Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

DNA & SV40 In The #Pfizer Shot

October 15, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

Vaccine and stroke – the unmentionable connection

By Roger Watson | TCW Defending Freedom | October 13, 2023

As reported in one of our favourite outlets, Global Health Now, the newsletter of the Bloomberg School of Public Health and Johns Hopkins University, we can expect a rise in stroke. It is already the second leading cause of death, and the recent Lancet Neurology Commission report predicts a 50 per cent rise by 2050, taking the worldwide total to 9.7 million deaths a year.

According to the report the underlying cause of the predicted increase is high blood pressure generally; in younger people, a rise in diabetes and obesity may increase stroke. The factors identified above are all, indeed, leading causes of stroke.

Could anything else lead to an increase in stroke? In these pages, reference has been made recently by Dr Angus Dalgleish to the now widespread use of mRNA vaccines introduced as a purported way of preventing Covid-19 infection (they didn’t). In that article, he refers to stroke from blood clotting as one dangerous and even fatal outcome of the mRNA vaccines. Dr Dalgleish says that the risk associated with mRNA vaccines is so great that their use ought to be banned. But, as a search of the Lancet report reveals, there is not a single mention of any relationship between the use of mRNA vaccines and stroke. Since Pfizer propose to develop further mRNA vaccines, for example for flu, the use of these vaccines may become even more widespread.

The omission of any mention of mRNA vaccines and their relationship to stroke is, surely, a major flaw in the Lancet report. This is strange, deliberate possibly, given how common the knowledge is that there is such a relationship. The possibility of a link has been reported, among other places, in BMJ Case Reports, medRxiv, Stroke, Medical News Today, Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Disease and even in Lancet eClinical Medicine. So we know that the mRNA Covid-19 vaccines can cause stroke, and we know that the campaign to keep pushing the Covid-19 vaccines is relentless with proposals to develop further mRNA vaccines for more infectious diseases. What could possibly go wrong?

In addition to the likelihood of Covid-19 vaccines contributing to the increase in stroke, other aspects of the virtually worldwide overreaction to Covid-19, principally lockdown, undoubtedly contributed. Enforced confinement led to lower levels of physical activity and an increase in alcohol intake, among other things. As a result, levels of obesity rose, one of the contributing factors to stroke. While the imposition of lockdown may have ended, many people remain locked down in their minds, unable to leave home and suffering from depression. The working from home ‘pandemic’ is also unlikely to stop and this is known to be contributing to obesity.

A further effect of lockdown was lack of access to healthcare. Even one of the architects and proponents of lockdown and ‘saving the NHS’, Chris Whitty, warned in 2022 that there had been adverse consequences as a result of people not having access to life-saving drugs for cardiovascular disease. Surely, he saw that coming in 2020 and 2021, but chose to say nothing. Also a leading advocate of the Covid-19 vaccines, he was knighted in 2022. It’s enough to give you a stroke!

October 14, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

HPV vaccine on trial – the making of another drug tragedy, Part 2

By Sally Beck | TCW Defending Freedom | October 11, 2023

In Part Two of our serialisation of the book HPV Vaccine on Trial by Mary Holland, Kim Mack Rosenberg and Eileen Iorio, we analyse what happened when an NGO, supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, recruited girls in India to test the HPV vaccine. More than 25 per cent of all newly diagnosed cases of cervical cancer in the world occur in India. It is the second leading cause of can­cer death in women, claiming approximately 74,000 lives a year. Despite this large number, cervical cancer deaths by 2005 had dropped almost 50 per cent. This occurred without the vaccine and without widely accessible screening because of several factors including better hygiene, cleaner water, and improved nutrition, among others. You can read Part One here. 

IN 2010 seven girls died in India allegedly after taking part in Gardasil and Cervarix HPV vaccine trials. A cover-up was then instigated stating that they had died of insecticide poisoning, snake bites or suicide, it is alleged. The vaccine trial is now being described by the Indian authorities as child abuse.

While India’s parliament says the trials were unauthorised and unethical, manufacturers Merck, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and their allies, strongly disagree. However, an investigation discovered that the ‘safety and rights of children were highly compromised and violated’ as it emerged that their parents and guardians had not given proper informed consent.

A fact-finding report by physicians detailed several interviews with subjects and their family members. They learned that families were told that the vaccine would protect the subjects from ALL cancers, they were not told about any side effects, and they were not provided with any medical insurance in the event of injury or death. They learned that several of the girls suffered adverse events including loss of menstrual cycles, and psychological changes such as depression and anxiety. The report concluded that ‘the safety and rights of the children in this vaccination project were highly compromised and violated’.

Here is the background.

Shortly after the US Food and Drink Administration (FDA) approved Gardasil (Merck) in June 2006, an international NGO called Programme for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH) began a five-year project described as a ‘demonstration project’ (to test and measure effects of drugs in real-world situations). Its objective was to generate and disseminate evidence for informed public sector introduction of HPV vaccines. They chose India, Uganda, Peru and Vietnam to monitor safety and efficacy. All four countries have state-funded immunisation programmes and if Gardasil and Cervarix were adopted, Merck and GSK (the maker of Cervarix), stood to make major financial gains.

Two remote provinces in India, Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat, were chosen for the trials in 2009 and 2010. The subsequent investigation, while initially focusing on the girls’ deaths, uncovered systemic failures in government agencies and their oversight of the trials.

PATH engaged in extraordinary practices to obtain ‘informed consent’ from minors in economically vulnerable areas. Indian law requires parents’ or guardians’ consent on behalf of minors to participate in clinical trials. For the uneducated, an independent person must be present to explain and witness the consent process.

A 2011 parliamentary committee reviewed thousands of consent forms from the two provinces signed by dormitory supervisors in schools where the girls lived without their parents. These supervisors were not the girls’ legal guardians. The committee found forms with no witness signatures and signatures by thumb impression of those who could not write. Many forms had no dates. Direct interviews revealed that trial participants had received grossly inadequate information about potential risks and benefits while being offered financial inducements to participate.

The committee harshly criticised PATH’s treatment of adverse events. They noted that there were clear situations when a vaccination should not have been given to a girl, but those conducting the study ignored contraindications. The committee observed that this was ‘clearly an act of wilful negligence’. They noted that the project design failed to account for the possibility of serious adverse events and failed to provide for an independent monitoring agency. ‘Investigations into causes of deaths took an unacceptably long time’ and there were critical discrepancies in the investigation.

The report noted: ‘PATH’s wrongful use of governmental logos made it appear as if the project were part of the Indian Universal Immunisation Program.’ The committee found governmental responses ‘very casual, bureaucratic and lacking any sense of urgency’. They concluded that ‘PATH exploited with impunity the loopholes in the system’ and ‘had violated all laws and regulations laid down for clinical trials by the government’.

PATH’s sole aim had been to promote the commercial interests of HPV vaccine manufacturers who would have reaped windfall profits had PATH been successful in getting the HPV vaccine included in India’s immunisation programme. ‘This act of PATH is a clear-cut violation of the human rights of these girl children and adolescents . . . and an established case of child abuse.’

A second Parliamentary Committee report in 2013 described how PATH entered into a memorandum of understanding to study HPV vaccination with the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), the highest medical research body in India. PATH said the project would vaccinate around 23,000 girls aged between ten and 14. They said it did not conform to the definition of a clinical trial, so it was an observational study.

Merck and GSK supplied the vaccine to PATH free of charge. In turn, PATH distributed the vaccines to local medical agencies free. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded the other costs of the study as part of its global public health activity.

(The Gates Foundation has invested heavily in India’s vaccine programme through two organisations that have influenced vaccine policy since 2002: the Global Alliance for Vaccines and immunisation (GAVI) and the Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI), India’s largest non-profit organisation. Pharma executives sit on GAVI’s board, which has a public-private partnership with the Indian government, providing hundreds of millions of dollars to fund vaccine programmes. Although the Indian government set up PHFI, the Gates Foundation largely funds it, causing potential conflicts of interest.)

The parliamentary committee dismissed PATH’s explanations that these studies were not clinical trials, and the report alleges that PATH resorted to subterfuge, jeopardising the health and wellbeing of thousands of vulnerable Indian girls. The report makes clear that these de facto clinical trials could not have occurred without corruption within India’s leading health organisations. The committee noted ‘serious dereliction of duty by many of the institutions and individuals involved’ and accused some of having ‘undisclosed conflicts of interest with the vaccine manufacturers’.

In October 2012, activists on behalf of the girls in the trials filed a petition in the Indian Supreme Court against the drug controller general, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), the State of Andhra Pradesh, the State of Gujarat, PATH, GSK, Merck and others. The petition alleged that the clinical trials for Gardasil and Cervarix were unethical, that the vaccine use was illegal, and that various actors enlisted girls in an experiment and then abandoned them without follow-up treatment or adequate information.

The complaint stated that ‘adverse events were grossly under-reported and hidden. Records were falsified. Deaths that took place were stated as having nothing to do with the vaccines and were described as deaths due to suicides, insecticide poisoning, and snake bites.’ To date, the case has not been heard and proceedings seem to have stalled.

Largely because of the HPV vaccine scandal, the Indian government restricted clinical trials in 2013 and forced an end to the Merck and GSK demonstration projects. That same year the Supreme Court suspended 162 drug approvals pending the creation of a better monitoring system. In 2014, the government published new guidelines for audio/visual recording of informed consent in clinical trials.

Since 2015, though, provinces obtained the right to approve some drugs without national approval, bypassing general regulators. The Delhi government launched a school-based HPV vaccination programme in November 2016, and the Punjab government followed suit in early 2017.

In the US, there are currently about 80 cases pending in federal court against Merck for injuries associated with Gardasil, with hundreds more cases likely to be filed in the coming months.

Trey Cobb, 22, was injured by Gardasil aged 14 and developed autoimmune symptoms and severe fatigue. He won a major victory recently when the federal vaccine court ruled that he is entitled to compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.

In the meantime, Gardasil 9, which replaced Gardasil, is expected to generate £1.2billion a year in sales.

PATH contests any notion that there may have been conflicts of interest in India: ‘Any suggestion that inappropriate collusion existed in this project is baseless, wholly inaccurate, and defies the very spirit of our cross-sector partnerships, which are essential in India and around the world.’

Merck and GSK strongly deny any wrongdoing.

The HPV Vaccine on Trial was written and researched by Children’s Health Defense legal expert Mary Holland, lawyer and advocate for autistic children Kim Mack Rosenberg, and vaccine safety advocate Eileen Iorio.

Read our previous articles on HPV vaccine injured here and here.

October 14, 2023 Posted by | Book Review, Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Theoretical Vaccine Effectiveness for Novavax Unacceptably Low

Real World Study Disappointing for Non-Genetic Vaccine

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH | Courageous Discourse | October 11, 2023

If it came to forced COVID-19 vaccination against human will, I have said Novavax would be the choice since it gives a limited 5 mcg dose of the potentially lethal Spike protein and has no genetic material. The growing number of fatal side effects with mRNA vaccines and recent news of contamination with SV-40 cDNA has resulted in record low rates of booster uptake, currently at 1.3% of unwary Americans.

Mateo-Urdiales reported on 20,903 individuals who took the two shot primary series of Novavax. Theoretical vaccine effectiveness was shockingly low:

“Adjusted estimated vaccine effectiveness against notified SARS-CoV infections in those with partial vaccination (15 days after the first dose to 14 days after the second dose) was 23%(95%CI, 13%-33%), increasing after full vaccination to 31% (95%CI, 22%-39%). Estimated vaccine effectiveness was higher against symptomatic COVID-19, with an estimate of 31% (95%CI, 16%-44%) in those partially vaccinated and of 50% (95%CI, 40%-58%) in those fully vaccinated.”

Mateo-Urdiales A, Sacco C, Petrone D, et al. Estimated Effectiveness of a Primary Cycle of Protein Recombinant Vaccine NVX-CoV2373 Against COVID-19. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(10):e2336854. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.36854

If a vaccine cannot safely provide at least 50% protection for a year, it is not viable in my clinical practice. Sadly Novavax failed at both of these outcomes. With low-risk Omicron, and likely substantial natural immunity by Fall of 2022, only 26 infections led to hospitalization during the study period; 1 occurred during the reference period, 7 during partial vaccination, and 18 after full vaccination. No deaths were reported.

In summary, Novavax is probably the safest of all the COVID-19 vaccines because it does not use genetic technology. Sadly, it is useless against Omicron and cannot be recommended for any health benefit.

 

October 13, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Lawsuit Pushes Back Against California Medical Board’s “Misinformation” Censorship Power

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | October 12, 2023

A lawsuit has been amended in California against this US state’s medical boards’ “misinformation powers” – based on a law that is soon to be repealed, and which critics – some of them legal plaintiffs – say allowed the government to prevent them from practicing medicine, the way they were trained to do.

It was one of the rules, called Assembly Bill 2098 (AB 2098), introduced to keep medical professionals in check, in case they felt like speaking their minds freely as insights into Covid were developing.

And since the world has now moved on to other crises, the “forgotten pandemic” censorship laws are getting “quietly” repealed.

But not really, the plaintiffs in this case claim – because of the nature of the repeal of the short-lived AB 2098, made null-and-void on September 14 via Senate Bill 815 (SB 815). California Senator Newsom got to sign all three documents.

However, the repeal – which will not be in effect before the start of 2024 – at the same time incorporates Democrat member of California Assembly Evan Low’s provision that doctors who get accused of “misinformation” can still be punished – “held accountable” – regardless of whether the controversial law was actually applicable.

“The Medical Board of California will continue to maintain the authority to hold medical licensees accountable for deviating from the standard of care and misinforming their patients about COVID-19 treatments,” Low said.

How in the world is this political, ideological, pre-election, and legal gymnastics even supposed to work?

The lawsuit against the bill, Hoang et al. v. Bonta et al., has the plaintiffs represented by California attorney Richard Jaffe.

He had this to say: “Because of the repeal of AB 2098, and the board’s position that it can still sanction the speech targeted by the soon-to-be-repealed law, we are pivoting in our lawsuit and arguing to the judge that they can’t do it under their general statute either because the speech does not change just because the legal theory/statute changes.”

The world clearly has moved to other crises – but it seems, not the California Democrats. And so the plaintiffs in the lawsuit’s amended format are also asking to add more to their ranks. One of the original ones is Children’s Health Defense (CHD).

However absurd the “standard of care” argument that supersedes a law may seem to a layperson, Jaffe is obviously taking it seriously.

The court will hear the arguments related to this new development on November 13.

October 12, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | Leave a comment

Yes, Treating COVID Patients With Hydroxychloroquine Can Save Lives

By Angelo DePalma, Ph.D. | The Defender | October 11, 2023

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) alone, or HCQ plus the antibiotic azithromycin, had significantly lower mortality than those not receiving the drugs, according to a study released this month in New Microbes and New Infections.

Researchers in Belgium report that just 16.7% of COVID-19 patients given HCQ, with or without azithromycin, died within 28 days compared to 25.9% among those not taking HCQ — a 35% lower mortality.

After adjusting for age differences, the risk of death was still 24% lower for HCQ-treated hospitalized patients.

The survival benefit was seen across all ages and was statistically significant.

The results support the efficacy of HCQ and azithromycin in improving outcomes for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. This contrasts with earlier studies using dangerously high HCQ doses that found no benefits.

Who participated in the study?

Led by Dr. Gert Meeus, a nephrologist at AZ Groeninge Hospital, Kortrijk, Belgium, researchers collected data from March 16 to May 20, 2020 — the first few months of the pandemic.

They compared outcomes for 352 COVID-19-positive, HCQ-treated adults hospitalized at AZ Groeninge Hospital with those of 3,533 patients across Belgium who did not receive the drug.

Treated patients averaged 69.7 years versus 73.1 years for the control group. While this age difference favors the younger subjects who face less risk from the virus, this factor was more than offset by the treatment group’s higher incidence of high blood pressure, diabetes, liver and lung diseases, and weakened immunity.

Treated subjects were also more obese — a COVID-19 risk factor — with lower blood oxygen (suggesting severe illness) and higher C-reactive protein levels. C-reactive protein is a blood marker for inflammation and poor COVID-19 outcomes.

During the 28 days following initial treatment, 16.7% of patients who received HCQ, either alone or with azithromycin, died compared with 25.9% in the control group.

How was HCQ administered?

For the study, 299 patients (85%) received HCQ plus azithromycin versus 53 who took HCQ alone. Researchers only prescribed the antibiotic when they suspected bacterial pneumonia. Data for HCQ alone and HCQ plus azithromycin were combined.

Subjects received HCQ as two 400-milligram doses on day one and two 200-milligram doses on days two through five.

Patients younger than 75 years received 500 milligrams of azithromycin for five days. Older patients took 500 milligrams on day 1 and 250 milligrams per day for four days.

88% of patients received the full treatment course but 12% took the drugs for less time, at the caregiver’s discretion, due to side effects or reaching a terminal condition.

Otherwise, side effects observed in 197 patients were mild and mostly stomach issues. One patient had hallucinations and two developed a skin rash.

Thirteen patients dropped out of the study due to side effects, including 4 of 15 who developed heart muscle abnormalities — despite an earlier study reporting an association between HCQ and lower cardiovascular risk.

Nine patients dropped out because of digestive upset. One patient developed an abnormal but nonfatal post-study heart rhythm, but no treated patients experienced sudden death or irregular heartbeat during the study.

How the drugs work

HCQ and azithromycin work together to eliminate the COVID-19 virus, but the drugs may benefit patients in other ways.

Both drugs act on the immune system in ways that may suppress the COVID-19 cytokine storm responsible for much of COVID-19-related illness and death.

HCQ may also prevent blood clots in COVID-19 patients, while azithromycin may prevent additional, non-lung bacterial infections.

HCQ was approved in the U.S. in 1955 to treat malaria, but because of its anti-inflammatory effects it is also prescribed to adults to treat autoimmune diseases like lupus and rheumatoid arthritis.

Most serious side effects — including retinopathy, which causes blindness — occur after years of use, while COVID-19 treatments generally last for less than one week.

The World Health Organization lists HCQ as an “essential medicine” based on its “safety, efficacy and public health relevance.”

Study strengths and weaknesses

Meeus designed his study and interpreted his findings to include results that may not have supported the “safety and efficacy” of HCQ.

For example, all patients receiving at least one dose of HCQ were included in the treatment group regardless of whether they completed the study. One dose of HCQ was unlikely to affect their survival, but including such patients would have increased mortality numbers in the treatment group, thereby underestimating HCQ survival benefits.

Excluding very sick patients in a survival study tends to make data appear stronger because fewer deaths invariably occur among healthier subjects. Meeus and coworkers did not do this.

Meeus’ results also likely underestimated the benefits of HCQ treatment by reviewing patients only after hospitalization, when they were already quite sick. COVID-19 treatment experts stress the importance of treatment before patients reach this stage.

This retrospective study associated a current outcome (death) with an earlier effect (receiving HCQ). Retrospective studies are less capable of establishing causation than prospective studies that first look at the intervention or cause and only later for effects.

Another potential study shortcoming involves the statistics investigators chose to report HCQ’s benefits. A reduction in deaths from 25.9% to 16.7% is a 36.5% decrease, but the effect is smaller when survival, not death, is the outcome measured.

Death rates of 25.9% and 16.7% mean that 83.3% of treated and 74.1% of untreated patients survived, for an overall survival benefit under 10%.

Reporting relatively large differences between two small numbers is a common strategy for amplifying modest clinical benefits.

Meeus did not account for the many observational studies carried out by such doctors as Didier Raoult, Vladimir Zelenko, Pierre Kory, Peter McCullough and others using HCQ with azithromycin and/or zinc to treat COVID-19 beginning in 2020 — some with very large practices — all demonstrating significant benefits with early treatment.

He also did not review early treatment randomized control trials or the many other studies showing clear benefits of HCQ treatment.

Conclusion: ‘remarkable’ results

The authors described their results as “remarkable” since large HCQ studies during the first pandemic year showed no benefit.

However, where Meeus and co-workers used HCQ at standard doses, the earlier trials used a fourfold higher total dose, including an initial dose seven times higher than the maximum approved dosage.

For example the WHO “Solidarity” and U.K. “Recovery” clinical trials used HCQ dosages that were considered fatal.

According to Meeus, other studies (see here, here, and here) using more reasonable HCQ dosing failed because they did not recruit enough subjects to show a statistically significant effect.

One of these studies found a 44% reduction in death at 28 days but included too few patients to be able to claim an HCQ benefit.

Percentage of patients who died in the HCQ group (white bars) vs. the no-HCQ group (black bars) by age group. A survival benefit was seen in all age groups. While about 2.5% of untreated 31- to 44-year-olds died during the study, no treated patients in this age group died. Credit: Gert Meeus et al.

Meeus concluded:

“Our study suggests that, despite the controversy surrounding its use, treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin remains a viable option. The favorable results and reassuring safety data support the need for adequately powered confirmatory randomized controlled trials using low dose hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin.

“Given the pandemic emergency it is reasonable to give this treatment the benefit of the doubt pending the results of these trials or the advent of better treatment options.”

Angelo DePalma, Ph.D., is a science reporter/editor for The Defender.

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.

October 12, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Nothing To Sea Here Folks

Climate Discussion Nexus | October 2, 2023

In this “Fact Check” video from the Climate Discussion Nexus, Dr. John Robson expands on our Sea Level Check series to rebut claims of dangerous, accelerating, man-made sea level rise by examining the actual history and current state of melting land ice, changes in the land and other complex factors that contribute to this non-crisis.

To support the Climate Discussion Nexus, subscribe to our YouTube channel (http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_egd…, our Rumble channel (https://rumble.com/user/ClimateDN), our newsletter (at http://www.climatediscussionnexus.com/) and our podcast on Spotify (https://open.spotify.com/show/6IX3QVN…) and Google (https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0…, like us on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/ClimateDN/), follow us on Twitter (http://www.twitter.com/ClimateDN) and Gettr (https://www.gettr.com/user/climatedn).

October 12, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | Leave a comment

FDA HEAD GOES ANTI-VAX

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | October 5, 2023

Once labeled a dangerous ‘anti-vax’ technique, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Dr. Peter Marks is now stating he would space out vaccines to avoid mounting adverse reactions.

October 11, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | 1 Comment

BANNED: Book by Dr. Peter McCullough & John Leake

BY JOHN LEAKE | COURAGEOUS DISCOURSE | OCTOBER 9, 2023

I would like to open this column by stating that I have long had a great relationship with Amazon, which has sold far more of my books than have ever been sold in bookstores. I have also been extremely grateful to Amazon’s Kindle Direct Publishing program for empowering me to publish whatever nonfiction books I please, quickly and efficiently, while retaining the rights and earning the best royalty in the business.

In May 2022, Dr. McCullough and I published our book, The Courage to Face COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex, directly on Amazon. Quickly the book became a hit and within a year it had earned over 1000 5-Star Reviews. For almost 3 weeks in July 2022 it was a top 100 seller.

In the autumn of last year, Tony Lyons, President and Publisher of SKYHORSE in New York, graciously offered to bring out a special, handsome hardcover edition with a preface by U.S. presidential candidate, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who warmly endorsed our work.

A bit of Covid fatigue this year caused sales to decline, but in September the book got a second wind as more and more Americans seem to be recognize that Dr. McCullough has been right all along.

To my gratitude and delight, Amazon actually supported the effort by running a deep discount promotion while still paying the same royalty to us—an act of generosity to authors that is unheard of in traditional publishing.

And then, on September 29, seemingly out of nowhere, Amazon Account Review sent me the following notice:

We have temporarily suspended your KDP account because we found offensive content that violates our Content Guidelines in the title(s) listed below:
ASIN: B09ZLVWMD9 –
Title: THE COURAGE TO FACE COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex – Author: John Leake

Upon receiving this message, I humbly beseeched Account Review to restore my account and to let me know what “offensive content” was found in our book. Amazon restored my account and published my latest book—a conventional work of true crime—but refused to reinstate The Courage to Face COVID-19. Yesterday my third appeal was turned down without answering my query about what in our book is offensive.

My question seemed especially pertinent, given that Account Review provided me with a link to its Content Guidelines, which include a section on Offensive Content.

Offensive content

We don’t sell certain content including content that we determine is hate speech, promotes the abuse or sexual exploitation of children, contains pornography, glorifies rape or pedophilia, advocates terrorism, or other material we deem inappropriate or offensive.

Obviously, nothing in our book even remotely touches on any of these subjects. Upon reading this description, it occurred to me that it was a perfection description of 120 Days of Sodom, by the Marquis de Sade, which contains hundreds of pages that glorify the abuse and sexual exploitation of children, violent pornography, and glorifications of rape and pedophilia. I did a quick search for the title, and voila, there it is, for sale on Amazon in three formats.

None of my polite entreaties to Content Review was answered with an explanation of what, in our book, is offensive or in violation of any other published guideline. This strengthened my suspicion that the decision was the result of a sudden imposition of power for which the Content Review staff was not prepared.

Even more stunning than banning my softcover edition was Amazon’s decision to ban Tony Lyons’s SKYHORSE hardcover edition from the site without even sending the publisher notice. He learned of his edition’s demise from me.

This is a developing story about arbitrary censorship and book banning. Generally speaking, Amazon has a robust history of resisting pressure to ban books. Even during the COVID Pandemic, Amazon bucked the censorship regime that was established at Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter.

I believe it is no exaggeration to state that Amazon’s decision to ban our work of medical and historical scholarship, carefully vetted by Dr. Peter McCullough—who has published over 600 peer-reviewed papers in top academic medical journals—is the most egregious act of arbitrary censorship in the history of American publishing.

Many works of literature have been banned from public school systems and libraries and censured by religious organizations. However, I cannot find a single example of a banned nonfiction book that contains zero sex, zero violence, zero expletives, zero harshly expressed opinions, and zero assertions that aren’t grounded on rock solid scholarship.

Indeed, the book is a strictly factual narrative based on hundreds of published sources ranging from academic papers to standard works of medical history to documents published by U.S. federal agencies. The longest chapter in the book recounts Dr. McCullough’s U.S. Senate testimony on November 19, 2020.

This is a developing story about a gross infringement of the freedom of speech that is enshrined in the First Amendment of the U.S Constitution. Coincidentally, tomorrow (October 10) I have been invited to address the Republican Women of Greater North Texas about the critical importance of maintaining free speech for the maintenance our Constitutional Republic. I can now speak from very personal experience.

I would like to conclude by stating that I believe this decision is almost certainly the result of outside pressure being brought to bear on Amazon—the sort of outside pressure from the U.S. Executive Branch that was revealed in discovery in Missouri v. Biden.

As Jacob Siegel recently remarked in a brilliant piece in Tablet magazine titled “A Guide to Understanding the Hoax of the Century:”

At companies like Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Amazon, the upper management levels had always included veterans of the national security establishment. But with the new alliance between U.S. national security and social media, the former spooks and intelligence agency officials grew into a dominant bloc inside those companies; what had been a career ladder by which people stepped up from their government experience to reach private tech-sector jobs turned into an ouroboros that molded the two together.

I strongly suspect that the banning of our book from Amazon has the fingerprints of Biden administration or intelligence agency goons all over it.

For those who would still like to purchase our book, please visit our website by clicking on the image below.

October 10, 2023 Posted by | Book Review, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Another Tacit Admission That COVID Mandates Were a Disastrous Mistake

By Ian Miller | Brownstone Institute | October 9, 2023

Pandemic restrictions were an unmitigated failure, and the evidence base against the politicians and “experts” who imposed them and demanded compliance continues to grow.

And it raises some substantial questions about holding those responsible accountable for their actions. Especially as mask mandates return in certain parts of the country, with hints of more on the way.

Recently a new government report from the United Kingdom was released to little fanfare, which not-so-surprisingly mirrors the fanfare resulting from the release of new data from the CDC itself, showing how vaccine efficacy has fallen to zero.

Finally, Rochelle Walensky did acknowledge publicly that the vaccines couldn’t stop transmission. However it was already far too late to matter.

But all along the agency has strongly stated that the mRNA shots were effective at preventing hospitalizations. Or at least that the latest booster was effective, tacitly acknowledging that the original 2=dose series has lost whatever impact it once had.

What The Evidence Says About NPI’s

The UK’s Health Security Agency (HSA) recently posted a lengthy examination on the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions at preventing or slowing the spread of COVID-19 in the country.

And at the risk of revealing a spoiler alert, it’s not good news for the COVID extremists determined to bring mask mandates back.

The goal of the examination was laid out succinctly; the UK’s HSA intended to use primary studies on NPIs within the community to see how successful or unsuccessful they were at reducing COVID infections.

The purpose of this rapid mapping review was to identify and categorise primary studies that reported on the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) implemented in community settings to reduce the transmission of coronavirus (COVID-19) in the UK.

Streamlined systematic methods were used, including literature searches (using sources such as Medline, Embase, and medRxiv) and use of systematic reviews as sources to identify relevant primary studies.

Unsurprisingly, they found that the evidence base on COVID interventions was exceptionally weak.

In fact, roughly 67 percent of the identified evidence was essentially useless. In fact two-thirds of the evidence identified was modeling.

Two-thirds of the evidence identified was based on modeling studies (100 out of 151 studies).

There was a lack of experimental studies (2 out of 151 studies) and individual-level observational studies (22 out of 151 studies). Apart from test and release strategies for which 2 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified, the body of evidence available on effectiveness of NPIs in the UK provides weak evidence in terms of study design, as it is mainly based on modelling studies, ecological studies, mixed-methods studies and qualitative studies.

This is a key learning point for future pandemic preparedness: there is a need to strengthen evaluation of interventions and build this into the design and implementation of public health interventions and government policies from the start of any future pandemic or other public health emergency.

Modeling, as we know, is functionally useless, given that it’s hopelessly prone to bias, incorrect assumptions and the ideological needs of its creators.

The two paragraphs which followed are equally as important.

Low quality evidence is not something that should be relied upon for decision making purposes, yet that’s exactly what the UK, US and many other countries did. Fauci, the CDC, and others embraced modeling as fact at the beginning of the pandemic. They then repeatedly referenced shoddy, poor quality work because it confirmed their biases throughout its duration, with unsurprising results.

And this government report concurs; stating simply and devastatingly, “there is a lack of strong evidence on the effectiveness of NPIs to reduce COVID-19 transmission, and for many NPIs the scientific consensus shifted over the course of the pandemic.”

Of course the scientific consensus shifted over the course of the pandemic because, as we learned, it became politically expedient for it to shift.

As their paragraphs on the available evidence show, there was little solid, high-quality data showing that NPI’s were having a significant impact on the spread of the virus, a reality that had been predicted by decades of pandemic planning.

But the consensus shifted towards NPIs and away from something approaching Sweden’s strategy or the Great Barrington Declaration, simply because Fauci, the CDC, and other “experts” demanded it shift to suit their ideological aims.

The few high-quality studies on say, masking, that were conducted during the pandemic showed that there was no benefit from mask wearing at an individual or population level. And that is why the Cochrane review came to its now infamous conclusion.

Instead of acknowledging that they were relying on poor quality evidence, the “experts” operated with an unjustified certainty that their interventions were based on following “The Science™.” At every turn, when criticized or questioned, they would default back to an appeal to authority; that the consensus in the scientific community unequivocally believed that the evidence showed that lockdowns, mandates, travel restrictions, and other NPIs were based on the best available information.

After initially determining that the UK should follow Sweden’s example and incorporate a more hands-off approach that relied on protecting the elderly while allowing immunity to build up amongst the younger, healthy populations, Boris Johnson panicked, at the behest of Neil Ferguson, and terrified expert groups. Tossing out decades of planning out of fear, while claiming publicly to be following science.

Instead, a systemic, detailed review of the evidence base relied on by those same experts has now concluded that there never was any high-quality information suggesting that pandemic policies were justifiable. Only wishful thinking from an incompetent, arrogant, malicious “expert” community, and unthinking, unblinking compliance from terrified politicians using restrictions and mandates without care or concern for adverse effects.

While this new report wasn’t specifically designed to determine how effective NPIs were in reducing transmission, it’s clear and obvious conclusions give away that answer too.

If it were easy to prove that COVID policies and mandates had a positive impact on the spread of the virus, there would be dozens of high-quality studies showing a benefit. And those high-quality studies would be covered in this report, with a strong recommendation to reinstate such mandates in future pandemics.

Instead, there’s nothing.

Just exhortations to do better next time, to follow the actual high-quality evidence and not guesswork.

Based on how little accountability there’s been for the “experts” and politicians who lied about “The Science™,” there’s little doubt that when presented with the next opportunity they’ll be sure to handle it in exactly the same way.

Abandoning evidence in favor of politics.

Ian Miller is the author of “Unmasked: The Global Failure of COVID Mask Mandates.” 

October 10, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

Doctor Persecuted For “Misinformation” Wins Appeal

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | October 8, 2023

Subverting the tightening noose of censorship, the judicial system has risen, this time at least, as a defender of free expression and professional discourse in Washington State. The Court of Appeals has recently extended a lifeline to Dr. Richard Eggleston, a retired ophthalmologist, in his battle against the Washington Medical Commission’s (WMC) accusations of spreading “misinformation” about COVID-19. This pivotal ruling not only resonates as a triumph for Dr. Eggleston but also echoes across the medical community, bolstering the principle that the crucible of critical discourse should not be chilled by punitive actions.

We obtained a copy of the ruling for you here.

Dr. Eggleston, from Clarkston, Washington, had penned a sequence of critiques last year in the Lewiston Morning Tribune, challenging the prevailing narratives around COVID-19, specifically deliberating on the safety and veracity of the vaccines. His audacity led to an avalanche of disciplinary actions spearheaded by the WMC in August 2022. Accused of unprofessional conduct and “willful misrepresentation of facts,” the retired eye doctor found himself thrust into the cauldron of a legal and professional maelstrom.

As the waves of allegations crashed down, Eggleston invoked his First Amendment right to free speech, refuting the charges with a motion to dismiss. The WMC’s refusal to honor his motion nudged him to escalate the matter to the courts. His quest for justice first encountered a roadblock when the Washington State Superior Court denied his appeal for an injunction. Undeterred, Eggleston propelled his case to the Court of Appeals, which in a moment of judicial prudence, awarded him an emergency injunction in May, halting the impending court proceedings.

The saga witnessed a fresh chapter last week when Court of Appeals Commissioner Hailey L. Landrus sanctioned Eggleston’s motion for a discretionary review of the previous court’s verdict. Attorney Richard Jaffe, representing Eggleston, lauded the decision as “very good news for all who believe that doctors should be able to publicly criticize” what he termed as COVID-19 “propaganda.” This sentiment was echoed by another counsel for Eggleston, Todd Richardson, who expressed both gratitude and relief at the verdict.

October 10, 2023 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | 1 Comment

Fluoride Lawsuit Captures Shocking Admissions On The Record

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | October 5, 2023

The Fluoride Lawsuit has produced video admissions that may have exposed the nearly 80 year practice of adding the toxin to our nation’s water supply as one of the biggest public health scandals in American history. Attorney Michael Connett, Esq., explains how adding fluoride to drinking water became standard practice in the US and shares the studies that link it with severe disease. Then, he shares exclusive video of court depositions of experts you have to see to believe.

October 9, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »