of them. It is a perpetual loop of blame and shame.
There can be no avoiding these people. A sort of Provisional Mask Army. The ones acting in good conscience lost to the morally virtuous super spreaders of hyperbole.
They will believe whatever they hear and do whatever they’re told. They have been groomed by something far more powerful than the truth, called ‘the science,’ and they will follow ‘it’ right off the edge of a cliff.
But that’s only half the story. If you’re unfortunate enough to die within two weeks of taking the jab, despite your best effort, the CDC might record your death as ‘unvaccinated,’ the commentariat might report that you “died suddenly and following a short illness,” and family members might take comfort in the fact that “things could have been worse.”
WASHING THE MORAL FABRIC
This unholy mess works because a new ideology has swept across the moral fabric. Unless you’re taking an experimental medical intervention fraught with danger, you’re dancing on the graves of all those who have died.
Ridding people with guilt takes away their power, and blind obedience to authority does the rest, as Milgram discovered in his landmark experiment.
But the fact that humanity is in an abusive relationship with its governments, is only one part of the problem. There’s a long history of cults infiltrating polite society. The cult of personality of Lenin and later Stalin once captured an entire nation. But never in history has the entire world fallen to a cult.
Where the New Normal departs from other cult archetypes is in the instruments of mass communication, in the hands of a few fanatics, that have infiltrated the commons, and created an apotheosis around COVID-19, glorifying it to the divine proportions of Christianity. It has long been understood that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes consensus.
Also of great importance to these evangelists are the decades of behavioural studies by the most distinguished experts in the field of social psychology.
Not everyone in the Asch Experiment conformed, but the reasons why many found solidarity with the group are well understood by the behavioural scientists, on the payroll of HM government, nudging the British people towards existential ruin.
And much of what is happening today in the rank and file of the New Normal, has the lessons of the Third Reich written all over it. If you’re still oblivious to the fact that you’re being indoctrinated into a cult, it’s probably because you’ve already been indoctrinated.
THE END IS NIGH
Cults are established on the back of major events, typically apocalyptic in nature. These biblical, extra-terrestrial, or, indeed, viral prophecies speak to an impending disaster and redemption. A tinderbox setting forces people together under the protection of communitarianism, and encourages the more zealous members to denounce, ridicule and intimidate anyone not acting in accordance with the group.
Deindividuation, as it is known, turns these harmless groups into psychological crowds, and very often results in a mob mentality.
Our need to take refuge in the herd is, after all, hardcoded into our DNA, just as fear of social exclusion and a desire to cooperate are inherited evolutionary traits. Explaining why COVID began with social isolation. And why, after capitulating to every conceivable demand, we continue to be held to ransom, with the threat of further social isolation.
Despite the obvious abuse of power, people remain beholden to their captors, through some bizarre emotional bond, strengthened every time they are released, albeit temporarily, from their captivity.
HIERARCHIES
You can identify cults by their organisational structure. People are assigned a role, as in Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment and many go beyond the call of duty. The problem isn’t so much that ‘we are all in this together’ It’s that we simply are not, it’s the cult nobility lording over the rest of us.
In this heightened state of emergency, however, people will not only accept more authority from those who are beyond the rules, they will emulate the prevailing authoritarian order, rather than become a victim of it. As Hannah Arendt discovered in her landmark thesis, ordinary people in search of purpose and direction, who are dutifully just following orders, have the potential to commit the most atrocious acts of evil.
Throughout COVID, these unpaid, unsolicited officers in the rank and file have spread the communicable indoctrination far wider than any bureaucrat. We are full to the rafters of morally superior COVID-vigilantes, condemning anyone for the mere suggestion that the earth, might in fact, orbit the sun.
The resulting groupthink – if you’re not with us you’re against us – not only isolates new initiatives from outside influence, it removes their right to think and act for themselves and admonishes anyone brave enough to question the All Powerful Redeemer.
In the end, people’s desire to reach unanimous agreement with the group, overrides their motivation for rational, intuitive decision making.
EXECUTIONERS OF THE NEW NORMAL
The habitual lies, backpedalling and science that buckles under the lightest of scrutiny, is no arbitrary event. People understand they’re being duped, but refuse to act on crucial information. Instead, they acclimate to the golden age of false narratives.
Encouraging people to act counterintuitively will, eventually cause them to abandon personal agency altogether, because that violent buffer to critical thinking, called consensus, holds the opposite to be true, to that which is before our very eyes.
In one breath, Boris Johnson implores us to get vaccinated because of the risk versus the reward. In the next, he admits ‘the vaccine doesn’t protect against catching or passing on COVID.’ Meanwhile, his co-conspirator holds Christmas to ransom if people refuse a third shot, and proceeds to threaten those who had previously been the only at-risk group, which this entire debacle was supposed to be about protecting.
When the lips move, brace for lies, any collision with real world events is entirely accidental.
ANATOMY OF A CULT
Cults are illusive by nature. An outlier sailing under the false colours of a normal state of affairs. This is achieved by compounding cult rituals into the everyday humdrum, and converting old cultural touchstones into new ideological frontiers, until one is no longer distinguishable from the other.
There are numerous tell-tale signs you may have accidentally joined a cult, from elbow bumps to muzzles, hand sanitizer to the 2-meter rule.
There is a long history of people’s superstitions being manipulated into performing irrational acts, if they can be demoralised to the point of despair. Under such circumstances people have been known to, commit ritualistic mass suicide, disembowel themselves and even murder their own children.
Things are not so different today. People hold themselves prisoner inside their own homes. They risk the lives of their own children to protect those already on their deathbed. They do this for a disease which has had zero impact on overall mortality in 2021.
Some have been infantilised by their government, others reassured by Big Bird and there are those who have sold their soul at the house of ill repute.
To say that it’s a mad, mad world, doesn’t do it justice.
OTHER CULTS YOU MAY HAVE JOINED
Against this frenzy of health persecution complex, other bizarre ideologies chip away at the social fabric. Membership to society hinges on your range of pronouns. The new cultural etiquette is wokeism. Your affinity with those who have swapped their sexual identity determines your social cachet, while your desire to find the nearest bucket, paints a target on your back.
Otherworldly social theories decouple mothers from giving birth, sexualise children, and encourage toddlers to trade their gender. At the root of all of this is a flagrant attack on humanity, on nature, on carbon-based lifeforms.
You only need to observe the Cult of Personality being visited upon future generations by the lionising of Greta, to catch a glimpse of how climate change will evolve into the New Age Church.
The end game to all of this is the spiritual requisition of the human soul and a day of reckoning for humanity mark 1.0.
But as the circus catches fire there are those watching from the sidelines who are simply not having it. The vestiges of rationality left behind, call them deniers or refuseniks, have formed a cult of their own. A cult of scepticism and non-compliance.
By some accounts, these people are at a greater risk of a long and healthy life, and woe betide, the mob is agitated. Ther are calls for immediate sanctions. Following twenty months of denouncements, public enmity is reaching fever pitch. If the barbaric treatment of another dehumanised social group, pre-Auschwitz, is anything to go by, it could be just a matter of time before the deniers are forced into internment camps, or worse, lined up against firing squads.
On the other hand, the cult has revealed its more sinister aspects, thousands of legitimate voices from science and medicine are pushing back in opposition, and even the double vaccinated are waking up to the fact that their freedoms are in jeopardy every six months.
As a wise man once said, “first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win.”
November 24, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19 |
Leave a comment
Everyone thinks that if the jabs were really dangerous, doctors and other healthcare workers would be speaking out. They are wrong.
It’s too hard to ignore all the vaccine injured kids showing up in the ER nowadays.
I just heard a story from a friend who went to the lab for a stress echocardiagram.
In the waiting room with her are 4 kids aged 7 to 10 years old with their moms. She talked to the moms. The kids were all suffering from tachycardia (heart rate that beats way too fast) and waiting to be tested.
Two important things you need to know:
- All the kids were recently vaccinated.
- Kids that age NEVER get tachycardia (i.e., the medical experts I’ve talked to have never seen it before in their careers).
There are close to 10,000 adverse event types elevated by the COVID vaccines. Here’s a list of the adverse events most elevated compared to “normal.” In the #2 position: heart rate, elevated by nearly 8,000 times normal.

So why aren’t we hearing about these stories from mainstream doctors?
Here are nine reasons very few people are speaking out:
- Fear of job loss. Nobody wants to lose their job. Look what happened to Deborah Conrad and others who speak out. Fired within hours after speaking out. So the lab technicians who are now seeing kids with tachycardia just keep their mouth shut. They know something is very wrong, but their job is more important. Besides, if they spoke out, it wouldn’t make any difference since they are just a lab technician.
- Belief that COVID is even worse than the vaccine injuries. Many people are deceived by erroneous reports that the number of vaccine cases (e.g., of myocarditis) are occurring far less often now that the vaccines have been rolled out. Dr. John Su is the big culprit here because he’s never told the world that VAERS is under-reported. The pediatric cardiologists know what is going on, but they aren’t going to say anything due to #1. So I see doctors tweeting the myth that “sure, there is myo after the vaccine, but the rates due to COVID are worse so the vaccine is the better of the two options.”
- Belief that the injuries are really rare. I know a doctor who treats vaccine injured patients. He has no clue whether these are every single vaccine injured patient in the US or he’s only seeing a tiny fraction of the injuries. He believes he’s seeing them all so writes it off as just “coincidence” and “bad luck” since if it was the vaccine, the CDC would have spotted it.
- Cognitive dissonance. They are so convinced the vaccines are safe (since nobody else is speaking out), that any adverse events that happen must be due to something else.
- Belief that they can treat you for your vaccine side effects, but that they can’t treat you if you have COVID. So lesser of two evils. And of course, they think no early treatments work, so they think they are doing you a favor by telling you to get the vaccine.
- Belief that there is no viable alternative for treating COVID and that the vaccines work. So even 100,000 dead or injured people is better than 750,000 dead people from COVID.
- Trust in the NIH and CDC. If it was a problem, the CDC would tell people. Telling people isn’t their job. Their job is to follow the direction set by the experts.
- Fear of being ostracized. People who do research fear if they speak out they would be labelled as anti-vaxers and their research would thus be discredited.
- Critical thinkers have been fired. Hospitals and medical facilities have already fired vaccine hesitant employees per vaccine mandates thereby self selecting for vax believers.
The courageous people who dare to speak out
Some are speaking out. Here are some links of people who are speaking out:
Deborah Conrad interview
Registered nurse Melissa McKinney, who shared her concerns with her legislator, State Representative Mike Echols
There was a startling admission during the House Health and Welfare meeting yesterday that caught all of our attention.
Solicitor General Liz Murrill provided testimony at Monday’s House Health and Welfare VAERS hearing, but she did not speak on behalf of her office
November 24, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
On the surface, the Online Safety Bill, being pushed by the U.K. government, appears to protect children and adults from online messaging, content and websites through regulations and removal of those deemed to be “harmful.”1 After the draft of the bill was published in May 2021, it became apparent that it is another iteration of the controversial 2019 “Online Harms White Paper.”
The White Paper,2 which proposed legislative and nonlegislative strategies to purportedly protect you from online content that might harm you, was quickly criticized. Aside from the fact that unnamed entities would determine what kind of content, platforms and websites are harmful or inappropriate, serious concerns were raised that, if implemented, the paper’s dogma essentially was a model for stifling freedom of speech.
Britain’s Online Safety Bill evolved from that paper, but it, too is under scrutiny as critics say it not only is too “vague in its wording,” but “poses a threat to freedom of expression and places too much power in the hands of social networks.”3
In fact, it is poised to be yet another government-imposed step to limit personal freedoms and individual rights under the guise of transforming the world into a single body run by elites who believe they can make the world and your life better by limiting what you do, where you go and even what you own — if you own anything at all.
It is a world vision with global implications that, if implemented, would even control how you think. The foundation for these changes began long before the 2020 pandemic. The World Economic Forum and the United Nations have been working together to push the related WEF 2030Vision4 and the UN Agenda for Sustainable Development — an action plan that they say is for the people, the planet and prosperity. According to the United Nations this will involve:5
“All countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership … to free the human race from the tyranny of poverty and want and to heal and secure our planet.”
Again, on the surface, it appears that Big Brother is looking out for all the little people. But in essence, to achieve the goals set out by the WEF and the UN they must have ultimate control over your ability to make individual decisions for your life. Otherwise, in their estimation, America and every other free nation in this world will continue living in the same “chaos” that they have been in for as long as they have been free.
To achieve these goals, it is necessary that you purchase and eat only the types of food they deem sustainable. You may only work and get paid if you choose the right health plan, make the right medical decisions and use the correct currency.
In fact, the WEF said it best in their strangely ominous dictum that you will “own nothing and be happy.” While inexplicable in 2016 when it was first published in Forbes Magazine,6 the unstated implication that the world’s resources will be owned and controlled by the technocratic elite is coming closer and closer to reality.
It’s coming so close, in fact, that fact checkers at Reuters rushed to publish a rebuttal in February 2021 after a three-minute video clip with a mere 862 likes and 1,100 shares made the rounds on Facebook.7 With these small numbers, that video could hardly have been called viral. Yet, Reuters raced in to argue that the WEF has no stated goal that people will own nothing by 2030, despite Forbes’ 2016 prediction.
Should the Online Safety Bill in the U.K. pass with all its possible regulations and repercussions, this is exactly the type of video that, had it been a law in 2021, could have landed the video’s creator in jail for two years. This, despite the fact that the WEF published a video on Facebook two days after the Forbes article in which they said, “You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy. This is how our world could change by 2030.”8
Trolling May Get You Two Years in Prison
The media appear to come down on both sides of the fence as they report what’s happening with the Online Safety Bill. Rather unsurprisingly, the mainstream media, such as The Times,9 report the proposed law favorably while headlines from independent media read:
- British Government May Jail Those Accused of Causing ‘Online Psychological Harm’10
- Brits Who Post “False Information” About Vaccines Could Be Jailed For Two Years11
Before the internet, a troll was a dwarf or giant in Scandinavian folklore who inhabited the caves or hills.12 Today, it is slang for a person or actions that intentionally try “to instigate conflict, hostility, or arguments in an online social community.”13
The bill’s critics are focusing on a part of the bill that calls for a jail sentence of two years for anyone who causes psychological harm as a result of online trolling. But proponents of the bill stress how threats of punishment for trolling will stop these harms. In its support of this idea, The Times explains that the bill is:14
“… the flagship legislation to combat abuse and hatred on the internet. The proposed law change will shift the focus on to the “harmful effect” of a message rather than if it contains “indecent” or “grossly offensive” content, which is the present basis for assessing its criminality.”
In other words, the bill will change communication laws in the U.K. and create new offenses under which people can be jailed. The messages targeted will contain “threats of serious harm.” You might imagine those threats would be of abuse or death, but The Times reported that government sources used “the example of antivaxxers spreading false information that they know to be untrue.”15
The government spokesperson justified the bill as a good thing to do, even though former cabinet minister David Davis urged them to rethink the proposal and Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, called it “too broad.” The spokesperson said:16
“We are making our laws fit for the digital age. Our comprehensive Online Safety Bill will make tech companies responsible for people’s safety and we are carefully considering the Law Commission’s recommendations on strengthening criminal offences.”
But, as Principia Scientific International 17 points out, since the beginning of the pandemic, authorities have called multiple pieces of information posted on social media “false” that later turned out to be true. Even Dr. Anthony Fauci’s ongoing changes to his definition of herd immunity could fall under knowingly spreading false communication. But would it?
The most obvious example is when the vaccine was first released, and claims were made that it was not fully effective at stopping the spread of the disease. That would have fallen under the bill’s definition of disinformation. Yet, months later this was proven to be fact. So, if the bill passes in the U.K., what happens to someone who is in jail for making a “false” statement, which months later turns out to be true? Will they get an early release or recompense for false imprisonment?
New Law Sets Stage for Greater Public Control
On the surface it looks like the law is meant to protect people against threats of death or physical violence. But, in fact, this is a law that protects governmental agencies from outspoken citizens who would like to retain their right to free speech that is enjoyed by those who do not live under communist rule.
Should the law pass, what would stop the government from extending the definition of “false” statements? This could now cover any statement governmental agencies find “offensive” or that creates a “threat of serious harm.” For example, if you make statements against the high price of gasoline, food or heating oil, the government could say you are inciting anger.
The new law will also include something called “pile-ons.” This is a situation in which several individuals will join in sending harassing messages. However, which messages are defined as pile-ons or harassment will be determined by those in power, who are yet to be named. Therefore, as the reporter from Principia Scientific International wrote:18
“And if you think that will stop those of a certain political leaning who routinely form “pile-ons” against conservatives for expressing dissenting opinions, think again.”
According to Principia Scientific International,19 the bill is being promoted with “relentless propaganda.” Despite online abuse toward Black football players in the U.K. originating from Middle Eastern countries, the media is using the situation to justify the bill.
According to an analysis20 by Chris Pikes, CEO and co-founder of Image Analyzer, the bill will also pertain to any website where other people can upload content, videos or comment on each other’s posts. Image Analyzer21 is a software program designed to analyze visual threats using artificial intelligence.
If the bill passes, every digital platform operator will be responsible for removing illegal content. But since there is no clear definition of “harm” in the bill, how enforcement of the bill is determined and what content it will affect may be based on decisions made well after the bill has been approved.
The vague language threatens freedom of speech and the mandate to remove content may require companies to prescreen anything posted. Taking this a step further, all website companies would be responsible for removing content posted by U.K. citizens that may be covered by the Online Safety Bill. This means website owners in the U.S., France, Sweden and any other country would also have to comply with the British law.
This could create a system where journalists enjoy the freedom to report information and speak on social media, while citizens face censorship. The vague language in the bill also opens questions of advertising content. In this draft of the Online Safety Bill, there is the power to levy fines of up to £18 million22 (approximate $24.17 million in the exchange rate November 2021) or 10% of the company’s global profits, whichever is higher.
Tyrannical Regulations Justified by Ongoing ‘Emergency’
Using this definition of social media — anywhere that content can be posted by readers — it includes blog owners, family websites and author blogs where individuals have always enjoyed the freedom of sharing their opinions that were not indecent or grossly offensive. This is freedom of speech — except in socialist or communist regimes where the state dictates what you think, feel and how you act.
If the U.K passes this bill that may affect every website where comments are allowed, how many months could it be before a similar legislative action is drafted in other currently free countries, including the U.S.?
When you step back from what’s been happening over the past 18 months to two years, you have to ask the question of what is driving these legislative actions and political inaction to protect citizens. The process began under the guise of a medical emergency in which it was predicted that people would be dropping dead in the street.
But people have not been dropping dead in the streets. And, while the infection is a very real infection, it currently does not meet the threshold of “emergency.”
Successful treatment protocols have been developed23,24 but are not used or promoted as government agencies are pushing for as many people as possible to accept the genetic therapy shot being called a vaccine.25 Just a reminder: For the shot to meet the definition of a vaccine, the CDC had to change the definition of it.26
When it comes to death counts, according to data from the CDC,27 COVID-19 deaths accounted for 11.3% of all deaths in 2020 and 13.5% of all deaths in 2021. According to recounts and analysis of data in Alameda and Santa Clara counties in California, these numbers may be 20% to 25% too high.28
If the number of deaths were conservatively reduced by 15%, then the deaths from COVID-19 would drop to 9.6% in 2020 and 11.4% in 2021. This is far lower than the 19.4% of all deaths from heart disease in 2020.29
Your Personal Liberty Is Worth Fighting For
You might fortunately be in a position where life as you know it has not changed drastically. However, it’s important to recognize what personal freedoms we lose will be exponentially harder to get back. You only have to look at the history of other socialist and communist countries or hear the stories of people’s oppression to understand the direction that society is taking.
Our personal freedom is critically important and may be most important for our mental and physical health. The freedom to interact with other human beings is crucial. We may tolerate a lack of interaction for a short period of time, but as that time grows it takes a toll on health, emotional stability and longevity.
In mid-2020, the CDC30 wrote that adults were reporting considerably elevated mental health conditions, elevated suicide ideation and increased substance use — all because of lockdowns, job losses and the subsequent trauma that the pandemic fear campaign put on our lives. In 2021, news sources reported that the CDC estimated there were more than 93,000 drug overdose deaths in 2020.31 This was a 30% rise over 2019 and was an all-time high for the U.S.32
This is not something we should be prolonging by instituting new restrictions on our freedoms of expression, speech and thought. It is vital to stand your ground and fight peacefully for freedom now, before it’s too late. There are people who know what it’s like to lose their freedoms and be incarcerated systems that appear to purposefully forget them,33 and others who are held in jails without convictions or sentencing.34,35
And if you think such things can’t happen to you, think again. With every new piece of legislation that rips away at your personal freedom, we are one step closer to the “state” controlling what we think, eat, say and feel. By 2030, we could “own nothing and [NOT] be happy.”
Sources and References
November 23, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Human rights, UK, WEF |
Leave a comment
“Americans are scared to death… People are walking off the job, not because they want to lose their jobs, but they don’t want to die from the vaccine! … They say, ‘Listen, I don’t want to die. That’s the reason I’m not taking the vaccine.’ It’s that clear.” Dr. Peter McCullough
A report in the U.K. Telegraph explains how the Covid-19 vaccine has led to a sharp rise in excess deaths. Here’s an excerpt from the article:
“Nearly 10,000 more people than usual have died in the past four months from non-Covid reasons, as experts called for an urgent government inquiry into whether the deaths were preventable…
Latest figures from the Office for National Statistics showed that England and Wales registered 20,823 more deaths than the five-year average in the past 18 weeks. Only 11,531 deaths involved Covid.” (“Alarm grows as mortuaries fill with thousands of extra non-Covid deaths,” UK Telegraph )
Mortality is rising because more people are dying. And more people are dying because more people have been vaccinated. There’s a link between rising mortality and the Covid-19 vaccine. Naturally, the media wants to shift responsibility for the fatalities to “delayed treatments” and “the lack of preventable care”. But this is just a diversion. The primary cause of death is the injection of a toxic pathogen into the bloodstreams of roughly 70% of the population. That’s what’s causing the clotting, the bleeding, the pulmonary embolisms, the heart attacks, the strokes, and the premature deaths. It’s the vaccine. Here’s more
“Weekly figures for the week ending November 5 showed that there were 1,659 more deaths than would normally be expected at this time of year. Of those, 700 were not caused by Covid.
The excess is likely to grow as more deaths are registered in the coming weeks.
Data from the UK Health Security Agency show there have been thousands more deaths than the five-year average in heart failure, heart disease, circulatory conditions and diabetes since the summer.
The number of deaths in private homes is also 40.9 per cent above the five-year average, with 964 excess deaths recorded in the most recent week, which runs up to November 5.” (“Alarm grows as mortuaries fill with thousands of extra non-Covid deaths“, UK Telegraph )
The sudden surge in mortality is not a meaningless blip on the radar. It’s a red flag indicating a significant break in the five-year trend. Something has gone terribly wrong. Mass vaccination was supposed to reduce the number of cases, hospitalizations and deaths. Instead, the fatalities continue to rise.
Why?
The answer to that question can be found in the data itself. As the author admits, there has been a sharp uptick in heart failure, heart disease, circulatory conditions and strokes. (Diabetes is the outlier) These are precisely the ailments one would expect to see if one had just injected millions of people with a clot-generating biologic that triggers a violent immune response that attacks the inner lining of the blood vessels inflicting severe damage to the body’s critical infrastructure. So, yes, all-cause mortality is up, and it is certain to climb even higher as more people are vaccinated and gradually succumb to the (frequently) delayed effects of a hybrid concoction that is the cornerstone of a malign plan to dramatically reduce global population. Check out this chart followed by a brief comment by diagnostic pathologist, Dr Claire Craig:

Dr Clare Craig @ClareCraigPath
“Since summer there have been twice as many covid deaths, but seven times as many excess deaths as last year.” (Twitter)
And here’s another blurb from Craig:
“If you start at week 22 and add up all the deaths since for each year, then something very abnormal is happening this year among 15-19 yr old males.”

So, not only are more people dying, but the demographic has shifted downwards as younger and younger people are drawn into the vaccine vortex. Simply put, the number of young people dying from vaccine-inflicted cardiac arrest and myocarditis continues to increase with no end in sight.
Not surprisingly, all-cause mortality is higher among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated which, again, makes it easier to trace the problem back to its root, a cytotoxic “poison-death shot” that suppresses the innate immune system, damages vital organs and shaves years off the lives of normal, healthy people.
Perhaps, you’ve seen one of the many short videos of fit, young athletes who suddenly have dropped dead on the field of play or been rushed to hospital shortly after getting injected. If not, here’s a link to two of them. (Athletes collapse following vaccination: See here and here)
According to Israeli Real-Time News, there has been a “500% increase in deaths of players in 2021… Since December, 183 professional athletes and coaches have suddenly collapsed! 108 of them died!”
“500% increase in the deaths” of athletes?!? What are we to make of this?
For starters; the Covid-19 vaccine is not a medication. It is the essential component in the elitist plan for industrial-scale extermination. It is designed to inflict severe physical injury on the people who take it. It’s shocking that people are so deep in denial that they can’t see what’s going on right before their eyes. (Please, watch the video clips of the athletes. These are the fittest people on the planet and, yet, they are being struck down by the mystery substance in the vaccine.) Here’s how South African doctor Shankara Chetty summed it up in a recent video posted on Bitchute:
“The pathogen that is causing all the deaths from the illness is the spike protein. And the spike protein is what the vaccine is supposed to make in your body. … Spike protein is one of the most contrived poisons that man has ever made. And, the aim of this toxin, is to kill billions of people without anyone noticing it. So it is a poison with an agenda.” (“South African Physician Dr. Shankara Chetty Talks about “The Bigger Plan”, Bitchute)
There it is in a nutshell. And Chetty is not alone in linking the vaccine to the agenda of the globalist elites who plan to use the cover of a pandemic to implement their “population management” scheme. Former Pfizer vice president, Mike Yeadon, offered a similar view just days ago on his website. He said:
“We are in the midst of the biggest depopulation program the world has ever seen, where most of humanity are acting as useful idiots to it and to their own demise.”
Indeed, and we have tried to provide as much information as possible on the biologic agent that is being used to pursue this malign agenda, the spike protein. In early reports we passed along the research of Dr. Patrick Whelan who grasped the danger of the spike protein before anyone else. Here’s a brief recap of his analysis from a letter he submitted to the FDA on December 8, 2020:
“I am concerned about the possibility that the new vaccines aimed at creating immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein have the potential to cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver, and kidneys in a way that does not currently appear to be assessed in safety trials of these potential drugs.
… Meinhardt et al…. show that the spike protein in brain endothelial cells is associated with formation of microthrombi (clots)… In other words, viral proteins appear to cause tissue damage without actively replicating virus…. The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (BNT162b2) is composed of an mRNA that produces a membrane-anchored full-length spike protein. The mouse studies suggest that an untruncated form of the S1 protein like this may cause a microvasculopathy in tissues that express much ACE2 receptor.
… it appears that the viral spike protein… is also one of the key agents causing the damage to distant organs that may include the brain, heart, lung, and kidney. Before any of these vaccines are approved for widespread use in humans, it is important to assess in vaccinated subjects the effects of vaccination on the heart…. As important as it is to quickly arrest the spread of the virus by immunizing the population, it would be vastly worse if hundreds of millions of people were to suffer long-lasting or even permanent damage to their brain or heart microvasculature as a result of failing to appreciate in the short-term an unintended effect of full-length spike protein-based vaccines on these other organs. (“FDA shrugs off dire warning about lethal spike protein“, Truth in the Age of Covid)
From the very beginning, government regulators and their allies in the public health establishment have ignored (or censored) the warnings of capable physicians and researchers. They also waved-off career immunologist and vaccinologist, Dr Byram Bridle who was the first in his profession to identify the spike protein as “a specific causative agent of disease”; aka–“a pathogen”. Here’s Bridle:
“‘We have known for a long time that the spike protein is pathogenic… It is a toxin. It can cause damage in our body if it’s in circulation. Now, we have clear-cut evidence that . . . the vaccine itself, plus the protein, gets into blood circulation.’”
Once that happens, the spike protein can combine with receptors on blood platelets and with cells that line our blood vessels. This is why, paradoxically, it can cause both blood clotting and bleeding. ‘And of course the heart is involved, as part of the cardiovascular system… That’s why we’re seeing heart problems. The protein can also cross the blood-brain barrier and cause neurological damage…
‘In short,… we made a big mistake. We didn’t realize it until now. We didn’t realize that by vaccinating people we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin.”… (“Vaccine scientist: ‘We’ve made a big mistake’“, TCW Defending Freedom )
Here again, we have a highly-regarded immunologist, with more than 3 decades of experience under his belt, who offered his informed and evidence-based research on an issue that should have been of great interest to the regulators that were making decisions about the long-term safety of the experimental drug they were foisting on millions of people across the country. But there was no interest at all. Despite the fact that the science supported his conclusions, Bridle was viciously attacked, censored, dragged through the mud, and forced to leave his place of employment.
Why?
Because he drew the same conclusions as Dr. Patrick Whelan. There’s really no substantive difference between the two except that Bridle’s comments attracted more attention in the media which made him a greater threat to the “universal vaccination” strategy. That was his real crime; he discovered the truth and made his findings available to the public, basically alerting them to the dangers of the “poison-death shot”. For that he was crushed.
Bridle has since made other claims that should concern anyone whose cancer might be in remission. Here’s what he said in a recent interview:
“What I’ve seen way too much of is people who had cancers that were in remission, or that were being well controlled; their cancers have gone completely out of control after getting this vaccine. And we know the vaccine causes a drop in T-cell numbers, and those T-cells are part of our immune system and they are part of the critical weapons our immune system has to fight off cancer cells; so there’s a potential mechanism there. All I can say, is I’ve had way too many people contact me with these reports for me to feel comfortable. I would say that is my newest major safety concern, and it’s also the one that’s going to be the most under-reported in the adverse data base, because if someone has had cancer before the vaccine, there’s no way public health officials will ever link it to the vaccine.” (“Dr Byram Bridle speaks”, Bitchute, :55 second-mark)
So, the vaccine suppresses the immune system?
Yes, it does, and author Alex Berenson provided evidence of this just recently in an article he posted on Substack. Here’s an excerpt:
“… the British government… admitted today, in its newest vaccine surveillance report, that:
“N antibody levels appear to be lower in people who acquire infection following two doses of vaccination.” (Page 23)
What’s this mean?…
What the British are saying is they are now finding the vaccine interferes with your body’s innate ability after infection to produce antibodies against not just the spike protein but other pieces of the virus…
This means vaccinated people will be far more vulnerable to mutations in the spike protein EVEN AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN INFECTED AND RECOVERED ONCE…
… it probably is still more evidence the vaccines may interfere with the development of robust long-term immunity post-infection.” (“URGENT: Covid vaccines will keep you from acquiring full immunity EVEN IF YOU ARE INFECTED AND RECOVER”, Alex Berenson, Substack)
Berenson’s observations square with research that was compiled earlier in the year by scientists in The Netherlands and Germany who:
“… warned that the … (COVID-19) vaccine induces complex reprogramming of innate immune responses that should be considered in the development and use of mRNA-based vaccines… the research team from Radboud University Medical Center and Erasmus MC in the Netherlands… showed that the vaccine altered the production of inflammatory cytokines by innate immune cells following stimulation with both specific (SARS-CoV-2) and non-specific stimuli.
Following vaccination, innate immune cells had a reduced response to toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4), TLR7 and TLR8 – all ligands that play an important role in the immune response to viral infection…. an unexplored area is whether BNT162b2 vaccination has long-term effects on innate immune responses …
This could be very relevant in COVID-19, in which dysregulated inflammation plays an important role in the pathogenesis and severity of the disease,” writes the team. “Multiple studies have shown that long-term innate immune responses can be either increased (trained immunity) or down-regulated (innate immune tolerance) after certain vaccines or infections.” (Research suggests Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine reprograms innate immune responses, new-medical-net)
Berenson’s finding also align with with cutting-edge research showing that the spike protein greatly “impedes adaptive immunity” by preventing DNA from repairing damaged cells. The paper suggests that the spike protein does in fact “impact on the nucleus of the cell, where we store our DNA, our core genetic material.” Here’s more from Berenson’s breakdown of the paper:
“… our cells have mechanisms to repair their own DNA.
But – at least in the experiments these two scientists ran – the spike protein appeared to interfere with our own DNA repair proteins: “Mechanistically, we found that the spike protein localizes in the nucleus and inhibits DNA damage repair by impeding key DNA repair protein BRCA1 and 53BP1 recruitment to the damage site.”
To be clear, the scientists did NOT prove the spike protein was causing these problems in people, or even animals… Nonetheless, at a time when advanced countries that have high mRNA (and DNA/AAV) vaccination rates are seeing unusually full hospitals and higher-than-normal death rates, they are yet more cause for concern. As the authors explained:
“Our findings reveal a potential molecular mechanism by which the spike protein might impede adaptive immunity and underscore the potential side effects of full-length spike-based vaccines.” (“URGENT: Worrisome paper about the spike protein’s impact on DNA and DNA repair”, Alex Berenson, Substack)
Bottom line: If the vaccine does in fact inhibit the body’s innate immune response, then people are going to get alot sicker from seasonal infections that routinely spread through the population. Their path to recovery will also be alot more difficult.
But rather than belabor the immunity angle, let’s move on to the research of Dr Charles Hoffe who was the first physician to provide hard evidence that the vaccines generate blood clots by triggering an immune response in which the body attacks the thin layer of cells lining the walls of the blood vessels. Hoffe found that 62% of his patients that had been vaccinated tested positive for blood clots on a D-dimer test. Naturally, he was alarmed by what he found, particularly since the vaccine “was causing serious neurological events, and even death. When he raised his concerns with the BC College of Physicians, they immediately implemented a gag order, and reprimanded him in an attempt to intimidate, and silence him.”
Hoffe has been interviewed a number of times and always provides a detailed and riveting account of his findings. In a recent interview, he predicted that some vaccinees suffering from clot-related issues would likely die in just three years. Here’s what he said:
“… once you block off a significant number of blood vessels to your lungs, your heart must pump at a much greater resistance to get the blood through your lungs. That causes a condition called pulmonary artery hypertension, which is high blood pressure in your lungs because so many of the blood vessels in your lungs are blocked. And the terrifying thing about this is that people with pulmonary artery hypertension usually die of right-sided heart failure in three years… And not only is the long-term outlook very grim, but with each successive shot, the damage will add and add and add. It’s going to be cumulative because you are getting more and more damaged capillaries.” (“Shock: Doctor Warns That Majority Of Vaccinated Patients Could HavePermanent Heart Damage, Some May Die Within Three Years”Permanent Heart Damage, Some May Die Within Three Years”, Infowars; Minute 6:10)
Once again, there is no discrepancy between the analysis of Whelan, Bridle and Hoffe. And while the focus of their attention might vary slightly, their conclusions are the same. These experimental injections pose serious risks for anyone who allows himself to be inoculated.
Now check out how similar Hoffe’s analysis is to Dr. Rochagne Kilian who was an Emergency Room physician at the GBHS hospital until she resigned in protest. This is a particularly important video as it describes the “oddball” symptoms and exceedingly rare conditions that are now presenting in emergency rooms everywhere following the mass vaccination of millions of people with the “poison-death shot”. (I transcribed the video myself, so there could be errors.)
Dr Rochagné Kilian – Blows the Whistle on Covid-19 Vaccines and D-Dimer Levels
“What I was seeing in my ER department especially in the last 8 to 9 months is related to the D-Dimer levels. We use D-Dimers specifically related to pulmonary embolisms as well as Deep Vein Thrombosis. D-Dimer detects any thrombosis (clots) in the body but it doesn’t give you a diagnosis it gives you a basis for going further and doing an ultrasound and CT scan to either confirm or deny the presence of a pulmonary embolism or Deep Vein Thrombosis.
The first part of 2020 was probably the slowest ever in the emergency department, but when we went into 2021 and the vaccination rollout started, we ended up seeing an increase in stroke, transient ischemic attacks and stroke like presentations. (There were) definitely significant larger numbers of those people coming in. I ended up doing D-dimer tests on these people and never before in my clinical experience had I seen D-dimers and the amount of people with positive D-dimers higher than 2,000, higher than 3,000 and higher than 5,000. My clinical experience told me a needed to go look for a large clot either in their legs or their lungs. And I ended up doing a CT scan on these people. Most of them, and I will say almost all of them, had negative scans which started making me think that if there was not a significant clot in their lungs, but my D-dimer was so much higher than what I was usually seeing, it might not be concentrated in one clot. But that it is multiple micro-thrombi extended throughout the body, and that is so easy to miss because the CT scan is not going to pick it up.
“These people coming into the ER were all people anywhere from about a week to four months after receiving their 2nd injections. There are certain factors that can influence a D-dimer test that can give you a sense of a higher level than would be expected in the body. That said, the patients I was doing D-Dimer tests on did not have a level of maybe a positive 500 or 400 reading. It was more than 3500, more than 5000 ng/ml. So those are significantly positive without any proof of having a pulmonary embolism. If I was seeing high levels of D-dimer without a definite diagnosis, I needed to ask more questions.
One study said, never ignore extremely elevated D-dimer levels. They are specific for serious illness, including venous thrombosis, sepsis, and/or cancer. Even if sharply elevated D-dimer are a seemingly solitary finding, clinical suspicion of severe underlying disease should be maintained.
There were two conditions that stood out and the first one was disseminated intravascular coagulation also known as DIC. The second one is antiphosphlipid syndrome. Both of these conditions are related to an abnormality in either the initiation or the feedback of the coagulation pathway as well as thrombosis or the thrombosis cycle where clots are being broken down. DIC is a serious sometimes life threatening situation in which the proteins in the blood involved in blood clotting become overactive. It’s a cascade that’s difficult to stop once it’s reached a certain level. There are certain conditions that trigger DIC; significant sepsis, underlying viruses, trauma, major surgery, pregnancy and childbirth. And less common causes toxic drug reaction, blood transfusion reaction, and organ transplants. So there was a connection with intravascular products and a possible DIC.
Most cases of DIC are diagnosed rapidly and suddenly which is the acute presentation. But there are cases where it develops gradually, occurring over a longer period of time. This is known as a chronic form of DIC and I would go as far to say a subacute form of DIC that is very easy to miss. Simultaneous clotting and bleeding can occur with chronic DIC. The bleeding part comes in blood in the urine, headaches and other symptoms associated with brain bleeds, bruising, inflammation of red, small dots on the limbs, bleeding at sites of wounds and mucosal bleeding. which means bleeding out of the gums and nose. I definitely saw an increase in nose bleeds and bleeding from previous wound sites. ulcers, as well as rashes that couldn’t be explained. Blood clotting symptoms and signs were symptoms like chest pains, heart attacks, strokes, TIAs, and headaches either related to bleeding or not. As well as symptoms related to kidney failure, because of the clotting of those smaller blood vessels that go to the kidneys. Antiphosphlipid syndrome is a very similar type of condition. But the basis of the antiphosphlipid syndrome is an autoimmune disorder meaning that the body’s immune system makes proteins–known as antibodies–that mistakenly attacks its own body or tissues. That gives the skin the cascading effect of clotting disorder but it is linked to an autoimmune trigger. Basically, it presented in exactly the same way; high blood pressure which I was seeing alot of; first diagnosis of high blood pressure, heart attacks, strokes, TIAs, heart valve problems, repeated headaches or migraines, vision loss, balance and mobility problems, difficulty concentrating or thinking clearly,
The astute listener would start forming a picture of what we’ve been told about Covid-19, and there are research papers connecting Covid 19 with an underlying vascular disease. One of these was a study called “Covid 19; unraveling the clinical progression of Nature’s Virtually perfect Biological weapon.”
“SARS-Cov-2, presenting as Covid-19 syndrome, was not a respiratory basis, but an underlying vascular basis. which had certain phases of incubation, pulmonary phase, pro inflammatory phase, (which once again comes into a cytotoxic inflammation process) then moves into a protothrombic phase . Covid-19 is a thrombotic disease. implications for prevention, antithrombotic therapy and follow up…
This picture shows us certain risk factors, Homeostatic Abnormalities, as well as clinical outcomes. It indicates increased D-dimer levels. It also mentions Venous Thromboembolism, Myocardial Infarction, and Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation that is connected to postulated mechanisms of coagulathopy as well as parthenogenesis of thrombosis in Covid-19…
I started asking the question, if we are able to detect certain connections between vascular abnormalities and Covid-19, and we based our proposed treatment on the spike protein, which includes the Pfizer and Moderna injections, shouldn’t we be looking for similar side effects or complications from that same injection?
If we are mandating certain treatments, we do need to do the due diligence to make sure what the side effects and complications especially in a time where there has not been long term studies.”And that’s what led me to focusing on D-dimers.” (“Dr Rochagné Kilian – Blows the Whistle on Covid-19 Vaccines and D-Dimer Levels“, Bitchute)
Kilian’s statement should be read over and over again. It is the most detailed description we have of the mysterious and deeply sinister machinations of a laboratory-engineered bioweapon that, in effect, turns the vascular and immune systems against the person who was vaccinated. Disseminated intravascular coagulation and antiphosphlipid syndrome are names that are entirely unknown to the American people, and yet, these freakish conditions are now responsible for a growing number of patients that are experiencing bleeding, clotting, headaches, rashes, bruising, high blood pressure, and inflammation . And– in more extreme cases– chest pains, heart attacks, strokes, heart-valve problems, and brain bleeds. One can only guess how the media will try to cover-up these extraordinarily-rare and potentially life-threatening conditions??
When Kilian asks:
“If we are able to detect certain connections between vascular abnormalities and Covid-19… shouldn’t we be looking for similar side effects or complications from that same injection?”
Bingo! If the spike protein produced by the vaccines, inflicts the same internal damage as Covid-19, then shouldn’t doctors expect to see the same symptoms?
Yes, they should. And if the symptoms are the same, then there’s a good chance that vaccine-induced injuries are being misdiagnosed as Covid-19.
Think about that for a minute. That would be the perfect scenario for the pandemic managers and their billionaire backers who’d love to see the impending mountain of carnage blamed on the waning virus instead of on their own poison-death shot.
And that is the evil-genius of the globalist strategy; to remove the fingerprints from the smoking gun before the investigators even arrive at the scene of the crime.
The amount of planning that must have gone into this scam, is simply breathtaking.
November 23, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, UK, United States |
Leave a comment
A whistle-blower has told a conference that the NHS Tavistock clinic is treating girls who don’t play with dolls as transgender. Dr. David Bell, a former governor at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, said his former employer was acting as a “gateway for puberty blockers”, putting young people on a pathway to medical treatment.
According to The Times today:
At a conference organised by Genspect, a parental support group for gender-questioning children, Bell said that adolescents not conforming to gender stereotypes were treated as if they had been born in the wrong bodies.
Medical intervention at the north London trust was “supporting a rigid, binary construction of gender” where if patients “don’t like pink ribbons and dollies, you are not really a girl”.
With “proper” treatment, he believed many of the children would go on to be gay or lesbian and instead wants gender-focused treatment to be scrapped with these issues looked at as part of general mental health support. About 98 per cent of young people put on puberty blockers went on to take cross-sex hormones, he said.
Dr. Bell spent 24 years working at the trust. Three years ago he was hauled before bosses and warned that he faced disciplinary action after he accused some of his colleagues of fast-tracking children into life-changing decisions without proper assessments
During his speech at the Genspect conference, Bell said that the “influence of powerful political lobbies had closed down space for thought, doubt and exploration.”
He was undoubtedly referring to Stonewall and Mermaids. Bell said that Tavistock staff feared speaking out lest they be labelled as transphobic.
The Times website, like most newspapers, allows readers to post comments under articles. Here are a couple of interesting points:
Lynda Merrill:
I’m glad that I’m not young now. I didn’t like dolls etc, preferring to play with construction toys and train sets. I became a physicist but am definitely a heterosexual female! One of my daughters was similar and she became an engineer but is also married with 3 children. Heaven help us if the Tavistock Clinic had got hold of us!
Coandalift:
Shameful. One of our daughters had nothing to do with fluffy things and there’s not the slightest chance she was, is or will remain anything but female. I wouldn’t let that lot anywhere near a hamster, let alone children. At what point does their work cross the barrier into abuse?
November 23, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | UK |
Leave a comment
GIVEN the feared winter resurgence of Covid infection despite, or because of, the government’s mass vaccination programme, the continued ban on ivermectin in this country becomes ever more perverse.
It beggars belief that the British public is still denied access to this proven prophylactic and treatment. If the public health authorities are genuinely worried about pressure on hospitals, why have not the Medicines and Health products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), Public Health England, the NHS and Department of Health all gone flat out over this last year to approve ivermectin with the same zeal they gave emergency authorisation to the limited trialled, novel gene therapy, Covid vaccines?
The answer is widespread misinformation from the top down. Put ‘ivermectin’ into the Google search box and what do you come up with? Topping the list is a warning from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) why it should NOT be used to treat or prevent Covid-19. Their reason? It’s as simple as the fact that they have not approved it and, because they have not approved, it cannot be used. Trials are ongoing they say. Maybe some are. But plenty have been completed, as Dr Pierre Kory’s paper (he was the lead author) ‘Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of Covid-19’, published by the American Journal of Therapeutics earlier this year, made quite clear.
By contrast with this detailed review of the evidence the FDA’s substantive concern appears to rest on random reports of harms deriving from self-medication with ivermectin.
The BBC not to be behindhand entered the fray with its customary selective and biased take on ‘the science’. Its recent report entitled ‘How false science created a Covid ‘miracle’ drug‘ made not even the most minimal of checks on the veracity of their assertions, which are pulled apart here. A letter sent to a programme journalist in response to their request for information (in advance of transmission) by Dr Tess Lawrie, the Director of the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Group (BIRD), an advocacy group of clinicians and scientists from around the world, setting out the science behind the case for authorising it, was completely ignored. Her letter can be found here.
How the BBC came not to ask how it was that remdesivir – a standard medication for Covid in the UK – was approved on the basis of one study when ivermectin, with 63 studies, of them 31 Randomised Controlled Trials (RCT), 7 meta-analyses, 32 Observational Controlled Trials (OCT), multiple country case studies, expert opinion, patient testimony ALL pointing in favour of the medication, was not, is inexplicable.
This is the news source the public is still told to trust.
A blog posted on BIRD last week asked whether there are indeed any genuine gripes about the quality of the evidence, as the FDA and others suggest?
No, there are not. The author argues it is down to a misinformation campaign based on misleading information produced by high profile public health agencies, like the World Health Organisation, itself a victim of disinformation tactics, that has been ‘perpetrated by a minority of corporations to manipulate and delay government action on matters that would adversely affect their income and profit’. Speculation of course. But every indication points that way.
As reported extensively in TCW Defending Freedom, for example here, the WHO is subject to the huge financial influence of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the organisation’s second biggest donor. Since one of the BMGF’s long-term interest is in delivering vaccines, why would they show any interest in promoting the use of cheap, old repurposed medications in the treatment and prevention of Covid-19? It’s for the very same reason that ivermectin has proved of so little interest to Big Pharma -it’s hardly the money spinner that indemnified world-wide vaccination is.
Worse perhaps than what these big interests have not done is what they have actively done to discredit ivermectin. The BIRD blog relays an analysis by Dr Kory setting out what the WHO ‘did’ with the ivermectin evidence. He says it:
· Failed to publish a pre-established protocol for data exclusion
· Excluded two ‘quasi-randomised’ controlled trials (RCTs) with lower mortality
· Excluded two RCTs that compared ivermectin to or gave it together with other medications, all reporting lower mortality
· Excluded seven other available ivermectin RCT results
· Excluded all RCTs and observational controlled trials (OCTs) investigating ivermectin in the prevention of Covid-19
· Excluded 13 OCTs, more than 5,500 patients, that showed reductions in mortality
· Excluded numerous published and pre-print epidemiologic studies.
The bottom line, however, remains – if ivermectin is good enough and provenly effective for the more than 20 lower-income countries which do distribute it and also benefit from lower Covid rates, why are the populations of wealthier nations and individuals still being denied?
It’s a point that clearly has bothered the chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association, Dr Haruo Ozaki, who would recommend ivermectin for Covid patients, noting that the parts of Africa that use ivermectin to control parasites have a Covid death rate of just 2.2 per 100,000 population, compared with 13 times that death rate among African countries that do not use ivermectin.
‘I would like,’ said Dr Ozaki, ‘the government to consider treatment at the level of the family doctor’ with the informed consent of the patient. So would we.
November 23, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | Africa, BBC, Covid-19, FDA, Ivermectin |
Leave a comment