Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

CDC “Pivoting its language” on vaccination status

Moving forward people will need regular boosters to be “up to date”, & they won’t be using the term “fully vaccinated” anymore.

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | January 25, 2022

Dr Rochelle Walensky, director of the US Center for Disease Control, told the media on Friday that the CDC is intending to “pivot the language” regarding the Covid19 vaccines.

Speaking to the press briefing, Dr Walenksy had a very obvious message she really wanted to hammer home :

And what we really are working to do is pivot the language to make sure that everybody is as up to date with their COVID-19 vaccines as they personally could be, should be, based on when they got their last vaccine. So, importantly, right now, we’re pivoting our language. We really want to make sure people are up to date. That means if you recently got your second dose, you’re not eligible for a booster, you’re up to date. If you are eligible for a booster and you haven’t gotten it, you’re not up to date and you need to get your booster in order to be up to date.

(You can watch the full briefing here.)

It’s pretty clear that “say “up to date”, not “fully vaccinated”, was underlined in the memo. As was “pivot the language”, but what does it actually mean?

Well, that should be clear, it means people who were “fully vaccinated” will soon be “not fully vaccinated”.

(Side note here, but can we take a moment to appreciate the term “pivot the language”? That is some nice newspeak, beautiful. Up there alongside “enhanced interrogation”.)

The use of the term “up to date” in place of “fully vaccinated” is likewise deliberately crafted political language, turning a hard-and-fast reality into an ever-extending continuum. Normalising the open-ended nature of the new “vaccinations”.

We did warn you this would happen, you will NEVER be full vaccinated.

The good news is that this could be the breaking point for a lot of people who have gone along peacefully up until now, and if you doubt that just look how nervous Walenksy is in saying it, and listen to how much trouble she’s going to avoiding the phrase “not fully vaccinated”.

She knows this is going to alienate a lot of people. Could be our side is about to get some considerable reinforcements.

January 25, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | 1 Comment

How the CDC fooled the world

CDC: Science or Politics? (Pat Cross)
SWISS POLICY RESEARCH | January 15, 2022

Throughout the pandemic, the US Center for Disease Control (CDC) published numerous false and misleading studies that bolstered national and international political goals and guided social media censorship. Three recent examples illustrate the issue.

1) Covid, kids and diabetes

A recent CDC study falsely suggested that covid increased the risk of type 1 or type 2 diabetes in children, see reviews here and here (the study didn’t consider obesity rates, for instance). The misleading CDC study was published in parallel to the ongoing covid child vaccination campaign.

In reality, it is covid vaccines that have been shown to cause, in some cases, elevated (pre-diabetic) blood sugar levels and life-threatening diabetic ketoacidosis, while ineffective lockdowns and school closures have led to an unprecedented increase in childhood obesity (and possibly diabetes).

2) Face masks in schools

In September, the CDC published a study falsely claiming that masks reduced coronavirus infections in schools, see reviews here and here (“profoundly misleading”, “very shaky science”).

In reality, face masks have had no impact at all on coronavirus infections; in fact, the official CDC school study from May 2021 confirmed this, but the result was never publicized.

More recently, the CDC has begun recommending N95/FFP2 masks to the general public, but data from Germany and Austria showed already in 2021 that these masks had no effect, either.

3) Natural immunity

In October, the CDC published a study falsely claiming that vaccine immunity was more robust than natural (i.e. infection-acquired) immunity, see reviews here and here (“highly flawed”).

In reality, natural immunity has been shown to be far more robust and durable than vaccine immunity, even against the omicron variant (albeit to a lesser extent).

Bonus: Covid vaccines and kids

In December, the CDC director publicly stated that “no safety problems” had been seen during the vaccination of young children (5-11), whereas the CDC’s own VAERS reporting system showed already numerous cases of serious cardiovascular, neurological and allergic adverse events in this age group at very low risk of severe covid (see image below).

Conclusion

In conclusion, pandemic guidance by the US CDC, as well as media reporting and social media censorship relying on it, have often turned out to be misleading and unjustified. To evade political misinformation campaigns, citizens should always double-check official claims.

British Medical Journal: Facebook urged to act over incompetent “fact check”

∗∗∗

CDC: Director vs. VAERS (Prasad)

January 15, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | 1 Comment

“How Bad is my Batch” The story of my vaccine injury – Robert W Malone MD, MS

By Robert W Malone MD, MS | January 13, 2022

In fact, I do have a personal life. My wife of of 42 years and I are actually pretty private. Sharing personal history is not something I do everyday. However, as many of you know – I was vaccinated with Moderna twice and had a pretty significant vaccine injury. This was pretty early in the roll-out of the vaccines. It was long before the FOIA Japanese pre-clinical trial data that had so many red-flags and irregularities, long before we learned of all the issues with the clinical trials, and long before the VAERs and adverse events began to be known.

To write it, I have never been an “anti-vax” person. I have spent my career working with vaccines. I also know that some vaccines are “hot,” and are less safe. Usually these types of vaccines are reserved for extremely dangerous viruses like Ebola or Yellow fever. Where the goal is to make the vaccine 100% effective. Other vaccines, that are distributed widely, like the flu vaccines need to be very safe. The trade-off being that they are less effective. There is a whole science and art to crafting vaccines to appropriately respond to the “threat.” So, I know to read the literature, do my own due- diligence, etc before taking an experimental product or any vaccine. That is what I thought I did. The government assured us that these vaccines were very safe. I could never imagine that clinical data would be corrupted and even falsified – as we now know it was.

Anyway, back to my story. I knew in the beginning of April, 2021, that I had to travel overseas and the word on the street was that the European Union was going to require full vaccination before entering any EU country by summer (that actually never happened BTW). I knew that a full vaccination protocol was a process of weeks – and that i had better get started! Furthermore, there was a lot of buzz around the idea that vaccination would help with “long-COVID.” I had already had COVID, and just couldn’t shake a number of chronic issues that I had developed after getting the disease. Frankly, I should have done more homework on that one- because this idea really didn’t hold up to scrutiny.

Be that as it may, in April, 2021, I got vaccinated. It was early enough in the cycle, that I had no choice but to take the Moderna vaccine, as that was available in my area The vaccine was distributed at a local college, with the Army Reserves administering the program.

The first shot was fine. No issues.

The second shot almost did me in. As in I almost died.

After the injection, I had the usual fatigue, muscle-ache and then the palpitations started, as well as shortness of breath. Within a couple days, it got worse – I am not someone who goes to the doctor easily, but luckily for me, I happened to have a routine appointment with my physician. She cuffed me and my systolic blood pressure was through the roof. As she is also a cardiologist, she had more tests run, started me on high blood pressure meds and we got it under control. I kind of feel like I owe her my life. A call out to the fantastic Dr. C. Bove.

Fast forward to today.

One of the people who comments on my Substack articles, pointed me to this website:

https://www.howbadismybatch.com/

This site matches up vaccine batch codes with information from the VAERS system, which is the event reporting system run by the CDC. This site matches the vaccine batches to adverse drug reactions, death, disability and life threatening illnesses from the VAERS system

According to the website above, the data reported in VAERS, reproduced on the site, show that adverse events triggered by Moderna batches have varied widely.

  • 5% of the batches appear to have produced 90% of the adverse reactions
  • Some Moderna batches are associated with 50 x the number of deaths and disabilities compared to other batches.

With that knowledge, I entered my batch code in the search box. The first injection had almost no significant adverse events associated with it. The second jab, frankly shocked me

Here are the results:

Now, I don’t know how many doses are in each batch. But I do know my batch was most definitely in the top 5%. So, not really a surprise in retrospect that I had such a serious adverse event profile.

I always felt I was lucky that I happened to be going to my physician that day, who is also a cardiologist (she is my internist – so I wasn’t seeing her for that specialty).

But just think- our government had this data way back when in the VAERs system -even last summer. This data is so compelling and yet… crickets. How many people could they have helped by releasing this data? People like me, who if I wasn’t a physician and hadn’t gone to my physician could have easily dropped dead.

What is wrong with our government that a site like this is not available from the CDC or the FDA?

If anyone has any doubts about adverse events from these vaccines, take a look at some of the peer reviewed research or look at the VAERS data for deaths in young adults and children.

People have the right to be given informed consent of risks and benefits of a medical procedure. Informed consent is not given, if the risks are hidden.

WHERE THERE IS RISK, THERE MUST BE CHOICE

January 14, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | 8 Comments

Early treatment book is now available on Amazon

By Steve Kirsch | January 9, 2022

COVID is a very treatable disease if it is treated early using an early treatment protocol. There are lots of such protocols that are highly successful. This new book documents one such protocol.

Since March of 2020, Brian Tyson and George Fareed, two physicians with impeccable credentials, have been treating COVID patients of all ages in Imperial Valley, CA using early treatment protocols.

Their track record is extraordinary. If you started treatment within 7 days of first symptoms, only 2 people were briefly hospitalized and there were no deaths. The earlier you start treatment, the better the results and the faster you recover.

Their book is now available at Amazon (if you buy it now on Kindle for $5.95, it will be delivered Jan 24). It is a #1 best seller as you can see below.

The entire pandemic response was unnecessary: COVID is very treatable if treated early

This book shows that we’ve known about effective treatments since March 2020.

Had the CDC publicized such treatments, it would have made the entire pandemic response completely unnecessary: lockdowns, vaccines, mandates, masking, business closures, etc. Everyone would have gotten natural immunity and the pandemic would have ended with virtually no deaths.

Tyson and Freed tried contacting the FDA, CDC, and NIH, but nobody would talk to them or return their calls. The same is true today. They are just “too busy” to talk to them. Keeping patients out of the hospital and morgue is not a priority for them.

The same is true of the mainstream media. The NY Times refused to run op-eds about early treatments and CNN said that they were too busy covering the vaccines and people dying from COVID that they didn’t have the resources to talk about early treatment protocols that would have prevented everything.

Instead of promoting early treatment using repurposed drugs, the CDC instructed people to just stay home and do nothing until they were so sick that they had to go to the hospital. Even after drugs in the Tyson/Fareed protocol like ivermectin and fluvoxamine have been proven time and time again to work in clinical trials and, in the case of ivermectin, published in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the NIH still fails to acknowledge them rating them NEUTRAL. This means that most doctors will not use them.

On May 24, 2021, I offered $2M to anyone who could show that the NIH made the proper decision on these two drugs, but nobody came forward.

In short, nobody in the world thought they made the right decision (or at least could justify it). But they are the authorities and we cannot question their judgement, ever.

The CDC doesn’t want you to share this post with anyone

The CDC would like you to know the following:

  1. You need to follow our advice. Do not think. Do not ask questions. Just do as you’re told. We are the CDC and we always know best.
  2. Trust us: early treatments don’t work. Ignore all the data from these physicians. Even though we’ve never even talked to them or looked at their data, we know they are wrong. We don’t even have to look at their data to know that they are wrong. The data does not matter. It is our opinion that matters. Got it?
  3. Do not share this post with anyone, especially your doctor, anyone in mainstream media, or Congress. Do not to do anything to disrupt Big Pharma’s profits.
  4. Even if you did share it, nobody would believe you anyway; they will think you are crazy. We have totally brainwashed pretty much everyone except for a relatively small number of people.
  5. Don’t read the book. This book will destroy our credibility as well as that of the NIH and FDA. You may not be able to deal with the cognitive dissonance. Just do what we say. Don’t worry, be happy.
  6. If you feel you must read the book, ask your doctor to prescribe Versed and take it as directed before you read the book. That way, after you are done reading it, you won’t remember anything.
  7. If the public finds out about this book, a lot of people are going to be very upset about how they’ve been fooled. You wouldn’t want that to happen now, would you?

January 10, 2022 Posted by | Book Review, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | 1 Comment

More Children Die From the COVID Shot Than From COVID

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | January 7, 2022

The video above features Collette Martin, a practicing nurse who testified before a Louisiana Health and Welfare Committee hearing December 6, 2021.1,2 Martin claims she and her colleagues have witnessed “terrifying” reactions to the COVID shots among children — including blood clots, heart attacks, encephalopathy and arrhythmias — yet their concerns are simply dismissed.

Among elderly patients, she’s noticed an uptick in falls and acute onset of confusion “without any known etiology.” Coworkers are also experiencing side effects, such as vision and cardiovascular problems.

Martin points out that few doctors or nurses are aware the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) even exists, so injury reports are not being filed. Hospitals also are not gathering data on COVID jab injuries in any other ways, so there’s no data to investigate even if you wanted to. According to Martin:

“We are not just seeing severe acute [short term] reactions with this vaccine, but we have zero idea what any long-term reactions are. Cancers, autoimmune [disorders], infertility. We just don’t know.

We are potentially sacrificing our children for fear of MAYBE dying, getting sick of a virus — a virus with a 99% survival rate. As of now, we have more children that died from the COVID vaccine than COVID itself.

And then, for the Health Department to come out and say the new variant [Omicron] has all the side effects of the vaccine reactions we’re currently seeing — it’s maddening, and I don’t understand why more people don’t see it. I think they do, but they fear speaking out and, even worse, being fired … Which side of history will you be on? I have to know that this madness will stop.”

Martin also states she believes the hospital treatment protocol is killing COVID patients. Doctors agree that it’s “not working,” but that “it’s all we have.” But “that’s simply not true,” she says. “It’s just what the CDC will allow us to give.”

What the VAERS Data Tell Us About COVID Jab Risks

I recently interviewed Jessica Rose, Ph.D., a research fellow at the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge in Israel, about what the VAERS data tell us about the COVID jabs’ risks. As noted by Rose, the average number of adverse event reports following vaccination for the past 10 years has been about 39,000 annually, with an average of 155 deaths. That’s for all available vaccines combined.

The COVID jabs alone now account for 983,756 adverse event reports as of December 17, 2021, including 20,622 deaths3 — and this doesn’t include the underreporting factor, which we know is significant and likely ranges from five to 40 times higher than reported. Most doctors and nurses don’t even know what VAERS is and even if they do, they chose not to report the incidents.

You can’t even compare the COVID shots to other vaccines. They’re by far the most dangerous injections ever created, yet there doesn’t appear to be a cutoff for acceptable harm. No one within the CDC or Food and Drug Administration, which jointly run VAERS, has addressed these shocking numbers. Both agencies outrageously deny that a single death can be attributed to the COVID jabs, which is simply impossible. It’s not statistically plausible.

The FDA and CDC are also ignoring standard data analyses that can shed light on causation. It’s known as the Bradford Hill criteria — a set of 10 criteria that need to be satisfied in order to show strong evidence of causal relationship. One of the most important of these criteria is temporality, because one thing has to come before the other, and the shorter the duration between two events, the higher the likelihood of a causative effect.

Well, in the case of the COVID jabs, 50% of the deaths occur within 48 hours of injection. It’s simply not conceivable that 10,000 people died two days after their shot from something other than the shot. It cannot all be coincidence. Especially since so many of them are younger, with no underlying lethal conditions that threaten to take them out on any given day. A full 80% have died within one week of their jab, which is still incredibly close in terms of temporality.4

Children Risk Permanent Heart Damage

Aside from the immediate risk of death, children are also at risk for potentially lifelong health problems from the jab. Myocarditis (heart inflammation) has emerged as one of the most common problems, especially among boys and young men.

In early September 2021, Tracy Beth Hoeg and colleagues posted an analysis5 of VAERS data on the preprint server medRxiv, showing that more than 86% of the children aged 12 to 17 who report symptoms of myocarditis were severe enough to require hospitalization.

Cases of myocarditis explode after the second shot, Hoeg found, and disproportionally affect boys. A full 90% of post-jab myocarditis reports are males, and 85% of reports occurred after the second dose. According to Hoeg et. al.:6

“The estimated incidence of CAEs [cardiac adverse events] among boys aged 12-15 years following the second dose was 162 per million; the incidence among boys aged 16-17 years was 94 per million. The estimated incidence of CAEs among girls was 13 per million in both age groups.”

No doubt, doctors are seeing an increase in myocarditis, but few are willing to talk about it. In a recent Substack post, Steve Kirsch writes:7

“I just read a comment on my private ‘healthcare providers only’ substack. An estimated100X elevation in rate of myocarditis, but nobody will learn of it since cardiologists aren’t going to speak out for fear of retribution.

His comment was a private conversation he had with a pediatric cardiologist. The cardiologist is never going to say this in public, to the press, or have his name revealed since his first duty is to his family (keeping his job).

If a ‘fact checker’ called the cardiologist, he might either refuse to comment or say ‘I’m seeing somewhat more cases after the vaccine rolled out.’ Here’s the exact comment that was posted to the private substack:

‘Pre-jab, one or two cases per year of myocarditis. Now, half his waiting room. Tells parents they are ‘studying’ the causality. Refers them to infectious disease specialist for discussions on their other children.

Admits he and about 50% of his colleagues know what’s going on but are too terrified to speak out for fear of retaliation from hospitals and state licensing boards.

Other 50% don’t want to know, don’t care and/or are reveling in the cognitive dissonance (like Dr. Harvey [Cohen] at Stanford) and/or letting loose their authoritarian demon. Good luck with these former colleagues of mine. The stench is overpowering.’

… From 1 or 2 cases per year to ‘half his waiting room.’ I don’t know the size of his waiting room, but it’s at least two people since he said ‘half.’ So, the rate has increased by: 250 day per year open/1.5 avg cases per year=166X.”

Myocarditis Is Not a Mild, Inconsequential Side Effect

Together with Dr. Peter McCullough, in October 2021 Rose also submitted a paper8 on myocarditis cases in VAERS following the COVID jabs to the journal Current Problems in Cardiology. Everything was set for publication when, suddenly, the journal changed its mind and took it down.

You can still find the pre-proof on Rose’s website, though. The data clearly show that myocarditis is inversely correlated to age, so the risk gets higher the younger you are. The risk is also dose-dependent, with boys having a sixfold greater risk of myocarditis following the second dose.

While our health authorities are shrugging off this risk saying cases are “mild,” that’s a frightening lie. The damage to the heart is typically permanent, and the three- to five-year survival rate for myocarditis has historically ranged from 56% to 83%.9

Patients with acute fulminant myocarditis (characterized by severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction requiring drug therapy or mechanical circulatory support10) who survive the acute stage have a survival rate of 93% at 11 years, whereas those with acute nonfulminant myocarditis (left ventricular systolic dysfunction, but otherwise hemodynamically stable11) have a survival rate of just 45% at 11 years.12

This could mean that anywhere from 7% to 55% of the teens injured by these shots today might not survive into their late 20s or early 30s. Some might not even make it into their early 20s! How is this possibly an acceptable tradeoff for a virus you have practically zero risk of dying from as a child or adolescent?

Excess Deaths Are Exploding, Including Among Teens

Throughout the pandemic, the COVID jab was held out as the way back to normalcy. Yet, despite mass injections and boosters, excess deaths keep rising. For example, in the week ending November 12, 2021, the U.K. reported 2,047 more deaths13 than occurred during the same period between 2015 and 2019.

COVID-19 cannot be entirely to blame, as it was listed on the death certificates for only 1,197 people. Even more telling is the fact that, since July 2021, non-COVID deaths in the U.K. have been higher than the weekly average in the five years prior to the pandemic. Heart disease and strokes appear to be behind many of the excess deaths, and both are known side effects of the COVID jab.

In a November 28, 2021, Twitter post,14 Silicon Valley software engineer Ben M. (@USMortality) revealed that in the preceding 13 weeks, about 107,700 seniors died above the normal rate, despite a 98.7% vaccination rate. In another example, he used data from the CDC and census.gov to show excess deaths rising in Vermont even as the majority of adults have been injected.15

“Vermont had 71% of their entire population vaccinated by June 1, 2021,” he tweeted. “That’s 83% of their adult population, yet they are seeing the most excess deaths now since the pandemic!”

Even more disturbing, British data show deaths among teenagers have spiked since that age group became eligible for the COVID shots.16 Between the week ending June 26 and the week ending September 18, 2020, 148 deaths were reported among 15- to 19-year-olds. Between the week ending June 25, 2021, and the week ending September 17, 2021, 217 deaths occurred in that age group. That’s an increase of 47%!

Deaths from COVID-19 also went up among 15- to 19-year-olds after the shots were rolled out for this age group. Significant concerns have been raised about the possibility that COVID-19 vaccines could worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE).17 Is that what’s going on here? As reported by The Exposé, which conducted the investigation:18

“Correlation does not equal causation, but it is extremely concerning to see that deaths have increased by 47% among teens over the age of 15, and COVID-19 deaths have also increased among this age group since they started receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, and it is perhaps one coincidence too far.”

Omicron Poses No Risk to Young People

As noted in a recent analysis by Dr. Robert Malone,19 (who recently got banned from Twitter but can be found on Substack), the risk-benefit ratio of the COVID shot is becoming even more inverted with the emergence of Omicron, as this variant produces far milder illness than previous variants, putting children at even lower risk of hospitalization or death from infection than they were before, and their risk was already negligible.

Malone is currently spearheading the second Physicians Declaration20 by the International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists, which has been signed by more than 16,000 doctors and scientists, stating that “healthy children shall not be subjected to forced vaccination” as their clinical risk from SARS-CoV-2 infection is negligible and long term safety of the shots cannot be determined prior to such policies being enacted.

Not only are children at high risk for severe adverse events from the shots, but having healthy, unvaccinated children in the population is crucial to achieving herd immunity.

Shots Double Risk of Acute Coronary Syndrome

Researchers have also found Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 shots dramatically increase biomarkers associated with thrombosis, cardiomyopathy and other vascular events following injection.21

People who had received two doses of the mRNA jab more than doubled their five-year risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), the researchers found, driving it from an average of 11% to 25%. ACS is an umbrella term that includes not only heart attacks, but also a range of other conditions involving abruptly reduced blood flow to your heart. In a November 21, 2021, tweet, cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra wrote:22

“Extraordinary, disturbing, upsetting. We now have evidence of a plausible biological mechanism of how mRNA vaccine may be contributing to increased cardiac events. The abstract is published in the highest impact cardiology journal so we must take these findings very seriously.”

AMA Is A-OK With Sacrificing Children

Tragically, it’s not only the CDC and FDA that have been captured by the drug industry and who are sacrificing public health, including the health of our children, in order to further the technocratic Great Reset agenda.

Even the American Medical Association, which is supposed to lobby for physicians and medical students in the U.S. and promote medicine for the betterment of public health, has abandoned all semblance of ethics, transparency and honesty.

In a mid-November 2021 article on the AMA’s website, “COVID-19 Vaccine for Kids: How We Know It’s Safe,”23 contributing news writer Tanya Albert Henry cites data straight from Pfizer’s press release, and then goes on to claim we “know it’s safe” because “younger children see the same side effects as has been seen in adults and teens.” Based on the VAERS data, that should send shivers down parents’ backs.

“The American Academy of Pediatrics is on board with vaccinating this age group, along with the American Academy of Family Physicians and the Pediatrics Infectious Diseases Society, said Dr. Fryhofer, chair-elect the AMA Board of Trustees,” Henry writes.

“Dr. Fryhofer … noted that myocarditis has been a rare occurrence after the second dose of the mRNA vaccines. ‘The observed risk is highest in young males age 12 to 29, but COVID infection can also cause myocarditis,’ she pointed out. ‘For adolescents and young adults, the risk of myocarditis caused by COVID infection is much higher than after mRNA vaccination.’”

Really? Where did Fryhofer get that idea? I’ve not seen any data to back that up, and Henry doesn’t provide any.

What Do the VAERS Data Show?

Research published in 201724 calculated the background rate of myocarditis in children and youth, showing it occurs at a rate of four cases per million per year. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, as of 2020 there were 73.1 million people under the age of 18 in the U.S.25 That means the background rate for myocarditis in adolescents (18 and younger) would be about 292 cases per year.

As of December 17, 2021, looking only at U.S. reports and excluding the international ones, VAERS had received:26

  • 308 cases of myocarditis among 18-year-olds
  • 252 cases among 17-year-olds
  • 226 cases in 16-year-olds
  • 256 cases in 15-year-olds
  • 193 in 14-year-olds
  • 132 in 13-year-olds

In total, that’s 1,475 cases of myocarditis in teens aged 18 and younger — five times the background rate. And again, this does not take into account the underreporting rate, which has been calculated to be anywhere from five to 40.

Meanwhile, the CDC27 claims that, between March 2020 and January 2021, “the risk for myocarditis was 0.146% among patients diagnosed with COVID-19,” compared to a background rate of 0.009% among patients who did not have a diagnosis of COVID-19.

After adjusting for “patient and hospital characteristics,” COVID-19 patients between the ages of 16 and 39 were on average seven times more likely to develop myocarditis than those without COVID.

That said, the CDC stressed that “Overall, myocarditis was uncommon” among all patients, COVID or not. What’s more, only 23.7% of myocarditis patients between the ages of 16 and 24 had a history of COVID-19, so a majority of the cases in that age group were not due to COVID.

We’re also not talking about big numbers in terms of actual COVID infections. The weekly adolescent hospitalization rate peaked at 2.1 per 100,000 in early January 2021, declined to 0.6 per 100,000 in mid-March, and rose to 1.3 per 100,000 in April.28

Using that peak hospitalization rate of 2.1 per 100,000 (or 21 per million) in this age group, and assuming the risk for myocarditis is 0.146% among COVID-positive patients, we get a myocarditis-from-COVID rate among adolescents of 0.03 per million. That’s a far cry from the normal background rate of four cases per million, so the risk of getting myocarditis from SARS-CoV-2 infection is probably quite small.

Now, assuming the COVID hospitalization rate for adolescents is 21 per million, and we have 73.1 million adolescents, we could expect there to be 1,535 hospitalizations for COVID in this age group in a year. If 0.146% of those 1,535 teens develop myocarditis, we could expect 2.2 cases of myocarditis to occur in this age group each year, among those who come down with COVID.

In summary, based on CDC statistics, we could expect just over two teens to contract myocarditis from COVID-19 infection. Meanwhile, we have 1,475 cases reported following the COVID jab in just six months (shots for 12- to 17-year-olds were authorized July 30, 202129).

Taking into account underreporting, the real number could be anywhere between 7,375 and 59,000 — again, in just six months! To estimate an annual rate, we’d have to double it, giving us anywhere from 14,750 to 118,000 cases of myocarditis. So, is it actually true that “For adolescents and young adults, the risk of myocarditis caused by COVID infection is much higher than after mRNA vaccination”? I doubt it.

Can You Lessen the Damaging Effects?

There is absolutely no medical rationale or justification for children and teens to get a COVID shot. It’s all risk and no gain. If for whatever reason your son or daughter has already received one or more jabs, and you hope to lessen their risk of cardiac and cardiovascular complications, there are a few basic strategies I would suggest implementing.

Keep in mind these suggestions DO NOT supersede or cancel out any medical advice they may receive from their pediatrician. These are really only recommendations for when there are no adverse symptoms. If your child experiences any symptoms of a cardiac or cardiovascular problem, seek immediate medical attention.

1. First and foremost, do not give them another shot or booster.

2. Measure their vitamin D level and make sure they take enough vitamin D orally and/or get sensible sun exposure to make sure their level is between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/ml (150 to 200 nmol/l).

3. Eliminate all vegetable (seed) oils in their diet. This involves eliminating nearly all processed foods and most meals in restaurants unless you convince the chef to only cook with butter. Avoid any sauces or salad dressings as they are loaded with seed oils.

Also avoid conventionally raised chicken and pork as they are very high in linoleic acid, the omega-6 fat that is far too high in nearly everyone and contributes to oxidative stress that causes heart disease.

4. Consider giving them around 500 milligrams per day of NAC, as it helps prevent blood clots and is a precursor for the important antioxidant glutathione.

5. Consider fibrinolytic enzymes that digest the fibrin that leads to blood clots, strokes and pulmonary embolisms. The dose is typically two to six capsules, twice a day, but must be taken on an empty stomach, either an hour before or two hours after a meal. Otherwise, the enzymes will merely act as a digestive enzyme rather than digesting fibrin.

Sources and References

January 8, 2022 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

The FDA wants to hide pre-licensure data until you’re dead. Now the CDC wants to hide post-licensure safety data

By Aaron Siri | Injecting Freedom | December 30, 2021

You must take this product. You cannot sue if injured. You can maybe see the clinical trial safety data in 75+ years. And the deidentified post-licensure safety data – no, you cannot see that either.

Three prior posts explained how the FDA seeks to delay for 75+ years full production of Pfizer’s pre-licensure safety data. While we have that fight, we submitted a request to the CDC, on behalf of ICAN, for the deidentified post-licensure safety data for the Covid-19 vaccines in the CDC’s v-safe system. Even though this data is available in deidentified form (meaning, it includes no personal health information), the CDC refused to produce this data claiming it is not deidentified.

So, on behalf of ICAN, we filed a federal lawsuit against the CDC and its parent entity, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to force the CDC to produce this data to the public. The CDC should have no issue doing so because it has already made this data available to a private company – Oracle – in deidentified form. It is telling that Larry Ellison’s company can see the data American taxpayers paid the CDC to collect but the average American and independent scientists cannot?!

What is the v-safe system you may ask? Since rolling out the Covid-19 vaccines, the FDA and CDC have stated that their primary safety monitoring system, VAERS, is unreliable.  The CDC therefore deployed a new safety monitoring system for COVID-19 vaccines called “v-safe.” V-safe is a smartphone app that allows vaccine recipients to “tell CDC about any side effects after getting the COVID-19 vaccine.” The purpose of the app “is to rapidly characterize the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines when given outside a clinical trial setting.” With this new system, the CDC claims that these “vaccines are being administered under the most intensive vaccine safety monitoring effort in U.S. history.”

That all sounds great. And a CDC document explains that data submitted to v-safe is “collected, managed, and housed on a secure server by Oracle,” a private computer technology company, and that Oracle can access “aggregate deidentified data for reporting.” This means data submitted to v-safe is already available in deidentified form and could be immediately released to the public.

But yet, after we submitted a FOIA request to the CDC, on behalf of ICAN, to produce the deidentified v-safe data, the CDC acknowledged that “v-safe data contains approximately 119 million medical entries” but refused to produce that data by claiming that the “information in the app is not de-identified.” The CDC had apparently not read its own documentation regarding v-safe. But we had. So, we appealed this decision and submitted another request to the CDC that expressly asked only for any deidentified v-safe data, in the app or otherwise. Meaning, in the form that the CDC made the data available to Oracle. Incredibly, the CDC administratively closed this request stating it was duplicative of the original request.

Let me break that down again. The first request was denied by the CDC because it claimed the request sought data in the app that was deidentified. But then the CDC closed the second request, which made clear it is seeking only deidentified data (in the app or otherwise), by claiming the second request was duplicative of the first request! If this sounds ridiculous, it is because it is.

The public should be outraged by the CDC’s games.

The introduction to the lawsuit is copied below with a link to the entire complaint at the end. As with the pre-licensure Pfizer data, if you find what you are reading difficult to believe, that is because it is dystopian for the government to give pharmaceutical companies billions, mandate Americans to take their products, prohibit Americans from suing for harms, yet refuse to let Americans see the pre- and post-licensure safety data for these products. The lesson yet again is that civil and individual rights should never be contingent upon a medical procedure.

INTRODUCTION TO LAWSUIT AGAINST CDC FOR V-SAFE DATA

1.                  Between December 2020 and February 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) issued Emergency Use Authorizations for three COVID-19 vaccines, one of which subsequently received FDA approval in August 2021.  While the FDA approved these vaccines, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), is charged with monitoring the safety of all vaccines, including the COVID-19 vaccines approved by the FDA.  The CDC claims that these “COVID-19 vaccines are being administered under the most intensive vaccine safety monitoring effort in U.S. history[.]”

2.                  The federal government has mandated that millions of Americans receive these vaccine products.  HHS has also given pharmaceutical companies complete immunity for injuries caused by those products.   Mandating that millions of Americans inject a product for which they cannot hold the manufacturer liable if the product injures them demands complete transparency, especially when it comes to releasing the data underlying the product’s safety.  FOIA exists precisely so that the American people can obtain transparency and, in this case, obtain the data which supports the CDC’s claims to intensive safety monitoring.

3.                  As for the pre-licensure data submitted by the pharmaceutical companies, the FDA took the position in another FOIA action that, because it needs to deidentify that data, it needs at least 75 years to produce the data to the public.  As for the post-licensure data, the FDA and CDC have said that their prior primary existing safety monitoring program was incapable of determining causation and were otherwise unreliable.  The CDC has, however, deployed a new safety monitoring system for the COVID-19 vaccines, v-safe, and the data within v-safe is already available in deidentified form and could be forthwith released to the public.

4.                  V-safe is a smartphone app that allows vaccine recipients to “tell CDC about any side effects after getting the COVID-19 vaccine.”  The purpose of the app “is to rapidly characterize the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines when given outside a clinical trial setting and to detect and evaluate clinically important adverse events and safety issues that might impact policy or regulatory decisions.”

5.                  Data submitted to v-safe is “collected, managed, and housed on a secure server by Oracle,” a private computer technology company.  Although the CDC has “access to the individualized survey data,” Oracle can only access “aggregate deidentified data for reporting.”

6.                  Plaintiff asked through its instant FOIA requests that the CDC produce the deidentified data from the v-safe program in the same form that Oracle can access.  Plaintiff believes that to assure transparency regarding the government’s claim that COVID-19 vaccines are “safe and effective,” the public should have immediate access to all v-safe data, in deidentified form, and therefore, once the CDC produces that data, Plaintiff intends to make it publicly available.  Despite the fact that the deidentified data already exists, it is already in the hands of a private company, and the CDC has never objected to its production, the CDC has so far failed to produce it to Plaintiff or to the American public.  The federal government is thereby not only failing to provide the transparency necessary to earn the American people’s trust regarding these vaccines but is also failing to comply with FOIA.

7.                  Plaintiff Informed Consent Action Network (“Plaintiff”) is a non-profit organization that advocates for informed consent and full transparency and disseminates information necessary for same with regard to all medical interventions.  It intends to make all v-safe data immediately available to the public so that independent scientists can immediately analyze that data.  It believes that we need all hands on deck, both inside and outside the government, to address serious and ongoing issues with the vaccine program, including waning immunity, adverse reactions, etc.  Locking out independent scientists from addressing these issues is dangerous, irresponsible, unethical, and illegal.

8.                  To acquire the v-safe data, Plaintiff made three requests to the CDC pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552, as amended) (“FOIA”) seeking information regarding v-safe.

….

You can read the entire complaint here :

December 31, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

ICAN Demands CDC Authors Withdraw Rigged Natural Immunity Study

Informed Consent Action Network | December 31, 2021

On October 29, 2021, 53 authors put their name on a paper that they should be, at best, deeply ashamed of and, at worst, held liable for. Seventeen of those authors were members of CDC’s COVID-19 Response Team. ICAN sent them a letter detailing the gross scientific misconduct evidenced in the paper and demanded that they withdraw their names from the study.

The non-peer-reviewed paper titled Laboratory-Confirmed COVID-19 Among Adults Hospitalized with COVID-19–Like Illness with Infection-Induced or mRNA Vaccine-Induced SARS-CoV-2 Immunity — Nine States, January–September 2021 purports to compare the risk of infection between those who previously tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and those who received a COVID-19 vaccine.

It misleadingly concludes that the unvaccinated have more than a 5x greater risk of becoming infected with COVID-19 than those who are vaccinated. If this strikes you as absurd based on the dozens and dozens of peer-reviewed studies that show the opposite result, and based on everything we know about natural immunity, that is because it is.

There are multiple layers of issues with the way this rigged study was conducted. First, it makes an irrelevant and meaningless comparison. This study does not answer the question of whether vaccination or previous infection is better at decreasing the risk of subsequent COVID-19 disease. Had it studied this question, it would likely show what over 50 other studies have shown: previous infection is more durable, robust, and effective.

Instead, it compares, on the one hand, the percentage of previously positive patients admitted with COVID-like illnesses (CLI) that test positive, with, on the other hand, the percentage of previously vaccinated patients admitted with CLI that test positive. This is meaningless. Under this approach, if there are 100,000 vaccinated individuals admitted with CLI and 10% of them test positive but there are only 10 previously infected individuals admitted with CLI and 100% of them test positive, this study design would find that the previously infected individuals are 10 times (100%/10%) more likely to test positive for the virus. Nonsense.

Further, what should have been the most eye-opening data revealed by the study was seemingly ignored by the authors and by the CDC! The data showed that between June and September 2021, when the percentage of Americans who had previously been infected was just about equal to the percentage who had been fully vaccinated (and not previously infected), but yet the vaccinated had 5,213 cases of CLI and 306 positive cases while the previously infected had only 189 cases of CLI and 89 positive cases.

This finding should have been jaw dropping and raised questions within the CDC such as “why, when the number of people in each group should be the same, are we seeing so many more COVID-like illnesses and COVID-19 infections in those vaccinated than in those who have natural immunity?” But this study was not about asking these questions or getting to the truth.

ICAN made clear to the CDC authors that it knows what they already know: The study was designed to support the irrational, illogical, authoritarian, and punitive policies of the CDC to apply limitations to those previously infected that do not apply to those vaccinated. This is not science. This is misconduct. The burden is now on these scientists to either do the right thing and withdraw from the paper or to double down and deal with the legal consequences of doing so.

December 31, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

ICAN Sues CDC to Stop Hiding V-Safe Data from the Public

Informed Consent Action Network | December 29, 2021

The FDA and CDC have now made crystal clear that their promise of transparency with regard to COVID-19 vaccines was hogwash. As everyone now knows, the FDA has asked a federal judge to give it at least 75 years to produce the pre-authorization/licensure safety data. And we now know with certainty, federal health authorities similarly want to hide the post-authorization/licensure safety data.

The FDA and CDC have admitted their existing safety monitoring program, VAERS, was incapable of determining causation and therefore unreliable. The CDC has therefore deployed a new safety monitoring system for COVID-19 vaccines called v-safe, and now claims that these “vaccines are being administered under the most intensive vaccine safety monitoring effort in U.S. history.”

V-safe is a smartphone app that allows vaccine recipients to “tell CDC about any side effects after getting the COVID-19 vaccine.” The purpose of the app “is to rapidly characterize the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines when given outside a clinical trial setting.” Data submitted to v-safe is “collected, managed, and housed on a secure server by Oracle,” a private computer technology company. Although the CDC has “access to the individualized survey data,” Oracle can only access “aggregate deidentified data for reporting.” Meaning, based on the CDC’s own documentation, the data submitted to v-safe is already available in deidentified form (with no personal health information) and could be immediately released to the public.

ICAN, through its attorneys, therefore asked in three FOIA requests that the CDC produce the deidentified data from the v-safe program in the same form in which Oracle can currently access it. The agency acknowledged that “v-safe data contains approximately 119 million medical entries” but denied producing that data because the “information in the app is not de-identified.” The CDC had apparently not read its own documentation regarding v-safe. But ICAN’s attorneys had and so they administratively appealed this decision and, at the same time, to leave no doubt what was being requested, submitted another request to the CDC that sought all data deidentified after it was submitted to the v-safe app (in other words, in the form that the agency made known that Oracle has the data). Incredibly, the CDC administratively closed this request stating it was duplicative of the original request.

Meaning, the first request was denied by the CDC because the CDC claimed it requested data that was deidentified when entered into the app, but then the CDC closed the second request (which was identical to the first request except for making clear it was seeking data deidentified at any point – before or after it was entered into the app) by claiming the second request was duplicative of the first request! The CDC is plainly playing games. It clearly does not want the v-safe data released.

The public should have immediate access to all v-safe data in deidentified form. Despite the fact that this deidentified data already exists, that it is already in the hands of a private company, and that the CDC has never objected to its production, the CDC has so far failed to produce it to ICAN or to the American public – the same people being mandated to take this liability-free product. But don’t worry, ICAN will not rest until this data is made public and so today has commenced a lawsuit against the CDC and HHS demanding that a court compel them to release this data.

You can read this lawsuit here.

December 29, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

What really happened at Simpsonwood and why it matters today

By Steve Kirsch | December 27, 2021

If you read my story about RFK Jr. and how he became an anti-vaxxer, it mentions the Simpsonwood transcripts.

There is a book, “Evidence of harm” that talks about what happened there in detail. Some people think the author wasn’t sure who was telling the truth. That’s not true. The book author takes an objective viewpoint, leaving it to the reader to determine who was telling the truth. If your brain is working, it’s easy to figure out.

Basically, Simpsonwood was a meeting where the CDC was scrambling to figure out how to cover up the “signal” caused by thimerosal in vaccines.

Here is the original Verstraeten study which shows the connection with autism. RR=7.6 is huge. It means mercury causes autism.

Here is a transcript of the Simpsonwood meeting which was held to figure out what to do about the paper.

It’s a long read, so this excerpt gives you the highlights in a much shorter amount of time. The key thing was the study by Verstraeten. Version #3 was presented at that meeting.

This web page describes each version of the Verstraeten study. Search for “A “SIGNAL” DISAPPEARS ACROSS FIVE GENERATIONS OF STUDY.” In that section they’ll talk about a signal that “won’t go away.” They basically massaged the numbers to make the association “go away” so they wouldn’t have to admit making a mistake which would be a PR disaster.

In short, the CDC was more interested in covering their ass (making the signal go away) than protecting kids.

That was all 20 years ago. Why is this relevant today?

Because it shows the agency was corrupt 20 years ago and they haven’t changed. Today, they can ignore all the deaths in VAERS saying “there is no causality.” Bullshit. This is why they don’t debate any of us.

In 2002, the doctors knew that the mercury in thimerosal disappeared from the blood quickly. But it wasn’t until later (in a study by Burbacher in April 2005) that it was discovered where all the mercury went to: your brain. Paul Offit and RFK Jr. knew this.

Yet, fifteen years later the CDC is still lying to the public about the same issue.

Here’s the lie on the CDC website today:

Sure, it’s true that Thimerosal doesn’t stay in your blood a long time; but it’s not true that it doesn’t stay in your body a long time. In fact, it stays in your brain for the rest of your life (unless you use some special methods to remove it over time using chelation). They are not admitting established facts even today. They are still hiding that it stays in your body forever.

Was the Brubaker study wrong about the mercury going into your brain? Nope. It’s been confirmed 21 times. Here’s the most recent review showing that the mercury in thimerosal goes into your brain, confirming what we knew 15 years ago: 22 studies showing ethyl- and methylmercury cross the blood-brain barrier using the same LAT system:

In total, these studies indicate that ethylmercury-containing compounds and Thimerosal readily cross the BBB, convert, for the most part, to highly toxic inorganic mercury-containing compounds, which significantly and persistently bind to tissues in the brain, even in the absence of concurrent detectable blood mercury levels.

So the CDC is clearly lying to the public 15 years later about what happened back then, even after the science is completely settled.

And of course, Wikipedia doesn’t acknowledge this either (see the Disproven autism hypothesis).

So the lesson here is this:

  1. They covered up the dangers of thimerosal back in 2000… the five generations of the Verstraeten study shows that.
  2. But more importantly, and more clearly, they are still covering up the dangers of thimerosal today, claiming it leaves your body when they know it doesn’t. It is obvious to anyone doing a literature search.

So, do you think they are levelling us now about the safety of the COVID vaccines?

Answer: Of course not.

December 28, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Leave a comment

How RFK Jr. went from “a good guy” to an “anti-vaxxer”

By Steve Kirsch | December 22, 2021

Here’s the quick summary of the story of how science convinced RFK Jr to become a truthteller about vaccines:

  1. Back in the 1990’s, RFK was trying to get public attention about the presence of mercury in fish due to pollution from coal plants. This is well known. He was respected as an environmentalist. Everyone (except the coal companies) loved him.
  2. When he gave lectures, he noticed that a half dozen women would always arrive early and get seats at the front. After each lecture, they would try to get him interested in vaccines causing autism due to the mercury in the vaccines. They sought him out because he was a force and knew about mercury. They thought it would be a perfect fit.
  3. But every time, Kennedy rejected their efforts. He wanted to stay focused on his environmental mission.
  4. Finally, one of the women showed up on his doorstep with an 18” high stack of technical papers printed from medical journals. She said, “I’m not leaving until you read these.” That got his attention. He read all the papers. He was alarmed by what he had read.
  5. He then contacted his friends (they were still his friends at that time) in the CDC and FDA asking them about why they were recommending pregnant women avoid fish, while at the same time recommending these same women get vaccines containing lots of mercury. None of the people at the agencies could answer his questions. They all said, “Talk to Paul Offit.”
  6. In 2005, RFK called Offit. Offit said the reason why it was OK was that the mercury in thimerosal only lasted a week in the bloodstream; it was quickly eliminated per Pichichero (see this reference for a discussion).
  7. But RFK had read all the papers. He knew he was being lied to. He immediately cited the pivotal study (by Burbacher in April 2005) that looked at where the mercury “disappeared to.” It went out of the bloodstream and accumulated in the brain where it permanently remained. Offit was speechless. Offit didn’t think anyone knew about the Burbacher study. Offit then acknowledged he knew about the Burbacher study, but said that other papers had overturned that study and offered to send RFK the references. Those references never arrived. That sealed the deal for RFK and led to his famous “Deadly Immunity” article in July 2005.
  8. Shortly thereafter, Lyn Redwood, one of RFK’s friends, pointed him to the Simpsonwood transcripts showing the CDC knew about the dangers of thimerosal in July1999 and discussed it in a meeting on June 7 and 8, 2000 where the transcripts remained secret until finally released via FOIA request. It turns out, there were several versions of the Verstraeten paper (see “A “SIGNAL” DISAPPEARS ACROSS FIVE GENERATIONS OF STUDY”) each version making the effect on autism smaller (7.62, 2.48, 1.69 was the effect size on autism where 2 or more is very concerning) but there was an admission in an email on December 17, 1999 that Verstraeten sent to colleagues Robert Davis and Frank DeStefano under the subject line “It just won’t go away,” by which one presumes he meant the association between thimerosal and NDDs. At the Simpsonwood meeting, the scientists admitted that they couldn’t rule out that the mercury could be causing a whole host of diseases. They also pointed out that the meeting transcript might be disclosed via FOIA requests, so people were quite guarded in their comments. It was clearly serious because they gathered experts from all over the country for an urgent meeting that lasted nearly two days. They wouldn’t have done that if there wasn’t a serious problem.

In short, RFK Jr. was persuaded the vaccines were unsafe based on science and how people acted to deliberately cover it up. It’s no more complicated than that.

Postscript

The original Verstraten VSD data sets on thimerasol were turned over to a third party to keep them out of reach of FOIA. VSD data is more heavily guarded than the gold in Ft. Knox. Its all there; the vaccine damage to children’s health since 1986.

Here we are today, over twenty years after thimerosal was known to cause problems. We know for sure it causes mercury accumulation in the brain. Here’s the most recent review showing RFK was right: 22 studies showing ethyl- and methylmercury cross the blood-brain barrier using the same LAT system: “In total, these studies indicate that ethylmercury-containing compounds and Thimerosal readily cross the BBB, convert, for the most part, to highly toxic inorganic mercury-containing compounds, which significantly and persistently bind to tissues in the brain, even in the absence of concurrent detectable blood mercury levels.” In short, it goes from the blood to your brain where it stays for the rest of your life.

Of course, the CDC is still lying about it today on their website:

This is why the CDC doesn’t want to debate Kennedy, me, or anyone else on vaccine safety. They would be exposed as deliberately lying to the public. They can’t have that happen. This is why they are relentless in attacking RFK Jr.

If the truth ever got out to the public, say in a Joe Rogan interview, they’d be toast. Remember, you heard it here first :).

Fast forward to today

Clearly, the CDC can completely get away with lies about the safety of thimerosal even 20 years later.

So they are going to use similar techniques to convince everyone the current vaccines are safe, even in light of all the evidence that it isn’t. And they’ll get away with it for decades even after killing over 150,000 Americans in 2021 without anyone noticing.

Silencing critics through censorship, de-platforming, ad hominem attacks, and refusing to debate are all techniques they engage in today to hide the truth and keep it hidden for decades.

Any doctor or pharmacist or other medical professional who speaks against the narrative will be punished through loss of ability to earn a living, loss of medical licensing, or in some cases, loss of life. I can’t tell you how many calls I get a day of medical boards going after people who speak out when they discover that the vaccines are killing and/or injuring people.

The censorship and intimidation grows stronger and stronger every day because more and more people are waking up to the truth.

December 22, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | 5 Comments

How Two Hairstylists Changed Our Mask Policy

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | December 20, 2021

Americans and people around the globe have been forced to wear face masks in order to “protect public health,” without evidence that they actually work to reduce COVID-19 transmission, hospitalizations and deaths.

You may remember, in fact, that in the early days of the pandemic, there was a rush on masks, causing supplies for health care practitioners to dwindle. At the time, health officials were adamant that people should NOT wear masks.

In February 2020, Christine Francis, a consultant for infection prevention and control at the World Health Organization, said, “Medical masks … cannot protect against the new coronavirus when used alone … WHO only recommends the use of masks in specific cases.”1

Those specific cases include if you have a cough, fever or difficulty breathing. In other words, if you’re actively sick and showing symptoms. “If you do not have these symptoms, you do not have to wear masks because there is no evidence that they protect people who are not sick,” she continued.

Also in February 2020, U.K. health authorities advised against the use of masks, even for people working in community or residential care facilities, stating, “During normal day-to-day activities facemasks do not provide protection from respiratory viruses, such as COVID-19 and do not need to be worn by staff.”2

In March 2020, U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams publicly agreed, tweeting a message stating, “Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS!” and going on to say that they are not effective in preventing the general public from catching coronavirus.3

As of March 31, WHO was still advising against the use of face masks for people without symptoms, stating that there is “no evidence” that such mask usage prevents COVID-19 transmission.4 How, then, did masks suddenly become a key strategy in the fight against COVID-19? A study involving two hairstylists.

Beauty Salon Study Used to Cement US Mask Mandates

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides more than 15 studies as their basis for recommending face masks. All of them are observational in nature, not randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which are considered the gold standard of scientific research.

“In general, observational studies are not only of lower quality than RCTs but also are more likely to be politicized, as they can inject the researcher’s judgment more prominently into the inquiry and lend themselves, far more than RCTs, to finding what one wants to find,” explained Jeffrey Anderson, former director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in a review published by City Journal.5

The CDC focused, in particular, on one of the studies — an observational cohort study of two hairstylists at a Missouri beauty salon who tested positive for COVID-19.6 The two stylists developed respiratory symptoms, but continued to see 139 clients for several days until they received positive COVID-19 tests. Both of the stylists wore masks during this time, as did most of the clients.

Sixty-seven of the clients ended up getting tested for COVID-19, none of whom tested positive. The other 72 clients did not report any symptoms, which led the CDC to state, “Adherence to the community’s and company’s face-covering policy likely mitigated spread of SARS-CoV-2.”7 But were the masks really the pivotal factor in the seeming lack of transmission at the salon? Anderson wrote:8

“This study has major limitations. For starters, any number of the 72 untested customers could have had Covid-19 but been asymptomatic, or else had symptoms that they chose not to report to the Greene County Health Department, the entity doing the asking.

The apparent lack of spread of Covid-19 could have been a result of good ventilation, good hand hygiene, minimal coughing by the stylists, or the fact that stylists generally, as the researchers note, ‘cut hair while clients are facing away from them.’”

One of the most important factors limiting the study’s usefulness, however, is its lack of a control group. Would the results have been different if the stylists or clients weren’t wearing masks? Nobody knows. For comparison, Anderson mentioned a scenario at a gym in Virginia, where most people did not wear masks. A trainer tested positive for COVID-19, but none of the 50 gym members who had worked with the trainer got sick.

“Clearly, this doesn’t prove that not wearing masks prevents transmission,” Anderson noted,9 yet this is precisely the logic that the CDC used in their support of the beauty salon study.

RCTs Cast Doubt on Masks

“It’s striking how much the CDC, in marshalling evidence to justify its revised mask guidance, studiously avoids mentioning randomized controlled trials,” Anderson continued. “Mask supporters often claim that we have no choice but to rely on observational studies instead of RCTs, because RCTs cannot tell us whether masks work or not. But what they really mean is that they don’t like what the RCTs show.”

Anderson evaluated 14 RCTs conducted worldwide on the effectiveness of masks in reducing respiratory virus transmission. Eleven of them found that masks don’t work to reduce transmission or, worse, are counterproductive and may increase risks. Only three of the studies suggest masks might be useful:10

“… one found that the combination of surgical masks and hand hygiene was less effective than hand hygiene alone, one found that the combination of surgical masks and hand hygiene was less effective than nothing, and one found that cloth masks were less effective than surgical masks.”

In one example,11 which claims to be the first RCT of cloth masks, conducted in 2015, 1,607 hospital health care workers were randomized to wear medical masks, cloth masks or a control group, which included mask wearing. The mask was used every shift for four consecutive weeks.

Not only were rates of infection significantly higher in those wearing cloth masks compared to medical masks or controls, but both types of masks let particles through — “Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%,” the researchers wrote.12 It wasn’t only that cloth masks weren’t effective; the researchers cautioned against their use, as “moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.”

In another instance, a review of 13 of the 14 RCTs mentioned above, published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, similarly found, “There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks” and “the pooled results of randomized trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza.”13

The “Danmask-19 Trial,” published November 18, 2020, in the Annals of Internal Medicine,14 found that among mask wearers 1.8% (42 participants) ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% (53) among controls.

When they removed the people who reported not adhering to the recommendations for use, the results remained the same — 1.8% (40 people), which suggests adherence makes no significant difference. The authors had difficulty getting the study published, as its results question mandatory masking. Anderson added:15

“Meanwhile, the CDC website portrays the Danish RCT (with its 4,800 participants) as being far less relevant or important than the observational study of Missouri hairdressers with no control group, dismissing the former as ‘inconclusive’ and ‘too small’ while praising the latter, amazingly, as ‘showing that wearing a mask prevented the spread of infection’ — when it showed nothing of the sort.”

Mask-Triggered Environmental Disaster Is Looming

If masks don’t work, the extreme environmental toll they’re taking becomes even more tragic. Writing in BMJ Open, researchers used a model to estimate usage, costs and waste incurred by N95 respirator usage over the first six months of the pandemic in the U.S.16

They found that, for health care workers, using a new N95 respirator for each patient encounter would require 7.41 billion respirators, cost $6.38 billion and generate 84 million kilograms (kg) (92,594 tons) of waste — that’s just over a six-month period and in the U.S. alone.

Even if this were cut down to one N95 mask per health care worker per day, it would still require 3.29 billion respirators, cost $2.83 billion and generate 37.22 million kg of waste. An MIT team has developed a reusable N95 mask made from silicone that contains a filter that can be sterilized and reused.17 Study author Giovanni Traverso told MIT News:18

“Our vision was that if we had a reusable system, we could reduce the cost. The majority of disposable masks also have a significant environmental impact, and they take a very long time to degrade.

During a pandemic, there’s a priority to protect people from the virus, and certainly that remains a priority, but for the longer term, we have to catch up and do the right thing, and strongly consider and minimize the potential negative impact on the environment.”

However, this doesn’t speak to the unfathomable number of disposable masks being discarded daily outside of health care settings. In a study, Swansea University researchers noted that 200 million disposable plastic facemasks are produced in China daily, and “improper and unregulated disposals” have led to a significant plastic pollution problem.19

Most disposable face masks contain three layers — a polyester outer layer, a polypropylene or polystyrene middle layer and an inner layer made of absorbent material such as cotton. Polypropylene is already one of the most problematic plastics, as it’s widely produced and responsible for large waste accumulation in the environment.

It’s not only the plastic itself that’s the problem but also the chemicals it contains. When seven disposable facemask brands were submerged in water to simulate what happens with littering when masks end up in waterways, micro- and nanoscale fibers and particles and heavy metals, including lead, antimony and copper, were detected, raising significant environmental and public health concerns.20

Just how many masks are being used and discarded? One estimate suggests 129 billion facemasks are used each month worldwide, while another found that 3.4 million are disposed of daily.21 But once they’re thrown in the trash, they don’t just disappear. To put this into perspective, an Environmental Advances study calculated that one face mask can release 173,000 microfibers daily into the sea.22

The researchers also found that face masks alone may account for an additional 72 to 31,200 tons of microplastic waste ending up in the world’s oceans in 2020. “Action is therefore urgently needed to limit the amount of discarded surgical masks reaching the marine ecosystem,” they wrote.23

Widespread mask mandates are not simply a matter of “wearing one can’t hurt.” This public health policy needs to be immediately reevaluated based on its ineffectiveness and potential for immense harm, both for the people wearing them and the environment being exposed to them.

Sources and References

December 20, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Gaslighting Autism Families: CDC, Media Continue to Obscure Decades of Vaccine-Related Harm

The Defender | December 17, 2021

Media and public health officials perpetuated their entrenched practice of gaslighting autism families when earlier this month they trotted out the worn-out canard that a 23% rise in autism prevalence over a two-year period “reflects more awareness … rather than a true increase.”

The basis for this mean-spirited whopper was the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) release of its biennial report on autism prevalence as of 2018.

The report estimated autism affected 1 in 44 American 8-year-olds born in 2010 (2.27%). The CDC’s prior report estimated prevalence at 1 in 54 8-year-olds born in 2008 (1.85%).

Using a different methodology, the 2019-2020 National Survey of Children’s Health situated autism prevalence for children ages 3 to 17 at 1 in 34 (2.9%).

Notwithstanding the media spin, CDC’s new report cannot hide the fact that autism rates have not stopped rising — and the trend has persisted for decades.

This was acknowledged by the report’s New Jersey author, researcher Walter Zahorodny, who states that U.S. autism prevalence — far from plateauing — “has increased continuously over 20 years.”

Zahorodny, who years ago described the situation as “urgent,” has consistently rejected “better awareness” or “changes in diagnostic criteria” as explanations.

Twenty years (the period of time during which CDC has had its tracking system in place) is itself a gross understatement — autism prevalence in the 1990s (1 in 1,000) already represented a tenfold increase over the condition’s estimated prevalence in the 1970s.

Greeting the new data with a wink and a yawn, the media also ignored the fact that some subgroups and regions are experiencing even more of a “red alert” situation.

Zahorodny called attention, for example, to the finding that autism prevalence for California’s boys is an “unprecedented” 1 in 16 (6.4%) — almost double the dreadful rate of 1 in 28 boys overall (3.6%).

The “Golden State” now has the dubious distinction of having the highest autism rate in the nation.

Moreover, recent projections by autism researchers Mark Blaxill, Toby Rogers and Cynthia Nevison suggest, if current trends continue, the autism rate could surpass 6% for ALL American children within a few years.

Although there are any number of environmental toxins that harm children’s neurodevelopment, a preponderance of information from national and international sources pinpoints vaccines as the driving factor behind the autism epidemic.

This information includes the CDC’s own data — despite the agency’s numerous fraudulent attempts to make years of troublesome findings “go away.”

Tragically, officialdom’s willful refusal to acknowledge or address vaccine-autism safety signals is no longer just an ongoing slap in the face to those directly affected — it is now affecting the U.S. population as a whole.

Why? Because CDC and Big Pharma are now using the very same playbook to gaslight victims of COVID vaccine injuries.

Omnibus Autism Proceeding trickery: a reminder

In the early 2000s — when autism prevalence had surged to an estimated 1 in 150 children — the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) consolidated 5,400 claims into something called the Omnibus Autism Proceeding (OAP).

The claims were filed by parents who asserted vaccines had injured their children, causing seizures, developmental delays and mitochondrial injuries that ultimately led to a diagnosis of autism.

Under the VICP, vaccine-injured individuals file claims against the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Office of Special Masters.

The adversarial process pits petitioners not just against the special masters who adjudicate the claims but also against U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys who “defend HHS.”

In the case of the OAP, the special masters told thousands of families they would make a determination about compensation based on nine “test cases” — almost immediately whittled down to six — using them to evaluate three narrowly defined theories of autism causation via vaccine injury.

Knowing that if their conclusions pinpointed vaccination as the likely culprit in even one of the test cases, the VICP might be on the hook to compensate all 5,400 families — an outcome that would have bankrupted the VICP and cast a black cloud over the entire childhood vaccination program — the special masters and DOJ then pulled a couple of fast ones.

First, HHS quietly removed one of the test cases, “Child Doe 77,” later revealed to be Hannah Poling.

After awarding millions to be disbursed over Poling’s lifetime — and admitting vaccines were responsible for her autism — the special masters sealed the documents, so the case “could not be used to establish precedent on any of the other OAP cases.”

In a parallel move to ensure none of the remaining five test cases would lead to compensation, two DOJ attorneys allegedly distorted the views of HHS’s star expert witness, Dr. Andrew Zimmerman.

At the time, Zimmerman wrote an opinion for one of the test cases in which he rejected the proposed vaccine-autism theory of causation in that specific case.

In 2019, however, Zimmerman signed an affidavit disclosing how he had informed the two attorneys during the OAP deliberations that his opinion in that one case was not intended “to be a blanket statement as to all children and all medical science.”

In fact, Zimmerman told the DOJ attorneys, he believed vaccines could indeed cause autism in some children.

As noted by journalist Sharyl Attkisson, Zimmerman’s consequential scientific opinion “stood to change everything about the vaccine-autism debate — if people were to find out.”

To make sure people did not “find out,” Zimmerman was immediately fired as an expert witness.

Even worse, DOJ’s two attorneys intentionally used Zimmerman’s statements — written for the single test case — to misrepresent his broader views, omitting the expert’s stated belief that vaccines can and did cause autism in a subset of children.

Children’s Health Defense Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. described the Justice Department’s OAP cover-up as “one of the most consequential frauds, arguably in human history.”

This “fraud” allowed the VICP special masters to dismiss out of hand the petitions of all 5,000-plus families.

Lessons for today

At the close of 2021, autism’s annual costs — at $238 billion — are projected to more than double to $589 billion by 2030.

School districts and municipalities, tasked with providing special education services, are already “drowning” under the burden of coming up with the necessary funding.

Under the circumstances, it is a mystery why the media still get away with making the insulting case that autism awareness and better diagnosis account for the ever-higher numbers of children with autism.

The fact is that autism is, and always has been, a matter of urgent public concern, with wide-ranging impacts on families, communities and society that will endure for decades to come.

Nor is the autism epidemic limited to the United States — other countries, such as Ireland, have produced data that mirror the shocking numbers just reported by CDC for California.

With the experimental COVID shots now blazing an unfortunate trail of death and disability, both in the U.S. and internationally, many more individuals and families are entering the bizarre twilight zone until now largely inhabited by autism families.

Similar to those dealing with autism, the COVID-vaccine-injured are:

  • Finding it difficult-to-impossible to gain recognition for their injuries, encountering public ridicule and scorn rather than support for the empirical contention that vaccines triggered their damage.
  • Discovering that many in the medical community are only too willing to brush off or deny serious physical problems following COVID vaccination, instead suggesting that anxiety or the opportunely created “post-pandemic stress disorder” are responsible.
  • Belatedly discovering that vaccine injuries are a significant cause of family bankruptcy and, with manufacturers enjoying complete protection from financial liability, the prospects for injury compensation are slim to none — the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program that is supposed to provide compensation for “provable” COVID vaccine injuries hasn’t paid out a single claim.
  • Learning, with the recent greenlighting of the shots for children ages 5 to 11, that public health officials, vaccine manufacturers and policy-makers are only too willing to “throw children under the bus,” by pushing injections that offer zero benefit, pose outsized risks and jeopardize our country’s future.

In the face of these tragedies, perhaps the only silver lining that can be drawn is that the swelling ranks of the vaccine-injured, along with their families and communities, represent a mighty army — one that is likely to reject continued gaslighting and to push back against corporate malfeasance and genocidal health policies with growing determination and strength.

If one day, an OAP equivalent arises to address the tidal wave of COVID-vaccine-related injuries, this army may make it more difficult for arrogant authorities to carry out their customary dirty tricks.

© 2021 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

December 19, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | 1 Comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »