Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

“The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth”

el gato malo – bad cattitude – december 8, 2021

It’s becoming truly amazing how much of the medical science of the past we never seemed to notice before only to see it seemingly all come to light at once…

pro tip: nothing says “guilty conscience” quite like 30 different people simultaneously answering, over and over again, a question they were never asked…

“he who controls the past controls the future. he who controls the present controls the past.”

and thus history and whole bodies of science do become fiction.

December 8, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | | Leave a comment

A Constitutional Cure for Covid-19

By Marilyn M. Singleton, MD, JD – December 6, 2021

Covid, Covid, Covid. Variant, variant, variant. Trust me, I’m the government’s highest paid employee, and “I represent science.” Show your papers, wear a mask, take a shot or lose your job. And the beat goes on for an infection where 99.95 percent of infected persons under age 70 years recover. It’s becoming clear that Covid-19 is not merely a disease but an excuse to concentrate power in the government.

It’s time for the political histrionics to stop. Multiple studies have shown that the consequences far outweigh any potential (and illusory) benefits of masks, lockdowns, and school closures. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director admitted that the current Covid-19 mRNA vaccines, while helpful in reducing deaths and hospitalizations, do not stop transmission of the virus. “Breakthrough” cases in vaccinated persons are on the rise. Moreover, the current vaccines likely are not effective for the new, likely less lethal Omicron variant. Public health experts opine that the SARS-CoV-2 virus (that causes Covid-19) and its multiple variants are becoming endemic. That means SARS-CoV-2 and its infinite number of variants will not be eliminated, but become a manageable part of the human-viral ecosystem.

Sadly, our government is not responding in accordance with the scientific facts. Instead, federal and some local governments are mandating more vaccines, culminating in proof of vaccination to engage in society and continue living as a normal human being. This is not science. This is nascent totalitarianism.

Two lines from the 1990 Cold War era spy film, The Hunt for Red October foreshadowed our government’s warp speed trajectory to authoritarianism. “Privacy is not of major concern in the Soviet Union, comrade. It’s often contrary to the collective good.” And a White House official casually boasted, “I’m a politician that means I’m a cheat and a liar.”

It didn’t take long for President Biden to tell the big lie. As president-elect, Mr. Biden said there would be no vaccine mandates. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (the third in line for the presidency) brilliantly illustrated the intersection of lying and privacy. As late as August 2021, Speaker Pelosi said, “We cannot require someone to be vaccinated. That’s just not what we can do. It is a matter of privacy to know who is or who isn’t.”

Without skipping a beat, the executive branch issued three separate vaccine mandates: all federal contractors (including remote workers), an Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) requirement for businesses with more than 100 employees, and a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) requirement for employees, volunteers and third-party contractors of health care providers certified by CMS.

The judicial branch is fighting back against the President’s attempt to jettison the Constitution’s separation of powers clauses, a large chunk of the Bill of Rights, and Supreme Court precedents on bodily autonomy with these mandates. On November 9th, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals put the OSHA mandate on hold. The Court reasoned that the mandate “threatens to substantially burden the liberty interests of reluctant individual recipients put to a choice between their job(s) and their jab(s).” And “the loss of constitutional freedoms ‘for even minimal periods of time … unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”

Citing the lack of congressional authorization and harm to access to medical care, on November 29th a Missouri federal district court placed a temporary halt on the CMS health care workers “boundary-pushing” mandate. The government planned to enforce the mandate by imposing monetary penalties, denial of payment and termination from the Medicare and Medicaid program. The ruling covers providers in Kansas, Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming.

On November 30th, a Louisiana federal district court blocked the CMS mandate issuing a nationwide injunction in a lawsuit brought by 14 states (Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and West Virginia). “If the executive branch is allowed to usurp the power of the legislative branch to make laws, two of the three powers conferred by our Constitution would be in the same hands. … [C]ivil liberties face grave risks when governments proclaim indefinite states of emergency.”

That same day, a Kentucky federal district court issued a hold on the federal government contractors mandate, citing lack of authority of the executive branch—“even for a good cause”. The court reasoned that if a procurement statute could be used to mandate vaccination, it “could be used to enact virtually any measure at the president’s whim under the guise of economy and efficiency.” The ruling covers Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee.

The mainstream media finally reported on the toxicity and poor results of Dr. Fauci’s “standard of care” treatment, remdesivir. This prompted families to use the courts rather than watch their relatives needlessly die. Victories for patients are growing. A Chicago area judge recently ordered a hospital to “step aside” and allow a physician to administer ivermectin in an effort to save a dying patient. It worked.

People are tired of lies. When Google employees are signing a “manifesto” to fight the mandates, you know the seeds of revolt have sprouted.

December 8, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

The crooked, proto-fascist EU President Ursula von der Leyen

By Kathy Gyngell | TCW Defending Freedom | December 7, 2021

MANY TCW Defending Freedom readers will know Paul Weston from his informed below-the-line comments on the site over the years. Others will know him for his own YouTube video analyses of ‘Covid lies, damn lies and statistics’ and other topics.

It is the latest of these we want to share with you today – his expose of EU President Ursula von der Leyen and the resurrection of fascism in Europe. Paul dismembers the financial malfeasance behind her arbitrary billion-euro vaccine order from her close friend Albert Bourla, the Pfizer chief executive who seems to make a quite a success of chumming up with the gullible great and good  despite his company being fined £2billion in recent years for bad practice.

What never ceases to amaze me is how our woke social justice warriors in the press and on TV manage to turn a blind eye to these, the biggest crimes of all, happening in the here and now. So we have to thank Paul Weston for doing their job for them in the case of the crooked and dangerous von der Leyen. His video, which you need to watch from beginning to end, shows once again that it is fascism in governments we have to fear or beware of, not that of marginal and powerless street groups, such as exist at all.

December 8, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Media are gagging challenges to the Government’s Covid narrative

By Mark Sharman | TCW Defending Freedom | December 8, 2021

In his skyscraper office high above New York’s Sixth Avenue, Roger Ailes, then boss of the Right-leaning Fox News, was justifying his channel’s slogan, ‘Fair and Balanced.’

It was a well-rehearsed line. The rest of the US media, he said, were the liberal Left. ‘So we balance it  – and that’s fair.’

Later, an underling added that in America you chose the channel that best fuelled your own views. ‘It just depends on how you take your political medicine.’

On the flight home, I thought how fortunate we were in the UK, with a remit of impartiality in broadcasting; a duty to report fairly and evenly. Less than two decades later, I wonder what’s happened to those intrinsic values.

In all my years around newsrooms, decent journalists have seen it as their right and obligation to seek out the truth, to scrutinise and determine the facts. But on Covid-19, mainstream news outlets have seemingly kow-towed to the Government line, following the ‘official’ science.

Worse, opposing views have been ignored, blocked or summarily dismissed as ‘conspiracy theories’ or ‘misinformation.’ This is not honest journalism as I know it, especially at a time when the Government has extra powers of control over the population. I was taught early that the more someone pushed for or against a story, the more it needed investigating. So what changed?

It’s bad enough that Big Tech acts as the world’s censor, suspending or cancelling any accounts that carry unpalatable comments about the virus or the vaccines. But the UK’s communications regulator Ofcom has also muscled in.

The authority instructed broadcasters to be alert to ‘health claims related to the virus which may be harmful; medical advice which may be harmful; accuracy or material misleadingness in programmes in relation to the virus or public policy relating to it’.

When did it become the regulator’s job to determine debate on Government policy? In effect it discourages investigation of alternative views. And who decides what is accurate or misinformation anyway?

Some media outlets have their own ‘fact checkers,’ but I’m not overly encouraged that BBC News has a Specialist Disinformation Reporter (the title hardly suggests impartiality) or that Sky’s Digital and Forensics team compiled an article that begins: ‘Covid-19 conspiracy groups who have attempted to undermine efforts to bring the pandemic under control are increasingly sharing climate change misinformation.’

The terms prosecutor, judge and jury spring to mind – and try as I might, I couldn’t find any hard evidence that so-called ‘theories’ were bunkum. They weren’t proven either, but that’s not the point.

Maybe the root can be found in Event 201, a simulated global coronavirus pandemic exercise organised by the World Economic Forum, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Johns Hopkins Centre for Health Security, in October 2019.

Advice to world governments included ‘flood the media with fast, accurate and consistent information’ (some would say propaganda), while media companies, for their part, ‘should commit to ensuring that authoritative messages are prioritised and that false messages are suppressed, including through the use of technology’.

We’ve certainly witnessed less-than-overt Government behaviour.

In her best-selling book A State of Fear, Laura Dodsworth charts how proven psychological techniques influenced the Government in frightening and intimidating the population, ‘nudging’ us to comply over Covid. And how mainstream media acted as cheerleaders in weaponising that fear.

It should make uncomfortable reading for any news executive.

Our Government is supposed to serve us, not use fear tactics to bring us to heel. As an industry, we should challenge the narrative much more rigorously, starting with the numbers. At least the BBC carries the small print, that deaths are from any cause within 28 days of positive test. However, these quickly become Covid deaths on many daily score charts. It’s inaccurate reporting. Or should I call it misinformation? Or again, propaganda?

Now the shame-and-blame game has shifted to the unvaccinated (I prefer vaccine-free), those ‘radical anti-vaxxers … spreading fake news’ according to Austria’s Chancellor as he introduced compulsory vaccination.

When did it become acceptable to persecute people who stand up for that most basic of human rights, that of their own body autonomy?

Why are we not outraged that our neighbours in the Netherlands, ordinary citizens, are shot by their own police? Or that Australians are beaten and shot by rubber bullets, or incarcerated in what has become a police state?

Are we ready to accept such a reaction on the streets of London, Birmingham or Sheffield? What angle would the MSM take, police violence or mob rule? Which way would the scales dip?

A recent protest, not widely reported, saw thousands of people marching through London; students, medics, teachers and ex-servicemen, of all ages and races, people with genuine concerns for their children and their democratic freedoms.

They seek the truth and nothing but the truth about the virus and, particularly, the safety of the vaccines. And they have deep convictions that the truth is not forthcoming from the Government or from broadcasters and newspapers.

And that’s the point. If the media continue to stifle alternative views that flourish on various social sites, and continue to follow the censorial state narrative instead of encouraging healthy open debate, they are fuelling the very ‘conspiracies’ they seek to dismiss.

December 7, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Subjugation - Torture | , | Leave a comment

TV show deletes poll after 89% oppose mandatory vaccination

RT | December 8, 2021

ITV breakfast television show ‘Good Morning Britain’ received backlash on social media after deleting a poll which showed a vast majority of respondents opposed mandatory Covid-19 vaccination.

The poll, which asked viewers whether it was “time to make vaccines mandatory” in response to the spread of the Covid-19 Omicron variant, was posted to Twitter on Tuesday and soon received more than 42,000 votes.

A whopping 89% of those who voted opposed any scheme to make vaccination mandatory, with just 11% in favour.

After the poll went viral, however, social media users noticed that it had been deleted by the Good Morning Britain Twitter account and critics accused the program of trying to cover up the public consensus.

“Why did you delete this poll, is it because you were asked? Or because it shows the people don’t support this sh*t, this tyrannical future your colleagues seem to want. We see you,” reacted one critic, while another suggested, “Guess that wasn’t the answer they were looking for.”

Good Morning Britain – which was hosted by controversial commentator Piers Morgan before his departure in March – did not explain why it removed the poll.

December 7, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | Leave a comment

The Paucity of Evidence for Mandated Covid-19 Vaccine Boosters

BY ANDREW BOSTOM | BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE| DECEMBER 6, 2021

Federal legal challenges have temporarily enjoined the Biden Administration’s sweeping large business, health care worker, and federal contractor covid-19  vaccine mandates. Notwithstanding these injunctions staying primary covid-19 vaccine mandates, “amendments” mandating booster covid-19 vaccinations have already been issued, as examples, for New Mexico healthcare workers, and University of Massachusetts-Amherst students.

Dr. Allon Friedman’s recent Brownstone essay, citing randomized, controlled trial data on primary covid-19 vaccination, demonstrated, “The Pfizer and Moderna trials show that in lower risk populations (which account for most of society) COVID-19 vaccines do not reduce mortality.” Friedman concluded, “Therefore, [covid-19] vaccine mandates, which are enormously costly and terribly divisive, are a cure worse than the disease.”

Why did Dr. Friedman rely exclusively—and appositely—upon randomized, controlled trial data to justify his conclusion? Almost sixty years ago (in 1963) Campbell and Stanley published their seminal monograph on research methodology entitled “Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research.” This work, which shaped research designs ever since highlighted the major threats to validity that are avoided, uniquely, by the randomized controlled trial—a true experimental design.

Observational studies and all other non-randomized designs lacking parallel control groups, which they referred to as “quasi-experimental,” are fraught with known biases investigators attempt to control for, after the fact, with limited success. Worse still are intractable, unknown biases which the randomization process, alone, accounts for. Guyatt and colleagues, in their 2008 British Medical Journal paper “GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations”, updated and reinforced these ideas, appropriately assigning highest priority to randomized, controlled trial evidence.

On Friday, November 19, 2021, CDC Director Dr. Walensky endorsed the expanded recommendations of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) that booster (third dose) shots be provided to all adults 18 years of age, and older, who received their second Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccine second doses, at least 6-months earlier.

What randomized, controlled trial evidence were the basis for this “unanimous decision,” touted by Dr. Walensky?

Although two small, published, randomized, placebo-controlled trials—one in kidney transplant recipients, and another in a general population—revealed enhanced immune responses to boosters, CDC’s recommendation clearly hinged upon a large, unpublished Pfizer randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

A month before the CDC expanded booster recommendation was announced, Pfizer’s “randomized trial results by press release” were issued (10/21/21). The ~10,000 person, placebo-controlled randomized covid-19 vaccine booster trial, yielded a 95.6% reduction in symptomatic covid-19 infections (i.e., 109 in the placebo group; 9 in the boosted group), after a median 2.5 months of follow-up. The press release also included this important caveat:

“The observed relative vaccine efficacy of 95.6% (95% CI: 89.3, 98.6) reflects the reduction in disease occurrence in the boosted group versus the non-boosted group in those without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

The November 19, 2021, ACIP presentation of Pfizer’s Dr. John Perez included enough data about prior infection to conclude boosters did not reduce covid-19 infections relative to placebo in this clinically relevant, ever burgeoning subgroup. Simple calculations (based upon the slides from pages 16 and 17) indicate there were only 2 symptomatic covid-19 infections among the 524 trial participants with a history of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, 1/275 who received boosters, and 1/249 given placebo injections (p=0.944 for incidence rate difference of 0.038%).

Moreover, CDC’s Dr. Oliver, in her ACIP review (p. 25) of Pfizer’s booster trial data, acknowledged that within the full cohort of ~10,000 there were no covid-19 hospitalizations or deaths, and no data to assess any impact on SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

These findings comprise a striking paucity of randomized trial evidence on the “efficacy” of boosters—literally none on the most clinically relevant outcomes of serious covid-19 morbidity and mortality. Even the potential effect of boosters on SARS-CoV-2 transmission remains unaddressed.

Rapidly accumulating data strongly suggest prior covid-19 infection, “natural immunity,” is more robust, flexible, and enduring than exclusive covid-19 vaccine-acquired immunity. Pfizer’s covid-19 booster trial data confirm boosters afford no benefit in preventing covid-19 infections among those with natural immunity.

Given these overall randomized trial findings regarding covid-19 vaccine boosters—absence of even a short- term reduction in mild covid-19 infections in those with natural immunity, and no data establishing that boosters prevent covid-19 hospitalizations, deaths, or SARS-CoV-2 transmission—there is no rational, evidence-based justification for covid-19 vaccine “booster mandates.”

Andrew Bostom, M.D. MS, is an academic clinical trialist and epidemiologist, who is currently a Research Physician at the Brown University Center For Primary Care and Prevention of Kent-Memorial Hospital in Rhode Island.

December 7, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

New Zealand Prime Minister: “There’s Not Going to be an End Point to this Vaccination Program”

By Paul Joseph Watson | Summit News | December 7, 2021

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has candidly revealed that “there’s not going to be an end point to this vaccination program.”

Yes, really.

“So long as there’s people who are eligible who haven’t been vaccinated, we’ve got work to do,” said Ardern.

“Do you know, I don’t think I’ll ever be satisfied so long as there’s someone who is eligible and hasn’t been (vaccinated),” she added.

“There’s not going to be an end point to this vaccination program,” the Prime Minister revealed, while calling on people who got jabbed six months ago to come back for another shot.

Ardern delivered the message while adopting her familiar passive-aggressive smiley mannerism, as seen many times before when she casually revealed the next step in COVID authoritarianism.

People who fail to continually get vaccinated will face the same fate as those who have continued to resist compulsory shots, they’ll be out of work, face social ostracization and God only knows what else in the future.

Enjoy your lifetime booster shots and enjoy not being able to travel, visit a restaurant or eventually go in a shop if you miss out on just one.

Remember, if you don’t take the Pfizer jab for life, you’ll never be “fully vaccinated”.

It truly never ends.

December 7, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Subjugation - Torture, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Punishing doctors is actually punishing patients

By Chris Leitch, Leader, Social Credit | December 5, 2021

The [New Zealand] government’s refusal to let GPs, midwives, and other specialist medical staff who are unvaccinated continue to work has no medical foundation and is simply punishment because of their refusal to be vaccinated.

That situation has nothing to do with patient safety.

It is now firmly established that both vaccinated and unvaccinated medical professionals can pass on corona virus to their patients so barring those unvaccinated from working is actually punishment of their patients as well.

A GP could have up to 25 people of mixed vaccination status in his home celebrating a birthday, yet those same 25 people could not attend his medical practice and consult him on their medical issues.

A midwife could have up to 25 people of mixed vaccination status in her home celebrating a christening yet she is unable to attend to the birthing needs of the pregnant mothers and expectant fathers in that same group professionally.

A dentist could have 25 people of mixed vaccination status in his home celebrating a house-warming yet those same 25 people cannot attend his dental surgery for treatment on their teeth.

Not only has the government’s medical mandate taken away the livelihoods of those health professionals but more importantly it is punishing patients by denying them the ability to get the medical care they need from the people they choose to provide it.

If the government was serious about patient safety, as it says it is, then it would allow patients to sign an acknowledgement of risk and consent form – the very same process that patients go through before an operation in hospital – and then let them consult the medical professionals they wish in the premises they wish.

Those medical professionals can then get back to work doing what they are highly trained for and what we desperately need them to do – provide the health care their patients deserve.

Given that both vaccinated and unvaccinated medical professionals can pass on corona virus to their patients, anything less will simply prove that punishment, not patient safety, is the reason for denying patients access to their chosen medical professional.

A sample consent form is below.

Disclaimer:

Social Credit is not against vaccination.

Social Credit is not aligned with Voices For Freedom or any other similar organisation.

Social Credit does stand up for the right of people to choose the medical treatment they deem appropriate and that includes vaccinations.

Social Credit does stand up for the right of people to refuse medical treatment should they so choose.

Click here to view sample consent form

Please support this petition against the coercion of children to get the jab

Rebecca Lawrence started this petition to Jacinda Ardern:

Children as young as 12 are now being excluded from their hobbies, recreational activities and school activities due to the vaccine mandates.

The 12-17 year old age group is not susceptible to serious adverse affects from covid-19. This age group IS susceptible to mental health issues – we have one of the worst statistics in the world. Sports and activities can help maintain good mental health. Being excluded from these activities could increase the likelihood of depression and anxiety within this age group.

The vaccine has not be tested for long term effects, so it’s unclear whether it will cause harm to these kids in the future. Short term effects show adverse reactions to the vaccine are relatively high in the age group compared with the older age groups.

It is fundamentally WRONG to exclude children based on their / their parents health choices

No exclusion of Children under 18

December 7, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Subjugation - Torture, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Evidence that torpedoes Javid’s ‘jab them all’ crusade

By Neville Hodgkinson | TCW Defending Freedom | December 7, 2021

An advantage of being a veteran medical and science correspondent is that I can draw on a variety of memories to help inform me about current events, including ever-increasing evidence of the futility – or worse – of the NHS’s drive to jab everyone with the highly experimental Covid vaccines.

One of those memories dates back to 1991, when I attended a conference in Moscow on environmental concerns. It ended up at the Kremlin, with an address by President Gorbachev, and I met a number of his scientific advisers.

They told me, in a nutshell, that the collapse of the Soviet Union had been brought about by a kind of ‘sclerosis’ in the flow of vital information, particularly affecting the environment. The top-down structure of decision-making, and state control of media, had blocked healthy communication.

They gave the example of a huge lake polluted by effluent flowing down a river from a factory, such that the livelihoods of thousands of fishermen were destroyed. Word would be sent upstream but would not be acted on, because of pressure on the factory from above to meet state-sanctioned production targets. The scientists saw the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster as the ‘heart attack’ that finally forced change.

I am reminded of their insights by the impediments to free flow of information surrounding Covid decision-making.

For more than a year now, leading doctors and scientists internationally have expressed concerns about the top-down, state-sanctioned, one-size-must-fit-all vaccination approach to tackling the pandemic.

As described in extraordinary detail in Robert Kennedy Jr’s new book The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health

(see here, here and here), a hugely wealthy and influential cartel has been largely successful in blocking expression of those concerns.

It is frustrating to see Health Secretary Sajid Javid declaring the delivery of Covid booster jabs to be the NHS’s new national mission. He wants this ‘mission impossible’ to be intensified, even at the price of further destroying face-to-face appointments with family doctors – once one of the great strengths of the UK health service.

But as Kennedy’s book demonstrates, scientists on whom MPs and ministers ought to be able to depend for reliable information and advice are compromised by funds from the vaccines cartel.

We cannot rely on mainstream media to put this right: a study of nearly 20,000 Gates Foundation grants made up to the end of June this year found more than $250million went towards journalism. In these days when most traditional media are struggling to make ends meet, that money is hugely influential.

Occasionally, a glimmer of light slips through a chink in the curtain, such as this analysis which appeared last week in The Lancet Regional Health – Europe, one of a new suite of publications launched under the medical journal’s umbrella. The evidence it presents torpedoes the rationale for the ‘jab everyone’ drive.

Professor Günter Kampf, of Greifswald University medical school, Germany, says high vaccination rates were expected to reduce transmission and thereby lessen the burden of disease. But recent data ‘indicate that the epidemiological relevance of Covid-19 vaccinated individuals is increasing’ – in other words, the vaccine is not doing what was expected of it.

He cites a UK study showing that in households where a Covid case had been identified, the disease was passed on to about as many contacts (25 per cent) when the patient was fully vaccinated as when the patient was unvaccinated (23 per cent). Peak viral load did not differ, either, between the jabbed and the unjabbed.

Studies in both Germany and the UK show that so-called breakthrough infections increase steadily after vaccination.

In late July this year, among vaccinated patients 60 years and older in Germany, 16.9 per cent became ill with Covid; by the end of October, the rate was 58.9 per cent. A similar situation was described in the UK, Kampf says.

There is even evidence of the vaccinated becoming proportionately more at risk of developing Covid than the unvaccinated, in all age groups of 30 years or more. Argument continues over why this should be – the unvaccinated may be both generally healthier and more health-conscious, for example.

In Israel, where a hospital-based outbreak was traced back to a fully vaccinated Covid patient, 14 patients, also fully vaccinated, became severely ill or died after being exposed to the virus; while two unvaccinated patients, who also became cases, developed only mild disease.

Kampf concludes that it is ‘grossly negligent’ to ignore vaccinated people as a source of transmission of the Covid virus when deciding public health measures.

His analysis supports warnings, detailed here and here as well as in Kennedy’s book, that the nature of the vaccine is such that it may impede the development of natural immunity, and make recipients more vulnerable to virus variants than the unvaccinated.

That is just one more reason why – unless the stranglehold on information reaching decision-makers and the public is broken – we may be heading for a catastrophe of Chernobyl-like proportions.

December 7, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Remember when the FDA’s top vaccine regulator said even a moderately effective Covid shot could produce herd immunity if 70 percent of people got it?

By Alex Berenson | December 7, 2021

In late July 2020, Dr. Peter Marks, who oversees vaccines for the Food and Drug Administration, spoke for an FDA-produced podcast about the Covid vaccines.

At the time, the big mRNA vaccine trials were just beginning, and the two-part interview was fairly straightforward. It opened with Marks explaining what a vaccine is.

Later, though, Marks explained how an effective vaccine might end the epidemic:

What we also know is that once one reaches a certain level of protection, roughly 70 percent, and if 70 percent of the population gets that vaccine, you start to get to a place where the infectious disease that you’re trying to prevent, in this case, let’s read COVID-19 into that, it doesn’t have anywhere to go and you start to be able to help wipe that infectious disease out…

70 percent protection by 70 percent of the population equals (basically) no more Covid. Got it, doc!

The next week, Marks again explained the importance of 70 percent protection – and this time, he used the magic h-word:

That’s the concept of herd immunity that you have enough people in the population that can’t get the disease, that the disease has nowhere to go if it shows up. That’s exactly what we’d like to ultimately see with a really effective vaccine, one that might have, I think, we estimate at least 70 percent efficacy…

This might be a good time to remind you that much of Western Europe hit Marks’s magic number months ago. In countries like Britain, 70 percent (okay, 69.3!) of people – not adults, the entire population – is fully vaccinated. And about 30 percent of Britons have now received a third dose.

So how come a vaccine that was supposedly 95 percent effective at preventing infection (and supposedly even better at stopping severe disease) in clinical trials has completely failed to stop the epidemic?

Or, put another way, if the vaccines work, what’s going on?

Oh well. We’ll figure it out next pandemic. Meantime, get yer free booster today!

SOURCE: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/fda-insight/fda-insight-vaccines-covid-19-part-1

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/fda-insight/fda-insight-vaccines-covid-19-part-2

December 7, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

The Vaccines Don’t Reduce Transmission

eugyppius | December 7, 2021

It’s an old point, but as vaccine mandates are proposed across the world, it bears repeating: It is highly doubtful that the vaccines do anything to reduce transmission at all.

In all likelihood, they merely reduce your chances of testing positive for several months, because they moderate the symptoms of infection and because governments subject the unvaccinated to closer diagnostic scrutiny.

Graphs like this one, from the Swedish matched cohort study, merely compare rates of confirmed symptomatic infection.

They don’t confirm that SARS-2 is actually less prevalent among the vaccinated or suppressed in highly vaccinated populations.

The more you control for different rates of testing, the harder it gets to find vaccine effectiveness against transmission, and the more you start stumbling over evidence of negative efficacy. This is why we find evidence of negative efficacy in the UK data but not (for example) in the German data. In the UK, unlike in Germany, the unvaccinated are not subject to constant testing rules. In Israel, all national airport arrivals are tested regardless of vaccination status. These numbers, widely discussed a few weeks ago, show far lower third-dose efficacy than claimed, and also indicate negative efficacy among the double vaccinated for the month of August. Because unvaccinated arrivals to Israel are quarantined and subject to additional testing, however, even these numbers are imperfect.

When you test everyone all the time regardless of vaccination status, a very different picture emerges.

December 7, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

The Dreaded New Covid Variant

By Tom Woods | Principia Scientific International | December 6, 2021 

Here we are nearly two years into this. Some thought: the vaccines will help, because at the very least they’ll calm the fears of the most irrational.

Instead, the vaccines have been used as a weapon to punish, demonize, and even dehumanize dissidents.

And now a new “variant of concern” is here, and plenty of countries that we were solemnly told had “followed the science,” and if only Americans had listened to them we’d be doing, better, etc., are now headed back into lockdown and the adoption of vaccine passports.

(So far, by the way, the numbers for societies with vaccine passports have generally worsened, not improved, but that must be because they haven’t vaccine passported hard enough!)

The South African doctor who first identified the variant reported that there are so far no known deaths from it, and that symptoms have been mild to moderate.

But the hysteria went into overdrive anyway.

Interestingly, though, not everyone from Lockdown Central has bought into that hysteria.

For instance, Brown University’s Ashish Jha, who’s been pretty nasty toward skeptics of government interventions like you and me, had this to say on Twitter:

“Is it possible #OmicronVariant sets us back to square one? No. We have lots of tests that’ll detect Omicron. We have therapies that’ll work. Our vaccines MAY take a hit but will still provide some (may be a lot) protection. We are in a MUCH better place. This isn’t March 2020.”

Even CNN is reporting on academics who caution against panic.

For instance, Robert Garry, a virologist at Tulane University, speaking of Omicron’s mutations, says: “The ones that might affect transmissibility, I mean, I’m just not seeing a whole lot that would give it a real strong advantage over Delta. That’s really the big question. You know, when it gets into a population that has Delta, is it going to out-compete or not out-compete?”

Trevor Bedford is a genome scientist and epidemiologist at the University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle. “Given that Omicron lacks so many of the non-spike mutations that have seemed to contribute to Delta’s increased fitness,” he writes, “I wouldn’t be surprised if its intrinsic transmissibility is similar to Gamma.”

One thing we do know:

Applying the same interventions (lockdowns, more masking, etc.) to this new variant that have done nothing to stop previous iterations is a fool’s errand.

And with the protests occurring around the world, and some U.S. employers backing away from mandates, could we be turning a corner?

The prospect of endless boosters also doesn’t bode well for the hysterics. They are losing even some of their original enthusiasts over that, and over mandates for children.

Now is the time to stick the knife in.

December 6, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »