Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Paper Showing Earth’s Atmosphere Has Become ‘Saturated’ With Carbon Dioxide and More Carbon Emissions Won’t Make Any Difference Is Retracted Following Positive Coverage

By Chris Morrison | The Daily Sceptic | January 13, 2025

Another important paper taking issue with the ‘settled’ climate narrative has been cancelled following a report in the Daily Sceptic and subsequent reposts that went viral across social media. The paper discussed the atmospheric ‘saturation’ of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and argued that higher levels will not cause temperatures to rise. The work was led by the widely-published Polish scientist Dr. Jan Kubicki and appeared on Elsevier’s ScienceDirect website in December 2023. The paper has been widely discussed on social media since April 2024 when the Daily Sceptic reported on the findings. Interest is growing in the saturation hypothesis not least because it provides a coherent explanation for why life and the biosphere grew and often thrived for 600 million years despite much higher atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases. Alas for control freaks, it also destroys the science backing for the Net Zero fantasy.

Many scientists contend that above certain levels the ability of CO2 to warm within narrow bands of the infrared spectrum falls off a logarithmic cliff. Recently, eight Taiwanese scientists led by Professor Peng-Sheng Wei found that the sensitivity of the climate to a rise in CO2 atmospheric levels from 100 to 400 parts per million (ppm) was “negligibly small” at 0.3°C. Current levels of CO2 are around 420 ppm. Seven Austrian scientists recently concluded that a future doubling of CO2 showed “no increase in the IR [infrared] absorption for the 15 u-central peak”. At most, it was stated, this could lead to warming of 0.5°C. Yet in spite of this, Elsevier decided to retract Kubicki’s paper with only a few words of explanation, a decision that is likely to send shock waves through any group of scientists seeking to examine the role of saturation of gases in the atmosphere.

The retraction reads: “Subsequent to acceptance of this paper, the rigour and quality of the peer-review process for this paper was investigated and confirmed to fall beneath the high standards expected by Applications in Engineering Science. After review by additional expert referees, the Editor-in-Chief has lost confidence in the validity of the paper and has decided to retract.”

Retraction in a scientific journal is a serious matter, relatively rare and potentially damaging to the reputation of authors. According to Elsevier’s withdrawal policies, articles may be retracted “to correct errors that impact the findings reported by an article where they are too extensive in the view of the editors to publish a correction, or due to infringements of Elsevier’s journal policies, such as multiple submission, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or the like”. None of these reasons for withdrawing the Kubicki paper have been given. Instead there is the pompous reference to a ”fall beneath the high standards expected”, supposedly confirmed by additional unnamed “experts”. Further details about the retraction may emerge given the important issues raised by Elsevier’s action.

Whatever the real reasons behind this retraction, it will not be the first science paper that has met this fate following publicity in the Daily Sceptic and subsequent widespread interest on social media.

In January 2022, a group of physics scientists led by Profession Gianluca Alimonti of Milan University published a paper in a Springer Nature journal that considered past weather trends. They concluded that the idea we’re in the throes of a ‘climate emergency’ was not supported by the facts. The paper attracted little attention outside academic circles until September 14th when the Daily Sceptic reported on it – and our promotion of the story on X resulted in 9,000 retweets. The story was covered by the Australian and Sky News Australia, after which attacks were launched by activist scientists and journalists such as Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann and Graham Readfearn of the Guardian. After a year of lobbying, Springer Nature retracted the paper claiming it no longer had confidence in the results and conclusions. This surprised many, not least because much of the data came from the International Panel on Climate Change. Science writer Dr. Roger Pielke published a number of leaked emails surrounding the affair and concluded: “Shenanigans continue in climate science, with influential scientists teaming up with journalists to corrupt peer review.”

In September 2023, a departing academic, Dr. Patrick Brown, came clean about a paper he’d written in Nature saying that climate change was increasing the risk of wildfires in California. “I knew not to try to quantify key aspects other than climate change in my research because it would dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival Science, want to tell,” he explained. These key aspects, of course, include considering the role of arsonists and forest management. For its part, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change can find little or no evidence of human-caused climate change affecting ‘fire weather’ to date and going forward to 2100. In Brown’s view, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world “and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change”.

The Editor-in-Chief of Nature Magdalena Skipper reacted furiously to Brown’s comments, accusing him of “poor research practices” that are “highly irresponsible”, according to the Daily Mail. Despite all the controversy, Brown’s paper has not been retracted.

Dr. Matthew Wielicki had a senior position in the Geological Sciences department of the University of Alabama. His parents were academics and he grew up on a Californian university campus surrounded by freely-exchanged competing ideas. He only ever wanted to be an academic but he gave it up during Covid, seemingly disgusted at the turn against free speech in American universities and the effect it has had on climate science. If you speak out against the accepted narrative “you are a pariah in this community”, he said. Climate change is a “taboo” subject in academia and there is a “disconnect between what the science says and what the narrative in mainstream media is”. It isn’t about finding the truth in open discussion – It’s about silencing those who disagree with you, he observed.

January 14, 2025 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | Leave a comment

Scientists Sound Alarm About Using Mosquitoes to Vaccinate Humans

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 10, 2025

Human clinical trials are underway to use mosquitoes to vaccinate people against malaria, cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough reported on his Substack.

McCullough cited a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in November reporting results from a double-blind, controlled clinical trial at two university medical centers in the Netherlands.

The trial evaluated the safety, side effects and efficacy of immunizing people via mosquito bites, using mosquitoes infected with a genetically engineered version of the parasite that causes malaria.

“It seems as if the world of vaccinology has ramped up to a feverish pitch with amplified research, massive funding, and no limit to the extent in which vaccines could be injected into humans,” McCullough wrote.

Researchers have been trying to develop a malaria vaccine since the 1960s, but they have been largely unsuccessful. It wasn’t until October 2021 that the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended the first malaria vaccine, made by GSK, for children living in sub-Saharan Africa and other high-transmission regions.

Two years later, the WHO recommended a second malaria vaccine, developed by Oxford University and manufactured by the Serum Institute of India.

The vaccines, given to small children in four doses, offer only modest and short-lived protection — 50-80% efficacy for less than a year — and are even less effective in infants in high endemic areas.

Malaria is caused by plasmodium parasites, which spread to humans through bites from infected mosquitoes.

Given the limited efficacy of existing vaccines, researchers continue researching alternative vaccination strategies, including using genetically modified versions of the malaria parasites to elicit an immune response.

“In a simplified view, the innovation may seem like a good idea,” Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist at Children’s Health Defense, told The Defender. “Malaria commonly afflicts those in poorer countries with limited access to healthcare. If we could make a change to the environment that improves the lives of all and diminishes the lives of none, in theory that would be progress.”

“The problem,” he said, “is that every detail of it looks like a bad idea.”

Researchers call results ‘promising,’ critics say research should be banned

The researchers, from two Dutch universities, previously engineered the “GA1” version of the parasite to stop developing 24 hours after being introduced into the human body.

Theoretically, these parasites wouldn’t cause malaria but would prime the immune system to recognize non-genetically modified pathogenic malarial parasites and trigger an immune response.

However, GA1 showed poor efficacy.

The NEJM study tested their next version of the genetically modified parasite, GA2, which halts development later — six days post-infection — when the parasite is replicating inside of human liver cells.

Jablonowski said this is not necessarily safe. The genetic modifications are intended to stop development in the liver stage before the parasite can proceed to the blood stage and become infective, he said. However, “The protozoa can still replicate, both sexually and asexually. This means the genetically modified protozoa can reproduce with wild-type to produce an infective genetically modified organism not bound by the original design.”

The study tested GA2 against GA1 and placebo in a small number of healthy adults 18 to 35 years old. The genetically modified parasites were injected into the human subjects via mosquito bites rather than through a shot like most vaccines currently available.

“The mosquitoes act like a vaccine syringe and then inject that modified parasite in the case of malaria into the human body,” McCullough explained in an interview on Substack.

In the first phase of the study, participants received either 15 or 50 bites from mosquitoes infected with GA2 to identify the highest dose without harmful side effects.

Next, researchers randomly assigned healthy adults who had not previously been infected with malaria to one of three groups. One was exposed to 50 bites from GA2, another to 50 bites from GA1, and the third to 50 bites from uninfected mosquitoes, the placebo group. There were nine participants in the GA2 group, eight in the GA1 group and three in the placebo group.

The researchers completed three sessions of 50 bites per session — to simulate a three-dose vaccine regimen. Three weeks later, all test subjects were exposed to five bites from mosquitoes carrying non-genetically engineered malarial parasites.

Before being exposed to the non-genetically engineered parasites, the researchers reported that the subjects in both GA1 and GA2 groups had some anti-malarial antibodies. They found that GA2 provided greater efficacy (89%) against malaria and induced a higher immune response than either GA1 or placebo. They also said the vaccine was “safe” with no significant difference in adverse events within the groups.

Adverse events included skin redness and itchiness from the bites, which most participants experienced and treated with antihistamines or topical corticosteroids. Some also reported muscle aches and pains and headaches.

Two participants had elevated troponin T levels, which indicates heart damage, or even a heart attack. However, investigators assessed these incidents as unrelated to the vaccination. One participant also showed elevated liver-function tests that researchers said were related to the antihistamines.

“The authors took a lot of liberties in identifying adverse events they considered related and unrelated to the experiment,” Jablonowski said. “When 40% of your trial group have abdominal pains, 45% have a headache, 50% have malaise and fatigue, and 60% have nausea and vomiting — these are not small relative numbers.”

The researchers concluded that the results were promising, but noted that more and larger studies would be necessary to understand the safety profile, the durability of protection and the efficacy against a greater variety of Plasmodium falciparum strains — the deadliest and most prevalent form of malaria — found in regions where malaria is endemic.

Last week, the same researchers published additional results in Nature Medicine from a second trial with the same GA2 genetically engineered parasite. In this trial, they exposed 10 research subjects to a single, “one-dose regimen” of the parasite.

That means the trial participants were exposed to one 50-bite session by mosquitoes infected with GA2. They reported that after six weeks, nine of the 10 subjects showed no breakthrough infections. They called the results “promising” and again called for further studies.

McCullough said he believes “there should be a moratorium, a ban, on all mosquito vector research right now for human conditions.”

He added, “No Institutional Review Board would agree to, you know, mass populating, mass vaccinating a population without their consent with mosquitoes.”

There would also be serious problems with tracking the effects of the vaccines themselves. “There would be no control on the dose or the inoculum, as an example. There would be no control over recognizing side effects,” McCullough said.

Jablonowski noted that 14 of the 75 originally assessed participants were excluded for medical reasons. If such a vaccine were released, “not only would a person not have foreknowledge of vaccination, they wouldn’t have after-knowledge of it either. If a medical condition arose, they would have no idea if they were infected with the genetically modified protozoan.”

He noted that in this study alone, 11 of the 75 persons initially assessed for participation declined to participate. “If this strategy is implemented, they won’t be asked if they wish to participate. Informed consent is the only power we have over our own medical autonomy,” he said. “Neither the mosquitoes nor the governments who use them are going to ask for consent.”

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

January 12, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Zuckerberg’s mea culpa – more strategy than sincerity

Maryanne Demasi, reports | January 12, 2025

Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta has spent years manipulating algorithms to suppress dissent and inconvenient truths. Now, Zuckerberg wants us to believe he’s turned over a new leaf. “Community notes” is his supposed act of contrition—replacing Meta’s infamous “fact-checkers” with what he’s touting as a democratic approach to truth.

The changes will affect Facebook, Instagram and Threads – social media platforms with more than 3 billion users globally. Zuckerberg says the purpose is to outsource fact-checking to the people and let the collective wisdom determine what’s true.

Users can add context or clarification to posts, which won’t vanish into algorithmic oblivion but will instead bear appended “notes” offering a more balanced view.

So, has Zuckerberg suddenly grown a conscience? Hardly. This is less about soul-searching and more about political expediency. We’re meant to believe this is some heartfelt mea culpa, a humbling moment for a company that “got it wrong.”

But to me, this feels insincere. Pure public relations – a cynical scramble to navigate shifting political winds. Meta isn’t repenting; it’s repositioning. After all, this is the same platform that orchestrated an era of unparalleled online censorship, silencing inconvenient truths under the guise of “misinformation control.”

Remember the Biden laptop story? An exposé conveniently buried before the 2020 election because it didn’t fit the desired narrative. Zuckerberg himself admitted to suppressing the story after pressure from the FBI. But that wasn’t an isolated incident.

Over the last four years, Facebook has been the digital embodiment of Orwell’s Ministry of Truth. Articles questioning the efficacy of masks, the lab leak theory, or COVID-19 vaccine safety were flagged, shadow-banned, or outright erased. Entire communities of vaccine-injured individuals—desperate for support and answers—were wiped off the platform. Real lives were affected; people were isolated. Conversations that could have saved lives were silenced. It’s no exaggeration to say Facebook has blood on its hands.

One example of Meta’s overreach involved The BMJ. Paul Thacker’s piece on Pfizer whistleblower Brook Jackson which highlighted data integrity issues at a few of Pfizer’s vaccine trial sites, was slapped with a label by Facebook, effectively discrediting it. This wasn’t just heavy-handed; it was a brazen suppression of credible journalism. An open letter from The BMJ’s editors to Meta rightly lambasted the organisation for trying to discredit the vetted information. The damage wasn’t limited to stifling discourse; it eroded public trust in both science and media.

As recently as August 2024, Zuckerberg admitted to the House Judiciary Committee that Meta had been coerced by the government to censor Americans. His letter detailed relentless pressure to silence dissenting views on COVID-19, elections, and more. And yet, despite this supposed epiphany about governmental overreach, Facebook continued censoring content right up until its recent pivot to community notes.

Zuckerberg’s newfound candour isn’t transparency; it’s pre-emptive blame-shifting. The Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v Biden) case has exposed the collusion between tech giants and government officials to suppress online speech. Allegations that the Biden administration pressured platforms to bury certain viewpoints—even when factually accurate—paint a chilling picture. Facebook’s narrative of victimhood feels like a calculated attempt to deflect legal and public scrutiny.

Meanwhile, there are ‘journalists’ in legacy media who are mourning the loss of fact-checkers as though democracy itself is under siege. What kind of journalist defends a system that stifles free speech and debate? Science thrives on questioning and open dialogue, not the orthodoxy imposed by fact-checkers operating with opaque agendas. Their hand-wringing isn’t about truth—it’s about losing control of the narrative.

And now, as the political tide shifts and the Biden administration’s influence wanes, Meta suddenly finds the courage to air its grievances about government meddling. Convenient, isn’t it? Zuckerberg’s newfound spine is less about principle and more about positioning Meta for survival in a new political landscape.

Let’s be real. Community notes is not altruism – it’s damage control. Meta isn’t addressing the harm it caused—it’s deflecting. The platform’s censorship caused real-world consequences: vaccine-injured people left voiceless, critical public health debates silenced, and public trust shattered. If Meta was truly contrite, it would compensate for the damage, support those it deplatformed, and restore erased communities – even compensate those with vaccine injuries who were silenced.

Don’t get me wrong – I think dumping fact-checkers was the right move and its a win for free speech – it just should have happened sooner, and Zuckerberg shouldn’t be let off the hook. Meta’s track record suggests this is just another calculated move.

For years, Facebook wielded its influence with recklessness, deciding who could speak and what could be said. Now, as the tide turns, it wants to rebrand as a champion of open dialogue and transparency. But the damage is done. The trust is broken. And no amount of community notes can erase the scars left by Meta’s years of suppressing truth.

Mark Zuckerberg might try to rewrite history, but history won’t forget.

January 12, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

THE POLIO PARADOX WITH DR. SUZANNE HUMPHRIES

The HighWire with Del Bigtree | January 9, 2025

Nephrologist and co-author of ‘Dissolving Illusions’, Suzanne Humphries, MD, joins Del to discuss her significant role in the first installment of ‘Jefferey Jaxen Investigates’ on the polio virus. Hear how the dangers of vaccines came to light for her and why the future of humanity depends on people understanding the true history behind the polio vaccine.

January 11, 2025 Posted by | Book Review, Corruption, Deception, Film Review, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | | Leave a comment

Public Opinion on Water Fluoridation Is Changing, Expert Says

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 10, 2025

Kathy Thiessen, Ph.D., a leading fluoride expert, joined “The Defender In-Depth” this week to discuss a meta-analysis published last week by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) concluding that that “fluoride is a neurotoxicant in humans.”

Thiessen, president and senior scientist at the Oak Ridge Center for Risk Analysis, testified last year in a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A September 2024 federal court ruling in the case found that water fluoridation at current U.S. levels poses an “unreasonable risk” of reduced IQ in children.

The ruling requires the EPA to take regulatory action to address the risks of water fluoridation. The agency, which has until Jan. 20 to appeal, has not yet taken action.

Thiessen co-authored a 2006 National Research Council report that addressed the toxic effects of fluoride and called for more research into its effects.

Thiessen said the new meta-analysis and a previous NTP report show that “fluoride is a neurotoxicant in humans and as fluoride exposure is increased, the likelihood of reduced IQ and some other cognitive deficits … increases.”

According to Thiessen, exposure to fluoride during pregnancy harms the fetus. “Fluoride crosses the placenta, so whatever the mother’s fluoride exposure is, the baby’s going to be exposed to that.”

And those risks continue after birth. “If the [infant] formula is made up with fluoridated tap water, those babies get the largest dose per body weight of anybody in the population at an age when they’re still developing,” Thiessen said.

‘Consistent body of literature’ shows ‘fluoride is neurotoxic during development’

The NTP’s latest meta-analysis reviewed 74 epidemiological studies examining the link between children’s IQ and fluoride exposure. Thiessen said the number and quality of such studies has increased substantially in recent years.

“When we wrote the [2006 report], there were just a few studies of fluoride exposure and cognitive deficits,” Thiessen said. “Many of the … most recent ones have been funded by our National Institutes of Health. They are high-quality studies.”

Thiessen said the studies together form “a very consistent body of literature showing that the fluoride is neurotoxic during development.” In the case of the NTP report and meta-analysis, however, there were repeated efforts to block or delay their publication.

Thiessen said the lawsuit against the EPA, filed by the Fluoride Action Network, Moms Against Fluoridation and Food & Water Watch, along with individual parents and children in 2017 was instrumental in the public release of the NTP report and meta-analysis.

“My best guess is that, if possible, they would’ve suppressed them totally,” Thiessen said. “But … because they were important to the court case, the judge required them to be made public. And we have that to be thankful for there.”

Efforts to block or delay publication of the NTP’s reports are part of “a very long history of suppression” and “of adverse information about fluoridation,” Thiessen said.

Scientists raised concerns about water fluoridation as early as the 1940s when it first started, Thiessen said. “From the 1940s on, there have been vested interests of several sorts that have pushed for water fluoridation.”

The EPA has ignored evidence of fluoride’s risks, Thiessen said. “I have said on record in the fluoride trial that if EPA had done its job responsibly, even back in the 1980s, we would not be having that case,” Thiessen added.

‘There should simply be a national end to water fluoridation’

Thiessen responded to claims that fluoridation protects oral health and that it was one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century. She said, “The real evidence shows that it’s probably one of the 10 leading contributors to poor health in this country.”

Thiessen referred to a 2024 Cochrane report finding that water fluoridation confers minimal benefits to public health. She suggested that diet and other lifestyle factors are more significant determinants of oral health than fluoridation or lack of it.

“There are studies showing that children in areas where it’s a subsistence existence … These kids have great teeth. You have poor kids in this country whose diet is mostly sugar and no, they’re not going to have good teeth … It’s much more a matter of access to care, and access to good nutrition,” Thiessen said.

Thiessen suggested children in poorer and rural populations “are most likely to be adversely affected” by fluoridation, as their parents are more likely to bottle-feed babies with baby formula mixed with tap water.

Thiessen said public attitudes toward water fluoridation are changing. “The tide has been turning slowly for 20-something years, but we’re seeing a lot more of that now.”

She said many communities will be using the court ruling to justify stopping fluoridation.

“Hopefully, this will happen at the state level in those states that mandate it. I’d like to see it at the national level that we just don’t do this anymore,” Thiessen said. “There should simply be a national end to water fluoridation.”

Watch ‘The Defender In-Depth’ here.

Listen to the podcast on Spotify.

‘The Defender In-Depth’ airs on CHD.TV Wednesdays at 10 a.m. ET/7 a.m. PT.

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

January 11, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | | Leave a comment

The Trump Administration Must Bring Moderna to Heel

Brownstone Institute | January 7, 2025

Last week, independent journalist Alex Berenson reported that a preschool-aged child died of “cardio-respiratory arrest” after taking a dose of Moderna’s Covid mRNA vaccine during its clinical trials. Despite federal requirements to report all trial information, the company withheld the truth for years as it raked in billions from its Covid shots.

The extent of the cover-up remains unknown, but Moderna, headed by CEO Stéphane Bancel, disregarded federal law requiring companies to report “summary results information, including adverse event information, for specified clinical trials of drug products” to clinicaltrials.gov. The company, not the government, is responsible for posting all results, and failure to report the death of a child constitutes a clear breach of US law, which threatens civil action against any party that “falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact.”

To this point, pharmaceutical companies have remained largely immune for their role in perpetrating globally-scaled deception resulting in thousands of vaccine injuries and billions in profits. They have enjoyed a liability shield courtesy of the PREP Act, which offers protections for injuries resulting from vaccines; that indemnity, however, does not extend to non-compliance with federal regulations, material misstatements or omissions of fact, or other offenses.

The death of the child only became known because of an obscure European report released last year, which revealed that Moderna has known about the death for over two years while it continues to advertise Covid shots to children as young as six months old.

Moderna’s European filing also revealed that the company withheld trial results demonstrating that children under 12 who received the vaccine were ten times more likely than those who received the placebo to suffer “serious side effects.” Without any evidence, Moderna claimed that the side effects, including the death of a child, were unrelated to the shots.

The incoming Trump administration offers a rare opportunity to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable and to investigate the depth of the cover-up.

The FDA is responsible for enforcing the reporting of vaccine trial results, but recent heads of the agency such as Scott Gottlieb and Robert Califf have been fanatical supporters of Big Pharma. Trump’s choice for FDA, Dr. Marty Makary, presents a stark contrast to his predecessors. Makary has criticized the US Government’s reluctance to acknowledge the role of natural immunity in preventing Covid infection, and he opposed the widespread vaccination of children. He testified to Congress, “In the U.S. we gave thousands of healthy kids myocarditis for no good reason, they were already immune. This was avoidable.”

President-elect Trump has tapped Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., perhaps the most well-known critic of the Covid vaccines, to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the FDA. He has named Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, an author of the Great Barrington Declaration, as his choice to head the National Institutes of Health. Further, Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) told Berenson that he plans to subpoena the FDA once Republicans become the majority party in the Senate this month.

President Trump’s first term was ultimately defined by his failure to fulfill his pledge to “drain the swamp.” A corrupt bureaucracy, personified in many ways by Dr. Anthony Fauci, aided and abetted by advisors like his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, hijacked the president’s agenda. Now, the Trump administration has an unlikely yet monumental opportunity for health reform, which can start on January 20 with an investigation into Moderna’s cover-up.

The Covid response doomed Trump 1.0. Whether one regards this as a monumental error, the betrayal of a president by his advisors, an event beyond the president’s control, or a deeper and more complex plot involving everything and everyone associated with the government, both in the US and around the world, there is no question of the scale of the calamity for the public. The shots are part of that, the capstone failure of a long line of foreshadowing with lockdowns and all that was associated with pre-pharmaceutical interventions. The antidote came not as a cure but, for many, the disease itself.

There must be truth if not justice.

January 11, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

YouTube CEO Neal Mohan Says YouTube is a “Bastion of Free Speech”

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | January 6, 2025

If you believe Neil Mohan, YouTube’s CEO, the platform is a modern-day Agora—a self-described “bastion of free speech” where the world’s most pressing debates thrive. Though, “just because it’s an open platform, it doesn’t mean that anything goes,” Mohan told The Financial Times in the last week. Translation: Free speech is alive and well—until it isn’t. Because on YouTube, the marketplace of ideas comes with a bouncer, a velvet rope, and an ever-expanding list of banned words and topics.

This month, YouTube is eager to remind everyone it’s “committed” to free expression, a sentiment as convincing as a fast-food chain promising “health-conscious dining.” Over the last five years, the platform has turbocharged its content moderation policies, leaning on AI overlords and human censors to police conversations ranging from vaccine skepticism to who gets to call a virus a “lab leak.”

It’s a delicate balance, they claim—one requiring the finesse of a trapeze artist. But if the past is any guide, the only thing YouTube’s balancing act reliably delivers is corporate doublespeak and a pile of censored creators.

Moderation or Muting?

Mohan, the relatively new captain of YouTube’s Titanic, insists that the company welcomes “broad views” but won’t tolerate “anything goes.” Consider their “community guidelines,” a vague, shape-shifting set of rules that could find your grandma’s knitting tutorial in violation if it dares question Big Pharma.

Behind this rhetoric is an algorithmic enforcement machine programmed to flag, demonetize, or outright remove content at lightning speed—accuracy be damned. And when the AI overlords fumble, the human moderators step in, wielding their own biases like blunt instruments.

Critics, including banned creators, point out that YouTube’s moderation seems to skew conveniently in one direction. Questioning the CDC? Misinformation. Broadcasting claims about ivermectin? Censored. But when a mainstream outlet gets caught peddling unverified or downright wrong information, it’s business as usual.

The COVID-19 Information Iron Curtain

Of course, nothing showcases YouTube’s free speech schizophrenia better than its pandemic policies. To combat “medical misinformation,” the platform instituted a strict purge of dissenting voices, silencing everyone from epidemiologists to concerned moms armed with anecdotal evidence and Facebook memes.

Let’s not forget the lab leak theory, a hypothesis once relegated to tinfoil hat territory. When early adopters of the theory dared to post about it, their content was struck down faster than you could say “gain-of-function research.” Fast forward a couple of years and the lab-leak theory is now a “credible hypothesis,” endorsed by experts and even government agencies.

Oops.

But don’t expect an apology or even acknowledgment from YouTube for playing arbiter of acceptable science. They’ve quietly updated policies and moved on, leaving censored creators wondering why their “misinformation” turned out to be, well, information.

Advertiser-Friendly Speech Only

The real driver of YouTube’s overzealous content policing, of course, is money. Back in 2017, a wave of advertiser boycotts over “hateful” and “controversial” content sent the platform scrambling. The solution? Stricter guidelines are needed to ensure that only the most sanitized, brand-safe content remains.

While no one would argue against booting child exploitation, the crackdown didn’t stop there. It extended into politically sensitive areas, conveniently targeting independent creators and smaller voices while leaving corporate media to do as they pleased.

What’s worse is the blatant double standard. Want to critique vaccine mandates or discuss alternative COVID treatments? Good luck. But if you’re a major network spouting unverified claims about weapons of mass destruction or “imminent threats,” go right ahead. After all, those ad dollars won’t chase themselves.

YouTube’s Legacy of Censorship

Mohan’s lofty rhetoric about fostering “broad views” might play well in interviews, but the reality on the ground is clear: YouTube’s commitment to free speech is as reliable as a politician’s campaign promise. The platform has repeatedly chosen corporate image over open discourse, advertisers over authenticity, and control over community.

And yet, it continues to parade as a defender of free expression. Perhaps Mohan and his team truly believe in their own doublespeak. Or maybe they’re banking on the fact that most users will never notice the glaring contradictions. Either way, YouTube’s hypocrisy isn’t an accident—it’s a business model.

The next time you hear Neil Mohan wax poetic about “free speech,” remember this: On YouTube, freedom comes with conditions, and the only real winners are the ones writing the checks.

January 7, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Ohio Governor DeWine Vetoes “Medical Free Speech” Provision

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | January 7, 2025

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine has vetoed a provision in House Bill 315 that sought to shield medical professionals from state disciplinary actions over medical opinions conflicting with state-sanctioned guidance. The measure, described as a “medical free speech” safeguard, was removed through a late-night line-item veto on Thursday.

The provision aimed to bar regulatory entities, such as the Ohio Medical Board, from disciplining or threatening to discipline medical practitioners for expressing opinions—whether publicly or privately—that deviated from those of the board or other state agencies.

However, DeWine justified his veto by warning of potential harm to public health. In his message accompanying the veto, the governor stated, “it is not in the public interest and instead could lead to devastating and deadly consequences for patient health.”

DeWine also elaborated to reporters on how such a measure might undermine the state’s ability to hold doctors accountable for malpractice. He expressed concern that the provision could allow practitioners to avoid scrutiny simply by framing negligent actions as personal medical opinions. “All the doctor would have to say in defense is, ‘Well, it’s my opinion,’” DeWine remarked in late December, signaling his intent to veto the provision. “This would totally gut our ability to regulate health professionals.”

The proposal has faced resistance from DeWine’s administration since its initial introduction in an earlier bill, House Bill 73.

That legislation, spearheaded by Representative Jennifer Gross, R-West Chester, sought to expand patient access to off-label prescriptions and grant legal immunity to pharmacists filling such prescriptions. According to a nonpartisan analysis of H.B. 73, the bill aimed to protect both patients and medical providers engaging in treatments outside conventional practices.

Gross, a nurse practitioner, has consistently advocated for medical freedom, testifying before the Ohio House Health Provider Services committee in support of shielding health professionals from retaliation when utilizing what she described as “life-saving treatments.” Her stance reflects a broader push to ensure that neither patients nor medical practitioners face punitive consequences for pursuing unconventional or off-label medical options.

January 7, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

Facebook Dumps ‘Fact-checkers’ One Day After CHD Asks Supreme Court to Hear Censorship Case Against Meta

By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 7, 2025

Less than 24 hours after Children’s Health Defense (CHD) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its censorship case against Facebook’s parent company, Meta, Mark Zuckerberg announced the company is ending its third-party “fact-checking” program.

“It’s time to get back to our roots around free expression on Facebook and Instagram,” Zuckerberg told viewers in a press release video. Meta also owns Instagram.

CHD sued Meta in November 2020 over the social media giant’s censorship practices. The company de-platformed CHD from Facebook and Instagram in August 2022 and has not reinstated the accounts.

Commenting on today’s news, CHD CEO Mary Holland told The Defender, “It’s clear that Mark Zuckerberg is worried about new anti-censorship policies of the incoming administration — as he should be. The record in CHD v. Meta clearly shows Facebook’s close collaboration with the White House to censor vaccine-related speech, even pre-COVID.”

Holland added:

“CHD has taken its case to the Supreme Court, and Facebook doubtless realizes there are Justices there that are very dubious about Facebook’s role in censoring speech at the behest of the government in the new public square.

“Zuckerberg may imagine that by making this announcement he is mooting this case, or making it no longer significant. That’s not the situation — the country needs closure that this kind of fusion of state and industry to censor unwanted information will never happen again.”

CHD’s lawsuit against Facebook’s parent company, Meta, and its founder and CEO, Zuckerberg, alleges that government actors partnered with Facebook to censor the plaintiffs’ speech — particularly speech related to vaccines and COVID-19 — that should have been protected under the First Amendment.

The suit also named “fact-checking” firms Science Feedback, and the Poynter Institute and its PolitiFact website. On Aug. 9, 2024, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against CHD.

Lawyers with CHD urged the Supreme Court to reconsider the decision. They wrote in their petition, filed Monday:

“This case goes to the heart of our constitutional design, raising critical questions in the Internet Age about the availability of open debate free from government censorship-by-proxy.

“The practical consequences of leaving the decision below intact are enormous: the levers of censorship on the mega-platforms will always be sore temptation for executive office-holders — and not just about vaccines or Covid.”

National healthcare and constitutional practice attorney Rick Jaffe called Meta’s announcement a “very big deal for the country and for CHD.”

Jaffe represents CHD in some of its cases, including cases involving doctors’ right to speak freely about COVID-19. He told The Defender :

“For the last five-plus years, CHD — largely through Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Mary Holland, and the group’s supporters — have been at the forefront of defending free speech on social media … Meta’s action today shows the effect of the changing public’s view on censorship by social media companies which Meta could no longer ignore.

“So, congrats to CHD and its legal team who helped this happen. The work isn’t over yet, so onwards.”

Meta shifts to content moderation model used on X

Rather than turning to third parties to fact-check posts, Meta will use a “Community Notes model” in which social users themselves decide when posts are potentially misleading and need more context, said Meta’s Chief Global Affairs Officer Joel Kaplan in a statement. “We’ve seen this approach work on X,” Kaplan said.

The change will take a few weeks to implement, Kaplan said.

Meta also will lift restrictions on topics such as immigration and gender identity. “It’s not right that things can be said on TV or the floor of Congress, but not on our platforms,” Kaplan said.

The Defender asked Meta if it will lift restrictions on discussions about vaccine safety and COVID-19 but did not receive a response by deadline.

Meta is also changing how it enforces its policies. “Up until now,” Kaplan said, “we have been using automated systems to scan for all policy violations, but this has resulted in too many mistakes and too much content being censored that should haven’t been.”

Zuckerberg said there’s “legitimately bad stuff out there — drugs, terrorism, child exploitation.” The company will continue to take those things “very seriously” by using automated systems to scan for them.

However, for less severe violations, Meta will rely on a person reporting an issue before taking action against an account user.

Zuckerberg said he always cared about freedom of expression but that in recent years, his company responded to pressure for stricter speech restrictions. “Governments and legacy media have pushed to censor more and more,” Zuckerberg said. “A lot of this is clearly political.”

He acknowledged that some of the “complex systems” Meta built to moderate content made mistakes. “We’ve reached a point where it’s just too many mistakes and too much censorship.”

Will Meta’s policy changes stick?

Zuckerberg said Meta’s policy changes were also prompted by the recent U.S. elections that were a “cultural tipping point toward once again prioritizing free speech.”

Jenin Younes, a civil rights attorney who represented some of the plaintiffs in the landmark censorship case Murthy v. Missouri, told The Defender she was “cautiously optimistic” about Meta’s announcement.

Meta appeared to be making the changes because of a new presidential administration, Younes said. “That means that Meta could change course in another four years under a different administration. We need major social media platforms — the modern public square — to adopt principled free speech positions that don’t change with the wind.”

If platforms don’t adopt strong free speech positions, public dialogue suffers, Younes said. “Censorship on Meta, especially during the COVID era, strangled public debate and even went so far as to prevent vaccine-injured individuals from corresponding with each other in private groups.”

Kim Mack Rosenberg, CHD general counsel, told The Defender Meta’s announcement does not undo the years of the damage done to CHD and many other individuals and groups.

“What is important is not only that Meta is making these changes but also that steps are taken to make sure this cannot be repeated, which makes our ongoing cases — including the recently filed petition to the U.S. Supreme Court — critically important.”

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

January 7, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | Leave a comment

FDA responds to study on DNA contamination in Pfizer vaccine

Maryanne Demasi, reports | January 6, 2025

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has responded to a peer-reviewed study conducted within its own laboratory, which uncovered excessively high levels of DNA contamination in Pfizer’s mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The study revealed that residual DNA levels exceeded regulatory limits by 6 to 470 times, validating earlier studies from independent researchers that the FDA had previously disregarded.

Published by students in the Journal of High School Science, the study has garnered significant attention since the story broke, with its altimetric score rivalling those of major studies in leading medical journals.

FDA’s Response

Despite the study being conducted at the FDA’s White Oak campus in Maryland, the agency has sought to distance itself from the findings.

A spokesperson stated that the study “does not belong to the FDA” and is therefore not theirs to disclose.

“The FDA does not comment on individual studies,” the spokesperson added, declining to acknowledge the new scientific findings.

The agency also refused to address the involvement of three of its own scientists—Dr Shuliang Liu, Dr Tony Wang, and Dr Prabhuanand Selvaraj—who supervised the students conducting the study.

When questioned about potential regulatory actions, such as issuing a public alert, recalling affected vaccine batches, or notifying other agencies, the FDA stood firm in its defence of mRNA vaccine safety.

“Based on a thorough assessment of the entire manufacturing process by the agency’s scientific experts, the FDA is confident in the quality, safety, and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines that the agency has approved and authorised,” stated the FDA spokesperson.

“The agency’s benefit-risk assessments and ongoing safety surveillance demonstrate that the benefits of their use clearly outweigh their risks. Additionally, with over a billion doses of the mRNA vaccines administered, no safety concerns related to residual DNA have been identified.”

This statement effectively shuts down any immediate plans for further investigation.

Calls for Accountability

The FDA’s response has provoked sharp criticism from scientists. Genomics expert Kevin McKernan, who first identified excessive DNA contamination in Pfizer vials in early 2023, called the agency’s stance evasive and deeply concerning.

“It’s the same script on auto-repeat at every regulatory agency,” McKernan said.

“They always say, ‘billions of doses given, benefits outweigh the risks, we’ve seen no evidence of harm.’ But billions of cigarettes were smoked too, and that didn’t make them safe.”

McKernan also questioned the FDA’s attempts to distance itself from the study.

“If the FDA supplied the materials for the study and provided technical advice through staff supervision, then how can they not be responsible for the data?” McKernan asked. “Do they only deny their connection when the data becomes inconvenient?”

Professor Nikolai Petrovsky, Professor of Immunology and Infectious Disease at the Australian Respiratory and Sleep Medicine Institute, shared McKernan’s concerns.

“The FDA’s response is extremely disappointing,” he said.

“It completely circumvents whether or not the level of DNA contamination in mRNA vaccines exceeds regulatory limits (as the study performed in their lab would indicate), and what they intend to do about it.”

“Just claiming there’s no safety issue and pointing to the billions of doses administered, without offering any evidence of safety, is far from satisfactory,” added Prof Petrovsky.

Regulatory Silence

The Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), which has previously dismissed similar findings from independent researchers as “misinformation,” was contacted for comment but did not provide a response before publication.

Russell Broadbent, Victorian Member for Monash, expressed his disbelief at the regulatory inaction.

“I cannot fathom why the TGA isn’t making this their number one priority, given their charter is to regulate therapeutics to help ensure Australians stay healthy and safe,” he said.

In light of the FDA laboratory findings, Broadbent urged regulators to “immediately pause the rollout of the vaccines, and investigate the claims.”

The Stakes Could Not Be Higher

These revelations carry immense implications. mRNA vaccines are hailed as the dawn of a new era in vaccinology, with the world increasingly relying on this platform technology to supersede traditional vaccine methods.

Failure to address the safety of this technology will torpedo public trust in both the vaccines and the regulatory systems meant to ensure their safety.

“The public deserves clear answers, not regulatory hand-waving,” McKernan said.

As calls for accountability grow louder, the FDA faces mounting pressure to engage with the scientific evidence—particularly that which originates from its own laboratory.

NB: a comprehensive critique of the student study from FDA’s lab has been published by Kevin McKernan.

January 6, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

Climate Bombshell: New Evidence Reveals 30 Year Global Drop in Hurricane Frequency and Power

By Chris Morrison | The Daily Sceptic | January 4, 2025

Last month a small but powerful cyclone named Chido made landfall in Mayotte before sweeping into Mozambique, causing considerable damage and leading to the loss of around 100 lives. Days after the tragedy, the Green Blob-funded Carbon Brief noted that scientists have “long suggested” that climate change is making cyclones worse in the region, while Blob-funded World Weather Attribution (WWA) at Imperial College London made a near-instant and curiously precise estimate that a Chido-like cyclone was about 40% more likely to happen in 2024 than during the pre-industrial age. Not to be outdone, Green Blob-funded cheerleader the Guardian chipped in with the obligatory “cyclones are getting worse because of the climate emergency”. Almost unnoticed, it seems, among all the Net Zero dooming and grooming was a science paper published during December by Nature that found no increase in the destructive power of cyclones – the generic term for typhoons and hurricanes – in any ocean basin over the last 30 years. In the South Indian basin, the location of cyclone Chido, there was a dramatic decrease in both frequency and duration in recent times.

Reality rarely gets much of a look-in these days when fanatical Net Zero activism is afoot, but the paper, written by a group of Chinese meteorologists, makes its case by considering the facts and the data. The scientists apply a “power dissipation index” (PDI) which they consider superior to single measure indicators since it combines storm intensity, duration and frequency. The graphs below show the cumulative index for tropical cyclones across all ocean basins along with a global indication.

Downward trends in the cumulative PDI can be seen in a number of Pacific regions, while the trend holds steady in the North Atlantic. The southern Indian ocean downward trend is particularly pronounced while the overall global line is also heading in a similar direction.

So why does all this scientific twaddle get written by the  green activists in mainstream media? Much of it arises from the new pseudoscience that claims it can tie individual weather events to human-caused climate change. Press releases peddling climate Armageddon are issued days after a natural disaster and are eagerly reprinted by activist journalists promoting the Net Zero fantasy. The distinguished science writer Roger Pielke Jr. is a fierce critic of this new pseudoscience, which he calls weather attribution alchemy. In a recent Substack post in the aftermath of Chido, he noted that the WWA at Imperial College simply assumes the conclusion that it seeks to prove by accepting that every storm is made stronger because of warmer oceans. Using this explanation, continues Pielke, it is straightforward to conclude that the storm was made more likely due to climate change. Or as Imperial states: “The difference in the storm intensity and likelihood of this storm intensity between the counterfactual climate and today’s climate can be attributed to climate change.”

As the new Chinese paper shows, the matter is not quite so simple. Pielke notes that tropical storms encounter numerous environmental influences such as vertical wind shear and storm-induced ocean surface cooling, even when they remain over warmer waters. “Such complexities mean that simple storyline attribution – warmer oceans predictably mean stronger storms – is inappropriate when used to characterise the behaviour of individual storms,” he argues. Pielke also comes down hard on the statistical evidence backing the WWA claims. Even if storms such as Chido were more likely in the future, it would take a very long time to detect a significant change using the threshold 90% confidence set down by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). And by very long time, he means thousands of years.

“Perhaps that is why assumptions are favoured over evidence,” suggests Pielke.

There were plenty of assumptions on display in a now routine end-of-year weather report from the BBC headed: ‘A year of extreme weather that challenged billions.‘ Written by Esme Stallard, it claims that record-breaking heat brought extreme weather including hurricanes and month-long droughts. Pride of place is given to Dr. Friederike Otto, lead of WWA and Senior Lecturer in Climate Science at Imperial, who claimed: “We are living in a dangerous new era – extreme weather caused unrelenting suffering.” “The impacts of fossil fuel warming has never been clear or more devastating than in 2024,” she added.

The redoubtable Paul Homewood is unimpressed with Stallard’s opening line about increasing extreme weather and has filed a complaint with the BBC. Stallard goes on to list a handful of random events, “but fails to provide any evidence that these are anything other than natural events which happen all the time”, states Homewood. “Nor is any evidence provided that such events have been getting more frequent or extreme over time,” he adds.

The BBC story highlighted typhoons in the Philippines as well as hurricane Beryl and stated that such events may be increasing in intensity due to climate change. Official data do not show any evidence of them becoming more powerful over time, notes Homewood. Much play was made of a recent drought in the Amazon, but Homewood points out that the World Bank Climate Portal reveals that rainfall has increased in the area by 5% over the last 30 years. Throughout the report, observes Homewood, the BBC bases its claims on weather attribution computer models. “However, computer models are not evidence, and can be manipulated to provide whatever results are desired. That is why they are widely derided by the wider scientific community,” he states.

For Roger Pielke, extreme weather attributions are “puzzling”. The most charitable explanation for their proliferation is that there is a demand for them, including from many in the media. The demand will be filled by someone, he concludes. “A less charitable explanation is that there is a systematic effort underway to contest and undermine actual climate science, including the assessments of the IPCC, in order to present a picture of reality that is simply false in support of climate advocacy. We might call that pseudo-scientific gaslighting,” he suggests.

January 5, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

The Risks of Vaccines During Pregnancy

What Expecting Mothers Need to Know

By Tracy Slepcevic | Warrior Mom | January 2, 2025

Pregnancy is a time of joy, anticipation, and careful decision-making. As an expecting mother, your primary goal is to ensure the health and safety of your baby. However, amidst the abundance of information and recommendations, it’s important to understand the potential risks associated with vaccines during pregnancy. Despite assurances from health authorities, recent evidence and expert testimonies suggest that vaccines given during pregnancy pose a significant risk to both mother and baby.

Lack of Proper Testing for Pregnant Women

One of the most concerning aspects of vaccine recommendations for pregnant women is the lack of rigorous safety testing. During a 2023 FDA meeting, Dr. Meryl Nass highlighted the troubling fact that many vaccines routinely recommended during pregnancy, including the COVID-19 vaccine, were not adequately tested in pregnant populations. The FDA admitted that its recommendations are based on limited or no data from controlled clinical trials involving pregnant women.

This absence of reliable data leaves many unanswered questions about the long-term effects of vaccines on both the developing fetus and the mother’s immune system. The decision to recommend vaccines without sufficient evidence undermines informed consent and raises serious ethical concerns.

Alarming Reports of Adverse Effects

Adverse events following vaccination during pregnancy are increasingly being reported. These include:

  • Miscarriages: Some studies and anecdotal reports have linked vaccines, particularly the COVID-19 vaccine, to an increase in pregnancy losses.
  • Preterm Births: Concerns have been raised about a potential connection between maternal vaccination and preterm deliveries.
  • Developmental Issues: Emerging evidence suggests the possibility of long-term developmental effects on the baby, though more research is urgently needed to confirm these findings.

Dr. James Thorp, a board-certified OB-GYN, has been vocal about the risks of vaccinating pregnant women, stating that the CDC’s recommendations lack robust scientific backing. Dr. Thorp and other experts argue that the precautionary principle should guide decisions regarding vaccines during pregnancy, especially when there are alternative ways to manage risks.

The Role of Adjuvants and Ingredients

Many vaccines contain adjuvants; these are substances added to enhance immune response. Aluminum-based adjuvants, for example, have raised concerns due to their neurotoxic effects. During pregnancy, the developing fetus is particularly vulnerable to toxins, and the accumulation of such substances may interfere with normal development.

The presence of viral DNA fragments and other contaminants in vaccines has also been flagged as a risk factor. These components are not fully studied in the context of pregnancy, further complicating the risk assessment.

Trusting Your Natural Immunity

God did not make a mistake, man did. Pregnancy is a time when the body’s immune system undergoes natural adjustments to protect both the mother and the baby. Our God-given immunity is remarkably capable of managing many potential threats without external interventions. Prioritizing a healthy diet, reducing stress, and ensuring adequate sleep can support your immune system during this critical time.

Steps to Protect Yourself and Your Baby

If you are pregnant or planning to become pregnant, here are some steps you can take to make informed decisions about vaccines:

  1. Ask Questions: Before agreeing to any vaccination, ask your healthcare provider about the evidence supporting its safety and efficacy during pregnancy. Most doctors are blinded by the dangers of vaccines or choose to keep us in the dark due to kickbacks from Big Pharma.
  2. Do Your Research: Explore independent studies and expert testimonies to gain a fuller understanding of potential risks. The research is out there, but you will have to dig deeper than a Google search.
  3. Consider Alternatives: For certain infections, there may be natural or non-invasive ways to protect yourself without compromising your baby’s development. Boost your immune system with supplements instead of neurotoxic vaccines.
  4. Seek Second Opinions: If you feel pressured by your provider, consult with another healthcare professional to discuss your concerns. Functional and Alternative medicine doctors are more likely to keep their oath to “do no harm.”
  5. Prioritize Wellness: Focus on boosting your natural immunity through nutrition, hydration, and lifestyle choices.

A Call for Transparency and Caution

As an expecting mother, you deserve complete and honest information to make the best decisions for your baby. The current vaccine recommendations for pregnancy often lack the robust safety data needed to ensure their efficacy and safety. Until comprehensive studies are conducted and transparency is prioritized, the precautionary principle should guide decisions about vaccines during pregnancy.

By taking the time to educate yourself and trust your instincts, you can protect both your health and the health of your baby. Remember, it’s your right to make informed choices about your body and your baby’s future. For more information go to http://www.WarriorMom.com and http://www.AutismHealth.com.

January 5, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »