CLAIM: THE FLU HAS DISAPPEARED NOW THAT COVID IS HERE
By Mac Slavo | SHTFplan.com | April 30, 2021
Imagine that. The seasonal flu that has infected hundreds of thousands of Americans every year has magically disappeared since COVID-19 has surfaced.
If you want to read the most blatant propaganda on Earth that only those with absolutely no critical thinking skills would believe, look no further than Scientific American’s reason why there is no more flu:
The reason, epidemiologists think, is that the public health measures taken to keep the coronavirus from spreading also stop the flu. Influenza viruses are transmitted in much the same way as SARS-CoV-2, but they are less effective at jumping from host to host. – Scientific American
If that’s the truth, why aren’t the masks and “public health measures” stopping COVID-19? People who mask religiously are still getting it. Below is an article about a study conducted by the ruling class and their own alphabet agency that has shown that most of those who get sick follow their commands and wear the muzzle around all the time.
Or are people getting the flu and the PCR tests that aren’t diagnostic tools are set to show a positive COVID-19 test for almost anything? How about you decide. Since the mainstream media can’t be bothered to ask questions, only follow orders, it’s up to us to use our discernment.
As Scientific American reported last fall, the drop-off in flu numbers was both swift and universal. Since then, cases have stayed remarkably low. “There’s just no flu circulating,” says Greg Poland, who has studied the disease at the Mayo Clinic for decades. The U.S. saw about 600 deaths from influenza during the 2020-2021 flu season. In comparison, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated there were roughly 22,000 deaths in the prior season and 34,000 two seasons ago. –Scientific American
It kind of makes one ponder when they’ll bring in COVID-21 to panic the masses? Is that what all the variants in India are for?
The Fear-Mongering Continues: Over 7,000 COVID-19 Mutations In India, Variants Spread In CA
We had better open our eyes and start really asking some questions about this massive hoax. Time will be up eventually and then there is no going back. With massive amounts of the population already convinced to take a falsely labeled “vaccine” that no one knows the long-term side effects of, things could get interesting, to say the least.
More COIVD-19 Vax Deaths: Think They’ll Blame This On COVID-21?
Never stop asking questions. Stay alert and prepared. If we lose our discernment we will be pulled around by the invisible chains the ruling class is desperately trying to fasten on us. Double-check your preps every few weeks because this is not over. They tell us that much several times a day. But what’s next, is anyone’s guess.
Hancock has blood on his hands – Shocking rise in expectant mothers who’ve lost their baby after having the Covid Vaccine
THE DAILY EXPOSE • APRIL 29, 2021
A tragic milestone has been surpassed as the effects of the mass roll-out of an experimental vaccine continue to devastate the lives of those who “get the jab, when they get the call”. It is with sadness that we have to report that over 100 women have now lost their unborn or newborn baby after having one of the Covid vaccines.
Health authorities in the UK advise women to avoid things like smoked fish, soft cheese, wet paint, coffee, herbal tea, vitamin supplements, and processed junk foods when pregnant. But for some strange and sinister reason they are now adamant the Covid vaccines are 100% safe for use in pregnant women despite the fact there have not been any trials conducted to prove this.
The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) released a statement just a few short weeks ago saying “it’s preferable for pregnant women in the UK to be offered the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines where available. There is no evidence to suggest that other vaccines are unsafe for pregnant women, but more research is needed.”
This led to the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock to announce on Twitter – “I encourage all pregnant women when they are called to get the jab”.
The fact the JCVI could say “it is preferable for pregnant women” to have the jab, and “more research is needed” in the same sentence would be laughable if it didn’t have such dire consequences. And the fact Hancock actively encouraged pregnant women to get the jab despite the existing evidence it was not safe is criminal.
Unfortunately but not surprisingly the JCVI and Hancock now have blood on their hands since these statements were made.
Blood on their hands because according to the UK Governments latest report on adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines, as of the 21st April 2021 a total of 58 women had suffered a miscarriage after receiving a dose of the Pfizer / BioNTech mRNA vaccine. But the devastation doesn’t end there. The Pfizer jab had also caused two foetal deaths as of the 21st April, 1 still birth and the death of 1 premature baby.
The AstraZeneca viral vector vaccine is also causing devastation to countless lives. As of the 21st April a total of 37 women had sadly suffered a miscarriage after receiving a dose of the AstraZeneca jab, as well as a total of 3 still births.
These numbers may seem small considering the fact we are told tens of millions of people have now received a dose of an experimental Covid vaccine. But let’s put these figures into context. The Covid jab is only just being offered to those in their early 40’s, which means the majority of those who have been vaccinated so far are over the age of 50. The average age for a woman to reach the menopause is 51. This means they cannot get pregnant and therefore cannot suffer a miscarriage.
But then we also have to consider the fact that up until this ghastly unscientific announcement from the JCVI and Hancock the UK Governments advice on administering the Covid vaccine to pregnant women was as follows –
‘Pregnancy
There are no or limited amount of data from the use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2.
Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine
BNT162b2 is not recommended during pregnancy.
For women of childbearing age, pregnancy should be excluded before vaccination. In addition, women
of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose.
Taking all of this into account, the 102 expectant mothers who have sadly lost their child after having the Covid vaccine as of the 21st April suddenly becomes an extraordinarily high number.
How many more women need to lose their baby for the health authorities to say enough is enough?
Do anti-depressants work?
By Sebastian Rushworth, M.D. | April 30, 2021
Anti-depressant drugs are common. Very very common. According to the Centers for Disease Control in the United States, 13% of adults reported taking an anti-depressant when surveyed a few years ago. Among women over the age of 60, almost one in four was taking an anti-depressant!
When I work in the hospital, I frequently see elderly people who are on five, ten, fifteen, or even twenty drugs simultaneously. Invariably, one or more of these drugs is an anti-depressant. This absurd overuse of medications, an issue known as polypharmacy, is one of the biggest health problems facing elderly people today. Anti-depressants are one of the main drug classes contributing to polypharmacy.
With so many people taking anti-depressants, you would think that they must at the very least be effective. And safe. Why else would so many millions of people be taking them on a daily basis? Why else would doctors prescribe them so freely?
The most commonly prescribed type of anti-depressant is the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). Examples of this type of drug include sertraline (a.k.a. zoloft), escitalopram (a.k.a. cipralex), and fluoxetine (a.k.a. prozac). SSRI’s increase serotonin signalling in the brain, which is hypothetically a good thing for people who are depressed. They are generally considered to have the best balance of efficacy and safety of any anti-depressant drug, which is why they are the first line therapy.
So, how effective are SSRI’s at treating depression?
A systematic review and meta-analysis was published in BMC Psychiatry in 2017 that sought to answer this question. The review was funded by the Danish government. It identified 131 randomized placebo-controlled trials investigating SSRI’s as a treatment for depression in adults, with a total of 27,422 participants, and meta-analyzed them (i.e. added all their results together to create one big “meta” trial – this gives a more reliable result than the individual trials can provide).
Before we get in to the results, we need to quickly discuss the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HDRS). The HDRS is the scale most commonly used to assess severity of depression in studies, and also to assess how the severity changes over time. It is a 52 point scale, so a score of 52 is as bad as it can get. A score below eight is considered normal (i.e. not depressed). 8 to 13 is considered to be “mild” depression. 14-18 is considered to be “moderate” depression. 19-22 is considered to be “severe” depression, and anything from 23 and up is considered to be “very severe” depression.
The authors of the review decided, before analyzing the data, that anything less than an average reduction of three points on the scale would be considered a negative result. Personally I think that this is a bit generous. I find it hard to believe that anyone would be able to notice a three point reduction on a 52 point scale. I would have set the threshold higher, at more like six points at the very least. One article published back in 2015 came to the conclusion that people are unable to detect anything less than a 7 point difference on the 52 point Hamilton scale. But as we shall soon see, setting the threshold higher wouldn’t have made a difference anyway. So, let’s get to the results.
Overall, SSRI’s resulted in a 1.94 point greater reduction on the 52 point HDRS scale than placebo. Even when only trials of people with very severe depression (a score of 23 or higher) were included, the improvement over placebo was still only 2.69 points.
So, SSRI’s were not able to get over even the generously low bar set by the reviewers. And let’s remember that most of the studies included in the analysis were industry funded, and industry funded studies usually show a bigger benefit than is seen in reality, so it is likely that the real effect is even smaller than was found in the systematic review.
In other words, SSRI’s are not effective as anti-depressants. Considering that they are currently the first line drug therapy for depression, that would seem to be quite a big problem. And before you suggest that we should use non-SSRI anti-depressants instead, like for example tricyclics, I would note that these have not been shown to be markedly more effective than SSRI’s in head-to-head comparisons. Otherwise we’d be using them as the first line therapy, not SSRI’s.
What about safety? Did SSRI’s cause any serious adverse events?
2.7% of participants in the SSRI arm developed a serious adverse event, as compared with 2.1% in the placebo arm. That is a 0.6% absolute difference, which would mean that roughly one in 170 people treated with an SSRI will suffer a serious adverse event as a result of the treatment. Note that the definition of a serious adverse event is an event that causes death, significant risk of death, disability, and/or hospitalization. In other words, “serious” is serious. So even a small increase in serious adverse events is something that needs to be taken quite, well, seriously.
Medical treatments should ideally result in a decrease in serious adverse events. They certainly should not cause an increase. A truly effective anti-depressant would not just make people feel better, it would also make them less likely to try to commit suicide, which would result in an overall reduction in serious adverse events. No such signal was seen here. Even if you look just at suicide attempts, rather than at adverse events overall, there was no signal that SSRI’s decrease their frequency.
Note that the trials in the review were generally of healthy people under 65 years of age. Frail elderly people treated with SSRI’s will likely experience serious adverse events at a much higher rate than that found here.
Speaking of frail elderly people, in particular those living in nursing homes, I want to take the opportunity to point out that they are frequently the heaviest users of anti-depressants. So you would think that there would be a lot of research showing that anti-depressants are useful to give to the frail elderly… Well, having seen that the evidence doesn’t support using anti-depressants in younger people, you might be a bit skeptical by now. A systematic review was published in the Journal of the American Medical Directors Association in 2012, that sought to determine how beneficial anti-depressants are when used as a treatment for depression in people over the age of 65 who are living in nursing homes. The review was funded by the US government.
Two(!) randomized controlled trials were identified that compared anti-depressants with placebo in nursing home residents, with a total of 55(!) participants. It’s pretty shocking that the evidence base is so small, when you consider that nursing home residents are such heavy user of anti-depressants. Basically, when we (doctors) use these drugs on elderly nursing home residents, we have pretty much zero idea what we’re doing, because there is so little evidence.
Neither of the two trials found any benefit to treating nursing home residents with anti-depressants (although to be fair, they were so small that I wouldn’t have expected them to find anything – they were statistically underpowered). The number of participants was far too small to gain any kind of estimate of the prevalence of serious adverse events, although I think it’s fair to assume, as mentioned above, that it would be much higher in this group than in the younger healthier group included in the studies in the previous review.
I’m mainly bringing this tiny systematic review up to illustrate how atrociously small the knowledge base often is when it comes to the effects of drugs on the frail elderly.
What conclusions can we draw these systematic reviews?
Anti-depressant drugs are ineffective against depression. The harms of these drugs clearly outweigh the practically non-existent benefits. That is true for everyone, but especially so for the frail elderly who are at much higher risk of side effects than the general population. In light of this information, which has now been in the public domain for at least a few years, you would expect large campaigns to get doctors to stop prescribing these drugs. Funnily enough, that hasn’t happened yet.
We Need to Hear Much More About Florida and Texas and Less About the Latest Covid Hotspots
By Will Jones • Lockdown Sceptics • April 30, 2021
Would that journalists and broadcasters paid as much attention to places with no restrictions doing fine as they do to the latest places experiencing a Covid surge.
All eyes are currently on India and especially Delhi where, after a year of little impact, the virus is making its nasty presence felt. But as Ivor Cummins points out, India for whatever reason has a long way to go to catch up with countries in Europe and the Americas when it comes to Covid deaths. The country is not a good comparison for the UK where the virus is endemic and substantial population immunity is now present.
If only our media would spend as much time telling the population about how Florida lifted its restrictions back in September, how South Dakota never had any, and how Texas and Mississippi reopened in full at the start of March, as they do telling us about how many people are in hospital in Delhi. The latest positive-test data for these open states is in the graph above, along with two other light-restriction states, South Carolina and Georgia. Note the conspicuous lack of surge despite being basically back to normal. What more evidence do our politicians and scientists need that the threat from the virus is overblown and does not warrant social restrictions or emergency measures? Is the Government interested in data which contradict their preferred narrative?
The Telegraph today is reporting that as of June 21st – another seven weeks away – Brits will be permitted once again to attend large events without anti-social and uneconomic distancing requirements and hug one another. Our ultra-cautious scientists are advising that these things might just be okay by then. Though in case you might have thought they would then end the seemingly endless state of emergency, they have said measures such as staggering entries to venues accommodating large groups and good ventilation will still be required. What part of normal don’t they understand?
Nor is there any indication of a move to return international travel to normal, as the country faces more limitations on travel this summer – when most of the country is vaccinated – than last summer – when nobody was. What this has to do with following the science is, as ever, unclear.
What’s strange is that even in America where parts of their own country are living free and showing that the measures aren’t needed, state governments, with popular support and backed by federal agencies, just carry on with their restrictions, lifting them only very slowly and with no obvious commitment to bringing them finally to an end. It’s as though people don’t want to know. Too much has been invested in the lockdown narrative, it seems, for people to be able to cope psychologically with the trauma of facing the truth that it is fundamentally false. Too many reputations are at risk. Too many interests coincide.
Are we doomed to live forever in this Covid state of emergency? I confess it is hard to see what will prompt governments to bring it to an end, now that we live in permanent fear of the appearance of variants and believe we must continually top up the whole world’s antibodies through rolling annual programmes of vaccinations. One of the most depressing thoughts is I find it almost impossible to imagine Boris Johnson facing the camera and announcing: “My friends, our ordeal is over. The data is clear. The virus is now one among many hazards with which we daily must live. Vaccines are available to the vulnerable, as are effective treatments, and we will continually strive to find the safest ways to protect those at risk from this and other illnesses. It is time to resume our old lives. I declare the state of emergency to be over.”
Will we ever reach a point where we no longer even think about whether some activity is “Covid secure”? Where we no longer see our fellow human beings as sources of infection? It would be good to hear much more often from the Government that this is where it believes we are headed, sooner rather than later.
Twitter isn’t censoring accounts to keep users ‘safe’, but to spoon-feed establishment narratives
By Eva Bartlett | RT | April 30, 2021
It’s one thing to have policies against violence, abuse, and harassment. But in “protecting” users, Twitter is hell-bent on censoring voices that rock the boat, even when all they have tweeted is a peer-reviewed scientific paper.
Last week, Simon Goddek, who has a PhD in biotechnology and researches system dynamics, tweeted a link to a scientific study titled, “Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?”
Some time later, his account was frozen and he received a notice from Twitter that it would remain frozen until he deleted the offending tweet, and for the 12 hours following that.
In his Telegram group, he wrote:
“I was put into Twitter jail for citing a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Cancel science is real.
“What’s especially concerning is that I didn’t make any personal comment on the paper’s content. I only said that regarding that paper, masks CAN lead to massive health damages. It’s the conclusion of a scientific piece of work that has been peer-reviewed by at least 2 experts in the field.”
According to Twitter, Goddek violated their policy on, “spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to Covid-19.”
The article in question wasn’t even as risqué as others and merely addressed undesirable side effects of mask wearing. How is that “misinformation”?
I spoke with Goddek to learn more about what happened. Turns out, it’s not the first time.
“The first time I got censored because I cited a scientific, peer-reviewed paper on masks. I was just citing their work, and I got put into Twitter jail. In that tweet, I was saying, ‘Look, it seems masks don’t work.’ So, I also said my opinion.
“This time, I found another study on masks, which says there are adverse effects if you wear masks. So, I was citing the paper without putting my own opinion, and they censored me again, made me delete it and put me into Twitter jail again.”
On April 17, Naomi Wolf tweeted she had been locked out of Twitter for the fourth time for sharing a Stanford study, “proving the lack of efficacy of masks.” That study was also peer-reviewed.
This isn’t merely a case of Twitter deciding that Goddek and Wolf were not in the position to be discussing the efficacy or dangers of masks. Twitter is censoring pretty much anything about Covid that doesn’t match the narrative promoted by the WHO, CDC, and other such bodies.
Even a well-known epidemiologist has faced Twitter’s wrath. An article in the American Institute for Economic Research noted:
“Harvard Professor Martin Kulldorff and co-creator of the Great Barrington Declaration, one of the most cited epidemiologists and infectious -disease experts in the world has been censored by Twitter. His tweet on how not everyone needs a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 was not taken down. He had a warning slapped on it and users have been prevented from liking or retweeting the post.”
That article also emphasized:
“Dr. Kulldorff serves on the Covid-19 vaccine safety subgroup that the CDC, NIH, and FDA rely upon for technical expertise on this very subject.”
On April 10, a group called Drs4CovidEthics tweeted:
“Not a month on Twitter & we were locked out of our account, forced to delete our pinned tweet. We must self-censor or be banned says Twitter (paraphrasing) We mustn’t contradict official sources. But our letters contradict official sources. With good reason. Which we can’t tweet.”
What do they know better than Twitter censors? They’re merely “doctors & scientists from 25+ countries, including heads of ICU, world leading immunologists, experts in public health, drug safety, respiratory illness, GPs, researchers in vaccines, pharmacology, virology, biochemistry…”
I searched for more examples of extreme Twitter censorship and found further censorship of vaccine related information, and one person’s hypothesis on why vaccine talk is so particularly taboo: “$157 billion buys a lot of Facebook and Twitter bans.”
The popular independent website Off Guardian recently was locked out of Twitter for sharing one of its own articles on Covid vaccines, they told me.
In fact, Twitter has been censoring Off Guardian for at least a year. When users try to open a tweet to an Off Guardian article, they are met with a warning that the link could be potentially spammy or unsafe.
The warning continues with a large blue button advising to return to the previous page, and a teeny tiny “continue” on to the article option. Same thing for the independent Canadian website Global Research.
Last year, I tried to tweet an article written by respected journalist F. William Engdahl for New Eastern Outlook (NEO). Twitter wouldn’t allow me to even tweet it, instead giving me an error message about the link being “potentially harmful.”
And it’s not only matters of Covid. Just now, I tried to tweet another NEO article, not related to Covid, and was again met with the same message.
A Twitter account focusing on the propaganda around Xinjiang had his account suspended.
And when the New York Post wrote exposés about Hunter Biden’s emails, Twitter locked the Post’s account.
Which makes it all the more clear this isn’t about “facts” or “safety” but blatant censorship.
Whether or not you agree with a point or comment being made by one of the people censored by Twitter, we should be allowed to access their perspective, research for ourselves and come to our own conclusions. We don’t need Twitter to hold our hands and spoon-feed us establishment narratives.
Twitter’s “rules” page reads:
“Twitter’s purpose is to serve the public conversation. Our rules are to ensure all people can participate in the public conversation freely and safely.”
If you believe that, as the saying goes, I have a bridge to sell you.
Eva Bartlett is a Canadian independent journalist and activist. She has spent years on the ground covering conflict zones in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Palestine (where she lived for nearly four years).
Europe’s heavy industry unlikely to survive Net Zero
GWPF – 30/04/21
It is becoming ever more evident that much of Europe’s heavy industry is unlikely to survive the EU’s unilateral Net Zero policy.
The EU’s carbon price reached a new record high of 45 euros ($54) a tonne on Tuesday.
As the carbon price is expected to increase much further in the next few years, European industrial groups are desperately calling for the introduction of a carbon border tax, hoping that it will save them from international competitors that are able to produce much cheaper.
Even higher carbon prices are coming. BloombergNEF expects carbon prices to hit 100 euros by 2030.
They warn that rising energy and carbon costs will force energy-intensive manufacturing to shut down and relocate to countries with less stringent CO2 targets if the EU does not introduce protectionist carbon protection.
It is rather doubtful, however, whether the EU can afford to introduce a carbon border tax, knowing full well that China, India and much of the rest of the emerging and developing world would simply retaliate in return, threatening to tax European products out of Asian and African markets altogether.
European and American politicians should be reminded that we have been warning for years about this inevitable outcome of unilateral climate policies.
The Anti-Lockdown Movement Is Large and Growing
By Jeffrey A. Tucker | AIER | April 29, 2021
Feeling outgunned, outnumbered, overpowered, smothered, and censored? Many people who oppose Covid lockdowns and all their associated restrictions feel this way. It’s hard not to. You can hardly post on social media without triggering warnings, corrections, and sometimes outright blocks.
Bans are part of the mix too, the complete deplatforming of people merely because they want their freedoms back. It’s creepy. We never thought we would see these days but here we are.
Meanwhile, the mainstream media continues to push restrictions – mask mandates and vaccine passports – just as it has for the past 14 months. The technology of intimidation is getting more sophisticated.
But how true is it that anti-lockdown people are a small and increasingly marginalized minority?
Consider:
- The Wall Street Journal is one of the world’s largest circulation newspapers, with twice the physical circulation of the New York Times. Its editorial page has been consistently against lockdowns nearly from the beginning.
- Fox News has been running anti-lockdown commentary for a full year. It very easily dominates all cable TV news, hosting 6 of the top 10 shows. It is trouncing CNN, for example, which is struggling for viewers.
- The top-rated commentary show for this year and last has been Tucker Carlson Tonight, which offers gripping anti-lockdown interviews and commentary on every show, including interviews with scientists and activists left and right.
- Elon Musk, among the most prominent tech entrepreneurs in the world, has fiercely spoken out against lockdowns.
- Joe Rogan has the most popular podcast in the English language, and he has been consistently against lockdowns and Covid mandates for a year, most recently telling his audience the common-sense point that healthy young people should not be forced to be vaccinated since the virus is no threat to them.
- The Onion once ruled satire on the web but the site has been terrible on lockdowns. Its traffic has been sinking steadily. The anti-lockdown Babylon Bee started low and has soared to new highs, often beating The Onion. The Babylon Bee has been ruthless in satirizing Covid hysteria, and is being rewarded for doing so.
- The Epoch Times has as much web traffic as the Wall Street Journal and has been fantastic on lockdowns, running a full 45-minute long interview with Great Barrington Declaration signatory Jayanta Bhattacharya.
- Polls show strong opposition to all stringency measures among Republicans (40% want immediate opening of everything) and much less opposition among Democrats. It’s tragic and wrong that there should be any partisan divide on what is a question of science and good sense but that’s what happens when you politicize a disease.
- The scientists who drafted the Great Barrington Declaration were pilloried last year but now cannot come close to keeping up with interviews, testimonies, article requests, and media contacts. Last year this time, they were quiet scientists; now they are among the most famous epidemiologists in the world.
- Even the CDC is playing catchup to the anti-lockdown position, adjusting its advice on the J&J vaccine in light of Martin Kulldorff’s article in The Hill, even as they shoved him off their vaccine evaluation commission.
- Protests are rarely reported by the national media but they are happening. The Five Freedoms campaign pushed by the DailyClout is gaining traction. Those freedoms are: no vaccine passports, no mask mandates, no emergency law, open schools up 100%, and freedom of commerce, worship, and petition.
- Noncompliance is nationwide. Many parts of the country were speakeasies since last April but now the push to live life normally is spreading even to New York, where the Hardcore scene this past weekend publicly flouted all regulations and is thus being investigated.
The most important reason why anti-lockdowners should not feel demoralized is that the facts are overwhelming on the side of freedom and traditional public health principles.
Consider for example this CDC chart of 3 states that imposed strict measures (Michigan, California, and Massachusetts), and still enforce many measures plus mask mandates, versus 3 states that have been open with no such mandates (Florida, Texas, and South Carolina). Look at the trajectory of severe outcomes from the virus:
The early spikes in Massachusetts and Michigan are obvious, tracing to a surprising extent to the number of nursing homes in each state. In Michigan, 31% of the deaths are in nursing homes, and, though the numbers in Massachusetts are always being revised, it could be anywhere from 40% to 61%.
Following that fiasco in which regulations often failed to protect the vulnerable, the trajectory of the virus follows a common pattern, reducing in severity as it mutates over time and herd immunity creates endemicity through natural immunity and vaccines. It’s the path of a respiratory virus that has been known for the better part of 100 years. Nothing surprising here. Perhaps the only real surprise in the data is how the completely open states did not perform badly compared with the closed states. Texas is a case in point. It’s open with no disaster.
The lesson: lockdown policies failed to protect the vulnerable and otherwise did little to nothing actually to suppress or otherwise control the virus. AIER has assembled fully 35 studies revealing no connection between lockdowns and disease outcomes. In addition, the Heritage Foundation has published an outstanding roundup of the Covid experience, revealing that lockdowns were largely political theater distracting from what should have been good public health practice.
Finally, it appears that even Mayor Bill de Blasio is promising a “full reopening” of New York City by July 1, a change he credits to vaccines (which is fine but unprovable) but also reflects a huge shift in public opinion. Other states are racing to open as well. These people track polls. They sense the shift.
Here’s what I see coming in the rest of the year. Once most everything is opened, and more and more people calm down from disease panic, there will be a realization, slow at first and then all at once, that what happened over these 14 months was a catastrophic disaster of public health without precedent. The collateral damage is unfathomable.
The reason why the lockdown advocates are intensifying their perception and exercise of hegemony right now is to forestall the possibility that the entire lockdown praxis will fall into massive disrepute. They will not get their way. Let the blowback begin.
Daisies Under Threat From Climate Change! says the Telegraph
By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | April 30, 2021
Where do they dredge up these dolts?
From the Telegraph :
Perhaps somebody should tell Dr Dines the difference between “weather” and “climate”!
Spring last year was a dry one, but there is nothing at all unusual in that, and there have been eight drier springs on record. Nor is there any sort of trend in spring rainfall:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-temperature-rainfall-and-sunshine-time-series
Shame on the increasingly absurd Telegraph, not to mention dopey Olivia Rudgard for printing this nonsense.
Doctor Breaks Ranks With Elite For Truth And Freedom
Principia Scientific | April 29, 2021
Until recently, Dr Christiane Northrup was a rock star of the Liberal media, with three New York Times Bestsellers, 10 appearances on Oprah! and numerous TV appearances on The Dr. Oz Show, Today, Rachel Ray Show, The View, 20/20 and eight PBS Specials, which raised millions of dollars for the network. She was a celebrated Feminist on the front lines of women’s Mind-Body Medicine, when doing this was still OK – before the Big Pharma global coup d’état.
Today, she is eviscerated on her Wikipedia page for having “embraced QAnon ideology during the COVID-19 pandemic,” based on this article, which is totally laughable. “QAnon” has become the latest iteration of the term, “conspiracy theorist”, used to discredit truth-telling opponents of the criminal establishment.
I’ve seen it used against others and it was recently used against me, as if I live and breathe “QAnon” and therefore, I am garbage, so don’t listen to anything I say. It looks like low-rent “journalists” are being hired to systematically deploy the “QAnon” label in hit pieces against those who question the corporatist narrative that has hijacked the planet since March, 2020. These derogatory articles are designed to appear in internet searches of the target’s name.
The “QAnon” trope is one of total disparagement, falsely associating those to whom it is ascribed with “extreme right wing” “white supremacist” “domestic terrorism” (despite Q promoting none of this); even PBS’ very own Dr Northrup, with eight blockbuster seasons, not including re-runs is now a suspected Nazi. The patent absurdity of this beggars belief.
As Dr Northrup explains here, “In 2013, I was one of Reader’s Digest Most Trusted People in America, and now, in 2021, I am one of the ‘Disinformation Dozen’, along with Sherri [Tenpenny], those of us accused of 70% of the disinformation about vaccines on the internet – which is an astounding fall from grace, until you understand who is determining what grace is.”
That “who” is Big Pharma and the world’s largest corporations, which have been weaponized by the Globalists to bypass the world’s legal systems and to commit a litany of COVID crimes against humanity over the past 14 months, not the least of which are the so-called “vaccines”.
Dr Northrup, who unlike Clif High is a physician and was a clinical assistant professor of OBGYN for 25 years corroborates Clif’s report last week of miscarriages and other reproductive dysfunction in both men and women.
Disturbingly, she also corroborates what Clif said about these problems being seen in non-vaccinated women working in proximity to vaccinated people, all but confirming his most serious concern, that the synthetic spike protein antibodies shed by the vaccinated could conceivably lead to the complete sterilization of the human species – including the unvaccinated.
Dr Sherri Tenpenny has described the spike protein antibodies produced by the COVID injection as “Absolutely deadly.” According to her, these injections and their synthetic spike proteins have so far been found to do the following, usually by Day 19 after exposure:
- Attack your lung tissue and break it down.
- Attack your pancreas: Cause diabetes in non-diabetics and aggravate diabetes symptoms in diabetics.
- Cause adverse reactions in 27 out of 55 of the tissue types exposed to the serum.
- Cause anaphylaxis, probably from the polyethylene glycol.
- Inhibit your anti-inflammatory M2 macrophages, sometimes resulting in a deadly cytokine storm.
- Attack your astrocytes and oligodendrocytes, which are two different kinds of brain/nerve cells; attacking by two different mechanisms, through the inner mitochondria membrane and through the neurofilament protein of the motor neurons, leading to uncontrolled seizures.
- Cause debilitating fatigue by attacking your mitochondria and the intracellular antigen, GAD 65 inside of your mitochondria.
- Cause autoimmune disease in roughly 48 weeks and;
- Cause mutant strains of COVID, in what Dr Tenpenny describes as “A perfectly-designed kill machine.”
Worst of all, there is no “off” switch to stop the cells’ manufacture of these spike protein antibodies, once the messenger RNA (mRNA) in the COVID shots instruct the cells to start making them. Therefore, this mRNA may not only lead to a runaway train of adverse health consequences for the vaccinated but it may also lead to the mass sterilization of the unvaccinated.
During her speech at Clay Shaw’s Health & Freedom conference in Tulsa, Dr Northrup warned those who wished to remain unvaccinated about the potential hazards of being exposed to the bodily fluids of those who are.
In this video, Dr Northrup says,
“My feeling on this is there is some kind of bioweapon; some kind of bioweapon that the body is now secreting, transmitting, as it were, as you said, Sherri, from somebody who’s had the shot. Because, as we know: this is not a normal immunization. This is something that causes the body to make a synthetic protein against a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. It is a synthetic protein that’s never been seen and the body begins to produce this as a factory. It doesn’t shut off.
I’ve had people say ‘Well, maybe, you know, in two weeks, this will stop.’ There is no way this is going to stop, because it’s made your body into a factory for a synthetic protein that’s never been seen before, that theoretically can be in your saliva, urine, feces, sweat, seminal fluid, blood, flatus, maybe.
And so when you’re around a person, then I think this is coming out of their bodies and possibly adversely affecting the most delicate hormonal system. I mean, to get pregnant and stay pregnant is an enormously complex system and we know that that spike protein antibody cross-reacts with syncytin 1 and 2, and those are proteins absolutely essential for the placenta, for fertilization, for maintaining a pregnancy.
We now have women who are miscarrying, they are unable to get pregnant, they’re having heavy bleeding. We don’t know why. But my feeling about this is that something is being produced by the body of a vaccinated person that is possibly adversely affecting others and it is of great concern to me.”
See more here: forbiddenknowledgetv.net
Featured Video
Trump Announces Operation To Escort Ships – Fmr. CIA Analyst Larry Johnson
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Who Runs Our World?
Netanyahu addresses US Congress
By Richard Hugus | January 4, 2019
Our world is run by oligarchs, the holders of vast wealth from monopolies in banking, resource extraction, manufacturing, and technology. Oligarchs have such power that most of the world doesn’t even know of their influence over our lives. Their overall agenda is global power — a world government, run by them — to be achieved through planned steps of social engineering. The oligarchs remain in the background and have heads of state and entire governments acting in their service. Presidents and prime ministers are their puppets. Bureaucrats and politicians are their factotums.
Who are politicians? Politicians are people who work for the powerful while pretending to represent the people who voted for them. This double-dealing involves a lot of lying, so successful politicians must be good at it. It’s not an easy job to make the insane agenda of the powerful seem reasonable. Politicians can’t reveal this agenda because it almost always goes against the interests of their constituents, so they become adept at sophistry, mystification, and the appearance of authority. For example, wars for Israel have been part of the agenda of the powerful for years. Since 2001, wars for Israel have been sold as “the war on terror” and lots of lies had to be made up as to why the war on terror was a real thing. The visible faces promoting the war on terror were neoconservatives in the US, almost all of whom were advocates for Israel, or Zionists. Zionists are not the only members of the oligarchy, but they seem to be its lead actors. ... continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- US claim of sinking Iranian boats ‘a lie’, senior military official tells IRIB
- New KC-46 Supertankers Promise Israel Conventional Samson Option Strike Сapability
- No, New York Times, We Don’t Need to Dam the Bering Strait
- Gates-Funded ‘Big Catch-Up’ Delivers 100 Million Vaccine Doses — Including High-Risk DTP Vaccine Not Used in U.S.
- No commercial ship or oil tanker transited Strait of Hormuz in past hours: IRGC
- Russia warns of escalating NATO military activity in Baltic region
- Government Kills the Spirit
- How ‘Israel’s’ Iran regime change plot failed – again
- 1977 Influenza Pandemic Sequence Shows Signs of Laboratory Creation: Journal ‘Cell’
- China issues first prohibition order to safeguard international trade order under rule of law
- If Americans Knew
- As in Gaza, Israel is targeting rescue workers in South Lebanon, killing more than 100 since March
- Israel’s Obliteration Ecocide from Gaza to Lebanon and Beyond
- Israel Said It’s Applying the Gaza Model in Lebanon. This Is What the Devastation Looks Like.
- New Member of Trump’s Iran Negotiating Team Comes From Notoriously Pro-Israel Think Tank
- Israeli army demolishes Christian monastery, nuns’ school in southern Lebanon
- Tokenizing Christians In Israel
- One Gaza is not enough: Israel is turning southern Lebanon into another Gaza – Daily Update
- As Palestinians die, Ben-Gvir celebrates birthday with golden noose cake – Daily Update
- Israel’s New Ambassador to the ‘Christian World’ Served as Envoy to Azerbaijan During the Ethnic Cleansing of Christians from Nagorno-Karabakh
- US set to sell $1B “Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System” to Israel – Daily Update
- No Tricks Zone
- Another Study Links Warming To Cloud Forcing, Shortwave Radiation, Natural Atmospheric Circulation
- Wind Energy Is Toxic, Hazardous To Human Health, Scientific Review Shows
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
Aletho News 