Sounds of Silenced Science is a salute to all of those who found their own path, while sometimes walking alone through a maze of information and disinformation. It is a solid tribute to those who possessed the confidence to methodically question reality presented from without, but who knew another truth arising from within. We raise a toast to science, as this questioning is its fundamental definition, and the individual trust in this science, multiplied by many, is what united us, and ultimately, at least temporary, saved us from an eternity of lock-downs.
The Adverse Events featuring The Spike Girls might have been born out of good fun, but doesn’t life usually tell you you’re on the right track if even hard work comes by effortlessly? Thanks to four special ladies for the delightful collaboration.
Lyrics:
Hello Darkest MSM,
I’ve come to face you once again,
Because the horrors steadily streaming,
Grew seeds of fear while I was sleeping,
And the nightmares you planted in my brain,
Were sustained,
When you silenced science.
In quarantine I walked alone
Down the halls of my own home
In the halo of a zoom call
I wore a mask ‘cause I was in their thrall
Then my mind was stabbed with a thought of its own free will
I tried until
I understood the science
And on the evening news I saw
Ten million people, maybe more
People jabbing without thinking
People aping without listening
People spewing hate that famous voices shared
But no one dared
Disturb the sound of silence
“Fools” said I, “You do not know
That silence like a cancer grows
Learn the science that it might teach you
Do the math that it might reach you”
But my words, like silent raindrops fell
And echoed in the wells of pseudo-science
And the people bowed and prayed
To the CoVid god they made
And the Science shouted its warning
In the findings that it was forming
And I found that “The words of the prophets are written in Substack mail and Twitter jail, and echo against the silence.
“When truth is replaced by silence, the silence is a lie.”
― Yevgeny Yevtushenko
The original upload of this video got banned on YouTube. Thanks to a few key people, it found itself in front of many eyeballs for which I’m grateful. I’ll be posting all third rail content on alternative media channels. You can find me most active on VisceralAdventure.Substack.com
Back in 2020 (which seems like a different lifetime), I was fortunate enough to not have anyone close to me get diagnosed with covid and die soon after from/with it. But through the course of the year, the circle of who got sick closed in and I even saw a post or two on social media about a friend’s dad or mom whose death was amplified as a warning to all: the elderly and the really sick people are dying, and so we must do everything we can to stop that from happening, this is a grade A emergency, damnit.
And then, this year rolled around and not a day goes by that I don’t see a tribute post or an obituary, except they are, for the most part, of people who are quite young. And then there are the athletes. And the movie stars. And the public personas. And the politicians. And their kids. There’s cancer, and a wallop of overdoses and lots of suicides, and then there’s SADS: Sudden Arrhythmic Death Syndrome or more commonly known as Sudden Adult Death Syndrome. And that’s just awfully analogous to SIDS, a still mysterious condition, the likes of which have infants tragically dying while they sleep. Incredulously, we’ve come to terms with the fact that, sometimes, ‘nature’ (?) unexpectedly and without a warning terminates a healthy baby. But until this year, I had never heard of SADS. I never knew that this could also happen to a young healthy adult. While they sleep.
How long before SADS becomes as normal as SIDS? Before we all notice that the surges happen around specific milestones and can be prevented only if one slept in the correct sleeping position? Or have we already normalized it? Endemic SADS. Maybe we can rename it SEADS. What’s it gonna end up taking to break our collective camel’s back?
Two yeas ago, iatrogenic deaths were the third leading cause of death in America. What’s the over/under on that rating this year?
Go to VisceralAdventure.Substack.com for more content.
We all know that Pfizer likes to “move at the speed of science”.
Nowhere is the “speed of science” more pronounced, than in raising prices for its products. Pfizer used to charge its only customer in the United States — the Federal Government – $19.50 per dose.
Now Pfizer decided to diversify and sell its Covid vaccine through health insurance companies. It plans to charge $130 per dose. Mind you, each dose costs $1.18 to produce.
The business plan here, of course, is to keep as many vaccine mandates as possible and have health insurers cover the cost of increasingly frequent vaccinations, child vaccinations etc.
People ages 12 years and older: A 2-dose primary series and 1 bivalent mRNA booster dose (Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech) is recommended. The primary series doses are separated by 3–8 weeks and the bivalent mRNA booster dose is administered at least 2 months after completion of the primary series (for people who have not received any booster doses), or at least 2 months after the last monovalent booster dose.
If you think that two months is too frequent, consider that CDC’s Rochelle Walensky was bivalent-boosted only a MONTH ago, and is now suffering from Covid — the same variant she was boosted for. Ms. Walensky is, of course, vaxxed to the max and is thankful for all the shots she received:
The Price
Most of each dose of Pfizer’s “Covid vaccine” is cheap stuff like water, polyethylene glycol, and other chemicals. The actual active ingredient is the mRNA nanoparticles, and those are given at 30 micrograms per dose.
Do the math:
Price Per gram = 130/.000030 = $4,333,333
So Pfizer is selling us their gene juice for over $4,333,333 per gram.
A pound (454 grams) of Pfizer’s mRNA nanoparticles would cost TWO BILLION DOLLARS.
The cost of making that two-billion-dollar pound of mRNA juice is under one percent of the price.
US President Joe Biden received his fifth Covid-19 vaccine dose on Tuesday, and urged Americans to do the same. While the president is pushing for a yearly vaccine schedule, less than 10% of the eligible population has gotten the latest omicron-specific shot.
“Get vaccinated,” Biden said at a White House event. “It’s incredibly effective, but the truth is, not enough people are getting it. We’ve got to change that so we all can have a safe and healthy holiday season.”
Biden, who caught a recurring case of Covid-19 earlier this summer despite having received a total of four vaccine doses at the time, then rolled up his sleeve and received his fifth dose – this time of Pfizer’s omicron-specific bivalent booster – on camera.
The president said that the coronavirus vaccine is “just like the flu shot,” and added that “for most Americans, one Covid shot each year will be all that they need.”
However, uptake for the latest round of booster shots has been slow. Fewer than 20 million people have taken the updated formulation, or just 8.5% of the eligible population, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Meanwhile, the state of Florida has recommended against mRNA booster shots for children under 18 and males under 39, citing the low risk posed by Covid-19 to children and the elevated risk of cardiac arrest in young vaccinated men. Several European countries have issued similar recommendations in recent months, but the CDC still recommends that children as young as five receive bivalent boosters, and has recommended that Covid-19 vaccines be added to children’s routine immunization schedules.
Throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, Biden combined an intense public messaging campaign with legal mandates for federal workers and contractors in a bid to up the US’ vaccination rate. While some municipalities also drafted their own mandates, legal challenges followed. In New York City on Tuesday, the Staten Island Supreme Court ordered the city to lift its mandate and rehire all employees fired for non-compliance with full back pay.
I have been somewhat quiet recently. I have started about ten blogs, then got bogged down …. possibly blogged down? Then stopped, and started again, then tore it all up – metaphorically.
The problem is that I have been looking at COVID19 vaccination.
There is much to say, maybe too much. However, one treads a very fine line here. I liken it to walking along a cliffside, in the dark. At any point you can make a small mis-step and plummet to your doom. Or, perhaps it is more like being in the trenches in World War I, knowing that at any point, a sniper could pick you off.
Yes, it is true that WordPress doesn’t seem to care much what anyone writes. Good for them, I say. So, I can write pretty much whatever I want. But the rest of the world watches, waiting for the slightest mistake. At which point you shall be denounced, then silenced, in all other outlets. If this happens, the vast majority of people stop listening to you. ‘Oh him, he’s one of those anti-vaxx nutters. Don’t listen to a word he says.’
Yes, I know there is a large community out there who do not follow the mainstream narrative. Those who know there are – or certainly may be – some significant issues with the COVID19 vaccines. In particular the mRNA vaccines. Speaking to them is easy, gaining their support is easy. They cheer you on.
However, there is no real point in reaching out to them, enjoyable though it may be. It is preaching to the converted. The people that I would really like to get at are those who firmly and absolutely believe that mRNA vaccines are highly effective, absolutely safe, and that everyone should be happy to be vaccinated. Along with their children.
The people who are also very critical of those who do not get vaccinated [I have had three doses, but I shall not be having a fourth, unless things change dramatically].
How do you reach these people? How can you even begin to get them listening to anything you have to say?
To give one example of the problem of starting a discussion. I posted a link in a discussion forum on the Doctors.net website (a website that can only be accessed by UK registered doctors). This link discussed some issues with vaccines. It didn’t seem, to me, to be hyper-critical.
However, I got a message from the moderators informing me that if I attached links to any information critical of vaccines, again, they would remove me from the site. This was my final warning. No discussion.
More recently, the post below was published on the same site. It was in response to a twitter comment which followed an interview with Dr Aseem Malhotra:
‘This is a disgraceful interview with this self-publicising charlatan and hypocrite. He says that “until proven otherwise, it is likely that Covid mRNA vaccines played a significant or primary role in all unexplained heart attacks, strokes, cardiac arrhythmias, & heart failure since 2021”.
That is so grossly irresponsible and untrue It staggers me to think he can be allowed to say this and remain a registered medical practitioner.’
The post I have duplicated here was published by a doctor who works, full-time, for a pharmaceutical company. Something he, surprisingly, failed to mention as a potential conflict of interest. Others piled on in support of him. Many of them agreeing that Aseem Malhotra should be flung off the GMC register forthwith – which would render him unable to work as a doctor.
I suggested that, perhaps it would be better to engage Dr Malhotra in debate, rather than attacking him as a charlatan. At which point I was attacked. In my opinion, if you find yourself being attacked for suggesting that it would be a good idea to have a debate, it is not difficult to work out which way the wind is blowing.
I have discussed vaccination at my local sports club. At which point, almost everyone takes on that silent, arms crossed look, if you mention you have some concerns about vaccines.
They don’t debate the issue, because they can’t, because they don’t know anything other than what they have been told by mainstream media. But it is clear that some of them now see me as a bloody anti-vaxxer. Even if I say nothing more than, ‘I have some concerns.’
Yes, to ask for debate, or to dare express some concerns, is to be labelled an anti-vaxxer.
This is a very high barrier to overcome. I have tried irony. ‘Oh yes, I am absolutely one hundred per cent in favour of COVID19 vaccines. I think everyone should have them four times a year. Pregnant women, children from the moment they are born. No exceptions at all. Yes, these mRNA vaccines have been fully tested. It is clear that they are one hundred per cent safe and one hundred per cent effective. Yup, I cannot see any problems with them at all.’
Response. You are taking the mickey and you are an anti-vaxxer. I claim my prize.
I have also tried saying absolutely nothing at all. I still got accused of being an anti-vaxxer because I did not enthusiasticly agree with criticising someone who was believed to be an anti-vaxxer.
Maybe I should just attend this meeting ‘The New Frontier of RNA Nanotherapeutic. Monday, October 24, 2022 8:30 a.m. – 5 p.m. Hybrid Conference’:
‘The RNA vaccines against COVID-19 mark the beginning of a technological revolution that will transform the way we treat disease and restore health. “The New Frontier of RNA Nanotherapeutics” presented by the George and Angelina Kostas Research Center for Cardiovascular Nanomedicine, will feature a discussion on the events that led to the RNA vaccine breakthrough and preview emerging RNA Nanotherapeutics. Advances in the design of RNA constructs to improve stability and translational efficiency will be presented along with the leading-edge developments in nanomedicine to improve delivery and tissue specificity. The potential of nanotechnology-enabled RNA therapeutics to enhance health is virtually limitless.’
Any doubts I have will evaporate …. maybe.
Anyway. The answer as to … how can I even start a discussion on mRNA vaccines without being shot, falling of the edge of cliff, or being silenced, continues to elude me. Farewell enlightenment. Hello dark ages.
Science, to me, is debate. Science is attacking ideas from all directions. No exceptions. Those ideas which cannot be destroyed may turn out to be correct. But, if an idea is considered sacrosanct, with anyone questioning it condemned as an unbeliever, then we do not have science. We have religion. So yes, in my opinion, vaccines, and vaccination, have become a religious belief. No evidence needed.
Scary. Anyway. If anyone has any good ideas about how a debate can even get started, without descending into anger and accusation … please let me know. It seems beyond me. The end.
Florida Surgeon General, Dr. Joseph Ladapo, minces no words regarding his State’s stance on Covid Vaccine Mandates, after a CDC committee voted unanimously to recommend Covid vaccines for kids older than 6 months.
In 2021 the US CDC and FDA warned America and the world that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines could result in heart inflammation or myocarditis.[i] This is a medical problem that has occurred in the past not related to vaccines but at a low rate ~4 per million population per year as reported by Arola, et al, from Finland. In general, ~90% of cases occur in men and ~10% in women.[ii]
The principles of management include stopping all forms of exercise since that can be a driver of the development of heart failure and a trigger for sudden death. In cases where there is a progression to heart failure, cardiac biopsy is commonly performed to establish or rule out a diagnosis of giant cell myocarditis which has a markedly worse prognosis than the other forms (parvovirus, etc).
COVID-19 vaccination has been thrust on the world with such vehemence that there has been a hesitancy among physicians and hospitals to spontaneously report cases to the regulatory agencies. The vast majority of physicians took COVID-19 vaccines themselves and may be having trouble coming to personal grips with the threat of heart damage and other risks of vaccination. In 2021 as spontaneous reports came into agencies that predominately young men were developing myocarditis with COVID-19 vaccination, a pattern emerged: 1) highest risk group was males age 18-24 with a skewed distribution and a long tail that extended to men in their seventies, 2) ~90% of required hospitalization, 3) risk was explosive after the second injection, 4) death directly due to myocarditis was confirmed by autopsy.
In the biological licensing agreement letters to Pfizer and Moderna, the US FDA requested prospective cohort studies of myocarditis which call for measurement of blood tests, ECG, and cardiac imaging before injections and at timepoints afterwards to detect the real rate of heart damage and to ascertain how much of the problem could be asymptomatic and potentially present a future risk of sudden death in an unsuspecting patient. Both companies were not forthcoming, so the answer came from Mansanguan et al, from the Bhumibol Adulyadej Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.[iii] Adolescents age 13-18 were studied in a prospective cohort manner just after the second injection of the Pfizer vaccine and 7/301 (23,256/million) developed myocarditis using a clinical definition based on blood tests, ECG, and cardiac imaging.
Data from multiple sources suggest the condition can be subclinical in about half, meaning neither the patient nor the parents bring it to clinical attention. Patone et al have recently reported on 100 fatal cases of vaccine-induced myocarditis in the UK, and such papers are expected to continue with larger numbers as the medical community begins to fully recognize cause and effect.[iv] Thus spontaneous reporting to agencies represents the tip of a very large iceberg.
If the estimate Mansanguan study is confirmed or anywhere close to ~25,000/million, that means a million young Americans could have sustained heart damage from COVID-19 vaccination and some of them will be at risk for cardiac arrest and future heart failure. These data suggest we should not be surprised by rising rates of sudden death in young persons with sports and during daily life including sleep.
There can be no more urgent need to halt vaccination and commit a substantial research effort into screening, detection, prognosis, and management of COVID-19 vaccine induced myocarditis. The stakes are high—an entire generation is at risk.
Since its experimental beginnings in the mid-1950s, organ transplantation has evolved into what the medical community now casually refers to as a “standard-of-care” procedure, albeit one with still substantial failure rates.
In one study, published in September in Transplant Infectious Disease, researchers cataloged acute organ rejection within a week or two of COVID-19 vaccination in five individuals who had received kidney, liver or heart transplants six to 18 months earlier.
In August, Japanese researchers reported rejection of corneal grafts in COVID-19 vaccine recipients, occurring from one day to six weeks post-vaccination.
The events caught the Japanese authors’ attention because corneal grafts ordinarily have a high success rate due to the cornea’s status as an organ with immune privilege.
Noting literature that documents transplant rejection in association with other vaccines such as influenza, hepatitis B, tetanus and yellow fever, the Japanese authors expressed worry about what “the projected societal shift towards a more frequent vaccination schedule” portends for transplant recipients.
Concerns about the impact of COVID-19 jabs on people with existing transplants are important, but another pressing-yet-unaddressed question lurks in the shadows: What happens if an unvaccinated person receives a transplanted organ from someone who got one or more COVID-19 jabs?
A record year
Although transplantation experienced a brief lull in the early days of the pandemic, by 2021, the U.S. saw a record-setting number of transplants performed — more than 40,000 kidneys, hearts, livers and other organs.
Although supply is never adequate to meet demand, transplant centers were able to achieve their 2021 milestone in part because of a 10% increase over 2020 in the number of “deceased organ donors” (as opposed to living donors), with 45 of 57 organ procurement organizations setting “all-time records for donors recovered in a single year.”
The surge in organ donation from deceased donors represents a decade-long trend, with “the rising number of deaths of young people due to the ongoing opioid epidemic” hypothesized to be a contributing factor prior to 2021. Still, in prior years, the increase averaged only 5%.
Thrilled with the increased availability of organs, transplant organizations have displayed no curiosity about whether fatalities linked to the rollout of experimental COVID-19 vaccines may be eclipsing or even replacing organs sourced from opioid-related deaths — even though there was a 30% increase (over 2020) in organ donation from individuals who died of cardiorespiratory failure, and a 15% increase in organs from deceased 50- to 64-year-olds.
The COVID-19 vaccine rollout has been linked to 2021’s explosive rise in all-cause mortality in the working-age population, including unprecedented heart-related fatalities in younger adult COVID-19 vaccine recipients.
Some observers believe these could be linked to COVID-19-vaccine-related loss of consciousness behind the wheel.
Damaged organs?
According to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), transplant rejection “is when the organ recipient’s immune system recognizes the donor organ as foreign and attempts to eliminate it.”
Rejection begins as an acute phenomenon but may proceed to the gradual loss of organ function defined as chronic rejection.
UNOS says, “Some degree of rejection occurs with every transplant,” which is why immunosuppressive medications, often for life, are a sine qua non following transplantation.
In August, the independent group of doctors and scientists known as Doctors for COVID Ethics outlined disturbing evidence from autopsies of persons deceased after COVID-19 vaccination about what is happening to the organs of mRNA vaccine recipients — organs potentially being offered to transplant recipients.
They noted that mRNA vaccines “travel throughout the body and accumulate in various organs” where they “induce long-lasting expression of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein” that in turn induces autoimmune-like inflammation — and the vaccine-induced inflammation “can cause grave organ damage, especially in vessels, sometimes with deadly outcome.”
Citing evidence from Pfizer’s animal experiments, they also underscored the particularly rapid accumulation of mRNA vaccine in the liver, and concluded that blood vessels, at the very least, “will be exposed and affected in every organ and in every tissue.”
Ironically, transplant programs commonly recommend that would-be organ recipients get “up-to-date” on a slew of vaccines — “typically hepatitis A and B, tetanus [diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus], pneumococcus, measles, human papillomavirus, influenza, and others dependent on geography and age.”
Given the manufacturer-documented potential for vaccines to cause organ-damaging adverse events, this advice was already questionable — but then many transplant centers made matters worse by adding stringent requirements for COVID-19 vaccination.
Even though researchers very quickly established that the immunosuppressive drugs taken by transplant recipients guarantee a “significantly blunt[ed]” COVID-19 vaccine response, prominent healthcare systems like Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Colorado’s UCHealth did not hesitate to coldly remove the unvaccinated from their transplant waiting lists.
The American Society of Transplant Surgeons’ COVID-19 Strike Force recommends COVID-19 vaccination not just for all transplant candidates but also for recipients, their family members and live donors.
They virtuously claim that decisions to deny transplants to the unvaccinated are based on a desire to “avoid futile transplants and wasting organs that could benefit other candidates.”
A University of Chicago physician who asserted a “legal right to discriminate against candidates who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine” nevertheless squeamishly labeled the discrimination “too severe,” asking, “one must ask how far the [transplant] community will go” and wondering, “will they mandate multiple boosters”?
Big bucks
Although organ transplantation is shrouded in noble lifesaving verbiage, it is also a major profit center for modern medicine.
Market analysts expect the growth to be fueled both by demand factors — such as the growing incidence of chronic diseases that cause “catastrophic damage to tissue and organs” — and increased supply — including a rise in celebrity-driven organ donation pledges.
Because access to organs remains the key barrier to transplantation, there has also been a push in recent years to allow donation from “suboptimal” or “extended criteria” donors — for example, the elderly, individuals with fatty liver disease, donors with malignancies or viral hepatitis or donations “after cardiac death.”
Will COVID-19-vaccine-contaminated organs become just another category of “suboptimal” donation?
Recent studies of COVID-19 vaccine recipients’ blood suggest that worries about a contaminated blood supply likely also extend to the organ supply and could place transplant recipients’ lives at risk.
Unfortunately, when problems arise, they will probably be chalked up to ordinary transplant rejection, with no one the wiser about the insidious role of newfangled COVID-19 or future mRNA vaccines.
Aside from lobbying for changes in Covid polices, a key purpose of the 50-plus open letters that the U.K. Medical Freedom Alliance has written to Government, regulators, decision-makers and individuals over the last two and a half years has been to create a paper trail of accountability.
When the day of reckoning eventually arrives, these publicly published and dated letters provide evidence that those making and implementing destructive and unethical policies cannot claim that they were unaware of the potential harms of their actions.
Following the stunning admission by the Pfizer executive Janine Small in the EU Parliament on October 11th 2022, that the COVID-19 vaccines were never tested to see if they prevented transmission of SARS-CoV-2 because they were “working at the speed of science”, it is well worth reading through the very first letter we sent – to Matt Hancock, MHRA and JCVI – in November 2020, just before the vaccines were approved under conditional authorisation by the MHRA.
This 14-page, fully referenced letter detailing our serious safety and ethical concerns relating to a premature and rushed rollout of any COVID-19 vaccine, was sent in a desperate (and failed) attempt to stop them going ahead with authorisation. We had four subsections of concern, with a wealth of referenced evidence to substantiate each area:
Overestimation of the public health risk from SARS-CoV-2.
Inadequate assessment of the public health risk from a Covid vaccine.
Medical freedom and informed consent.
Media claims and misinformation.
Many people will be astonished at the evidence we presented, easily found in the public domain in the Autumn of 2020, by studying the trial data available and the published literature, and also by considering the situation from an ethical and legal standpoint using long established principles.
Tragically, the vast majority of the medical profession and wider public were deceived by the powerful and incessant Government and media messaging that the vaccines would be our ‘only way out’ and that we should ‘trust the science’. It is now clear that most people, including doctors, did no independent research beyond listening to the Government press conferences, the pronouncements of health officials, the Today programme and reading the Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Mail and so on.
This failure of due diligence has come at a huge price – to doctors and nurses as individuals and clinicians, to the medical profession as a body, and to the public as a whole. Trust in the medical profession and health bodies has been seriously damaged, as evidence of unprecedented levels of vaccine injury mount and the extravagant claims of 95% or even 100% effectiveness have not been borne out in the real world. Indeed, real world data is repeatedly showing negative effectiveness of the Covid jabs in a matter of weeks – meaning that you are more likely to catch Covid if you are vaccinated than unvaccinated. These Covid jabs have certainly not lived up to the incessantly repeated marketing slogan of ‘safe and effective’.
The UKMFA is calling now for the medical profession, politicians and decision-makers to actively engage with the huge amount of published science and real-world data, and to listen to the multitude of eminent scientists, doctors and independent journalists laying the facts out for easy independent research and understanding.
A good place to start would be the two part paper “Curing the pandemic of misinformation on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines through real evidence-based medicine”, published by Dr. Aseem Malhotra in the Journal of Insulin Resistance on September 26th 2022, and the press conference that he gave to explain his findings and to call for an immediate and “complete suspension” of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines pending a full and independent investigation into the safety of these products.
As a society, we now have an opportunity and responsibility to change course, to start to put things right and to hold accountable those people who failed in their duties and responsibilities to protect the public, so that this can never happen again. There is no shame in admitting that you were wrong or misled. Science, unlike the dogma of ‘The Science’, is all about constantly testing existing hypotheses and adapting and changing them when the facts change or new information comes to light. We have more than enough evidence to challenge the hypothesis that Covid vaccines are ‘safe and effective’.
During the United Conservative party’s annual general meeting, Alberta’s new Premier Danielle Smith is seeking legal advice on pardoning those that got arrested or fined for violating COVID-19 rules such as not having a vaccine passport.
“We are human beings,” said Smith. “We are not QR codes,” she said, adding that she wanted to “purge” the QR database.
“I believe that Alberta Health Services is the source of a lot of the problems that we’ve had,” she said.
“They signed some kind of partnership with the World Economic Forum right in the middle of the pandemic; we’ve gotta address that. Why in the world do we have anything to do with the World Economic Forum? That’s got to end.”
“The things that come to top of mind for me are people who got arrested as pastors (and) people given fines for not wearing masks,” Smith said. “These are not things that are normal to get fines and get prosecuted for. I’m going to look into the range of outstanding fines and get some legal advice on which ones we are able to cancel and provide amnesty for.”
Smith also doubled down on her promise to amend the Human Rights Act to ban discrimination based on Covid vaccination status. She said the amendment would focus on Covid vaccines because the issue is not medical, it is political.
“Since it was a very specific reaction to a very specific vaccine mandate, we’re going to be very precise when we write the legislation,” she said.
“We have to get back to an attitude of ‘you take a vaccine to protect yourself.’
“[But] we have to get away from this attitude that you demonize those who make a different choice.”
Smith is a vocal opponent of vaccine passports and mandates, especially the Alberta Health Services (AHS) for not allowing people to work if they are not vaccinated against Covid. According to the premier, people not vaccinated against Covid are the most discriminated against she has seen in her life.
Smith vowed to reorganize the AHS governance system and fire the entire board.
“The system, my friends, is broken,” she said. “Most of those managing AHS today are holdovers from the NDP years. They have had their chance to fix this bloated system and they have largely failed on almost all accounts. Failure is no longer an option.”
Smith failed to address the comments she made during a virtual interview with Western Standard about the World Economic Forum (WEF). During the interview, she said she would end the AHS data sharing deal with other health providers, including Mayo Clinic, under a program overseen by the WEF.
In determining the efficacy of a medical intervention (such as a drug or vaccine) to stop a particular disease or virus it is typical to assume that the treatment needs time to work before a person is classified as ‘treated’. For example, a person vaccinated against a virus may be classified as ‘unvaccinated’ until 2 weeks after getting the vaccination. This simple animation with a hypothetical example shows that, with such a classification, a placebo (i.e. no effect) vaccination can be shown to be highly effective.
See also this article for more context https://www.normanfenton.com/post/mor… and note that this applies to observational studies rather than randomized controlled trials
RESEARCHERS at Boston University have developed a deadly new strain of Covid, which kills 80 per cent of animal subjects. The research was funded by the US government and approved by Anthony Fauci. I don’t need to tell you how risky such experiments are, or how stupid. This is just one biotechnology experiment among thousands currently being carried out around the world which pose similar kinds of threat. Each additional experiment adds to the danger and brings another lab escape a bit closer.
Biotechnology and medical science is already a long way down a well-worn path which leads to the normalisation of risk. This has involved gradual acclimatisation to high rates of severe injury and death imposed on an unwitting public. The psychology of this process is well known. Repeatedly turning a blind eye to suffering coarsens individual attitudes.
A past true-crime Forensic Files episode illustrates how far we have come. A young female doctor died unexpectedly of a heart attack. In those pre-pandemic times sudden death was a red flag necessitating the close attention of pathologists and police. In the episode, the presence of an unusual toxin was found and the culprit apprehended. By contrast, in the post-pandemic world sudden death has been normalised. No investigation required. Legislation is being changed to allow ‘cause unknown’ on death certificates.
High rates of excess all-cause death, pregnancy irregularities, cardiac events, cancers at lower ages and low birth rates have not just failed to raise eyebrows, but have been dismissed by ‘experts’ and MSM alike on flimsy pretexts without adequate investigation. Blaming Covid infection for every increase in illness has become the norm. This indicates detachment from sound science and the rational mind. Questions are off the table.
Last week New Zealand’s top vaccinologist Dr Helen Petousis-Harris sounded a public note of alarm, saying she wasn’t having any more boosters and advising the public to follow her example. Her advice was based on evolving scientific findings. This was a step too far for the MSM. The NZ Herald decided to switch experts, stoke the fear factor and cancel Dr Petousis-Harris.
The Herald quoted a University of Auckland computational biologist David Welch, who is not an expert on vaccines but begged to differ from Petousis-Harris saying: ‘I think we should be regularly having boosters. At the moment a booster twice a year looks like it would be very sensible because we’re getting waves more frequently than that.’ The long article failed to mention adverse effects of mRNA vaccination and its near-total lack of effectiveness.
Such buffoonery is not just uninformed, it increasingly appears to be part of a deliberate attempt to whitewash medical harm on a scale that dwarfs any previous example. An article in the Epoch Times headed ‘How Cancer Deaths From the COVID Jabs Are Being Hidden’ outlines just one way this is being accomplished, saying:
Analysis of US Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) data suggests that some cancer deaths have been redesignated as Covid deaths since April 2021. This has hidden the cancer signal.
Before it was manipulated to eliminate the safety signal, data from the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) showed cancer rates among military personnel and their families tripled after the rollout of the shots
After the rollout of the Covid jabs in 2021, cancer patients have got younger, with the largest increase occurring among 30-to-50-year-olds. Tumour sizes are dramatically larger, multiple tumours in multiple organs are becoming more common, and recurrence and metastasis are increasing.
Why is this not front-page news? The controlling conservative elements of the medical profession and the profitable pharmaceutical industry consider vaccine adverse effects to be a sort of unspeakable heresy. Yet ask someone who has been working in the gene therapy field for years and a tsunami of cancers is not unexpected.
Look at it this way. Cancers result from mutated genetic instructions. These can result from a number of causes including oxidative stress, inherited weakness, environmental or ingested toxins. Inside every one of trillions of human cells every day microbiological immune processes make 70,000 DNA repairs. These ward off potential cancers.
These internal cellular immune processes are sealed off and protected behind the cell wall. The mRNA vaccines are Trojan horses designed to breach the cell wall and reprogram cellular activity. It doesn’t take a genius to appreciate that there are risks involved. These risks include cancers. Cancers normally take years to develop. The surge in cancers among US Department of Defense personnel should be a red flag. Instead medical administrators are apparently busy burying it.
In New Zealand the burying has involved withholding data from public scrutiny, making misleading comparisons, cancelling those asking questions, saturation government advertising promising safety, and indiscriminate use of the ‘conspiracy theory’ label. We have written about these for a year now. Given recent Covid scientific publishing, we are all hoping that the penny will drop. Perhaps those awake enough to study journal papers carefully will, like Dr Petousis-Harris, begin to realise that there is no point in endangering their own health for the sake of a biotechnology dream.
Even though we are approaching the end game of one mRNA biotech dream, there are thousands of others in the pipeline. The psychology of biotech dreaming allows proponents to segue effortlessly from one dream segment to another without a pause. As long as you believe in the ultimate good of human genetic manipulation, there is no real worry if a few people die along the way.
As things have progressed from a few dying, to thousands, to hundreds of thousands around the world and millions injured, coarsened attitudes have hardened. The progress of biotechnology has gradually come to be regarded by the medical elite and giant commercial interests as ‘a necessary task’. A task that requires toughness and determination to arrive eventually at a ‘laudable’ and inevitable goal. The echoes from history are obvious.
But what if the whole enterprise of biotechnology is misguided? Like the discovery of the atomic bomb, literally a dead end? Where the next available step is only a bigger bomb or a more invasive and deadly toxin or pathogen? There are good reasons to suppose this is the case. Millions of years of evolutionary interaction with the wider global epigenetic bionetwork, underpinned by the immutable laws of physics, just might be more reliable than the ideas of a mad scientist.
Is the complexity of human physiology beyond human comprehension and calculation? Yes. Our knowledge of it remains primitive. Moreover there are inherent limitations to our understanding. The full intricacies of in vivo genetic processes are not open to scrutiny. The computational solution of genetic processes and intercellular interactions is beyond the reach of even the most powerful supercomputers. Combinative processes between genes performing multiple tasks requires multidimensional mathematics involving unsolvable equations. Adverse effects of gene editing are known to be inevitable and incalculable.
Governments have poured billions of dollars into biotechnology training and research programmes. The false rationale for this has been created by vast public relations efforts funded by a great variety of global commercial interests. It has all the hallmarks of a Ponzi scheme or an unsustainable investment bubble. There are no beneficial or bankable outcomes appearing at the end of the pipeline. More alarmingly, the deficits in human health are taking their toll and making their presence felt.
Scientific American reported this week that ‘the U.S. Just Lost 26 Years’ Worth of Progress on Life Expectancy’. How low are our medical czars prepared to go before admitting that something is rotten in the state of Denmark? The ‘it’s not me’ and ‘look the other way’ cultures are in full flood to protect the mRNA PR mirage. Against all scientific logic and evidence, biotech CEOs, paid scientists and government experts, floundering politicians and funded media are still talking up the wondrously protective achievements of pandemic responses as if they have saved the public rather than endangered them, from the Wuhan lab to the Covid jab.
It is time to ask some serious questions. The truth is that we are not just in danger of losing progress on life expectancy, but also four centuries of progress with scientific method.
We can’t escape the fact that commercial biotechnology involves an incredibly risky and inherently mutagenic worldwide programme of experimentation. This requires a proportionate response with a global reach. For this reason and many others, this Sunday the Hatchard Report will be launching a Campaign for Global Legislation Outlawing Biotechnology Experimentation known as GLOBE. Watch this space for more details and visit my webinar with Voices For Freedom for the launch.
The U.K. regulator may decide on whether Covid vaccines should be approved for British babies before Christmas. The Mail has the story.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), which polices the safety of drugs used in the U.K., told MailOnline it is currently reviewing data on Moderna’s vaccine.
The pharmaceutical firm has submitted evidence in the hope of getting its jab approved for children aged six months and older, as it is in the EU and U.S. Only over-fives can currently get Covid vaccines in the U.K.
Any approval of jabs for babies would cause huge controversy. British authorities have so far held out on approving jabs for infants despite massive pressure, due to concerns that the benefits do not outweigh any potential risks. Children rarely get seriously ill with Covid and the majority are thought to have already been infected.
Experts said today that, even if approved, the jab must not be rolled out “en masse” to healthy infants.
Dr. Laura Squire, the MHRA’s Chief Healthcare Quality and Access Officer, revealed the regulator was processing an application from Moderna. But she added the mRNA jab, which works in a similar way to Pfizer’s, would only be approved if it met strict safety and efficacy standards.
She said: “We have received an application from the company to extend the approval of Moderna to those aged six months to five years. No extension to the vaccine will be approved unless it meets our stringent standards of safety, quality and effectiveness.”
Moderna’s jab application was submitted in mid-September, meaning it has already gone through weeks of analysis. The MHRA declined to detail the timeframe for its expected decision. But it took health chiefs two months to consider the evidence before approving the first Covid jab in December 2020. Moderna’s application is for its existing jab to be rolled out to other groups, rather than for a new drug. Dr. Squire also confirmed rival vaccine maker Pfizer has not yet applied to have its jab approved for use in the youngest children.
Professor David Livermore, a microbiologist at East Anglia University, said giving the jab to the very limited numbers of children with specific conditions might be wise.
He said: “The tiny minorities of children with severe underlying health problems may benefit from vaccination against Covid.”
But he added that a large-scale jab campaign for children should be off the cards. “There should be absolutely no question of mass vaccination of healthy children, for whom the benefits don’t outweigh the risks,” the professor said. “Over 80% of children have now had Covid and have developed natural immunity. This lasts longer than vaccine-induced immunity and is broader in respect of covering variants. Vaccines offer nothing useful to this very large majority.”
Professor Livermore said the risks of vaccine-related harm, while tiny, do not clearly outweigh the very minor benefits for the vast majority of children.
“This is acceptable for elderly vulnerable populations at risk from severe Covid,’ he said. “It’s not acceptable for healthy children, who are at minuscule risk of developing severe Covid.”
He added that he would like Britain to follow Denmark’s lead and stop vaccinating children against Covid unless recommended by a specialist paediatrician.
Moderna has now published the results of its trial in the under-fives. The study population was very small – too small to get meaningful efficacy results and efficacy was “inferred” from “neutralising antibody concentrations”:
The efficacy of mRNA-1273 was inferred on the basis of having met prespecified criteria for immunobridging, the approach used for authorisation and approval in COVID-19 vaccine studies involving adolescents and older children.
In the supplementary appendix (Table S28 and S29) vaccine effectiveness estimates are given which, while the confidence intervals are wide, are all below 51% and one is even negative.
Among children 6-23 months of age, eight serious adverse events occurred in the vaccine group and none in the placebo group. The data in the supplementary appendix consistently show the vaccinated with adverse events of grade 3 (prevents carrying out daily tasks) and grade 4 (hospitalisation) many times higher than either a placebo or lower dose cohort.
Medically attended unsolicited adverse events (Table S26) were two to three times higher in the vaccine cohort than the placebo:
1% vaccinated vs 0.3% placebo in 2-5 years
1.5% vaccinated vs 0.8% placebo in 6-23 months
1.2% vaccinated vs 0.5% placebo in 6 months-5 years
This indicates that 0.7% of the vaccinated or 1 in 143 had an unsolicited side-effect of the vaccine that required medical attention.
Alex Berenson spotted that in the appendix Moderna disclosed a case of new-onset Type 1 diabetes in a one-year-old girl that its investigators found was vaccine-related. This is Moderna admitting that its vaccine can give children diabetes. El Gato Malo points out that this does not appear to have been disclosed ahead of the approval of the vaccine in the U.S.
A German retrospective study found a hospitalisation rate from the (lower dose) Pfizer vaccine in under-fives of around one in 500.
Why are regulators even considering approving these vaccines for small children?
By James W. Carden | The Realist Review | June 14, 2026
Joe Biden’s presidency may ultimately come to be seen as a cautionary tale. Here was a president who showed little interest in entertaining arguments that might have contradicted his most deeply held assumptions.[1] And there were precious few within the upper ranks of the administration who might have attempted to do so, after all, only policy hands and political operatives who had come up through the ranks of the Clinton and Obama administrations or had longstanding ties to the citadels of the foreign policy community were invited into the fold. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 