Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Clinical Trial to License RotaTeq, Like Almost All Childhood Vaccines, Did Not Use a Placebo Control

Those attacking RFK are wrong

BY AARON SIRI | INJECTING FREEDOM | JUNE 25, 2023

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is on record stating that almost all childhood vaccines were licensed based on clinical trials that did not include a placebo control. He is correct.

Nonetheless, numerous news outlets, such as Stat News in its article titled “Correcting Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s vaccine ‘facts’”, are stating Mr. Kennedy is wrong because they claim the clinical trial relied upon to license the rotavirus vaccine, RotaTeq, did include a placebo control. They are wrong.

A placebo is defined by the CDC as a “substance or treatment that has no effect on living beings.” This means a saline injection or water drops in mouth.

RotaTeq is administered via oral drops. A “placebo” would have been water drops in the mouth. The control used in the trial, however, included bioactive ingredients including almost all the ingredients in the RotaTeq vaccine itself.

How do I know this? Because in 2018, on behalf of ICAN, we were investigating the control used in each clinical trial relied upon by the FDA to license each childhood vaccine.

In that review, we found that while the package insert for the RotaTeq vaccine says the control in its clinical trial was a “placebo,” when we read the FDA’s clinical trial review for RotaTeq, the ingredients of this so-called “placebo” were redacted:

So, on behalf of ICAN we submitted a Freedom of Information Act Request to the FDA for “Documents sufficient to identify the ingredients of the ‘placebo’ in the prelicensure clinical trials identified in Section 6.1 of the package insert for RotaTeq.”

In a response dated June 14, 2018, the FDA provided the requested documents which clearly show that the control was not a placebo. Rather, it included polysorbate-80, sodium citrate, sodium phosphate, and sucrose.

These same four ingredients are also contained in RotaTeq. The only difference between the vaccine and the control is that RotaTeq also included tissue culture medium and rotavirus reassortments. So, bottom line: the control used in the RotaTeq clinical trial was not a placebo since it included bioactive ingredients.

For example, here is what the NIH explains about sodium phosphate, one of the ingredients in the control:

Sodium Phosphate can cause serious kidney damage and possibly death. In some cases, this damage was permanent, and some people whose kidneys were damaged had to be treated with dialysis (treatment to remove waste from the blood when the kidneys are not working well). Some people developed kidney damage within a few days after their treatment, and others developed kidney damage up to several months after their treatment.

And as these studies and data sheet make clear, polysorbate-80 is far from an inert substance, is bioactive, and can have safety concerns, especially when given to infants.

Bottom line, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s claim that virtually all childhood vaccines were licensed based on clinical trials that did not include a control group that received a placebo is correct. The undisputable evidence for this claim, all from FDA or pharma sources, is detailed on pages 3 to 7 of a response we sent to HHS on December 31, 2018. (In sharp contrast to virtually all other childhood vaccines, the clinical trial relied on to license Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine for teenagers 12 to 17 years of age appears to have had a placebo control group, though we are still reviewing that claim.)

Here are copies of the charts from that 2018 response to HHS which show what the control group received in each clinical trial for each childhood vaccine:

It is also why the following claim by Dr. Paul Offit in his article “Should Scientists Debate the Undebatable” is categorically false: “All vaccines are tested in placebo-controlled trials before licensure.”

I would more than welcome a public debate with Dr. Offit on this point and would welcome being proven wrong – would gladly prefer that products injected into babies not have this safety gap. Oh, but wait, Dr. Offit says it is undebatable, which again shows precisely why there must always be complete, uncoerced choice when it comes to any medical product.

What is really incredible about the attacks on Mr. Kennedy is that he has made clear he has no intention of changing anyone’s right to obtain vaccines. Everyone who wants to keep vaccinating will be free to do so. He just wants to assure freedom of choice and help those who are injured by these products.

The media and medical profession’s attack on this position is callous. Just as they care about those injured by infectious disease, as Mr. Kennedy certainly does, they should also care about those injured by vaccines. Mr. Kennedy is clear that we can and should do both. And to his amazing credit, no amount of insult or attack has moved him from his position that we must protect every American, including those injured by these pharma products.

June 25, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Was SARS-CoV-2 entirely novel or particularly deadly?

BY THOMAS VERDUYN, DR TODD KENYON, DR JONATHAN ENGLER | PANDA | JUNE 22, 2023

As part of our inquiry into the drivers of excess deaths, we take a step back and address the central theme of the Covid-era narrative: that SARS-CoV-2 is a novel virus that is so deadly that drastic measures were needed to contain it.

In the previous articles of this mini series about excess deaths we looked at how effective the Covid shots were at arresting Covid [1, 2] and also how bad the “first wave” in New York city was.[3] There are good reasons behind why we chose to address these two topics first. One reason is that an honest look at these issues helps establish a balanced understanding of what might be driving excess deaths since 2020. Another reason is that both topics were central to the official narrative emanating from government sources and the mainstream media. We were told that the whole point of the lockdowns was to delay the spread of SARS-CoV-2 until a vaccine could be developed that would spare us from overwhelmed hospitals like what happened in places like New York and Italy.

As has been shown, and to put it mildly, the Covid shots did not perform nearly as well as promised. Sadly, the burden of the adverse events caused by the experimental shots turned out to be worse than the disease.[4] Furthermore, by a close examination of excess deaths in New York city in early 2020, and in particular by a comparison to what happened on the Diamond Princess, it was concluded that the tragedy in New York was not compatible with the spread of a virus such as SARS-CoV-2, let alone any other generally mild respiratory virus.

All of this presses us to take a step back and address the central theme of the Covid-era narrative, namely the idea that SARS-CoV-2 is a novel virus that is particularly deadly; so deadly that drastic measures were needed to contain it. We begin with a look at the idea that the virus is novel.

1. How novel is SARS-CoV-2?

In the field of virology, the term “novel virus” typically means that the virus was recently discovered. This definition, of course, tells us nothing at all about when the virus first existed. Thus, for instance, the first human-coronavirus was found in 1961.[5] It was labeled B814 and identified as a cause of the common cold. This does not mean that this particular cold-causing coronavirus suddenly appeared in that year. No, and much to the rather, it only means someone finally found it. The ability to isolate, identify and sequence RNA viruses is a relatively new science. The patent on the process used in PCR machines was first granted in 1987.[6] It was in 2003, only 20 years ago, that the first human reference genome was sequenced. Despite all the efforts by many scientists, mankind has not yet sequenced every virus on planet earth. It is quite possible we never will. As a result, we are hardly in a position to assert when a particular virus (or strain of a virus) first appeared. Even if sequencing of a virus could prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was made in a laboratory, unless we had lab records to prove when it was made, it would still be nearly impossible to determine when it first infected someone. At best we might be able to estimate a timeframe by using antibody tests applied to stored specimens. The fact that SARS-CoV-2 is a relatively mild virus with symptoms similar to that caused by the flu only compounds the challenge. All we know for certain about this virus is that labs first began testing for it in early 2020.

The real problem with all of this is that during the Covid era the term “novel virus” was used by many outlets (including universities, journals, the media, and government officials) to mean something quite different from “recently discovered.”[7] For example, the GoodRx website has an article in which the authors say that “SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is a “novel coronavirus.” This means it’s different from all viruses like it.” They go on to say that “In medicine, novel refers to a virus or bacteria that wasn’t known to affect humans. This means that the bug is either brand new or was only found in animals or other life forms.” [8] Likewise, Dr. Tam, the chief medical officer of Canada, recently wrote, “In March 2020, Canada was faced with a… virulent pathogen… for which there was no natural immunity… and no effective antivirals.” So we see that the official narrative was not only that SARS-CoV-2 was recently discovered, but that it did not exist before late December 2019, was different from other viruses, was newly capable of infecting humans, was entirely new to our immune system, and was outside the scope of what doctors knew how to treat.

Are any of these claims true? Other than the fact that it was recently identified, the other claims are either false or dubious at best. It is useful to examine each claim on its own. We begin with a brief investigation into the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 existed before December 2019. Actually, there is growing evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was  around long before it suddenly acquired international attention. For instance, by searching through the public sequencing data archives, a group of researchers found that soil samples collected in Antarctica between Dec 2018 and Jan 2019 contained “sequence fragments matching the SARS-CoV-2 reference genome…” [9] This was so contrary to the official narrative that the authors later suggested that it had to be on account of laboratory contamination issues. But their findings were not unique. For example, by examining human blood samples taken in Italy before the Covid era, researchers found that already by September of 2019 some individuals (none of whom were sick at the time) had SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies in their blood.[10 11] Other studies have found similarly.[12] Therefore, there is good evidence that the virus existed long before it garnered any attention.

Second, was SARS-CoV-2 that different from other viruses? The very fact that the virus was named “SARS-CoV-2” informs us that virologists think it is similar enough to SARS that it didn’t even warrant an entirely new name. Indeed, the two viruses are said to share “79.5% sequence identity.” [13] Despite the 20.5% difference, and notwithstanding the 17 year time lapse, studies have shown that people that were infected with SARS “possess long-lasting memory T cells… that displayed robust cross-reactivity to the N-protein of SARS-CoV-2.”[14]  Therefore, although possessing differences, it cannot be said that this virus is that different from other coronaviruses.

Third, was this virus newly capable of infecting humans? To answer this question, it may help to consider RaTG13, a bat coronavirus that is said to be the closest to our virus. The two viruses are reported to be 96% similar.[15]  Although it is commonly assumed that bat coronaviruses cannot infect humans without either a modification to its RNA or via an intermediate host, it is possible that bat coronaviruses jump to humans all the time, only without making us sick. For instance, a study done in 2018 found good evidence to conclude that bat coronaviruses are capable of infecting humans regularly, noting also that the “infections were subclinical or caused only mild symptoms.” [16] Conversely, experiments with blood samples of health care workers known to have had Covid demonstrated efficient neutralization of RaTG13.[15] Of particular significance in this regard is the little known fact that the PCR test for Covid, as designed by Drosten, was initially verified by making sure it detected coronaviruses from “bats in Europe and Asia.”[17] In other words, a positive PCR test may have indicated nothing more or less than the presence of a harmless bat coronavirus already endemic among humans. Although the Drosten test was later superseded by other tests, the official narrative emerged rapidly out of case detection using the Drosten test. Unfortunately, it is not clear to what extent this influenced early test results. In any case, it is certainly not novel that a virus of this sort could infect humans.

Fourth, is this virus entirely new to our immune system? Certainly not, for it was known from early on in the Covid-era that a significant percentage of people were immune to this supposedly novel virus. We previously observed that only 19% (712 of 3711) of the people on board the Diamond Princess cruise ship tested positive for the virus, and of these only a smaller fraction yet actually became ill.[4] Similarly, a group of researchers from Singapore “detected SARS-CoV-2 specific T cells in individuals with no history of SARS [or] Covid-19.” Remarkably, they also detected T cells in people that had no known contact with anyone that had had either SARS or Covid.[14] Likewise, a study in the UK found that many health care workers repeatedly tested negative despite repeated exposure to Covid.[18] The authors of that study concluded that “some individuals may clear subclinical infection before seroconversion.” Why did so many people never get Covid? Multiple researchers have concluded that it was likely a result of memory T-cells from a previous infection with a common cold or flu.[19, 20, 21, 22]

What percentage of people had sufficient  prior immunity to prevent illness? Those same researchers found it was about 50%. For instance, a study by Grifoni et al “detected SARS-CoV-2-reactive CD4+ T cells in ~ 40% – 60% of unexposed individuals, suggesting cross-reactive T cell recognition between circulating ‘common cold’ coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2.” [23] In other words, about half the population was destined to never become noticeably ill from Covid for the simple reason that they recently had a cold. Nor is this particularly surprising since it was known that the original SARS virus had also cross-reacted with other coronaviruses.[24] Thus, the virus was not entirely novel to our immune system.

Fifth, was this virus new to doctors? As may be gathered from the fact that Covid was around long before March 2020, it is almost certain that before doctors were told that they were dealing with a novel virus that they supposedly did not know how to treat,  they must have unknowingly treated Covid as if it was any normal respiratory or influenza-like-illness. To the best of our knowledge, there is no record of doctors reporting an unusual increase in untreatable respiratory disease, at least not until the WHO officially declared Covid a pandemic. Even after doctors were advised it was an entirely new disease, treatment protocols were rapidly developed in multiple places.[25, 26, 27]

In summary, SARS-CoV-2 was “novel” only in the sense that it was first discovered in early 2020. It is certain that it existed globally for at least six months before this. Already by January 2020 about half the world’s population was immune to this virus. Nor was Covid outside the parameters of known treatments available for respiratory diseases. These facts should have been front and center in the media, and should have had a strong influence on government policies. Sadly, all this information was buried.

Of course, if Covid was not novel, it is impossible that it should have caused any excess deaths in 2020. It follows from this sobering conclusion that any and all excess deaths had to have been caused by other factors.

2. How deadly was Covid?

As was just pointed out, at least half of the population was essentially immune to Covid. For these people Covid was a non-issue. What about the other half? How lethal was it for them? Central to a proper answer of this question is the fact that our immune system is confronted with novel proteins all the time. Our survival does not depend on us having seen them or anything similar before. Rather, the immune system learns from all foreign material, remembers the experience, and serves to make future encounters less noteworthy. If at some point in the future a virus should arise that was both novel to our immune system and untreatable, even this would not necessarily mean that the virus was something to fear; certainly not to the extent of causing a cataclysm like we have recently witnessed.

In a previous article of this series [1] we made mention of a World Health Organization bulletin that estimated the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of Covid to be 0.23%.[28] That same bulletin also advised it might be substantially less than this. As data accumulated, the IFR was indeed found to be lower, eventually converging on a global average of about 0.15%.[29] For people under 70 years old, the average IFR of Covid drops down to 0.07%.[30] Of course these estimates were determined using information from death certificates and PCR test results, which (as shall be explained below) may have introduced significant inflationary errors into the results. The IFR of Covid may therefore be much less than 0.15%.

Moreover, it is well established that severe Covid illness is generally linked to those with underlying medical conditions, meaning it is rare in  healthy individuals. For instance, a study looking at more than half a million people hospitalized in the USA with Covid found that 94.9% “had at least 1 underlying medical condition.” [31]

Nevertheless, for the sake of argument let us accept these estimates at face value and proceed to ask how Covid compares with the flu? The IFR of influenza is generally considered to be about 0.1%, and in a typical season about 8% of Americans get sick from the flu.[32] As for Covid, despite the unprecedented numbers of people that were tested for this virus, the total number of Covid cases in the USA during 2020 totaled 19.2 million,[33] or about 5.7% of the population. Thus, by all metrics it would appear that Covid in 2020 was on par with or less than a normal flu season.

The fact that Covid is not a particularly lethal disease was known since early 2020. For instance, the UK government officially declared that “as of 19 March 2020, Covid-19 is no longer considered to be an HCID in the UK.” [34] The acronym HCID stands for “high consequence infectious diseases.” Therefore, for the vast majority of people, the wonderful and immensely complicated human immune system was more than adequate to fight off a Covid infection.

If in fact Covid was only as bad as a normal flu season, why did it garner so much attention? And why have government dashboards suggested that Covid is causing millions of excess deaths in the world? The answer to the first of these two questions will have to be postponed for a future article. As for the second question, it is helpful to look a little closer at excess deaths in 2020. A recent study by Levitt et al analyzed all-cause mortality rates in 33 countries from 2009 to 2021. They found that during this 13 year window, the year 2020 was the worst year with the highest mortality for only four countries: “UK, Italy, Spain and Belgium.” [35] Another 10 countries had “the highest mortality in 2021.” (USA and Poland were the worst). As for the remaining 19 countries, either 2009 or 2010 had the highest mortality.

Was there anything particularly special about 2009 that made it the worst year for more than half these countries? Actually, it was found to be the worst for two simple reasons: mortality rates have in general been decreasing over time, and 2009 is as far back as the study went. Of interest is that in 2009 the WHO declared a pandemic on account of the H1N1 virus. Nothing special came of it, however, for “the total number of influenza-related deaths worldwide… proved similar to the number in a relatively mild year of seasonal influenza.” [36]

The fact that 2020 was the worst year for only 4 of these 33 countries lends support to our conclusion that Covid was about as bad as a normal flu season. The fact that 2021 was the worst year for 10 countries helps reinforce our previous findings that the Covid shots did very little to prevent Covid deaths and instead caused a great deal of deaths from adverse events.

3. Covid Data Issues

How is it possible that a mortality analysis seems to contradict reports about millions of Covid cases and deaths? There are several good reasons for this apparent discrepancy. For starters, and as was mentioned in a previous article,[1] on April 20, 2020 the WHO mandated changes to the way death certificates were to be filled out. The document stated that “a death due to Covid-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness.” [37] In other words, since influenza typically has identical symptoms to Covid, flu deaths were to be labeled as Covid deaths. While this may be useful for “surveillance purposes,” it does not help us determine if Covid caused any excess deaths. Nor is it useful for making accurate comparisons between Covid and the flu. And it most definitely makes it difficult to calculate the IFR of Covid.

The WHO document went on to say: “A death due to Covid-19 may not be attributed to another disease (e.g. cancer)… Always apply these instructions whether they can be considered medically correct or not.” Therefore, even if cancer was the actual cause of death, if the person so much as tested positive for Covid, the death certificate was to say that Covid was the cause of death. The end result of this change in policy is that the number of deaths caused by Covid has been significantly over-counted in most countries.[38, 39, 40, 41] What was not affected by the protocol change was how many people died from all causes. This is why all-cause mortality studies are so relevant during the Covid-era.

Another issue muddying the waters is the PCR test used to identify a Covid case. Despite the fact that the PCR test is based on remarkable technology, it has various shortcomings when used as it was to establish a Covid case. Very briefly, a few such issues are:

  • If the cycle threshold is too high, it will return a high number of false positives.[42]
  • As disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positives increases.[43, 44]
  • The number and type of primers used for identifying the presence of SARS-CoV-2 has the potential to pick up fragments originating from some other source.[45, 46] (As we saw above, harmless bat coronaviruses may give a false positive.)
  • The PCR test is capable of finding virus fragments,or intact virus in the airway, but is not capable of determining if a person is actually infected with Covid. Since clinical symptoms were not required to be present, many uninfected individuals falsely tested positive. [47, 48]

Every issue listed above has the tendency to inflate Covid deaths.

4. Covid in Canada

To put things into perspective, and to tie all these ideas together, it is appropriate to consider one particular country in more detail as an example. Let us consider Canada. Statistics Canada records that 16,151 deaths in 2020 were attributed to Covid.[49] This is slightly more than twice the number of deaths attributed to “Influenza and Pneumonia” in an average year in Canada (7304 deaths/yr). How is it possible that Covid was more than twice as deadly as the flu if the two illnesses are about the same?

The answer is either that the number of Covid deaths was overcounted due to all the issues just mentioned or that influenza deaths were underdiagnosed in the past. Unfortunately, it is now nearly impossible to determine the exact error rate. Nevertheless, by considering only the last of the issues in the above list, it is possible to demonstrate how significant the inflation factor really is.

Dr. Bullard, head of the provincial laboratory in Winnipeg Manitoba, testified that PCR tests do not verify infection and were never intended to be used to diagnose respiratory illness.[50] He went on to say that about 56% of positives in Canada belonged to  people that were not infected with Covid. If we accept this percentage, in all likelihood at least 56% of the deaths attributed to Covid in Canada were a result of a false positive. Applying this error rate to Covid deaths in Canada in 2020 brings the number of deaths down to 7,106. It is duly noted that this number is slightly lower than the yearly average for influenza deaths in the preceding four years. If we use this adjusted amount, and plot mortality in Canada in 2020 by the top 15 leading causes of death, we can see the relative significance of Covid in Canada.

Figure 1. Source: Statistics Canada. Table 13-10-0392-01

Covid mortality was adjusted down by 56% to account for false positives.

In Figure 1 above, cancer and heart issues dwarf all other causes of death. The number of deaths attributed to flu and pneumonia is several thousand below average. This resulted from the fact that, according to the WHO mandate, many deaths that would normally have been classified as influenza were labeled as Covid because the two are clinically compatible illnesses. Also, Canadian labs changed the way they tested for the flu: “changes in laboratory testing practices as a result of the public health response to… Covid-19… may affect the comparability of data to previous… seasons.” [51] What is clear from this chart is that Covid was not particularly lethal, was no worse than a normal flu season, and certainly unworthy of the unprecedented attention it received.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is safe to say that SARS-CoV-2 was “novel” in early 2020 solely because of the simple fact that that is when it was first detected. Not only was Covid treatable, but at least 50% of people had sufficient immunity from a previous common cold to prevent noticeable illness. It can also be said that Covid was not unusually lethal, since the mortality burden was only as bad as a normal flu season. Covid mortality (when adjusted for only one of several factors) ranked ninth among the leading causes of death in Canada, the same rank normally held by influenza and pneumonia.

Of course, it could be argued that the reason Covid deaths were this low is because government mandated lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions prevented a Covid catastrophe. It is this important topic that we plan to cover in our next article of this series.

References

  1. Kenyon, Todd et al, “It is impossible that the vaccines saved 14 million lives in 2021,” Panda, 2023,  https://pandata.org/drivers-of-excess-deaths-part1/ 
  2. Verduyn et al, “How many lives were actually saved by the Covid-19 vaccines?” Panda, 2023,  https://pandata.org/how-many-lives-were-actually-saved-by-the-covid-19-vaccines/
  3. Kenyon, Todd et al, “What the Diamond Princess tells us about NYC in spring 2020,” Panda, 2023, https://pandata.org/what-the-diamond-princess-tells-us-about-nyc-in-spring-2020/
  4. Verduyn, Thomas et al, “Did side effects from the Covid shots cause an excess mortality?” Panda, 2023, https://pandata.org/did-side-effects-from-the-covid-shots-cause-any-excess-mortality/
  5. Akronson, Jeffrey, “Covid-19: First coronavirus was described in The BMJ in 1965,” BMJ 2020;369:m1547
  6. Mulley, Kary, US Patent, 1987, http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/cc/f0/3e/dc51b1fb4af2e6/US4683202.pdf
  7. Morris, Dylan, “Novelty Means Severity: The Key To the Pandemic,” Insight, 2021, https://www.theinsight.org/p/novelty-means-severity-the-key-to
  8. Billingsley, Alyssa, Pinto-Garcia, Patricia, “The Novel Coronavirus: What Are Novel Viruses, and How Do They Impact Public Health?” GoodRx Health, 2023, https://www.goodrx.com/conditions/covid-19/what-does-novel-coronavirus-mean-science-medical-definition
  9. István Csabai, Krisztián Papp, Dávid Visontai et al. “Unique SARS-CoV-2 variant found in public sequence data of Antarctic soil samples collected in 2018-2019,” 23 December 2021, PREPRINT (Version 1) available at Research Square https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1177047/v1
  10. Apolone G, Montomoli E, Manenti A, et al. “Unexpected detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the prepandemic period in Italy.” Tumori Journal. 2021;107(5):446-451. doi:10.1177/0300891620974755
  11. Antonella Amendola, et al, “Molecular evidence for SARS-CoV-2 in samples collected from patients with morbilliform eruptions since late 2019 in Lombardy, northern Italy,” Environmental Research, Volume 215, Part 1, 2022, 113979,ISSN 0013-9351, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935122013068
  12. Jones, Will, “The Evidence COVID-19 Was Spreading Silently Around the World in Late 2019,” 2022, The Daily Sceptic, The Evidence COVID-19 Was Spreading Silently Around the World in Late 2019 – The Daily Sceptic
  13. Rossi GA, Sacco O, Mancino E, Cristiani L, Midulla F. “Differences and similarities between SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2: spike receptor-binding domain recognition and host cell infection with support of cellular serine proteases.” Infection. 2020 Oct;48(5):665-669. doi: 10.1007/s15010-020-01486-5. Epub 2020 Jul 31. PMID: 32737833; PMCID: PMC7393809
  14. Le Bert, N., Tan, A.T., Kunasegaran, K. et al. “SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls.” Nature 584, 457–462 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2550-z
  15. Cantoni, D., Mayora-Neto, M., Thakur, N. et al. “Pseudotyped Bat Coronavirus RaTG13 is efficiently neutralised by convalescent sera from SARS-CoV-2 infected patients.” Commun Biol 5, 409 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-022-03325-9
  16. Wang, N., Li, SY., Yang, XL. et al. “Serological Evidence of Bat SARS-Related Coronavirus Infection in Humans, China.” Virol. Sin. 33, 104–107 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12250-018-0012-7
  17. Corman, Victor M et al, “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR,” Eurosurveillance, 25, 2000045 (2020), https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045
  18. Swadling, L., Diniz, M.O., Schmidt, N.M. et al. “Pre-existing polymerase-specific T cells expand in abortive seronegative SARS-CoV-2.” Nature 601, 110–117 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04186-8
  19. Jose Mateus et al., “Selective and cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2 T cell epitopes in unexposed humans.” Science, 370,89-94(2020). DOI:10.1126/science.abd3871
  20. Lipsitch, M., Grad, Y.H., Sette, A. et al. “Cross-reactive memory T cells and herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2.” Nat Rev Immunol 20, 709–713 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41577-020-00460-4
  21. Humbert, Marion et al, “Functional SARS-CoV-2 cross-reactive CD4+ T cells established in early childhood decline with age,” PNAS, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2220320120
  22. Mahajan, S., Kode, V., Bhojak, K. et al. “Immunodominant T-cell epitopes from the SARS-CoV-2 spike antigen reveal robust pre-existing T-cell immunity in unexposed individuals.” Sci Rep 11, 13164 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-92521-4
  23. Grifoni, Alba et al, “Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals,” Cell, 2020, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.05.015
  24. Patrick, David et al, “An Outbreak of Human Coronavirus OC43 Infection and Serological Cross-Reactivity with SARS Coronavirus,” Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology, 2006,  https://doi.org/10.1155/2006/152612
  25. Front Line Covid Critical Care Alliance, Treatment Protocol, https://covid19criticalcare.com/treatment-protocols/
  26. Heart Advisory & Recovery Team, Ivermectin, https://www.hartgroup.org/category/ivermectin/
  27. McCullough PA, et al, “Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19).” Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2020 Dec 30;21(4):517-530. doi: 10.31083/j.rcm.2020.04.264. PMID: 33387997.
  28. Ioannidis, John P A. (‎2021)‎. “Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data.” Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 99 (‎1)‎, 19 – 33F. World Health Organization. http://dx.doi.org/10.2471/BLT.20.265892
  29. Ioannidis, John P A. “Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of COVID-19: An overview of systematic evaluations,” European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 2021,  https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13554
  30. Pezzullo AM, Axfors C, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Apostolatos A, Ioannidis JPA. “Age-stratified infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in the non-elderly population.” Environ Res. 2023 Jan 1;216(Pt 3):114655. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2022.114655. Epub 2022 Oct 28. PMID: 36341800; PMCID: PMC9613797.
  31. Kompaniyets, Lyudmyla et al, “Underlying Medical Conditions and Severe Illness Among 540,667 Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19, March 2020–March 2021,” CDC 2021, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd18.210123external icon
  32. Anonymous, “Key Facts About Influenza (Flu),” CDC 2022, https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/keyfacts.htm
  33. Anonymous, Our World In Data, Coronavirus (COVID-19) Cases – Our World in Data
  34. Anonymous, “Guidance High consequence infectious diseases (HCID),” UK government, 2020, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid
  35. Levitt, M., Zonta, F. & Ioannidis, J.P.A. “Excess death estimates from multiverse analysis in 2009–2021.” Eur J Epidemiol (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-023-00998-2
  36. Fineberg, Harvey, “Pandemic Preparedness and Response — Lessons from the H1N1 Influenza of 2009,” N Engl J Med 2014; 370:1335-1342 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra1208802
  37. Anonymous, “International Guidelines for Certification and Classification (coding) of Covid-19 as Cause of Death,” World Health Organization, 2020, https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/classification/icd/covid-19/guidelines-cause-of-death-covid-19-20200420-en.pdf (pg 3)
  38. Audie, Joseph, “Using CDC data and death certificate standards to propose a preliminary estimate for the number of US COVID-19 associated deaths that were caused by or contributed to by SARS-CoV-2 infection,” Research Gate, 2020, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344228032_Using_CDC_data_and_death_certificate_standards_to_propose_a_preliminary_estimate_for_the_number_of_US_COVID-19_associated_deaths_that_were_caused_by_or_contributed_to_by_SARS-CoV-2_infection
  39. Fenton, Norman & Neil, Martin & McLachlan, Scott. (2021). What proportion of people with COVID-19 do not get symptoms?. 10.13140/RG.2.2.33939.60968.
  40. Jensen, Scott, 2023, https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=PHxj_Luclxs&feature=youtu.be
  41. Beaudoin, John, “500,000 Death Certificates Tell of Signals, Fraud, and Unlawful Deaths,” 2023, https://rumble.com/v2a7wtk-john-beaudoin-500000-death-certificates-tell-of-signals-fraud-and-unlawful-.html
  42. La Scola B, Le Bideau M, Andreani J, Hoang VT, Grimaldier C, Colson P, Gautret P, Raoult D. “Viral RNA load as determined by cell culture as a management tool for discharge of SARS-CoV-2 patients from infectious disease wards.” Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2020 Jun;39(6):1059-1061. doi: 10.1007/s10096-020-03913-9. Epub 2020 Apr 27. PMID: 32342252; PMCID: PMC7185831.
  43. Anonymous, “WHO Information Notice for Users 2020/05: Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2,” World Health Organization, 2021, https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05
  44. Deeks, John, “Why the school testing regime needs to change,” The Post, 2021, https://unherd.com/thepost/why-the-school-testing-regime-needs-to-change/
  45. Neil, Martin, “Put to the test: use of rapid testing technologies for covid-19,” BMJ 2021; 372 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n208
  46. Neil, Martin, “UK lighthouse laboratories testing for SARS-COV-2 may have breached WHO Emergency Use Assessment and potentially violated Manufacturer Instructions for Use.” Probability and Risk, 2021, https://probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2021/02/uk-lighthouse-laboratories-testing-for.html?m=1
  47. Deeks, Jonathan, “Operation Moonshot proposals are scientifically unsound,” BMJ 2020; 370 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3699
  48. Pollock A M, Lancaster J. “Asymptomatic transmission of covid-19” BMJ 2020; 371 :m4851 doi:10.1136/bmj.m4851
  49. Anonymous, Statistics Canada. Table 13-10-0392-01  “Deaths and age-specific mortality rates, by selected grouped causes” DOI: https://doi.org/10.25318/1310039201-eng
  50. Anonymous, “Manitoba Chief Microbiologist and Laboratory Specialist: 56% of positive “cases” are not infectious,” JCCF, 2021, https://www.jccf.ca/manitoba-chief-microbiologist-and-laboratory-specialist-56-of-positive-cases-are-not-infectious/
  51. Government of Canada, “FluWatch annual report: 2019-2020 influenza season,” 2021, https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/diseases-conditions/fluwatch/2019-2020/annual-report.html

June 25, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

NEW CDC DIRECTOR: LEADER OR FOLLOWER?

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | June 23, 2023

President Joe Biden’s new pick for CDC director, Dr. Mandy Cohen, has an interesting track record as lead health director of North Carolina’s pandemic response. Find out the scientific methods she used to create policy and guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic.

June 25, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , , , | Leave a comment

FDA responds to negative efficacy of variant boosters with another variant booster

By Daniel Horowitz – conservative review – June 21, 2023

The human experimentation of Operation Warp Speed was not an anomaly; it is the new normal, and the FDA is just getting started. The agency is now allowing the COVID vaccine manufacturers to change the formulation of their shots to continue to chase variants, themselves created by antigenic drift of the shots. And they continue to do so based on nothing more than measuring antibody titer levels. No human clinical trials necessary! Except, studies now show, and reality confirms, the more they chase variants, the more they create negative efficacy against the existing variant, thereby engendering a “need” for another formulation.

What was the response of the FDA to the increasing news of cataclysmic injuries and negative efficacy of the COVID shots for variants that are no longer dangerous? Last Thursday, the FDA’s VRBPAC unanimously approved a fall booster, advising Pfizer, Moderna, and Novavax to update their formulations for the so-called XBB.1.5 Omicron variant. So, officials pre-emptively approved a shot that doesn’t exist based on antibody level testing without human trials – all for a variant that not only is not dangerous but will actually be extinct by the time this poison reaches the market, just as they did with the bivalent formulation for the BA.4 and BA.4 variants.

To this day, the bivalent shot is the only one available, and according to the CDC, that variant doesn’t even exist! It is true that very few people are dumb enough to get this shot, but what they are trying to do is create an endemic schedule of COVID shots to time perfectly with the flu shots in the fall. They have already groomed people over the generation to “get their flu shot” every fall. So now the pharmacies will be waiting with the COVID needle to complete their seasonal updates.

So, what happens when you keep tricking the body to respond to a virus for strains that no longer exist? As the FDA approved these shots, the agency already had the peer-reviewed Cleveland Clinic study showing negative efficacy of the original COVID shots. Just days before this meeting, the Cleveland Clinic came out with a preprint showing negative efficacy for the bivalent booster shots too.

The study contrasted 11,990 employees of this venerable institution who chose to be “up to date” with the bivalent boosters compared to 36,344 employees who were “not up to date” and tracked their outcomes. It turns out that after about three and a half months, you were about 25% more likely to get COVID after having gotten the boosters as compared to the control group.

After adjusting for confounding factors between the groups, the study authors actually found a 33% rate of negative efficacy!

“This study’s findings question the wisdom of promoting the idea that every person needs to be ‘up-to-date’ on COVID-19 vaccination, as currently defined, at this time,” conclude the Cleveland Clinic researchers. They also observe, “It should be pointed out that there is not a single study that has shown that the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine protects against severe disease or death caused by the XBB lineages of the Omicron variant.”

The push for boosters comes at a time when more evidence proves a strong correlation between excess deaths and the vaccine take-up. A letter published in a peer-reviewed journal of Medicine and Clinical Science shows that Japan and Germany, two highly vaccinated countries, experienced sharp excess deaths coinciding with the vaccine take-up. They found very little excess death during the pandemic months before the vaccine was rolled out.

“It should be investigated to what extent the about 5%-10% highly significantly increased mortalities in Germany and Japan in 2021 and 2022 might be due to the pandemic countermeasures, including the vaccinations with their possibly underestimated immediate or protracted side effects,” concluded the researchers from Japan and Germany.

“From this point of view, it seems possible that a high vaccination rate has contributed to an increased all-cause mortality in some countries.”

The twisted irony is that, according to the CDC’s variant tracker, XBB.1.5 has gone from 80% of cases to less than 40% of cases in just a few months. It will clearly be obsolete by the fall. None of this was discussed at the FDA hearing. Of course, nothing about Pfizer’s own document showing five million cumulative reports of adverse events affecting every organ system was ever discussed. Hence, we have record injuries, negative efficacy, long-term immune imprinting causing the body to constantly respond inappropriately to wrong strains of the virus – all for a virus that is no longer deadly and for a population that has already gotten the virus!

That’s not just a lousy cost-benefit analysis; that is premeditated murder against the American people. What is the GOP plan to stop this? Or do Republicans even care? How can they continue to fund more COVID shots in the HHS appropriations bill, much less the broader FDA/CDC scheme to create new dangerous shots at warp speed?

Just how callously does the FDA regard human life? After its own VAERS system exploded with every adverse event imaginable, an outcome we now know officials anticipated, to this day they have not followed up on those safety signals. For example, according to the Informed Consent Action Network, the Standard Operating Procedures and Policies document for the FDA’s Vaccine Safety Team requires that its staff members identify VAERS adverse event reports that “need a rapid response and complex coordination,” after which they are supposed to “immediately” inform certain FDA management, who then alert other sub-agencies. Did that occur?

Well, more than a year after the ICAN’s record request, the agency responded, “A search of our records did not locate any documents responsive to your request.”

Where is the action from the House GOP? Why are they still only investigating the shutdown of schools in the past, but not the ongoing, premediated unleashing of deadly products on the American people?

June 24, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Never in my wildest dreams…

… or never in my wildest nightmares? 

Health Advisory & Recovery Team | June 23, 2023 

This was the opening phrase in a Twitter post from Dr Lisa Iannattone,on 15 June. The whole Tweet read, “Never in my wildest dreams could I have predicted a future where a new virus would become the #1 infectious disease killer of children and that medical leadership would decide the vaccine for this virus is NOT important for kids, and NOT promote it”

Those of us at HART might rephrase this, “Never in my wildest NIGHTMARE could I have predicted a future where, for a virus with such a low impact on children, medical leadership would decide that a novel-technology vaccine with NO long-term safety data IS important for kids to take and WOULD promote it — and in some countries even mandate it — in a vain attempt to protect their grandparents”.

The tweet was linked to this news item from Oxford University dated 31st January 2023 so it seems to have taken Dr L several months to read it! “A new study led by researchers at the University of Oxford’s Department of Computer Science has found that, between 2021 and 2022, COVID-19 was a leading cause of death in children and young people in the United States, ranking eighth overall. The results demonstrate that pharmaceutical and public health interventions should continue to be applied to limit the spread of the coronavirus and protect against severe disease in this age group.” 

The study itself used publicly available US data to look at deaths in children and young  people (CYP) aged 0-19, where COVID-19 was ‘the underlying cause of death’ and to look at rankings of causes of death from 2019 onwards. The finding emphasised in the Tweet was that COVID-19 ranked “first in deaths caused by infectious or respiratory diseases.” The next sentence, unsurprisingly omitted from the Tweet, is however vital when putting this into context “COVID-19 deaths constituted 2% of all causes of death in this age group.”  

A group looking at data in England from March 2020 to March 2021, found that deaths of children with a positive PCR test gave a similar 2% of all childhood deaths.  However, unlike the more recent US study, this study did a thorough notes review for all the deaths and found that in less than half of the cases was COVID-19 either the underlying or a contributory cause of death, accounting for only 0.8% of total deaths for this age group. Fortunately, child deaths are rare and a Child Death Review system has been in place in England and Wales since 2008 to look for preventable causes, so the idea of looking at cases in detail is nothing new.

Like the importance of looking at absolute risk reduction rather than relative risk reduction for judging vaccine efficacy, it is vital to look at the absolute risk of a child dying from COVID-19. Whilst any child death is a tragedy for the family concerned, the risk of death from a respiratory virus is small compared with risks of say accidental death or suicide, which are also conditions the reduction of which should be the concern of Public Health departments. People, including children, dying of other conditions also find it harder to fight off viral infections. It is therefore inevitable that excessive testing will link viruses to dying children. However, the idea that these deaths could have been prevented has no basis in evidence.

It is noteworthy that the number of deaths in under 20s in the US, did not diminish with the arrival of the vaccines  — one could even be forgiven for thinking they have increased.

June 24, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Re Early Spread, what did President Trump NOT Know

… And why didn’t he know it? Were his advisors concealing key information from him? Here’s what SHOULD have happened ….

BY BILL RICE, JR. | JUNE 24, 2023

A fascinating “what-might-have been” article published by The Brownstone Institute presents evidence that one White House meeting – later cancelled – might have prevented the lockdowns and much of the Covid madness that later ensued.

According to author Eric Hartmann, Stanford scientist Dr. John Ioannidis and a team of other “elite” scientists were set to meet with President Trump. The goal: Let the President know that every scientist didn’t think like Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx.

(Ioannidis later became famous, or infamous, for showing that, for most citizens, the Infection Fatality Rate for this virus was roughly the same or lower than the death risk of the flu.)

The article’s salient points hinge on my favorite taboo subject – “early spread” – as Ioannidis is among the group who believed many Americans had probably already been infected by this virus by mid-March 2020.

This would mean any lockdowns to slow or stop the spread – or “flatten the curve” – were probably pointless and would cause far more harm than these draconian, unprecedented “mitigation” measures would prevent.

For me, the article also raises this intriguing question: What did certain officials know (about virus origins and spread) … and when did they know this?

Although my formal “science education” ended in 11th grade, my parents and God bestowed me with common sense, which I’m going to employ in today’s thought exercise, which shows what I would have done if I was Donald Trump or if I was the Science King of the World in the first 75 days of 2020.

Something like the events that follow SHOULD have happened in the pivotal, history-changing weeks of early 2020.

The fact something like this did NOT happen provides another giant tell about how corrupt and captured our science establishment has become.

I’m no scientist, but here’s what I would have done ….

The key “known knowable” in the “virus origins” saga is perhaps this nugget of information:

On the last day of December 2019, Chinese officials reported a pneumonia-like illness of “unknown origins” to the World Health Organization.

For the entire global “public health” establishment, this was a Super Bowl-type event.

“Okay, guys, this might be the Big One we’ve all been predicting. Let’s all get hot and prove our expert bonafides and save the world,” etc.

What would I have done when this news hit the Emergency Bat Wire?

First, I would have asked, “Okay, what are the symptoms of this alleged/possible new disease?”

Next, I would have asked: “Is it possible this possible new virus was already infecting people outside of Wuhan?”

Knowing the symptoms of this new disease are almost exactly like Influenza-Like Illnesses (ILI), I would have immediately started looking at all the weekly ILI “Surveillance Reports” produced by all 50 U.S. state health agencies and the CDC.

I would have asked: “Have we had a conspicuous spike of people going to the doctor with similar symptoms? For example, are people getting more flu tests than in previous flu seasons?”

As it turns out, as I showed in a recent article, the answer is/was, “Yes. No doubt.”

The next thing I would have done is told all my public health colleagues: “Guys, we need to develop an antibody assay to test for this new disease ASAP.”

After our crack scientists and medical labs had developed a suitable antibody test (China had one by late January 2020), I would have said: “We need to test ‘archived’ blood we already have in storage and see if any Americans had developed antibodies to this virus before, say, Dec. 30, 2019.”

My next Question: “Do we have any stored archived blood we can actually test for Covid antibodies?”

Answer: As it turns out, we do.

The Red Cross (and several other blood-bank organizations) actually collects tens of thousands of pints of blood every single day. One assumes at least some of this blood must be saved for weeks or months.

I would then order that we expedite the testing of every vial of “archived blood” in the country – Blood from California, Washington, New Jersey, Florida, Nebraska, Texas, Alabama  – from all 50 states.

The whole purpose of this exercise would be to provide data and intelligence on how many people may have already been infected by this virus.

As Science King, I’d order that we use our invaluable new antibody-diagnostic tool to test samples collected from October 2019 through February 2020.

This way we could see if more blood donors in January had Covid antibodies than in November. If this was the case, we’d have what some might call “a virus-spread situation.”

Another point I would have made: Why do we have to depend on the Red Cross to provide us blood we can test for antibodies?  We’re the U.S. Government; can’t we start collecting our own blood? Tell people it’s for a good cause – “Science.”

Apparently, the U.S. only had one batch of archived blood that could be tested ….

As  readers of Bill Rice, Jr’s Substack Newsletter surely know by now, the CDC identified ONE tranche of saved Red Cross blood from three states, with that blood having been collected Dec. 13-16, 2019.

But surely this was not the only archived blood that had been saved and could have been tested (given that this was, after all, a “national emergency” – The Mother of All Live Exercises.)

But let’s say this was the only 1,900 vials of blood in the country available for antibody testing.

I would have said: “Okay, let’s at least go ahead and test that blood … but let’s test it as fast as we can …. Before we order the whole country to lock down.”

At some point, these 1,900 pints of Red Cross blood were tested for Covid antibodies, but, to this day, nobody knows WHEN these preserved blood specimens were tested. For all we know, that blood might have been tested by the end of February 2020 (weeks before the lockdowns were ordered) … or in September 2020, nine months after the blood had originally been collected.

All we know is the CDC (itself) published a “study” in late November 2020 telling everyone that at least 39 of those blood donors (2.04 percent of the tested cohort) did test positive for IgG (and/or IgM) antibodies via an ELISA antibody test.

So, to be clear, the dad-blasted virus was here – in at least three U.S. states in November 2019. That’s what the CDC’s own antibody test showed.

And President Trump – and Bill Rice, Jr. – could have known this by March 2020 if the Science officials had just put a “rush job” on the testing project. I mean, how long does it really take to test 1,900 units of blood for antibodies? Probably a couple of days.

I also note that the “Red Cross Antibody Study” results were published AFTER the 2020 presidential election – when the vaccine had already begun to be rolled out.

We also know (I think) President Trump wasn’t told anything like this in the weeks between January and March 2020:

“Mr. President, we’ve got a lot of blood we are currently testing to see if any Americans might have had this virus in November or December 2019. It’s possible, sir, this virus was already spreading pretty widely in America a couple of months ago. If this is the case, lockdowns to slow or stop virus spread probably won’t do much good.”

For what it’s worth, my conjecture is that SOMEONE in our Science/Virus-Fighting Leadership didn’t want the President (and/or the public) to know this non-trivial information. 

Certainly nobody ordered any Red Cross archived blood to be tested as soon as possible.

(Also, just as certainly, no Cracker Jack investigative journalist at The New York Times, Wall Street Journal or “Sixty Minutes” asked any questions like: “Is there any evidence this virus has already been spreading around the world?”)

My main point is that nobody at NIH, NIAID, the HHS, the CDC or any member of the White House’s Covid Leadership Team said, “Let’s hold on here. Let’s see what these blood donor antibody tests tell us.”

When it came to locking down a couple billion people on the planet, why check any antibody test results first?

So what does this basic information tell us?

It tells me “someone” wanted to conceal evidence of early spread in America … that these trusted public health officials didn’t want to “confirm” anything that might stop or “call-off” the lockdowns.

… and, if we didn’t have the lockdowns, we might not have had 250 million Americans lining up to get a rushed, experimental” mRNA “vaccine,” a shot that was mandatory for many Americans if they wanted to keep their jobs or keep attending college.

Eric Hartmann’s article is about a White House meeting that did NOT take place, a meeting that might have changed history for the better if it had taken place. 

Regarding Hartmann’s article, I’d simply highlight the topics that could and should have been brought up at said non-meeting … but weren’t … for some reason.

So what might this reason have been?

My strong hunch is that “someone” (or several people) knew, or at least strongly suspected, that this virus had already spread around the world, including America. 

This prompts one final question: How in the hell could this person or people have known this?

It seems to me they knew what they didn’t want anyone to investigate. They didn’t want anyone to find undeniable evidence of early spread and then publicize said evidence to the entire world. Again, how did these people know or suspect what those investigations would have revealed?

June 24, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

End All Formal Science Journals & Papers

By William M. Briggs | Statistician To The Stars! | June 21, 2023

Time to return to the beginning. End formal science papers and let scientists talk freely amongst themselves.

Here’s why.

Heard about the formal peer-reviewed paper “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases” by Suzanna Diaz & J. Michael Bailey in the Archives of Sexual Behavior?

It was canceled.

Or, in science speak, retracted. Because why? Not because of any gross error. Because “activists” (i.e. true believers) hated it.

Rapid onset gender dysphoria is the kind of madness that for instance strikes classrooms full of girls, who, under the tutelage of a purple-haired “educator”, or even on their own, suddenly all “discover” they are boys.

Article says “Parents reported that they had often felt pressured by clinicians to affirm their AYA [adolescents and young adults] child’s new gender and support their transition. According to the parents, AYA children’s mental health deteriorated considerably after social transition.”

Which is no surprise to any sane person. But truth is not a beloved entity in our Regime. So the paper had to go.

Even more amusing is that “Suzanna Diaz” is a fake name. Imagine. A scholar so frightened of other academics she, or he, had to use a nom de guerre. (There is no typo here.)

You can read all about the cancelling elsewhere. Which is one among many.

Now you and I, dear reader, have looked at hundreds of papers over the years, nearly all bad. Most with mistakes so egregious even Kamala Harris would blush at them. All of them committing scientific sins far in excess in any found in the Rapid Gender Madness paper. None of them have been retracted.

Indeed the opposite has been true. Those atrocious papers were used to forward the Regime line, in one way or another. Or to tout lousy theory, false ideas, wild over-certainties, and insane preposterousities.

All of these papers are held up, waved frenetically in our faces by hersterics and rulers who chant “Research shows we must trust The Science!”

End it. Formal publishing is not just useless, it’s downright harmful. And there is no need of it.

Science began with highly intelligent men writing letters to each other, and showing the copies around. A fine practice.

It kept the noise to a minimum. Formal publishing is now almost entirely noise. There are more than 8 million papers published a year now, a number going up and up and up. Nobody reads them. Why should they? They are almost all useless. Nearly all exist because, and only because, academics must publish or perish. Must.

If we eliminated formal publications, much of this persiflage would dry up, and our best and brightest would be able to concentrate on their own work, and not be harassed with “peer review” requests.

The only people who have respect for peer review are those who have never experienced it. As I always say, there is no surer enforcer of banal tepid watery content than peer review. Nothing better ensconces error and mandates Consensus. I cannot say it better than Alan Savory, who recognized peer review is academia and not science.

The hell with academia. We care about science, the search for truth about the world. Academia is no longer the best method to conduct this search. Academia is now more akin to journalism, which is the propagation of the party line.

What’s needed for intellectual progress, the late-great David Stove correctly told us, is leisure and a library. That leisure was available to the Founders. It is not so much available today, or is, but it is not cherished. We do have libraries, but they are crammed full of journals which are never read. Nor should be.

Do you know how much it costs a library to stock, in paper or electronic form, those journals? I’d tell you, but you might have a seizure. The sums are vast. Money pissed away. Money better spent on books.

Of course, you could subscribe yourself personally to these journals, each costing hundreds a year. But that’s asinine, since you’d never read any but a few of the papers. Which are anyway scattered across journals. And who is going to subscribe to a dozen or two journals? So you might buy individual copies of papers you want. But each ten- or twelve-page paper is ridiculously expensive.

Why do they cost anyway? Scientists do the writing, giving it free to the journals, who then charge for it. Scientists sign away their copyright to a publisher who squeeze scientists (through their employers) to read what they wrote! It’s even more bizarre when you consider the papers were almost all funded on the public dime. Academic journal publishing is a brilliantly evil system.

There is no longer any need for publishers. Dump them.

We now have places like the arxivs and their ilk. More should be encouraged. Scientists can write whatever they want, upload their work onto any of many systems, and anybody who wants can read the papers. True, these sites require maintenance fees, but their costs are orders of magnitude less than journals. (I put my work here on the blog, which is always free for readers.)

Enterprising editors can still cobble together their own newsletters or magazines of what they think is the best writing, paying their writers in some way.

Scientists, knowing their work would disappear in a flood of flotsam and jetsam could, like the Founders, communicate directly with each other, and can ignore the fluff. That happens now to a great extent in physics, with arxiv.

Nobody loses in this system. Except vampiric publishers.

Because of scientism, we have all become inveterate quantifiers. That’s why we have teenage-girl-inspired metrics like “h-indexes”, which track popularity. Yes. If you’ve never heard of these, they are exactly like counting “likes” on social media. You want to experience true cringe? Then listen to academics compare their paper metrics. Pathetic.

But the cry will naturally arise, “Now we’ve eliminated journals, how can we reward and rate how good scientists are?”

Sigh.

That call is the spirit of academia. Which must be crushed, extinguished, hounded from polite company. It is that spirit that canceled the Gender Insanity paper. Which, because it’s still there and can be read by all, is nothing more than a scarlet letter. Which exists only for midwits to snort at and congratulate themselves over. You read that retracted paper? How dare you.

End it all.

June 24, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

Israel used ‘toxic’ chemicals to destroy Palestinian lands to build settlement in 1970s: Docs

Press TV – June 24, 2023

The Israeli regime used “toxic” chemicals in Palestinian agricultural lands in the 1970s to destroy their crops with the aim of constructing new settlements in the occupied West Bank, according to newly-revealed documents.

The revelation was made in documents and records from a database run by the Jewish Settlements Archival Project, which deals with the inner workings of the Israeli cabinet and military during the early years of the settlement project.

The documents, which revealed each step in the establishment of Gitit settlement in the West Bank from planning to execution in 1972, said the first move was dispossessing residents of the nearby Palestinian village of their land under the false pretext of making it a military training zone despite strong opposition for the Palestinian farmers.

“When the Palestinians insisted on cultivating the land, Israeli soldiers sabotaged their tools. Soldiers were later ordered to use vehicles to destroy the crops. A radical solution was employed when this failed: a crop duster spread a toxic chemical. The substance was lethal for animals and dangerous for humans,” the documents said.

The story briefly made headlines in 1972 when it was reported in foreign media but the issue did not prevent the establishment of the Gitit settlement on land confiscated from residents of the village of Aqraba, which the military had poisoned.

The documents said the Israeli military’s Central Command ordered the Jordan Valley Brigade in January 1972 to ensure that “no land is cultivated,” including using vehicles to destroy existing agriculture.

The Israeli regime’s so-called Custodian of Absentee Property was also reported to have summoned Palestinian village chiefs and leaders of family clans to remind them “not to violate the instructions.” They had been threatened that otherwise, their crops would be destroyed and that they would be “prosecuted for unlicensed entry into a closed [military] zone.”

The documents also revealed that the Israeli military held a discussion in April 1972 at its Central Command with the participation of officers, a representative of the settlements department at the Jewish Agency, and the Custodian of Absentee Property, which was titled “Spraying the irregular areas in the Tel-Tal sector.” Tel-Tal later became Gitit.

According to the document, the purpose of the meeting was to establish “responsibility and schedule for the spraying.” It also stated that for three days after the spraying, no one was to enter the area “for fear of stomach poisoning.” Animals, the document said, were not allowed to enter for an additional week.

The document further said the damage to Palestinians due to the spraying was estimated to amount to 12,000 to 14,000 Israeli pounds (equaling around $25,000).

Other documents in the database revealed that the spraying of the area, which aimed to “destroy the harvest,” was carried out after the operation was approved by the Israeli regime’s Coordinator of Activities in the Territories.

The vast majority of the international community considers such Zionist settlements in occupied territories as illegal.

More than 600,000 occupying settlers live in over 230 settlements built since the 1967 Israeli occupation of the West Bank and East al-Quds.

The UN Security Council has issued multiple resolutions condemning the Israeli regime’s settlement activities in these occupied territories.

Palestinians insist on having the West Bank as part of a future independent state with East al-Quds as its capital.

The last round of Israeli-Palestinian talks collapsed in 2014. Among the major sticking points in those negotiations was the Tel Aviv regime’s continued illegal settlement expansion.

June 24, 2023 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Tucker Calls Out ‘Media Hysteria Typhoon’ Over RFK Jr.

Tucker Carlson | June 22, 2023

Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | June 23, 2023

In his latest episode, Tucker Carlson discussed the media’s absolute hatred for Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who was immediately attacked by the press upon his announcement that he would run against President Joe Biden in 2024.

“CBS News viewers likely were appalled in its coverage of Kennedy’s announcement. CBS denounced the candidate’s views as ‘misleading’ and ‘dangerous,'” noted Carlson, adding “The LA Times called him a threat to democracy.”

“At the offices of National Public Radio in Washington, a full-blown category-5 hysteria typhoon broke out. NPR devoted an entire segment to savaging Kennedy – not just as a candidate, but as a human being,” Carlson continued. “NPR described him as someone who, for his own perverse reasons, has made “debunked and false and misleading claims that undermine trust in vaccines. And who, in his spare time, provides moral support to crazed extremists who “rally under the banner of what they call liberty, or freedom.””

“People Magazine didn’t even bother to report a single word of anything Kennedy said!” Carlson exclaimed, “and instead wrote an entire story about his relatives hate him.”

“Kennedy Jr. faced censorship on Instagram and YouTube for expressing his views,” he continued, adding that RFK Jr. raised questions about “the rise in allergies, asthma, autism, and other conditions related to vaccines,” while “the media and medical establishment vilified Kennedy Jr. for his views, calling him a lunatic, Nazi, and extremist supporter.” … Full article & transcript

June 24, 2023 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | Leave a comment

‘Criminal’: Confidential EU Documents Reveal Thousands of Deaths From Pfizer-BioNTech Shots

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | June 23, 2023

Documents released by BioNTech to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) reveal tens of thousands of serious adverse events and thousands of deaths among people who received the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The documents, dated Aug. 18, 2022, and marked “confidential,” show that cumulatively, during the clinical trials and post-marketing period up to June 18, 2022, a total of 4,964,106 adverse events were recorded. The documents included an appendix with further details about the specifics about the identified adverse events.

Among children under age 17, 189 deaths and thousands of serious adverse events were reported.

The documents present data collected between Dec. 19, 2021, and June 18, 2022 (the “PSUR #3 period”), in addition to cumulative data on adverse events and deaths that occurred among those who received the vaccine during clinical trials and during the post-marketing period, beginning December 2020 up until June 18, 2022.

During this time, Pfizer-BioNTech said it identified almost no safety signals and claimed the vaccine demonstrated over 91% “efficacy.”

Remarking on the documents, Brian Hooker, Ph.D., P.E., senior director of science and research for Children’s Health Defense, told The Defender :

“These adverse event reports are ‘off the charts,’ with myocarditis reports at over 10,000 and pericarditis reports at over 9,000.

“Historically, we know that this would be an under-ascertainment of the actual numbers. It is criminal for the EMA to keep this vaccine on the market.”

According to an analysis by commentator and author Daniel Horowitz, the percentage of adverse events classified as serious was “well above the standard for safety signals usually pegged at 15%,” and women reported adverse events at three times the rate of men.

Sixty percent of cases were reported with either “outcome unknown” or “not recovered,” suggesting many of the injuries “were not transient,” Horowitz said.

The highest number of cases occurred in the 31-50 age group, of which 92% did not have any comorbidities, making it very likely it was the vaccine causing “such widespread, sudden injury.”

There were 3,280 fatalities among vaccine recipients in the combined cumulative period including the clinical trials and post-marketing, up to July 18, 2022.

According to Horowitz, the documents “show that Pfizer knew about a sickening level of injury early on,” yet continued to distribute its COVID-19 vaccine.

The documents are not part of the ongoing court-ordered release of the so-called “Pfizer documents” in the U.S., but according to Horowitz, are pharmacovigilance documents requested by the EMA, the EU’s drug regulator.

The documents were made available to an Austrian science and politics blog, TKP, following “a FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] request from an anonymous reader.” They were subsequently published on March 4. However, once published, no European English-language media outlet appears to have reported on them.

As a result, they remained under the radar until recently, when several independent English-language bloggers discovered and published the documents.

Thousands of pediatric serious adverse events and deaths

The main Pfizer-BioNTech document revealed 9,605 adverse events (3,735 serious) during the PSUR #3 and 25 cases during the clinical trials among children ages 11 and younger. These included 20 fatalities, in children as young as 5 years old.

Causes of these fatalities included dyspnea, cardiac arrest, cardio-respiratory arrest, pyrexia and myocarditis, though “all events were assessed as unrelated” to the vaccine.

In one example listed in the document, an 11-year-old boy died of acute respiratory failure two days after the first dose of the vaccine. In another case, a 6-year-old girl died seven days following her initial dose of complications that included renal impairment, epilepsy, apnea, seizure and “sudden death.”

The document lists another case, that of a 6-year-old boy whose listed causes of death are myocarditis, cardio-respiratory arrest and COVID-19. He died seven days after the first dose of the vaccine, and although autopsy results were “pending,” “the reporter concluded that the death ‘had nothing to do’ with the administration of BNT162b2 [the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine] and was due to natural causes.”

For children ages 12-17, the document listed 21,945 adverse eventss (19,558 serious) in the post-marketing period and 15 cases during clinical trials. A total of 169 deaths were recorded, with listed causes including dyspnea, pyrexia, cardiac arrest, myocarditis, cardiac failure, seizure and shock.

Nevertheless, the document states “No new significant safety information was identified based on the review of the cases reported in the overall paediatric population.”

‘No safety signals’ despites deaths, injuries of pregnant women and newborns

Pregnant and lactating women also were significantly affected. There were 3,642 post-authorization adverse events and 697 clinical trial adverse events in this population, including spontaneous abortion, fetal death, postpartum hemorrhage, premature separation of the placenta, premature labor or delivery, live birth with congenital anomalies and stillbirths.

Nevertheless, the documentation again states, “There were no safety signals regarding use in pregnant/lactating women that emerged from the review of these cases or the medical literature,” despite two key admissions elsewhere in the documentation.

In one instance, the document stated, “The safety profile of the vaccine in pregnant and/or breastfeeding women was not studied in the pivotal clinical trial and the maternal clinical trial was terminated early due to participant recruitment difficulties.”

And in another instance, Pfizer-BioNTech identified the following as “missing information”:

“Use in pregnancy and while breastfeeding; Use in immunocompromised patients; Use in frail patients with co-morbidities … Use in patients with autoimmune or inflammatory disorders; Interaction with other vaccines; Long term safety data.”

Pfizer-BioNTech stated a “commitment” to track “pregnancy outcome[s] in clinical trials.”

Myocarditis and pericarditis deaths among children, young adults

A notable discrepancy appears in terms of reported cases of myocarditis in the clinical trials as compared to the post-marketing period — one myocarditis case (0.15% of all cases) is listed for the clinical trial period, while 5,422 cases (1.1% of all cases) and 5,458 serious events were reported in the PSUR #3 period.

Of these, 87 cases were fatal and 1,608 were listed as “not resolved.” Among children and young adults, 48 cases were reported for those between the ages of 5 and 11 (two deaths), 366 among 12-15-year-olds (three deaths), 345 among 16-17-year-olds and 968 among 18-24-year-olds (four deaths).

In one instance, an 11-year-old girl developed myocarditis two days after her first dose and subsequently died, with the listed causes of death including myocarditis, respiratory failure, acute cardiac failure and cardio-respiratory arrest.

Separately, a 13-year-old boy developed myocarditis five days after his second dose, and subsequently died of myocarditis, cardiac arrest, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, ventricular tachycardia and renal failure.

A 13-year-old girl with no medical history developed myocarditis six days after her first dose and also later died.

In the case of a 19-year-old male who developed myocarditis three days after his third dose and who eventually died, an autopsy “revealed extensive necrosis of the left ventricular myocardium (myocardial necrosis); myocarditis/fulminant myocarditis.”

And a 26-year-old male who also took the flu vaccine developed myocarditis four days after his third dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, and subsequently died. The listed causes of death included myocarditis, arrhythmia, inflammation and left ventricular dysfunction. Autopsy results “showed myocarditis.”

Similarly, while no cases of pericarditis were recorded during the clinical trial, 4,156 were recorded during the PSUR #3 period, including 4,164 serious adverse events and 19 fatalities. This included 30 cases among 5-11-year-olds, 118 cases among 12-15-year-olds, 106 cases among 16-17-year-olds, 479 cases among 18-24-year-olds (and one death), and 417 cases among 25-29-year-olds, again including one death.

In one example, a 22-year-old male developed pericarditis 31 days after his second dose and eventually died of pericarditis and other causes, including multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, pericardial mass, pericardial effusion, malignant pericardial mesothelioma and right ventricular failure.

Numerous other cardiovascular adverse events were recorded, totaling 32,712 cases during the PSUR #3 period (496 fatal) and 27 during the clinical trials (two fatal — with none of the events listed as “related” to vaccination).

Causes of death included in this category include arrhythmia, cardiac failure and acute cardiac failure, cardiogenic shock, coronary artery disease, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and tachycardia.

Nevertheless, “No new significant safety information was identified.”

Many ‘very severe and very rare’ adverse events identified

The 393-page confidential Pfizer document shows that Pfizer observed more than 10,000 categories of diagnosis, many “very severe and very rare,” Horowitz wrote.

These include 73,542 cases of 264 categories of vascular disorders from the shots, many of which “are rare conditions,” hundreds of categories of nervous system disorders, totaling 696,508 cases and 61,518 adverse events from well over 100 categories of eye disorders, “which is unusual for a vaccine injury,” according to Horowitz.

In addition, “there were over 47,000 ear disorders, including almost 16,000 cases of tinnitus,” “roughly 225,000 cases of skin and tissue disorders,” “roughly 190,000 cases of respiratory disorders” and “over 178,000 cases of reproductive or breast disorders, including disorders you wouldn’t expect, such as 506 cases of erectile dysfunction.”

“Over 100,000 blood and lymphatic disorders, for both of which there’s a wealth of literature linking them to the spike protein” were indicated, as well as “almost 127,000 cardiac disorders, running the gamut of about 270 categories of heart damage, including many rare disorders, in addition to myocarditis.”

There were also “3,711 cases of tumors — benign and malignant,” and “there were over 77,000 psychiatric disorders observed.”

“What is so jarring is that there are hundreds of very rare neurological disorders that reflect something so systemically wrong with the shots, a reality that was clearly of no concern to the manufacturers and regulators alike,” Horowitz wrote, referencing 68 listed cases of a rare diagnosis, chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy.

In another example, the “Pharma Files” Substack identified 3,092 neoplasms, noting that ”malignant neoplasms means cancer.”

Pfizer-BioNTech usually identified ‘no safety signal’ despite thousands of deaths

Numerous deaths and serious adverse events were recorded for a wide range of other conditions:

  • Stroke: 3,091 cases and 3,532 serious adverse events during PSUR #3, including 314 fatalities, and 19 cases during the clinical trial (one death).

The document stated, “Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis … and Cerebrovascular Accident/Stroke were evaluated as signals during the reporting period and were not determined to be risks causally associated with the vaccine … No additional safety signals … have emerged based on the review of these cases.”

  • Respiratory: 2,199 cases and 1,873 serious adverse events during PSUR #3, including 363 fatalities, and 33 cases during the clinical trial (four deaths). Serious adverse events included cardio-respiratory arrest, pneumonia, respiratory failure, acute respiratory failure, hypoxia and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Yet, “No safety signals have emerged based on the review of these cases.”
  • Bell’s palsy: 733 cases were reported during PSUR #3, in addition to 1,428 cases of facial paralysis. Six cases were fatal, with all victims over age 60. One additional case of Bell’s palsy, in a 75-year-old female from the U.S., was recorded in the clinical trial but was deemed “not related” to her vaccination. Again, “No new significant safety information was identified.”
  • Neurological: 5,111 cases and 4,973 serious adverse events during PSUR #3, including 67 fatalities, and 15 cases during the clinical trial. Once more, “No safety signals have emerged based on the review of these cases.”
  • Immune-mediated/autoimmune adverse events: 11,726 cases and 8,445 serious adverse events during PSUR #3, including 133 fatalities, and 19 cases during the clinical trial. Serious adverse events included thrombocytopenia, interstitial lung disease, cerebral hemorrhage, encephalitis, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, renal failure, pneumonia and pulmonary embolism. Yet, “No new safety signals have emerged.”
  • Multisystem inflammatory syndrome: 207 cases and 210 serious adverse events during PSUR #3, including 56 deaths, with 35 involving the elderly. In addition, 38 cases were reported in children. Nevertheless, “No new safety signals have emerged based on a review of these cases [or] literature.”

Pfizer-BioNTech stated a “commitment” for “closely monitoring multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children and in adults … and reporting of new cases.”

  • Thromboembolic adverse events: 6,102 cases and 6,724 serious adverse events during PSUR #3, including 265 fatalities, and 17 cases during the clinical trial (one death). Serious adverse events included pulmonary embolism, thrombosis and deep vein thrombosis. Again, “No safety signals have emerged based on the review of these cases.”

Elsewhere in the document, the case of a 14-year-old male who died of peripheral swelling after getting the COVID-19 vaccine was mentioned, with no additional details.

In another example, a 67-year-old male “with a history of diabetes and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura” suffered chest and gastrointestinal discomfort less than 30 minutes after receiving his third dose of the vaccine. A diagnosis of anaphylaxis was made, while an electrocardiogram showed “signs of a myocardial infarction.” He later sustained cardiac arrest and died 12 days following his vaccination.

Moreover, 204 fatalities (and 24,077 cases) of vaccination failure, 81 deaths from “vaccination stress,” 24 deaths (and 1,402 cases) of suspected vaccination failure, two deaths from glomerulonephritis and nephrotic syndrome, two deaths (1,326 cases) from “medication error” and 166 deaths from “other” adverse events — mostly pyrexia — were recorded.

Pfizer-BioNTech and EMA: ‘nothing to see here’

Pfizer and BioNTech claimed that the overall efficacy of their COVID-19 vaccine for the PSUR #3 period was 91.3% — and 100% for some populations.

Moreover, only one safety signal was definitively identified: hearing loss, with Pfizer-BioNTech committing to perform a “safety evaluation of tinnitus and hearing loss.”

Two other conditions, myocarditis and pericarditis, were determined to be an “important identified risk,” while irritability was determined to be an “identified risk (not important).”

“A statement regarding the reporting rates of myocarditis and pericarditis after primary series and booster doses” was added to their vaccine’s European product label.

Labeling was changed for Guillain-Barré syndrome, but in Japan. The document stated:

“Although not considered by definition a regulatory action taken for safety reasons because it does not significantly impact the benefit risk balance of use of the product in authorised populations, due to the receipt of spontaneous reports of Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) after vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines including BNT162b2 … Japan has required class changes to include GBS in the important precautions section of the Japan package insert.”

Despite the large number of deaths and serious adverse events, Pfizer and BioNTech wrote, “Based on the available safety and efficacy/effectiveness data from the reporting interval for BNT162b2, the overall benefit-risk profile of BNT162b2 remains favorable” and that “no further changes … or additional risk minimization activities are warranted.”

The EMA appears to have agreed with this conclusion. In its “assessment report,” its Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) wrote that “The benefit-risk balance for the use of Comirnaty in its authorized indication remains unchanged.”

“The PRAC considers that the risk-benefit balance of medicinal products containing tozinameran (Comirnaty) remains unchanged and therefore recommends the maintenance of the marketing authorisation(s),” the PRAC added.

However, Horowitz argues that the documents “show that Pfizer knew about a sickening level of injury early on,” yet continued to distribute its COVID-19 vaccine.

Earlier this month, BioNTech was sued in Germany by a woman alleging injuries from the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. The lawsuit demands at least 150,000 euro ($161,500) in damages for bodily harm and unspecified compensation for material damages.

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”

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.

June 23, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

What It’s Like to Live in an Informational No Man’s Land

BY DAVID THUNDER | THE FREEDOM BLOG | JUNE 17, 2023

One of the remarkable features of these Covid years is the amount of misleading and downright false information emitted by “official” sources, most notably public health authorities, government-appointed regulators, and mainstream media. A part of me hankers after the times when I could trust my government and media in a time of crisis. But if I am honest with myself, I have to admit that I’d prefer to live uncomfortably in the truth than comfortably in a fantasy built for me by someone who does not have my best interests at heart.

As somone who turned on a daily basis to the website of the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention for updates on the Covid outbreak in February and March 2020, I was especially shocked and disappointed by the abysmal failure of authoritative bodies to impartially report the evidence bearing on masking, vaccinations, lockdowns, PCR testing, and other aspects of pandemic policy. My whole faith in the political, media, and scientific establishment, limited as it was, was shaken to the core.

We have been betrayed by the people charged with sharing the best available data and information with us in a time of crisis. We have been lied to and deceived about matters of life and death, such as the risk-benefit tradeoffs of the Covid vaccines, not only by the pharmaceutical industry, but by the people who occupy leading positions of public authority in our society.

Our politicians have sold us “solutions” to Covid that were far, far worse than the disease, and have generally refused to admit to their mistakes, even when they saw the comparative success of regimes like Sweden and Florida that went a very different direction.

Among the more egregious falsehoods that were either stated or implied by official authorities, and uncritically echoed by mainstream media, are the following:

  1. the notion that community masking was supported by strong scientific evidence. It never was (here is the latest Cochrane review of evidence for mask efficacy).
  2. the idea that it was critical that young and health people get vaccinated, if not for themselves, then for the sake of “granny and granddad.” This idea was empirically baseless, since we did not have any good evidence to show that these vaccines prevented transmission at the time these claims were made.
  3. the idea that toddlers and young children and teenagers with no serious health issues could benefit from receiving a Covid vaccine. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that children’s risk from Covid is significant enough to warrant their exposure to a vaccine that has sparked a significant number of adverse events and whose long-term risks to children are still not well understood.
  4. the idea that sheltering in place for months on end would effectively stop a respiratory virus from spreading through the community, rather than just deferring the inevitable and inflicting enormous social and human costs in the meantime. This was a dangerous and revolutionary proposition that had no strong empirical evidence to support it.
  5. The idea that a person who tested positive in a PCR test, but had absolutely no clinical symptoms of Covid-related disease, should count as a Covid “case” or that the death of such a person was a “Covid” death.

I could go on, and talk about the use of a handful of cases of infant hospitalisation to push vaccines on children, the unnecessary and counterproductive closure of schools, the US government’s active role in encouraging private social media companies, behind the scenes, to censor their critics, or the infamous Hancock files, which uncover the UK’s Health Secretary Matt Hancock’s plan to “scare the pants off everyone” with his announcement of the next “variant” of Covid-19.

Thoughtful citizens who notice these betrayals now have strong grounds for distrusting “official” sources to tell them the truth, or present the facts in a non-manipulative, impartial manner. For me, and many others, the old idea that you could depend on your government to inform you of the latest science or tell you the threat level of a disease is now dead in the water.

Put simply, we now live in an informational No Man’s Land, in which every man must fend for himself, to the best of his ability, without the backing of an impressive Official Source to do his thinking for him.

We each have to scrape together whatever information we can from unofficial sources that have gotten important things right and are not defending the indefensible: coerced vaccination, vaccine-based segregation, involuntary population-wide lockdowns, etc.

It puts many of us in the peculiar position of placing more weight on the words and recommendations of individual journalists and scientists whose character and intellect we trust, than the pronouncements of national governments, official regulators, or international bodies like the World Health Organisation.

Living in an informational No Man’s Land is demanding because you can’t just skip over to the CDC website to resolve your doubts. And it is uncomfortable because you do not enjoy anything like the level of faith the average citizen has in “Science” and “Officialdom.” You are sort of at sea, and you cling to whatever bits of information and insight you can scavenge from sources that are not living off the proceeds of vaccine sales or paid by governments to launch sophisticated campaigns of psychological warfare against their own citizens.

The painful truth is that official “experts” and government ministers have played god with our lives and repeatedly given dangerous and scientifically baseless advice.

Under these circumstances, those who do their own independent research, rather than uncritically swallowing whatever “official authorities” tell them, are not the “cranks” and “conspiracy theorists” they are being made out to be, but citizens who actually understand the predicament they find themselves in, and have the courage to think for themselves, even when it draws down ridicule, censorship, and alienation from “respectable” society.

June 23, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »