Within the below transcript the bolded text is Hilda Labrada Gore and the regular text is Dr. David Martin.
There is much frustration and confusion surrounding everything that’s happened related to COVID-19. Lockdowns, shuttered businesses, curfews and more have left a lot of us scratching our heads and asking important questions. This is Episode 294 and our guest is Dr. David Martin. He is the Founder and Chairman of M·CAM Inc, an international leader in innovation, finance trade and asset finance. He is an author, a public speaker and a man who has done a lot of research on current events.
In this episode, David offers key facts that help us understand our state of emergency from a very different perspective. He reveals how the CDC filed a patent application on SARS-CoV in the early 2000s. He explains why this is important. He discusses the evidence that indicates that SARS-CoV-2 has been manipulated to limit freedom and compromise our health. He unpacks the legal and health contradictions of new COVID treatments like masks and vaccines, and he offers insights on what each of us can do to fight for health freedom.
Welcome to the show, David.
Thank you so much. It’s great to be here
You’re not a health guy, you’re a legal guy, right?
No, my training was in medicine. I was on the faculty of the University of Virginia Medical School, Radiology Orthopedic Surgery. I ran the FDA clinical trials program for the medical devices for UVA for a decade. I have a lot of backgrounds but I have a legal background as well, but my professor position was in the medical school at the University of Virginia.
What’s your take on what’s happening with the virus right now?
Let’s start with I don’t think something’s happening with the virus right now. I think this is a very significant criminal operation, which is an act of terrorism. I think that’s what this is. The reason why I think that is because I’ve been monitoring since 1999. In 1999, we noticed that for the first time, the United States officially started funding work to what effectively was amplified biological toxins. They used the Coronavirus model as a way to do that. From 1999 to 2002, there was an explicit program to figure out how to get the coronavirus, which historically has been a nuisance to humans but not a big problem. It’s been a big problem to animals.
In fact, the fundamental research for a decade before the ‘90s was in cardiac myopathy in rabbits, not in people. The guy who was leading this program under the funding of NIAID with Anthony Fauci had gotten money to amplify the pathogenicity of a part of Coronavirus. He made it more toxic. Not surprisingly, the places where he was researching and the places where he was collaborating are where the Coronavirus outbreak allegedly started with the SARS outbreak in 2002 going into 2003. I have always said, I find it interesting that the official story we’re supposed to believe is that somehow or another, this mysteriously came out of the blue and it happened to come out of the blue where biological weapons labs were also happening.
It’s amazing how nature backed into the, “There’s a weapons lab. Why don’t we go ahead and have an outbreak there?” The fact of the matter is we, as humans, manipulated Coronavirus and then we had SARS. Here’s the funny thing. After 2003, the problem was Coronavirus resolved itself. It went through the population, had an effect and it resolved itself. Rather than celebrating, “We survived this thing,” some people got sick, some people died, that’s a tragedy but it was not the pandemic everybody thought it was going to be.
We survived it without a vaccine.
No vaccine, no intervention at all and they seriously publicly lamented the fact that it wasn’t virulent enough. Starting in 2005, there was an active program with the DARPA and with NIAID to begin work on figuring out ways to amplify the pathogenicity of this biological substance. They specifically focused on two pieces. One was the S1 spike protein and one was the ACE2 receptor. The ACE2 receptor is important because it’s the thing that makes lung tissue sensitive to this. That was the mysterious piece because it didn’t used to be a lung problem. It used to be a vascular problem but they amplified the ACE2 receptor component and they amplified the S1 spike protein, which is a very toxic component.
Those two amplifications started being amplified and funded through NIAID in 2005. In 2012 going into 2013, when we had the MERS outbreak in the Middle East, the National Science Foundation, National Academy of Science, NIAID and others started going, “Maybe we’re doing something we shouldn’t be doing.” There was a question of the ethics and the morals of doing this Gain-of-Function research leading to the 2013, 2014 decision to stop Gain-of-Function research is what the public was told. What the public wasn’t told was the people who were involved in the BSL-4 defense labs were allowed to keep amplifying this viral pathogen.
Let me interrupt you to ask a question. What was the justification they were giving for amplifying this virus?
The cover story is this. Biological weapons could be developed by some rogue nation or by some bad actors. If that happened, we should be prepared to develop vaccines. That’s what we were told. As early as March of 2005, I wrote in a public briefing to law enforcement intelligence agencies that this was not a just in case problem. It was, in fact, a program that included the dispersion of explosive biological material, such that you could put toxins into rocket-propelled grenades. I don’t know about you, but when I hear that, it doesn’t sound like a public health program to me. I published this book in March of 2005.
It doesn’t sound defensive. It sounds offensive.
When people tell me, “It’s all in the interest of public health. It was all about making sure we were safe from potentially rogue actor states.” I’m sitting there going, “That smells like BS,” because it is. We have the evidence that in fact these programs were dual-use programs. These were programs that in fact did have a public health vaccine development treatment program. That’s true but they also had an offensive military application as well. We’re tracking all this stuff and we’ve been tracking it since 1999. Lo and behold, we started looking at the fact that coming into the spring of 2019.
This is nine months before they’re supposed to be a thing, we start seeing a lot of documents start showing up with the language about an accidental or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen. If that came out in one document and we go, “Somebody was concerned about that,” when it starts showing up in a bunch of documents, it shows up in March 2019, it shows up again in May 2019, it shows up again in September 2019 in the World Health Organization Global Preparedness Monitoring Board Program, you start going, “Hold on a minute, we’re being told something’s happening.”
It’s like they were hinting somehow.
Except they are not very much hinting. They are going, “You keep saying an accidental or intentional release of respiratory pathogen.” We were not surprised when we expected to see something happen in Wuhan or in Italy or in North Carolina or in any of the places where we know the BSL labs were manipulating the Coronavirus. For me, the whole idea that this was somehow an accidental thing fails on its face because you can’t get an accident with premeditated planning and then have nature come along and go, “By the way, humans are talking about doing something. Why don’t I fly a bat over a wet food market in Wuhan and somehow make this mysteriously happen?” The amount of improbabilities to land an accident of nature in a place where you also have a biological weapons lab is zero.
What are the implications of something being done deliberately?
This is an act of war is what it is. It’s war in the new way we’re doing war because the new way we’re doing more is with financial, biologic, health and living standards and everything else. War in the old lineup the muskets and shoot people, it’s not how we’re doing war anymore. We’re doing war by depriving people of their liberty, of their livelihoods, of their access to medicine, the access to health, to life and to whatever they’re doing. That’s the new war.
Who is coming to war against us?
This is a massive transition between what used to be what I refer to as the Westphalian Nation-State Model, where it used to be you took the map and you drew lines on the map and you said, “That’s France. That’s Britain.” That era has come to an end quite a long time ago, probably around the time that Nixon took us off the gold standard. What’s happened is slowly corporations and corporate interests and financial interests have moved in as the thing that makes the difference. This is a war against the Westphalian Nation-State Model. It’s a coup of that model where corporations and financial interests have said, “We’re the ones that call the shots.”
Now we know that there are hosts of individuals who manipulate elections, who buy politicians and who buy everybody. We know that those organizations don’t officially have nation-states standing. When you know that a person like Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos or Anthony Fauci, never elected, never appointed, never anything that has a legal democratic process around it. When you have those people who show up on every head of state stage, whispering in the ear of every head of state and saying, “This is how you’re going to act,” that’s not they’re advising and giving their best input. They’re running the show.
What we’re experiencing right now is the most insidious form of what is effectively a civil war where the democratic nation-states are being erased by corporate interests and financial interests who have decided they are going to be taking the position that they’ve already paid for. They bought Congress and legislatures. They bought Governor’s offices all over the country. They’ve bought heads of state around the world and now they’re moving in and taking what they bought.
It’s not the sickness that’s the element of war as much as also the collapse of the economy and fear that is running rampant. I see these as tools as well.
This is more a financial crisis than a health crisis. Now we could both agree that our definition of health has been corrupted a long time ago. Health as a construct probably was hijacked somewhere around the 1770s when we started manipulating and this is Thomas Jefferson and others started manipulating pathogens to try to figure out how to control the epidemic-type and plague-type experiences. Whether it’s the poxes that came over from Europe, whether it’s the animal to human transfers that were a concern at the end of the 18th century, what happened was we decided that somehow or another chemistry was the basis of health. We stopped looking at the vitality like we’re standing out in the cold.
Our bodies have adapted for the cold. What has happened? Our blood supply is out of our faces. It’s going into our core because that’s how bodies were designed to deal with cold. That’s not a bad thing. That’s health. In fact, we would be unhealthy if that didn’t happen but that’s not a chemistry thing. That’s neurologic. That’s physiologic. That’s all kinds of systems engaged. The problem is you can’t meter those systems. You can’t dose those systems, which means you can’t monetize them. What happened was we started saying health was about things you could monetize because if I can dose you something, then I can charge you something. If your body is working, my body’s working, then nobody can make any money off it.
I’ve thought of that before. The hospitals only make money if they’re full of sick people.
By the way, all the nonsense about wellness and all this stuff that you hear about, that is a cover story. It’s a fraction of a fraction of a percent of what’s spent in what we call healthcare. Healthcare is about end-of-life extension. It’s not about living, it’s not about health. It’s about disease management. It’s not about living in health. I am 53 years old, almost 54 in 2021. I have the vitality that I had when I was in my twenties. Why? It’s because I care about my health and my vitality. How often do I go to a doctor? With the exception of trauma surgeries that I’ve had a couple of times where I’m very grateful that there were doctors, I just don’t go. Why? It’s because I’m not consuming a dependency on chemistry or consuming a dependency on a metered version of what health is.
I’m actually living health, which means I’m walking and I’m cycling and I’m doing yoga. I’m doing exercise. I’m eating well. I’m doing all the things I’m doing because that’s health. The problem is you can’t meter people like me. You can’t put a tax on me because I’m not getting a syringe every day for my diabetes. I’m not taking a pill every day for my other chronic disease and because of that, I’m not controllable. What we’re doing now in the guise of health is we’re saying, “If you don’t have something that needs metering, you’re not healthy and you’re going to have to get something that needs metering.”
This helps me understand the asymptomatic carrier BS, if you will. I’m like, “How can someone who has no symptoms be sick?” It’s like a mental game they’re playing on us.
If you think of women who get pap smears and they get an abnormal cell. For a long time, you just had a hyperplastic cell or you might have atypical cell, but now what do you call it? It’s precancerous. It’s not cancer. It’s not pre-something. It’s not the thing. What’s to happen, just like an asymptomatic carrier. What’s an asymptomatic carrier? What a crazy notion. I don’t not have a thing. I don’t not have cancer. I don’t not have a thing and I’m an asymptomatic, soon-to-be something patient. I’m a healthy person. My immune system is working and my body was working.
This whole idea of asymptomatic pathogen vector that is now what each one of us is supposedly is so nonsensical but it’s there so that we have to now be a consumer of face masks, social distancing, hand sanitizer or whatever else. Even if we’re perfectly healthy, we still have to buy something, which is the metered definition of health. That’s the big breakthrough and we need to call it what it is. This is the manipulation of health for metering commerce around an illusion built on chemistry.
Now that we’re aware of it or at least starting to become aware of it, the fact that we’re in a war right now, how do we fight against it, David?
What I’m doing here in DC, what we’re doing all over the world right now is we’re exposing all of the evidence that’s required for people to take legal action from both criminal and civil statutes. The majority of even legal experts fail to understand the complexity of these laws simply because the average person has no experience with anti-trust, terrorism, terrorism finance and with all of the kinds of laws that are germane to what’s going on here. A huge amount of our efforts right now is to educate people on what the law is to help them support their cases that they are filing. Gradually, what we’re doing is we’re getting the legal side of this conversation along the lines of where it needs to go. The other thing is we have to ask people to start talking about health the right way.
We’re not doing that. We’re still in this politically correct era where it’s unfashionable to be well. We supposedly are supposed to be, “We can’t say obese anymore. We can’t say a lifestyle disorder because that’s being insensitive.” That’s nonsense. We need to model what health is. We need to live what health is. We need to experience what health is and we then have to go forward with a lived experience of what good health and vitality is all about. There’s an individual role each one of us plays and there’s the community role that we’re trying to lead right now which is to say, people who’ve violated the laws need to be held accountable for what they’ve done to hijack your and my experience of living.
In The Weston Price Foundation, we are always talking about health and how to take our health back into our own hands. As you’re saying, living empowered, healthy lives that are vibrant, not just disease-free but living optimally. Speak to us a little bit about this legal bit because our folks don’t know what the legal implications are of what’s happening right now.
There’s a bunch of things. First of all, the Center for Disease Control in 2003 violated the law. They patented the Coronavirus isolated from humans. A lot of people have had issues with me saying that but here’s the problem. The problem is under Section 101 of US Code 35, you are not allowed to patent nature. That’s a statement. That’s a fact. You can’t alter that fact. One of two things occurred, either SARS Coronavirus was made in a lab, in which case it violated biological and chemical weapons laws, or it was natural and CDC should never have filed a patent on it. The actual sequence ID in which the patent includes not only the whole genome but also all nucleic acid sequences associated with SARS.
This is a thing where one of two things happened and both of them are illegal. You either patented the genome, and if you did that, that’s a violation of law or you made it, in which case you’ve also violated laws. Neither way is acceptable. Why would the CDC want a patent on the genome of the virus? It turns out that if you control the genome, you control the ability to test for it. You control the ability to trade it. You control the ability to develop vaccines for it. All of which they, in collusion with NIAID, controlled for eighteen years. For eighteen years, they have manipulated and controlled 100% of this entire campaign, which means that we get to 2020, we’re told how we are going to measure Coronavirus. It turns out, the only thing we could do is use CDC’s patented RT-PCR technology because they controlled the technology and they could never get it approved without Emergency Use Authorization.
When Alexander Azar in January of 2020 declared a national emergency, what happened in the first week of February is that all of a sudden the FDA comes along and says, “What never was legal to use RT-PCR as a diagnostic, because of the emergency, it now has become legal.” This is the most egregious violation of the law you could hope for. The fact of the matter is that’s what happened. If we wanted to end this epidemic, by the way right now, lift the state of emergency because the minute you lift the state of emergency, you can’t use the RT-PCR test. You can’t use the vaccine. You can’t use any of these things because they’re only legally used if the state of emergency is in place. If anybody wanted to change this right now, like literally now, lift the state of emergency and now it’s illegal to use RT-PCR. It’s illegal to use what is being called vaccines that aren’t vaccines that are genetically-modified toxins that are going into your cells. It’s illegal to do it. It’s solvable and no one is solving it.
I feel like the medical professionals and government officials have been persuaded that this is a legitimate virus. They may be doing the lockdown and all of these restrictions in the state of emergency because they think they’re protecting the public that way.
I don’t believe any of that. I can accept maybe a few people here and there might accidentally be doing the wrong thing because they’re trying to do the best thing. I think this is a criminal collusion and I’ve got all the evidence that says that it is. Let’s start with the Federal Trade Commission. The Federal Trade Commission makes it illegal to say that you can treat or diagnose a disease with the medical technologies unproven. Face masks have never been proven to stop a single viral transmission ever. That has never happened. Every governor is telling you that your face mask is somehow going to stop a viral transmission. It turns out that’s empirically false and it violates the Federal Trade Commission Act, which says you’re not allowed to say something has a treatment that does not in fact have medical, empirical proof that says it’s a treatment.
I feel like I’m living in an upside-down world right now.
You are and we are. The cool thing is we’re going to turn it on the right side.
You said you have all this evidence. I have to ask, are you pursuing any lawsuits to rectify things?
We are involved in several lawsuits and we’re working right now to build out a case, which is in fact, the Federal criminal case, which is going to be the Federal criminal case against Anthony Fauci, Robert Redfield, Alexander Azar, the Secretary of Health and Human Services. We’re building that case right now.
Who is that ‘we’ that you keep referring to?
Me and the team of lawyers that are doing it. I’m leading it.
We will look for that. Is there anything else, David, that you can tell the ordinary citizen right now who’s like, “How can I fight for my freedoms and my right to live healthily right now?”
Two things. One is stop talking about vaccines that aren’t vaccines. The thing that’s being sold by Pfizer and Moderna is not a vaccine. It’s a pathogen that is injected into your cell to elicit the creation of a toxin. That’s what it is. Vaccines are legally defined as a thing that interrupts the immune process in your system and prevents transmission. Neither one of those things is what’s happening. What they’re calling a vaccine isn’t and we need to stop calling it a vaccine. That’s number one. Number two, about your own life, what you need to be is you need to take the legal documents, including things that I’ve posted on Inverted Alchemy, which is a place where I posted a legal action.
Every single person in America can download and use that which says you cannot violate the Federal Trade Commission Act by saying that my mask works, my social distancing works, any of these things work because it violates the law. 21 Code of Federal Regulations, 18 US Code, 8 US Code, tons of US codes, 15 US codes, all being violated and all of those are itemized. If anybody wants to take action, take action. Go make the effort. Inverted Alchemy’s not hard to type into the browser. It’s all there. People can do stuff. They need to be doing it, not wait for somebody else.
I want to wrap up by asking the question I always ask my guests. If the reader could do one thing to improve their health, and you talked about meditation and the things that you do, what would you recommend they do?
There’s no question. Take your shoes off and put your feet back on the ground. Find a place where you can put your feet on the ground. Remember what it’s like to be human. Feel the Earth, feel your ecosystem. Once you do, let yourself breathe into that because the minute you do, you realize you’re a wonderful human being. You’re on a beautiful planet and you can make the best of it.
Thank you for your time. I appreciate it.
You’re most welcome. Thanks very much.
March 7, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19 |
Leave a comment
Lately, we have been inundated by requests from worried parents for our help over US state authorities making demands for the vaccination of their children before return to schools after ‘lockdown.’ In that regard, we provide the template letter below, for those who are concerned over the dangers from unproven COVID19 vaccines.
Please feel free to add and amend the following to fit your personal circumstances. However, please be aware the following is not a substitute for legal advice from a qualified attorney, which will vary due to differing state laws and factual circumstances.*
Dear ________
This letter is NOT a refusal of vaccination. In this matter I am what is legally defined as ‘vaccine hesitant.’ This is my formal request to you to honor my right as a parent to have informed consent before agreeing to proceed to the next step in permitting my child to be vaccinated.
My consent must be obtained before starting any treatment or physical investigation and this includes the administration of all vaccines.
My giving of any consent is viewed as a process, not a one-off event. Consent obtained before the occasion upon which a child is brought for immunization is only an agreement for the child to be included in the immunization program and does not mean that consent is in place for each future immunization.
Consent should still be sought on the occasion of each immunization visit.
If my child is being excluded from their place of formal education dependent on their submission to your vaccination policy I understand this may be unlawful. If so, I reserve the right to take legal action against any authority or person who so engages in such action.
There are THREE key legal points to be made:
- Vaccination against COVID19 is NOT a legal requirement, merely a recommendation among various authorities;
- No vaccine for COVID19 has passed any rigorous official safety tests, including approved FDA laboratory testing with guinea pigs;
- No vaccination program may be mandated IF ALTERNATIVE EFFECTIVE TREATMENTS ARE AVAILABLE.
All parents and patients should be fully informed about the known or suspected risks and benefits of preventive and therapeutic procedures, including vaccination. In the case of vaccination, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) strongly recommends – and federal law mandates – that this discussion include the provision of the Vaccine Information Statements (VISs).
Best Practice Requirements
All parents (or guardians) shall have the opportunity to ask questions about their concerns regarding recommended childhood immunizations, and maintaining a supportive relationship with the family are all part of a good risk management strategy.
KNOWLEDGE OF ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES & DISEASE PREVENTION
I have validated the following scientific information to my satisfaction from qualified professional (shown below) and challenge you to refute them before gaining my consent:
Merck Scraps Vaccine, Says Better To Catch COVID Virus & Recover:
https://principia-scientific.com/merck-scraps-vaccine-says-better-to-catch-covid-virus-recover/
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons endorses the use of a combination of HCQ, zinc + Z-pac as treatment and prophylactic for COVID19, thus obviating any need to be vaccinated:
https://aapsonline.org/judicial/aaps-v-fda-hcq-6-2-2020.pdf
The BMJ: COVID19 Is Murder By Misinformation. The highly respected British medical science journal speaks out against harsh government measures that are based on false science and insists “knowledgeable and conscientious researchers” have had their dissenting findings “disregarded, censored or vilified.”
https://principia-scientific.com/the-bmj-covid19-is-murder-by-misinformation/
US Senate Hearing Testimony Backs HCQ+Zinc To Treat COVID-19
https://principia-scientific.com/us-senate-hearing-testimony-backs-hcqzinc-to-treat-covid-19/
Ivermectin – Miracle Drug Against COVID-19
https://principia-scientific.com/ivermectin-miracle-drug-against-covid-19/
Lysine therapy interrupts the replication of viruses, including COVID-19 coronavirus:
A natural cure for COVID-19 is widely available and affordable and confirmed by a team of virologists who have spent a lifetime studying the underlying causes of viral infections.
Writing in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases another research team based in New York and Texas reports that arginine depletion is a strategy to quell both coronaviruses and other herpes family viruses.
In 2016 researchers documented that lysine impairs the growth of coronaviruses in a lab dish.
The Bio-Virus Research team are not loners nor out on a scientific limb. A report, published in the Journal of Antivirals & Antiretrovirals, is what prompted to the current discovery that was put into clinical practice in the Dominican Republic.
The above-cited evidence is merely a snapshot of the growing body of verifiable scientific proofs to show that my child (nor any child) not only does not need any ‘vaccine’ to be safe from COVID19 harm, but proves there are safer, proven and more acceptable measures I can take to be a responsible parent and protect my child during this ‘pandemic.’
I know that I may readdress this issue with my child’s doctor or nurse at any time and that I may change my mind and accept/reuse vaccination for my child in the future.
On this issue, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) tells us:
“Whether parents place their children at substantial risk of serious harm by refusing immunization will depend on several factors, including the probability of contracting the disease if unimmunized and the morbidity and mortality associated with infection. The results of such an analysis will also vary depending on the prevalence of disease in the community in which the child resides or the areas in which the child is likely to travel. The balance between the risks and benefits to a given individual favors immunization most strongly when rates of immunization in the community are low and disease prevalence is high.” [1]
Upon your satisfactory reply to the above, you may be provided with my consent, given voluntarily and freely.
But consent will only be given after you have provided me ALL relevant information held by government authorities including my state and federal agencies, such as the CDC.
In the event you evade answering, or negligently fail to fully clarify any reply with scientific literature, you may be liable to legal remedy for a breach of statutory of duty of care to our family.
AAP Policy**
The current AAP Clinical Report, Countering Vaccine Hesitancy, provides information about addressing parental concerns about vaccination.
AAP GUIDANCE TO HEALTH PROFESSIONALS
Health care professionals and parents are bound by the duty to seek medical benefit for and minimize harm to children in their care. When faced with the decision to immunize a child, the welfare of the child should be the primary focus.
If you are a licensed medical professional then you must address three important and distinct issues around COVID19 vaccine hesistancy/refusal.
First, you must reasonably determine whether my choice to provide my child with an alternative, non-vaccination therapy (such as HCQ, Remdisver) risks harming them sufficiently to constitute actionable neglect and be reported to state child protective services agencies;
Second, you should assess all reasonable situations in which a parental decision to withhold immunization from a child puts other individuals at risk of harm sufficient to justify public health intervention;
Third, you have a duty of care to make a full, open and honest response to a parent who refuses or ‘hesitates’ over immunizations for his or her child. [2]
I hereby formally request you to provide me with a written reply with an agreement to a discussion with me, as the parent, before signing any forms concerning the consent to vaccination of my child.
In this matter, the AAP tells us:
“In those situations, physicians may need to tolerate decisions they disagree with if those decisions are not likely to be harmful to the child. “ [3]
In view of the above, unless and until my vaccine hesitancy is fully and properly addressed by a qualified medical authorities I WITHHOLD MY CONSENT ON VACCINATING MY CHILD.
Sincerely,
Note to parents intending to use this template:
*This template not a substitute for legal advice from a qualified attorney, which will vary due to differing state laws and factual circumstances, which will impact the outcome.
** This template was drafted based on current AAP Policy, Responding to Parental Refusals of Immunization of Children.
While this template may be modified to reflect the particular circumstances of a patient, family, or medical practice, users may wish to obtain advice from a qualified attorney.
[1] https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/115/5/1428.full
[2] https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/115/5/1428.full
[3] Buchanan AE, Brock DW. Deciding for Others: The Ethics of Surrogate Decision Making. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1990 Google Scholar
About John O’Sullivan John is CEO and co-founder (with Dr Tim Ball) of Principia Scientific International (PSI). John is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann in the ‘science trial of the century‘. O’Sullivan is credited as the visionary who formed the original ‘Slayers’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world’s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory plus their new follow-up book.
March 7, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Solidarity and Activism | COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
“Alice laughed: “There’s no use trying,” she said; “one can’t believe impossible things.”
“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
1: ‘The Concept of Coronavirus Herd Immunity Is Deadly and Dangerous’ https://www.self.com/story/coronavirus-herd-immunity
Since COVID19 first hurtled over the horizon, before landing upon us all with great force, I find that I have been asked to believe in many impossible things. First, I was told that attempting to create herd immunity was not achievable. It would also be extremely dangerous and would inevitably result in many hundreds of thousands of excess deaths.
Then the vaccines arrived at fantastical speed and I was told that mass vaccination, by creating herd immunity, would be the factor that would allow us to conquer COVID19 and return to normal life. I am not entirely sure which of these things is impossible, but one of them must be.
2: ‘Vaccines, on the other hand, are believed to induce stronger and longer lasting immunity.’ https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/does-the-vaccine-give-better-protection-than-having-fought-off-the-virus_uk_601c0663c5b62bf30754c563
I was then told the vaccine would provide greater immunity than being infected with COVID19. Which was interesting. I am not sure if this is actually impossible, but it seemed unlikely that anyone could make such statements after about three hundred people had actually been studied, and just two months had passed.
At the time I was aware of two people proven to have been re-infected with COVID19, out of about ten million cases. So, getting infected certainly seemed to provide a pretty good degree of immunity. A re-infection rate of 0.00005%
I also know that vaccinations can only ever really create an attenuated response. Whereas a full-blown infection triggers a full-blown immune response. So, I think it is pretty close to impossible that vaccination can provide greater protection than that from getting the actual disease. Which is why I think it is utterly bonkers we are actually vaccinating people who have circulating antibodies in their blood.
3: ‘Universal mask use could save 130,000 U.S. lives by the end of February, new study estimates.’ https://www.statnews.com/2020/10/23/universal-mask-use-could-save-130000-lives-by-the-end-of-february-new-modeling-study-says/
I am also being asked to believe that face masks are essential to stop the spread of COVID19 and prevent millions of deaths worldwide. The use of masks to prevent viral spread is something I actually researched in depth before COVID19 arrived (for various reasons), as did the WHO. They looked at non-pharmaceutical interventions for prevention of influenza, and produced a hefty report, which covered the use of masks.
Yes, I agree, influenza is not exactly the same as COVID19. But it is pretty much the same size of virus, and it is thought to spread in much the same way. Anyway, the WHO reported their views on masks in 2019, using data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) – the gold standard.
‘Ten RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, and there was no evidence that facemasks are effective in reducing transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.’ https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/329438/9789241516839-eng.pdf?ua=1
Since then, there has only been one RCT done on COVID19 transmission, in Denmark. It did not find any significant benefit from masks in reducing spread. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33205991/
Never has a trial been subjected to such immediate and hostile reporting. Fact-checkers (whoever exactly they might be, or what understanding they have of medical research) immediately attacked it. One such, called PolitiFact, made the following judgement, which amused me.
“Social media posts claim, “The first randomized controlled trial of more than 6,000 individuals to assess the effectiveness of surgical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection found masks did not statistically significantly reduce the incidence of infection.”
The study concluded that wearing masks did not offer a very high level of personal protection to mask wearers in communities where wearing masks was not common practice. The study noted, however, that the data suggested masks provided some degree of self-protection.
We rate this claim Mostly False. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33205991/”
So, according to PolitiFact, masks provided self-protection, but not personal protection. An interesting concept. Note to self, try to find out the difference between these two things.
In fact, this was just one of hundreds of critical articles, with self-anointed fact checkers clearly desperate to pull it to pieces. Yes, we have now entered a world when political fact checkers feel free to attack and contradict the findings of scientific papers, using such scientific terms as ‘Mostly false.’ Maybe they should have called it ‘very unique’ at the same time. Or, like the curate’s egg, that was good in parts.
Ignoring the modern-day Spanish Inquisition, and their ill-informed criticisms, I will simply call this study. More evidence that face masks don’t work. Perhaps someone will come along with a study proving that face masks work. So far … nada. Another impossible thing.
4: As of the 2nd March 2021 there have been 122,953 deaths from COVID19 in the UK.
Unlike many people I have actually written COVID19 on death certificates. Mostly they have been educated guesses. On at least five of them, early last year, there had been no positive swab to go on. So, I was just going on probable symptoms. As were many other doctors at the time.
Which means that you can take five off that number for starters. Although, of course, once written, that is very much, that … when it comes to death certificates. In fact, early on in the pandemic, we were probably underdiagnosing as often as over diagnosing deaths from COVID19. Although no-one will ever know. With no positive swab – and few swabs were being done – and almost no post-mortems – you were simply guessing.
As for now … NOW we have the very strange concept that any death within twenty-eight days of a positive COVID19 swab is recorded as a COVID19 death. Simultaneously, I am told that if I have a positive test at work, and then take some time off work (I can never remember the latest guidance). I am not to have another swab for ninety days.
How so? Because it now seems (I actually knew this a long time ago), that swabs can remain positive for months after the infection has been and gone [or was maybe never there to begin with]. Or to put this another way, you can have a positive swab long after you have been infected – and recovered. There are just some bits of virus up your nose that can be magnified, through the wonders of the PCR test, into a positive result.
Which means that an elderly person, infected months ago, can be admitted to hospital for any reason whatsoever. The they can have a positive swab – everyone is swabbed. Then they can die, from whatever it was they were admitted for in the first place. Then, they will be recorded as a COVID19 death.
In truth, this is just the start of impossible things when it comes to the number of COVID19 deaths. Do not get me started on PCR cycle numbers, and false positives. We would be here all day.
Equally, how many people have truly died of COVID19, instead of simply with COVID19? If I painted a blue circle on your forehead, then you died, I would not say that you died of a blue circle painted on your forehead. I would say that you died with a blue circle painted on your forehead.
5: The Swedish COVID-19 Response Is a Disaster. It Shouldn’t Be a Model for the Rest of the World
This was actually the headline title from an article in TIME magazine. The article went on to state that ‘The Swedish way has yielded little but death and misery. And this situation has not been honestly portrayed to the Swedish people or to the rest of the world.’ https://time.com/5899432/sweden-coronovirus-disaster/
Death and misery. Hmmmm, I might make this the title of my next book. Bound to be a best seller.
Yes, Sweden has been attacked from all sides with terrific venom, for holding out against imposing severe lockdown. How dare they… follow the WHO’s initial advice. That everyone else ignored.
So, have they done well with regard to COVID19 deaths? Not particularly. Have they done badly? Not particularly. On Worldometer they rank twenty fourth highest for deaths per million of the population. Which is pretty much bang on average for Western Europe.
One reason why they might not have appeared to do better is that, in the year 2019, they had their lowest rate of death for at least ten years. Three and a half thousand less in total than in 2018 https://www.statista.com/statistics/525353/sweden-number-of-deaths/ . In Norway, a country used to beat Sweden with, due to their very low COVID19 deaths there was no difference in death rate between 2018 and 2019. To be blunt, the elderly population in Sweden had some catching up to do.
Once you factor this in, the much-lauded difference in deaths, between Norway and Sweden, kind of disappears.
‘Our study shows that all-cause mortality was largely unchanged during the epidemic as compared to the previous four years in Norway and Sweden, two countries which employed very different strategies against the epidemic. Excess mortality from COVID-19 may be less pronounced than previously perceived in Sweden, and mortality displacement might explain part of the observed findings.’ https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.11.20229708v1.full
In absolute figures. Sweden had
- 92,185 deaths in 2018
- 88,766 deaths in 2019
- 97,941 deaths in 2020
A drop, then a rebound. Perhaps another way to look at the figures is to compare 2020 with a bad Swedish year in the past. In 2012, 91,938 people died. However, the population was lower at 9.5 million vs 10.2 million. So:
- The absolute death rate in 2012 was 0.957%.
- The absolute death rate in 2020 was 0.969%.
The difference between 2012 and 2020 is 0.012%. That is 120 extra deaths per million of the population, which is 1,224 people in population of 10.2 million. The statistics tell us that twelve thousand people died from COVID19 in Sweden. Maybe you can make all that add up. Frankly, I find it impossible.
6: Lockdowns have worked.
Before COVID19 came along, no country had ever attempted a lockdown – ever. So, no-one had any idea if such a thing could possibly work. There was no evidence, from anywhere, to support its use.
It was the Chinese who started it, and who claimed great success for their jackboot lockdown tactics. Well, they convinced me… not. Frankly, if I had to choose a country from which to obtain high quality, unbiased information, about anything, China would not feature in my top one hundred and ninety-four countries
But there you go, lockdown worked under the control of the kind and caring CCP. Hoorah, cheering all round, and the first person to stop cheering gets shot. Well, we don’t want any damned nay-sayers, do we? After that, according to almost everything I have read, everywhere, it worked for everyone else too. Remarkable.
Yes, it is certainly true you can find countries that locked down, closed their borders, and kept the rates low. That, however, is not proof of anything at all. The scientific method requires a little more rigour than this.
In fact, the main thing that scientific rigour requires is that you specifically do not go around looking for facts that support your hypothesis. Because that, I am afraid, is the exact opposite of science. What you need to do, instead, is to go around looking for facts that disprove your hypothesis. This is what Karl Popper called falsification.
For example, my hypothesis is that “all swans are white”. I seek, and find, only white swans. So, this makes my hypothesis is correct? No. What science requires you do is to hunt tirelessly for black swans. If you never find one, fine. However, you need to be aware that the moment you do, your hypothesis has just been disproven. In real life things are very rarely as simple as this, but that is the basic principle.
However, with lockdown (and I recognise that no two countries locked down in the same way) the hypothesis is that countries which did not lockdown will have higher rate of death for COVID19 than those that did.
So, let us look, first, at the countries with the highest rate of COVID19. Excluding very small countries e.g., San Marino, or Gibraltar, we have, in descending order of deaths per million of the population https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ .
- Czechia
- Belgium
- Slovenia
- UK
- Italy
- Montenegro
- Portugal
- USA
- Hungary
- Bosnia and Herzegovina
- North Macedonia
- Bulgaria
- Spain
- Mexico
- Peru
- Croatia
- Slovakia
- Panama
- France
Every single country in this list carried out fairly strict lockdowns. The UK, apparently, has the strictest lockdown in the world, this winter.
Four countries that have been roundly criticized for having far less restrictive lockdowns are: Sweden, Japan, Belarus and Nicaragua (Realistically there are others, in poorer countries, where lockdowns have not happened – because they can’t afford it)
In these four ‘non-lockdowns’ countries, the death rate is, on average 391 per million.
In the top twenty ‘lockdown’ countries, the death rate is, on average 1,520 per million.
The only non-lockdown country in the top ninety for death rates is Sweden. It comes just below France, at number twenty-four.
Now, if the difference between lockdown and non-lockdown countries were ten per cent, or even fifty per cent, I would fully accept that there are many other variables that could explain such finding away. Although, of course, we should really look at a higher rate in the non-lockdown countries, not a lower rate.
Yet although this evidence is out there, I am being asked to believe that lockdowns work. At least the WHO agrees with me on this impossible thing. As Dr David Nabarro, the WHO special envoy on COVID19 said:
“We really do appeal to all world leaders, stop using lockdown as your primary method of control,” he said.
“Lockdowns have just one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer.” https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-12/world-health-organization-coronavirus-lockdown-advice/12753688
Lockdowns, according to the WHO, in unguarded moments, have just one consequence. They make poor people an awful lot poorer.
‘Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two makes four. If this is granted all else follows.’
March 6, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
The anti-Lockdown protests in Dublin
On Sunday, an irate Irish society finally said ‘no more’. For a year they had been subjected to a criminally long lockdown to the detriment of their physical, emotional, and financial well being.
Thousands of them took to the streets of Dublin to display their dissatisfaction with a Davos-owned political class and the police state they were held hostage in. Besides one or two trouble-makers the protests were peaceful and the message was loud and clear.
Enough is enough. The Irish did what they do best – demanded freedom, stood up to their oppressors and sang songs.
The oligarchs winced. Butterflies were doing somersaults in their overfed bellies. Panic set in and beads of sweat dripped down their deranged little heads. Their biggest fear was realised; the people refused to comply. As a result, what followed was an onslaught of desperation from every political party and establishment sycophant in the nation.
The usual rhetoric was thrown out; anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers, far-right, etc, etc.
Yawn!
In fact, the head henchman of the political Fianna Fail and Fine Gael cartel, Garda Commissioner Drew Harris, was in such a desperate state of mind that he screwed up his lines and said that the far-left were involved as well – much to the outrage of the far-left radicalised mainstream media, forcing him to withdraw his statement later.
It sure was a sight to behold, watching their faces as the reality dawned on them that at any point the people could, with the click of a finger, take back their power and there was absolutely nothing they could do about it. It was only the inaction of a remaining portion of the population, consisting of indoctrinated zombies, rejecting any effort to reclaim their livelihoods, who saved their backsides.
But for sure it showed them, in case they needed confirmation, that if large enough numbers of people refuse their dictatorial, arbitrary mandates it crushes their illusory power. How would they explain that to the banking and pharmaceutical dynasties that they exist to serve?
In the fallout, widespread establishment media condemnation followed – for the greatest enemy of the tyrant is the advocate of liberty.
The act of peaceful protestors speaking out against elitist Fascism, the medical mafia and the Church of Scientism was too much for the Fourth Estate. It was a sin against the Cult of Covid and there was no excuse for any Irish person demanding the most basic of liberties, according to them.
With the millions and millions of dollars that disgraced Irish state broadcaster, RTE, have been receiving from the pharmaceutical and government vaccine PR institutes, the idea of peasants marching through the streets against the kakistocracy risked putting an end to the lucrative pandemic illusion.
No way could that be allowed to happen. The age-old Bolshevik tactic of using psychiatry to stifle resistance had to be rolled out.
So it was imperative that the protestors were viewed as being an unhinged small minority of the Irish population. Former Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar called them ‘bonkers’. Others said they were part of ‘the lunatic fringe’.
Like all forms of Fascist propaganda, it was predictable.
But were those comments warranted?
Is it true that the estimated 4000-5000 people who took to the streets of Dublin on Sunday were all, in actual fact, nut-jobs? Were they dangerous conspiracy theorists? Were they expressing the views of a minority? Were they really ‘the lunatic fringe’?
I had to consider this and here’s what I concluded.
There is undoubtedly a fringe element of society in Ireland that are lunatics. There is undoubtedly a small group of people in our island nation that are, as Leo said, ‘bonkers’. But they are not the people who were on Grafton Street on Sunday.
Aside from the occasional follower of the US Military intelligence-created QAnon movement, the majority of people who marched on Sunday were hard-working, decent, law-abiding Irish men and women who voiced their discontent at the current status quo and who want to get back to making a living and chasing their dreams.
The ACTUAL fringe lunatics are, unfortunately, as they say, running the asylum. They are the people who are in charge. They are the ones who have proved to be utterly, completely, inarguably insane. It is these people who are completely bat-shit crazy. It is they who are bonkers.
Imagine, if you will, a portion of the population who are so helplessly detached from reality that they would shut down the economy of a nation, plunge its people into joblessness and destitution and keep them living under North Korean-style, Communist travel restrictions, using the pretence of a flu virus with a 99.98% survival rate for those who are infected.
Imagine being so severely sick in the head, as Professor Anthony Staines of Dublin City University (DCU) evidently is, that you would encourage your colleagues in private messages, soon leaked, to ‘increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty’ among the public to further mendacious medical agendas.
Imagine being as clinically insane as GSK and Eli Lilly-funded Professor Luke O’Neill of Trinity College, that you would advocate for attending music concerts, gigs and festivals in ridiculous plastic bubbles.
Imagine being so severely deluded, as he is, that you would suggest students attending their graduation night should wear non-removable bracelets to prove they’ve been vaccinated and then chuckle at the concept of civil liberties.
Imagine Looney Luke being so sociopathic that he would promote the idea of mandatory mask-wearing and then appear in public without wearing one himself. And all this only a few months after stating on live TV that masks are unnecessary for asymptomatic people.
The next display of Narcissistic Personality Disorder would come from Labour leader, Alan ‘Rules for Thee but Not For Me’ Kelly who, after tiresomely preaching to the masses about the importance of wearing their shame muzzles, appeared on public transport without wearing his, advising later he was too busy watching a game of football on his phone to be concerned about public health policy.
Then there’s Fine Gael politician Damien English who is so far gone that, during a live debate on national TV, dealing with the subject of retail outlets and their necessity during lockdown, he stated that clothes were not essential. Even the RTE host at the time, Miriam O’Callaghan, remarked ‘but, that seems mad Minister’ making us privy to a rare moment when the State broadcaster airs truthful content.
It gets worse.
Imagine a truly certifiable, callous, demented doctor, Chief Medical Officer and High Priest of the Covidians, Dr. Tony Holohan who is so psychopathically inclined and so devoid of empathy that he would refuse, unequivocally, to apologise for his negligent actions and subsequent cover-up which led to the death of multiple women, on his watch, due to the failures of the now notorious cervical smear scandal.
And consider a gang of thugs so mentally unbalanced they would turn up in their droves to forcibly block off public streets and intimidate passers-by, before harassing and abducting a lady (one in desperate need to open her business so she could pay her bills) in broad daylight and having no shame for it.
In a nation where a sinister gang of psychopathic hoodlums will deploy a patrol car and a riot van just to confiscate an electric bicycle from one citizen; search through the shopping bags of the elderly as they return from the supermarket; one that will humiliate and embarrass a victim of psychological illness to the point she commits suicide and one that will don balaclavas and wield batons and pepper spray while intimidating human rights and housing activists, perhaps the media and their government overlords are searching in the wrong places for the psychos in our society.
Then, we must also consider the deeply disturbed minds of the academics who are campaigning for the absolute subjugation of an entire nation. Consider the Independent Scientific Advisory Group (ISAG) and its zany wackos who want to see the nation subjected to further tyranny, with even more extreme restrictions on freedom of movement, as part of a bizarre and dangerous ‘Zero Covid’ push.
Ironically, and quite disconcertingly, one of the faces of this anti-human movement refers to herself as a human rights activist. Could you be any more dissociated from reality?
The men in white coats have a lot of work to do. This becomes obvious when we observe the Covidian sect known as NPHET (Ireland’s Coronavirus advisory group, who happen to dictate policy to a cuckolded government,) and their troubling desire to put muzzles on small children as young as four years of age, demanding that they are kept on all day for 7 to 8 hours, with no consideration for children with attention deficits or a history of trauma. Truly berserk.
Unsurprisingly, one of Ireland’s leading physicians, Dr. Gabriel Scally approves of these medieval measures on children. As a man who recently distributed a book known as Rules for Radicals to the fellow fanatics in his field, which in the introduction pays tribute to Lucifer, his support for inflicting torturous conditions on children can be expected.
We find more loose screws even at the very top of the ladder in Irish politics. When I say the top, of course, I mean the top that’s visible to the public eye, just before you reach the actual unelected government.
Here you’ll find Micheal Martin, the current Irish Taoiseach. Martin at times suffers from psychosis and lives in a land of make-believe. At one point he even suffered from false memory syndrome. In 2008, years after syphoning off and leeching from the Irish public, the banks in the nation went belly up and, inevitably (as banks do) turned to the government (read; taxpayer) for bailouts. Not according to Micheal Martin though.
In an obvious bout of neurosis, he argued that it never happened.
Assuming that this was a one-off, we moved on – until Micheal’s psychosis returned. This time he advised the public that the acts of torture, sexual abuse, imprisonment, slavery, rape, infanticide, child trafficking and GSK medical experimentation which occurred in the Catholic Church, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael-created Mother and Baby Institutions were a result of a profound failure of Irish ‘society’, insinuating that we were all to blame. He quickly corrected this after much backlash.
As a side note, GSK, despite their own documentation verifying the crimes against children, has declined to apologise for the horrors they carried out.
But what more can we expect from Micheal Martin – a clown who stands by the people of Belarus and their right to protest as he begrudges his own people that very same right.
You could fill up a funny farm with these people. But in their view, it’s the freedom-loving men and women of Ireland who are ‘bonkers’.
Leo himself is fit to be admitted. Who else, if not a disarranged, unzipped bozo, would stand in front of a nation of people economically and personally devastated by government policy during a supposed-pandemic and play silly games with celebrity millionaire associates on live press briefings.
As the nation buckled under the weight of a bought-and-paid-for, treasonous political class, Leo engaged in stagecraft, quoting Hollywood movie lines. If that’s not bonkers then I can’t say what is.
No wonder then Leo appears as a card-carrying member of the Young Leader program on the website of the World Economic Forum – founded by the stark raving mad son of a former Nazi Party member.
A keen student of war-mongering maniac Henry Kissinger, Klaus Schwab would grow into a man who has a need to read the mind of every human being alive and force them to eat insects. I guess we should judge Leo by the company he keeps.
How ironic it is that a man who often throws out the ‘far right’ label should be courted by an individual who was born in the 1930s Reich to a family highly regarded by the SS.
And then there’s the cuckoo climate extremists – a rabid cluster of fanatics who have lost the plot. Eamon Ryan is the perfect example of one. Absolutely nuts, he believes that the burning of fossil fuels, a practice that has existed in Ireland for literally thousands and thousands of years, is suddenly a life or death situation and if we don’t stop it we’ll all be doomed in the next 9 years.
As a result of this Ireland’s peat harvesting and production are to be brought to a halt and solid fuels are to be imported from overseas. This is the brainchild of the leader of the Green Party who believes, in his paranoid state of mind, that anything less would result in catastrophe.
To prevent such calamity, Eamon has also promised to take action that will force us to share a single car between ten families. This is all to make Ireland CO2 neutral, which will mean life itself cannot continue, as human beings, animals and plant life cannot exist without it.
The dangerous schizoids in charge of policy are completely bonkers. If any more proof of this is needed, then you only need to look at some of the agendas that they and those before them have signed the nation up to.
For example, Ireland is firmly committed to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, a push for Global Socialism and totalitarianism which promises a future in which ‘wealth is shared’ as part of what many Fabian progressives and academics in the nation believe should be the next ‘Great Leap Forward’ – referencing Chairman Mao Zedong of China’s movement which ended up causing the deaths of 45 million people.
In my book, The COVID-19 Illusion; A Cacophony of Lies, I show how the entire pandemic debacle is contrived in order to achieve these malevolent ends.
Then there’s the Irish government’s Industry 4.0 Strategy, a salute to Klaus Schwab’s Fourth Industrial Revolution and the Great Reset, which promises that soon ‘you’ll own nothing and be happy’, living in a surveillance state among the Internet of Things and an A.I-driven dystopia.
This is the tomorrow envisioned by the mad hatters in control of the nation. No wonder they are so averse to the idea of a freedom.
Of course there’s Leo’s unhealthy obsession with having us all tagged, traced and tracked through his endorsement of the Mark of the Beast Vaccine Passport program, whilst ignoring the advice of the Council of Europe, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and many others who anticipate a tsunami of discrimination and an apartheid system – as is already being experienced in Israel.
In truth, Leo Varadkar and his cronies know full well that the protestors who marched on Sunday were not ‘bonkers’. He knows that they are part of an ever-growing segment of Irish people who are tiring of the powers-that-should-not-be.
In truth, Leo knows that those same people have the power to end his hustle at a moment’s notice.
In truth, Leo and his associates know that it is they who are insane. And as soon as the vast majority of Irish people wake up to this insanity and realise that it is destructive to their freedom, their liberties and their way of life, then it’s game over for him.
Leo knows this is not very far away.
The lunatic fringe, indeed.
March 6, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Progressive Hypocrite, Science and Pseudo-Science | Ireland |
Leave a comment
The Governor of TX announced he’s opening up The Lone Star State 100%, enraging the mainstream media. The motivation may be political, but numbers don’t lie. Del breaks down the data on three key states, California, New York, and Florida, to reveal what possibly led Gov. Abbott to make such a controversial decision.
“THIS COULD HAVE SAVED 450,000 LIVES”
ER doc, Richard Bartlett, made waves last year with a viral video about his incredible success treating #Covid19 patients with a common asthma inhalant. After being vilified by the media and Fauci himself, recent studies, including one out of Oxford University, have validated his claim, stating that 90% of hospitalizations could have been avoided with this simple, early treatment.
March 5, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | Covid-19 |
Leave a comment
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently published a February 2020 MMWR report entitled “Decline in COVID-19 Hospitalization Growth Rates Associated with Statewide Mask Mandates — 10 States, March–October 2020.” This report focused on 10 sites that had been included in the Covid-19 Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network.
This CDC report described a decrease in hospitalization rates of growth of up to 5.6% in adults (18-65 years old) and attributed this to the use of masking and/or the introduction of mask mandates in the various sites. These rates were compared to those obtained from a 4-week period of time prior to the introduction of mask mandates. In so doing, and by way of regression analysis, the reduced rates of hospitalization were attributed to the introduction of statewide mask mandates.
Firstly, the initial publication by the CDC (February 5/February 12th, 2021) was plagued with important inaccuracies that were then fortunately addressed in an updated erratum (February 26th 2021). We applaud the CDC for taking the steps required to correct these errors. Reporting done by the CDC, which is generally considered as the premier public health agency in the US, must be of the highest quality, particularly since advice rendered by the CDC is also relied upon worldwide.
En face, CDC’s conclusion on mandates might appear to make sense unless one is familiar with the scientific data pertaining to the ineffectiveness of masking for prevention of the spread of Covid-19 (e.g. references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15) in which case the findings in fact contradict most of what is now known. The CDC’s conclusion might have made more sense if the real-world evidence we have about mandates did not actually exist (e.g. references 1, 2, 3, 4).
Does the CDC really think that masks prevent the wearer from getting Covid, or from spreading it to others? The CDC admits that the scientific evidence is mixed, as their most recent report glosses over many unanswered scientific questions. But even if it were clear – or clear enough – as a scientific matter that masks properly used could reduce transmission, it is a leap to conclude that a governmental mandate to wear masks will do more good than harm, even as a strictly biological or epidemiological matter. Mask mandates may not be followed; masks worn as a result of a mandate may not be used properly; some mask practices like double masking can do harm, particularly to children; and even if a mask mandate results in some increased number of masks being worn and worn properly, the mandate and the associated publicity may reduce the public’s attention to other more effective safeguards, such as meticulous hygiene practices.
Thus, it is not surprising that the CDC’s own recent conclusion on the use of nonpharmaceutical measures such as face masks in pandemic influenza, warned that scientific “evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission…” Moreover, in the WHO’s 2019 guidance document on nonpharmaceutical public health measures in a pandemic, they reported as to face masks that “there is no evidence that this is effective in reducing transmission…” Similarly, in the fine print to a recent double-blind, double-masking simulation the CDC stated that “The findings of these simulations [supporting mask usage] should neither be generalized to the effectiveness … nor interpreted as being representative of the effectiveness of these masks when worn in real-world settings.”
Just look at the data from Jonas F. Ludvigsson that is emerging from Sweden in children 16 years old and under when preschools and schools were kept open and there were no face masks though social distancing was fostered. The result was zero (0) deaths from COVID-19 in 1.95 million Swedish children across the study period. The number of infections was exceedingly low, the number of hospitalizations was exceedingly low, and there were no deaths in children with COVID-19, all this despite not wearing masks due to no schoolwide mask mandate. Is this merely a perfunctory and legally prudent warning by the CDC that “your mileage may vary?” Or is it more like a hot mutual fund telling you that “past performance is no guarantee of future results.” What is the CDC really trying to say about face masks and why so much confusion?
We have reservations about the methodology employed and conclusions drawn in the CDC double mask study which we will address in a separate discussion but again their disclaimer as noted above: “The findings of these simulations should neither be generalized to the effectiveness … nor interpreted as being representative of the effectiveness of these masks when worn in real-world settings” seeds thoughts of doubt in relation to the value of this report. Why then, would the CDC even bother to publicize these findings? What is the public health impact? What is the benefit?
Moreover, the CDC even indicated in the double mask study that there are harms e.g. impediments to breathing, due to double masking. Indeed, the harms (e.g. reference 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) are very real when face masks are used yet are often dismissed and not even discussed by the media medical establishment or government bureaucrats.
In relation to this, Dr. Anthony Fauci of the NIAID created appreciable confusion by initially suggesting and encouraging the use of double masks instead of one. Dr. Fauci then reversed his statements on the use of double masks. Dr. Fauci’s advisories took on a form of double peak which has an appearance of randomness or worse, capriciousness. This can only distort the desperately needed advice by the public at large; unsound advice can be very damaging on several levels. This random form of advice-giving was not reflective of a single event. For example, while touting vaccines as the only way for society to emerge back to normal from the pandemic, Dr. Fauci is now advising that in fact, even with vaccinations, people should still not attend public gatherings and restaurants, and that such restrictions could be in place until end of 2021. While changes in advice are required when new data emerge, we hold that this was definitely not the case with respect to masking (or vaccination for that matter).
Below are the main scientific shortcomings or analytical ambiguities in the CDC’s most recent MMWR report on mask mandates:
- The CDC’s main evidence, a regression study based on selected sites in ten states with masking mandates from March through October 2020, did not include the four-month period from November through February 2021 (which might have controlled for other possibly contributing factors such as sunlight and vitamin D) and did not appear to take into account the possible effects of such factors as school closures or changes in social distancing practices. We point out that during the period of March 22, 2020 to October 12, 2020 this is actually representative of the spring, summer and early fall seasons when outdoor activity increases. Of course, this leads to more exposure to sunlight with the attendant generation of active vitamin D metabolites, while at the same time there are marked reductions in confinement within enclosed spaces which would necessarily reduce the opportunities for transmission of disease. A more stringent approach to the analyses, including the use of all available data (i.e. not excluding a full 4-month period of time), might have led conceivably to a conclusion that there was in fact no significant effect of mask mandates on disease or case rates. And in concert with the CDC’s disclaimers noted above, the CDC indicated in their own report that the conclusions described in the study in favour of masking were, at best, only moderately reliable.
- The CDC analyzed changes in hospitalizations, but did not compare infection, disease, or death rates between states with and without masking mandates. Available evidence of that nature suggests that the course of the pandemic was not affected by state masking mandates.
- The CDC used a least squares fit regression analysis (OLS) (using “x” as mask wearing and the dependent/outcome to the “y” variable which is the number of Covid cases) despite the fact that simple regression is not the optimal approach and, we believe, should be replaced with Orthogonal Distance Regression (ODR) which would yield more reliable findings.
- Based on the reporting, it appears that the CDC’s regression analysis was based on data from limited sites within a state, and not the entire state.
- The CDC report failed to address/discuss recent potent research data based on high-quality case-controlled analyses, as well as a high-quality Danish randomized controlled trial study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine which found no statistically or clinically significant impact of mask-use in regard to the rate of infection with SARS CoV-2, or a recent NEJM publication (prospective cohort CHARM study) where researchers studied SARS-CoV-2 transmission among Marine recruits at Parris Island (n=1,848) who volunteered, underwent a 2-week quarantine at home that was followed by a second 2-week quarantine in a closed college campus setting. The predominant finding was that despite the very strict and enforced quarantine, including 2 full weeks of supervised confinement and then enforced social distancing and masking protocols, the rate of transmission was not reduced and in fact seemed to be higher than expected, despite the strong experimental design and the rigor associated with carrying out the study.
- The CDC report does not address and contextualize substantial “real world” experience showing that adding mandates where there is already substantial mask wearing has little effect, and that mask mandates that were followed can be correlated with increased case counts (e.g. references 1, 2, 3, 4). This obviously may not be cause and effect, but the same criticism can be levied against correlations or regressions going in the opposite direction.
Based on our assessment of this CDC mask mandate report, we find ourselves troubled by the study methods themselves and by extension, the conclusions drawn. The real-world evidence exists and indicates that in various countries and US states, when mask mandates were followed consistently, there was an inexorable increase in case counts. We have seen that in states and countries that already have a high frequency of mask wearing that adding mandates had little effect. There was no (zero) benefit of adding a mask mandate in Austria, Germany, France, Spain, UK, Belgium, Ireland, Portugal, and Italy, and states like California, Hawaii, and Texas. Importantly, we do not ascribe a cause-effect relationship between the implementation of mask mandates and the rise in case rates, but we also demand the same approach when it comes to claiming some sort of causal relationship between the introduction of mask mandates and likely claims by the CDC that their findings could support their implementation countrywide.
We think that inclusion of such evidence on the failures of masks mandates globally and states within the US would have made for more balanced, comprehensive, and fully-informed reporting. Specifically, when we consider the evidence on mask mandates, “in states with a mandate in effect, there were 9,605,256 confirmed Covid-19 cases, which works out to an average of 27 cases per 100,000 people per day. When states didn’t have a statewide order—including states that never even had mandates, coupled with the period of time states with mandates still didn’t have a mandate in place—there were 5,781,716 cases, averaging 17 cases per 100,000 people per day. In other words, protective-mask mandates have a poor track record insofar as fighting this pandemic. States with mandates in place produced an average of 10 more reported infections per 100,000 people per day than states without mandates.” The blind acceptance of the current unsupported dogma has become so entrenched that if cases do go up, the experts wedded to the universal use of masks then claim that this is good news and infer that the masking mandate prevented even more cases from occurring. This is a fine example of tautology and defies reason. We are very troubled by this type of scientific reporting and inference, for it is based on assumptions, supposition, and speculation.
Masks for the general population as they are currently used (surgical masks and the cloth masks), are ineffective (particularly when used without other mitigation) and the body of evidence (see AIER) is clear. A recent op-ed in the Washington Post spoke to mask wearing by everyone during the 1918 flu pandemic, with the conclusion that masks were useless. We embrace fully the contention by Klompas in the NEJM that “what is clear, however, is that universal masking alone is not a panacea. A mask will not protect providers caring for a patient with active Covid-19 if it’s not accompanied by meticulous hand hygiene, eye protection, gloves, and a gown. A mask alone will not prevent health care workers with early Covid-19 from contaminating their hands and spreading the virus to patients and colleagues. Focusing on universal masking alone could, paradoxically, lead to more transmission of Covid-19 if it diverts attention from implementing more fundamental infection-control measures.” We are particularly alarmed by the harms of masking and the failure by top US agencies and leadership (as well as the media and ‘media’ medical experts) to discuss or highlight harms in any discourse on masking.
We end by imploring the CDC to take our critique in the spirit in which it was generated. We welcome continued, rigorous scientific examination of these important societal lockdowns, school closures, and masking and broader mask mandate issues by CDC and others. We are entirely willing to consider any evidence that contradicts what we have seen which suggests that societal lockdowns and school closures are not effective, and as presented here, suggests that mask mandates are ineffective. Most importantly, to maintain the validity of scientific research as a tool, and the public’s confidence in such research, reports on the results of such research should more comprehensively address the weakness or ambiguities that exist, as well as the conclusions the reporting agency supports.
Trusting the science means relying on the scientific process and method and not merely ‘following the leader.’ It is not the same as trusting, without verification, the conclusory statements of human beings simply because they have scientific training or credentials. This is especially so if their views and inquiry have become politicized. Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard’s Medical School has recently commented on the present Covid-19 scientific and research environment by stating, “After 300 years, the Age of Enlightenment has ended.”
Sadly, we must agree, that it’s not just that the age of enlightenment has come to an end, but indeed, that the science itself has been politicized and severely corrupted.
Contributing Authors
- Paul E Alexander MSc PhD, McMaster University and GUIDE Research Methods Group, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada elias98_99@yahoo.com
- Howard C. Tenenbaum DDS, Dip. Perio., PhD, FRCD(C) Centre for Advanced Dental Research and Care, Mount Sinai Hospital, and Faculties of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Ramin Oskoui, MD, CEO, Foxhall Cardiology, PC, Washington, DC oskouimd@gmail.com
- Dr. Parvez Dara, MD, MBA, daraparvez@gmail.com
March 5, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Anthony Fauci, CDC, cov, United States |
Leave a comment
In my current series of articles, I’ve taken apart the Ebola and Zika hoaxes.
Now I take you back to the summer of 2009, when the CDC and the World Health Organization were hyping the “deadly H1N1 Swine Flu pandemic.”
They were, of course, also urging people to take the new Swine Flu vaccine. On that subject, here is an excerpt from Robert Kennedy Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense (3/27/20):
“For example, [Dr. Anthony] Fauci once shilled for the fast-tracked H1N1 influenza (‘swine flu’) vaccine on YouTube, reassuring viewers in 2009 that serious adverse events were ‘very, very, very rare.’ Shortly thereafter, the vaccine went on to wreak havoc in multiple countries, increasing miscarriage risks in pregnant women in the U.S., provoking a spike in adolescent narcolepsy in Scandinavia and causing febrile convulsions in one in every 110 vaccinated children in Australia—prompting the latter to suspend its influenza vaccination program in under-fives.”
However, that is only half the Swine Flu story. The other half—which involves an astounding hoax—was surely something Fauci was aware of at the time.
Fauci was, in fact, recommending a highly dangerous vaccine for protection against AN EPIDEMIC THAT DIDN’T EXIST AT ALL.
His friends and professional colleagues at the CDC were creating the hoax.
Let me run it down for you.
In the summer of 2009, the CDC was claiming there were thousands of Swine Flu cases in the US. But behind these statistics lay an unnerving secret. A major crime, considering the CDC’s mandate to report the truth to the American people:
Secretly, the CDC had stopped counting cases of Swine Flu.
What? Why?
CBS investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, discovered the CDC secret; and she found out why.
The routine lab testing of tissue samples from the most likely Swine Flu patients was coming back, in the overwhelming percentage of cases, with: NO SIGN OF SWINE FLU OR ANY OTHER KIND OF FLU.
Attkisson wrote an article about this scandal, and it was published on the CBS News website. However, the next, bigger step—putting out the story on CBS television news—was waylaid. No deal. And CBS shut down any future investigation on the subject. Attkisson’s article died on the vine. No other major news outlet in the world picked up her article and ran with it deeper into the rabbit hole.
Here is what Attkisson told me when I interviewed her:
Rappoport: In 2009, you spearheaded coverage of the so-called Swine Flu pandemic. You discovered that, in the summer of 2009, the Centers for Disease Control, ignoring their federal mandate, [secretly] stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America. Yet they continued to stir up fear about the “pandemic,” without having any real measure of its impact. Wasn’t that another investigation of yours that was shut down? Wasn’t there more to find out?
Attkisson: The implications of the story were even worse than that. We discovered through our FOI efforts that before the CDC mysteriously stopped counting Swine Flu cases, they had learned that almost none of the cases they had counted as Swine Flu was, in fact, Swine Flu or any sort of flu at all! The interest in the story from one [CBS] executive was very enthusiastic. He said it was “the most original story” he’d seen on the whole Swine Flu epidemic. But others pushed to stop it [after it was published on the CBS News website] and, in the end, no [CBS television news] broadcast wanted to touch it. We aired numerous stories pumping up the idea of an epidemic, but not the one that would shed original, new light on all the hype. It was fair, accurate, legally approved and a heck of a story. With the CDC keeping the true Swine Flu stats secret, it meant that many in the public took and gave their children an experimental vaccine that may not have been necessary.
So… fake pandemic, CDC crimes, and a damaging vaccine.
But that wasn’t end of it. The CDC wanted to commit another crime. About three weeks after Attkisson’s findings were published on the CBS News website, the CDC, obviously in a panic, decided to double down. If one lie is exposed, tell an even bigger one. A much bigger one.
Here, from a November 12, 2009, WebMD article is the CDC’s response:
“Shockingly, 14 million to 34 million U.S. residents — the CDC’s best guess is 22 million — came down with H1N1 swine flu by Oct. 17 [2009].” (“22 million cases of Swine Flu in US,” by Daniel J. DeNoon).
Are your eyeballs popping? They should be.
Fast forward to 2020. Who in his right mind, armed with a little history, would believe anything the CDC is saying about COVID-19? The discovery of a new coronavirus. The case and death numbers, the accuracy of the diagnostic tests, the need for lockdowns and economic devastation, the safety and importance of a vaccine, the fear porn? Who would believe any of it?
And who would believe anything coming out of the mouth of Dr. Anthony Fauci?
Only a fool.
SOURCES:
[1] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/03/02/ebola-the-new-fake-outbreak/
[1a] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/category/ebola/
[2] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/03/04/zika-was-a-warm-up-for-covid-it-didnt-fly/
[2a] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/category/zika/
[3] https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/dr-fauci-and-covid-19-priorities-therapeutics-now-or-vaccines-later/
[3a] https://web.archive.org/web/20200328080313/https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/dr-fauci-and-covid-19-priorities-therapeutics-now-or-vaccines-later/
[4] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/swine-flu-cases-overestimated/
[4a] https://web.archive.org/web/20140101163355/https://www.cbsnews.com/news/swine-flu-cases-overestimated/
[5] https://www.cdc.gov/media/transcripts/2009/t091009.htm
[6] https://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/news/20091112/over-22-million-in-us-had-h1n1-swine-flu#1
[6a] https://web.archive.org/web/20100105035212/https://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/news/20091112/over-22-million-in-us-had-h1n1-swine-flu
March 5, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Anthony Fauci, CDC, United States |
Leave a comment
I covered the Zika outbreak extensively in 2016. It was yet another fraud, and it collapsed under the weight of warnings to women to avoid pregnancy. Women wouldn’t obey in great enough numbers.
Basically, the official position was: an outbreak of microcephaly was occurring, worldwide, starting in Brazil. Babies were being born with smaller heads and brain damage. The cause was the Zika virus, carried by mosquitoes.
When I was exposing the lies, in 2016, I wasn’t questioning the existence of the Zika virus. Now, in 2021, I would be demanding proof that the virus had actually been isolated.
Here are excerpts from the many articles I wrote during the “Zika crisis”. There is more, much more to the story, but what I’m publishing here is enough to reveal the standard pattern of pandemic ops: pretend the “medical condition” is entirely the result of a germ; fake the exact cause; cover up ongoing government/corporate crimes.
EXCERPT ONE, 2016: There is no convincing evidence the Zika virus causes the birth defect called microcephaly.
Basically, Brazilian researchers, in the heart of the purported “microcephaly epidemic,” decided to stop their own investigation and simply assert Zika was the culprit. At that point, they claimed that, out of 854 cases of microcephaly, only 97 showed “some relationship” to Zika.
You need to understand that these figures actually show evidence AGAINST the Zika virus as the cause. When researchers are trying to find the cause of a condition, they should be able to establish, as a first step, that the cause is present in all cases (or certainly an overwhelming percentage).
This never happened. The correlation between the presence of Zika virus and microcephaly was very, very weak.
As a second vital step, researchers should be able to show that the causative virus is, in every case, present in large amounts in the body. Otherwise, there is not enough of it to create harm. MERE PRESENCE OF THE VIRUS IS NOT ENOUGH. With Zika, proof it was present in microcephaly-babies in large amounts has never been established.
But researchers pressed on. A touted study in the New England Journal of Medicine claimed Zika infected brain cells in the lab. IRRELEVANT. Cells in labs are not human beings. The study also stated that Zika infected baby mice. IRRELEVANT. Mice are not humans. And these mice in the lab had been specially altered or bred to be “vulnerable to Zika.” USELESS AND IRRELEVANT.
EXCERPT TWO, 2016: Millions of bees have just died in South Carolina, because Dorchester County officials decided to attack Zika mosquitoes from the air, from planes, with a pesticide called Naled.
The Washington Post reports, in an article headlined: “‘Like it’s been nuked’: Millions of bees dead after South Carolina sprays for Zika mosquitoes.”
“The county acknowledged the bee deaths Tuesday. ‘Dorchester County is aware that some beekeepers in the area that was sprayed on Sunday lost their beehives,’ Jason Ward, county administrator, said in a news release. He added, according to the Charleston Post and Courier, ‘I am not pleased that so many bees were killed.’”
That’s the highest degree of outrage County Administrator Ward can muster? He’s not pleased?
If you want to dig further, you can discover that, despite assurances to the contrary, Naled, like other toxic organophosphate pesticides, harms humans as well. Organophosphates are neurotoxins. The original research was done in Germany, in the hunt for nerve-agent weapons.
And how about this? The cure for the problem causes the problem…
Naled, the organophosphate pesticide now being sprayed on Miami to kill “Zika mosquitoes,” has dire effects.
Reference: a 2014 study, “Neurodevelopmental disorders and prenatal residential proximity to agricultural pesticides: the CHARGE study.” [Environmental Health Perspectives, 2014 Oct;122(10):1103-9.]
Key quotes from the study:
“Gestational exposure to several common agricultural pesticides can induce developmental neurotoxicity in humans, and has been associated with developmental delay and autism.” [Emphasis added]
“We evaluated whether residential proximity to agricultural pesticides during pregnancy is associated with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) or developmental delay (DD)…”
“Approximately one-third of CHARGE study mothers lived, during pregnancy, within 1.5 km (just under 1 mile) of an agricultural pesticide application. Proximity to organophosphates at some point during gestation was associated with a 60% increased risk for ASD [Autism Spectrum Disorders], higher for third-trimester exposures… and second-trimester chlorpyrifos [an organophosphate pesticide] applications…”
“This study of ASD strengthens the evidence linking neurodevelopmental disorders with gestational pesticide exposures, particularly organophosphates…”
The pesticide spraying affects pregnant mothers by raising the risk of neurological damage to their babies.
EXCERPT THREE: Here’s an “oops” Zika revelation:
“New doubts on Zika as cause of microcephaly.” ScienceDaily, 24 June 2016.
Source: New England Complex Systems Institute
“Brazil’s microcephaly epidemic continues to pose a mystery — if Zika is the culprit, why are there no similar epidemics in other countries also hit hard by the virus? In Brazil, the microcephaly rate soared with more than 1,500 confirmed cases. But in Colombia, a recent study of nearly 12,000 pregnant women infected with Zika found zero microcephaly cases. If Zika is to blame for microcephaly, where are the missing cases?”
FOUR: It makes far more sense to listen to what South American doctors are saying about the areas where birth defects are occurring. These would be doctors who actually care about what is destroying lives and the lives that are being destroyed.
We have such reports passed along to us, thanks to Claire Robinson of GM Watch. She is one of those people who still makes the profession of journalism mean something.
Here are quotes from her most recent article, “Argentine and Brazilian doctors name larvicide as potential cause of microcephaly.”
“A report from the Argentine doctors’ organisation, Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Towns, challenges the theory that the Zika virus epidemic in Brazil is the cause of the increase in the birth defect microcephaly among newborns.”
“The increase in this birth defect, in which the baby is born with an abnormally small head and often has brain damage, was quickly linked to the Zika virus by the Brazilian Ministry of Health. However, according to the Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Towns, the Ministry failed to recognise that in the area where most sick people live, a chemical larvicide [pesticide] that produces malformations in mosquitoes was introduced into the drinking water supply in 2014. This poison, Pyriproxyfen, is used in a State-controlled programme aimed at eradicating disease-carrying mosquitoes.” [Emphasis added]
“The Physicians added that the Pyriproxyfen is manufactured by Sumitomo Chemical, a Japanese ‘strategic partner’ of Monsanto. Pyriproxyfen is a growth inhibitor of mosquito larvae, which alters the development process from larva to pupa to adult, thus generating malformations in developing mosquitoes and killing or disabling them. It acts as an insect juvenile hormone or juvenoid, and has the effect of inhibiting the development of adult insect characteristics (for example, wings and mature external genitalia) and reproductive development. It is an endocrine disruptor and is teratogenic (causes birth defects).”
“The Argentine Physicians commented: ‘Malformations detected in thousands of children from pregnant women living in areas where the Brazilian state added Pyriproxyfen to drinking water are not a coincidence, even though the Ministry of Health places a direct blame on the Zika virus for this damage.’”
“They also noted that Zika has traditionally been held to be a relatively benign disease that has never before been associated with birth defects, even in areas where it infects 75% of the population.”
“… The Argentine Physicians’ report…concurs with the findings of a separate report on the Zika outbreak by the Brazilian doctors’ and public health researchers’ organisation, Abrasco.”
“Abrasco also names Pyriproxyfen as a likely cause of the microcephaly. It condemns the strategy of chemical control of Zika-carrying mosquitoes, which it says is contaminating the environment as well as people and is not decreasing the numbers of mosquitoes. Abrasco suggests that this strategy is in fact driven by the commercial interests of the chemical industry, which it says is deeply integrated into the Latin American ministries of health, as well as the World Health Organization and the Pan American Health Organisation.”
“Abrasco names the British GM insect company Oxitec as part of the corporate lobby that is distorting the facts about Zika to suit its own profit-making agenda. Oxitec sells GM mosquitoes engineered for sterility and markets them as a disease-combatting product – a strategy condemned by the Argentine Physicians as ‘a total failure, except for the company supplying mosquitoes’.”
“…Abrasco added that the disease [microcephaly, other birth defects] is closely linked to environmental degradation: floods caused by logging and the massive use of herbicides on (GM) herbicide-tolerant soy crops – in short, ‘the impacts of extractive industries’.”
FIVE: In a recent greenmedinfo article—“What is the Zika Virus Epidemic Covering Up?” by Jagannath Chatterjee—the author traces other Gates-Brazil connections. For example:
“While investigating the procedures directed at pregnant women in the year 2015, shocking facts emerged. Acting as per a WHO [World Health Organization] decision to inject pregnant women with vaccines despite contraindications the Brazilian Government had allowed its pregnant women to become the equivalent of guinea pigs. Besides the tetanus vaccines (provided as Diphtheria Tetanus vaccines), the women had also received the Measles Mumps Rubella (MMR) vaccine in pregnancy. What is worse a DTaP vaccine was mandated for pregnant women in 2014. Citing a shortage of the DTaP vaccine the highly reactive [dangerous] DTP vaccine was also administered. Clearly huge risks had been inflicted on the unsuspecting women. None of these vaccines are known to be safe during pregnancy and the MMR and the DaPT/DPT vaccines are lapses that cannot be condoned. The rubella virus in the MMR vaccine and the pertussis component in the DPT vaccine are known to cause microcephaly…”
“The DTaP vaccine initiative to vaccinate pregnant women was financed by BMGF [Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation] funds…”
SIX: For example, every year in the US, there are 25,000 cases of microcephaly. And the literature is very clear about causes: any insult to the fetal brain during pregnancy can result in microcephaly. Severe malnutrition, falling down stairs, a blow to the stomach, a toxic street drug or medical drug or vaccine or pesticide, and so on.
SEVEN: For science bloggers who live in mommy’s basement and love the statements of the experts, try this. I’ll give you the full citation. Ready?
“Practice Parameter: Evaluation of the child with microcephaly (an evidence-based review)”; Neurology 2009 Sep 15; 73(11) 887-897; Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the Practice Committee of the Child Neurology Society.
Here’s the money quote:
“Microcephaly may result from any insult that disturbs early brain growth… Annually, approximately 25,000 infants in the United States will be diagnosed with microcephaly…”
Bang.
Let me take apart that quote. Microcephaly can result from any early insult to the brain. Any.
That could mean a highly toxic pesticide, for example. It could mean severe and prolonged malnutrition of the mother. It could mean a toxic substance injected into the mother—a street drug or a vaccine. It could mean a physical blow. It could mean a mother’s chronic high fever. And so on.
Moving on: 25,000 cases, not just once, but every year in the US, means what? Christopher Columbus actually brought the Zika virus to America in 1492, and it lay dormant for a very long time and then, in the modern age, exploded on the scene in the US?
No. 25,000 cases a year in the US means we’re being treated to an unsupported major bullshit story right now about the Zika virus.
That’s what it means.
EIGHT: Now we have a January 27, 2016, Associated Press story out of Rio, published in SFGate :
“270 of 4,180 suspected microcephaly cases confirmed.”
That’s called a clue, in case you’re wondering. Of the previously touted 4,180 cases of microcephaly in Brazil, the actual number of confirmed cases so far is, well, only 270. Bang.
But wait, there’s more. AP :
“Brazilian officials said the babies with the defect [microcephaly] and their mothers are being tested to see if they had been infected. Six of the 270 confirmed microcephaly cases were found to have the [Zika] virus.”
Bang, bang, bang. Out of all the microcephaly cases re-examined in Brazil, only six have the Zika virus. That constitutes zero proof that Zika has anything to do with microcephaly.
—end of my excerpts from 2016—
Getting the picture?
In 2015-16, the World Health Organization and the press whiffed on the Zika virus-microcephaly hustle.
But they re-grouped, analyzed their mistakes, and prepared a wall-to-wall messaging campaign for the next fake pandemic.
China would provide the model:
LOCKDOWNS.
House arrest of a major percentage of the global population. Economic devastation.
COVID.
As I’ve been demonstrating for the past year, the COVID story is as full of holes as Zika.
March 5, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, Gates Foundation, Latin America, Monsanto, Pyriproxyfen |
Leave a comment
I had hoped to be able to announce today or tomorrow that the English language version of my book about covid-19, titled “Covid: why most of what you know is wrong”, would be out and available for purchase. The Swedish language version (titled “Varför det mesta du vet om covid-19 är fel”) came out last week and is available for purchase here. Unfortunately, Amazon, in a bizarre act of censorship, have decided that they will not be selling it on their platform. Here is what Amazon wrote to my publisher:
Hello,
We’re contacting you regarding the following book(s):
Covid: Why most of what you know is wrong by Sebastian Rushworth (AUTHOR) (ID: PRI-PVV8BRDXPZJ)
Due to the rapidly changing nature of information around coronavirus, we are referring customers to official sources for advice about the prevention or treatment of the virus.
Amazon reserves the right to determine what content we offer according to our content guidelines. Your book does not comply with our guidelines. As a result, we are not offering it for sale.
You can find our content guidelines on the KDP website: https://kdp.amazon.com/help/topic/G200672390
If you have questions or believe you’ve received this email in error, reply to this message.
Amazon KDP
My publisher is now trying to find an alternate solution to get the English language version of the book out.
March 5, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Book Review, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19 |
Leave a comment
The Telegraph is reporting this morning that pupils are facing “mask apartheid” after parents were told that children who refuse to wear one will have to sit at the back of the class. They will also be banned from eating lunch with their friends.
The government has recommended that all secondary school students wear face coverings during class, but it is not legally enforceable. Schools were told that students who refused to wear a mask, or take a twice weekly rapid covid test, must not be sent home.
But, according to The Telegraph today:
… parents fear their children will be discriminated against and forced to miss out on lessons if they come to school without a face mask.
Pupils at The Stonehenge School in Amesbury, Wiltshire were told that if they refuse to wear masks they will be “asked to sit near open doors or windows and must understand that their peers may not wish to sit with or work with them”.
Meanwhile, students at The Warwick School in Redhill, Surrey were advised that if they do not wear a mask in the classroom, the school will “make alternative arrangements” for them to continue learning “where we can maintain social distancing”.
Another secondary school said pupils without masks will have to enter the school through a separate entrance and sit at a table alone at the back of the class by an open window. They will also be banned from sitting with their peers at lunch time and blocked from group activities such as PE lessons, drama or after-school clubs.
One parent said: “I am appalled and feel blackmailed into accepting these measures so that my children can partake in exercise, class learning and their social groups at school.”
Coombe School for Girls in London warned parents that girls who came to school without a mask would be sent home to get one. Park Academy, also in London, told youngsters that if they arrived without a mask, they’d have to wait outside until one was brought for them. Failing that, they’d have to go home.
This is outrageous. The government was explicit in telling head teachers that children who refused to wear a mask could neither be sent home, nor discriminated against. Allyson Pollock, a professor of public health at the Newcastle University told The Telegraph :
“This is not informed consent, its coercion and other harms are emerging as a result – psychological trauma, isolation, segregation stigmatising children and its a form of abuse and harassment and intimidation of children and parents.”
March 5, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, Human rights, UK |
Leave a comment
Peter Ridd is right – the Great Barrier Reef is not in immediate danger of dying. James Cook University, Peter Ridd’s adversary in his unfair dismissal court case, has just slightly walked back some of their more ridiculous Great Barrier Reef extinction claims.
Coral count rethinks extinction risk
Fraser Barton
The global extinction risk of most coral species is lower than previously estimated, scientists in North Queensland claim.
In a world-first, researchers at James Cook University have assessed the number of coral colonies in the Pacific Ocean and evaluated their risk of extinction.
The study measured the population sizes of more than 300 individual coral species on reefs across the Pacific Ocean, from Indonesia to French Polynesia.
Using a combination of coral reef habitat maps and counts of coral colonies to estimate species abundances, they estimate roughly half a trillion corals in the Pacific alone.
Given the huge size of these coral populations, researchers believe it is very unlikely that they face imminent extinction.
…
Co-author Professor Terry Hughes stated while the study results have huge implications for managing and restoring coral reefs, it is is not the solution to climate change.
“You would have to grow about 250 million adult corals to increase coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef by just one percent.”
…
Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/coral-count-rethinks-extinction-risk/ar-BB1e7fD5
The abstract of the study;
The population sizes and global extinction risk of reef-building coral species at biogeographic scales
Andreas Dietzel, Michael Bode, Sean R. Connolly & Terry P. Hughes
Abstract
Knowledge of a species’ abundance is critically important for assessing its risk of extinction, but for the vast majority of wild animal and plant species such data are scarce at biogeographic scales. Here, we estimate the total number of reef-building corals and the population sizes of more than 300 individual species on reefs spanning the Pacific Ocean biodiversity gradient, from Indonesia to French Polynesia. Our analysis suggests that approximately half a trillion corals (0.3 × 1012–0.8 × 1012) inhabit these coral reefs, similar to the number of trees in the Amazon. Two-thirds of the examined species have population sizes exceeding 100 million colonies, and one-fifth of the species even have population sizes greater than 1 billion colonies. Our findings suggest that, while local depletions pose imminent threats that can have ecologically devastating impacts to coral reefs, the global extinction risk of most coral species is lower than previously estimated.
Read more: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-021-01393-4
Professor Terry Hughes, whose name appears on this paper, lodged official complaints about Peter Ridd, and in my opinion contributed to Peter Ridd’s dismissal for the crime of being right.
On one hand it is a positive that coral science seems to be edging towards a much needed correction.
But this slight shift towards Peter Ridd’s position, that claims the Great Barrier Reef is on the verge of extinction are grossly exaggerated, in my opinion puts James Cook University into an even more untenable position.
The sooner James Cook University apologises and settles Peter Ridd’s unfair dismissal claim, the better it will be for their long journey back to restoring James Cook’s in my opinion shattered scientific reputation.
March 3, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | James Cook University |
Leave a comment
Lockdowns or the planet gets it?
© web.archive.org / The Guardian
The Guardian accidentally confirmed the suspicions of a whole lot of conspiracy theorists with an article suggesting a “global lockdown every two years” was needed to meet Paris climate goals. The title was quickly changed.
If carbon dioxide emissions don’t drop by the equivalent of a worldwide lockdown “roughly every two years” for the next decade, the earth will heat to apocalyptic levels, a team of researchers at the University of East Anglia warned in a Nature article published Wednesday.
This apparently so excited a certain strain of climate fanatic on the Guardian staff, that they originally posted the piece under the title “Global lockdown every two years needed to meet Paris CO2 goals – study.” After being dragged mercilessly for such fear porn, the headline was changed to “Equivalent of Covid emissions drop needed every two years – study” with an explainer that “experts say” that “equivalent falls in emissions over a decade” would be “required to keep safe limits of global heating.”
Despite calling for “completely different methods” to achieve and lock in the emissions drop from the pandemic, lead researcher Corinne Le Quéré nevertheless insisted that climate change couldn’t be a “side issue. It can’t be about one law or policy, it has to be put at the heart of all policy.”
“Every strategy and every plan from every government must be consistent with tackling climate change.”
While Le Quéré didn’t come out and suggest people be arbitrarily deprived of their liberties every two years in order to please a climate model, the other “strategic actions” she mentioned to keep some of the gains of the pandemic were already being implemented – and in many cases had been implemented for years. From city planning to incentivize “active transport” (walking and cycling) and growing public transportation, to promoting remote work where possible, her suggestions were not exactly new – and unlikely to convince anyone they were sufficient enough.
“There is a real contradiction between what governments are saying they are going to do [to generate a green recovery], and what they are doing,” Le Quéré told the Guardian, calling the phenomenon “very worrisome.”
Her co-researcher Glen Peters was more explicit in what latitude countries should have to move away from fossil fuels on their own time, calling for “structural changes” to move economies toward renewable energy.
Some on social media, seeing the “quiet part” said out loud on the first edition of the Guardian article, had an “I told you so” moment. The threat of ‘climate lockdowns’ has been alternately presented and “debunked” by mainstream media for months.
… others at first assumed it had to be satire, because no one would post something that on-the-nose –
… except maybe for the World Economic Forum, which actually posted in praise of what lockdowns had done to cities – presumably turned them into uninhabitable hives of snitches where one can’t even take in a Broadway show anymore – earlier this week, before removing its tweet under public pressure.
The WEF had posted a video praising the “silence” and clearer air – and lack of humans, though they didn’t say that part out loud.
March 3, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science | The Guardian |
Leave a comment
Aletho News
Aletho News 
