Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

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

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

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »