Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

CDC Director, Walensky, treats LA Senator with contempt for asking simple questions

By Meryl Nass, MD | November 7, 2021

Physician Senator Cassidy asked Rochelle Walensky a few questions the other day. It was remarkable what she did not know or would not answer.

1.  How many CDC employees are vaccinated? A: We are educating them.

2.  How many CDC emplyees are working from home? He thought 75%? A: I don’t have that information.

3.  Do you see empty desks as you walk down the halls? A: She changed the subject.

4.  Teachers are back in school teaching. CDC employees, with the best PPE and vaccinations should be back working. Don’t they trust these protections? A: Subject change.

5.  Why haven’t you done a prospective study to look into the value of immunity in the recovered? (He asked this at least 3 times.). She tap danced as fast as she could away from an answer.

November 8, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | , , | Leave a comment

Fauci Must Be Fired and Arrested

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | November 4, 2021

The crimes of Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a division of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), is making news again as revelations of abusive research on dogs have surfaced. Interestingly, while many shrug at abuse of human beings, including the elderly, far fewer are willing to overlook the torture of dogs.

In the video above, Kim Iversen makes the case that Fauci should resign or be fired over his repeated lies, questionable research ethics and mishandling of the pandemic.

Many others have also chimed in on the matter. In an October 24, 2021, article1 on Substack, Leighton Woodhouse points out that “Fauci has been abusing animals for 40 years,” and that “the stuff you’ve seen on social media barely scratches the surface.”

The Beagle Experiments

In one experiment that has raised public ire, beagles were sedated and their heads placed in mesh cages filled with sand flies that had been intentionally starved before the experiment to encourage feeding.

The study2 in question, “Enhanced Attraction of Sand Fly Vectors of Leishmania Infantum to Dogs Infected with Zoonotic Visceral Leishmaniasis” was published in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases in July 2021. Some of the photos from this study have circulated on Twitter and other social media platforms. According to the researchers:

“The sand fly Phlebotomus perniciosus is the main vector of Leishmania infantum, etiological agent of zoonotic visceral leishmaniasis in the Western Mediterranean basin. Dogs are the main reservoir host of this disease. The main objective of this study was to determine, under both laboratory and field conditions, if dogs infected with L. infantum, were more attractive to female P. perniciosus than uninfected dogs.”

Spotlight on Animal Testing

In the Ron Paul Liberty Report above, Ron Paul discusses the public outcry over Fauci’s cruel research on beagles. However, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. According to Woodhouse,3 “The experiment was just one of countless tests done on animals with the funding of the NIH, and of NIAID in particular, over the course of decades.”

The White Coat Waste Project4 estimates anywhere from tens of millions to more than 100 million animals — including more than 1,100 dogs — are experimented on in the U.S. each year, and most of these experiments are paid for by U.S. taxpayers.

The NIH funds medical research to the tune of $40 billion annually, and an estimated 47% of that research involves animal testing.5 The NIAID alone has an annual budget of $6 billion, almost all of which goes to funding of animal research.

Other Fauci-funded research on dogs include a 2020 experiment carried out by the University of Georgia where beagles were infected with a parasite before being sacrificed and autopsied.

“The purpose of the experiment was to test a drug that, by the investigators’ own admission, had already been ‘extensively tested and confirmed’ in numerous other animal species,” Woodhouse writes.6

While the University claims this and all other experiments were carried out in accordance with the Animal Welfare Act, four “critical” violation reports have allegedly been filed against the University after U.S. Department of Agriculture inspections in 2021 alone.7,8,9

In 2019, NIAID paid $1.68 million to feed toxic drugs to beagle puppies before sacrificing them. In this case, the puppies had their vocal cords cut “so that lab technicians don’t have to hear them cry and howl in distress.”10

Other NIAID-funded experiments on dogs include research where beagles were infected with pneumonia to induce septic shock and acute hemorrhage. Survivors were euthanized after 96 hours. In another experiment, beagles were infected with anthrax to test the effectiveness of an already approved anthrax vaccine.

In yet another, researchers induced heart attacks in dogs which then underwent MRI scanning before being euthanized and autopsied. What do we have to show from all this torture? Very little, it turns out. Even when medications look promising in animal studies, 90% end up failing in human clinical trials, Woodhouse notes, typically due to differences in physiology.

Why Is NIAID Funding a Psychological Torture Factory?

Perhaps one of the most gruesome experiments paid for by Fauci involves the psychological torturing of monkeys, for purposes that remain unclear. The experiment involves first boosting the monkeys’ capacity for terror by destroying a particular part of their brains with acid.11

The monkeys are then tormented with plastic spiders and mechanical snakes as their behavior is observed. Bizarrely, these particular psychological experiments have been funded for 43 years straight, costing taxpayers nearly $100 million, even though they’ve not resulted in a single drug or medication.

As noted by White Coat Waste Project vice president Justin Goodman, “Some people have made a career out of torturing monkeys.”12 At the end of December 2020, the White Coat Waste Project reported that:13

“As a result of our investigation, Congress has directed the NIH to commission an independent study by the National Academies of the NIH’s intramural primate testing and how modern alternatives can reduce their use. This direction is in the NIH’s 2021 funding bill14 (see page 69).”

A Gain-of-Function Cover-Up?

In related news, in an NIH letter,15,16,17 the agency acknowledges that Fauci lied to Congress when he emphatically insisted the NIH/NIAID have never funded gain-of-function (GOF) research.

The letter, dated October 21, 2021, was sent by NIH principal deputy director Dr. Lawrence Tabak to James Comer, ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, “to provide additional information and documents regarding NIH’s grant to EcoHealth Alliance Inc.”

“It is important to state at the outset that published genomic data demonstrate that the bat coronaviruses studied under the NIH grant to EcoHealth Alliance, Inc. and subaward to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) are not and could not have become SARS-CoV-2,” Tabak writes.

“Both the progress report and the analysis attached here again confirm that conclusion, as the sequences of the viruses are genetically very distant … The limited experiment described in the final progress report provided by EcoHealth Alliance was testing if spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor in a mouse model.

All other aspects of the mice, including the immune system, remained unchanged. In this limited experiment, laboratory mice infected with the SHC014 WIV 1 bat coronavirus became sicker than those infected with the WIV1 bat coronavirus. As sometimes occurs in science, this was an unexpected result of the research, as opposed to something that the researchers set out to do …

The research plan was reviewed by NIH in advance of funding, and NIH determined that it did not to fit the definition of research involving enhanced pathogens of pandemic potential (ePPP) because these bat coronaviruses had not been shown to infect humans. As such, the research was not subject to departmental review under the HHS P3CO Framework.

However, out of an abundance of caution and as an additional layer of oversight, language was included in the terms and conditions of the grant award to EcoHealth that outlined criteria for a secondary review, such as a requirement that the grantee report immediately a one log increase in growth.

These measures would prompt a secondary review to determine whether the research aims should be re-evaluated or new biosafety measures should be enacted. EcoHealth failed to report this finding right away, as was required by the terms of the grant.”

What Did Fauci Know?

In essence, it appears the NIH is throwing EcoHealth Alliance under the proverbial bus. Yes, EcoHealth Alliance ended up conducting GOF research when its manipulation resulted in a virus with wildly enhanced virulence in humans.18 While Tabak claims this was unintentional, that seems a bit odd, considering the experiment in question was testing the “emergency potential” of bat coronaviruses in the human population.

Either way, Tabak claims EcoHealth failed to properly report this outcome to the NIH, so the NIH cannot be held responsible for not taking appropriate action. According to the NIH, researchers must file a report any time a virus produces “a one log increase in growth.” EcoHealth’s experiment resulted in a log increase of 10, which should have triggered an NIH review and potentially shut down of the experiment.

EcoHealth, on the other hand, claims “These data were reported as soon as we were made aware, in our Year 4 report in April 2018.”19,20 Now, if EcoHealth reported the results, then Fauci must have been aware that GOF had taken place, and the NIH for some reason let it slide without review.

Is NIH Looking for a Scapegoat?

As noted by Jordan Schachtel in an October 22, 2021, Substack article:21

“If you read the entire text of the letter, especially in light of the sudden, unexplained resignation of NIH chief Francis Collins, it seems to be desperate to find a scapegoat for the U.S.-approved gain-of-function research.

There are two major unproven claims that have been advanced by the NIH: First, EcoHealth, which has long served as a middleman between U.S. and Chinese Communist Party ‘health’ networks, was accused of violating the terms of the grant it had received …

EcoHealth has long collaborated with the alleged COVID-19 origin lab in Wuhan, China … But the letter seems to be setting up EcoHealth as the ‘fall guy’ entity in this story, pinning all blame on the organization in order to allow for the U.S. Government Health agency to rinse its hands clean of any improper behavior.

The second cause for concern in this letter involves the NIH completely ruling out the possibility that its research grant contributed to the outbreak … It claims it is scientifically impossible for their approved gain-of-function research to have modified this particular virus. And in doing so, they add a strange comparison between human evolution and the evolution of a virus to make their case …

Scientists have weighed in on social media to make it clear that the NIH does not have a definitive case on this front. Renowned molecular biologist Richard Ebright went as far as to label it a ‘false’ claim.22”

Scientist Alina Chan tweeted,23 “How can this type of work not be flagged as gain-of-function research of concern? Knowing what they knew in 2018, there was a reasonable expectation that this type of experiment could enhance the pathogenicity of MERS in humanized animal models and therefore humans.”

Jaime Yassif, senior fellow for global biological policy and programs at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, told CQ,24 “I would have flagged this project. Looking at the experiment of concern that’s highlighted in the letter, it appears to me as gain-of-function research, even before the ‘one log’ requirement.” Commenting on the letter, Comer stated:25

“NIH confirmed that EcoHealth violated the terms of their grant by concealing data on dangerous coronavirus experiments in Wuhan. Even worse, NIH Director Collins and Dr. Anthony Fauci potentially misled the Committee and the American people about its knowledge of this cover up.”

More Incriminating Evidence Against EcoHealth

But there’s more. As reported by Vanity Fair :26

“… another disclosure last month made clear that EcoHealth Alliance, in partnership with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, was aiming to do the kind of research that could accidentally have led to the pandemic.

On September 20, a group of internet sleuths calling themselves DRASTIC (short for Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19) released a leaked $14 million grant proposal that EcoHealth Alliance had submitted in 2018 to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

It proposed partnering with the Wuhan Institute of Virology and constructing SARS-related bat coronaviruses into which they would insert ‘human-specific cleavage sites’ as a way to ‘evaluate growth potential’ of the pathogens. Perhaps not surprisingly, DARPA rejected the proposal, assessing that it failed to fully address the risks of gain-of-function research.

The leaked grant proposal struck a number of scientists and researchers as significant for one reason. One distinctive segment of SARS-CoV-2’s genetic code is a furin cleavage site that makes the virus more infectious by allowing it to efficiently enter human cells. That is just the feature that EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology had proposed to engineer in the 2018 grant proposal.”

Amazingly, NIH Suddenly Revises Its Gain-of-Function Webpage

Adding fuel to suspicions that the NIH/NIAID are trying to cover their tracks is the fact that the NIH suddenly, in the third week of October 2021, deleted the definition of GOF from its website, replacing it with a section on enhanced potential pandemic pathogens (ePPP) research.27

“The National Institutes of Health appears to be engaged in an ongoing misinformation campaign and a coverup of an unprecedented scale,” Schachtel writes.28 “Sure, Fauci lied, but that might only scratch the surface of the ongoing whitewashing campaign advanced by U.S. Government Health institutions.”

Appropriations Bill Bars Federal Funding of GOF

As reported by CQ, the U.S. Congress is now trying to curtail funding of GOF in general and EcoHealth Alliance in particular: 29

“Congressional efforts to curtail funding to EcoHealth Alliance included House votes to prohibit Defense Department funding through the fiscal 2022 defense bill (HR 4432) and the National Defense Authorization Act (HR 4350).

The draft fiscal 2022 Senate Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill does not contain any language targeting gain-of-function research or the Wuhan Institute of Virology, but other bills do.

The House-passed Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill (HR 4502) included language to bar federal funding for the Wuhan Institute of Virology or gain-of-function research. It was adopted by voice vote during the markup process.

A Senate-passed technology bill (S 1260) included an amendment to ban any federal agency from funding gain-of-function research in China. The amendment was accepted by voice vote. The House has not taken up the bill yet.”

A Crisis of Trust

Commenting on the latest revelations, health care entrepreneur and political commentator Vivek Ramaswamy tweeted:30

“Another ‘conspiracy theory’ becomes accepted fact … So to sum it up:

1.US bans gain-of-function research

2.Rogue bureaucrats fund it abroad instead

3.Lab leak occurs. Global pandemic ensues

4.Scientific leaders lie about it and label dissenters as racists

Want to create a crisis of trust in science? That’ll do it… The facts have been apparent for a long time. The fact that the media missed it says a lot about the quality of true journalism in the US today: almost entirely absent.”

Sources and References

November 6, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Why I Will Not Take the Second Dose

BY MEDHET KHATTAR | BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE | NOVEMBER 4, 2021

I am a microbiologist and a scientist. I am a microbiologist because that is what I specialised in at university, and what I have worked in since, in academia. I am a scientist because I place a higher value on asking questions than on consumption of knowledge.

Never previously have I felt hesitant about vaccines. Yet I took my first dose of the Covid-19 vaccine last March with some hesitation, and have since decided not to take the second dose.

Something struck me as problematic very early on in the Covid-19 narrative when the Director-General of the World Health Organisation announced that the Coronavirus in question was ‘public enemy number one’, an ‘unprecedented threat’ and an ‘enemy against humanity.’

I knew that something was not right, for this was the kind of terminology that had been used at the end of the Second World War, not to describe an infectious agent, but to refer to nuclear weapons and the banality of evil.

I complied with the first UK-wide lockdown in March 2020 with an unresolved mixture of disbelief and concern, laced with an unavoidable shot of fear; even though, rationally, I did not believe that the air all around us was full of a new plague. I even volunteered for vaccine trials. This was the United Kingdom shutting everything down, and everyone in.

But I gradually came to the view that the lockdown was disturbingly misguided; at best disproportionate to the problem it was meant to solve. But like many, I did not want the NHS to fall apart, nor did I want to catch SARS-CoV-2 myself, or to pass it to anyone else. I even refrained robotically from hugging my mother and siblings when I visited my family late in 2020.

As it turned out, science was the casualty of a toxic narrative of extreme urgency and fear, a narrative swiftly adopted by most governments and their advisors the world over. Koch’s postulates (the demonstration of a causal link between a microbe and a disease that have served us well for over a hundred years since their articulation by the German physician Robert Koch) were summarily discarded in favour of correlation.

The presence of fragments of SARS-CoV-2, specifically targeted and detected using RT-PCR, became incontrovertible evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was the causative agent of symptoms so generic that they could easily be caused by a wide range of respiratory pathogens, and not only viral ones.

But once you extinguish the need to demonstrate causation the mind recedes into a truism of a kind, because when scientific thinking gives way anything goes if asserted enough times. And so we became, each and every one of us, a biological problem.

We were confined to one or the other group: vulnerable or infectious, a segregation that continues despite evidence of preexisting immunity and near-universal vaccination in the UK. And “test, test, test” was how this division was planted in our daily lives. If you test positive, then you are infectious. And if you test negative, you are vulnerable to infection.

As a result, a positive test result became synonymous with a clinical case. And even though (after some pressure from dissenting scientists) daily UK Covid-19 mortality figures are reported as deaths of any cause within 28 days of a positive Covid-19 test, the caveat became mere semantics. In the public consciousness, Covid-19 was the cause of these daily deaths; in mine the statistics were a daily announcement of the slow death of clear thinking.

The collapse of clear thinking seems to have led some to equate the idea of elimination of SARS-CoV-2 with, say, that of measles. The fantastical notion of a Zero Covid world could only appeal to someone who (knowingly or unknowingly) suffers from a dystopian obsession with immortality. But far worse, we are no longer merely responsible for our own well-being.

We are now burdened with saving every other life on the planet from a disease whose infection fatality rate is not unusual compared to other respiratory diseases with which human civilizations have coexisted, suffered, and recovered.

The collective blame for transmission of the smallest and most slippery of all microbes, viruses, had hitherto been implicitly and wisely shared by the community as a price worth paying for the continued process of civilization. As Professor Sunetra Gupta put it, “This chain of guilt is somehow located to the individual rather than being distributed and shared. We have to share the guilt. We have to share the responsibility. And we have to take on board certain risks ourselves in order to fulfil our obligations and to uphold the social contract.”

The advent of a vaccine to relieve the human population of the menace of a fatal disease should be a moment of global celebration. But to the Zero Covid mind, Covid-19 vaccines are a weapon in a fight against nature, not a voluntary health intervention to protect the vulnerable. And when humans with their propensity for muddled thinking position themselves against nature, they invariably end up positioning themselves against fellow humans.

I am not against vaccination, but I am against the coercive campaigns and guilt-summoning policies to promote vaccination, or any other medical intervention for that matter. The Covid-19 vaccine is no longer for me a question of health, but a deeper matter of principle, of good science, and of moral philosophy.

In particular, enlisting children to protect adults in what is effectively an ongoing clinical trial is simply unfathomable. It is enough to watch this advert to recognise the huge, unfair and misinformed burden which children have been put under. Those who argue that vaccination is required to keep schools open should only reflect a fraction deeper on their argument to recognise its disturbing motive, which is to make a political decision easier to take.

I have taken the first dose, but I do not wish to continue to be part of the narrative of irrationalism, fear and coercion that promotes the vaccination programme. I may end up having to take the second dose if that is what it takes for me to continue to be able to work or to travel to see my family; I am not an ideologue. But for now, I am quitting the global clinical trial of Covid-19 vaccines because it is morally unsettling whichever angle you examine it from.

It was the veteran columnist Simon Jenkins who saw with unmatched prescience the future towards which we were heading. Writing in The Guardian on 6 March 2020 – just over two weeks before the UK’s first lockdown – Jenkins ended his piece with the following line.  “You are being fed war talk. Let them wash your hands, but not your brain.” It seems they had us do both.

Dr Medhet Khattar is Teaching Fellow in Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases at the University of Edinburgh. He has held research and faculty positions in microbiology at a number of institutions including University of Nottingham (1989-1990), University of Edinburgh (1990-1998), Medical Research Council Virology Unit in Glasgow (1998-2000), American University of Beirut (2000-2007), University of Leeds (2009-2010) and Nottingham Trent University (2010-2015).

November 5, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

6 Studies Showing Why Children Don’t Need — and Shouldn’t Get — a COVID Vaccine

By Paul Elias Alexander, Ph.D. | The Defender | November 4, 2021

When it comes to COVID, public health officials have consistently downplayed and/or ignored natural immunity.

Yet these public health experts and many doctors and scientists know that no vaccine can confer the type of robust, full, sterilizing and life-long immunity to COVID that natural-exposure immunity confers.

Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) know anyone exposed, infected and recovered from SARS-CoV-2 has acquired cellular immunity.

They know how natural immunity works, yet they continue to deceive the public on this issue by falsely insisting vaccines are the only answer to “ending the pandemic.”

The authors of a 2008 study on the 1918 pandemic virus showed how potent and long-lived natural immunity is, and how the immune system generates new antibodies if and when needed (re-exposed).

The researchers wrote:

“A study of the blood of older people who survived the 1918 influenza pandemic reveals that antibodies to the strain have lasted a lifetime and can perhaps be engineered to protect future generations against similar strains … the group collected blood samples from 32 pandemic survivors aged 91 to 101 … the people recruited for the study were 2 to 12 years old in 1918 and many recalled sick family members in their households, which suggests they were directly exposed to the virus … The group found that 100% of the subjects had serum-neutralizing activity against the 1918 virus and 94% showed serologic reactivity to the 1918 hemagglutinin.

“The investigators generated B lymphoblastic cell lines from the peripheral blood mononuclear cells of eight subjects. Transformed cells from the blood of 7 of the 8 donors yielded secreting antibodies that bound the 1918 hemagglutinin.

“ … here we show that of the 32 individuals tested that were born in or before 1915, each showed sero-reactivity with the 1918 virus, nearly 90 years after the pandemic. Seven of the eight donor samples tested had circulating B cells that secreted antibodies that bound the 1918 HA. We isolated B cells from subjects and generated five monoclonal antibodies that showed potent neutralizing activity against 1918 virus from three separate donors. These antibodies also cross-reacted with the genetically similar HA of a 1930 swine H1N1 influenza strain.”

The very same CDC that fights against COVID natural immunity, argues just the opposite when it comes to chickenpox.

Guidance on the CDC website, “Chickenpox Vaccination: What Everyone Should Know,” states: “People 13 years of age and older who have never had chickenpox or received chickenpox vaccine should get two doses, at least 28 days apart.”

In this reasonable guidance, the CDC says you need the chickenpox jab if you “have never had chickenpox.” If you have had it, then you do not need the vaccine.

The CDC goes even further, stating: “You do not need to get the chickenpox vaccine if you have evidence of immunity against the disease.” So if someone has had chickenpox and recovered, and can demonstrate that via a laboratory test, they don’t need the vaccine.

Again, this makes sense. All parents know this, and have for generations. You do not need a vaccine for measles, if you already had measles and cleared the rash and recovered. Natural, beautiful robust immunity, typically lasts for the rest of a person’s life.

The same goes for the CDC’s guidance for the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR). The CDC clearly states no MMR vaccine is needed if “You have laboratory confirmation of past infection or had blood tests that show you are immune to measles, mumps, and rubella.”

So, what is different for COVID-19? Is something other than science at play here?

We now have a major crisis as the race is on to vaccinate our 5- to 11-year-old children who bring no risk to the table, with a vaccine that has been shown to be sub-optimal and carrying risks.

We even have one of the FDA advisory committee members, Dr. Eric Rubin, who is also lead editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, stating: “We’re never gonna learn about how safe the vaccine is until we start giving it.”

This is a shocking statement by someone who played a role in the decision-making, and should lead us to examine if Rubin and others on that committee were conflicted in terms of relationships to the vaccine developers.

Rubin further stated: “The data show that the vaccine works and it’s pretty safe … we’re worried about a side effect that we can’t measure yet,” he said, referring to a heart condition called myocarditis.

So then why would Rubin and others agree to expose our children to potential harm from a vaccine for an illness that poses little risk to children, if they have serious concerns and admit they have not and cannot yet measure the safety?

This depth of uncertainty should never exist in any drug or vaccine that the FDA regulates, much less a drug officials propose to administer to 28 million children. Something is very wrong here.

It is clear that children are at very low risk of spreading the infection to other children, of spreading to adults as seen in household transmission studies, or of taking it home or becoming ill, or dying — this is settled scientific global evidence (references 1, 2, 3, 4).

An April 2021 study in the Journal of Infection (April 2021) examined household transmission rates in children and adults. The authors reported there was “no transmission from an index-person < 18 years (child) to a household contact < 18 years (child) (0/7), but 26 transmissions from adult index-cases to household contacts < 18 years (child) (26/71, SAR 0=37).”

These findings add to the stable existing evidence that children are not spreading the virus to children but rather that adults are spreading it to children.

Why vaccinate our children for this mild and typically non-consequential virus when they bring protective innate immunity towards this SARS-VoV-2, other coronaviruses and other respiratory viruses?

Why push to vaccinate our children who may well be immune due to prior exposure (asymptomatic or mild illness) and cross-reactivity/cross-protection? Why not consider assessing their immune status?

Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche writes that children’s innate immunity:

“… normally/ naturally largely protects them and provides a kind of herd immunity in that it dilutes infectious CoV pressure at the level of the population, whereas mass vaccination turns them into shedders of more infectious variants. Children/ youngsters who get the disease mostly develop mild to moderate disease and as a result continue to contribute to herd immunity by developing broad and long-lived immunity.”

 Here are six studies that make the case for not vaccinating children:

1. A 2020 Yale University report indicates children and adults display very diverse and different immune system responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection which explains why they have far less illness or mortality from COVID. 

According to the study:

“Since the earliest days of the COVID-19 outbreak, scientists have observed that children infected with the virus tend to fare much better than adults … researchers reported that levels of two immune system molecules — interleukin 17A (IL-17A), which helps mobilize immune system response during early infection, and interferon gamma (INF-g), which combats viral replication — were strongly linked to the age of the patients. The younger the patient, the higher the levels of IL-17A and INF-g, the analysis showed… these two molecules are part of the innate immune system, a more primitive, non-specific type of response activated early after infection.”

2. Studies by Ankit B. Patel and Dr. Supinda Bunyavanich show the virus uses the ACE 2 receptor to gain entry to the host cell, and the ACE 2 receptor has limited (less) expression and presence in the nasal epithelium in young children (potentially in upper respiratory airways).

This partly explains why children are less likely to be infected in the first place, or spread it to other children or adults, or even get severely ill. The biological molecular apparatus is simply not there in the nasopharynx of children. By bypassing this natural protection (limited nasal ACE 2 receptors in young children) and entering the shoulder deltoid, this could release vaccine, its mRNA and LNP content (e.g. PEG), and generated spike into the circulation that could then damage the endothelial lining of the blood vessels (vasculature) and cause severe allergic reactions (e.g., here, here, here, here, here).

3. William Briggs reported on the n=542 children who died (0-17 years (crude rate of 0.00007 per 100 and under 1 year old n=132, CDC data) since January 2020 with a diagnosis of COVID linked to their death. This does not indicate whether, as Johns Hopkins’ Dr. Marty Makary has been clamoring, the death was “causal or incidental.” That said, from January 2020, 1,043 children 0-17 have died of pneumonia. 

Briggs reported:

“There is no good vaccine for pneumonia. But it could be avoided by keeping kids socially distanced from each other — permanently. If one death is “too many,” then you must not allow kids to be within contact of any human being who has a disease that may be passed to them, from which they may acquire pneumonia. They must also not be allowed in any car … in one year, just about 3,091 kids 0-17 died in car crashes (435 from 0-4, 847 from 5-14, and 30% of 6,031 from 15-24). Multiply these 3,000 deaths in cars by about 1.75, since the COVID deaths are over a 21-month period. That makes about 5,250 kids dying in car crashes in the same period — 10 times as many as Covid.”

Briggs concluded: “there exists no justification based on any available evidence for mandatory vaccines for kids.”

4. Weisberg and Farber et al. suggest (and building on research work by Kumar and Faber) that the reason children can more easily neutralize the virus is that their T cells are relatively naïve. They argue that since children’s T cells are mostly untrained, they can thus immunologically respond (optimally differentiate) more rapidly and nimbly to novel viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 for an effective robust response. 

5. Research published in August 2021 by J. Loske deepens our understanding of this natural type biological/molecular protection even further by showing that “pre-activated (primed) antiviral innate immunity in the upper airways of children work to control early SARS-CoV-2 infection … the airway immune cells in children are primed for virus sensing…resulting in a stronger early innate antiviral response to SARS-CoV-2 infection than in adults.”

6. When one is vaccinated or becomes infected naturally, this drives the formation, tissue distribution and clonal evolution of B cells, which is key to encoding humoral immune memory.

Research published in May 2021 showed that blood examined from children retrieved prior to COVID-19 pandemic have memory B cells that can bind to SARS-CoV-2, suggestive of the potent role of early childhood exposure to common cold coronaviruses (coronaviruses). This is supported by Mateus et al. who reported on T cell memory to prior coronaviruses that cause the common cold (cross-reactivity/cross-protection).

There is no data or evidence or science to justify any of the COVID-19 injections in children. Can the content of these vaccines cross the blood-brain barrier in children? We don’t know because it wasn’t studied.

There is no proper safety data. The focus rather has to be on early treatment and testing (sero antibody or T-cell) to establish who is a credible candidate for these injections, as it is dangerous to layer inoculation on top of existing COVID-recovered, naturally acquired immunity.

There is no benefit and only potential harm/adverse effects (here, here, here).

Dr. Alexander is considered a global expert on COVID-19 generally and in some areas highly expertised. Dr. Alexander holds masters level study at York University Canada, a masters in epidemiology at University of Toronto, a masters in evidence-based medicine at Oxford and a doctorate in evidence-based medicine and research methods from McMaster University in Canada.

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

November 5, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Are Vaccines Driving Excess Deaths in Scotland, a Professor of Biology Asks

The Daily Sceptic • November 4, 2021

Professor Richard Ennos, a retired Professor of Evolutionary Biology at Edinburgh University, writes:

In Scotland this summer there has been excess mortality for the past 21 weeks with the total excess now exceeding 3,000 deaths. I and others have written to MSPs about the dreadful situation asking for a thorough analysis of what is responsible. In response we have been sent a reply from Anita Morrison, Head of Health and Social Care Analysis and Support, that I reproduce below. Five possible explanations are given, none of which reflect favourably on the Scottish Government’s public health policy. To paraphrase her reply, 45% are due to COVID-19 and the rest are accounted for by one or more of:

  1. COVID-19 deaths that were not recognised.
  2. Unintended consequences of the Scottish Government’s non-clinical response to COVID-19 (masks, social isolation etc.).
  3. Problems with access to the health and social care services (presumably due to Scottish government policy of withdrawing these).
  4. Patients not accessing services that were available (presumably because they were too scared of catching COVID-19 due to Scottish government exaggeration of the risks).
  5. Some other cause that has not been identified.

What follows is my reply to Anita Morrison to point out that her response is a damning indictment of Scottish Government public health policy whose outcome should ultimately be measured by the metric of excess deaths.

FAO: Anita Morrison
Head of Health and Social Care Analysis and Support
Directorate for Covid Public Health
Cc Dr. Gregor Smith, Jason Leitch, Caroline Lamb, Maree Todd MSP, Kevin Stewart MSP, Nicola Sturgeon MSP

28th October 2021

Dear Anita Morrison

Thank you for your response to my letter, originally addressed to Sarah Boyack MSP, concerning the unprecedented rise in excess deaths in Scotland this summer that continues as I write (252 excess deaths above five-year average in the past week 42, 24% higher than normal). It is now indisputable that some major health catastrophe is unfolding in Scotland this summer. It is clearly essential that there is serious scrutiny of the health policies that have been adopted by the Scottish Government that have led to this situation. To help with this I would like to look in some detail at the explanations that you have provided for the incredibly worrying situation, and set out the implications of what you have written.

In your response you have put forward the argument that some 45% of these excess deaths have been caused by Covid. This proposition relies on the assumption that all Covid deaths represent excess deaths, a position that is hard to sustain given that Covid deaths are associated with multiple comorbidities, and therefore are unlikely to be exclusively in addition to deaths that would have occurred anyway from other causes.

Setting aside this difficulty, and assuming that 45% of excess deaths are due to Covid, this indicates that the policies that have been pursued by the Scottish Government have been unsuccessful in controlling deaths from Covid this summer. This is in contrast to the summer of 2020 when there was no such excess of deaths due to Covid or any other cause. This increase in the impact of Covid in Scotland between the summers of 2020 and 2021 is nicely illustrated using National Records of Scotland data from the two years stratified by different age groups.

A simple and compelling explanation for these data is that a policy has been enacted in 2021 that was not enacted in 2020 that has caused a three- to six-fold increase in summer Covid hospitalisations. What could that be?

Let us now turn to the majority of excess deaths that cannot be accounted for by Covid. I will be using the most up to date figures from the National Records of Scotland for the summer period 2021 up to week 42 that indicate 3,028 excess deaths (rather than your figures that extend only to week 40). The National Records of Scotland classify these deaths according to their causes, location and age. This is illustrated below.

Here we see that Covid can actually account for a maximum of only 26% of excess deaths in summer 2021. Significant rises in cancer and circulatory deaths are concerning, but perhaps of greater note is that 44% of excess deaths come under the classification of ‘Other’. They are not the kinds of deaths that are readily classifiable into the normal categories that we expect in Scotland, or they would have been placed in those categories. It is therefore these ‘Other’ deaths, some 44% of the total, that we need to investigate in great detail.

From the other panels in the graph above we can see that these ‘Other’ deaths are occurring at home, implying that they are likely to have been sudden because there has been no hospital admission. Furthermore, these excess deaths are not confined to the oldest age groups, where we expect most deaths, but are extended into the younger age group. Analysis of the timing of this rise in excess death shows that it started in the oldest age group and is initiated sequentially in ever younger age groups (see graph below). This strongly suggests that there is some cause for these excess deaths at home that operates first in the elderly and works its way sequentially down the age groups in Scotland. What could this be?

Now let us look at the non-Covid explanations that you have provided for the dramatic increase in excess deaths in Scotland over the past summer.

Your first explanation is that the summer excess deaths recorded as non-Covid are actually due to Covid, but have not been certified as such. I see that you yourself are not convinced by this explanation given the level of testing that has taken place. However, let us suppose this to be true. In that case the Scottish Government’s public health measures that have been put in place in summer 2021 to prevent Covid have been far worse than those put in place in summer 2020 – indeed they have been disastrous.

Your second explanation is that the non-clinical responses to COVID-19 put in place by the Scottish Government (mask-wearing, social isolation etc.) have had unintended deleterious consequences on public health and have dramatically increased the rates of death in the Scottish population. This is an admission of abject failure of the Scottish Government’s public health response to Covid. Public health policy is all about balancing the benefits and risks of interventions to achieve the lowest possible impact during a health emergency. It is pertinent to remember that no benefit-risk assessment of non-clinical interventions on the physical and mental health of the Scottish population was conducted before these interventions were enforced.

Your third explanation is that there has been a problem with access to health and social care services, and patients have not received the care they required from the NHS. Access to these services over the past 20 months has been under the control of the Scottish Government, so if this explanation is correct, then the Scottish Government is culpable for increasing the death rate in Scotland. Numerous policies have been deliberately pursued to dramatically reduce GP face-to-face consultation, to cancel appointments and operations in hospitals etc., so the evidence to support this, as at least a partial explanation, is overwhelming.

Your fourth explanation is that individuals who are in poor health have not referred themselves to health and social care services as they would at other times. To some extent this would be confounded with Scottish Government policies of restricting health care provision discussed above. However there has also been a concerted and relentless media campaign by the Scottish Government to increase fear in the public, particularly fear of hospitals where they may catch Covid. This has meant that they have not gone for treatment when it was necessary. Whatever the proximal cause of failure to seek medical attention, the ultimate cause and responsibility lies in Scottish Government policy.

Your final explanation for the dramatic rise in excess deaths in summer 2021 is that there is some other cause that has not yet been identified. As noted earlier the phenomenon of excess deaths in the presence of a Covid epidemic was not seen in summer 2020, but is seen in summer 2021. What differs between the two years? The glaringly obvious answer is the rollout of COVID-19 vaccination. There was no COVID-19 vaccination programme in 2020, but there was rollout of Covid vaccinations in a sequential way to increasingly younger age groups in 2021, a pattern that we see in the manifestation of excess deaths. All of the COVID-19 vaccines are novel and experimental with no long-term safety data. They are now associated with a wide range of serious side-effects (blood clotting, myocarditis, Guillain-Barre syndrome) whose likely frequency in the wider population was not assessed in the small-scale phase one and two trials that included only a subset of healthy volunteers. The Yellow Card adverse events reporting system, that capture only a fraction of events, has already recorded over 1,700 deaths in the U.K. population associated with the COVID-19 vaccines. There is therefore a prima facie case for COVID-19 vaccination being a contributing factor to the dramatic rise in summer excess deaths in Scotland in 2021.

I am very grateful for your response to my original letter. It has been extremely helpful in crystalising my thoughts about the causes of the dramatic and continuing rise in excess deaths that we currently see in Scotland. My conclusion is that whatever the true explanation for the phenomenon, it is rooted in the misguided and disastrous public health policies of the Scottish Government. The analysis has moreover highlighted that a significant contributor to the excess death of the Scottish population this summer may be adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines, a factor that apparently has not occurred to either the Scottish Government or yourself. I would be grateful if you would pass on this insight to the Scottish Health minister so that unnecessary suffering and death is not meted out on the adults, and now children of Scotland.

Yours sincerely

Richard Ennos

November 4, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Full Extent of COVID Vaccine Reactions Won’t Be Known for at Least 10 Years, Physician Says

The Defender | November 3, 2021

The latest two-part episode of CHD.TV’s “Against the Wind” with host Dr. Paul Thomas featured two medical professionals who successfully treated COVID patients without a single fatality.

The guests — Dr. Jim Meehan, an ophthalmologist with advanced medical training in immunology and interventional endocrinology, and Scott Miller, a physician assistant with Miller Family Pediatrics — focused on this question: How do medical professionals transcend the fear of condemnation to save patients from often deadly mainstream treatments?

Thomas opened the segment by describing how, on a recent drive to work, he passed a group of young schoolchildren, all wearing masks and “socially-distanced” by 6 feet. As a father and a pediatrician, “It just felt so wrong,” he said.

“Looking into the eyes of some of these kids, you could just see the lights were gone,” Thomas said.

Thomas and Meehan talked about masks, the COVID vaccine and vaccine injuries.

Meehan shared his evidence-based scientific analysis of why masks are ineffective, unnecessary and harmful.

Meehan also discussed his experience treating COVID patients using available therapies not offered in hospitals, and how his social media posts about COVID treatments were banned.

Of the approximately 4,000 COVID patients Meehan treated, none died. Meehan said his patients came to him early enough for treatment. In the hospital, he successfully treated more than 20 patients who were failing hospital COVID protocols, including a 66-year-old man who had taken two rounds of Remdesivir.

Meehan said shortly after the COVID vaccine rollout, he began recognizing vaccine adverse effects, including miscarriages, vasculitis, inflammatory pathologies and blood clot formations.

Thomas saw a case of myocarditis after vaccines in his pediatric practice.

Meehan said:

“This could have been you. This could have been your child. Your daughter. This could have been your father … These are experimental vaccines. It will be a decade before we know how severe the adverse reactions are going to be. It’s going to be years before we determine that we might lose 10% of the population to antibody-dependent enhancements.”

After Meehan started to see young and college-aged patients with COVID vaccine injuries, he added an emergency declaration to his website. Later he was banned from social media for posting about the danger of spike proteins and how animal studies showed those proteins cross the blood-brain barrier and cause neurological harm.

Meehan said his safety warnings against COVID vaccination apply across the board, but especially pregnant women, children and youth.

“We must not vaccinate children who are statistically at zero risk of dying from COVID-19,” he said, sharing data from a recent Johns Hopkins University analysis that found of the more than 330 COVID deaths in kids under age 25, data suggested most or nearly all appeared to be in kids with a life-threatening, pre-existing condition.

Next, Thomas interviewed Miller (starts at 37:14) who discussed his experience successfully treating approximately 1,400 patients, including a 100-year-old, with unconventional immune-boosting protocols he learned about through research and case studies.

Miller used FDA-approved therapies that were not FDA-approved for treating COVID, which resulted in him losing his medical license.

Miller treats children as well as adults in his practice. He has had none of his pediatric patients die or become hospitalized from COVID.

Miller discussed the research and moral obligation that compelled him to buck the system and advocate for proven treatments that work for COVID. He said:

“I got to a point where it felt so futile telling people one by one, when there are so many people who needed this information, that I just started openly talking about it.”

Watch this week’s episode here.

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

November 4, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

Let’s Compare Sweden’s Covid Outcome to That of Its Lockdown-Crazed Former Possession of Latvia

We’re only allowed to compare Sweden to its former possessions of Finland and Norway

Sweden’s historic cross-Baltic empire (in 1814 it was given Norway as a reward for abandoning Napoleon before Denmark did)
By Marko Marjanović | Anti-Empire | November 3, 2021

Covid curves of Sweden and Britain are remarkably similar. Britain’s peaks are slightly higher, as are its cumulative deaths per capita, but in general, the two share the same ups and downs and the same Covid seasons.

This might lead some to conclude that for Covid purposes Sweden and Britain are in the same region and highly comparable, but such comparisons have been outlawed by the Covid fanatics. For some reason, Sweden can for Covid reasons only ever be compared to just three other countries; Norway, Finland, and Denmark, and no others.

Sweden and Britain had outbreaks at exact same time albeit British death peaks were higher

Sweden with its 1,450 deaths per million takes 54th place, the UK with its 2,050 deaths per million takes 27th

That trio indeed had a better Covid outcome (if not a better rights, dignity, and calmness outcome) than Sweden, which supposedly means that if Sweden had locked down as they had it would have likewise experienced similarly low Covid deaths. What is the proof of that? If lockdowns “mitigate” Covid deaths then why wasn’t the UK with its even more Draconian lockdown able to replicate low Norwegian and Finnish numbers? Why wasn’t lockdown UK able to show Sweden “how it’s done” and embarrass her? (Or lockdown world leader Peru for that matter which is instead nonetheless also world’s Covid deaths leader.) Why didn’t lockdowns work in the UK, but would have in Sweden?

The answer of the lockdown lemmings is usually population density. Supposedly having a greater landmass per capita means that Sweden with its 88% urbanization rate is less densely populated than the UK with an 84% urbanization rate, and this makes all the difference.

In reality, Sweden’s three largest metro areas contain fully 32% of its population (for the UK that figure would be 22%) with most of the rest also living in densely populated (if smaller) cities and towns (disproportionally along the coast). That these historical maritime Baltic trade cities come with vast swathes of frozen northern wasteland attached, does not mean that Swedes are somehow stretched out across secluded permafrosted mountain villages. To the contrary, the very fact that Sweden is much more rugged than Britain means its population is much more concentrated in the few “good” parts of the country.

But anyhow, Sweden is only ever to be compared to its “neighbors”. But in this context what exactly is a “neighbor”? Denmark and Sweden are actually separated by a strait albeit since 2000 there is a 12-kilometer bridge-tunnel across/underneath. Sweden and Finland technically share a border, but that is in the far north where few ever visit and even fewer live. Actual Swedish-Finish links are maritime across the Baltic Sea.

Despite the theoretical land route, historically Finland functioned as a Swedish overseas possession, communication to which was maintained by sailing past the Åland islands and then up the Gulf of Finland (and up the Gulf of Bothnia when it’s not frozen). Another trans-Baltic possession of the Swedes was Latvia (Duchy of Livonia). Finland was lost to Russia during the Napoleonic period and Latvia to Peter the Great a century earlier.

The pair gained independence from Russia at the same time in 1918, but Latvia experienced a “second stint” under the Soviets from 1940 to 1991.

Owing to Swedish (and earlier Baltic German) influence Latvia remains a Lutheran country with recognizable northern historic architecture.

Finland had been under Swedish rule for basically forever, while Latvia was originally conquered and Christianized by mainly German-speaking crusaders who secularized and switched to Protestantism after Luther.

Latvia speaks a Baltic language very different from Germanic Swedish, and Finland speaks a Finnic language that is not even in the Indo-European family of languages.

A ferry from Stockholm to Helsinki takes 16 hours and 15 minutes and runs five times a week. A ferry from Stockholm to Riga takes 18 hours and 30 minutes and runs once a week. (Helsinki is twice the size of Riga and there are more reasons to go there.)

So if we are allowed to compare Covid outcomes in Sweden and in its former overseas territory of Finland, may we also be so bold as to compare it to the outcome in its (previously German-ruled) former territory of Latvia?

Let’s say that we are.

If we do that we find that Latvia has been extremely gung ho on lockdowns, locking down early, hard, and often, and garnering considerable praise for doing so. We also find that despite coming out of the first wave almost completely unscathed and continuing to dutifully lockdown ever since Latvia by now has 20% more per capita Covid deaths than never-lockdown Sweden and rising.

Latvia with 1,750 deaths per million and quickly rising

Lockdown enthusiasts maintain that Latvia’s lockdown was responsible for the country not experiencing the first wave in the spring of 2020 at all, but since that wave skipped entire Eastern Europe, including neighboring Belarus which never locked down, that is highly debatable. More likely Latvia and the rest of the eastern half of the continent would have never experienced the first wave regardless of what they did. Or what else explains the instruments which supposedly worked so flawlessly in the Spring of 2020 failing so utterly ever since?

A possible argument in defense of Latvia’s Covid record could be that comparison to Sweden is not fair given the latter’s much higher vaccination rate.

That argument doesn’t hold up because Sweden faced both of its major outbreaks before vaccines were a factor. Meanwhile, Latvia has only hit its biggest outbreak now that many of its residents have vaccine protection.

The vast majority of Swedish Covid cases occurred before February 2021, that is to say before vaccines. Meanwhile, Latvia gets the luxury of not having to face its biggest, deadliest wave until it has reached a 57% vaccination rate, and it is lockdown Latvia, rather than laissez-faire Sweden, which is hitting higher peaks and has already accumulated more Covid deaths. Explain that.

Latvia didn’t hit peak Covid until a considerable vaccination rate

And for the record, Latvia’s urbanization rate is 68%. Unlike Sweden, Latvia actually is still significantly rural. (Not that any of that matters in the least, as a cursory glance to lockdown North Dakota and non-lockdown South Dakota will tell you, both of which recorded relatively high Covid deaths despite their low population densities. (Incidentally, like Latvia, South Dakota also completely skipped the first wave, despite never locking down.))

Riga in its Hanseatic-Lutheran style

November 4, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

NIH Colluded With EcoHealth to Evade Restrictions on Virus Experiments

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | November 4, 2021

It sounds like a script in a science fiction movie, but it’s not: Emails obtained by The Intercept show that the National Institutes of Health worked together with one of its grantees, EcoHealth, to evade gain-of-function (GOF) research restrictions.

While EcoHealth’s plans for the research “triggered concerns at NIH,” staff went ahead and “adopted language that EcoHealth Alliance crafted” so the work could go on. The Intercept added that none of the featured experiments could have triggered the current pandemic, but the idea of the deceptive move shows what persons in a position of authority at the highest levels will do to circumvent safety rules and regulations.

The violations were serious enough to spark concerns from Jesse Bloom, a virologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. “The discussions reveal that neither party is taking the risks sufficiently seriously,” Bloom told The Intercept.

Simon Wain-Hobson, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, minced no words with his opinion on what happened. “It’s absolutely outrageous,” Wain-Hobson said. “The NIH is bending over backward to help people it’s funded. It isn’t clear that the NIH is protecting the U.S. taxpayer.”

November 4, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Prominent Scientists Go Public: ‘Fauci Fooled America’

By Jeremy Loffredo | The Defender | November 2, 2021

In an op-ed, “Fauci Fooled America,” published Monday in Newsweek, two scientists accused Dr. Anthony Fauci of bungling the government’s response to COVID by getting “major epidemiology and public health questions wrong.”

Martin Kulldorff, Ph.D., an epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School, and Jay Bhattacharya, M.D., Ph.D., professor of Health Policy at Stanford University School of Medicine wrote: “Reality and scientific studies have now caught up with him.”

Kulldorff and Bhattacharya, both senior scholars at the Brownstone Institute and signers of the Great Barrington Declaration, had this message for Newsweek readers:

“The evidence is in. Governors, journalists, scientists, university presidents, hospital administrators and business leaders can continue to follow Dr. Anthony Fauci or open their eyes. After 700,000-plus COVID deaths and the devastating effects of lockdowns, it is time to return to basic principles of public health.”

The authors ticked off a list of “key issues” Fauci got wrong, including failure to recognize natural immunity, protecting the elderly, school closures, masks and contact tracing.

“By pushing vaccine mandates, Dr. Fauci ignores naturally acquired immunity among the COVID-recovered, of which there are more than 45 million in the United States,” the authors wrote. “Mounting evidence indicates that natural immunity is stronger and longer lasting than vaccine-induced immunity.”

Kulldorff and Bhattacharya cited a study from Israel, which concluded the vaccinated were 27 times more likely to get symptomatic COVID than the unvaccinated who had recovered from a prior infection.

They pointed out that the scientific community has known about natural immunity from disease “at least since the Athenian Plague in 430 BC.”

On Fauci’s dictates to mandate the vaccine for healthcare workers, the two argued: “Under Fauci’s mandates, hospitals are firing heroic nurses who recovered from COVID they contracted while caring for patients. With their superior immunity, they can safely care for the oldest and frailest patients with even lower transmission risk than the vaccinated.”

On school closures they wrote: “Considering the devastating effects of school closures on children, Dr. Fauci’s advocacy for school closures may be the single biggest mistake of his career … While children do get infected, their risk for COVID death is minuscule, lower than their already low risk of dying from the flu.”

Kulldorff and Bhattacharya pointed to Sweden, noting that during the 2020 spring wave of COVID, the country kept daycare and schools open for all 1.8 million children ages 1 to 15, with no masks, testing or social distancing.

According to the authors, Sweden’s strategy resulted in “zero COVID deaths among children and a COVID risk to teachers lower than the average of other professions.”

The authors argued contact tracing “was a hopeless waste of valuable public health resources that did not stop the disease,” and that Fauci failed at protecting the vulnerable.

“After more than 700,000 reported COVID deaths in America, we now know that lockdowns failed to protect high-risk older people,” they said.

On collateral public health damage, they argued that a “fundamental public health principle is that health is multidimensional; the control of a single infectious disease is not synonymous with health.”

They wrote that Fauci: “ … failed to properly consider and weigh the disastrous effects lockdowns would have on cancer detection and treatment, cardiovascular disease outcomes, diabetes care, childhood vaccination rates, mental health and opioid overdoses, to name a few. Americans will live with — and die from — this collateral damage for many years to come.”

In private conversations, Kulldorff and Bhattacharya said, most of their scientific colleagues agree with them on these points but few have spoken up out of fear of “financial censorship.”

“Many are afraid of losing positions or research grants, aware that Dr. Fauci sits on top of the largest pile of infectious disease research money in the world,” they wrote.

In his forthcoming book, “The Real Anthony Fauci,” Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. includes a comprehensive discussion of Fauci’s influence and power over the scientific community, revealing how Fauci uses the “financial clout at his disposal to wield extraordinary influence over hospitals, universities, journals and thousands of influential doctors and scientists — whose careers and institutions he has the power to ruin, advance or reward.” Kennedy’s book is due out Nov. 16.

Jeremy Loffredo is a freelance reporter for The Defender. His investigative reporting has been featured in The Grayzone and Unlimited Hangout. Jeremy formerly produced news programs at RT America.

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

November 3, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Pretending We Can Vaccinate Our Way Out of This Pandemic Is Dangerous — Especially for Kids

By Paul Elias Alexander, Ph.D. | The Defender | November 2, 2021

Would the doctrine of the “Original Antigenic Sin” (OAS) play a heavy role in the existing COVID vaccine strategy — due to the sub-optimal, non-sterilizing, imperfect COVID-19 vaccine?

Experts agree we should never have tried to vaccinate our way out of a pandemic while in a pandemic.

According to the OAS by Dr. Thomas Francis, the initial priming of the immune system (initial exposure to the virus, either in the wild or via a vaccine) gets ‘fixed’ for life. If the initial priming of the immune system is sub-optimal and biased, then that sub-optimal initial priming can effectively derange and bias the immune response long-term, which would guide all future immunological responses.

We should have known that this initial priming, if deranged and wrong, would severely stagger and hobble our immune response for the rest of our lives.

And so, are we setting up our populations — and dangerously, our children — for disaster? With this imperfect and sub-optimal immune priming using COVID vaccines that do not stop infection or transmission in the first place?

The COVID-19 vaccines being administered in the U.S. only reduce symptoms, thus allowing the host to stay alive (an evolutionary future it did not have) while remaining capable of transmitting.

Evidence shows vaccinated persons are indeed susceptible to infection, and as alarmingly, carry as high a viral load as the unvaccinated.

Moreover, vaccinated persons are likely to spread the virus to other members of their household.

Are we about to rob our children of their most precious gift — a robust, durable, potent natural innate immunity with these imperfect leaky vaccines — an immunity that has always protected them and helps reduce the infectious pressure and helps contribute to population herd immunity? With vaccines that have been shown to be harmful?

I argue we could potentially kill many children with these vaccines because we simply have not done the proper safety tests and studies for the proper duration of follow-up, so as to “exclude harms.”

If we have not conducted the proper studies, how could we justify the safety of these vaccines for our children? To do so is dangerous and reckless, as it deceives the public and parents. It is illogical and irresponsible, and without any credible basis.

We do not know what will happen to our healthy children long-term. This is potentially catastrophic if COVID mass vaccination is allowed in our children.

These public health officials at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) — including Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Rochelle Walensky — have made no valid case as to why our children warrant these vaccines.

Yet they are seeking to vaccinate healthy children with near statistical zero risk — with only the opportunity for harm and no opportunity for benefit.

In addition to the OAS, Read et al also provided us a roadmap to these vaccine and immune system challenges, in their treatise on Marek’s disease in chickens.

In their seminal 2015 PLOS paper, the authors argued some vaccines may boost and enhance the fitness of more virulent strains. They asked a simple question: Could some vaccines drive the evolution of more virulent pathogens?

We say “yes!” This can be explained by natural selection which selects out or culls pathogen strains/variants that are so lethal or “hot” they could kill their hosts if they survive and, thus, inadvertently, kill themselves.

Marek’s disease effect and vaccination may well be at play here with COVID vaccines  — moderating symptoms while not stopping infection or transmission, thus posing a danger to the unvaccinated and vaccinated.

We — or at least the virologists and immunologists and vaccine developers — should also have understood the COVID vaccines would drive antibodies against the spike glycoprotein only, while our natural-exposure infection immune response will be broad, robust, durable, long-term — providing immunity against the spike (S) protein, the membrane protein, the nucleocapsid (N) protein, and all the epitopes on the viral ball and all conserved parts of the virus.

No COVID vaccine immunity could be equal to or better than naturally acquired immunity. This should have never even been in question. Assertions otherwise by the CDC, NIH, NIAID or vaccine developers are outright falsehoods and means to deceive the public.

We should have known we could never achieve “zero COVID” as this is a mutable respiratory pathogen. This means, similar to flu and cold viruses, COVID mutates often.

This is what viruses do. They exist to replicate, and the replicating process of their genetic material is unstable and imperfect.  Because there are errors in the replication of the genetic material, there will always be mutations.

For example, the original SARS-CoV-2 was the Wuhan strain —  now it is the Delta variant. The vaccine for the original strain cannot hit the mutated spike, as the mutations occur on the spike. That’s why we have the immune escape.

So no matter what vaccine you make, you will not be able to vaccinate for the right strain or variant at any time, as the virus would have mutated by the time we vaccinate.

You can never get ahead of a mutating virus with a vaccine.

This is especially true given COVID has an animal reservoir. The virus lives stably in the bat population. Unless we kill off all the bats — and their intermediate hosts, which include civet cats and raccoon dogs and camels — we will always have a “reservoir” for the virus, in animals. Infected animals can in turn infect humans who get close to or interact with them.

This is a very different pathogen and approach than the one taken with smallpox, which did not have an animal reservoir —  we only had to remove smallpox from the human population, we didn’t need to worry about it spilling over from other species.

According to Dr. Robert Malone, “The idea that if you have a workplace where everybody’s vaccinated, you’re not going to have virus spread is totally false … a total lie … the vaccinated are actually the “super-spreaders” that everyone was told about in the beginning of the pandemic.”

Malone further states, “if the government isn’t going to disclose what the [vaccine] risks are, and they’re not going to disclose what’s really going on because they think that you can’t handle the news … this is called the noble lie.”

Are we closer to understanding now that vaccinating for COVID under tremendous infectious and vaccine pressure (and ecological pressure) would drive immune escape? That this strategy is indeed a recipe for disaster?

Could COVID-19 vaccines be enhancing the evolution of variants/mutants that are more infectious and capable of spreading much faster and with greater lethality?

Are these COVID-19 vaccines sub-optimally priming the immune system for long-term skewed deranged responding?

Could the use of ‘imperfect’ sub-optimal vaccines enhance the progression of variants that place unvaccinated persons at elevated evolutionary risk of very severe illness, including death? Our children? Is this Marek 2.0?

Where are the safeguards when the proper studies were not done by the vaccine developers, and where is the FDA as the top regulator, in protecting the health and well-being of our children?

Dr. Janet Woodcock, as the head of the FDA, where are you in this? You could not be informed by the science, for there is none to support this grossly reckless and absurd push to vaccinate children.

What is going on here? This certainly is not “about the science.”

I challenge any public health official to sit down with me and my scientific colleagues and explain your science. Debate us. Show us what you are looking at to arrive at these very dangerous statements and decisions.

We may end up killing many children with these vaccines. In fact, not ‘we’, ‘you’ — Fauci and Walensky and Dr. Francis Collins — may end up killing many of our children.

Please stop this insanity, step back and focus on the vulnerable and elderly where there is risk. Leave the children alone!

“If the CDC, NIH, FDA (Walensky, Fauci, Collins, Marks, Woodcock), vaccine developers and all involved in these COVID vaccines, all the television medical experts, all who are absolved thanks to  liability protection, if you feel so strongly that these are safe for our children, then do the right thing: Take liability protection off the table. Stand by the vaccine’s safety. Put some skin in the game — for as we speak, only our healthy children are carrying risk and I fear it could be potentially catastrophic for them.

Dr. Alexander is considered a global expert on COVID-19 generally and in some areas highly expertised. Dr. Alexander holds masters level study at York University Canada, a masters in epidemiology at University of Toronto, a masters in evidence-based medicine at Oxford and a doctorate in evidence-based medicine and research methods from McMaster University in Canada.

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

November 3, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Tech investor Peter Thiel criticizes “Ministry of Truth” and creation of “fake consensus”

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | November 2, 2021

During the National Conservatism Conference, held on October 31, tech billionaire Peter Thiel warned against “centralized misinformation” because it creates a “fake consensus.”

Thiel asserted that the centralized misinformation problem is responsible for the silencing of debate on important issues such as inflation of the American economy, COVID-19, and the presence of US troops in Afghanistan.

In his speech, Thiel gave examples of what he described as the “incredible derangement of various forms of thought.” He referenced Stanford’s professor Jay Bhattacharya’s experience. Pictures of the professor were plastered all over the school because he spoke against masks.

He said: “When you have to call things science, you know they aren’t – like climate science or political science,” Epoch reported.

According to Thiel, such excessive dogmatism is the reason for the failed policies by the US government in Afghanistan for more than twenty years.

The PayPal co-founder went on to say that the US is currently experiencing a “runaway, non-transitory inflation” and the “complete bankruptcy of the Fed” because of the inability to tolerate differing ideas and opinions that are unpopular.

“If there’s a misinformation problem, it’s a centralized misinformation problem—and it’s the misinformation coming from the Ministry of Truth,” said Thiel.

November 2, 2021 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

One woman’s stand against the outrageous power grab in Australia

By Kathy Gyngell | TCW Defending Freedom | November 1, 2021

UNREPORTED by the MSM was an impassioned speech by an MP in the Victorian Parliament against legislation being pushed through to confer unlimited Covid powers on the State Premier, the egomaniac Dan Andrews, and the Health Minister. 

The MP is Steph Ryan, and she is an example to all MPs in threatened democracies worldwide. She is also the deputy leader of the National Party of Australia, known as the Nationals. She certainly deserves wider notice and recognition not just for the stand she is taking but for the quality of her speech. I am grateful to the despairing Australian reader who brought her to my attention:

‘We’re in trouble in this country,’ she wrote to me, ‘From being a free, relaxed and happy nation (after all, one of the stock-standard phrases used when expressing universal optimism was always “She’ll be right, mate!”) we’re now a fearful, cowering, woke country expecting cradle to grave coddling and direction.’

Steph Ryan’s speech is a lifeline for citizens like our reader. I found it truly inspiring. Setting out the very principles upon which democracy and our freedom are based, it is everything that we want and need to hear said by a politician. You can watch it below and the full transcript follows.

Steph Ryan: I feel sick that we are having this debate. I do not think there has ever been a piece of legislation come before this chamber that I have been more vehemently opposed to. I feel sick that Labor MPs are not brave enough to stand up and speak the truth about this legislation. I do not care if you think that the Premier’s handling of this pandemic has been infallible. I do not care if you stand with Dan. I do not care if you think he is the greatest thing since sliced bread. The truth is that this legislation is about handing the Premier and the Minister for Health the ability to rule by decree. Is that power that you want to hand to every future Premier and health minister? It does not matter what you think about the Premier. This is not even about the current government. This is about the management of pandemics but also the ability to trigger these powers for ever into the future. It is about the regime that it has the potential to set up here in this state. That is what is at stake here. Is that what we want as Victorians?

This Bill allows the government to declare a pandemic in Victoria and make orders that lock down the state even when there is no presence of disease here. Yes, the chief health officer needs to publish his or her advice within 14 days of those orders being made, but that advice, even if it contradicts the order made by the Premier or the health minister, does not invalidate those orders if it does not support them.

The Bill gives the government the right to make orders on the ability of attributes – things like race, gender, sexuality. How on earth can people support that? How on earth can members opposite support that? It is extraordinary. It offers no rights of appeal to courts for people who are incarcerated. It sets up a penalty regime of fines that would see an individual face more than $90,000 [c £50,000]. That would send most ordinary Victorians to jail. Who can afford a $90,000 fine? The government says, ‘Don’t worry. That’s just about the worst breaches.’ Well, that is not what the legislation says. It is extraordinary. I cannot believe that those opposite are not brave enough to stand up and speak out about it. I imagine that the member for Altona is going to speak on this legislation. She has been the Attorney-General; she has been a lawyer. She cannot possibly agree with this; she cannot. Where are your values?

There is no Parliamentary oversight of these powers. The Bill sets up a consultative committee of people appointed by the Premier and the health minister, and they do not even need to take the advice of that – it is just a consultative committee. Central to a liberal democracy is a belief in shared power, and central to a liberal democracy is a suspicion of concentrated power. Central to a liberal democracy is the accountability of the executive to the Parliament. Central to a liberal democracy is the preservation of the following rights: freedom to criticise the government, freedom from arbitrary arrest, freedom of worship, the right to a fair trial, the right of assembly, freedom of movement. This Bill hands the government the power to throw out every one of those rights by decree, and there is no oversight of these powers. We are supposed to think critically in this place. We are supposed to come here, representing our constituents, thinking critically. That is why people elected us. Stop being sheep!

I find it inconceivable that a future Premier, for example, might determine that people with red hair cannot hold a job. I find that completely out of the realm of possibility. But do you know what? Two years ago I never contemplated that we would live in a world where someone who is not vaccinated cannot hold a job, cannot go into a shop, cannot go to an event. I never believed that we would come to a place as a state where we would see that – but here we are. These things do not happen overnight; they happen by degrees. Do I trust the Andrews government and all future governments to exercise these powers responsibly? No, I do not, and I think anyone who does is an absolute fool.

Labor MPs protest that this is what we asked for, that we called for elected politicians to be accountable for these decisions. What we called for was proper Parliamentary oversight, and that is why we have proposed that the power to make orders should require the approval of a constitutional majority of both houses of the Parliament.

When the president of the Victorian Bar Council comes out and says that the Stasi would be happy with the powers that this Bill confers, people need to sit up and take note. This is how he summarised it yesterday:

‘The Bill confers on the health minister in a practical sense an effectively unlimited power to rule the state by decree, for effectively an indefinite period, and without . . . judicial or parliamentary oversight . . . That doesn’t add up to good democracy.’

People might argue that ultimate accountability sits with the people at an election. If you do not like what a Premier has done, well, vote them out. But yesterday when we had the Bill briefing, the department could not say whether this Bill gives the power to the Premier to suspend elections. They did not know the answer to that, and they said they would have to come back and give us advice, which we still have not received. That remains unanswered.

The department does not know whether the Premier could use this Bill to suspend an election. Do you realise how extraordinary that is?

The Irish philosopher Edmund Burke said, ‘The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.’ Those opposite tell us that unprecedented powers are required for unprecedented times. Governments always present compelling reasons to concentrate power. My grandmother came to this country fleeing Mussolini, and I am glad that she is not alive today to see what is happening. I genuinely am. I think she would be absolutely horrified. I honestly never believed that the people elected to this chamber would think that it is appropriate to hand the Premier and the health minister the kind of power to lock people up, to lock people down and to cancel protests without the checks and balances of Parliament – to strip people of their most basic rights without the oversight and the checks and balances of Parliament. The erosion of people’s liberties does not happen overnight; it happens by degrees. Streamline pandemic laws, by all means. We do not argue with that. We know that the government needs a certain degree of flexibility to control dangerous outbreaks of disease. We are not arguing about that. We are arguing for proper accountability and oversight. This Bill does not deliver those measures.

Let me conclude with the proverb that we all know because it is inscribed into the foyer of this building:

Where no Counsel is the People Fall; but in the Multitude of Counsellors there is Safety.

That is the principle of this Parliament, and it is the principle that I urge members of the Labor Party to adhere to. Do not give this unchecked power not just to this government but to future governments. It is wrong.

November 1, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »