According to the US Federal Trade Commission:
“For the duration of the (covid) public health emergency (sic)” — what’s invented, not real — the (1944) Public Health Service Act makes it unlawful…for any person, partnership, or corporation to engage in a deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce associated with the treatment, cure, prevention, mitigation, or diagnosis of (illness) or a government benefit related to (it).”
“The Act provides that such a violation shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under Sec. 18(a)(1)(B) of the FTC Act.”
The above applies to the (Covid) Consumer Protection Act (CCPA) (December 2020).
Alternative treatments for various health issues are safe and effective.
Yet US dark forces want information about them suppressed in pushing hazardous to health covid mass-jabbing.
According to Professor of Internal Medicine/Chief of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School Dr. Paul Marik, he and medical colleagues are effectively treating seriously ill flu patients — now called covid.
Their therapy involves intravenous use of vitamin C, corticosteroids and the anticoagulant heparin to mitigate lungs inflammation, the main cause of death from flu/covid.
Vitamin D and zinc are also therapeutically effective in treating the illness.
According to Boston University School of Medicine’s Dr. Michael Holick, a study he and colleagues were involved in “provide(d) direct evidence that vitamin D sufficiency can reduce (covid) complications, including cytokine storms and ultimately death.”
Dr. Joseph Mercola maintains that vitamin C and D, zinc, selenium, and other natural supplements can help prevent, treat and cure covid.
On April 15, the Biden regime’s Justice Department and FTC “announced a civil complaint against defendants Eric Anthony Nepute and Quickwork LLC (for) alleg(ed) violations of the (Covid) Consumer Protection Act (CCPA).”
“Defendants” are wrongfully charged with recommending vitamin D and zinc supplements to prevent or treat covid.
The DOJ and FTC seek “civil penalties and injunctive relief to stop the defendants from” recommending safe, effective alternative treatments in lieu of experimental, hazardous, unapproved mRNA technology and vaccines for covid.
CCPA “prohibits deceptive acts or practices associated with the treatment, cure, prevention, mitigation or diagnosis of” covid or other illnesses.
Instead of protecting US consumers, CCPA aims to criminalize health professionals who prescribe or recommend alternative treatments for covid instead of toxic drugs that risk irreversible harm to health when taken as directed.
There’s nothing remotely safe and effective about experimental covid drugs that don’t protect, risk contraction of the illness they’re supposed to prevent, along with any number of other serious diseases over the near-or-longer-term that can be lethal.
CCPA should be called the Pharma Protection Act — promoting what’s harmful to health, not beneficial.
Vitamins and minerals promote health. For many years, I’ve taken daily vitamin C, D and zinc supplements.
Along with no adverse effects, I haven’t had a common cold or flu in decades.
I strongly believe these readily available, low-cost supplements help protect and preserve health.
They’ve certainly done no harm.
I believe what helps me can be beneficial for others.
From what I learned from medical and scientific experts — information covered in my writing — experimental covid mRNA technology and vaccines are high-risk, potentially deadly, with nothing beneficial from taking them other than possible mitigation of covid symptoms somewhat if one contracts the illness.
They don’t prevent or cure it.
Everyone willing to be jabbed for covid is playing Russian roulette with their health — a foolhardy risk no one should take.
It’s notably so when safe, effective, low-cost drugs and alternative treatments are effective in preventing, treating, and curing covid.
April 24, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
Ever since the beginning of the covid pandemic, one of the big topics of discussion has been whether infection results in lasting immunity. Since the advent of the vaccines, that has expanded into a discussion about whether prior infection or vaccination provides a higher degree of immunity.
Back in December, I wrote about a study that showed that 90% of people who get covid still have antibodies six months out from infection. This was encouraging news. However, all it really did was show that most people keep their antibodies for a decent period of time after infection. It didn’t actually tell us anything about the probability of being re-infected.
Antibodies are a “surrogate” marker. We think they might tell us something useful, but we can’t really be sure. It’s kind of like looking at the share of a population that have high blood pressure instead of looking at the proportion that are having strokes. We really don’t know whether the presence of antibodies after infection means that someone is immune, or whether the absence of antibodies means that someone has lost their immunity. In fact, we still don’t really know whether antibodies play a meaningful role in fighting covid or not. Correlation isn’t always causation. Antibodies appear to be a good marker for prior infection, but that doesn’t mean that they have a causal role in preventing a re-infection.
So, what we really need is a study that looks at the degree to which people actually get re-infected, not more studies that look at antibodies. Once we have that, we can do a comparison with the results of the vaccine trials, and then we will finally have a reasonably good estimate of whether prior infection or vaccination provides a higher level of immunity, or if they are equivalent. That is now exactly what we have, thanks to a study that was recently published in The Lancet.
This was a cohort study carried out in the UK that recruited 25,661 NHS hospital workers and then followed them for an average seven months. The study was funded by the UK government. Participants were divided in to two cohorts, a covid positive cohort and a covid negative cohort. The purpose of the study was to see what proportion of people in each cohort went on to develop covid-19. The data were collected during the second half of 2020.
Everyone who had or had previously had a positive antibody test or PCR test for covid-19 at the beginning of the study was placed into the covid positive cohort, and everyone else was placed in to the covid negative cohort. The covid positive cohort contained 8,278 participants at the beginning of the study, while the covid negative cohort contained 17,383.
Since this was a study of healthcare workers, more than 80% were female, and since it was carried out in the UK, more than 80% were white. The median age was 46 years and 75% had no underlying health conditions. In other words, the results primarily apply to relatively young healthy white women. It’s actually a good thing that the participants were relatively young and healthy, because we want to compare the results we get here with the results from the vaccine trials, and the participants in those trials were also young and healthy. The fact that the study mainly consisted of white women shouldn’t be that much of a problem, since there is no evidence to suggest that non-whites or men are different in their ability to develop immunity after getting covid as compared to white women.
Questionnaires were sent out to participants every two weeks asking about whether they had recently had any possibly covid-related symptoms, and they were also tested at regular intervals with both PCR tests and antibody tests. The goal was to PCR test all participants every two weeks, and antibody test them once a month. In other words, the participants weren’t just tested if they had symptoms. They were continuously screened for covid.
This means that the risk of missing a case was very low. Rather the opposite, in fact. It means that they found a large number of asymptomatic cases, or as we normally call them in medicine, healthy people. This could have been a problem in terms of allowing us to compare the results of this study with the vaccine trials, since the vaccine trials only counted people as cases if they both had a positive PCR test and also had at least one symptom suggestive of covid-19. Luckily, it isn’t a problem, because this study has gathered and presented data on the proportion of those with a positive PCR test or antibody test that actually had symptoms, and the proportion that didn’t. So we have all the data we need to do an apples to apples comparison with the vaccine trials.
Ok, let’s get to the results.
Over the course of 2,047,113 days of follow-up in the covid positive group, there were 78 cases of symptomatic covid-19 (by which we mean a positive test + at least one symptom).
Over the course of 2,971,436 days of follow-up in the covid negative group, there were 1,369 cases of symptomatic covid-19.
This works out to a relative risk reduction 0f 92%. For comparison, the Pfizer vaccine trial reported a reduction of 95%, the Moderna trial reported an reduction of 94%, the Astra-Zeneca trial reported a reduction of 70%, and the Johnson&Johnson trial reported a reduction of 67%.
So, on the face of it, prior infection is equivalent to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in terms of the level of protection offered, and much better than the Astra-Zeneca vaccine and J&J vaccine. In light of this, it seems completely unnecessary for people who have had covid to get the vaccine. In fact, if the goal of governments is to get their populations to herd immunity as quickly as possible, it would make more sense to tell people who have had confirmed covid-19 that they don’t need to get vaccinated. Vaccinating people who have already had covid-19 means delaying vaccination of people who haven’t had it, which means delaying the onset of herd immunity.
There is one potential problem with taking the 92% number at face value, especially in relation to the results from the vaccine trials, and that is that this is an observational study, not a randomized trial, so there is significant scope for confounding. For example, it could easily be the case that the people who had already had covid at the beginning of the study were the people who were at highest risk of exposure. Maybe they were disproportionately front-line workers, caring for covid patients. In that case, they would be disproportionately more like to get exposed to covid again over the course of the study than the people in the covid negative group. If that was the case, it would make the risk reduction seem smaller than it really is.
Conversely, it might be the case that those who were covid positive at the start of the study were disproportionately working in areas that were hard hit during the first wave, and that therefore had already built up a high level of population immunity by the time the second wave came around. These areas would then be only mildly hit during the second wave. That would mean that those participants who were negative at the start of the study would disproportionately be working in areas that hadn’t been hit very hard in the first wave, and that would therefore likely be hit harder in the second wave. If that was the case, then the covid negative group would end up being more exposed to covid during the study than the covid positive group, which would make the risk reduction seem bigger than it is.
The researchers attempted to correct for confounders to the extent that they were able, and came up with a modified risk reduction of 93%. But correcting for confounding is really a kind of guessing game. It isn’t a very reliable technique. And for all the confounders that are known and that can be corrected for, there are plenty more that aren’t known and can’t be corrected for.
That being said, a 92% or 93% risk reduction is a huge reduction, not far off the difference in lung cancer rates seen between smokers and non-smokers, so even with unknown confounders pushing the results up or down, it is clear that prior infection provides a high degree of immunity.
April 24, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
Europe can’t soft-pedal a sanitary techno-dictatorship while claiming to protect people from abuse by AI. Pick a lane, hypocrites.
The EU is proposing to regulate AI and facial recognition in the interest of privacy, while pushing ahead with an intrusive scheme that would strongarm citizens into disclosing private medical data through digital certificates.
This week, when logging into the French government’s TousAntiCovid smartphone application – a one-stop shop for everything Covid-19 related, including the latest statistics, news and self-certification forms to be out and about after the 7pm curfew – French citizens discovered a new feature had been quietly added: “My wallet: Your test certificates will be available here,” it reads.
The addition is detailed in the app as an “experiment in progress, only on some flights to Corsica” via Air France and Air Corsica – both of which are controlled in part by the French government through a 29% stake in Air France-KLM, making the state the company’s single largest shareholder.
“To digitize your test certificates and always have them at hand, it’s simple: once the result of your test is available, you will receive a text message with a link and instructions to follow,” according to the new feature. A button below the message can be clicked to activate the user’s camera and scan the QR code of a Covid-19 PCR test.
In an interview earlier this month with CBS News, French President Emmanuel Macron said that “we are building a European certificate to facilitate the travels after these restrictions between the different European countries with testing and vaccination. And the idea indeed is altogether to offer that to the American citizen when they decided to vaccinate or with a PCR test being negative.”
The royal ‘we’ is a reference to the European Union, which has also claimed to be working on a bloc-wide certificate. Hypocritical EU officials also introduced a proposal this week to regulate facial recognition and other artificial intelligence, lest any such technology risk violating personal privacy – kind of like the EU is working on doing with its scheme to have people disclose private medical information to anyone demanding it, under the guise of sanitary nanny statism.
The beta test that has just creeped up on the French government’s anti-Covid app for use on the airline it controls is a little toe dipped into the water of a potentially massive, privacy-breaching tsunami.
At what point do people start to rebel, to send the government the message that state intrusion into the most intimate aspects of their personal life – in this case their medical history – has gone too far? When the government asks for vaccination and antibody certificates to be uploaded? When it expands the program beyond use by Air France to other airlines? When it goes beyond air travel to everyday venues? When a hacker breaches the system and accesses sensitive information? When health insurers start demanding QR codes to Covid-19 related testing in order to reassess the cost of people’s premiums?
French people are known for taking to the streets at the slightest provocation. The now defunct Yellow Vest movement, a casualty of Covid-19 era mass gathering bans, initially ignited over a mere gas tax increase. The creeping sanitary authoritarianism evidenced by the recent Covid app update isn’t as alarming to people as a gas tax because it’s being soft-pedalled, introduced too incrementally to provoke a backlash. No one really cares right now if you need a negative PCR test scanned into your phone to board a plane to Corsica, except the relatively few people going there. And that’s not enough to raise a ruckus.
But the government is deliberately calling it an ‘experiment in progress’ for a reason. It obviously isn’t going to end there. Macron said as much to CBS News. He’s also creating a false dichotomy. Macron is suggesting that the certificates – which he has previously said would be optional (unless you want to leave the house, I guess) – would allow the virus to be controlled, while lifting domestic restrictions and allowing international tourism to resume. The alternative is to be forced to maintain restrictions.
But look, the restrictions will end when we, the people, say they will. And far too many citizens have yet to wake up to that fact.
The insecurity of governments regarding their capacity to contend with a virus, or terrorism, or any other perceived threat, isn’t our personal problem. And it certainly shouldn’t be a reason to invade people’s private lives without a court ordered warrant.
Demanding that everyone provide a Covid test as proof of sanitary ‘innocence’ is radically dystopian. If people want to be vaccinated, that’s their choice. If they don’t, then that’s their choice, too. They may choose to take their chances on catching Covid, and developing natural immunity.
The schizophrenic EU and its member states, like France, which constantly claim that personal privacy is a non-negotiable core value, need to pick a lane. Is Europe going to be a technology-enabled sanitary dictatorship? Or are you going to protect us from creeping fascism? Pick one. Because you can’t have both.
Rachel Marsden is a columnist, political strategist and host of an independently produced French-language program that airs on Sputnik France. Her website can be found at rachelmarsden.com
April 23, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Progressive Hypocrite | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, European Union, France, Human rights |
Leave a comment
In a widely reported announcement, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned, “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19.”
Taking the drug “can be very dangerous,” FDA said, though 33 years of human use, billions of doses and a Nobel Prize for annihilating parasitic illness suggest otherwise.
The FDA statement, which is the lynchpin of COVID policies worldwide, purported to protect the public from taking over-the-counter ivermectin meant for animals. But its real purpose was to instill fear.
Indeed, a war on ivermectin — by public health agencies, corporations that stand to cash in on the pandemic, and social and mass media – is being waged to dismiss a drug that could be a lifeline to normalcy.
Why?
Confused By The Facts
Ivermectin is a case study in official decrees that do not align with reality.
Take a close look the World Health Organization’s contortions before declaring on March 31 that ivermectin should be limited to experimental trials. WHO first ignored its own commissioned analysis that found the drug would cut COVID deaths by 75 percent. Then, WHO handed the job to a different team, which also found far fewer deaths with ivermectin – but ruled its cherry-picked evidence unconvincing. That is the analysis WHO chose.
Or read the lone study — one among 52 ivermectin trials — that did not find significant evidence of improvement in COVID patients. Despite contradictions and flaws, including some patients given the wrong drug, the results were accepted by the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Scour the list of positive studies, many from countries where this inexpensive drug is reducing illness. Few medical journals will publish them. Though available online, the media ignores them. Major outlets that have not done a single serious story on ivermectin jumped on the told-you-so JAMA story.
Finally, consider that right now, social media is in the midst of a brutal little-reported campaign of censorship to the point that YouTube policy precludes users from saying ivermectin prevents or helps COVID.
Why so rigorously manage the message if the evidence is so weak?
Data Versus The FDA
A website tracker summarizes those 52 ivermectin trials, involving more than 17,500 patients. Collectively, ivermectin:
–Prevented 85 percent of infections (similar to vaccines);
–Resolved 81 percent of early illness;
–Improved 43 percent of late-treated patients;
–Reduced deaths by 76 percent.
As authorities dismiss study after study, it has become clear. The drug’s rejection is not based on science, data or the experience of many doctors. Instead, a disinformation campaign is raging to demonize the drug and belittle studies that support it.
Exhibit #1: The FDA announcement. The agency said in March it had received “multiple reports of patients who have required medical support and been hospitalized” after taking a form of ivermectin used to treat horse parasites.
Among many alarming articles, I could not find any that actually told how many people were “poisoning themselves,” as one report put it. I asked the FDA press office what it meant by “multiple.”
The answer: Four. Three people required hospitalization, though, beyond that, the FDA had no details.
“Some of these cases were lost to follow up, so we can’t be sure of the final outcome,” a spokesperson wrote in an email. “Privacy laws” precluded further comment.
For all we know, the patients might have been sick from COVID, not horse paste, which is regrettably used when patients cannot get the real thing. Ivermectin, incidentally, is FDA-approved and permitted for off-label use, with just 19 associated deaths since 1992, compared to 503 for remdesivir since 2020.
The seeds were nonetheless planted: Ivermectin was an “evolving threat” and “fake COVID treatment,” encouraged by “conspiracy sites trying to push this drug in really high doses.” All based on four cases.
So far, there have been more than 2,500 U.S. deaths after vaccination for COVID-19. I see no hysterical reporting on that.
Unsupported Conclusions
Exhibit #2: The WHO recommendation. On March 31, the World Health Organization dealt a gut punch to ivermectin, decreeing it should be limited to clinical trials only. But the WHO’s review was limited, questionable and seemingly hastily done.
First, the WHO working group called the evidence that ivermectin reduced deaths of “very low certainty” based on five studies. Why so few?
An independent analysis, also done in March, analyzed 13 studies and found ivermectin decreased the risk of death by 68 percent, an effect that was “consistent across mild to moderate and severe disease subgroups.” The systematic review was led by Dr. Tess Lawrie, a physician and author on 41 Cochrane Reviews, which are routinely used to inform medical guidelines.
In the earlier report that WHO discounted, six mortality studies were examined by the University of Liverpool’s Dr. Andrew Hill — four of which were curiously left out of the second WHO analysis.
Notably, even the studies assessed by the WHO group showed strong reductions in deaths. But the group used unconventional methods to downgrade them, Lawrie said in a YouTube interview. It classified two less-impressive studies as having a low risk of bias, wrongly in Lawrie’s view. That effectively inflated their importance, and helped the review conclude the evidence was lacking.
“You have a risk of death across these studies — in their data — of 70 per thousand, and if you get ivermectin you have a risk of death of 14 per thousand,” Lawrie said in the interview with Dr. John Campbell, a PhD nursing teacher.
That comes to a 72 percent reduction in deaths in patients treated with ivermectin, Lawrie said. But indicative of what Lawrie called a “slapdash” approach, a table of conclusions in the WHO study refers to seven, not five, mortality studies, and to an 81 percent reduction in deaths. “Very strange,” Lawrie said.
Significantly, the review omitted trials analyzed by both Lawrie and Hill that demonstrated significantly fewer deaths: From Egypt (92 percent), Bangladesh (86 percent), Iraq (67 percent) and Turkey (33 percent).
Moreover, the WHO review failed to even look at the strongest evidence in favor of ivermectin: its potential to prevent infection.
Dr. Pierre Kory, president of Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, believes that omission was designed to protect the Emergency Use Authorization, which allows administration of unapproved vaccines if no alternative exists. “If ivermectin were to be approved as a standard therapy,” he said in a broadcast to supporters, “…that would kneecap the entire global vaccine policy around the world.”
(Note: I reached out several times to Dr. Bram Rochwerg, co-chair of the WHO analysis. A spokesperson at McMaster University in Canada, where he is an associate professor, said he would have no comment.)
Selection Bias?
Exhibit #3: The JAMA study. Predictably, the WHO report included the only existing negative ivermectin trial in its review, giving the Cali, Colombia study an inexplicable thumbs-up label of “low risk of bias.”
The flaws, outlined in a critique led by David Scheim and in a letter signed by 120 doctors, call that designation, and JAMA’s publication, into serious question.
–With an average age of 37 and lean body mass, the study population was inclined to do well from the get-go — “nebulous parameters,” Schein said, that made statistical relevance negligible. Testament to the robust nature of the group, just one person died in the untreated group, a rate six times lower than locally. Of note, no treated patient died.
–38 people in the control group were accidentally given ivermectin, a serious error, underscoring the letter’s assertion, “The study’s flaws span subject population, design, execution and controls.”
–Participants reported symptoms by telephone, and without objective examination, 16 days after treatment ended, a highly unusual lag time. “Not credible,” the letter said.
Of crucial importance, both patient groups – one got ivermectin and one did not – had almost identical, though minor, side effects, a “striking anomaly” that suggests something, Scheim said. Perhaps ivermectin, which is widely available in Colombia, did not appear to make a significant difference because both groups were taking it. Ivermectin has a bitter taste and 64 placebo patients were given sugar water, compromising a fundamental of controlled trials — that patients cannot discern what treatment they get.
Why would a premier medical journal accept an article with such glaring flaws?
An Organized Campaign
Exhibit #4: Information Management. Everyday, my inbox grows with messages of people who had items removed from Twitter, LinkIn, Facebook and YouTube. Several people were locked out of Twitter for tweets on the results of a registered trial that found ivermectin prevents COVID. I was also locked out of Twitter for eight days after writing the fateful words: “Ivermectin works.”
Aside from a couple of opinion articles in the Wall Street Journal, the media has barely taken notice. Yet this is a clear assault on free expression by outlets that, though privately owned, are essentially monopolies.
“We must never allow anonymous censors to determine what is medical misinformation,” Associate Professor Seymour M. Cohen of Mount Sinai School of Medicine, in a letter to the WSJ, “and cancel scientific inquiry and discussion with which they disagree.”
Held Hostage
Although Kory, Lawrie and others are accused of medical “misinformation,” the real problem, Kory says, is disinformation, akin to historical efforts to cover-up the ills of tobacco and other pharmaceutical and government mistakes.
Among the slew of studies that support ivermectin, you will rarely if ever find listed under authors’ potential conflicts of interest the names of pharmaceutical powerhouses like Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Gilead. Yet, each of those was listed on the JAMA article’s COI disclosures.
Merck itself pioneered ivermectin – its chief scientist sharing the Nobel in the process – and has repeatedly said it is a safe, essential medication. Yet Merck disavowed ivermectin for COVID in February in yet another example of how facts do not align with reality. Reuters and others eagerly reported Merck’s statement, but never mentioned the company’s $356-million deal to supply the U.S. government with an “investigational therapeutic.”
The rejection of ivermectin may not be a grand coordinated conspiracy, says Jay Sanchez, an attorney in New York City. Rather, it grows out of something more mundane and insidious that he studied 35 years ago in a course at Harvard Law School taught by later-Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Bryer: “Regulatory Capture.”
“Regulatory agencies may come to be dominated by the industries or interests they are charged with regulating,” says Investipedia. Hence, they act more on behalf of the companies they regulate than on the public they serve. Blame “regulator complacency, cozy relationships,” wrote economist Fred S. Grygiel, “and ultimately, conflicts of interest.”
Those relationships allow PR campaigns to shape messages, news outlets and social media companies to mercilessly reinforce them, and spineless government agencies go along with the shadows of doubt rather than the robust evidence.
That is ivermectin today.
Mary Beth Pfeiffer is an investigative journalist and author of Lyme: The First Epidemic of Climate Change. She was authored 10 articles for Trial Site News.
April 23, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, FDA, WHO |
Leave a comment
The Sun newspaper is claiming this morning that it has seen “core planning documents,” which lay out plans to vaccinate children from September, in a bid to prevent a third wave of coronavirus.
A government source told The Sun that vaccinating children as young as five years-old is also being considered. The source told the newspaper that;
“Plans are in place to vaccinate children aged 12 upwards, and senior government officials have been briefed. Though controversial, it is deemed necessary to stop the UK regressing in its remarkable fight against Covid.”
The core planning documents also suggest that everyone over 50 should be offered a booster jab in the Autumn.
Children are virtually unaffected by coronavirus, but government scientists believe that they can pass it on to elderly relatives or vulnerable people. There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim.
Transmission rates did not increase when schools were reopened last Autumn, nor when they were reopened last month. There is zero evidence to back up the claim that asymptomatic people can spread the virus.
Why is the government hell-bent on vaccinating children for an illness that doesn’t affect them? Where are the paediatricians? The silence is deafening. The media, typically, is absent.
April 23, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, UK |
Leave a comment
It’s the wrong time for US youths with higher education aspirations in mind.
On increasing numbers of US campuses, it’s hazardous to their health and well-being to enroll at colleges and universities whose policies may irreversibly harm them near-or-longer-term.
After Rutgers in March required students to be jabbed with experimental, high-risk, unapproved, rushed to market, DNA altering Pfizer or Moderna mRNA technology that risks irreversible harm to health, a dozen or more US schools of higher education went the same way.
By mandating the above, they’re putting their student body in harm’s way — irresponsibly and recklessly endangering them.
Affected students should transfer to a school that respects their health, and legal right to decide all things related to their well-being.
Schools mandating covid jabs are in breach of federal law and the Nuremberg Code.
The former requires that individuals may “accept or refuse administration of” experimental, unapproved drugs.
According to the Nuremberg Code, voluntary consent is required on all things related to health.
By ignoring the above, US schools that require students to be involuntarily jabbed for covid are in flagrant breach of these standards and contemptuous of the health and rights of their student body.
They include Rutgers, Northeastern, Fort Lewis College, St, Edward’s, Roger Williams, Nova Southeastern, Brown, Cornell, Yale, Columbia, and Columbia College, Chicago.
My esteemed alma mater Harvard University strongly urges students to be jabbed for covid, short of mandating it so far, saying:
“We continue to strongly recommend that you seek vaccination opportunities from all sources available to you to prevent further delay,” falsely adding the following:
“The safety of (covid jabs) is a top government priority (sic).”
Fact: Polar opposite is true, what Harvard suppressed.
Fact: Government mandates and recommendations since last year are intended to inflict harm on individuals following them, not the other way around.
Fact: They’re all about instituting draconian control.
Fact: Experimental covid mRNA technology and vaccines are bioweapons to depopulate the US and other nations of individuals dark forces want eliminated.
Covid jabs “will help protect you from getting” the viral infection (sic).
Fact: Jabs increase the likelihood of being infected. Harvard falsely claimed otherwise.
“(Y)ou may experience some side effects after receiving the injection (sic).
“This is a normal sign that your body is building protection (sic).”
Fact: Toxic jabs risk serious harm to health and no protection.
Fact: The more jabs, the greater the risk.
Fact: Jabs risk contraction of any number of serious diseases short-term or later on.
Fact: For the elderly with weak immune systems, allergic individuals and others, they can kill.
“The cost of the vaccine is covered by the government.”
Fact: To encourage mass-jabbing, US dark forces are incentivizing uninformed Americans to self-inflict harm.
Covid jabs “are one of many important tools to help us stop this pandemic (sic).”
“Once you’ve received your jab, continue to wear your mask and socially distance in public places (sic).
Fact: No pandemic exists, just normal annual outbreaks of seasonal flu-renamed covid to scare us into self-inflicting harm by following draconian mandates and recommendations.
Fact: Masks don’t protect and risk serious harm to health when worn longterm.
Fact: Social distancing provides no protection. It undermines normal interactions — essential to every day life.
Fact: It’s unnecessary and destructive of interpersonal relations, while providing nothing beneficial.
Voice of America, part of the US worldwide propaganda system, falsely said the following:
“The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved use of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines (sic).”
False on two counts! These drugs are NOT vaccines.
They’re hazardous, experimental, unapproved DNA altering mRNA technology — given emergency use authorization when no emergency exists.
According to American College Health Association’s Covid Task Force co-chair Gerri Taylor:
“We would love for all our students to be vaccinated before they go home to either places in the US or places in other countries, because if they go there unvaccinated, they could actually carry the virus to their families and communities (sic).”
All of the above claims are part of the most widespread ever state-sponsored mass deception campaign to convince maximum numbers of unwitting people to follow a high-risk with no reward protocol.
Protecting and preserving health requires rejecting it.
Above all, it’s vital to health and well-being to refuse being jabbed with what’s unneeded and may cause irreversible harm if used as directed.
When I was on campus long ago — circa 1950s — nothing remotely like the above existed.
In college and graduate school, I recall no health-related mandates of any kind.
None should exist today beyond encouraging students not to self-inflict harm by following good health practices — not the other way around like what’s going on today.
A Final Comment
According to draconian Yale and Columbia diktats, students unwilling to be jabbed for covid will be barred from classrooms and prohibited from coming on campus — except for those with medical, religious or other exemptions.
Unacceptable policies instituted by the above colleges and universities may likely be mandated at many others in the coming weeks and months.
Instead of protecting students, they’ll be harmed near-or-longer-term, proving what’s unthinkable.
In the US, higher education is becoming hazardous to students instead of protecting and preparing them for endeavors they seek to pursue.
April 23, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
While reports of side effects from COVID-19 gene therapies, including life-threatening effects and deaths, continue to climb at breakneck speed,1 a one-sided narrative of safety and effectiveness permeates mainstream media and medical news.
These “vaccines” are so safe and so effective, according to this narrative, that keeping control groups intact for long-term study and comparison of outcomes is now being derided as “unethical,” despite the fact that there is absolutely no non-fraudulent data to support their perverse assertions. Truly, what we’re watching is the active destruction of basic medical science in a surreal dystopian nightmare.
Vaccine Makers to Ditch Control Groups
Consider this report in JAMA by Rita Rubin, senior writer for JAMA medical news and perspectives, for example.2 According to Rubin, the launch of “two highly efficacious” COVID-19 vaccines has “spurred debate about the ethics, let alone the feasibility, of continuing or launching blinded, placebo-controlled trials …”
Rubin recounts how Moderna representatives told a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel that rather than letting thousands of vaccine doses to go to waste, they planned to offer them to trial participants who had received placebo.
Pfizer representatives made a similar announcement to the advisory panel. According to a news analysis published in The BMJ,3 the FDA and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are both onboard with this plan, as is the World Health Organization.4
In the JAMA report by Rubin, Moncref Slaoui, Ph.D., chief scientific adviser for Operation Warp Speed, is quoted saying he thinks “it’s very important that we unblind the trial at once and offer the placebo group vaccines” because trial participants “should be rewarded” for their participation.
All of these statements violate the very basics of what a safety trial needs, which is a control group against which you can compare the effects of the drug or vaccine in question over the long term. I find it inconceivable that unblinding is even a consideration at this point, seeing how the core studies have not even concluded yet. The only purpose of this unblinding is to conceal the fraud that these vaccines are safe.
None of the COVID-19 vaccines currently on the market are actually licensed. They only have emergency use authorization — which, incidentally, also forbids them from being mandated, although this is being widely and conveniently ignored — as trials are still ongoing.
At the earliest, they may be licensed two years from now, at the completion of the follow-up studies.5 This is why those in the military are allowed to refuse it, and refuse they have. Among Marines, the refusal rate is nearly 40%.6
So, before the initial studies are even completed, vaccine makers and regulatory agencies are now deciding to forgo long-term safety evaluations altogether by giving placebo recipients the real McCoy, and so-called bioethicists are actually supporting this madness. As reported in The BMJ :7
“Although the FDA has granted the vaccines emergency use authorization, to get full license approval two years of follow-up data are needed. The data are now likely to be scanty and less reliable given that the trials are effectively being unblinded.”
Hypocrisy Abounds
It’s ironic in the extreme, because vaccine mandates are being justified on the premise that the benefit to the community supersedes the risk of individual harm. In other words, it’s OK if some people are harmed by the vaccine because the overall benefit to society is more important.
Yet here they’re saying that participants in the control groups are being harmed by not getting the vaccine, so therefore vaccine makers have an obligation to give it to them before the long-term studies are completed. This is the complete opposite argument used for mandatory vaccination.
If we are to accept the “greater good” justification for vaccination, then people who agree to participate in a study, and end up getting a placebo, need to roll the dice and potentially sacrifice their health “for the greater good.” Here, the greater good is the study itself, the results of which are of crucial importance for public health decisions.
Without this data, we will never know whether the vaccines work in the long term and/or what their side effects are. If an individual in the control group gets COVID-19, then that’s the price of scientific participation for the greater good of society, just as when a vaccinated person gets harmed, that’s considered an acceptable price for creating vaccine-induced herd immunity.
Put another way, when it comes to mandating vaccines, harm to the individual is acceptable, but when it comes to doing proper safety studies, all of a sudden, harm to the individual is not acceptable, and protecting the controls is more important than protecting the integrity of the research. The fact that they’re this inconsistent in their “ethics” could be viewed as proof positive that public health isn’t even a remote concern.
Scientific Ethics Are Eroding
Apparently, concern about risk to the individual only matters when vaccine makers have everything to gain. By eliminating control groups, we’ll have no way of really proving the harm that these “vaccines” might impart over time, as all participants will be in the same proverbial boat.
I remain confident that we’ll continue to see many more health problems and deaths develop in time, but without control groups, these trends can more easily be written off as “normal” and/or blamed on something else. As noted by Dr. Steven Goodman, associate dean of clinical and translational research at Stanford University, who is quoted in Rubin’s JAMA article:8
“By unblinding trial participants, ‘you lose a valid comparison group,’ Goodman said. ‘There will be this sense, and it will be sort of true, that the study is over.’ Unlike, say, a highly effective cancer drug, ‘the vaccine is not literally a life-and-death issue today and tomorrow’ for most trial participants, Goodman said.
So, he noted, those running COVID-19 vaccine trials shouldn’t feel obligated to unblind participants and vaccinate placebo recipients right away. Doing so implies ‘you can just blow up the trial’ on the basis of promising preliminary results, establishing ‘an ethical model for future trials that we maybe don’t want to set,’ Goodman said.”
Indeed, this strategy will set a dangerous precedent that will probably lead to vaccine and drug studies being conducted without control groups in the future, which could spell the end of medical science as we know it. At bare minimum, future variations of the current COVID-19 vaccine trials are likely to be conducted without control groups.
Trial Participants Told Not to Unblind Themselves
Goodman is also quoted in another article,9 this one in MedPage Today, discussing the problems with trial participants unblinding themselves by taking an antibody test:
“‘There is no good scientific reason for someone to do this,’ he told MedPage Today. ‘I can understand why they want that information, but it can only serve to diminish the value of the trial. Getting tested is not right unless there is a pressing need for unblinding for health reasons.'”
Here, yet another hypocritical irony arises, as the reason they don’t want trial participants to unblind themselves is because if they know they got the vaccine, they’re statistically more likely to take more risks that might expose them to the virus.
This, then, will skew the results and “could make the vaccine look less effective than it is,” Dr. Elizabeth McNally of Northwestern University explained to MedPage Today.10 So, whether vaccine scientists agree with unblinding or not, unblinding really only has to do with whether it will skew results in their favor.
Trial participants unblinding themselves might make the vaccine appear less effective if they alter their behavior as a consequence, whereas vaccine makers unblinding the entire control group will allow them to hide side effects, even if participants alter their behavior.
Justification for Elimination of Controls Is Flimsy at Best
While pro-vaccine advocates insist the elimination of control groups is justified on the “moral grounds” that it’s unethical to not provide volunteers with something of value, this argument completely ignores the undeniable fact that no vaccine is 100% safe.
Getting the active vaccine comes with risk, not merely benefit. This is particularly true for the novel mRNA technology used in COVID-19 vaccines. Historical data are troubling to say the least, and the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is rapidly filling up with COVID-19 vaccine-related injury reports and deaths.
Reports of Side Effects and Deaths Are Piling Up
As reported by The Defender,11 as of April 1, 2021, VAERS had received 56,869 adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, including 7,971 serious injuries and 2,342 deaths. Of those deaths, 28% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination! The youngest person to die was 18 years old. There were also 110 reports of miscarriage or premature birth among pregnant women.
As reported in “COVID-19 Vaccine To Be Tested on 6-Year-Olds,” between January 2020 and January 2021, COVID-19 vaccines accounted for 70% of the annual vaccine deaths, even though these vaccines had only been available for less than two months!
In my view, it’s unconscionable and morally reprehensible to not take these data into account. Clearly, these “vaccines” have risks. Pretending like they don’t, and that all placebo recipients in vaccine trials are at a distinct disadvantage simply isn’t true.
Keep in mind that we still do not know the percentage of adverse effects being reported. Is it between 1%12 and 10%13 as past inquiries into VAERS reporting have shown, or is it higher?
If only 10% are reported, we may be looking at 23,420 deaths, but if it is as low as 1%, it jumps to more than 230,000 deaths. We will never know because there are major attempts to suppress this information, as we have already witnessed with the deaths of sport celebrities Hank Aaron and Marvin Hagler, both of whom died shortly after COVID vaccinations.
Regardless, it’s hard to justify even a single death of an otherwise healthy individual, seeing how the survival rate for COVID-19 across all age groups is 99.74%. If you’re younger than 40, your survival rate is 99.99%.14
There’s every reason to suspect that these reports account for just a small percentage of actual side effects. Just think of all those who get the vaccine at grocery stores or temporary vaccination sites, for example. First of all, are all Americans even aware that VAERS exists and that they need to file a report if they suffer an adverse reaction post-COVID vaccination?
Who is going to file the adverse report if you get vaccinated in a grocery or convenience store? Will they return to the pharmacist and report their side effects? Will the pharmacist file the report? Who’s responsible for filing the report if you go to a temporary vaccination site?
Full article
April 22, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
The Israeli People Committee (IPC), a civilian body made of leading Israeli health experts, has published its April report into the Pfizer vaccine’s side effects. The findings are catastrophic on every possible level.
Their verdict is that “there has never been a vaccine that has harmed as many people.” The report is long and detailed. I will outline just some of the most devastating findings presented in the report.
“We received 288 death reports in proximity to vaccination (90% up to 10 days after the vaccination), 64% of those were men.” Yet the report states, “according to data provided by the Ministry of Health, only 45 deaths in Israel were vaccine related.” If the numbers above are sincere then Israel, which claimed to conduct a world experiment, failed to genuinely report on its experiment’s results. We often hear about blood clots caused by the AstraZeneca vaccine. For instance, we learned this morning about 300 cases of blood clots in of Europe. However, if the IPC’s findings are genuine, then in Israel alone the Pfizer vaccine may be associated with more deaths than AstraZeneca’s in the whole of Europe.
“According to Central Bureau of Statistics data during January-February 2021, at the peak of the Israeli mass vaccination campaign, there was a 22% increase in overall mortality in Israel compared with the previous year. In fact, January-February 2021 have been the deadliest months in the last decade, with the highest overall mortality rates compared to corresponding months in the last 10 years.”
The IPC finds that “amongst the 20-29 age group the increase in overall mortality has been most dramatic. In this age group, we detect an increase of 32% in overall mortality in comparison with previous year.”
“Statistical analysis of information from the Central Bureau of Statistics, combined with information from the Ministry of Health, leads to the conclusion that the mortality rate amongst the vaccinated is estimated at about 1: 5000 (1: 13000 at ages 20-49, 1: 6000 at ages 50-69, 1: 1600 at ages 70+). According to this estimate, it is possible to estimate the number of deaths in Israel in proximity of the vaccine, as of today, at about 1000-1100 people.”
Again, if this statistical analysis is correct then the numbers reported by the Israeli health authorities are misleading by more than 22-fold.
Those who follow my writing are aware of my work on the undeniable correlation between vaccination, Covid-19 cases, deaths and the spread of mutant strains. The IPC confirms my observation, providing more crucial information regarding age groups. “There is a high correlation between the number of people vaccinated per day and the number of deaths per day, in the range of up to 10 days, in all age groups. Ages 20-49 – a range of 9 days from the date of vaccination to mortality, ages 50-69 – 5 days from the date of vaccination to mortality, ages 70 and up – 3 days from the date of vaccination to mortality.”
The IPC also reveals that the “the risk of mortality after the second vaccine is higher than the risk of mortality after the first vaccine.”
But death isn’t the only risk to do with vaccination. The IPC reveals that “as of the date of publication of the report, 2066 reports of side effects have accumulated in the Civil Investigation Committee and the data continue to come in. These reports indicate damage to almost every system in the human body.…Our analysis found a relatively high rate of heart-related injuries, 26% of all cardiac events occurred in young people up to the age of 40, with the most common diagnosis in these cases being Myositis or Pericarditis. Also, a high rate of massive vaginal bleeding, neurological damage, and damage to the skeletal and skin systems has been observed. It should be noted that a significant number of reports of side effects are related, directly or indirectly, to Hypercoagulability (infarction), Myocardial infarction, stroke, miscarriages, impaired blood flow to the limbs, pulmonary embolism.”
In Israel, the government is desperate to vaccinate children. The IPC stresses that such a move can be disastrous. “In light of the extent and severity of side effects, we would like to express the committee’s position that vaccinating children may also lead to side effects in them, as observed in adults, including the death of completely healthy children. Since the coronavirus does not endanger children at all, the committee believes that the Israeli government’s intention to vaccinate the children endangers their lives, health and their future development.”
The IPC stresses that “there has never been a vaccine that has affected so many people! The American VARES system presents 2204 mortality reports of vaccinated people in the United States in the first quarter of 2021, a figure that reflects an increase of thousands of percent from the annual average, which stood at 108 reports per year.”
I should mention that there has been very little coverage of the IPC’s work in the Israeli press. Those health experts are engaged in brave work, knowing that their license to work in the medical profession and livelihoods are at severe risk.
April 22, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | COVID-19 Vaccine, Israel |
Leave a comment
A report from Yahoo News notes that airlines won’t be calling the imminent vaccine passports by that name because “It carries too many connotations,” according to one aviation CEO.
The forthcoming ‘digital certificates’ that will show COVID-19 vaccination status won’t be referred to as vaccination passports says Delta Air Lines CEO Ed Bastian, because that would turn people off.
Bastian declared that airlines are “more focused on a credential, travel credential, if you will, to indicate that you’ve been vaccinated and or tested based on the regulatory requirements.”
The CEO added that he expects “Either a vaccination or a test,” to be a requirement to travel, and airlines are “working with a number of technology providers to be able to facilitate that in an open source way.”
Right. A vaccine passport then.
That is exactly what the ID will be, but never mind, just call it something else to placate the sheeple and hope they remain only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air.
It’s the exact same policy that the UK government is adopting for the system which is slated not only for international travel but also domestically. We are also reliably informed that the vast majority of Brits are willing to accept vaccine passports in order to engage in basic day to day activities, and that they are willing to go along with the digital ID card system PERMANENTLY.
Recent surveys also indicate that almost half of Americans support the introduction of vaccine passports in order to get “back to normal.”
Airline consultant Mike Boyd warned that the companies “would rather not deal with this, but they need to express their points of view very carefully,” adding that creating a global protocol to enforce vaccine passports “could resemble a DMV [Department of Motor Vehicles] on steroids.”
The EU is already ensconced on the vaccine passport road, with a bloc wide ‘Digital Green Certificate’ system set to be rolled out in June.
April 21, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, UK, United States |
Leave a comment
In late March, Rutgers University president Jonathan Holloway explained the following:
Students arriving on campus this fall will be required to be jabbed for covid.
According to Holloway, it’s to “provide a safer and more robust college experience for our students (sic).”
There’s nothing remotely safe and effective about experimental, unapproved, hazardous mRNA technology or vaccines.
Covid is seasonal flu renamed.
Despite years of research, scientists never located an alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus claimed responsible for causing covid.
If not found, perhaps it doesn’t exist.
How then can what may not exist produce a virus or anything else harmful to health?
Covid and seasonal flu/influenza are two names for the same viral illness.
Their symptoms include coughing, shortness of breath, fatigue, sore throat, runny nose, muscle pains, body aches, headache, loss of taste, appetite, and/or smell, and at times vomiting and diarrhea.
Symptoms can be mild or more serious, the latter more likely for individuals over age-70.
Serious complications can include pneumonia, respiratory failure, sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, cardiac injury, multiple organ failure, worsening of chronic medical conditions, inflammation of heart, brain or muscle tissues and secondary bacterial infections.
When occur, the elderly or others with weakened immune systems are most vulnerable.
Years earlier when flu killed up to 650,000 people worldwide in a six-month season, no shutdowns, quarantines, masks, social distancing, and mass-jabbing were called for and heavily promoted by media propaganda.
Yet all of the above and other draconian policies have been in place in the West and elsewhere since seasonal flu underwent a name change early last year.
In mid-April, Chicago-based Columbia College announced the following covid mass-jabbing policy:
For the fall semester beginning September 7:
Students residing on campus are required to be jabbed for covid before “mov(ing) in (to their) residence halls” this September.
All “Fall 2021” students must be jabbed for covid.
“International students already vaccinated in another country with a vaccine not approved by the (FDA) will not be required to be (jabbed), but (jabbing) will be made available to them.”
“The college’s health experts at Rush University Medical Center… advised… that it is safe (sic) for a person (jabbed) with another (covid drug) to be re-(jabbed) with (an) existing USFDA-approved” one.
There are none at this time, and Columbia failed to explain — FDA emergency use authorization alone when no emergency exists.
“International students who arrive (unjabbed) from another country will be required to begin a (jabbing) course upon arrival to campus.”
“(T)he college expects to start offering (covid mass-jabbing) on campus over the next two weeks.”
“The college anticipates its initial batch of doses to be the Pfizer” experimental, rushed to market, high-risk, DNA-altering mRNA technology Columbia falsely called a “vaccine.”
“Future doses may be Moderna(’s) (mRNA technology) or Pfizer.”
“Use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is currently suspended by federal and local health authorities.”
According to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), nearly 800 — potentially life-threatening — blood clots were experienced by individuals in the US jabbed with Pfizer, Moderna, or J & J covid drugs.
Overall from mid-December to April 8, over 68,000 adverse events and more than 2,600 deaths were reported.
According to HHS, these numbers captured “fewer than 1% of injuries.”
Actual numbers of adverse events over 100-times more than reported totals — harm on a massive scale, rising exponentially as long as this uncontrolled madness continues.
Columbia College added that “faculty and staff will not be required (to be jabbed for covid), but will be strongly encouraged.”
As explained to me by a Columbia faculty member on April 20, “compuls(ory) weekly PCR testing (will be) institute(d) for (unjabbed) faculty and staff…who will be on campus.”
What Rutgers announced weeks earlier, Columbia is now instituting — perhaps many more US colleges, universities, and public schools to follow.
Instituting this policy breaches federal law 21 USC § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III).
It requires that individuals may “accept or refuse administration of” experimental, unapproved drugs.
According to the Nuremberg Code, voluntary consent is required on all things related to health.
The FDA’s Fact Sheet on Pfizer’s mRNA technology states:
“It is your choice to receive or not receive (it). Should you decide not to receive it, it will not change your standard medical care.”
The same holds for other experimental covid jabs.
The Congressional Research Service states:
Private businesses (and other entities) are subject to civil liability unless they comply “with applicable directions, guidelines, or recommendations by the (HHS) secretary…”
Mandating covid jabs with experimental, unapproved drugs flagrantly breaches US federal law and the Nuremberg Code.
Yet unjabbed Columbia students — as well as faculty and staff not complying with weekly PCR tests — most likely will be barred from campus.
These policies — and today’s brave new world regimen — show indifference to health and well-being by ignoring the legal right of individuals to choose on all things related to health and well-being.
A Final Comment
Columbia College, my residential building, and other public places follow draconian/harmful to health federal, state of Illinois, as well as Chicago guidelines and mandates.
They include:
Masks that don’t protect and risk harm to health from longterm use.
PCR tests not designed to diagnose viral infections.
Social distancing that disrupts normal interactions.
Restrictions on numbers of people permitted to gather in public.
Disinfecting public places.
Travel restrictions.
Personal hygiene requirements and recommendations.
Workplace requirements.
Testing, jabbing and tracking.
Federal, state, and local policies are all about instituting social control, along with manipulating people to self-inflict harm.
They’re unrelated to protecting and preserving public health.
If that aim was prioritized, none of the above policies would have been instituted.
Not intended to be short-term, they’re highly likely to be in place longterm — perhaps permanently.
Forever mass-jabbing was planned, promoted by Pharma and their media press agents.
Two jabs aren’t enough. Drug companies called for annual or semi-annual booster jabs instead of flu shots — no longer needed after renaming the seasonal illness covid.
Left unexplained is that repeated jabs increase the risk of serious harm to health near-or-longer-term.
Protecting and preserving health requires refusal to play fast and loose with what’s too precious to lose.
April 21, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
Immoral vaccine passports serve the purpose of creating a biosecurity state with both government and private sector invasion of our rights.
April 21, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular, Video | COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
Nick Hudson, an actuary and private equity investor, co-founded Pandemics ~ Data & Analytics (PANDA) in response to the many threats to civil rights and freedoms that have occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic response. While media and public health institutions have engaged in a campaign of smoke and mirrors — one that is perpetuating paralyzing fear, needlessly, to this day — data and facts don’t lie.
Hudson and his team at PANDA, which include a data analyst, economist, medical doctors, big data analyst and public health experts, are using live data1 and open science to empower the public to exercise freedom of choice and preserve free societies.2
Hudson spoke at the inaugural BizNews Investment Conference in March 2021, and his keynote address is above. He explains the ugly truth about COVID-19, which is that the world is being crippled by fear due to a false narrative. Anyone who challenges that narrative is being labeled as a lunatic, a menace or a danger to society, which is furthering the repression and unjustified fear.
Bringing COVID-19 Truth to Light
George Washington famously said, “Truth will ultimately prevail where there are plans taken to bring it to light.”3 With that in mind, Hudson saw the “seeds of a great tragedy” being planted with the false COVID-19 narrative, and has made it a mission to get the truth out. So, what is the reality about the pandemic? According to Hudson:4
- A virus that presents high risk to few and negligible risk to most hit some regions
- Few are susceptible to severe disease
- There are several available treatments
- Asymptomatic people are not major drivers of disease
- Lockdowns and mask mandates haven’t worked and instead caused great harm
- The vulnerable were hurt instead of helped
The misinformation has been spewed from the beginning, including by World Health Organization director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. In a March 3, 2020, media briefing, he stated, “Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died. By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected.”5
But according to Hudson, the 3.4% represents case fatality rate (CFR), which is the number of deaths from COVID-19 divided by the number of cases of COVID-19, while the 1% is infection fatality rate (IFR), or the number of deaths divided by all infected individuals.
“By conflating these two separate points (CFR and IFR),” Hudson said, “Tedros was effectively lying.” Quantitative scientist John Ioannidis, professor of medicine at the Stanford Prevention Research Center, calculated the IFR for COVID-19 in a review of 61 seroprevalence studies, which was a median of 0.23%, and 0.05% in people younger than 70.6
Based on this, the IFR for COVID-19 is lower than that of the flu. And wouldn’t you know it, in a New England Journal of Medicine editorial published March 26, 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and colleagues wrote that “the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza.”7
The media have suppressed this fact, Hudson noted, along with the fact that there’s a 1,000 times difference in mortality among those younger than 19 and those older than 70 — something that should have been taken into account in the pandemic response.
Is COVID-19 Really a ‘Novel Virus’?
Further inflaming widespread fear is the idea that COVID-19 is a “novel virus,” which makes it sound like it’s something humans have never encountered before. But is it really? According to Hudson:
“The reality is that the coronavirus is a very close relative, not even a separate subspecies, a very close relative of the 2003 SARS virus. There are seven related coronaviruses known to cause disease in humans, probably many others, and four of them are in general circulation.
Annual, global circulation. So the naming of this disease is terribly inconsistent. This is really a rose by any name, SARS. A variant of SARS. It’s not novel.”
One study even found that 81% of people not exposed to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, were still able to mount an immune response against it, which “suggests at least some built-in immune protection from SARS-CoV-2 …”8
Nonetheless, Maria Van Kerkhove, WHO’s technical lead for the COVID-19 pandemic, stated that “a majority of the world’s population is susceptible to infection from this virus.”9 This is the first of two key elements that, Hudson said, lead to “homosapienophobia” — the idea that everyone is dangerous until proven healthy.
The idea of universal susceptibility to COVID-19 is nonsense, Hudson noted, as was demonstrated early on with the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Among the 3,711 passengers and crew onboard the Diamond Princess, 712 (19.2%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, and of these 46.5% were asymptomatic at the time of testing. Of those showing symptoms, only 9.7% required intensive care and 1.3% (nine) died.10
PANDA data also showed that, starting in February 2021, there was not universal susceptibility to the virus. Their data showed cumulative COVID-19 deaths per million people. In Africa, Southeast Asia and Oceania, the population fatality rate was 112 per million compared to 710 per million in Europe and the Americas.
As for Africa, Southeast Asia and Oceania, Hudson said, “the population fatality rate there almost isn’t an epidemic. In a typical year, they’d have 10,000 deaths per million from all causes.”
Fear Mongering Over Asymptomatic Spread
The second element that enables the doctrine of “everyone being a danger” to continue is the idea of asymptomatic spread driving disease. “I was absolutely aghast to find out the poor quality of the science” behind it, Hudson said.
One of the seminal papers involved one woman who reportedly infected 16 colleagues while she was asymptomatic.11 The study was widely used to suggest that asymptomatic spread was occurring, but controversy later ensued over whether the woman was actually asymptomatic when the others were infected or if she was symptomatic and being treated for flu-like symptoms at the time.12
In June 2020, Kerkhove also made it very clear that people who have COVID-19 without any symptoms “rarely” transmit the disease to others. But in a dramatic about-face, WHO then backtracked on the statement just one day later. June 9, 2020, Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of WHO’s emergencies program, quickly backpedaled Van Kerkhove’s statement, saying the remarks were “misinterpreted or maybe we didn’t use the most elegant words to explain that.”13
“It’s utter, utter nonsense,” Hudson said, adding that Fauci also stated in January 2020, “asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person.”14
A JAMA Network Open study later found, in December 2020, that asymptomatic transmission is not a primary driver of infection within households.15 A study in Nature Communications also found “there was no evidence of transmission from asymptomatic positive persons to traced close contacts.”16
Lockdown Madness
The myth of widespread asymptomatic spread is what was used to justify worldwide lockdowns of healthy people. “Bruce Aylward will go down in history as a criminal of immense stature,” Hudson said, referring to Aylward’s role as the head of a WHO team that visited Wuhan, China, and concluded lockdowns were working to stop COVID-19 spread.17
“He takes a delegation to China, spends a few days, then comes back and says everyone should follow China’s response, the doctrine of universal susceptibility,” Hudson said. Yet, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic official guidelines for pandemic response plans recommend against large-scale quarantine of the healthy.
In fact, WHO wrote that during an influenza pandemic, quarantine of exposed individuals, entry and exit screening and border closure are “not recommended in any circumstance.”18
Likewise, in 2021 a study published in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation found no significant benefits on COVID-19 case growth in regions using more restrictive nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as mandatory stay‐at‐home and business closure orders (i.e., lockdowns).19
Data compiled by PANDA also found no relationship between lockdowns and COVID-19 deaths per million people. The disease followed a trajectory of linear decline regardless of whether or not lockdowns were imposed.
What isn’t a lie, however, is that lockdowns cause a great deal of harm. Infant mortality, poverty, starvation and joblessness are on the rise, as are delays in medical treatment and diagnosis, psychological disorders among youth, suicide and deaths of despair.
Education has been disrupted for an estimated 1.6 billion children, Hudson said, and a survey of 2,000 U.S. adults revealed that 1 in 6 Americans started therapy for the first time during 2020. Nearly half (45%) of the survey respondents confirmed that the COVID-19 pandemic was the driving reason that triggered them to seek a therapist’s help.20 According to Hudson:
“Perhaps the hardest thing for me to swallow about all of this is in undergraduate epidemiology, it is a well-known finding that when you are confronted with a disease with sharp edge graduation, as you are with coronavirus, measures to generally suppress the spread of the disease have the effect, reliably, of shifting the disease burden onto the vulnerable, who we should be protecting. They worsen coronavirus mortality.”
Mask Rhetoric Is Misleading
It’s been touted that face masks are essential to stopping the spread of COVID-19 and could save 130,000 lives in the U.S. alone.21 But in 2019, the World Health Organization analyzed 10 randomized controlled trials and concluded, “there was no evidence that facemasks are effective in reducing transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”22
Only one randomized controlled trial has been conducted on mask usage and COVID-19 transmission, and it found masks did not statistically significantly reduce the incidence of infection.23
You may remember that in the early days of the pandemic, face masks were not recommended for the general public. In February 2020, Christine Francis, a consultant for infection prevention and control at WHO headquarters, was featured in a video, holding up a disposable face mask.
She said, “Medical masks like this one cannot protect against the new coronavirus when used alone … WHO only recommends the use of masks in specific cases.”24 As of March 31, 2020, 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.25
But by June 2020, the rhetoric had changed. Citing “evolving evidence,” WHO reversed their recommendation and began advising governments to encourage the general public to wear masks where there is widespread transmission and physical distancing is difficult.26 Yet that same day, June 5, 2020, WHO published an announcement stating:27
“At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID-19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.”
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did a similar about-face on mask usage, citing a study of two hair dressers in Missouri, who were reportedly symptomatic with COVID-19 and styled 139 clients’ hair.
None of the clients tested positive for COVID-19, which the CDC suggested was because they and the stylists wore masks.28 Hudson believes, however, that the customers were probably young and not susceptible to the virus in the first place.
Another study published in the CDC’s journal Emerging Infectious Diseases stated, “We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility.”29
PANDA data also showed no differences in transmission in states with mask mandates and those without. Still, health officials are now advising you should double or triple up on masks to make them work better.
Vaccines Being Sold as a Ticket to Freedom
People who stand to make countless billions out of COVID-19 vaccines are now selling them as a ticket to freedom, Hudson states:
“How convenient that we now have a logic that tells us that we need to vaccinate 7.8 billion people for a disease that has a mean survival rate of 99.95% for people under the age of 70. The profiteering here is naked. It is transparent.”
It’s a sad situation when teenagers, who aren’t at high risk, are lining up for vaccines just to get their freedoms back, he adds. When you add in all the other inconsistencies and lies — PCR tests that are not capable of diagnosing infectiousness, inflated death numbers, restrictions on travel, media propaganda and arbitrary rules, like the CDC’s recent change in physical distancing in classrooms from 6 feet to 3 feet30 — it’s as though we’re living in an Orwellian reality.
With looming vaccine passports, the loss of personal liberties is at an unprecedented level, while people are generally “enslaved by fear” — fear of infection or reinfection, “long COVID,” resurgence and mutant variants. “The underpinnings of our civilization are under threat,” Hudson noted, and we have a choice. “We’ve been pushed up against a precipice, will we be pushed off or will we push back?”
He urges people to support the Great Barrington Declaration, which calls for “focused protection” and finding a middle ground between locking down an entire economy and just “letting it rip.” As of April 4, 2021, the declaration has collected 41,890 signatures from medical practitioners and over 13,796 signatures from medical and public health scientists.31
In addition, the declaration is open for public signatures and has collected 764,089 from concerned citizens around the world. The website allows you to read and sign the declaration, answers many frequently asked questions, shares the science behind the recommendations and explains how the declaration was written.
PANDA also published a protocol for reopening society “to provide a road map out of the damaging cycle of lockdowns.”32 Hudson quoted Nelson Mandela, who stated courage is not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. We all need to strive for courage and support awareness campaigns aimed at stopping the harmful narrative, relieving fear and protecting future freedom.
Sources and References
April 20, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
Aletho News
Aletho News 