Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Mayo Clinic is Sued For Suspending Doctor Over Online Posts on Covid and Transgenderism

By Ben Squires | Reclaim The Net | November 15, 2023

Dr. Michael Joyner, backed by the Academic Freedom Alliance (AFA), has initiated a lawsuit against the Mayo Clinic College, including its president and board chair. The suit arises from disciplinary actions taken against Joyner following his public comments on topics within his field of expertise. Specifically, the controversy revolves around statements he made to the New York Times about gender differences in athletic performance and to CNN regarding the use of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 treatment. The Mayo Clinic’s response, which involved suspension, salary review implications, and strict media interview oversight, is at the heart of this legal challenge.

We obtained a copy of the complaint for you here.

Lucas Morel, chair of the AFA’s academic committee, emphasized the lawsuit’s significance, asserting that “academic freedom is a key guarantor of scientific integrity.”

Morel expects the case to establish a precedent for the freedom of scientists and academics to express their professional opinions without undue influence from financial or political interests. The AFA, which previously supported Joyner during his disciplinary hearings, is now financing this lawsuit, highlighting the organization’s commitment to protecting academic freedom.

Joyner’s legal action, filed with the State of Minnesota’s Third Judicial District, seeks compensation for the damages incurred from the disciplinary measures. These included a week-long unpaid suspension, denial of salary increase, and a potential termination threat, all of which have reportedly harmed Joyner’s finances and professional reputation. The lawsuit, handled by Allen Harris Law, was filed after allowing the defendants to review and respond, which they declined.

November 15, 2023 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

WHY ARE CANCERS INCREASING IN YOUNG ADULTS?

Dr Been | June 22, 2023

Source: http://www.odysee.com/@FrontlineCovid19CriticalCareAlliance:c/Why-Are-Cancers-Increasing-in-Young-Adults:1

Cancers are increasing at an alarming rate, especially in young adults. Let’s review the statistics of the increase and possible contributing factors.

DrBeen: Medical Education Online

http://www.drbeen.com

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

CDC Runs Two VAERS Systems — The Public Can Access Only One of Them

By John-Michael Dumais | The Defender | November 14, 2023

When Dr. Robert Sullivan collapsed on his treadmill three weeks after his second COVID-19 vaccine in early 2021, he fell into a “nightmare” ordeal that he said exposed glaring deficiencies in the nation’s vaccine safety monitoring system.

Diagnosed with sudden onset pulmonary hypertension, the healthy and fit 49-year-old anesthesiologist from Maryland attempted to file a report through the government-run Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

But like others interviewed in a recent investigation by The BMJ, Sullivan hit barrier after barrier when trying to submit and update his report.

Almost three years later, still grappling with debilitating symptoms, Sullivan’s experience highlights the systemic problems with the U.S. adverse events monitoring system run jointly by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

From doctors unable to file reports to disappearing data, limits on transparency and lack of resources to follow up on concerning vaccine reactions, experts warn VAERS is failing to detect critical safety signals.

According to one of those experts — VAERS researcher Albert Benavides, whose experience includes HMO claims auditing, data analytics and revenue cycle management — VAERS’ failure isn’t accidental.

“It is not broken,” Benavides wrote in his Substack coverage of The BMJ investigation. “VAERS runs cover for the big pharma cabal.”

‘They even delete legitimate reports’

Like others interviewed by The BMJ, Sullivan experienced limited follow-up after submitting his VAERS report. He received only a temporary report number months after his initial submission.

A physician named “Helen” (pseudonym) told The BMJ that fewer than 20% of concerning reports get follow-up, including many deaths she reported.

In consultation with Benavides, an audit by React19 found that 1 in 3 COVID-19 vaccine adverse events reports in VAERS were either not posted publicly or were deleted. React19 is a nonprofit that collects stories of people injured by the mRNA vaccines.

According to The BMJ, of those queried by React19, “22% had never been given a permanent VAERS ID number and 12% had disappeared from the system entirely.”

Benavides, who publishes the VAERSAware dashboards documenting many of the problems with VAERS, said there is even deeper dysfunction in the VAERS system — from inventing symptoms to deleting reports.

“VAERS does not publish all legitimate reports received,” Benavides told The Defender. “They throttle publication of reports. They even delete legitimate reports.”

For a system dependent on voluntary engagement, these restrictive policies keep critical data hidden, according to Benavides.

In 2007, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) contracted with Harvard Pilgrim Health Care (HPHC) to review the VAERS system. In 2010, HPHC filed its r report, which determined that 1 in 39 people experienced vaccine injuries and that only around 1% of vaccine-related injuries or deaths are ever reported to VAERS.

The CDC, which operates under HHS, scuttled the study, refused to take calls from the researchers and declined to upgrade the VAERS system when a new, much more effective system was developed.

‘Blind spots are self-created’

VAERS “collects reports of symptoms, diagnoses, hospital admissions, and deaths after vaccination for the purpose of capturing post-market safety signals,” according to The BMJ.

But the limited transparency of VAERS data presents barriers to proper analysis, according to The BMJ’s investigation and researchers like Benavides.

The public — including doctors and other report submitters — can access only incomplete initial reports, not updates with vital details.

This means outcomes like death are often excluded if the initial report was for an injury and a subsequent death report was filed.

“I made the false assumption that my conversation [with VAERS] would result in an adjustment to the publicly reported case,” Patrick Whelan, M.D., Ph.D., told The BMJ.

Whelan, a rheumatologist and researcher at the University of California Los Angeles, in 2022 filed a report of a cardiac arrest in a 7-year-old male patient after COVID-19 vaccination.

“I assumed that, since it was a catastrophic event, the safety committee would want to hear about it right away,” Whelan said. But nobody called him or requested an update after his submission.

“There was no mechanism for [updating] it,” Whelan told The BMJ. “The only option I had was to make a new VAERS report.” Without updates, the VAERS data showed that the boy was still hospitalized.

Whelan is one the authors of a recent critique of the Cochrane Review that concluded the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were not dangerous.

The problem with VAERS is not limited to a lack of adequate follow-up but to the incomplete and often inaccurate information found there.

“VAERS in effect allows typos, truncated lot #’s, UNK [unknown] ages, UNK vax dates, UNK death dates, etc. to pass through into publication,” Benavides said.

Benavides said specific data — including ethnicity, hospital names, attending physicians, submitter’s relationship to the patient, patient and submitter addresses, telephone numbers and emails — collected by VAERS are not published,

“Any blind spots are self-created, in my opinion,” he said.

Agencies maintain two separate VAERS databases — public gets to see only one

“There’s two parts to VAERS, the front end and back end,” stated Narayan Nair, division director for the FDA’s Division of Pharmacovigilance at a December 2022 meeting with advocates, according to The BMJ. “Anything from medical records by law can’t be posted on the public-facing system,” he said.

The BMJ investigation discovered that the FDA and CDC maintain two separate VAERS databases, one available to the public that contains only initial reports, and a private back-end system containing all of the updates and corrections.

“Anything derived from medical records by law” cannot be posted on the public-facing system, Nair told the advocates, according to The BMJ.

In an apparent contradiction to this claim, The BMJ noted the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), which collects post-marketing information on drug reactions, posts its updates publicly.

Sullivan, who met Nair years before COVID-19 and considers him a friend, told The Defender that if this “very bright, kind and caring person” could not fix VAERS, “I don’t think it’s fixable.”

CDC says it reviewed 20,000 reports of deaths — none were related to COVID shots

Withholding outcome data like deaths obscures critical safety signals, experts contend.

James Gill, a medical examiner, reported the death of a 15-year-old patient after vaccination, but the case was dismissed by the CDC despite autopsy evidence, according to the BMJ investigation.

Physician “Helen” told The BMJ that after filing reports on her medical patients, including six who had died, she received only a single request for medical records on the death and two for hospital-admitted patients.

The standard operating procedure for COVID-19 vaccine reports in VAERS, according to The BMJ, is for reports to be processed quickly and for “serious reports” to receive special review by CDC staff.

However, while some other countries have acknowledged the probable connection between the mRNA vaccines and death, the CDC, while claiming to have reviewed nearly 20,000 death reports, has yet to acknowledge a single death linked to the COVID-19 vaccines, The BMJ said.

Benavides provided The Defender examples of VAERS “deleting legitimate reports,” not just duplicates or false claims.

“VAERS even deleted dead Pfizer Trial patients,” he said, claiming that this report, for example, was not a “duplicate” and did not appear to be fake.

Benavides said:

“There are currently about 50 deaths that are not counted as deaths because the correct box is not checked off.

“There are thousands of reports and about 100 deaths in ‘UNKNOWN VAX TYPE’ in VAERS. Read the narrative to see these are clearly C19 jab-related deaths.

“There are over a thousand cardiac arrests where they are not marked as dead, and I question if they actually survived because there is no mention of ROSC [return of spontaneous circulation].”

“Why couldn’t VAERS populate the ages of these dead kids before publication?” Benavides said, pointing to this report on his website.

Physicians report only FDA-recognized adverse events

Ralph Edwards, former director of the Uppsala Monitoring Centre and until recently editor-in-chief of the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine, told The BMJ the regulators may be relying too heavily on past epidemiological data, especially for new types of adverse events. “If something hasn’t been heard of before, it tends to be ignored,” he said.

Without guidance to report potential risks, doctors also face barriers. “Physicians are only willing to talk about FDA-recognized vaccine adverse events,” stated physician “Helen” in a 2021 meeting between the FDA and physicians and advocates, according to The BMJ.

Svetlana Blitshteyn, a neurologist and researcher at the University at Buffalo, New York, told The BMJ if physicians are not educated to look for a specific condition, they’re unlikely to test for it or know how to treat it.

Sullivan told The Defender he believes his experience of developing pulmonary hypertension after taking the mRNA vaccine is one such safety signal the CDC and FDA are overlooking — a condition he believes many athletes have unknowingly developed.

Sullivan co-authored a paper of his and one other similar case of post-vaccine pulmonary hypertension. According to the paper:

“Pulmonary hypertension is a serious disease characterized by damage to lung vasculature and restricted blood flow through narrowed arteries from the right to left heart. The onset of symptoms is typically insidious, progressive and incurable, leading to right heart failure and premature death.”

“Athletes are canaries in the coal mine,” Sullivan told The Defender, speaking of the unusual numbers of athlete deaths since the rollout of the vaccine. Sullivan thinks that those with superior physical conditioning, like him, stand a better chance of survival with early detection.

However, he said, “Athletes will get echocardiography, and it will be essentially normal. The only way to tell for sure is to do a right-heart catheterization” that can identify the anomaly.

Sullivan believes the lives of many athletes could still be saved if the reporting system recognized and investigated the signal — and said he would be happy to join a project dedicated to this goal.

He also told The Defender he believes many of the sudden deaths reported in the 25- to 44-year-old age group are a result of this hidden condition.

‘The buck stops with the CDC for reforms’

Critics point to choices by the CDC as compounding VAERS’ passive design and understaffing issues.

Despite over 1.7 million reports since the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, staffing was not boosted accordingly, according to statements the CDC made to The BMJ.

A Freedom of Information Act request by The BMJ revealed Pfizer has nearly 1,000 more full-time employees working on vaccine surveillance than the CDC. Records showed in 2021, Pfizer on-boarded 600 additional full-time employees to handle the volume of adverse reports and planned to hire 200 more.

Physician “Helen” in The BMJ article called for an end to the “negative feedback loop” whereby the FDA fails to list adverse reactions because passive surveillance systems like the FDA’s don’t display them, while at the same time, because of that lack of disclosure, “physicians are blinded to the adverse reactions in their patients, and thus aren’t reporting them.”

“The buck stops with the CDC for reforms needed to open up data,” Benavides told The Defender, adding several suggestions that could immediately improve VAERS:

“Revert back to pre-January 2011 when VAERS did append initial reports with follow-up data, including death. Take off the arbitrary 30-minute time limit to file a report before getting kicked off. Make the process easier to submit follow-up data.”

When asked why the incompetence of VAERS had been allowed to continue for so long, Sullivan told The Defender, “Because of the lack of product liability” for the vaccines “and the surge to defend economic interests.”

Sullivan said he’d like to see the following changes to the system:

  • Pharmaceutical advertising banned.
  • Pharmaceutical company revenues devoted to advertising instead be spent on R&D.
  • The tax money collected on pharma profits be directly sent to victim injury funds.

Yale cardiologist takes on study of COVID vaccine injuries

Benavides said he spoke with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) Monday and is also in discussion with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic to address the concerns with VAERS, including the under-publishing of reports.

“That’s a long overdue prospect and it would be incredible to actually get some analysis by that committee,” he said.

Another bright spot comes from news reported in The BMJ’s investigation that Dr. Harlan Krumholz, a cardiologist and researcher at Yale University, has been recruiting members of React19 to study their vaccine injuries.

“We are working hard to understand the experience, clinical course, and potential mechanisms of the ailments reported by those who have had severe symptoms arise soon after the vaccination,” Krumholz told The BMJ.

Sullivan told The Defender that medical science is “just beginning to catalog the damage to the heart” from the vaccines but that “in order to treat something, you have to diagnose it” — and that, because of the shortcomings with VAERS, “we have yet to scratch the surface of that.”

Sullivan, now almost three years into his ordeal, is outliving his initial prognosis.

“I have a grim diagnosis hanging over me, but I’m optimistic because I’m still here,” he said. “I had something bad happen to me, but I’ve met so many amazing, wonderful people along the way who are just interested in truth.”

“I’m going to live the best and most productive life I can with the time I have left,” Sullivan said, helping others who “have this cloud hanging over their future.”

John-Michael Dumais is a news editor for The Defender. He has been a writer and community organizer on a variety of issues, including the death penalty, war, health freedom and all things related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.

November 14, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Eight items of major concern regarding the proposed WHO treaty and IHR amendments

By Meryl Nass, MD | November 13, 2023

1.  Biological warfare agent proliferation.

The treaty and the proposed amendments instruct nations that they must perform surveillance for potential pandemic pathogens, build or maintain sequencing labs, and both share actual specimens with the WHO (where a BioHub has been created for this purpose) and also share the sequences online. This demands the proliferation of biological weapons agents — which I believe is a crime (based on my interpretation of Security Council Resolution 1540 and the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention).

1 a.  The June 2, 2023 “Bureau text” version of the treaty also called for nations performing Gain-of-Function research to reduce “administrative impediments” to the work.  In other words, restrictions on the research should be relaxed, which would make lab leaks more likely to occur. This paragraph was removed from the October 30, 2023 version of the treaty.

2.  Giving the WHO a blank check to create new rules in the future

The treaty calls for a Conference of Parties and a new WHO Secretariat to be created in the future that will make rules for how the pandemic prevention and response apparatus will work—which provides essentially a blank, signed contract to the WHO to create whatever rules it wants.

3.  Liability-free vaccines developed at warp speed will be produced

The treaty calls for rapid vaccine development /production and shaving time off all aspects of vaccine development, testing and manufacture. This requires vaccines to be used without licenses, and the treaty calls for nations to have laws in place to issue Emergency Use Authorizations for this purpose, and to “manage” liability issues. See “The WHO’s Proposed Treaty will Increase Man-Made Pandemics” for more information about this. The US, EU and others have specifically called for 100-day vaccine development and an additional 30 days for production of pandemic vaccines. This would allow for no meaningful human testing.

4.  Human rights guarantees have been removed in the new amendments

The amendments removed “human rights, dignity and freedom of persons” from the existing IHR language. Following complaints, this phrase was later inserted into the Treaty–but the treaty may not be accepted in 2024. Meanwhile, the amendments require only a simple majority to pass, are being written in secret, and so it is likely that the most problematic issues will be found in the amendments.

5.  Social media surveillance and censorship of citizens is required

Both the amendments and the treaty call for nation states to perform surveillance of their citizens’ social media, and to censor and prevent the spread of information that does not conform to the WHO’s public health narratives. Yet the treaty also calls for citizens to be free to access information, while they are to be protected from “infodemics,” which are defined as too much information. Citizens must also be stopped from spreading mis- and disinformation.

6.  We may not learn what is in the amendments until after they are passed

The amendments have been negotiated entirely in secret for the past nine months, while there have been multiple consecutive drafts of the pandemic treaty released to the public during that time. And while the negotiated amendments were to be tabled for public review in January, the WHO’s principal legal officer has provided a legal fig leaf to avoid the obligation of making them public 4 months ahead of the vote. Will the public even see the amendments before a vote on them occurs?

Why is there such secrecy regarding the proposed amendments?

7.  The WHO Director-General could become your personal physician

According to the proposed amendments, the WHO D-G would be able to commandeer and move medical supplies from one country to another, decide what treatments can be used, and restrict the use of other treatments.

8.  When will the WHO be able to use its newly minted powers?

The amendments will come into force after a declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) is made. However, a declaration of a potential PHEIC will also trigger these powers. The powers can be extended even after a PHEIC is over, as we have seen with COVID and monkeypox (MPOX) declarations by the D-G.

The treaty will be in force continuously, requiring no declaration or pandemic to confer new powers to the WHO.

See detailed report:

Why is Everyone Concerned About the WHO?

November 14, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

What does the WHO say about its power to enforce the Pandemic Treaty (and International Health Regulations)?

By MERYL NASS | NOVEMBER 12, 2023

Many people have insisted that the WHO could not make the US do anything. Let me remind those people that the US government under Biden is instrumental in pushing forward the WHO proposals, and so it will comply. Here is what the WHO says:

What is meant by a  ‘convention, agreement or other international instrument’?

Conventions, framework agreements and treaties are all examples of international instruments, which are legal agreements made between countries that are binding.  

Why did WHO’s Member States decide to create an accord for pandemic preparedness and response?

In light of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, WHO’s 194 Member States established a process to draft and negotiate a new convention, agreement, or other international instrument (referred to in the rest of this FAQ, generally, as an “accord”) on pandemic preparedness and response. This was driven by the need to ensure communities, governments, and all sectors of society – within countries and globally – are better prepared and protected, in order to prevent and respond to future pandemics. The great loss of human life, disruption to households and societies at large, and impact on development are among the factors cited by governments to support the need for lasting action to prevent a repeat of such crises.

[Ho ho ho—Nass]

At the heart of the proposed accord is the need to ensure equity in both access to the tools needed to prevent pandemics (including technologies like vaccines, personal protective equipment, information and expertise) and access to health care for all people.

[If this were true, why do the treaty and amendments only discuss health “coverage” which means health insurance, rather than health care? The WHO knows the difference, but only demands “coverage”—a sop to the insurance industry.

Furthermore, the WHO demands censorship of information not in agreement with the WHO’s narratives, not free sharing of information—so much for information equity—and its so-called expertise was used to overdose hospitalized patients with HCQ without informed consent, when these unfortunates were enrolled in the WHO’s “SOLIDARITY” trial. Its expertise led to demanding that nations stop the use of HCQ and ivermectin for COVID and administer more shots. Who needs this expertise? —Nass]

Who else is involved in the process for the accord?

Besides WHO Member States, the process for developing a possible new accord is providing extensive opportunities for engagement with relevant stakeholders, including other United Nations system bodies, and a wide range of other non-State actors in official relations with the WHO, to ensure robust and inclusive participation in the proceedings of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body. Furthermore, WHO is seeking complementary inputs through public hearings with stakeholders including: international organizations; civil society; the private sector; philanthropic organizations; scientific, medical, public policy and academic institutions and other entities with relevant knowledge, experience and/or expertise.

[In other words, Bill Gates, who was the largest funder of the WHO the year Trump defunded the organization, gets the lion’s share of input, while we peons get none. Trump then turned around and funded Gate’s’ charity GAVI with the money, and GAVI turned around and gave it back to the WHO. That was our money, by the way.—Nass]

—There is more of this nonsense on this webpage, but you can go look it up yourself if you have the stomach for it.—Meryl

November 12, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

CPSO Pronounces Judgment Over Dr Trozzi

But the shots are still toxic, Pfizer committed fraud, everyone has been assaulted, and we must act now to save lives.

 Dr Mark Trozzi | November 6, 2023 

Health Canada recognizes that Pfizer committed fraud. The shots turn out to be even worse than I thought. They contain large quantities of DNA, and multiple genetic sequences including a very dangerous SV40 promoter sequence which promotes permanent genetic modification, disease, and cancer.  Sadly, innocent people are uninformed and lining up for injections that they would never agree to if they knew what was in them and what it can do to them.

Here is my ten minute video to update you, with a focus on current priorities and strategies. Crisis is a combination of danger and opportunity. The SV40 revelation marks severe danger, but it is also an opportunity to finally set things right. This video includes genuinely kind and honest advice for the CPSO administrators and staff; and a small request for you to please share your judgement of me as a doctor with the CPSO.

Please Share Your Judgment of Dr Trozzi with the CPSO here:

CPSO v. Trozzi – Case Update – November 1, 2023

COLLEGE DENIES DR. TROZZI’S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

We are the Administrative State and You are Not

The Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal has ruled that Dr. Mark Trozzi is guilty of professional misconduct and dishonourable conduct and is incompetent in the practice of medicine for questioning the government’s Covid-19 narrative. He was also found guilty of professional misconduct and was deemed incompetent for writing medical exemptions for Covid-19 injections in support of a patient’s right to refuse coerced medical treatment under Ontario’s Health Care Consent Act and section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In 2021, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario established three Covid-19 restrictions through website statements — doctors were forbidden from: (i) making any statements that discourage anyone from following Covid-19 public policies and recommendations; (ii) prescribing alternative Health Canada approved medications for the treatment of Covid-19; and (iii) writing medical exemptions for Covid-19 injections, unless a patient had suffered a severe allergic reaction or developed myocarditis after a first shot. Based on the restrictions relating to freedom of expression and medical exemptions, the College issued investigation orders against Dr. Trozzi in 2021.

This eventually led to a five-day hearing in July of 2023 during which the College Tribunal focused its prosecution on Dr. Trozzi’s daily newsletter at drtrozzi.org, where he had supposedly caused harm by spreading “misinformation” about Covid-19 science. The College was particularly concerned with Dr. Trozzi’s view that neither Big Pharma nor Health Canada had done the due diligence required to prove the Covid-19 injections were safe and effective. The Tribunal concluded that his views were inflammatory, unprofessional and worthy of censure. On November 10th, the Tribunal will hold a penalty hearing to determine whether to revoke the licence of the 25-year ER veteran and former university professor.

Trozzi’s lawyer, Michael Alexander, commented: “The Tribunal wrote up the prosecution’s position on almost every issue. The one saving grace was the College’s acknowledgement that the right to free expression includes the right to make statements that may be wrong or mistaken. However, that position is difficult to reconcile with the Tribunal’s view that Dr. Trozzi can be punished for spreading misinformation.“

He added: “The Tribunal did not address our argument that the College lacked the authority to investigate and prosecute Dr. Trozzi since its Covid-19 restrictions were merely recommendations rather than binding rules or regulations, even though we cited the Ontario Divisional Court and the Ontario Court of Appeal in support of our position.”

Further, he stated: “The Tribunal totally ignored our cross-examination of the College’s expert witnesses, which makes the entire decision a complete travesty. On cross, the College’s main expert witness on Covid science, Dr. Andrew Gardam, admitted that he had never responded to the 41-page expert report provided by Dr. Trozzi in which he rebutted Gardam’s own 8-page expert report with 29 scientific citations. As a result, in closing submissions, we argued that Dr. Trozzi was unrefuted on Covid science; yet, the Tribunal made no mention of this fact.”

Finally, he added: “The Tribunal also paid no attention to the fact that the Supreme Court recognized an expansive right to freedom of expression as an inherent feature of parliamentary government as early as 1939, which gives the right a higher status than it enjoys under the Charter. In matters of law, we will appeal the decision to the Divisional Court on the standard of correctness.”

For media inquiries, please contact Michael Alexander by cell at 416-318-4512 and by e-mail at malexanderjd@protonmail.com.

More Case Updates

Please support the fight to restore ethical medicine and the rule of law in Ontario and Canada.

Please sign this petition to defend my license to practice medicine in Ontario and ultimately restore Canadians’ access to many honest doctors who have been persecuted for resisting the unethical and unscientific covid agenda.

Reports about Dr Trozzi and the CPSO from others:

Here’s a history to be proud of, and “accused” of:

  • To follow Dr Trozzi’s public covid truth mission beginning January 2021 and right up until the present start here
  • Or to begin with the most recent and work your way back start here 

DNA Contamination/ SV40 promoter sequence/ Pfizer’s Fraud/ Health Canada

Cancer:

Canadian doctor sounds alarm over ‘turbo cancers’ in young people due to COVID jabs. ‘I’ve never seen anything like this,’ said Dr. William Makis regarding ‘stage four’ cancers presenting in young people and uncharacteristically aggressive leukemias.

November 12, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Fallout From Catastrophic Ukraine Depleted Uranium Explosion Reached England

Sputnik – 10.11.2023

In May 2023, a powerful blast rocked the city of Khmelnitsky located in Ukraine about 200km away from the border with Poland when a Russian strike wiped out a Ukrainian ammunition depot where British-supplied depleted uranium was stored.

Dr. Christopher Busby, a physical chemist and scientific secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, has stepped forward to address the naysayers who tried to discredit his warnings about the potentially dangerous consequences of the depleted uranium munitions depot explosion.

On May 19th I wrote an article for Sputnik about the Khmelnitsky explosion. I had examined gamma radiation data from detectors to the North West of the attack site, which showed increases in radiation from points in Poland near the Ukraine border, and through Germany. I concluded that the belief that a warehouse containing Uranium weapons supplied by the UK had been hit and that the Uranium had exploded in a huge fireball, and that the particles produced by the explosion had drifted with the wind at the time across Europe.

The article produced considerable argument on the internet, with a large number of self-described fact-checkers and “experts” weighing it to say that my conclusions were nonsense. This is how the internet is controlled these days. It was written off as a “Russian Fake” (e.g. fakenews.pl)

The fact is, that although Uranium is a weak gamma emitter, through its daughter Thorium-234, there are other situations where the gamma signal will increase at detectors, principally the natural radioactive gas, radon, which can increase during rainfall and low pressure systems. A Polish lab claimed that the increased signal was from Radon, reporting the presence of the Radon daughter Bismuth 214, as if to write off the claim of a Uranium cloud passing across Poland. But, I pointed out that there were no low pressure systems at the time that would explain the sudden increase in gamma. This is where the matter was left.

Uranium in air is not measured in Europe as far as I know, and the only data that is obtainable is the Uranium in air data from the High Volume Air Samplers (HVAS) at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) at Aldermaston in Berkshire. These were set up in the early 1990s following a public enquiry into a child leukemia cluster near the site. The law requires AWE to measure Uranium (and Plutonium and Tritium) at regular intervals at positions near the factory but also far from the weapons factory. I have used these data before to identify Depleted Uranium from the Iraq wars that drifted to England.

So, to follow up the Khmelnitsky argument, I have just obtained Uranium data from the AWE using a Freedom of Information request. They sent me the data in an Excel File, and I used the graphical function if Excel to plot the data they sent. Fig 1 plots the filter levels for three of the offsite locations. The results show that I was right. In the May15th -June 15th Offsite Filters operating at the time, there is a very clear signal for the month following the explosion. I have also obtained data for the onsite locations, and these also all show the same footprint increase.

It may interest those who believe that the media is controlled, that the same thing happens with the scientific peer-review literature. I sent my paper on the increases in Uranium in air from the Ukraine war to two journals which have published my papers before, papers about the effects of Uranium. The first, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health totally refused to consider it. I then sent it to Conflict and Health, which sent it to a reviewer, but refused to publish it. This is astonishing, given that I supplied the raw data to both journals. I put the paper up on a preprints site where it received attention.

The graph in Fig 1 shows that the Uranium in air in South East England went up by about 600ng/cubic metre from particles released by the Khmelnitsky explosion. What does this mean? The mean size of a Uranium particle is below 1 micron. An individual inhales about 24 cubic metre a day. So, if the particles were there for a month, or 30 days we can average the lung intake as 0.432mg. Doesn’t sound much, does it? But it converts into 200 million particles per person in the area, and of course in the track of the plume in the UK. Not good, given the effects we found in Fallujah.

My study of Fallujah, published in 2010, showed that there was a huge increase in cancer and congenital malformation in babies, and general horrifying signal of genetic damage in the population after the use of Uranium weapons there in the second 2003 Iraq war. We later identified excess Uranium in the mothers of the birth defect children using hair samples and mass spectrometry, tracking the increases back to the 2003 exposures by cutting the long hair samples into sections, a kind of historic ice core way of interrogating the past.

Clearly from our studies in Iraq, the genetic and cancer health effects of Uranium particles are significant. Indeed, they are arguably the main cause of the cancer in the Hiroshima victims who were exposed to Uranium particles in the “black rain”.

Levels in Poland, Germany, and everywhere else on its journey to England, will have been much higher. But there are no measurements available.

Fig 1. 4-weekly air filter results for Uranium, offsite samplers at Aldermaston, Tadley, and Reading. Khmelnitsky Ukraine explosion was on 14thMay 2023 (1805-1506) s Normal background is 200.

November 10, 2023 Posted by | Environmentalism, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

“Game Changer for Vitamin D” – Supplementation Found To Improve Cancer Survival

BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE | OCTOBER 30, 2023

For more than 100 years, it has been believed that sunlight and vitamin D deficiency were associated with the risk for many deadly cancers including colorectal, prostate, and breast. Despite this, some scientists have remained doubtful about whether this nutrient indeed has any benefit in reducing cancer risk, morbidity, and mortality. This skepticism is bolstered by several randomized controlled trials casting doubt on the nutrient’s effectiveness.

Commentary on Vitamin D’s Effect on Cancer

However, in a new commentary published in the journal JAMA Network Open, Michael F. Holick, Ph.D., MD, professor of medicine, pharmacology, physiology & biophysics, and molecular medicine at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, explores the controversy as to whether improving vitamin D status has any benefit for reducing the risk of developing cancer as well as improving relapse-free and mortality outcomes.

He believes the results of the Kanno et al. study support the significant body of associated evidence and clinical studies concluding that improvement in vitamin D status through vitamin D supplementation can be an effective strategy for improving survival outcomes of cancers, especially of the digestive tract including colorectal cancer.

Factors Influencing Vitamin D’s Effect on Cancer

“We now recognize that there are a variety of variables that can influence how vitamin D prevents and responds to cancer. For example, being at a normal weight and taking vitamin D improves your ability to survive cancer. Other factors include the patient’s genetic makeup and how the patient utilizes and breaks down vitamin D,” explains Holick, corresponding author of the piece.

The study by Kanno et. al. provides further insight. The p53 gene produces the p53 protein to prevent cells from becoming malignant. Cancer cleverly mutates this gene and the mutated p53 protein helps the cancer to grow and become immune to cancer therapy. Kanno et. al. found that patients whose immune system is on high alert and produces antibodies to control the production and release of this mutated p53 protein were more likely, by more than 2.5 fold, to improve their chances of surviving the cancer if they also took daily 2000 IUs vitamin D3 compared to patients who had the antibodies but did not take vitamin D supplementation. Those patients who did not produce the antibodies received no survival benefit by taking the vitamin D supplement.”

Future Directions in Research

Holick believes it would be worthwhile to conduct a retrospective analysis for serum p53 antibodies and the immunohistochemical presence for p53 in histologic cancer samples of breast, prostate, and other cancer studies that found no benefit when they evaluated the potential impact of vitamin D supplementation on improving cancer survival.

More importantly, Holick believes future studies evaluating vitamin D supplementation for the prevention and improvement of cancer outcomes should now include not only many of the variables mentioned above, but also include a measurement for p53 antibodies in the blood and immunohistochemical presence of p53 in cancer tissue samples.

Dosage and Implications

According to Holick, it is important to recognize that most of the studies that have shown that vitamin D3 supplementation improves cancer survival provided patients with at least 2000 IUs vitamin D3. This amount of vitamin D3 substantially improves the vitamin D status (serum concentration of 25-hydroxyvitamin D) to a concentration above 30 ng/mL. This amount of vitamin D3 was not reported to cause any toxicity

“It is well-documented that in order to achieve a circulating concentration of 25(OH)D above 30 ng/mL requires a vitamin D intake of at least 2000 IUs daily, an amount that cannot be achieved from diet alone but requires vitamin D supplementation. Although vitamin D is the sunshine vitamin you cannot get enough vitamin D from sun exposure unless you expose more than 20% of your body surface to sunlight almost daily like the Maasai and Hazda do in equatorial Africa,” said Holick.

Reference: “The Death D-Fying Vitamin D3 for Digestive Tract Cancers—The p53 Antibody Connection” by Michael F. Holick, 22 August 2023, JAMA Network Open.
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.28883

November 6, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | Leave a comment

The Covid ventilator disaster: Was the US to blame?

By Professor Martin Neil | TCW Defending Freedom | November 6, 2023

The lethal role of ventilation in treating Covid-19 is a hot topic again after Elon Musk raised it in conversation with Joe Rogan on his recent Spotify podcast:

‘Well, 80 per cent of the people they put on ventilators died . . . what I’m hearing from Wuhan is that they made a big mistake in putting people on intubated ventilators for an extended period . . . this is actually what is damaging the lungs, not Covid. The cure is worse than the disease.’

There is a deeper, more disturbing, story about the origins of ventilation as a policy response to the ‘pandemic’ that we are not being told. Likewise, the known risks involved with ventilation (reported here in TCW), as well as the legal and ethical violations associated with such a response, are largely undebated.

Was China responsible for US ventilation policy?

In this article, lawyer and writer Michael Senger says that tens of thousands of Americans died after being placed on mechanical ventilators in 2020. He points out that early data from China had suggested that ventilators would need to be used widely in the treatment of covid-19 patients and this led to a major rush to procure ventilators worldwide. Further, he laid the blame for ventilation policy at China’s door: ‘This practice of extended intubation was apparently consistent with early guidance coming from China.’

Is this true? Can we really blame China for this policy? If not, then where did it originate?

It may come as a surprise that despite China being the first to make widespread use of ventilators, evidence suggests that the Chinese may have been following US policy.

Mass ventilation for respiratory distress is a key component in the US, and international, repertoire of what is known as ‘disaster medicine’, which covers pandemics as well as bioterrorism events.

Disaster medicine’s history goes back to at least 1991 when Heller et al use the example of the first Gulf War chemical attacks on Israel to argue that in the event of a chemical attack, hospitals will need to quickly deploy mechanical ventilation systems to deal with mass casualty events.

By 2005 the infrastructure was in place with Rubinson et al reporting on the ‘Working Group on Emergency Mass Critical Care’. On ventilators they say: ‘The Working Group believes that provision of a basic mode of mechanical ventilation (e.g., assist-controlled or pressure-controlled ventilation) for large numbers of patients should be a priority in these conditions. Mechanical ventilators in this setting need not be state of the art but should be rapidly available and portable, should provide adequate gas exchange for a range of clinical conditions that warrant mechanical ventilation, should be safe for patients (disconnect alarm capabilities), should be safe for staff (reduce staff time in patients’ rooms if disease is contagious) and should allow for efficient use of staff.’

Notice that one of the supposed benefits of ventilation is that it reduces the time staff spend in patient’s rooms if the disease is contagious (as we know during covid-19 staff were made highly anxious and fearful of catching the supposedly novel and deadly virus).

Modelling and planning for pandemics was in full swing by 2006, and that included tracking and managing ventilator stockpiles.

Risk, ethical and legal issues

Disaster medicine is primarily focused on treating patients in pandemics and bio-terror events, but it also covers ethical standards of care and legal liability of those operating ICUs.

In 2008 Branson et al at the University of Cincinnati did a literature review covering respiratory failure, disaster preparedness, pandemic influenza and mass casualty care. They cite a number of events where manual ventilation was necessary, but they reported that during hurricane Katrina, the Copenhagen polio epidemic of 1952 and the sarin gas attacks in Japan, there was a lack of available equipment.

In a crucial warning they note that: ‘There is little historical or empirical evidence upon which to base decisions regarding mass casualty respiratory failure and augmenting positive-pressure ventilation capacity.’

Ventilation was therefore being recommended with NO consideration of the risks, and with little to no real evidence to support it.

In an editorial for the journal Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness by Rubinson and Christian, published in 2013, they report on the allocation of mechanical ventilators during medical catastrophes:

‘To best use scarce resources, managing medical catastrophes requires deliberate transition from individual-centered to population-focused critical care. In the United States, the federal government provides neither permission nor definitive guidance for such modifications in care delivery. Although the federal government has oversight for practices related to health care, relevant federal statutes  . . . and civil rights protections, most health professionals’ clinical activities are overseen by states. In recognition of the states’ role, the New York State Workgroup developed a process to fairly and justly transition to population-focused care.’

A number of hugely contentious legal and ethical red flags are being raised here, including the suspension of individual rights with priority being placed on collective protection via population-focused care.

Furthermore, they add that their efforts have been influenced by the legal aftermath from hurricane Katrina:

‘In the wake of the response to Hurricane Katrina, the post-event lawsuits and prosecutions have become a significant concern for health care professionals for future disasters. A major advantage of a statewide effort rather than isolated local planning is the greater possibility for protection from criminal and civil liability for health professionals and institutions that implement the guidance.’

(For context the events they are referring to occurred at the Memorial Hospital Center in New Orleans in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. Hospital and toxicology tests were performed on 41 bodies, and 23 tested positive for one or both of morphine and the fast-acting benzodiazepine sedative midazolam. Following an investigation into these deaths, the local district attorney decided there was sufficient evidence to charge three medical staff with four counts of second-degree murder. Charges against two were dropped in exchange for testimony.)

In 2015 New York State issued its policy on ventilator allocation, strongly suggesting that they expected a shortage of ventilators. The accompanying detailed guidelines run to 266 pages showing there was a well thought out and extremely detailed plan for the use of ventilators including a ‘solid’ ethical and legal basis for their use.

However, Michael Senger believes that, even though the public health authorities were obviously well aware of the legal and ethical risks, the information coming from China might excuse them from responsibility or blame: ‘Regardless of how much harm was done, it’s simply too difficult to prove that the procedure violated the emergency standard of care given the information coming from China at the time.’

Disaster Medicine (literally)

There can be no doubt that the well-established US disaster medicine plans were implemented in the ‘pandemic’ despite the known very high risks presented by ventilation and the acknowledged profound legal and ethical issues in enforcing a ‘collectivist’ approach in the form of ‘population-focused’ care.

There is absolutely no evidence to support the assertion that ventilation use was reactive and adopted in a panic, or mis-applied en masse. On the contrary, the expectation was that ventilation was the default, and sole, reaction to a respiratory medical emergency, be it from a natural virus or a bioweapon.

Mass ventilation formed a central plank of the US’s planned response to the Covid-19 ‘pandemic’. It was built into the protocols, procedures and plans, from national to state level. Likewise, given the technological leadership exerted by the US, it would not be surprising that other countries, such as the Nato, EU and Five Eyes nations, would follow their lead.

It is therefore not too much of a stretch to assume that, to demonstrate the technological power of the party, that the CCP and China would adopt the same approach. In fact, evidence strongly suggests that the Chinese may have been following – rather than leading – US policy in this critical matter.

Co-authored with 𝗗𝗿 𝗝𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗰𝗮 𝗛𝗼𝗰𝗸𝗲𝘁𝘁 and 𝗗𝗿 𝗝𝗼𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗹𝗲𝗿 

November 6, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Outcomes after Early Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin: An Analysis of 30,423 COVID-19 patients

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH |  Courageous Discourse  | November 6, 2023

We perform prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials to test drugs, vaccines, devices, and other products for safety and efficacy. Randomization is important since it handles: 1) selection bias, 2) all known and unknown confounders. Despite the hundreds of billions of dollars spent during the pandemic, we did not have an investment in large, multidrug prospective, randomized, placebo controlled trials or comparative studies to test the best drug regimens.

In the end, what patients care about is how they feel, function, and survive. When it came to COVID-19, whether randomized or not, if patients survived if they were in the optimally treated group. The only way to assess how a high-risk population fared in the pandemic is to report on a large sample of patients sick with COVID-19 with a large number of the outcome of of interest—death.

Brouqui et al reported from a French database of 30,423 COVID-19 patients of whom 535 succumbed to the illness. In great detail, the investigators report mortality according to ambulatory treatment received, hospitalization, and the course over the following six weeks.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nmni.2023.101188

As you can see, the most favored group was those who received the regimen of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin early in the course of illness. Of the 30,202 patients for whom treatment information was available, 191/23,172 patients (0.82%) treated with HCQ-AZM died, compared to 344/7,030 patients (4.89%) who did not receive HCQ-AZM. All the other combinations received are reported in the figure.

Important points:

  1. HCQ+AZM consistently reduced the risk of hospitalization and death
  2. If hospitalized, those pre-treated with HCQ+AZM at home had a greater chance of survival

Critics say this was not a randomized trial. Patients say it does not matter, they just want to survive on HCQ + AZM! When the differences are this large, we go with what is working for patients, not a false narrative from the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex deceiving the population on simple, safe, generic drugs.

Brouqui et al, Outcomes after early treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: An analysis of a database of 30,423 COVID-19 patients, NewMicrobesandNewInfections55(2023)101188

November 6, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Steven Koonin on The Limitations of Climate Change Models

Hoover Institution | October 12, 2023

Steven Koonin reviews the state of climate science, focusing on data trends, climate models, and the uncertainties involved. He highlights issues with climate models, including their high sensitivity and inability to accurately reproduce historical temperature changes, cautioning against relying on inaccurate model projections.

November 5, 2023 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

An explosive discussion with ex-CDC scientist Norman Pieniazek

BY MARTIN NEIL, JONATHAN ENGLER, AND JESSICA HOCKETT | OCTOBER 30, 2023

Dr Norman Pieniazek is a molecular biologist, geneticist, epidemiologist with 147 publications in virology and parasitology. Before he retired, he spent 24 years working at the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in the USA. He has also spent time abroad including time working in Spain and Poland.

We met up with Norman for what was planned to be a short meeting to introduce ourselves and informally discuss common interests around covid. However, this turned into a two-hour long, wide-ranging and fascinating discussion that touched on a huge number of topics.

Early on in the meeting Norman made the wise suggestion that we record and share the discussion. So, he hit the record button on Skype and we started again. The video, accessible below, is approximately two hours long. Be aware that, given it wasn’t planned as an ‘interview’ or for broadcast, it is largely unstructured. However, for those short of time here is a synopsis of the discussion with a focus on what Norman said1:

Pneumonia and early treatments

  • The bacterial pneumonia hypothesis suggests that early treatment – hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin and antibiotics address bacterial infection. Norman confirmed bacteria are everywhere in our bodies including in the lungs, creating an ever-present potentially hazardous predisposition that, given the right circumstances, might cause a deadly bacterial pneumonia infection.
  • Well-understood remedies such as the stockpile of antibiotics, as recommended by Fauci, were cast aside in 2020. Bacterial infection can cause sepsis hence we need antibiotics. A Cytokine storm is caused by bacterial infection in the lungs, filling them with fluid; this lowers the oxygen level in the blood because of poor lung function.
  • In-person diagnosis by a physician based on physical symptoms was largely replaced by the PCR test, and with the rise in tele-health visits, social distancing etc physicians stopped using stethoscopes to listen to a patient’s chest. This is an essential diagnostic tool to enable a doctor to audibly tell whether a patient has crossed the line into a bacterial infection which will then require antibiotics.

NPIs and discarded organisational memory

  • Norman knew Donald Henderson who co-authored a classic work on how to best respond to a flu epidemic. Henderson and colleagues did not recommend any of the NPIs that were followed during covid because of the obvious severe health, social and economic costs. (As an aside this work was co-authored by Prof. Thomas Inglesby at John Hopkins who attended Event 201 and, oddly, recommended NPIs be used for covid – the very same ones he had rejected previously).
  • Orthodox immunology was ignored – herd immunity is a fiction given there is a ‘soup’ of constantly mutating coronaviruses.
  • Why didn’t scientists at the CDC question things early in 2020? Work from home restrictions meant that people at CDC couldn’t communicate and coordinate to overturn the madness being imposed from the ‘sixth floor’ top brass. You could not isolate CDC from the HHS (Health and Human Services) and it was HHS that were calling the shots.

Wuhan, bronchial lavage and PCR

  • The Wuhan scientists were on a routine ‘fishing expedition’ for coronaviruses and unusual pneumonias. Why was this work being done in Wuhan? It is easier to do in China because it is legal and because there are lots of hospitals, in a concentrated area, where the population is in relatively poor health. Also, it is easier to get permission to perform a painful bronchial lavage procedure on patients to obtain pathogens in China; this is much harder to do in the USA. This procedure is done in the lower respiratory tract and guarantees higher quality samples than can be obtained using swabs, which really just measure the quality of the air that has entered your upper respiratory tract.
  • To determine what pathogen is causing lower respiratory tract symptoms you should not use swabs and PCR. Why not? CDC acknowledges the inability of swabs to collect causative agents as reported by the EPIC study in these 2015 NEJM articles (one done on adults and one on children). Hence a positive result gained from a sample taken from the upper throat or the nose does not mean an infection is caused by the detected pathogen.

  • In 2002-2004 SARS-COV was not subject to mass PCR testing, yet SARS-COV-2 was. PCR was used for SARS-COV but only on samples taken using bronchial lavage, but NOT from swab samples taken from the nose or upper throat.2

Virus origins – from labs or bats or neither?

  • Wu et al discovered WH-Human-1 using samples collected by bronchial lavage, and next generation sequencing of the collected genetic samples, and ultimately reported it in GenBank.
  • Before reporting on GenBank they published a preprint identifying the genetic sequences3, which was appropriated and found its way into the hands of Corman and Drosten, who then decided to exploit it for personal gain (via commercial PCR testing), fabricating a story about validating it against SARS-1. It was subsequently renamed SARS-COV-2. (For a proposed timeline of events see here).
  • Norman thinks SARS-COV-2 is simply a beta coronavirus (a cold), one of the many thousands of cold viruses that had remained undiscovered until 2020, but which have always been ever present in nature.
  • SARS-COV-2 cannot be a novel virus created in a lab or by natural zoonotic mutation. It is simply novel to detection4. As soon as the EUA approved PCR tests started to be used the virus was simultaneously discovered in a number of disparate geographical regions. There was no evidence of sudden spread.
  • In effect the results of any test are as much determined by the choice of test to apply as by the presence/absence of viruses. Norman says, “you will find whatever you want to find”. Hence people will be symptomless yet will have a lot of, whatever viruses happen to be around in their nose or throat.
  • The established taxonomy of viruses is unusable simply because there are so many unknown viruses circulating in the wild.

Vaccines

  • The mRNA vaccine technology ended in a ‘garbage heap’, because it is extremely toxic, and was rendered obsolete by protein subunit vaccines by 2019. So, the mRNA vaccines were doomed from the start. Subunit (protein-based) vaccines have been known since the late 1970s, but Moderna, Pfizer and BioNTech needed a way to realise a return on their vast investments in mRNA. Hence the pandemic.
  • Novavax is a protein subunit vaccine, based on the spike protein, which was available in August 2020 but did not get approval from the FDA. Although it is protein based it will stay in the deltoid muscle injection site. It was however approved in Canada. It may not be very good for you (and ineffective against coronaviruses), but it is less dangerous than the mRNA vaccines.
  • mRNA vaccines were found to be too dangerous for animals. Also, arguments that they are a safe basis for cancer drugs are based on lies. There is a competing technology called humanised monoclonal antibodies that cured President Carter from a melanoma that had migrated to his brain and there are now 500 versions of these drugs currently available.
  • Norman was told that the patent on the flu vaccines, grown in eggs, expired in 2020. Hence there was little ROI in continuing with this technology.
  • Viruses are in your respiratory tract and antibodies, responding to vaccines, are in your blood. These two things do not match well because the antibodies in the blood do not get into the lungs. The immune system ‘stays away’ from the complex respiratory system that deals with the thousands of pathogens we breathe in with every breath.

Antibody and antigen testing

  • Are serology studies a pointless exercise? Because of wide variation between individual’s antibody measurement only makes sense by studying change in any single individual over time.
  • Testing for antibodies means nothing because antibodies in the blood cannot travel to the lungs to react.
  • Testing for antigens is a cheaper and less sensitive version of the PCR test with the same limitation.

Infectious clones and bioweapons

  • Norman is very sceptical of a number of covid virus theories including those by Walter Chesnut and JJCoey’s infectious clone theory, though they weren’t discussed in any great detail and were probably not characterised fully (or maybe even fairly).
  • The issue with ‘infectious clones’ is that ‘you do not know what to create’ because there are millions of sequences of coronavirus so there is no ‘clonality’ and each one has 30 thousand nucleotides and there are combinatorically infinite changes you could potentially need to consider when creating a coronavirus5. It therefore isn’t possible to know what to change, via Gain of Function (GoF), to make the virus behave in more dangerous ways.
  • As part of the ‘partnership for peace’ programme in 1994 Norman hired two ex-Soviet bioweapons scientists and asked them ‘how come you worked for 20 years and didn’t create any new deadly viruses?’
  • They can create thousands of virus combinations, but the problem is how to test these creations. There is no way to test the billions and billions of possible changes to a virus and identify which changes to the sequence are ‘bad’. You need the phenotype, and you cannot deduce the phenotype from the genotype. So how would GoF researchers – E.g., EcoHealth alliance – know exactly what to create?
  • The claim that Saddam Hussian had biological weapons was groundless and this was confirmed to Norman by Donald Henderson who was involved at the time and who said it was not possible.
  • Thus, GoF claims that changes to spike protein and furin cleavage sites make a virus more deadly are fiction. It isn’t possible and there is no proof they can produce deadly bioweapons. Those advocating this position and making these claims – EcoHealth alliance (Fauci, Baric and Duszak) should get fired by their bosses for producing “not a tiger but a kitty”.
  • We discussed Gulf War syndrome. Norman said people imagine anthrax is dangerous, but the ex-Soviet bioweapons researchers said to attack New York with anthrax would need 20,000 Boeing 747s flying over the city, dropping millions of tons of anthrax spores from a low height then people spreading it with shovels. The only way to infect people with anthrax is by direct means via an oxygen line or a direct injection.
  • Norman said the Tokyo gas attack was successful in Japan because the terrorist used sarin, a nerve agent. The biological agents used, botulinum and anthrax, fortunately failed.

Fauci – the ‘mean midget’

  • Within the CDC Fauci was called the ‘mean midget’ and during the AIDS epidemic he sunk Robert Gallo by inventing the story that Gallo had stolen the HIV virus from Luc Montagnier, thus destroying Gallo’s chances of being awarded the Nobel prize (he was also denied a patent).
  • Fauci is “not stupid, he is mean”. Fauci wanted to get a Nobel prize, but he didn’t get a Nobel prize for AIDS, so he wanted it for the Wuhan virus. In January 2023 knowing that he wasn’t going to get the Nobel prize he “pulled the plug” and published this paper saying new types of vaccines are needed for respiratory infections, as an act of spite.

We learned a lot from Norman and are very grateful to him for giving us his valuable time. You will notice that we briefly discussed the vaccines, but you will be very pleased to hear that Norman has agreed to follow up with another meeting in early December to share his thoughts on this important topic (see here for a sneak peek)

You can access Norman’s other material on YouTube and Facebook (much of his material is in Polish and Norman speaks six languages!) His twitter handle is @normanpie.

1 Note that this synopsis is not a verbatim and true transcription of the conversation.

2 This document presents evidence PCR was used to collect samples, but no mass testing was undertaken.

3 Submitted (05-JAN-2020) Department of Zoonoses, National Institute of Communicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. The first submission to GenBank had two subsequent revisions.

4 The supposed ‘novel and deadly’ attributes of the virus are discussed extensively here.

5 See this paper. “Mammals are the reservoir hosts of the majority of emerging zoonoses (2, 3, 18). If we assume that all 5,486 described mammalian species (19) harbor an average of 58 viruses in the nine families of interest (as estimated here in P. giganteus) and that these viruses exhibit 100% host specificity, the total richness of mammalian viruses awaiting discovery exceeds ~320,000.”

 

November 4, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »