Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Child Sacrifice and deception in the time of the Covidians

By Michael Driver | The Conservative Woman | June 11, 2021

If the Aztecs seem unrecognisably alien to the modern mind, it may be that the modern mind does not recognise itself in the Aztecs. We cannot understand the Aztecs because we do not want to understand ourselves’ – John Gray, The Soul of the Marionette

IN HIS magnificent book Conquistador: Hernan Cortes, King Montezuma and the Last Stand of the Aztecs, historian Buddy Levy describes the reaction of Montezuma to the arrival of the Spanish:

‘After his priests sacrificed a dozen children, believing that the survival of the universe depended on them, Montezuma would kneel before flickering firelight and pray for vision, for truth.’

When Montezuma allowed Cortes into the shrine to witness scenes no European had ever seen, Cortes was disgusted. He declared the Aztec idols ‘not gods, but evil things . . . devils’. Montezuma was defiant: ‘We hold them to be very good. They give us health and rain and crops and weather, fertility and all the victories we desire. So we are bound to worship them and sacrifice to them . . . Say nothing more against them.’

On June 3 the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) approved the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 ‘vaccine’ in children aged 12-15. According to the BMJ, only eight children are recorded in the official Covid fatalities data, all with known serious pre-existing conditions.

If we ‘vaccinate’ the 5 million 12-15-year-olds in this country dozens, potentially hundreds, will die as a direct result. All this for an illness which poses no threat to them and for which there is not a single example in the entire world of a child passing Covid to a teacher in the classroom environment.

To which gods are we sacrificing these children? The god of ‘Health Security’? Aztecs selected the children to sacrifice. Ours will come randomly from the population. Does that make it any better? Are we absolved because it is a function of our naivety? What superstition has enthralled our population that we would re-enact the rituals of a long-dead civilisation? The superstition that the vaccine is some sort of panacea? Can anyone reading this believe I have just typed this paragraph?

We have all been deceived by the politicians, the media and the pharmaceutical companies. The legerdemain is the confounding of absolute and relative risk in the minds of the population. Like all great cons the deception is in plain sight but the mark doesn’t want to see it. In my view one of the reasons may be because we are dealing with maths and it’s not immediately easy to understand. When the maths isn’t straightforward we find ourselves back in 5th period on a Friday afternoon and we just switch off. I’m going to set myself up for a massive fall by attempting to simplify the hated maths and expose the con:

In a world where I have £1 and you have £2, in ‘relative’ terms you are 100 per cent better off than me but in ‘absolute’ terms neither of us is rich. ‘Relative’ matters in the sample of me and you, ‘absolute’ when we live in the real world population.

The pharmaceutical companies claim about 95 per cent efficacy for their vaccines. However they are quoting relative not absolute efficacy. It’s the same principle as the simple example above, just like in the real world where your having one pound more than me is largely irrelevant. If you take a vaccine with about 1 per cent absolute efficacy, you are not much more protected than me. Both these numbers are taken from the actual clinical trial submissions of the pharmaceutical companies.

Now if I stand to make billions (trillions?) which number do I want you to focus on? The 95 per cent or the 1 per cent? Deception is as old as the earliest life forms. The difference here is that the con is being run on the entire planet, and we’re all the marks.

Back to John Gray: ‘Civilisation and barbarism are not different kinds of society. They are found – intertwined – whenever human beings come together.’ This is true whether the civilisation be Aztec or Covidian. A future historian may compare the superstition of the Aztec to those of the Covidian. The ridiculous masks, the ineffective lockdowns, the cult-like obedience to authority. It’s almost too perfect that Aztec nobility identified themselves by walking with a flower held under the nose.

Human beings are the only species that kills in pursuit of utopias, the most absurd of which is that we can exist outside nature, controlling the position of every molecule in the universe or every virus on the planet. A utopia where we face no risk upon leaving our homes. This is no less a delusion than the magical thinking employed by the Aztecs. Almost the entire population of the West has been deceived into the worship of a false god which demands human sacrifice. Five hundred years after child sacrifice ended in Mexico, does Boris Johnson want to be known as the Montezuma of the 21st century?

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

BBC Victoria Falls Complaint Escalated

By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | June 10, 2021

You will recall the BBC’s fake news story of how the Victoria Falls was drying up due to climate change:

image

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56902340

I submitted this short complaint at the time:

I have now received this response:

In short, they are just saying “Look, there was a drought, so go away!”

You will have noticed that they have not actually answered any of the points I made.

Needless to say, I have now resubmitted my complaint, as follows:

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your response, but it does not address my complaint.

You state that there was a drought in the region 2019, but this is not in dispute. According to the Zimbabwe Tourism Office in December 2019:

Historical data provided by the Zambezi River Authority, who monitors the water level flows in the region daily, provide evidence that the annual mean water levels of the river have in fact been lower in at least six prior examples of a period spanning 1914 to the current date period.

Whilst Zimbabwe has indeed experienced an extensive drought over the course of this year, the water levels of the Zambezi and indeed the flow levels over Victoria Falls, have remained above those recorded over the drought period of 95 / 96.

https://www.zimbabwetourism.net/news-update-on-the-state-of-vic-falls/

In other words, such droughts are common, and the 2019 one was not as bad as that of 1995/96. They are normal meteorological events, and nothing to do with climate change, as you claim.

To recap, your report states:

In our monthly feature, Then and Now, we reveal some of the ways that planet Earth has been changing against the backdrop of a warming world. Here, we look at the effects of global heating on Victoria Falls,

In 2019, however, Victoria Falls was silenced. In a drought described as the worst in a century, the flow of the Zambezi was reduced to a relative trickle and the Falls ran dry.

A single extreme weather event cannot, in isolation, be viewed as a consequence of climate change.

But the region is recording a sequence of extreme droughts that reflect what climate modellers have predicted will occur as a result of an increase in greenhouse gases in the world’s atmosphere as a result of human activity.

As already noted, there was nothing unusual about the 2019 drought, nor have you provided any evidence that extreme droughts are increasing in the region. The predictions of computer modellers are therefore irrelevant.

It is therefore misleading and inaccurate to claim that this perfectly common event is an “effect of global heating”.

Also your claim that it was the worst drought in a century is also false, as we know 1995/96 was much worse.

Moreover you grossly mislead readers with your image of the Falls supposedly drying up. This is something that happens every year between October and December.

Again according to Zimbabwe Tourism:

The seasonal rise and fall of the Zambezi River changes the look of Victoria Falls on a daily basis. The western side of the falls is lower than the eastern side and therefore carries the most water all year round. This fluctuation is less noticeable at Devil’s cataract and the Main Falls. From Livingstone Islands onwards, this ebb and flow becomes more apparent and at low water, this portion of the Falls dries up almost completely.

https://www.zimbabwetourism.net/news-update-on-the-state-of-vic-falls/

Although water levels are low during dry season, it is inaccurate for you to claim:

The flow of the Zambezi was reduced to a relative trickle and the Falls ran dry

There was still plentiful water at the time of year, it is simply that the eastern end is at a higher elevation that the water stops flowing over.

Worse still your image contrasts January 2019 with December 2018, with the caption “how the falls have changed over time”. But the two months are totally different in terms of water levels. As already noted, December always sees low lake levels, coinciding with the dry rock face you show.

According to Lonely Planet:

Every single year the Eastern Cataract of the Victoria Falls exposes a dry rock face, normally between the months of October to December,” explains Wilma Griffith, a marketing executive at the Wild Horizons Lookout Café, a restaurant overlooking the Batoka Gorge. “Historical figures show that on or around 14 November the river is at its lowest and then gradually starts to rise again around 14 December, once the localised rains start having an impact on the Zambezi.”

November and December are the end of spring and the beginning of summer in the southern hemisphere, but it can take time for the post-winter rainfall in the DRC and Angola to travel downstream to Victoria Falls, and eventually to in the Indian Ocean.

https://www.lonelyplanet.com/articles/victoria-falls-drought-climate-change

By January the heavy spring rains upstream lead to a large rise in lake levels, as the chart below from the Zambezi River Authority shows:

http://www.zambezira.org/hydrology/river-flows

The correct comparison should have been between December 2018 and December 2019. Instead your readers are left with the false impression that the drying up from January 2019 and December 2019 was not a natural event that occurs every year, but something to do with climate change.

To summarise:

  1. You have claimed that the “drying up” of the Victoria Falls in December 2019 was the effect of “global heating”.
  2. You also erroneously claim that the 2019 drought was the worst in a century
  3. You dishonestly publish a flagrantly misleading comparison of photos of the Falls, comparing the dry season in December 2019 with the wet season in January 2019.

But you fail to disclose:

  1. There have been many worse droughts there in the past
  2. The drought of 1995/96 was much worse
  3. The aforesaid “drying up” is a normal annual event, which occurs every dry season because the eastern side of the falls is at a higher elevation, and not because the river dries up to a trickle.
  4. The Falls were back in full spate by January 2020, just as they are every year as a result of spring rainfall, and just as they were a year previously.

There is no evidence whatsoever that climate change, which you ludicrously label global heating, has had any impact whatsoever on the Victoria Falls.

June 11, 2021 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Is a “Climate Lockdown” on the horizon?

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | June 10, 2021

If and when the powers-that-be decide to move on from their pandemic narrative, lockdowns won’t be going anywhere. Instead it looks like they’ll be rebranded as “climate lockdowns”, and either enforced or simply held threateningly over the public’s head.

At least, according to an article written by an employee of the WHO, and published by a mega-coporate think-tank.

Let’s dive right in.

THE REPORT’S AUTHOR AND BACKERS

The report, titled “Avoiding a climate lockdown”, was written by Mariana Mazzucato, a professor of economics at University College London, and head of something called the Council on the Economics of Health for All, a division of the World Health Organization.

It was first published in October 2020 by Project Syndicate, a non-profit media organization that is (predictably) funded through grants from the Open society Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and many, many others.

After that, it was picked up and republished by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), which describes itself as “a global, CEO-led organization of over 200 leading businesses working together to accelerate the transition to a sustainable world.”.

The WBCSD’s membership is essentially every major company in the world, including Chevron, BP, Bayer, Walmart, Google and Microsoft. Over 200 members totalling well over 8 TRILLION dollars in annual revenue.

In short: an economist who works for the WHO has written a report concerning “climate lockdowns”, which has been published by both a Gates+Soros backed NGO AND a group representing almost every bank, oil company and tech giant on the planet.

Whatever it says, it clearly has the approval of the people who run the world.

WHAT DOES IT SAY?

The text of the report itself is actually quite craftily constructed. It doesn’t outright argue for climate lockdowns, but instead discusses ways “we” can prevent them.

As COVID-19 spread […] governments introduced lockdowns in order to prevent a public-health emergency from spinning out of control. In the near future, the world may need to resort to lockdowns again – this time to tackle a climate emergency […] To avoid such a scenario, we must overhaul our economic structures and do capitalism differently.

This cleverly creates a veneer of arguing against them, whilst actually pushing the a priori assumptions that any so-called “climate lockdowns” would a) be necessary and b) be effective. Neither of which has ever been established.

Another thing the report assumes is some kind of causal link between the environment and the “pandemic”:

COVID-19 is itself a consequence of environmental degradation

I wrote an article, back in April, exploring the media’s persistent attempts to link the Covid19 “pandemic” with climate change. Everybody from the Guardian to the Harvard School of Public Health is taking the same position – “The root cause of pandemics [is] the destruction of nature”:

The razing of forests and hunting of wildlife is increasingly bringing animals and the microbes they harbour into contact with people and livestock.

There is never any scientific evidence cited to support this position. Rather, it is a fact-free scare-line used to try and force a mental connection in the public, between visceral self-preservation (fear of disease) and concern for the environment. It is as transparent as it is weak.

“CLIMATE LOCKDOWNS”

So, what exactly is a “climate lockdown”? And what would it entail?

The author is pretty clear:

Under a “climate lockdown,” governments would limit private-vehicle use, ban consumption of red meat, and impose extreme energy-saving measures, while fossil-fuel companies would have to stop drilling.

There you have it. A “climate lockdown” means no more red meat, the government setting limits on how and when people use their private vehicles and further (unspecified) “extreme energy-saving measures”. It would likely include previously suggested bans on air travel, too.

All in all, it is potentially far more strict than the “public health policy” we’ve all endured for the last year.

As for forcing fossil fuel companies to stop drilling, that is drenched in the sort of ignorance of practicality that only exists in the academic world. Supposing we can switch to entirely rely on renewables for energy, we still wouldn’t be able to stop drilling for fossil fuels.

Oil isn’t just used as fuel, it’s also needed to lubricate engines and manufacture chemicals and plastics. Plastics used in the manufacture of wind turbines and solar panels, for example.

Coal isn’t just needed for power stations, but also to make steel. Steel which is vital to pretty much everything humans do in the modern world.

It reminds me of a Victoria Wood sketch from the 1980s, where an upper-middle class woman remarks, upon meeting a coal miner, “I suppose we don’t really need coal, now we’ve got electricity.”

A lot of post-fossil utopian ideas are sold this way, to people who are comfortably removed from the way the world actually works. This mirrors the supposed “recovery” the environment experienced during lockdown, a mythic creation selling a silver lining of house arrest to people who think that because they’re having their annual budget meetings over Zoom, somehow China stopped manufacturing 900 million tonnes of steel a year, and the US military doesn’t produce more pollution than 140 different countries combined.

The question, really, is why would an NGO backed by – among others – Shell, BP and Chevron, possibly want to suggest a ban on drilling for fossil fuel? But that’s a discussion for another time.

AVOIDING A “CLIMATE LOCKDOWN”

So, the “climate lockdown” is a mix of dystopian social control, and impractical nonsense likely designed to sell an agenda. But don’t worry, we don’t have to do this. There is a way to avoid these extreme measures, the author says so:

To avoid such a scenario, we must overhaul our economic structures and do capitalism differently […] Addressing this triple crisis requires reorienting corporate governance, finance, policy, and energy systems toward a green economic transformation […] Far more is needed to achieve a green and sustainable recovery […] we want to transform the future of work, transit, and energy use.

“Overhaul”? “reorienting”? “transformation”?

Seems like we’re looking at a new-built society. A “reset”, if you will, and given the desired scope, you could even call it a “great reset”, I suppose.

Except, of course, the Great Reset is just a wild “conspiracy theory”. The elite doesn’t want a Great Reset, even if they keep saying they do…

… they just want a massive wholesale “transformation” of our social, financial, governmental and energy sectors.

They want you to own nothing and be happy. Or else.

Because that’s the oddest thing about this particular article, whereas most fear-porn public programming at least attempts subtlety, there is very definitely an overtly threatening tone to this piece [emphasis added]:

we are approaching a tipping point on climate change, when protecting the future of civilization will require dramatic interventions […] One way or the other, radical change is inevitable; our task is to ensure that we achieve the change we want – while we still have the choice.

The whole article is not an argument, so much as an ultimatum. A gun held to the public’s collective head. “Obviously we don’t want to lock you up inside your homes, force you to eat processed soy cubes and take away your cars,” they’re telling us, “but we might have to, if you don’t take our advice.”

Will there be “climate lockdowns” in the future? I wouldn’t be surprised. But right now – rather than being seriously mooted – they are fulfilling a different role. A frightening hypothetical – A threat used to bully the public into accepting the hardline globalist reforms that make up the “great reset”.

Many thanks to all the people on social media who brought this to our attention.

June 11, 2021 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science | Leave a comment

No EUA for COVID vaccines in children 5 to 11 years old: the case has not been made

By Paul Elias Alexander, PhD; Howard Tenenbaum, DDS, PhD; Parvez Dara, MD, MBA | TrialSite News | June 10, 2021

We write this brief clarion call to the FDA of the United States and the citizenry, in the hopes that we could call for a time-out as to the drive for an EUA of COVID-19 vaccines in children (up to 11 years old). We think this is a catastrophic mistake that will endanger the lives of our children particularly given that the proper safety data would not have been yet collected to determine the safety (short and long-term effects). We call for a hard stop in the process to grant this EUA given the US’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is moving fast to consider an EUA in this age group of children. There are reports that the meeting could consider ages as low as 2 years old. But the data is not developed or complete enough and especially lacking as to safety, with regards to these vaccines.

We do agree that the underlying body of evidence is not sufficiently mature enough to allow for an optimal adjudication of the benefits versus harms of this vaccine in children. We see absolutely no benefit of these vaccines (no COVID vaccine in children), even if there was data, because there is no risk to children. It is that simple a risk-management decision for parents. Why put a foreign substance into your child (a newly developed platform) that confers no benefit to them, none, and has possible severe harms? The threshold for granting an EUA has not been met in these children. This is not an ‘emergency’ for these children and with such low risk of bad outcomes, they can be allowed to develop much more-broad based and robust long-lasting ‘natural exposure’ immunity. It would be an abuse of the EUA process by the FDA to grant this.

We call for natural exposure immunity in children and they would be effectively immune potentially life-long and it is not a case of ‘would’ their immunity be lasting, when we have evidence that immunity from natural exposure to respiratory virus is so durable and long-lasting that it can last for 100 years. “These studies reveal that survivors of the 1918 influenza pandemic possess highly functional, virus-neutralizing antibodies to this uniquely virulent virus, and that humans can sustain circulating B memory cells to viruses for many decades after exposure – well into the tenth decade of life”. So why risk a foreign substance that we do not know how it behaves safety wise and long-term? Why? You trust the government agencies to advise you? After what has transpired for COVID the last 1.5 years? Where they were flat wrong on every aspect of COVID from lockdowns, school closures, mask mandates, social distancing, and masking in general.

We thus petition the FDA openly here to stop this move to EUA (and pull it if they move prematurely) for we think it is very hasty and rash given the vanishingly small risk to children of severe sequela or death from COVID-19, and the alarming reports of harms of the COVID vaccines in adults and teens (see CDC’s VAERS vaccine adverse reporting system). These reports range from mild adverse effects to anaphylaxis, blood clotting, bleeding disorders, and up to death. We are not calling for a pause, we are calling for a hard stop. There is absolutely no sound justification to rush to grant an EUA for this age-group. No good reason.

The health and well-being of our children remain our priority always. COVID has thankfully spared our children and has not been damaging as we see yearly with seasonal influenza. We know based on settled global data, that children are at exceedingly low risk (near zero and we will say statistical zero) of acquiring the SAR-CoV-2 infection in the first place (less expression of ACE 2 receptors in nasal epithelia and possible cross-protection from prior common cold coronaviruses), spreading it to other children, spreading it to adults, taking it home, of getting severely ill, or of dying from COVID disease.

We thus find that the aggressive push by Dr. Anthony Fauci, the NIH, and the CDC as well as television medical experts to vaccinate our children is very reckless, dangerous, and without the required exclusion of harm. We as parents and scientists find it reprehensible and very unsafe. They have failed to prosecute their case as to why children are to be offered this vaccination.  We are for vaccination once properly developed, but there is no benefit with these vaccines and only the potential for downsides. There is even concern over recent statements by the CDC about rising teen hospitalizations among unvaccinated teens whereby the CDC apparently used duplicitous data and graphs that are contrary to its own data. Thus, CDC is using misleading statements to drive fear in parents to vaccinate their teens, when such young persons carry extremely low risks of COVID illness.

Furthermore, the existing vaccines are under EUA and this indicates that they are investigational and experimental, and as such have not met the stringent regulatory assessment (proper methods, appropriate duration of follow-up to allow safety assessment) that a vaccine must go through to attain full BLA regulatory approval. They have not undergone the appropriate animal testing and safety testing that is needed so as to exclude harm. We have looked for this data and cannot find any. We find this very concerning and to subject children to this type of risky vaccine is unacceptable and grossly reckless and irresponsible by all involved.

They have no liability as are indemnified and this is very unfair to the vaccinee (children) and parents for there is no risk by the vaccine developers and FDA etc. We have called on them to accept risk and to remove liability exemption from the table. They have thus far refused but we feel they must be held accountable and accept risk, people like Dr. Fauci, Dr. Collins of the NIH, Dr. Walensky of the CDC, the FDA, the CDC, and all of the vaccine development companies who subject children to these vaccines. If any children are harmed or die due to the vaccine, these people must have liability, seeing that if they say to vaccinate our children, then the vaccine must be safe. We question the benefits versus risks as well as all of the research methods questions that are worrisome and outstanding. Why not wait to 2022/2023 when data is supposed to be complete? At least two years of full data (not partial or interim) on safety. They talk about safety yet provide no safety results, and are rushing to vaccinate children. This makes no sense and is very dangerous should there be risks.

We have also learnt that COVID-19 is as much a vascular illness as it is a respiratory illness and we are seeing that many of the catastrophic symptoms have one thing in common, this being an impairment and damage to blood circulation. Researchers discovered that the SARS-CoV-2 virus infects the endothelial cells that line the inside of blood vessels. There is damage to the glycocalyx and endothelial layer and this is potentially dangerous. “The concept that’s emerging is that this is not a respiratory illness alone, this is a respiratory illness to start with, but it is actually a vascular illness that kills people through its involvement of the vasculature”. It has been shown that SARS-CoV-2 can directly infect engineered human blood vessel organoids in vitro (in the laboratory).

We are witnessing thousands of cases of adverse effects e.g. bleeding disorders, blood clotting, and deaths, that are occurring near immediately post vaccination and this close temporal relationship has led us to believe that the vaccine’s content is precipitating this. The adverse effects are being logged into the CDC’s VAERS database as well as the European adverse event database, as mentioned, and we have learnt that the reporting which is voluntary, captures roughly 1% of the events, at least in the VAERS database. This suggests elevated under-reporting.

We are calling for a stop in the administration of these vaccines in children (as part of a study or any EUA) until the safety issues are clarified yet we see no reason to vaccinate children. We are calling for a full moratorium against vaccinating them. There is no safety data nor evidence of support in the need to vaccinate children. Our main concern remains that the safety analysis for these vaccines have not been done and the required time to follow-up for this vaccine to ascertain its safety was limited to a median of 2 months in the initial trials. This is public knowledge and this is very concerning.

In December 2020, Dr. J. Patrick Whelan, a pediatric rheumatologist, warned the FDA that mRNA vaccines could cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in ways NOT assessed in safety trials. Whelan stated: “Is it possible the spike protein itself causes the tissue damage associated with Covid-19? Nuovo et al (in press) have shown that in 13/13 brains from patients with fatal COVID-19, pseudovirions (spike, envelope, and membrane proteins) without viral RNA are present in the endothelia of cerebral micro-vessels.

Whelan further reports that “ACE-2 receptor expression is highest in the microvasculature of the brain and subcutaneous fat, and to a lesser degree in the liver, kidney, and heart. They have further demonstrated that the coronavirus replicates almost exclusively in the septal capillary endothelial cells of the lungs and the nasopharynx, and that viral lysis and immune destruction of those cells releases viral capsid proteins (or pseudo-virions) that travel through the circulation and bind to ACE- 2 receptors in these other parts of the body leading to mannan-binding lectin complement pathway activation that not only damages the microvascular endothelium but also induces the production of many pro-inflammatory cytokines. Meinhardt et al. (Nature Neuroscience 2020, in press) show that the spike protein in brain endothelial cells is associated with formation of microthrombi (clots), and like Magro et al. do not find viral RNA in brain endothelium. In other words, viral proteins appear to cause tissue damage without actively replicating virus”. This implies that the spike, on its very own, could act like a pathogen, causing devastating morbidity and fatality.

Dr. Bryam Bridle, a world-renowned virologist stated, “we made a big mistake, we did not realize it until now, we thought the spike protein was a great target antigen, but we never knew the spike protein itself was a potential toxin. By vaccinating people, we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin.” “It was a grave mistake to believe the spike protein would not escape into the blood circulation, according to Bridle. “Now, we have clear-cut evidence that the vaccines that make the cells in our deltoid muscles manufacture this protein — that the vaccine itself, plus the protein — gets into blood circulation,” he said. Bridle said the scientific community para “has discovered the spike protein, on its own, is almost entirely responsible for the damage to the cardiovascular system, if it gets into circulation”.

Recent FOIA animal data from Japan shows that it (lipid nanoparticles/mRNA/spike) accumulates in various organs in very elevated concentrations. As mentioned, if the protein gets into the blood stream, it can potentially circulate in the blood systemically and potentially accumulate in tissues such as the spleen, bone marrow, liver, adrenal glands, and ovaries. What we speculated on is now borne out by this biodistribution data. The biodistribution data alarmingly shows that and suggests potentially then that the spike proteins in humans does not (and will not) stay in the injection site and can travel throughout the body. This is a major development. This requires urgent acute examination for clarification. Is the FDA cognizant of this data as they push to vaccinate our children? We urgently need Moderna, Pfzier, J & J, and AstraZeneca to provide the biodistribution data and study of the sequela when mRNA undergoes translation in distant cells and tissues. The case has indeed been built that the lipid nanoparticles and thus the constituent mRNA and resulting spike that is translated, is likely ending up in distant tissue it usually would not end up in. With possible catastrophic outcomes of clotting, bleeding, and immune system attack (NK lymphocytes etc.).

This additional piece to the puzzle as to explaining why we are seeing these problematic adverse events and deaths post-vaccination, in terms of whether the spike protein moves from the injection site, is also backed up by a very recent publication that reported on 13 young healthcare workers (in CID/Ogata et al.) who received the Moderna vaccine. Researchers found detectable levels of SARS-CoV-2 protein in 11 of the 13 participants one day after the first vaccination. “Spike protein was detectable in three of 13 participants an average of 15 days after the first injection… for one individual (Participant #8), a spike was detected at day 29”, circulating in the blood. While nascent, this warrants urgent clarification.

With this emerging knowledge that no doubt needs clarification, if any of it is true, then we have a potential disaster in the making for our children. Why? Why has the FDA disregarded the emerging evidence of the spike being potentially deleterious especially to the endothelium of the vasculature?

We raise a hypothesis that children have limited ACE 2 receptors in their nasal epithelia and this confers protection from serious illness and we have seen that they are largely immune from COVID sequelae. But by vaccinating into the deltoid muscle (shoulder), and knowing now that the spike and vaccine (lipid nanoparticles) are finding their way to distant parts of the systemic circulation including crossing the blood-brain barrier, then the implications could be very serious in terms of blood clots and bleeding, etc. We would be essentially causing disease at levels seen in adults and not normally seen in children, to now emerge in children due to the vaccination push. We would be bypassing a natural protective barrier (limited ACE 2 in nasal epithelia) with potentially severe life-threatening consequences, if this bares out. This makes no sense and is highly dangerous.

Doctors have begun to raise concerns for they see across the world, a sort of recklessness and derangement with regards to the vaccination of children. How come Dr. Fauci does not know this about the spike protein? Or the troubling biodistribution data? Or has not considered this risk? Why not? Is something other than science at play here? Where is the safety data that the FDA is considering? Is there any collection of safety data by the vaccine manufacturers? We are raising very troubling questions. As such, given all that we have raised, we call for a hard stop and no issuance of an EUA by the FDA for children up to 11 years old. They must not be subjected to these vaccines. There are just too many unknowns and their baseline risk is low and the possible vaccine harms are potentially very high.

I end by calling on POTUS Trump to stand up now and say NO to vaccinating our children. I call on POTUS Biden to do the same. I call on the Prime Minister of Canada, UK, Australia, India, France, Italy etc. and all global leaders to do the same. I call on Caribbean governments, South American, African, European, and Asian governments to do the same. All global governments to not subject our children to these potentially harmful vaccines. There is no justification to vaccinating our children with these vaccines. There is no benefit and only possible downsides that could leave them with 70 to 80 years of disability or even death. COVID has spared them, say thank God and leave them alone!

Contact

Paul E. Alexander, PhD … email: elias98_99@yahoo.com

Howard Tenenbaum, DDS, PhD … email: hctkbt822@gmail.com

Parvez Dara, MBA, MD … email: daraparvez@gmail.com

June 10, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Canada becoming an actual death camp

By Jon Rappoport | No More Fake News | June 10, 2021

They’re called the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).

As their home page states, they “regulate the practice of medicine in Ontario. Physicians are required to be members to practice medicine in Ontario.”

In other words, CPSO is THE medical board. They run the show. If practicing doctors make a wrong move or say the wrong thing, CPSO is there to step on their faces and discipline them and even cancel their licenses to practice.

But now a new rebel group of Canadian MDs has emerged. Why? Because CPSO has issued a fascist edict threatening practicing doctors. Read the threat carefully.

College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario [CPSO] Statement on Public Health Misinformation (4/30/21):

“The College is aware and concerned about the increase of misinformation circulating on social media and other platforms regarding physicians who are publicly contradicting public health orders and recommendations. Physicians hold a unique position of trust with the public and have a professional responsibility to not communicate anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing and anti-lockdown statements and/or promoting unsupported, unproven treatments for COVID-19. Physicians must not make comments or provide advice that encourages the public to act contrary to public health orders and recommendations. Physicians who put the public at risk may face an investigation by the CPSO and disciplinary action, when warranted. When offering opinions, physicians must be guided by the law, regulatory standards, and the code of ethics and professional conduct. The information shared must not be misleading or deceptive and must be supported by available evidence and science.”

WE’RE YOUR BOSSES. YOU DO WHAT WE TELL YOU TO DO. SHUT YOUR MOUTHS. MARCH STRAIGHT AHEAD. KILL YOUR PATIENTS IF YOU HAVE TO, BUT OBEY US.

The new rebels against this monster call themselves the Canadian Physicians for Science and Truth. This is a brief excerpt from their response:

“On April 30, 2021, Ontario’s physician licensing body, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), issued a statement forbidding physicians from questioning or debating any or all of the official measures imposed in response to COVID-19.”

“We regard this recent statement of the CPSO to be unethical, anti-science and deeply disturbing.”

“As physicians, our primary duty of care is not to the CPSO or any other authority, but to our patients.”

“The CPSO statement orders us to violate our duty and pledge to our patients…”

I wondered what medical treatments, in general, CPSO supports and tolerates. It took me three minutes to find a Toronto outfit called the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Foundation (CAMH). They promote electro-convulsive therapy. In other words, shock treatment.

In other words, delivering electric shocks to the brain. As a cure for “mental illness.” I call it torture.

Apparently, this treatment is just fine and dandy, but telling patients the COVID lockdowns are criminal is forbidden by the Nazi bureaucrats at CPSO. Saying the vaccine is dangerous is forbidden. Saying masks are useless and harmful is forbidden.

What would happen if these medical rebels, the Canadian Physicians for Science and Truth—say, 10,000 of them—took this war to the wall?

Practiced non-harmful medicine, kept warning their patients about the sociopathic COVID regulations and the vaccine, refused to knuckle under to the Nazi bureaucrats, even to the point of having their licenses stripped and going to jail?

What would happen, as many thousands/millions of Canadians rallied to their side?

I’ll tell you what would happen. Sanity. Revolution. The downfall of the scum.

We’re at Nuremberg 2.0, people. If you don’t know what that means, look it up.

Doctors clear their vision and their brains and do their level best to HEAL, or they follow orders of the Commandants and maim and kill. It’s one side or the other.

In my 83 years, I’ve known a few very good doctors, and a number of The Cold Ones. The Cold Ones administer, without feeling or remorse, the Book of Death.

They’re ice on the outside, and rotting fungus and stench within.

Many of them sit at the top of medical boards.

They turn open societies into concentration camps.

REBEL.

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

New Study Shows Hydroxychloroquine Boosts Covid Survival By More Than 200%

By Richie Allen | June 10, 2021

US scientists have claimed that a malaria drug can increase the survival rate of patients with severe Covid-19 by as much as 200 per cent. Doctors found that when ventilated patients were given hydroxychloroquine with zinc, their condition improved rapidly.

The study was conducted by Saint Barnabas Medical Center in New Jersey. 255 patients were involved. The results were published two weeks ago here.

Friends and supporters of former US President Donald trump were quick to jump on the findings. Trump was a strong advocate for treating severe Covid-19 with hydroxychloroquine.

Trump was widely criticised for pushing the drug. Scientists labelled him reckless. His adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci said at the time, that all the evidence to hand suggested that the treatment was ineffective against covid.

In March this year, the World Health Organization warned against using the drug to treat coronavirus. The WHO produced data which alleged hydroxychloroquine was ineffective.

Yet the authors of the new report claim:

“We found that when the cumulative doses of two drugs, HCQ and AZM, were above a certain level, patients had a survival rate 2.9 times the other patients.”

Last December, a study published by the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents showed 84 per cent fewer hospitalizations among patients treated with the drug.

In January this year, a study carried out by Hackensack Meridian Health, showed encouraging results in patients with mild covid symptoms who were given hydroxychloroquine.

As I write this, UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock is facing a committee in Westminster. He’s answering questions about his government’s handling of the pandemic. It’s a walk in the park for Hancock. It’s one softball question after another so far.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for a committee member to ask him if he’d considered sending hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin to care homes and hospitals, to treat those who had to be ventilated for severe covid.

June 10, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Debunked, the myth of asymptomatic Covid transmission

By Abir Ballan and Helen Tindall | The Conservative Woman | June 10, 2021

ACROSS the globe, official public health policy during the COVID-19 pandemic has been underpinned by the concern that people without disease symptoms may transmit the virus. This has led to recommendations such as universal mask-wearing, social distancing, mass testing, stay at home orders and school and business closures.

As the BMJ said in December: ‘Searching for people who are asymptomatic yet infectious is like searching for needles that appear and reappear transiently in haystacks, particularly when rates are falling.’

The concern that SARS-CoV-2 could be spread by people without symptoms originally came from a single case report. It was alleged that an asymptomatic woman from China had spread the virus to 16 other contacts in Germany. Later reports showed that, at the time of contact, this woman was taking medication for flu-like symptoms, invalidating the evidence provided for the theory of asymptomatic transmission. As with other common respiratory viruses, SARS-CoV-2 spreads by being exhaled, coughed or sneezed into the air. The largest droplets fall quickly and settle on the ground whilst the most lightweight particles, known as aerosols, may remain suspended in the air for days. Once the virus is present in the environment, it spreads by finding its way into the respiratory tract of new hosts in a large enough quantity (known as the ‘viral load’ or ‘infectious dose’) to infect them. The theory of fomite transmission (touching contaminated surfaces and then touching the face) is not supported by scientific evidence. 

The most significant risk factor for Covid-19 disease is advanced age and the presence of underlying health issues such as cardiovascular disease, obesity and type 2 diabetes. Both factors contribute to a frail immune system. In addition to the health status of the exposed person, the environment in which exposure occurs also affects the probability of that person falling ill. Infectious aerosols remain suspended for longer in cold, dry air. Hence respiratory viruses transmit most efficiently during colder seasons. People spend more time indoors during cold weather, where poor ventilation leads to higher concentrations of infectious aerosols remaining in the air. Spending time in crowded indoor spaces also increases the risk of transmission. Furthermore, lack of exposure to the sun in colder weather results in lower Vitamin D levels, and greater susceptibility to illness if infected.

Infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus causes some individuals to become ill with Covid-19. Many people have had previous exposure to other related coronaviruses. These individuals develop mild or no symptoms following infection with SARS-CoV2, most likely due to protection conferred by this exposure. Cross-immunity has been demonstrated in multiple studies.

People presenting with symptoms of Covid-19 are almost exclusively responsible for transmitting SARS-CoV-2. Serious infection usually results from frequent exposure to high doses of SARS-CoV-2, such as health care workers caring for sick Covid-19 patients in hospitals or nursing homes and people living in the same household.

A person showing no symptoms of Covid-19 may test positive for SARS-CoV-2 on a PCR test, which doesn’t necessarily mean that they are infectious. There are four ways in which this can happen:

● The test may give a false positive result due to several faults in the testing process or in the test itself (the person is not infected);

● The person may have recovered from Covid-19 in the last three months (the person is not currently infected but dead debris of the virus are being picked up by the test);

● The person may be pre-symptomatic, i.e, the person is infected but still in the early stages of the disease and has not yet developed symptoms;

● The person may be asymptomatic, i.e. the person is infected but has pre-existing immunity and will never develop symptoms.

In asymptomatic individuals, the viral load is typically very low and the infectious period is also short in duration. They may still exhale virus particles, which another person may encounter. However, the overall likelihood of transmitting the disease to others is negligible. Thus asymptomatic cases are not the major drivers of epidemics. As Dr Anthony Fauci of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases stated in March 2020: ‘In all the history of respiratory-borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person.’

A study in May 2020 found that all 455 contacts of an asymptomatic individual did not become infected with SARS-CoV-2 and the researchers concluded that ‘the infectivity of some asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers might be weak’.

A recent study shows the minimal effect of asymptomatic transmission within the same household. One thousand asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic individuals led to seven new infections, while 1000 symptomatic individuals led to 180 new infections. The real impact of asymptomatic transmission is likely to be even smaller than this figure because the study combines asymptomatic and presymptomatic individuals. The risk of asymptomatic spread outdoors would be even more insignificant.

The recently debunked theory of asymptomatic transmission as an important driver of outbreaks has been responsible for healthy people being considered to be walking biohazards. The testing, quarantining and masking of healthy people is not supported by scientific evidence and is therefore unethical. Masks, for example, do not protect anyone from contracting the virus. The size of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is 1/10,000 mm and can easily pass through medical or cloth masks with each inhalation and exhalation. According to a review of the literature published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States, ‘We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility.’ Empirical evidence from (otherwise similar) masked vs unmasked states, regions and countries has also failed to demonstrate any beneficial effect.

A sensible recommendation is to ask sick individuals to stay at home until they are recovered, which may last for about eight days. This age-old commonsense practice would have saved the world incredible collateral damage. Instead of wasting resources by focusing on the healthy, it’s time to shift our attention to the vulnerable to improve their prognosis and survival. This strategy involves three key components: prevention (Vitamin D supplementation, healthy lifestyle, avoiding crowded indoor places during the peak of outbreaks and safe and efficacious vaccination), early treatment of symptoms in the high-risk group and effective treatment protocols in the event of hospitalisation.

This article was written for and first published by PANDA, pandata.org a group of multi-disciplinary professionals which promotes open science and rational debate, replacing flawed science with good science and aims at retrieving liberty and prosperity from the clutches of a dystopian ‘new normal’. It is republished by kind permission.

June 10, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

FDA Approves Non-effective New Alzheimer’s Drug Despite Their Own Doctors Recommending AGAINST It

By Brian Shilhavy | Health Impact News | June 9, 2021

Big Pharma has been trying to create a blockbuster drug for the very lucrative Alzheimer’s Disease for more than a decade.

But they have repeatedly failed, mainly because they start with the wrong presuppositions on the cause of Alzheimer’s, basing it on “genetics” instead of environmental causes.

The over 55 age population has always been a cash cow for Big Pharma, as the most profitable drug of all time was Pfizer’s Lipitor, a statin drug that artificially lowers one’s cholesterol.

Prior to its patent expiring at the end of 2011, no other drug in human history had racked up more sales than this one single drug, as their advertising campaign against cholesterol resulted in doctors placing nearly one out of every four people over the age of 55 on statin drugs to lower their cholesterol.

But 25% of our body’s cholesterol resides in our brains, so there have been honest researchers over the years, such as Dr. Stephanie Seneff at MIT, who have linked low cholesterol to a rise in Alzheimer’s Disease. See:

The Clue to Why Low Fat Diet and Statins may Cause Alzheimer’s

And so it is no surprise that coconut oil, demonized by Big Pharma, the USDA, the FDA and just about every other regulatory agency in the U.S. since the 1970s, can provide dramatic improvement to Alzheimer’s Disease and other forms of dementia, often with dramatic results.

See our body of research provided over the years on coconut oil, along with amazingly dramatic testimonials for curing Alzheimer’s here.

We have covered all the previous failures of Big Pharma to produce a drug to treat Alzheimer’s over the years, but just this week the FDA finally approved a drug for the treatment Alzheimer’s Disease.

But as reporter Andrew Joseph of Stat News writes, the FDA did so in spite of the fact that their own 11 doctor expert panel had 10 of those doctors state that “there was not enough evidence to show it could slow cognitive decline,” and the 11th doctor voted “uncertain.”

And now one of those doctors, Neurologist Joel Perlmutter of Washington University in St. Louis, has resigned. … continue

June 10, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

WHO’s Chief Scientist Served with Legal Notice for Disinformation and Suppression of Evidence

By Colin Todhunter | OffGuardian | June 9, 2021

On 25 May 2021, the Indian Bar Association (IBA) served a 51-page legal notice on Dr Soumya Swaminathan, the Chief Scientist at the World Health Organisation (WHO), for:

[H]er act of spreading disinformation and misguiding the people of India, in order to fulfil her agenda.”

The Mumbai-based IBA is an association of lawyers who strive to bring transparency and accountability to the Indian justice system. It is actively involved in the dissemination of legal knowledge and provides guidance and support to advocates and ordinary people in their fight for justice.

The legal notice says Dr Swaminathan has been:

Running a disinformation campaign against Ivermectin by deliberate suppression of effectiveness of drug Ivermectin as prophylaxis and for treatment of COVID-19, despite the existence of large amounts of clinical data compiled and presented by esteemed, highly qualified, experienced medical doctors and scientists,”

And:

Issuing statements in social media and mainstream media, thereby influencing the public against the use of Ivermectin and attacking the credibility of acclaimed bodies/institutes like ICMR and AIIMS, Delhi, which have included ‘Ivermectin’ in the ‘National Guidelines for COVID-19 management’.”

The IBA states that legal action is being taken against Dr Swaminathan in order to stop her from causing further damage to the lives of citizens of India.

Dr Soumya Swaminathan, WHO Chief Scientist

The notice is based on the research and clinical trials carried out by the ‘Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance’ (FLCCC) and the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) Panel. These organisations have presented an enormous amount of data that strengthen the case for recommending Ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.

The IBA says that Dr Swaminathan has ignored these studies and reports and has deliberately suppressed the data regarding the effectiveness of Ivermectin, with an intent to dissuade the people of India from using it.

However, two key medical bodies, the Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Delhi, have refused to accept her stand and have retained the recommendation for Ivermectin, under a ‘May Do’ category, for patients with mild symptoms and those in home isolation, as stated in ‘The National Guidelines for COVID-19 management’.

It is interesting to note that the content of several web links to news articles and reports included in the notice served upon Dr Swaminathan, which was visible before issuing the notice, has either been removed or deleted.

It seems that the vaccine manufacturers and many governments are desperate to protect their pro-vaccine agenda and will attempt to censor information and news regarding the efficacy of Ivermectin.

The legal notice can be read in full on the website of the India Bar Association.

June 9, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Is there a Problem with the Lopez-Medina, Colombia-based Study Implicating Ivermectin?

Major Pharma Companies Including Merck Funding the Trial Site during the Study

By Michael B. Goodkin MD, FACC | TrialSite News | June 9, 2021

Although a great majority of ivermectin-based studies have indicated real promise, one particular study conducted by a small trial site in Colombia received unprecedented media attention when the study results indicated negligible impact. What hasn’t been disclosed by media is the seriously questionable pharmaceutical industry support of this one trial site. During the study, a handful of some of the largest drug companies in the world gave this site money. What’s not clear is why this occurred and whether the funds are correlated to some nefarious agenda. This author suggests that the publisher should have scrutinized this industry funding perhaps more carefully.

On March 4th, 2021, an article appeared in JAMA titled, “Effect of Ivermectin On Time To Resolution of Symptoms Among Adults With Mild COVID.” It concluded, “The findings do not support the use of ivermectin for treatment of mild COVID-19, although larger trials may be needed to understand the  effects of ivermectin on other clinically relevant outcomes.”

Dr. Eduardo Lopez-Medina et al. from Cali, Colombia, randomized 400 mildly ill patients, averaging 37 years old, to ivermectin 0.3 mg/kg or placebo. The time to resolution for ivermectin-treated patients was 10 days and placebo patients 12 days, which was not statistically significant.

Much has been written about the methodologic problems of the study but few read to the bottom of the article to see this:

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr. López-Medina reported receiving grants from Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and Janssen as well as personal fees from Sanofi Pasteur during the conduct of the study. Dr. Oñate reported receiving grants from Janssen and personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme and Gilead outside the submitted work. Dr. Torres reported receiving nonfinancial support from Tecnoquímicas unrelated to this project during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

Considerable press outlets noted this study, we suspect due to the fact that the ivermectin results were negligible, but none of the media addressed the possibility of conflict with industry.

Absolutely nothing has been written about the fact that the study was sponsored by Centro de Estudios en Infectogía Pediatrica and the authors were paid by 3 drug companies making COVID vaccines–Sanofi  Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and Janssen– and two making COVID  therapeutics–Gilead and Merck.

We have some questions about this. Why did the authors disclose that they were receiving industry sponsor funds during the conduct of the study? Were these funds to actually direct the ivermectin study? That would most certainly be a conflict of interest material.

Merck’s expressed their intent on competing against the ivermectin generic approach. Why would this company be funding this small trial site operation in Colombia?

How could JAMA even think about publishing an article sponsored by 5 drug companies centering on a study targeting a generic competitor? Any layperson seeing this could think that this was highly suspect.  

The potential conflict of interest was so severe that no journal should have published it.

Why would anyone do this study?  

Was there a pressing need to know if 37-year-old patients got better sooner with ivermectin than placebo? There were a lot of resources put into this study. The only possible reason to do the study was for drug companies to have a vehicle to publish negative data about ivermectin. Is there anyone who believes the study was sponsored to add to the scientific knowledge about ivermectin for the treatment of COVID?

On February 4th, 2021, Merck, who had the original patent on ivermectin, put out a  statement regarding ivermectin for COVID:

• No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;

• No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease; and

• A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.

If Merck believed these statements to be true, why would they feel the need to go public with them?  

Merck’s vaccine had failed. Merck had bought a company, Oncoimmune, for $425 million and gotten $356 million from HHS in taxpayer money to develop a therapeutic agent, CD24c. They had a material conflict of interest. Later, the European Medicines Agency and World Health Organization both quoted Merck’s statement while ignoring the conflict of interest and science in recommending against the use of ivermectin for COVID, other than for research. Were they influenced by Merck? CD24c was dropped, and Merck has oral antiviral molnupiravir in a phase II-III trial. Why would Merck sponsor a trial of ivermectin?

Why would JAMA publish an article showing that young patients who are expected to recover quickly don’t get better much more quickly with ivermectin?  

This article did not warrant publication in JAMA. The only possible reason to publish it was to present false, negative information about ivermectin to readers.

Why was the age of the patients not mentioned in the key findings or conclusions? 

The age of the patients made the article irrelevant. It could not have been an accident that the age was not mentioned in the key findings and conclusions. That would never happen at JAMA. The authors anticipated that many readers would miss the age of the patients and conclude that ivermectin is ineffective in early COVID. Dr. Adfarsh Bhimraj at Cleveland Clinic who heads the committee writing COVID recommendations for the Infectious Disease Association of America spoke with Helio Medical News on ivermectin. He had a similar observation in the Washington Post.

“This was a well-done, but small trial in patients with mild or moderate disease,” Bhimraj said. He suggested that this is a negative study for a non-mortality outcome, but because the numbers were small, it might not have produced a statistically significant difference in effect size. The evidence is not enough to warrant a recommendation for the use of ivermectin. Other US experts who commented on the article have failed to notice the age of the patients and drug company sponsorship. It has crossed few American physicians’  minds that JAMA could be corrupted and knowingly publish a study with deceptive results in order to help drug companies.

Was the data fraudulent? 

If the purpose of the article was to make it appear that ivermectin was ineffective in mild COVID, there is no reason to believe the data was real. There is no published randomized data for comparison. In the Dominican Republic, Dr. Jose Natalio Redondo reported that in 1300 patients with all degrees of illness, the length of illness went from 21 days to 10 days with ivermectin treatment.

Was JAMA aware that there was concern they had been corrupted and the article unreliable?

Sixteen members of the AMA Board of Directors were emailed that it appeared that JAMA had been infiltrated and the article fraudulent on March 10th, 2021. Eleven JAMA editorial board members were emailed about it April 12th. And one was spoken to. The same email was sent to executive editor Dr. Phil Fontanarosa April 13th. This reply was sent:

“Your message was brought to my attention.    

I will look into these issues as outlined in your letter.    

Please bear with me, as this will take some time, given the number of issues and the complexity of the concerns you raise, as well as other urgent issues and priorities we are addressing right now.” 

As of 6/8/21, the article has been read online 759,000 times. How many of those readers concluded that ivermectin is ineffective for mild COVID and, as a result, did not prescribe it for their patients? To put things in perspective, Uttar Pradesh, India, with 210 million people, started ivermectin in August. By December, their mortality rate was 0.26 per 100,000. In the US, in December, it was 11 times higher at 2.8 per 100,000. Admissions in Mexico are down 75% due to ivermectin.

The JAMA article of 3/4/21 was a cleverly devised drug company creation designed to create the false impression that ivermectin was ineffective in mild COVID by claiming it didn’t shorten the duration of illness significantly. They knew people would miss the age of the patients and not read to the bottom of the article to see that it was sponsored by 5 drug company competitors. They knew people would leap to the conclusion that ivermectin was completely ineffective for COVID, not realizing that the article could not address its effects on hospitalization and death. An infectious disease doctor friend sent it to me as proof that ivermectin does not work. Drug companies would not have gone to these lengths if they did not fear ivermectin as a competitor.

JAMA reviewers could not possibly have missed the obvious conflict of interest. It was obviously their intention to spread misinformation. Leaving out the age of the patients was intentional to make readers think it was ineffective in everyone. The article has not only led to patient care being adversely affected but the article has been widely quoted as evidence against the use of ivermectin. WHO says it is the number one article in support of its position.

Doctors should contact JAMA to understand what is going on with the investigation. JAMA should report on their findings as they committed to this author to undertake an investigation.

June 9, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Is this why the MSM don’t mention Sweden any more?

By Kathy Gyngell | The Conservative Woman | June 8, 2021

WHATEVER happened in Sweden with its policy of no masks and no lockdowns ?

In his latest brilliant video, Ivor Cummins invites us to see. Succinct and logical as ever, it is another must-watch. After making a statement about the official and therefore uncensorable data his analysis draws on – all the links to his evidence are provided – he asks the simple question: Who got the science correct? Ferguson and his big outfit at Imperial College, massively funded by Gates and Big Pharma interests? Or Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s chief epidemiologist, who said he could be judged around this time in 2021? The answer is Sweden, which followed the World Health Organisation’s 2019 pandemic guidelines that Britain threw in the bin.

Cummins goes on to show the real-world risk of death from Covid to be extremely small for those with PCR positive tests and infinitesimal for the rest. Taking Ireland as an example, he shows there is no evidence of excess deaths for the year 2020 and that Covid deaths simply make up a chunk of the normal deaths that would be expected anyway.

You can watch the video here.

The source article for the Sweden Data: https://shahar-26393.medium.com/not-a…

June 8, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Vaccinated Blood – The Dilemma Of COVID’s Experimental Transfusions

By John O’Sullivan | Principia Scientific | June 8, 2021

Should we have the right to refuse a blood transfusion from the vaccinated for COVID-19? What about organs donated by the vaccinated?

In most nations anyone vaccinated for COVID-19 can donate blood immediately or shortly after being vaccinated despite the fact that the experimental product may induce life-threatening disorders in the recipients.

Donated blood will mix with yours and the worrisome injected spike proteins  from the donor blood will circulate and merge into your body.

The vast majority of people, especially the media, are not addressing this issue. Concerned citizens should be writing to all health authorities, politicians and public health bodies and demand screening and separate blood banks and clear identification of vaccinated and unvaccinated blood. No one knows the long term safety data. This is a global experiment on humanity and it must be stopped!

Watch the video below to discern the level of threat:

Does anyone remember the fallout from the AIDS pandemic when infected donated blood destroyed the lives of thousands?

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, sufferers of the blood-clotting disorder haemophilia in the UK were given blood donated – or sold – by people who were infected with the HIV virus and hepatitis C.

According to The Guardian newspaper (July 11, 2017) haemophiliacs pressed for compensation after:

“4,800 of them were infected with hepatitis C, a virus that causes liver damage and can be fatal. Of those, 1,200 were also infected with HIV, which can cause Aids. Half – 2,400 – have now died.”

In 1991, when campaigners were threatening to take the government to court, it made ex-gratia payments to those infected with HIV, averaging £60,000 each, on condition that they dropped further legal claims. The extent of infection with hepatitis C was not discovered until years later.

Today, with the COVID19 experimental vaccines being blamed for over one million adverse reactions, we can be sure this story is another ticking time bomb in government failure.

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‘. 

June 8, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »