Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Vaccine Injuries from COVID-19 Shots Fill Hospitals as U.S. Government Lies and Claims a “Pandemic of Unvaccinated”

By Brian Shilhavy | Health Impact News | September 9, 2021

The battle lines over mandatory COVID-19 vaccines are now going full steam ahead in the U.S. as the Biden Administration is announcing today that all federal employees must now get a COVID-19 shot as a condition for employment, and that they are eliminating the testing opt-out.

The argument that only COVID-19 shots will end the endless “pandemic” and the lie that hospitals are over 90% full of unvaccinated people are being used as justification for mandatory mass vaccination.

It doesn’t take much research on one’s own to bypass the corporate media and find out that they are lying, and that there are numerous reports that the exact opposite situation is now happening in the U.S. and around the world, which is that the hospitals are full of people who have already been vaccinated with COVID-19 shots and that the ones who have survived are now filling our hospitals.

This is evident from the last release of data into the government Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database, which as of last Friday shows that following COVID-19 shots, there have been 13,911 deaths, 18,098 permanent disabilities, 76,160 ER visits, 56,912 hospitalizations, 2,933,377 injury symptoms, and 14,327 life threatening events.

And these are just the cases that have been reported and that the CDC has allowed to be released to the public. Many healthcare workers have stated that there is pressure from doctors and hospital administrations to NOT relate injuries to the COVID-19 shots and to not report them in VAERS, which one nurse stated takes over 30 minutes to do for a single case and is very time consuming.

We have previously exposed the government’s lies on who it is filling the hospitals today. See:

CDC Director Lies to America Announcing Latest “Pandemic” – “Pandemic of the Unvaccinated”

Insanity Rules in the U.S. as Hospitalizations and Deaths Among Vaccinated “Breakthrough” Cases Surge While Health Authorities blame the “Unvaccinated”

And just this past week, the Toronto Sun ran a story reporting that more than 100 Ontario youth were sent to the hospital for vaccine-related heart problems.

A report quietly released last week by Public Health Ontario (PHO) tallies the number of people in the province who have presented to hospital with heart inflammation following mRNA vaccination, and it skews heavily towards young people.

As of Aug. 7, there were 106 incidents of myocarditis/pericarditis in Ontarians under the age of 25. That’s slightly more than half of the total of all such incidents. (Full article.)

Here is a video report I put together with testimony from nurses, a doctor, and an occupational therapist explaining what they are currently seeing in the hospitals, so you can hear it yourself from the frontline workers.

This is from our Rumble channel, and it should be up on our Bitchute channel shortly as well.

September 9, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

Covid and the crisis of scientific integrity

By Mark Pickles | TCW Defending Freedom | September 9, 2021

MANY of us in the UK who have been writing about the Covid-19 vaccines (and have declined them) have found ourselves fighting what I call ‘data wars’.

Although it is necessary to engage in these wars, in this article I explain why we need an additional tactic to defeat those who are using highly selective scientific data to impose a political will and a ‘new normal’ of social control.

We need to start with the obvious, for which we do not need the nitty-gritty of data, such as this tweet from the editor of TCW Defending Freedom:

As a scientific technical writer, I am very aware that scientific data – and language, terminology, jargon and marketing copywriting – can be used to ‘prove’ almost anything. It is easy to blind people, including scientists, with science.

Much scientific data today is dubious. In our times of huge proliferation of science, the majority of published studies cannot be replicated independently by peers. In other words, published science is not necessarily true. The journal Nature calls this situation a ‘crisis’.

Furthermore, much data that is passed off as science cannot, by its very nature, be replicated and tested, such as so-called behavioural science and data modelling, that we might call crystal-ball science.

Equally concerning is that most scientific experiments fail, and details are hardly ever published, meaning that science does not properly learn from its failures. This is sometimes called ‘publication bias’. Science, of all academic disciplines, is vulnerable to the pressure of ‘publish or perish’. In other words, we must always be cautious of scientists armed with data.

Commerce (not least Big Pharma), government, and the colluding mainstream media can simply pick the scientific data they want to believe or they want the public to believe. At no time has this been more obvious than since early 2020, when large corporations were given political permission and public funding to do ‘warp speed’ science despite, as noted, the knowledge that there was already a crisis of scientific integrity.

Hence we suddenly see the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ditching its credibility by giving unprecedented licenced approval-to-market of a vaccine still undergoing clinical trials, trials which themselves have been short-cut (such as no blinded control group).

There is much commercial incentive and political pressure now to do novel science, such as novel testing methods and novel vaccines. And there is much disincentive to publish experiments and data on treating Covid-19 with existing treatments. Experts advocating treatments such as ivermectin and asthma inhalers are easily hidden from public view by the mainstream media and by the social media barons.

In the data wars, each side picks its experts. For instance, in the last week of August one could have picked a Japanese report claiming that the Delta variant will acquire complete resistance to the mRNA vaccines, or an Oxford University report telling you that the vaccines are effective against the Delta variant.

Powerful tyrants and sophists in the governments of Canada, USA, Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, Israel etc, have agreed with the most powerful media on which data are to prevail in the new and internationalist political movement sloganised ‘Build Back Better’.

Politicians know they need the approval of the social media barons, who are internationalist, secularist and woke, convinced that the meaning of life is climate change and utopian science, including, in the words of the UK government, ‘genetic engineering and brain-computer interfaces’.

Israel is one of several highly vaccinated nations – with Iceland, Gibraltar and Seychelles – that, despite initial claims of success, now rank amongst the most diseased nations. Common sense, therefore, informs us that the vaccines don’t work, and have not achieved what the vaccine designers, manufacturers and promoters said they would achieve a year ago (including herd immunity). We do not need sophisticated data to make the point. It is obvious that the situation today in Israel is unexpected, and contrary to what Big Pharma and the world’s political leaders told us to expect. We have the right to start asking whether mass vaccination has caused augmented virulence of the virus in their society.

In the meantime, Israeli scientists, politicians and journalists blindly offer data insisting the vaccines are working. We are told that people simply need to be ‘topped up’ with more of the synthetic spike-protein toxin. According to Israeli PM Naftali Bennett, the double-jabbed are now considered unvaccinated (and denied the Green Pass). Worse, Bennett blames ‘vaccine refusers’ for endangering the whole nation. And as the triple-jabbed Israelis find themselves hospitalised with Covid-19, the plan now is quadruple jabbing.

Denial of the obvious in politics and the media typically begins, ‘We always knew the vaccinations were not 100 per cent effective, but . . .’ Then public figures of science – such as the UK’s Jonathan Van-Tam – make spurious, implausible and wildly inconsistent claims such as that the vaccines have saved 100,000 lives, and 60,000 lives, and 10,000 lives. Even the implausible data are inconsistent!

In many advanced nations, we are now witnessing extreme political and intellectual face-saving. Expect more lies. This lack of truth, honour and honesty in public life is extremely dangerous, as I wrote here for TCW Defending Freedom. Science and medicine have lost their integrity. Health authorities have lost their integrity. Politics has lost its integrity. Trust between doctors and patients has become very fragile.

Over the next few months I expect the UK government and its henchmen at Sage to produce data to prove that we need triple jabs, then quadruple jabs . . .

I suggest that it is time for everyone, regardless of profession and expertise, to challenge all this scientific nonsense with truth and common sense.

September 9, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Sweden 1. Faith 0

As the UK prepares to convert 12 year old children into human shields for teachers and geriatrics, Swedes enjoy a coffee together in the sun.
By Richard Lyon | September 4, 2021

HERE’S AN ASTONISHING THING about Sweden: you can hardly tell, from looking at its government’s population statistics,1 that it has COVID-19.

It’s astonishing because the entire foundation of the claim underlying the world’s descent into COVID-19 madness and authoritarianism is predicated on two controversial claims: that COVID-19 is unusually deadly, and that coercion and authoritarianism are necessary and effective in controlling it.

And yet here is a country that hasn’t succumbed to madness and authoritarianism. And here is a country in which you can hardly tell that COVID-19 is present.

Discovering Sweden is like discovering intelligent life in the universe after being told there can’t be any. It falsifies COVID’s catastrophic claims, and reveals a great deal about the institutions driving them.

The number of people who die in Sweden, after making some adjustments for “good” and “bad” flu years, increases by about 1,200 every couple of years. That’s partly because the population is increasing, partly because the population is ageing, and partly because the population is changing through immigration. It would have been astonishing if the number of people who died in Sweden in 2020 hadn’t increased.

I say “after making some adjustment for good and bad flu years”, because it’s by obscuring this that COVID catastrophists have weaponised Sweden and, ironically, coerced it into being an element of their narrative.

Flu, like coronaviruses, is a winter seasonal infection. In every country, there are “bad” seasons when relatively many vulnerable people die, and “good” seasons when relatively few do. 2018/19 was a “good” flu season in Sweden.2 3

Figure 1. Recorded COVID-19 deaths in 2020 were exaggerated by the carryover of vulnerable people from the mild 2018/19 flu season (A), and by either the replacement in 2020 of flu by COVID or miscoding of flu as COVID (B)

Consequently, the cohort of people who were vulnerable to respiratory infection when COVID-19 arrived in 2020 was enlarged by those would have died in an average or bad 2018/19 flu season, but hadn’t (‘A’ in Figure 1 above). Then, after COVID-19 arrived, it replaced flu as the cause of death in the 2019/20 flu-vulnerable cohort (‘B’, above). So the people in groups ‘A’ and ‘B’ who in 2020 would most likely have died of flu, died instead of COVID-19, or were mis-coded as having died of COVID-19.

This is important to understand. The core claim that COVID-19 is especially deadly depends in turn on the implicit claim that its deaths are in addition to normal deaths. No: the majority of its victims die from it instead of flu, cancer, stroke, dementia, heart disease, falling downstairs, or any one of an extended list of things that kill us when we’ve lived longer than the average human lifespan.

This explains why, simultaneously, many people appear to have died from COVID, yet overall death rates are not catastrophic. Here in the UK, the Government advisors estimate that up to two thirds of the fatalities in its vastly inflated prediction of 2020 COVID-19 deaths would have died that year anyway.4 COVID-19 arrived in the UK after an extended period of unusually low mortality: it contributed to a mortality rate in 2020 that was lower than it used to be every single year prior to 2008. In Sweden, you can hardly see it, if at all.

It also partly explains why coercion and authoritarianism have no observable impact on fatal infection rates.5 It’s not the openness of society that kills vulnerable people. It’s their vulnerability to all the other things that still kill them while they are locked down, and that coercion and authoritarianism has no effect on.

Using the same models used to justify imposing mandatory school and business closures, domestic confinement orders, and compulsory masks on UK citizens, UK Government advisors estimated Sweden would suffer 30,000 to 60,000 deaths in 2020 if they didn’t impose the same restrictions. Sweden politely ignored the advice. It didn’t impose “masks”, it didn’t significantly close schools and businesses, and it didn’t impose domestic confinement. At the end of 2020, had recorded 8,800 COVID-19 deaths.

Here’s the impact of those deaths on overall deaths in Sweden, in numbers:

Table 1. When corrected for annual variation in flu deaths, the rise in deaths in 2019/20 was almost identical to the rise in deaths in 2015/6 and 2016/7.

The displacement of flu deaths from 2019 into 2020 is clearly visible. We’ve computed the two year average to accommodate the inter-year variation in flu deaths, and calculated the change in that.6 The overall increase in deaths COVID-19 contributed to, relative to the rising trend, is barely distinguishable from noise.

“Once your faith, sir, persuades you to believe what your intelligence declares to be absurd, beware lest you likewise sacrifice your reason in the conduct of your life…Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
— Voltaire, ‘Questions sur les Miracles’

Germans who keep refusing to quarantine could be put in detention centres under new Covid rules
— The Telegraph, 17 January 2021

Let’s remind ourselves of how one leading COVID catastrophists’ newspaper-of-record reports to its readers a death rate rise in Sweden that is barely distinguishable from noise, while inciting a McCarthyist witch-hunt against those who favoured Sweden’s approach:7

Their readers believe absurdities.

On the basis of absurdities like these, the UK Government is finalising plans to inject 12 year old children—without their parents’ consent—with unlicensed medical substances, designed to attack their immature immune systems in ways that are not yet fully understood, with observed but currently unquantified serious side effect risks, so that they can act as human shields for teachers and geriatrics.

It’s an atrocity.

There are no circumstances in a civilised society under which exposing children to harm to protect adults could be justified. But to the extent that it is, it is on the claim that this disease is unusually deadly, and therefore that such atrocities are warranted.

Sweden shows us it is not unusually deadly, and that they are not warranted. They represent for us the ending of “Lord Of The Flies”.8 As exhausted schoolboy Ralph lies on the beach, waiting to have his brains bashed out by the former Head Chorister (who comes to power by promising to slay an imaginary beast), he looks up to see a Naval Officer standing in the surf. Instantly, the children’s descent into madness and chaos is made shatteringly visible, even as the order of the adult world is restored. The spell is broken.

Sweden breaks the COVID-19 spell for us.

We should oppose COVID madness, coercion, and authoritarianism wherever we find it, and fight to rid ourselves of it until it has gone. It has no place in our world.

1

Statistics Sweden. “Population Statistics 2018-2021 (month) and 1998-2020 (year)” [link]

2

In the northern hemisphere, the winter seasonal respiratory infection season runs from July to June the following year, hence “2018/19”. Conflating the end of the 2019/20 season with the beginning of the 2020/21 season was one of many tricks that COVID catastrophism employs the UK to magnify the impression of COVID death in 2020.

3

The Public Health Agency of Sweden. “Influenza in Sweden – Season 2019–2020”, 2 October 2020 [link]

4

For references, see my essay “Look her in the eyes” [link]

5

For a discussion, see my essay “Christopher Snowdon’s smoking ruin” [link]

6

Is it a perfect measure? Of course not. But it doesn’t need to be. COVID catastrophism makes an extraordinary claim—that we should live permanently under emergency authoritarian rule because this is an especially deadly disease. That claim demands extraordinary evidence—evidence that should “hit you between the eyes”. It doesn’t.

7

Geoghegan, P. “Now the Swedish model has failed, it’s time to ask who was pushing it”. Guardian, 3 January 2021 [link]

8

September 9, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Iran underlines importance of US and Israeli nuclear disarmament

Press TV – September 8, 2021

Remarking on the occasion of on the International Day against Nuclear Tests, Iran’s UN envoy underlines the need for the disarmament of the world’s nuclear weapon possessors, most importantly the US and Israel.

Majid Takht Ravanchi, who was addressing a United Nations General Assembly meeting held to mark the day, said that the United States was the world’s nuclear-weapon state that had carried out the majority of tests using the non-conventional weapons since 1945.

Throughout the period, “about 2,000 tests have been carried out, 1,054 of which by the US,” he told the Wednesday meeting, adding, “These sinister tests have been used as preliminary steps towards the production, proliferation, and even use of nuclear weapons.”

“The devastating consequences of nuclear tests reverberate across generations, with widespread and profound impacts on not only the people but also our planet,” the envoy reminded.

He further urged the international community against the continued tolerance of ownership of such weapons by the Israeli regime—the US’s most treasured ally in the Middle East that is in possession of hundreds of nuclear warheads.

Takht Ravanchi placed emphasis on the fact that humanity’s very survival depends on the international community’s resolve to stand up to the deployment of nuclear weapons and its commitment to the weapons’ ultimate destruction.

“Given the bitter experience of the past, it is our conviction that nuclear disarmament is and must remain a top priority for the international community. The very survival of humankind depends on our unwavering concurrence that nuclear weapons should never be deployed and, furthermore, permanently destroyed. Therefore, we highlight that the moratoria to stop nuclear tests does not substitute a legally binding obligation,” the Iranian envoy stated.

He, meanwhile, hailed entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) that took effect in January, calling the development a step in the direction of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.

September 9, 2021 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Bill Gates finally realises that lockdown hurts children

By Toby Green | Unherd | September 8, 2021

This week The Guardian featured two articles funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) as part of its sponsorship of the paper’s Global Development coverage. One noted on Monday that hundreds of millions of children had fallen behind across the world during the last 18 months, and the other stated that Covid measures meant that education was at risk of collapse in one quarter of the world’s countries.

However, the articles did not mention that these outcomes were the direct result of the lockdowns enthusiastically supported by, er, Bill Gates. These results were entirely predictable — and were indeed predicted at the outset of the lockdowns by UNESCO.

On 18 March 2020, UNESCO reported that half of the world’s schoolchil­dren were not attending school, and outlined the potential consequences. These included interrupted learning, decline in nutrition, erosion of child protection and childcare, and inequitable access to digital learning leading to multiple future inequities. But no one listened.

Nearly 18 months since the catastrophic global policy response to Covid-19 began, the evidence of the appalling harms caused to children and their education is staggering. The Guardian report noted the case of the Philippines, which had some of the “world’s toughest restrictions for children”, with schools still not being reopened after 18 months. Translation? It was illegal for children aged 5-15 to leave their homes between March 2020 and July 9th this year.

Does it require a multi-billion dollar philanthropist and teams of well-paid researchers to work out that children’s learning outcomes are going to be badly affected if they can’t go to school or leave their home? Add to that the fact they live in a seriously impoverished country with scant internet access too. Thanks, BMGF, for putting us straight on that one.

Other bleak predictions from UNICEF’s March 2020 report are now becoming visible. A UNICEF report back in January found that more than 39 billion in-school meals have been missed globally since the start of the Covid-19. A July report in South Africa’s Business Day found that half a million fewer children were in school than a year before. A World Bank study found that Covid-19 school lockdowns had increased dropouts across the board in Nigeria, especially in the 15-18 age group, increasing child marriage and child labour rates dramatically. And these impacts are not limited to poor countries — a recent study found that in the US, poor and minority children were much less likely to have had in-person lessons last year.

Why then has the BMGF suddenly sat up to take notice? Rather than an awakening of sanity — and humanity — it’s more likely to be a case of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing. I’m sure that many people at BMGF are appalled at these prospects — but for many poor children, their realisation comes far too late. A future with millions of impoverished, ill-equipped, cruelly treated and angry young people looks to be the ultimate result of these global lockdowns, which should give mainstream media figures cause for reflection.

September 9, 2021 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Will Fauci Be Held Accountable for Lying to Congress?

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | September 9, 2021

In an August 31, 2021, substack article,1 Paul Thacker, an investigative reporter and former investigator with the U.S. Senate, reviews evidence he claims shows Dr. Anthony Fauci lied to Congress, an offense punishable by up to five years in prison, provided the false statements are materially relevant and knowingly false.

“A new investigative documentary by the U.K.’s Channel 42 detailed some of the strongest evidence to date that the COVID19 pandemic may have started from a lab leak in Wuhan, China,” Thacker writes.3

“At the very least, the documentary’s interviews with experts and review of documents made explicit how China has misled the world about its research with dangerous pathogens …

The documentary clarified one other point: Anthony Fauci lied before Congress and the American public when he claimed during a congressional hearing that he has not funded gain-of-function research conducted by the Wuhan Institute of Virology …

President Biden has campaigned on honesty and decency. The question now for President Biden is, ‘What will you do with Fauci now that he has broken the law and violated the public trust by lying before Congress?’”

Fauci Redefines Scientific Terms on the Fly

In what appears to be an attempt to extricate himself from blame for the COVID pandemic, Fauci — director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), an arm of the National Institutes for Health (NIH), since 1986 — denied ever having funded gain-of-function research at the WIV or elsewhere when questioned by members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee in May 2021.4

According to Thacker, the evidence clearly refutes this. One “smoking gun” is a research article written by WIV scientists titled “Discovery of a Rich Gene Pool of Bat SARS-Related Coronaviruses Provides New Insights Into the Origin of SARS Coronavirus.”5 This research was funded by the NIH and meets the Department of Health and Human Services’ definition of gain-of-function research.6,7

The Channel 4 documentary addressed this paper. When asked whether the NIH ever funded gain-of-function research at the WIV, David Relman, a research physician at Stanford University, replies, “Yes. Indirectly, but yes. How do we know? The paper says, right on the front page, ‘Supported by NIAID, NIH.’” The clip featuring Relman is included below.

As previously reported by the National Review,8 we know the WIV received NIAID/NIH funding to create novel chimeric SARS-related coronaviruses capable of infecting both human cells and lab animals. “Chimeric viruses” refers to artificial man-made viruses, hybrid organisms created through the joining of two or more different organisms.

This is precisely what gain-of-function research is all about. According to a 2016 report9 from the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, “The term ‘gain-of-function’ is generally used to refer to changes resulting in the acquisition of new, or an enhancement of existing, biological phenotypes.”

Fauci now wants to adopt a far narrower definition of gain-of-function research that takes into account the supposed intent behind the research, but that really doesn’t make sense. Just because you don’t set out with intent to harm doesn’t mean your creation can’t cause harm or might inadvertently cause harm.

US Funding of Gain-of-Function Research Was Well-Established

According to Thacker, “Fauci certainly knew that the WIV he was helping to fund conducted gain-of-function studies, because it has been common knowledge.”10 For example, a year before Fauci was queried by Congress, Newsweek reported that:11

“In 2019, with the backing of NIAID, the National Institutes of Health committed $3.7 million over six years for research that included some gain-of-function work. The program followed another $3.7 million, 5-year project for collecting and studying bat coronaviruses, which ended in 2019, bringing the total to $7.4 million …

The NIH research consisted of two parts. The first part12 began in 2014 and involved surveillance of bat coronaviruses … The program funded Shi Zheng-Li, a virologist at the Wuhan lab … to investigate and catalogue bat coronaviruses in the wild. This part of the project was completed in 2019.

A second phase13 of the project, beginning that year, included … gain-of-function research for the purpose of understanding how bat coronaviruses could mutate to attack humans. The project was run by EcoHealth Alliance … under the direction of President Peter Daszak … NIH canceled the project … April 24 [2020] …

Many scientists have criticized gain of function research, which involves manipulating viruses in the lab to explore their potential for infecting humans, because it creates a risk of starting a pandemic from accidental release.”

Around that same time, former Acting Director of the CIA Michael Morell told Politico14 that “if the virus leaked from a Wuhan lab, the U.S. would shoulder some of the blame since it funded research at that lab through government grants from 2014 to 2019.”

Mid-January 2021, the U.S. State Department published a fact sheet accusing the Chinese government of being obsessively secretive about gain-of-function research at the WIV, and that it was collaborating with the Chinese military on secret projects.

The fact sheet has since been removed from the State Department’s website, but was reported by a number of outlets at the time. Among them, Life Site News, which wrote:15

“In a ‘Fact Sheet’ posted online … the Department of State (DOS) presented three distinct elements about the origin of the virus, which ‘deserve greater scrutiny’ … The first of the three issues needing further investigation, was the outbreak of illness inside the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

The DOS revealed it had ‘reason to believe’ that ‘several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses’ …

Additionally, the DOS noted that researchers in the WIV had been performing experiments on ‘RaTG13, the bat coronavirus identified by the WIV in January 2020 as its closest sample to SARS-CoV-2 (96.2% similar)’ since at least ‘2016.’

The laboratory also ‘has a published record of conducting ‘gain-of-function’ research to engineer chimeric viruses.’ Such research, gain-of-function research, is a kind which ‘improves the ability of a pathogen to cause disease.’”

Additional Reports Citing Gain-of-Function Research

March 6, 2021, the editorial board of The Washington Post published an article16 calling for an independent investigation into the origin of SARS-CoV-2. In that article, the board pointed out that:

“… a senior researcher at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Shi Zhengli, was working on ‘gain-of-function’ experiments, which involve modifying viral genomes to give them new properties, including the ability to infect lung cells of laboratory mice that had been genetically modified to respond as human respiratory cells would.”

The board also noted that Shi was “working with bat coronaviruses that were genetically very similar to the one that caused the pandemic.” A few months later, in a June 22, 2021, essay,17 professor Jeffrey Sachs, head of The Lancet’s commission tasked with investigating COVID’s origin, also described how the NIAID has funded gain-of-function research at the WIV:

“It is in fact common knowledge in the U.S. scientific community that NIH has indeed supported genetic recombinant research on SARS-like viruses that many scientists describe as GOFROC [gain-of-function research of concern].

The peer-reviewed scientific literature reports the results of such NIH-supported recombinant genetic research on SARS-like viruses. More specifically, it is clear that the NIH co-funded research at the WIV that deserves scrutiny under the hypothesis of a laboratory-related release of the virus.”

‘Fauci’s COVID-19 Treachery’

Someone who has taken a particular interest in Fauci’s potential role in this pandemic is Dr. Peter Breggin, a Harvard-trained psychiatrist and former consultant for the National Institute of Mental Health. In October 2020, he published the report18 “Dr. Fauci’s COVID-19 Treachery,” detailing Fauci’s ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its military.

Breggin is convinced Fauci “has been the major force” behind research activities that enabled the CCP to manufacture lethal SARS coronaviruses, which in turn led to the release — whether accidental or not — of SARS-CoV-2 from the WIV.

He claims Fauci has helped the CCP obtain “valuable U.S. patents,” and that he, in collaboration with the CCP and the WHO, initially suppressed the truth about the origins and dangers of the pandemic, thereby enabling the spread of the virus from China to the rest of the world.

Fauci has, and continues to, shield the CCP and himself, Breggin says, by “denying the origin of SARS-CoV-2” and “delaying and thwarting worldwide attempts to deal rationally with the pandemic.”

In the executive summary of the report, Breggin documents 15 questionable activities that Fauci has been engaged in, starting with the fact that he funded dangerous gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses, both by individual Chinese researchers and the WIV in collaboration with American researchers. This research, Breggin says, allowed the CCP and its military to create their own bioweapons, including SARS-CoV-2.

Will Fauci Be Held Accountable?

According to Thacker, “it’s obvious” Fauci “broke the law and misled Congress.” He adds:19

“This is not my personal opinion; I was required to know and enforce the relevant provisions of the law during the three years I ran investigations in the Senate. On two occasions I had to consult with Senate Legal Counsel and then warn people about lying to Congress …

Fauci lied while testifying before Congress. Fauci lied to the American people. Several lines of evidence make this clear. But catching Fauci lying and breaking the law does little good, because the Department of Justice prosecutes people for lying to Congress, and the Department of Justice is run … by the Biden administration. So what is President Biden going to do about this?”

During an appearance on the Hannity Show, July 20, 2021, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul — who has grilled Fauci about his research funding in two separate hearings this year — announced he would indeed ask the DOJ for a criminal referral.20

Paul specifically asked the DOJ to investigate whether Fauci violated 18 U.S. Code § 100121 — which makes it a federal crime to make “any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation” as part of “any investigation or review” conducted by Congress — or any other statute. Time will tell if it amounts to anything.

Gain-of-Function Research Is the Real Threat

Regardless of what happens to Fauci, at the end of the day, the key issue that needs to be addressed is whether we should allow research that involves making pathogens more dangerous to humans at all, regardless of what the intent behind it might be, or the specific technology used.

Lab leaks have occurred on multiple occasions, so it’s really only a matter of time before something far more devastating than SARS-CoV-2 gets out. World leaders need to realize that funding gain-of-function research is the real threat here, and take action accordingly to forestall another pandemic. As long as researchers are allowed to mutate and create synthetic pathogens, they’re creating the very risk they claim they’re trying to prevent.

Sources and References

September 9, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

School Jabs are an Illegal Act of State Coercion, Despotic Quackery

By Tom Penn | TCW Defending Freedom | September 9, 2021

THE UK’s four chief medical officers seem likely to override the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation not to vaccinate under-16s – simultaneously rejecting Public Health England’s stance that ‘children under 16, even if they are clinically extremely vulnerable, are at low risk of serious morbidity and mortality, and, given the absence of safety and efficacy data on the vaccine, are not recommended for vaccination’.

Terrifyingly, we are now officially following nothing but perverted political impulse. Chief medical officer for England Chris Whitty is acting in direct contravention of the Covid-19-specific guidance contained within chapter 14a of PHE’s Green Book – its guide to vaccines and vaccination protocol – as cited above.

In ruthlessly pursuing the vaccination of children against Covid-19 – not on health grounds but in an effort to avert disruption to education – whilst singularly failing to address safety concerns such as the 1,609 vaccination fatalities reported to the MHRA’s Yellow Card Scheme, Whitty has shamelessly twisted the law of ‘Gillick competence’. Not because he and his foot-soldiers have been granted unchallenged authority to overrule a withdrawal of consent to immunisation, but because they are corrupting the ability of both parents and children to make an informed choice on the matter in the first place.

Chapter 2 of the Green Book opens with the statement: ‘It is a legal and ethical principle that valid consent must be obtained before treatment’, followed shortly by: ‘For consent to immunisation to be valid, it must be given freely, voluntarily and without coercion’ (my emphases).

If children and parents are being informed that the purpose of vaccination is to protect educational stability, then by paying heed only to the potential socio-domestic consequences of vaccination refusal, the CMOs are committing an act of medical coercion; thus surely breaking the legal principles involved in obtaining valid consent.

As if such a threat wasn’t intimidating enough, there is left hanging the veiled warning that household income may likewise suffer, as inevitably many parents will have to take time off work to remain home with self-isolating children.

There is no provision in the Green Book that says any immunisation protocol or safety guidance may be bypassed during an epidemic, pandemic or any other type of public health emergency – let alone a supposed educational one.

In fact, the JCVI’s report published on August 4 clearly states that: ‘Delivery of a Covid-19 vaccine programme for children and young people is likely to be disruptive to education in the short term, particularly if school premises are used for vaccination. Adverse reactions to vaccination (such as fevers) may also lead to time away from education for some individuals.’  

So why are the four chief medical officers actively seeking to precipitate the very educational disruption they purport to be averting by vaccinating a demographic who simply do not require it?

There is further weight behind the JCVI’s stance that children are not recommended for vaccination, evidenced in a blunder of their own that merely adds emphasis to the low risk to young people from the virus: ‘In England, between February 2020 and March 2021 inclusive, fewer than 30 persons aged less than 18 years died because of Covid-19, corresponding to a mortality rate of 2 deaths per million.’

They neglect to mention the more detailed findings of the non-peer-reviewed study referenced: ‘Our findings emphasise the importance of underlying comorbidities as the main risk factor for death, as 76 per cent had chronic conditions, 64 per cent had multiple comorbidities, and 60 per cent had life-limiting conditions.’

The study concludes with an admission that six of the 25 children and young people (CYP) had no underlying health condition, but that owing to their hospital data being available only for the past five years, they may have had a comorbidity that could not be identified in the study.

An inconclusive verdict on these six with no apparent comorbidities essentially equates to zero healthy children having died from Covid-19 during the period in question.

By comparison, there were 158 recorded suicides in the age group 10-19 in England in 2020, according to Office for National Statistics provisional figures. 

Although hard to believe considering the havoc he has helped wreak upon us all, Chris Whitty, a qualified physician, is apparently a ‘healthcare professional’. And in Broken Britain – a nation still in the grip, it seems, of a fraudulent medical emergency whose government are seeking extension to the exaggerated powers that sustain the entire scandal – this appears to mean that Whitty has clearance to circumvent the usual codes involved in lawful assessment.

That is, by psychologically swaying the demographic in question and coercing them into a medical procedure under the pretext of non-medical threats in the form of blighted educations and potentially unhappy homes.

Our Chief Medical Officer is asking parents and children to project themselves into the future, imagine the social and economic fallout of a shattered education, and then immunise themselves biologically against that mental construct in the here and now.

This is national-scale emotional and psychological manipulation – aka state coercion – and constitutes the unauthorised re-working of the lawful procedures involved in allowing parents and children to make a fully informed decision about an already reprehensible medical procedure. That is called breaking the law, and is the behaviour of a despotic quack.

Whitty is on the very brink of sanctioning grievous bodily harm, even death in some cases, to be inflicted upon the nation’s children in exchange for access to education.

Likewise he is verging on condemning vaccine-refusing children to a gruelling academic year of harassment and shaming from their peers, and has cruelly designated them the latest face of a virus politicised. As the headlines inevitably begin screaming of the post school-return casedemic, they will be the mainstream media’s whipping-boys and girls this time.

The virus will pass through the majority of children without them even knowing: ‘Fewer than 5 per cent of Covid-19 cases are amongst children and in general they appear to exhibit mild disease . . . and so Covid-19 vaccines are not routinely recommended for children and young people under 16,’ says the Green Book.

So remind us again, Professor Whitty, was it the Hippocratic or the Hypocritical Oath to which you solemnly pledged adherence  for the good of humankind?

September 9, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

New Israeli Film Paints Sympathetic Picture of Jewish Terrorists Who Tried to Murder Millions

By Eric Striker | National Justice | September 8, 2021

An upcoming Israeli film that sympathetically portrays a group of Jewish terrorists who attempted to murder millions of German civilians by poisoning their water supply is enjoying uncritical publicity in Zionist media.

The film, “Plan A,” is based on a true story that director Yoav Paz extensively researched through recently unveiled testimony as well as the book Li Nakam Veshilem (Vengeance and Retribution are Mine) by historian Dina Porat.

Following the end of the second world war, a group of approximately 50 Jews led by communist partisan and Israeli national poet Abba Kovner formed a group called “Nakam,” or “the avengers.”

The group concocted a scheme to infiltrate post-war Europe and kill millions of German citizens by adding arsenic to their drinking water — a plot they called “Plan A.” Were that to fail, they had a “Plan B” where they would poison German soldiers held in Allied prisoner of war camps. According to Kovner’s testimony, the future first president of Israel Chaim Weizmann aided his organization in the operation.

“Plan A” failed when British security forces intercepted members of Nakam and they were forced to throw their supply of poison overboard of their ships. Individuals in the Zionist movement also believed that a terrorist attack of such a magnitude would’ve caused diplomatic problems for the soon to be founded Zionist state and may have tipped the British off.

Eventually they succeeded in partially achieving “Plan B.” They infiltrated the American run Langwasser internment camp and were able to poison thousands of captive German soldiers by putting arsenic in their bread. While many were seriously ill, the New York Times claimed at the time that there were no known deaths, though this incident has no been closely investigated. The criminals in question were thwarted in their other operations but released after a few months.

According to Paz and his brother and co-writer Doran, the point of their movie is not to examine “right and wrong” or “black and white,” but instead to make Jewish viewers sympathize with the Nakam’s mindset and actions.

Stephen Applebaum at Jewish News appears to come away with the message the directors were trying to convey, “Putting yourself in the shoes of the Avengers today is a queasy sensation. Their suffering and loss is made palpable in the film, but so is the suffering, loss and horror they planned to inflict on millions. What would you have done? Hopefully, none of us will ever need to find out.”

Though “Plan A” is in English and has a relatively well-known cast, including German actor August Diehl and “Bladerunner 2049’s” Sylvia Hoeks, there are not many reviews for the upcoming feature set to debut in America and Europe on September 13th.

Cath Clarke at The Guardian is so far the single exception, but she focuses on the film’s technical failures rather than the dark message suggesting that Jews should consider indiscriminately killing people from ethnic groups they have grievances or grudges against. A film promoting such a dangerous message in any other racial and historical context would’ve undoubtedly garnered much more controversy.

September 9, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Film Review, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

‘They attacked us & killed our children’: Grieving Afghan fathers demand fair investigation of US drone strike

View at Bitchute
RT | September 8, 2021

While it won’t bring back their children, a fair investigation would at least restore their honor, two Afghan fathers from a family of which 10 of members were killed in a US drone strike in Kabul have told RT.

President Joe Biden urged the US military commanders in Afghanistan to “stop at nothing” to make ISIS-K (Islamic State Khorasan Province) pay for the deaths of the 13 American troops who were killed along with 169 Afghans in a suicide bombing and gunfire at the gates of Kabul airport on August 26.

The retaliation came a few days later, just as the US forces were about to complete their evacuation from Afghanistan, now almost entirely controlled by the Taliban. A drone strike was carried out that, according to the Americans, targeted ISIS-K terrorists in an attempt to cripple their ability to carry out further attacks.

But reports soon emerged that a number of members of an Afghan family who had gathered for a celebration at their home in Kabul had perished in the strike. In an instant, the rocket took the lives of 10 civilians, including seven children. The youngest of the victims were two girls, Malika and Sumaya, who were both only two years old.

“On the morning of the bombing, she came and kissed me, and said: ‘Good morning, Father.’ It was our last meeting. I will never see her again,” Emal Akhmadi, Malika’s devastated parent, recalls.

The surviving family members are still “in shock” after the attack and simply can’t return to their home, where they’ve found “parts of the children’s bodies” scattered around, Akhmadi told RT. “Mentally, we are not in a stable condition. The women are dead silent. They don’t speak.”

Sumaya’s father has labeled the US drone strike a “stupid thought” and made it clear that the family had no ties with ISIS-K. “They say ISIS-K lived in this house. In this house, were these children members of Islamic State?” Jamshid Yousoufi wondered.

“Without any proof, without any investigation, they attacked us and killed our children, and we will never forgive them.”

Akhmadi branded the Americans “utter liars” for linking the family with the terrorists. “We’ve lost our children. They can’t return to us. So, at least our honor should be restored by a fair investigation,” he said, calling on the international community to make sure the drone strike was fully investigated.

The grieving fathers are the heroes in RT’s documentary series ‘Unheard Voices’. Dedicated to the 20th anniversary of the beginning of America’s War on Terror in Afghanistan, the short film project tells the stories of those whose lives have been forever changed by it. The civilians who lost their loved ones to airstrikes, the inmates of the US prisons at Bagram and Guantanamo who were deprived of their freedom without trial and endured torture, the American troops who found themselves on the brink of suicide after returning from Afghanistan and now question the very need for the US invasion – they have all been interviewed by RT. New episodes will be aired daily, starting Wednesday.

September 9, 2021 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Facebook pays contractors to read your ‘encrypted’ WhatsApp messages, shares info with prosecutors

RT | September 8, 2021

When Facebook acquired WhatsApp, it promised to respect the privacy of its users. That hasn’t been the case, and the firm now employs thousands of staff to read supposedly-encrypted chats.

Social media behemoth Facebook acquired WhatsApp in 2014, with CEO Mark Zuckerberg promising to keep the stripped-down, ad-free messaging app “exactly the same.” End-to-end encryption was introduced in 2016, with the app itself offering on-screen assurances to users that “No one outside of this chat” can read their communications, and Zuckerberg himself telling the US Senate in 2018 that “We don’t see any of the content in WhatsApp.”

Allegedly, none of that is true. More than a thousand content moderators are employed at shared Facebook/WhatsApp offices in Austin, Texas, Dublin, Ireland, and Singapore to sift through messages reported by users and flagged by artificial intelligence.

Based on internal documents, interviews with moderators, and a whistleblower complaint, ProPublica explained how the system works in a lengthy investigation published on Wednesday.

When a user presses ‘report’ on a message, the message itself plus the preceding four messages in the chat are unscrambled and sent to one of these moderators for review. Moderators also examine messages picked out by artificial intelligence, based on unencrypted data collected by WhatsApp. The data collected by the app is extensive, and includes:

“The names and profile images of a user’s WhatsApp groups as well as their phone number, profile photo, status message, phone battery level, language and time zone, unique mobile phone ID and IP address, wireless signal strength and phone operating system, as a list of their electronic devices, any related Facebook and Instagram accounts, the last time they used the app and any previous history of violations.”

These moderators are not employees of WhatsApp or Facebook. Instead they are contractors working for $16.50 per hour, hired by consulting firm Accenture. These workers are bound to silence by nondisclosure agreements, and their hiring went unannounced by Facebook.

Likewise, the actions of these moderators go unreported. Facebook releases quarterly ‘transparency reports’ for its own platform and subsidiary Instagram, detailing how many accounts were banned or otherwise disciplined and for what, but does not do this for WhatsApp.

Many of the messages reviewed by moderators are flagged in error. WhatsApp has two billion users who speak hundreds of languages, and staff sometimes have to rely on Facebook’s translation tool to analyze flagged messages, which one employee said is “horrible” at decoding local slang and political content.

Aside from false reports submitted as pranks, moderators have to analyze perfectly innocent content highlighted by AI. Companies using the app to sell straight-edge razors have been flagged as selling weapons. Parents photographing their bathing children have been flagged for child porn, and lingerie companies have been flagged as forbidden “sexually oriented business[es].”

“A lot of the time, the artificial intelligence is not that intelligent,” one moderator told ProPublica.

WhatsApp acknowledged that it analyzes messages to weed out “the worst” abusers, but doesn’t call this “content moderation.”

“We actually don’t typically use the term for WhatsApp,” Director of Communications Carl Woog told ProPublica. “The decisions we make around how we build our app are focused around the privacy of our users, maintaining a high degree of reliability and preventing abuse.”

Facebook has lied about its commitment to user privacy before. Two years after Zuckerberg assured users that his company would keep WhatsApp ad-free and let the company “operate completely autonomously,” he revealed plans to link WhatsApp accounts to Facebook for the purposes of ad targeting. This move earned Facebook a $122 million fine from EU antitrust regulators, who said the Facebook CEO had “intentionally or negligently” deceived them.

Despite Zuckerberg’s assurances of privacy, WhatsApp shares more user metadata (data that can identify a user without the content of their messages) with law enforcement than rival messaging services from Apple and Signal. This metadata, which can reveal phone numbers, location, timestamps, and more, is valuable to law enforcement and intelligence agencies, with NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden’s 2013 leaks revealing a large-scale operation by the agency to capture the metadata of millions of Americans’ communications.

“Metadata absolutely tells you everything about somebody’s life,” former NSA General Counsel Stewart Baker once said. “If you have enough metadata, you don’t really need content.”

Across all of its platforms, Facebook complies with 95% of requests for metadata. While it is unknown what law enforcement has been able to glean from WhatsApp metadata, the US Department of Justice has requested this metadata more than a dozen times since 2017 and likely far more frequently, given many of these requests are not made public. WhatsApp metadata has been used to jail Natalie Edwards, a former Treasury Department official who leaked confidential banking reports about suspicious transactions to BuzzFeed News.

Inside WhatsApp, the company stresses the importance of promoting itself as a privacy-focused operation. A marketing document obtained by ProPublica states that WhatsApp should portray itself as “courageous,” taking a “strong, public stance that is not financially motivated on things we care about,” such as defending encryption and user privacy.

However, another line in the same document states that “future business objectives” mean that “while privacy will remain important, we must accommodate for future innovations.”

September 8, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

The ACLU, Prior to COVID, Denounced Mandates and Coercive Measures to Fight Pandemics

By Glenn Greenwald | September 7, 2021

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) surprised even many of its harshest critics this week when it strongly defended coercive programs and other mandates from the state in the name of fighting COVID. “Far from compromising them, vaccine mandates actually further civil liberties,” its Twitter account announced, adding that “vaccine requirements also safeguard those whose work involves regular exposure to the public.”

If you were surprised to see the ACLU heralding the civil liberties imperatives of “vaccine mandates” and “vaccine requirements” — whereby the government coerces adults to inject medicine into their own bodies that they do not want — the New York Times op-ed which the group promoted, written by two of its senior lawyers, was even more extreme. The article begins with this rhetorical question: “Do vaccine mandates violate civil liberties?” Noting that “some who have refused vaccination claim as much,” the ACLU lawyers say: “we disagree.” The op-ed then examines various civil liberties objections to mandates and state coercion — little things like, you know, bodily autonomy and freedom to choose — and the ACLU officials then invoke one authoritarian cliche after the next (“these rights are not absolute”) to sweep aside such civil liberties concerns:

[W]hen it comes to Covid-19, all considerations point in the same direction. . . . In fact, far from compromising civil liberties, vaccine mandates actually further civil liberties. . . . .

[Many claim that] vaccines are a justifiable intrusion on autonomy and bodily integrity. That may sound ominous, because we all have the fundamental right to bodily integrity and to make our own health care decisions. But these rights are not absolute. They do not include the right to inflict harm on others. . . . While vaccine mandates are not always permissible, they rarely run afoul of civil liberties when they involve highly infectious and devastating diseases like Covid-19. . . .

While limited exceptions are necessary, most people can be required to be vaccinated. . . . . Where a vaccine is not medically contraindicated, however, avoiding a deadly threat to the public health typically outweighs personal autonomy and individual freedom.

The op-ed sounds like it was written by an NSA official justifying the need for mass surveillance (yes, fine, your privacy is important but it is not absolute; your privacy rights are outweighed by public safety; we are spying on you for your own good). And the op-ed appropriately ends with this perfect Orwellian flourish: “We care deeply about civil liberties and civil rights for all — which is precisely why we support vaccine mandates.”

What makes the ACLU’s position so remarkable — besides the inherent shock of a civil liberties organization championing state mandates overriding individual choice — is that, very recently, the same group warned of the grave dangers of the very mindset it is now pushing. In 2008, the ACLU published a comprehensive report on pandemics which had one primary purpose: to denounce as dangerous and unnecessary attempts by the state to mandate, coerce, and control in the name of protecting the public from pandemics.

The title of the ACLU report, resurfaced by David Shane, reveals its primary point: “Pandemic Preparedness: The Need for a Public Health – Not a Law Enforcement/National Security – Approach.” To read this report is to feel that one is reading the anti-ACLU — or at least the actual ACLU prior to its Trump-era transformation. From start to finish, it reads as a warning of the perils of precisely the mindset which today’s ACLU is now advocating for COVID.

In 2008, the group explained its purpose this way: “the following report examines the relationship between civil liberties and public health in contemporary U.S. pandemic planning and makes a series of recommendations for developing a more effective, civil liberties-friendly approach.” Its key warning: “Not all public health interventions have been benign or beneficial, however. Too often, fears aroused by disease and epidemics have encouraged abuses of state power. Atrocities, large and small, have been committed in the name of protecting the public’s health.”

2008 report of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

The immediate impetus for the ACLU’s 2008 report was two-fold: 1) the 2008 emergence of the avian bird flu pandemic, which produced highly alarmist and ultimately false headlines around the world about millions dying; and 2) new pandemic legislation and regulatory frameworks, enacted in the wake of 9/11, premised on the view, as the ACLU put it, “that every outbreak of disease could be the beginning of some horrific epidemic, requiring the suspension of civil liberties.”

The ACLU issued its 2008 report to warn that the worst possible way to respond to a deadly pandemic was through coercion and mandates. Instead, the group argued — as one would expect from a civil liberties organization — persuasion and voluntary compliance were both more effective and less likely to erode core liberties. As they put it:

The lessons from history should be kept in mind whenever we are told by government officials that “tough,” liberty-limiting actions are needed to protect us from dangerous diseases. Specifically: coercion and brute force are rarely necessary. In fact they are generally counterproductive—they gratuitously breed public distrust and encourage the people who are most in need of care to evade public health authorities. On the other hand, effective, preventive strategies that rely on voluntary participation do work.

The key dichotomy emphasized by the 2008 version of the ACLU was the difference between constructive and persuasive messaging regarding public health versus the use of law enforcement and forced mandates. Starting with the report’s title (“The Need for a Public Health – Not a Law Enforcement/National Security – Approach”) through every section, the ACLU urges that mandates and coercion be dispensed with in favor of voluntary compliance and educational messages:

Government agencies have an essential role to play in helping to prevent and mitigate epidemics. Unfortunately, in recent years, our government’s approach to preparing the nation for a possible influenza pandemic has been highly misguided. Too often, policymakers are resorting to law enforcement and national security-oriented measures that not only suppress individual rights unnecessarily, but have proven to be ineffective in stopping the spread of disease and saving lives . . . .

This law enforcement/national security strategy shifts the focus of preparedness from preventing and mitigating an emergency to punishing people who fail to follow orders and stay healthy.

Much of the report is devoted to an examination of how the U.S. government has historically treated pandemics. As it reviews each pandemic — including horrifically lethal ones such as the plague and smallpox — the ACLU concludes over and over that American health authorities excessively relied on coercion rather than education and persuasion, fueled by media-aided fear porn and alarmist narratives:

Lessons from History: American history contains vivid reminders that grafting the values of law enforcement and national security onto public health is both ineffective and dangerous. Too often, fears aroused by disease and epidemics have justified abuses of state power. Highly discriminatory and forcible vaccination and quarantine measures adopted in response to outbreaks of the plague and smallpox over the past century have consistently accelerated rather than slowed the spread of disease, while fomenting public distrust and, in some cases, riots.

Amazingly, the model that the ACLU identifies as the one that must be avoided is precisely the one that it is now urging be used for COVID. Compare, for instance, the ACLU’s defense of coercive mandates in its New York Times op-ed this week (vaccine mandates “rarely run afoul of civil liberties”) with this ringing endorsement of the need to preserve freedom of choice in its 2008 report:

This model assumes that we must “trade liberty for security.” As a result, instead of helping individuals and communities through education and provision of health care, today’s pandemic prevention focuses on taking aggressive, coercive actions against those who are sick. People, rather than the disease, become the enemy.

What most worried the 2008 version of the ACLU was that authoritarian power vested in the hands of public health officials in the form of mandates and coercion will become permanent given that we will always live with such threats and endless pandemics. That was why, urged that iteration of the ACLU, we must opt for an approach that relies on education programs and voluntary compliance rather than state mandates.

“The law enforcement approach to public health offers a rationale for the endless suspension of civil liberties,” they explained. Using post-9/11 expansions of state power as its framework, the group explained that “the ‘Global War on Terror’ may go on for a generation, but the war on disease will continue until the end of the human race. There will always be a new disease, always the threat of a new pandemic. If that fear justifies the suspension of liberties and the institution of an emergency state, then freedom and the rule of law will be permanently suspended.”

The ACLU’s New York Times op-ed this week repeatedly stressed that coercive mandates are justified whenever “the disease is highly transmissible, serious and lethal.” But its 2008 report argued exactly the opposite. The report was critical of forced vaccinations and other mandates in prior outbreaks of smallpox — certainly a highly contagious and lethal disease — but then argued that when the disease reappeared in the late 1940s, New York City handled it much better by offering voluntary vaccines and education programs rather than coercive measures:

In contrast, New York City relied on a different approach in 1947, one that viewed the public as the client rather than the enemy of public health. When smallpox reappeared in the city after a long absence, the city educated the public about the problem and instituted a massive voluntary vaccination campaign. Not surprisingly, no coercion was needed. Provided with information about the need for and benefits of vaccination, and reassurance that the city was helping rather than attacking them, the citizens of the New York turned out en masse for one of the world’s largest voluntary vaccination campaigns. The campaign was successful, and the epidemic was quashed before it had a chance to spread broadly in the city or beyond.

In the scheme of repressive measures that worried the 2008 ACLU, “compulsory isolation and quarantine are among the most coercive non-pharmaceutical interventions that may be employed during a pandemic.” They minced no words about such policies: “civil liberties concerns arise when these interventions are imposed by law.”

The ACLU did not merely warn with words of the dangers of excessive pandemic coercion. They also legally represented at least one client who they viewed as the victim of public health hysteria and tyranny. In 2006, “a 27-year-old tuberculosis patient named Robert Daniels was involuntarily quarantined in Phoenix, Arizona for disobeying an order by Maricopa County health officials to wear a face mask in public at all times.” Even once Daniels was released and it turned out he had a less severe case of TB than originally assumed, “Sheriff Joe Arpaio publicly threatened him with prosecution for the pre-quarantine events.”

The ACLU’s lesson from that case, and similar ones it had handled, was clear: these cases “are cautionary tales that illustrate the counterproductive nature of a punitive, law enforcement approach to preventing the spread of disease.” Most important of all, said the civil liberties group, coercive steps — such as mandates and quarantines — not only endanger civil liberties but are less effective in improving the public health, because they convert the public from cooperative allies into enemies that must be controlled and punished:

These efforts require working with rather than against communities, providing communities with as healthy an environment as possible, health care if they need it, and the means to help themselves and their neighbors. Most importantly, to protect public health, public health policies must aim to help, rather than to suppress, the public.

A separate ACLU report from 2015, issued during the ebola epidemic, contained a similar message. It warned “against politically motivated and scientifically unwarranted quarantines, which the report found violated individuals’ rights and hampered efforts to end the outbreak.” Hysteria over ebola became so intense that the ACLU “found that people were illegally deprived of their right to due process under the 14th Amendment because the quarantines and movement restrictions were not scientifically justified.”

While both reports acknowledge that more restrictive measures can be justified under extreme circumstances, the crux of each is that voluntary compliance is better than coercion, that state mandates typically fail, and that the far greater danger is vesting too much power in the hands of the state, which it will never relinquish given the permanence of pandemics.

How the ACLU fell from those traditional and vital civil liberties positions to urging this week in The New York Times that “far from compromising civil liberties, vaccine mandates actually further civil liberties,” is anyone’s guess. But what is beyond doubt is that it is a far fall indeed. And most of all, hearing the ACLU invoke the standard rationale of authoritarians — we all have the fundamental right to bodily integrity and to make our own health care decisions, but these rights are not absolute — is nothing short of jarring.

Update, Sept. 7, 2021, 6:58 p.m.: Shortly after publication of this article, a former ACLU lawyer, Margaret Winter, noted in response: “It was NOT just ‘prior to covid’ that ACLU denounced vaccine mandates: Read ACLU’s 2020 position paper passionately and correctly arguing that vaccine mandates ‘exacerbate racial disparities and harm the civil liberties of all.’” Winter was referencing this ACLU report, from May of 2020, that warned of the serious dangers of “immunity passports,” under which citizens who already got COVID and thus had immunity would enjoy rights not available to others:

We at the ACLU have serious concerns about the adoption of any such proposal, because of its potential to harm public health, incentivize economically-vulnerable people to risk their health by contracting COVID-19, exacerbate racial and economic disparities, and lead to a new health surveillance infrastructure that endangers privacy rights. . . . This division would likely worsen existing racial, disability, and economic disparities in America and lead people struggling to afford basic necessities to deliberately risk their health.

While such a scheme is different in degree from vaccine passports let alone vaccine mandates — which the ACLU is now championing — its rationale for opposing such a system is fully applicable: “there are serious civil liberties and civil rights harms from making workplace decisions on that basis,” adding: “any immunity passport system endangers privacy rights by creating a new surveillance infrastructure to collect health data.”

September 8, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Progressive Hypocrite, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Medical chiefs, take a stand! Tell the politicians you won’t give children jabs

By Patrick McGinnity | TCW Defending Freedom | September 8, 2021

As concern grows over the proposal to give children the Covid vaccine, this is an edited version of an open letter I have written to the Chief Medical Officers of the UK – Dr Chris Whitty (England) Dr Michael McBride (Northern Ireland), Dr Gregor Smith (Scotland) and Dr Frank Atherton (Wales).  

I WRITE to you concerning the gravest of matters – the safety of this nation’s children.

The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has advised against vaccinating 12 to 15 year-olds. You have always advocated ‘following the science’ and, if you follow the science on this occasion, you will agree with this JCVI advice.

The JCVI simply must not be overruled by government on this decision regarding the safety of children. The JCVI Green Book is the bible for all vaccinations in this country and it would be totally inconsistent of government to follow the science only when it suits them.

Interviewed on Channel Four News, Professor Anthony Harnden, Deputy Chair of the JCVI, stated: ‘My responsibility is to the children of this country and my responsibility is not to government.’

This is clearly your responsibility too and, although government is pressurising medical advisers to give the go-ahead for vaccination of 12 to 15 year-olds, it is essential that you stay firm and do the right thing by refusing to bow to political interference in what is essentially a matter of medical ethics.

Professor Adam Finn of the JCVI told Sky News: ‘We’ve been able to get really up-to-date information from paediatric cardiologists in the United States who are managing children who’ve experienced this myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) side-effect.

‘Admittedly small numbers, but still some early concerns that this might be a problem in the longer term and that very up-to-date information is why we’ve kept to our line actually over the last two months that we should be cautious about this.’

In a letter to the US Food and Drug Administration on December 8, 2020, Dr Patrick Whelan, from the Department of Paediatrics, David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, wrote:  ‘I am a paediatric specialist caring for children with the multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C).

‘I am concerned about the possibility that the new vaccines aimed at creating immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (including the mRNA vaccines of Moderna and Pfizer) have the potential to cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver, and kidneys in a way that is not currently being assessed in safety trials of these potential drugs.’

Dr Whelan concluded: ‘In caring for children with MIS-C, I have been impressed with how widespread the organ involvement is, particularly given the absence of actively replicating virus in virtually all patients.

‘Particular caution will be required with regard to the potential widespread vaccination of children before there are any real data on the safety or effectiveness of these vaccines in paediatric trials that are only now beginning.’

It is nonsensical and disingenuous for anyone to claim that we need to vaccinate children in order to keep schools open and ensure no further interruptions to education. The only reason to vaccinate anyone is to protect them from a dangerous pathogen and children are at minimal risk from Covid.

Sweden kept schools open and mask-free all the way through and did not suffer any ill effects at all. Sweden’s Covid death rate has been minimal in the past six weeks and overall they have had a lower death rate per million than the UK.

It has been flawed UK government policy that has disrupted children’s learning. The way to solve this problem is to do exactly as Sweden did and then there will be no more disruption to lessons. Sweden kept schools open all last year when there was no vaccine, so to claim a vaccine is needed to keep schools open now is completely false.

Forcing a risky vaccine on innocent children as an excuse for keeping schools open when they should never have been closed in the first place would be morally and ethically repugnant.

It is the same Covid in Sweden as it is here, so if Swedish schools could stay open with no masks, no vaccine and no resultant problems, our schools should all have stayed open too.

Did the UK government purposely close schools and intentionally cause huge disruption to education in order to use this as an excuse now for vaccinating children when there is no other legitimate reason for doing so?

The argument that vaccinating children will reduce transmission is without foundation. The vaccines do not prevent transmission and it is now clearly in the public domain that vaccinated people can carry as much virus in their nasal tracts as unvaccinated.

So arguing that child vaccinations will reduce overall transmission is not true. This is also the opinion of the JCVI, who stated: ‘The committee is of the view that any impact on transmission may be relatively small, given the lower effectiveness of the vaccine against infection with the Delta variant.’

At least half of 12 to 15 year-olds have already been infected, so they will have natural immunity. As the recent large study in Israel showed, natural immunity is more robust and longer-lasting than the narrower, transient immunity afforded by the vaccine.

When a child develops natural immunity, it is to the entire virus while the immunity produced by the vaccine is only to the spike protein. There has never been a vaccine in the history of medicine that produced better immunity than natural infection. Therefore there is no clinical medical case for vaccinating 12 to 15 year-olds.

The fact that government has asked the chief medical officers to consider the wider societal and educational impacts of vaccinating children shows clearly that no medical case can be made for doing so and they are trying to cobble together some other excuses for going ahead.

It is ethically and morally wrong to suggest that children’s health should be put at risk in order to supposedly protect adults. Adults are supposed to protect children, not the other way round.

Former Health Secretary Matt Hancock told the House of Commons last November: ‘This vaccine will not be used for children. It hasn’t been tested on children. And the reason is that the likelihood of children having significant detriment if they catch Covid-19 is very, very low. So, this is an adult vaccine, for the adult population.’

No children without underlying conditions have died in the UK due to Covid. Therefore if even one child were to die or suffer serious injury due to being vaccinated, it would be one child too many.

In the NHS document Covid-19 Vaccination Programme, Vaccinating Children and Young People: Frequently Asked Questions, we are told that, in addition to the £12.58 item-of-service fee, there is a further supplement of £10 per vaccination dose to eligible children.

Seeing that an extra £10 bounty is going into the pocket of anyone willing to vaccinate a 12 to 15 year-old, is the NHS encouraging doctors to follow the science, or follow the money?

I send you this letter in very good faith and recognise the onerous responsibility placed on all your shoulders in decision-making. I pray that your guide will be the wisdom of Primum Non Nocere (first, do no harm).

September 8, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »