The Wall Street Journal last week published an opinion piece, “Fauci and Walensky Double Down on Failed Covid Response,” with this subhead: “Lockdowns were oppressive and deadly. But U.S. and WHO officials plan worse for the next pandemic.”
The article begins:
“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] belatedly admitted failure this week. ‘For 75 years, CDC and public health have been preparing for Covid-19, and in our big moment, our performance did not reliably meet expectations,’ Director Rochelle Walensky said. She vowed to establish an ‘action-oriented culture.’”
Yes, you read that correctly. Dr. Anthony Fauci and Walensky admitted they failed. They learned their lesson.
As John Tierney, author of the op-ed, wrote:
“Lockdowns and mask mandates were the most radical experiment in the history of public health, but Dr. Walensky isn’t alone in thinking they failed because they didn’t go far enough. Anthony Fauci, chief medical adviser to the president, recently said there should have been ‘much, much more stringent restrictions’ early in the pandemic.”
They believe that they didn’t go far enough? There should have been “much, much more stringent restrictions?”
That’s what they learned from the destruction their public health policies wreaked upon this nation and the others that followed their lead?
To his credit, Tierney pointed out the absurdity of Walensky’s and Fauci’s stance on their own incompetence.
Tierney also dropped a series of “truth bombs,” including:
“Their oppressive measures were taken against the longstanding advice of public-health experts, who warned that they would lead to catastrophe and were proved right.”
“For all the talk from officials like Dr. Fauci about following ‘the science,’ these leaders ignored decades of research — as well as fresh data from the pandemic — when they set strict Covid regulations.”
“The burden of proof was on them to justify their dangerous experiment, yet they failed to conduct rigorous analyses, preferring to tout badly flawed studies while refusing to confront obvious evidence of the policies’ failure.”
“U.S. states with more-restrictive policies fared no better, on average, than states with less-restrictive policies.”
“When case rates throughout the pandemic are plotted on a graph, the trajectory in states with mask mandates is virtually identical to the trajectory in states without mandates. (The states without mandates actually had slightly fewer COVID deaths per capita.)”
A Johns Hopkins University meta-analysis of studies around the world concluded that lockdown and mask restrictions have had “little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality.”
Florida’s and Sweden’s open policies have been vindicated based upon their lower levels of excess mortality compared to other regions.
“It was bad enough that Fauci, the CDC and the World Health Organization ignored the best scientific advice at the start of this pandemic. It’s sociopathic for them to promote a worse catastrophe for future outbreaks.”
I take no issue with Tierney’s list. The problem here is with the Wall Street Journal.
Every single point this opinion piece offered could — and should — have been made months or years ago.
There was longstanding advice from public health experts that predicted Fauci and Walensky’s failures? Why didn’t you say so in 2020?
Fauci and Walensky ignored decades of research? They touted flawed studies while ignoring the obvious failures unfolding in front of them, month after month?
The successes of Sweden and Florida were apparent in 2020.
Where were the articles in your publication that could have brought light to these issues over the last two years?
The Johns Hopkins University analysis on mask restrictions was published nearly nine months ago. Why didn’t you cover it?
Why did it take so long to run this kind of piece when the evidence was around for so long?
Do you really expect us to look the other way because you now have the temerity to call Anthony Fauci sociopathic?
You had ample opportunity to give voice to the dissenters who were pleading for a voice, a conversation and a debate based on the very same evidence you are mentioning now.
You failed your readership. You failed the public.
The CDC’s policies were so devastating because you did not challenge them. Not once.
As a media platform, you were no less negligent than the public health officials you see fit to denigrate now — after untold damage has occurred, at their hands and yours.
Perhaps you’ve caused your loyal readers to finally scratch their heads and reconsider their perspective after 28 months of mercilessly attacking those of us who were asking you and other mainstream platforms to do your job.
Why are you holding Fauci and Walensky accountable now? Is it because they are finally admitting they blew it?
They are not the only galactically incompetent parties in this global tragedy. You are, too. And we all know it.
Interestingly, your scathing attack on our public health agencies still hasn’t gone nearly far enough.
One of their biggest “blunders” was not around lockdown measures. It was the dismissal of powerful, early treatment regimens, including ivermectin, that could have saved thousands of lives or more.
Instead, the public was forced to wait for a largely ineffective and harmful vaccine that has since exacted an incalculable level of damage on humanity.
Nevertheless, more than a year after Dr. Pierre Kory gave impassioned congressional testimony demanding that an official expert panel be convened to examine the mountains of evidence coming from all corners of the globe demonstrating the significant benefits of ivermectin in treating and preventing COVID-19, you had the audacity to print this hit piece on the safe and effective medicine that would have obviated the need to inject poorly tested mRNA technology into the bodies of several billion human beings.
Beyond being irresponsible, the article was silly, citing a single, small and yet-to-be-published study (at the time) that purportedly showed no benefit as proof that ivermectin cannot prevent COVID-19 hospitalizations.
The study underdosed the participants and was too small to detect statistically significant benefits, despite reduced incidence of hospitalization in most cohorts that got the medicine. (Read a full critique of the study here).
The study didn’t prove anything — other than that it was designed to fail from its inception.
Talk about touting a “badly flawed” study.
More importantly, your article on the study missed the real story: the scuttling of ivermectin by an unseen hand that was, it seems, in the pockets of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation through Unitaid, a quasi-governmental advocacy organization the foundation funds (full story here).
Have your editors lost their sense of smell from repeated bouts of COVID-19? Or were you never able to sniff out where the real stories are?
It’s fairly obvious that despite this attempt to reclaim your journalistic integrity you are still muzzled. Any story that even intimates that the highly profitable COVID-19 vaccine was not only unnecessary but also a stark failure, is still off-limits.
Your silence on this continues to deafen us.
Madhava Setty, M.D. is senior science editor for The Defender.
US Central Command (CENTCOM) announced it carried out airstrikes in Syria on Tuesday. The Department of Defense claims the bombs hit facilities used by groups affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and were in retaliation for an attack on US personnel in Syria.
The CENTCOM press release asserts that Iranian-supported groups attacked US forces in Syria on August 15, and Tuesday’s bombing was necessary to protect American troops. “Today’s strikes were necessary to protect and defend US personnel. The United States took proportionate, deliberate action intended to limit the risk of escalation and minimize the risk of casualties,” the Pentagon said.
A Pentagon statement on August 15 said a US base in al-Tanf, Syria, was attacked by a series of drones causing no damage or injuries. There was no claim of responsibility for the attack. The White House has not provided evidence that an Iranian-backed group carried out the attack.
The US occupies about a third of Syrian territory with 900 troops. Washington claims its forces remain in Syria to ensure the enduring defeat of the Islamic State. However, Iranian-backed groups support the government of Bashar al-Assad, an avowed enemy of ISIS. In recent months, ISIS has carried out several attacks against Assad’s forces, killing scores of soldiers.
President Joe Biden asserted he had Constitutional authority to carry out the strikes. “The President gave the direction for these strikes pursuant to his Article II authority to protect and defend US personnel by disrupting or deterring attacks by Iran-backed groups,” the press release said.
While Article II may give Biden the power to defend US troops, Congress has never passed a declaration of war or authorization of military force for Syria. Without Congressional authorization, three successive American presidents bombed Syria.
The strikes also come as Washington and Tehran have made significant progress towards reviving the Iran nuclear agreement. The US and Iran have been engaged in indirect talks for over a year. Reuters reported Monday that Tehran had dropped two key demands, paving the way for a deal that would see the US and Iran return to compliance with the nuclear deal.
Ukrainian troops have shelled the Galaktika shopping mall in Donetsk, causing a major fire in the building, Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) emergency officials said on Wednesday.
The staff have been evacuated, and there are no casualties, officials said.
Photos posted on social media allegedly show huge clouds of thick smoke coming from the building.
On Tuesday, Ukrainian forces used NATO-standard artillery shells to bombard residential blocks in Donetsk, killing three civilians, officials said. The office of DPR chief Denis Pushilin took a direct hit, while a hotel where journalists usually stay was also damaged.
Pushilin, who was unharmed, accused Kiev of using “terrorist methods” of warfare.
Experts believe indiscriminate use of drones is the key contributor to overall instability across the troubled regions in which they’re deployed
By Drago Bosnic | August 23, 2022
Drone strikes have been an integral part of US aggression against the world for over two decades now. These strikes have been the mainstay of joint military-intelligence black ops, especially in the Middle East and Africa. From the mountains of Afghanistan to the deserts of Libya, US strikes drones have been sowing death and destruction, ever so euphemistically called “spreading freedom and democracy.”
These drones, first used only for ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) missions, were modified for rudimentary strike roles and were first tested in former Yugoslavia, laying the groundwork for their later usage in various US invasions. The strikes were massively expanded under Barack Obama, with thousands being approved by his administration. After Donald Trump came to power, he officially reduced the number of drone strikes, although they now became more specific, with US intelligence services getting even more involved. However, since Joe Biden took office, it seems the trend has now been reversed and US drones are coming back in full force.
On August 19 conflict monitors drew attention to a series of US strikes in Somalia, which have escalated significantly in the last couple of months. These attacks have gained little to no attention in the US corporate mass media despite resulting in the deaths of more than 20 people.
“If you were unaware that we were bombing Somalia, don’t feel bad, this is a completely under-the-radar news story, one that was curiously absent from the headlines in all of the major newspapers this morning,” wrote Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, a senior adviser at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
Last Wednesday, Dave DeCamp, writing for AntiWar reported that the US AFRICOM (Africa Command) launched its second strike on Somalia in less than a week. AFRICOM claims the attack, which occurred in Beledweyne, “had killed 13 fighters belonging to the al-Qaeda-linked Somali militant group al-Shabaab, and that no civilians were harmed.” AFRICOM claims drone strikes also killed four al-Shabaab members in three separate operations near Beledweyne on August 9, two fighters near Labi Kus on July 17, and five militants in a June 3 bombing outside Beer Xani.
All of the aforementioned strikes have taken place since President Biden approved the redeployment of hundreds of special forces to Somalia in May, reversing an earlier withdrawal decision under the administration of former President Donald Trump. DeCamp noted that Trump’s withdrawal from Somalia merely “repositioned troops in neighboring Djibouti and Kenya, allowing the drone war to continue. But Biden has launched significantly fewer strikes in Somalia compared to his predecessor.”
“Bottom line, it’s been a long time since the United States was not bombing Somalia,” wrote Vlahos. “This comes after a particularly bloody period during the [so-called War on Terror] in which the CIA was using the country to detain and torture terror suspects from across North Africa. Whether this has ultimately been a good thing for the country or for the broader security of the region, one need only to look at the continued instability and impoverishment of the people,” she added, “and of course, the persistent presence of al-Shabaab itself.”
In addition to Somalia, recent reports indicate that US drones have been reactivated over Libya as well. The US shows no intention of stopping these strikes, with most now being relegated to intelligence services, such as the infamous CIA, with minimal civilian oversight. Many experts believe the indiscriminate use of these drones is a major, if not the key contributor to the overall instability across the troubled regions in which they’re deployed, as the terrorist activity which they’re allegedly there to stop is only exacerbated as a result.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
I have to confess a certain liking for Russian President Vladimir Putin. No, it’s not over his actions in Ukraine, nor his authoritarian tendencies domestically. It is due to the fact that he sometimes articulates the hypocrisy of foreign countries and leaders in a pithy and take-no-prisoners fashion. He has lately been brave enough to compare and contrast what the Russian military has been accused of in Ukraine with what Israel has been doing to Gaza. He has done so by asking a series of questions that together demonstrate the hypocrisy of Washington and of some Europeans over what constitutes war crimes or crimes against humanity. The questions were “First, are there any sanctions against Israel for the murder and destruction of innocent Palestinian women and children? Second, are there any sanctions against the United States for killing and destroying lives of innocent women and children in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Cuba, Vietnam, and even stealing their diamonds and gold? And third, were there any sanctions against the US and France over the killing of Muammar Gaddafi and the destruction of Libya?”
Russia, of course, has been on the receiving end of sanctions and boycotts and even official theft of the money that it had in US and European banks. It has also had to deal as well with military support provided by NATO to the Volodymyr Zelensky regime in Ukraine. Last month the US Senate unanimously passed a ridiculous nonbinding resolution declaring Russia to be a “state sponsor of terrorism,” which, if endorsed by the White House, would inevitably lead to still more sanctions and increasing aid to Zelensky and his corrupt cronies in an openly declared attempt to weaken Russia and bring down Putin. It would also mean that a future functional diplomatic relationship between Moscow and Washington would become impossible. Implicit in Putin’s questions is the clear accusation that there is a double standard on what constitutes national security. The West supports military resistance by Ukraine against Russia but does not support the right of the Palestinians to defend themselves when attacked by Israel, as took place on August 5th, an unprovoked attack that killed inter alia 17 Palestinian children.
The Russian Foreign Ministry followed-up with a statement first posted on its Egyptian Embassy social media accounts. The statement included a screenshot of a tweet Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid posted April 3rd on the claimed killing of civilians in the Ukrainian town of Bucha, attributed by Lapid and the western media to Russian forces. Lapid declared “It is impossible to remain indifferent in the face of the horrific images from the city of Bucha near Kiev, from after the Russian army left. Intentionally harming a civilian population is a war crime and I strongly condemn it.” The Russian post observed how one might “Compare Yair Lapid’s lies about [Ukraine] in April and attempts to place blame and responsibility on [Russia] for the deaths of people in Bucha brutally murdered by the Nazis with his calls in August for bombing and strikes on [Palestinian] land in the Gaza Strip. Isn’t that a double standard, complete disregard and contempt for the lives of Palestinians?”
The point about a double standard is particularly relevant as Ukraine, which claims to be enduring a brutal Russian assault replete with war crimes, has openly endorsed Israel’s bombing and shooting of the unarmed Palestinians. Two weeks ago, Ukrainian Ambassador to Israel Yevgen Korniychuk expressed his full support for Tel Aviv, saying “As a Ukrainian whose country is under a very brutal attack by its neighbor, I feel great sympathy towards the Israeli public. Attacks on women and children are reprehensible. Terrorism and malicious attacks against civilians are the daily reality of Israelis and Ukrainians and this appalling threat must be stopped immediately.”
Korniychuk’s odd, and manifestly false, comment takes reality and turns it upside down. But nevertheless, to be sure, Israel’s recent bloody assault on Gaza did not earn it much favor from a global audience that has become tired of the Jewish state’s belligerency and self-serving flood of disinformation. A number of human rights organizations and even some churches responded by declaring Israel to be an “apartheid state.” Some critics of the Israelis have also been pleased to observe that ordinary voters in the US Democratic Party in particular have moved away from knee-jerk support of Israel and have accepted that it is racist and undemocratic. Even a considerable number young Jews, many of whom have protested against the Israeli automatic resort to gunfire and bombs in suppressing the Palestinians, have broken with their parents over the issue of what constitutes the legitimate “right” of Israel to “defend itself.”
Israel is far from defeated, however, and it has struck back in the time-honored fashion, using the Jewish diaspora and its vast wealth to buy up or leverage the media, to corrupt politicians at all levels, and to propagate a narrative that always depicts Jews sympathetically as perpetual victims. That narrative relies on the so-called holocaust and the slogan “never again” to generate the moral authority and outrage that makes the entire otherwise unsustainable imposture work.
What might be plausibly described as an International Jewish Conspiracy directed from the Israeli government’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs and from the think tanks, banks and investment houses on Wall Street and K Street is working hard to make it illegal to criticize Israel and is enjoying considerable success. Israel’s recent and continuing slaughter of Gazans and West Bank villagers has not induced the thoroughly controlled governments and media outlets that the Jewish state dominates that there is anything seriously wrong going on between the Israelis and Palestinians, only business as usual.
Israel appears to be winning its war against the Palestinians (and let’s not forget the Iranians) where it matters most, among the power brokers in both the US and elsewhere. Witness for example the reaction of the US government to the killing of the Gazans. President Joe Biden declared that Israel has a “right to defend itself,” the standard line also parroted by Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi. Thirty-four congressmen meanwhile signed on to a letter calling on the United Nations to disband a UN Commission of Inquiry (COI) into Israel following recent controversial remarks by one of the commission’s members. The COI was set up to investigate possible Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity in the occupied territories and Gaza.
The signatories particularly objected to what the always vigilant Anti-Defamation League has described as anti-Semitic statements by COI member Miloon Kothari, an Indian human rights expert and investigator. In a podcast Kothari observed that Israel routinely “practiced apartheid and settler colonialism against the Palestinians,” before rejecting criticism of his commission as the work of the Jewish lobby that controls the media, saying “We are very disheartened by the social media that is controlled largely by the Jewish lobby or specific NGOs,” adding that “a lot of money is being thrown at trying to discredit the commission’s work.”
Jewish power particularly in the anglophone world was also on display recently in Canada. The painfully politically correct Justin Trudeau regime has succumbed to the example set by Germany and several other European states in enshrining the official Jewish organizations’ perpetual victim narrative in the Canadian Criminal Code, s. 319. Henceforth
(2.1) Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
So, from now on in Canada, if you question the claimed facts surrounding the approved so-called holocaust narrative you can be sent to prison for two years. So much for free speech or the right to challenge disinformation.
Finally, in Britain, the two contenders for the position of Prime Minister replacing the disgraced Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, the foreign secretary, and Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, were boasting of their pro-Israel credentials over the very weekend when Israel was killing more than fifty Palestinians, including 17 children, while wounding scores more. Truss and Sunak played the Israel/Jewish card big time, with Truss asserting that “The UK should stand side by side with Israel, now and well into the future. As Prime Minister, I would be at the forefront of this mission.” Truss has also hinted that she would follow the Zionist stooge Donald Trump’s lead in moving the British Embassy to Jerusalem and she has supported a Free Trade Agreement between the UK and Israel, which would primarily benefit the Israelis. She has also declared that any criticism of Israel is rooted in anti-Semitism, a popular line that is also being extensively promoted in the United States.
The two dominant parties in the UK’s parliamentary system are the Conservatives (Tories) and Labour. Both parties have organized “Friends of Israel” groups that have as members a majority of parliamentarians, including more than four out of every five Tories, who currently form the government. Recently, the Labour Party ousted leader Jeremy Corbyn because he dared to express sympathy for the Palestinians and replaced him with Keir Starmer, who is as close to Israel and the powerful British Jewish community as, well… choose your metaphor. For what it’s worth, Truss, Sunak and Starmer all support a hard line against Russia in Ukraine and also advocate putting extreme pressure on Iran, Israel’s declared regional enemy. They also all support using the British veto in the United Nations to protect the Jewish state against critics.
In 2001, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon angrily admonished his colleague Shimon Peres, who was arguing that Israel should heed US calls for a cease fire, saying “I want to tell you something very clear, don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.” It now appears that the US, Canada, and Great Britain, joined by other anglophone states like Australia and New Zealand, are riding on the same horse when it comes to sacrificing actual national interests to pander to a foreign nation which can rightly be regarded as both a habitual war criminal and manifestly racist. The British and Canadian politicians on both sides of the aisle have now become like their American counterparts in allowing themselves to be corrupted by money and media influence, making an uncritical and near total commitment to Israel the defining issue in any political campaign for high office.
Modern Jewish power as a global phenomenon is a cancer that was in a certain sense made in America and has spread worldwide. But, fortunately, the smearing of critics as anti-Semites is beginning to wear thin. As Chris Hedges observed in March 2019 “The Israel Lobby’s buying off of nearly every senior politician in the United States, facilitated by our system of legalized bribery, is not an anti-Semitic trope. It is a fact. The lobby’s campaign of vicious character assassination, smearing and blacklisting against those who defend Palestinian rights… is not an anti-Semitic trope. It is a fact. Twenty-four state governments’ passage of Israel Lobby-backed legislation requiring their workers and contractors, under threat of dismissal, to sign a pro-Israel oath and promise not to support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement is not an anti-Semitic trope. It is a fact.”
It should also be a fact that Americans are beginning to rally against their government being manipulated by the unregistered insidious agents of a foreign government, but that will have to wait presumably. For the moment, Israel and its fifth column have key elements in both government and in the public space in their iron grip. It might require something like a revolution to loosen that.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.
August 15, 2022, the U.K. became the first country to approve Moderna’s new bivalent COVID booster, which contains both the original concoction and mRNA to target Omicron variants. The booster has also been submitted for approval with authorities in Australia, Canada and the EU, and there’s every reason to suspect it’ll be submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as well. As reported by Sky News:1
“The booster dose, known as ‘Spikevax bivalent Original/Omicron,’ contains 25 micrograms of Omicron vaccine and 25 micrograms of original coronavirus vaccine …
The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI) has said the vaccine will be available to those aged 18 and over as part of the UK’s autumn booster program. Health Secretary Steve Barclay said those eligible will be contacted from early September.”
More Than 100 Million Doses Have Been Trashed
The approval of the new booster comes right on the heels of widespread complaints about lack of demand for the shots. Moderna recently had to throw away 30 million doses of its original COVID jab, as there was no demand for them.2
“We have a big demand problem,” Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said in May 2022 during a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum’s meeting in Davos, Switzerland.3 Similarly, in the U.S., pharmacies, states and federal agencies have tossed 82.1 million COVID jab doses in the trash, and for the same reason.4
Bivalent Booster Is Already Out of Date
Moderna’s bivalent booster is said to “provide a strong immune response against the Omicron BA.1 variant as well as the original 2020 Wuhan strain,” which, for the record, is extinct and no longer in circulation anywhere in the world. BA.1 is now rarely ever found, either.
The graph5,6 below, from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shows the infection ratios of common variants. As you can see, in the U.S., infections are now caused by the BA.4, BA.5 and BA.2.12.1 variants of Omicron.7 So, this booster contains two strains that aren’t even relevant anymore.
The situation is exactly the same in Europe, where Omicron BA.2, BA.4 and BA.5 are the current “variants of concern.” BA.1 isn’t even a “variant of interest,” which is the next-lower categorization. It’s on the list of “de-escalated variants,” which is based on a variant meeting one or more of the following criteria:8
“(1) the variant is no longer circulating, (2) the variant has been circulating for a long time without any impact on the overall epidemiological situation, (3) scientific evidence demonstrates that the variant is not associated with any concerning properties.”
In short, BA.1 is of no concern in Europe either, as it’s not in circulation and/or because it doesn’t cause severe illness. The same goes for the original Wuhan strain, which has long since mutated out of existence.
Vaccinating Against Rapidly Mutating Viruses Is a Bad Idea
Coronaviruses mutate very rapidly in general, and the mRNA jabs are based on a surface protein (the spike protein), which is the most rapidly mutating portion of the entire virus. What happens when you vaccinate against a rapidly mutating virus? You encourage it to mutate even faster, and to develop immune-evading properties.
This is what we’ve been witnessing since the beginning of the COVID jab campaign, and at this point, there’s no hope of ever catching up with the virus. What’s worse, while variants have so far evolved into milder strains, they are in fact gaining the ability to evade antibodies, and could theoretically switch course to become more pathogenic.9
This is particularly true when a vaccine is “leaky,” meaning it doesn’t fully prevent infection (which none of the COVID shots do). Just like when you overuse an antibiotic that fails to eradicate the bacteria, which allows antibiotic-resistant bacteria to flourish, overuse of a leaky vaccine can pressure a virus to become more lethal.10,11
BA.4 and BA.5 are the most resistant to date, with BA.5 circumventing the immune systems even of those with natural immunity.12 Fortunately, it doesn’t appear to cause severe illness in most people.
The take-home here is that had natural immunity been allowed to take place without these jabs, the pandemic would be over and reinfections near-nonexistent. Instead, we’re now in a pandemic of the vaccinated, with the vast majority of serious COVID infections occurring among those who have been jabbed.13,14
We know that Pfizer was aware of this possibility, as “vaccine-associated enhanced disease (VAED)” is listed as an “Important Potential Risk” in Table 5 on page 11 of a document called “5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports.”15 This document was part of the FOIA required and court-ordered batch released by the FDA April 1, 2022.
How Long Will the Bivalent Booster Protect You?
According to Moderna, the bivalent Spikevax “demonstrates potent neutralizing antibody response against Omicron subvariants BA.4 and BA.5.”16 They made the same claim for the original COVID jab, back in January 2021,17 and by August 2021, they admitted the neutralizing antibodies generated lasted only six months after the second dose.18
How long will the bivalent jab “be effective” (and I use that term loosely)? Who knows, but the way things are trending, six months would probably be the max. In Germany, citizens must now get a booster every three months to qualify as “fully vaccinated,”19 as rapidly waning immunity has become accepted fact, and that’s probably where we’re all headed.
Germans who haven’t received all of their boosters will be subject to mask mandates and other COVID restrictions this fall. This, despite deep criticism from businesses tasked with confirming their customers’ status. As reported by the Rise Align Ignite Reclaim (RAIR) foundation:20
“Businesses have voiced great concern about further regulatory chaos in the struggling economy. ‘The plans are simply not feasible,’ said the general manager of the German Hotel and Restaurant Association (Dehoga), Ingrid Hartges, the Handelsblatt. ‘We cannot constantly check whether our guests are vaccinated, recovered, or tested.’
These people are exempted from the obligation to wear masks in restaurants or events under certain circumstances — if the vaccination, for example, is within the last three months. ‘But you can’t tell from the guest in the restaurant what status they have,’ says Hartges. ‘Like when he goes to the bathroom — should the staff always ask if he’s vaccinated?’ she said. ‘That’s nonsense.'”
Bivalent Jab Will Not Undergo Additional Testing
It’s important to realize that these “next-gen” boosters will not undergo any additional safety testing.21,22 They’re being rolled out under a new fast-track standard where ingredients can be swapped out without additional testing.
This is the standard protocol for seasonal flu vaccines. However, we’re now using an entirely new type and essentially untested technology. There’s no telling whether variations in the spike mRNA being injected might produce vastly differing side effects. They could potentially have differing toxicities, but that’s not being investigated.
Also, remember that the “efficacy” they’re referring to is only based on measurements of antibody titers, which tells us nothing, really, about its ability to prevent infection, severity of illness or death. Why?
Because antibodies form only a part of your immune response, and they’re not even the most important. It is far more likely that your innate immune system — your first line of defense — will destroy a virus before your adaptive immune system even has a chance to respond and create antibodies.23
It is important to understand that no vaccine improves your innate immune response. All vaccines are ever able to do is address your adaptive humoral immune system and create antibodies. Your innate immune system has T cells that can directly kill viruses. If you happen to have a vigorous T cell response, you’ll be protected even if your antibodies are low. So, antibodies are not a necessary measure of immunity.
Antibody titer levels are what’s called a “surrogate outcome.” It’s a substitute for actual clinical outcome. But it’s in no way equivalent, no matter how much the powers in control want it to be. Antibody titers may be high, but in the real world, more people may end up in the hospital and die — either from the infection or from the shot. In short, high antibody titer is not a guarantee of effectiveness — and it tells us absolutely nothing about safety.
CIA-Backed Upstart to Produce Moderna’s Bivalent mRNA
The complete absence of testing moving forward is all the more concerning when you consider who’s manufacturing the RNA for Moderna’s now-bivalent booster. In a recent Unlimited Hangout article,24 investigative journalist Whitney Webb reveals the genetic material for the reformulated booster is being exclusively manufactured by National Resilience, a relative newcomer with significant ties to U.S. intelligence agencies.
Its board of directors include In-Q-Tel CEO Chris Darby, who is also on the board of directors of the CIA Officers Memorial Foundation, and former FDA commissioner and Pfizer board member Dr. Scott Gottlieb. Not surprisingly, National Resilience promises to successfully lead its customers through the government regulatory process. As reported by Webb:25
“National Resilience was founded … in November 2020, and … plans to ‘reinvent biomanufacturing’ and democratize access to medicines,’ namely gene therapies, experimental vaccines and other ‘medicines of tomorrow’ …
In April 2021, National Resilience acquired Ology Bioservices Inc., which had received a $37 million contract from the US military the previous November to develop an advanced anti-COVID-19 monoclonal antibody treatment. This acquisition also provided National Resilience with its first Biosafety Level 3 (BSL-3) laboratory and the ability to manufacture cell and gene therapies, live viral vaccines and vectors and oncolytic viruses.
Despite being in the earliest stages of developing its ‘revolutionary’ manufacturing capabilities, National Resilience entered into a partnership with the Government of Canada in July of last year. Per that agreement, the Canadian government plans to invest CAD 199.2 million (about $154.9 million) into National Resilience’s Ontario-based subsidiary, Resilience Biotechnologies Inc.
Most of those funds are destined for use in expanding the Ontario facility that Resilience acquired last March and which is now manufacturing the mRNA for Moderna’s COVID-19 products … More recently, in 2022, the company has announced a few new clients – Takeda, Opus Genetics and the US Department of Defense …
Considering Moderna’s history and Resilience’s connections, there may be more to this partnership that meets the eye and concerned members of the public would do well to keep a very close eye on Resilience, its partnerships, and the products it is manufacturing.
Given that we now live in a world where government regulatory decisions on the approval of medicines are increasingly influenced by corporate press releases and normal regulatory procedures have fallen by the wayside for being too ‘slow,’ there is likely to be little scrutiny of the genetic material that Resilience produces for the ‘medicines of tomorrow.’
This seems to be already true for Moderna’s recently retooled COVID-19 vaccine, as there has been no independent examination of the new genetic sequence of mRNA used in the Omicron-specific vaccine candidate or its effects on the human body in the short, medium or long term.
For those who are skeptical of the outsized role that intelligence-linked companies are playing in the attempted technological ‘revolution’ in the medical field, it is best to consider Resilience’s role in the upcoming fall vaccination campaign and in future pandemic and public health scenarios before trying its ‘futuristic’ products.”
In a June 2022 interview with British radio presenter Maajid Nawaz, Michael Yeadon, Ph.D., a former vice-president and chief scientific adviser for Pfizer and founder/CEO of the biotech company Ziarco (now owned by Novartis), explained why he believes the COVID jabs were intentionally made to be harmful and to prolong the pandemic.
For starters, it’s been known for more than 10 years that spike protein causes adverse effects in humans,26 so this could not be a design error. It must have been intentional.
As Yeadon explained, when making a vaccine, you have to be very careful about which part of the virus you use, as certain parts are more toxic and some provoke better immune responses than others. “What you would do is ask, ‘What’s the toxicity of the bit I’m going to give a person?'” he said.
Seeing how scientists have known for at least a decade that spike protein from related viruses causes blood clots through at least two different mechanism, the choice to use mRNA that programs your cells to make spike protein raised a warning flag from the start.
Nothing About the COVID Jabs Makes Sense
In addition to that, 90% of the immune response you get from natural COVID infection is in response to other parts of the virus, not the spike protein. Put another way, exposure to spike protein mounts an inferior immune response. If you’re looking to make an effective vaccine, wouldn’t you choose a part of the virus that mounts the best and most robust immune response?
By choosing the spike protein on which to base COVID-19 shots, scientists picked a protein that a) was known to be toxic to humans and b) produced an inferior immune response (compared to other parts of the virus).
On top of that, spike protein mutates rapidly, which destroys any protection the shot provides shortly after it’s given. As noted by Yeadon,27 “What you should do is pick the bits of the virus that’s genetically most stable,” but they didn’t do that. Why not? The end result is a seemingly never-ending series of boosters, and according to Yeadon, that may have been the plan from the start.
As if all of that weren’t enough, the spike protein is also similar to a variety of human proteins, which can trigger your body to mount an inappropriate immune response against your own proteins. In other words, it can cause autoimmune disease. Yet, scientists chose the spike protein anyway — even though it violated all of the accepted rules for creating a safe and effective product.
Collusion to Cause Harm
Yeadon believes the decision to use spike protein was not a mistake at all. He believes it was intentionally chosen because it has all of those ill effects. He told Nawaz:
“Again, you deselect things that are toxic in their own right, you pick things that are genetically stable, and you pick things that are most different from humans …
But guess what? Moderna picks spike protein and so does Pfizer, and AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson. So, I put it to you, colleagues, any scientists out there or just logical people. How the hell would they pick [the spike protein]?
No team I was ever part of would ever have picked bloody spike protein for this vaccine. And you know what? If we did, and we have competing groups, we would not, all four of us, make the same mistake. Not possible. It’s collusion and malfeasance. The did it on purpose, knowing it would hurt you.”
Resources for Those Injured by the COVID Jabs
If you got one or more jabs and suffered an injury, first and foremost, never ever take another COVID booster, another mRNA gene therapy shot or regular vaccine. You need to end the assault on your system. The same goes for anyone who has taken one or more COVID jabs and had the good fortune of not experiencing debilitating side effects.
Your health may still be impacted long-term, so don’t take any more shots. When it comes to treatment, there are still more questions than answers, and most doctors are clueless about what to do — in part because they never bothered to give early treatment for COVID and therefore don’t understand how different medicines and supplements impact the spike protein.
So far, it seems like many of the treatments that worked against severe COVID-19 infection also help ameliorate adverse effects from the jab. This makes sense, as the toxic, most damaging part of the virus is the spike protein, and that’s what your whole body is producing if you got the jab.
Both agree that eliminating the spike protein your body is now continuously producing is a primary task. Perro’s preferred remedy for this is hydroxychloroquine, while Kory typically uses ivermectin. Both of these drugs bind and thereby facilitate the removal of spike protein.
Kory also believes there may be ways to boost the immune system to allow it to degrade and eventually remove the spike from your cells naturally, over time. One of the strategies he recommends for this is TRE (time restricted eating), which stimulates autophagy, a natural cleaning process that eliminates damaged, misfolded and toxic proteins. Another strategy that can do the same thing would be sauna therapy.
As a member of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), Kory helped develop the FLCCC’s post-vaccine treatment protocol called I-RECOVER. Since the protocol is continuously updated as more data become available, your best bet is to download the latest version straight from the FLCCC website at covid19criticalcare.com28 (hyperlink to the correct page provided above).
According to a report by Hebrew newspaper Haaretz released on 22 August, Tel Aviv has been working through its defense ministry to hide historical documents related to the founding of the state of Israel, from the Israeli public.
The founding of Israel in 1948, known throughout the Arab world as the “Nakba,” or catastrophe, involved the ethnic cleansing and mass expulsion of Palestinians from their land by ultra-nationalist Jewish gangs.
These gangs were later integrated into the Israeli military.
The documents contain details on Israel’s killing of civilians, as well as the erasure of entire Palestinian villages. Israel is undergoing “a systematic process to conceal evidence of the Nakba,” Haaretz reveals.
The report states that efforts to hide these documents have been carried out by the Directorate of Security of the Defense Establishment, a secret department in the Israeli Defense Ministry known as the Malmab, “whose work and budget are secret.”
Members of the Malmab reportedly “worked without any legal authority, even in some cases [hiding] documents that the military censor had previously allowed to be published,” Haaretz revealed.
The report also details that government officials, including members of the Israeli Knesset, who by law are allowed access to such archives, were barred from viewing the documents in question.
A settlement was reached in which the Israeli Treasury would send requests in order for archived documents to be examined for disclosure. The Malmab apparatus would then search through them thoroughly to determine if they can be published alongside Israel’s accessible archives, despite already being accessible by Israeli law.
Haaretz reported that the Malmab were also working to hide documents relating to Tel Aviv’s nuclear program.
“If the state admitted … that the documents were hidden without authority, why did it not insist on their immediate disclosure?” the report asks.
The report concludes by saying that Israel has to “get rid of the twisted habit it has adopted of concealing its past from the public … the public has the right to know the history of the country in which it lives, and also to discover its less pleasant aspects.”
Despite the events of the Nakba being common historical knowledge, Israel’s attempt to hide these documents represents its policy of trying to control the perception of the Israeli public.
Israel is known to have attempted hiding the atrocities of its past.
On 8 July, Hebrew media revealed the existence of a mass grave under the parking lot of a tourist attraction in Israel, where the bodies of dozens of Egyptian soldiers burned alive by Israeli forces were buried during the 1967 Arab–Israeli War, also known as the Six-Day War.
For over five decades, Tel Aviv kept the secret of the mass grave, never attempting to return the bodies to their homeland.
Additionally, Israel has been secretly building a nuclear arsenal for several decades – owning around 40 to 800 nuclear warheads which it denies having – while criticizing Tehran over its nuclear program.
The car bombing outside Moscow on Saturday night, which took the life of journalist Darya Dugina, was orchestrated and carried out by Ukrainian secret services, the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) has said.
Dugina was killed while returning from a conservative family festival held in Moscow Region. She was the daughter of anti-Western author and political commentator Aleksandr Dugin. Like her father, she was known for her vocal support of the Russian military operation in Ukraine.
In a statement on Monday, the FSB said that Ukrainian national Natalya Vovk, born in 1979, carried out the bombing.
According to the FSB, Vovk arrived in Russia with her teenage daughter on July 23 and rented an apartment in the building in Moscow where the victim also lived.
Vovk and her daughter attended the ‘Tradition’ festival on Saturday, where Dugin was giving a lecture and his daughter was present, the FSB said.
Investigators stated earlier that a bomb was planted under the Toyota Land Cruiser Prado SUV Dugina used to leave the event. According to the FSB, Vovk detonated the bomb remotely, killing Dugina as she was driving on a highway. She then left with her daughter for Estonia on Sunday.
The FSB added that Vovk used a car with a license plate from the Donetsk People’s Republic when entering Russia, but replaced it with a Kazakhstan license plate when driving in Moscow, and a Ukrainian license plate when crossing into Estonia.
Official history pretends that the United States was surprised by the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. In reality, American President Franklin Roosevelt was seeking war with Japan to justify entering the war against Germany. He approved many plans to provoke war with Japan. The most aggressive was JB 355 that was secretly funded in August 1941 to send dozens of American bombers to China, painted with Chinese insignia, to bomb strategic targets in Japan. President Roosevelt approved this plan despite objections by General George Marshall and Secretary of War Henry Stimson. They considered it an illegal act of war that required valuable aircraft needed by Britain and American forces in the Philippines.
This will be short because it really does not need much comment. In fact, this is so absurd that I am just starting with the reference document because I am concerned no one will believe it. Here it is:
Yes, that is right, Fauci and crew are now actively performing gain-of-function (GoF) work and infecting primates with the Spanish Flu. For those of you that are unaware, GoF does not have a single agreed upon definition but, as it relates here, is essentially the modification of the Spanish Flu virus to make “more functional.” In this case, as with COVID, I have little doubt the GoF supporters will argue that this is not GoF but the article actually notes that this disease was created in canine kidneys with supplemental bovine serum. Here is a quote from the document:
Virus and cells. Influenza virus A/South Carolina/1918 (H1N1) was generated by reverse genetics (9) and handled in biosafety level 4 (BSL-4) containment at the National Microbiology Laboratory (NML). Sequences of the 1918 influenza viral segments were based on data reported under GenBank accession numbers DQ208309, DQ208310, DQ208311, AF117241, AY744935, AF250356, AY130766, and AF333238. 1918 influenza virus was cultured usingMadin-Darby canine kidney (MDCK; ATCC, Manassas, VA, USA) cells. MDCK cells were grown in minimum essential medium (MEM; HyClone) supplemented with 5% fetal bovine serum (FBS; HyClone) and 1 L-glutamine (L-Glu; Gibco, Life Technologies, Grand Island, NY, USA).
A passage 2 (P2) virus stock was prepared using MEM supplemented with 0.1% bovine serum albumin (BSA) (fraction V; HyClone), 1 L-glutamine, and 1 mg/mL N-tosyl-L-phenylalanine chloromethyl ketone (TPCK)-treated trypsin (Sigma-Aldrich). This stock was used for animal inoculation. The mouse 50% lethal dose (MLD50) for this stock was determined previously to be 103.2 PFU (9); this value was confirmed prior to the use of the stock for macaque infection.
I frankly do not care to debate the nuance of whether the recreation of generally extinct virus “generated by reverse genetics” using pieces and parts of other animals qualifies as GoF; what I care about is that we have recreated the Spanish Flu and are experimenting with it on other animals. I also care that one focus of this article is the fact that scientists are frustrated that the recreated Spanish Flu is not dangerous enough. We do not have to get far in this to see this frustration. At the beginning of the article in the summary of its importance this statement is made:
Here, we demonstrate that even at the highest doses tested, 1918 influenza was not lethal in these two macaque species, suggesting that they are not ideal for the development and testing of novel pandemic influenza-specific vaccines and therapies. Therefore, other physiologically relevant nonhuman primate models of pandemic influenza are needed.
At this point I am preparing to release the results of a major investigation we have been undertaking at Renz Law that will demonstrate that SARS-COV2 was in fact created in the Wuhan labs as part of a GoF project. We believe the investigation demonstrates this in a way that far exceeds a preponderance of the evidence standard and probably exceeds reasonable doubt. With that in mind, and given the result of the the previous coronavirus GoF, can ANYONE possibly argue GoF work on the Spanish Flu is a good idea? Even the simple recreation of the disease demonstrates an incredible lack of respect for the disaster created by the coronavirus GoF.
So you may be asking, what moron could possibly be oblivious enough to support GoF work on the Spanish Flu while the world is still dealing with the nightmare that is COVID? The answer should not be surprising and is here:
Mable Chan,ᵃ Meenakshi Tiwary,ᵇ,ᶜ Helen L. Wu,ᵇ,ᶜ Nikesh Tailor,ᵃ Robert Vendramelli,ᵃ Jonathan Audet,ᵃ Bryce M. Warner,ᵃ Kevin Tierney,ᵃ Alix Albietz,ᵃ Thang Truong,ᵃ Kaylie Doan,ᵃ Alexander Bello,ᵃ Marnie Willman,ᵃ Bryan D. Griffin,ᵃ,ᵈ Patrick W. Hanley,ᵉ Jamie Lovaglio,ᵉ David Safronetz,ᵃ,ᶠ Jim Strong,ᵃ,ᶠ Jonah B. Sacha,ᵇ,ᶜ Darwyn Kobasaᵃ,ᶠ
a. Special Pathogens, National Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
b. Vaccine and Gene Therapy Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland,
c. Oregon, USA Oregon National Primate Research Center, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
d. Vaccine Safety Surveillance, Immunization Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
e. Rocky Mountain Veterinary Branch, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Hamilton, Montana, USA
f. Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
So, NIH and NIAID are involved. Apparently Fauci does not mind what he did with funding the creation of COVID and is at it again. You might also note the vaccine development crew’s involvement. A foundational point in this article is that the newly recreated Spanish Flu is not dangerous enough. Here is a pull-quote:
However, 1918 influenza was uniformly nonlethal in these two species, demonstrating that this isolate is insufficiently pathogenic in rhesus and Mauritian cynomolgus macaques to support testing novel prophylactic influenza approaches where protection from severe disease combined with a lethal outcome is desired as a highly stringent indication of vaccine efficacy.
This means that these people are arguing that we need to make a more dangerous version of the Spanish Flu so they can make “better” vaccines for it… despite the fact that until they recreated it, it likely no longer existed in nature. Much like with COVID, these snake oil salesmen create the disease and then create the cure. Given the complete failure and innumerable dangers of the COVID jabs, the real question is whether the cure will be worse than the disease?
For my part I find the fact that I am even writing this article to be incredible. In this election year I sincerely hope that this article is put in front of every elected official in Washington and they are asked to explain how this is continuing on their watch.
Several Russian soldiers involved in the military operation in Ukraine have been hospitalized with severe chemical poisoning, the Russian Defense Ministry said on Saturday.
Traces of Botulinum toxin Type B, which is an “organic poison of artificial origin,” have been discovered in samples taken from the servicemen, the ministry said, accusing Kiev of “chemical terrorism.”
The Russian troops were “hospitalized with signs of severe poisoning” after being stationed near the village of Vasilyevka in Zaporozhye Region on July 31, the statement said.
“The Zelensky regime has authorized terrorist attacks with the use of toxic substances against Russian personnel and civilians” following a string of military defeats in Donbass and other areas, the ministry insisted.
Moscow plans to send laboratory tests from the soldiers to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
Botulinum toxin, often called the “miracle poison,” is one of the most toxic biological substances known to science. Produced by the Clostridium botulinum bacteria, it blocks the release of the acetylcholine neurotransmitter, causing muscle paralysis.
Botulinum toxin Type A has been used in medicine in small doses in recent decades, especially to treat disorders characterized by overactive muscle movement. It’s also well known in cosmetology under its shortened name, Botox.
However, Botulinum toxin poses a major threat as a bioweapon due its ease of production and distribution, and the high fatality rate resulting from poisoning. Recovery is only possible after a lengthy period of intensive care.
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.