Vaccine Diabolus and the Impending Wave of Rare Neurodegenerative Disorders
By Mike Whitney | Unz Review | March 7, 2021
The problem with the mRNA Covid-19 vaccine, is not that it’s a vaccine. It’s that it’s not safe. That’s the issue: Safety.
This view is shared by a great many professionals who believe that these potentially-toxic concoctions pose a significant threat to the health and well-being of anyone who chooses to get inoculated.
Do you realize that the mRNA vaccine is a purely synthetic PEG-coated lipid nanoparticle that spreads throughout the body and brain creating conditions for debilitating ailments 3 or 4 years down the road? (More on this below) Do you realize that these dubious vaccines have not been thoroughly tested, did not undergo critical animal trials, did not complete Phase 3 trials, and were waved through the regulatory process under the “Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)” provision?
What does it mean when we say: “The vaccines were waved through under the Emergency Use Authorization provision?”
It means that the vaccines were not required to meet the same rigorous standards or follow the same protocols as previous vaccines. It means that, by definition, these vaccines are not safe. It means that normal precautionary regulations were suspended in order to put these vaccines into service as fast as possible. Isn’t that worth mulling over before rolling up your sleeve?
There are a number of extremely promising treatments, therapies and medications for Covid, and many more are on their way. (See: Sharyl Attkisson: “Full Measure”, Vaccines and Treatments, You Tube) But the mRNA vaccine is not among these promising medications. The mRNA vaccine is a grave threat to one’s health and safety. It should never have been approved.
And who is promoting these vaccines that do not stop the transmission of Covid, do not prevent Covid, and which will have no meaningful impact on the rapidly-declining fatality rate? Who is pushing these potentially-lethal injections? Is it the reputable scientists, virologists, epidemiologists and other medical experts who don’t have a stake in the outcome and who base their judgements on the science alone, or is it the conflicted state bureaucrats, the public health toadies and the billionaire activists who control the media and whose shadowy and sinister motives are still not clear?
Most people know the answer to that question already. It’s obvious.
And why have the views of the naysayers, the contrarians and the critics been painstakingly scrubbed from the MSM and social media? If the efficacy and safety of these vaccines is so unassailable, then why must all public debate be prevented?
Ask yourself this: Has the Covid vaccine roll-out been the biggest and most extravagant Madison Avenue “product launch” in American history?
Indeed, it has. The media, Hollywood, the public health authorities, big pharma, global elites and the entire political establishment have joined the full-throated, public relations blitz that is aimed at cajoling every man, woman and child into doing something that could trigger an agonizing medical condition or dramatically shorten their lives.
Why are they doing this? Why have they quashed all debate and silenced their critics? Why are they taking advantage of public hysteria to intensify their mass-vaccination campaign? Why have they obfuscated the truth on so many issues related to Covid including masks, asymptomatic transmission, school closures, lockdowns etc? Is there even one part of the official Covid narrative that “rings true” or that can withstand the scrutiny of critical analysis? Does it all have to be lies? Can’t we at least mix some truth in with the vast mountain of flagrant fabrications and disinformation?
The truth is, we don’t need a vaccine. The case numbers and fatalities are already dropping precipitously around the world. The virus is on its way out. Here’s how Pfizer’s former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory Disease, Dr. Michael Yeadon, summed it up some months ago:
“There is absolutely no need for vaccines to extinguish the pandemic… You do not vaccinate people who aren’t at risk from a disease. You also don’t set about planning to vaccinate millions of fit and healthy people with a vaccine that hasn’t been extensively tested on human subjects.”
He’s right, isn’t he? And, yet, even now– when the vast majority of people are fully aware that cases and deaths are falling like a stone– they’re still rushing-off to their local public health facility to get vaccinated. Explain that to me? Why would anyone willingly get vaccinated when the infection is already dying out and the number of susceptible hosts is rapidly decreasing? What sense does that make?
Do you realize that we have no data on the long-term adverse effects of these new mRNA vaccines? None. So, the question is: Why would a public health official put a vaccine into service without knowing what the long-term effects of that vaccine might be?
He wouldn’t, unless he was pressured into doing so, because that would be irresponsible and a violation of his oath to “Do no harm.”
Even so, these are the very same vaccines that well-known billionaire activists want to use on all 7 billion people on Planet Earth. Do these “do goodie” billionaires have any idea of the carnage and suffering their mass-vaccination campaign is likely to generate? Or is that the goal, a world with fewer people?
Let’s cut to the chase: What readers really want to know is how these vaccines will impact their health. “How is this going to affect me”, that’s the bottom line. But since we have no long-term data, (since there were no long-term trials) we have to depend on the analysis of professionals who have a sense of where the potential problems might arise. Check out this blurb from an article by Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, lung specialist and former head of the public health department, and Dr. Michael Yeadon, ex-Pfizer head of respiratory research. Here are some of their concerns:
“The formation of so-called “non-neutralizing antibodies” can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, “wild” virus after vaccination.”
– The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as it may otherwise result in infertility of indefinite duration in vaccinated women.
– The mRNA vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech contain polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70% of people develop antibodies against this substance. This means that many people can develop allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccination.
– The much too short duration of the study does not allow a realistic estimation of the late effects. As in the narcolepsy cases after the swine flu vaccination, millions of healthy people would be exposed to an unacceptable risk if an emergency approval were to be granted and the possibility of observing the late effects of the vaccination were to follow.” (“That Was Quick”, Lockdown Skeptics)
Let’s summarize:
The new messenger RNA vaccines could make recipients more susceptible to serious illness or death. (The vaccine could pave the way for autoimmune disease or ADE Antibody-dependent Enhancement.)
Spike proteins can “trigger an immune reaction” that will “result in infertility.”
The new vaccines contain polyethylene glycol (PEG) which can be “potentially fatal.”
The trials were not long enough to determine whether the vaccines are safe or not. FDA approval does not mean “safe”. Quite the contrary. The FDA is “captured” in the same way the FAA is captured.
Naturally, the analysis of Yeadon and Wodarg has appeared nowhere in the MSM. (Also, Yeadon was recently removed by Twitter.) Experts in their field of learning are no longer allowed to candidly discuss their concerns in a public forum if their conclusions do not jibe with the official narrative. The push to censor opposing points of view is greater now than any time in our 245-year history. The people who now insist that you get vaccinated, are the very same people who are doing everything in the power to prevent you from knowing the truth about their vaccines.
And what is the truth?
The truth is that ‘universal vaccination’ factors quite large in the elitist restructuring agenda that has nothing to do with global pandemic and everything to do with social control. At its heart, Covid is a political phenomenon more than it is a public health emergency. One is merely a fig leaf for the other.
Have you ever heard of Prion disease?
The CDC describes Prion diseases as “a family of rare progressive neurodegenerative disorders that affect both humans and animals. They are distinguished by long incubation periods, characteristic spongiform changes associated with neuronal loss, and a failure to induce inflammatory response.
The causative agents of TSEs are believed to be prions. The term “prions” refers to abnormal, pathogenic agents that are transmissible and are able to induce abnormal folding of specific normal cellular proteins called prion proteins that are found most abundantly in the brain….. The abnormal folding of the prion proteins leads to brain damage and the characteristic signs and symptoms of the disease. Prion diseases are usually rapidly progressive and always fatal.” (CDC)
Is this what the future holds for millions of recipients of the mRNA vaccine?
We think it is very likely.
In an earlier article, we posted an excerpt from an interview with Dr. Chris Shaw, Ph.D, Specialist in Neuroplasticity and Neuropathology. Shaw described this very condition that could emerge as a reaction to agents in the mRNA vaccine that find their way into the brain. Here’s what he said:
“The mRNA lipid-coated PEG-construct– by Moderna’s own study–does not stay localized but spreads throughout the body including the brain. Found in animal studies in bone marrow, brain, lymph nodes, heart, kidneys liver, lungs etc Doctors are saying that the vaccine does NOT cross the blood-brain barrier, but that is NOT true. …If it reaches the brain there will be an auto immune response that will cause inflammation What characterizes virtually all neuro-degenerative diseases is this misfolded protein that is characteristic to Lou Gerrigs disease, to Alzheimer’s, to Parkinsons to Huntington’s etc. They are different proteins, but they tend to form these sheets of misfolded proteins called Beta Sheets. Now you are asking cells in various parts of the body–including the brain– to make a lot of these proteins and release them to the outside, and , are we sure that’s what’ it’s all doing? Are you getting clusters of misfolded proteins inside neurons? That would be a bad thing to do.. So, you’d like to know where it is, how much of it there is, and which groups of neuronal groups its targeted. .and those are the kinds of questions you like the companies to have solved long before they got authorization and discovered some years later that they have a problem.”
“This is a vast experiment that should have been done in the lab on animals and now it is being done on people ..The potential is that you are going to harm a lot of people while you do this experiment.” (“NEUROSCIENTIST’S CONCERNS ABOUT COVID VACCINES”, Chris Shaw, Ph.D, Specialist in Neuroplasticity and Neuropathology)
Is this what we should expect in the future, a sharp uptick in neurological disorders like Lou Gehrig’s disease, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson?
Apparently, so. Check out this longer excerpt from a research paper by Dr. J. Bart Classen:
“Vaccines have been found to cause a host of chronic, late developing adverse events. Some adverse events like type 1 diabetes may not occur until 3-4 years after a vaccine is administered[1]…. Given that type 1 diabetes is only one of many immune mediated diseases potentially caused by vaccines, chronic late occurring adverse events are a serious public health issue....
RNA based vaccines offers special risks of inducing specific adverse events. One such potential adverse event is prion-based diseases caused by activation of intrinsic proteins to form prions. A wealth of knowledge has been published on a class of RNA binding proteins shown to participating in causing a number of neurological diseases including Alzheimer’s disease and ALS….
… In the current paper the concern is raised that the RNA based COVID vaccines have the potential to cause more disease than the epidemic of COVID-19. This paper focuses on a novel potential adverse event mechanism causing prion disease which could be even more common and debilitating than the viral infection the vaccine is designed to prevent. …….
The current analysis indicates … RNA based COVID-19 vaccine contains many of these RNA sequences that have …. have the potential to induce chronic degenerative neurological diseases....
Genetic diversity protects species from mass casualties caused by infectious agents. One individual may be killed by a virus while another may have no ill effects from the same virus. By placing the identical receptor, the spike protein, on cells of everyone in a population, the genetic diversity for at least one potential receptor disappears. Everyone in the population now becomes potentially susceptible to binding with the same infectious agent….
… The results indicate that the vaccine RNA has specific sequences that may induce TDP-43 and FUS to fold into their pathologic prion confirmations…The folding of TDP-43 and FUS into their pathologic prion confirmations is known to cause ALS,… Alzheimer’s disease and other neurological degenerative diseases. The enclosed finding as well as additional potential risks leads the author to believe that regulatory approval of the RNA based vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 was premature and that the vaccine may cause much more harm than benefit. (“Covid-19 RNA Based Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease”, J. Bart Classen, MD., Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.”)
Dr. Classen’s analysis is disturbing, but in no way, comprehensive. The new regime of mRNA vaccines fails on a great many levels which we will discuss in future articles. These “gene editing” vaccines are not medicine, they are strange and menacing hybrid cocktail that was created to achieve an elusive political objective of which we still know very little. If there was ever a time to stand back from the crowd, resist groupthink, and employ one’s own critical thinking skills to decide whether the risks of vaccination far outweigh the benefits; this is it. The choice is yours to make.
March 8, 2021 Posted by aletho | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | COVID-19 Vaccine | Leave a comment
Why COVID Vaccine Testing Is A Farce
By Dr Joseph Mercola | March 2, 2021
The flaws of vaccine trials in general are really highlighted by current COVID-19 vaccine studies, one of the most egregious ones being the fact that vaccine makers rarely use inert placebos (such as a saline shot), which is the gold standard for drug trials.
As noted in a January 25, 2021, article in The Defender,1 vaccine developers typically assess the safety of a new vaccine against another vaccine, and by so doing, they effectively hide side effects as most vaccines have side effects and risks.
As just one example, the Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine is being tested against a meningitis vaccine,2 which just so happens to share many of the side effects reported from COVID-19 vaccines. As reported by the National Vaccine Information Center:3
“According to the CDC, at least 50% of individuals receiving meningococcal vaccines targeting meningococcal serogroups A, C, Y, and W-135 (Menactra or Menveo) experience mild side effects …
Adverse events reported by Sanofi Pasteur in the Menactra vaccine product insert include … headache; fatigue … joint pain; chills; anaphylaxis; wheezing; upper airway swelling; difficulty breathing; hypotension … lymph node swelling; Guillain-Barre syndrome; convulsions; dizziness; facial palsy; vasovagal syncope; paresthesia; transverse myelitis; acute disseminated encephalomyelitis …
Adverse events reported by Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics (GlaxoSmithKline) in the pre-licensing clinical trials of Menveo vaccine include … headache; joint and muscle pain; malaise; nausea; chills … acute disseminated encephalomyelitis … pneumonia … suicidal depression and suicide attempts.”
Long-Term Safety Analysis Tossed By The Wayside
Now, Pfizer and Moderna have started offering placebo recipients in their trials the real mRNA gene therapy, which means it will be even more difficult to tease out which side effects are actually caused by the shot and which ones aren’t, over the long term. As reported by NPR, February 17, 2021:4
“Tens of thousands of people who volunteered to participate in the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccine studies are still participating in follow-up research, though that’s somewhat hampered because many people who had been given a placebo shot opted to take the vaccine instead.”
In fact, according to Dr. Carlos Fierro, who runs the clinical trial for the Moderna vaccine in Lenexa, Kansas, virtually all of the 650 volunteers who initially received the placebo have now opted to get the real vaccine, which means he had “essentially no comparison group left for the ongoing study,” which was slated to run for two full years.
As Dr. Steven Goodman at Stanford University told NPR,5 getting rid of the initial control groups makes it far more difficult to assess the safety and effectiveness of the COVID vaccines since they won’t have anything to compare the vaccine recipients against.
Justification For Elimination Of Controls Is Flimsy At Best
Ironically, both the use of an active placebo and the elimination of control groups are being justified on “moral grounds” by pro-vaccine advocates who say it’s unethical to not provide volunteers with something of value, such as another vaccine in the case of active placebos, or a vaccine they know is effective in the case of giving placebo recipients the real McCoy.
Both of these arguments are beyond questionable. As mentioned, no vaccine is 100% safe, so getting an active vaccine placebo comes with risk, not merely benefit, and when it comes to the novel mRNA technology used in COVID-19 vaccines, historical data are troubling to say the least, and the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is rapidly filling up with COVID-19 vaccine-related injury reports and deaths.
As reported in “COVID-19 Vaccine To Be Tested on 6-Year-Olds,” as of February 4, 2021, VAERS had received 12,697 injury reports and 653 deaths following COVID-19 vaccination.6 Even more telling, between January 2020 and January 2021, COVID-19 vaccines accounted for 70% of the annual vaccine deaths, even though these vaccines had only been available for less than two months!
What’s more, previous research7 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are ever reported to VAERS, so in reality, we may be looking at more than 1 million COVID-19 vaccine injuries within the first two months of their release.
In my view, the data are far from assuring overall, which makes the elimination of long-term control groups — flawed as they may be due to active placebo use — all the more troubling.
All Previous Coronavirus Vaccines Failed Upon Challenge
Historically, previous attempts to create a coronavirus vaccine have all failed miserably, as they ended up creating devastating immune enhancement. This is why any and all short-cuts taken in the COVID-19 vaccine development is so troubling.
In my May 2020 interview above with Robert Kennedy Jr., he summarized the history of coronavirus vaccine development, which began in 2002, following three consecutive SARS outbreaks. By 2012, Chinese, American and European scientists were working on SARS vaccine development, and had about 30 promising candidates.
Of those, the four best vaccine candidates were then given to ferrets, which are the closest analogue to human lung infections. In the video above, which is a select outtake from my full interview, Kennedy explains what happened next.
While the ferrets displayed robust antibody response, which is the metric used for vaccine licensing, once they were challenged with the wild virus, they were overtaken by a cytokine storm response, known as paradoxical immune enhancement, became severely ill and died.
The same thing happened when they tried to develop a respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine in the 1960s. RSV is an upper respiratory illness that is very similar to that caused by coronaviruses.
At that time, they had decided to skip animal trials and go directly to human trials. The RSV vaccine was tested on about 35 children, with identical results. Initially, they developed a robust antibody response, but when challenged with the wild virus, all became ill and two died. The vaccine was abandoned.
Yes, We Really Do Need Placebo Arms
Despite such dire failures, some still argue that placebo arms aren’t needed in COVID-19 vaccine trials. In an opinion piece in STAT News,8 Kent Peacock, a professor of philosophy, and John Vokey, a professor of psychology, both from the University of Lethbridge, compare the use of placebo control groups with giving out dummy parachutes during wartime.
“Giving the real treatment to 100% of the volunteers removes one of the major ethical barriers to challenge trials: the high probability of harmful side effects or death to members of a control group,” they say, completely ignoring the fact that volunteers in the vaccine arm may be put at grave unknown risks, not just in the short term but in the long term as well.
This entire argument hinges on the idea that the vaccine being tested is KNOWN to be safe, which it absolutely is not at this point, and won’t be for many years. They even argue that “not using a placebo … would be less ethically questionable to test the vaccine on older participants.”
Well, they published that article in early September 2020, and now we can more or less conclusively state that they are wrong on this point, as older vaccine recipients have been dropping like flies.
‘We’re Dealing With Homicide,’ German Attorney Says
As reported by Brian Shilhavy, editor of Health Impact News, February 19, 2021:9
“Earlier this week we published10 the English translation of a video in German that attorney Reiner Fuellmich published with a whistleblower who works in a nursing home where several residents were injected with the experimental COVID mRNA shots against their will, and where many of them died a short time later.
Since that interview was published, other whistleblowers in Germany who work in nursing homes have also stepped forward, some with video footage showing residents being held down and vaccinated against their wish …
Fuellmich … stated: ‘We are getting more and more calls from other whistleblowers form other nursing homes in this country, plus we’re getting information from other countries, Sweden for example, Norway … Gibraltar … here are also incidents in England and in the United States that match these descriptions …
It means that people are dying because of the vaccines. What we are seeing in this video clip is worse than anything we ever expected. If this is representative for what’s going on in other nursing homes, and in other countries, then we have a very serious problem.
And so do the people who make the vaccines, so do the people who administer the vaccines. It looks more and more as though we’re dealing with homicide, and maybe even murder.’”
Novel MRNA Gene Therapy Is Not Harmless
It’s important to realize what mRNA and DNA COVID-19 vaccine actually are. They are not traditional vaccines made with live or attenuated viruses. They’re actually gene therapies. They don’t even meet the medical or legal definition of a vaccine, as detailed in “COVID-19 mRNA Shots Are Legally Not Vaccines.” This novel, never before used therapy has a long list of potential problems, including the following:
- The messenger RNA (mRNA) used in many COVID-19 vaccines are synthetic. Your body sees these synthetic particles as non-self, which can cause autoantibodies to attack your own tissues. Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., explained this in her interview, featured in “How COVID-19 Vaccines May Destroy the Lives of Millions.”
- Your body also views free mRNA as a warning signal to your immune system, as they drive inflammatory diseases. This is why making synthetic mRNA thermostable, meaning it doesn’t break down as easily as it normally would by encasing the mRNA in lipid nanoparticles is likely to be problematic.
- COVID-19 vaccines use PEGylated lipid nanoparticles, and PEG is known to cause anaphylaxis.11
- Previous attempts to develop an mRNA-based drug using lipid nanoparticles failed because when the dose was too low, the drug had no effect, and when dosed too high, the drug became too toxic.12
- The synthetic RNA influences, in part, the gene syncytin. According to Mikovits, when syncytin is aberrantly expressed in the brain, you can develop multiple sclerosis. Expression of the syncytin gene also inflames and dysregulates communication between the brain microglia, which are critical for clearing toxins and pathogens in the brain. It also dysregulates your immune system and your endocannabinoid system, which is the dimmer switch on inflammation.
- The synthetic mRNA also has an HIV envelope expressed in it, which can cause immune dysregulation.
Symptoms Of COVID-19 Vaccine Damage
Commonly reported side effects among recipients of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines include… continue reading
March 7, 2021 Posted by aletho | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | COVID-19 Vaccine | Leave a comment
Dr. Scott Jensen, WHO Confirm: ‘We’ve All Been Played’ on COVID-19
21st Century Wire | March 7, 2021
Increasingly, there are serious questions being asked about the factual basis for declaring a pandemic and the growing number of mitigation policies being implemented by governments and corporations. When is a COVID-19 “case” really a case? Moreover, do the case numbers and death numbers that have been touted over the last 12 months by governments in UK, EU, USA, and numerous governments around the world, accurately reflect actual COVID cases and COVID deaths?
In fact, the World Health Organization (WHO) itself has admitted that the entire basis for collating “case” numbers since the beginning of this ‘global pandemic’ is effectively null and void. In its directive published in late January, the organization stated that medical professionals should not be using PCR Testing with high Cycle Threshold (CT) levels due to the high likelihood of generating false positives in people, and also that the PCR Test should not be used as the sole metric for diagnosing and should be accompanied by a professional clinical diagnosis. In other words: the PCR Test cannot rightly be used as a medical diagnostic tool, and yet, it has been widely used as such for the last 12 months. This admission should have grave implications for every public health official, politician and media editor on the planet, but the silence is deafening – as most are simply ignoring this fact.
The following directive was issued on January 20, 2021 by the WHO:
Description of the problem: WHO requests users to follow the instructions for use (IFU) when interpreting results for specimens tested using PCR methodology.
Users of IVDs must read and follow the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer.
WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.
WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.
Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.
In addition, from the beginning of the ‘pandemic,’ arbitrary and broad guidelines for symptom diagnosis for COVID were being encouraged, and not surprisingly this corresponded with a complete disappearance of season influenza.
Former Minnesota state legislator, Dr Scott Jensen MD, explains why this is absolutely crucial and how we’ve all been played over the last 12 months. Watch:
Video Credit: Coronavirus Plushie
March 7, 2021 Posted by aletho | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | Covid-19 | Leave a comment
A Different Take On Our State Of Emergency
By Hilda Labrada Gore with Dr. David Martin | Weston Price Foundation | February 8, 2021
Within the below transcript the bolded text is Hilda Labrada Gore and the regular text is Dr. David Martin.
There is much frustration and confusion surrounding everything that’s happened related to COVID-19. Lockdowns, shuttered businesses, curfews and more have left a lot of us scratching our heads and asking important questions. This is Episode 294 and our guest is Dr. David Martin. He is the Founder and Chairman of M·CAM Inc, an international leader in innovation, finance trade and asset finance. He is an author, a public speaker and a man who has done a lot of research on current events.
In this episode, David offers key facts that help us understand our state of emergency from a very different perspective. He reveals how the CDC filed a patent application on SARS-CoV in the early 2000s. He explains why this is important. He discusses the evidence that indicates that SARS-CoV-2 has been manipulated to limit freedom and compromise our health. He unpacks the legal and health contradictions of new COVID treatments like masks and vaccines, and he offers insights on what each of us can do to fight for health freedom.
Welcome to the show, David.
Thank you so much. It’s great to be here
You’re not a health guy, you’re a legal guy, right?
No, my training was in medicine. I was on the faculty of the University of Virginia Medical School, Radiology Orthopedic Surgery. I ran the FDA clinical trials program for the medical devices for UVA for a decade. I have a lot of backgrounds but I have a legal background as well, but my professor position was in the medical school at the University of Virginia.
What’s your take on what’s happening with the virus right now?
Let’s start with I don’t think something’s happening with the virus right now. I think this is a very significant criminal operation, which is an act of terrorism. I think that’s what this is. The reason why I think that is because I’ve been monitoring since 1999. In 1999, we noticed that for the first time, the United States officially started funding work to what effectively was amplified biological toxins. They used the Coronavirus model as a way to do that. From 1999 to 2002, there was an explicit program to figure out how to get the coronavirus, which historically has been a nuisance to humans but not a big problem. It’s been a big problem to animals.
In fact, the fundamental research for a decade before the ‘90s was in cardiac myopathy in rabbits, not in people. The guy who was leading this program under the funding of NIAID with Anthony Fauci had gotten money to amplify the pathogenicity of a part of Coronavirus. He made it more toxic. Not surprisingly, the places where he was researching and the places where he was collaborating are where the Coronavirus outbreak allegedly started with the SARS outbreak in 2002 going into 2003. I have always said, I find it interesting that the official story we’re supposed to believe is that somehow or another, this mysteriously came out of the blue and it happened to come out of the blue where biological weapons labs were also happening.
It’s amazing how nature backed into the, “There’s a weapons lab. Why don’t we go ahead and have an outbreak there?” The fact of the matter is we, as humans, manipulated Coronavirus and then we had SARS. Here’s the funny thing. After 2003, the problem was Coronavirus resolved itself. It went through the population, had an effect and it resolved itself. Rather than celebrating, “We survived this thing,” some people got sick, some people died, that’s a tragedy but it was not the pandemic everybody thought it was going to be.
We survived it without a vaccine.
No vaccine, no intervention at all and they seriously publicly lamented the fact that it wasn’t virulent enough. Starting in 2005, there was an active program with the DARPA and with NIAID to begin work on figuring out ways to amplify the pathogenicity of this biological substance. They specifically focused on two pieces. One was the S1 spike protein and one was the ACE2 receptor. The ACE2 receptor is important because it’s the thing that makes lung tissue sensitive to this. That was the mysterious piece because it didn’t used to be a lung problem. It used to be a vascular problem but they amplified the ACE2 receptor component and they amplified the S1 spike protein, which is a very toxic component.
Those two amplifications started being amplified and funded through NIAID in 2005. In 2012 going into 2013, when we had the MERS outbreak in the Middle East, the National Science Foundation, National Academy of Science, NIAID and others started going, “Maybe we’re doing something we shouldn’t be doing.” There was a question of the ethics and the morals of doing this Gain-of-Function research leading to the 2013, 2014 decision to stop Gain-of-Function research is what the public was told. What the public wasn’t told was the people who were involved in the BSL-4 defense labs were allowed to keep amplifying this viral pathogen.
Let me interrupt you to ask a question. What was the justification they were giving for amplifying this virus?
The cover story is this. Biological weapons could be developed by some rogue nation or by some bad actors. If that happened, we should be prepared to develop vaccines. That’s what we were told. As early as March of 2005, I wrote in a public briefing to law enforcement intelligence agencies that this was not a just in case problem. It was, in fact, a program that included the dispersion of explosive biological material, such that you could put toxins into rocket-propelled grenades. I don’t know about you, but when I hear that, it doesn’t sound like a public health program to me. I published this book in March of 2005.
It doesn’t sound defensive. It sounds offensive.
When people tell me, “It’s all in the interest of public health. It was all about making sure we were safe from potentially rogue actor states.” I’m sitting there going, “That smells like BS,” because it is. We have the evidence that in fact these programs were dual-use programs. These were programs that in fact did have a public health vaccine development treatment program. That’s true but they also had an offensive military application as well. We’re tracking all this stuff and we’ve been tracking it since 1999. Lo and behold, we started looking at the fact that coming into the spring of 2019.
This is nine months before they’re supposed to be a thing, we start seeing a lot of documents start showing up with the language about an accidental or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen. If that came out in one document and we go, “Somebody was concerned about that,” when it starts showing up in a bunch of documents, it shows up in March 2019, it shows up again in May 2019, it shows up again in September 2019 in the World Health Organization Global Preparedness Monitoring Board Program, you start going, “Hold on a minute, we’re being told something’s happening.”
It’s like they were hinting somehow.
Except they are not very much hinting. They are going, “You keep saying an accidental or intentional release of respiratory pathogen.” We were not surprised when we expected to see something happen in Wuhan or in Italy or in North Carolina or in any of the places where we know the BSL labs were manipulating the Coronavirus. For me, the whole idea that this was somehow an accidental thing fails on its face because you can’t get an accident with premeditated planning and then have nature come along and go, “By the way, humans are talking about doing something. Why don’t I fly a bat over a wet food market in Wuhan and somehow make this mysteriously happen?” The amount of improbabilities to land an accident of nature in a place where you also have a biological weapons lab is zero.
What are the implications of something being done deliberately?
This is an act of war is what it is. It’s war in the new way we’re doing war because the new way we’re doing more is with financial, biologic, health and living standards and everything else. War in the old lineup the muskets and shoot people, it’s not how we’re doing war anymore. We’re doing war by depriving people of their liberty, of their livelihoods, of their access to medicine, the access to health, to life and to whatever they’re doing. That’s the new war.
Who is coming to war against us?
This is a massive transition between what used to be what I refer to as the Westphalian Nation-State Model, where it used to be you took the map and you drew lines on the map and you said, “That’s France. That’s Britain.” That era has come to an end quite a long time ago, probably around the time that Nixon took us off the gold standard. What’s happened is slowly corporations and corporate interests and financial interests have moved in as the thing that makes the difference. This is a war against the Westphalian Nation-State Model. It’s a coup of that model where corporations and financial interests have said, “We’re the ones that call the shots.”
Now we know that there are hosts of individuals who manipulate elections, who buy politicians and who buy everybody. We know that those organizations don’t officially have nation-states standing. When you know that a person like Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos or Anthony Fauci, never elected, never appointed, never anything that has a legal democratic process around it. When you have those people who show up on every head of state stage, whispering in the ear of every head of state and saying, “This is how you’re going to act,” that’s not they’re advising and giving their best input. They’re running the show.
What we’re experiencing right now is the most insidious form of what is effectively a civil war where the democratic nation-states are being erased by corporate interests and financial interests who have decided they are going to be taking the position that they’ve already paid for. They bought Congress and legislatures. They bought Governor’s offices all over the country. They’ve bought heads of state around the world and now they’re moving in and taking what they bought.
It’s not the sickness that’s the element of war as much as also the collapse of the economy and fear that is running rampant. I see these as tools as well.
This is more a financial crisis than a health crisis. Now we could both agree that our definition of health has been corrupted a long time ago. Health as a construct probably was hijacked somewhere around the 1770s when we started manipulating and this is Thomas Jefferson and others started manipulating pathogens to try to figure out how to control the epidemic-type and plague-type experiences. Whether it’s the poxes that came over from Europe, whether it’s the animal to human transfers that were a concern at the end of the 18th century, what happened was we decided that somehow or another chemistry was the basis of health. We stopped looking at the vitality like we’re standing out in the cold.
Our bodies have adapted for the cold. What has happened? Our blood supply is out of our faces. It’s going into our core because that’s how bodies were designed to deal with cold. That’s not a bad thing. That’s health. In fact, we would be unhealthy if that didn’t happen but that’s not a chemistry thing. That’s neurologic. That’s physiologic. That’s all kinds of systems engaged. The problem is you can’t meter those systems. You can’t dose those systems, which means you can’t monetize them. What happened was we started saying health was about things you could monetize because if I can dose you something, then I can charge you something. If your body is working, my body’s working, then nobody can make any money off it.
I’ve thought of that before. The hospitals only make money if they’re full of sick people.
By the way, all the nonsense about wellness and all this stuff that you hear about, that is a cover story. It’s a fraction of a fraction of a percent of what’s spent in what we call healthcare. Healthcare is about end-of-life extension. It’s not about living, it’s not about health. It’s about disease management. It’s not about living in health. I am 53 years old, almost 54 in 2021. I have the vitality that I had when I was in my twenties. Why? It’s because I care about my health and my vitality. How often do I go to a doctor? With the exception of trauma surgeries that I’ve had a couple of times where I’m very grateful that there were doctors, I just don’t go. Why? It’s because I’m not consuming a dependency on chemistry or consuming a dependency on a metered version of what health is.
I’m actually living health, which means I’m walking and I’m cycling and I’m doing yoga. I’m doing exercise. I’m eating well. I’m doing all the things I’m doing because that’s health. The problem is you can’t meter people like me. You can’t put a tax on me because I’m not getting a syringe every day for my diabetes. I’m not taking a pill every day for my other chronic disease and because of that, I’m not controllable. What we’re doing now in the guise of health is we’re saying, “If you don’t have something that needs metering, you’re not healthy and you’re going to have to get something that needs metering.”
This helps me understand the asymptomatic carrier BS, if you will. I’m like, “How can someone who has no symptoms be sick?” It’s like a mental game they’re playing on us.
If you think of women who get pap smears and they get an abnormal cell. For a long time, you just had a hyperplastic cell or you might have atypical cell, but now what do you call it? It’s precancerous. It’s not cancer. It’s not pre-something. It’s not the thing. What’s to happen, just like an asymptomatic carrier. What’s an asymptomatic carrier? What a crazy notion. I don’t not have a thing. I don’t not have cancer. I don’t not have a thing and I’m an asymptomatic, soon-to-be something patient. I’m a healthy person. My immune system is working and my body was working.
This whole idea of asymptomatic pathogen vector that is now what each one of us is supposedly is so nonsensical but it’s there so that we have to now be a consumer of face masks, social distancing, hand sanitizer or whatever else. Even if we’re perfectly healthy, we still have to buy something, which is the metered definition of health. That’s the big breakthrough and we need to call it what it is. This is the manipulation of health for metering commerce around an illusion built on chemistry.
Now that we’re aware of it or at least starting to become aware of it, the fact that we’re in a war right now, how do we fight against it, David?
What I’m doing here in DC, what we’re doing all over the world right now is we’re exposing all of the evidence that’s required for people to take legal action from both criminal and civil statutes. The majority of even legal experts fail to understand the complexity of these laws simply because the average person has no experience with anti-trust, terrorism, terrorism finance and with all of the kinds of laws that are germane to what’s going on here. A huge amount of our efforts right now is to educate people on what the law is to help them support their cases that they are filing. Gradually, what we’re doing is we’re getting the legal side of this conversation along the lines of where it needs to go. The other thing is we have to ask people to start talking about health the right way.
We’re not doing that. We’re still in this politically correct era where it’s unfashionable to be well. We supposedly are supposed to be, “We can’t say obese anymore. We can’t say a lifestyle disorder because that’s being insensitive.” That’s nonsense. We need to model what health is. We need to live what health is. We need to experience what health is and we then have to go forward with a lived experience of what good health and vitality is all about. There’s an individual role each one of us plays and there’s the community role that we’re trying to lead right now which is to say, people who’ve violated the laws need to be held accountable for what they’ve done to hijack your and my experience of living.
In The Weston Price Foundation, we are always talking about health and how to take our health back into our own hands. As you’re saying, living empowered, healthy lives that are vibrant, not just disease-free but living optimally. Speak to us a little bit about this legal bit because our folks don’t know what the legal implications are of what’s happening right now.
There’s a bunch of things. First of all, the Center for Disease Control in 2003 violated the law. They patented the Coronavirus isolated from humans. A lot of people have had issues with me saying that but here’s the problem. The problem is under Section 101 of US Code 35, you are not allowed to patent nature. That’s a statement. That’s a fact. You can’t alter that fact. One of two things occurred, either SARS Coronavirus was made in a lab, in which case it violated biological and chemical weapons laws, or it was natural and CDC should never have filed a patent on it. The actual sequence ID in which the patent includes not only the whole genome but also all nucleic acid sequences associated with SARS.
This is a thing where one of two things happened and both of them are illegal. You either patented the genome, and if you did that, that’s a violation of law or you made it, in which case you’ve also violated laws. Neither way is acceptable. Why would the CDC want a patent on the genome of the virus? It turns out that if you control the genome, you control the ability to test for it. You control the ability to trade it. You control the ability to develop vaccines for it. All of which they, in collusion with NIAID, controlled for eighteen years. For eighteen years, they have manipulated and controlled 100% of this entire campaign, which means that we get to 2020, we’re told how we are going to measure Coronavirus. It turns out, the only thing we could do is use CDC’s patented RT-PCR technology because they controlled the technology and they could never get it approved without Emergency Use Authorization.
When Alexander Azar in January of 2020 declared a national emergency, what happened in the first week of February is that all of a sudden the FDA comes along and says, “What never was legal to use RT-PCR as a diagnostic, because of the emergency, it now has become legal.” This is the most egregious violation of the law you could hope for. The fact of the matter is that’s what happened. If we wanted to end this epidemic, by the way right now, lift the state of emergency because the minute you lift the state of emergency, you can’t use the RT-PCR test. You can’t use the vaccine. You can’t use any of these things because they’re only legally used if the state of emergency is in place. If anybody wanted to change this right now, like literally now, lift the state of emergency and now it’s illegal to use RT-PCR. It’s illegal to use what is being called vaccines that aren’t vaccines that are genetically-modified toxins that are going into your cells. It’s illegal to do it. It’s solvable and no one is solving it.
I feel like the medical professionals and government officials have been persuaded that this is a legitimate virus. They may be doing the lockdown and all of these restrictions in the state of emergency because they think they’re protecting the public that way.
I don’t believe any of that. I can accept maybe a few people here and there might accidentally be doing the wrong thing because they’re trying to do the best thing. I think this is a criminal collusion and I’ve got all the evidence that says that it is. Let’s start with the Federal Trade Commission. The Federal Trade Commission makes it illegal to say that you can treat or diagnose a disease with the medical technologies unproven. Face masks have never been proven to stop a single viral transmission ever. That has never happened. Every governor is telling you that your face mask is somehow going to stop a viral transmission. It turns out that’s empirically false and it violates the Federal Trade Commission Act, which says you’re not allowed to say something has a treatment that does not in fact have medical, empirical proof that says it’s a treatment.
I feel like I’m living in an upside-down world right now.
You are and we are. The cool thing is we’re going to turn it on the right side.
You said you have all this evidence. I have to ask, are you pursuing any lawsuits to rectify things?
We are involved in several lawsuits and we’re working right now to build out a case, which is in fact, the Federal criminal case, which is going to be the Federal criminal case against Anthony Fauci, Robert Redfield, Alexander Azar, the Secretary of Health and Human Services. We’re building that case right now.
Who is that ‘we’ that you keep referring to?
Me and the team of lawyers that are doing it. I’m leading it.
We will look for that. Is there anything else, David, that you can tell the ordinary citizen right now who’s like, “How can I fight for my freedoms and my right to live healthily right now?”
Two things. One is stop talking about vaccines that aren’t vaccines. The thing that’s being sold by Pfizer and Moderna is not a vaccine. It’s a pathogen that is injected into your cell to elicit the creation of a toxin. That’s what it is. Vaccines are legally defined as a thing that interrupts the immune process in your system and prevents transmission. Neither one of those things is what’s happening. What they’re calling a vaccine isn’t and we need to stop calling it a vaccine. That’s number one. Number two, about your own life, what you need to be is you need to take the legal documents, including things that I’ve posted on Inverted Alchemy, which is a place where I posted a legal action.
Every single person in America can download and use that which says you cannot violate the Federal Trade Commission Act by saying that my mask works, my social distancing works, any of these things work because it violates the law. 21 Code of Federal Regulations, 18 US Code, 8 US Code, tons of US codes, 15 US codes, all being violated and all of those are itemized. If anybody wants to take action, take action. Go make the effort. Inverted Alchemy’s not hard to type into the browser. It’s all there. People can do stuff. They need to be doing it, not wait for somebody else.
I want to wrap up by asking the question I always ask my guests. If the reader could do one thing to improve their health, and you talked about meditation and the things that you do, what would you recommend they do?
There’s no question. Take your shoes off and put your feet back on the ground. Find a place where you can put your feet on the ground. Remember what it’s like to be human. Feel the Earth, feel your ecosystem. Once you do, let yourself breathe into that because the minute you do, you realize you’re a wonderful human being. You’re on a beautiful planet and you can make the best of it.
Thank you for your time. I appreciate it.
You’re most welcome. Thanks very much.
March 7, 2021 Posted by aletho | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19 | Leave a comment
An Unpleasant Reminder of the US Defeat
By Konstantin Asmolov – New Eastern Outlook – 07.03.2021
On February 25, 2021, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered North Korea to pay 2.3 billion USD in compensation for damages to the crew of the USS Pueblo, which was hijacked in 1968. The American side claims that a marine research vessel was seized that was in international waters at the time of the incident. One of the 83 crew members was killed, and the rest were released after 11 months while “incessantly subjected to mental and physical abuse during their captivity”.
This process became possible after the US Congress passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act in 2016, which allows lawsuits in these kinds of high-profile cases to be heard in federal courts. For the lawsuit to be accepted, the country must be on the appropriate list, and the DPRK wound up there after Pyongyang was accused of murdering Kim Jong-nam, and the story with Otto Warmbier occurred.
Back in 2018, 49 crew members that are currently alive, and the families of the rest, demanded compensation for damages related to how they were held hostage. According to the opinion delivered by the court, “this case arises from the kidnapping, imprisonment, and torture of United States servicemen aboard the USS Pueblo by agents of the government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”. “In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment on liability, the Court concluded that North Korea was liable to the plaintiffs under this provision and its incorporated theories of assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, solatium, and wrongful death”.
Each of the living crew members was awarded compensation in an amount ranging from 22 to 48 million dollars, and the family members of the crew member that was killed, and those that were deceased, received compensation in smaller amounts. In total, the court ruling obliges North Korea to pay out about 2.3 billion dollars: 1.15 billion dollars is the amount of compensation, and about that same amount represents a “fine”.
The South Korean media compared this decision to a 2019 verdict, when that same district court ordered North Korea to pay 500 million USD in damages to the parents of American student Otto Warmbier. It is worth reiterating that he died in 2017, six days after he returned home from being released from captivity in North Korea. In both cases there was allegedly unlawful imprisonment involved, effectively meaning hostage taking, torture, etc., although the author is once again forced reiterate that American doctors and coroners could not find any traces of torture or ill treatment on the student’s body.
Mark Bravin, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, told USNI News today that the damages awarded are among the largest ever awarded in a state-sponsored terrorism case.
Chief Cryptologic Technician Don Peppard, a surviving crew member and president of the USS Pueblo Veterans’ Association, said in a press release, “even though we didn’t expect anything, it is a relief to be recognized for what we went through. Maybe now it is finally settled, and we can move forward.”
The ruling, however, will remain symbolic, since Pyongyang does not respond to verdicts delivered by foreign courts. Therefore, compensation will be paid out, but in 2022, and from a special U.S. Victims of State-Sponsored Terrorism Fund created by the US Congress. The money for the fund comes from the fines and penalties imposed on individuals and corporations in these countries.
In this light, the American sailors look like unfortunate victims – almost like deceased students, only in uniform. But just like in the Warmbier case, there is the official version put forth by the United States, and then there is reality.
The USS Pueblo “was converted into an environmental research ship”, and in late 1967 set out on its maiden voyage to gather intelligence in Asian waters. As photographs show, it was chock full of the most cutting-edge intelligence-gathering equipment for that time, with both encryption and data collection devices.
The story of the capture of the USS Pueblo on January 23, 1968, and the subsequent crisis, is described well in the article by V.P. Tkachenko (Lessons from the Korean Crisis of 1968. // Problems of the Far East – 2008. – No 1. – pp. 82-102.), And, if you believe the North Korean version, the USS Pueblo invaded the territorial waters of the DPRK 17 times, and that one time it plunged deeper that 7.5 miles in them. The vessel tried to escape into neutral waters and shoot back, but North Korean patrol boats caught up and surrounded it. The battle could have lasted for a very long time (later on, dozens of small arms, anti-aircraft machine guns, tens of thousands of cartridges and grenades, etc. were seized on the vessel), but one of the first hits by a North Korean heavy machine gun struck the ammunition depot, and killed one of the crew members. A chain of explosions began. The Americans decided that the ship was seriously damaged, and Captain Lloyd Bucher decided to surrender.
On January 26, 1968, at a press conference in Pyongyang, the captain of the USS Pueblo admitted that the ship’s crew was engaged in espionage in North Korean waters, although American propaganda asserts that the ship’s captain made the confession under torture – and threats to execute the entire crew in front of him. However, the outcome of an investigation revealed that the ship belonged to the US Pacific Fleet, and its crew was doing work according to plans from the Central Intelligence Agency, conducting reconnaissance on the military facilities and coastal waters along the Soviet Union’s Far East, the coastline of North Korea, and China. As can be seen from published maps, extracts from the ship’s log, and secret documents that they did not manage to destroy after the vessel was detained, the USS Pueblo repeatedly violated the territorial waters around not only the DPRK, but also the USSR.
The incident resulted in one dead and nine injured American crew members and, in response to such a “direct attack on the United States”, on January 24, 1968, the American representative to the Military Armistice Commission in Korea demanded the immediate return of the ship and its crew, as well as an apology for interning them in neutral waters. In response, the North Korean side demanded an apology from the United States, and it turned out that none of the conflicting parties considered their actions to be unlawful. The Americans insisted that the seizure of the ship took place outside the accepted 12-mile border demarcating territorial waters, and therefore it was an arbitrary act. The North Korean side justified its actions by the fact that this case had nothing to do with the issue of the width taken up by territorial waters, since the vessel entered the country’s bay, which is considered domestic waters according to international law. In addition, it cited its own government decree dated March 5, 1955, in which (along with establishing the width of its territorial waters) a significant part of the East Korea Bay, where the USS Pueblo was detained, was declared to be DPRK domestic waters. On top of that, at the time the vessel was seized the North did not think to accurately fix the point where the process ended for detaining a vessel that was heading out to open sea – leaving the issue open-ended – unlike the fact established that the ship was captured on its way out of the North’s territorial waters, and the fact that an incursion had taken place.
On January 25, 1968, President L. Johnson announced the urgent mobilization of a total of 14,600 personnel in the US air force and naval reserves. American and South Korean troops were put on extreme alert. Responding to this, the DPRK declared that they were ready for war, and the situation began to rapidly escalate.
On January 30, 1968, the DPRK officially petitioned Moscow with a proposal to immediately provide the DPRK with military and other assistance, using all the means at the disposal of the USSR, if Korea were to go to war. And although Soviet diplomats found the opportunity to explain that the USSR would not automatically be included in the conflict, tensions remained high throughout the crisis.
Actually, because of this, the seizure of the Pueblo is sometimes interpreted as a cunning plan on the part of North Korea to enter into direct negotiations with the Americans, bringing them up to the government level – and this would have meant de facto recognition of the DPRK. According to proponents of this version, the threat to destroy prisoners in the event of an armed invasion was supposed to further push the United States to negotiations. However, there is no direct evidence that such a plan existed.
And the fate of the ship and its crew was decided during negotiations within the framework of the Military Armistice Commission in Korea. On February 15, 1968, the Americans promised to think about making an apology if the returning sailors corroborated the fact that the ship had been detained in the North’s territorial waters, and a day later the United States would order its ships to adhere to a 12-mile zone off the coast of the DPRK. In response, on February 20 the Korean side announced its intention to put the American sailors on trial, but did not do this, taking into account their active repentance.
On May 8, 1968, a DPRK representative proposed his own version of the final document, which read: “The government of the United States of America, confirming the validity of the confessions made by the crew of the American vessel USS Pueblo, and of the documentary evidence presented by a representative of the government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea regarding the fact that the ship, which was hijacked in self-defense measures taken by the warships of the Korean People’s Army in territorial waters of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on January 23, 1968, repeatedly invaded the territorial waters of the DPRK, and was engaged in reconnaissance work on important DPRK military and state secrets, takes full responsibility for this, and formally apologizes for the fact that the American ship invaded the territorial waters of the DPRK, and committed significant intelligence-gathering activities against the DPRK, and gives an unwavering guarantee that American ships will no longer invade the territorial waters of the DPRK. However, the US government, taking into account the fact that the members of the former crew for the American ship USS Pueblo, detained by the DPRK side, openly confessed to their crimes, and made appeals to the DPRK government, urges the DPRK government to show leniency towards the crew members”.
An American representative had to sign the specified document on behalf of the US government, which was done on December 23, 1968, exactly eleven months after the crew was interred. After this formality, the American general gave a spoken statement that the United States did not recognize this document, but the 82 crew members, and the body of the one killed sailor, were returned home. North Korea added that there was information in the American media that either the entire crew, or all the officers, had been executed. After that, on the one hand, the crew itself decided that they were being sold out, and on the other hand the North Koreans published an open letter on behalf of the crew, and began to threaten a public trial at which evidence of their espionage activities would be presented to the whole world. As a result, the incident with the USS Pueblo is positioned as the only case when the United States not only admitted to spying, but also officially apologized.
They do not report how after the ship was released Captain Bucher went on trial – he and some of the officers were accused of a) surrendering the most valuable ship with little or no resistance, and b) giving up information that forced Washington to apologize after it was divulged. It was also asserted that one of the prosecution’s arguments was the absence of any obvious signs of torture.
The ship itself was docked for a long time in the port of Wŏnsan, and attracted tourists, and in 2002 North Korea was even going to give it to the US government as a gesture of goodwill, but right then the second round of the nuclear crisis happened. After that, the ship was transported to Pyongyang and made into the main exhibit at the North Korean Museum of Victory in the “Patriotic War”. There is a legend that, since it was impossible to ship it by railway transport, it was sent in a roundabout way by water, disguised as a fishing trawler, and the person who organized this received the title of Hero of the Republic. Some also say that the Americans wanted to intercept this ship, but could not.
So the verdict delivered by the American court is actually not a triumph of justice, but a very unpleasant memory – at least for anyone who bothers to study the issue in a little more depth.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, is a leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of the Far East at the Russian Academy of Sciences.
March 7, 2021 Posted by aletho | Deception, Illegal Occupation, Timeless or most popular | Korea, United States | Leave a comment
When Ben Bradlee and James Angleton Obstructed Justice
By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | March 5, 2021
On October 12, 1964, a woman named Mary Pinchot Meyer was brutally shot and killed while walking along the C&O Canal Trail near the Georgetown area of Washington, D.C. The police charged a black man named Ray Crump, Jr., with the crime. Since the murder took place in the nation’s capital, the trial was in a federal district court.
Meyer had been married for 13 years to a high CIA official named Cord Meyer. In 1958, they divorced.
Crump vehemently professed his innocence of the crime. Convinced of his innocence, a renowned Washington, D.C., criminal-defense attorney named Dovey Roundtree agreed to represent him for free.
At Crump’s trial, the federal prosecutor summoned a man named Ben Bradlee to the witness stand as the prosecution’s first witness. At the time, Bradlee was serving as the Washington bureau chief for Newsweek. He would later go on to become executive editor of the Washington Post. Bradlee’s wife was Mary Meyer’s sister.
After Bradlee took the witness stand, the prosecutor, Alfred Hantman, asked him the following question: “Now besides the usual articles of Mrs. Meyer’s avocation, did you find there any other articles of her personal property?” Bradlee replied, “There was a pocketbook there,” adding that it contained “keys, a wallet, cosmetics, and pencils.”
It was lie, or, more precisely, it was what is called a “half-truth,” which is actually worse than a lie because it uses the truth as a way to deceive. What Bradlee failed to reveal in response to the prosecutor’s question was a secret that he was determined to protect: that he had also found the personal diary of Mary Meyer.
Unbeknownst to the prosecutor or to Crump’s defense attorney was that on the night of the murder, Bradlee had gone to Meyer’s home to retrieve her diary. When he arrived there, he encountered a man named James Jesus Angleton burglarizing the home in his own attempt to retrieve Meyer’s diary.
Angleton was head of counter-intelligence for the CIA. His wife and Meyer had been good friends. Bradlee found the diary and turned it over to Angleton, who then proceeded to destroy it.
Both Bradlee and Angleton had to have known that they were obstructing justice and destroying evidence in a criminal case. They both had a legal and a moral duty to immediately turn that diary over to the police. After all, the diary could very well have contained clues as to who the real murderer was.
Suppose, for example, that Meyer had seen someone following her and had put that information and the description of the stalker into her diary. That would have been important information that the police could have followed up on.
As it turned out, Meyer had been having a secret affair with President John F. Kennedy in the months prior to his assassination. By all accounts it was an extremely intimate affair, one in which Kennedy appears to have actually fallen in love with Meyer, who had been a longtime peace activist. Given that Kennedy had thrown down the gauntlet before the U.S. national-security establishment with his famous Peace Speech at American University in June 1963 in which he declared an end to the Cold War, it is entirely possible, even likely, that Kennedy was talking to Meyer about the vicious war in which he was engaged with the U.S. national-security establishment. Meyer might well have included Kennedy’s sentiments in her diary.
In fact, Meyer alluded to this possibility in a telephone call after the Kennedy assassination to LSD guru Timothy Leary, with whom she was friends, in which she sobbingly and fearfully stated, “They couldn’t control him any more. He was changing too fast… They’ve covered everything up.”
As Peter Janney detailed in Mary’s Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace, an excellent book that I highly recommend, Mary’s murder had all the characteristics of a highly professional hit job along with a very sophisticated frame-up of an innocent man.
By the time the secrets surrounding the discovery and the destruction of Meyer’s diary were disclosed, the statute of limitations had presumably run on such crimes as obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, perjury, and conspiracies to commit these crimes.
Prosecutor Hantman later stated that he had been “totally unaware of who Mary Meyer was or what her connections were,” and that having that knowledge “could have changed everything.”
D.C. Police Detective Bernie Crooke later stated, “I’d have been very upset at the time if I’d known that the deceased’s diary had been destroyed.”
Wikipedia states, “In her 2009 autobiography, Justice Older than the Law (reissued in 2019 as Mighty Justice), defense counsel Dovey Roundtree expressed shock at learning of the diary’s significance from Bradlee’s book. ‘How differently my line of cross-examination would have run had I been aware, on July 20, 1965, of the story Mr. Bradlee told thirty years later in his autobiography… James Angleton’s awareness of the diary’s existence and his interest in finding it, reading it, and destroying it – all of that unsettled me deeply when I read Mr. Bradlee’s 1995 account, as did his insistence that the diary was a private document… Had I been aware of it, I would have felt compelled to pursue it.’”
On July 29, 1965, the jury found Ray Crump, Jr., not guilty.
In a deathbed interview in February 2001, Cord Meyer was asked who he believed had murdered his ex-wife. Recanting an earlier statement that he had made in a 1980 book he had written that pointed to a “sexually motivated assault by a single individual,” Meyer responded, “The same sons of bitches that killed John F. Kennedy.”
March 6, 2021 Posted by aletho | Book Review, Deception, Timeless or most popular | United States | Leave a comment
Bioethics and the New Eugenics
Corbett • 03/06/2021
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
At first glance, bioethics might seem like just another branch of ethical philosophy where academics endlessly debate other academics about how many angels dance on the head of a pin in far-out, science fiction like scenarios. What many do not know, however, is that the seemingly benign academic study of bioethics has its roots in the dark history of eugenics. With that knowledge, the dangers inherent in entrusting some of the most important discussions about the life, death and health of humanity in the hands of a select few become even more apparent.
Watch on Archive / BitChute / LBRY / Minds / YouTube or Download the mp4
For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.
For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).
TRANSCRIPT
Bioethics is the study of the moral issues arising from medicine, biology and the life sciences.
At first glance, bioethics might seem like just another branch of ethical philosophy where academics endlessly debate other academics about how many angels dance on the head of a pin in far-out, science fiction like scenarios.
PAUL ROOT WOLPE: Imagine what’s going to happen when we have a memory pill. First of all, you don’t have to raise your hand but let’s be honest: who here’s going to take it?
MICHAEL SANDEL: I’ve read of a sport—it’s a variant of polo that is I think played in Afghanistan if I’m not mistaken—where the people ride on horses. Is it horses or camels? I don’t know which. And they use a—it’s a dead goat or something—to, I don’t know, whack the polo ball or whatever it is. Now it’s a dead—I think it’s a goat. Maybe someone knows who studies sociology about this. So it’s not that the goat is experiencing pain. It’s dead already. And yet there is something grim about that practice, wouldn’t you agree? And yet it’s not that the interests of that goat are somehow not being considered. Let’s assume it was killed painlessly before the match began.
SOURCE: The Ethical Use of Biotechnology: Debating the Science of Perfecting Humans
MOLLY CROCKETT: What if I told you that a pill could change your judgement of what is right and what is wrong. Or what if I told you that your sense of justice could depend on what you had for breakfast this morning. You’re probably thinking by now this sounds like science fiction, right?
But the bioethicists cannot be dismissed so lightly. Their ideas are being used by governments to assert control over people’s bodies and to enforce that control in increasingly nightmarish ways.
ARCHELLE GEORGIOU: Lithium is a medication that in prescription doses treats mood disorders in people with bipolar disorder or manic-depressive illness. And what these researchers found in Japan is that lithium is present in trace amounts in the normal water supply in some communities and in those communities they have a lower suicide rate. And so they’re really investigating whether trace amounts of lithium can just change the mood in a community enough to really in a positive way without having the bad effects of lithium to really affect the mood and decrease the suicide rate very interesting concept.
GATES: You’re raising tuitions at the University of California as rapidly as they [sic] can and so the access that used to be available to the middle class or whatever is just rapidly going away. That’s a trade-off society’s making because of very, very high medical costs and a lack of willingness to say, you know, “Is spending a million dollars on that last three months of life for that patient—would it be better not to lay off those 10 teachers and to make that trade off in medical cost?” But that’s called the “death panel” and you’re not supposed to have that discussion.
SOURCE: Bill Gates: End-of-Life Care vs. Saving Teachers’ Jobs
Even a short time ago, talk about medicating the public through the water supply or enacting death panels for the elderly still seemed outlandish. But now that the world is being plunged into hysteria over the threat of pandemics and overburdened health care systems, these previously unspeakable topics are increasingly becoming part of the public debate.
What many do not know, however, is that the seemingly benign academic study of bioethics has its roots in the dark history of eugenics. With that knowledge, the dangers inherent in entrusting some of the most important discussions about the life, death and health of humanity in the hands of a select few become even more apparent.
This is a study of Bioethics and the New Eugenics.
You are tuned in to The Corbett Report.
On November 10, 2020, Joe Biden announced the members of a coronavirus task force that would advise his transition team on setting COVID-19-related policies for the Biden administration. That task force included Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a bioethicist and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
JOE BIDEN: So that’s why today I’ve named the COVID-19 Transition Advisory Board comprised of distinguished public health experts to help our transition team translate the Biden-Harris COVID-19 plan into action. A blueprint that we can put in place as soon as Kamala and I are sworn into office on January 20th, 2021.
SOURCE: President-elect Biden Delivers Remarks on Coronavirus Pandemic
ANCHOR: We’ve learned that a doctor from our area is on the president-elect’s task force. Eyewitness News reporter Howard Monroe picks up the story.
THOMAS FARLEY: I know he’s a very bright, capable guy and i think that’s a great choice to represent doctors in general in addressing this epidemic.
HOWARD MONROE: Philadelphia health commissioner Dr. Thomas Farley this morning on Eyewitness News. He praised president-elect Joe Biden’s transition team for picking Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel to join his coronavirus task force. He is the chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania.
SOURCE: UPenn Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel To Serve On President-Elect Biden’s Coronavirus Task Force
That announcement meant very little to the general public, who likely only know Emanuel as a talking head on tv panel discussions or as the brother of former Obama chief of staff and ex-mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel. But for those who have followed Ezekiel Emanuel’s career as a bioethicist and his history of advocating controversial reforms of the American health care system, his appointment was an ominous sign of things to come.
He has argued that the Hippocratic Oath is obsolete and that it leads to doctors believing that they should do everything they can for their patients rather than letting them die to focus on higher priorities. He has argued that people should choose to die at age 75 to spare society the burden of looking after them in old age. As a health policy advisor to the Obama administration he helped craft the Affordable Care Act, which fellow Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber admitted was only passed thanks to the stupidity of the American public.
JONATHAN GRUBER: OK? Just like the people—transparency—lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really critical to getting the thing to pass.
SOURCE: 3 Jonathan Gruber Videos: Americans “Too Stupid to Understand” Obamacare
During the course of the deliberations over Obamacare, the issue of “death panels” arose. Although the term “death panel” was immediately lampooned by government apologists in the media, the essence of the argument was one that Emanuel has long advocated: appointing a body or council to ration health care, effectively condemning those deemed unworthy of medical attention to death.
ROB MASS: When I first heard about you it was in the context of an article you wrote right around the time that the Affordable Care Act was under consideration. And the article was entitled “Principles for the Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions.” I don’t know how many of you remember there was a lot of talk at the time about [how] this new Obamacare was going to create death panels. And he wrote an article which I thought should have been required reading for the entire country about how rationing medical care—you think that that’s going to start with with the Affordable Care Act? Medical care is rationed all the time and it must be rationed. Explain that.
EZEKIEL EMANUEL: So there are two kinds of “rationing,” you might say. One is absolute scarcity leading to rationing and that’s when we don’t simply don’t have enough of something and you have to choose between people. We do that with organs for transplantation. We don’t have enough. Some people will get it, other people won’t and, tragically, people will die. Similarly if we ever have a flu pandemic—not if but when we have a flu pandemic—we’re not going to have enough vaccine, we’re not going to have enough respirators, we’re not going to have enough hospital beds. We’re just going to have to choose between people.
When the debate is framed as an impersonal imposition of economic restraint over the deployment of scarce resources, it is easy to forget the real nature of the idea that Emanuel is advocating. Excluded from these softball interviews is the implicit question of who gets to decide who is worthy of medical attention. Emanuel’s various proposals over the years, and those of his fellow bioethicists, have usually supposed that some government-appointed but somehow “independent” board of bioethicists, economists and other technocrats, should be entrusted with these life-and-death decisions.
If this idea seems familiar, it’s because it has a long and dark history that harkens back to the eugenicists who argued that only the “fittest” should be allowed to breed, and anyone deemed “unfit” by the government-appointed boards—presided over by the eugenicists—should be sterilized, or, in extreme cases, put to death.
GEORGE BERNARD SHAW: [. . .] But there are an extraordinary number of people whom I want to kill. Not in any unkind or personal spirit, but it must be evident to all of you — you must all know half a dozen people, at least—who are no use in this world. Who are more trouble than they are worth. And I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board, just as he might come before the income tax commissioner, and, say, every five years, or every seven years, just put him there, and say: “Sir, or madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence?”
SOURCE: George Bernard Shaw talking about capital punishment
This is the exact same talk of “Life Unworthy of Life” that was employed in Nazi Germany as justification for their Aktion T4 program, which resulted in over 70,000 children, senior citizens and psychiatric patients being murdered by the Nazi regime.
In 2009, author and researcher Anton Chaitkin confronted Ezekiel Emanuel about this genocidal idea.
MODERATOR: So we’ll do the same format. It’ll be three minutes and then time for questions. We’ll start with Mr. Chaitkin.
ANTON CHAITKIN: [My name is] Anton Chaitkin. I’m a historian and the history editor for Executive Intelligence Review.
President Obama has put in place a reform apparatus reviving the euthanasia of Hitler Germany in 1939 that began the genocide there. The apparatus here is to deny medical care to elderly, chronically ill and poor people and thus save, as the president says, two to three trillion dollars by taking lives considered “not worthy to be lived” as the Nazi doctors said.
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and other avowed cost-cutters on this panel also lead a propaganda movement for euthanasia headquartered at the Hastings Center, of which Dr. Emanuel is a fellow. They shape public opinion and the medical profession to accept a death culture, such as the Washington state law passed in November to let physicians help kill patients whose medical care is now rapidly being withdrawn in the universal health disaster. Dr. Emmanuel’s movement for bioethics and euthanasia and this council’s purpose directly continue the eugenics movement that organized Hitler’s killing of patients and then other costly and supposedly “unworthy” people.
Dr. Emanuel wrote last October 12 that a crisis, war and financial collapse would get the frightened public to accept the program. Hitler told Dr. Brandt in 1935 that the euthanasia program would have to wait until the war began to get the public to go along. Dr. Emanuel wrote last year that the hippocratic oath should be junked; doctors should no longer just serve the needs of the patient. Hoche and Binding, the German eugenicists, exactly said the same thing to start the killing.
You on the council are drawing up the procedures to be used to deny care which will kill millions if it goes ahead in the present world crash. You think perhaps the backing of powerful men, financiers, will shield you from accountability, but you are now in the spotlight.
Disband this council and reverse the whole course of this nazi revival now.
SOURCE: Obama’s Genocidal Death Panel Warned by Tony Chaitkin
It should come as no surprise, then, that Emanuel emerged last year as the lead author of a New England Journal of Medicine article advocating for rationing COVID-19 care that was later adopted by the Canadian Medical Association. The paper, “Fair Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in the Time of Covid-19,” was written by Emanuel and a team of prominent bioethicists and discusses “the need to ration medical equipment and interventions” during a pandemic emergency.
Their recommendations include removing treatment from patients who are elderly and/or less likely to survive, as these people divert scarce medical resources from younger patients or from those with more promising prognoses. Although the authors refrain from using the term, the necessity of setting up a “death panel” to determine who should or should not receive treatment is implicit in the proposal itself.
In normal times, this would have been just another scholarly discussion of a theoretical situation. But these are not normal times. As Canadian researcher and medical writer Rosemary Frei documented at the time, the declared COVID crisis meant the paper quickly went from abstract proposal to concrete reality.
JAMES CORBETT: Let’s get back to that question about hospital care rationing, which is such an important part of this story. And it’s one of those things that when you read it at a surface level at first glance sounds reasonable enough, but the more that you look into it I think it becomes more horrifying.
And you quote, for example, specifically a March 23rd paper, “Fair Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in the Time of Covid-19,” which was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, which calls for “maximizing the number of patients that survived treatment with a reasonable life expectancy.” Which, again, I would say sounds reasonable at first glance. Yes, of course we want to maximize the number of patients that survive. What’s wrong with that?
So what can you tell us about this paper and the precedent that it’s setting here.
ROSEMARY FREI: Well it’s all of a sudden changing the rules in terms of saying, “Well, the most important thing is that it’s the older people get a lower place in terms of triaging.”
And I point out in my article, also, that Canadians have a lot of experience with SARS because we had that—there were a significant number of deaths in Ontario because of it. And there were people from Toronto who had direct experience with SARS—which of course is (ostensibly, at least) a cousin with the novel coronavirus—who wrote triaging guidelines, or at least an ethical framework for how to triage during a pandemic—this was in 2006—they didn’t mention age at all. And here we are 14 years later, every single set of guidelines, including this really important New England Journal of Medicine paper say, “Well, age is an important criterion.” And this is what’s interesting.
So this paper is really important because—and also the Journal of the American Medical Association, which is the official organ, I would say, of the American Medical Association says the same thing: it’s age. So they’re all stepping in line and then the Canadian Medical Association said, “Oh, we don’t have time to put our own guidelines together so we’ll just use this one from the New England Journal of Medicine.” To me, that’s astonishing.
When I was a medical writer and journalist, I did some work helping various—one particular organization: the Canadian Thoracic Society, which does, you know, chest infections and stuff. I helped them put together guidelines. There’s a whole big set of organizations for every single specialty for creating guidelines. Yet, “Oh!
We don’t have time to put together this—” And also, I mean Canada had a lot of experience with SARS, so we had a lot of this background. Yet, “Oh, we can’t do so it!” So they gave totally—they, quote, they said we have to go with the recommendations from the New England Journal of Medicine.SOURCE: How the High Death Rate in Care Homes Was Created on Purpose
That bioethicists like Emanuel are writing papers that are changing the rules for rationing health care in the midst of a generated crisis should hardly be surprising for someone whose brother infamously remarked that you should never let a good crisis go to waste.
RAHM EMANUEL: You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that, it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.
But from a broader perspective, it is not at all surprising that the concept of “death panels” has been effectively smuggled in through the back door by the bioethicists.
In fact, when you start documenting the history of bioethics, you discover that this is exactly what this field of study is meant to do: Frame the debate about hot button issues so that eugenicist ideals and values can be mainstreamed in society and enacted in law. From abortion to euthanasia, there isn’t a debate in the medical field that wasn’t preceded by some bioethicist or bioethics institute preparing the public for a massive change in mores, values and laws.
That research into the history of bioethics leads one to the doorstep of the Hastings Center, a nonprofit research center that, according to its website, “was important in establishing the field of bioethics.” The founding director of the Hastings Center, Theodosius Dobzhansky, was a chairman of the American Eugenics Society from 1969 to 1975. Meanwhile, Hastings cofounder Daniel Callahan—who has admitted to relying on Rockefeller Population Council and UN Population Fund money in the early days of the center’s work—served as a director of the American Eugenics Society (rebranded as The Society for the Study of Social Biology) from 1987 to 1992.
As previous Corbett Report guest Anton Chaitkin has extensively documented, there is a line of historical continuity connecting the promotion of eugenics in America by the Rockefeller family in the early 20th century to the creation of the Hastings Center in the late 20th century. The Center, Chaitkin points out, was fostered by the Rockefeller-founded Population Council as a front for pushing the eugenics agenda—including abortion, euthanasia and the creation of death panels—under the guise of “bioethics.”
CHAITKIN: Eugenics practices that we saw and discussions and preparations for eugenics, which were going on in the United States in the early 1920s and earlier going back to the late 19th century—those discussions were carried over—and the same discussions and preparations in England—were carried over into Nazi Germany. After the war—after World War II—people who had participated in these movements wanted to keep the eugenics idea alive and with the backing of particularly the Rockefeller Foundation—which had backed Nazi eugenics before World War II in Europe—they set up a population control movement that overlapped with the Eugenics Society and with eugenics ideas. And out of that combination of eugenics and population control was born the institutes and programs which are today at the heart of what’s called “bioethics,” where you decide—so, supposedly decide—ethical questions in a medical practice based on supposedly limited resources.
So it’s a completely phony and morally disgusting field in general. It’s ill-born at the root of it and it’s a practice which has never confronted—in the medical community and in the academic community that has this as part of its, you know, its practice—they’ve never confronted the basis for the existence of this “bioethics.”
The history of bioethics connects the Rockefeller funding behind the first wave of American eugenics, the Rockefeller funding behind the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes and the Nazi-era German eugenics program, and the Rockefeller funding behind the Population Council, the Hastings Center and other centres for post-war “crypto-eugenics” research. As a result, it is perhaps not surprising to find that many of the most well-known and most controversial bioethicists working today are associated with the Hastings Center.
Take Ezekiel Emanuel himself. In addition to being a senior fellow at the John Podesta-founded Center for American Progress—which was accused in a 2013 expose from The Nation of maintaining “a revolving door” with the Obama administration and running a pay-for-play operation for various industry lobbyists—Emanuel is also a Hastings Center fellow. In fact, Emanuel’s career as a bioethicist was kickstarted by a November 1996 article in The Hastings Center Report, which—after praising Daniel Callahan’s attempts to inject a debate about the goals of medicine into the discussion of health care—highlighted a point on which both liberals and communitarians can agree: “services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed.” For “an obvious example” of this principle in action, Emanuel then cites “not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”
Just last year, The Hastings Center hosted an online discussion about “What Values Should Guide Us” when considering COVID-19 pandemic restrictions in the United States, during which Emanuel opined that big tech was not doing enough to share data about users’ movements with governments and researchers:
EMANUEL: I have to say I’ve actually found Big Tech totally unhelpful so far in this. It’s hard for me to see that they’ve done something really, really helpful in this regard when it comes to COVID-19. They have lots of capacity. Believe me: Facebook already knows who you interact with on a regular basis; how close you’ve gotten to them; when you leave your house; which stores you go into. Google does the same. And they have not used this data. Maybe they’re afraid that people are going to be all upset, but they haven’t even been willing to give it to someone else to use in an effective manner. And I think either they’re going to become irrelevant in this process or they’re going to have to step up and actually be contributory to solving this problem.
Or take Hastings Center fellow and University of Wisconsin-Madison bioethics professor Norman Fost, who, in addition to questioning whether it is “important that organ donors be dead” in the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, made the case for involuntary sterilization—the hallmark of the now universally denounced American eugenics program—at a 2013 panel discussion on “Challenging Cases in Clinical Ethics.”
NORMAN FOST: On the sterilization thing, if his sexual behavior can be attenuated so that he’s not a risk of impregnating anybody that would be the best thing. But I don’t think we should rule out sterilization as being in his interest also, as well as potential victims of his sexual assault.
I think sterilization has a bad reputation in America because of the eugenic sterilization of a hundred thousand or more people with developmental disabilities, most of them inappropriate. But the overreaction to that . . . and Wisconsin leads the way at overreacting to that. We have a Supreme Court decision that says you can never sterilize a minor until the legislature gives us permission to do it and they never will and that’s not in the interest of a lot of kids with developmental disabilities for whom procreation would be a disaster—that is pregnancy or inflicting a pregnancy.
So if it’s the case that this fella is never going to be capable of being a parent . . . and I can’t tell quite that from the limited history here and it may not be the case—but I just want to say that the country’s overreaction to sterilization—like it’s wrong, it’s always terrible to involuntarily sterilized somebody—is not true and it ought to be at least on the table as something that might be in his interest.
SOURCE: A Conversation About Challenging Cases in Clinical Ethics
But these discussions are not limited to the ranks of the Hastings Center.
Take Joseph Fletcher. Dubbed a pioneer in the field of biomedical ethics by both his critics and his apologists, Fletcher was the first professor of medical ethics at the University of Virginia and co-founded the Program in Biology and Society there. In addition to his position as president of the Euthanasia Society of America and his work helping to establish the Planned Parenthood Federation, Fletcher was also a member of the American Eugenics Society. In a 1968 article in defense of killing babies with Down’s syndrome “or other kind[s] of idiot[s],” Fletcher wrote:
“The sanctity (what makes it precious) is not in life itself, intrinsically; it is only extrinsic and bonum per accident, ex casu – according to the situation. Compared to some things, the taking of life is a small evil and compared to some things, the loss of life is a small evil. Death is not always an enemy; it can sometimes be a friend and servant.”
Or take Peter Singer. If there is any bioethicist in the world today whose name is known to the general public it is Peter Singer, famed for his animal liberation advocacy. Less well known to the public, however, are his arguments in favor of infanticide, including the notion that there is no relevant difference between abortion and the killing of “severely disabled infants,” positions which have driven his critics to call him “Son of Fletcher.”
Although Singer is extremely careful to frame his argument for infanticide using the least controversial positions when speaking to the public. . . .
PETER SINGER: . . . So we said, “Look, the difficult decision is whether you want this infant to live or not.” That should be a decision for the parents and doctors to make on the basis of the fullest possible information about what the condition is. But once you’ve made that decision it should be permissible to make sure that the baby dies swiftly and humanely, if that’s your decision. If your decision is that it’s better that the child should not live, it should be possible to ensure that the child dies swiftly and humanely.
And so that’s what we proposed. Now, that’s been picked up by a variety of opponents, both pro-life movement people and people in the militant disability movement—which incidentally didn’t really exist at the time we first wrote about this issue. And they’ve taken us as, you know, the stalking horse—the bogeyman, if you like—because we’re up front in saying that we think this is how we should treat these infants.
SOURCE: The Case for Allowing Euthanasia of Severely Handicapped Infants
. . . his actual writings contain much bolder assertions that would be sure to shock the sensibilities of the average person if they were plainly stated. In Practical Ethics, for example, intended as a text for an introductory ethics course, Singer dispenses with arguments about severe handicaps and birth defects and talks more broadly about whether it is fundamentally immoral to kill a newborn baby, noting that “a newborn baby is not an autonomous being, capable of making choices, and so to kill a newborn baby cannot violate the principle of respect for autonomy.”
After conceding that “It would, of course, be difficult to say at what age children begin to see themselves as distinct entities existing over time”—noting that “Even when we talk with two or three year old children it is usually very difficult to elicit any coherent conception of death”—we could provide an “ample safety margin” for such concerns by deciding that “a full legal right to life comes into force not at birth, but only a short time after birth—perhaps a month.”
Singer is by no means alone in his profession in discussing this subject. In fact, he’s just part of a long line of bioethicists musing about exactly where to draw the line when discussing infanticide.
Take Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, two bioethicists working in Australia who published a paper titled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” in The Journal of Medical Ethics in 2012. In that paper, they explicitly defend the practice of infanticide on moral grounds, claiming that “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus,” and thus “the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.” Lest they be mistaken for forwarding the same old argument on killing severely handicapped newborn babies that bioethicists have been making for decades, the two are careful to add that their proposal includes “cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.”
Unlike so many other academic papers on this subject, however, this one was picked up and widely circulated in the popular press, with even establishment media outlets like The Guardian insisting that “Infanticide is repellent. Feeling that way doesn’t make you Glenn Beck.”
Seemingly taken aback by the strong negative reaction to a scholarly article about the moral permissibility of killing babies, the authors of the article responded by accusing the general public of being too ignorant to understand the complex arguments made in the highly academic field of bioethics:
When we decided to write this article about after-birth abortion we had no idea that our paper would raise such a heated debate.
“Why not? You should have known!” people keep on repeating everywhere on the web. The answer is very simple: the article was supposed to be read by other fellow bioethicists who were already familiar with this topic and our arguments. Indeed, as Professor Savulescu explains in his editorial, this debate has been going on for 40 years.
Whatever else may be said about the researchers’ response, this was not a dishonest defense of their work. Julian Savulescu, the editor of The Journal of Medical Ethics that published the article, did point out in his own defense of the publication that the scholarly debate about when it is permissible to kill babies goes back to at least the 1960s, when Francis Crick—the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA and an avowed eugenicist who proposed that governments should prevent the poor and undesirable from breeding by requiring government-issued licenses for the privilege of having a baby—proposed that children should only be allowed to live if, after birth, they are found to have met certain genetic criteria.
Indeed, the pages of the medical ethics journals are filled with just such debates. From Dan Brock’s article on “Voluntary Active Euthanasia,” published in The Hastings Center Report in 1992, to John Hardwig’s 1997 article in the pages of The Hastings Center Report asking “Is There A Duty to Die?” to Hastings Center Deputy Director Nancy Berlinger’s 2008 pronouncement that “Allowing parents to practice conscientious objection by opting out of vaccinating their children is troubling in several ways,” these ethics professors toiling in a hitherto unknown and unremarked corner of academia are having a greater and greater effect in steering the policies that literally mean the difference between life and death for people around the world.
In his prescient 1988 article on “The Return of Eugenics,” Richard J. Neuhaus observed:
Thousands of medical ethicists and bioethicists, as they are called, professionally guide the unthinkable on its passage through the debatable on its way to becoming the justifiable until it is finally established as the unexceptionable. Those who pause too long to ponder troubling questions along the way are likely to be told that “the profession has already passed that point.” In truth, the profession is usually huffing and puffing to catch up with what is already being done without its moral blessing.
Indeed, bioethicists are not, generally speaking, trained doctors, researchers or medical workers. As academics, they are forced to take the word of doctors and researchers at face value. But which doctors? Whose research? Inevitably, it will be that of the WHO, the AMA and other organizations whose work—as even those within its ranks admit—is not solely dictated by medical need, but by the arbitrary whims of the organizations’ billionaire backers.
We are feeling the effects of this now, when these bioethics professors are held up as gurus who can not only provide medical advice, but actually lecture the public on which medical interventions they are morally obligated to undergo regardless of their own feelings about bodily autonomy.
*CLIP (0m35s-1m27s)
SOURCE: Emanuel: Wearing a mask should be as necessary as wearing a seatbelt
JULIAN SAVULESCU: It’s important to recognize that mandatory vaccination would not be anything new. There are many mandatory policies, other coercive policies—taxes are a form of coercion. Seatbelts were originally voluntary and they were made mandatory because they both reduce the risk of death to the wearer by 50% and also to other occupants in the car. But importantly some people do die of seat belt injuries, but the benefits vastly outweigh the risks.
Some countries in the world already have mandatory vaccination policies. In Australia the “no jab, no pay” policy involves withholding child care benefits if the child isn’t vaccinated. In Italy there are fines. And in the US children can’t attend school unless they’re vaccinated. All of these policies have increased vaccination rates and have been implementable.
SOURCE: “Mandatory COVID-19 vaccination: the arguments for and against”: Julian Savulescu & Sam Vanderslott
KERRY BOWMAN: Some form of vaccination passport is almost inevitable. With travel it’s virtually a given. And you look at countries like Israel is now introducing the green card. And all this is going on the assumption that people that have been vaccinated are not going to be able to spread the viruses easily, meaning they can’t transmit it and it’s kind of looking like my read on the science is it’s looking like that is the case with most of the vaccines. So that would be the question.
Now some people say we absolutely can’t do it, like, it’s just not fair in a democratic society because there’s people that refuse—don’t want vaccines—and there’s people that can’t have vaccines. But here’s the other side of the argument: Is it really fair to the Canadians that have been locked down for a year when they are vaccinated—they’re no longer a risk to other people—is it really fair to continue to limit their freedom?
So you’ve kind of got those two sides of it colliding.
SOURCE: ‘Vaccination passports’ a near certainty says bio-ethicist | COVID-19 in Canada
From its inception, the field of bioethics has taken its moral cue from the card-carrying eugenicists who founded its core institutions. For these academicians of the eugenics philosophy, the key moral questions raised by modern medical advances are always utilitarian in nature: What is the value that forced vaccination or compulsory sterilization brings to a community? Will putting lithium in the water supply lead to a happier society? Does a family’s relief at killing their newborn baby outweigh that baby’s momentary discomfort as it is murdered?
Implicit in this line of thinking are all of the embedded assumptions about what defines “value” and “happiness” and “relief” and how these abstract ideas are measured and compared. The fundamental utilitarian assumption that the individual’s worth can or should be measured against some arbitrarily defined collective good, meanwhile, is rarely (if ever) considered.
The average person, however—largely unaware that these types of questions are even being asked (let alone answered) by bioethics professors in obscure academic journals—may literally perish for their lack of knowledge about these discussions.
All things being equal, these types of ideas would likely be treated as they always have been: as a meaningless parlor game played by ivory tower academics with no power to enforce their crazy ideas. All things, however, are not equal.
Perhaps taking a page from the notebook of his brother, Rahm, about the utility of crisis in effecting societal change, Ezekiel Emanuel declared in 2011 that “we will get health-care reform only when there is a war, a depression or some other major civil unrest.” He didn’t add “pandemic” to that list of excuses, but he didn’t have to. As the events of the past year have borne out, the public are more than willing to consider the previously unthinkable now that they have been told that there is a crisis taking place.
Forced vaccination. Immunity passports. The erection of a biosecurity state. For the first time, the eugenics-infused philosophers of bioethics are on the verge of gaining real power. And the public is still largely unaware of the discussions that these academics have been engaged in for decades.
At the very least, Bill Gates can relax now: We can finally have the discussion on death panels.
March 6, 2021 Posted by aletho | Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular, Video | Leave a comment
Believing in impossible things – and COVID19
By Dr. Malcolm Kendrick | March 6, 2021
“Alice laughed: “There’s no use trying,” she said; “one can’t believe impossible things.”
“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
1: ‘The Concept of Coronavirus Herd Immunity Is Deadly and Dangerous’ https://www.self.com/story/coronavirus-herd-immunity
Since COVID19 first hurtled over the horizon, before landing upon us all with great force, I find that I have been asked to believe in many impossible things. First, I was told that attempting to create herd immunity was not achievable. It would also be extremely dangerous and would inevitably result in many hundreds of thousands of excess deaths.
Then the vaccines arrived at fantastical speed and I was told that mass vaccination, by creating herd immunity, would be the factor that would allow us to conquer COVID19 and return to normal life. I am not entirely sure which of these things is impossible, but one of them must be.
2: ‘Vaccines, on the other hand, are believed to induce stronger and longer lasting immunity.’ https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/does-the-vaccine-give-better-protection-than-having-fought-off-the-virus_uk_601c0663c5b62bf30754c563
I was then told the vaccine would provide greater immunity than being infected with COVID19. Which was interesting. I am not sure if this is actually impossible, but it seemed unlikely that anyone could make such statements after about three hundred people had actually been studied, and just two months had passed.
At the time I was aware of two people proven to have been re-infected with COVID19, out of about ten million cases. So, getting infected certainly seemed to provide a pretty good degree of immunity. A re-infection rate of 0.00005%
I also know that vaccinations can only ever really create an attenuated response. Whereas a full-blown infection triggers a full-blown immune response. So, I think it is pretty close to impossible that vaccination can provide greater protection than that from getting the actual disease. Which is why I think it is utterly bonkers we are actually vaccinating people who have circulating antibodies in their blood.
3: ‘Universal mask use could save 130,000 U.S. lives by the end of February, new study estimates.’ https://www.statnews.com/2020/10/23/universal-mask-use-could-save-130000-lives-by-the-end-of-february-new-modeling-study-says/
I am also being asked to believe that face masks are essential to stop the spread of COVID19 and prevent millions of deaths worldwide. The use of masks to prevent viral spread is something I actually researched in depth before COVID19 arrived (for various reasons), as did the WHO. They looked at non-pharmaceutical interventions for prevention of influenza, and produced a hefty report, which covered the use of masks.
Yes, I agree, influenza is not exactly the same as COVID19. But it is pretty much the same size of virus, and it is thought to spread in much the same way. Anyway, the WHO reported their views on masks in 2019, using data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) – the gold standard.
‘Ten RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, and there was no evidence that facemasks are effective in reducing transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.’ https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/329438/9789241516839-eng.pdf?ua=1
Since then, there has only been one RCT done on COVID19 transmission, in Denmark. It did not find any significant benefit from masks in reducing spread. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33205991/
Never has a trial been subjected to such immediate and hostile reporting. Fact-checkers (whoever exactly they might be, or what understanding they have of medical research) immediately attacked it. One such, called PolitiFact, made the following judgement, which amused me.
“Social media posts claim, “The first randomized controlled trial of more than 6,000 individuals to assess the effectiveness of surgical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection found masks did not statistically significantly reduce the incidence of infection.”
The study concluded that wearing masks did not offer a very high level of personal protection to mask wearers in communities where wearing masks was not common practice. The study noted, however, that the data suggested masks provided some degree of self-protection.
We rate this claim Mostly False. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33205991/”
So, according to PolitiFact, masks provided self-protection, but not personal protection. An interesting concept. Note to self, try to find out the difference between these two things.
In fact, this was just one of hundreds of critical articles, with self-anointed fact checkers clearly desperate to pull it to pieces. Yes, we have now entered a world when political fact checkers feel free to attack and contradict the findings of scientific papers, using such scientific terms as ‘Mostly false.’ Maybe they should have called it ‘very unique’ at the same time. Or, like the curate’s egg, that was good in parts.
Ignoring the modern-day Spanish Inquisition, and their ill-informed criticisms, I will simply call this study. More evidence that face masks don’t work. Perhaps someone will come along with a study proving that face masks work. So far … nada. Another impossible thing.
4: As of the 2nd March 2021 there have been 122,953 deaths from COVID19 in the UK.
Unlike many people I have actually written COVID19 on death certificates. Mostly they have been educated guesses. On at least five of them, early last year, there had been no positive swab to go on. So, I was just going on probable symptoms. As were many other doctors at the time.
Which means that you can take five off that number for starters. Although, of course, once written, that is very much, that … when it comes to death certificates. In fact, early on in the pandemic, we were probably underdiagnosing as often as over diagnosing deaths from COVID19. Although no-one will ever know. With no positive swab – and few swabs were being done – and almost no post-mortems – you were simply guessing.
As for now … NOW we have the very strange concept that any death within twenty-eight days of a positive COVID19 swab is recorded as a COVID19 death. Simultaneously, I am told that if I have a positive test at work, and then take some time off work (I can never remember the latest guidance). I am not to have another swab for ninety days.
How so? Because it now seems (I actually knew this a long time ago), that swabs can remain positive for months after the infection has been and gone [or was maybe never there to begin with]. Or to put this another way, you can have a positive swab long after you have been infected – and recovered. There are just some bits of virus up your nose that can be magnified, through the wonders of the PCR test, into a positive result.
Which means that an elderly person, infected months ago, can be admitted to hospital for any reason whatsoever. The they can have a positive swab – everyone is swabbed. Then they can die, from whatever it was they were admitted for in the first place. Then, they will be recorded as a COVID19 death.
In truth, this is just the start of impossible things when it comes to the number of COVID19 deaths. Do not get me started on PCR cycle numbers, and false positives. We would be here all day.
Equally, how many people have truly died of COVID19, instead of simply with COVID19? If I painted a blue circle on your forehead, then you died, I would not say that you died of a blue circle painted on your forehead. I would say that you died with a blue circle painted on your forehead.
5: The Swedish COVID-19 Response Is a Disaster. It Shouldn’t Be a Model for the Rest of the World
This was actually the headline title from an article in TIME magazine. The article went on to state that ‘The Swedish way has yielded little but death and misery. And this situation has not been honestly portrayed to the Swedish people or to the rest of the world.’ https://time.com/5899432/sweden-coronovirus-disaster/
Death and misery. Hmmmm, I might make this the title of my next book. Bound to be a best seller.
Yes, Sweden has been attacked from all sides with terrific venom, for holding out against imposing severe lockdown. How dare they… follow the WHO’s initial advice. That everyone else ignored.
So, have they done well with regard to COVID19 deaths? Not particularly. Have they done badly? Not particularly. On Worldometer they rank twenty fourth highest for deaths per million of the population. Which is pretty much bang on average for Western Europe.
One reason why they might not have appeared to do better is that, in the year 2019, they had their lowest rate of death for at least ten years. Three and a half thousand less in total than in 2018 https://www.statista.com/statistics/525353/sweden-number-of-deaths/ . In Norway, a country used to beat Sweden with, due to their very low COVID19 deaths there was no difference in death rate between 2018 and 2019. To be blunt, the elderly population in Sweden had some catching up to do.
Once you factor this in, the much-lauded difference in deaths, between Norway and Sweden, kind of disappears.
‘Our study shows that all-cause mortality was largely unchanged during the epidemic as compared to the previous four years in Norway and Sweden, two countries which employed very different strategies against the epidemic. Excess mortality from COVID-19 may be less pronounced than previously perceived in Sweden, and mortality displacement might explain part of the observed findings.’ https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.11.20229708v1.full
In absolute figures. Sweden had
- 92,185 deaths in 2018
- 88,766 deaths in 2019
- 97,941 deaths in 2020
A drop, then a rebound. Perhaps another way to look at the figures is to compare 2020 with a bad Swedish year in the past. In 2012, 91,938 people died. However, the population was lower at 9.5 million vs 10.2 million. So:
- The absolute death rate in 2012 was 0.957%.
- The absolute death rate in 2020 was 0.969%.
The difference between 2012 and 2020 is 0.012%. That is 120 extra deaths per million of the population, which is 1,224 people in population of 10.2 million. The statistics tell us that twelve thousand people died from COVID19 in Sweden. Maybe you can make all that add up. Frankly, I find it impossible.
6: Lockdowns have worked.
Before COVID19 came along, no country had ever attempted a lockdown – ever. So, no-one had any idea if such a thing could possibly work. There was no evidence, from anywhere, to support its use.
It was the Chinese who started it, and who claimed great success for their jackboot lockdown tactics. Well, they convinced me… not. Frankly, if I had to choose a country from which to obtain high quality, unbiased information, about anything, China would not feature in my top one hundred and ninety-four countries
But there you go, lockdown worked under the control of the kind and caring CCP. Hoorah, cheering all round, and the first person to stop cheering gets shot. Well, we don’t want any damned nay-sayers, do we? After that, according to almost everything I have read, everywhere, it worked for everyone else too. Remarkable.
Yes, it is certainly true you can find countries that locked down, closed their borders, and kept the rates low. That, however, is not proof of anything at all. The scientific method requires a little more rigour than this.
In fact, the main thing that scientific rigour requires is that you specifically do not go around looking for facts that support your hypothesis. Because that, I am afraid, is the exact opposite of science. What you need to do, instead, is to go around looking for facts that disprove your hypothesis. This is what Karl Popper called falsification.
For example, my hypothesis is that “all swans are white”. I seek, and find, only white swans. So, this makes my hypothesis is correct? No. What science requires you do is to hunt tirelessly for black swans. If you never find one, fine. However, you need to be aware that the moment you do, your hypothesis has just been disproven. In real life things are very rarely as simple as this, but that is the basic principle.
However, with lockdown (and I recognise that no two countries locked down in the same way) the hypothesis is that countries which did not lockdown will have higher rate of death for COVID19 than those that did.
So, let us look, first, at the countries with the highest rate of COVID19. Excluding very small countries e.g., San Marino, or Gibraltar, we have, in descending order of deaths per million of the population https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ .
- Czechia
- Belgium
- Slovenia
- UK
- Italy
- Montenegro
- Portugal
- USA
- Hungary
- Bosnia and Herzegovina
- North Macedonia
- Bulgaria
- Spain
- Mexico
- Peru
- Croatia
- Slovakia
- Panama
- France
Every single country in this list carried out fairly strict lockdowns. The UK, apparently, has the strictest lockdown in the world, this winter.
Four countries that have been roundly criticized for having far less restrictive lockdowns are: Sweden, Japan, Belarus and Nicaragua (Realistically there are others, in poorer countries, where lockdowns have not happened – because they can’t afford it)
In these four ‘non-lockdowns’ countries, the death rate is, on average 391 per million.
In the top twenty ‘lockdown’ countries, the death rate is, on average 1,520 per million.
The only non-lockdown country in the top ninety for death rates is Sweden. It comes just below France, at number twenty-four.
Now, if the difference between lockdown and non-lockdown countries were ten per cent, or even fifty per cent, I would fully accept that there are many other variables that could explain such finding away. Although, of course, we should really look at a higher rate in the non-lockdown countries, not a lower rate.
Yet although this evidence is out there, I am being asked to believe that lockdowns work. At least the WHO agrees with me on this impossible thing. As Dr David Nabarro, the WHO special envoy on COVID19 said:
“We really do appeal to all world leaders, stop using lockdown as your primary method of control,” he said.
“Lockdowns have just one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer.” https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-12/world-health-organization-coronavirus-lockdown-advice/12753688
Lockdowns, according to the WHO, in unguarded moments, have just one consequence. They make poor people an awful lot poorer.
‘Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two makes four. If this is granted all else follows.’
March 6, 2021 Posted by aletho | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine | Leave a comment
How do you Extinguish a Lithium Battery Fire?
By Eric Worrall | Watts Up With That? | March 4, 2021
A few weeks ago I asked a fire fighter friend how they extinguish electric vehicle battery fires.
He said “Oh you mean like a Tesla or something? The answer is you can’t. You cordon off the area, and spray a fine mist of water on the fire to try to keep the temperature down until it finishes burning. Takes a few days until it is safe”.
The problem is, besides being highly flammable, lithium is literally the lightest metal. At atomic number 3, it is the first element in the periodic table which is a solid. The two previous elements, hydrogen and helium, are both gasses.
Lithium is so light, it floats on water (lithium density 0.543, half the density of water). Lithium is entirely happy to blaze away while sitting on the surface of a puddle of water.
So if you try to smother a lithium fire with sand, the sand sinks to the bottom, and the lithium floats on top.
Lithium melts at 180C / 356F, and burns at 2000C / 3632F – almost more than hot enough to melt steel, more than hot enough to destroy most composites and metals like aluminium.
The fumes from a burning lithium fire are highly toxic, capable of causing death or long term dementia like brain injuries – so you need to keep members of the public at a safe distance. Fire fighters need to wear respirators if they approach the flame.
There are chemical extinguishers, but my fire station friend didn’t seem to think much of them, at least not for large lithium fires.
I guess you might be able to smother a large lithium fire by dropping a Chernobyl style sarcophagus made of steel on top of it, or possibly made of some other material which could handle the heat. Then you could fill the sarcophagus with an inert gas like Argon, or just wait for the oxygen to run out. But equipping fire departments with a sarcophagus device large enough to smother an EV fire, and the equipment required to deploy it, would be an expensive exercise.
What does your fire department do when they have to extinguish a large lithium fire? I’d love to know, so I can tell Australian fire departments. Cordon off the area and spray a mist of water at the fire for a few days would be a serious inconvenience or worse, if the burning vehicle was say blocking an important road junction, on the high street, or in someone’s residential or workplace garage or workshop.
March 5, 2021 Posted by aletho | Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment
The CDC’s Mask Mandate Study: Debunked
Paul E Alexander MSc PhD | AIER | March 4, 2021
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently published a February 2020 MMWR report entitled “Decline in COVID-19 Hospitalization Growth Rates Associated with Statewide Mask Mandates — 10 States, March–October 2020.” This report focused on 10 sites that had been included in the Covid-19 Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network.
This CDC report described a decrease in hospitalization rates of growth of up to 5.6% in adults (18-65 years old) and attributed this to the use of masking and/or the introduction of mask mandates in the various sites. These rates were compared to those obtained from a 4-week period of time prior to the introduction of mask mandates. In so doing, and by way of regression analysis, the reduced rates of hospitalization were attributed to the introduction of statewide mask mandates.
Firstly, the initial publication by the CDC (February 5/February 12th, 2021) was plagued with important inaccuracies that were then fortunately addressed in an updated erratum (February 26th 2021). We applaud the CDC for taking the steps required to correct these errors. Reporting done by the CDC, which is generally considered as the premier public health agency in the US, must be of the highest quality, particularly since advice rendered by the CDC is also relied upon worldwide.
En face, CDC’s conclusion on mandates might appear to make sense unless one is familiar with the scientific data pertaining to the ineffectiveness of masking for prevention of the spread of Covid-19 (e.g. references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15) in which case the findings in fact contradict most of what is now known. The CDC’s conclusion might have made more sense if the real-world evidence we have about mandates did not actually exist (e.g. references 1, 2, 3, 4).
Does the CDC really think that masks prevent the wearer from getting Covid, or from spreading it to others? The CDC admits that the scientific evidence is mixed, as their most recent report glosses over many unanswered scientific questions. But even if it were clear – or clear enough – as a scientific matter that masks properly used could reduce transmission, it is a leap to conclude that a governmental mandate to wear masks will do more good than harm, even as a strictly biological or epidemiological matter. Mask mandates may not be followed; masks worn as a result of a mandate may not be used properly; some mask practices like double masking can do harm, particularly to children; and even if a mask mandate results in some increased number of masks being worn and worn properly, the mandate and the associated publicity may reduce the public’s attention to other more effective safeguards, such as meticulous hygiene practices.
Thus, it is not surprising that the CDC’s own recent conclusion on the use of nonpharmaceutical measures such as face masks in pandemic influenza, warned that scientific “evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission…” Moreover, in the WHO’s 2019 guidance document on nonpharmaceutical public health measures in a pandemic, they reported as to face masks that “there is no evidence that this is effective in reducing transmission…” Similarly, in the fine print to a recent double-blind, double-masking simulation the CDC stated that “The findings of these simulations [supporting mask usage] should neither be generalized to the effectiveness … nor interpreted as being representative of the effectiveness of these masks when worn in real-world settings.”
Just look at the data from Jonas F. Ludvigsson that is emerging from Sweden in children 16 years old and under when preschools and schools were kept open and there were no face masks though social distancing was fostered. The result was zero (0) deaths from COVID-19 in 1.95 million Swedish children across the study period. The number of infections was exceedingly low, the number of hospitalizations was exceedingly low, and there were no deaths in children with COVID-19, all this despite not wearing masks due to no schoolwide mask mandate. Is this merely a perfunctory and legally prudent warning by the CDC that “your mileage may vary?” Or is it more like a hot mutual fund telling you that “past performance is no guarantee of future results.” What is the CDC really trying to say about face masks and why so much confusion?
We have reservations about the methodology employed and conclusions drawn in the CDC double mask study which we will address in a separate discussion but again their disclaimer as noted above: “The findings of these simulations should neither be generalized to the effectiveness … nor interpreted as being representative of the effectiveness of these masks when worn in real-world settings” seeds thoughts of doubt in relation to the value of this report. Why then, would the CDC even bother to publicize these findings? What is the public health impact? What is the benefit?
Moreover, the CDC even indicated in the double mask study that there are harms e.g. impediments to breathing, due to double masking. Indeed, the harms (e.g. reference 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) are very real when face masks are used yet are often dismissed and not even discussed by the media medical establishment or government bureaucrats.
In relation to this, Dr. Anthony Fauci of the NIAID created appreciable confusion by initially suggesting and encouraging the use of double masks instead of one. Dr. Fauci then reversed his statements on the use of double masks. Dr. Fauci’s advisories took on a form of double peak which has an appearance of randomness or worse, capriciousness. This can only distort the desperately needed advice by the public at large; unsound advice can be very damaging on several levels. This random form of advice-giving was not reflective of a single event. For example, while touting vaccines as the only way for society to emerge back to normal from the pandemic, Dr. Fauci is now advising that in fact, even with vaccinations, people should still not attend public gatherings and restaurants, and that such restrictions could be in place until end of 2021. While changes in advice are required when new data emerge, we hold that this was definitely not the case with respect to masking (or vaccination for that matter).
Below are the main scientific shortcomings or analytical ambiguities in the CDC’s most recent MMWR report on mask mandates:
- The CDC’s main evidence, a regression study based on selected sites in ten states with masking mandates from March through October 2020, did not include the four-month period from November through February 2021 (which might have controlled for other possibly contributing factors such as sunlight and vitamin D) and did not appear to take into account the possible effects of such factors as school closures or changes in social distancing practices. We point out that during the period of March 22, 2020 to October 12, 2020 this is actually representative of the spring, summer and early fall seasons when outdoor activity increases. Of course, this leads to more exposure to sunlight with the attendant generation of active vitamin D metabolites, while at the same time there are marked reductions in confinement within enclosed spaces which would necessarily reduce the opportunities for transmission of disease. A more stringent approach to the analyses, including the use of all available data (i.e. not excluding a full 4-month period of time), might have led conceivably to a conclusion that there was in fact no significant effect of mask mandates on disease or case rates. And in concert with the CDC’s disclaimers noted above, the CDC indicated in their own report that the conclusions described in the study in favour of masking were, at best, only moderately reliable.
- The CDC analyzed changes in hospitalizations, but did not compare infection, disease, or death rates between states with and without masking mandates. Available evidence of that nature suggests that the course of the pandemic was not affected by state masking mandates.
- The CDC used a least squares fit regression analysis (OLS) (using “x” as mask wearing and the dependent/outcome to the “y” variable which is the number of Covid cases) despite the fact that simple regression is not the optimal approach and, we believe, should be replaced with Orthogonal Distance Regression (ODR) which would yield more reliable findings.
- Based on the reporting, it appears that the CDC’s regression analysis was based on data from limited sites within a state, and not the entire state.
- The CDC report failed to address/discuss recent potent research data based on high-quality case-controlled analyses, as well as a high-quality Danish randomized controlled trial study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine which found no statistically or clinically significant impact of mask-use in regard to the rate of infection with SARS CoV-2, or a recent NEJM publication (prospective cohort CHARM study) where researchers studied SARS-CoV-2 transmission among Marine recruits at Parris Island (n=1,848) who volunteered, underwent a 2-week quarantine at home that was followed by a second 2-week quarantine in a closed college campus setting. The predominant finding was that despite the very strict and enforced quarantine, including 2 full weeks of supervised confinement and then enforced social distancing and masking protocols, the rate of transmission was not reduced and in fact seemed to be higher than expected, despite the strong experimental design and the rigor associated with carrying out the study.
- The CDC report does not address and contextualize substantial “real world” experience showing that adding mandates where there is already substantial mask wearing has little effect, and that mask mandates that were followed can be correlated with increased case counts (e.g. references 1, 2, 3, 4). This obviously may not be cause and effect, but the same criticism can be levied against correlations or regressions going in the opposite direction.
Based on our assessment of this CDC mask mandate report, we find ourselves troubled by the study methods themselves and by extension, the conclusions drawn. The real-world evidence exists and indicates that in various countries and US states, when mask mandates were followed consistently, there was an inexorable increase in case counts. We have seen that in states and countries that already have a high frequency of mask wearing that adding mandates had little effect. There was no (zero) benefit of adding a mask mandate in Austria, Germany, France, Spain, UK, Belgium, Ireland, Portugal, and Italy, and states like California, Hawaii, and Texas. Importantly, we do not ascribe a cause-effect relationship between the implementation of mask mandates and the rise in case rates, but we also demand the same approach when it comes to claiming some sort of causal relationship between the introduction of mask mandates and likely claims by the CDC that their findings could support their implementation countrywide.
We think that inclusion of such evidence on the failures of masks mandates globally and states within the US would have made for more balanced, comprehensive, and fully-informed reporting. Specifically, when we consider the evidence on mask mandates, “in states with a mandate in effect, there were 9,605,256 confirmed Covid-19 cases, which works out to an average of 27 cases per 100,000 people per day. When states didn’t have a statewide order—including states that never even had mandates, coupled with the period of time states with mandates still didn’t have a mandate in place—there were 5,781,716 cases, averaging 17 cases per 100,000 people per day. In other words, protective-mask mandates have a poor track record insofar as fighting this pandemic. States with mandates in place produced an average of 10 more reported infections per 100,000 people per day than states without mandates.” The blind acceptance of the current unsupported dogma has become so entrenched that if cases do go up, the experts wedded to the universal use of masks then claim that this is good news and infer that the masking mandate prevented even more cases from occurring. This is a fine example of tautology and defies reason. We are very troubled by this type of scientific reporting and inference, for it is based on assumptions, supposition, and speculation.
Masks for the general population as they are currently used (surgical masks and the cloth masks), are ineffective (particularly when used without other mitigation) and the body of evidence (see AIER) is clear. A recent op-ed in the Washington Post spoke to mask wearing by everyone during the 1918 flu pandemic, with the conclusion that masks were useless. We embrace fully the contention by Klompas in the NEJM that “what is clear, however, is that universal masking alone is not a panacea. A mask will not protect providers caring for a patient with active Covid-19 if it’s not accompanied by meticulous hand hygiene, eye protection, gloves, and a gown. A mask alone will not prevent health care workers with early Covid-19 from contaminating their hands and spreading the virus to patients and colleagues. Focusing on universal masking alone could, paradoxically, lead to more transmission of Covid-19 if it diverts attention from implementing more fundamental infection-control measures.” We are particularly alarmed by the harms of masking and the failure by top US agencies and leadership (as well as the media and ‘media’ medical experts) to discuss or highlight harms in any discourse on masking.
We end by imploring the CDC to take our critique in the spirit in which it was generated. We welcome continued, rigorous scientific examination of these important societal lockdowns, school closures, and masking and broader mask mandate issues by CDC and others. We are entirely willing to consider any evidence that contradicts what we have seen which suggests that societal lockdowns and school closures are not effective, and as presented here, suggests that mask mandates are ineffective. Most importantly, to maintain the validity of scientific research as a tool, and the public’s confidence in such research, reports on the results of such research should more comprehensively address the weakness or ambiguities that exist, as well as the conclusions the reporting agency supports.
Trusting the science means relying on the scientific process and method and not merely ‘following the leader.’ It is not the same as trusting, without verification, the conclusory statements of human beings simply because they have scientific training or credentials. This is especially so if their views and inquiry have become politicized. Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard’s Medical School has recently commented on the present Covid-19 scientific and research environment by stating, “After 300 years, the Age of Enlightenment has ended.”
Sadly, we must agree, that it’s not just that the age of enlightenment has come to an end, but indeed, that the science itself has been politicized and severely corrupted.
Contributing Authors
- Paul E Alexander MSc PhD, McMaster University and GUIDE Research Methods Group, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada elias98_99@yahoo.com
- Howard C. Tenenbaum DDS, Dip. Perio., PhD, FRCD(C) Centre for Advanced Dental Research and Care, Mount Sinai Hospital, and Faculties of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Ramin Oskoui, MD, CEO, Foxhall Cardiology, PC, Washington, DC oskouimd@gmail.com
- Dr. Parvez Dara, MD, MBA, daraparvez@gmail.com
March 5, 2021 Posted by aletho | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Anthony Fauci, CDC, cov, United States | Leave a comment
Tony Fauci and the Swine Flu hoax; betrayal of trust
By Jon Rappoport | NoMoreFakeNews | March 5, 2021
In my current series of articles, I’ve taken apart the Ebola and Zika hoaxes.
Now I take you back to the summer of 2009, when the CDC and the World Health Organization were hyping the “deadly H1N1 Swine Flu pandemic.”
They were, of course, also urging people to take the new Swine Flu vaccine. On that subject, here is an excerpt from Robert Kennedy Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense (3/27/20):
“For example, [Dr. Anthony] Fauci once shilled for the fast-tracked H1N1 influenza (‘swine flu’) vaccine on YouTube, reassuring viewers in 2009 that serious adverse events were ‘very, very, very rare.’ Shortly thereafter, the vaccine went on to wreak havoc in multiple countries, increasing miscarriage risks in pregnant women in the U.S., provoking a spike in adolescent narcolepsy in Scandinavia and causing febrile convulsions in one in every 110 vaccinated children in Australia—prompting the latter to suspend its influenza vaccination program in under-fives.”
However, that is only half the Swine Flu story. The other half—which involves an astounding hoax—was surely something Fauci was aware of at the time.
Fauci was, in fact, recommending a highly dangerous vaccine for protection against AN EPIDEMIC THAT DIDN’T EXIST AT ALL.
His friends and professional colleagues at the CDC were creating the hoax.
Let me run it down for you.
In the summer of 2009, the CDC was claiming there were thousands of Swine Flu cases in the US. But behind these statistics lay an unnerving secret. A major crime, considering the CDC’s mandate to report the truth to the American people:
Secretly, the CDC had stopped counting cases of Swine Flu.
What? Why?
CBS investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, discovered the CDC secret; and she found out why.
The routine lab testing of tissue samples from the most likely Swine Flu patients was coming back, in the overwhelming percentage of cases, with: NO SIGN OF SWINE FLU OR ANY OTHER KIND OF FLU.
Attkisson wrote an article about this scandal, and it was published on the CBS News website. However, the next, bigger step—putting out the story on CBS television news—was waylaid. No deal. And CBS shut down any future investigation on the subject. Attkisson’s article died on the vine. No other major news outlet in the world picked up her article and ran with it deeper into the rabbit hole.
Here is what Attkisson told me when I interviewed her:
Rappoport: In 2009, you spearheaded coverage of the so-called Swine Flu pandemic. You discovered that, in the summer of 2009, the Centers for Disease Control, ignoring their federal mandate, [secretly] stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America. Yet they continued to stir up fear about the “pandemic,” without having any real measure of its impact. Wasn’t that another investigation of yours that was shut down? Wasn’t there more to find out?
Attkisson: The implications of the story were even worse than that. We discovered through our FOI efforts that before the CDC mysteriously stopped counting Swine Flu cases, they had learned that almost none of the cases they had counted as Swine Flu was, in fact, Swine Flu or any sort of flu at all! The interest in the story from one [CBS] executive was very enthusiastic. He said it was “the most original story” he’d seen on the whole Swine Flu epidemic. But others pushed to stop it [after it was published on the CBS News website] and, in the end, no [CBS television news] broadcast wanted to touch it. We aired numerous stories pumping up the idea of an epidemic, but not the one that would shed original, new light on all the hype. It was fair, accurate, legally approved and a heck of a story. With the CDC keeping the true Swine Flu stats secret, it meant that many in the public took and gave their children an experimental vaccine that may not have been necessary.
So… fake pandemic, CDC crimes, and a damaging vaccine.
But that wasn’t end of it. The CDC wanted to commit another crime. About three weeks after Attkisson’s findings were published on the CBS News website, the CDC, obviously in a panic, decided to double down. If one lie is exposed, tell an even bigger one. A much bigger one.
Here, from a November 12, 2009, WebMD article is the CDC’s response:
“Shockingly, 14 million to 34 million U.S. residents — the CDC’s best guess is 22 million — came down with H1N1 swine flu by Oct. 17 [2009].” (“22 million cases of Swine Flu in US,” by Daniel J. DeNoon).
Are your eyeballs popping? They should be.
Fast forward to 2020. Who in his right mind, armed with a little history, would believe anything the CDC is saying about COVID-19? The discovery of a new coronavirus. The case and death numbers, the accuracy of the diagnostic tests, the need for lockdowns and economic devastation, the safety and importance of a vaccine, the fear porn? Who would believe any of it?
And who would believe anything coming out of the mouth of Dr. Anthony Fauci?
Only a fool.
SOURCES:
[1] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/03/02/ebola-the-new-fake-outbreak/
[1a] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/category/ebola/
[2] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/03/04/zika-was-a-warm-up-for-covid-it-didnt-fly/
[2a] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/category/zika/
[4] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/swine-flu-cases-overestimated/
[5] https://www.cdc.gov/media/transcripts/2009/t091009.htm
[6] https://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/news/20091112/over-22-million-in-us-had-h1n1-swine-flu#1
March 5, 2021 Posted by aletho | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Anthony Fauci, CDC, United States | Leave a comment
Zika was a warm-up for COVID; it didn’t fly
By Jon Rappoport | NoMoreFakeNews | March 4, 2021
I covered the Zika outbreak extensively in 2016. It was yet another fraud, and it collapsed under the weight of warnings to women to avoid pregnancy. Women wouldn’t obey in great enough numbers.
Basically, the official position was: an outbreak of microcephaly was occurring, worldwide, starting in Brazil. Babies were being born with smaller heads and brain damage. The cause was the Zika virus, carried by mosquitoes.
When I was exposing the lies, in 2016, I wasn’t questioning the existence of the Zika virus. Now, in 2021, I would be demanding proof that the virus had actually been isolated.
Here are excerpts from the many articles I wrote during the “Zika crisis”. There is more, much more to the story, but what I’m publishing here is enough to reveal the standard pattern of pandemic ops: pretend the “medical condition” is entirely the result of a germ; fake the exact cause; cover up ongoing government/corporate crimes.
EXCERPT ONE, 2016: There is no convincing evidence the Zika virus causes the birth defect called microcephaly.
Basically, Brazilian researchers, in the heart of the purported “microcephaly epidemic,” decided to stop their own investigation and simply assert Zika was the culprit. At that point, they claimed that, out of 854 cases of microcephaly, only 97 showed “some relationship” to Zika.
You need to understand that these figures actually show evidence AGAINST the Zika virus as the cause. When researchers are trying to find the cause of a condition, they should be able to establish, as a first step, that the cause is present in all cases (or certainly an overwhelming percentage).
This never happened. The correlation between the presence of Zika virus and microcephaly was very, very weak.
As a second vital step, researchers should be able to show that the causative virus is, in every case, present in large amounts in the body. Otherwise, there is not enough of it to create harm. MERE PRESENCE OF THE VIRUS IS NOT ENOUGH. With Zika, proof it was present in microcephaly-babies in large amounts has never been established.
But researchers pressed on. A touted study in the New England Journal of Medicine claimed Zika infected brain cells in the lab. IRRELEVANT. Cells in labs are not human beings. The study also stated that Zika infected baby mice. IRRELEVANT. Mice are not humans. And these mice in the lab had been specially altered or bred to be “vulnerable to Zika.” USELESS AND IRRELEVANT.
EXCERPT TWO, 2016: Millions of bees have just died in South Carolina, because Dorchester County officials decided to attack Zika mosquitoes from the air, from planes, with a pesticide called Naled.
The Washington Post reports, in an article headlined: “‘Like it’s been nuked’: Millions of bees dead after South Carolina sprays for Zika mosquitoes.”
“The county acknowledged the bee deaths Tuesday. ‘Dorchester County is aware that some beekeepers in the area that was sprayed on Sunday lost their beehives,’ Jason Ward, county administrator, said in a news release. He added, according to the Charleston Post and Courier, ‘I am not pleased that so many bees were killed.’”
That’s the highest degree of outrage County Administrator Ward can muster? He’s not pleased?
If you want to dig further, you can discover that, despite assurances to the contrary, Naled, like other toxic organophosphate pesticides, harms humans as well. Organophosphates are neurotoxins. The original research was done in Germany, in the hunt for nerve-agent weapons.
And how about this? The cure for the problem causes the problem…
Naled, the organophosphate pesticide now being sprayed on Miami to kill “Zika mosquitoes,” has dire effects.
Reference: a 2014 study, “Neurodevelopmental disorders and prenatal residential proximity to agricultural pesticides: the CHARGE study.” [Environmental Health Perspectives, 2014 Oct;122(10):1103-9.]
Key quotes from the study:
“Gestational exposure to several common agricultural pesticides can induce developmental neurotoxicity in humans, and has been associated with developmental delay and autism.” [Emphasis added]
“We evaluated whether residential proximity to agricultural pesticides during pregnancy is associated with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) or developmental delay (DD)…”
“Approximately one-third of CHARGE study mothers lived, during pregnancy, within 1.5 km (just under 1 mile) of an agricultural pesticide application. Proximity to organophosphates at some point during gestation was associated with a 60% increased risk for ASD [Autism Spectrum Disorders], higher for third-trimester exposures… and second-trimester chlorpyrifos [an organophosphate pesticide] applications…”
“This study of ASD strengthens the evidence linking neurodevelopmental disorders with gestational pesticide exposures, particularly organophosphates…”
The pesticide spraying affects pregnant mothers by raising the risk of neurological damage to their babies.
EXCERPT THREE: Here’s an “oops” Zika revelation:
“New doubts on Zika as cause of microcephaly.” ScienceDaily, 24 June 2016.
Source: New England Complex Systems Institute
“Brazil’s microcephaly epidemic continues to pose a mystery — if Zika is the culprit, why are there no similar epidemics in other countries also hit hard by the virus? In Brazil, the microcephaly rate soared with more than 1,500 confirmed cases. But in Colombia, a recent study of nearly 12,000 pregnant women infected with Zika found zero microcephaly cases. If Zika is to blame for microcephaly, where are the missing cases?”
FOUR: It makes far more sense to listen to what South American doctors are saying about the areas where birth defects are occurring. These would be doctors who actually care about what is destroying lives and the lives that are being destroyed.
We have such reports passed along to us, thanks to Claire Robinson of GM Watch. She is one of those people who still makes the profession of journalism mean something.
Here are quotes from her most recent article, “Argentine and Brazilian doctors name larvicide as potential cause of microcephaly.”
“A report from the Argentine doctors’ organisation, Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Towns, challenges the theory that the Zika virus epidemic in Brazil is the cause of the increase in the birth defect microcephaly among newborns.”
“The increase in this birth defect, in which the baby is born with an abnormally small head and often has brain damage, was quickly linked to the Zika virus by the Brazilian Ministry of Health. However, according to the Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Towns, the Ministry failed to recognise that in the area where most sick people live, a chemical larvicide [pesticide] that produces malformations in mosquitoes was introduced into the drinking water supply in 2014. This poison, Pyriproxyfen, is used in a State-controlled programme aimed at eradicating disease-carrying mosquitoes.” [Emphasis added]
“The Physicians added that the Pyriproxyfen is manufactured by Sumitomo Chemical, a Japanese ‘strategic partner’ of Monsanto. Pyriproxyfen is a growth inhibitor of mosquito larvae, which alters the development process from larva to pupa to adult, thus generating malformations in developing mosquitoes and killing or disabling them. It acts as an insect juvenile hormone or juvenoid, and has the effect of inhibiting the development of adult insect characteristics (for example, wings and mature external genitalia) and reproductive development. It is an endocrine disruptor and is teratogenic (causes birth defects).”
“The Argentine Physicians commented: ‘Malformations detected in thousands of children from pregnant women living in areas where the Brazilian state added Pyriproxyfen to drinking water are not a coincidence, even though the Ministry of Health places a direct blame on the Zika virus for this damage.’”
“They also noted that Zika has traditionally been held to be a relatively benign disease that has never before been associated with birth defects, even in areas where it infects 75% of the population.”
“… The Argentine Physicians’ report…concurs with the findings of a separate report on the Zika outbreak by the Brazilian doctors’ and public health researchers’ organisation, Abrasco.”
“Abrasco also names Pyriproxyfen as a likely cause of the microcephaly. It condemns the strategy of chemical control of Zika-carrying mosquitoes, which it says is contaminating the environment as well as people and is not decreasing the numbers of mosquitoes. Abrasco suggests that this strategy is in fact driven by the commercial interests of the chemical industry, which it says is deeply integrated into the Latin American ministries of health, as well as the World Health Organization and the Pan American Health Organisation.”
“Abrasco names the British GM insect company Oxitec as part of the corporate lobby that is distorting the facts about Zika to suit its own profit-making agenda. Oxitec sells GM mosquitoes engineered for sterility and markets them as a disease-combatting product – a strategy condemned by the Argentine Physicians as ‘a total failure, except for the company supplying mosquitoes’.”
“…Abrasco added that the disease [microcephaly, other birth defects] is closely linked to environmental degradation: floods caused by logging and the massive use of herbicides on (GM) herbicide-tolerant soy crops – in short, ‘the impacts of extractive industries’.”
FIVE: In a recent greenmedinfo article—“What is the Zika Virus Epidemic Covering Up?” by Jagannath Chatterjee—the author traces other Gates-Brazil connections. For example:
“While investigating the procedures directed at pregnant women in the year 2015, shocking facts emerged. Acting as per a WHO [World Health Organization] decision to inject pregnant women with vaccines despite contraindications the Brazilian Government had allowed its pregnant women to become the equivalent of guinea pigs. Besides the tetanus vaccines (provided as Diphtheria Tetanus vaccines), the women had also received the Measles Mumps Rubella (MMR) vaccine in pregnancy. What is worse a DTaP vaccine was mandated for pregnant women in 2014. Citing a shortage of the DTaP vaccine the highly reactive [dangerous] DTP vaccine was also administered. Clearly huge risks had been inflicted on the unsuspecting women. None of these vaccines are known to be safe during pregnancy and the MMR and the DaPT/DPT vaccines are lapses that cannot be condoned. The rubella virus in the MMR vaccine and the pertussis component in the DPT vaccine are known to cause microcephaly…”
“The DTaP vaccine initiative to vaccinate pregnant women was financed by BMGF [Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation] funds…”
SIX: For example, every year in the US, there are 25,000 cases of microcephaly. And the literature is very clear about causes: any insult to the fetal brain during pregnancy can result in microcephaly. Severe malnutrition, falling down stairs, a blow to the stomach, a toxic street drug or medical drug or vaccine or pesticide, and so on.
SEVEN: For science bloggers who live in mommy’s basement and love the statements of the experts, try this. I’ll give you the full citation. Ready?
“Practice Parameter: Evaluation of the child with microcephaly (an evidence-based review)”; Neurology 2009 Sep 15; 73(11) 887-897; Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the Practice Committee of the Child Neurology Society.
Here’s the money quote:
“Microcephaly may result from any insult that disturbs early brain growth… Annually, approximately 25,000 infants in the United States will be diagnosed with microcephaly…”
Bang.
Let me take apart that quote. Microcephaly can result from any early insult to the brain. Any.
That could mean a highly toxic pesticide, for example. It could mean severe and prolonged malnutrition of the mother. It could mean a toxic substance injected into the mother—a street drug or a vaccine. It could mean a physical blow. It could mean a mother’s chronic high fever. And so on.
Moving on: 25,000 cases, not just once, but every year in the US, means what? Christopher Columbus actually brought the Zika virus to America in 1492, and it lay dormant for a very long time and then, in the modern age, exploded on the scene in the US?
No. 25,000 cases a year in the US means we’re being treated to an unsupported major bullshit story right now about the Zika virus.
That’s what it means.
EIGHT: Now we have a January 27, 2016, Associated Press story out of Rio, published in SFGate :
“270 of 4,180 suspected microcephaly cases confirmed.”
That’s called a clue, in case you’re wondering. Of the previously touted 4,180 cases of microcephaly in Brazil, the actual number of confirmed cases so far is, well, only 270. Bang.
But wait, there’s more. AP :
“Brazilian officials said the babies with the defect [microcephaly] and their mothers are being tested to see if they had been infected. Six of the 270 confirmed microcephaly cases were found to have the [Zika] virus.”
Bang, bang, bang. Out of all the microcephaly cases re-examined in Brazil, only six have the Zika virus. That constitutes zero proof that Zika has anything to do with microcephaly.
—end of my excerpts from 2016—
Getting the picture?
In 2015-16, the World Health Organization and the press whiffed on the Zika virus-microcephaly hustle.
But they re-grouped, analyzed their mistakes, and prepared a wall-to-wall messaging campaign for the next fake pandemic.
China would provide the model:
LOCKDOWNS.
House arrest of a major percentage of the global population. Economic devastation.
COVID.
As I’ve been demonstrating for the past year, the COVID story is as full of holes as Zika.
March 5, 2021 Posted by aletho | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, Gates Foundation, Latin America, Monsanto, Pyriproxyfen | Leave a comment
Featured Video
Iran War Confusion & Mixed Messaging /Lt Col Daniel Davis
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Tragic Consequences of believing Anti-Science
The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | January 17, 2023
I try not to write about anyone who has died because if it was my family member I would not want to read any speculations about their death. However, in this case I feel that justice has not been given a chance and therefore it needs highlighting. ... continue
Blog Roll
-
Join 2,458 other subscribers
Visits Since December 2009
- 7,496,170 hits
Looking for something?
Archives
Calendar
Categories
Aletho News Civil Liberties Corruption Deception Economics Environmentalism Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism Fake News False Flag Terrorism Full Spectrum Dominance Illegal Occupation Mainstream Media, Warmongering Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity Militarism Progressive Hypocrite Russophobia Science and Pseudo-Science Solidarity and Activism Subjugation - Torture Supremacism, Social Darwinism Timeless or most popular Video War Crimes Wars for IsraelTags
9/11 Afghanistan Africa al-Qaeda Australia BBC Benjamin Netanyahu Brazil Canada CDC Central Intelligence Agency China CIA CNN Covid-19 COVID-19 Vaccine Donald Trump Egypt European Union Facebook FBI FDA France Gaza Germany Google Hamas Hebron Hezbollah Hillary Clinton Human rights Hungary India Iran Iraq ISIS Israel Israeli settlement Japan Jerusalem Joe Biden Korea Latin America Lebanon Libya Middle East National Security Agency NATO New York Times North Korea NSA Obama Pakistan Palestine Poland Qatar Russia Sanctions against Iran Saudi Arabia Syria The Guardian Turkey Twitter UAE UK Ukraine United Nations United States USA Venezuela Washington Post West Bank WHO Yemen Zionism
Aletho News- ‘Project Freedom’ perishes in 48 hours as Trump retreats under the wall of Iran’s asymmetric deterrence
- Iran War Confusion & Mixed Messaging /Lt Col Daniel Davis
- Israel threatens Gaza flotilla activists with death after abduction
- Met refuses to probe British nationals accused of war crimes in Gaza
- Hezbollah denies activity in Syria amid persistent and false claims
- Melkite bishops concerned over Israeli demolitions in South Lebanon
- Israel’s Obliteration Ecocide from Gaza to Lebanon and Beyond
- UAE deports tens of thousands of Pakistanis, seizes their savings amid war on Iran: Report
- Wheels Down in Tbilisi: Was a Routine U.S. Military Stopover a Deliberate Signal to Iran?
- Trump’s second strike on Iran would be suicidal. But that’s not the reason why he won’t go ahead with it
- If Americans Knew
- An All-American Retort to Israel’s Invasion of Lebanon
- How Dr. Adam Hamawy’s experience as a surgeon in Gaza inspired him to run for Congress
- Under Trump, Green Card Seekers Face New Scrutiny for Views on Israel
- With World Distracted by War, Extremist Settlers Intensify Attacks in West Bank
- Israel’s brutality toward Gaza flotilla activists – 3 articles
- “Spitting and humiliation are daily. People are afraid to walk in Jerusalem with Christian symbols.”
- How the US-Israel Relationship Weakens America and Harms the World
- 1 in 5 amputees in Gaza is a child, UN warns amid prosthetic care crisis
- 6,000 Gazans lack prosthetic and/or rehabilitation care – Daily Update
- As in Gaza, Israel is targeting rescue workers in South Lebanon, killing more than 100 since March
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Declining Trends In 1980-2023 Tropical Cyclone Frequency, Accumulated Energy
- 46 IPCC Scientists Break Rank, Publicly Challenge Long-Standing Dogmatic Climate Claims
- Another Study Links Warming To Cloud Forcing, Shortwave Radiation, Natural Atmospheric Circulation
- Wind Energy Is Toxic, Hazardous To Human Health, Scientific Review Shows
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
Contact:
atheonews (at) gmail.com
Disclaimer
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 