I wanted to make a quick post to recommend an exceptional and important essay published by The Wall Street Journal’s Opinion section.
In a brief essay (“Covid Censorship Proved to be Deadly”) author Brett Swanson shows how the Censorship Industrial Complex – or what he perfectly describes as “full spectrum censorship” – has effectively caused the unnecessary deaths (and misery) of huge numbers of world citizens.
As the essay makes clear, “truth” and “facts” have become “false narratives” or “dangerous misinformation” …. while false beliefs have become accepted as gospel/infallible truths.
Claims that are wrong, dangerous or dubious cannot be challenged.
As Swanson points out, the masses on social media quickly gleaned the speech they could not make (this shows the toxic effects of “self censorship.”)
The opinions of those who believe the “experts” might be “ignorant” were censored or not allowed to reach large numbers of people. Because of this, “falsehoods” could NOT be “dispelled.”
Swanson points out such a surreal template is the exact opposite of real science, which exists to challenge dubious claims.
A technology (the Internet) that could and should have been used to save many lives – and rebut many falsehoods – was instead used to bully and silence skeptics, who were really just trying to save lives and prevent outcomes that ultimately produced mass misery and devastating consequences for billions of world inhabitants.
The censored, bullied and demonetized skeptics are the real altruistic heroes, not the villains.
I’m currently working on a story regarding the Covid outbreak aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt aircraft carrier.
The true/vital lesson from this case study should have been that Covid does NOT threaten “everyone.” Per the lessons of the Roosevelt outbreak, this virus certainly doesn’t pose any real mortality risk to the young and middle aged.
But the “false narrative” quickly became that Covid threatens “everyone” … that younger adults and children were also “vulnerable.”
The truth – which would have eliminated irrational fear in most people – could NOT be disseminated as it would threaten the most important (false) narratives/initiatives.
As Swanson points out, the real goal in all of this “full spectrum censorship” is to PROTECT “authority.”
It would have constituted a “crisis” for those in authority if their pronouncements were exposed as “ignorance.”
The bottom line is that the massive and coordinated Censorship Industrial Complex was created to protect the power, wealth and continued control of those in authority.
… Also, The WSJ op-ed section deserves kudos for publishing this piece.
The author didn’t have the space to document the evidence of the huge spike in all-cause (non-Covid) excess deaths, but he still worked those points into his essay.
This by itself is a “win” for our side.
Shocking numbers of “vaccine” deaths/injuries and iatrogenic deaths/injuries are the giant elephants in the room in the mainstream media.
The reason most every-day citizens aren’t shocked by these scandals/truths … is that this story has been … censored. That is, this is NOT a “story.”
But at least The WSJ acknowledged this by publishing Swanson’s superlative essay.
Maybe the “news” division of the WSJ will follow-up on the author’s points and do some real journalism on these taboo topics?
Somehow I doubt this … but, still, the needle exposing the false narratives is moving in the right direction.
July 11, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
On Monday, a federal judge from the Western District of Louisiana, Terry Doughty, upheld his ruling, preventing the Biden administration from engaging in specific types of communication with key social media entities.
The initial request to lift the ban on these interactions came from the administration on July 6th, but has now been met with refusal by Doughty. The judge had previously instituted this ban in response to a lawsuit by the Republican state attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, who are challenging the manner in which government agencies cooperate with social media behemoths to curb the propagation of inaccurate or misleading information regarding the Covid-19 pandemic and election security.
Judge Doughty reasoned that the chances of success for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit were high, and therefore upheld his order. The judge also rejected the notion that the administration would suffer any “irreparable injury” due to the communication restrictions between government agencies and social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.
“The First Amendment free speech rights of Plaintiffs by far outweighs the Defendants’ interests,” Doughty said in his judgment.
Doughty also dismissed the administration’s assertion that his preliminary injunction issued on July 4 was too extensive. He held that the injunction was specifically designed to block only those types of collaboration with social media companies that could infringe upon users’ “protected free speech.” He further opined, “Defendant officials can be and should be trained to recognize what speech is protected and what speech is not prior to working with social-media companies to suppress or delete postings.”
While the ruling restricts certain types of interaction, it does not ban all communication between the government and social media corporations. Doughty’s injunction allows for the continuation of meetings between the government and social media companies, specifically on subjects like cyberattacks.
July 11, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
YouTube has managed to make another enemy for itself thanks to Google’s giant video platform’s unrelenting, multi-year, overzealous censorship of a range of topics, prominently information and debate around coronavirus and the handling of the pandemic.
German Member of EU Parliament (MEP) Christine Anderson has decided to sue after two of her videos got blocked in September last year, ostensibly for mentioning Big Pharma heavy-weights in an unfavorable context.
The videos came in a series, “EU Special Committee on Covid Pandemic,” and were titled, “Deputies are fed up! – Big Pharma under cross-examination!,” “Lesson learned? – Politics further beyond reality!”
According to Anderson, the videos were taken during European Parliament (EP) public sessions of the said special committee. The MEP further explains her decision to sue by saying that the reason given by YouTube for this instance of censorship was (the usual) flimsy reference to “medical disinformation,” with no further clarification.
But the removal of the two videos was not the end of it: YouTube warned Anderson she would be permanently suspended (this is her MEP account) should another video be flagged along the same lines. And this threat is what spurred the parliamentarian to take legal action.
As for the two censored videos, they showed representatives elected by EU voters from 27-member states take part in a debate, where Anderson and several others had questions for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna, or Sanofi Pasteur – who profited exorbitantly from selling Covid vaccines, while the MEPs said effectively misleading those who bought/received them.
The discussion heard fears that people were on the one hand lied about the effectiveness of these hastily put together vaccines, and on the other, thanks to the lack of proper trial and testing period and procedures, possibly put at risk.
Not only that, but these companies that earned billions here managed to place all liability for anything going wrong on governments, who in turn placed in on the citizens getting the jab, who did so voluntarily (yet under tremendous public pressure and ostracizing through restricted access, etc.)
Clearly, not the questions that YouTube wants to be asked in the videos appearing on its platform. But when the MEP’s lawyers got involved, the two videos were eventually reinstated.
But, Anderson wrote in a statement, “YouTube has not yet complied with my requests to provide a definition of the so-called ‘medical misinformation’ as well as to comment in more detail on the blockings.”
And for that reason – “I have now filed an action for an injunction and declaratory judgment against YouTube with the competent district court in my hometown of Fulda.”
“On the one hand, this is intended to ensure that such blockings are not repeated and, on the other hand, to establish that the previous blockings were unlawful,” said Anderson.
July 11, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | European Union |
Leave a comment
But is more better?
The picture above may shortly be out of date when the latest monoclonal antibody against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is added to the CDC list. The US approach stands in stark contrast to Europe’s.
So another dilemma for parents of young children who have already laboured long and hard over whether to give their children a covid-19 vaccine – will their children need this latest new immunisation?
An RSV vaccine developed in the 1960s got as far as human trials, but had to be hastily withdrawn when it became apparent that subsequent disease was far worse in the vaccinated than the controls. As expected, the babies made a good antibody response and there were no obvious serious side effects. Fast forward a few months to the next autumn’s RSV season and sadly for the drug company and even more sadly for the babies and their families, the vaccinated group developed much more severe disease than the controls (18/20 vaccinated infants hospitalised with 2 deaths versus 0 deaths and 1 hospitalisation in the 21 controls gives placebo efficacy of 100% against death and 95% against hospitalisation – wonderful stuff that normal saline!) Animal studies with the RSV vaccine had already highlighted such problems.
Similar difficulties were seen in candidate vaccines for SARS (SARS-CoV-1). No less than four new coronarvirus vaccines produced after the SARS outbreak in 2003 looked hopeful initially, until the animals were exposed to the SARS virus. Although the vaccinated animals cleared the virus more rapidly, they developed severe eosinophil infiltrates in their lungs, in contrast to the control animals, highly suggestive of an immune overreaction in the presence of the virus (a Th2 helper cell hypersensitisation).
Dengue vaccines have had similar problems, with Dengvaxia withdrawn after the vaccinated group experienced much more severe disease the following season. In that case, the vaccine had been rolled out widely in the Philippines without awaiting the one-year trial follow-up, in a moment of political hubris which resulted in their Minister of Health facing criminal charges, but far more seriously it also resulted in the deaths of at least 10 healthy children.
What all these disasters had in common was a condition called ADE (Antibody Dependent Enhancement). In the presence of a large immune response, inflammatory markers are activated; this led to acquired respiratory distress in the case of the SARS vaccine, severe wheezing and airway inflammation in the case of the RSV vaccine, and a severe systemic reaction with the Dengue vaccine.
So what of this latest RSV prophylactic? There are two types, firstly monoclonal antibodies which give so-called passive immunisation i.e. the infant is given injections of antibodies to protect them against RSV in the early months of life but these just disappear naturally. There is an existing drug called palivizumab which has been around since 1998, so it is not clear why they need the new one, nirsevimab. The main advantage of the new product is that it is given as a single dose, rather than the monthly injections recommended for palivizumab, which makes it more practical, hence the new version has been authorised for all infants, rather than the high risk groups only for whom the monthly palivizumab injections were recommended. Nirsevimab was approved for use in the EU and the UK last November, following trials involving 3580 treated infants. The report combines various studies – one involving only infants at high risk from RSV such as preterm babies or those with heart or lung disease, for whom there was a reduction in hospitalisation from 4.1% in the placebo group to 0.8% in the nirsevimab group. A second study then recruited healthy low risk babies and for them the reduction in hospitalisations was only from 1.6% to 0.6%. There was a reduction in overall infections, but it is not clear whether that means these infants will simply get RSV infection the following winter. Having said that, most hospitalisations for this condition are in infancy. But as so often, it seems that no longer-term outcomes are required for approval to be given.
Interestingly, the FDA have yet to approve it, although their advisory committee last month voted 21:0 to recommend it for all infants. A worrying observation in the FDA approval paperwork was an increase in all cause deaths in the nirsevimab arm of the various trials (12/3710 (0.32%) nirsevimab versus 4/1797 (0.22%) controls). I could find no mention of this on the European Medicines Agency or MHRA websites, although the same drug company results were submitted.
Meanwhile in April, the FDA approved a new RSV vaccine from GlaxoSmith Klein(GSK), Arexvy for use in over 60s, followed in May by approval of a similar Pfizer vaccine, Abrysvo. As with Covid-19 vaccines, Pfizer gave results as relative risk reductions, so an encouraging 66.7% efficacy, but much less impressive when looking at the absolute risk reduction of 0.24% (from 0.36% to 0.12%) for symptomatic lower respiratory tract infections. The number of hospitalisations was too small to look at efficacy. More worrying is that looking at the supporting information on the FDA website reveals both vaccines showing an increase in atrial fibrillation compared to the placebo and also neurological adverse events, namely Guillain-Barré syndrome and Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM) in the vaccinated group, with one fatality and one woman requiring 6-months hospitalisation. In two of the studies, flu vaccine and the new RSV vaccine were given simultaneously making it impossible to know which of the vaccines to blame.
The Pfizer Abrysvo RSV vaccine is expected to be approved by the FDA in August for pregnant women, for whose infants there was a 0.8% reduction in hospital admissions for RSV infection over the following 6 months (from 1.3% to 0.5%). But the independent panel vote was not unanimous, and concerns were raised about an increase in preterm births. Indeed, the GSK RSV vaccine trial for use in pregnancy was already stopped for this reason. Because this is proposed for use in the mothers, it will need a large number to vaccinate to prevent one infant hospitalisation, given most babies don’t go anywhere near hospital for this condition. It is not at all clear whether those infants whose mothers have already been vaccinated, will also be offered the monoclonal antibody in a ‘belt-and-brace’ approach or whether the two different types of preventative are simply to provide a choice. GSK have specifically said that they do not anticipate their vaccine being used in infants: ‘evidence from an animal model strongly suggests that AREXVY would be unsafe in individuals younger than 2 years of age because of an increased risk of enhanced respiratory disease’ (remember the 1967 vaccine, whereas the Pfizer document only says of Abrysvo, ‘Pediatric studies should be delayed until additional safety or effectiveness data have been collected’.
It is noteworthy that approval for the vaccines has progressed via the FDA’s Priority Review mechanism – the excuse for Covid-19 vaccines was of course that there was an emergency due to a novel and deadly virus sweeping across the world, with a saviour vaccine the only way out of endless lockdowns. But what is the possible excuse for a priority vaccine for RSV? This virus was first isolated in 1956 and was presumably around long before that. But of course, if we’d been listening, we would have heard Sir Patrick Vallance in 2014 saying “In the future, medicines will come to market quicker with less data, with more research being conducted in the post-license phase”. It seems that the future has arrived.
The plethora of new vaccines in the pipeline, in particular mRNA vaccines which will be developed at the new UK government-funded Moderna facility in Oxford, must be subject to the proper scrutiny which has sadly been totally lacking in recent years.
This begs the question: what of the multitude of existing vaccines shown so graphically in the picture at the top of this article? It struck me that as a retired paediatrician in my seventies, now being labelled by the government as a conspiratorial ‘antivaxxer’, I had of course only had 2 vaccines in my infancy, smallpox and diphtheria. At age 7, I received the new polio vaccine and as a 13-year-old BCG against tuberculosis (and that only after a negative skin test showed I wasn’t already naturally immune). And that was it, until I reached medical school where I got the new tetanus vaccine. Yellow fever and Typhoid vaccines followed for a student elective in South Africa and then nothing until Hepatitis B vaccine 20 years later.
The generation below mine had only diphtheria, tetanus and polio in infancy with measles at 13 months. This UK timeline makes interesting reading. But my grandchildren’s generation are apparently offered 15 in their preschool years (many of course are combinations so an 8-week infant is now vaccinated against 8 different diseases simultaneously). But this is still well below the number offered (and indeed mandated for many schools) to American children. Perhaps the JCVI are full of ‘anti vaxxers’, let alone the Danish authorities where infants are only vaccinated against 6 diseases and with a much more spaced out programme at 3, 5 and 12 months.
Can anyone point me to the randomised trials showing that this huge sum total of vaccines is beneficial in terms of overall outcomes? Because I have failed to find it. Instead I have found interesting articles such as that from the Bandim project in Guinea Bissau, where the delayed introduction of childhood vaccinations in the 1970s gave a natural control group. In collaboration with the Statens Institute in Denmark, they found that killed vaccines were associated with an increase in childhood mortality. Or this one comparing the infant mortality of the healthiest 30 countries by number of vaccines given, which certainly showed no support for the idea that more is better.
Figure 1: Mean infant mortality rates and mean number of vaccine doses 2009
Statements from WHO, Gates Foundation etc that vaccination has been the biggest life-saving breakthrough does beg the question: if the same amount of money and effort had been put into ensuring every child had access to clean drinking water and adequate food (the most basic physiological need in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs), then how many more lives would have been saved?
Would ‘Big Plumbers’ now be dominating public health policy?
Dr Ros Jones is a HART member and retired Consultant Paediatrician.
July 10, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Economics, Science and Pseudo-Science | RSV vaccine, UK, United States |
Leave a comment
The UN has put out a number of concerning policy briefs and documents in the past 2 years and I will share them with you. This is the first :
First, now is the time to re-embrace global solidarity and find new ways to work together for the common good. This must include a global vaccination plan to deliver vaccines against COVID-19 into the arms ofthe millions of people who are still denied this basic lifesaving measure. Moreover, it must include urgentand bold steps to address the triple crisis of climate disruption, biodiversity loss and pollution destroying our planet.
Second, now is the time to renew the social contract between Governments and their people and within societies, so as to rebuild trust and embrace a comprehensive vision of human rights. People need to see results reflected in their daily lives. This must include the active and equal participation of women and girls, without whom no meaningful social contract is possible. It should also include updated governance arrangements to deliver better public goods and usher in a new era of universal social protection, health coverage, education, skills, decent work and housing, as well as universal access to the Internet by 2030 as a basic human right. I invite all countries to conduct inclusive and meaningful national listening consultations so all citizens have a say in envisioning their countries’ futures.
Third, now is the time to end the “infodemic” plaguing our world by defending a common, empirically backed consensus around facts, science and knowledge. The “war on science” must end. All policy and budget decisions should be backed by science and expertise, and I am calling for a global code of conduct that promotes integrity in public information.
Fourth, now is the time to correct a glaring blind spot in how we measure economic prosperity and progress. When profits come at the expense of people and our planet, we are left with an incomplete picture of the true cost of economic growth. As currently measured, gross domestic product (GDP) fails to capture the human and environmental destruction of some business activities. I call for new measures to complement GDP, so that people can gain a full understanding of the impacts of business activities and how we can and must do better to support people and our planet. [So clever how the wordsmiths portray the globalists’ desire to get rid of measures of economic activity as if this is linked to preventing environmental destruction!—Nass ]
Fifth, now is the time to think for the long term, to deliver more for young people and succeeding generations and to be better prepared for the challenges ahead. Our Common Agenda includes recommendations for meaningful, diverse and effective youth engagement both within and outside the United Nations, including through better political representation and by transforming education, skills training and lifelong learning. I am also making proposals, such as a repurposed Trusteeship Council, a Futures Lab, a Declaration on Future Generations and a United Nations Special Envoy to ensure that policy and budget decisions take into account their impact on future generations. We also need to be better prepared to prevent and respond to major global risks. It will be important for the United Nations to issue a Strategic Foresight and Global Risk Report on a regular basis, and I also propose an Emergency Platform, to be convened in response to complex global crises.
Sixth, now is the time for a stronger, more networked and inclusive multilateral system, anchored within the United Nations. Effective multilateralism depends on an effective United Nations, one able to adapt to global challenges while living up to the purposes and principles of its Charter. For example, I am proposing a new agenda for peace, multi-stakeholder dialogues on outer space and a Global Digital Compact, as well as a Biennial Summit between the members of the Group of 20 and of the Economic and Social Council, the Secretary-General and the heads of the international financial institutions. Throughout, we need stronger involvement of all relevant stakeholders, and we will seek to have an Advisory Group on Local and Regional Governments.
For 75 years, the United Nations has gathered the world around addressing global challenges: from conflicts and hunger, to ending disease, to outer space and the digital world, to human rights and disarmament. In this time of division, fracture and mistrust, this space is needed more than ever if we are to secure a better, greener, more peaceful future for all people. Based on this report, I will ask a High-level Advisory Board, led by former Heads of State and Government, to identify global public goods and other areas of common interest where governance improvements are most needed, and to propose options for how this could be achieved…
July 10, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, United Nations |
Leave a comment
Readers of TCW will be familiar with Neville Hodgkinson’s critical reporting of the ‘Covid crisis’ since December 2020, notably his expert, science-based informed alarm about the mass ‘vaccine’ rollout, so absent from mainstream coverage. What they may be less aware of is the international storm this former Sunday Times medical and science correspondent created in the 1990s by reporting a scientific challenge to the ‘HIV’ theory of Aids, presaging the hostile response to science critics of Covid today. In this series, which concludes today, he details findings that form the substance of his newly updated and expanded book, How HIV/Aids Set the Stage for the Covid Crisis, on the controversy. It is available here. You can read Part 1 of this series here, Part 2 here, Part 3 here, Part 4 here, Part 5 here and Part 6 here.
This series has summarised a detailed, scientifically argued case that ‘HIV’, the purported viral cause of Aids, is a modern myth. Contrary to numerous assertions, ‘HIV’ has never been proven to exist through standard microbiological techniques. Yet huge amounts of taxpayer cash have been commandeered by the HIV/Aids industry for research and treatment, with more than 250 failed ‘HIV’ vaccine trials and an endless search for a cure.
Failures that led to the construction and maintenance of the HIV/Aids theory, and suppression of contrary evidence, are being repeated now with Covid. Worse will be to come while such high-level mistakes remain unacknowledged and uncorrected by the scientific and medical communities.
As we have seen, biophysicist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, who passed away last year at the age of 85, left an extraordinary scientific legacy. She led a group based in Perth, Western Australia – 2,000 miles from the nearest major city – that for 40 years quietly amassed a treasure trove of data deconstructing the ‘HIV’ theory in fine detail, and supporting her belief that Aids was not an infectious disease. Instead, she attributed it to a build-up of cell and tissue damage known as oxidative stress. This can arise when there is an imbalance, at the cell level, between toxic exposures and the body’s ability to deal with them.
She had at her side as fellow researcher, companion, and scribe Dr Valendar Turner, an emergency physician who first met her in 1980 when she brought her grandmother to the Royal Perth Hospital as a patient. Later, when she was working at the hospital herself in the medical physics department, they found a common interest in physics and biology.
‘When Aids came along I wandered into her office one day and announced “I see they’ve found the cause of Aids”, Turner recalled. ‘To which she replied, “Oh no they haven’t”. That’s how my involvement with Aids started.
‘I think what Eleni and I had in common was a great interest in the mechanism of everything biological. Although in my younger days I was focused on the mechanism of disease, I soon realised it was essential to figure out normalcy. Once united by Aids it was off and running.’
Another regular visitor was John Papadimitriou, Professor of Pathology at the University of Western Australia, who reviewed one of her papers on carcinogenesis. He became a founding member of the Perth group on its formation in 1981.
Other scientists have made huge sacrifices in fighting the HIV theory of Aids. They include microbiologist Professor Peter Duesberg, who as described in Part 2 of this series was a star of his profession for his pioneering work on retroviruses, of which HIV was claimed to be one, until he declared there was no way it could be causing Aids. His critique gained more attention than the Perth group’s work, but today he is derided as ‘a proponent of Aids denialism’, despite his challenge over HIV having been supported by an international alliance of scientists, doctors and other researchers. At one time, this included three Nobel laureates.
In 1995 Duesberg published Inventing the Aids Virus, a scholarly 700-page work which began by declaring: ‘By any measure, the war on Aids has been a colossal failure.’ He argued that ‘the lure of money and prestige, combined with powerful political pressures, tempted otherwise responsible scientists to overlook – even suppress – major flaws in Aids theory’.
Duesberg put forward what he called the drug/Aids hypothesis, which argued that heavy, long-term drug use was the main cause of Aids. He saved many lives through campaigning against the first ‘anti-HIV’ drug AZT, heavily promoted as the ‘gold standard’ of treatment but later found to have killed thousands. When its use was finally wound down, part of a reduction in disease and deaths that followed was mistakenly attributed to the drugs that replaced it.
The Perth scientists agree that heavy recreational drug use can be a principal cause of oxidative stress and Aids, and that AZT was worse than useless. Their theory goes wider, however. They share Duesberg’s view that Aids is not a sexually transmitted infectious disease, but argue that one of the main causes of both ‘HIV’-positivity and Aids is anally deposited semen. Numerous studies in homosexual men have shown that frequent, unprotected, receptive anal sex brings a high risk of testing positive, and subsequently developing Aids. No such risk is present for the exclusively insertive (semen-donating) individual.
In heterosexual studies the evidence is the same: the only sexual risk factor for acquiring a positive antibody test is passive anal intercourse. For Aids to appear, the Perth scientists say, a high frequency of receptive anal sex over a long period is necessary. In contrast to vaginal sex, semen in the back passage is retained and absorbed. The rectum is lined by only a single layer of absorptive cells, whereas the vagina has a multi-layered, skin-like protective lining.
Further evidence in support of this understanding includes the fact that semen is one of the most potent biological oxidants, and that it can be both carcinogenic and immunosuppressive. On top of that, rectal and colonic trauma accompanying passive anal sex – facilitating absorption of semen – are proven risk factors. Volatile nitrite inhalants, widely used in gay sex in the early years of Aids, are also potent oxidising agents and played a part in their own right.
‘The evidence shows that Aids is not a disease of sexual orientation but of sexual practices, passive anal intercourse in men and women,’ the Perth scientists say. ‘It is not the sexual act per se but high frequencies of passive anal intercourse with ejaculation combined with drug use and trauma to the intestinal lining which facilitate system absorption of semen and other toxins.’
This means that the ‘safe sex’ condom campaigns initiated by the gay community played a vital part in reducing deaths from Aids. They reduced exposure to semen, as well as to sexually transmitted infections circulating among some of the groups most at risk of developing Aids.
Pioneers of the virus theory felt supported in their belief that Aids was an STI by the fact that many early studies showed a relationship between different types of sexual activity and the presence or appearance of ‘HIV’ antibodies, for which almost all Aids patients tested positive.
This association was real. But it came about because of the flawed way the test was developed, not because a new virus was present. A positive test indicated elevated levels of the many immune-stimulating agents to which those in the Aids risk groups had been exposed. Epidemiologists and others documented such exposures from day one.
People who tested ‘HIV’ positive should never have been given to understand that they were under a death sentence, as was the case for many years because of the ‘lethal new virus’ belief. If exposure to the true causes of ‘HIV’-positivity is reduced or removed, the increased risk of ill-health will disappear unless the damage caused to the immune system is already irreversible. Testing ‘HIV’-positive should be regarded as signalling an effect of the toxic exposures and associated cell disorder that can lead to Aids. The mythical ‘HIV’ is not the cause.
This was seen particularly clearly in haemophiliacs. Early ways of treating their blood clotting disorder involved exposing them to concentrates made from blood donations from hundreds of thousands of people. Many tested positive as a result of this continuous challenge from foreign protein, and, tragically, were then given lethal doses of AZT.
When genetic engineering made it possible to produce the clotting factor they needed in a pure form, those who had previously tested ‘HIV-positive’ showed immediate signs of immune system recovery.
Similar results have been seen in drug addicts, another of the groups at risk of Aids. They can lose both their ‘HIV’ antibodies and risk of illness when they give up their habit.
Acceptance of this understanding would lift the curse of an ‘HIV’ diagnosis from millions, especially in poor countries where many diseases of poverty and malnutrition have been renamed Aids through misinterpretation and misuse of the unvalidated ‘HIV’ test.
Even after 40 years, there is no microbiological proof of sexual transmission based on the isolation of ‘HIV’ from genital secretions of index cases followed by tracing and testing of sexual contacts. Except in poor countries, Aids has stayed confined to groups at risk because of lifestyle factors rather than because of exposure to a genuine sexually transmitted infection.
Where does this leave us?
The Perth group’s website contains all the detailed references that support this radically different picture from what the world has been led to believe about Aids. It is not a wild challenge, but the fruit of four decades of dedicated work.
Error correction is supposed to be the bedrock of science. It is never too late. In all of recorded history, mistaken ideas arise and sometimes last for hundreds of years, until the damage they are causing finally brings about a rethink.
The gross mishandling of Covid has awakened many to the dangers of premature consensus in science, a consequence of too much power having been ceded to self-preserving, self-enriching agencies.
Can the ‘HIV’ story teach us a similar lesson? Or are we going to allow the global pandemic industry to keep us in a state of constant fear? Can Africans bring themselves to break free from the neo-colonial hold on the continent of western scientific and ‘philanthropic’ agencies?
Perhaps each of us will have to do more to strengthen ourselves if these failures are to be brought to an end. The best-selling author and psychologist Jordan Peterson declares that we must take a stand against the ‘blind and Luciferian, prideful and intellect-based top-down tyrannies of emergency and compulsion’ that will otherwise be our future.
As we become individually more powerful, he says, ‘we must take on more responsibility – or else. If we fail to rectify our personal pathologies of pride, envy, and a willingness to lie, we will find ourselves mired in conflict with the world, both natural and social – and in precise proportion to our refusal to check the devil within.’
The psychologist Carl Jung, also quoted by Peterson, made a similar call in his 1958 book The Undiscovered Self. Reason proves powerless to stop atrocities (such as the Nazi genocide), he wrote, when its arguments affect only the conscious mind, and not the unconscious.
The Covid and ‘HIV’ tragedies are both examples of how reason can fly out of the window on a mass scale. In their 2021 book Covid-19 and the Global Predators – We Are the Prey, Peter and Ginger Breggin maintain that ‘loose coalitions of money and influence’ pursuing a globalist agenda were able to exploit widespread fears for the future, causing many to believe in the need for lockdowns and mass vaccinations despite the immediately evident and enormous harm caused. With the ‘HIV’ hypothesis, factors leading to its instant acceptance included a generalised fear that the sexual revolution of the sixties and seventies had gone too far, alongside a genuine sympathy with the early gay victims of Aids.
With great prescience, Jung wrote: ‘It is becoming ever more obvious that it is not famine, not earthquakes, not microbes, not cancer but man himself who is man’s greatest danger to man, for the simple reason that there is no adequate protection against psychic epidemics, which are infinitely more devastating than the worst of natural catastrophes.’
July 10, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Book Review, Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | HIV/AIDS |
Leave a comment
Video Link
In this video, I interview journalist Celia Farber about her recently republished book, “Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS.” As a young reporter working for SPIN magazine, Farber started questioning the official narrative around AIDS, and this book is the outgrowth of her decades-long investigation into and writing about this “hot potato” topic.
Long before censorship went mainstream, Farber was put through the wringer. In 2006, she published an article in Harper’s Magazine titled “Out of Control: AIDS and the Corruption of Medical Science.” In it, she highlighted the work of virologist and retrobiologist Peter Duesberg, who insisted that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS.
In my view, Duesberg was brilliant, but like so many other brilliant scientists, he was widely discredited for not going along with the narrative promoted by the conventional medical establishment.
As a result of her reporting, Farber was vehemently attacked by leading AIDS researchers and activists,1 so much so, she ended up suing three of the attackers for defamation. The New York County Supreme Court dismissed2 her claim in 2011 and upheld the verdict in 2013. Still, she did not quit or back down, and kept searching for the truth.
‘The Passion of Duesberg’
As explained by Farber, Duesberg worked at the Max Planck Institute in Germany, one of the most well-respected scientific institutions in the world. After moving to the United States, he became a professor at the University of California, Berkeley.
In 1987, he published a paper in Cancer Research, proposing that retroviruses are not the cause of cancer, nor the cause of AIDS. According to his scientific biographer, this was the paper that “sealed his scientific doom forever after.” Farber notes:
“Duesberg mapped the genetic structure of retroviruses. So to him, yes, they were entities, but no, they didn’t do anything. They didn’t infect or kill cells. They were harmless. And he had phrases like, ‘HIV, that’s a pussycat. It’s not going to do anything. Saying that HIV is going to cause AIDS is like saying you’re going to conquer China by killing three soldiers a day.’
In other words, there’s no ‘there’ there. There was no cell death. And fascinatingly, or disturbingly, the HIV orthodoxy never contested that. So, I would say they had a supernatural belief in HIV. They would say, ‘We just know HIV causes AIDS,’ and anybody who doesn’t know that is dangerous, homophobic, murderous and so forth.”
Mid-Air Flip in the ‘Scientific Consensus’
As explained by Farber, up until Dr. Robert Gallo claimed he’d discovered HIV in his laboratory in 1984, and determined that it caused AIDS, the scientific consensus had been that retroviruses, as a class, were not pathogenic.
“So, there’s this very strange midair complete flip where everything changes overnight,” Farber says. “It’s like a revolutionary change, and the classical scientists of integrity were so thrown by this. They didn’t even attend the press conference.
They didn’t think there was any chance, as they said, that this would fly, this press conference where Robert Gallo announces that a so-called retrovirus is the cause of AIDS.
Back to Peter. What he does that’s so monumental in the history of American science, post 1980s, is that he, first of all, dissents. And he has no idea that he’s doing anything dangerous, never mind career annihilating. And he’s conducting himself as a scientist should. He’s innocent in what he’s doing, and it’s like a building just falls on him.
Next thing you know, his name becomes synonymous with ‘wrong, dangerous, homophobic, murderous.’ And then this culture kicks in where it becomes a sport and a career advancement to trash Duesberg if you have anything to do with AIDS research.
It was gladiatorial. They went out of their way to come up with lurid and hideous things to say about him. And it went all over the international press. So, he became this scapegoat for the errors and crimes of [Dr. Anthony] Fauci’s AIDS apparatus.
Meanwhile, over in AIDS land, everything they were predicting and terrorizing people with was not coming true at all, was not panning out, whereas Duesberg’s predictions and critiques were panning out exactly. And the more he was right and they were wrong, the more trashed he got.
So, in a sense, what I’ve covered is not just about the nitty-gritty of the science and who’s correct. It’s about this moment of where science becomes, under Tony Fauci, ‘woke.’ It wasn’t called woke then. It was then called political correctness.
So, in other words, ‘AIDS spreads like this or like that and is going to affect everybody,’ because that’s what we’re supposed to say politically, not because that’s true biologically or epidemiologically. So, we’re all stuck now in this brand new era where you get flogged for observing 2+2 = 4 …
The question fascinated me because I just couldn’t square the circle. How come these guys over here are all saying this, and then this top scientist is saying this, and then others rallied around him? Kary Mullis, who invented PCR, and was a staunch defender and friend of Duesberg, always said, ‘He’s absolutely right.’
So, the dissent movement was saying, ‘There must be proof in science.’ Gallo provided no proof that HIV was the cause of AIDS or a coherent pathogen. So, it just kept growing and growing, and with a few exceptions, I had the field to myself. Nobody wanted to interview these people because it was absolutely radioactive to your career, and I can certainly attest to that.
I actually didn’t realize it was dangerous. I was naïve. And I was already way too far out at sea when the bludgeoning began and I realized how dangerous it, in fact, was, and that the people we were up against were of a much more dangerous variety than I had realized.”
Fauci’s Legacy: A Lifelong Suppression of Science
Farber’s experience is proof positive that even four decades before Fauci sold us on his destructive COVID protocols, he had the power to destroy people and convince the entire country to support a fake narrative.
“Let me speak a little bit how he did that, having lived through it. Let’s say that an editor at a major magazine or newspaper became interested in a story and thought to get a reporter on it. Somehow, he had, I guess it was a surveillance network. He knew and went in there, and somehow the story dies. The reporter gets taken off it. The show gets canceled.
I had one friend who had a major local ABC show. It was a new talk show, and he had Duesberg on and myself. The next thing you know, the whole show is canceled, and he never worked again. It was GDR [German Democratic Republic] stuff and it was across the board. It was 100% consistent that anybody who touched it [was warned they’d be destroyed] … That was their word, ‘destroy.’
One top level AIDS researcher named John P. Moore sent out an open declaration of war [against AIDS] ‘denialists’ that said, ‘We will crush you. We crush all of you.’ So that was the climate of it. Now, after all these years, I’m realizing they were part of something much larger.
They were part of this new revolutionary, post-modern, 2+2 does not equal 4 science. ‘It is whatever we tell you it is.’ They created that empire of terror during AIDS, for sure.
It’s just that not that many people knew about it because it was still within the corridors of certain risk groups and some unfortunate journalists or scientists who got caught up in it. Then with COVID, they threw a much bigger net because … it was a little more difficult to get people into the trap.”
The PCR Scam and Suppression of Useful Drugs
As with COVID-19, one of the key tools used to promote the “HIV causes AIDS” narrative was the use of the PCR test, which the inventor, Mullis, was vehemently against.
The PCR was used to measure “viral load,” which was supposed to give you a sense of how sick or well you could expect to be. This kept HIV-positive patients going back to the doctor to get tested repeatedly. But it was nothing more than a numbers game, just as it was during COVID.
There are other similarities to what happened with COVID, including the vilification and discrediting of scientists and therapies that could effectively address the disease. Just like they vilified ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, even going out of their way to fund fraudulent studies to discredit these drugs, they did the same during the AIDS epidemic.
For example, bactrim was an inexpensive drug that effectively treated AIDS-related pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, which was frequently fatal. This drug, like ivermectin, was withheld. Instead, Fauci insisted AIDS patients be treated with AZT, a horrendously toxic and expensive cancer drug that was never proven to work, and which killed hundreds of thousands of AIDS patients.
“AZT is one of the darkest, most shocking chapters. AZT was a chemotherapy compound that was shelved in the early ’60s for being too toxic for human use. For reasons that cannot be fathomed, they pulled that compound out of the drawer, put it in capsule form and made it the first drug to treat AIDS, a condition of immune devastation …
The estimate I’ve heard is that upward of 300,000, mostly gay men, died from high-dose AZT in the early years. That’s 1,200 to 1,800 milligrams. All of a sudden, Fauci drops the dose to 500 mg and people start dying less, which incredibly he spun into that he was saving lives because they lowered the dose of what was killing people.
So, a lot of these dark tricks are exactly the same as COVID. AZT was a black swan event, I would say, in medicine. But what it achieved, that we’re still suffering from, was this demolition of the formerly conservative FDA drug approval process, which was turned into something bad, evil. ‘You only support [the FDA drug approval process] if you hate people and you want them to die. You want it to take 10 years to test a drug? That’s cruel’ …
So, a lot of what we’re in today, like these insane ways of medicating and treating people without any regard for safety or possibility of death, a lot of these concepts were put into place during the AIDS epidemic.”
AIDS Activists Played Into Fauci’s Hands
Farber also reviews how AIDS activists empowered Fauci to circumvent historical safety protocols to get experimental drugs to patients as quickly as possible. AIDS activists also acted as Fauci’s foot soldiers or henchmen in that they helped him quash the opposition. In many ways we saw this during COVID as well. People brainwashed into believing masks could block viruses, for example, acted as civilian enforcers of Fauci’s clearly unscientific recommendations.
“It’s a good question ‘Who was Fauci in the beginning there?’ How did he transform into somebody so ruthless, so unaccountable? And I’m being nice right now. As an historian of all of this, I place a lot of credence in the symbiosis between Fauci and the AIDS activists, because the AIDS activists were revolutionary, and they did have a revolutionary creed, which was, ‘By any means necessary, we demand what we demand.’
And [Fauci] was a bureaucrat. A trained Jesuit … I think he’s a perfect general in a much bigger war that seeks to destroy many things outside of science. That’s my take on it. I think this is the big international war that seeks domination over human beings, period. Full stop. And these spectral virus diseases are a good revolutionary tool to get us there.
We made the mistake of seeing them as genuine outbreaks of something … I don’t believe any of that anymore. I think this is all part and parcel of the great leap forward.”
Fauci Spent a Lifetime Undermining Health Wisdom
Farber continues:
“One thing Fauci really honed over so many years is that nothing [but drugs or vaccines] makes a difference. There’s no terrain. Nutrition doesn’t matter. No research went to that, and it was absolutely scorned, again, both by Fauci and by the AIDS activists and so forth.
So, it was a culture of ‘You’re a machine, you’ve got this bad bug in you.’ It’s the machine model of biology. The bad bug is eating up your T-cells on an algorithm that’s inevitable and unstoppable, and nothing will influence that. Getting out in the sun, swimming in the ocean, eating well, what you think, whether you meditate or pray, none of that’s going to affect it.
So, in that sense, he’s advocating for a complete inversion of everything we all know to be true about health. And that’s really his legacy. He spent 40, 50 years getting Americans to think about everything else but how to stay healthy.”
How We Can Undermine the Public Health Tyranny
In addition to that, Fauci has also played a central role in furthering the ideology of technocracy and transhumanism, which aims to implement a One World Government under the veil of global biodefense. What we’re facing now is public health tyranny, in the sense that food and medicine are being turned into tools to control and manipulate entire populations.
“With AIDS, there was still choice,” Farber says. “You were heavily brainwashed. But if you got tested and you tested HIV positive, you still had a choice to take the drugs or not. What they are going to do next is, of course, what we’re all worried about.
I think people are largely woken up, very much so. But does it matter how awake you are if they have seized control of the whole apparatus of functional life? That’s what we have to stop, and I want to talk about how. How is that done? I think, by and large, it’s done by keeping your body healthy, keeping your mind clear, keeping your soul clear, and then you can go from there.
We can’t necessarily control whatever they’re going to try to do. But the good news is, to my mind, how stupid they are, how sloppy they are, how many mistakes they’ve made, and how much people hate them right now.”
More Information
To learn more, be sure to pick up a copy of “Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS.” You can also subscribe to Farber’s Substack, The Truth Barrier.
July 10, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Book Review, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | HIV/AIDS |
Leave a comment
Editor’s note: This is the first in a three-part series examining key questions in the public debate on the safety of wireless radiation. Part I addresses the question, How did the FDA arrive at its position on cellphones and cancer?
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) claims there’s not enough scientific evidence to link cellphone use to health problems — but according to Devra Davis, Ph.D., MPH, a toxicologist and epidemiologist, the FDA’s claim is untrue and misleading.
Davis spoke with The Defender about the important backstory leading up to the FDA’s position on cellphone radiation as it relates to human health.
To support its statement — that “the weight of scientific evidence has not linked exposure to radio frequency energy from cell phone use with any health problems” — the FDA references a 2008-2018 literature review it conducted on radiofrequency (RF) radiation and cancer.
After completing the review, the FDA stated: “To date, there is no consistent or credible scientific evidence of health problems caused by the exposure to radio frequency energy emitted by cell phones.”
However, Davis said the FDA’s review was never signed. In other words, the names of the individuals who authored the report were never publicly released.
Davis has authored more than 200 peer-reviewed publications in books and journals, ranging from the Lancet to the Journal of the American Medical Association. She is the founding director of the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology of the U.S. National Research Council at the National Academy of Sciences and the founder and president of Environmental Health Trust.
Davis, who worked as a scientific adviser under multiple presidential administrations said, “Normally, when you have a review at that high level it’s quite consequential and it’s always signed.”
“The reason it was unsigned, I believe,” Davis told The Defender, “is because no one in the FDA was willing to put their name behind such a piece of junk. It was absolute nonsense,” she said. “It ignored many publications and only relied on an incredibly skewed interpretation of the literature — and I’m being generous when I say it like that.”
Davis pointed out that the FDA issued the review shortly after the National Toxicology Program (NTP) completed its multi-year $30 million study on cellphone radiation.
In that study, NTP researchers concluded there was “clear evidence” that male rats exposed to high levels of RF like that used in 2G and 3G cellphones developed cancerous heart tumors, and “some evidence” of tumors in the brain and adrenal gland of exposed male rats.
The NTP for decades has been the premier governmental testing program for pharmaceuticals, chemicals and radiation, said Davis, who served on the board of scientific counselors for the NTP when it was first started in the 1980s.
‘Gold Standard’ NTP study findings suppressed
Davis told The Defender that the government had access to a “gold standard program testing with positive results” that were consistent with and corroborated dozens of other studies. “It wasn’t like it [the NTP study] was a one-off study,” she said.
Once the word got out that the findings of the NTP study were positive — meaning the government researchers had found an association between cellphone radiation and the growth of cancerous tumors — the telecommunication industry “started its tactics” to suppress the findings, Davis said.
Davis has been researching such tactics for more than a decade. This fall she plans to release a new edition of her 2010 book, “Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Is Doing to Hide It, and How to Protect Your Family.”
Instead of the NTP study report being released in 2016 when it was first ready, she said, the telecom industry exerted pressure to subject the study’s conclusions to an unprecedented level of scrutiny.
“When the first drafts began to circulate internally, it was elevated for a peer review unlike any that has ever been conducted in the history of the entire program — and I can say that with great certainty. No other compound or substance [studied by the NTP] has ever been subject to this level of peer review,” Davis said.
A panel of external scientific experts convened for a three-day review of the study and its conclusions in March 2018.
However, rather than downplaying the study’s conclusions, the experts concluded that the scientific evidence in the study was so strong that they recommended the NTP reclassify some of its conclusions from “some evidence” to “clear evidence” of carcinogenic activity.
Davis — who attended the three-day review — said, “The reviewers that had been picked were people who were top-of-the-game toxicologists from Proctor and Gamble, from [Nokia] Bell Labs. [They were] industry toxicologists, but they were straight-up people.”
Davis said many of the experts spoke with her privately. “The woman from Proctor and Gamble was concerned about her kids. She said, ‘This [cellphone radiation] is not appropriate.’ I said, ‘Yes, that’s what we’ve been trying to say for some time.’”
More than 250 scientists — who together have published over 2,000 papers and letters on the biologic and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produced by wireless devices, including cellphones — signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for health warnings and stronger exposure limits.
FDA rejects study it solicited, ‘spins’ it as faulty
When the experts’ review of the NTP study was released, the FDA — which in 1999 requested the study and reviewed all its protocols, interim reports and final reports — the agency in November 2018, repudiated the study and in February 2020, released the unsigned literature review that criticized the study.
“They [the FDA] suddenly said, ‘Well, the exposure chambers [used in the study] are not relevant to humans. The [radiation] levels were too high,’” Davis said. “They were not.”
Davis was not alone in disagreeing with the FDA’s rejection of the NTP study. More than 20 scientists, including Davis, wrote a letter calling on the FDA to retract the literature review. Many scientists individually wrote to the FDA as well.
Moreover, the Environmental Health Trust wrote a 188-page report on the FDA’s inaccuracies in its research review and safety determinations about cellphone radiation.
Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley, who has researched cellphone radiation for over a decade, identified nine “biased statements” made about the NTP study that “tend to create doubt about data quality and implications.”
In “SPIN vs FACT: National Toxicology Program report on cancer risk from cellphone radiation,” Moskowitz lists and counters each statement. For example, Moskowitz noted that the claim the study’s conclusions were faulty was rebutted by the study report itself.
Moskowitz also pointed out that Christopher Portier, Ph.D., a retired head of the NTP who helped launch the study and still sometimes works for the federal government as a consultant scientist, told Scientific American, “This is by far — far and away — the most carefully done cell phone bioassay, a biological assessment.”
How telecom industry war-gamed study’s results to manufacture doubt
According to Davis, the telecom industry has for decades influenced governmental agencies such as the FDA to “manufacture doubt” about scientific studies — such as the NTP study — that do not benefit it.
She pointed out that in the early 1990s, Motorola launched a “disinformation campaign to confuse the public.” According to the Environmental Health Trust:
“When first reports that cell phone radiation could damage DNA emerged from the laboratory of Henry Lai and N.P. Singh [both researchers at the University of Washington, Seattle] in the 90’s, a memo written by Motorola to their media advisors in 1994 announced the clear strategy that remains alive and well: war-game the science.”
The “wargame” memo — first released by Microwave News (see page 13) — showed that Norman Sandler of Motorola’s corporate communications department on Dec. 13, 1994, wrote to Michael Kehs of the Burson-Marsteller public relations firm in Washington to plan how Motorola would respond to Lai and Singh’s findings.
Sandler and Kehs had a three-point plan to impede further scientific research on how cellphone radiation might cause DNA damage and to create public doubt in such studies. The plan involved:
- Delaying — or halting — Lai and Singh from continuing their DNA research.
- Preventing other scientists from replicating the study, or carefully selecting scientists who would.
- Convincing the press and the public using industry-selected scientists that the Lai-Singh DNA study results were of marginal importance and with questionable relevance in regard to the question of whether cellphones are safe for humans.
“I think we have sufficiently war-gamed the Lai-Singh issue, assuming SAG [the Scientific Advisory Group] and CTIA [the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association] have done their homework,” Sandler said.
Sandler said Motorola’s executive vice president was “adamant” that the industry come up with a “forceful one- or two-sentence portion of our standby statement that puts a damper on speculation arising from this research.”
Sandler proposed the industry say:
“While this work raises some interesting questions about possible biological effects, it is our understanding that there are too many uncertainties — related to the methodology employed, the findings that have been reported and the science that underlies them — to draw any conclusions about its significance at this time.”
“That exact message,” Davis said, “keeps getting repeated and is well-funded to create doubts.”
She added:
“The [telecom] industry has been very effective in their war games against science and scientists. We have to do a better job of clarifying the science and countering misleading and selective data from industry.”
Next in this series: What’s behind the 5G rollout?
Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is a reporter and researcher for The Defender based in Fairfield, Iowa. She holds a Ph.D. in Communication Studies from the University of Texas at Austin (2021), and a master’s degree in communication and leadership from Gonzaga University (2015). Her scholarship has been published in Health Communication. She has taught at various academic institutions in the United States and is fluent in Spanish.
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.
July 9, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | FDA |
Leave a comment
Government funded take-down looks increasingly ridiculous
In summer 2021, the private messaging forum that HART used was illegally hacked and our private conversations downloaded. Within 24 hours we were contacted by a small company called Logically AI who told us they were going to publish the conversations. This small company had a contract with the government worth over a million pounds of taxpayer’s money. The government may have thought it got its money’s worth when MPs who had been talking to members of HART decided they needed to keep a wide berth. However, the basis of the ‘discrediting’ was laughable.
On 27th July 2021, this article was published concluding with the following “factcheck”:
Figure 1: Concluding figure from Logically AI’s attempt to discredit HART
Let’s see how each of those “facts” have held up over time.
1. mRNA vaccines cannot be considered vaccines
A vaccine has a particular meaning in the minds of the public as an injection that teaches the immune system in order to prevent an infection. Official definitions have changed the meaning so that it could include these novel products. The CDC changed the definition twice since 2015.
In early 2015 a vaccine was an “Injection of a killed or weakened infectious organism in order to prevent the disease.” That year it changed to,“The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.”
Overnight the requirements that the intervention be inert and prevent disease were removed. By September 2021 the definition was changed again to: “The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.” Any internal treatment for any disease now fits the CDC definition of vaccine. However, whatever official definitions say does not change public understanding of a word.
While it was claimed that the covid vaccines could prevent infection which led to their regulatory approvals, these claims have all been abandoned in light of the real world evidence.
What the manufacturers say about their products in documents filed in accordance with financial regulatory requirements is instructive.
Moderna said, ““mRNA has been characterised as a Gene Therapy Medicinal Product… the association of our investigational medicines with gene therapies could result in increased regulatory burdens, impair the reputation of our investigational medicines, or negatively impact our platform or our business.” BioNTech also described their products as gene therapies.
Being a gene therapy does not mean that it will interfere with cellular DNA but it does mean that certain specific and more stringent testing is required. Instead, the shortened regulatory pathway designed for influenza vaccines (developed via a well-established egg based platform) was used. This pathway should never have been used for a novel platform like the covid vaccines.
2. Vaccine trials on children and young people were ‘rushed’
This point can be extended to all vaccine trials. The programme was, if you remember, referred to as “operation warp speed”. How can you have “warp speed” without rushing?
Basic medical ethics includes the principle that children are never given new drugs until there is a well established safety record in adults. For the covid vaccines the number needed to vaccinate in order to prevent a single death was a hundred thousand or more for young people, however the rate of serious adverse events, even in the trials, was 1 in 800.
The trials that were done on children were extremely small, with only 1131 adolescents vaccinated and followed for a minimum of 1 month from their second dose before approving for this age group. Efficacy calculations excluded all covid infections occurring prior to 7 days after the second dose. Antibody levels were also assumed to be a marker for likely efficacy, despite there being no antibody level which ensures protection against covid infection. The government wording says, the product aims “to generate neutralising antibodies, which may contribute to protection against COVID-19.” This is not based on any scientific evidence, merely hope.
The worst children’s trial was the one for under 5 year olds where approvals were pushed through using antibody levels only, as a marker of success rather than expending more time to measure an impact on actual levels of covid. They also changed the efficacy requirement for approval from 50% to 30%. When the two planned doses failed to induce antibodies, they simply added a third dose in just a fraction of the children. This elicited an antibody rise, but also apparently resulted in more significant covid infections in those vaccinated. 97% of the covid cases in the study were ignored in the FDA presentation from Pfizer.
3. Lockdown policies are ineffective against covid
With the passage of time it is now clear that every covid wave rises and peaks naturally. The peaks fall at predictable times of year. The claims that all spread was through close contact, everyone was susceptible and asymptomatic spread was a key driver were all false assumptions.
Having considered the reality about these three claims it is clear that long distance aerosol transmission was a key driver of spread. Lockdowns can do nothing to prevent that. Since Logically AI wrote this article, it has become obvious that even the most brutal lockdowns, leaving people starving at home and killing their pets, did not stop the spread of covid in China. In fact every attempt at lockdown suppression in South East Asia and Australasia failed in January 2022.
A meta-analysis of 32 papers by a group at John Hopkins University analysed the effect of lockdown, concluding that “lockdowns during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic have had devastating effects. They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, loss of life quality, and the undermining of liberal democracy. These costs to society must be compared to the benefits of lockdowns, which our meta-analysis has shown are little to none.”
4. Vaccine can make the recipient magnetic
Don’t rush to think this must be imaginary. Here is a video where unsuspecting recently vaccinated people were tested to see if their arms were magnetic. Most were not, but a surprising number were – 6 out of 15 tested. You can watch full video here.
Some HART members experienced this themselves and there was no question that this was magnetism – with a genuine pulling force.
So what was the cause of this? There are various steps to the manufacturing process including one in which separation of the mRNA is necessary. Some manufacturers used tiny magnetic beads to carry out this step, although which manufacturers used which techniques and to what extent is hard to know.
All that it would take to make someone’s arm magnetic would be for contamination of the vaccine vial with some of these beads. It is now well established that there was significant contamination with bacterial DNA and likely endotoxins. Is it possible that magnetic beads were also contaminants in some vials?
No-one in HART claims to be omniscient and we are constantly challenging and testing each other’s viewpoints. We believe in open scientific debate and that can only happen if people are allowed to occasionally be wrong. However, looking back at the reviews that we wrote in March 2021, they have all stood the test of time (see our 2022 revisits for what changed).
Even the private, more speculative conversations that were had in private have also stood the test of time. The reason this is the case is that all were based on well-established basic science and on real-world evidence. It is a travesty that the same cannot be said for the official narrative. Powerful people claimed that fantasy modelling and beliefs based only on assumptions were “The Science” and when those proved to be baseless, they resorted to complaining that people had lost their trust in science. They have no-one to blame but themselves.
July 9, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | UK |
Leave a comment
Ideologies built on sand
In order to fully believe in the covid cult there were numerous beliefs all of which had to be believed. Disbelieving any one of them would cause the whole house of cards to collapse.
1. There was a virus that our immune systems would consider novel
AND
2. There were catastrophic levels of excess deaths
AND
3. Those excess deaths were caused by the virus
AND
4. The “measures” were necessary to prevent more deaths
AND
5. The “measures” were the only thing that could be done
AND
6. The measures worked
AND
7. The measures weren’t so harmful as to be worse than the virus
Zero covid ended when the belief in point 6 collapsed, even while the other beliefs were maintained. A similar series of beliefs are necessary to sign up to the official narrative regarding climate change.
1. The earth is warming
AND
2. The warming is caused exclusively by atmospheric CO2 levels
AND
3. The major driver of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic
AND
4. The warming will be destructive
AND
5. There is only one solution
AND
6. That solution will work
It is only necessary to introduce doubt on one of the beliefs for the whole net zero scheme to collapse. With the recently reported sudden surge in ocean temperatures followed afterwards by a rise in CO2 levels, points 2 and 3 are both starting to look very shaky.
Neither narrative is open to nuance. Neither invites any questioning. Both of them are a shortcut to global tyranny.
July 9, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19 |
Leave a comment
Last week, in a significant victory for free speech, a federal court stepped in to curb potential overreach by the Biden administration in its collaboration with social media platforms to suppress online content. The court ruling, issued by US District Judge Terry Doughty of Louisiana on Tuesday caused critics to complain that it hinders the administration’s efforts to counter online conspiracy theories and “disinformation.”
But in the usual doublespeak in an interview with MSNBC, the former head of the government’s controversial Disinformation Governance Board Nina Jankowicz claims that the government flagging content that goes against Big Tech’s policies has “nothing to do with censorship” and “is not about removing speech.”
“This is a weaponization of the court system. It is an intentional and purposeful move to disrupt the work that needs to be done ahead of the 2024 election, and it’s really chilling,” she said to the Guardian.
The ruling inhibits key federal agencies and officials from intervening in the content posted on tech platforms. It has been suggested that without such a check in place, the government’s efforts could easily spill over into manipulating public discourse and controlling information, with potentially dangerous effects on free speech and political balance.
The injunction comes as conservative leaders and groups have been vocal in their opposition, accusing the Biden administration of collusion with social media companies in an attempt to suppress conservative viewpoints.
Judge Doughty supported the arguments of Republican attorneys general from Louisiana and Missouri who filed the lawsuit. They contend that the Biden administration’s tactics infringe on First Amendment rights to free speech. He expressed the sentiment that the government seemed to be exploiting its power to stifle opposing voices, and he ominously compared the handling of social media content by the administration during the COVID pandemic to the “Orwellian Ministry of Truth.”
Nina Jankowicz, a former government appointee to lead a new Department of Homeland Security unit aimed at countering online misinformation, has defended the government’s actions, insisting that they do not amount to censorship. However, critics might question her impartiality, considering she was initially named as a defendant in the case but was later removed due to no longer holding a governmental role.
Adding to the controversy, this unit was swiftly disbanded after facing intense criticism from conservatives who claimed it was stifling conservative speech. This has led some to question whether the government’s efforts to fight misinformation are truly unbiased or, as many suspect, are a veiled attempt to suppress dissenting opinions.
The ruling, which temporarily bars several agencies and officials from pressuring social media companies to remove or delete “protected free speech,” sends a strong message that government interference in the digital public square must be carefully scrutinized. This order stands as an affirmation of the fundamental right to free speech.
July 9, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
Readers of TCW will be familiar with Neville Hodgkinson’s critical reporting of the ‘Covid crisis’ since December 2020, notably his expert, science-based informed alarm about the mass ‘vaccine’ rollout, so absent from mainstream coverage. What they may be less aware of is the international storm this former Sunday Times medical and science correspondent created in the 1990s by reporting a scientific challenge to the ‘HIV’ theory of Aids, presaging the hostile response to science critics of Covid today. In this series he details findings that form the substance of his newly updated and expanded book, How HIV/Aids Set the Stage for the Covid Crisis, on the controversy. It is available here. You can read Part 1 of this series here, Part 2 here, Part 3, Part 4 here and Part 5 here.
COVID has shown how the scientific and medical professions, which have done so much to improve our lives, can go badly off track when fear, and big money, come into play. Most doctors failed to resist lockdowns and vaccines, despite the violation of research and medical ethics on an unprecedented scale. Thanks to the internet, groups such as HART and many individual health professionals were able to register their protests, but still about two-thirds of the global population took a Covid vaccine which was neither safe nor effective. Around the world, concerned individuals are asking how such a disaster could have happened and how it may be prevented from happening again.
These developments have increased the relevance and importance of a long-neglected scientific challenge to the very existence of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), the purported cause of Aids. Acceptance of the HIV theory of Aids 40 years ago brought a goldmine for the medical research community and pharmaceutical industry, generating hundreds of billions of dollars for trials and treatments. This flood of money also brought advances in molecular biology that contributed to the creation of the genetically engineered Covid virus, SARS-CoV-2, and the mRNA gene therapy technology on which most Covid vaccines are based.
Yet a vaccine against HIV that in 1984 was promised to be available within two years is still not on the horizon. That is after more than 250 failed trials – and still the funds are flowing. Also, despite drugs that can support patients with genuine immune deficiency, there is no cure for the purported HIV infection. ‘Anti-HIV’ drugs, now also marketed as a supposed preventive against infection, often prove toxic when taken for long periods. Lawsuits over resulting kidney and bone damage have been lodged by thousands of patients across America.
After four decades, might these failures indicate that the most studied infectious agent in history is an emperor with no clothes? That is the view of a group of scientists based in Perth, Western Australia, on whose work this series is based.
Contrary to what nearly everyone believes, public health experts knew from the start that the HIV test could not be used to diagnose Aids. This was because the proteins used in the test were not obtained from purified virus particles. It meant that the antibodies the test purports to detect were never shown to specify the presence of a new virus. But the experts, meeting under the auspices of the World Health Organization in 1986, put their reservations aside. The HIV wagon was on a roll and it was considered ‘just not practical’ to stop it. The theory suited so many purposes that it became a fact without the data to support it.
The same uncritical acceptance greeted claims by the HIV pioneers Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo to have sequenced a full-length genome for the virus. That, surely, meant HIV was no figment of the imagination? And yet, according to a case painstakingly assembled by the Perth group, the genome claims were just as ill-founded as those for the antibody test.
Our bodies teem with genetic activity, responding to the demands of life. Levels of activity vary within cells, and in communications between them. Genes code for proteins, and when production of a particular protein needs to be increased, such as for tissue repair or to fight disease, tiny structures called exosomes carrying specific coded instructions, both as RNA and DNA, are generated by cells.
When cells break down, a ‘soup’ of genetic material may be released. Failure to recognise these confounding factors, or to have valid controls in place to make sure the laboratory work was not producing misleading results, contributed to the construction of the ‘deadly new virus’ story.
HIV is claimed to be a retrovirus, a microbe that inserts a DNA copy of its RNA genome into the DNA of a host cell. To prove that a fragment of RNA is the genome of a retrovirus, it must be distinguished from other genetic material by showing that it originates from a retroviral particle. Yet, as previously described, with ‘HIV’ no such particles have ever been demonstrated to exist.
Genetic sequences that Gallo and Montagnier took to be the virus’s genome were of a type called messenger RNA (mRNA), identifiable through a ‘tail’ comprised entirely of the nucleotide adenine, one of the four building blocks of the genetic code. Gallo and colleagues maintained that finding these sequences, known as poly (A) RNA, meant finding a retrovirus, but once again, that was a false assumption. Poly (A) RNA is non-specific. Cells use it as an intermediate between DNA and the production of proteins, and fragments of it appear in a centrifugation process used to try to purify retrovirus particles, ‘banding’ at the same density.
This is why it is so important to use electron microscopy to show that particles with the characteristics of a retrovirus are clearly present in the banded material. The Perth scientists say that since no one has achieved that, then or since, there is no way of identifying ‘HIV’ proteins and genome and determining their roles and properties. Nowhere in the scientific literature is there proof of the existence of the HIV genome based on extraction of RNA from purified retroviral particles.
Gallo’s work was suspect from the start, as a two-year Office of Scientific Integrity investigation into his laboratory practices found. A cell line which he claimed to have infected with HIV was not exposed to material from an individual Aids patient, but to culture fluids from first three and ultimately from ten patients. The inquiry found this to be ‘of dubious scientific rigour’ (one scientist called it ‘really crazy’). Nevertheless, it formed part of the sequence of events that led to the construction and acceptance of the theory that a new virus had been identified as the cause of Aids, a theory whose reverberations are still affecting millions today.
Segments of the purported HIV genome can be detected through amplification with the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique, and are often wrongly used to confirm an ‘HIV’ diagnosis. The segments vary by as much as 30-50 per cent (compared with less than two per cent between the human and chimpanzee genomes). This huge variability is much more consistent with the sequences being newly generated within abnormally stimulated cells than from a virus for which no researcher has ever published proof of purification.
The abnormal stimulus can come from chemicals used on cells in the laboratory, or from the many agents, chemical and biological, to which Aids patients or those at risk of Aids are liable to be exposed. The common factor is the ‘shock’ to the cells (a term used by Nobel laureate geneticist Barbara McClintock for stimuli that rearrange DNA), not the common presence of a mythical virus. This interpretation is supported by the finding of so-called ‘HIV’ sequences from tumour tissue in several types of cancer.
It means that an army of people around the world are testing for a virus never proved to exist, using proteins and genetic sequences often originating from normal (albeit abnormally stimulated) cells.
Countless articles and letters in which the Perth scientists tried to convey this critique were rejected, over many years, by scientific and medical journals. In February 2003, however, a paper published in the British Medical Journal sparked an intensive, 26-month-long online correspondence, involving 842 postings, in which it looked as though the group might at last be heard.
Several exchanges were with Brian Foley, custodian of an HIV database at Los Alamos, New Mexico, who ultimately agreed that RNA selected by Gallo was the basis for what is considered to be the HIV genome, and that it was of a type not specific to retroviruses. He also agreed that it originated from the centrifugation density band used to look for retroviruses, and that there was no proof the band contained actual virus particles. Nevertheless, Foley insisted Gallo’s RNA should be seen as the HIV genome. His grounds for doing so were that when a copy (‘molecular clone’) of the RNA was introduced into a cell culture, it resulted in the production of infectious retrovirus particles with the same appearance and constituents as the parent virus.
But when pressed to cite papers proving the existence of such a sequence of events, he was unable to do so. ‘When we asked for proof for the existence of such an HIV infectious molecular clone he responded with a long list of papers. Although the titles of these papers included the phrase “infectious molecular clone” no such evidence could be found in any of them,’ the Perth scientists wrote.
In what was to be their last posting, they repeated their request: ‘Would Brian Foley please give us a summary of the evidence (not just the title) of a study as well as the evidence from a few confirmatory studies where the existence of an “infectious molecular clone” (as defined by Brian Foley) of “HIV-1” has been proven. If Brian Foley fails to respond with his summaries and references then we must conclude his whole argument for the existence of “HIV-1”, based upon the existence of the “HIV-1 infectious molecular clone”, collapses.’
At that point, instead of giving the proof requested according to his own criteria, Foley and two other prominent ‘HIV’ advocates, Simon Wain-Hobson and John Moore, put pressure on Richard Smith, the BMJ editor, to stop the debate. They did this through a letter of complaint about it to the science journal Nature, which over many years had rejected numerous Perth group submissions.
To his credit, Smith resisted, writing: ‘I find it disturbing to see scientists arguing for restriction on free speech. Surely open communication and argument is a fundamental value of science . . . We should never forget Galileo being put before the inquisition. It would be even worse if we allowed scientific orthodoxy to become the inquisition.’
Moore, a specialist in Aids vaccine development, responded: ‘The denialists crave respectability for their maverick opinions, and anything that energises them to continue their efforts to damage science and public health is to be deplored. Let them exercise their right to free speech on their own websites, not on one run by a respected medical journal.’
Soon afterwards, Smith resigned – for unrelated reasons, he has since told me – and in April 2005 the BMJ’s letters editor terminated the debate.
The reality is that construction of the HIV theory was riddled with errors, but once it became established, no one wanted to bring it down. The late Kary Mullis, who won the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for inventing the polymerase chain reaction, once asked: ‘Where is the research that says HIV is the cause of Aids? There are 10,000 people in the world now who specialise in HIV. None has any interest in the possibility HIV doesn’t cause Aids because if it doesn’t, their expertise is useless . . . I can’t find a single virologist who will
give me references which show that HIV is the probable cause of Aids. If you ask a virologist for that information, you don’t get an answer, you get fury.’
Similar pressures are at work currently, as the scientific establishment tries to maintain funding for pandemic preparedness (see here, here and here, for example) by covering up the laboratory origin of SARS-CoV-2, by failing to acknowledge deaths and injuries from the Covid vaccines, and by ridiculing as ‘conspiracy theorists’ those who challenge their stories.
This is not science: it is institutional self-interest. With both ‘HIV’/Aids and Covid, it is causing vast suffering. The World Health Organization has been a party to these deceptions, and yet is seeking even more power (see here and here).
Is there any other body capable of providing ethical oversight of medical science? How can we best protect ourselves against such failings in future?
Next: A challenge we all face
July 9, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Book Review, Corruption, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | HIV/AIDS |
Leave a comment
Aletho News
Aletho News 