Last week the Guardian proclaimed Butterfly Numbers Plummeting in US West as Climate Crisis Takes Toll. Numerous media outlets flooded the internet with similar versions in response to the research article Fewer Butterflies Seen by Community Scientists Across the Warming and Drying Landscapes of The American West by lead author Dr. Matt Forister. For the factors examined, their research found climate change had the greatest statistical effect associated with changing butterfly populations. Warmer summer temperatures however had a positive effect, while warmer autumn temperatures had a negative effect. Of course, in an age where chicken little catastrophes sell, only warming fall temperatures and butterfly extinctions could promote a profitable climate crisis. Worse, the public was misled to assume “all” western butterflies were declining.
For example, a University of Arizona press release (home of Forister’s co-author) stated, “Western butterfly populations are declining at an estimated rate of 1.6% per year,… The report looks at more than 450 butterfly species.” However, the researchers only stated their databases “encompassed more than 450 species”. In reality their analyses addressed just 290 species of which only 182 or 40% of the 450 species exhibited declining populations. Another 106 species were stable or increasing, and 251 lacked sufficient data for analysis.
It’s expected that during any given decade various populations of a butterfly species will randomly increase in one area but decrease in another, but with no overall declines as recently reported for USA insects. So correctly, Forister et al. asked if a species’ population trend was restricted to a local area or widespread. To answer that they examined 3 independent datasets. The North American Butterfly Association (NABA) supplied their once‑a‑year butterfly counts, typically held around July 4th, of which only 72 different sites had the required 10+ years of data (average was 21 years) with which to determine a species’ abundance trend. A second data set came from Dr. Art Shapiro’s northern California bi-weekly surveys but covered only 10 sites from the San Francisco Bay area to the Sierra Nevada crest at Donner Pass. A third database used iNaturalist’s citizen science data that only provided flashy optics suggesting widespread coverage. Although iNaturalist is a great application that easily connects laypeople with experts for accurate identifications and determines the presence of a species in a given locale, it doesn’t provide trustworthy trend data.
To argue for widespread declines, a species had to be declining in at least two of their three datasets. Comparing trends in the NABA & Shapiro datasets, only 104 species exhibited declines in both. In other words, only 23% of the ballyhooed 450 species showed a possible widespread decline. However, when interviewed by the Washington Post for the article Butterflies Are Vanishing Out West. Scientists Say Climate Change is to Blame, Forister contrarily stated, “The influence of climate change is driving those declines, which makes sense because they’re so widespread”
Despite the real number of examined species, National Geographic still trumpeted 450 Butterfly Species Rapidly Declining Due to Warmer Autumns In The Western U.S. while shamefully ignoring the positive summer warming. Indeed Forister had reported, “locations that have been warming in the fall months have seen fewer butterflies over time”, adding an unsupported hypothesis that “fall warming likely induces physiological stress on active and diapausing stages, reduces host plant vigor, or extends activity periods for natural enemies.” But most butterfly species are no longer flying or laying eggs or feeding during the autumn. Instead, they have snuggled into relative safety from environmental changes to overwinter until the next flush of new springtime vegetation.
The larvae (caterpillars) of some declining species feed on grasses (i.e. Eufala Skipper and Sachem skipper), or herbs (i.e. Cabbage White or Sara Orange-Tip). But most grasses and herbs are dead or dormant by the end of summer. Other larvae of declining species feed on the young leaves or needles produced by trees in the spring (like Propertius duskywing or Western pine elfin). Autumn warmth has no effect on the “vigor” of dead or dormant food plants. Autumn temperatures are simply not critically important. Natural enemies like parasitic wasps typically evolved similar sensitivities to the same environmental cues as their caterpillar hosts and insect eating birds begin migrating south in August. Claiming global warming somehow selectively hurts butterflies but helps their enemies is a totally unsupported claim hurled far too often by those fabricating a climate crisis.
Disturbingly, Forister et al. simultaneously downplayed known benefits of summer warming, suggesting it only increased ‘butterfly visibility’ stating, “warming in the summer influences adult activity times directly and hence increases the probability of detection”. But to power their flight, butterflies sunbathe to raise their body temperature above ambient air temperature. Increased activity is needed for mating and finding host plants. Greater summer warmth also enables faster larval growth, which in some species enables an increased number of generations each year enabling larger summer populations (i.e. Monarchs). In other species like Edith’s checkerspot the caterpillars seek hotter surfaces to grow fast enough each summer and reach a required size allowing overwinter survival. Warmer summers benefit many species in many ways.
To my knowledge not one media outlet reported the summer benefits or the most telling conclusion of Forister et al. “Although our analyses point to warming fall temperatures as an important factor in insect declines, we acknowledge the multifaceted nature of the problem and how much remains to be understood about climate change interacting with habitat loss and degradation.”
If Forister et al. were truly trying to decipher the causes for observed butterfly declines, they should have at least adhered to the most basic scientific principle of controlling for known confounding factors. To blame climate change, confounding effects must be removed. But they were not. Thus, declining trends could be completely caused by insecticides and land use. And Forister was well aware of such important factors.
In a 2010 paper co-authored with Dr. Shapiro he found, “most severe reductions at the lowest elevations, where habitat destruction is greatest.” In a 2014 paper Forister concluded “Patterns of land use contributed to declines in species richness, but the net effect of a changing climate on butterfly richness was more difficult to discern.” In his 2016 paper he modelled negative effects of neonicotinoid insecticides. Listed as Forister’s 37th most declining species, the media highlighted the recent 99% decline of western Monarch butterflies. Yet the Monarch’s big killers are also land use change and herbicides, not climate change.
In the 1970s scientists discovered virtually all monarchs breeding east of the Rocky Mountains migrate to extremely small patches of high mountain forests in central Mexico. When that critical wintering habitat was logged, it opened the forest canopies removing its insulating effects. In January 2002, a storm brought cold rains followed by clear skies. Without the clouds’ greenhouse effect, or an insulating forest canopy, temperatures plummeted to 23°F (- 4°C). Millions of damp butterflies froze in place. Many millions more fell creating an eerie carpet of dead and dying butterflies several inches deep. Distraught researchers calculated 500 million butterflies died that winter, wiping out 80% of the entire eastern population. Similar cold events happened in 2004, 2010 and 2016.
In contrast, monarchs breeding west of the Rockies winter along the California coast to Baja where the ocean moderates temperatures and prevents freezing. Nonetheless those wintering populations also plummeted by 81% by 2014. Interestingly, tagging studies and genetics suggest California and Mexican wintering populations intermingle. Although it’s not clear if one wintering population contributes to the other, their abundance has fluctuated very similarly. In addition, a 1991 statewide study implicated land use as 38 overwintering sites in California were destroyed.
Herbicides severely reduced the monarch’s food plants, milkweeds. Adapted to colonizing open disturbed landscapes, milkweed species began invading the fertilized ground between rows of crops. As 1900s monarch populations boomed, farmers’ crops suffered. Milkweed competition reduced harvests of wheat and sorghum by 20% and most states declared milkweed a noxious weed. Attempts to eradicate milkweed by tilling only stimulated underground roots promoting more milkweed. The 1970s discovery that the herbicide glyphosate (i.e. Roundup) killed the whole plant, turned the tide against milkweed. When genetically modified herbicide‑resistant soybean and corn crops were developed in 1996, herbicide use dramatically increased, furthering the milkweeds rapid decline. That loss of milkweed now hinders monarch recovery. For monarch lovers, our best safeguard is planting more milkweed in our gardens. Likewise, we can plant butterfly friendly gardens for all species. On the bright side of climate change, warming could allow an added monarch generation.
Jim Steele is Director emeritus of San Francisco State’s Sierra Nevada Field Campus, authored Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism and a member of the CO2 Coalition
March 10, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science |
Leave a comment
Governors:
Talk to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. He understands the game.
In December, his office issued an order to all state labs processing COVID PCR tests. They must now report “the number of cycles” they deploy in every test they perform. [1] [1a]
Roughly speaking, a cycle is a quantum leap which increases the sensitivity of the test. As readily asserted by Anthony Fauci, any test using more than 35 cycles is meaningless. [2] [2a]
—Not only meaningless, but laden with false-positive results. The patient is falsely claimed to be “infected.”
However, the FDA and the CDC, since the launch of the COVID PCR test, have been recommending using 40 cycles; and therefore labs have been following this advice. [3] [3a] [3b]
The outcome, in terms of falsely inflated case numbers, has been a disaster.
Furthermore, as reported by the New York Times, testing labs never tell the patient or the doctor how many cycles they use in running the PCR. [4]
Governor DeSantis understood the massive testing problem. That’s why his office, and his state department of health, ordered the labs to report “numbers of cycles.”
Armed with this background, you governors can meet and overcome challenges as you re-open your states. Why do I say this? Because the attacks coming your way will be based on three statistics:
The number of COVID cases in your state; the number of COVID deaths; and the number of COVID hospitalizations.
“Well, these numbers are rising. The governors must lock down again. Otherwise, they are contributing to disease and death.”
But you see, all three statistical categories depend on a positive PCR test. And since the test, improperly run, has resulted in huge numbers of false-positives, you can restore sanity and more accurate data by following Governor DeSantis’ lead.
Once your state labs report how many cycles they are using for each PCR test they run, you can reject any test that deploys over 35 cycles. You can eliminate vast numbers of false-positives, and when you DO…
The number of COVID cases, COVID deaths, and COVID hospitalizations in your state will decline, as they should.
And those who would attack you, based on those numbers, will have no ability to make their case.
In a nutshell, a vast fraud has been perpetrated on The People, and you can stop it.
You can restore sanity, re-open your states, and make the stranglehold of COVID restrictions a thing of the past.
Readers of this article: you can perform a valuable service by forwarding the article to the governor’s office in your state.
SOURCES:
[1] https://www.flhealthsource.gov/files/Laboratory-Reporting-CT-Values-12032020.pdf
[1a] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/12/08/florida-forces-labs-to-report-number-of-pcr-test-cycles/
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_Vy6fgaBPE (starting at 3m50s)
[2a] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/12/03/lockdowns-are-based-on-fraud-open-letter-to-people-who-want-freedom/
[3] https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download (page 37 (pdf page 38))
[3a] CDC-006-00019, Revision: 06, CDC/DDID/NCIRD/ Division of Viral Diseases, Effective: 12/01/2020; see: https://web.archive.org/web/20210102171026/https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
[3b] CDC-006-00019, Revision: 05, CDC/DDID/NCIRD/ Division of Viral Diseases, Effective: 07/13/2020; see: https://web.archive.org/web/20200715004004/https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
[4] nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html
March 10, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, United States |
Leave a comment
Over the last 12 months, one of the leading voices opposing pandemic hysteria has been former Minnesota state senator Dr. Scott Jensen. According to a press release obtained by the Minnesota Reformer, Jensen is expected to announce his candidacy for governor of the state next week.
Dr. Jensen, 66, a qualified physician, gained global popularity after appearing on national TV and coming out challenging the government response to COVID-19 and explaining how reactionary policies are out of proportion in relation to the actual risk posed by this seasonal coronavirus. His popular testimonials have since been serialized in thousands of video presentations online.
Jensen also questioned his state’s Department of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines regarding how deaths from COVID-19 were being recorded.
He also took on the official ‘consensus’ of politicians and the medical community and exposed the scandal of how hospitals had a financial incentive in declaring a patient a COVID “case”, as well as financial incentives for hospitals to needlessly place people on ventilators – a dangerous procedure which many do not survive.
Based on the adversarial tone of the Reformer’s report, it seems that the political and medical establishment are afraid of Jensen: “His status as a physician could give him credibility to attack Walz on the governor’s COVID-19 response, except by the fall of 2022 the pandemic is likely to have evaporated. And, Jensen’s comments about the pandemic will likely face intense scrutiny.”
According to the their report, Dr. Jensen has confirmed the announcement with the headline “Jensen Announces Run for Minnesota Governor” had indeed been drafted, and is set to be released on March 16th.
Some of the text of the release includes:
“He will elevate thoughtful discourse, engage in difficult conversations, and will not allow pandering groupthink to impede the vital contributions science can provide,” the release reads. “Scott is excited to embark on this journey and looks forward to meeting with his fellow Minnesotans across the state and restoring their hope and freedom.”
Jensen, a Republican, would be the first candidate to run against first-term Democratic-Farmer-Labor Gov. Tim Walz.
March 10, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | Minnesota, United States |
Leave a comment
US, UK, Canada, Australia, Switzerland and Singapore Will Let New-Variant Vaccines Onto the Market Without Safety or Efficacy Testing
On March 4 and 5, Canada, the UK, Australia, Switzerland and Singapore released identical guidelines for fast-tracking release onto the market of vaccines for the new variants. The countries issued the recommendations under the banner of the ‘ACCESS Consortium.’ ACCESS is an acronym based on the first letters of the five countries’ names.
A few days earlier, on February 22, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a similar set of recommendations. They allow Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for “investigational” vaccines for new variants, letting them be used on the general public without first showing evidence of safety or effectiveness.
The recommendations all state that companies don’t need to conduct new clinical trials before putting the new-variant vaccines onto the market and potentially into millions of people’s arms. Requiring new trials, the ACCESS document asserts, would cause “considerable delay” and “bears the risk that the virus is evolving even further, potentially making a new vaccine version outdated at the time of approval again.”
Instead, the safety record of the currently used Covid vaccines can be used to judge the safety of the new ones, the countries’ regulatory agencies declare.
And they claim that the currently used vaccines are safe and effective: “[T]here is considerable safety experience accumulating as the pandemic progresses and vaccines are rolled out, and [in any case] efficacy has been established for the initial vaccine candidate [i.e., the original Covid vaccines] via large clinical Phase 3 studies,” the ACCESS document states.
This is despite the fact that many observers have documented significant safety problems associated with the Covid vaccines, including high death rates.
That helps explain why public-health officials and politicians around the world are bending over backwards to assert that Covid vaccines are very safe and effective. This gives the green light for all future forms of these vaccines to be used without safety testing.
(The regulatory authorities also say these new guidelines can only be used for vaccines that are modifications of the Covid vaccines already in use. But there’s enough wiggle room in the new recommendations that I believe they also will be used for new entrants into the Covid-vaccine race.)
Rather than full clinical trials, only a small amount of data needs to be put together by the manufacturers prior to seeking an EUA. Then after the EUA is granted further data can then be gathered from people in the general population who are given the vaccines.
This approach apparently is modeled on the approval of new flu vaccines every year. The flu-vaccine regulations were in turn, “developed based on ample experience gained through years of seasonal vaccinations, and the 2009 H1N1 pandemic,” the ACCESS guidelines state.
The latter claim is particularly alarming. The H1N1 swine-flu ‘pandemic’ never materialized. Hundreds of people were needlessly severely injured by the main vaccine for it, GlaxoSmithKline’s Pandemrix. Furthermore, Glaxo was not required to compensate victims; instead, the UK government paid tens of millions of pounds to people who were brain injured by Pandemrix.
The ACCESS and US FDA recommendations only require that companies measure the level of antibodies that people produce when they are given the vaccine. The regulatory agencies will accept this as a proxy for effectiveness.
The ACCESS document states that “the correlations of antibody titres [levels] to effectiveness is not established.” They therefore suggest that the World Health Organization (WHO) create an “International Standard and Reference Panel for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody as use of standardized reference material” for all such antibody-level tests.
Such antibody testing is conducted by measuring whether a quantity of virus or other protein-containing substance are or aren’t all bound by antibodies in a person’s blood sample. This method has been used for years.
However, as I showed in my last article and video, The Antibody Deception, there is no objective evidence that there is in fact binding of antibodies only to the novel coronavirus. Instead, antibodies that purportedly are specific to the novel coronavirus frequently bind to other things.
Therefore this is a fatally flawed approach to determining whether vaccines are effective in any way.
There is a field of other red flags in these new recommendations. For example:
1. They don’t address the fact that until 2020 scientists were unable to develop any effective vaccines against coronaviruses, despite decades of effort. Then suddenly in 2020-2021 they were able to create at least seven. And now six countries are poised to allow vaccines for new variants to be used one after another in quick succession. The regulatory authorities don’t appear interested in objectively reconciling this contradiction.
2. The ACCESS guidelines have no references. So it’s very hard to check whether their points are accurate. The U.S. FDA recommendations have 13 references. That’s more than zero, but it’s still not a lot in a document that’s rewriting how Covid vaccines are authorized for use in hundreds of millions of people.
3. There’s not a single mention of the fact that pummelling populations with vaccines will make the viruses they’re aimed at become less susceptible to the vaccines. This phenomenon is known as resistance.
Resistance has been a concern for many decades with respect to antibiotics. But we rarely hear about viral resistance — even though it is inevitable, particularly because other treatments such as antivirals and monoclonal antibodies.are being used against the novel coronavirus in parallel with vaccines.
4. On February 22, 2021, the USA FDA also issued a new guidance (PDF here) for development of monoclonal antibodies for treating Covid including the new variants. The document outlines how the FDA will significantly speed up this approval: “when scientifically supported, FDA will streamline the data necessary to support the development of monoclonal antibody products targeting SARS-CoV-2 and also expedite the review of these data.”
In addition, the document states that the “FDA strongly recommends that individual monoclonal antibody products be developed with the expectation that they will be combined with one or more monoclonal antibody products that bind to different epitopes [very short protein segments] to minimize the risk of losing activity against emergency variants.”
However, as I indicated in my ‘The Antibody Deception’ video and article, there’s no proof that antibodies, whether used singly or in combination with others, are effective against Covid, whether the ‘original’ virus or variants.
This all seems designed to allow new vaccines and monoclonal antibodies for the new variants onto the market with very little regulatory oversight.
After obtaining an MSc in molecular biology from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary, Rosemary Frei became a freelance writer. For the next 22 years she was a medical writer and journalist. She pivoted again in early 2016 to full-time, independent activism and investigative journalism. Her website is RosemaryFrei.ca
March 10, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
Have you heard of the 7-Step Recipe for Generating Interest In, And Demand For Flu (or any other) Vaccination? Back when journalists did some real work, HuffPo’s Laurence Solomon wrote a fascinating expose on the CDC colluding with vaccine makers.
This video is an edited version of my 41 minute expose with much more information. Please watch it here: https://www.bitchute.com/video/JR8gw6GLwug/
To support my work you can find my contact information on my website Amazing Polly St George here: https://amazingpolly.net/contact-support.php
References for this video can be found on the original.
March 8, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | CDC, Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
The problem with the mRNA Covid-19 vaccine, is not that it’s a vaccine. It’s that it’s not safe. That’s the issue: Safety.
This view is shared by a great many professionals who believe that these potentially-toxic concoctions pose a significant threat to the health and well-being of anyone who chooses to get inoculated.
Do you realize that the mRNA vaccine is a purely synthetic PEG-coated lipid nanoparticle that spreads throughout the body and brain creating conditions for debilitating ailments 3 or 4 years down the road? (More on this below) Do you realize that these dubious vaccines have not been thoroughly tested, did not undergo critical animal trials, did not complete Phase 3 trials, and were waved through the regulatory process under the “Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)” provision?
What does it mean when we say: “The vaccines were waved through under the Emergency Use Authorization provision?”
It means that the vaccines were not required to meet the same rigorous standards or follow the same protocols as previous vaccines. It means that, by definition, these vaccines are not safe. It means that normal precautionary regulations were suspended in order to put these vaccines into service as fast as possible. Isn’t that worth mulling over before rolling up your sleeve?
There are a number of extremely promising treatments, therapies and medications for Covid, and many more are on their way. (See: Sharyl Attkisson: “Full Measure”, Vaccines and Treatments, You Tube) But the mRNA vaccine is not among these promising medications. The mRNA vaccine is a grave threat to one’s health and safety. It should never have been approved.
And who is promoting these vaccines that do not stop the transmission of Covid, do not prevent Covid, and which will have no meaningful impact on the rapidly-declining fatality rate? Who is pushing these potentially-lethal injections? Is it the reputable scientists, virologists, epidemiologists and other medical experts who don’t have a stake in the outcome and who base their judgements on the science alone, or is it the conflicted state bureaucrats, the public health toadies and the billionaire activists who control the media and whose shadowy and sinister motives are still not clear?
Most people know the answer to that question already. It’s obvious.
And why have the views of the naysayers, the contrarians and the critics been painstakingly scrubbed from the MSM and social media? If the efficacy and safety of these vaccines is so unassailable, then why must all public debate be prevented?
Ask yourself this: Has the Covid vaccine roll-out been the biggest and most extravagant Madison Avenue “product launch” in American history?
Indeed, it has. The media, Hollywood, the public health authorities, big pharma, global elites and the entire political establishment have joined the full-throated, public relations blitz that is aimed at cajoling every man, woman and child into doing something that could trigger an agonizing medical condition or dramatically shorten their lives.
Why are they doing this? Why have they quashed all debate and silenced their critics? Why are they taking advantage of public hysteria to intensify their mass-vaccination campaign? Why have they obfuscated the truth on so many issues related to Covid including masks, asymptomatic transmission, school closures, lockdowns etc? Is there even one part of the official Covid narrative that “rings true” or that can withstand the scrutiny of critical analysis? Does it all have to be lies? Can’t we at least mix some truth in with the vast mountain of flagrant fabrications and disinformation?
The truth is, we don’t need a vaccine. The case numbers and fatalities are already dropping precipitously around the world. The virus is on its way out. Here’s how Pfizer’s former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory Disease, Dr. Michael Yeadon, summed it up some months ago:
“There is absolutely no need for vaccines to extinguish the pandemic… You do not vaccinate people who aren’t at risk from a disease. You also don’t set about planning to vaccinate millions of fit and healthy people with a vaccine that hasn’t been extensively tested on human subjects.”
He’s right, isn’t he? And, yet, even now– when the vast majority of people are fully aware that cases and deaths are falling like a stone– they’re still rushing-off to their local public health facility to get vaccinated. Explain that to me? Why would anyone willingly get vaccinated when the infection is already dying out and the number of susceptible hosts is rapidly decreasing? What sense does that make?
Do you realize that we have no data on the long-term adverse effects of these new mRNA vaccines? None. So, the question is: Why would a public health official put a vaccine into service without knowing what the long-term effects of that vaccine might be?
He wouldn’t, unless he was pressured into doing so, because that would be irresponsible and a violation of his oath to “Do no harm.”
Even so, these are the very same vaccines that well-known billionaire activists want to use on all 7 billion people on Planet Earth. Do these “do goodie” billionaires have any idea of the carnage and suffering their mass-vaccination campaign is likely to generate? Or is that the goal, a world with fewer people?
Let’s cut to the chase: What readers really want to know is how these vaccines will impact their health. “How is this going to affect me”, that’s the bottom line. But since we have no long-term data, (since there were no long-term trials) we have to depend on the analysis of professionals who have a sense of where the potential problems might arise. Check out this blurb from an article by Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, lung specialist and former head of the public health department, and Dr. Michael Yeadon, ex-Pfizer head of respiratory research. Here are some of their concerns:
“The formation of so-called “non-neutralizing antibodies” can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, “wild” virus after vaccination.”
– The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as it may otherwise result in infertility of indefinite duration in vaccinated women.
– The mRNA vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech contain polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70% of people develop antibodies against this substance. This means that many people can develop allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccination.
– The much too short duration of the study does not allow a realistic estimation of the late effects. As in the narcolepsy cases after the swine flu vaccination, millions of healthy people would be exposed to an unacceptable risk if an emergency approval were to be granted and the possibility of observing the late effects of the vaccination were to follow.” (“That Was Quick”, Lockdown Skeptics)
Let’s summarize:
The new messenger RNA vaccines could make recipients more susceptible to serious illness or death. (The vaccine could pave the way for autoimmune disease or ADE Antibody-dependent Enhancement.)
Spike proteins can “trigger an immune reaction” that will “result in infertility.”
The new vaccines contain polyethylene glycol (PEG) which can be “potentially fatal.”
The trials were not long enough to determine whether the vaccines are safe or not. FDA approval does not mean “safe”. Quite the contrary. The FDA is “captured” in the same way the FAA is captured.
Naturally, the analysis of Yeadon and Wodarg has appeared nowhere in the MSM. (Also, Yeadon was recently removed by Twitter.) Experts in their field of learning are no longer allowed to candidly discuss their concerns in a public forum if their conclusions do not jibe with the official narrative. The push to censor opposing points of view is greater now than any time in our 245-year history. The people who now insist that you get vaccinated, are the very same people who are doing everything in the power to prevent you from knowing the truth about their vaccines.
And what is the truth?
The truth is that ‘universal vaccination’ factors quite large in the elitist restructuring agenda that has nothing to do with global pandemic and everything to do with social control. At its heart, Covid is a political phenomenon more than it is a public health emergency. One is merely a fig leaf for the other.
Have you ever heard of Prion disease?
The CDC describes Prion diseases as “a family of rare progressive neurodegenerative disorders that affect both humans and animals. They are distinguished by long incubation periods, characteristic spongiform changes associated with neuronal loss, and a failure to induce inflammatory response.
The causative agents of TSEs are believed to be prions. The term “prions” refers to abnormal, pathogenic agents that are transmissible and are able to induce abnormal folding of specific normal cellular proteins called prion proteins that are found most abundantly in the brain….. The abnormal folding of the prion proteins leads to brain damage and the characteristic signs and symptoms of the disease. Prion diseases are usually rapidly progressive and always fatal.” (CDC)
Is this what the future holds for millions of recipients of the mRNA vaccine?
We think it is very likely.
In an earlier article, we posted an excerpt from an interview with Dr. Chris Shaw, Ph.D, Specialist in Neuroplasticity and Neuropathology. Shaw described this very condition that could emerge as a reaction to agents in the mRNA vaccine that find their way into the brain. Here’s what he said:
“The mRNA lipid-coated PEG-construct– by Moderna’s own study–does not stay localized but spreads throughout the body including the brain. Found in animal studies in bone marrow, brain, lymph nodes, heart, kidneys liver, lungs etc Doctors are saying that the vaccine does NOT cross the blood-brain barrier, but that is NOT true. …If it reaches the brain there will be an auto immune response that will cause inflammation What characterizes virtually all neuro-degenerative diseases is this misfolded protein that is characteristic to Lou Gerrigs disease, to Alzheimer’s, to Parkinsons to Huntington’s etc. They are different proteins, but they tend to form these sheets of misfolded proteins called Beta Sheets. Now you are asking cells in various parts of the body–including the brain– to make a lot of these proteins and release them to the outside, and , are we sure that’s what’ it’s all doing? Are you getting clusters of misfolded proteins inside neurons? That would be a bad thing to do.. So, you’d like to know where it is, how much of it there is, and which groups of neuronal groups its targeted. .and those are the kinds of questions you like the companies to have solved long before they got authorization and discovered some years later that they have a problem.”
“This is a vast experiment that should have been done in the lab on animals and now it is being done on people ..The potential is that you are going to harm a lot of people while you do this experiment.” (“NEUROSCIENTIST’S CONCERNS ABOUT COVID VACCINES”, Chris Shaw, Ph.D, Specialist in Neuroplasticity and Neuropathology)
Is this what we should expect in the future, a sharp uptick in neurological disorders like Lou Gehrig’s disease, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson?
Apparently, so. Check out this longer excerpt from a research paper by Dr. J. Bart Classen:
“Vaccines have been found to cause a host of chronic, late developing adverse events. Some adverse events like type 1 diabetes may not occur until 3-4 years after a vaccine is administered[1]…. Given that type 1 diabetes is only one of many immune mediated diseases potentially caused by vaccines, chronic late occurring adverse events are a serious public health issue....
RNA based vaccines offers special risks of inducing specific adverse events. One such potential adverse event is prion-based diseases caused by activation of intrinsic proteins to form prions. A wealth of knowledge has been published on a class of RNA binding proteins shown to participating in causing a number of neurological diseases including Alzheimer’s disease and ALS….
… In the current paper the concern is raised that the RNA based COVID vaccines have the potential to cause more disease than the epidemic of COVID-19. This paper focuses on a novel potential adverse event mechanism causing prion disease which could be even more common and debilitating than the viral infection the vaccine is designed to prevent. …….
The current analysis indicates … RNA based COVID-19 vaccine contains many of these RNA sequences that have …. have the potential to induce chronic degenerative neurological diseases....
Genetic diversity protects species from mass casualties caused by infectious agents. One individual may be killed by a virus while another may have no ill effects from the same virus. By placing the identical receptor, the spike protein, on cells of everyone in a population, the genetic diversity for at least one potential receptor disappears. Everyone in the population now becomes potentially susceptible to binding with the same infectious agent….
… The results indicate that the vaccine RNA has specific sequences that may induce TDP-43 and FUS to fold into their pathologic prion confirmations…The folding of TDP-43 and FUS into their pathologic prion confirmations is known to cause ALS,… Alzheimer’s disease and other neurological degenerative diseases. The enclosed finding as well as additional potential risks leads the author to believe that regulatory approval of the RNA based vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 was premature and that the vaccine may cause much more harm than benefit. (“Covid-19 RNA Based Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease”, J. Bart Classen, MD., Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.”)
Dr. Classen’s analysis is disturbing, but in no way, comprehensive. The new regime of mRNA vaccines fails on a great many levels which we will discuss in future articles. These “gene editing” vaccines are not medicine, they are strange and menacing hybrid cocktail that was created to achieve an elusive political objective of which we still know very little. If there was ever a time to stand back from the crowd, resist groupthink, and employ one’s own critical thinking skills to decide whether the risks of vaccination far outweigh the benefits; this is it. The choice is yours to make.
March 8, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
In this interview, which was initially banned by YouTube before it was even published (but now reversed), Spiro is joined by Attorney Ana Garner of New Mexico. Garner represents her client Isaac Legaretta, an officer at the Doña Ana County Detention Center and a military veteran, who is suing the county over its new policy for first responders to receive the COVID-19 vaccinations or face termination.
Attorney Garner explains the significance of this case and what is at stake, as it is the first of its kind and may set a new standard for legal precedent regarding mandatory vaccination. Garner says she is prepared to take this case to the Supreme Court if necessary.
Spiro and Ana Garner also discuss another case of hers that is ongoing currently. A case that challenges not only the Governor of New Mexico, but the emergency itself.
You can see this important interview on the free speech platform BitChute below:
NM Stands Up!
https://nmstandsup.org
First case against mandatory vaccination filed in New Mexico: report
https://thehill.com/regulation/labor/541173-first-case-against-mandatory-vaccination-filed-in-new-mexico-dention-center?rl=1
Federal judge denies Doña Ana County employee’s request, for now, in mandatory vaccine lawsuit
https://www.lcsun-news.com/story/news/2021/03/04/federal-judge-rules-restraining-order-dona-ana-county-new-mexico-mandatory-vaccine-lawsuit/4586480001/
EEOC Says Employers May Mandate COVID-19 Vaccinations – Subject to Limitations
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/eeoc-says-employers-may-mandate-covid-19-vaccinations-subject-to-limitations
Image credit: torstensimon
Follow Spiro on BitChute, Parler and Gab.
March 7, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
The flaws of vaccine trials in general are really highlighted by current COVID-19 vaccine studies, one of the most egregious ones being the fact that vaccine makers rarely use inert placebos (such as a saline shot), which is the gold standard for drug trials.
As noted in a January 25, 2021, article in The Defender,1 vaccine developers typically assess the safety of a new vaccine against another vaccine, and by so doing, they effectively hide side effects as most vaccines have side effects and risks.
As just one example, the Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine is being tested against a meningitis vaccine,2 which just so happens to share many of the side effects reported from COVID-19 vaccines. As reported by the National Vaccine Information Center:3
“According to the CDC, at least 50% of individuals receiving meningococcal vaccines targeting meningococcal serogroups A, C, Y, and W-135 (Menactra or Menveo) experience mild side effects …
Adverse events reported by Sanofi Pasteur in the Menactra vaccine product insert include … headache; fatigue … joint pain; chills; anaphylaxis; wheezing; upper airway swelling; difficulty breathing; hypotension … lymph node swelling; Guillain-Barre syndrome; convulsions; dizziness; facial palsy; vasovagal syncope; paresthesia; transverse myelitis; acute disseminated encephalomyelitis …
Adverse events reported by Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics (GlaxoSmithKline) in the pre-licensing clinical trials of Menveo vaccine include … headache; joint and muscle pain; malaise; nausea; chills … acute disseminated encephalomyelitis … pneumonia … suicidal depression and suicide attempts.”
Long-Term Safety Analysis Tossed By The Wayside
Now, Pfizer and Moderna have started offering placebo recipients in their trials the real mRNA gene therapy, which means it will be even more difficult to tease out which side effects are actually caused by the shot and which ones aren’t, over the long term. As reported by NPR, February 17, 2021:4
“Tens of thousands of people who volunteered to participate in the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccine studies are still participating in follow-up research, though that’s somewhat hampered because many people who had been given a placebo shot opted to take the vaccine instead.”
In fact, according to Dr. Carlos Fierro, who runs the clinical trial for the Moderna vaccine in Lenexa, Kansas, virtually all of the 650 volunteers who initially received the placebo have now opted to get the real vaccine, which means he had “essentially no comparison group left for the ongoing study,” which was slated to run for two full years.
As Dr. Steven Goodman at Stanford University told NPR,5 getting rid of the initial control groups makes it far more difficult to assess the safety and effectiveness of the COVID vaccines since they won’t have anything to compare the vaccine recipients against.
Justification For Elimination Of Controls Is Flimsy At Best
Ironically, both the use of an active placebo and the elimination of control groups are being justified on “moral grounds” by pro-vaccine advocates who say it’s unethical to not provide volunteers with something of value, such as another vaccine in the case of active placebos, or a vaccine they know is effective in the case of giving placebo recipients the real McCoy.
Both of these arguments are beyond questionable. As mentioned, no vaccine is 100% safe, so getting an active vaccine placebo comes with risk, not merely benefit, and when it comes to the novel mRNA technology used in COVID-19 vaccines, historical data are troubling to say the least, and the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is rapidly filling up with COVID-19 vaccine-related injury reports and deaths.
As reported in “COVID-19 Vaccine To Be Tested on 6-Year-Olds,” as of February 4, 2021, VAERS had received 12,697 injury reports and 653 deaths following COVID-19 vaccination.6 Even more telling, between January 2020 and January 2021, COVID-19 vaccines accounted for 70% of the annual vaccine deaths, even though these vaccines had only been available for less than two months!
What’s more, previous research7 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are ever reported to VAERS, so in reality, we may be looking at more than 1 million COVID-19 vaccine injuries within the first two months of their release.
In my view, the data are far from assuring overall, which makes the elimination of long-term control groups — flawed as they may be due to active placebo use — all the more troubling.
All Previous Coronavirus Vaccines Failed Upon Challenge
Historically, previous attempts to create a coronavirus vaccine have all failed miserably, as they ended up creating devastating immune enhancement. This is why any and all short-cuts taken in the COVID-19 vaccine development is so troubling.
In my May 2020 interview above with Robert Kennedy Jr., he summarized the history of coronavirus vaccine development, which began in 2002, following three consecutive SARS outbreaks. By 2012, Chinese, American and European scientists were working on SARS vaccine development, and had about 30 promising candidates.
Of those, the four best vaccine candidates were then given to ferrets, which are the closest analogue to human lung infections. In the video above, which is a select outtake from my full interview, Kennedy explains what happened next.
While the ferrets displayed robust antibody response, which is the metric used for vaccine licensing, once they were challenged with the wild virus, they were overtaken by a cytokine storm response, known as paradoxical immune enhancement, became severely ill and died.
The same thing happened when they tried to develop a respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine in the 1960s. RSV is an upper respiratory illness that is very similar to that caused by coronaviruses.
At that time, they had decided to skip animal trials and go directly to human trials. The RSV vaccine was tested on about 35 children, with identical results. Initially, they developed a robust antibody response, but when challenged with the wild virus, all became ill and two died. The vaccine was abandoned.
Yes, We Really Do Need Placebo Arms
Despite such dire failures, some still argue that placebo arms aren’t needed in COVID-19 vaccine trials. In an opinion piece in STAT News,8 Kent Peacock, a professor of philosophy, and John Vokey, a professor of psychology, both from the University of Lethbridge, compare the use of placebo control groups with giving out dummy parachutes during wartime.
“Giving the real treatment to 100% of the volunteers removes one of the major ethical barriers to challenge trials: the high probability of harmful side effects or death to members of a control group,” they say, completely ignoring the fact that volunteers in the vaccine arm may be put at grave unknown risks, not just in the short term but in the long term as well.
This entire argument hinges on the idea that the vaccine being tested is KNOWN to be safe, which it absolutely is not at this point, and won’t be for many years. They even argue that “not using a placebo … would be less ethically questionable to test the vaccine on older participants.”
Well, they published that article in early September 2020, and now we can more or less conclusively state that they are wrong on this point, as older vaccine recipients have been dropping like flies.
‘We’re Dealing With Homicide,’ German Attorney Says
As reported by Brian Shilhavy, editor of Health Impact News, February 19, 2021:9
“Earlier this week we published10 the English translation of a video in German that attorney Reiner Fuellmich published with a whistleblower who works in a nursing home where several residents were injected with the experimental COVID mRNA shots against their will, and where many of them died a short time later.
Since that interview was published, other whistleblowers in Germany who work in nursing homes have also stepped forward, some with video footage showing residents being held down and vaccinated against their wish …
Fuellmich … stated: ‘We are getting more and more calls from other whistleblowers form other nursing homes in this country, plus we’re getting information from other countries, Sweden for example, Norway … Gibraltar … here are also incidents in England and in the United States that match these descriptions …
It means that people are dying because of the vaccines. What we are seeing in this video clip is worse than anything we ever expected. If this is representative for what’s going on in other nursing homes, and in other countries, then we have a very serious problem.
And so do the people who make the vaccines, so do the people who administer the vaccines. It looks more and more as though we’re dealing with homicide, and maybe even murder.’”
Novel MRNA Gene Therapy Is Not Harmless
It’s important to realize what mRNA and DNA COVID-19 vaccine actually are. They are not traditional vaccines made with live or attenuated viruses. They’re actually gene therapies. They don’t even meet the medical or legal definition of a vaccine, as detailed in “COVID-19 mRNA Shots Are Legally Not Vaccines.” This novel, never before used therapy has a long list of potential problems, including the following:
- The messenger RNA (mRNA) used in many COVID-19 vaccines are synthetic. Your body sees these synthetic particles as non-self, which can cause autoantibodies to attack your own tissues. Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., explained this in her interview, featured in “How COVID-19 Vaccines May Destroy the Lives of Millions.”
- Your body also views free mRNA as a warning signal to your immune system, as they drive inflammatory diseases. This is why making synthetic mRNA thermostable, meaning it doesn’t break down as easily as it normally would by encasing the mRNA in lipid nanoparticles is likely to be problematic.
- COVID-19 vaccines use PEGylated lipid nanoparticles, and PEG is known to cause anaphylaxis.11
- Previous attempts to develop an mRNA-based drug using lipid nanoparticles failed because when the dose was too low, the drug had no effect, and when dosed too high, the drug became too toxic.12
- The synthetic RNA influences, in part, the gene syncytin. According to Mikovits, when syncytin is aberrantly expressed in the brain, you can develop multiple sclerosis. Expression of the syncytin gene also inflames and dysregulates communication between the brain microglia, which are critical for clearing toxins and pathogens in the brain. It also dysregulates your immune system and your endocannabinoid system, which is the dimmer switch on inflammation.
- The synthetic mRNA also has an HIV envelope expressed in it, which can cause immune dysregulation.
Symptoms Of COVID-19 Vaccine Damage
Commonly reported side effects among recipients of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines include… continue reading
March 7, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
Increasingly, there are serious questions being asked about the factual basis for declaring a pandemic and the growing number of mitigation policies being implemented by governments and corporations. When is a COVID-19 “case” really a case? Moreover, do the case numbers and death numbers that have been touted over the last 12 months by governments in UK, EU, USA, and numerous governments around the world, accurately reflect actual COVID cases and COVID deaths?
In fact, the World Health Organization (WHO) itself has admitted that the entire basis for collating “case” numbers since the beginning of this ‘global pandemic’ is effectively null and void. In its directive published in late January, the organization stated that medical professionals should not be using PCR Testing with high Cycle Threshold (CT) levels due to the high likelihood of generating false positives in people, and also that the PCR Test should not be used as the sole metric for diagnosing and should be accompanied by a professional clinical diagnosis. In other words: the PCR Test cannot rightly be used as a medical diagnostic tool, and yet, it has been widely used as such for the last 12 months. This admission should have grave implications for every public health official, politician and media editor on the planet, but the silence is deafening – as most are simply ignoring this fact.
The following directive was issued on January 20, 2021 by the WHO:
Description of the problem: WHO requests users to follow the instructions for use (IFU) when interpreting results for specimens tested using PCR methodology.
Users of IVDs must read and follow the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer.
WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.
WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.
Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.
In addition, from the beginning of the ‘pandemic,’ arbitrary and broad guidelines for symptom diagnosis for COVID were being encouraged, and not surprisingly this corresponded with a complete disappearance of season influenza.
Former Minnesota state legislator, Dr Scott Jensen MD, explains why this is absolutely crucial and how we’ve all been played over the last 12 months. Watch:
Video Credit: Coronavirus Plushie
March 7, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | Covid-19 |
Leave a comment
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
Aletho News
