Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

‘The Power of Natural Immunity’: COVID Challenge Trials Struggle to Infect Participants, Even at High Doses

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | May 7, 2024

Scientists trying to reinfect people with the COVID-19 virus so they could test vaccines and treatments found high levels of immunity made it nearly impossible, according to results from the COVID-19 “Human Challenge” trials in the U.K.

The results, published May 1 in The Lancet Microbe, “raise questions about the usefulness of COVID-19 challenge trials for testing vaccines, drugs and other therapeutics,” Nature reported.

If you can’t get people infected, then you can’t test those things,” Tom Peacock, Ph.D., a virologist at Imperial College London, told Nature.

Brian Hooker, Ph.D., chief scientific officer for Children’s Health Defense told The Defender, “The results show the power of natural immunity as compared to the many breakthrough infections in ‘naive’ vaccinated individuals.”

“Any assertion that vaccination-based immunity is more powerful than natural immunity is complete lunacy — the acquired immune system is a beautiful thing and vaccination is a cheaper and much less effective substitute,” he said.

Challenge trials require deliberately infecting healthy people with a virus, typically so scientists can understand infections and test the effectiveness of existing vaccines and treatments, and develop new ones.

When the U.K. government announced the first human COVID-19 trials in 2021, they were highly controversial.

Proponents argued the trials were necessary to speed the development of countermeasures and that the low relative risk was worth the benefit. Critics countered it was unethical to infect people with a disease for which there is no cure.

After months of ethical debate, the first study launched in March 2021. In that study, researchers exposed 36 people ages 18-29 to the original strain of COVID-19 via nasal droplets.

About 53% of the participants eventually tested PCR-positive for COVID-19 but had very mild or no symptoms. And there was no correlation between symptom severity and viral load.

The second study, whose results were reported in The Lancet Microbe last week, infected people with COVID-19 who already had natural immunity because they were previously infected “by a range of variants,” Nature reported. Some were vaccinated and some weren’t.

Between May 6, 2021, and Nov. 24, 2022, scientists inoculated 36 people with different doses of SARS-CoV-2. They quarantined the subjects for 14 days and tested them for the virus during that time and throughout 12 months of follow-up.

When the first participants did not become infected, the researchers continued increasing the dose until it reached 10,000 times the original dose.

They were unable to induce sustained infection in any of the volunteers. Five of them later got mild infections during the Omicron period.

“We were quite surprised,” Susan Jackson, a study clinician at Oxford and co-author of the latest study, told Nature. “Moving forward, if you want a COVID challenge study, you’re going to have to find a dose that infects people.”

The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust and the U.K.’s Department of Health and Social Care.

Nature reported that another challenge trial is ongoing at Imperial College London, where participants are being given the Delta variant. However, that trial has also had problems infecting participants. The scientist leading that study, Christopher Chiu, told Nature that the level of infections study subjects are sustaining is “probably not enough for a study testing whether a vaccine works.”

They are continuing to try to develop ways to actually infect trial subjects so they can develop vaccines. Those methods include giving people multiple doses of the vaccine or finding people who have low levels of immune protection.

Chiu is heading up a consortium that has received a $57 million grant from the European Union and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation-backed CEPI, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, to use challenge trials to develop inhaled and intranasal COVID-19 vaccines.

This grant was awarded in March and will focus on using human challenge trials to develop these vaccines. That is despite the challenges to infecting subjects reported in the human challenge trials so far.

In that study, more than a dozen teams will use human challenge studies to test experimental vaccines that are either inhaled or given through the nose to see if they can induce mucosal immunity in the nose, throat and lungs.

The researchers say they are developing new vaccines against betacoronaviruses, the subfamily of coronaviruses that includes COVID-19, and other seasonal viruses that cause common colds.

In 2022, CEPI launched a broader $200 million initiative to develop more vaccines for COVID-19 and other betacoronaviruses.


Brenda Baletti, Ph.D., is a senior reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

May 8, 2024 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Skin Cancer

On Dermatology

Lies are Unbekoming | May 5, 2024

I was listening to a close friend recently talk about his regular visits to his Dermatologist to remove basal cell carcinomas, it was in connection to the stench of the burning skin.

I’d just read AMD’s long essay on the subject. At some point I’ll have to tell him about the Dermatology racket.

In a recent conversation with a different friend, I found myself explaining “meta ideas” that multiple industries rely on to make their living.

I explained it as a wall that is required to push against. Without that wall, you cannot generate enough force to go in your desired direction.

One of the biggest meta ideas within Cartel Medicine is Cancer, the big C.

Cancer and Virus have been competing for the top spot of Meta Ideas, with Virus I think now winning in that race, but for most of the last 50-70 years Cancer has been the biggest Meta Idea and the source of most fear and the source of most industrial profit for a wide variety of Interdependent Cartels.

This stack is about the Dermatology Cartel, that has relied on the Cancer “wall” and the demonization of the Sun; to generate all the force and energy it needs progress towards its profit goals.

I have created a list of Q&As relying on the wonderful and important work of AMD, Yoho and Mercola. Without these guys doing the heavy lifting on these subjects it would be impossible for people like me to come along and synthesize this material.

These are the three articles I have relied on:

Dermatology’s Disastrous War Against The Sun (midwesterndoctor.com)

FAILED CANCER TREATMENTS chapter from Butchered by “Healthcare” (substack.com)

Many Pathologists Agree Skin Cancer Is Overdiagnosed (substack.com)

But before we look at the Q&As, here are 15 of the most material statistics from the three texts.

Statistics

  1. Chemotherapy added only 2.1% to the 5-year survival for US adults treated for cancer, according to a literature search by Drs. Graeme Morgan and colleagues published in Clinical Oncology in 2004.
  2. By 2013, 65 to 70 percent of oncologists’ income was drug charges.
  3. New chemotherapy medications can be 300 times (not 300 percent) more expensive than old ones.
  4. Twenty percent of all Mohs surgeries are performed on people over 85 years old, many in the last year or weeks of life.
  5. Only 22% of melanomas occur in regions of the body with significant sunlight exposure, compared to 87% of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) cases and 82.5% of basal cell carcinoma (BCC) cases.
  6. Outdoor workers have a lower incidence of melanoma and half the risk compared to indoor workers, despite receiving 3-10 times the annual UV dose.
  7. A 1997 meta-analysis found workers with significant occupational sunlight exposure were 14% less likely to get melanoma.
  8. A 1982 study found fluorescent light exposure at work increased women’s risk of developing malignant melanoma by 2.1 times, with risk increasing based on exposure duration and intensity.
  9. In a survey of 115 dermatopathologists, 68% believed overdiagnosis was a public health issue for atypical nevi, 47% for melanoma in situ, and 35% for invasive melanoma.
  10. Dermatologists freeze millions of actinic keratoses (AKs) with liquid nitrogen, but studies show over half of AKs disappear on their own, with only 1% changing to skin cancer after a year and 4% after four years.
  11. The ideal blood level of vitamin D for disease prevention is between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/mL, while 40 ng/mL is considered the low end of sufficiency, and 30 ng/mL is the minimum to prevent disease.
  12. In 2014, the average annual treatment cost for skin cancer was $8.1 billion for 4.9 million adults, a 44% increase in people diagnosed and a 125% increase in cost compared to 2002-2006.
  13. Curaderm, a topical cream containing eggplant extract, has a success rate of 66-78% in treating basal cell carcinoma.
  14. Valisure tested 294 sunscreen products and found 27% contained benzene, a known carcinogen, at levels at least three times higher than the FDA allows under special circumstances.
  15. The 2019 and 2020 JAMA studies found that certain sunscreen ingredients (avobenzone, oxybenzone, octocrylene, homosalate, octisalate, and octinoxate) may build up in the body at unhealthy levels after just one day of use and can persist in the body.

Questions and Answers

Question 1: What did the American Academy of Dermatology do in the 1980s to raise public awareness about skin cancer?

Answer: In the early 1980s, the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) hired a prominent New York advertising agency for over 2 million dollars to raise the public’s appreciation of dermatology. The agency recommended “educating” the public that dermatologists are skin cancer experts, not just pimple poppers, and established free National Skin Cancer Screening Day.

Skin cancers are by far the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States, so to prevent them, the public is constantly told to avoid the sun. However, while the relatively benign skin cancers are caused by sun exposure, the ones responsible for most skin cancer deaths are due to a lack of sunlight. – AMD

Question 2: What are actinic keratoses (AKs), and how do dermatologists typically treat them?

Answer: Actinic keratoses (AKs) are skin bumps that dermatologists call precancerous. Many seniors have dozens, if not hundreds of these. Dermatologists treat millions of AKs with liquid nitrogen devices resembling tiny blow-torches, billing Medicare for each treatment.

Question 3: What percentage of actinic keratoses (AKs) disappear on their own, and what proportion develop into skin cancer?

Answer: Studies show that over half of all actinic keratoses (AKs) disappear on their own. Only one percent change to skin cancer after a year, and four percent after four years. These skin cancers are virtually all slow-growing and easily treatable.

Question 4: What is Mohs surgery, and how does it differ from older methods of treating skin cancer?

Answer: Mohs surgery is a procedure where dermatologists remove skin cancer layer by layer, examining each layer under a microscope until all diseased tissue is removed. Patients may spend a full day in an operating room, and dermatologists bill for each cut, slide preparation, and microscopic examination. Older methods involved scratching, burning, or cutting away skin cancers and following up for recurrence.

Question 5: According to Robert Stern, a Harvard dermatologist, what factors influence the decision to utilize Mohs surgery?

Answer: According to Robert Stern, a Harvard dermatologist, “The decision to utilize [Mohs] is likely to reflect the economic advantage to the provider rather than a substantial clinical advantage for the patient.” He reported wide variations in usage by practice and region.

Question 6: What percentage of Mohs surgeries are performed on people over 85 years old, and under what circumstances?

Answer: Twenty percent of all Mohs surgeries are performed on people over 85 years old. Many are performed in the last year of life, and even in the last weeks before death. Demented people in nursing homes get frozen, biopsied, and operated on.

Question 7: How do dermatologists typically handle cases of melanoma, the only skin cancer that routinely metastasizes and kills people?

Answer: Dermatologists almost universally refer melanoma cases to plastic surgeons for removal and then to oncologists for chemotherapy. Few skin doctors want to get involved with a fatal disease.

Question 8: What pattern is observed when comparing melanoma diagnosis rates and mortality rates?

Answer: While melanoma diagnosis rates have increased dramatically, the total deaths from melanoma have not increased. The disease-specific mortality for melanoma has remained unchanged despite the extra procedures performed to treat them.

Question 9: What did the survey of 115 dermatopathologists reveal about their beliefs regarding the overdiagnosis of various skin conditions?

Answer: The survey of 115 dermatopathologists showed that 68% believed overdiagnosis was a public health issue for atypical nevi, 47% thought melanoma in situ was overdiagnosed, and 35% thought invasive melanoma was overdiagnosed.

Question 10: What did lead researcher Kathleen Kerr say about the disparity between increasing melanoma diagnoses and stable death rates?

Answer: Lead researcher Kathleen Kerr said, “Melanoma diagnoses have been rising in the U.S. If there were truly an epidemic of melanoma, we would expect deaths from melanoma to show a corresponding rise, since there hasn’t been a major breakthrough in treatment during this time. Yet melanoma deaths have been remarkably constant. This suggests that the rise in melanoma diagnoses is largely due to overdiagnosis.”

Question 11: What are the three primary risk factors for basal cell carcinoma (BCC)?

Answer: The three primary risk factors for basal cell carcinoma (BCC) are excessive sun exposure, fair skin (which makes you more susceptible to excessive sunlight penetrating your skin), and a family history of skin cancer.

Question 12: What percentage of basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) recur after removal, and what is the typical fatality rate?

Answer: The recurrence rate for basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) after removal ranges from 65% to 95%, depending on the source. Most sources say BCC has a 0% fatality rate.

Question 13: How does the metastasis and survival rate of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) compare to that of basal cell carcinoma (BCC)?

Answer: Unlike basal cell carcinoma (BCC), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) can metastasize. If SCC is removed prior to metastasizing, it has a 99% survival rate, but if removed after metastasis, the survival rate drops to 56%. The average survival rate for SCC is around 95%.

Question 14: What percentage of melanomas occur in regions of the body with significant sun exposure, compared to squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and basal cell carcinoma (BCC)?

Answer: Only 22% of melanomas occur in regions of the body with significant sunlight exposure, such as the face. In contrast, 87% of all SCC cases and 82.5% of BCC cases occur in these regions.

Question 15: How does the incidence of melanoma in outdoor workers compare to that of indoor workers, despite higher UV exposure?

Answer: Outdoor workers get 3-10 times the annual UV dose that indoor workers get, yet they have lower incidences of cutaneous malignant melanoma and an odds ratio (risk) that is half that of their indoor colleagues.

Question 16: What did a 1997 meta-analysis reveal about the risk of melanoma in workers with significant occupational sunlight exposure?

Answer: A 1997 meta-analysis of the available literature found workers with significant occupational sunlight exposure were 14% less likely to get melanoma.

One of the oldest “proven” therapies in medicine was having people bathe in sunlight (e.g., it was one of the few things that actually had success in treating the 1918 influenza, prior to antibiotics it was one of the most effective treatments for treating tuberculosis and it was also widely used for a variety of other diseases). In turn, since it is safe, effective, and freely available, it stands to reason that unscrupulous individuals who wanted to monopolize the practice of medicine would want to cut off the public’s access to it. – AMD

Note: the success of sunbathing was the original inspiration for ultraviolet blood irradiation.

Question 17: How does sunscreen use affect the rates of malignant melanoma, according to existing research?

Answer: Existing research has found using sunscreen either has no effect on the rates of malignant melanoma or increases it.

Question 18: What did a 1982 study find regarding the relationship between fluorescent light exposure at work and the risk of developing malignant melanoma in women?

Answer: A 1982 study of 274 women found that fluorescent light exposure at work caused a 2.1 times increase in their risk of developing malignant melanoma, with this risk increasing with more fluorescent light exposure, either due to the exposure at their job (1.8X with moderate exposure jobs, 2.6X with high exposure jobs) or the time spent working at it (i.e., 2.4X more likely for 1-9 years of work, 2.8X for 10-19 years, and 4.1X for over 20 years).

Question 19: What did the 1987 study comparing fatty acids in the tissue of melanoma patients and healthy controls find?

Answer: The 1987 study, which analyzed samples of fat tissue from 100 melanoma patients and 100 people without melanoma, found an increase in linoleic acid in the tissue of all subjects. However, the percentage of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) was significantly higher in the melanoma patients’ tissue. The researchers suggested that increased consumption of dietary polyunsaturates may have a contributory effect in the etiology of melanoma.

Question 20: What type of fatty acid is linoleic acid, and in what foods is it commonly found?

Answer: Linoleic acid is the primary fat found in omega-6 polyunsaturated fats, including vegetable/seed oils, and accounts for about 80% of the fat composition of vegetable oils. It is found in virtually every processed food, including restaurant foods, sauces, salad dressings, and “healthy” foods like chicken, pork, and some olive oil.

Question 21: What percentage of sunscreen products tested by Valisure were found to contain benzene, and what is benzene?

Answer: Valisure tested 294 sunscreen products and found that 27% contained benzene, a known human carcinogen, at levels at least three times higher than the FDA allows under special circumstances.

Question 22: What sunscreen ingredient, found in 70% of products, is known to be an endocrine disruptor?

Answer: Oxybenzone, found in an estimated 70% of sunscreens, is a known endocrine disruptor linked to reduced sperm count in men and endometriosis in women.

Question 23: According to a Danish study, how many sunscreen chemicals allowed in the US may reduce male fertility?

Answer: According to a Danish study, 8 out of 29 sunscreen chemicals allowed in the US and/or European Union can reduce male fertility by affecting calcium signaling in the sperm, in part by exerting a progesterone-like effect.

Question 24: What did the 2019 and 2020 JAMA studies find regarding the absorption and persistence of certain sunscreen ingredients in the body?

Answer: The 2019 and 2020 JAMA studies found that certain sunscreen ingredients (avobenzone, oxybenzone, octocrylene, homosalate, octisalate, and octinoxate) may build up in the body at unhealthy levels. The ingredients were absorbed after only one day’s exposure, and some persisted in the body after use.

Question 25: What blood level of vitamin D is considered ideal for disease prevention, according to the research cited?

Answer: According to the research cited, the ideal blood level of vitamin D for disease prevention is between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/mL, while 40 ng/mL is considered the low end of sufficiency, and 30 ng/mL is the minimum to prevent disease.

Question 26: What signs and symptoms may indicate that a person has low vitamin D levels?

Answer: Signs and symptoms that may indicate low vitamin D levels include ongoing musculoskeletal pain and achy bones, frequent infections or illnesses, neurological symptoms (such as depression, cognitive impairment, and migraines), and fatigue and daytime sleepiness.

Question 27: How does the antioxidant astaxanthin function as an “internal sunscreen”?

Answer: Astaxanthin is a potent antioxidant that acts as an internal sunscreen by protecting against UV radiation exposure and gene expression changes that lead to skin photoaging, such as sagging and wrinkles. It has strong free radical scavenging activity that protects against oxidative damage.

Question 28: What other nutrients are mentioned that may provide photoprotection for the skin?

Answer: Other nutrients mentioned that may provide photoprotection for the skin include lycopene, beta-carotene, vitamin D, and vitamin E.

Question 29: What does Dr. David Elpern believe led to the overdiagnosis of melanoma and an increase in expensive, low-value procedures for skin cancer and actinic keratosis?

Answer: Dr. David Elpern believes that the American Academy of Dermatology’s (AAD) campaign in the 1980s to educate the public about dermatologists being skin cancer experts led to inflated health anxiety about skin cancer, resulting in the overdiagnosis of melanoma and an increase in expensive, low-value procedures for skin cancer and actinic keratosis.

Question 30: What role did dermatopathologists’ perception of overdiagnosis play in their diagnostic behavior when examining skin biopsy cases?

Answer: The study found no statistically significant associations between dermatopathologists’ perceptions about overdiagnosis and their interpretive behavior when diagnosing skin biopsy cases. Dermatopathologists who believed invasive melanoma was overdiagnosed were slightly more likely to diagnose invasive melanoma compared to other dermatopathologists examining identical cases.

Question 31: What are the consequences of overdiagnosing melanoma for patients?

Answer: Overdiagnosing melanoma can have significant consequences for patients on both an emotional and financial level.

Question 32: What factors make reducing overdiagnosis of skin cancer challenging, according to lead researcher Kathleen Kerr?

Answer: According to lead researcher Kathleen Kerr, reducing overdiagnosis of skin cancer will be challenging as it requires cooperation between patients, primary care physicians, and pathologists.

Question 33: What did the studies from 1991, 2008, 2002, and 2011 demonstrate about the effectiveness of a topical cream containing a nightshade extract (solasodine glycosides) in treating various types of skin cancer?

Answer: The studies from 1991, 2008, 2002, and 2011 demonstrated the effectiveness of a topical cream containing a nightshade extract (solasodine glycosides) in treating various types of skin cancer, including actinic keratosis, basal cell carcinoma (BCC), and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). The 1991 trial showed complete regression of lesions with no adverse effects, the 2008 trial found a 66% success rate for treating BCC, the 2002 English trial showed a 78% success rate for treating BCC with a short duration of treatment, and the 2011 case report showed good cosmetic outcomes for large BCC and SCC lesions.

Question 34: What is the current state of natural and alternative treatments for skin cancer, such as Curaderm, and why are they not more widely known and utilized despite their reported success rates?

Answer: There are several natural and alternative treatments for skin cancer that have been scientifically studied and have shown promising results. One such treatment is Curaderm, a topical cream containing solasodine glycosides, which are derived from eggplant extract. Studies have demonstrated that Curaderm has a success rate of 66-78% in treating basal cell carcinoma (BCC), the most common type of skin cancer.

In addition to Curaderm, other natural and alternative treatments that have undergone scientific study include topical creams containing vitamin B3 (niacinamide) and vitamin A (retinoids). While these treatments have shown potential, more research is needed to fully establish their effectiveness and safety.

Despite the reported success rates of these alternative therapies, they are not widely known or utilized in the mainstream treatment of skin cancer. This lack of awareness and adoption can be attributed to several factors, one of which is the potential threat they pose to the lucrative business model of the dermatology profession.


Healthy Sunbathing (by AMD)

One of the major mistakes Americans frequently make is the belief that if something is good for you, more of it is better. This very much holds true for sun exposure, as (assuming you are caucasian) once your skin starts turning pink, you lose the ability to utilize the sunlight you are being exposed to (e.g., you stop producing vitamin D), and in time also begin to burn (which can damage the skin). For this reason, many advise stopping sunbathing once your skin starts to turn pink and making sure to have regular small bursts of sunlight rather than intermittent large ones.

Note: doing this often completely eliminates the need for vitamin D and is one of the things that I’ve repeatedly seen greatly helps with longevity.

Additionally, there is a “good” type of ultraviolet light (UVB) and a bad type (UVA), and depending upon the time of day, different types are in prominence. For this reason, the absolute best time to be outside is between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., which interestingly is the time Chinese Medicine recognizes that the energy of the heart peaks (an organ I believe is particularly sensitive to the energy of sunlight).

Conversely, most windows block UVB (but not UVA) so it’s actually not a good idea to get your direct light exposure through the window.

Note: specialized materials exist which don’t do this (e.g., quartz glass), but they are a bit expensive and hard to find.

Finally, something many do not appreciate about sunscreens is that two forms of them exist—ones that work by having chemicals which absorb UV light (and decrease it) and ones that simply block and reflect it. The chemicals that absorb UV light are often quite toxic, and a case can be made they are actually responsible for some of the increase in skin cancer that has been observed. With the reflecting ones, either titanium oxide or zinc oxide are typically used. Zinc oxide is the better option (people don’t react to it, and it can sometimes help heal the skin), so when selecting a sunscreen, the main thing to look for is one that uses zinc oxide and doesn’t have any questionable chemicals in it.

Note: there are now beginning to be pushes to stop the use of more toxic sunscreens in areas with abundant aquatic life because they poison the reefs. This raises the point that if a small amount of sunscreen diluted in the water is too toxic for an ecosystem to handle, why would you want to put it on your skin where it can directly absorb into the body at its full concentration?

May 7, 2024 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Once Upon A Lockdown

Aidan Killian | May 4, 2024

Irish comedian and storyteller, Aidan Killian travelled around Ireland during ‘lockdown’ and this shows another side of the story about how many lived, connected, and gathered during these dark times.

May 7, 2024 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | Leave a comment

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Still Pushing COVID Shots for Pregnant Women

Could Millions in Government Funding Explain Why?

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | May 2, 2024

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) missed a May 1 deadline to explain why the organization recommends COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant women despite growing evidence that they pose a serious risk.

Reform Pharma, a Children’s Health Defense (CHD) initiative, sent ACOG a letter on March 22 outlining the extensive and mounting scientific research documenting the risks of the vaccines to mothers and infants.

The letter also addressed grant money ACOG accepted from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

The funding was contingent on the organization’s full compliance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) guidance endorsing the vaccine during pregnancy.

The grant also stipulated that ACOG admonish doctors who failed to follow CDC protocols and track women who declined the vaccine, then target them with follow-up pressure to get the shot.

Reform Pharma demanded ACOG end its practice of recommending COVID-19 vaccination for pregnant women and explain why it has continued to push the shot until now.

The letter stated:

“It’s time for ACOG to reconcile and admit its mistake. … Our team demands that ACOG stop intimidating and misleading both physicians and pregnant women. …

“It is imperative that ACOG take proper action now to prevent needless further injury and death, as it is under a legal, ethical, and moral obligation to stop the shots!”

After ACOG didn’t respond, Reform Pharma sent a follow-up letter on April 22 via certified mail and email to the ACOG president and its chief legal officer.

The letter gave ACOG until May 1 to explain, in writing, why it continues to push the COVID-19 vaccines.

ACOG President Verda J. Hicks responded by blocking Reform Pharma’s email.

An automated out-of-office reply was the only response from the organization’s chief legal officer, Molly Meegan.

“The fact that the ACOG president blocked us shows that they are not even willing to have a conversation to explain why they continue to push COVID-19 shots on pregnant women despite mounting scientific evidence of the safety risks,” Reform Pharma co-director Amy Miller told The Defender.

Reform Pharma continues working to publicize what it says is ACOG’s corruption.

“The American people need to know that ACOG is using its authority and influence to push dangerous COVID-19 shots on pregnant women but failed to disclose its backdoor deal with the CDC,” Justine Tanguay, an attorney and Reform Pharma’s co-director, told The Defender.

“Sacrificing the lives and health of pregnant women and their unborn babies in exchange for money is unacceptable,” she added.

Reform Pharma’s mission is to systematically end corruption in Big Pharma and restore integrity to the U.S. healthcare system.

“Reform Pharma is doing critically important work shining a light on organizations like ACOG which purport to represent the interests of their member physicians and the patients those physicians treat,” Kim Mack Rosenberg, CHD general counsel and a signatory to the letter, told The Defender.

“In reality, money talks, and it appears that payments and incentives from pharmaceutical companies may influence and capture such organizations.”

ACOG a ‘massively powerful’ organization that dominates maternal-fetal health

ACOG is a “massively powerful” organization with 60,000 members, maternal-fetal medicine expert Dr. James Thorp told The Defender.

The professional membership organization for obstetricians and gynecologists produces practice guidelines, educational materials and initiatives to improve women’s health, according to its website.

It is also — along with the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) and American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG) — a key gatekeeper organization for the field of obstetrics and gynecology, exercising tremendous power over the practices and norms among its members who are practitioners in women’s health, Thorp said.

According to Reform Pharma, ACOG takes its marching orders from Big Pharma and public health agencies.

“It functions primarily as a shill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and, in particular, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — both lobbying arms for the pharmaceutical industry,” Reform Pharma wrote in its letter.

This became even more concerning once ACOG started promoting the COVID-19 vaccines, Reform Pharma said.

When the vaccines came on the market in December 2020, ACOG held a neutral position on vaccination during pregnancy, recommending pregnant women “be free to make their own decision regarding COVID-19 vaccination.”

That changed in July 2021, when the organization began encouraging its members to “enthusiastically recommend vaccination to their patients,” after accepting $11 million in grant money from HHS and CDC to adopt and promote the agencies’ positions on COVID-19 to its members.

“If ACOG should waver or fail to toe the line, ACOG would be required to return all the grant money it received,” according to Reform Pharma’s letter.

“ACOG made a deal with the devil and willingly sacrificed the health of pregnant women and their unborn babies in exchange for money,” Reform Pharma said.

Reform Pharma also accused ACOG of pressuring and intimidating doctors into strongly recommending the vaccine to their patients and directing them to “harass” women who refused until they capitulated.

Attorney Maggie Thorp, who last year identified the HHS grant funding — which she told The Defender is now up to $17 million since the COVID-19 pandemic period began — said she believes the CDC is just using ACOG as its mouthpiece.

Based on her analysis of the documents acquired through a Freedom of Information Act request, Maggie Thorp said the collaboration between the public health agency and the private organization is so tight that it was “hard to identify where CDC ended and where ACOG began.”

She said HHS is using ACOG to do what it cannot — “dictate the content of private conversations that happen between doctors and their pregnant patients.”

In that sense, Maggie Thorp said, HHS is “using ACOG to quell doctors’ free speech and their ability to express dissent.”

As a result, she said, patients don’t get access to the information they need to give “true, valid informed consent.”

James Thorp said that ACOG then collaborates with its partner organizations, SMFM, ABOG, and the Federation of State Medical Boards, which can take away doctors’ medical licenses or accreditation if they don’t comply, as the federation openly said it would in a July 2021 letter.

“They have the power to fire doctors or remove their accreditation from the medical board. That destroys an obstetrician,” he said. “So it’s extraordinarily intimidating.”

‘Sad’ that ACOG ‘ignores the science’

Reform Pharma provided ACOG with an extensively footnoted overview of current science showing the risks COVID-19 shots pose to pregnant women and the general population.

For example, studies have shown that the vaccine can pass through the blood-brain barrier and the placenta.

Early reporting in 2021 by the CDC’s Dr. Tom Shimabukuro in the New England Journal of Medicine claiming the shots were safe based on the CDC’s own Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and Vaccine Safety Monitoring System (V-safe) data was statistically flawed, the letter stated.

Shimabukuro concluded there were no “obvious safety signals” among pregnant women who received the vaccine. However, he presented the numbers in a misleading manner that obscured the actual rate of spontaneous abortions.

According to Reform Pharma’s letter:

“Failure to disclose the true incidence of spontaneous abortion is at best gross incompetence and at worst malfeasance. The true incidence of spontaneous abortion [in his statistics, among first- and second-trimester pregnancies] is alarming, ranging between 82% to 91%.”

Early research also linked the shot to “autism-like behaviors” in newborn rats, indicating the shot could complicate neurodevelopment and underscoring the need for more studies.

Several studies in top journals have shown that nursing mothers shed the spike protein in their breast milk, causing potentially serious adverse reactions in their newborn babies.

And, according to the letter, the COVID-19 shots pose safety risks for all people that also extend beyond complications associated with pregnancy. That data has been published extensively in places ranging from VAERS to peer-reviewed studies and beyond — sources readily available to anyone at ACOG who cares to investigate.

Given the extensive evidence summarized in the letter, “It is sad that ACOG appears not to be doing a deep dive into all the science concerning COVID-19 injections, instead taking the word of the pharmaceutical companies themselves and the FDA and CDC, which similarly rely on pharma science,” Mack Rosenberg said.

“Particularly tragic is the failure of ACOG to acknowledge and investigate the important evidence from patients themselves of the tragic impact these injections have had on pregnant women, their babies and their families,” she added.

“Pregnant women should never take this vaccine,” said James Thorp, who also has extensively documented the literature on the dangers of the COVID-19 shots for pregnant women.

“It isn’t even really a vaccine,” he said. “It’s an experimental genetic therapy with absolutely zero long-term follow-up. This is unprecedented. This is a complete violation of the golden rule of pregnancy.”

‘Wrongdoers will be held accountable’ 

The “public health emergency” has been officially over since May 11, 2023, and it has been demonstrated that vaccines don’t stop transmission and that there is extensive evidence regarding risks to pregnant women and all people, Reform Pharma wrote.

That means, “the only explanation for ACOG continuing to push this poison on pregnant women and their unborn children is that the organization is ‘bought off,’” the letter said. “Wrongdoers will be held accountable.”

Reform Pharma reiterated its concerns in the second letter, but aside from the blocked email and out-of-office notifications, ACOG has not responded.


Brenda Baletti, Ph.D., is a senior reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

May 6, 2024 Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , | 1 Comment

IS A CLIMATE LOCKDOWN ON THE HORIZON?

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | May 2, 2024

A recent article by the LA Times editorial board claims that California is experiencing record high temperatures. Jefferey Jaxen does a fact check on their claims. As President Joe Biden mulls the idea of declaring a climate emergency, we look into the potential powers that could be gained from this move. Will we have a climate lockdown on our horizon?

May 6, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Pediatric Perspectives – Dissolving Illusions With Dr. Suzanne Humphries

doctorsandscience | April 24, 2024

From ‘calling the shots’ to calling out their safety and efficacy — Dr. Suzanne Humphries is one of the countless conventionally-trained physicians who dug into the research on pharmaceuticals rather than blindly prescribing them and “saw something that they thought was worth risking everything for.” But what would a world without these products, such as vaccines, look like? Dr. Humphries and Dr. Thomas discuss, this week, on ‘Pediatric Perspectives.’

May 2, 2024 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | Leave a comment

The In-depth Story Behind a Climate Fraud

Climate Discussion Nexus | May 9, 2019

Dr. John Robson investigates the unsound origins and fundamental inaccuracy, even dishonesty, of the claim that 97% of scientists, or “the world’s scientists”, or something agree that climate change is man-made, urgent and dangerous.

For a transcript of this video including links to some of the sources, please visit http://climatediscussionnexus.com/vid…

To support the Climate Discussion Nexus, subscribe to our YouTube channel (   / @climatedn ) and our newsletter (at http://www.climatediscussionnexus.com/), like us on Facebook (  / climatedn  , follow us on Twitter (  / climatedn, and make a monthly or one-time pledge at http://www.climatediscussionnexus.com…

May 1, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | Leave a comment

UN Official Condemns Health “Misinformation,” Advocates for “Digital Integrity Code”

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | April 30, 2024

The United Nations continues with an attempt to advance the agenda to get what the organization calls its Code of Conduct for Information Integrity on Digital Platforms implemented.

This code is based on a previous policy brief that recommends censorship of whatever is deemed to be “disinformation, misinformation, hate” but that is only the big picture of the policy UN Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications Melissa Fleming is staunchly promoting.

In early April, Fleming gave a talk at Boston University, and here the focus was on AI, whose usefulness in various censorship ventures makes it seen as a tool that advances “resilience in global communication.”

A piece on the Boston University Center on Emerging Infectious Diseases site first asserts that AI had a “major role” in helping spread misinformation and conspiracy theories “in the post-pandemic era,” while the UN is described as one of the institutions that have been undermined by all this, while “working to dispel these narratives.”

(The article also – helpfully, in terms of understanding where its authors are coming from – cites the World Economic Forum (WEF) as the “authority” which has proclaimed that “the threat from misinformation and disinformation as the most severe short-term threat facing the world today”).

You will hardly hear Fleming disagreeing with any of this, but the UN’s approach is to “harness” that power to serve its own agendas. The UN official’s talk was about how AI can be used to feed the public the desired narratives around issues like vaccines, climate change, and the “well-being” of women and girls.

However, she also went long into all the aspects of AI that she perceives as negative, throwing pretty much every talking point already well established among the “AI fear-mongering genre” in there:

“One of our biggest worries is the ease with which new technologies can help spread misinformation easier and cheaper, and that this content can be produced at scale and far more easily personalized and targeted,” she said.

Flemming said that with the pandemic, this “skyrocketed” around the issue of vaccines. But she didn’t address why that may be – other than, apparently, being simply a furious sudden proliferation of “misinformation” for its own sake.

Flemming then mentions a number of UN activities, basically along the lines of “fact-checking” and “pre-bunking” (like “Verified,” and #TakeCareBeforeYouShare”).

Some might refer to Flemming as one of the “merchants of outrage” but she has this slur reserved for others, such as “climate (change) deniers.”

And it wasn’t long before X and Elon Musk cropped up.

“Since Elon Musk took over X, all of the climate deniers are back, and (the platform) has become a space for all kinds of climate disinformation. Here is a connection that people in the anti-vaccine sphere are now shifting to the climate change denial sphere,” Flemming lamented.

But, the UN official reassured everyone that “she and her team are working to build coalitions and initiatives that leverage AI to promote exciting, positive, fact-driven global public health communications.”

April 30, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Medical Coder during COVID-19

CHD – April 15, 2024

“I didn’t know it was possible for a human to die so horrifically, so quickly, before they rolled out the mRNA injections… [For] days, patients would be seizing, and no medications would stop it, and eventually they… kinda had to be put down.”

DR. WILLIAM MAKIS MD – APRIL 27, 2024:

A hospital medical coder who goes only by “Zoe” for this interview describes for Children’s Health Defense (ChildrensHD) the horrors she witnessed following the rollout of the COVID injections. Among the unthinkable, and deadly, illnesses were things like encephalitis, gangrene of the spine, blood clots, strokes, and multiple system organ failure.

“I didn’t know it was possible for a human to die so horrifically, so quickly, before they rolled out the mRNA injections… It was insane, I’ve never seen anything like that. The worst of them, they called it sepsis, but it was like instant multi-organ failure. Like, within hours patients would die of liver, lung, kidney… failure [all at once]…” Zoe tells CHD. She adds that “Some of the records… [from the] emergency crew that found them [the injection victims], it’s like their body tried to reject everything and [in] some of these cases their family would be there 30 minutes before, and then within an hour they’re dead.”

Zoe notes that “there were patients coming in with seizures like I’d never seen before,” and that hospital staff “couldn’t control some of them.” The coder adds, “[For] days, patients would be seizing, and no medications would stop it, and eventually they… kinda had to be put down.”

“They called it encephalitis, or encephalopathy, and then later on, even the coding organization… [called it] COVID-19-associated encephalitis,” Zoe says.

“[T]he clots were insane,” the coder notes. “Never seen clots like that before—even the interventional radiologists that were going in with…scopes where they can do heart interventions and do stents [a stent is a tube usually constructed of a metallic alloy or a polymer] in carotid artery (if you have a stroke going to your brain), normally it’s rare to have more than one stent go in, and they were documenting… multiple locations all at once. They had heart attack cases that were like that where they needed massive amounts of stents that they never needed before.”

Zoe goes on to say that “There were people that were hiking in their 20s that were totally healthy, that had been running marathons, that suddenly needed a leg amputated because they had a massive blood clot going from their hip all the way down to their leg, and it couldn’t be saved.”

“There were some cases of overnight spinal gangrene, which I’d never seen before,” the coder adds. “And, you know, you can’t amputate the spine when it goes gangrenous. Normally they cut out tissue that’s dying like that so it prevents further infection and they didn’t know what to do. The only thing they could do was… basically replace that part of [their] spine with an implant, that’s the best they could do… It was really intense.”

As for doctors’ responses to these horrors, Zoe says, “[they] were baffled, they weren’t connecting the dots.” However, she adds that “Knowing what the potential symptoms of a vaccine injury could be, we 100% had all the things I just described.” Despite that knowledge, “doctors would never tell [patients] that. They would just say, ‘It’s a stroke. It’s a heart attack. It’s a blood clot.’ And then they would never connect the two.”

April 30, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

The Heart of Climate Deception Temperature

Climate Realism by Paul Burgess | April 26, 2024

Links coming shortly

Link to IPCC table in AR6 https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/do… Go to page 1856.

Link to USA Standard Reference Network – you can set what graph you want to see https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/moni…

April 29, 2024 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | Leave a comment

Bird Flu Outbreaks & the WHO/IHR Pandemic Treaty Push

By Barbara Loe Fisher | The Vaccine Reaction | April 22, 2024

Even as U.S. health agencies and the United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) are being heavily criticized for their botched response to the COVID-19 pandemic,1 2 3 WHO officials are ramping up pressure on all nations to sign a WHO pandemic treaty and amendments to the WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHR), which will give them more authority to track, quarantine, force vaccine use and censor free speech during WHO declared pandemics.4 5 The WHO’s Director General has been blaming opposition to the UN agency’s epic power grab on “a torrent of fake news, lies and conspiracy theories.”6

On Apr. 19, 2024, the United Nations sent out a press release declaring that the “ongoing global spread of ‘bird flu’ infections to mammals including humans is a significant public health concern,” pointing to an outbreak of H5N1 viral infections in dairy cows in the U.S. and warning that the virus could evolve and cause human-to-human transmission with “extremely high” mortality.7 The implication was that a potentially deadly global bird flu pandemic was a clear possibility.

The CDC website describes symptoms of H5N1 bird flu infections, and they sound very similar to seasonal influenza or SARS-CoV-2 infections associated with COVID-19 disease:

“The reported signs and symptoms of bird flu virus infections in humans have ranged from no symptoms or mild illness [such as eye redness (conjunctivitis) or mild flu-like upper respiratory symptoms], to severe (such as pneumonia requiring hospitalization) and included fever (temperature of 100ºF [37.8ºC] or greater) or feeling feverish*, cough, sore throat, runny or stuff nose, muscle or body aches, headaches, fatigue, and shortness of breath or difficulty breathing. Less common signs and symptoms include diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, or seizures.”8

Warnings That Egg and Milk Supplies May Be Contaminated with Bird Flu Virus

Mainstream media have been joining the UN in characterizing bird flu outbreaks in cattle as a significant public health concern, with news outlets breathlessly reporting that cattle were infecting each other with H5N1 and some experts questioning whether raw or even pasteurized milk containing high levels of the avian virus is safe.9 Although H5N1 bird flu was first detected in 1996, since 2020 there have been more outbreaks in poultry farms, wild bird and land and marine animals.10 11 Americans were warned in early April that the eggs from chickens potentially infected with the avian virus should be well cooked,12 and then the media reported that a U.S. dairy farm worker in Texas had been infected with bird flu.13

The same day the UN issued their press release, Agence France Presse again reminded readers that a person working on a dairy farm in Texas was recovering from bird flu. A WHO official was quoted as stating that, “The case in Texas is the first case of a human infected by an avian influenza by a cow.”14

U.S. Plan to Drive the Global “Health Security” Agenda If WHO Treaties Fail

Three days earlier, on Apr. 16, the White House announced a five-year “Strategy to Strengthen Global Health Security” plan citing the COVID-19 pandemic as the need to put the U.S. in the driver’s seat via bi-lateral financial investment partnerships with 50 to 100 countries to “drive global action toward shared goals” and “mitigate the impact of health security threats” in order “to prevent, detect and contain them at their source.”15 The new plan “articulates a whole-of-government science-based approach to strengthening global health security.”

The current U.S. administration is in favor of the WHO pandemic treaty and IHR amendments proposed by the world’s largest public health agency.16 However, the WHO is getting pushback from lawmakers and citizens in the U.S. and in other nations, who do not want to go along with the UN/WHO power grab that many critics say threatens human rights and national sovereignty.17 18 19 A respected Japanese scientist posted a video message to the world online,20 and there was a massive demonstration In Japan this month against the WHO pandemic treaty.21

The U.S. “Global Health Security” plan would ensure that if the WHO treaties fail to be signed by enough countries to become international law, the U.S. will make sure there is a global “rapid response to global health emergencies.” According to the U.S. plan, the core of that “rapid response” are “efforts to transform international financial institutions, such as the World Bank, and to accelerate “manufacture, procurement and delivery” of medical countermeasures like vaccines.22

Even though there is Increasing public opposition to the WHO’s plan to expand its legal authority to tell eight billion people what to do whenever WHO officials declare a “public health emergency” – which includes eliminating freedom of speech and electronically monitoring everyone’s vaccination status and requiring people to carry a digital “vaccine passport” in order to travel or enter public spaces23 – it looks like the U.S. government is going to get the job done whether the WHO manages to get enough countries to sign the WHO/IHR treaties or not. The lucrative public-private business partnerships that have been expanded over the past four decades between the WHO, pharmaceutical corporations, governments and other institutions is paying big dividends for the Public Health Empire.24

Bird Flu Vaccines Being Developed and Stockpiled

Is the latest well-publicized specter of a deadly global bird flu pandemic, which is so reminiscent of the well-publicized specter of a deadly coronavirus pandemic in early 2020,25 a harbinger of things to come or just a coincidence?

Whatever it is, the preparations for delivery and approval of H5N1 “vaccines,” which includes mRNA bird flu shots, is well underway.

On Apr. 20, Barrons reported that the U.S. government “says it could distribute enough [bird flu] vaccines within four months to inoculate a fifth of the U.S. population” (68 million people) if the H5N1 strain infecting cattle began to spread among humans.26 Healthcare workers, law enforcement and other first responders, military personnel pregnant women, infants and high risk children would get the shots first.

Apparently, two clinical trials of bird flu vaccine have been underway since last year and CSL Sequiris and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) are under contract to test the vaccines targeting a strain of avian influenza closely related to the H5N1 strain currently infecting U.S. dairy cows. Another major manufacturer of influenza vaccine, Sanofi, would also likely be involved in bird flu vaccine production.

H5N1 Vaccine Production Could Be Ramped Up to Vaccinate the Entire U.S. Population

An FDA spokesperson reportedly told Barrons that the approval process to quickly distribute a new H5N1 bird flu vaccine for Americans would be similar to the accelerated process used to create annual flu vaccines. A spokesperson for Administration for Strategic Preparedness & Response (ASPR) also commented that, if needed, the agency would work with bird flu vaccine manufacturers “to ramp up production to make enough vaccine doses to vaccinate the entire [U.S.] population.”

Oil in Water Adjuvants in Vaccines and Autoimmunity

Both Sequirus and GSK have developed “oil in water” emulsion adjuvants added to influenza vaccines, including bird flu vaccines, to stimulate hyper-inflammatory responses in the body that generate high levels of antigen-specific antibodies in an effort to make the vaccines more “effective.” Squalene adjuvants have been associated with development of autoimmune disorders.27 28 29

GSK’s AS03 adjuvant contains a-tocopherol, squalene and polysorbate 80,30 and some European children and adults, who got GSK’s AS03 adjuvanted H1N1 “swine flu” vaccine in 2009, developed cases of narcolepsy, a neurological autoimmune disorder.31  The Sequiris influenza vaccine contains MF59,32 the first squalene oil in water emulsion adjuvant added to influenza vaccines in the 1990s.33 According to the Apr. 20 Barrons’ report, large quantities of both of these squalene adjuvants are stored in the U.S. government’s special pandemic influenza vaccine stockpile, which was created in 2005, along with premade influenza antigens.

A 2023 article published by Chinese researchers the medical literature promoted the “remarkable success” of mRNA coronavirus vaccines and the need to use three types of specific adjuvants to make mRNA vaccines more effective: (1) RNA with self-adjuvant characteristics; (2) components of the delivery system [such as lipid nanoparticles]; and exogenous immunostimulants (such as squalene).34

As with squalene adjuvants, the lipid nanoparticles, which envelop and deliver synthetic RNA in COVID shots to body cells to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, are highly inflammatory to stimulate a strong immune response, but also have been associated with allergy and autoimmunity.35

Europe Already Has Approved Two H5N1 Bird Flu Vaccines

Earlier this year, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved two H5N1 avian flu vaccines made by Sequiris, although neither one are mRNA products. Medscape reported on Feb.23, 2023 that Celldemic had been approved for use in infants six months of age and older if public health officials anticipate a bird flu pandemic, and Incellipan had been approved for use when a bird flu pandemic has been declared.36

mRNA Bird Flu Vaccines A Quick Way to Produce Bird Flu Vaccines

A year ago, Scientific American reported that “vaccine makers are preparing for bird flu,” with one pediatric infectious disease doctor quipping “It’s a really dangerous time to be a bird.” Another expert warned “None of us know when the next influenza pandemic will emerge… At the outset, you have to say there is uncertainty, with one exception: there will be a pandemic.”37 In that article, the reliance on U.S. stockpiled egg-based flu vaccines to produce an H5N1 vaccine was called into question and mRNA technology to produce bird flu vaccine was highlighted because it offers “speed of production” so an mRNA vaccine targeting a new influenza strain can be created in a matter of weeks.

Also in 2023, there was a report in the medical literature that University of Pennsylvania researchers had created an H5N1 mRNA lipid nanoparticle vaccine being tested on mice and ferrets.38 In March 2024, Chinese researchers announced they had created a 10-valent mRNA nanoparticle vaccine encoding proteins from four seasonal influenza viruses, two avian flu viruses with pandemic potential, and spike proteins from four SARS-CoV-2 variants. They said two doses of FLUCOV-10 “elicited robust immune responses in mice” against all 10 vaccine-matched viruses.39

Only Time Will Tell

Amendments to the WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHR) will be voted on at the end of May. Only time will tell whether the latest publicity warning the public about a potentially imminent bird flu outbreak in humans is real or just another bit of propaganda being used to create fear and put pressure on governments to give up sovereignty for the illusion of safety.

1 Bell D. Pandemic preparedness and the road to international fascismThe American Journal of Economics and Sociology July 30, 2023.
2 Nuccio D. Public health agencies must be reined in before next pandemicWashington Examiner Mar. 29, 2024.
3 Schaefer B, Groves S. The WHO Pandemic Treaty Fails AgainThe Heritage Foundation Apr. 19, 2024.
4 Fisher BL. Stop the World Health Organization Power Grab To Mandate Vaccines & Censor Free SpeechNational Vaccine Information Center Apr. 11, 2024.
5 Door to Freedom. WHO International Health Regulations Compendium. April 2024.
6 AFP in Geneva. Global pandemic agreement in danger of falling apart,WHO warns. The Guardian Jan. 22, 2024.
7 United Nations. Pandemic experts express concern over avian influenza spread to humans. UN Press Release Apr. 18, 2024.
8 U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC). Bird Flu Virus Infections in Humans. Apr. 11, 2024.
9 Branswell H. USDA faulted for disclosing scant information about outbreaks of H5N1 avian flu in cattle. STAT News Apr. 18, 2024.
10 Parpia R. Bird Flu Outbreak in Oregon Leads to Mass Euthanization of Poultry. The Vaccine Reaction Feb. 5, 2024.
11 Singler E. H5N1 influenza: From avian to bovine to feline and beyond. AAHA Apr. 19, 2024.
12 Camero K. Is it safe to eat runny eggs amid the bird flu outbreak? Here’s what the experts say. USA Today Apr. 4, 2024.
13 Hendler C. Texas Man and Dairy Cattle Test Positive for Bird FluThe Vaccine Reaction Apr. 16, 2024.
14 Agence France Presse. H5N1 Strain of Bird Flu Found in Milk: WHOThe Barron’s Daily Apr. 19, 2024.
15 White House. Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration Releases Strategy to Strengthen Global Health Security. Apr. 16, 2024.
16 Staver M. Biden’s Amendments Hand U.S. Sovereignty to the WHOLiberty Counsel 2023.
17 Human Rights Watch. Draft “Pandemic Treaty” Fails to Protect Rights. Apr. 17, 2024.
18 Webster A. WHO pandemic amendments threaten national sovereigntyMail Guardian Apr. 17, 2024.
19 NTD. U.S. Representatives speak on “Surrender of U.S. Sovereignty to WHO.” Press Conference Apr. 18. 2024.
20 Professor Massayasu Inoue, MD, PhD video message to the world on harms of mRNA COVID “genetic” vaccine and the WHO pandemic treaty threat to freedom and human rights. NVIC Rumble Channel Apr. 10, 2024.
21 The Gateway Pundit. Massive protests break out in Japan in Opposition to WHO’s proposed pandemic treaty. Apr. 13, 2024. Twitter video of protest in Japan.
22 White House. Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration Releases Strategy to Strengthen Global Health Security. Apr. 16, 2024.
23 Fisher BL. G20 Leaders Pledge to Require Global “Digital Health Certificate” Vaccine Passport. The Vaccine Reaction Nov. 22, 2022.
24 Fisher BL. WHO, Pharma, Gates & Government: Who’s Calling the Shots? National Vaccine Information Center Jan. 27, 2019.
25 Fisher BL. Coronavirus Vaccines on Fast Track as WHO Declares Global Public Health EmergencyNational Vaccine Information Center Feb. 5, 2020.
26 Kazis JN. U.S. Could Vaccinate a Fifth of Americans in a Bird Flu EmergencyBarron’s Apr. 20, 2024.
27 Autoimmune Technologies. Gulf War Syndrome: Anti-Squalene Antibodies Link Gulf War Syndrome to Anthrax Vaccine.
28 Kuroda Y, Nacionales DC et al. Autoimmunity induced by adjuvant hydrocarbon oil components of vaccine.Biomed Pharmacother 2004; 58(5): 325-327.
29 Guimaraes LE, Baker B, Perricone C, Shoenfeld Y. Vaccines, adjuvants and autoimmunity. Pharmacological Research 2015; 100: 190-209.
30 Garcon N, Vaughn DW, Didierlaurent AM. Development and evaluation of AS03, an Adjuvant System containing a-tocopherol and squalene in an oil-in-water emulsion. Expert Rev Vaccines 2012; 11(3): 349-366.
31 Miller E, Andrews N et al. Risk of narcolepsy in children and young people receiving AS03 adjuvanted pandemic A/H1N1 2009 influenza vaccine: retrospective analysisBMJ 2013; 346.
32 Patel SS, Bizjajeva S, Heijnen E, Oberye J. MF59-adjuvanted seasonal trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine: Safety and immunenicity in young children at risk of influenza complicationsInt J Infect Dis 2019; 85 (Suppl): S18-S25.
33 Black S. Safety and effectiveness of MF-59 adjuvanted influenza vaccines in children and adultsVaccine 2015; 33 (Suppl 2): B3-B5.
34 RxLisXie C, Yao R, Xia X. The advances of adjuvants in mRNA vaccinesNpj Vaccines 2023; 8:162.
35 Lee Y, Jeong M, Park J et al. Immunogenicity of lipid nanoparticles and its impact on the efficacy of mRNA vaccines and therapeutics. Exp Mol Med 2023; 55: 2085-2096.
36 Agarwal D. Europe Greenlights Two Avian Flu VaccinesMedscape Feb. 23, 2024
37 Docter-Loeb H. Vaccine Makers Are Preparing for Bird FluScientific American Mar. 2, 2023.
38 Furey C, Ye N, Kercher L et al. Development of a nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccine against clade 2.3.4.4b H5 highly pathogenic avian influenza virus. bioRxiv Apr. 30, 2023.
39 Wang XC, Ma Q, Li M et al. A 10-valent composite mRNA vaccine against both influenza and COVID-19bioRxiv Mar. 5, 2024.

April 28, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | 1 Comment

Why won’t Chris Packham have a real debate on climate?

By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | April 25, 2024

image

On Sunday, the BBC did something unusual. It invited Luke Johnson, a climate contrarian, to join a panel with Laura Kuenssberg to discuss net zero. As followers of this debate will know, the BBC’s editorial policy unit issued guidance to staff in 2018 saying: ‘As climate change is accepted as happening, you do not need a “denier” to balance the debate.’ Although it did allow for exceptions to this rule: ‘There are occasions where contrarians and sceptics should be included within climate change and sustainability debates.’ Presumably this was one such occasion.

The other two people on the panel – Chris Packham and Layla Moran – are members of the climate emergency camp, so there was no pretence of ‘balance’. At one point, the exchange between Johnson and Packham became heated and when the latter invoked the recent downpour in Dubai as well as extensive wildfires in the ‘global south’, as evidence of the effect of anthropogenic global warming, Johnson challenged him to come up with evidence that extreme weather was caused by carbon emissions.

‘It doesn’t come from Toby Young’s Daily Septic [sic], which is basically put together by a bunch of professionals with close affiliations to the fossil fuel industry,’ replied Packham. ‘It comes from something called science.’ This was hailed by Packham’s side as a slam-dunk rebuttal of Johnson’s argument. The Canary wrote up the exchange under the following headline: ‘Chris Packham just humiliated Kuenssberg’s preposterous climate-denying guest.’ The London Economic, which describes itself as ‘a digital newspaper with a metropolitan mindset’, summarised it as follows: ‘With science on his side, Chris Packham was able to deliver a devastating put-down when challenged on the evidence of climate change.’

I can’t help thinking Packham’s ‘devastating put-down’ would have been more effective if it had been true. The people who put together the Daily Sceptic, a news publishing site I’ve edited since 2020, have no connections to the fossil fuel industry. If Packham and his allies are so convinced of the rightness of their cause, why invent reasons to discredit their opponents? A clip from the show including this claim was posted on Twitter by BBC Politics and retweeted by Laura Kuenssberg, getting, at last count, 845,000 views. And to think the BBC launched a multi-million-pound department last year to ‘address the growing threat of disinformation’.

What about Packham’s claim that ‘something called science’ provides all the evidence we need that extreme weather events are caused by burning fossil fuels? There’s really no such thing as ‘the science’, as in a consensus viewpoint among scientists that’s so incontrovertible no serious debate is possible. All scientific theories are just hypotheses and, as such, subject to challenge. Indeed, if it were illegitimate to challenge these theories, progress in science wouldn’t be possible. To pretend that the science of what causes extreme weather is ‘settled’ when it’s the subject of ongoing dispute suggests that Packham and his pals aren’t capable of having a proper grown-up discussion.

Full story here.

Toby Young actually understates his complaint, as there is no evidence that weather is actually becoming more extreme – something the IPCC admit.

It is very easy for these conmen to claim it is, and simply justify it with a statement that “scientists say”. But as Toby points out, they are unable to back it up with actual data and evidence.

The idea, fraudulently circulated by grant funded climate scientists, that global warming means extreme weather has always been by definition absurd. After all, does this mean that the Earth’s climate was ideal during the Ice Age, which would be the logical conclusion?

The simple fact is that there has always been unpleasant weather, storms, floods, droughts, and glaciation. If Chris Packham can provide evidence that these have all gotten worse in recent times, then let him present it.

If he can’t, the BBC should apologise for broadcasting false statements, exclude him from all future debates on climate change, and ban him from making any further such political comments if he wishes to remain as an employee.

April 25, 2024 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment