The lipid nanoparticals used as the delivery system for mRNA are toxic. These are cataonic, so positively charged. When the mRNA espcapes from the nano partical it disrupts the mytochondrien and causes damage similar to ionising radiation damage to the cells.
January 19, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
There have appeared a couple of stories recently that illustrate how there is only one “red line” that no one dares cross in Washington and that is criticism of Israel and its associated supportive mythologies of increasing “holocaust denial” and “surging anti-Semitism.” The rule is ruthlessly enforced by the Israel Lobby, often by its redoubtable Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which is based in New York City but has a regional office in the capital, conveniently close to government offices, from which vantage point it can observe possible deviations and mete out instant punishment.
If one wants to learn how hypersensitive (and vicious) defenders of Israel and/or Jewishness can be it is only necessary to read about the recent experience of strongly pro-Israel Republican Senator Marco Rubio. He denounced “upscale liberals who control the media” in a tweet and was immediately attacked for “the anti-Semitic trope that Jews control the media,” which of course they do, but Rubio is too stupid and too fearful of Jewish influence to be suggesting that. So, one must conclude it is not even safe for a conservative friend of Israel to mention the “liberal media” for fear of being labeled as guilty of “coded anti-Semitism.” Likewise, any mention of the malign influence of George Soros by Republicans is likely to bring down the wrath of the usual suspects, not because it is a fiction but solely because he is Jewish and it implies that Jews can interact conspiratorially, which is demonstrably true.
Another interesting story concerns a government institution that I had never heard of before, the US Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad (USCPAHA), and guess what? It is nearly all about Israel, Jews and the so-called holocaust! If you don’t believe that bold assertion on my part, go to the organization’s website which includes multiple pictures of people handing out holocaust related “Cultural Pluralism Awards” and smiling for the camera.
The commission was created by Public Law 99-83 in 1985 and its ostensible purpose stated on the website is to “1. identify and report on cemeteries, monuments, and historic buildings in Eastern and Central Europe that are associated with the heritage of US citizens, particularly endangered properties, and 2. obtain, in cooperation with the Department of State, assurances from the governments of the region that the properties will be protected and preserved… The establishment of the Commission recognized that the population of the United States is mostly comprised of immigrants and their descendants. The United States has an interest in the preservation of sites in other countries related to the heritage of these Americans. The Holocaust and 45 years of atheist Communist governments created a critical need that led to the Commission’s establishment.”
The site also includes a list of “projects” , which are overwhelmingly Jewish/holocaust related and located in the parts of Europe where Jews settled. Alison Weir’s “If Americans Knew” has reported how in the past congress there were 70 largely hidden bills that in some way benefited Israel, and the creation of America’s Heritage Abroad has that smell to it, yet another gift that flies beneath the radar by being attached to a larger piece of legislation.
America’s Heritage Abroad only surfaced in the news due to a stink being raised by ADL over one of the organization’s 21 commissioners, all of whom appear to be Jewish judging from their names. He is Darren Beattie, who has been described as a “Right-wing conspiracy theorist [who] continues to occupy a position in the federal government given to him by Donald Trump, almost a year since Joe Biden took office and gained the ability to fire him. Beattie was appointed by then-President Donald Trump in November 2020 to serve on the Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad. Its main responsibilities are seeking to preserve monuments in eastern and central Europe, many of which memorialize Holocaust victims. He gained new prominence in recent weeks promoting conspiracy theories about the Capitol riot, earning public praise from Trump.”
Recently, the ADL criticized the appointment and said that Beattie, who describes himself as a “proud Jew” on Twitter, should not be continuing to serve on the commission. Spokesman Jake Hyman complained that “Since Beattie’s appointment to the Commission in November 2020, he has continued to spread outrageous and deeply harmful falsehoods and misinformation, including about the January 6 insurrection, that are at odds with serving in such positions of official responsibility. We retain our view that Beattie, who once attended an event with white supremacists and participated in a panel discussion with white nationalist Peter Brimelow, should have no place on a commission that plays a special role preserving Jewish heritage sites from before the Holocaust.”
Beattie claims that he is still on the commission even though he no longer appears on its website. He states that “I’m proud to serve president Biden to honor the memory of the Holocaust” before criticizing ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt as a “Democrat apparatchik” who has “destroyed the reputation of the ADL during his tenure.”
So, the United States is now in the business of promoting holocaust remembrance on the taxpayer’s dime. Another fascinating news report that just surfaced also has a holocaust plus “surging” anti-Semitism back story. It is all about how numerous Biden nominees are stuck in the Senate waiting for approval, but it is really about Deborah Lipstadt who is described as a “renowned holocaust scholar.”
Lipstadt is the Dorot professor of Modern Jewish history and Holocaust studies at Atlanta’s Emory University, as well as founding director of Emory’s Institute for Jewish Studies. She has also held senior positions at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, another taxpayer supported enterprise that promotes the Israel narrative. Lipstadt has sharply criticized some progressives in the Democratic Party who have dared to criticize Israel, including Representative Ilhan Omar, for describing pro-Israel Americans as a “political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.” Such statements are “part of the textbook accusations against Jews,” Lipstadt countered, but Omar was, of course, right, though not allowed to get away with the truth when confronted by the Democratic Party establishment led by a foaming at the mouth Nancy Pelosi.
The White House announced in late July that Lipstadt would lead an expansion of the activity of the State Department’s Office of the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, which is tasked with tracking and countering the alleged rise of anti-Semitism abroad. For the first time, the position will have the rank of ambassador, which makes necessary Senate confirmation.
Bear in mind that these are all mechanisms set up specifically to promote the narratives favored by international Jewry. Apart from affirmative action for blacks and other set-asides to favor them, there exists nothing in the US government to enhance the status of any other European, Latino or Asian ethnic groups or religious persuasions that is in any way similar. These commissions, offices and special ambassadorships were established through the assiduous marketing of their brand by Jews using their methodically exploited financial power and the political access that it buys. To cite only one example of what all that networking produces, politically wired Jewish organizations already receive more than 90% of the discretionary grants for “security” issued by the Department of Homeland Security. And the end result is that Washington is a helpless giant that is drawn into conflicts in the Middle East that it would best avoid while also funding the Jewish aggressors, most recently in response to a demand to rearm the Israeli military with $1 billion, conflicts which serve no US national interest.
Finally, should the United States be so obsessed with a narrative that is certainly in many respects questionable and which relates to events that largely took place many years ago overseas? Should the American taxpayer continue to foot the bill for all these contrivances to bind the US government hand and foot to the “heritage” of a small minority of the population and to its favored foreign state? These are questions that are almost never asked though, as Voltaire allegedly put it, “If you want to know who controls you, look at who you are not allowed to criticize.”
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.
January 18, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | Israel, United States, Zionism |
Leave a comment
As Nicola Sturgeon announces that the Scots may have to wear facemasks ‘for years to come’, all I can say is how glad I am that I don’t live in Scotland.
Since the new mask-wearing rules were introduced on November 30, I have refused to wear one and touch wood, fingers crossed, have got away with it.
In that time, I have been on buses, coaches, the London Underground, stayed in a hotel for three days over Christmas, been to the cinema and to the hairdresser, the beauty salon, nail bar and in many shops and supermarkets, blessedly mask-free. I have taken taxis all over the place. Only once have I been apprehended, and that was in Sainsbury’s, where a member of staff came up to me and asked: ‘Where is your mask, madam?’ I told him that I was medically exempt, and he nodded and went away.
In the hotel where I was staying, there were signs everywhere saying that masks were compulsory, and that anybody not wearing one may be reported to the authorities. Yet I did not wear one, nobody said anything and nor was I reported to the authorities.
I have also got away with not wearing a mask in a clinic where I went for hearing tests. I told the audiologist there that I didn’t believe in masks and he accepted it, although both he and the receptionist were wearing them, as were the other patients in the waiting room.
It is true that on buses I have been on the receiving end of some nasty stares, or as nasty as they can be when most of the faces and thus the expressions, of the other passengers, are hidden. It is also true that some people edge away from me as though I have got a deadly plague. My next-door neighbours, masked up to the eyeballs even when walking down the street, asked why I was not wearing a mask and I gave them the same response: ‘I am medically exempt.’ That, so far, has precluded further questioning although the truth is that I have exempted myself. I have no actual doctor’s exemption although if challenged, I have an exemption card in my wallet which I downloaded from a government site and which I can produce if demanded. So far, nobody has asked to see it.
The government website says quite plainly that if wearing a mask causes undue distress, you can exempt yourself from wearing one. In order to drive home the obvious fact that I am not wearing a mask, I make sure I am wearing bright red lipstick every time I leave the house. That way, I am making a clear statement that I am defying the rules and showing in no uncertain way that am proud to be mask-free.
We were warned that we could face on-the-spot fines of £200 if we refused to wear a mask on the London Underground. Since the end of November, I have taken the Tube many times, always maskless, and have never been confronted or asked to see proof of exemption. I decided that if I was fined, I would refuse to pay it and go to prison for my principles if it came to that. I would be a martyr for the cause! But none of the Underground staff has said a word and nor have any of the passengers. True, there are signs all over the place saying that masks are compulsory, both on trains and in stations, but I have just taken no notice.
The sad thing is that I seem to be in a minority of one. Everywhere I go, I am the only person, child or adult, who is not muzzled. It is monstrous that all secondary school pupils and children over the age of 11 have been told to wear masks in public indoor venues and on public transport. My neighbour, employed by Oxford University, says that she is required to wear a mask for work, even though most days she is the only person in the office. She also has to keep taking tests.
Actually, I am going further than not wearing a mask. I have never had a PCR or lateral flow test, not had the booster and am not going to have it, either in spite of Sir Chris Whitty telling me in the cinema that I must have it to protect myself and others. There are huge posters at bus stops and ads in every newspaper bullying me to get jabbed, but I ignore them all. And guess what? I have remained completely well, never had so much as a sniffle throughout all this so-called pandemic, while just about everybody I know who had had the jabs, the boosters, the tests and who never dares to venture out without a muzzle round their face, has had Covid or what passes for it. Most of my refusenik friends, the few I have left who are defying all the strictures, say the same.
The mask mandates in England at least are due to be reviewed on January 26 but if they are relaxed, as I expect them to be, I will place a bet here and now that the majority of people will continue to wear them and tell you that it is their choice. Such is the state of fear that governments don’t need to impose rules or threaten us with fines and imprisonment. We have become so cowed and terrified that we are imposing them on ourselves.
I just wonder how many people will be brave enough to defy the First Minister in Scotland, if she carries out her threat to make her compatriots wear masks for ever more?
January 18, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, Human rights, Scotland, UK |
Leave a comment
“Mandate! Segregate! Subjugate!”
I wanted to turn your attention to a handful of premier art masterpieces that have appeared overnight in Washington, D.C.
The artwork is a brilliant Soviet-style mockery of Joe Biden and Anthony Fauci COVID Mania regime. And seeing it appear in downtown Washington, D.C., the home of America’s ruling class and unquestioning COVID compliance, is the perfect setting for these absolute gems.
The first piece showcases an angry Joe Biden holding an OSHA-labeled mallet surrounded by the word “comply.” The second illustration, labeled, “good kids are compliant kids,” shows a handful of children in red masks looking up to an injection needle-surrounded Joe Biden. The third shows a sitting Joe Biden holding the coronavirus in his hand, with the caption, “Mandate! Segregate! Subjugate!” The last piece of artwork, “Trust The Scientism,” shows Anthony Fauci, dressed in clergy attire, possessing a giant hypodermic needle.
I particularly enjoy the Soviet propaganda style.
Here are the four posters lined up together, courtesy of Leigh Wolf’s Twitter page:
A DC Karen noticed the artwork and started to rip down the posters.
She was filmed desecrating the artwork by Leigh Wolf, a comms and production professional who happens to be a former colleague of mine at CRTV/Blaze Media Wolf spotted the artwork and took photos of it before it was ripped down.
I reached out to Leigh and asked if he had any inside info about how the artwork ended up in Washington D.C. Wolf told me he has no idea who put them up. I’ll post an update if I can find the artist behind these magnificent creations.
January 18, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
It turns out — not certain at all!
Dr Val Fraser, retired Lecturer in Teacher Education, Subject Expert for Ofqual and former OFSTED School Inspector, puts the last UK Government’s mask missive under the linguistic microscope:
What is the “material evidence” Nadhim Zahawi, Education Secretary speaks of (TalkRadio Monday 3rd January 2022) for recommending face coverings to be worn in secondary school classrooms and, more importantly, how convincing is it? The government document entitled Evidence Summary: Coronavirus (COVID-19) and the use of face coverings in education settings needs an understanding of ‘modality’ to help evaluate how robust this evidence is.
Modality is a term used in the study of grammar and linguistics to signal certainty. Verbs qualified with modal verbs suggest whether an event or a claim is possible, probable, likely or certain. The principal auxiliary modal verbs when placed on a continuum from possible to certain show this range: can, could, may, might, should, would, shall, must and will.
“Manchester United can win the league” is a hedging statement suggesting some caveats to be considered. However, “Manchester United will win the league” is a definite statement of certainty and expectation. Advertisements make heavy use of modal verbs to sell their products without making claims that leave them open to legal difficulties. ‘Wrinkles can be reduced by up to 50%’ is a possibility of smoother skin that sells the product without over-promising.
Modality may also be conveyed by the use of adverbs. The famous example of “Probably the best lager in the world” steers Carlsberg away from litigation, whilst selling its product as a high quality one – “the best” is what resonates. Other adverbs making clear possibility, obligation and emphasis are: generally, maybe, perhaps, possibly, probably, promisingly, obviously, certainly, clearly and definitely. Again the range from least to most certain shows a continuum of expectation.
A document that is succinctly entitled Evidence Summary is a bold statement: the reader would expect to see certainty of claims, anchored in a secure evidence base and/or data providing concluding proof. However, an examination of the use of language in this particular document reveals a distinct hedging when it comes to the claims being made, in this case an attempt to underpin the government’s policy decision to recommend face coverings for secondary school classrooms.
Below are examples of how the document is using modality to avoid claiming any certainty for its evidence base:
- ‘Face coverings can contribute to reducing transmission’. This is a general statement about the possibility (but not certainty) of masks helping to reduce viral spread. There are two qualifiers in that clause: one is ‘can’: the author does not want to make a definite claim; the other is ‘contribute’: there are no claims that in and of itself masking is going to achieve a positive outcome. This is an introductory comment and sets the tone for hedging, cautious claims and caveats. The same statement opens the main body of the text.
- The reader is informed that the mode of transmission of the virus can be via droplets, aerosol particles and by contact. It is curious that, two years into the science studying the virus, that ‘can’ needed to be added. A more definite statement such as ‘transmission occurs through’ would convey a more authoritative stance. Note again that possibility is being claimed not certainty. There are 17 uses of the modal verb ‘can’ revealing that this evidence submitted is peppered with a significant level of uncertainty and hedging of claims.
- Could is used nine times. An example of this is, ‘Using a different maximum weighting threshold could result in slightly different results’. This is an alarming disclaimer for the validity of the claims provided as evidence. ‘Could’ like ‘can’ distances the author from taking responsibility for a definite view or position.
- We are further informed that masks ‘may further reduce risks of longer-range airborne transmission’. The term ‘may’ also indicates a possible but not a certain effect. There are 15 uses of the term ‘may’.
- There is even less certainty in the document concerning how the Omicron variant is transmitted. We are told it might show more airborne transmission (the reason for recommending masks now). When ‘might’ is used it is indicating guesswork. The author is saying we simply don’t know and we have to signal that.
Modality and uncertainty are also conveyed through the use of adverbs as indicated above. An example is contained in this sentence: (researchers) ‘could explore expanding the time-period under study to potentially yield more precise estimates’. Potentially is another term which pulls back from providing a more assertive claim for an outcome. Moreover, this is only one of the three examples of the limitations of the evidence in that sentence: ‘could’ is used as prevaricator avoiding being drawn into a commitment to obtaining more concrete data (for the precise estimates – which in themselves, as estimates, are predictive not determined).
There are 42 uses of modal verbs and 18 uses of adverbs on the low certainty spectrum (as explained above). Why is the government presenting its findings in a tenuous and circumspect manner? Modality of language can be tracked in the methodology and findings of its ‘research’ but, more importantly, we can see the limitations of the research itself, which obliges the authors to also limit the claims they can present as evidence.
We learn from the research design that:
- To evaluate the efficacy of face masks in schools they examined attendance rates, with no compelling rationale for this perceived correlation being offered.
- The data collection period was from two separated out weeks in October 2021 which included some missing data.
- They candidly state that it is a ‘preliminary, experimental analysis, which would benefit from robust external peer review to a longer timescale’.
- They further cast doubt on their findings when they acknowledge that the results may not have any statistical significance as the differential is within a chance outcome.
- They did not isolate the variables to be sure that face coverings were the determining factor in lowering absence rates. Further they state the study did not draw data for long enough time periods and different methodologies would have yielded different results.
- The schools categorised as mask wearing ones were not a homogenous group in terms of their defined use. Some used them only for communal areas and some for classroom use too but they were not differentiated for that within the categorisation.
- Other variables such as Local Authority guidance and implementation and local rates of cases and infection were not considered.
- The raw results showed that non-masking schools had a significantly lower absence rate and it was only after modelling that a positive outcome was found. The authors concede that using different assumptions for this modelling, different “weighting thresholds”, could result in different results.
- They advise that a more robust study would go onto consider community COVID-19 case rates, regional data (LA, information on LA wider response to COVID-19, etc), other characteristics of pupils (proportion of pupils with SEND, etc) and any information on differential use of face coverings and would offer more reassurance about the validity of this evidence than they can currently provide.
- They found that absence rates in the control group (unmasked) remain lower overall than those in the treatment group (masked). This is a surprising admission towards the end of the report.
- The researchers consulted other studies. This research method would normally give more validity to the findings, in terms of the triangulation of data with their own. However, they had to acknowledge that the results from those were inconclusive, ‘mixed’ and the majority were observational studies, with only 2 RCTs, neither involving schools.
- No data was available on Omicron: the variant of the virus for which the recommendations were being brought in to address.
The qualifications and caveats above reveal the report is at best a tentative proposal, which has not been subject to the usual quality assurance procedures before publication. The research design points to an insecure hypothesis between mask wearing and attendance rates which was neither explained, tested beforehand nor validated after. The methodologies did not keep the variables stable and therefore did not isolate the variable (masks) they were expecting to be able to analyse and base the claims upon. The results did not provide a secure evidence base to form a compelling case for recommending face coverings.
With these limitations in the research study, a reader would expect to see, as indeed is clear, a report sewn together with tenuous arguments, circumspect claims and qualified results and recommendations. The only way to compose such a report is prolific use of modal verbs and adverbs as indicated above.
Yet the harms of wearing face coverings in educational settings are openly stated in the report and couched in more definite measurable claims and certainty of language:
- 80% of pupils reported that wearing a face covering made it difficult to communicate, and 55% felt wearing one made learning more difficult.
- Wearing face coverings may have physical side effects and impair face identification, verbal and non-verbal communication between teacher and learner.
- Almost all secondary leaders and teachers (94%) thought that wearing face coverings has made communication between teachers and students more difficult, with 59% saying it has made it a lot more difficult.
- Research into the effect of mask wearing on communication has found that concealing a speaker’s lips led to lower performance, lower confidence scores, and increased perceived effort on the part of the listener.
- Meta-cognitive monitoring was worse when listening in these conditions compared with listening to an unmasked talker.
- A survey of impacts on communication with mask wearing …. reported that face coverings negatively impact hearing, understanding, engagement, and feelings of connection with the speaker.
- People with hearing loss were impacted more than those without hearing loss. The inability to see facial expressions and to read lips have a major impact on speech understanding for those with hearing impairments.
- The WHO reports that “the wearing of masks by children with hearing loss or auditory problems may present learning barriers and further challenges”.
Note the more certain arguments (some with precise percentages attached) in the above for the harms of mask wearing and especially for children. There are far fewer modal verbs used and the claims are, in the main, unambiguous: ‘were impacted’, ‘negatively impact’, ‘was worse’, ‘led to’. ‘made worse’, ‘more difficult’. The evidence for the harms of face coverings is measurable, precise, unambiguous and certain and the language used for presenting the evidence base, is equally unequivocal.
It would seem that Nadhim Zahawi’s promised ‘material’ evidence for his recommendations for face coverings in secondary classrooms is as flimsy as some of the cloth masks our teenagers will need to resort to using, as they do their best to cope with the challenges of learning in 2022.
In conclusion, perhaps we should ponder on the one piece of data expressed as a precise statistic, which might be driving this new guidance, namely: ‘71% of UNISON support staff thought face coverings in schools were an important safety measure’. If our Education Secretary has sacrificed children’s learning and social communication opportunities in schools, to appease Trade Unions, he will have to provide much more compelling evidence that schools are in any way unsafe for children or staff than he currently has. He has stiff opposition in the form of 150 comparative studies, peer reviewed with robust research, which come to the very definite and certain conclusion that, “to date, the evidence has been stable and clear that masks do not work to control the virus”. There is not a whisper of modality in that concluding statement either.
January 18, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, UK |
Leave a comment
Two years into the pandemic, the tired narrative of legacy media & public health authoritarians like Fauci, has almost completely reversed from driving fear of the Covid, to ‘we must learn to live with this virus’. So why have Fauci & Co. made such an abrupt ‘about face?’
January 18, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
Two new lawsuits against NATO will be brought to the Higher Court in Belgrade on behalf of Serbian victims of the 1999 depleted uranium bombing in Yugoslavia, a year after the first claim over the issue was filed, lawyer Srdjan Aleksic told Sputnik.
The first lawsuit, over 20 years after the bombing, was filed in January 2021. Aleksic was working on material evidence to represent the interests of a Yugoslavian officer with cancer because of the airstrikes.
“On January 20, we are filing two new lawsuits in Belgrade from two victims and we hope that then every month, we will file two or three more [lawsuits]. It takes time and money for the work of an expert in explosives and weapons and a medical examiner’s conclusion. It must be clearly proved that NATO carried out depleted uranium bombings where the plaintiffs were located. It also has to be proved that the plaintiffs’ cancer has been caused by radiation from NATO uranium,” Aleksic said.
NATO could have used conventional weapons; however, it chose to use depleted uranium on the territory of Serbia, the lawyer went on, which will have a detrimental effect on people for many years to come.
“This is a war crime and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization must compensate for damage to the Serbian citizens,” Aleksic said.
The lawyer added that last year’s claim was forwarded to NATO headquarters, but so far without acknowledgment of having been received. However, the Higher Court in Belgrade may pass a verdict to NATO even if the alliance does not take part in the proceedings under the Serbian legislation, Aleksic explained.
January 17, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | NATO |
Leave a comment
Official government disinformation
What our government is telling physicians is just plain idiotic. Read the following in a publication aimed at doctors.
This was just reported:
“Due to the Omicron variant and the short supply of COVID therapeutics, NIH recommends certain therapies over others for patients at high risk of progressing to severe COVID, said federal officials on a call with clinicians Wednesday [January 12].
In order of preference, clinicians should use the oral antiviral nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid), the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab, the IV antiviral remdesivir (Veklury) and finally, the oral antiviral molnupiravir, said Alice Pau, PharmD, of the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines panel.
While the drugs were ranked from 1 to 4, she noted that nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, sotrovimab, and IV remdesivir three times a day all had similar clinical efficacy, with a relative risk reduction of 88%, 85%, and 87% in hospitalizations and deaths, respectively, versus placebo. However, molnupiravir, with its 30% efficacy, should be used only if the other three choices are not available, Pau noted.”
Here are the main reasons why the NIH list of preferred COVID treatments should not reassure the public:
1. The first preferred action, using the Pfizer drug Paxlovid, makes little sense because there is nearly no availability of it. And even if people could get prescriptions filled, would they be acting fast enough to get benefits. In the clinical trials people had to start the drug within three days of symptoms; even though they now talk of starting within five days, that too is totally impractical and unrealistic. Few people would be able to distinguish symptoms being COVID and not the flu or a bad cold quickly, getting an appointment with the doctor quickly and getting a prescription filled quickly. And the safety has not been adequately assessed.
2. The monoclonal antibody sotrovimab is nearly impossible to get because of extremely limited supply. And here too, a sick person would have to get medical attention quickly, that is extremely difficult. Even your local hospital might not have it.
3. The very expensive drug remdesivir has a terrible history of being both ineffective and having terrible side effects. It is mostly given to very ill patients in hospitals.
4. Then you get to the absolutely ludicrous fourth option, the new Merck antiviral that has a terrible level of effectiveness and that has not been proven safe. An absolutely awful choice.
What is most obscene about what NIH tells doctors is that it still refuses to include ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine as treatment options. It ignores the extremely successful treatment protocols of frontline doctors like Dr. Fareed and Dr. Zelenko that do NOT include any of the four NIH preferences.
What a waste of US taxpayer money on the evil and criminal Fauci’s organization.
Do not trust the government to effectively protect your life. Public health protection in the US is a disgrace. What NIH is saying is really insulting disinformation.
January 17, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Covid-19, United States |
Leave a comment
A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products, Jessica Rose Ph.D., MSc, BSc, Peter A. McCullough MD, MPH.
Abstract – Following the global rollout and administration of the Pfizer Inc./BioNTech BNT162b2 and Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccines on December 17, 2020, in the United States, and of the Janssen Ad26.COV2.S product on April 1st, 2021, in an unprecedented manner, hundreds of thousands of individuals have reported adverse events (AEs) using the Vaccine Adverse Events Reports System (VAERS).
We used VAERS data to examine cardiac AEs, primarily myocarditis, reported following injection of the first or second dose of the COVID-19 injectable products. Myocarditis rates reported in VAERS were significantly higher in youths between the ages of 13 to 23 (p<0.0001) with ~80% occurring in males. Within 8 weeks of the public offering of COVID-19 products to the 12-15-year-old age group, we found 19 times the expected number of myocarditis cases in the vaccination volunteers over background myocarditis rates for this age group. In addition, a 5-fold increase in myocarditis rate was observed subsequent to dose 2 as opposed to dose 1 in 15-year-old males. A total of 67% of all cases occurred with BNT162b2. Of the total myocarditis AE reports, 6 individuals died (1.1%) and of these, 2 were under 20 years of age – 1 was 13.
These findings suggest a markedly higher risk for myocarditis subsequent to COVID-19 injectable product use than for other known vaccines, and this is well above known background rates for myocarditis. COVID-19 injectable products are novel and have a genetic, pathogenic mechanism of action causing uncontrolled expression of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein within human cells.
Integrating the temporal relationship of AE occurrence and reporting, biological plausibility of cause and effect, and the fact that these data are internally and externally consistent with emerging sources of clinical data (UK Yellow Card and EU EUDRA systems, published case series), it supports a conclusion that the COVID-19 biological products are deterministic for the occurrence of myocarditis observed after injection.
Journal Pre-proof
References:
https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(20)30673-2/fulltext
https://rcm.imrpress.com/EN/10.31083/j.rcm.2020.04.264
https://www.truthforhealth.org/patientguide/patient-treatment-guide/
January 17, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
But it can’t be caused by the vaccines, masks, or swabs since all are “safe and effective” according to the CDC. My experts think it is all 3. Infectious disease docs say nothing is wrong, ignore it.
I got the message below from one of my followers. It’s an anecdote, but it is not an isolated incident as you’ll agree from reading the comments. A 60-fold increase in intracranial infections (5/month vs. 1 per year). Nobody can figure out why. Only started happening after the vaccines rolled out.
You won’t hear of this since the surgeons aren’t going to speak out since they’ll lose their license (as noted in the message). That doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.
Steve, I got this message from my neurosurgeon friend…
“I just took care of an 11-year-old African American cheerleader (she is a “flyer” which means she is the person who is lifted up into the air during a stunt; they are usually very strong and have excellent balance while in the air) in amazing health who had a headache. She got worse and mother brought her to my hospital. She was in a coma and had a brain abscess. I had to put a tube in her head to save her life. Pure pus from her head… And MRI showed a brain abscess as well as sinusitis, and she had a tooth infection.”
So I called my friend (the anti-Vax NS) and said WTF: she said she operated in 5 kids like this in the past month! We see normally one a year. We both said at the same time, “Masks!”
So I wrote to another ped NS friend in the Midwest and this is what he just sent me:
“Yes, it is raining intracranial infections here. We just did one and have done 10-12 since October. This is weird as it’s the wrong season for them. We get them in spring and only a sprinkling of them. ENT is having a similar issue with severe sinusitis’s in kiddies. We asked ID and they just shrug their shoulders”. [Ed note: ID is short for infectious disease ]
Steve, I asked my neurosurgeon friend to call you as she is still pro vaccine despite what she is seeing with her own eyes, but she is afraid that she could jeopardize her license. The other NS recently got fired for not getting the jab, so maybe she would speak with you. Thank you.
Masks? Vaccine? COVID test swabs stuck up your nose? All three?
The vaccination status of the patients wasn’t known (since we all know that the COVID vaccines never cause any bad effects, the physicians didn’t bother to ask such irrelevant questions).
According to my neurologist, the most likely cause is the vaccine, but masks could also be implicated (sinus infection that goes to the brain). She gave it 60:40 odds, where 60% it is the vaccine, 40% it is masks. Then I asked her about the COVID test swabs they stick up your nose and she said, “YES, that is a huge possibility.”
In short, it can be a combination of things. The vaccine weakens your immune system, the masking and/or swabs can initiate the infection, and perfect storm time… you get the result we see today.
In reading the comments, it’s also a mixed bag. Some implicate masks, others the vaccine (since it crosses the BBB and can cause inflammation). But it could potentially be PCR tests as well if you get a swab placed up your nose all the way.
Of course the CDC is never going to tell you any of this.
Message from Dr. Ryan Cole
I was hypothesizing with the Mrs. I think it may be all 3.
In the lab, we saw in increase of unusual organisms on sinus infection and throat infection cultures pre-vaccine. We cultured several masks and grew several diverse organisms and environmental pathogens.
So, first, we know the masks were/are a breeding ground for an atypical mix/ratio of microbes, where they don’t belong.
Second- you and I well know that the vaccines alter the immune system’s ability to fight off many organisms. T cell and till like receptor dysregulation, lead to a weaken of our innate immune response.
Third- add to the perfect storm, of wrong flora, in the wrong location, a trauma to the nasal mucosa, allowing those organisms into a broken small vessel, adjacent to the olfactory bulb. The fatty rich nerve sheath gets secondarily colonized and allows the organisms to now climb into the usually sterile intra cranial space causing abscesses.
Children normally have a strong innate immune response. It is altered after the shots.
Kelli (the Mrs.) being reasonably mask compliant (probably microbially shifted in her flora), had a tech that ramroded her sinus and caused bleeding for our last Maui trip, where you and I spoke. After that, she had a persistent gasoline smell. She and I had Covid a month ago. While in the antibiotic azithromycin, her smell returned to normal. She has had to mask for a few things recently and the gasoline smell is returning (naso biome microbial bad shift again).
I think the cause can be one and two, two and three, or all three.
I would like to know from the neurosurgeons what organism(s) were cultured and grew from the abscess in each case, and assess the commonalities and differences of the microbial milieu.
The study would be-
Culture the throat and sinuses, to assess the microbial flora, of age controlled cohorts of
– non maskers
– persistent compliant unvaccinated maskers (Such as a school district that requires them)
-compliant vaccinated maskers.
Compare the results to the organisms reported in the cases you presented from the docs and surgeons.
Something is indeed rotten in state of “the neuronal vaults of” Denmark.
Comments from doctors
Retired neurosurgeon wrote:
We need more data re this.
Brain abscess is typically a bacterial infection, and often can be related to otitis/ oral cavity infection. It can also be fungal. My guess is that if indeed there is an uptick in cases, the vaccine itself is unlikely to be a direct culprit; more likely some environmental factor, or potentially masking, if that can be shown to actually somehow be increasing cases of otitis media, or oropharyngeal infections, tooth decay, etc. Masking obviously is ineffective in mitigating upper respiratory dz transmission, but it’s actual harmfulness in the general healthy population running around with their faces covered with cloth beaks emblazoned with icons and butterflies, alone in their cars, and in supermarkets, etc, half off their nose, is hard to prove conclusively.
Brain abscess used to be more common a few decades ago, and has steadily decreased in frequency. We image people much sooner, and hygiene, in general, has improved. I do agree the CDC has proven quite unreliable, an understatement, in so many ways. If there is an increased incidence, it will probably be in the CDC data, they just may well not call attention to it, and hope it goes under the radar.
ER doc wrote:
I called this out a year ago. Seems like so many patients were coming into the clinic with “sinusitis” – patients tend to overcall head congestion with a cold as sinusitis, but so many patients with the same complaint. I said I thought it was the masks but everyone shrugged it off. We know that anytime there is obstruction of normal outflow from the body, bacteria tend to colonize that area. And in a few unlucky people an infection can spread. I have never seen a brain abscess in someone who was not immunocompromised or an IV drug user. It can occur with protozoal infection but very rare in US. When you mess with Mother Nature, there are consequences. There’s a reason the Greeks saw hubris as a fatal character flaw.
January 17, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | COVID-19 Vaccine, United States |
Leave a comment
With the Arctic melting scam collapsing in real time, the Biden administration digs in their heels and ramps up the fraud.
January 17, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video |
Leave a comment
Amid the pandemic media storm in January 2021, a study1 published in the journal Atherosclerosis quietly revealed that people taking statin medications had a higher rate of cardiovascular events than those who were not on statins.2
In the study, the researchers separated the participants by assigning them a coronary artery calcium (CAC) score. This is a noninvasive CT scan designed to detect plaque buildup in your coronary arteries. It is also called a cardiac calcium score,3 calcium scan or Agatston score.4
Doctors use this score to calculate your risk of developing coronary artery disease as it measures calcified plaque within the arteries. Data has shown your risk of heart disease correlates with this score. The lower the score, the less likely you are to have a cardiac event when compared against other men and women your age. The score ranges from zero to over 400.5
- Zero — No plaque with a low risk of a heart attack.
- 1-10 — Small amount of plaque and less than 10% chance of heart disease.
- 11-100 — Some plaque with mild heart disease and a moderate risk of a heart attack.
- 101-400 — Moderate amount of plaque that may block a coronary artery, with a moderate to high risk of a heart attack.
- 400+ — Large amount of calcified plaque is found in the coronary arteries with more than a 90% chance it is blocking an artery.
Doctors consider a CAC test if you are between 40 and 70 with an increased risk for heart disease but do not have symptoms.6 People with a family history of heart disease, who are a past or present smoker, are overweight, are inactive or have a history of high cholesterol, diabetes or high blood pressure have factors that increase their risk of heart disease.
Yet, not all physicians use the CAC score as recommended. Writing for the Texas Heart Institute, the assistant medical director, Dr. Stephanie Coulter, says, “When my high-risk patients are not taking their cholesterol-lowering statin medicine, the calcium score can be a very powerful motivator for them to follow my professional advice and prescription.”7
However, further into her article, she stresses the test is only appropriate for moderate-risk patients, and those with a low or high risk of heart disease do not benefit from the scan. The study published in Atherosclerosis indicates that even with a high CAC score, taking statins does not reduce your risk of a cardiovascular event and may, in fact, increase it.8,9
Data Show Statins Increase Your Risk for Heart Events
The researchers were working under the premise that statins do not decrease the CAC score and may increase calcification.10 They used the prognostic significance of CAC when compared against statin users in 28,025 patients ages 40 to 75 years. The researchers adjusted the data for traditional cardiovascular disease risk factors and examined the performance of CAC volume, density and area.
Nearly 11 months after the results were published, Tucker Goodrich11 extracted the data from Table 1 into a graphic representation that demonstrated only in the highest CAC score range of 400 or greater were the data nearly identical between those taking statins and those not taking statins. Otherwise, those taking statins always had more cardiac events than those who weren’t. The researchers concluded that:12
“CAC scoring retains robust risk prediction in statin users, and the changing relationship of CAC density with outcomes may explain the slightly weaker relationship of CAC with outcomes in statin users.”
The researchers acknowledged that true to the recommended use of CAC scoring, only a baseline score was known, so they were unable to evaluate whether statins influenced the progression of calcification. There was limited race and ethnic diversity within the study group.
Yet, despite the limitations of the design and the results, they believe the analysis used data from one of the largest samples available to date and provides “both real-world and investigational support for the role of CAC in risk stratifying patients taking statins.”13
Tucker Goodrich14 quotes from an article in the American College of Cardiology published January 2021, in which the writers analyzed the data. They wrote:15
“The findings confirm that CAC does have prognostic value among statin users, although the association is attenuated. Complicating interpretation is the inclusion of only fatal events and the relatively elevated, but still low, mortality rate in statin users versus non-users with a zero CAC score.
A key mechanism underlying this phenomenon is that statins increase plaque density thereby paradoxically raising the Agatston CAC score — as density is upweighted.”
There appears to be some discrepancy. First, the data that show people with a CAC score of zero — no plaque and low risk — were inexplicably taking statins. Secondly, the study acknowledges that there was one baseline CAC score taken, so how much the plaque density increased or didn’t increase in this population could not be ascertained.
And finally, the raw data showed people on statins died more frequently than those who didn’t take the drug in nearly every CAC category. However, the writers postulated that the increasing plaque density that raises the CAC score may be overcome by expanding the scoring method and investigating the protective role that densely calcified plaque may play in cardiovascular health:16
“However, this is hampered by a current lack of reference values, limited supportive research, and validation; implementation limitations include software update requirements and standardization.”
In other words, expanding the CAC scoring, which should be taken before prescribing statins and is not recommended as a follow-up since it exposes patients to the same radiation as 10 X-rays,17 may possibly alter the results enough that it reflects greater benefit to using statins.
Statins Are More Than a Colossal Waste of Money
Despite decades of statin drug use and vilification of saturated fats and cholesterol, heart disease remains the No. 1 cause of death.18 Although the researchers in the featured study do not mention it, their data support past research that shows statins are a colossal waste of money, and likely more.
In 2014, Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., produced a documentary, “Heart of The Matter: Dietary Villains.” The film exposed the myths behind the statin fad and the financial links that drove the industry. It was so thorough that vested interests convinced ABC-TV to rescind the two-part series and got the documentary expunged.19
Since the release of that documentary, the evidence against the cholesterol theory and statins has only grown. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, a general practitioner with the British National Health Service, expressed his disbelief at how widely statins are used despite research evidence they are not effective, and possibly worse. He wrote:20
“New research shows that the most widely prescribed type of drug in the history of medicine is a waste of money. One major study found that the more ‘bad’ cholesterol was lowered, the greater the risk of heart attacks and strokes.
In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, almost every other medical condition has been shoved onto the sidelines. However, in the UK last year, heart attacks and strokes (CVD) killed well over 100,000 people — which is at least twice as many as have died from COVID-19.
CVD will kill just as many this year, which makes it significantly more important than COVID-19, even if no one is paying much attention to it right now.”
What data have demonstrated is that statin medications are not inert, and in fact can damage your health while not protecting your heart. One of the side effects of lower cholesterol levels is impaired cognitive performance.21
One study22 showed patients with mild cognitive impairment had double the risk of dementia when using lipophilic statins, such as atorvastatin (Lipitor), simvastatin (Zocor), Fluvastatin (Lescol), and lovastatin (Altoprev), which dissolve more readily in fats.23
This Harvard article claims those same drugs that increase the risk of dementia may lower your risk of liver cancer, which is not a choice any patient should have to make. There is also evidence to suggest people taking statins have twice the risk of being diagnosed with diabetes than those who do not and taking the drug for longer than two years triples the risk. One of the scientists from The Ohio State University explained in a press release:24
“The fact that increased duration of statin use was associated with an increased risk of diabetes — something we call a dose-dependent relationship — makes us think that this is likely a causal relationship.”
Not all data show that people taking statins have more heart events than people not taking statins. Some, like this systematic review25 published in 2015, found that despite the added risks of dementia and diabetes, people taking statins could live an average of only 3.2 to 4.1 days longer than if they didn’t take the drug.
Your Body Requires Cholesterol to Live
The triggers for cardiovascular disease are more complex than just lowering cholesterol levels. As data have shown us, lowering cholesterol is not the panacea for avoiding heart disease and extending your life. Kendrick refutes the idea that the LDL-cholesterol hypothesis is accurate, writing:26
“For the LDL hypothesis to be correct, it requires that LDL can travel past the lining of the artery, the endothelial cells, and into the artery wall behind. This is considered the starting point for atherosclerotic plaques to form. The problem with this hypothesis is that LDL cannot get into any cell, let alone an endothelial cell, unless that cell wants it to.”
However, damage to the arterial walls can be induced by several factors, including high blood pressure, inflammation, elevated blood sugar and smoking.27 Once damaged, plaque begins to build up as a protective mechanism. The problem arises when the rate of damage and result in clot formation outpace your body’s ability to repair it.
Instead, it’s crucial that you understand how important cholesterol is to the human body. In fact, according to Zoe Harcombe, Ph.D., nutritional researcher, author and public speaker, “If you had no cholesterol in your body, you would be dead.”28
As noted by Harcombe, the notion that there is good and bad cholesterol is also wrong. LDL and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) are not even cholesterol but, rather, carriers and transporters of cholesterol, triglycerides (fat), phospholipids and proteins. “LDL would more accurately be called the carrier of fresh cholesterol and HDL would more accurately be called the carrier of recycled cholesterol,” she says.29
How to Identify and Lower Your Risk for Heart Disease
Using simple strategies at home may help normalize your cholesterol and blood sugar levels. I believe a total cholesterol measurement has little benefit in evaluating your risk for heart disease unless the total number is over 300.
In some instances, high cholesterol may indicate a problem when your LDL or triglycerides are high, and your HDL is low. You’ll be better able to evaluate your risk by looking at the two ratios below, in combination with other lifestyle factors such as ferritin and gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT) tests. To calculate your cholesterol ratios:30,31,32
- Cholesterol:HDL ratio — Divide your total cholesterol by your HDL level. Ideally, the ratio should be below 5-to1; a ratio below 3.5-to1 is considered optimal
- Triglyceride:HDL ratio — Divide your triglyceride level by your HDL. This ratio should ideally be below 2
However, rather than focusing on cholesterol, there are two tests far more important for assessing your CVD risk. These are the serum ferritin33 and gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT) tests.34 The GGT test can be used as a screening marker for excess free iron and is a great indicator of your sudden cardiac death risk.
To protect yourself against heart disease, here are several suggestions that help lower your insulin resistance and restore insulin sensitivity, among other heart-protective mechanisms:
- Avoid environmental pollutants and toxins, including smoking, vaping, heavy metals, herbicides and pesticides, especially glyphosate.
- Minimize your exposure to electromagnetic fields and wireless radiation from cellphones, Wi-Fi, routers, smart meters and more, as this kind of radiation has been shown to cause serious free radical damage and mitochondrial dysfunction.
- Eat an unprocessed whole food-based diet low in net carbs and high in healthy fats. A ketogenic diet — which is very low in net carbohydrates and high in healthy fats — is key for boosting mitochondrial function.
- When your body can burn fat for fuel, your liver creates water-soluble fats called ketones that burn far more efficiently than carbs, thereby creating fewer reactive oxygen species and secondary free radicals. Ketones also decrease inflammation and improve glucose metabolism.35
- Eat nitrate-rich foods to help normalize your blood pressure. Good sources include arugula, cilantro, rhubarb, butter leaf lettuce, mesclun mixed greens, beet greens, fresh beet juice, kvass (fermented beet juice) and fermented beet powder.
- Get plenty of non-exercise movement each day; walk more and incorporate higher intensity exercise as your health allows.
- Intermittently fast. After you’ve become accustomed to intermittently fasting for 16 to 18 hours, you can try a stricter fast once or twice a week, when you eat a 300- to 800-calorie meal loaded with detox-supporting nutrients, followed by a 24-hour fast. So, in essence, you’re then only eating one 300- to 800-calorie meal in 42 hours.
- If you have heart disease, consider enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP). To find a provider, see EECP.com.36
- Get sensible sun exposure to optimize your vitamin D status and/or take an oral vitamin D3 supplement with magnesium and vitamin K2.
- Implement heart-based wellness practices such as connecting with loved ones and practicing gratitude.
Sources and References
January 16, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Statins |
Leave a comment
Aletho News
