Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Rogue street art appears overnight in D.C., mocks Biden & Fauci’s COVID regime

“Mandate! Segregate! Subjugate!”

By Jordan Schachtel | The Dossier | January 15, 2022

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 | Science and Pseudo-Science, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

How Confident is the Government in its ‘Evidence’ on Masks

It turns out — not certain at all!

Health Advisory and Recovery Team | January 15, 2022

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 | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

FAUCI’S NEW GOAL: CONTROL

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | January 13, 2022

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 | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Serbia to File 2 More Lawsuits Against NATO Over Uranium Bombing

Sputnik | January 13, 2022

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 | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | | Leave a comment

NIH COVID Treatment Guidelines

Official government disinformation

By Joel S Hirschhorn | January 17, 2022

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 | Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Myocarditis Adverse Events in VAERS

America Out Loud | January 16, 2022

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 | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Intracranial infection cases up 60-fold since vaccines rolled out

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.

By Steve Kirsch | January 15, 2022

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 | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

NOAA Arctic Fraud

Tony Heller | January 9, 2022

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 | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | Leave a comment

Statins Do More Harm Than Good

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | January 15, 2022

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 | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Fauci and CDC Director Rochelle Walensky Lie Under Oath Regarding VAERS COVID-19 Vaccine Deaths

By Brian Shilhavy | Health Impact News | January 13, 2022 

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky and Anthony Fauci appeared before a Senate Committee Hearing this week regarding the “Omicron Response,” and both of them lied under oath.

They both claimed that they “didn’t know” how many deaths were recorded in VAERS following COVID-19 vaccines, and Walensky stated the COVID-19 vaccines are “incredibly safe” and “protect us against Omicron, they protect us against Delta, they protect us against COVID.”

She also stated that all reported COVID-19 vaccine deaths have been “adjudicated,” when in fact not a single COVID-19 vaccine injury, let alone a death, has been tried in the Government CounterMeasures Injury Compensation Program, the only place where a vaccine death or injury following a COVID-19 shot can be “adjudicated.”

Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville either displayed his complete ignorance regarding VAERS, or colluded with Walensky and Fauci to ask them a meaningless question which then gave them the opportunity to control the narrative.

Tommy asked:

Dr. Walensky, it has been reported by some virologists and scientists that this year around 170 people have died from taking the regular flu vaccine.

The Vaccine Adverse Reporting System reported that the number of people dying after or following the COVID vaccine is actually in the thousands.

Now this is what I am hearing. I’ll give you a chance to refute that or confirm it here. Is this true?

Are we having that many people die after taking one of these vaccines?

This is a meaningless question because the answer is already public knowledge!

The VAERS database is open to the public, and anybody can search it. You don’t need a “virologist” or “scientist” to tell you how many deaths there are following COVID-19 shots. Anyone can make that search, and it takes less than 60 seconds to find the answer.

As of this recorded Senate Hearing, the total deaths following COVID-19 shots in VAERS was 21,382. (Source.)

So what he should have asked was:

Dr. Walensky, VAERS is reporting 21,382 deaths following the emergency use authorized COVID-19 vaccines for the first year, which is more deaths than following all FDA-approved vaccines for the past 31 years combined, since VAERS started recording deaths following vaccines in 1990.

Why are we still injecting these experimental products into Americans?

But instead, he questioned whether or not VAERS was actually reporting this, which led to a canned response by both Walensky and Fauci that VAERS is not reliable, because someone can get the vaccine and then walk outside and get hit by a car, and that is recorded as a vaccine death.

Here is the clip from our Bitchute channel (also available on our Telegram channel for easy download):

So let’s fact check this new narrative that people getting hit by a car after getting a COVID-19 shot are being entered into VAERS.

VAERS does have a “symptom” that is called “Road traffic accident.”

So if we search for “Road traffic accident” following COVID-19 vaccines that result in a death, we get 20 listed deaths out of the current 21,382 deaths recorded following COVID-19 shots that are associated with a “Road traffic accident.” (Source.)

Of those 20 cases, two of them appear to have listed “Road traffic accident” by mistake because nothing in the description mentioned a traffic accident.

Of the remaining 18, it appears that most, if not all of them, happened with the person driving the car (or motorcycle), not being hit by a car.

Here is one example from VAERS ID 1028476:

She started having breathing problems/heart attack appearance. on 1/22/21 and went to the ER. Upon admittance was told it was an anaphylactic shock from the Covid shot. They kept her in ICU and released her 1/23/21. At 12:45 am on 1/24/21 she passed out and we called the ambulance. Hospital admitted her and worked through multiple organ failure issues and thought her numbers were under control. She was released on 1/27/21 and was driving on 1/28/21 around 4:15 pm and appears to have had heart failure and had a wreck. She passed away that day.

People having heart attacks while driving their vehicles shortly after getting injected and then crashing doesn’t quite fit the new narrative that Walensky and Fauci are claiming regarding “getting hit by a car,” does it?

Full article

January 16, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Wikipedia 2122: The Great Covid Madness

By John Ellwood | TCW Defending Freedom | January 15, 2022

THE period 2020-2022 is remembered as the Great Covid Madness.

History has witnessed many periods of mass hysteria including plagues of dancing, witch trials, alien invasion and ghostly apparitions, not to mention the Seattle Windscreen Pitting Epidemic. However, it is likely that the hysteria witnessed during the Great Covid Madness surpassed anything that had gone before or since.

The delusions included:

The belief that the UK’s National Health Service was the ‘envy of the world’.

The belief that propaganda from the BBC, state-controlled media and the Chinese Communist Party was true.

The belief that a rich software salesman was a philanthropist and also an expert on vaccines and the transmission of viruses.

Decisions by managers at so-called ‘Health Trusts’ to send hospital patients with the virus back to care homes to infect other vulnerable old people who did not have the virus.

The insatiable desire to hoard toilet paper.

Banning the sale of ‘non-essential’ items such as shoes, and closing small retailers.

The introduction of pointless and discriminatory ‘health passports’.

The reliance on the accuracy of discredited PCR and LF tests.

Everything associated with Test and Trace.

Quarantine for healthy international travellers.

The persistent belief in discredited statistics from Imperial College London and Sage.

The belief in the proven lies of politicians, and most journalists.

The belief that a dirty rag placed over the mouth and nose was healthy and could stop the inhalation of a microscopic virus.

The belief that a piece of plastic between tables in a cafe could stop the transmission of a virus.

The belief that a sitting person would not transmit a virus whereas a standing person would.

The belief that a healthy person was a threat and could transmit a virus.

The belief that flu had disappeared and that a cold was something to dread.

The banning of healthy exercises such as team sports, golf, swimming and park runs.

Picnics and sunbathing viewed as dangerous to health.

Park benches and playgrounds regarded as disease vectors.

The refusal to distribute effective anti-viral medicines.

The isolation of lonely, sick and vulnerable people.

The closure of churches.

The belief that unjabbed health-care workers posed a greater risk to patients than those who had accepted the experimental gene therapy.

The ruination of the education and life chances of young people who were in no danger from the virus.

The belief that it was safe for six people to meet but not seven or more.

The belief that the indiscriminate injection of an untested experimental gene therapy was sensible.

The belief that mixing and matching the unproven gene therapies was sensible.

The belief that subsequent injections of the experimental gene therapy (which after two injections had not stopped infection or transmission) would prevent infection by and transmission of mutations of the virus.

The refusal to acknowledge or investigate the injuries and deaths caused by the experimental gene therapies.

The dismissal of the concept of naturally acquired immunity.

Willingly sacrificing the health of children and young people on the altar of ‘Community Safety’.

The creation of an unsustainable National Debt.

Footnote:

History records that the tyranny lasted far longer than the virus. Many of those who participated in the hysteria also believed that the tiny increase in atmospheric CO2 caused by human activities would cause catastrophic climate change.

January 16, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Australia’s Giant Green Gamble on Solar Energy Toys

By Viv Forbes | The Salt Bush Club | January 9, 2022

By the time solar energy reaches Earth’s surface it is spread very thin – even midday sunshine will not boil the billy or make toast. And solar collectors will only convert about 20% of that weak energy into electricity. Thus thousands of solar panels are needed to collect significant energy, and lots more to charge the expensive batteries needed to maintain electricity supply overnight and during cloudy weather. Despite these disadvantages, force-feeding of “green” energy by all levels of government has given Australia nearly three million solar collectors (mainly imported from China).

It requires scads of land to generate significant electricity from the sun’s weak rays. But even in sunny weather they produce nothing for 16 hours every day. And a sprinkling of dust, pollen, ash or salt, or a few splatters of poop from birds or flying foxes can reduce output by 50%, while night, snow or heavy cloud cover snuffs them out completely.

Solar energy collection is maximised if the panels face the sun exactly and follow the daily and seasonal movements of the sun across the sky. No rooftop collectors and only 40% of ground facilities can do this. Thus to produce the planned energy requires an even bigger area of collector panels, covering even more land.

More interested in propaganda than science, greens call land-based arrays “solar farms” suggesting they are plant-friendly places. However solar panels steal sunlight, leaving real plants beneath them to die. Solar “farms” have nothing in common with real farms except the need for large areas of open countryside – usually consuming valuable flattish cleared farmland or open grassland.

In fact growing plants are a liability to solar “farms” because they can block solar energy, so the operators must prevent grass, weeds and bushes from shadowing the panels and stealing their sunshine. Thus most plant-life in solar “farms” is killed – either by the blocking of the sun, or by regular applications of herbicide, or by roadways.

A big solar “farm” in Australia could contain one million solar panels and smother 2,000 acres of land. Each operation also needs miles of cleared access roads and transmission lines to maintain the facility, collect the electricity and transmit it to urban demand centres. Most of the time these transmission lines are operating well below capacity, creating an expensive web of inefficient maintenance liabilities.

Australia is also a world leader in installing subsidised rooftop solar. But a quick drive around the suburbs will show that few panels have the size, the ideal orientation or the cleanliness to be efficient collectors of solar energy – they are green status symbols designed to collect subsidies. Many will fail to recover the real cost of manufacture, transport, installation, maintenance and restoration. They destabilise the electricity network and elevate average electricity prices for industry and for those who cannot afford a house, let alone one with its own solar panels.

All for ZERO climate benefits.

Intermittent “green” energy forces coal and gas plants to operate at full capacity to cover peak demands around sunrise and sunset, but to wind back or shut down when solar energy pours into the system around midday. Recently in just one week in South Australia (Australia’s green energy guinea pig), electricity generation went from “over 130% renewables to less than 4%, renewables with everything in between”. Despite South Australia being home to “the biggest battery in the world”, the energy regulator has been forced to lease diesel back-up generators and to order gas-fired plants to stand by in case the wind suddenly drops – this encourages mechanical and financial breakdowns, and high electricity costs.

Europe has also gone out onto the green energy limb, but this is no comfort for Australians who cannot import nuclear power from France, gas from Russia or hydro-power from Scandinavia.

Every solar installation consumes energy to mine metals, manufacture, transport and erect panels and to build access roads and transmission lines over long distances. Careful analysis will show an energy deficit over their short lifetimes. And when an earthquake, hailstorm, cyclone or hurricane smashes these exposed rows of solar panels, rubbish dumps of mangled trash will be left. Most of this debris cannot be recycled and tonnes of metals, glass and plastic are destined to end their life as toxic, non-degradable land fill.

Bureaucrats will try to force solar operators to clean up, but smart operators will have bankruptcy petitions prepared for such emergencies.

Here’s a solar “farm” after a cyclone or typhoon:

Storm Destroys Solar “Farm” in Puerto Rico (producing lots of landfill). Picture Credit: Bob Meinetz. www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger

Proven and reliable electricity generators, driven by coal, gas, hydro or nuclear, with a small land footprint and housed in storm-proof structures, are far less damaging to the green environment than these landscapes of inefficient, intermittent, expensive plant-killing “farms”.

Where are the Green objectors now?

More Food for Thought:

Solar Energy in Australia:
https://list.solar/plants/largest-plants/australia/
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/News-releases/2021/Australia-installs-record-breaking-number-of-rooftop-solar-panels

The Effects of Dust on Solar Panels:
http://www.alionenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Effects-of-Dust-on-the-Performance-of-PV-Panels.pdf

The Growing Solar Panel Waste Problem:
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/solar/the-mounting-solar-panel-waste-problem/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/

Paving Virginia with solar slabs is bad law:
by David Wojick
https://www.cfact.org/2021/12/27/paving-virginia-with-solar-slabs-is-a-bad-law/

Australia’s looming energy security disaster:
https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2017/06/looming-disaster-energy-security/
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/australian-energy-council-warns-on-electricity-market-intervention/news-story/af00cdd9300e6a2df7621782b7e9bdd0

Concentrated Solar Power – another Solar Scam:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/01/yet_another_solar_scam.html

World’s Biggest Battery becomes World’s biggest Joke:
https://iowaclimate.org/2021/09/26/worlds-biggest-renewable-energy-battery-becomes-worlds-biggest-joke/

January 16, 2022 Posted by | Environmentalism, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »