Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Studies Reveal That Mask Wearing Is Dumbing You Down!

By John O’Sullivan | Principia Scientific | September 12, 2021

A review of peer-reviewed studies suggests regular COVID 19 mask wearing increases risk of mental retardation. Studies affirm what independent medical doctors are increasingly saying – mask wearing mandates are not only unscientific, but contrary to good health and can be deadly!

Below, we show how the scientific literature finds that prolonged mask wearing impedes brain function.

Top medical doctor, Britain’s Dr Vernon Coleman,  is Britain’s best-selling medical author for several decades and has repeatedly warned how dangerous mask wearing really is – it can even be deadly to some. He tells us:

“Masks cause hypoxia and hypercapnia – and affect the wearer’s attention and cognitive processes. They make an accident more likely. Anyone driving while wearing a mask should be arrested. Insurance companies should refuse to pay out on claims if a driver was wearing a mask.” [1]

Hypercapnia frequently occurs due to hypoventilation secondary to limited airway pressure and/or tidal volume.

So dangerous is hypoventilation it literally is a matter of life and death to many. Anyone familiar with sleep apnea knows this related condition is well-researched and may be informative in guiding our understanding about impeded breathing, such as from prolonged COVID19 mask wearing.

Dr Coleman, who has built a sterling reputation since the 1980’s as a prominent whistleblower on medical malfeasance, warns:

“Over a dozen scientific papers show clearly that masks are ineffective in preventing the movement of infective organisms. They also reduce oxygen levels and expose wearers to increased levels of carbon dioxide.” [2]

Hypercapnia is the term doctors use to refers to abnormally high levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the blood.

As CO2 accumulates in the blood, you’ll see symptoms like difficulty thinking clearly, headaches, and sleepiness. More severe or longer lasting cases of hypercapnia may cause symptoms like dizziness, excessively fast breathing and heart rates, increase in blood pressure, twitching of the muscles, and skin flushing.

Hypoxia

Now keep in mind that when CO2 in the blood is up, as in hypercapnia, then oxygen (O2) must be down. A decrease or less than the normal amount of oxygen in the blood is known as hypoxemia. And if there isn’t enough oxygen in the blood, then there won’t be enough oxygen getting to the organs of the body, which is a condition termed hypoxia.

Hypoxia is, of course, a very serious condition for the body since every organ in the body needs oxygen in order to function. It doesn’t take very long for symptoms to occur as the organs of the body begin to suffer from the lack of necessary oxygen.

See: doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2008.01.025. Epub 2008 Mar 10.

Chronic hypoxia-hypercapnia influences cognitive function: a possible new model of cognitive dysfunction in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

“… cognitive impairment is strongly related to combination of chronic hypoxia and hypercapnia, and chronic hypoxia-hypercapnia-induced animal models may mimic the cognitive dysfunction of COPD. “

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18331781/

PubMed (unethically) recently retracted a study titled Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis

See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33303303/

The above study warned of the lack of science to support mask safety in regard to brain function:

“Many countries across the globe utilized medical and non-medical facemasks as non-pharmaceutical intervention for reducing the transmission and infectivity of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Although, scientific evidence supporting facemasks’ efficacy is lacking, adverse physiological, psychological and health effects are established. Is has been hypothesized that facemasks have compromised safety and efficacy profile and should be avoided from use. The current article comprehensively summarizes scientific evidences with respect to wearing facemasks in the COVID-19 era, providing prosper information for public health and decisions making.”

Likewise, in“Exercise with facemask; Are we handling a devil’s sword?” – A physiological hypothesis.

Chandrasekaran B, Fernandes S.Med Hypotheses. 2020 Nov;144:110002. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2020.110002. Epub 2020 Jun 22.PMID: 32590322 Free PMC article.

The authors found that:

“Exercising with facemasks may reduce available Oxygen and increase air trapping preventing substantial carbon dioxide exchange. The hypercapnic hypoxia may potentially increase acidic environment, cardiac overload, anaerobic metabolism and renal overload, which may substantially aggravate the underlying pathology of established chronic diseases. Further contrary to the earlier thought, no evidence exists to claim the facemasks during exercise offer additional protection from the droplet transfer of the [COVID] virus.”

We then examined a recent PubMed study on the impacts of walking while wearing masks Jul-Aug 2021;34(4):798-801. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2021.04.200559.

Effects of Wearing Facemasks During Brisk Walks: A COVID-19 Dilemma

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of facemasks on inhaled oxygen and exhaled carbon dioxide.  Healthy adults were assessed at rest and during slow and brisk 5-minute walks, with and without masks. What the results showed was that:

“EtCO2 increased; the rise was significantly higher while wearing masks: slow walk, mean EtCO2 (mmHg) change +4.5 ± 2.4 versus +2.9 ± 2.3, P = .004; brisk walk EtCO2 change +8.4 ± 3.0 versus +6.2 ± 4.0, P = .009, with and without masks, respectively. Wearing masks was also associated with higher proportions of participant hypercarbia (EtCO2 range, 46-49 mmHg) compared with walking without masks” and “Sensations of difficulty breathing and shortness of breath were more common while walking with masks.”

Thus, real world studies conducted during the pandemic are signaling a warning that prolonged mask wearing causes a shortage of oxygen to the brain and unhealthy blockage of excretion of carbon dioxide waste from the body.

Both hypoxia and hypercapnia are known dangerous medical conditions, but if you have avidly followed the FAKE NEWS peddled by the mainstream media you will never have heard of such risks from masking up.

While it is proven that in severe cases death may result, the more insidious danger is the unseen, long term effects on our brains. Just spare a thought for the harm being inflicted on children ordered to wear these soiled rags all day in schools.

To clarify the dangers on a strictly objective scientific footing we looked to American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (Volume 186, Issue 12) and looked at The Effect of Hypoxia–Hypercapnia on Neuropsychological Function in Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome which detailed actual impacts of low oxygen (Hypoxia) on human subjects. https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/full/10.1164/ajrccm.186.12.1307

The study especially addressed the impacts of low oxygen on subjects who already have poor health due to respiratory impairment (Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome).

A total of 27 patients were included for evaluation of psychiatric morbidities. The study found that:

“Given that the remaining half cohort consists largely of patients with a poor oxygenation index, the majority of the 27 patients should have a less optimal oxygenation index. As it turned out, up to 26 of the 27 additional patients presented with long-lasting psychiatric symptoms. In a way, this phenomenon implies that patients with a poor oxygenation index would end up with long-term psychiatric morbidities, verifying the authors’ inference that hypoxemia predicts long-term neuropsychological impairment among ARDS.”

In effect, this confirmed that anyone who already has compromised respiratory health will be most likely to suffer brain injury from regular mask wearing.

What about the impacts on learning and memory? We looked at ‘Effect of chronic hypoxia and hypercapnia on learning and memory function in mice and the expression of NT and CGRP in brain’ from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2058739218818956

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of hypoxia and hypercapnia on learning and memory function of mice.

Airway blockage, such as impedance from prolonged mask wearing may lead to Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a frequently occurring disease of the respiratory system, with high morbidity and mortality rates. The authors affirming that the most important cause of COPD is hypoxia (low O2) and hypercapnia (elevated CO2). This was previously established by Liu CY, Parikh M, Bluemke DA et al. (2017) Pulmonary artery stiffness in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and emphysema: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) COPD Study. Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 13(1): 1–2.

Disturbingly, the laboratory test results from mice were damning. It showed:

“Our study found that chronic hypoxia and hypercapnia impaired memory function, increased the quantity of brain tissue lipid oxidation products MDA and DNA oxidation products 8-OHdG, decreased SOD activity, destroyed the stability of hippocampal structure, and reduced the number of Nissl bodies and increased apoptotic cells in mice. These indicated that hypoxia and hypercapnia enhanced oxidative stress response, destroyed tissue structure, and increased neuronal apoptosis, thus affecting its neurological function and learning and memory ability.”

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2058739218818956

Brain cell damage shown under the microscope (above)

Pointedly, the authors observed that:

“Chronic hypoxia is usually accompanied by hypercapnia, so we speculate that hypoxia and hypercapnia may cooperate in this process and aggravate the damage caused by hypoxia alone.”

Thus, both these ailments, when triggered from mask wearing, may be inexplicably linked doubling the adverse impacts on brain function.

Personally, I have not worn one of these face diapers at any stage during the fake pandemic. It should be self-evident to anyone with a modicum of critical reasoning skills that exhalation is one of our body’s vital excretion systems, just like urination and defecation. To impede any such function is a recipe for long term ill health, including irreparable cognitive impairment.

At Principia Scientific International we are determined to share with our readers all such valuable science so that we can all make informed choices and not merely unthinkingly do what as we are told by misguided policymakers.

Other references:

[1] https://vernoncoleman.org/articles/passing-observations-35

[2] https://vernoncoleman.org/articles/proof-masks-do-more-harm-good

About John O’Sullivan John is CEO and co-founder (with Dr Tim Ball) of Principia Scientific International (PSI).  John is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann in the ‘science trial of the century‘. O’Sullivan is credited as the visionary who formed the original ‘Slayers’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world’s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory plus their new follow-up book.

September 12, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Deaths From Covid Vaxcine are government mandated genocide

NZ OUTDOORS PARTY | SEPTEMBER 12, 2021

A rush of student deaths and serious heart problems since the government’s decision to roll out the Pfizer vaccine to 12-17 year olds is government mandated genocide says the NZ Outdoors Party. The rollout to teenagers only started a few weeks ago, and already two deaths and two other post Vax admissions to Starship hospital have been reported. Another two serious post vaccine injuries in students are under investigation, including a boy who collapsed in Whangarei and another in the South Island. All are understood to have been healthy until sudden post vaccine heart issues, attributed to blood clots or myocarditis. These are well known adverse effects of this mRNA injection, which is known overseas as the #clotshot.

“The Prime Minister is floundering as the community networks are proving far more efficient at collecting and sharing information than the bureaucrats” says Sue Grey, co-leader of the NZ Outdoors Party. “This highlights one of the problems we have been raising for months. With a novel vaccine that is yet to complete clinical trials, there should be active follow-up of each recipient, to check on their health and to ensure all adverse effects are reported and assessed. The devastating effects on so many families could likely have been avoided if only the government had been more pro-active and transparent about the harm.”

Information obtained under the OIA shows that Medsafe, the government regulator, declined consent for the Pfizer Vaccine in January because it was not satisfied that the benefits exceeded the risks. Since then Medsafe has acknowledged the Pfizer Vax may cause myocarditis, pericarditis and thrombocytopenia ( blood clots).

In February the PfizerVax was given “provisional consent for the restricted treatment of a limited number of patients”, and subject to 58 conditions requiring more research and information.

After the High Court case raised questions about the legality of the Vaccine rollout, the government undertook an emergency law reform within 24 hours to remove the restricted use.

Recently the age limit was reduced to 12 year olds. it is understood the Prime Minister wants to inject everyone in New Zealand.

Despite its own advisors concerns, government advertising has repeatedly claimed the PfizerVax is “safe and effective” and “approved by Medsafe”. The Prime Minister herself claimed this recently in Parliamentary question time.

Many doctors and communities are furious about the ongoing devastation the PfizerVax is causing, and that people are not being told about the risks. A petition calling for an immediate suspension of the Vaccine rollout to teenagers launched today reached over 2000 signatures within hours. http://www.oursay.co.nz

The Outdoors Party says the ongoing rollout must stop immediately, and the government must start to listen both to the people they were elected to represent, and to the many doctors and international experts who have been issuing warnings for months.

“This programme must stop today, without any further excuses, and whoever is responsible must resign immediately” says Outdoors Party President Alan Simmons . End For more information call Alan Simmons alan@outdoorsparty.co.nz 0274 980304 or Sue Grey 22 6910586 suegreylawyer@gmail.com

September 12, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Solidarity and Activism, War Crimes | | Leave a comment

Why Covid-19 Vaccine Mandates Are Now Pointless

By Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD* | September 9, 2021

Executive Summary:

Covid-19 Vaccine Mandates Are Now Pointless: Covid-19 vaccines do not keep people from catching the prevailing Delta variant and passing it to others

  1. 1)  Excellent scientific research papers published or posted in August 2021 clearly demonstrate that current vaccines do not prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2.
  2. 2)  Vaccines aim to achieve two ends:
    1. To protect the vaccinated person against the illness.
    2. To keep people from carrying the infection and transmitting it to others.
      1. If enough people are vaccinated or otherwise become immune, it is hoped that the disease will stop circulating. We call this herd immunity.
      2. On the way to herd immunity, there is an assumption that people who are immunized can form safe clusters or groups within which no one is carrying or transmitting the virus.
  3. 3)  Unfortunately, this last assumption (2.b.ii) is no longer true under the new variant of SARS-CoV- 2, Delta (B.1.617.2), which now accounts for essentially all cases worldwide.
  4. 4)  Delta is more infectious than the Alpha strain (B.1.1.7) that prevailed in the UK from January to May 2021 (and in the US from March to June 2021), meaning that Delta is passed more readily person-to-person than the previous dominant strain. (see section 5, below).

b. From its origin in India, Delta has soared to nearly complete domination of COVID-19 viral strains everywhere in a matter of months, because it spreads so easily and infects both vaccinated and unvaccinated people.

  1. 5)  New research in multiple settings shows that Delta produces very high viral loads (meaning, the density of virus on a nasopharyngeal swab as interpreted from PCR cycle threshold numbers).
    1. Viral loads are much higher in people infected with Delta than they were in people infected with Alpha.
    2. Viral loads with Delta are equally high whether the person has been vaccinated or not.
    3. Viral load is an indicator of infectiousness. [13,14] The more virus one has in the noseand mouth, the more likely it is to be in this individual’s respiratory droplets and secretions, and to spread to others.
  2. 6)  Due to evolution of the virus itself, all the currently licensed vaccines (all based on the originalWuhan strain spike protein sequence) have lost their ability to accomplish vaccine purpose 2(b), above, “To keep people from carrying the infection and transmitting it to others.”
  3. 7)  Vaccine mandates are thus stripped of their justification, since to vaccinate an individual nolonger stops or even slows his ability to acquire and transmit the virus to others.
  4. 8)  Under Delta, natural immunity is much more protective than vaccination. All severities ofCOVID-19 illness produce healthy levels of natural immunity.

The Documentary Evidence:

Here are three studies whose findings and data support the above statements:

(A) The first is by the Massachusetts Department of Health and the CDC, published August 6, 2021 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. An outbreak of COVID-19 occurred in Provincetown, Massachusetts in July 2021 during two weeks of heavily attended indoor and outdoor public gatherings. The study focuses on the 469 cases among Massachusetts residents who were in attendance. [1] All successfully gene-sequenced isolates (120) were the Delta variant.

346 of the cases in Massachusetts residents (74%) occurred in fully vaccinated people who had received a 2-dose course of the BioNTech/Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, or a single dose of the Johnson & Johnson. Vaccine coverage at this time among all Massachusetts residents was 69%. This suggests that vaccinated people became infected just as frequently as unvaccinated people in this outbreak.

We do not know the vaccination percentage among actual festival attendees who were Massachusetts residents, but we can assume given the demographics of the festival that it was the state average (69%) or higher. We also do not know the total number of Massachusetts residents who attended. Both of these numbers would be needed to determine actual values for vaccine efficacy in this outbreak.

However, we cannot brush the high percentage of vaccinated people in the infected sample under the carpet quite as easily as the authors do, when they say, “As population-level vaccination coverage increases, vaccinated persons are likely to represent a larger proportion of COVID-19 cases” (p. 1061). This is true, but we would still, if vaccine is protective, find vaccinated cases to be underrepresented in an illness sample compared to the number vaccinated in the whole population of attendees. As best we can tell at this festival, vaccination was not protective against infection, because the proportion of vaccinated in the sample (74%) is in the same numeric range as the proportion vaccinated, 69% or above.

Among the 346 cases who were already vaccinated, 79% were symptomatic, reporting cough, headache, sore throat, muscle aches, and fever. Four of these vaccinated, infected individuals (1.2%) were hospitalized. No one died. The remainder of the vaccinated cases did not report symptoms.

Among the 123 cases who were unvaccinated or partially vaccinated, one was hospitalized (0.8%) and no one died. Percentage with symptoms was not reported.

Vaccinated and unvaccinated cases were found to have very similar viral loads (in a sample of 127 and 84 cases, respectively). This means the PCR tests showed that vaccinated and unvaccinated infected people were carrying similar amounts of virus in their upper respiratory tracts at diagnosis and were thus equally infectious.

(B) The next study, released August 10, 2021, examines the Delta viral load phenomenon in far more detail, and shows clearly that vaccinated people can become infected and pass the infection to other vaccinated people. The Hospital for Tropical Diseases in Ho Chi Minh City in southern Vietnam has about 900 staff members, including an Oxford University Clinical Research Unit. The entire hospital staff was vaccinated with the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine two-dose series in March and April 2021, and then enrolled in a post-vaccination study. Thus, a great deal of detailed information was available when the outbreak struck. [2]

The entire hospital staff was PCR negative for SARS-CoV-2 in mid-May 2021. The index case (first known case in a cluster) became mildly ill on June 11 and had a positive PCR with a high viral load. The whole staff was then re-tested. 52 additional cases were identified immediately. Ten more had high viral loads, a number being staff who shared an office with the index case. All the additional cases at first had no symptoms.

The hospital was then locked down. Over the next two weeks, 16 additional cases were identified in subsequent PCR surveys. 62 of the 69 PCR-positive cases participated in this study of the outbreak.

Forty-seven (76% of the 62 subjects) developed respiratory symptoms, three with pneumonia on chest x-ray and one requiring three days of nasal cannula oxygen (this is the least intensive form of oxygen therapy). Everyone recovered fully.

Peak viral loads in this fully vaccinated, infected group were, on average, 250 times higher than peak viral loads with older variants early in the pandemic (March-April 2020), when no one was vaccinated. This is a means of comparing the biology of the variants themselves: the Delta virus has gained the ability to replicate itself enormously in the upper respiratory tract, regardless of vaccination, thereby making itself more infectious.

In the current outbreak, viral loads (and thus infectiousness) peaked in the 2-3 days both before and after symptoms began.

All sequenced isolates were the Delta variant. The genetic sequences from hospital staff were more similar to each other than they were to contemporaneous isolates from the city at large or from more distant parts of the country. This means it is likely that the virus spread among the (fully vaccinated) hospital staff from a single infected (and vaccinated) staff member who brought it from the outside. Given the dynamics of symptoms and positivity among the staff, it is clear that asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic staff members, as well as symptomatic, were infecting others.

PCR tests continued to be positive up to 33 days after diagnosis (averaging 21 days). Case- control comparisons showed that staff members with lower titers of neutralizing antibodies after vaccination and at diagnosis were more likely to become infected. However, there was no correlation between vaccine-induced antibody levels at diagnosis and viral loads or the development of respiratory symptoms.

(C) The third study is an analysis of ongoing population-wide SARS-CoV-2 monitoring in the UK, whose primary purpose is following changes in vaccine efficacy. In the UK study, the PCR tests are done on members of randomly selected households across the UK, following a predetermined schedule that ignores symptoms, vaccination, and prior infection. The current analysis was released on August 24, 2021 and summarized in commentary in the British Medical Journal on August 19, 2021. [3, 4]

The study includes measures of viral load or “burden” under Alpha and Delta predominance. While Alpha was the dominant UK strain (January to mid-May 2021), vaccination or prior COVID- 19 disease strongly reduced viral load compared to unvaccinated people who had never had COVID-19.

The sample size was large and random, obtained as described above. 12,287 new PCR-positives were found in the Alpha-dominant period, of which 88% were unvaccinated and had no evidence of prior infection. Only 0.5% of new positive tests were from fully vaccinated people and 0.6% from people with prior COVID-19 infection. Since it was a large, random sample and vaccination percentages increased dramatically in the UK across this time period, we can safely say that vaccination and prior infection were very protective against becoming infected with the Alpha variant. Virtually all the new infections occurred in unvaccinated people.

After mid-June 2021, when greater than 92% of PCR positives in the UK were Delta, the differences in viral load between vaccinated, unvaccinated, and people with past COVID-19 disease nearly vanished. Viral loads in all three groups were much higher than with Alpha, indicating increased infectiousness. More vaccinated people were now showing symptoms when they became positive, also correlated with viral load.

During the Delta-dominant period, the sample was 1939 new positive PCR tests. Of these, 17% (326) were from unvaccinated people without prior COVID-19 disease, 1% (20) were unvaccinated with evidence of prior disease, and 82% (1593) were fully vaccinated. This is approximately the percentage of the UK population who were vaccinated by August 18, 2021— when 75-83% of UK residents were fully vaccinated and 84-89% had received at least one dose. [5]

Like the Massachusetts study reviewed above, this suggests that the new Delta variant infects vaccinated and unvaccinated people with equal probability. To go from 0.5% of randomly sampled new infections in vaccinated people (under Alpha) to 82% (under Delta) in several months, as the population is becoming more and more vaccinated—these are extraordinary numbers.

If vaccination is still effective in preventing infection, we would expect the proportion of infections in a random population sample to be less than the proportion of the population vaccinated. If 82% of randomly obtained positive tests occur in vaccinated people, and about 82% of people are vaccinated, then vaccination is not reducing the likelihood of infection at all. Efficacy at preventing infection has become zero.

The UK study addresses vaccine efficacy in much more complex ways than the straightforward numbers I present here. The authors conclude that both of the earlier UK-approved vaccines (BioNTech/Pfizer and Oxford-AstraZeneca) have lost some efficacy against Delta compared to Alpha. But both vaccines, they maintain, remain substantially effective at keeping people from becoming infected with the Delta strain, in the range of 67 to 80%. If this is the case, why was 82% of their random sample of new positive PCR tests from vaccinated people?

If a vaccine reduces the risk of becoming infected by two-thirds (67%), we would expect the proportion of vaccinated in the positive sample to be less than the proportion of vaccinated in the population. Say we start with 1000 people in the country, of whom we will randomly sample 100. The country is 80% vaccinated. This means that in our sample of 100 we have 80 vaccinated and 20 unvaccinated people. Let’s say that the virus has infected 10% of the people across the sampling period, or 10 total cases. If 8 of the infected are among the vaccinated, and 2 in the unvaccinated (80% and 20% of the positives, matching the ratio of vaccinated and unvaccinated in the population), the vaccine has made no difference in whether one can get infected (0% efficacy). If the vaccine is 67% effective, the cases in the vaccinated group would be reduced by 2/3 to 2.67 cases, and the total cases would be only 4.67 cases (2.67 vaccinated and 2 unvaccinated). This means that only 2.67/4.67 or 57% of the cases would be in the vaccinated group, and 43% in the unvaccinated. (We can go back to 10% overall being positive just using ratios, yielding 5.7 cases among the vaccinated and 4.3 among the unvaccinated.)

This is why the proportion vaccinated in the infected sample, very close to the proportions vaccinated in the total population, are incompatible with the efficacy numbers generated by the authors. It appears to me—as in the Massachusetts study—that the vaccine is not decreasing susceptibility to infection at all, and is in reality somewhere between slightly (insignificantly) decreasing susceptibility and slightly increasing susceptibility to the Delta variant.

The UK study is clear that viral load (and thus infectiousness to others) is much greater with Delta than with Alpha, and that, with Delta, viral load and infectiousness are equal in vaccinated and unvaccinated infected people.

Discussion #1:

These three different studies in three countries with three different population sampling methods produced the same result: with the current, dominant Delta strain, vaccinated people become infected and carry just as much infectious virus in their upper respiratory tracts when infected as unvaccinated people. The reproducibility of this finding makes it a very strong finding.

The study in Vietnam shows clearly that infected, vaccinated people transmit the infection to others.

Under the current dominance of the Delta variant, being vaccinated or not has no influence on a chief determinant of infectiousness: the size of the viral load carried in the nose and mouth of an infected person. In addition, both vaccinated and unvaccinated become infected in significant numbers, approximating the ratios of vaccinated and unvaccinated in the population.

The rationale for mandates—that each individual has a responsibility to be vaccinated to limit spread of the virus to others—is hereby seriously or even fatally undermined. The decision to be vaccinated, under Delta predominance, has become entirely personal, affecting only the future health and well-being of the individual receiving the vaccine.

Blaming the unvaccinated for the rapid spread of the Delta variant has no merit whatsoever, since both vaccinated and unvaccinated infected people are equally infectious to others, and vaccinated and unvaccinated people are represented in illness samples in proportion to their representation in the general population, showing they are equally likely to become infected.

These findings also equalize vaccinated and unvaccinated in terms of quarantine, vaccine- based exclusion, or the wearing of masks.

The Delta variant has entirely changed our expectations of the effects of vaccination on containing the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

What about natural immunity from previous COVID-19 infection?

What about natural immunity from previous COVID-19 infection, with regard to the change in virus strain? An Israeli study posted on August 25, 2021 powerfully shows that “natural immunity [from previous COVID-19 infection] confers longer-lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS- CoV-2 compared to the BNT162b2 [BioNTech/Pfizer] two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.” If a person is both naturally immune and received one vaccine dose, immunity to Delta infection is even stronger. [6]

To demonstrate this, the authors studied the records of a large Israeli Health Maintenance Organization covering 2.5 million people (26% of the population). They compared the numbers of positive PCR tests from June 1 to August 14, 2021, when the Delta variant was dominant, in people who were either immunized in January-February 2021 or had COVID-19 infection in January-February 2021.

Those who were vaccinated but never had COVID-19 disease were 13 times more likely to develop a new SARS-CoV-2 infection than those made naturally immune by COVID-19 disease. The increased risk was also significant for having symptoms or not.

When the prior COVID-19 disease was allowed to happen earlier in the course of the pandemic, from March 2020 through February 2021, vaccinees who had never had COVID-19 disease were still (a) 6 times more likely to have a positive PCR in June-August 2021 than a naturally immune person, (b) 7 times more likely to have symptomatic disease, and (c) at greater risk for COVID- 19-related hospitalization.

By comparison, under Alpha strain dominance during the first half of 2021, over 50,000 staff members of the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio demonstrated that vaccine-induced immunity (from any of the three US-authorized vaccines) and natural immunity were equally protective against COVID-19 disease. [7]

The Israeli study shows at a later time period how the Delta variant has escaped the control of at least one of these vaccines, while natural immunity to earlier forms of SARS-CoV-2 still confers protection.

A Danish study of 203 recovered COVID patients shows that COVID-19 infection/disease provokes robust immune responses in the vast majority of people regardless of disease severity, including mild cases and even true asymptomatic cases (excluding those with false positive tests). [8]

Discussion #2:

It is difficult to tell anything about the virulence or pathogenicity of the Delta variant itself—how sick it makes people—since the available studies are all done in highly vaccinated populations. Vaccination has protected against severe disease and death with all the other variants, and may well do the same with the Delta variant. This remains the most compelling reason individuals may decide to be vaccinated.

What drives people—especially PhD’s, together with certain minorities [9]—to choose not to be vaccinated? There is substantial recorded and written evidence from first-hand observers and vaccine recipients themselves, and in the immunization “adverse effects” registries of both the US and Europe, that we are tolerating with COVID-19 vaccines a level of severe adverse effects, including death, that would have been unthinkable for any earlier vaccine.

So far, convincing evidence that these effects are “not related to vaccine” has not emerged. Convincing evidence would be research-lab-level autopsy studies of people deceased soon after vaccination (or ill soon after vaccination and eventually deceased), including immunofluorescence or other specific staining for the unique proteins, nucleic acids, and lipids of vaccine or SARS-CoV-2 itself in different tissues. (Some excellent examples of this approach are autopsy studies illuminating the pathophysiology of COVID-19 disease by C Magro and others at Weill Cornell Medical Center [e.g. 10].) Biopsy studies of key tissues in living affected people, such as those with persistent neurologic deficits after vaccination for COVID-19, would also provide powerful evidence. It is highly irregular and indeed unacceptable that such autopsy and biopsy studies have not been done.

Some prominent scientists and a significant number of physicians take these allegations of vaccine-caused injury very seriously. Doctors for Covid Ethics, a British/European/worldwide group of physicians, link the known pathophysiology of clots in COVID-19 disease [10] with a possible pathophysiologic mechanism explaining the numerous cases of thrombosis after vaccination, such as those in published literature due to the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. [11,12] This mechanism would not be unique to one vaccine type or brand, nor are the reports of postvaccination thrombosis unique to one type or brand of vaccine.

In the four major papers reviewed above (Massachusetts, Vietnam, UK, and Israel), the biologic facts of the new Delta variant and its relationship to vaccination are clearly and reproducibly established. This is the value of good science.

Conclusion:

Given all the above evidence, mandating others to take a vaccine is a potentially harmful, damaging act.

Since the principal reason for COVID-19 vaccine mandates—protecting others from infection—has evaporated with the ascendance of the Delta variant, those who mandate COVID-19 vaccines may wish to seek legal counsel regarding their culpability and liability (including personal) for potential long-lasting harm to those whom they pressure into vaccination with threat of exclusion from employment or education or other public activity. Remind your attorney that if an unborn or nursing baby is damaged, liability persists until the child is age 23—plenty of time for discovery of the ways whereby vaccine producers and government regulators may have suppressed important information about harmful effects.

References:

  1. Brown CM, Vostok J, Johnson H, Burns M, Gharpure R, Sami S, Sabo RT, Hall N, Foreman A, Schubert PL, Gallagher GR, Fink T, Madoff LC, MD, Gabriel SB, MacInnis B, Park DJ, Siddle KJ, Harik V, Arvidson, D, Brock-Fisher T, Dunn M, Kearns, Laney AS. 2021. Outbreak of SARS- CoV-2 infections, including COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections, associated with large public gatherings –– Barnstable County, Massachusetts, July 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 70:1059-1062: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7031e2-H.pdf; published August 6, 2021.
  2. Chau NVV, Ngoc NM, Nguyet LA, Quang VM, Ny NTH, Khoa DB, Phong NT, Toan LM, Hong NTT, Tuyen NTK, Phat VV, Nhu LNT, Truc NHT, That BTT, Thao HP, Thao TNP, Vuong VT, Tam TTT, Tai NT, Bao HT, Nhung HTK, Minh NTN, Tien NTM, Huy NC, Choisy M, Man DNH, Ty DTB, Anh NT, Uyen LTT, Tu TNH, Yen LM, Dung NT, Hung LM, Truong NT, Thanh TT, Thwaites G, Tan LV, OUCRU COVID-19 Research Group. 2021. Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant among vaccinated healthcare workers, Vietnam. Preprints with The Lancet, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3897733; posted August 10, 2021.
  1. Pouwels KB, Pritchard E, Matthews PC, Stoesser N, Eyre DW, Vihta KD, House T, Hay J, Bell JI, Newton JN, Farrar J, Crook D, Cook D, Rourke E, Studley R, Peto T, Diamond I, Walker AS, and the COVID-19 Infection Survey Team. 2021. Impact of Delta on viral burden and vaccine effectiveness against new SARS-CoV-2 infections in the UK. medRxiv preprint: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.18.21262237; posted August 24, 2021.
  2. Griffin S. 2021. Covid-19: Fully vaccinated people can carry as much delta virus as unvaccinated people, data indicate. BMJ 374:2074: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2074; published 19 August 2021.

6. Gazit S, Shlezinger R, Perez G, Roni Lotan R, Peretz A, Ben-Tov A, Cohen D, Muhsen K, Chodick G, Patalon T. 2021. Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections. medRxiv preprint: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415; posted August 25, 2021.

5. BBC News: “Covid vaccine: How many people in the UK have been vaccinated so far?” Downloaded on August 23, 2021. Updated article and graph available at https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55274833

  1. Shrestha NK, Burke PC, Nowacki AS, Terpeluk P, Gordon SM. 2021. Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals. 2021. medRxiv preprint: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176; posted June 5, 2021.
  2. Nielsen SSF, Vibholm LK, Monrad I, Olesen R, Frattari GS, Pahus MH, Højen JF, Gunst JD, Erikstrup C, Holleufer A, Hartmann R, Østergaard L, Søgaard OS, Schleimann MH, Tolstrup M. 2021. SARS-CoV-2 elicits robust adaptive immune responses regardless of disease severity. EBioMedicine 68:103410, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2021.103410; published June 4, 2021.
  3. King WC, Rubinstein M, Reinhart A, Mejia RJ. 2021. Time trends and factors related to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy from January-May 2021 among US adults: Findings from a large- scale national survey. medRxiv preprint: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.20.21260795; posted July 23, 2021.
  4. Magro C, Mulvey JJ, Berlin D, Nuovo G, Salvatore S, Harp J, Baxter-Stoltzfus A, Laurence J. 2020. Complement-associated microvascular injury and thrombosis in the pathogenesis of severe COVID-19 infection: A report of five cases. Translational Research 220:1–13: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trsl.2020.04.007; published online April 15, 2020.
  5. Bhakdi, S. et al. 2021. Letter to Physicians: Four new scientific discoveries regarding COVID- 19 immunity and vaccines—implications for safety and efficacy.. Doctors for Covid Ethics website, https://doctors4covidethics.org/letter-to-physicians-four-new-scientific- discoveries-crucial-to-the-safety-and-efficacy-of-covid-19-vaccines/; posted July 9, 2021.
  6. Kantarcioglu B, Iqbal O, Walenga JM, Lewis B, Lewis J, Carter CA, Singh M, Lievano F, Tafur A, Ramacciotti E, Gerotziafas GT, Jeske W, Fareed J. 2021. An update on the pathogenesis of COVID-19 and the reportedly rare thrombotic events following vaccination. Clin Appl Thrombosis/Hemostasis 27:1-14. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10760296211021498; published June 1, 2021.
  7. Jones TC, Biele G, Mühlemann B, Veith T, Schneider J, Beheim-Schwarzbach J, Bleicker T, Tesch J, Schmidt ML, Sander LE, Kurth F, Menzel P, Schwarzer R, Zuchowski M, Hofmann J, Krumbholz A, Stein A, Edelmann A, Corman VM, Drosten C. 2021. Estimating infectiousness throughout SARS-CoV-2 infection course. Science 373, 180. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abi5273; published July 9, 2021.
  8. van Kampen JJA, van de Vijver DAMC, Fraaij PLA, Haagmans BL, Lamers MM, Okba N, van den Akker JPC, Endeman H, Gommers DAMPJ, Cornelissen JJ, Hoek RAS, van der Eerden MM, Hesselink DA, Metselaar HJ, Verbon A, de Steenwinkel JEM, Aron GI, van Gorp ECM, van Boheemen S, Voermans JC, Boucher CAB, Molenkamp R, Koopmans MPG, Geurtsvankessel C, van der Eijk AA. 2021. Duration and key determinants of infectious virus shedding in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Nature Communications 12, 267. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20568-4; published January 11, 2021.

* Nina Pierpont is a graduate of Yale University (BA in biology), with a MA and PhD from Princeton University in population biology/evolutionary biology/ecology, and the MD degree from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. She has been a Clinical Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at Columbia University’s College of Physicians & Surgeons. She is currently in private practice in upstate New York, specializing in behavioral medicine.

ninapierpont@protonmail.com

September 11, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

9/11 and the Politics of Fear and Self-Preservation

By Whitney Webb | MintPress News | September 10, 2021

The 20th anniversary of September 11, 2001 is a particularly somber one, not just because of the horrific nature of events of that day reaching its second-decade milestone, but because of how little we seem to have learned in that amount of time.

The fear and trauma generated by the events of 9/11 were used by the U.S. national security state and its civilian allies to great effect to divide the American population, to attack independent reporting as well as independent thought, to gut the anti-war movement, and to normalize the U.S. government’s overt and persistent degradation of the country’s Constitution. This, of course, is in addition to the illegal U.S. occupations and drone wars in the Middle East and elsewhere that were also born out of this event.

The true beneficiaries of 9/11

As a nation, the U.S. populace has failed to grapple with these realities, and many others, in the two decades since the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 fell. Far from bringing any benefit to the alleged masterminds of the event, the results of 9/11 instead overwhelmingly favored the ambitions of a powerful faction within the U.S. national security state that had long sought to bring the dissident-elimination efforts it spent decades implementing abroad – from the Phoenix Program in Vietnam to Operation Condor in South America – home to roost.

As a result, the response of the U.S. government to the attack supposedly launched by those “who hate us for our freedom” was to work to reduce our freedoms and civil liberties. Now, 20 years on, the sophisticated “War on Terror” apparatus has been fully turned into a “War on Domestic Terror,” with many of those who once opposed the war on terrorism abroad now cheering on the ratcheting up of its domestic equivalent.

Yet, the domestic terror apparatus being swiftly created and implemented very clearly targets individuals and ideologies on both sides of the political divide. It is also extremely vague, essentially leaving it up to those holding the reins of political power – whether Democrat, Republican or something else – to decide who is “terrorist” and who is not. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it was Joe Biden back in the mid-1990s who introduced legislation that would have given the president sole and unappealable authority to define what constitutes “terrorism,” a fact that was omitted from media coverage of last year’s presidential campaign and the past several months of his presidency.

A crisis of courage

It seems clear at this point that one of the key reasons the U.S. continues to hemorrhage its remaining civil liberties, either as a result of the new “War on Domestic Terrorism” or as a response to COVID-19, is that it is undergoing a crisis of conscience and courage in grappling with not just the true nature of the events of 9/11 itself, but with the orthodoxy over the “official story” of those events.

Even two decades after the fact, it is still deemed too controversial or unthinkable to question whether the official story is an accurate portrayal of the events that transpired on and led to that day. This is despite the fact that the official story itself, presumably the same story told by the 9/11 Commission report, has been labeled incomplete, and unable to answer major questions about that day, by its very authors. In addition, the official story relies heavily on testimony obtained through extreme torture, meaning it is of questionable accuracy.

Many of those who have been quick and vocal to point out the lies of the U.S. government when it comes to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and other consequences of the War on Terror have been unable to even consider that the official story of 9/11 may not be legitimate and may indeed have been dealt from the same pack. This may be for a variety of reasons, including a strong desire to not be de-legitimized by their peers as bearers of the “conspiracy theorist” smear and an unwillingness to face a political reality where U.S. government officials may have been complicit in a deadly attack on American soil. In those two examples, however, the failure of such individuals, particularly in media, to even consider that there may be more to the story boils down to a desire for self-preservation in the case of the former and preservation of a particular worldview in the case of the latter. Yet, in both cases, the casualty is the truth and the cause is cowardice.

By failing as a society to thoroughly examine the events of 9/11 and why those events occurred, the American public has shown the powers that be that their desire to preserve a “safe” worldview — and to preserve their own careers, in the case of certain professional classes — is enough to keep people from questioning world-altering events when they emerge. Those powers are well aware of this refusal and have been using it to their advantage ever since.

The poison remains in our system

Today, with the COVID-19 crisis still dragging on, we are similarly immersed in a situation where nuance and facts are being cast aside, militantly in some cases, in favor of the establishment narrative. Is everyone who chooses not to take this particular vaccine a “conspiracy theorist” and “anti-vaxxer”? Does it really make sense to so dramatically divide the public into groups of vaccinated and unvaccinated through a new ID system when the vaccine claims to reduce the severity of illness but not to stop disease transmission? Should those that question the motivation of politicians, powerful pharmaceutical corporations and mainstream media “experts” be censored from expressing those views online?

You do not need to agree with those who hold such views, but what is wrong with hearing what they have to say and debating their evidence with your own? We are losing the ability to have rational public discourse about these issues — and losing it swiftly, at a speed comparable to what took place in the aftermath of 9/11, when questioning the motives of the Bush administration, U.S. intelligence agencies and other groups, as well as their proposed responses and “solutions,” was deemed “unpatriotic” and even “treasonous” by some. Calls were made to strip an entire class of Americans of their freedom for merely sharing the same ethno-religious identities as those we were told attacked us, and many went along with it. Freedom became treated as a privilege only for certain groups, not as a right, and this insidious fallacy has reared its head yet again in recent months in relation to the COVID-19 vaccine debate and also the war on domestic terror.

Our pandemic of fear

Though the failure to consider explanations for 9/11 that deviate from the official story can be called cowardice, the most enduring lesson 20 years on from 9/11 is perhaps that fear was and remains the most powerful tool that has been consistently used to whittle down our freedom and civil liberties. While the divide-and-conquer strategies have raged on from 9/11 to the present, the largest wealth transfers in history have occurred, creating an unaccountable and ultra-wealthy super-elite that dominates an ever-growing underclass.

The march towards this de facto neo-feudalism certainly didn’t begin on or after 9/11, but our collective failure to grapple with the narrative orthodoxies of that day have prevented us from fully understanding the big picture of that event as well as many subsequent and similarly consequential events. For too long, the desire to preserve our self-image, our reputation, and the worldview we are taught in school has all too often made hard, difficult truths a casualty.

In order to truly understand the War on Terror, the domestic surveillance state and our current reality, we must accept that we were lied to about 9/11. We must ask the hard questions and accept hard truths. We must put an end to the 20-plus-year-long pandemic of fear over “invisible enemies,” fear that has pushed us to surrender the very freedoms that we are told we are protecting.

The United States, and much of the world, is quickly becoming an unrecognizable and authoritarian dystopia. We cannot wait another two decades to grapple with the difficult questions and realities that arose after 9/11 and persist into the present. We will either be remembered as a country that took freedom and liberty for all seriously or we will be remembered as a nation of cowards who, driven by fear, were willing to deprive this group, then that group, of their freedom — before losing that freedom entirely.

Whitney Webb has been a professional writer, researcher and journalist since 2016. She has written for several websites and, from 2017 to 2020, was a staff writer and senior investigative reporter for MintPress News. She currently writes for her own outlet Unlimited Hangout and contributes to The Last American Vagabond and MintPress News

September 11, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Islamophobia, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Sydney doctor who criticized medical censorship online is suspended from practicing medicine

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | September 11, 2021

On social media, a Sydney doctor questioned whether vaccines and lockdowns would be effective in ending the pandemic while also scrutinizing how medical authorities were handling treatment. As a result of his postings, New South Wales medical authorities have taken action against Dr. Paul Oosterhuis by suspending him.

Oosterhuis’ social media activities have garnered at least two anonymous complaints to the medical council, the group confirmed on September 2nd.

“Over the last 18 months, I have been increasingly concerned about the misinformation and censorship creeping into science and medicine,” the doctor had stated.

Oosterhuis recommended that medical authorities advise COVID-19 patients to take vitamin D and zinc and to treat them with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

He called the lockdowns “totalitarian” and causing “massive damage to society-wide.”

In a post, he wrote. “The risk of antibody-dependent enhancement of disease… driven by immune escape from the selective evolutionary pressure of vaccinating with a non-sterilizing agent is a real and present danger and needs to be discussed. The danger to millions is distressing me, and discussing that danger is, I believe, unarguably in the public interest.”

According to the Medical Council of New South Wales, Oosterhuis’s social media activity was flagged. He was asked to attend an “immediate action panel” on September 3rd and the anesthetist was questioned by the MCNSW.

“​​The Council deals with individual doctors whose conduct, performance or health may represent a risk to the public and works with them, where possible, to reduce that risk by for example, placing conditions on their medical registration. Section 150 or immediate action panels are held by the Council when a complaint or notification prompts serious concerns about risk to public safety or the need to otherwise act in the public interest. Panel members include community representatives as well as medical practitioners,” the MCNSW statement read.

The MCNSW provided Reclaim The Net with this full statement here

Ultimately, the MCNSW chose to suspend Dr Oosterhuis’ later that day.

Medical practitioners can be suspended by the medical council under New South Wales’ Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW). The New South Wales Medical Council collaborates with the state Ministry of Health to investigate and resolve complaints about specific doctors and other medical specialists.

According to the council, this law does not give it the power to de-register Oosterhuis or revoke his license and they have no authority to punish him. However, despite his almost 30 years of experience in medicine, his suspension has already barred him from practicing in the medical profession.

Oosterhuis has responded by stating that he will not adjust his behavior to be more compliant. He stated that he intends to challenge the suspension, saying:

“I am very disappointed by the Medical Council’s decision to suspend my registration.

“The material I submitted in support of my evidence-based concerns was not considered. I intend to appeal the decision.

“The council drew upon s150 powers to demand an urgent hearing into some posts I have shared on Facebook on the importance of early treatment, particularly the low hanging fruit of vit D, Zinc, Quercetin, vit C and the repurposed drugs Ivermectin.

“I’m pro choice, pro informed consent… it’s always been a key ethical principle… you need to be able to discuss all the risks, benefits, and alternatives of any medical intervention.”

He later added, “Censorship kills. My responsibility to the Hippocratic oath, and basic ethics compels me to share data that I believe is definitely in the public interest.”

Despite an initial public statement, the MCNSW failed to make any further statements on this issue.

September 11, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

Children are Next in Line for Mandated Coronavirus Vaccine Shots

By Adam Dick | Ron Paul Institute | September 11, 2021

Much attention is focused on President Joe Biden in a Thursday speech announcing that the coronavirus testing alternative United States government employees had been able to use to avoid the mandate to take experimental coronavirus vaccines is being eliminated and that regulations are in the works to require all employees at companies with 100 or more employees to take the “vaccines” or be tested weekly. Less noticed is news that experimental coronavirus vaccines may soon be rolled out for young children. Pfizer-BioNTech is seeking in the next few weeks approval for giving its experimental coronavirus vaccine shots to children ages five through 11, while Moderna is close behind, proceeding with testing of its shots on children 11 and younger. Then come shots for toddlers and babies.

Shots mandates for workers first, shots mandates for children next: That seems to be the situation in America, though it should be noted that some children —especially older children — are workers too.

Of course, as happened Thursday with the testing alternative to shots disappearing for government workers, expect that alternative to go away for people working at private businesses as well. By the time a shots mandate for children comes along, a testing alternative might not be available from the start.

Biden provided in his speech a preview of an argument in favor of mandatory shots for children. First, he asserted that the August 23 expedited Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of a Pfizer-BioNTech experimental coronavirus vaccine for people 16 and over means “the time for waiting is over” for people 16 and older who have not taken the shots. Second, Biden suggested that as soon as vaccines are approved for use in an age group of children his conclusion is that the children in that age group should then be given shots:

It comes down to two separate categories: children ages 12 and older who are eligible for a vaccine now, and children ages 11 and under who are not are yet eligible.

The safest thing for your child 12 and older is to get them vaccinated. They get vaccinated for a lot of things. That’s it.  Get them vaccinated.

A move to require children to be given the experimental coronavirus vaccine shots should come as no surprise. Children across America have long been mandated to receive many vaccines on a prescribed timeline in accord with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) vaccine schedule or similar state vaccine schedules in order to attend school. And many of the mandates are difficult to avoid. In California, for example, the vaccine mandate applies even to children in private schools and only has a very limited exemption.

The obvious way to introduce the requirement that young children take the experimental coronavirus vaccine shots is to make the shots a prerequisite for attending school. There is plenty of precedent for that from all the other vaccine shots required in the CDC and state vaccine schedules.

Next up, the shots can be required for even homeschooled children, just like the shots requirement for people employed in businesses with a 100 or more employees can be extended to people employed in businesses with under 100 employees, the self-employed, the retired, and the unemployed. Indeed, on Thursday Biden announced he will mandate US government contractors and 17 million healthcare workers take the shots, no matter how many employees their employers have.

There is no constitutional basis for the experimental coronavirus vaccine mandates Biden announced on Thursday. If he can get away with those mandates, what’s to stop him from expanding on those mandates so he can eliminate all the “loopholes,” including the one protecting children from forced shots.


Copyright © 2021 by RonPaul Institute

September 11, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

We Should Have Trusted Our Immune Systems

By Will Jones | The Daily Sceptic | September 10, 2021

As well as dentistry, sport has played a big, happy part of my life. Athletics, cross country and squash mainly but also many other competitive sports. So I was relieved to find that, following a long spell on the NHS waiting list, I wouldn’t need a hip replacement after all. I’d used the waiting time to do as much research on hip physio as possible and found that my mobility was improving steadily and significantly. My experience and knowledge of sports injuries through intense training and competing for my country had definitely helped.

When I sat down with the consultant for the assessment of my hip I described the progress made and how keen I was to avoid, or at least put off, an operation. The consultant orthopaedic surgeon seemed happy with my attitude and said that nothing would improve on my original hip and that, no matter how bad the hip looked on the X-ray, as long as I could function and manage the pain, I should avoid surgical treatment and continue with my physio and general health measures. Happy days!

This experience reminded me of my own profession (including its history) and the training involved and how medical science has responded to Covid.

In the early years of training we were taught about the ‘old’ treatments and how advances in technology had changed the way we removed decay and designed restorative work (fillings, crowns and bridges etc.). After qualifying and through the years this theme continued. Restorative work involves working out how little, if any, healthy tooth tissue you can get away with removing. All our technology and materials still can’t beat the real thing.

Prevention of the causes of gum disease and tooth decay through education is therefore the most important aspect of dentistry in my opinion. Appropriately frequent monitoring (check-ups) – and treatment as a last resort.

These principles could equally be applied to just about every branch of medicine including infectious diseases and our immune systems. When Covid emerged the panic that set in should not have perverted previous scientific evidence regarding lockdowns, mask wearing, social distancing, testing and recording of ‘cases’. Equally, the panic should not have rushed the medical profession into vaccination. All the evidence was clear from the start that our immune systems were not broken save for the very elderly and vulnerable and the already severely ill. Those that fitted this description were very much in the minority (representing a tiny fraction of the world’s population) and may even have had undiagnosed compromised immune systems.

A few months ago I noticed that someone who had always said ‘hello’ or nodded politely as we passed in the street or in the shopping centre was turning away every time we neared each other. After a few weeks of this happening I asked him if there was anything the matter and he said it was because I hadn’t had the vaccine. He immediately turned away again and I didn’t attempt to respond.

I like to think that those of us who have refused the vaccine aren’t extreme conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers, troublemakers, or ignorant and selfish. We just want to be as careful as we should be in deciding on any medical treatment. We don’t want to try something we might later regret. We don’t want to be pressured into any particular decision and we don’t want to fix something that’s not broken!

September 11, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

You’re Next! Roll up your sleeve. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat…

By Meryl Nass, MD | September 10, 2021

What can I say? A demented President and widely disliked Veep are unlikely to be making decisions in Washington. We do not know who or what is making the decisions. The media and public personas all know this to be true, but no one speaks a word of it.

We have vaccines that barely work the way vaccines are supposed to. The media and anyone who chooses to look at the subject know this to be true, but never say so directly.

We have public health officials who contradict themselves and make fools of themselves on a regular basis, but no one in the media points this out.

When the government insisted on secret vaccine contracts, signed deals for purchases of 8 doses per person, chose the military to manage the program, and chose Moncef Slaoui to run the program, surely you had an inkling that something bad was happening?

What does Wikipedia say about Slaoui?

In April 2013, he co-wrote a paper with several other GSK heads that introduced the term “electroceutical” to broadly encompass medical devices that use electrical, mechanical, or light stimulation to affect electrical signaling in relevant tissue types.[18] Over the next several years, he attempted to sell a public audience on GSK’s development of bioelectronic medicine, with appearances on YouTube[19] and at futurist conferences… In 2016 he was named to the inaugural board of directors of Galvani Bioelectronics, the joint venture between GSK and Alphabet Corporation subsidiary Verily Life Sciences.

When cities started encouraging 12-17 year olds to get vaccinated in spite of parental opposition, and provided instructions on how to do so, even in some cases paying cab fare, no one in the media raised an eyebrow.

The US government, and others, are desperate to get us vaccinated, and desperate to get additional doses into us. We don’t know why. We don’t know what exactly is in these vials.  We don’t know what their plans are.

But we are blind, deaf, and extremely dumb if we think it is for our health.

At which point do you say enough is enough? The bulldozers are already here.

September 11, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | | Leave a comment

In setback for Biden’s mandate policy, Florida appeals court allows governor to ban obligatory masks in schools

RT | September 10, 2021

A Florida appeals court has overruled a district judge who sought to block Governor Ron DeSantis from banning mask mandates in public schools, even as President Joe Biden vowed federal support for administrators who do so.

On Friday, the First District Court of Appeals in Tallahassee overruled Leon County Judge John Cooper’s decision to block the enforcement of the mandate ban, meaning schools that try to force children to wear masks can be punished by the governor.

“Upon our review of the trial’s court’s final judgment and the operative pleadings, we have serious doubts about standing, jurisdiction, and other threshold matters,” said the appeals court order, casting doubt on the case the mandate advocates made through a group of parents.

DeSantis is a Republican governor opposed to lockdowns and mask mandates, who has opted for encouraging vaccinations and antibody treatments for Covid-19 instead. He has argued that masking up ought to be voluntary, and that school mask mandates violate the rights of parents and children. Under the rules enacted by DeSantis last month, school administrators who impose mask mandates can be docked pay. Judge Cooper tried to block their enforcement.

Of the 67 school districts in Florida, 13 have adopted strict mask mandates in violation of the state order. So far, DeSantis has withheld the monthly salary of school board members in two counties, Broward and Alachua, while investigating others for non-compliance.

On Thursday, Biden said the federal government would reimburse anyone who defies the mask mandate ban, as part of his push to force some 80 million Americans to get vaccinated or submit to weekly tests under the threat of losing their jobs or paying massive fines. Biden blamed the “unvaccinated” for the surge in Covid-19 cases and said the vaccinated must be protected from them.

“This is not about freedom, or personal choice,” Biden said in a televised speech, later adding, “We’ve been patient, but our patience is wearing thin, and your refusal has cost all of us.”

Biden also said state governors should require vaccinations of all school teachers and staff, imposed a vaccination requirement on 300,000 teachers in the federal Head Start program, and vowed to go after any governors “undermining” his measures.

“If these governors won’t help, I will use my powers as president and get them out of the way,” he said.

Last month, DeSantis vowed to “stand in the way” of Covid-19 mandates, lockdowns, and other restrictions, saying the US can “either have a free society or we can have a biomedical security state.”

September 10, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

World Health Organization Enters Damage Control Mode

This article was previously published on April 9, 2021, and has been updated with new information.

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | September 10, 2021

While the mainstream media has, by and large, dismissed the theory that SARS-CoV-2 was created and leaked from a high-security biocontainment lab in Wuhan, China, a number of high-ranking U.S. officials are sticking to it, and there’s probably good reason for this.

On the whole, if the virus was actually a natural occurrence, a series of improbable coincidences would have had to transpire. Meanwhile, a series of highly probable “coincidences” point to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) being the most likely source, and to dismiss them as a whole simply doesn’t make sense.

Media Struggle to Prop Up Unproven Zoonotic Theory

I first mentioned that the outbreak had the hallmarks of a laboratory escape in an article we posted February 4, 2020. On the upside, some members of the media are now finally starting to inch toward more honest reporting on this — probably because U.S. officials keep leaning that way.

That doesn’t mean some aren’t still trying to defend the official narrative. Take The New York Times, for example. The original headline of its March 26, 2021, article about Dr. Robert Redfield, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, read: “Ex-CDC Director Favors Debunked Covid-19 Origin Theory.”1

Three days later, that headline was toned down to: “The CDC’s Ex-Director Offers No Evidence in Favoring Speculation That the Coronavirus Originated in a Lab,”2 with a correction notice noting that the earlier headline “referred incorrectly to a theory on the origins of the coronavirus. The theory is unproven, not debunked.”

Well, the truth is, all other theories are equally unproven — and are riddled with far more holes. The theory that the virus arose through natural mutation, for example, looks like Swiss cheese in comparison to the lab-leak theory.

In a February 16, 2021, article3 in Independent Science News, molecular biologist and virologist Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., and Allison Wilson, Ph.D., a molecular biologist, reviewed the evidence for a laboratory origin and the reasons why a zoonotic origin “will never be found.” I also summarized their review in March 2021 article, which explains that:

  • The chance of a person from Wuhan being patient zero is approximately 1 in 630, based on calculations that take into account the population size of Wuhan, the global population and the fact that coronavirus-carrying animals are found virtually all over the world
  • Taking into account that there are 28 Alpha- and Beta-coronavirus species with members that affect humans, the chance of Wuhan hosting a SARS-related coronavirus outbreak is 17,640 to 1
  • No credible theory for natural zoonotic spillover has been presented, to date
  • There are at least four distinct lab origin theories, including the serial passage theory (which proposes the virus was created by serial passaging through an animal host or cell culture). There’s also a variety of evidence for genetic manipulation
  • A third theory is that SARS-CoV-2 is the result of vaccine development, and the fourth is the Mojiang miners passage theory, which proposes a precursor to SARS-CoV-2 sickened the miners, and once inside these patients, it mutated into SARS-CoV-2

No matter which way you look at it, the half-baked idea brought forth by the World Health Organization’s investigative team, that the virus somehow naturally evolved in some unknown part of the world and then piggy-backed into Wuhan on top of frozen food, is held together by even fewer facts.

Among the more compelling “coincidences” that hint at lab-origin are the facts that the WIV has admitted storing and working with bat coronaviruses collected significant distances away from the lab, and that it’s the only biosafety lab in China that studies human coronaviruses. These viruses include RaTG13,4 the closest known ancestor to SARS-CoV-2, obtained from miners who fell ill with severe respiratory illness after working in a Mojiang mine in 2012.

WHO COVID Report ‘Totally Flawed’

In a March 30, 2021, opinion piece in The Washington Post,5 Josh Rogin accurately points out that the WHO’s report6 on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is so flawed, “a real investigation has yet to take place.” We simply cannot count that report as the result of a true investigative effort.

“Determining the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus should have nothing to do with politics,” he writes.7 “It is a forensic question, one that requires thorough investigation of all possible theories, and one that should encompass both the scenario that the virus jumped from animals to humans in nature as well as one related to human error in a Wuhan lab.

But a fatally flawed investigation by the World Health Organization and Chinese officials and experts only muddies the waters, and it places the WHO further at odds with the U.S. government and the Biden administration.”

As noted by Rogin and many others, the investigation was far from independent and transparent, as China was allowed to select its members, who then relied on their Chinese counterparts when it came to data collection. It’s no surprise then that this team decided the natural origin theory is the most credible, while the lab-accident theory is summarily dismissed as unworthy of further consideration and study.

In a March 25, 2021, CNN interview,8 Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated, “We’ve got real concerns about the methodology and the process that went into that report, including the fact that the government in Beijing apparently helped to write it.” Rogin adds:9

“Specifically, declassified U.S. intelligence, confirmed by Blinken’s own State Department,10 alleges that the WIV was conducting undisclosed research on bat coronaviruses, had secret research projects with the Chinese military, and failed to disclose that several lab workers got sick with COVID-like symptoms in autumn 2019.”

Someone’s Not Telling the Truth

According to the WHO report, the labs “were well-managed, with a staff health monitoring program with no reporting of COVID-19 compatible respiratory illness during the weeks/months prior to December 2019.” “In other words, the WHO is saying the U.S. intelligence is wrong,” Rogin writes.11

Not a word is mentioned in the report about U.S. government claims that the WIV engaged in the very research required to create a novel coronavirus with the specific affinity to infect human cells.

Recently, Shi Zhengli, who heads bat coronavirus research at the WIV, spoke at a Rutgers University seminar, calling the WIV’s research “open” and “transparent.” Former deputy national security adviser Matthew Pottinger disagrees. In an interview with Lesley Stahl on “60 Minutes,” he said:12

“There was a direct order from Beijing to destroy all viral samples — and they didn’t volunteer to share the genetic sequences. There is a body of research that’s been taking place, conducted by the Chinese military in collaboration with the WIV, which has not been acknowledged by the Chinese government.

We’ve seen the data. I’ve personally seen the data. We don’t know [why the military were in that lab]. It is a major lead that needs to be pursued by the press, certainly by the WHO.”

As noted by Pottinger, Shi published studies showing how bat coronaviruses were manipulated to render them more infectious to humans, and the U.S. government has in the past received reports of safety concerns due to lax standards at the WIV.

“They were doing research specifically on coronaviruses that attach to the ACE2 receptors in human lungs just like the COVID-19 virus,” Pottinger told Stahl.13 “It’s circumstantial evidence. But it’s a pretty potent bullet point when you consider that the place where this pandemic emerged was a few kilometers away from the WIV.”

US State Department Suspects Lab Leak

In a March 21, 2021, interview with Sky News Australia,14 David Asher, former lead investigator for the U.S. State Department’s task force that looked into the origins of COVID-19, also stated that the data they collected “made us feel the Wuhan Institute was highly probably the source of the COVID pandemic.”

According to Asher, three workers at the WIV who worked with the RatG13 coronavirus — the closest relative to SARS-CoV-2 identified to date — appear to have actually been the first cluster of cases of COVID-19. They fell ill with symptoms consistent with COVID-19 as early as October 2019. At least one of the workers required hospitalization.

He also pointed out there is evidence in the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 suggesting it’s been synthetically altered. It has the backbone of a bat coronavirus, combined with a pangolin receptor and “some sort of humanized mice transceptor.” “These things don’t naturally make sense,” Asher said, adding that experts around the world agree that the odds of this configuration occurring naturally are “very low.”

Another troubling indicator that something was amiss at the WIV was the Chinese government’s taking down of a WIV database in September 2019. According to the Chinese, this was done because of “thousands of hacking attempts.”

However, Asher pointed out many other databases were taken offline around the same time as well.15 The Chinese even tried to remove data posted in a European database containing viral sequencing from patients exhibiting COVID-19-related symptoms. Interestingly, those sequences included adenovirus, which is a vaccine vector. This, Asher said, could indicate that SARS-CoV-2 is part of a vaccine developed in response to a biological weapon.

In an earlier article16 by The Sun, Asher is quoted saying the WIV “was operating a secret, classified program,” and that “In my view … it was a biological weapons program.” He stops short of accusing China of intentional release, however, which also would not make sense from a bioweapon point of view. Instead, he said he believes it was a weapon vector that, during development, “somehow leaked.”17

A March 27, 2020, assessment report by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency also concluded SARS-CoV-2 was likely an accidental release from an infectious diseases laboratory, but stops short of calling it a biological weapon.18 Asher also told Sky News19 he’s never seen a more systematic cover-up, and The Sun 20 quotes him as saying that “Motive, cover-up, conspiracy, all the hallmarks of guilt are associated with this.”

Former FDA Commissioner Weighs in on Lab Origin

March 28, 2021, former FDA commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb, now a board member of Pfizer (producer of one of the COVID vaccines), weighed in on the origin of the pandemic in a “Face the Nation” interview, saying:21

“It looks like the WHO report was an attempt to try to support the Chinese narrative … You know, the lab leak theory doesn’t seem like a plausible theory unless you aggregate the biggest collection of coronaviruses and put them in a lab, a minimum-security lab in the middle of a densely-populated center and experiment on animals, which is exactly what the Wuhan Institute of Virology did.

They were using these viruses in a BSL-2 lab and, we now know, infecting animals. So that creates the opportunity for a lab leak. It might not be the most likely scenario on how this virus got out, but it has to remain a scenario. And I think at the end of the day, we’re never going to fully discharge that possibility. What we’re going to have here is a battle of competing narratives.”

WHO Enters Damage Control Mode

In response to growing critiques, WHO director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and 13 other world leaders have joined the U.S. government in expressing “frustration with the level of access China granted an international mission to Wuhan.” As reported by The Washington Post, March 30, 2021:22

“Ghebreyesus said in a briefing to member states … that he expected ‘future collaborative studies to include more timely and comprehensive data sharing’ — the most pointed comments to date from an agency that has been solicitous toward China through most of the pandemic.

He said there is a particular need for a ‘full analysis’ of the role of animal markets in Wuhan and that the report did not conduct an ‘extensive enough’ assessment of the possibility the virus was introduced to humans through a laboratory incident …

The United States, Britain, South Korea, Israel, Japan and others issued a joint statement23 … expressing concern. ‘Together, we support a transparent and independent analysis and evaluation, free from interference and undue influence,’ it reads …

Tedros said24 … that mission team members raised concerns to him about access to raw data needed for the report … ‘The team reports that the first detected case had symptom onset on the 8th of December 2019. But to understand the earliest cases, scientists would benefit from full access to data, including biological samples from at least September 2019,’ he said.”

WHO Investigation Team Accused of Spreading Disinformation

In a March 2020 interview with Independent Science News,25 molecular biologist Richard Ebright, Ph.D., laboratory director at the Waksman Institute of Microbiology and member of the Institutional Biosafety Committee of Rutgers University and the Working Group on Pathogen Security of the state of New Jersey, called out the members of the WHO-instigated investigative team as “participants in disinformation.”

Ebright was one of 26 scientists who signed an open letter26 demanding a full and unrestricted forensic investigation into the origins of the pandemic, published in the Wall Street Journal and French Le Monde, March 4, 2021. When asked to describe the shortcomings of the WHO-China team’s investigation, he responded:

“A credible investigation would have had Terms of Reference that: 1) Acknowledged the possibility of laboratory origin, 2) Ensured access of investigators to records, samples, personnel, and facilities at the Wuhan laboratories that handle bat SARS-related coronaviruses,

3) Enabled collection of evidence, not mere meet-and-greet photo-ops, 4) Authorized an investigation of months, not mere days, and 5) A credible investigation also would have had conflict-of-interest-free investigators, not persons who were subjects of the research and/or closely associated with subjects of the investigation …

It is crucial that any team reviewing the issues include not only research scientists, but also biosafety, biosecurity, and science policy specialists.”

Ebright, who has repeatedly called the WHO mission “a charade,” stated that “its members were willing — and, in at least one case, enthusiastic — participants in disinformation.” Importantly, the terms of reference for the investigation were prenegotiated, and did not include even the possibility of a laboratory origin. He’s also highly critical of the inclusion of Peter Daszak, whose conflicts of interest alone are enough to invalidate the investigation.

“Daszak was the contractor who funded the laboratory at WIV that potentially was the source of the virus (with subcontracts from $200 million from the US Department of State and $7 million from the US National Institutes of Health), and he was a collaborator and co-author on research projects at the laboratory,” Ebright noted.

What Do We Know?

While another signer of the open letter, Dr. Steven Quay, claims to have calculated27 the lab-origin hypothesis as having a 99.8% probability of being correct, Ebright is unwilling to assign relative probabilities to either theory. Rather, he insists a truly thorough forensic investigation and analysis is what is required, as there is biological evidence going in both directions. He explains:

“The genome sequence of the outbreak virus indicates that its progenitor was either the horseshoe-bat coronavirus RaTG13, or a closely related bat coronavirus.

RaTG13 was collected by Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2013 from a horseshoe-bat colony in a mine in Yunnan province, where miners had died from a SARS-like pneumonia in 2012, was partly sequenced by WIV in 2013-2016, was fully sequenced by WIV in 2018-2019, and was published by WIV in 2020.

Bat coronaviruses are present in nature in multiple parts of China. Therefore, the first human infection could have occurred as a natural accident, with a virus passing from a bat to a human, possibly through another animal. There is clear precedent for this. The first entry of the SARS virus into the human population occurred as a natural accident in a rural part of Guangdong province in 2002.

But bat coronaviruses are also collected and studied by laboratories in multiple parts of China, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Therefore, the first human infection also could have occurred as a laboratory accident, with a virus accidentally infecting a field collection staffer, a field survey staffer, or a laboratory staffer, followed by transmission from the staffer to the public.

There also is clear precedent for this. The second, third, fourth and fifth entries of the SARS virus into human populations occurred as a laboratory accident in Singapore in 2003, a laboratory accident in Taipei in 2003, and two separate laboratory accidents in Beijing in 2004.

At this point in time, there is no secure basis to assign relative probabilities to the natural-accident hypothesis and the laboratory-accident hypothesis. Nevertheless, there are three lines of circumstantial evidence that are worth noting.

1. First, the outbreak occurred in Wuhan, a city of 11 million persons that does not contain horseshoe-bat colonies; that is tens of kilometers from, and that is outside the flight range of, the nearest known horseshoe-bat colonies. Furthermore, the outbreak occurred at a time of year when horseshoe bats are in hibernation and do not leave colonies.

2. Second, the outbreak occurred in Wuhan, on the doorstep of the laboratory that conducts the world’s largest research project on horseshoe bat viruses, that has the world’s largest collection of horseshoe-bat viruses, and that possessed and worked with the world’s closest sequenced relative of the outbreak virus …

3. Third, the bat-SARS-related-coronavirus projects at the Wuhan Institute of Virology used personal protective equipment (usually just gloves; sometimes not even gloves) and biosafety standards (usually just biosafety level 2) that would pose very high risk of infection of field-collection, field-survey, or laboratory staff upon contact with a virus having the transmission properties of SARS-CoV-2.”

Who’s Qualified to Opine on Viral Origin?

When asked “What would you say to the scientists who declined to comment on the open letter because it does not come from virologists?” Ebright responded:28

“The claim is unsound. There were virologists among the signers of the Open Letter. There even were coronavirologists among the signers of the Open Letter. More important, COVID-19 affects every person on the planet. Not just virologists …

Microbiologists and molecular biologists are as qualified as virologists to assess the relevant science and science policies. Virology is a subset, not a superset, of microbiology and molecular biology. The sequencing, sequence analysis, cell culture, animal-infection studies and other laboratory procedures used by virologists are not materially different from the procedures used by other microbiologists and molecular biologists.”

Is Gain-of-Function Research Ever Justifiable?

Clearly, getting to the bottom of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is crucial if we are to prevent a similar pandemic from erupting in the future. If gain-of-function research was in fact involved, we need to know, so that steps can either be taken to prevent another leak (which is not likely possible) or to dismantle and ban such research altogether for the common good.

As long as we are creating the risk, the benefit will be secondary. Any scientific or medical gains made from this kind of research pales in comparison to the incredible risks involved if weaponized pathogens are released, and it doesn’t matter if it’s by accident or on purpose. This sentiment has been echoed by others in a variety of scientific publications.29,30,31,32

Considering the potential for a massively lethal pandemic, I believe it’s safe to say that BSL 3 and 4 laboratories pose a very real and serious existential threat to humanity.

Historical facts tell us accidental exposures and releases have already happened, and we only have our lucky stars to thank that none have turned into pandemics taking the lives of tens of millions, as was predicted at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Seeing how scientists have already figured out a way to mutate SARS-CoV-2 such that it evades human antibodies, having a frank, open discussion about the scientific merits of this kind of work is more pertinent than ever before.

If SARS-CoV-2 really was the result of zoonotic spillover, the easiest and most effective way to quash “conspiracy theories” about a lab origin would be to present compelling evidence for a plausible theory. So far, that hasn’t happened, and as noted by Latham and Wilson, the most likely reason for that is because the virus does not have a natural zoonotic origin, and you cannot find that which does not exist.

Summary

Ideally, we need to reevaluate the usefulness of the WHO. Strong evidence indicates it is heavily influenced, if not outright controlled by Bill Gates. On the whole, it seems it would be far wiser to decentralize pandemic planning from the global and federal levels to the state and local levels. Both medicine and government work best when individualized and locally applied.

Sadly, even though this is clearly the best strategy for successfully addressing any truly serious infectious threat, the likelihood of this happening is very close to zero.

This is largely due to decades of careful planning by the technocrats that have carefully placed their surrogates in virtually every arena of global government, finances and media, which allows them to easily dictate their propaganda campaigns and censor or deplatform virtually anyone who disagrees and seeks to provide a balanced counter-narrative.

Sources and References

September 10, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Adam Schiff demands more data on Amazon’s policing of “misinformation” in books

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | September 10, 2021

Rep. Adam Schiff, a Democrat, has written to Amazon and Facebook, requesting more information on their efforts to combat the spread of “misinformation” on their platforms. The Democratic party has intensified its criticism of online platforms for their failure to address what they say is misinformation, which they blame for the stalling of the vaccination program.

“Despite some concrete and positive steps previously taken, these companies owe both the public and the Congress additional answers about the exponential and dangerous proliferation of misinformation,” said Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, in a statement.

In recent weeks more Democrats, including White House officials, have spoken out against online platforms for their failure to address health misinformation, blamed for the increased vaccine hesitancy in the country. Biden singled out Facebook, saying the company was killing people for allowing the spread of vaccine-skeptic content.

In a statement to Reuters, Facebook said that, since the beginning of the pandemic, it had “removed over 20 million pieces of COVID misinformation, labeled more than 190 million pieces of COVID content rated by our fact-checking partners, and connected over 2 billion people with reliable information through tools like our COVID information center.”

It added it had “removed over 3,000 accounts, pages, and groups for repeatedly violating our COVID-19 and vaccine misinformation policies and will continue to enforce our policies and offer tools and reminders for people who use our platform to get vaccinated.”

A spokesperson for Amazon said that it has been “constantly evaluating the books we list to ensure they comply with our content guidelines, and as an additional service to customers, at the top of relevant search results pages we link to the CDC advice on COVID and protection measures.”

September 10, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

The Bots That Are Not

By Mike Hearn | The Daily Sceptic | September 10, 2021

Since 2016 automated Twitter accounts have been blamed for Donald Trump and Brexit (many times), Brazilian politics, Venezuelan politics, skepticism of climatology, cannabis misinformation, anti-immigration sentiment, vaping, and, inevitably, distrust of COVID vaccines. News articles about bots are backed by a surprisingly large amount of academic research. Google Scholar alone indexes nearly 10,000 papers on the topic. Some of these papers received widespread coverage:

Unfortunately there’s a problem with this narrative: it is itself misinformation. Bizarrely and ironically, universities are propagating an untrue conspiracy theory while simultaneously claiming to be defending the world from the very same.

The visualization above comes from “The Rise and Fall of Social Bot Research” (also available in talk form). It was quietly uploaded to a preprint server in March by Gallwitz & Kreil, two German investigators, and has received little attention since. Yet their work completely destroys the academic field of bot research to such an extreme extent that it’s possible there are no true scientific papers on the topic at all.

The authors identify a simple problem that crops up in every study they looked at. Unable to directly detect bots because they don’t work for Twitter, academics come up with proxy signals that are asserted to imply automation but which actually don’t. For example, Oxford’s Computational Propaganda Project – responsible for the first paper in the diagram above – defined a bot as any account that tweets more than 50 times per day. That’s a lot of tweeting but easily achieved by heavy users, like the famous journalist Glenn Greenwald, the slightly less famous member of German Parliament Johannes Kahrs – who has in the past managed to rack up an astounding 300 tweets per day – or indeed Donald Trump, who exceeded this threshold on six different days during 2020. Bot papers typically don’t provide examples of the bot accounts they claimed to identify, but in this case four were presented. Of those, three were trivially identifiable as (legitimate) bots because they actually said they were bots in their account metadata, and one was an apparently human account claimed to be a bot with no evidence. On this basis the authors generated 27 news stories and 323 citations, although the paper was never peer reviewed.

In 2017 I investigated the Berkley/Swansea paper and found that it was doing something very similar, but using an even laxer definition. Any account that regularly tweeted more than five times after midnight from a smartphone was classed as a bot. Obviously, this is not a valid way to detect automation. Despite being built on nonsensical premises, invalid modelling, mis-characterisations of its own data and once again not being peer reviewed, the authors were able to successfully influence the British Parliament. Damian Collins, the Tory MP who chaired the DCMS Select Committee at the time, said: “This is the most significant evidence yet of interference by Russian-backed social media accounts around the Brexit referendum. The content published and promoted by these accounts is clearly designed to increase tensions throughout the country and undermine our democratic process. I fear that this may well be just the tip of the iceberg.”

But since 2019 the vast majority of papers about social bots rely on a machine learning model called ‘Botometer’. The Botometer is available online and claims to measure the probability of any Twitter account being a bot. Created by a pair of academics in the USA, it has been cited nearly 700 times and generates a continual stream of news stories. The model is frequently described as a “state of the art bot detection method” with “95% accuracy”.

That claim is false. The Botometer’s false positive rate is so high it is practically a random number generator. A simple demonstration of the problem was the distribution of scores given to verified members of U.S. Congress:

In experiments run by Gallwitz & Kreil, nearly half of Congress were classified as more likely to be bots than human, along with 12% of Nobel Prize laureates, 17% of Reuters journalists, 21.9% of the staff members of UN Women and – inevitably – U.S. President Joe Biden.

But detecting the false positive problem did not require compiling lists of verified humans. One study that claimed to identify around 190,000 bots included the following accounts in its set:

Taken from a dataset shared by Dunn et al.

The developers of the Botometer know it doesn’t work. After the embarrassing U.S. Congress data was published, an appropriate response would have been retraction of their paper. But that would have implied that all the papers that relied upon it should also be retracted. Instead they hard-coded the model to know that Congress are human and then went on the attack, describing their critics as “academic trolls”:

Root cause analysis

This story is a specific instance of a general problem that crops up frequently in bad science. Academics decide a question is important and needs to be investigated, but they don’t have sufficiently good data to draw accurate conclusions. Because there are no incentives to recognize that and abandon the line of inquiry, they proceed regardless and make claims that end up being drastically wrong. Anyone from outside the field who points out what’s happening is simply ignored, or attacked as “not an expert” and thus inherently illegitimate.

Although no actual expertise is required to spot the problems in this case, I can nonetheless criticize their work with confidence because I actually am an expert in fighting bots. As a senior software engineer at Google I initiated and designed one of their most successful bot detection platforms. Today it checks over a million actions per second for malicious automation across the Google network. A version of it was eventually made available to all websites for free as part of the ReCAPTCHA system, providing an alternative to the distorted word puzzles you may remember from the earlier days of the internet. Those often frustrating puzzles were slowly replaced in recent years by simply clicking a box that says “I’m not a bot”. The latest versions go even further and can detect bots whilst remaining entirely invisible.

Exactly how this platform works is a Google trade secret, but when spammers discuss ideas for beating it they are well aware that it doesn’t use the sort of techniques academics do. Despite the frequent claim that Botometer is “state of the art”, in reality it is primitive. Genuinely state-of-the-art bot detectors use a correct definition of bot based on how actions are being performed. Spammers are forced to execute polymorphic encrypted programs that detect signs of automation at the protocol and API level. It’s a battle between programmers, and how it works wouldn’t be easily explainable to social scientists.

Spam fighters at Twitter have an equally low opinion of this research. They noted in 2020 that tools like Botometer use “an extremely limited approach” and “do not account for common Twitter use cases”. “Binary judgments of who’s a “bot or not” have real potential to poison our public discourse – particularly when they are pushed out through the media …. the narrative on what’s actually going on is increasingly behind the curve.”

Many fields cannot benefit from academic research because academics cannot obain sufficiently good data with which to draw conclusions. Unfortunately, they sometimes have difficulty accepting that. When I ended my 2017 investigation of the Berkeley/Swansea paper by observing that social scientists can’t usefully contribute to fighting bots, an academic posted a comment calling it “a Trumpian statement” and argued that tech firms should release everyone’s private account data to academics, due to their capacity for “more altruistic” insights. Yet their self-proclaimed insights are usually far from altruistic. The ugly truth is that social bot research is primarily a work of ideological propaganda. Many bot papers use the supposed prevalence of non-existent bots to argue for censorship and control of the internet. Too many people disagree with common academic beliefs. If only social media were edited by the most altruistic and insightful members of society, they reason, nobody would ever disagree with them again.

September 10, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment