THERE are three Covid-19 vaccines in use in the UK, but none is causing more havoc than the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab, now known as the ‘clotshot’ because it can cause vaccine-induced thrombosis (VITT). By July 28, 73 VITT deaths had been reported to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the body that makes sure new pharmaceuticals are safe. Deadly blood clots are not the only side-effects; there are many more affecting one in 110 people according to official figures. Some last for months and could be permanent even if they aren’t fatal.
Neurological occupational therapist Carla Freitas, 31, who works for the NHS, took part in the original AZ trial and is one of 11 women and men who reacted to the same batch of AstraZeneca Covid vaccine, batch number PV46671, earlier this year. The group are countrywide as it is common practice to distribute a batch to different areas. The PV46671 injured found each other on Twitter so there may be more victims not using social media out there. I talked to seven of them.
All seven received the jab before the MHRA began investigating adverse events reported to the Yellow Card Scheme, not originally flagged up by AstraZeneca. Carla said: ‘I was deemed fit enough to join the Oxford trial after thorough medical examinations. In December 2020, I was told I had been given the placebo and offered the jab once it was available, so I did not hesitate to take it. I was fine after the first injection but two weeks after the second one everything changed. I have been off work for five months since March trying to find solutions to my health problems. The doctors from the AZ trial have been unhelpful.’
BBC food broadcaster Jules Serkin, 63, from Canterbury, whose original tweet alerted the others, was ‘desperate for the vaccine’ but she has also suffered horrific side effects. She said: ‘My doctor agreed my reaction was from the vaccine. I contacted AstraZeneca and I’ve had five emails from them asking if they can contact my GP. I responded yes, of course. They never have.’
This close-knit, previously healthy group, aged from their early 30s to early 60s, have all developed chronic illnesses since vaccination. Some experienced symptoms within minutes of the jab being administered while others received PV46671 as their second jab. And while some are recovering slowly, others are getting worse.
Rachael Matthews, 31, and Claire Hibbs, 48, both developed heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) (blood clots usually caused by the anticoagulant drug heparin, typically used in the treatment of heart attacks but AZ victims seem to develop it despite the fact they are not taking heparin) and have tested positive for the heparin-PF4 antibody.
Other symptoms include heart problems, low blood platelets, palsy, excruciating headaches, insomnia, tinnitus, muscle pain, dizziness, disorientation, inflammatory autoimmune disease, pins and needles in hands, feet and face, fatigue, brain fog, difficulty swallowing, sore eyes and eye problems and stomach pains.
In the patient information leaflet, AZ, who have renamed their jab Vaxzervia, list many of the reactions the group have suffered but Serkin says: ‘Health professionals more often than not deny the connection.’
The leaflet says: ‘In clinical trials there were very rare reports of events associated with inflammation of the nervous system, which may cause numbness, pins and needles, and/or loss of feeling. However, it is not confirmed whether these events were due to the vaccine.
‘Following widespread use of the vaccine there have been extremely rare reports of blood clots in combination with low level of blood platelets. When these blood clots do occur, they may be in unusual locations, e.g. brain, liver, bowel, spleen.’
Both Matthews and Hibbs developed a clot in the portal vein which leads to the liver, while Serkin, Howard Griffiths, 52, and Dave McGuire are suffering numbness and pins and needles.
Despite their symptoms, some of those who reacted to their first dose are under pressure from GPs to have the second. This is inexplicable but one consultant suggested it could be because GP practices receive £25.16 for each double-jabbed person. With an average of 9,000 patients for each practice (although under-16s are not yet eligible for the jab) that could be a maximum £230,000 incentive. Patient health be damned!
Despite the MHRA’s denials – they say most adverse events are coincidental – logic suggests that if someone receives a vaccine that is designed to provoke an immune response and then develops autoimmune disease or other problems with their immune system, the jab should be first in the frame. However alleged vaccine damage seems to be rarely investigated or taken seriously.
Adverse reactions can be caused by a ‘hot lot’, a faulty batch of vaccine with too much of one ingredient. Big Pharma has known this for decades, and this problem was legally accepted in 1992 during an Irish court case involving Kenneth Best, 23. As a four-and-a-half-month-old baby, Kenneth suffered brain damage and seizures after he was given Wellcome’s diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (DTP) vaccine in 1969. The Irish Supreme Court ruled: ‘The documentary evidence surrounding the particular batch out of which the vaccine given to the Plaintiff was taken indicates that it was excessively high in both potency and toxicity.’
It is hard to know if this happened in this case because the MHRA and AstraZeneca have not responded to repeated requests for information. Contacted on July 29, AZ has not responded (even after Oxford University press office contacted them on TCW’s behalf) while in an unsympathetic email the MHRA confirmed that they had not investigated the group’s concerns.
An MHRA spokesperson said: ‘We are sorry to hear of the health problems these people are experiencing. We are not aware of any batch-specific safety issues for the AstraZeneca vaccine. We are also not aware of any issues with individuals involved in Covid-19 vaccine AstraZeneca trials who subsequently received this vaccine outside of the trial but will follow this up with the investigator.’
Meanwhile those in the group who have been advised by medics not to have a second vaccine fear they will become victims of medical apartheid. Adele B, 57, worries that she will be labelled an antivaxxer because she linked her health problems to the jab. She said: ‘I’ve always believed in vaccines so nothing could be further from the truth.’
Serkin, Freitas and Hibbs would like to travel when they feel well enough, but worry they will not be allowed without vaccine passports. Hibbs says: ‘I so want to visit my son in Cyprus, I’m wondering if I should have the second jab just to go.’
Here are the stories of the seven in detail.
CLAIRE HIBBS, 48, works for easyJet, lives in Luton, and is married with two children.
‘I’ve been signed off work now since the end of March. I’m now concerned about returning to work if I’m vulnerable. Devastated with the travel rules that you have to be double vaccinated, and I cannot have the second dose. My son, 18, is in the Army and is moving to Cyprus. I planned to visit regularly, but not with blood clots in my lungs.’
1st jab date: March 31
2nd jab date: Advised not to have second jab
Health issues before the jab: None
Reactions: ‘I began feeling unwell on April 5 and developed blood clots in the vein leading to the liver (portal vein), also in my lungs. I’m suffering constant headaches, muscle, joint and neck pains, constant eye twitching. I’m off balance and have brain fog. Can’t get through the day without falling asleep.’
Tests done: Blood tests but liver scan cancelled due to staff shortages. D-dimer (checks for tiny clots), CT, ultrasound and MRV scans which detect VITT. Positive HIT test. Positive test for portal vein thrombosis. Appointment with gastro team. Official diagnosis: ‘Thrombocytopenia (low blood platelets) and portal vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism (clot in the lung) induced by the AZ vaccine.’
Doctor’s response: ‘No luck with doctors, just keep getting fobbed off, mostly saying it’s stress. I’m feeling very let down.’
Time off work: Unable to work since March
Response from MHRA and AstraZeneca: ‘Filled in a Yellow Card. Acknowledgement but no other response. AZ have emailed me to ask for consent to contact my GP three times. I said yes but they have not contacted the GP.’
RACHAEL MATTHEWS, 31, an accountant from Norfolk, is married with one daughter.
‘I had my vaccine on my daughter’s first birthday at my GP surgery. I was apprehensive because I wanted to try for another baby in the spring. I’d had a complicated pregnancy, had a blood clot in my leg, but I was told I needed to have the jab to keep my daughter safe. Ironically, it nearly killed me which would have left my daughter without a mum. I’m now not well enough to consider having another baby. I’ve been told I was one of the first VITT cases in the UK.’
1st Jab: March 6
2nd Jab: ‘No second jab although I’ve been under pressure to take it.’
Health issues before jab: None, apart from pregnancy-related blood clot.
Reactions: ‘Started a week after the jab with stomach cramps, nausea and diarrhoea, very heavy legs. Struggled with everyday things I felt so weak. Couldn’t sleep, was struggling to walk, stopped being able to lift my daughter. Unable to get on to the doctor’s couch for a routine smear, a nurse insisted I went to A&E. I might have died otherwise. GPs had dismissed my symptoms. Blood clot found in the portal vein to my liver. VITT and HIT.’
Tests done: Two A&E visits, admitted to hospital for six days. Ultrasound, daily blood tests while in hospital. Endoscopy. Tests for HP4 heparin antibodies show HIT still present.
Time off work: ‘I work for my dad’s firm, so I fit in work when I’m well enough.’
GP’s response: ‘I asked about blood clots and was told it was fake news. Went to A&E and was told to take Gaviscon although routine blood tests showed very low blood platelets, around 50. When I was finally diagnosed with a blood clot I kept asking if it was the vaccine and no one would answer me.’
MHRA and AstraZeneca response: None.
HOWARD GRIFFITHS, 52, an events broadcaster for BBC, ITV and Channel 5, unmarried, lives in South Wales
‘I’m not Howard at the moment and I just want Howard back. I feel like my body has been hijacked, I’m desperate to get rid of the hijackers. I have always been highly motivated and full of energy. Before the jab I ran up Pen y Fan (highest peak in south Wales). After the jab I struggled to walk up hill to the shops.’
1st jab date: April 4
2nd jab date: ‘NHS say I cannot have second AZ but want to give me Pfizer.’
Health issues before the jab: None
Reactions: ‘Anaphylaxis. Within three minutes of the jab my lips and mouth became swollen, and I thought I was having a heart attack. My face went red. I have inflammation of the nervous system. I’m left with tingling and numbness in the hands, face, mouth and beneath the nose. Throbbing headache for ten days, changed to mild headaches but have now gone. Insomnia, which I never had before, dizziness, disorientation and fatigue. Tinnitus in left ear, throbbing in back of the neck and brain fog. Slight improvement but not back to normal.’
Tests done: Blood tests which showed low vitamin D. Three visits to GP and one to the hospital.
Time off work: Scaled down work at the beginning of pandemic anyway but would not have been able to carry on as normal
GP’s response: ‘Made no connection with the AZ.’
MHRA and AstraZeneca response: Filled in Yellow Card via phone call directly with MHRA but no contact since. Did not contact AZ.
JULES SERKIN, 63, freelance radio presenter for BBC specialising in food, married with three grown-up children and lives in Canterbury.
‘Too much stress at the moment. All I am doing is bouncing from pillar to post. Different GPs saying different things. Apparently, I’m a complex case.’
1st jab: March 5
2nd jab: Advised not to have second jab
Health issues before the jab: ‘Underactive thyroid. Initially, I was told it was safe to have the jab, but the advice has changed now for people with thyroid issues.’
Reactions: ‘Shivers were the first symptom, I felt like I had full blown flu. I was in bed for two days. Then blood clots came out of my nose for three weeks, I developed sinusitis. I began sleeping a lot, couldn’t look at a screen because my eyes were so sensitive. Developed a pain in my calf and headaches, which I’ve never had, with pains in my temples. Numbness in cheek and pins and needles in feet. Now my left eyelid has started to droop. I’m feeling tearful too.’
Tests done: Positive D-dimer test for blood clots. Blood tests show elevated liver enzymes which suggests liver damage. Ultrasound scan. MRI scan.
Time off work: ‘It’s affected my work for five months. I’ve been working but resting as often as possible.’
GP’s response: ‘You’re having a reaction to the vaccine.’
MHRA and AstraZeneca response: ‘AZ have sent five emails asking if they can contact my GP, but they haven’t yet. Filled in a Yellow Card in May, I’ve had an acknowledgment but that’s it.’
ADELE B, 57, is a retired communications co-ordinator, from Preston, who lives with her partner.
‘I’ve suffered weeks of weird symptoms. I feel it just can’t be coincidence that everything came at once. It also impacts on your family and friends. I feel like my partner is always checking on me. It’s put a cloud over my life. I cannot recall a day since I had the vaccine that I have felt completely well.’
1st jab: March 14
2nd jab: Advised not to have it while taking steroid medication to correct adverse reaction
Health issues before jab: None. Rarely went to the doctor.
Reactions: ‘Immediately after the vaccine I had chills, a sleepless night followed by a day with a headache and five days of feeling fatigued. The following week began with muscle aches and weakness in my shoulders, upper back, thighs and hips. Lack of sleep due to pain and I struggle to stand up after inactivity. These symptoms point to polymyalgia rheumatica (stiffness in neck and shoulders), an inflammatory autoimmune disease. My vision became blurry, and I had floaters in my right eye coupled with feeling disorientated when I sat down. I have heart palpitations, a strange rash behind my knee, dizziness and disorientation. Nerve pain and numbness in face, legs and feet and electric shock type sensations across my body. Health professionals are at a loss for a true diagnosis.’
Tests done: Several doctor’s appointments, seven blood tests, a 111 call, a visit to A&E, referral to rheumatology, referral to neurology, MRI scan of head, neck and spine, chest X-ray, eye examination.
Doctor’s response: ‘My doctor has advised me not to have the second AstraZeneca vaccine. Rheumatologist has indicated that she has seen several people reporting with autoimmune disorders since having their vaccine.’
MHRA and AstraZeneca response: Filled in Yellow Card, had a standard acknowledgement but nothing since. Didn’t contact AZ.
CARLA FREITAS, 31, highly specialist occupational therapist in neurology, neuro-cardiac and neuro-outreach at St George’s University Hospital, south London.
‘I was deemed fit enough to join the phase 1 Oxford Covid vaccine trials last April. I received the placebo and was offered the vaccine in January due to being an NHS worker. In the first few weeks of suffering nasty side effects and not understanding what was happening to my body I was in a very lonely place.’
1st jab: Jan
2nd jab: March 27
Health issues before jab: ‘None, 10-15-mile hikes at the weekend, scuba diving, travelling, you name it . . .’
Reactions: ‘No immediate side effects post second jab but after two weeks everything changed. I began getting headaches in the back of the head and pain in my neck. Stiff neck, pins and needles in my head and neck. Fatigue and short of breath during hikes. I had to stop after every lap when swimming. I tried to carry on as normal but couldn’t.’
Tests done: Four A&E visits and two admissions, one a suspected stroke the other because she couldn’t swallow, suspected VITT and Guillain-Barré syndrome (rapid onset muscle weakness), burning in hands and feet and leg weakness. Fifteen GP appointments, numerous blood tests, MRI of brain and spine, endoscopy, recorded heart rate for 24 hours, neurological physiotherapy, and exercises to help improve balance and reduce dizziness.
Time off work: Five months but hoping to return to work fulltime as feeling much better.
GP’s response: ‘I was told this is all stress and anxiety, in other words, all in my mind. Denial that the vaccine has anything to do with it. Doctors in the clinical trial have been unhelpful.’
MHRA and AstraZeneca response: Not known
DAVE McGUIRE, personal details not given. Dave provided three emails but has not been in contact since.
‘I’ve been talking to my best chum recently who had his first Pfizer jab a few weeks back. He’s now a fully-fledged member of the post vaccine headache world. What on earth is in these vaccines?’
1st jab: details not provided
2nd jab: not known
Health issues before jab: None
Reactions: Constant headaches, dizziness, abnormal heart rate, chest pain, reflux, fatigue, muscle pain and weakness in legs and arms, pins and needles and tingling in my right little finger, nausea, inflammation and stomach pains.
Tests done: Not known
Time off work: ‘Chest pain and muscle aches seem to be waning away and my heart is no longer racing like it used to.’
GP’s response: ‘One was hopeful that from her experience of seeing people with long-lasting effects from other vaccines that these should disappear with time.’
MHRA and AstraZeneca response: Not known
NOTE: By July 28, 24.8million people had received 48.4million doses of the AstraZeneca with one in 110 people reporting adverse reactions to the MHRA’s Yellow Card Scheme. A total of 20.46million have received 34.26million doses of the Pfizer with a reporting rate of one in 208 adverse events. Only 1.3million people have received 1.7million doses of the Moderna and 1 in 110 have reported serious side effects.
August 13, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Timeless or most popular | COVID-19 Vaccine, UK |
Leave a comment
In April and June of 2020 I wrote about something I referred to as LOKIN 20. In a series of articles I was among those in the so called “alternative media” who tried to highlight that lockdowns and other response measures, created by the Coronavirus Act, increased the risks to the most vulnerable.
This was entirely contrary to the rationale we were given for these new laws and subsequent policies. The response was promoted to the public as a “plan” to protect the most vulnerable. It was certainly a plan but increasing, rather than decreasing, the risks appears to have been the objective.
I reported the removal the safeguards put in place following the Shipman Inquiry and Francis Report (Mid Staffs). I pointed to statistical evidence from the Office of National Statistics and the concerns raised, by people like Professor Carl Heneghan and David Spiegelhalter, that a dangerous withdrawal of healthcare was contributing toward unnecessary increased mortality among the most vulnerable.
I am not claiming any great insight or deductive powers. I was just one, among many others, in the inappropriately named alternative media who were reporting the obvious dangers inherent to government policy.
It is important to stress that the increased mortality risk from the policies, rather than COVID 19, was abundantly clear at the time. Many people tried to warn the public but they were widely dismissed and labelled as “COVID deniers.”
A year later a number of mainstream media (MSM) articles have emerged confirming, what appears to have been, a policy that would inevitably maximise the risks to the most vulnerable. As usual, the possibility of deliberate policy intent is never broached in any of these MSM pieces. Their reports uncritically cite statements by politicians and consistently assume that these policies were mistakes and promote the notion that lessons need to be learned.
Speaking in June 2020 about the high risk discharge of 25,000 vulnerable patients into care setting, where they received neither medical care nor adequate social care, the former Health Secretary and chairman of the Health Select Committee, Jeremy Hunt, was unquestioningly reported as saying:
“It seems extraordinary that no one appeared to consider the clinical risk to care homes despite widespread knowledge that the virus could be carried asymptomatically”
Leaving aside the clear scientific proof that there is no such thing as asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the evidence suggests that these were neither mistakes nor failures. Yet all we see from the mainstream media is a free pass for the politicians and a blanket refusal to ever question their deceitful statements.
We face a huge sociopolitical problem. Despite the mountain of historical and contemporaneous evidence that governments can and do intentionally harm us, it seems we are collectively incapable of grasping the reality of democide. We wrongly assume that every policy is intentionally benign.
We must overcome this flawed and naive belief. Until we recognise that there are those within government, and its wider partnership networks, that wish us ill we will remain unable to address the threat they pose to all of us.
The UK government not only created the legislation to enable healthcare providers to increase the risks to the most vulnerable, they fully understood those risks. They had previously identified them in training exercises and had extensively modelled those risks.
Contrary to Hunt’s statement, there were many in the UK government who did “consider the clinical risk to care homes.” When the claimed pandemic arrived, rather than respond to limit and reduce the known dangers, the government, of which Hunt is a leading member, appeared to intentionally exacerbate them.
Section 14 of the Coronavirus Act removed the crucial NHS obligations under the NHS (standards) Framework. The NHS did not have to comply with clause 21(2)(a) and 21(12) of the 2012 Regulations.
The NHS no longer had a duty to assess a patient’s “eligibility for NHS Continuing Healthcare” before discharging them. In addition, no relevant body needed to have any “regard to the National Framework.” It is important to recognise what this meant within the context of a supposed global pandemic.
On 19th March 2020 the HCID group of Public Health England and the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) unanimously agreed to downgrade COVID 19, from a High Consequence Infectious Disease, due to low mortality. The UK government issued instructions to the NHS that they must discharge as many patients as possible on the same day.
With no duty to assess a patient’s continuing healthcare needs, the government set very unsafe assessment criteria and compelled hospitals to discharge them. Unless they were in intensive care, receiving oxygen, on intravenous fluids or imminently close to death, the government decreed:
“Every patient on every general ward should be reviewed on a twice daily board round to determine the following. If the answer to each question is ‘no’, active consideration for discharge to a less acute setting must be made.”
This is worth reiterating. During an allegedly unprecedented health crisis the UK government removed the NHS duty to assess a patient’s health status (and conditions) before discharging them from hospital. They then issued instructions compelling the NHS to discharge as many patients as possible.
The government and the NHS accepted that this would mean discharging patients with an active COVID 19 infection into the community. COVID patients, and people with a range of potentially life threatening conditions, were shipped into care settings where other vulnerable adults, who may not not have had any infection, were supposedly “shielding.”
There is no doubt that untested and COVID 19 positive patients entered the care system via this route. Both during the first and second “waves.” It is entirely reasonable to suspect that this policy, combined with others we are about to discuss, caused the said “waves.”
An August 2020 study by the Queen’s Nursing Institute found the following practices commonly operating in Care Homes during the spring 2020 outbreak. We should note the element of compulsion:
“Having to accept patients from hospitals with unknown Covid-19 status, being told about plans not to resuscitate residents without consulting families, residents or care home staff… 21% of respondents said that their home accepted people discharged from hospital who had tested positive for Covid-19… a substantial number found it difficult to access District Nursing and GP services… 25% in total reporting it somewhat difficult or very difficult during March-May 2020.”
On January 11th 2021, during the alleged second wave, The Care Quality Commission stated:
“These settings are admitting people who are discharged from hospital with a COVID-positive test who will be moving or going back into a care home setting.”
Even a few isolated voices in the mainstream media pointed out what they referred to as culpable neglect. Some of the UK’s leading charities for vulnerable people including the Alzheimer’s Society, Marie Curie, Age UK, Care England and Independent Age contributed toward an open letter to the UK government. Written on 14th April 2020 they highlighted a litany of policy “failures:”
“Instead of being allowed hospital care, to see their loved ones and to have the reassurance that testing allows; and for the staff who care for them to have even the most basic of PPE, they are told they cannot go to hospital, routinely asked to sign Do Not Resuscitate orders.”
The policies operated both by the NHS and the care homes, as a consequence of Coronavirus Act’s “legislative easement,” did not protect the most vulnerable. Rather they maximised their clinical risk. Not just of COVID 19, but of every condition that rendered them vulnerable in the first place.
From the 17th March 2020 the NHS were discharging vulnerable patients into care homes without assessing their “eligibility for healthcare.” On 2nd April 2020 the NHS combined this with instructions that care home residents should not be conveyed to hospital. On the 6th April they issued guidance to GP’s which stated:
“All patients should be triaged remotely… Remote consultations should be used when possible. Consider the use of video consultations when appropriate.”
So called “first wave” mortality peaked on the 11th of April and the UK government published its COVID 19 Action Plan on the 15th April. This seemingly insane policy agenda was deemed “necessary” by the UK state to create “capacity” in the NHS:
“The UK Government with the NHS set out its plans on the 17th March 2020 to free up NHS capacity via rapid discharge into the community and reducing planned care… We can now confirm we will move to institute a policy of testing all residents prior to admission to care homes.”
There was no commitment to improve the situation from the UK government, just a plan to move toward one. We know from the observations of the CQC that they continued these high risk policies during the subsequent virus “waves.” There is no evidence that any of these policies were designed to reduce the risks of the most vulnerable. They all, consistently tended to increase them.
It is not tenable for politicians to now claim that they didn’t know what was happening. They constructed and enabled all of the policies that made this dangerous negligence possible. Nor is it credible to simply blame the medical profession. The widespread use of Hospital Trust gagging orders (non disclosure agreements) was also in place. Doctors who did speak out were disciplined or sacked. This was systemic policy initiative which physicians were expected to abide by.
Once the vulnerable were trapped in abandoned care homes, which were knowingly understaffed, the remaining, unprotected staff were then left to deal with both their own safety fears and the mounting mortality. The government decided this was an opportune moment to suspend all safety inspections in both hospital and care settings. This was supposed to “limit infections,” although every other decision they made appeared to increase them. Yet again, ending inspections raised the mortality risk for the most vulnerable.
At the same time, Do Not Resuscitate (DNAR) notices were being attached to vulnerable people’s care plans, often without their consent or even their knowledge. This coincided with a massive increase in orders for the potentially life ending medication midazolam.
In March 2020 the NHS purchased the equivalent of two years worth of supply. French suppliers were then given regulatory approval by the MHRA to sell additional stock to the NHS. This was then distributed for out of hospital use in the community.
This benzodiazepine (midazolam) is a sedative/anaesthetic that suppresses respiration and the central nervous system (CNS). The British National Formulary (BNF) recommends its use for sedation of anxious or agitated terminally ill patients using a mechanised syringe pump in doses of 30–200 micrograms/kg/hour. It is not recommended for conscious sedation in higher doses due to the following risks:
“CNS (central nervous system) depression; compromised airway; severe respiratory depression.”
Therefore a frail, eight stone (50 kg) adult could receive an initial dose of up to 2.5mg followed by a total incremental dose of another 2.5mg over a 24hr period. The purpose of this would be to ease their anxiety and agitation if they were experiencing the frightening sensation of intense respiratory difficulty.
Midazolam becomes a conscious anaesthetic for use in intensive and palliative care when given in higher doses. The British Association for Palliative Medicine recommend:
“Start with 2.5-5 milligrams – if necessary, increase progressively to 10 milligrams – maintain with 10-60 milligrams / 24h in a syringe pump”
Ten milligrams is twice the BNF recommended dose to ease anxiety (for an 8 stone vulnerable adult.) Therefore it is extremely concerning that NHS Clinical Guideline for Symptom Control for patients with COVID-19 recommended 10mg of Midazolam for patients with “distressing breathlessness at rest.” This risks a rapid deterioration of the symptoms causing them that distress.
Police are still investigating an estimated 15,000 deaths that occurred at Gosport War Memorial Hospital between 1987 and 2001. An inquiry has already found that at least 456 people’s lives were “shortened” through the unwarranted use of unnecessary medication. Many suspect that the true figure is in the thousands. The independent panel into the malpractice at Gosport War Memorial Hospital found:
“There was a disregard for human life and a culture of shortening the lives of a large number of patients by prescribing and administering “dangerous doses” of a hazardous combination of medication not clinically indicated or justified… they were, in effect, put on a terminal care pathway… The risk of using them in combination has been consistently documented in the BNF. In particular, it has long been known that when given together, opioids and midazolam cause enhanced sedation, respiratory depression and lowered blood pressure.”
This report was published in September 2018. In 2020 the NHS treatment guidelines for COVID 19 patients, who were deemed to be “agitated,” was:
“Start with Morphine 20mg and Midazolam 20mg”
This is precisely the mechanical syringe combination used at Gosport War Memorial to “shorten” thousands of peoples lives. There are numerous reasons to suspect that the huge increase in midazolam ordered by the NHS, with the full knowledge of the government, was intended for this purpose.
In April 2020 the Health and Social Care Committee, chaired by Jeremy Hunt, heard submissions from medical professionals as they considered the government response to the global pandemic. In Q377 Dr Luke Evans (MP fror Hinckley and Bosworth) asked then Health Secretary about NHS provisions for “a good death.” This is medical shorthand for assisted dying or euthanasia. Dr Evans (MP) asked:
“The syringe drivers are used to deliver medications such as midazolam and morphine. Do you have any precautions in place to ensure that we have enough of those medications?”
To which Matt Hancock replied:
“Yes. We have a big project to make sure that the global supply chains for those sorts of medications… are clear. In fact, those medicines are made in a relatively small number of factories around the world, so it is a delicate supply chain and we are in contact with the whole supply chain.”
Hancock was clearly referring to the huge midazolam order and MHRA approval of the French supply chain. The UK government had already passed the Coronavirus Act, removing the NHS Framework duties, and had ordered them to discharge patients en masse. The NHS had instructed care homes not to send sick patients to hospital and GP support from the care homes had effectively been withdrawn.
Jeremy Hunt was chairing this discussion. For him to claim two months later that no one had “appeared to consider the clinical risk to care homes” smacks of vile obfuscation. The best we can say about this statement is that he was wrong. We now have the documentation which shows that the clinical risk in care homes was very carefully considered and the withdrawal of care was planned.
In 2016 the UK government ran Exercise Cygnus. The training scenario was prepared by Professor Neil Ferguson and his team at Imperial College London (ICL). It simulated a flu outbreak and was a Command Post Exercise (CPX) designed to test the UK’s pandemic preparedness. Nearly a thousand key officials took part from central and local government departments, the NHS, public health bodies from across UK, as well as local emergency response planners.
Some of the Cygnus Report recommendations were implemented in response to COVID 19 and others not. For example, it recommended legislative easements. The Coronavirus Act certainly eased the legislation surrounding the death registration process and the NHS duty of care. The legal requirements for inquests, post-mortems and cremations were also relaxed.
Exercise Cygnus also highlighted a number of deficiencies. It identified inadequate numbers of critical, general and acute care beds, which the government then proceeded to reduce further; it warned that whole sections of the NHS may have to be shut, which is exactly what the government did during the “pandemic;” it highlighted that the most vulnerable could be denied care, just as they were, and that the health service would have to be set on a war footing just to be able to cope.
These were warnings not policy suggestions. The UK government’s adoption of some of the Cygnus recommendations and determination not to address Gygnus alarms appears to have been their policy response to COVID 19.
COVID 19 healthcare strategies were seemingly set in 2016. The Cygnus scenario, modelled by Ferguson and ICL differed from their COVID 19 “models” only by virtue of being based upon influenza rather than a coronavirus.
Perhaps this explains why Exercise Cygnus was kept secret, reportedly for reasons of “national security.” When the report was released, after being exposed, it was heavily redacted and all the names of the senior officials involved were hidden.
The official explanation for this is that it was just too terrifying for the public to withstand. We might ask, terrifying for whom? Using the media to terrorise the public during the alleged pandemic was recommended by Spi-B (SAGE.)
It is reasonable to assume that many of those redacted names would have been people working for Ferguson’s ICL team and current members of SAGE. If so, this indicates that those involved in planning the response to COVID 19 not only understood what the risks were, they then provided the claimed “scientific” justification for policies which they knew would increase them.
One of the senior officials involved in Cygnus reportedly said:
“These exercises are supposed to prepare government for something like this – but it appears they were aware of the problem but didn’t do much about it.”
Again, we see the assumption that everything must be explained away as error or unfortunate oversight. This stretches credibility beyond breaking point when we understand that Gygnus ultimately produced a plan to deny healthcare during a pandemic. This policy of increasing the risks of the most vulnerable was evidently operating during the first alleged pandemic wave. It also seems likely that it continued beyond that point.
Based upon the Cygnus conclusions, in September 2017, the NHS Surge and Triage briefing paper was made available to senior health and government officials. It discussed something called population triage:
“The purpose of this paper is to provide an update to Chief Medical Officer (CMO) and the Chief Scientific Advisor (CSA) on continuing refinement of the knowledge and understanding behind the potential decision that may be required in a future extreme pandemic influenza scenario to move to a state of population triage across the country..”
Population triage means the potential denial of healthcare:
“The majority of the detail in this paper will not be replicated in any publically available documentation… Difficult decisions will be needed about maintaining patient access to care.. There is significant discussion in the paper about ceasing or changing care to patients in the HRG (Healthcare Resource Croups)… Patients would be assessed on probability of survival rather than clinical need and higher level services would no longer be provided… Total excess death rate would be in excess of 7,806 per week of the peak of the pandemic if all these services were stopped… So in the peak six weeks of a pandemic… 46,836 excess deaths could be expected”
Between 7th March and 8th May 2020, there were 47,243 excess deaths in England and Wales. According to the Cygnus predictions this was slightly higher than the numbers envisaged to result directly from the withdrawal of healthcare. However, nearly all of these deaths were attributed to COVID 19. We should ask where, in the claimed COVID 19 mortality figures, the anticipated deaths from the denial of healthcare are.
In November 2017 a number of English stakeholders also met to discuss the a pandemic briefing paper for Adult Social and Community Care. This too was a product of Exercise Gygnus. Once again the intention was to keep the report secret.
“The majority of the detail in this paper will not be replicated in any publically available documentation… Whilst demand will increase, capacity, which is already under pressure because of recruitment challenges, will also reduce because of staff absences… Adult social care will have an increased role in supporting rapid discharge from hospital.. In a severe pandemic, only those services that are life-critical will be maintained… More patients could be supported by a greater focus on telecare/tele-monitoring.”
It is known, from the reports of the CQC and national charities and other NHS documents cited in this article, that primary healthcare was withdrawn from care settings and the community. The staff shortages identified in 2016 became chronic and then severe during the pandemic. This was entirely predictable and was a known outcome of the track and trace and self isolation polices of the UK government.
The briefing paper spoke about which services could be “reduced or deferred.” Crucially these included assessment of care needs, mobility support, personal care support, maintaining family connections and access to medical treatment.
During the “first wave” approximately 25,000 vulnerable people were discharged into care homes to face the extremely high risk environment created for them by the UK government. At the same time potentially life ending drugs were being liberally prescribed.
This was the COVID 19 policy response and we were told the intention was to “protect the most vulnerable”. All of it was predicted on the assumption that hospital were struggling to cope with the “surge” in COVID 19 patients. According to the UK government, patients needed to be discharged to free up capacity in the NHS.
At the height of the so called first wave, on the 13th of April 2020, the Health Service Journal reported that hospital bed occupancy was at a record low, with 4 times more beds available that usual for the time of year. There were 37,500 available beds.
The HSJ stated that the reason for this spare capacity was the discharge policy operated by NHS at the behest of the government. What they didn’t mention is that these figures show the high risk discharge of the most vulnerable people in our society was entirely unnecessary.
You may not like it but is not “unthinkable” that this was deliberate, coordinated policy designed to increase the mortality statistics. Many have questioned the claimed severity of the alleged pandemic. If you wish to give the impression of a high mortality disease then you need the deaths to back up your claim.
It is feasible that all of these risk heightening factors happened to perfectly coalesce to increase mortality, but is it plausible? A refusal to contemplate the possibility of a intentional act does not rule it out. Only a thorough, truly independent investigation can.
While this system was in operation, the UK government encouraged widespread adoption of the Clap for Carers, often referred to as “clap for the NHS.” During lockdowns, as the whole nation was told to self isolate indoors and avoid all unnecessary congregation, between the 26th March and the 28th May, we were “allowed” to simultaneously congregate on the streets and show our appreciation by clapping, banging pots and pans and ringing bells.
Meanwhile vulnerable people were being discharged into unsafe care homes where access to medical care was withdrawn and essential social care removed. Clapping for this was obscene. The government clearly used this ploy both as a distraction and as propaganda. This does not suggest that doctors, nurses and carers do not deserve our support. Any medical professional or carer who blows the whistle is almost certainly making a career ending decision.
Given the evidence we have discussed, if we consider ourselves to be responsible citizens who live in a democracy, it is unconscionable for us to simply ignore what appears to have been a deliberate and illegal government policy of large scale euthanasia in the UK. We must seek answers from policy makers and malfeasance in office must be prosecuted wherever it is identified.
August 12, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, Exercise Cygnus, UK |
Leave a comment
Whenever one gets into discussions about the decline of America’s ability to positively influence developments around the world a number of issues tend to surface. First is the hubristic claim by successive presidents that the United States is somehow “exceptional” as a polity while also serving as the world’s only superpower and also the anointed Leader of the Free World, whatever that is supposed to mean. Some critics of the status quo also have been willing to look a bit deeper, recognizing that it is the policies being pursued by the White House and Congress that are out of sync with what is actually happening in Asia, Africa and Latin America, being more driven by establishing acceptable narratives than by genuine interests.
The problem starts at the top. One can hardly have a great deal of respect for presidents who appointed neocon or neoliberal ideologues Condoleezza Rice, Madeleine Albright, Hillary Clinton, Mike Pompeo or current incumbent Tony Blinken as Secretaries of State, but when all is said and done the area where the U.S. fails most egregiously is in the personnel it actually sends overseas. It has far more non-professional ambassadors than any other country in the world. Does the American public know, for example, that fully 44% of American Ambassadors sent overseas under Donald Trump were political appointees, whose sole distinction in many cases is that they contributed large sums of money to the Republican National Committee? Though such individuals can sometimes turn out to be surprisingly effective, many frequently know nothing of the country that they have been assigned to and do not speak the local language. To cite my own experience, in my 21 years as an intelligence officer spent mostly in Europe I did not once work for an ambassador who was a Foreign Service Officer career diplomat and few of the political appointees I knew ever bothered to learn the local language.
Part of the problem is that many U.S. ambassadors do not know what their job consists of. Ambassadors have existed since the time of the ancient Greeks. They were from the beginning granted a special immunity which enabled them to talk to enemy spokesmen to attempt to resolve issues without resort to arms. In the modern context, Ambassadors are sent to reside in foreign capitals to provide some measure of protection for traveling citizens and also to defend other perceived national interests. Ambassadors are not soldiers, nor are they necessarily the parties of government that ultimately make decisions on what to do when dealing with a foreign nation. They are there to provide a mechanism for exchanging views to create a dialogue while at the same time working with foreign governments to avoid conflict, whether over trade or politics. They should be bridge-builders who explain how American politics function, how the American government works, and at the same time educate Americans on how the country they are based in sees the United States.
By all these metrics, the U.S. diplomatic effort has been a failure and, at the end of the day, the United States taxpayer spends astonishing sums of money to support its global representational and security structures that provide little in return, rarely experiencing any notable successes and watching the reputation of the U.S. decline due to sheer ineptness. In my experience, the worst U.S. Ambassadors tend to be academics, which brings us to Michael McFaul, who served as Ambassador to Russia under Barack Obama from 2012-2014.
To be sure, viewing Russia as an enemy is a bipartisan impulse among the Washington political class. The neoconservatives and their neoliberal allies have both long been dreaming of regime change for Moscow, either because it is perceived as a threat or as an unacceptable autocracy. Given that, the appointment of Stanford Academic and Russia expert McFaul as Ambassador was intended to “reset” the bilateral relationship while also pushing the democracy promotion agenda and confronting various aspects of the domestic policies of the Vladimir Putin government that were considered unacceptable, to include the treatment of homosexuals. Pursuing that end, McFaul made a point of openly meeting with the political opposition in Russia. He thereby antagonized the officials in the government that he should have been working with to bring about acceptable change to such an extent that his term of office became untenable and he was an embarrassing failure.
But now McFaul has turned the usual Washington trick, converting failure into personal success. He is a regular go-to guy when Democrats either in Congress or in the White House need expert testimony on Russia and he is reliably a passionate supporter of the largely unsustainable Russiagate tale and all that implies. He is again a tenured professor at Stanford, where another top government failure Condi Rice, she of “mushroom cloud” fame, serves as Director of the Hoover Institution.
McFaul was recently bothered by what he described as an anonymous presumed “Russian troll” attack on twitter which had referred to his failure as Ambassador to Russia. This is how he responded: “I have a job for life at the best university in the world. I live in a giant house in paradise. I make close to a million dollars a year. I have adoring fans on tv and half a million followers on twitter 99% who also admire me. I’m doing just fine without a damn visa from Russia. And I am not afraid to tweet under my own name. I feel sorry for people like you who aren’t brave enough to do so.”
Not surprisingly, McFaul’s message, which was replayed in a number of places on the internet, struck many as a bit over the top, dripping with entitlement and self-esteem coming from someone who had been given an important government job and had only succeeded in making matters worse. He responded to the criticism by tweeting an addendum: “I wrote than[t] message in a private channel. I did not expect it to be published. But it was still a mistake, I apologize. It was arrogant and idiotic. A swarm of Russian trolls was accusing me of failure, and I responded in a most unprofessional way. Explanation, not excuse.”
Well, it’s nice to hear an apology for a change from anyone associated with the United States government, but the point is that McFaul is symptomatic of much of what is wrong in terms of how the White House makes policy impulsively and appoints poorly informed ideologues to implement what has been decided. McFaul is not unique. President Donald Trump certainly set a precedent in providing a whole group of incompetents to support the clueless Mike Pompeo at State, to include Nikki Haley at the United Nations, Rick Grenell in Germany, David Friedman in Israel, and the ubiquitous John Bolton at the National Security Council. It is almost as if in the area of foreign policy, the United States government as it is currently configured is designed to fail.
The solution is obvious. The United States desperately needs a foreign policy that is based on genuine national interests. It needs to stop rewarding political donors and needs also to send people as Ambassadors who are sensitive to the culture and red lines existing in the countries where they are posted. That doesn’t mean approving what others do, but it does mean listening to what they have to say. If one wants to restore America’s credibility and its reputation, examining the McFaul experience in Russia should be an excellent learning tool and taking steps so as not to repeat that failure would be a good place to start.
August 12, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Russophobia, Timeless or most popular | United States |
Leave a comment
Australian MP George Christensen’s anti-lockdown speech was removed by Facebook for violating the platform’s COVID-19 misinformation policy.
Governments across Australia are inflicting extreme lockdowns on citizens, with the nation’s capital city, Canberra, going into strict lockdown in the last 24 hours after only one case of COVID-19 was detected.
On Tuesday, Christensen was at the center of controversy after he told the Australian parliament that lockdowns and masks were not effective in stopping the virus.
“When will the madness end? How many more freedoms will we lose due to fear of a virus, which has a survivability rate of 997 out of 1,000,’’ Christensen said.
“It’s time we stopped spreading fear and acknowledge some facts: masks do not work. Fact. It has been proven that masks make no significant difference in stopping the spread of COVID-19,” he said.
“Lockdowns don’t work. Fact. Lockdowns don’t destroy the virus but they do destroy people’s livelihoods and people’s lives. Studies have shown they can even increase mortality rates.”
Christensen posted his speech in parliament on Facebook. The video was swiftly removed by the social media platform for containing “harmful health information,” that violated the policies on COVID-19 misinformation.
Christensen criticized the platform, claiming it censored his “speech calling for freedom.”
Christensen’s speech was criticized by other legislators and even Prime Minister Scott Morrison. Although the PM did not directly mention Christensen in his speech, he said that the government did not condone “misinformation” “in any way, shape, or form.”
In an appearance on 2GB Radio on Wednesday, Christensen defended his remarks, arguing that at some point we would have to “live with” the coronavirus.
He acknowledged that in some situations a lockdown is necessary “for an extremely short period of time,” but noted that lockdowns harm the community more than they help.
August 12, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | Covid-19 |
Leave a comment
AN insight into the propaganda currently putting our world at risk of a Covid vaccine disaster was provided by a BBC News report yesterday, dismissing fears that the vaccines could harm fertility or cause miscarriages.
The report especially criticises Dr Mike Yeadon, the former Pfizer senior researcher who last week reiterated his concerns about particular risks from the vaccines to women of child-bearing age.
As so often in these acrimonious arguments, some of the report’s targets are ‘Aunt Sallies’ drawn from the internet. People who cannot believe their governments could be so foolhardy as to medicate millions with an experimental product post angry and often exaggerated claims.
Yesterday’s BBC ‘reality check’, however, begins by mentioning a relevant Japanese study that has caused several leading researchers (see here, here and here) much concern. So let’s fact-check the BBC fact-checker.
Most governments, in line with World Health Organisation guidance, have not required manufacturers to show what happens to their vaccine once injected into the body. Japan appears to have been unique in requiring such a ‘biodistribution’ study, performed mainly on rats.
Under the heading ‘A study shows the vaccine accumulating in the ovaries – False’, the BBC report claims:
1. The theory comes from a misreading of the study, which ‘involved giving rats a much higher dose of vaccine than that given to humans (1,333 times higher)’.
In fact, the study (commissioned by Pfizer) used a 50 microgram dose, hardly more than the 30 micrograms standard dose in Pfizer’s human trial. Even if we acknowledge that rats are more than 100 times smaller than humans, the figure of 1,333 times higher is FALSE. Besides, if the study in rats was to give meaningful results, the researchers could be expected to use a proportionately larger dose in these tiny animals.
2. ‘Only 0.1 per cent of the total dose ended up in the animals’ ovaries, 48 hours after injection. Far more – 53 per cent after one hour and 25 per cent after 48 hours – was found at the injection site. The next most common place was the liver (16 per cent after 48 hours), which helps get rid of waste products from the blood.’
No mention of the study’s finding that the jab was cleared at a vastly lower rate from the ovaries, in particular, as well as from the spleen and adrenals, compared with the injection site and the liver. So there IS accumulation in the ovaries. Verdict: FALSE.
3. ‘The vaccine is delivered using a bubble of fat containing the virus’s genetic material, which kick-starts the body’s immune system. Those promoting this claim cherry-picked a figure which actually referred to the concentration of fat found in the ovaries. Fat levels in the ovaries did increase in the 48 hours after the jab, as the vaccine contents moved from the injection site around the body. But, crucially, there was no evidence it still contained the virus’s genetic material.’
In fact, the study itself states that the distribution in the body of the vaccine’s active component ‘is considered to depend on the LNP distribution’ – the lipid nanoparticles, or ‘bubbles of fat’ as the BBC reassuringly calls them. So once again, the BBC’s assertion is FALSE.
4. Finally, the BBC ‘fact-checker’ challenges the claim that the study was leaked, ‘though it was in fact publicly available online’.
It is available now, but it certainly wasn’t. It was obtained through a request by international researchers to the Japanese regulatory agency. Anyone who actually looks at it will see immediately that every page is marked ‘Pfizer confidential’. And the translation is poor, indicating that it is a far from official release. Verdict: FALSE.
The BBC report goes on to criticise Yeadon, described as ‘a scientific researcher who has made other misleading statements about Covid’, for claiming that the spike protein produced by the vaccines is similar to one involved in forming the placenta. One of his concerns is that the protein might produce antibodies that could block pregnancy.
The BBC quotes a US fertility doctor who has not seen any such effect in a study of 143 of his patients, and who says he can’t see why antibodies produced in response to the vaccine could harm fertility while antibodies from a natural infection would not.
Apart from the tiny number of patients involved, compared with the billions taking the vaccine, it seems obvious that an injection now known to distribute a toxic component throughout the body could bring risks not present in a person whose immune system meets and deals with the virus naturally.
Yeadon worked for 32 years in the drug industry, leaving Pfizer ten years ago as the most senior scientist in charge of respiratory research. He went on to found his own biotechnology company, which he sold for hundreds of millions of dollars, and has been a consultant to 30 biotech start-ups.
He has said that the small minority of people who risk being killed by Covid-19 are probably better off taking the vaccine rather than not. But he spoke out again last week, at a Truth for Health Foundation conference called Stop The Shot, about the special dangers to women of child-bearing age from the gene-based vaccines.
‘We’re being lied to . . . The authorities are not giving us full information about the risks of these products,’ Yeadon said, listing three concerns about the impact of the vaccines in reproductive health, fertility and pregnancy.
‘The first is that we never, ever give experimental medicines to pregnant women.’ The thalidomide tragedy of the 1950s and 60s, in which a new product for morning sickness gave rise to at least 10,000 birth malformations, ‘taught us that babies are not safe and protected inside the uterus, which is what we used to think’. Interference by a chemical or something else at a critical stage of development could lead irreparable damage.
‘Our government is urging pregnant women and women of childbearing age to get vaccinated, and they’re telling them they’re safe. And that’s a lie, because those studies have simply not been done. Reproductive toxicology has not been undertaken with any of these products, certainly not a full battery of tests that you would want.
‘That’s bad enough. Because it tells me there’s recklessness. No one cares. The authorities do not care what happens. But it’s much worse than that.’
Yeadon said he had seen a copy of the biodistribution report obtained from the Japanese regulator. ‘I’m entirely able to read and interpret it. And to my horror, what we find is the vaccine doesn’t just distribute around the body and then wash out again, which is what you’d hope. It concentrates in the ovaries of rats, at least 20-fold over the concentration in other background tissues like muscles. And a general rule of thumb in toxicology is: if you don’t have any data to contradict what you’ve learned [from the animal studies], that’s the assumption you make for humans.
‘So my assumption at the moment is that these vaccines are concentrating in the ovaries of every female who has been given them. We don’t know what that will do, but it cannot be benign and it could be seriously harmful.’
His third concern, shared by a German doctor in a petition to the European Medicines Agency eight months ago, is that the spike protein produced by the vaccine ‘is faintly similar – not very strongly – to an essential protein in your placenta, something that’s absolutely required for both fertilisation and formation and maintenance of the placenta.’
The worry was that an immune response to the spike protein might cause antibodies to bind to the placental protein as well.
He said a study has just come out which reinforces that concern. Researchers drew blood samples every few days from 15 women given the Pfizer vaccine. ‘They measured antibodies against the spike protein, which took several weeks to appear. They also measured antibodies against the placenta, and they found within the first one to four days an increase of two and a half to three times – so, 300 per cent – in the antibodies against their own placenta.
‘I think you can only expect that that is happening in every woman of childbearing potential. What the effect will be, we can’t be certain, but it can’t be benign.
‘So I’m here to warn you that if you are of child-bearing potential or younger, so not at menopause, I would strongly recommend you do not accept these vaccines.’
Pfizer themselves say on their website that available data on their Covid vaccine administered to pregnant women ‘are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy.’
That, at least, is TRUE.
August 12, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | BBC, COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
By Doug E. Steil | Aletho News | August 12, 2021
Two days ago Merkel and the Bavarian minister announced stringent new measures directed against those who refuse to get their clot shot. For the past few weeks specific media have been inciting hatred against this group, based on lies, more specifically implicit premises that are untrue, as well as illogical or unwarranted conclusions:
• People who got the clot shot are immune to being infected.
• Hence, they are also incapable of infecting others.
• Asymptomatic viral transfer (with high viral load but no sickness) is very common.
• Nearly everyone with no clot shot is at equal risk to get acute viral symptoms.
• At least a 85% “vaccination rate” is required for herd immunity to end the pandemic.
• Those refusing the clot shot are guilty of prolonging the pandemic, harming society.
• These skeptics not going along are parasites who should be shunned from public life.
The recent graph from the central reporting authority in Berlin, the Robert Koch Institute, depicts a 26 week period that highlights the situation very well. The histogram data show gene sequencing information from sampling valid PCR test results, so all the false positives they got are not included here. The government pays labs 200 EUR to sequence a sample.
The gray shades represent the percentage per week that constitutes the derivatives of the virus that emerged in Wuhan, upon which the trial data associated with the clot shot temporary emergency use authorization are based. The blue shades refer to the British variant, and the red to the Indian variant, which have been renamed to get Greek letters. The South African and Brazilian variants barely play a role here.
From an epidemiological perspective it is clear that in Germany the original and British variants have essentially already been eradicated, what one would call “herd immunity” has been attained. Based on information from other countries farther along in the mass experiment, as well as recent admission by the CDC, the clot shot has no effect on the Indian (delta) variant.
Under these circumstances a plausible perception management approach could thus have been:
• Proclaim the experiment was a success because two key variants were wiped out.
• Acknowledge the clot shot is not effective against stemming the Indian variant.
• Discontinue any further inoculations, due to their potential adverse harm.
• Assert that the remaining variant has mild effects and can easily be dealt with.
• Declare an end to the so-called pandemic and the associated restrictive measures.
• Treat all people the same way, yet monitor possible viral spread with thermometers.
However, this was not done because the issue is not about public health but about instituting a totalitarian system that wants to deal harshly with those who are skeptical or critical about the false premises used to bring it on and staunchly refuse to go along with the clot shot experiment. Therefore, the consequences for those not already contaminated twice by the clot shot were instead, as follows:
• The threshold level to get an antigen test for basic activities (haircut, restaurant) was lowered from 50 to 35 (incidences per 100K population per week, based on flawed PCR test).
• People needing to get tested must pay for such tests out of their own pocket beginning October 11.
• In the future, they will likely be excluded altogether from participating in public life. It was suggested they should be shunned by private businesses (restaurants, hotels, cultural venues) as unwelcome customers.
The chosen policy is short-sighted. As the virtuous (obedient) people continue to spread the virus among each other, the skeptics will be blamed for the spread, while those newly infected who thought they were immune will be told that the clot shot is not quite 100% effective, so they will soon need to get a booster shot. Thus, another cycle of madness will be perpetuated, as the totalitarian grip tightens. Authorities want to get rid of the experimental control group consisting of those who did not consent.
August 12, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, European Union |
Leave a comment
As a number of politicians push for ‘vaccine passports’ amid fears that a new brand of medical apartheid is coming, a re-surfaced CDC publication advocating internment camps for the ‘high-risk’ has some people fearing the worst.
Last year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a paper that floated the totally not suspicious idea of relocating “high-risk” individuals into green zone “camps.” While the proposal didn’t attract much attention at the time, as draconian anti-Covid measures are beginning to ramp up, and basic human rights and liberties are coming under attack, the document has attracted newfound attention. And not without reason, it seems.
The very first line of the document discusses the implementation of a “shielding approach in humanitarian settings… focused on camps, displaced populations and low-resource settings.” Essentially, and this will be important later on, ‘humanitarian settings’ is just another way of saying ‘camps’. Many people are quick to associate the idea of camps with the containment of refugees, for example, or illegal aliens who have breached the border. Yet the only time the word ‘refugee’ is mentioned in the paper is in reference to a camp in Kenya. At the same time, ‘camp’ and ‘camps’ are referred to about 20 times.
There is another ambiguous thing about this document, and that involves its description of “high-risk” individuals and the “general population.”
The paper reads: “In most humanitarian settings [i.e. camps], older population groups make up a small percentage of the total population. For this reason, the shielding approach suggests physically separating high-risk individuals from the general population to prioritize the use of the limited available resources and avoid implementing long-term containment measures among the general population.”
In other words, the CDC is saying that older people being held in camps (humanitarian settings), because they are in the ‘high-risk’ category, should be separated from the ‘general population’ in these facilities so as to reduce the ‘containment measures’. OK, fine. But the document never explains who makes up the general population inside the camps, and why these ‘low-risk’ individuals are being held in these humanitarian ‘green zones’ in the first place.
Either due to a careless lack of clarity or deliberate deceptiveness on the part of the CDC, it is not difficult to see how some people could interpret the inclusion of high-risk groups into these ‘humanitarian settings’ to mean the unvaccinated. But even if there is no evil intent to intern the anti-vax crowd in camps, the conditions set down for these humanitarian settings leave much to be desired. Indeed, to be avoided at all costs.
In one passage, it is stated that “monitoring includes both adherence to protocols and potential adverse effects or outcomes due to isolation and stigma. It may be necessary to assign someone within the green zone, if feasible, to minimize movement in/out of green zones.”
Would that ‘someone’ by any chance be the local police or even the US military? The document offers no clues. However, several lines later, the CDC advises that “isolation/separation from family members, loss of freedom and personal interactions may require additional psychosocial support structures/systems.”
Admitting that confinement in these settings would entail “the loss of freedom and personal interactions” strongly suggests that these individuals are being held in these facilities against their will. In fact, reading through the document, one might get the impression the CDC is talking about a maximum-security prison for the criminally insane.
Anyone who thinks being detained in one of these facilities for the ‘high-risk’ would be all fun and games may wish to take particular heed from this line, which warns: “this shielding approach may have an important psychological impact and may lead to significant emotional distress, exacerbate existing mental illness or contribute to anxiety, depression, helplessness, grief, substance abuse, or thoughts of suicide among those who are separated or have been left behind.”
Left behind? Left behind from what, exactly? The Rapture?
Finally, the authors of this document seem fully aware that their warm and cuddly humanitarian setting, which seems to more resemble a gulag than a health retreat, will not be welcomed by all members of the general population. Gee, I wonder why.
“While the shielding approach is not meant to be coercive, it may appear forced or be misunderstood in humanitarian settings,” advises the CDC, which appears overly concerned about public perceptions. “As with many community interventions meant to decrease COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, compliance and behavior change… are difficult in developed, stable settings; thus, they may be particularly challenging in humanitarian settings which bring their own set of multi-faceted challenges that need to be taken into account.”
The CDC paper references heavily from a March 2020 study authored by one Caroline Favas, entitled ‘Guidance for the Prevention of COVID-19 Infections among High-Risk Individuals in Camps and Camp-like Settings.’ Once again, any hope for clarity is dashed, as this paper, which mentions the words ‘camp’ and ‘camps’ 73 times, is written for “the displaced community itself, humanitarian actors and camp coordination/management authorities.” Few details are given as to who the ‘displaced community’ may be.
(Note: The Favas study provides a broad definition of ‘camp’ or ‘camp-like settings’ as “forcibly displaced population, including refugees and internally displaced living in high density formal or unformal settlements, under collective or individual shelters”).
What follows in the Favas study, which was published by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, occasionally comes off as one of those jargon-riddled medical tracts that are almost as painful to read as a doctor’s handwritten medical prescription. Yet, just as with the CDC paper, the Favas study is crystal clear when it acknowledges that these camps will be viewed negatively by many members of the population.
“Conversely, it is likely that the approach will not be successful if it is perceived as coercive, misunderstood or used by authorities as a pretext for forms of oppression.”
So, who will get to determine who is at high risk of Covid infection and who is not? On this tricky point, Favas, as well as the CDC, wash their hands of the process, leaving it up to ‘community members’ to decide who should be detained in these ‘humanitarian settings’.
“Identification of high-risk community members should be a community-led process, which supports and promotes community ownership of the approach,” Favas avers. “The purpose of the shielding approach and the inclusion criteria should be clearly communicated and explained to the community, so that each household can identify who among them is at risk and should be shielded, on a voluntary basis.”
Favas provides some options for how the detainees could be isolated from their families and communities, none of them terribly comforting. The first involves providing a green zone at the household level. While it may not seem so bad keeping grandma confined to a back room, the author describes the “household shelter” as either a “single shelter” or a “multi-shelter compound.”
The next type of facility is a group of shelters (with maximum 5-10 households), within a small camp area.
Finally, there are the full blown “sector” camps that would accommodate 15,000 or more people. It would be difficult to imagine a camp of such scale that would not require a high police presence, as well as virtually all of the rules and regulations of a prison.
Many people would probably scoff at the thought of Covid camps, dismissing them as the fevered dream of a ‘conspiracy theorist’. And perhaps they would be right. After all, just last month, the Associated Press debunked the claim floated in a satirical publication that Joe Biden was planning to send the unvaccinated to quarantine camps until they agreed to take the shot. Yet the increasingly befuddled US leader has made false claims in the past, like promising that Americans would be free from their mask bondage if they agreed to be vaccinated. That promise evaporated last month as the CDC backtracked, mandating mask wearing in places experiencing spikes in Covid levels, even among the vaccinated.
While some may find it irrelevant to discuss a paper that was released by the CDC last year, they may want to ask why the CDC and Caroline Favas were already discussing the possibility of ‘humanitarian settings’, i.e. camps for high-risk individuals, in early 2020, when the outbreak was still in its early stages. Some might say that was jumping the gun.
In any case, now that the CDC document has made a splash one year after its release, it would be a good time for an explanation regarding some of its more ambiguous and even outrageous suggestions. At a time when a feeling of general distrust and even paranoia of Covid measures is sweeping the globe, people need assurances that their real enemy is not the very people they elected to protect them.
Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist. He is the author of ‘Midnight in the American Empire,’ How Corporations and Their Political Servants are Destroying the American Dream.
August 11, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular | CDC, Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
We are not “anti-VAXers.” We were vaccinated because we believed we were being told the truth. Now we know better.
Unfortunately, the current gene-based vaccines (all vaccines on the US market today) were rushed to market without proper testing. They are dangerous and appear to have killed over 30,000 previously healthy Americans so far and disabled an equivalent number.
The Phase 3 trials were structured so that the results looked good because they were allowed to exclude unfavorable data (such as Maddie de Garay, a 12-year old girl who participated in the Pfizer trial and who is now permanently paralyzed due to the vaccine). People with a bad first reaction were allowed to drop out which doesn’t reflect the reality of “full vaccination” requirements of workplaces and schools.
We should stop the current gene-based vaccines ASAP. The risk/benefit justification isn’t there for any age group due to the poor safety profile of these vaccines compared with the alternatives.
Based on analysis of VAERS death data for vaccine deaths and CDC death data for COVID deaths, the younger you are, the less sense vaccination makes. If early treatments didn’t work at all, the toxicity of the current vaccines would only make sense for those over 30 (based data to date). However, the vaccines are too toxic and don’t meet the <50 deaths stopping criteria that we’ve used for the past 30 years, so they should never be used because we have better alternatives available today that can achieve the same goals.
We should never be giving vaccines that disable or kill previously healthy people in huge numbers if safer alternatives are available that can achieve all the same objectives.
Why would anyone in America choose to have lipid nanoparticles which deliver a toxic protein into your brain and where the long term effects are unknown, when safer alternatives are available? What parent would choose to experiment on their kids this way when safer and more effective options are available?
It is tragic that schools are requiring students to be vaccinated in order to attend classes. I’ve asked our top universities for the risk-benefit analysis to justify this action and have received nothing. If the vaccines were perfectly safe, no analysis would be needed. But they aren’t.
The rate of severe life-changing side effects appears to be well in excess of 25,000 people (the number reported disabled is comparable to the number dead). The fact that Facebook groups of vaccine victims had 200,000 users suggests that more than 1 in 1,000 are suffering from significant long-term impacts; people with minor temporary reactions have little incentive to seek out and sign up for a vaccine side-effects group.
People who claim “the clinical trials showed no significant side effects so it must be safe” have a tough time explaining how these facebook groups were so large before they were deleted. If you think the vaccines are so safe, show me the severity analysis of the 200,000 people there. These groups don’t appear with the influenza vaccine. You never see neurological effects like this in such high volume with a safe vaccine.
Some have cited the emergence of the Delta variant as changing the math to favor vaccination even if the vaccine is unsafe. But the case fatality rate (CFR) of the Delta variant is only 0.1 percent compared to the CFR of 1.9 percent for the original virus (alpha) according to UK government data. The argument that the lower CFR of delta is due to the higher number of vaccinated people isn’t very credible since the Eta variant has a 2.7 percent CFR.
Early treatments are a more effective and safer option than the current vaccines. We can achieve all of the objectives of the current vaccination program (herd immunity, eradication of the virus, re-opening our economy, ditching of masks) with fewer deaths and near zero serious side effects. In addition, we would have less problem with variants since variants are less likely to be generated if everyone is naturally immune. So why not promote early treatments? Why not give them a try for a month while we hit the pause button on the vaccines? Would that be so bad?
Allowing natural infection will impart broad natural immunity. We should instruct the population how to treat early with early treatment protocols as soon as they believe they are infected. People should have the drugs on-hand so that treatment can be started without delay after speaking with their doctor. This results in superior risk reduction in terms of fewer fatalities and side effects compared to the current vaccines.
There was never a need for masking or social distancing as COVID is very treatable when treated early. Nobody has to die or be hospitalized. We can get to herd immunity quickly this way. The key is to treat the virus early with a proven early treatment cocktail of repurposed drugs, adding novel antivirals if/when available.
Unfortunately, the NIH has unethically suppressed all early treatments in order to push the vaccine narrative. This is clear with the publication of a systematic review of ivermectin, the highest level of evidence possible. Yet the NIH and WHO pretend that it never happened. It isn’t even acknowledged that the systematic review came out. There has never been a peer-reviewed systematic review that was later overturned. This is why they are the top of the evidence pyramid.
Early treatments were never funded. When evidence came in they worked, the NIH ignored it. The corruption at the NIH and FDA should be corrected by Congress. Now.
To prove the point about the unethical suppression of early treatments, I offered $2M to anyone who could show that the NIH got it right. Nobody stepped forward.
Similarly, I offered $1M to anyone who could show that the vaccines are safe. No takers, not even the drug companies.
If a safe sterilizing vaccine can be developed, we should test it adequately for safety before deploying it. We should not cut corners on safety again; with early treatments, there is no need to rush this.
Major medical journals have lost objectivity in publishing papers that go against the “safe” narrative. For example, the NEJM rejected a Letter to the Editor pointing out a flaw in a paper showing vaccines were safe for pregnant women. The Letter showed an alarming statistic. The NEJM refused to reveal their reasoning for the rejection. Three editors quit a journal after a peer-reviewed paper was published that showed that vaccination may cause more harm than good. Those who quit provided no evidence that the paper was in error.
The censorship of legitimate medical information on social networks must end. These networks are the new “public square” and should be regulated so that people are free to express their opinions to anyone who chooses to listen. There should be heavy monetary penalties for suppressing medical information that has the potential to save lives. Social networks should be required to compensate all those people who have been harmed by their actions.
Never again should we deploy a vaccine on the American public without proper testing and without informed consent. Databases such as V-SAFE that track safety data should be made transparent. Am I the only person who thinks that is a problem?
VAERS reporting should be required and the VAERS system should be modernized so that it is easy to use and results in records with consistent field coding. There should be a smaller lag time to get records into the database, all false reports should be 100% enforced as a criminal act, and the safety signal monitoring should be much stronger.
The cost-benefit analysis of the current gene-based vaccines for anyone of any age is at best a wash according to the scientific literature (new paper published June 24, 2021). This peer-reviewed paper looked at the real cost-benefit analysis and concluded that “This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.” As far as I know, this is the most optimistic of all the papers looking at actual death rates of COVID vs. the vaccine. All the other ones are even worse for the vaccine.
Independent analysis by a statistician friend shows a similar effect. Like me, Mathew has no axe to grind here, just trying to get at the truth of the risk/benefit for the current vaccines. His conclusion: “More importantly, I also still disagree with the mass vaccination program. In particular, nearly all lives saved are in the high risk group. While vaccinating those in the low risk group might decrease spread into the high risk group, that’s asking young healthy people to act as human shields.
I also believe that when the vaccine deaths and adverse events are finally tallied and compared to either a ring vaccination strategy or combination ring vaccination and early treatment strategy, the current plan will look quite foolish and possibly even nefarious.”
Since the focus today is on getting kids vaccinated, I ran the numbers in the VAERS database for 20-24 year olds and 25-29 year olds. In both age ranges, the number of deaths caused by the vaccine outnumber the number of deaths saved. The vaccines caused 1.89 deaths per 100,000 (ages 25-29) and 1.74 deaths per 100,000 (ages 20-24).
This means the vaccines are net killing machines since they kill more people than they save (.3 to 1.0 lives per 100K saved according to the most recent CDC presentation). My calculations are in the body of this document and the calculations show no net benefit for any age group based on real-world data from the US and UK.
The comparison is even more extreme if we tell kids to ignore the current CDC advice and use an early treatment program. In that case, we can reduce the death rate by more than two orders of magnitude from COVID, so that the number of lives saved by the vaccine is fewer than 1 in 10M. This means the vaccines need to be less toxic than the influenza vaccine (which has a death rate of 1 in 10M) in order to be considered. They are not even close to that. Not by a country mile.
For older people, the numbers don’t work out either. We looked at the UK data for <50 and >50 and we found that the absolute death rate is very small for <50 group. There was a high relative risk reduction, but the absolute deaths were small. If the vaccine kills more than 1 in 1 million, it’s game over for the vaccine being useful. For age >50, the UK data shows that even if the vaccines killed nobody, it is not beneficial. So when you factor the death rate of the vaccines and early treatment as the other option, the case is extremely lopsided.
In short, because the current vaccines are so dangerous and early treatment is so effective (relative risk reduction of 100 or more with no permanent side effects), there is no reasonable case that can be made for vaccinating any age group.
Although we just looked at deaths in the analysis above, the same can be true for other side effects as well: the range and intensity of side effects from the vaccine dwarf anything seen in natural COVID. It’s even a more stark contrast when early treatment is added to the mix.
Long term, untreated vax patients and untreated COVID patients are virtually identical in terms of symptoms (thanks to Ram Yogendra for that insight). By vaccinating patients, we are essentially giving a portion of those vaccinated long hauler COVID.
The case numbers in the UK (one of the most heavily vaccinated countries) are now climbing. It suggests we should have listened to the arguments of Geert Vanden Bossche, one of the most famous scientists in the vaccine field, which are further clarified in this excellent video by Chris Martenson which points out that there are really only two ways out of the pandemic: a sterilizing vaccine (using the complete virus as the antigen) or allowing infection and treating with early treatment leading to natural immunity.
The Yellow Card system in the UK showed a similar safety signal. Independent analysis of that data by an expert in medical evidence concluded that the vaccines are unsafe for use in humans. It wasn’t a close call. The death rates from the vaccines are far greater than any absolute risk reduction.
This is taken from a very long article. Read the rest here: docs.google.com
August 11, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | CDC, COVID-19 Vaccine, FDA, NIH |
Leave a comment
Welcome to Vaccination Decisions Newsletter 280. This is my global newsletter sent from Perth, Western Australia that has enabled me to contribute my university research to the global debate on vaccines for the last eight years.
This came to an end on 10th October 2020 when MailChimp censored my newsletter by disabling my account. Did you know that Mailchimp has been in partnership with the US CDC since 2018?
In 2015 I completed a PhD investigating the reasons for the decline in deaths and hospitalisations (risk) to infectious diseases by 1950 in Australia – and in all developed countries. This included an investigation into the role that vaccines played in this decline.
I set up this newsletter in 2012 when I recognised that this public interest science was being suppressed from public debate in all the official channels. This is the result of powerful industry-lobby groups in Australia (and globally) that are influencing all media outlets and research institutions.
Due to this global newsletter my PhD has now been downloaded thousands of times and in March 2020 my book, “Vaccination: Australia’s Loss of Health Freedom”, became available just as everyone globally was being locked down.
This happened because in 2020-21 all the traditional measures for controlling infectious diseases were reversed for the first time in history by the World Health Organisation (WHO). This organisation, advised by the corporate-public partnerships in the GAVI alliance, including the Federation of Pharmaceutical Companies, falsely claimed that healthy (asymptomatic) people are a ‘risk’ to the community if the virus is identified in their body.
This was stated by the WHO scientists in March 2020 even though the WHO had no data to base this claim on in March 2020. Remember, this novel Coronavirus 2019 (SARS-Cov-2) only appeared in January 2020 and there was no evidence provided to support the statement that healthy people without symptoms were a risk to the community.
It was being assumed that a positive PCR result, a test that cannot diagnose disease, indicated an asymptomatic ‘case’ of disease.
This assumption has led to journalists and health departments reporting healthy people as a ‘case’ of disease in 2020-21, wildly inflating the risk from this alleged new flu virus in the media. This false assumption has led to healthy people being locked up in quarantine for two weeks as well as to the unnecessary masking of healthy people, social distancing and isolating of the elderly.
The mainstream media is not required to list the symptoms of the ‘cases’ of disease they are reporting, and this has enabled the government to hide this fact. This allows the media to frighten the public with cases of disease that are healthy people (no symptoms), and deaths that are elderly people with co-morbidity, that die with the flu every year. The difference is that this year, the media is reporting these deaths – normally you do not hear about them.
The fact that the WHO did not have any evidence in March 2020 to support the claim that ‘asymptomatic’ people are a risk to society, is provided by Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, on 8 June 2020 – only three months after the ‘pandemic’ was declared. This WHO spokesperson appears to understand the traditional measures of controlling infectious diseases because she states that you isolate the people with symptoms and trace their contacts to prevent transmission.
However, even though she states that asymptomatic transmission is ‘very rare’, because the WHO doesn’t have any data to claim otherwise, she concludes that the WHO still advises that ‘some people without symptoms can still transmit the virus on.’
The flaw in this WHO statement is that there is a difference between transmitting the virus and transmitting disease. Whilst the virus can be passed on from a sub-clinical infection this does not lead to disease in the majority of cases in countries with good public health infrastructure.
Infection only leads to disease when there are poor environmental conditions or poor host characteristics. Hence, asymptomatic people do not transmit disease in the population, they transmit infection that is mostly beneficial when good conditions exist: asymptomatic ‘cases’ generate natural herd immunity.
This is the reason why the WHO changed the definition of ‘herd immunity’ in December 2020.
It was to claim that only vaccine created herd immunity would be successful with COVID19 disease. This was claimed without any risk-benefit data for the COVID19 vaccine: this drug had not been trialled in humans in December 2020.
The WHO changed this definition without providing any scientific evidence to support the claim that ‘vaccines can create herd immunity’ and without any scrutiny from the scientific community. Therefore, the claim has not been validated and it has been done to support the WHO’s desired outcome; to make the world reliant on vaccines.
Viruses are around us all the time and we do not need to eradicate them to live without disease. This is because viruses on their own cannot cause disease: the cause of disease from infectious agents is multifactorial.
This is where the GAVI/ WHO partnerships have deceived the public in 2020. Scientists have known since 1950 that viruses mostly cause sub-clinical infections, that never develop disease symptoms, due to improvements in public health infrastructure and nutrition.
It is these sub-clinical infections that resulted in herd immunity in the population of developed countries by 1950/60. This led public health officials to claim that ‘infectious deaths fell before widespread vaccination was implemented’ (Fiona Stanley, Australian of the Year for Public Health, 2003). Even smallpox of cases with symptoms was not controlled until after 1950 when isolation of cases with symptoms and case-tracing strategies played a significant role in the decline of this disease.
The fraudulent claims that are being made by the WHO are effectively manipulating public behaviour because the corporate-sponsored mainstream media and big tech companies are working together to censor public debate.
If this was a conspiracy theory, as the mainstream media would like you to believe, I would have hoped that the industry-lobby groups who petitioned to have my PhD removed in 2016 – after it was published on the University website – were successful. But they weren’t.
The University stood by this thesis because it provided the evidence to support the fact that global health policy is being designed by a collaboration of industry-partners. This is also supported by the extreme censorship of many doctors, scientists, and activists also providing this evidence to you in 2021. Science is only validated when it stands up to scrutiny from the community, so human health is at serious risk until we have this scientific debate.
August 11, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, WHO |
Leave a comment
DOCTORS, lawyers and other patient advocates around the world are challenging the legality, ethics and scientific basis of the global drive to vaccinate the entire population, including children, against Covid-19. But even as they raise their voices, the intensity of censorship is increasing.
The latest victim is cardiologist, internal disease specialist, epidemiologist and academic researcher Dr Peter McCullough, editor-in-chief of two medical journals and author of over 600 peer-reviewed publications in the US National Library of Medicine, more than 45 of them dedicated to Covid-19. He has managed the care of more than 100 Covid patients as well as advising on hundreds more worldwide.
When this top American doctor spoke out on the effectiveness of early treatment, and raised questions over the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines, he began to find himself a pariah among colleagues.
He now faces what he calls ‘a dark cloud of censorship and reprisal’, including a legal action against which his attorneys were filing a defence last week.
Google his name, and you find at the top of the list an outrageously biased stand-alone item about the lawsuit, in which the online journal Medpage Today accuses him of ‘Dishing Out Vax Falsehoods’.
An information war is under way, and though most of the weapons are in the hands of governmental and drug company-funded sources, the resistance movement is growing.
McCullough has prepared what he calls ‘five key messages of scientific truth that I want everybody to understand about the virus and the pandemic.’ He has all the necessary scientific back-up to support his claims.
If his messages were to be emblazoned across every media outlet in this land and abroad, there would be a chance of ending the socially and economically destructive policies that have so far cost UK taxpayers an incredible £400billion in additional public spending directly attributable to Covid-19.
The five messages are:
1. The virus is not spread asymptomatically. That is, only sick people give it to other people.
2. We should stop testing symptomless people. That just generates false positives – creating extra ‘cases’ and extra concerns. ‘There shouldn’t be a single person on Earth that should undergo an asymptomatic test or a test done on a routine basis. For any reason. People ought to just walk past these testing stations. They have absolutely no standing whatsoever.’
3. Natural immunity is robust, complete, and durable. It cannot be improved by vaccination, or any other method. A person who has developed immunity after exposure to the virus is at minimal risk of becoming seriously ill again from Covid. Where apparent cases of that kind have been reported, a misinterpretation in the test procedure has been responsible.
Even with loosely defined cases, 11 studies involving 650,000 individuals showed a long-term recurrence rate of only 0.2 per cent. ‘Someone who is naturally immune can walk up to someone who has Covid-19, get a big cough in the face, and they are not going to get the illness.’
4. Covid-19, no matter what the variant, is easily treatable at home with simple, available drugs. About 88 per cent of hospitalisation and death is avoidable with early treatment. ‘The only way people end up in hospital and have a miserable time is when they receive no treatment.’
It’s easy to treat the illness early on, when the symptoms are mild. It has three major components: Viral replication, inflammation, and thrombosis – blood clots. Once these develop, they lower oxygen levels in the lungs and are hard to reverse.
5. The current Covid vaccines – AstraZeneca, Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer, and Moderna – are obsolete. ‘They do not cover the new variants. Patients are being hospitalised and getting sick, despite having the vaccines.’ And because of the record levels of deaths and injuries reported after the jabs, they should be considered ‘unsafe and unfit for human use.’
McCullough delivers this message in a four-minute video posted on LifeSite News.
It could save many lives, and perhaps even avoid any further fall into lockdown lunacy, if the link were to be sent to every doctor and every home in the UK.
To all who come across this article, please take a look at the video and judge for yourself: Is this some anti-vax maniac pushing a self-serving agenda? Or a highly-experienced, concerned doctor offering valuable insights into Covid realities, and fighting for a more rational, science-based treatment approach?
This treatment guide, co-authored by McCullough and Dr Elizabeth Lee Vliet, president and CEO of the Truth for Health Foundation (THF), a Christian-based US charity founded by doctors, could also be widely distributed. Vliet is a past director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
Last week McCullough was among a team of physicians, scientists, clergy and patient advocates presenting ‘factual scientific and medical data previously kept from people around the world’ at the LifeSite-sponsored THF conference called Stop The Shot.
The foundation said the aim was ‘to help all of us be able to save lives and expose the threats to human health with these “shots” being forced on people without proper informed consent.’
Americans have not seen a single press briefing on vaccine safety, despite more than 100,000 people having died or been hospitalised in the wake of the jab, McCullough said.
‘My patients ask me: Doctor, am I going to be someone who dies after being hospitalised? I tell them: I don’t know, because our government is not telling us anything.
‘I had patients ask me today: Doctor, I hear the vaccine is failing. My friends have gotten the vaccine, but they’re getting sick with Covid, the Delta variant. Which vaccine is the best? Which one protects best against Delta? I say: I don’t know, because our government hasn’t told us anything.
‘So part of this conference is to have everyone start to really get on edge and demand of their government officials, their representatives, their hospital representatives, information – fair information.
‘If somebody gets on TV and says the vaccines are safe and effective, that’s misinformation. There’s nothing to suggest that these vaccines are safe and there’s nothing to suggest right now, based on the reports that we’re seeing, that they’re effective. We’re almost seeing a wholesale failure of the vaccine programme. So we have to take action now with early treatment.’
The situation is similar in the UK, where nearly 340,000 adverse reactions of varying severity, including 1,500 deaths, have been reported. With 84million shots administered, regulators insist that apart from local reactions to the jab, most of the deaths and injuries are coincidental.
That stand is highly questionable. In Germany, the Federation of Pathologists is urging that more autopsies should be conducted when people die in the wake of vaccination, to either exclude or prove a cause-and-effect link.
The call follows a study by Dr Peter Schirmacher, acting chairman of the German Society of Pathology, in which he performed autopsies on 40 people who had died within two weeks of the jab.
He found that 30-40 per cent of the deaths could be directly attributed to rare but serious adverse effects from the vaccine such as a blood clot in the brain, or autoimmune disease. He believes there may be many such cases in which the deaths go unnoticed, because doctors don’t make the link with the vaccine and certify the death as from natural causes.
August 11, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, UK |
Leave a comment
Aletho News 