How does a fraud like Anthony Fauci find himself in the highest paid position in US bureaucracy? Well, Fauci’s career is a rather shocking testament to the reality of our government and our era – The more corrupt you are the more favors and promotions you will receive.
Fauci is well known as a shameless opportunist among many within the medical research community. For example, the creator of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Test, Kary Mullis, had nothing but disdain for Fauci. Mullis was an interesting figure who valued scientific honesty above all else. He often warned that his PCR test could be exploited to inflate infection numbers by identifying remnants of a virus in a person’s body without distinguishing whether or not they are actually “infected” (sick). Sadly, his test is now being used in this exact manner today to exaggerate infection rates of the covid-19 virus.
In interviews Mullis has referred to Anthony Fauci as a “liar”, arguing that he is a bureaucrat that “doesn’t know anything about anything”. Mullis noted that people like Fauci have an agenda that is outside of the public good, and that they have no problem misrepresenting the science to the populace to achieve their goals. It should also be noted that YouTube has made it their mission to consistently erase any traces of the Mullis interviews mentioning Fauci from their website.
It is also not surprising that Fauci’s rampant fear mongering over AIDS in the 1980’s has gone mostly unmentioned by the mainstream media. His claim that 1 in 5 heterosexual Americans would be dead from AIDS by 1990 has been summarily memory-holed and the guy is treated like a scientific genius by the journalistic community in 2021.
If there is any justice in this world then Fauci should really go down in history as one of the primary initiators of the Covid pandemic, being that he was a director of the NIAD and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) while overseeing the funding of Gain of Function research on corona-viruses at the Wuhan Lab in China. This is the same research that Fauci blatantly lied about to congress on multiple occasions. And, the Wuhan lab is the same lab that evidence suggests was the ground zero source of the Covid-19 outbreak.
It is important to note that it was Fauci and the NIH that LIFTED the ban on gain of function research on deadly viruses in 2017, and it was well known around this time that the Level 4 Wuhan lab in China was not secure.
If anyone is responsible for global covid deaths, it is Fauci, the Chinese government and anyone else involved in that gain of function research which is primarily used to WEAPONIZE viruses under the guise of creating “therapeutics.” Gain of function research was originally banned under the Biological Weapons Convention which went into effect in 1975, unless it was being used for therapeutics. Now ALL gain of function research that is revealed publicly is labeled as therapeutics even if it is actually designed to produce biological weapons. This is sometimes referred to as “dual use research.”
The prevailing narrative continues to be that even if the virus came from the Wuhan lab then it was surely an accident. I continue to believe according to the available evidence that Covid-19 was deliberately released in order to create a global crisis which could then be exploited by the establishment to introduce extreme controls over the populace to the point of medical totalitarianism. But of course, there is no smoking gun to prove this, only common sense.
If we take the notorious Event 201 into account things get a little weird. Event 201 was a war game held by the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Its claimed purpose was to simulate the effects of a deadly coronavirus pandemic “spread by animals” to humans and to develop the policies governments and their corporate partners should employ to deal with it. Interestingly, this simulation was held in October of 2019, only two months before the REAL THING happened. Nearly every policy suggested by the participants of Event 201 has now been adopted by most governments, including the social media censorship campaign against anyone that questions the origins of the virus and the safety of the experimental mRNA vaccines.
Anthony Fauci and friends….
WEF founder Klaus Schwab was quick to announce at the start of the pandemic that Covid-19 was the “perfect opportunity” to launch the “Great Reset”, which is a globalist plan to completely erase free market systems and replace them with a highly centralized socialist framework. The WEF envisions a world in which carbon related power is banned, all financial transactions become digital and are monitored and controlled by central authorities, and they have even suggested that one day people will “own nothing and be happy”. This is a reference to the so-called “shared economy” of the future, where the concept of personal property is abolished and all people will live in communal housing collectives where necessities are rationed or rented out to them by the government.
Something must have went wrong with covid, however, because the Event 201 death estimates for such a virus were around 65 million within the first year of the outbreak. This of course never happened with Covid-19. So, the resistance to the mandates has been high, or much higher apparently than the globalists expected. They have been forced to engage in an endless fear campaign for the past 18 months over a virus with a mere 0.26% median death rate. It is a virus that well over 99.7% of all people will survive and it has an extremely low chance of long term effects on those who do actually end up hospitalized. In the majority of states the hospitalization rates are between 10-35 people for every 100,000 people infected.
These numbers come from the CDC and the medical establishment at large, yet they are ignored by propagandists like Fauci, just as Fauci has continued to ignore natural immunity as a factor in covid mandates. It might seem bizarre to almost any scientist, doctor and virologist not paid by the government, but Fauci has argued that natural immunity should be ignored when compared to vaccination. Multiple studies from around the world now show that natural immunity is up to 27 times more effective at preventing covid infection than the vaccines, but those with natural immunity are considered a threat to others under the new mandates unless they are also vaxxed.
This simply makes no sense from a scientific perspective until you realize that the mandates are not about science, they are about authoritarianism. Fauci is the US front man for a campaign of medical tyranny being imposed in every nation; this is why he does not care about natural immunity. The idea of it is inconvenient to his narrative, so he pretends it is inconsequential.
It is perhaps ironic that Fauci himself is becoming inconsequential as he is slowly fading away from the media limelight. I have noticed that ever since the NIH gain of function information was released to the public Fauci has been in the media less prominently. A documentary produced by National Geographic and soon to be distributed by Disney+ portrays the conman as a misunderstood savior and is sure to be a trash fire. That said, it does represent a clear last-ditch effort to save the man’s false reputation.
There is a good reason for all of this. Fauci’s distaste for personal freedom has been well documented and is making him extremely unpopular. He even recently argued on CNN in favor of vaccine mandates using this perverse position:
“There comes a time when you do have to give up what you consider your individual right of making your own decision for the greater good of society.”
Fauci and his globalist ilk can be distilled down to this single mantra: Do as you are told for the greater good. But who gets to determine what the “greater good” is? Isn’t it disturbing that it’s always the same elitists that end up in that position? I know that leftists in particular love the idea of the vaccine mandates and worship Fauci, and they say we skeptics should “listen to the science”, but Fauci is not a scientist, he’s a door-to-door salesman, and as I’ve noted above the REAL science does not support the arguments for forced vaccinations or lockdowns.
Hell, I keep asking the same questions on the mandates in these articles and not a single leftist or pro-vax proponent has come up with a valid or logical response, but out of morbid curiosity I would love to see Fauci give his answers:
1) Covid has a median death rate of only 0.26%, so why should we take ANY risk on an experimental mRNA vaccine with no long term testing to prove its safety?
2) Why not give support to the 0.26% of people actually at risk from dying due to covid instead of spending billions of dollars on Big Pharma producing a rushed vaccine that you plan to force on the 99.7% of people who are not at risk?
3) In majority vaccinated countries like Israel, over 60% of covid hospitalizations are fully vaccinated people. The exponential rise of fully vaccinated patients in multiple nations suggests that the vaccines do not work. Why should we take a vaccine that has been proven not to be effective?
4) If you believe the vaccines actually do work despite all evidence to the contrary, then why should vaccinated people fear anything from unvaccinated people? How are we a threat to them?
5) If the vaccines don’t work, then doesn’t this mean the mandates are pointless and the people that are most safe are the people with natural immunity? Shouldn’t we be applauding the naturally immune and encouraging treatment instead of useless vaccination?
6) Since the vaccines actually don’t work according to the data, isn’t it time to stop blindly dismissing treatments like Ivermectin and focus on trials and studies that research these alternatives? Why the vitriolic propaganda campaign to label Ivermectin nothing more than “horse paste” when it is actually a long used Nobel Prize winning treatment for human ailments? Is it because the experimental covid vaccines would lose their emergency authorization status under the FDA if effective treatments exist?
7) Why are government funded scientists so keen on defending Big Pharma to the point of ignoring all data that contradicts their claims? Are you just embarrassed of being wrong, or are you corrupt?
8) Who decided you are qualified to determine what constitutes the “greater good?”
Globalists and errand boys like Fauci will never be able to answer these questions without twisting the narrative. They will say “What about the 700,000 dead in the US?” to play on the idea that the freedom minded lack empathy for their fellow man. Of course, around 40% of those deaths are patients from nursing homes with preexisting conditions, so we have no idea if they died from covid or from their previous ailments. Also, millions of people die every year from a plethora of communicable diseases including the flu and pneumonia, and we never tried to lock down the entire country and crush people’s civil rights because of this.
If we maintained a running tally of flu and pneumonia deaths year after year as we are doing with covid, then the ever increasing number of bodies would seem just as forbidding. Society cannot function when it is preoccupied with death.
Yes, around 0.26% of people die from covid, but life goes on for everyone else. Our freedoms are more important than your irrational fears. Our freedoms are more important than globalist agendas for centralization. Our freedoms ARE the greater good. Without them our society dies, and as our society dies millions more people will die from the inevitable collapse and tyranny that will follow; far more than will ever die from covid.
This is why nothing Fauci says has any relevance to us. He is so transparent in his corruption that he might as well be invisible. We will continue to ignore his declarations and admonitions and we will continue to fight back against the vaccine passports and restrictions. When all is said and done, if Fauci, Biden and other globalist puppets try to use force to impose their agenda upon us then there will come a day very soon when they will be held accountable for their crimes against humanity, and then they will wish they were invisible.
You can contact Brandon Smith at: brandon@alt-market.com
October 9, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Deception, Film Review, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Anthony Fauci, Covid-19, Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
“Proceed With Caution At Your Own Peril”
As it turns out, all the scientists and doctors who insisted that Merck’s “revolutionary” COVID drug molnupiravir is extremely safe weren’t faithfully adhering to “the science” after all. Because according to a report published Thursday by Barron’s, some scientists are worried that the drug – which purportedly cut hospitalizations in half during a study that was cut short – could cause cancer or birth defects.
So much for having a “strong safety profile,” as Dr. Scott Gottlieb claimed in an interview on the day Merck first publicized the research.
It’s perfectly understandable why Merck might choose to play down this safety risk: assuming it’s approved, the drug is widely expected to be one of “the most lucrative drugs ever” – which is one reason why Merck’s shares soared into double-digit territory after the announcement.
As we reported earlier this week, Merck and its “partner” Ridgeback Biotherapeutics will profit immensely by charging customers up to 40x what it costs to make the drug, which Ridgeback originally licensed from Emory University for an “undisclosed sum”. The drug was developed with funding from the federal government.
According to Barron’s, some scientists who have studied the drug believe that its method of suppressing the virus could potentially run amok within the body.
Some scientists who have studied the drug warn, however, that the method it uses to kill the virus that causes Covid-19 carries potential dangers that could limit the drug’s usefulness.
Molnupiravir works by incorporating itself into the genetic material of the virus, and then causing a huge number of mutations as the virus replicates, effectively killing it. In some lab tests, the drug has also shown the ability to integrate into the genetic material of mammalian cells, causing mutations as those cells replicate.
If that were to happen in the cells of a patient being treated with molnupiravir, it could theoretically lead to cancer or birth defects.
In particular, Raymond Schinazi, a professor of pediatrics and the director of biochemical pharmacology at Emory who studied the drug while it was being developed, and published a number of papers on NHC, the compound that’s the active ingredient in the drug. He published a paper that showed the drug can produce a reaction like the one described above, and insisted it shouldn’t be given to young people – especially pregnant women – without more data.
Schinazi told Barron’s that he did not believe that molnupiravir should be given to pregnant women, or to young people of reproductive age, until more data is available. Merck’s trials of molnupiravir have excluded pregnant women; the scientists running the trial asked male participants to “abstain from heterosexual intercourse” while taking the drug, according to the federal government website that tracks clinical trials.
Barron’s even shared a paper published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases in May by Schinazi and scientists at the University of North Carolina which reported that NHC can cause mutations in animal cell cultures in a lab test designed to detect such mutations – something Merck claims it has tested for. The paper’s authors concluded that the risks for molnupiravir “may not be zero”.
Merck told Barron’s that it has run “extensive tests” on animals which it says show that this shouldn’t be an issue. “The totality of the data from these studies indicates that molnupiravir is not mutagenic or genotoxic in in-vivo mammalian systems,” a Merck spokesman said.
Still, scientists and doctors who have studied NHC say that Merck needs to “be careful,” and it’s not just Schinazi warning about the drug’s potential risks.
Dr. Shuntai Zhou, a scientist at the Swanstrom Lab at UNC, said “there is a concern that this will cause long-term mutation effects, even cancer.”
Zhou says that he is certain that the drug will integrate itself into the DNA of mammalian hosts. “Biochemistry won’t lie,” he says. “This drug will be incorporated in the DNA.”
Merck hasn’t yet released any data from its animal studies, but the scientists believe that it would take long-term studies to show that the drug is truly totally safe.
“Proceed with caution and at your own peril,” wrote Raymond Schinazi, a professor of pediatrics and the director of the division of biochemical pharmacology at the Emory University School of Medicine, who has studied NHC for decades, in an email to Barron’s.
Analysts are already warning that these questions about the drug’s safety suggest the reaction in Merck’s shares was a little “overblown”, to say the least. Investors apparently were so eager for a new “pandemic panacea” (now that the mRNA jabs have proven to be much less effective than advertised) that they didn’t ask too many questions about safety, or even question the paucity of data. One analyst for SVB Leerink Dr. Geoffrey Porges described investors’ reaction from Friday as “wishful thinking”.
Even once the FDA authorizes the drug, Dr. Porges believes it will come with strict limitations on who can and can’t use it. “I think it is effectively going to be a controlled substance”, Dr. Porges said, adding that the risks to pregnant women, or women who may soon become pregnant, could present thorny problems for the FDA’s advisory committee reviewing the drug.
Given that the safety risks of the drug seem well-documented already, Wall Street’s gushing about the drug’s prospects – “it really is THAT good”, one analyst insisted – seems like an idiotic blunder in retrospect. The product of what one might call “magical thinking”.
October 9, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, United States |
Leave a comment
Data released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showed that between Dec. 14, 2020 and Oct. 1, 2021, a total of 778,685 adverse events following COVID vaccines were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). The data included a total of 16,310 reports of deaths — an increase of 373 over the previous week.
There were 111,921 reports of serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period — up 6,163 compared with the previous week.
Excluding “foreign reports” filed in VAERS, 593.728 adverse events, including 7,437 deaths and 47,455 serious injuries, were reported in the U.S. between Dec. 14, 2020 and Oct. 1, 2021.
Of the 7,437 U.S. deaths reported as of Oct. 1, 11% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 16% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 29% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.
In the U.S., 393.4 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of Oct. 1. This includes: 227 million doses of Pfizer, 152 million doses of Moderna and 15 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).
The data come directly from reports submitted to VAERS, the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.
Every Friday, VAERS makes public all vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date, usually about a week prior to the release date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed.
Historically, VAERS has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.
This week’s U.S. data for 12- to 17-year-olds show:
The most recent death involves a 16-year-old male (VAERS I.D. 1734141) who reportedly died from cardiac failure five days after receiving Pfizer’s COVID vaccine.
Other recent deaths include a 17-year-old male (VAERS I.D. 1689212) with cancer who was vaccinated April 17, tested positive for COVID on July 20, was hospitalized and passed away Aug. 29; and a 16-year-old female (VAERS I.D. 1694568) who died from a pulmonary embolism nine days after receiving her first Pfizer dose.
This week’s U.S. VAERS data, from Dec. 14, 2020 to Oct. 1, 2021, for all age groups combined, show:
- 19% of deaths were related to cardiac disorders.
- 56% of those who died were male, 43% were female and the remaining death reports did not include gender of the deceased.
- The average age of death was 72.8.
- Of the 2,935 cases of Bell’s Palsy reported, 50% were attributed to Pfizer vaccinations, 42% to Moderna and 8% to J&J.
- 648 reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome, with 40% of cases attributed to Pfizer, 32% to Moderna and 28% to J&J.
- 1,976 reports of anaphylaxis where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death.
- 158,280 reports of symptoms of anaphylactic reactions with 43% of cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine, 49% to Moderna and 7% to J&J. An anaphylactic reaction may include various symptoms like skin rashes, nausea, vomiting, difficulty breathing or shock.
- 9,907 reports of blood clotting disorders. Of those, 4,286 reports were attributed to Pfizer, 3,595 reports to Moderna and 1,975 reports to J&J.
- 2,737 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis with 1,733 cases attributed to Pfizer, 888 cases to Moderna and 106 cases to J&J’s COVID vaccine.
Young mother pressured to receive COVID vaccine dies of vaccine-induced blood clots
Jessica Berg Wilson, a 37-year-old stay-at-home mother from Washington passed away suddenly on Sept. 7 from vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) — a rare, and sometimes fatal, blood-clotting condition — after receiving J&J’s COVID vaccine.
On Aug. 29, Jessica went to a Seattle pharmacy to get her COVID vaccine and was told she would be receiving J&J’s shot. She was “vehemently opposed” to taking the vaccine, “considering her stay-at-home mom status, state of good health and young age in conjunction with the known and unknown risk of an unproven vaccine,” her husband said.
But Jessica was pressured to get the vaccine due to a vaccine mandate at their child’s school requiring “room moms” who wished to serve in the classroom be fully vaccinated.
According to Jessica’s VAERS report (VAERS I.D. 1683324), she experienced blood clots in her ovarian and renal veins, and a brain hemorrhage that led to tissue damage. Although doctors tried to relieve the pressure on her brain by performing a craniotomy, they were unsuccessful.
Jessica was ultimately pronounced brain dead, removed from life support and passed away. Doctors confirmed the cause of death was VITT.
Pfizer asks FDA to authorize emergency use of its COVID vaccine for 5- to 11-year-olds
Pfizer and its German partner, BioNTech on Thursday asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to authorize their COVID vaccine for emergency use for children 5 to 11 years old. The FDA advisory committee is scheduled to meet Oct. 26 to discuss Pfizer’s pediatric COVID vaccine.
FDA officials said once vaccine data for younger children was submitted, the agency could authorize a vaccine for younger children in a matter of weeks, but it would depend on the timing and quality of the data provided.
Pfizer and BioNTech submitted initial data to the FDA last month for a regimen of two 10-microgram doses in children — one-third the amount given to older patients — but had not formally requested authorization until now.
According to Pfizer’s Sept. 20 press release, the trial didn’t show the vaccine reduced hospitalizations or even mild cases. But it did reveal side effects generally comparable to those observed in participants 16 to 25 years of age.
Studies confirm Pfizer vaccine immunity wanes at 2 months
As The Defender reported, two studies published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine confirm any immune protection offered by two doses of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine drops off after roughly two months.
A prospective longitudinal study from Israel covering 4,800 healthcare workers showed antibody levels waned rapidly after two doses of vaccine “especially among men, among persons 65 years of age or older and among persons with immunosuppression.”
A second study from Qatar looked at actual infections among the nation’s highly vaccinated population, who mostly received Pfizer’s COVID vaccine. Estimated effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection was negligible for the first two weeks after the first Pfizer dose, increased to 36.8% in the third week after the first dose, and reached its peak at 77.5% in the first month after the second dose.
By months five five through seven, researchers said vaccine efficacy reached a low level of approximately 20%. Pfizer has consistently claimed the company’s own efficacy data demonstrate 95% efficacy against SARS-CoV-2, which was not observed in this study.
Sweden, Denmark and Finland pause Moderna vaccine over concerns of myocarditis
Sweden, Denmark and Finland will pause the use of Moderna’s COVID vaccine for younger age groups after reports of possible rare side effects, including myocarditis.
Finland on Thursday paused the use of Moderna’s COVID vaccine for younger males due to reports of myocarditis, joining Sweden and Denmark in limiting its use after a Nordic study involving Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark found men under the age of 30 who received Moderna’s vaccine had a slightly higher risk than others of developing myocarditis.
All four countries said they would instead give Pfizer’s vaccine to men born in 1991 and later, despite research that shows a similar risk of myocarditis associated with Pfizer’s vaccine.
Fully vaccinated patient sparks COVID outbreak among vaccinated population
A paper published Sept. 30, in Eurosurveillance showed a fully vaccinated patient in a hospital setting rapidly spread COVID to fully vaccinated staff, patients and family members — despite a 96% vaccination rate and use of full personal protective equipment.
Of the 42 cases diagnosed in the outbreak, 38 were fully vaccinated with two doses of Pfizer and BioNTech’s Comirnaty vaccine, one had received only one vaccination and three were unvaccinated.
Of the infected, 23 were patients and 19 were staff members. The staff all recovered quickly. However, eight vaccinated patients became severely ill, six became critically ill and five of the critically ill died. The two unvaccinated patients had mild COVID cases.
The authors said the study challenges the assumption high universal vaccination rates will lead to herd immunity and prevent COVID outbreaks, as 96.2% of the outbreak subjects were vaccinated, infection advanced rapidly and viral load was high.
Fully vaccinated countries had the highest number of new COVID cases
In a study published Sept. 30 in the peer-reviewed European Journal of Epidemiology Vaccines, researchers investigated the relationship between the percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID cases across 68 countries and 2,947 U.S. counties that had second dose vaccine, and available COVID case data.
The study found “no discernible relationship” between the percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID cases. In addition, the most fully vaccinated nations had the highest number of new COVID cases, based on the researchers’ analysis of emerging data during a seven-day period in September.
Children’s Health Defense asks anyone who has experienced an adverse reaction, to any vaccine, to file a report following these three steps.
Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.
© 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.
October 9, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Aletho News | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights |
Leave a comment
WHY did I have my first flu jab? I think it might have been because I saw a sign in the surgery or was told about the sessions via the ‘Patient Participation Group’ who send out an e-newsletter a couple of times a year. My husband, as a mild asthmatic, had had the jab for several years but I found myself faintly reluctant to have one myself. I had no good reason other than something that I can’t put my finger on but which makes me stay away from surgeries and hospitals.
Or perhaps it was because I remember the flu jab sessions run by the surgery I worked in which were wonderfully happy and funny occasions where the elderly of the town lined up in the large waiting room, some sitting, some leaning on sticks but all with a sleeve rolled up expectantly. They were having an outing where they laughed and joked amongst themselves, especially when the doctor passed down the line with a massive syringe using the same needle which he inserted into each arm – yes, it was that long ago. After the session many were reluctant to leave. So how did having a flu jab change from something that was given to the elderly for what had always been assumed to be their own benefit into something you did so that you didn’t ‘kill your granny’, the very people whom the flu jab was supposed to benefit in the first place?
Hear what Dr Fauci said on September 28 on CNN: ‘Everyone who’s at least six months old should get a flu vaccine. Not only will getting a flu shot help protect you and those around you from potentially life-threatening flu complications, doing so will also keep the limited supply of hospital beds available for COVID-19 patients who need them right now.’
Telegraph headline yesterday: ‘Flu deaths could hit 60,000 in worst winter for 50 years, say experts’. The story says that more than 35million people will be offered flu jabs after warnings from health chiefs that lockdowns and social distancing have led to a drop in immunity. There is concern that the combination of Covid-19 and flu could cripple health services, increasing the risk of another lockdown, or ‘Plan B’ measures such as compulsory masks, vaccine passports or a return to working from home.
Did I really just read that ‘lockdowns and social distancing have led to a drop in immunity’? What can this mean? That they have finally come to their senses about the negative health effects of lockdown, so it will never be repeated? No, I don’t think so.
They are simply using this terrible truth to bolster, indeed double down on their next fear mongering project. Which is to tie us into a controlled system of repeat vaccination (whether for flu or Covid) as the price of our supposed freedom from more lockdown.
An advertising campaign will urge those eligible for the flu vaccine and Covid-19 booster jab to book their appointments as soon as possible.
Health Secretary Sajid Javid in the Telegraph article: ‘This year we are rolling out the largest flu vaccine programme in our history, alongside the new Covid-19 booster vaccine rollout; both are important to provide vital protection not only to yourself, but also your loved ones while also helping to ease pressure on the NHS.’
From the same article: ‘Earlier this week, Professor Neil Ferguson . . . said the UK did not have much “headroom” for rising Covid-19 cases before the NHS becomes “heavily stressed”.’
Earlier this year I signed up for the NHS app via my iPad because my surgery suggested it as an aid to the reorganisation that is being undertaken while we are out of the way. I had already the two Covid jabs as I understood they would help release everyone else, and there they were, dates and code numbers, popping up on the app. Aha, I thought, here is the Covid passport of the future.
Now if I look at the app it tells me that my first two jabs will no longer be relevant after November 7, and that I have my own QR code which will let me use a Domestic Covid Pass ‘at places that have chosen to use the service’. The dreaded Covid passport that I had foolishly thought to avoid by not travelling around with the app on my iPhone was there on my iPad which I use only at home. I have considered deleting the app but a warning is issued: ‘After you have deleted this app they might keep some information about you’. Who are ‘they’ and what on earth might they keep about me? I have an awful feeling it is likely to be the facial recognition process that I went through in order to sign up to this app.
Once you have the app the NHS prefers to contact you via text message, and I have been offered a flu jab. What will happen in future if I need treatment and it is found that I ‘declined’ the flu jab? I have declined at the moment but if I do decide to go ahead, as I have in the past, I will go to a pharmacy as it will be my decision which I hope to keep off the app. Is this being foolish? I really don’t know. All I know is it seems that the rolling out of Covid passports is where we are headed like it or not, together with the dreaded Plan B. Please tell me I am wrong. Why would Public Health England be renamed the UK Health Security Agency if the intentions were otherwise?
I believe the emergency powers are to be voted on in the House of Commons on October 19. Is all this leading up to an extension of these powers for another six months allowing Plan B to be implemented with as little as one week’s notice? Just see how many firework displays are now planned via Zoom. I believe local authorities have known of the likelihood of Plan B for some time, and what would give a big boost to ‘Health Security’? Why, the banning of dangerous firework displays.
October 9, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, UK |
Leave a comment
The New York Times had to issue a doozy of a correction on an article by its Covid-19 reporter Apoorva Mandavilli, who somehow inflated the number of US children hospitalized with the virus to 14 times the actual level.
Mandavilli claimed in her article, published on Tuesday, that nearly 900,000 Covid-infected children had been hospitalized in the US since the pandemic began. As the Times admitted on Thursday, the available data shows that the correct figure from August 2020 to October 2021 was more than 63,000.
The inaccuracies didn’t stop there. The correction also noted that contrary to Mandavilli’s reporting, Sweden and Denmark haven’t begun offering single-dose vaccines to children. The newspaper added that the story misstated the timing of an upcoming FDA meeting regarding proposed use of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in children as young as five years old.
The scale of the erroneous hospitalization figure was reminiscent of gaffes by President Joe Biden, such as saying 120 million Americans had died from Covid-19 and 150 million had been killed by gun violence. It’s not clear how the blunder occurred, but the mainstream media has been accused of hyping the severity of the pandemic. A hidden-camera investigation by Project Veritas in April purported to show a CNN technical director saying the outlet purposely stoked fears of Covid-19 to boost ratings.
Ironically, the Times itself has decried Covid-19 misinformation. For instance, the newspaper posted an article earlier this week vilifying Dr. Joseph Mercola as “the most influential spreader of coronavirus misinformation.” In August, the Times said ‘Russian disinformation’ was being spread to suggest that the Biden administration would impose a Covid-19 vaccine mandate. A month later, Biden ordered that healthcare facilities, federal contractors and businesses with more than 100 employees force their workers to be inoculated, taking the choice over getting the jab away from about 100 million Americans.
While the Times and other mainstream outlets have billed themselves as the arbiters of truth, Mandavilli’s error-laced article is only the latest in a long line of inaccurate reporting by the newspaper. For example, the newspaper falsely claimed that Russia had offered bounties on American troops in Afghanistan and that police officer Brian Sicknick was murdered by pro-Trump rioters at the US Capitol.
“The New York Times is a superspreader of misinformation,” said Christina Pushaw, press secretary for Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.
Mandavilli stirred anger among conservatives in May, when she said the theory that Covid-19 leaked from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology had “racist roots.” She later deleted her Twitter post, lamenting that the pushback to her remark had been “ridiculous.”
“Someday, we will stop talking about the lab-leak theory and maybe even admit its racist roots,” Mandavilli said in the original tweet. “But alas, that day is not yet here.”
It’s not clear why the reporter was rooting for the lab leak theory to go away, as even chief White House medical adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci said it should be investigated after previously trying to squash the notion.
The Wall Street Journal had reported two days earlier that three scientists at the Wuhan lab had been hospitalized with Covid-19 symptoms in the fall of 2019, near the time when the first cases of the virus were reported in China.
The Times’ former lead reporter on Covid-19, Pulitzer Prize nominee Donald McNeil Jr., resigned under pressure in February after co-workers campaigned for his firing. His sin was responding to a high school student’s question about a classmate’s use of the N-word by repeating the slur when he asked for context on how it was used. He had worked for the newspaper since 1976.
October 9, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, New York Times |
Leave a comment
The transmission of respiratory viruses is poorly understood. However, the models used by SAGE to justify draconian restrictions are far too simplistic – they are based on a handful of assumptions that have not been adjusted in the light of real world evidence, despite numerous forecasting failures. First, they assume that every individual is equally susceptible to every variant. SAGE therefore assumes that each outbreak will lead to uncontrolled, exponential viral spread unless there is a material reduction in human interactions.
Why haven’t lockdowns worked? There are broadly two types of respiratory virus. There are those that spread person to person – like measles – in a continuous chain of transmission, uninterrupted by season and with every susceptible contact falling ill. Then there are those we do not understand so well, like influenza, which are much more complex. Instead of the simplistic close contact model, which assumes Covid spreads like measles, we should perhaps consider an alternative more sophisticated model based on influenza. The influenza virus model is unusual – it is predicated on the majority being exposed to a particular airborne virus but, oddly, only a minority appear to be susceptible to each year’s variant. To complicate matters further, influenza can also spread person to person.
The spread of influenza is difficult to model and the cause of the surges in transmission seen each winter is not fully understood. However, influenza has been measured for centuries, enabling interesting patterns to be discerned. Spread does appear to occur person-to-person but only a trickle of cases occur in the summer months before there is sudden exponential growth leading to a winter surge. This annual surge also happens in autumn in milder climates like Australia and California.
Each winter between 5 per cent and 15 per cent of the population somehow become susceptible to the new circulating influenza ‘variant’ (aka strain) – and to date no one can explain why the percentage is so small. Spending an hour in indoor environments in winter is sufficient to expose everyone inside to an infectious dose of influenza, but the majority remain uninfected – perhaps because they are not susceptible. After the 5-15 per cent cohort of susceptible individuals in a particular year are infected, a temporary quasi-herd immunity is reached. Cases therefore fall, reaching negligible levels until the next winter. Clear Gompertz curves are seen, although only affecting part of the population.
The following winter, those who were previously infected remain immune but a further 5-15 per cent become susceptible, somehow. No-one understands what exactly causes these people to become susceptible in winter when they were not the previous winter nor in the summer. A novel influenza virus can take up to eleven winters before full herd immunity is reached for that particular type of influenza virus.
The poorly understood winter trigger that precipitates an influenza surge actually occurs twice each winter and usually the second half sees a different ‘variant’ surge and predominate. Influenza was present for the first half of winter 2019/20 but disappeared globally for the second half at the exact time that SARS-CoV-2 surged, 3 weeks earlier in Italy than in Sweden and the UK. Although these are quite different viruses, the fact that SARS-CoV-2 surged at the exact time that we would have expected a new influenza variant to rise suggests that the influenza transmission model is a viable candidate to examine further for COVID.
The critical point is that many more people are exposed to influenza every year than are infected, because it is airborne and infuses throughout indoor enclosed spaces. The majority are protected by their immune system and the remainder succumb. Vaccination is generally thought to have had an impact on influenza associated hospitalisations and mortality but the evidence it has significantly reduced transmission and infection is weak.
Comparing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to influenza is not the equivalent of dismissing COVID as being like ‘flu. In a certain subset, COVID causes more hospitalisations than influenza and results in greater demand for intensive care. However, how we respond to it is predicated on understanding how it transmits, so considering the influenza model is important.
Although we do have evidence of significant person-to-person close contact transmission of SARS-CoV-2, there are many areas of ambiguity such that this cannot be the only route of transmission, once again supporting the ‘influenza spread’ hypothesis to explain the spread of COVID.
The person-to-person close contact model cannot explain certain oddities of influenza transmission. For hundreds of years there have been reports of outbreaks of influenza in boats that have been at sea for weeks with no human contact. It is now clear that SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted as aerosols through the air, like influenza, and it has been isolated from hospital ventilation systems. In addition, there is a growing body of evidence of numerous viruses present in the troposphere (four to 12 miles above us) which fall to ground level under the right environmental conditions. For decades the simultaneous appearance of genetically identical influenza virus around the world could not be explained, but tropospheric spread may explain this phenomenon.
The simplistic person-to-person close contact model cannot explain certain oddities of Covid either. There was an outbreak of a thousand cases diagnosed within two days of each other in a garment factory in Sri Lanka, without a super-spreader, at a time when there was minimal community Covid. An Argentinian fishing vessel had an outbreak after five weeks at sea, despite everyone testing negative before setting sail. There have been several occasions when Australian authorities have struggled to understand the source of Delta variant infections in the community at times of very low prevalence. Canada publish their test and trace data and 40 per cent of COVID cases in Canada, even at low prevalence, never have an identified source of transmission.
SAGE has never explained how key workers, including hospital staff, who have been continually exposed, could remain unaffected by the original and Alpha variants only to succumb to the Delta variant months later. The household transmission rate for SARS-CoV-2 is around one in 10 – is this because of good luck, or because the other nine in 10 people sharing living quarters with an infected person are not susceptible to that particular variant?
The influenza model of transmission is a hypothesis that requires testing, which could start by interviewing those on the Diamond Princess to see how many have been infected with subsequent variants.
Real world evidence has repeatedly shown that the simplistic approach adopted by SAGE – and others – has failed. No explanations have been offered for the lack of correlation between changes in human behaviour and viral prevalence. Early models were always more likely to be inaccurate but as more data has appeared the refusal to adjust the models becomes less forgivable. Numerous scientists have been pointing out the faults in the SAGE models for well over a year. Rather than SAGE listening, debating and adjusting their hypothesis, in a scientific way, dissenting voices have been quashed. The latest failures of the SAGE models must be a reality check. Other hypotheses, including the influenza model, need to be given due consideration and overly simplistic models, which fail to explain the patterns in real world data, must be discarded for good.
Dr Craig (@ClareCraigPath) has been a pathologist since 2001 – she worked in the NHS and reached consultant level in 2009. She specialised in cancer diagnostics including diagnostic testing for cancer within mass screening programmes, and was the day-to-day pathology lead for the cancer arm of the 100,000 Genomes Project. Subsequently she has worked on artificial intelligence for cancer diagnostics.
October 8, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, UK |
Leave a comment
A study published Sept. 30, in the peer-reviewed European Journal of Epidemiology Vaccines found “no discernible relationship” between the percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID cases.
In fact, the study found the most fully vaccinated nations had the highest number of new COVID cases, based on the researchers’ analysis of emerging data during a seven-day period in September.
The authors said the sole reliance on vaccination as a primary strategy to mitigate COVID-19 and its adverse consequences “needs to be re-examined,” especially considering the Delta (B.1.617.2) variant and the likelihood of future variants.
They wrote:
“Other pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions may need to be put in place alongside increasing vaccination rates. Such course correction, especially with regards to the policy narrative, becomes paramount with emerging scientific evidence on real-world effectiveness of the vaccines.”
As part of the study, researchers investigated the relationship between the percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID cases across 68 countries and 2,947 U.S. counties that had second dose vaccine, and available COVID case data.
For seven days preceding Sept. 3, researchers computed COVID cases per one million people for each country, as well as the percentage of population that was fully vaccinated.
Relationship between cases per 1 million people (last 7 days) and percentage of population fully vaccinated across 68 countries as of September 3, 2021
Notably, Israel with more than 60% of its population fully vaccinated, had the highest COVID cases per 1 million people during the seven-day period.
Iceland and Portugal, with more than 75% of their populations fully vaccinated, had more COVID cases per 1 million people than countries such as Vietnam and South Africa, where only about 10% of the population is fully vaccinated.
Across U.S. counties, the median new COVID cases per 100,000 people during the seven-day period was similar across the categories of percentage of population fully vaccinated.
Percentage of counties that had an increase of cases between two consecutive 7-day time periods by percentage of population fully vaccinated across 2947 counties as of Sept. 2, 2021
The researchers found a substantial county variation in new COVID cases within categories of percentage of population fully vaccinated. There also appeared to be no significant signaling of COVID cases decreasing in counties where a higher percentages of the population was fully vaccinated.
Of the top five counties with the highest percentage of population fully vaccinated (99.9% – 84.3%), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identified four as “high” transmission counties.
Three of the four counties classified as “high” transmission had fully vaccinated rates of 90% or higher. Conversely, of the 57 counties classified as “low” transmission by the CDC, 15 had fully vaccinated rates of 20% or lower.
The findings also showed no discernible association between COVID cases and fully vaccinated rates when a one-month lag was considered, to account for the 14-day period it takes for a vaccine to be considered effective.
The authors suggested a correction to the policy narrative is warranted, as increasing vaccination rates is not enough. “Such course correction, especially with regards to the policy narrative, becomes paramount with emerging scientific evidence on real-world effectiveness of the vaccines,” they wrote.
The authors cited data from the Ministry of Health in Israel showing the effectiveness of two doses of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine against preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection was reported to be 39% — substantially lower than the reported trial efficacy of 96%.
Emerging research also shows immunity derived from Pfizer’s COVID vaccine may not be as strong as natural immunity acquired through infection.
A substantial decline in immunity from mRNA vaccines six months post immunization has also been reported along with an increasing number of breakthrough cases among the fully vaccinated, the researchers said.
The authors said stigmatizing populations over vaccines can do more harm than good, and non-pharmacological prevention efforts need to be renewed in order to learn to live with COVID “in the same manner we continue to live 100 years later with various seasonal alterations of the 1918 Influenza virus.”
Breakthrough cases significantly underreported as FDA reviews booster data
The number of vaccinated people testing positive for COVID is on the rise, and doctors in Ohio are reporting more breakthrough cases across hospital systems.
However, only certain types of COVID breakthrough cases are reported at both the state and federal level, leaving patients with mild cases underreported.
“We estimate anywhere from two to 10 times as many positives that are being reported is the real situation,” said Dr. David Margolius, division director of internal medicine at MetroHealth in Cleveland.
“It’s still rare, but I get a dozen COVID positive cases a day in my basket, and usually three or four of them have been vaccinated,” said Margolius.
The Ohio Department of Health and the CDC only report breakthrough cases in patients requiring hospital admission, or cases that resulted in death.
The CDC said it made the change in May in order to “maximize the quality of data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public importance.”
As of Sept. 27, the CDC had received reports from 50 U.S. states and territories of 22,115 patients with COVID vaccine breakthrough infection who were hospitalized or died.
The CDC said the number of COVID vaccine breakthrough infections reported to the agency are an undercount of all SARS-CoV-2 infections among fully vaccinated persons, especially of asymptomatic or mild infections.
In addition, national surveillance relies on passive and voluntary reporting, and data are not complete or representative, according to the CDC.
Massachusetts health officials on Tuesday reported nearly 4,000 new breakthrough cases over the past week, and 46 more deaths, according to NBC Boston.
In the last week, 3,741 new breakthrough cases were reported, with 125 more vaccinated people hospitalized.
This brings the total number of breakthrough cases in Massachusetts to 40,464 — out of 4.63 million vaccinated people — and the death toll among people with breakthrough infections to 300.
According to the Vermont Daily Chronicle, which cited statistics from Vermont’s Department of Health, 76% of the state’s COVID fatalities in September were breakthrough cases, with just eight of the 33 Vermonters who died being unvaccinated.
As of Tuesday, 88% of all eligible Vermonters age 12 and over had been vaccinated with at least one shot.
Health Department spokesperson Ben Truman said most of the vaccine “breakthrough” fatalities were elderly. Because they were among the first vaccinated, Vermont’s elderly “have had more time to potentially become a vaccine breakthrough case,” he said.
According to The Washington Post, Dr. Peter Marks, director of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said Tuesday updated data might make a strong case in support of everyone 18 and older being eligible for COVID vaccine boosters, but the agency will have to see whether its outside advisers agree.
The remarks from Marks came during a webinar as the FDA prepares to meet Oct. 14 and 15 with its outside advisers to discuss authorizing Moderna and Johnson & Johnson COVID booster shots.
Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.
© 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.
October 8, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, European Union, United States |
Leave a comment
GAINESVILLE, Florida – Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced on Friday that the city of Gainesville has withdrawn a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for workers after pressure from his administration and a court ruling against the policy last month.
“We are not going to allow our first responders and government employees, many of whom have been on the front lines for over a year and a half, to be cast aside by local politicians’ mandates,” DeSantis said in a press release. “This reversal by the City of Gainesville is a victory for liberty.”
According to the press release, the Florida Department of Health (FDOH) received a letter from Gainesville last week informing the department that city commissioners “voided” a recent vaccination mandate for all public employees.
The FDOH had written to Gainesville mayor Lauren Poe days earlier, threatening to enforce a law signed by DeSantis in May that bans government entities, schools, and businesses from demanding COVID vaccination status. The law, S.B. 2006, allows up to $5,000 in fines per violation.
Gainesville told the health department in response that there are now “zero employees who are subject to a City COVID-19 employer vaccination requirement.”
“Please be advised that on September 23, 2021, the City Commission of the City of Gainesville took action to rescind their August 5th action related to COVID-19,” city manager Lee Feldman wrote, adding that the vaccine rules “have been voided.”
The day before the FDOH notice, a Florida judge temporarily halted Gainesville’s vaccine mandate following a lawsuit brought by city workers and backed by the DeSantis administration.
“The city failed to put on any evidence that the Vaccine Mandate serves a compelling state interest or that the Vaccine Mandate was the least restrictive means to accomplish that interest,” Circuit Judge Monica Brasington ruled September 22. Gainesville, in fact, “did not put on any evidence, at all, at the injunction hearing,” she noted.
The City Commission of Gainesville voted to rescind the rule the next day.
More than 200 city workers, including police officers, firefighters, and other first responders, sued to block the mandate, with the backing of Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody, a Republican who filed a brief in support of the workers in September.
Last month, Gov. DeSantis announced that Florida would move to penalize violations of the state’s ban on COVID-19 vaccine requirements, such as those in Gainesville, with “millions of dollars” in fines.
“If a government agency in the state of Florida forces a vaccine as a condition to employment, that violates Florida law, and you will face a $5,000 fine for every single violation,” the governor declared at a press conference near Gainesville. “If you look at places here in Alachua County, like the city of Gainesville, I mean, that’s millions and millions of dollars potentially in fines.”
“We will certainly move to impose the fines as the law requires when we see people that are denied access,” he said.
The DeSantis administration continues to fight local vaccine mandates in multiple counties, including Leon County, where city officials confirmed this weekend that they fired 14 employees who refused to disclose their vaccination status by Friday, in violation of S.B. 2006.
The FDOH had warned the county last week that it must “immediately rescind” the coercive vaccine policy and “refrain from terminating any employees who decline to produce proof of vaccination.”
“Fines may be assessed based on each employee who was required to submit proof of vaccination as a condition of continued employment,” wrote Doug Woodlief, FDOH division director for Emergency Preparedness and Community Support. Those fines could cost Leon County over $3.5 million, according to the Tallahassee Democrat.
Orange County also faces potential fines due to an ongoing COVID vaccine mandate, which prompted a lawsuit from dozens of firefighters last week, local news reported. The county downgraded the mandate days after Gov. DeSantis’ press conference last month, but has harassed unvaccinated employees and impeded them from being promoted, firefighters have said.
The Gainesville workers’ victory against compulsory COVID vaccination follows similar recent successes in other states. In Arizona, the city of Tucson backed down on a vaccine mandate last month after Republican Attorney General Mark Brnovich threatened to withhold up to $175 million in funding from the city, citing state laws enacted by Republicans earlier this year.
October 7, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, United States |
Leave a comment
Three US medical certifying boards have warned doctors that they risk losing their certification and licence if they spread covid vaccine misinformation.
Internists, family doctors, and paediatricians received an email on 9 September that quoted a warning from the Federation of State Medical Boards in July1 which read: “Providing misinformation about the covid-19 vaccine contradicts physicians’ ethical and professional responsibilities, and therefore may subject a physician to disciplinary actions, including suspension or revocation of their medical licence.”2
Richard Baron, president and chief executive of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), told The BMJ that the move was an attempt to establish a standard of care. “As standard setting organisations, we thought it was important to be on record, in a public way, to make clear that putting out flagrant misinformation is unethical and dangerous during a pandemic.” Baron said that the statement has been well received—“4 to 1 positive.” But community physicians contacted by The BMJ thought differently.
“When I got that email I thought I’d better not put anything on social media about vaccines,” said Shveta Raju, a community physician in the Atlanta, Georgia, area, who has treated covid patients and led the vaccination effort at her outpatient clinic.
“The email was sent more as a veiled threat to keep doctors on the official, established narrative, and that’s what I find chilling,” said a paediatrician who pseudonymously blogs under the name Elizabeth Bennett. “Pandemic or no, there is a problem with having an ill defined concept of misinformation that’s tied to public health messaging that hasn’t been consistent. How are physicians supposed to figure out what is misinformation when public health messaging swings so wildly?” Bennett asked.
Undefined offence
Baron said that the statement was also intended to signal the certifying boards’ support for physicians “trying to do the right thing.”
“We wanted to support that group and say ‘hey, we do have a standard of care here and you are doing the right thing when you uphold it,’” he said.
Raju responded, “If that was their intent, they should have defined misinformation. By leaving it undefined, the message was that we can’t talk about this at all.” She said that physicians are, by and large, a conservative group. “If they’re not sure what can be deemed misinformation, physicians would rather be quiet.”
Bennett concurred: “The thing I find most alarming is that they don’t define misinformation, but if they strip you of your board certification, you would lose your means of earning a living.”
Doctors spreading misinformation?
Official and social media company efforts to target “vaccine misinformation” predate the pandemic.3 But the new statement from ABIM, the American Board of Family Medicine, and the American Board of Paediatrics is one of several recent statements putting doctors in the spotlight for the first time.
In Canada, warnings about physician information began earlier, when in April the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario declared that physicians “have a professional responsibility not to communicate anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing, and anti-lockdown statements or promote unsupported, unproven treatments for covid-19.”4
The Canadian statement triggered an outcry, leading to a clarification that the statement was “not intended to stifle a healthy public debate about how best to address aspects of the pandemic.” But concerns continued. In June, a Canadian member of parliament held a press conference on censorship of Canadian clinicians and scientists. YouTube removed the video of the meeting.56
The BMJ asked ABIM about the size of the problem of board certified physicians spreading misinformation.
“We don’t have a sense of numbers of physicians spreading misinformation,” Baron said. “We’re at the beginning.” He believed it was only a “small number of doctors.” The medical boards opted to send the statement to all doctors, he said, because focusing on just the offending individuals would “miss the impact they’re having because of how much their voices are being amplified.”
As an example of “unprofessional or unethical behaviour,” Baron cited the case of a Florida doctor offering medical exemptions from mask wearing for $50 (£37; €43).7
Personalised medicine—or one-size-fits-all?
The BMJ asked whether physicians expressing doubt about the need for booster doses or vaccination of patients with natural immunity—two matters that have been the subject of debate and changing official guidance—would qualify as misinformation.8 “I don’t think we have concerns with doctors wrestling with areas where the science is unclear,” Baron said, “but there is no debate about whether people should get a primary vaccination series.”
Raju worries about the impact on personalised care. “The job of physicians is to take guidelines and apply them to the patient in front of them.” But now “physicians are basically being told that when it comes to covid vaccines it’s one-size-fits-all.”
Baron said, “We’re not trying to stifle conversations between doctors and patients. We understand that different people may look at evidence in different ways, but when you have an overwhelming preponderance of medical consensus in a certain area, you need at least to tell patients that there is an overwhelming professional consensus here.”
Cautious approach
Jeffrey Flier, former dean of Harvard Medical School, said that in the context of the pandemic, he was “not opposed to certain levels of misinformation triggering a decision to question somebody’s licence.” He said, “I can see this being an appropriate remedy at a time of public health emergency.
“But this is not how the system for licensure and certification has traditionally worked, and creates many opportunities for mistaken judgment about what is and is not misinformation, and those decisions would have to be rendered with extreme caution.”
Flier added, “We have to remember that there are legitimate areas of debate, and such matters should not fall within the scope of disciplinary actions.”
“There are reasons to be concerned that state boards might be unprepared for these kinds of decisions at a time when so many aspects of covid policy have been enmeshed with political views.”
Footnotes
-
This article was updated on 4 October to make clear that it was medical certifying boards, rather than licensing boards, that emailed physicians. The email quoted an earlier warning from the Federation of State Medical Boards.
-
Competing interests: PD gave a public statement at a 17 September 2021 FDA advisory committee to discuss covid-19 vaccines, where he highlighted the joint statement. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official policy or position of the University of Maryland.
-
Provenance: commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.
This article is made freely available for use in accordance with BMJ’s website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.
https://bmj.com/coronavirus/usage
View Abstract
October 7, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | Canada, Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
Imagine you’re a doctor. You go into work every day for long hours and figure out how to treat Covid. You are saving lives and doing so patient by patient. Each patient has individual needs that sometimes require custom care, but you know early treatment works.
Suddenly, faraway bureaucrats demand that you abandon your best practices and fall into line around their grand plan. Suddenly your patients can’t get what you prescribe. Media apparatchiks diminish, invalidate or mock everything you’ve learned and are doing.
And all of it is being carried out in the name of “science.”
The Physicians’ Rebellion
More than 10,000 physicians and medical scientists have signed onto a Declaration that accuses public health authorities of, well, doing it wrong–and to devastating effect.
“WHEREAS, public policy makers have chosen to force a “one size fits all” treatment strategy, resulting in needless illness and death, rather than upholding fundamental concepts of the individualized, personalized approach to patient care which is proven to be safe and more effective;”
The Declaration goes on to assert that “thousands of physicians are being prevented from providing treatment to their patients, as a result of barriers put up by pharmacies, hospitals, and public health agencies” and that “These policies may actually constitute crimes against humanity.”
Local Knowledge
Such statements might strike non-physicians as hyperbolic. But consider that many of these doctors, such as Dr. Brian Tyson have each saved thousands of lives through early intervention and best practices developed in the field through trial-and-error, observation, and active communication among peers.
“We started seeing inflammation, so we used anti-inflammatories,” Dr. Tyson explains.
“We saw blood clots, so we used anticoagulants. We saw patients having trouble breathing, so we used asthma medications… It wasn’t just one drug. It was the art of what we see and how those patients responded to what we gave them.”
Despite treating more than 6,000 patients, Tyson can count the patients he’s lost to Covid on three fingers. And yet non-practicing officials are interfering with the work of doctors like Tyson.
The physicians and medical scientists who have signed the Declaration are also frustrated with the authoritarian measures supported by career bureaucrats such as Anthony Fauci. Indeed as more information trickles out, more and more observers suspect Fauci approved funding for dangerous research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and then colluded with the bioethically disturbed Peter Daszak to propagate the unlikely “natural origins” theory.
Barriers to Treatment
Public health authorities have erected huge barriers to early treatment by:
- Putting pressure on major pharmacies not to fill essential prescriptions,
- Putting pressure on insurers not to cover proven therapies, and
- Putting pressure on Big Tech giants to censor and suppress eminent physicians such as cardiologist Peter A. McCullough, who has expressed concerns about vaccinating children.
Declaration signatories include physicians who figured out how to successfully reduce the death toll while public health authorities dithered and delayed their grand plan to roll out mRNA vaccines for everyone — including, apparently, low-risk populations.
All the doctors agree that greater access to early treatment could have saved thousands of lives–and could save thousands more. The Declaration suggests that public health authorities are trying to steamroll over clinical practitioners when these camps should complement each other.
“We are in a pandemic of undertreatment,” said intensive care specialist Pierre Kory, M.D., winner of the British Medical Association’s President’s Choice Award.
“Everything else that we’ve discovered, everything that’s in our protocols is because we have used good clinical sense, lots of experience, and we’ve used trial and error using our best judgments of risks and benefits.”
Clinicians or “Experts?”
Why should anyone trust thousands of doctors and medical researchers over public health authorities and other so-called experts trotted out in media campaigns?
- Physicians figured out how to save lives and control Covid by talking to each other and developing best practices.
- Physicians have more local knowledge and more direct experience with real patients.
- Physicians are not as beholden to pharmaceutical companies as public health authorities, particularly as these authorities have gone as far as mandating pharma products for millions.
- Physicians have learned to scale up their practices, including telemedicine, to avoid ‘hospital overwhelm.’
- Physicians have learned that early treatment and natural immunity is an effective way to reduce the dangers of a pandemic whose virus was probably funded by… public health authorities.
It’s no wonder these doctors are in open rebellion against authoritarian public health bodies who seek to implement monolithic mass behavioral control in place of a dynamic multi-pronged approach that includes clinical best practices.
Intimate, repeated, in-person care, which includes both observational and randomized control studies, has an underappreciated advantage over armchair analysis and “exciting, soul-capturing abstractions,” which have “extended themselves over the perception of world and self like plastic pillowcases.” And yet the doctors of the Physicians Declaration soldier on.
Nevermind. Fall into line. The government is here to help.
Note: The Declaration by the International Physicians and Medical Researchers is not affiliated with The Great Barrington Declaration hosted by AIER. Yet there are striking similarities in that each group represents a groundswell of opposition to authoritarian public health policies worldwide.
Max Borders is author of After Collapse: The End of America and the Rebirth of Her Ideals and The Social Singularity: A Decentralist Manifesto.
October 7, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Covid-19 |
Leave a comment
Aletho News 