Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Critiquing Nature and the Lancet over their disinformation, but making huge material omissions while doing so. Who is Ian Birrell?

By Meryl Nass, M.D. | June 8, 2021

Below are excerpts from a very interesting Unherd article by Ian Birrell, who previously wrote about the lab leak hypothesis when it was very difficult to get anything published on it. Birrell’s reportage is good, as far as it goes. But he lets Fauci, Farra and Collins off the hook. He ponders whether Chinese money influenced the “debt-ridden” Nature publishing company. It surely could have.

But one should also be asking, why is the (formerly?) world’s top science magazine, Nature, the most important journal in the world in which to publish science, debt-ridden in the first place?

And Birrell deftly avoided the more obvious conclusion that if Farrar, Fauci and Collins initiated the Nature Medicine paper to produce faulty scientific arguments against a lab leak, wouldn’t they have been the ones to place it in Nature Medicine, not China?

Birrell did something else strange. He notes that Farrar directed him to the Nature Medicine paper as the scientific basis for the natural origin claim. But he fails to mention that the Fauci emails now show that Farrar was involved in crafting that paper, and involved his employee Josie Golding, who also signed the Daszac-written March 7 Lancet Correspondence, in its crafting. Though not a coauthor, she was quoted in the press release the Scripps Institute issued about the paper. From the Fauci emails, we now know that Kristian Andersen, the first author, emailed Fauci, Farrar and Collins to thank them for their “advice and leadership” on the paper.

Thus this otherwise interesting article is a limited hangout. While criticizing Nature Medicine and the Lancet, and attempting to grab the high road, Ian Birrell reveals himself to be a purveyor of slanted news.

There are two other interesting things about Ian Birrell. He produced one of the earliest mainstrem articles on the lab hypothesis with Alina Chan, back in February. In hindsight, were they being set up then as trusted sources if the lab hypothesis gained prominence?

But who is Ian Birrell? His earlier claim to fame was as a speechwriter for David Cameron. Everyone knows what that means. He was a professional crafter of lying narratives. This Unherd article is designed to blame China and misdirect away from the role of the US and UK’s top science funders: Fauci, Jeremy Farrar and Francis Collins.

https://unherd.com/2021/06/beijings-useful-idiots/

Nature Medicine, its sister publication, was also home for the second key commentary that set the tone in the scientific community after Daszak’s outing in The Lancet. “The proximal origin of Sars-CoV-2″ bluntly concluded that “we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible”. Critics pointed out it was questionable to claim there was any “evidence” proving that Sars-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus. Others noted that the statement mentions the mysterious furin cleavage site — which Nikolai Petrovksy drew attention to as allowing the spike protein to bind effectively to cells in human tissues yet which is not found in the most closely-related coronaviruses — but downplays its potential significance. The statement suggests “it is likely that Sars-CoV-2-like viruses with partial or full polybasic cleavage sites will be discovered in other species”. This has not happened so far.

This document — whose five signatories include one expert who was handed China’s top award for foreign scientists after nearly 20 years work there, and another who is a “guest professor” for the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention — has been accessed 5.4 million times and cited almost 1,500 times in other papers. It is so influential that when I emailed Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust and one of The Lancet signatories, to see if his stance remained the same, he pointed me to this paper that he called “the most important research on the genomic epidemiology of the origins of this virus”.

The lead author was Kristian Andersen, an immunologist at Scripps Research Institute in California who has been a very active voice on social media condemning the lab leak theory and confronting its proponents. Yet the recent release of emails to Anthony Fauci exposed that Andersen had previously admitted to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director that the virus had unusual features that “(potentially) look engineered” and which are “inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory”. He claimed last week the discussion was “clear example of the scientific process” but as another top scientist said to me: “What a smoking gun!”. Now Anderson’s twitter account has suddenly disappeared…

[According to Rutgers professor Richard Ebright,] “Nature and The Lancet played important roles in enabling, encouraging, and enforcing the false narrative that science evidence indicates Sars-CoV-2 had a natural-spillover origin points and the false narrative that this was the scientific consensus”.

Or as another well-placed observer put it: “The game seems to be for Nature and The Lancet to rush non-peer revised correspondences to set the tone and then delay critical papers and responses.”

But why would they do this? This is where things become even murkier. Allegations swirl that it was not down to editorial misjudgement, but something more sinister: a desire to appease China for commercial reasons…

June 8, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Lawyer Sue Grey to NZ government: Failure to cease Covid vaccination programme may constitute homicide

NZ Outdoors Party | June 5, 2021

URGENT REQUEST FOLLOWING RESEARCH SHOWING “S PROTEIN” IS A TOXIN

To: Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern <jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz>, Hon David Parker <david.parker@parliament.govt.nz>, Hon Andrew Little <andrew.little@parliament.govt.nz>, Hon Chris Hipkins <chris.hipkins@parliament.govt.nz>, <ashley_bloomfield@moh.govt.nz>, Chris James <Chris.James@health.govt.nz>, <ayesha.verrall@parliament.govt.nz>

Dear Prime Minister, Attorney-General, Minister of Health, Minister of Covid, Minister or Seniors, Director General of Health and Chris Hipkins

I attach below some new and very important research which I must assume your advisors have not yet provided to you, or the experimental Pfizer injection rollout would surely already have been suspended.

It is now clearly established that the S-Protein [spike protein] is a toxin that causes the harmful symptoms known as “Covid”.

I surely don’t need to explain the legal, ethical and human rights consequences of a government knowingly promoting a program which intentionally injects a life threatening toxin into healthy people.

I also attach a report indicating that injected nanoparticles (and the S-Protein) do not remain in the arm muscle but instead circulate throughout the whole body.

The combined effect is that the Pfizer jab injects mRNA to take over cells to manufacture the deadly S-Protein toxin and this spread throughout much of the body, manufacturing the S-Protein toxin for days and in some cases many weeks.

This explains why even the limited available research from the two months of study as summarised in the Comirnaty Data Sheet identifies possible harm to many different parts of the body including the heart, blood, brain, musculoskeletal system, nervous system, fainting and dizziness etc.

This is no longer just a shocking experiment. Everyone involved is now on notice of this “injection roulette” which may result in death or serious injury to previously healthy people. The health and safety implications for employers and those who push this jab, are significant.

No post injection death can legitimately be ruled out as being caused or contributed by the injection, at least not without a full coroner’s report. Certainly any post vax stroke, heart attack, other blood disorder, nervous system disorder or even suicide or car accident (known overseas as “vaccidents”) must prima facie be assumed to be caused or contributed to by the jab, at least until a full coroners report is undertaken.

Similarly it is not good enough to claim that our seniors who die post jab were frail and likely to die. Surely if they were that frail they should have been spared from the jab. Anyway, surely “deaths post Jab” should be treated consistently with “deaths post Covid”.

Despite the secretive, flawed and very passive official post jab injury reporting process ( CARM), and as a result of the more active community led follow up, you are already on notice of a number of deaths and life threatening and life changing harm from this injection. The deaths and harm will inevitably continue if there are any further injections. Perhaps initially you had an excuse that you thought the S-Protein was “safe”. However now you are on notice that it is not “safe” by any definition.

Further, although you in privileged position are on notice, many members of the public who you were elected to represent remain deceived by misleading claims in crown propaganda that the jab is “safe and effective”. In these circumstances there can be no “Informed consent”. Each jab without Informed Consent is in breach of the Health and Disability Code and is an assault.

In these circumstances, the ongoing program is surely criminal, and indeed may result in Homicide as defined by the Crimes Act:

158 Homicide defined

Homicide is the killing of a human being by another, directly or indirectly, by any means whatsoever.

Compare: 1908 No 32 s 173

Anyone who aids, abets or otherwise incites homicide is a party to that homicide.

I note that the Director-General of Health has shared his view in sworn evidence that Covid is the most serious health issue for New Zealand in 100 years.

I invite you all to consider that claim very carefully and critically. Please put Covid in perspective against the many other challenges which we face, including for example heart attacks, strokes, cancer, suicide accidents and diabetes and the nitrate and other contamination of much of our water.

Surely you must agree that the harm is not from “Covid” but from the “Response to Covid”.

The best expert evidence is that the risk from Covid is similar to the risk from influenza. Many experts are now saying that Covid is simply a rebranding of influenza and colds, supported by PCR testing that was never intended as a diagnostic tool. The WHO says that PCR testing should not be used beyond 20-25 cycles. OIA responses indicate that in NZ PCR tests use up to 45 cycles, which simply multiplies any contamination.

Our government is about to enter dangerous new phase if it proceeds to inject more healthy New Zealanders with an injection that experts have established is toxic.

Apart from the direct harm to those who choose, or are bullied to accept this injection, there is considerable peripheral harm. This includes the contamination of our Blood Bank with S-Protein. We can only speculate on the risks for vulnerable people who receive blood contaminated with this toxin.

Please stop and reflect. Please listen to international experts who are independent from Big Pharma and who are not invested in the Covid paradigm.

Please listen to the New Zealand scientific and medical experts who have put their careers and reputations on the line out of extreme concern.

Please correct the misinformation that this injection is “safe and effective” and “approved by Medsafe” when in fact it did not meet the statutory criteria that “benefit exceeds risk”.

There is no imminent health risk from suspending the program. Dr Bloomfield’s sworn evidence was that the risks were mainly financial and reputational.

Please find the courage to challenge whoever is driving this, and any who act on dogma rather than evidence, reason or ethics.

The future of New Zealand depends on your courage to step up and make this critical call for our people.

I urge you to listen, engage and act in the public interest.

Please put aside your pride and the dogma, and suspend this program.

I am happy to assist however I can.

Sue Grey LLB (Hons), BSc (Biochemistry and Microbiology), RSHDipPHI

Co-leader NZ Outdoors Party (https://www.outdoorsparty.co.nz)

academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab465/6279075

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

We Should Welcome the Lab Leak Theory, Argues Biologist

By Noah Carl • Lockdown Sceptics •  June 8, 2021

At the start of the pandemic, many of us were puzzled as to why the lab leak hypothesis was considered “racist” but the wet market hypothesis was not. Both theories said the pandemic began in China, and both implied that some Chinese people had acted carelessly. (In reality, of course, neither theory is “racist”.)

The most likely reason why the lab leak theory came to be seen as “racist” is that this was convenient for several key organisations, who wanted to avoid any suggestion that they might have helped to cause the pandemic. These organisations include the Chinese Communist Party, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the National Institutes of Health, and EcoHealth Alliance.

The fact that President Trump endorsed the lab leak theory also played a role, of course. Left-wing media outlets in the US have a habit of assuming that, if Trump says something, then it must – almost by definition – be racist.

In a recent article for UnHerd, the biologist Bret Weinstein argues that we should actually welcome the lab leak theory. This is because, if it turns out to be true, we know how to prevent future pandemics of this kind. Simple: ban the research until we can figure out how to do it safely. (Or at the very least: ramp up lab security.)

However, if the zoonotic spillover theory is correct, then “it’s only a matter of time before something like this happens again. And again. And again.” As Weinstein notes, “The straightforward lesson of the pandemic would be to simply face up to the clear risk of studying dangerous, novel infectious agents in the lab.”

He goes on to argue that, if the virus did escape from a lab, then one of the pandemic’s ultimate causes is the distorted incentives that led scientists to undertake such dangerous research in the first place. According to Weinstein:

… the scientific method has been hijacked by a competition over who can tell the most beguiling stories. Scientists have become salesmen, pitching serious problems that they and their research just so happen to be perfectly positioned to solve. The fittest in this game are not the most accurate, but the most stirring. And what could be more stirring than a story in which bat caves are ticking pandemic time-bombs from which only the boldest and brightest gene experts can save us?

Weinstein’s article contains a lot of interesting details, and is worth reading in full.

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

A New Strain Of ‘Swine Flu’ Or A Change In Surveillance?

By Judy Wilyman | Principia Scientific | June 8, 2021

The Australian Government recently prioritized a vaccine for community use against a new strain of influenza. This preventative action is notable as there has been little evidence in the community that suggests this influenza strain is more virulent than other new strains which occur regularly.

In fact, the World Health Organization (2009) states the majority of people who contract this disease experience the milder form of influenza and recover without requiring treatment (1).

An examination of evidence provided by the Western Australian Health Department regarding deaths to swine influenza Type A H1N1 prompts us to ask if it is possible that a change in the surveillance of influenza in 2009 has resulted in the creation of hysteria over a new strain of influenza?

Influenza is a disease that is caused by many strains of virus. These viruses spread easily and new strains develop regularly (2). A vaccine against influenza will only protect against one to three strains depending on the type of vaccine used (3). For example, the current seasonal influenza vaccine protects against Type A (H1N1), Type A (H3N2) and Type B (3). Influenza Type A H1N1 is a strain that has been covered in influenza vaccines for many years.

The new strain of ‘swine’ flu is stated to be a recombination of genetic material from human Type A H1N1, a strain of bird flu and 2 strains of pig flu (1). The WHO states ‘there are no known instances of humans getting this strain of influenza from pigs and other animals’. It is also stated that this strain is not known to be endemic in pigs (1). Yet this flu has been promoted to the public as ‘swine flu’ even though it is a strain that has never been found in pigs.

The public has been misinformed about this strain of influenza. The term ‘swine flu’ creates anxiety and fear of a disease that has come from pigs when the official medical term for this new strain is ‘Influenza Type A, H1N1, human strain’ (1).

The World Health Organisation states that influenza A (H1N1) is a new virus and one to which most people have no or little immunity (1). In a study conducted by the CDC it was shown that individuals between the ages of 18-64 had antibodies present that reacted to the swine flu virus (4). Whilst this doesn’t indicate clinical protection it does suggest that some individuals may have immunity from previous exposure to H1N1 (4). There is no reason to assume that the population will have no immunity to this new strain as it may be immunologically similar to previous H1N1 viruses (5).

H1N1 is a strain of influenza that has been covered for many years in the seasonal influenza vaccine. Therefore you would expect that the Australian Health Department would have mortality data for seasonal H1N1 from previous years. This is not the case. The Health Department has stated ‘this data has not been collected in previous years or for this year’ – even though Type A H1N1 has been one of the most virulent and prevalent strains and regularly covered in the influenza vaccine(3).

In 2009 the Australian Health Department changed the surveillance of influenza in the community (6). The Department of Health suggests the reason there is good data on the mortality associated with influenza H1N1 2009 is because of enhanced surveillance systems that were put in place specifically to monitor the pandemic (6). Prior to 2009 influenza that was notified by GP’s and laboratories was not systematically followed up or linked to hospitalization/death data to determine outcomes (6) In addition, post-mortem victims were not routinely tested for sub-types of influenza (6).

In previous years deaths were listed as ‘influenza’ and were not routinely sub-typed for the strain (6). The Australian Health Department also states ‘hospitals were less likely to routinely test admitted patients with respiratory viruses, including pneumonia, for influenza, so (in previous years) many cases remained undiagnosed or were assumed to be primary bacterial infections (6).

This year most cases of influenza notified by labs or GP’s were followed up to see if the cases were hospitalized or resulted in death.

The Australian Health Department was also systematically testing hospitalizations /deaths for H1N1. As a result, the health department is claiming that 90-95% of laboratory proven influenza cases are due to ‘swine’ H1N1 (6).

It is known that incidence figures for a disease can be inflated by monitoring a disease in a more systematic manner. A more sensitive or systematic test will identify cases that would previously have gone unidentified. However, a greater incidence of a disease does not always indicate greater severity to the population (7). This is the case with a disease such as influenza which has a high incidence in the community but epidemics are known to be mild for the majority of people (8).

How can the public be sure that the number of deaths attributed to this new strain of ‘swine’ H1N1 is different to the number of deaths associated with seasonal H1N1 in previous years if this testing was not being done? These changes in surveillance mean that even though influenza Type A H1N1 has been prevalent in previous years there is no data on the number of deaths associated with this strain in previous years because it hasn’t been monitored.

The Health Department also admits that it is unclear to what extent ‘Swine’ H1N1 infection may have contributed to the deaths it is linked with this year because there are usually several infections present and in most cases underlying medical conditions (6). It is well known that disease diagnosis and cause of death is an inexact science and it is up to the medical practitioner to state the primary cause of death (9).

The Health Department has not produced statistics that show the overall death rate for influenza to be significantly worse this year than in previous years (3).

The Therapeutic Goods Association states “the experience in Australia of the disease is mild in most cases’ (10). The evidence presented above illustrates how different surveillance methods can enhance the incidence of disease in the community. This leaves the cause of the increase in incidence open to interpretation. For this reason the government should be required to publicize any changes to surveillance practices whenever there is an increase in incidence reporting of a disease.

This will ensure that the information the public receives can be interpreted in an open and transparent fashion that will lead to less fear and panic.

In addition, the government admits that the public has been misinformed by calling this strain ‘swine flu’ but they have stated “they are unable to control how the media reports on the Influenza A (H1N1) virus to the community” (10). Why did the government not correct this information in the media by stating it is not a swine flu and informing the public of its medical name?

This is of significant concern when it is observed that fear is used to encourage the public to accept a medical intervention (vaccination) in healthy individuals.

It is extremely important that we have an accurate knowledge of the harm being caused by the use of multiple vaccines in individuals and until this science is complete we need to assess carefully how many vaccines are necessary. A change in surveillance has a significant impact on the incidence of disease in the community and the Public, as the main stakeholder in the use of vaccines, cannot make a proper assessment of the need for a vaccine without this information.

References:

1) The World Health Organization (WHO) http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/frequently_asked_questions/about_disease/en/inde x.html (visited 17.9.09)

2) Jefferson T, Rivetti D, Di Pietrantonj C, Rivetti A, Demicheli V, 2008, Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2. Art. No: CD001269

3) Government of Western Australia, Department of Health, Communicable Diseases Control Directorate, Influenza fact sheet, 2009

4) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) 58, p. 521 – 524

5) Schuchat A, 2009, as cited in CDC, MMWR 58, p.521-524

6) Government of Western Australia, Department of Health, Communicable Diseases Control Directorate

7) Burnet, M., 1952, “The Pattern of Disease in Childhood”, Australasian Annals of Medicine , Vol.1, No. 2: p. 93.

8) Heikkinen T, Booy R, Campins M, Finn A, Olcen P, Peltola H, Rodrigo C, Schmitt H, Schumacher F, Teo S, Weil-Olivier C, 2006, Should healthy children be vaccinated against influenza?
European Journal of Pediatrics, 165: 223-228, DOI 10.1007/s00431-005-0040-9

9) McIntyre P, 2009, Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing, National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS).

10) Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing, 2009, Therapeutic Goods Association (TGA) 5

June 8, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Covid vaccines: Concerns that make more research essential

By Neville Hodgkinson | The Conservative Woman | June 8, 2021

DOCTORS and scientists can behave at times like religious zealots, despite the noble aims of their professions. Heretics are not burned at the stake these days, but professionals marginalise and deride those who challenge their beliefs when these become a matter of faith (and self-interest) rather than science.

An apparent persistent attempt, at the highest level, to hide the Covid virus’s genetically engineered laboratory origins, and to persuade us that it simply jumped from an animal host into humans, is a case in point.

Vaccines are another. Taxpayers provide billions for products which in some cases have done wonders, such as eliminating smallpox, but whose value, in the opinion of some experts, became grossly over-estimated when their introduction coincided with social, political and economic advances in wellbeing.

Just as we tend to react strongly to criticism when living a lie as individuals, vaccines have become such a holy cow that critical studies have little chance of being accepted in the mainstream journals.

All this is by way of introducing the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research, founded last year ‘to enable independent theoreticians, practitioners and researchers’ to publish ‘critical uncensored peer-reviewed theory and research about every aspect of vaccines’.

The latest issue of the journal contains a scholarly, highly referenced 42-page study called Worse Than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines Against Covid-19. 

As with findings described here at TCW yesterday, it makes worrying reading. Most of the long-term hazards described are speculative, but the paper argues that the evidence cited makes it vital for regulators to do much more to track adverse events in people who have received the experimental Covid vaccines.

The main author is Dr Stephanie Seneff, a senior research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, working with Dr Greg Nigh, a naturopath pioneering alternative approaches to cancer.

Seneff has spent much of her career developing human-computer communication through spoken language. She has a degree in biology as well as degrees in engineering and computer science, and since 2010 has shifted her research focus toward the effects of drugs, toxic chemicals, and diet on human health and disease.

The study claims that many aspects of the widespread use of RNA vaccines merit safety concerns, some of which ‘might not be evident for years or even transgenerationally’.

A toxin known as the spike protein makes the Covid virus uniquely dangerous compared with its predecessors in the coronavirus family. The vaccines, including those produced by Pfizer, Moderna, and Oxford AstraZeneca, deliver a genetic code into our body cells instructing them to manufacture this protein, to train the immune system to minimise the impact of exposure to the actual virus.

‘While the promises of this technology have been widely heralded, the objectively assessed risks and safety concerns have received far less detailed attention,’ the study authors say.

Reviewing the various components of the new vaccines, they conclude that there is potential for ‘a wide range of both acute and long-term induced pathologies, such as blood disorders, neurodegenerative diseases and autoimmune diseases’.

Lack of standard trials of the vaccines means many questions about safety and effectiveness can be answered only through data gathered from the mass public rollout, ‘and this is only possible if there is free access to unbiased reporting of outcomes – something that seems unlikely given the widespread censorship of vaccine-related information because of the perceived need to declare success at all cost’.

Regulators internationally continue to maintain that the vaccines bring more benefits than dangers, but there have been many claims of sudden clusters of deaths immediately in the wake of vaccination drives.

Seneff and Nigh argue that we may not be realising the complexity of the body’s potential for reactions to foreign mRNA, and to other ingredients in the vaccines ‘that go far beyond the simple goal of tricking the body into producing antibodies to the spike protein’. The ‘tricks’ include a modification in the RNA code aimed at synthesising abundant copies of the protein.

Yet the protein alone has been shown to be enough to cause damage to blood vessel linings and blood clotting processes. There is also a risk that antibodies to the protein arising either from vaccination, or previous exposure to the virus, may ‘prime’ the immune system in such a way as to provoke chronic autoimmune and inflammatory reactions on subsequent exposure, a particular concern with the booster shots of the vaccine.

Studies indicate that the protein is able to gain access to cells in the testicles, and may disrupt male reproduction.

Furthermore, the genetic code the virus carries contains inserts that make it ‘extremely plausible’ that the protein could misfold into a prion (such as held responsible for mad cow disease in the 1980s), causing widespread damage to brain cells and increasing the risk of conditions including Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease.

The researchers even discuss the possibility of vaccinated people causing disease in the unvaccinated, through vaccine ‘shedding’. There is a plausible process, they say, by which exosomes (particles which transport DNA and RNA between cells) carrying the spike protein instructions could be released from the lungs and inhaled by someone nearby.

They express concern that continued infection of patients with poor immunity will generate resistant strains of the virus, leading to arguments for repeated rounds of vaccines every few months, ‘with increasing numbers of viral variants coded into the vaccines. This is an arms race that we will probably lose’.

The jabs have the potential to incorporate the genetic code for the Covid virus’s spike protein into our DNA, they say, where it ‘could instruct the synthesis of large numbers of copies of proteinaceous infectious particles, with potentially tragic and even catastrophic unforeseen consequences.’

To rule out or minimise these risks, the paper recommends a well-funded effort to collect detailed data on adverse events associated with the RNA vaccines, ‘tracked well beyond the first couple of weeks after vaccination’.

There should be repeated testing of vaccine recipients to check for signs of autoimmune disease; studies to understand better the toxicity of the spike protein to the brain, heart, testicles and other organs; and to determine whether vaccination just before conception can result in offspring carrying mechanisms for producing the spike protein, possibly integrated into their genome.

Finally, ‘as an obvious but tragically ignored suggestion’, governments should encourage people to take safe and affordable steps to boost their immune systems naturally, such as getting out in the sunlight to raise vitamin D levels, and eating mainly organic whole foods rather than chemical-laden processed foods.

‘We have rushed into vaccine experiments on a world-wide scale. At the very least, we should take advantage of the data that are available from these experiments to learn more about this new and untested technology,’ the paper concludes.

June 8, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

James Corbett Presents to the Corona Investigative Committee

 • 06/07/2021

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Reiner Fuellmich and the Corona Investigative Committee interview James Corbett about his investigation into the corona crisis and the future of humanity.

VIDEO COURTESY OF CORONA-AUSSCHUSS

SHOW NOTES:
Biodigital Convergence: Bombshell Document Reveals the True Agenda

How & Why Big Oil Conquered the World

BBC: Human species ‘may split in two’

Colin Powell: Beware the Terror Industrial Complex

Virus-Sized Transistors (Charles Lieber)

Charles Lieber charged

redditor reveals many medical workers in Japan don’t trust the Covid “vaccines”

The Weaponization of Social Media

China and the New World Order

“From a China Traveler” (Rockefeller obituary for Mao)

WHO Cares What Celebrities Think – #PropagandaWatch (WHO hires Hill & Knowlton)

June 8, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

Why I spoke out against lockdowns

Martin Kulldorff on the necessity of challenging the Covid consensus

Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine at Harvard University.
By Martin Kulldorff | spiked | June 4, 2021

I had no choice but to speak out against lockdowns. As a public-health scientist with decades of experience working on infectious-disease outbreaks, I couldn’t stay silent. Not when basic principles of public health are thrown out of the window. Not when the working class is thrown under the bus. Not when lockdown opponents were thrown to the wolves. There was never a scientific consensus for lockdowns. That balloon had to be popped.

Two key Covid facts were quickly obvious to me. First, with the early outbreaks in Italy and Iran, this was a severe pandemic that would eventually spread to the rest of the world, resulting in many deaths. That made me nervous. Second, based on the data from Wuhan, in China, there was a dramatic difference in mortality by age, with over a thousand-fold difference between the young and the old. That was a huge relief. I am a single father with a teenager and five-year-old twins. Like most parents, I care more about my children than myself. Unlike the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic, children had much less to fear from Covid than from annual influenza or traffic accidents. They could get on with life unharmed — or so I thought.

For society at large, the conclusion was obvious. We had to protect older, high-risk people while younger low-risk adults kept society moving.

But that didn’t happen. Instead, schools closed while nursing homes went unprotected. Why? It made no sense. So, I picked up a pen. To my surprise, I could not interest any US media in my thoughts, despite my knowledge and experience with infectious-disease outbreaks. I had more success in my native Sweden, with op-eds in the major daily newspapers, and, eventually, a piece in spiked. Other like-minded scientists faced similar hurdles.

Instead of understanding the pandemic, we were encouraged to fear it. Instead of life, we got lockdowns and death. We got delayed cancer diagnoses, worse cardiovascular-disease outcomes, deteriorating mental health, and a lot more collateral public-health damage from lockdown. Children, the elderly and the working class were the hardest hit by what can only be described as the biggest public-health fiasco in history.

Throughout the 2020 spring wave, Sweden kept daycare and schools open for every one of its 1.8million children aged between one and 15. And it did so without subjecting them to testing, masks, physical barriers or social distancing. This policy led to precisely zero Covid deaths in that age group, while teachers had a Covid risk similar to the average of other professions. The Swedish Public Health Agency reported these facts in mid-June, but in the US lockdown proponents still pushed for school closures.

In July, the New England Journal of Medicine published an article on ‘reopening primary schools during the pandemic’. Shockingly, it did not even mention the evidence from the only major Western country that kept schools open throughout the pandemic. That is like evaluating a new drug while ignoring data from the placebo control group.

With difficulty publishing, I decided to use my mostly dormant Twitter account to get the word out. I searched for tweets about schools and replied with a link to the Swedish study. A few of these replies were retweeted, which gave the Swedish data some attention. It also led to an invitation to write for the Spectator. In August, I finally broke into the US media with a CNN op-ed against school closures. I know Spanish, so I wrote a piece for CNN-Español. CNN-English was not interested.

Something was clearly amiss with the media. Among infectious-disease epidemiology colleagues that I know, most favour focused protection of high-risk groups instead of lockdowns, but the media made it sound like there was a scientific consensus for general lockdowns.

In September, I met Jeffrey Tucker at the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), an organisation I had never heard of before the pandemic. To help the media gain a better understanding of the pandemic, we decided to invite journalists to meet with infectious-disease epidemiologists in Great Barrington, New England, to conduct more in-depth interviews. I invited two scientists to join me, Sunetra Gupta from the University of Oxford, one of the world’s pre-eminent infectious-disease epidemiologists, and Jay Bhattacharya from Stanford University, an expert on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations. To the surprise of AIER, the three of us also decided to write a declaration arguing for focused protection instead of lockdowns. We called it the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD).

Opposition to lockdowns had been deemed unscientific. When scientists spoke out against lockdowns, they were ignored, considered a fringe voice, or accused of not having proper credentials. We thought it would be hard to ignore something authored by three senior infectious-disease epidemiologists from what were three respectable universities. We were right. All hell broke loose. That was good.

Some colleagues threw epithets at us like ‘crazy’, ‘exorcist’, ‘mass murderer’ or ‘Trumpian’. Some accused us of taking a stand for money, though nobody paid us a penny. Why such a vicious response? The declaration was in line with the many pandemic preparedness plans produced years earlier, but that was the crux. With no good public-health arguments against focused protection, they had to resort to mischaracterisation and slander, or else admit they had made a terrible, deadly mistake in their support of lockdowns.

Some lockdown proponents accused us of raising a strawman, as lockdowns had worked and were no longer needed. Just a few weeks later, the same critics lauded the reimposition of lockdowns during the very predictable second wave. We were told that we had not specified how to protect the old, even though we had described ideas in detail on our website and in op-eds. We were accused of advocating a ‘let it rip’ strategy, even though focused protection is its very opposite. Ironically, lockdowns are a dragged-out form of a let-it-rip strategy, in which each age group is infected in the same proportion as a let-it-rip strategy.

When writing the declaration, we knew we were exposing ourselves to attacks. That can be scary, but as Rosa Parks said: ‘I have learned over the years that when one’s mind is made up, this diminishes fear; knowing what must be done does away with fear.’ Also, I did not take the journalistic and academic attacks personally, however vile – and most came from people I had never even heard of before. The attacks were not primarily addressed at us anyhow. We had already spoken out and would continue to do so. Their main purpose was to discourage other scientists from speaking out.

In my twenties, I risked my life in Guatemala working for a human-rights organisation called Peace Brigades International. We protected farmers, unionised workers, students, religious organisations, women’s groups and human-rights defenders who were threatened, murdered, and disappeared by military death squads. While the courageous Guatemalans I worked with faced much more danger, the death squads did once throw a hand grenade into our house. If I could do that work then, why should I not now take much smaller risks for people here at home? When I was falsely accused of being a Koch-funded right-winger, I just shrugged – typical behaviour by both establishment servants and armchair revolutionaries.

After the Great Barrington Declaration, there was no longer a lack of media attention on focused protection as an alternative to lockdowns. On the contrary, requests came from across the globe. I noticed an interesting contrast. In the US and UK, media outlets were either friendly with softball questions or hostile with trick questions and ad hominem attacks. Journalists in most other countries asked hard but relevant and fair questions, exploring and critically examining the Great Barrington Declaration. I think that is how journalism should be done.

While most governments continued with their failed lockdown policies, things have moved in the right direction. More and more schools have reopened, and Florida rejected lockdowns in favour of focused protection, partly based on our advice, without the negative consequences that the lockdowners predicted.

With the lockdown failures increasingly clear, attacks and censorship have increased rather than decreased: Google-owned YouTube censored a video from a roundtable with Florida governor Ron DeSantis, where my colleagues and I stated that children do not need to wear masks; Facebook closed the GBD account when we posted a pro-vaccine message arguing that older people should be prioritised for vaccination; Twitter censored a post when I said that children and those already infected do not need to be vaccinated; and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) removed me from a vaccine-safety working group when I argued that the Johnson & Johnson Covid vaccine should not be withheld from older Americans.

Twitter even locked my account for writing that:

‘Naively fooled to think that masks would protect them, some older high-risk people did not socially distance properly, and some died from Covid because of it. Tragic. Public-health officials/scientists must always be honest with the public.’

This increased pressure may seem counterintuitive, but it is not. Had we been wrong, our scientific colleagues might have taken pity on us and the media would have gone back to ignoring us. Being correct means that we embarrassed some immensely powerful people in politics, journalism, big tech and science. They are never going to forgive us.

That is not what matters, though. The pandemic has been a great tragedy. A 79-year-old friend of mine died from Covid, and a few months later his wife died from cancer that was not detected in time to initiate treatment. While deaths are inevitable during a pandemic, the naive but mistaken belief that lockdowns would protect the old meant that governments did not implement many standard focused-protection measures. The dragged-out pandemic made it harder for older people to protect themselves. With a focused-protection strategy, my friend and his wife might be alive today, together with countless other people around the world.

Ultimately, lockdowns protected young low-risk professionals working from home – journalists, lawyers, scientists, and bankers – on the backs of children, the working class and the poor. In the US, lockdowns are the biggest assault on workers since segregation and the Vietnam War. Except for war, there are few government actions during my life that have imposed more suffering and injustice on such a large scale.

As an infectious-disease epidemiologist, I had no choice. I had to speak up. If not, why be a scientist? Many others who bravely spoke could comfortably have stayed silent. If they had, more schools would still be closed, and the collateral public-health damage would have been greater. I am aware of many fantastic people fighting against these ineffective and damaging lockdowns, writing articles, posting on social media, making videos, talking to friends, speaking up at school board meetings, and protesting in the streets. If you are one of them, it has truly been an honour to work with you on this effort together. I hope that we will one day meet in person and then, let’s dance together. Danser encore!

June 7, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | Leave a comment

“Had COVID? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime”/ Nature

By Meryl Nass, MD | June 7, 2021

Looks like the Nature publishing company is trying to regain some respectability. They are publishing information that has been suppressed (mostly) since the start of the pandemic. It turns out that Covid immunity following infection appears to be life-long. Even for mild cases. (Of course, you heard it from me that immunity was going to be long-lasting many months ago.)

THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULD NOT GET VACCINATED. Vaccination can sometimes interfere with developing long-lasting immunity. That is one of the things you need to test for when you develop a vaccine. But of course, that was not done in the case of the Covid vaccines.

And so the manufacturers and the governments have already signed contracts for many doses of Covid vaccines per person in the US and EU. This is something they never should have done without knowing the extent of populatin immunity and following the immune response over time post-vaccination. It makes absolutely no sense, unless you consider that they may have something they would like injected along with the Covid vaccines.

I still must return to the disaster of vaccinating people who have natural immunity. CDC and FDA do not want anyone to be able to prove they are immune naturally, so they have not approved or authorized even a single test for that purpose. Pretty clever, huh? The reason is to force everyone to be vaccinated, even though the side effects are more pronounced in those who have recovered, and you get no benefit in terms of added immunity. Those who claim you do are liars. You may get a brief boost in antibody levels but it declines quickly and you are back where you started:  95% are immune after the disease, which is better than after the vaccine. Better than after any vaccine, with the possible exceptions of the live vaccines smallpox and measles. (I know, I know, they claim 95% efficacy for the mRNA vaccines, but the study methods used to prove it were worthless. See Dr Sin Hang Lee’s Petition to the FDA last December, which I edited.) There wouldn’t be a coverup regarding breakthrough cases in the vaccinated population if the efficacy was truly 95%. (CDC does not want these cases reported unles they are in hospital or die, and then you also need to have a positive PCR test done with a cycle threashold no greater than 28 in order to report. That is how CDC is belatedly minimizing reports of breakthrough cases.

But here is the good news, and it is very very good.  From Nature :

Many people who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 will probably make antibodies against the virus for most of their lives. So suggest researchers who have identified long-lived antibody-producing cells in the bone marrow of people who have recovered from COVID-191.

The study provides evidence that immunity triggered by SARS-CoV-2 infection will be extraordinarily long-lasting. Adding to the good news, “the implications are that vaccines will have the same durable effect”, says Menno van Zelm, an immunologist at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.

Antibodies — proteins that can recognize and help to inactivate viral particles — are a key immune defence. After a new infection, short-lived cells called plasmablasts are an early source of antibodies.

But these cells recede soon after a virus is cleared from the body, and other, longer-lasting cells make antibodies: memory B cells patrol the blood for reinfection, while bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) hide away in bones, trickling out antibodies for decades.

“A plasma cell is our life history, in terms of the pathogens we’ve been exposed to,” says Ali Ellebedy, a B-cell immunologist at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, who led the study, published in Nature on 24 May.

Researchers presumed that SARS-CoV-2 infection would trigger the development of BMPCs — nearly all viral infections do — but there have been signs that severe COVID-19 might disrupt the cells’ formation2. Some early COVID-19 immunity studies also stoked worries, when they found that antibody levels plunged not long after recovery3.

Ellebedy’s team tracked antibody production in 77 people who had recovered from mostly mild cases of COVID-19. As expected, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies plummeted in the four months after infection. But this decline slowed, and up to 11 months after infection, the researchers could still detect antibodies that recognized the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

To identify the source of the antibodies, Ellebedy’s team collected memory B cells and bone marrow from a subset of participants. Seven months after developing symptoms, most of these participants still had memory B cells that recognized SARS-CoV-2. In 15 of the 18 bone-marrow samples, the scientists found ultra-low but detectable populations of BMPCs whose formation had been triggered by the individuals’ coronavirus infections 7–8 months before. Levels of these cells were stable in all five people who gave another bone-marrow sample several months later.

June 7, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

The Global Race Towards Full Vaccination

By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | June 1, 2021

Scientists initially estimated that 60 to 70 percent of a population would have to acquire resistance to Covid-19 in order for herd immunity to take effect, a threshold that has been revised upwards since the start of the year with 80 to 85 percent quoted in some cases.

Despite the ever-higher immunity threshold discussed by scientists, Israel’s Covid-19 case count started to tumble when 40 percent of its population received at least one jab and now 59.3 percent of its inhabitants are fully vaccinated. The country’s reproduction rate has been around 0.5 in recent weeks and it appears to be on track to emerge from the pandemic, suggesting that initial herd immunity estimates carried some accuracy.

With 45.4 percent of its inhabitants fully vaccinated, Bahrain comes second on the list.

In the United States, 40.2 percent of people have been fully vaccinated (though do not forget that almost half of unvaccinated Americans have natural immunity from prior infection).

In this case, full vaccination refers to all doses prescribed by the vaccination protocol with data only available for countries reporting the breakdown of their doses.

As Scott Morefield wrote recently, Blue-state lockdown-lovers drunk on their own power like Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer who insist on a 70 percent vaccination rate in order to ease up on mandates and restrictions are ignoring the science completely in order to hold their people hostage to an unobtainable, unnecessary goal.

Dr. Marty Makary, a surgeon at Johns Hopkins Hospital debunked the desire among some health officials, sometimes referred to as “zero COVID,” that COVID-19 can be eradicated completely.

Well, unfortunately, we have this perception now that’s being created by some public health leaders that we need to reach total eradication. We’re not gonna get to total absolute risk elimination. That is a false goal and quite honestly it’s being used now to manipulate the public. We heard today again from our public health leaders that if we get to 70% vaccination, then we can start seeing restrictions removed. That’s dishonest. Most of the country is at herd immunity.

Other parts will get there later this month. San Francisco had 12 cases yesterday, most asymptomatic. What do you call that? I call that herd immunity. And I think what’s happening is our public health leaders are dismissing natural immunity from prior infection, which changes the path to get to more population immunity. It invokes mandates, it means kids may have to get it and it demonizes those that are hesitant rather than respecting their decision.

Indeed, you don’t have to have a medical degree to know that the formula for herd immunity has always been vaccinated plus natural immunity.

June 7, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

Meryl Nass on anti-vaccine petition to FDA

Listen HERE

Kevin Barrett | May 31, 2021
Dr. Meryl Nass

Meryl Nass, MD discusses her and RFK Jr.’s new Children’s Health Defense petition to the FDA to withdraw COVID vaccines from the market. CHD reports:

“On May 16, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Meryl Nass, MD, on behalf of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), took a landmark step in the COVID crisis that has irrevocably changed billions of lives around the globe by filing a Citizen Petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to withdraw COVID-19 vaccines from the market…

“Specifically, the petition calls upon the FDA to:

  • Revoke the Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for COVID vaccines
  • Refrain from licensing COVID vaccines
  • Disallow the participation of minors in COVID vaccine trials
  • Immediately revoke all EUAs permitting vaccination of minors
  • Revoke its tacit approval of pregnant women receiving COVID vaccines
  • Immediately amend its existing guidance for the use of chloroquine drugs, ivermectin, and any other safe and effective drugs against COVID.”

Evidence for the effectiveness of COVID-19 treatments can be found at c19study.com .

At the end of the show, Meryl Nass expresses her concern that the suppression of COVID treatments, in conjunction with the mass vaccination program and draconian censorship, raises a disturbing question: Is there some ulterior and perhaps sinister motive driving this seemingly irrational policy?

June 7, 2021 Posted by | Audio program, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Vaccine scientist: ‘We’ve made a big mistake’

By Neville Hodgkinson | The Conservative Woman | June 7, 2021

I’LL LEAD you into this article gently, since I’m sure many readers will have had the Covid jab, persuaded by the unremitting propaganda from the NHS and most media sources that it is safe and effective.

The reality as the science of it unravels is that for some it is neither.

I had strongly hoped that it really would be an answer to Covid-19.  Despite high levels of immediate reactivity (four out of five in the Pfizer vaccine trial report had mild to moderate side-effects), the manufacturers’ argument that this was a sign of a healthy immune response seemed logical.

We now know differently.

The healthiest response to the virus is for the body to develop natural immunity, which fortunately is what most people do, either with only mild symptoms or no illness at all.

As thousands of doctors have argued, public health efforts should be directed towards strengthening immunity among the vulnerable.  Support should be focused on those with a poor diet or other factors putting their immune health at risk, including lack of sunshine and loneliness – the exact opposite of what we saw imposed on the elderly during lockdown.

The reason why this kind of support is so important is that once the virus takes hold, the unique ‘extras’ it carries as a result of its genetically engineered origins bring long-term risks as well as immediate harm, including effects ranging from blood clots and heart disease to brain damage and reproductive issues.

As many will know by now, the problem lies within a structure that enables the virus, originally from bats, not only to enter human cells but to deliver a toxin called the spike protein.

Most Covid vaccines instruct our body cells to produce the same protein.  This is in the hope that antibodies developed against it will prevent the most damaging effects of the actual virus.  There is evidence that this is the case for some.

But there’s also a problem, spelled out most recently by Canadian researcher Dr Byram Bridle, who was awarded a $230,000 Ontario government grant last year for research on Covid vaccine development.

This is that the spike protein produced by the vaccine does not just act locally, at the site of the jab (the shoulder muscle), but gets into the bloodstream and is carried through the circulation to many other sites in the body. Previously confidential animal studies using radioactive tracing show it to go just about everywhere, including the adrenal glands, heart, liver, kidneys, lungs, ovaries, pancreas, pituitary gland, prostate, salivary glands, intestines, spinal cord, spleen, stomach, testes, thymus, and uterus.

The quantities are small and usually disappear within days.

But the questions arise, is this mechanism involved in the thousands of deaths and injuries reported soon after Covid vaccination, and might it set some people up for the same long-term consequences as in severe cases of the disease itself?

Some researchers say the risk from the vaccine may be greater than that from the actual virus in healthy people. This would be especially true for the young, whose immune systems deal with the virus successfully. In contrast, the vaccine has a device that protects the spike protein mechanism against immediate destruction by the body, in order to promote the immune response.

Although millions have received the jab without ill-effects, there have been thousands of reports of deaths and disease associated with it. The symptoms are often indistinguishable to those induced by the virus, and so there is real concern that this damage is being missed by manufacturers and regulators as being related to the vaccine.

Dr Bridle, associate professor of viral immunology at the University of Guelph, Ontario, summarised his concerns in an interview with Toronto radio host Alex Pierson on May 28.

‘I’m very much pro-vaccine, but always making sure that the science is done properly and that we follow the science carefully before going into public rollout of vaccines,’ he said. ‘I’ll forewarn you and your listeners that the story I’m about to tell is a bit of a scary one.  This is cutting edge science. There’s a couple of key pieces of scientific information that we’ve been privy to, in the past few days, that has made the final link, so we understand now – myself and some key international collaborators – we understand exactly why these problems [with the vaccine] are happening.’

One of these ‘is that the spike protein, on its own, is almost entirely responsible for the damage to the cardiovascular system, if it gets into circulation. Indeed, if you inject the purified spike protein into the blood of research animals they get all kinds of damage to the cardiovascular system, and it can cross the blood-brain barrier and cause damage to the brain.

‘At first glance that doesn’t seem too concerning because we’re injecting these vaccines into the shoulder muscle. The assumption, up until now, has been that these vaccines behave like all of our traditional vaccines: they don’t go anywhere other than the injection site, so they stay in our shoulder. Some of the protein will go to the local draining lymph node in order to activate the immune system.

‘However – this is where the cutting edge science has come in, and this is where it gets scary – through a request for information from the Japanese regulatory agency, myself and several international collaborators have been able to get access to what’s called the biodistribution study. It’s the first time ever that scientists have been privy to seeing where the messenger RNA vaccines go after vaccination; in other words, is it a safe assumption that it stays in the shoulder muscle? The short answer is, absolutely not. It’s very disconcerting. The spike protein gets into the blood and circulates over several days post-vaccination.’

The study was conducted for Pfizer by Japanese researchers. Bridle said its results are backed up by a paper just accepted for publication reporting that 11 of 13 young health workers who received two doses of the Moderna RNA vaccine showed detectable levels of the virus protein in their blood within a day of their first injection.

‘We have known for a long time that the spike protein is pathogenic,’ Bridle said. ‘It is a toxin. It can cause damage in our body if it’s in circulation. Now, we have clear-cut evidence that . . . the vaccine itself, plus the protein, gets into blood circulation.’

Once that happens, the spike protein can combine with receptors on blood platelets and with cells that line our blood vessels. This is why, paradoxically, it can cause both blood clotting and bleeding. ‘And of course the heart is involved, as part of the cardiovascular system,’ Bridle said. ‘That’s why we’re seeing heart problems. The protein can also cross the blood-brain barrier and cause neurological damage.  That’s exactly why we’ve been seeing clotting disorders associated with these vaccines.’

In another study, not yet accepted for publication, researchers found ‘inadvertently’ that RNA vaccine particles are transferred to babies through breast milk (they had been trying to show that antibodies in vaccinated mothers were passed on to the babies).

Doctors are concerned that that once the spike protein gets into circulation, it will become concentrated in breast milk. It could also be a hazard for fragile patients receiving blood transfusions.

‘Looking into the adverse event database in the US, we have found evidence of suckling infants experiencing bleeding disorders in the gastro-intestinal tract,’ Bridle said.

‘In short, the conclusion is that we made a big mistake. We didn’t realise it until now. We didn’t realise that by vaccinating people we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin. In some people this gets into the circulation; and when that happens, in some people it can cause damage, especially to the cardiovascular system. I have many other legitimate questions about the long-term safety of the vaccine.’

Bridle is a member of the Canadian Covid Care Alliance, a group of independent doctors, scientists and health care practitioners ‘committed to providing top-quality and balanced evidence-based information to the Canadian public about Covid-19 so that hospitalizations can be reduced, lives saved, and our country safely restored as quickly as possible.’

The group has produced this guide as to ‘why parents, teens and children should question the Covid-19 vaccine’.

Last week, Britain’s regulators approved the Pfizer jab for 12-15-year-olds, concluding it is ‘safe and effective in this age group and that the benefits of this vaccine outweigh any risk’. As Sally Beck wrote in TCW here, several high-profile experts questioned the ethics of the decision, which came even as 93 doctors in Israel – a testing ground for the same vaccine – wrote to their government begging them not to use it on children.

June 6, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Wellcome Trust director Jeremy Farrar and his co-conspirators Peter Horby and Rick Bright

With a Vietnam connection 

By Meryl Nass, MD | June 6, 2021

Before Sir Dr. Jeremy Farrar got the plum job of CEO of the wealthiest foundation in the UK and one of the wealthiest in the world, he did research for Oxford University in Vietnam for 18 years. It seems curious how one job led to the other. Will (like Las Vegas) what happened in Vietnam stay in Vietnam? Or will internet sleuths tell us how Farrar was groomed for his current role?

Vietnam is a country where two other co-conspirators on the hydroxychloroquine suppression worked, too. All 3 had something to do with vaccine trials there. Hmmm.

When Dr. Martin Landray approached Jeremy Farrar about starting a large multicenter clinical trial in the UK, Farrar told him to talk to Horby. He did, and Horby and Landray became the Principal Investigators for the trial. Landray was not in on the scheme to overdose patients with hydroxychloroquine. Because when he was interviewed by France Soir, an online newspaper, he made several mistakes discussing the dose of hydroxychloroquine used. He simply had no idea about the overdoses. (France Soir knew.) Landray had been too busy to look up the dose, apparently, that he was responsible for giving to 1600 human guinea pigs.

Dr. Horby then attempted to give Landray cover in some tweets I read last May or June. I think Horby knew what was going on. Horby claimed France Soir did not transcribe what Landray said accurately. But France Soir had the recording, so that excuse didn’t fly. I blogged about this at the time.

Neither Landray nor Horby has so much as apologized for using borderline fatal doses in their subjects. Were the subjects’ families ever told? Probably not.

When the news about the Recovery trial’s fatal doses came out (I learned it from others on twitter) the hydroxychloroquine arm of the trial stopped, and the principal investigators said the drug didn’t work. They acknowledged that there were about 10-20% more deaths in the hydroxychloroquine arm than in the placebo (“usual care,” a.k.a. no drug treatment arm) but have never acknowledged any mistakes or wrongdoing. Using the published Recovery trial statistics, there were about 60 excess deaths over placebo in the HCQ arm (of 400 total) that we can say were likely secondary to an HCQ overdose.

Peter Horby, also a physician and one of the two Principal Investigators of the Recovery Trial, in which 1600 subjects got poisonous doses of hydroxychloroquine and which Farrar supposedly helped found, worked in Vietnam and overlapped with Farrar. They had to have known the proper dose of antimalarial drugs, since they would have been treating malaria patients (Farrar was an infectious disease doctor), and it is likely they may have used the drugs for themselves. Or they may have used mefloquine, another antimalarial with anti-Covid effects, which was also being suppressed but got no press last year.

The third interesting Vietnam connection is Richard Bright, PhD, the head of BARDA who worked with FDA to use the Emergency Use Authorization for donated Covid drugs in the National Strategic Stockpile to interfere with doctors’ use of the chloroquine drugs for patients.  He made the mistake of bragging about this after Trump fired him, pretending that he had saved the country from a dangerous drug that Trump had wanted used. Having worked in Vietnam, and probably therefore being very familar with antimalarials; overlapping his time in Vietnam with Horby and Farrar in our cast of characters; and had the job of doling out $1.5 billion per year as head of BARDA. I am convinced Bright is a co-conspirator to suppress the chloroquine drugs. It is of great interest that Collins, Fauci, Farrar and Bright were all given the responsiblity to dole out large pots of money to others. Rita Colwell, too, the former Director of the National Science Foundation who signed the Lancet letter, had had large amounts of money to distribute.

What is BARDA? It is a federal agency within DHHS:

“The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) provides an integrated, systematic approach to the development of the necessary vaccines, drugs, therapies, and diagnostic tools for public health medical emergencies such as chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) accidents, incidents and attacks; pandemic influenza (PI), and emerging infectious diseases (EID).

Together with its industry partners, BARDA promotes the advanced development of medical countermeasures to protect Americans and respond to 21st century health security threats.”

Here is what Sir Jeremy Farrar said about testing new drugs at the onset of the Covid pandemic.

“… Investing now, at scale, at risk and as a collective global effort is vital if we are to change the course of this epidemic. We welcome others to join us in this effort.” – Dr. Jeremy Farrar, Director of Wellcome

And so the Covid Therapeutics Accelerator was begun, with core funding from:

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundationm (BMGF), Wellcome Trust, and Mastercard.

All 3 play important roles in the shaping of Covid. Mastercard used it to push for digital money, since handling money exposes you to the virus. BMGF and Wellcome used their research funding to suppress useful drugs and prolong the pandemic, while using the opportunity to test new drugs and new drug platforms, like mRNA.

The website is hosted by the BMGF. While this organization did fund some hydroxychloroquine trials, if memory serves, at least 2 were shut down before completion, including one at the University of Washington, which is practically a subsidiary of the BMGF.  The Henry Ford hospital trial, which showed great benefit from hydroxychloroquine, never got any traction, though the doctors involved tried hard to be heard. The MORU COPCOV trial was held up by the UK authorities soon after it began, on the basis of the danger of hydroxychloroquine, even though only tiny prophylactic doses were being used. By then, apparently, the plan was to shut down the cheap old drugs. Or perhaps the trials were set up under Wellcome and BMGF’s initiative so their management and/or findings could be controlled.

June 6, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »