Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The Bizarre Refusal to Apply Cost-Benefit Analysis to COVID Debates

By Glenn Greenwald | August 25, 2021

In virtually every realm of public policy, Americans embrace policies which they know will kill people, sometimes large numbers of people. They do so not because they are psychopaths but because they are rational: they assess that those deaths that will inevitably result from the policies they support are worth it in exchange for the benefits those policies provide. This rational cost-benefit analysis, even when not expressed in such explicit or crude terms, is foundational to public policy debates — except when it comes to COVID, where it has been bizarrely declared off-limits.

The quickest and most guaranteed way to save hundreds of thousands of lives with policy changes would be to ban the use of automobiles, or severely restrict their usage to those authorized by the state on the ground of essential need (e.g., ambulances or food-delivery vehicles), or at least lower the nationwide speed limit to 25 mph. Any of those policies would immediately prevent huge numbers of human beings from dying. Each year, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), “1.35 million people are killed on roadways around the world,” while “crashes are a leading cause of death in the United States for people aged 1–54.” Even with seat belts and airbags, a tragic number of life-years are lost given how many young people die or are left permanently and severely disabled by car accidents. Studies over the course of decades have demonstrated that even small reductions in speed limits save many lives, while radical reductions — supported by almost nobody — would eliminate most if not all deaths from car crashes.

Given how many deaths and serious injuries would be prevented, why is nobody clamoring for a ban on cars, or at least severe restrictions on who can drive (essential purposes only) or how fast (25 mph)? Is it because most people are just sociopaths who do not care about the huge number of lives lost by the driving policies they support, and are perfectly happy to watch people die or be permanently maimed as long as their convenience is not impeded? Is it because they do not assign value to the lives of other people, and therefore knowingly support policies — allowing anyone above 15 years old to drive, at high speeds — that will kill many children along with adults?

That may explain the motivation scheme for a few people, but in general, the reason is much simpler and less sinister. It is because we employ a rational framework of cost-benefit analysis, whereby, when making public policy choices, we do not examine only one side of the ledger (number of people who will die if cars are permitted) but also consider the immense costs generated by policies that would prevent those deaths (massive limits on our ability to travel, vastly increased times to get from one place to another, restrictions on what we can experience in our lives, enormous financial costs from returning to the pre-automobile days). So foundational is the use of this cost-benefit analysis that it is embraced and touted by everyone from right-wing economists to the left-wing European environmental policy group CIVITAS, which defines it this way:

Social Cost Benefit Analysis [is] a decision support tool that measures and weighs various impacts of a project or policy. It compares project costs (capital and operating expenses) with a broad range of (social) impacts, e.g. travel time savings, travel costs, impacts on other modes, climate, safety, and the environment.

This framework, above all else, precludes an absolutist approach to rational policy-making. We never opt for a society-altering policy on the ground that “any lives saved make it imperative to embrace” precisely because such a primitive mindset ignores all the countervailing costs which this life-saving policy would generate (including, oftentimes, loss of life as well: banning planes, for instance, would save lives by preventing deaths from airplane crashes, but would also create its own new deaths by causing more people to drive cars).

While arguments are common about how this framework should be applied and which specific policies are ideal, the use of cost-benefit analysis as the primary formula we use is uncontroversial — at least it was until the COVID pandemic began. It is now extremely common in Western democracies for large factions of citizens to demand that any measures undertaken to prevent COVID deaths are vital, regardless of the costs imposed by those policies. Thus, this mentality insists, we must keep schools closed to avoid the contracting by children of COVID regardless of the horrific costs which eighteen months or two years of school closures impose on all children.

It is impossible to overstate the costs imposed on children of all ages from the sustained, enduring and severe disruptions to their lives justified in the name of COVID. Entire books could be written, and almost certainly will be, on the multiple levels of damage children are sustaining, some of which — particularly the longer-term ones — are unknowable (long-term harms from virtually every aspect of COVID policies — including COVID itself, the vaccines, and isolation measures, are, by definition, unknown). But what we know for certain is that the harms to children from anti-COVID measures are severe and multi-pronged. One of the best mainstream news accounts documenting those costs was a January, 2021 BBC article headlined “Covid: The devastating toll of the pandemic on children.”

The “devastating toll” referenced by the article is not the death count from COVID for children, which, even in the world of the Delta variant, remains vanishingly small. The latest CDC data reveals that the grand total of children under 18 who have died in the U.S. from COVID since the start of the pandemic sixteen months ago is 361 — in a country of 330 million people, including 74.2 million people under 18. Instead, the “devastating toll” refers to multi-layered harm to children from the various lockdowns, isolation measures, stay-at-home orders, school closures, economic suffering and various other harms that have come from policies enacted to prevent the spread of the virus:

From increasing rates of mental health problems to concerns about rising levels of abuse and neglect and the potential harm being done to the development of babies, the pandemic is threatening to have a devastating legacy on the nation’s young. . . .

The closure of schools is, of course, damaging to children’s education. But schools are not just a place for learning. They are places where kids socialize, develop emotionally and, for some, a refuge from troubled family life.

Prof Russell Viner, president of the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health, perhaps put it most clearly when he told MPs on the Education Select Committee earlier this month: “When we close schools we close their lives.”

The richer you are, the less likely you are to be affected by these harms from COVID restrictions. Wealth allows people to leave their homes, hire private tutors, temporarily live in the countryside or mountains, or enjoy outdoor space at home. It is the poor and the economically deprived who bear the worst of these deprivations, which — along with not having children at all — may be one reason they are assigned little to no weight in mainstream discourse.

“The stress the pandemic has put on families, with rising levels of unemployment and financial insecurity combined with the stay-at-home orders, has put strain on home life up and down the land,” the BBC notes. But even for adults and those who are middle-class and above, severe and sustained isolation from community and life is bound to produce serious mental health harms, as two mental health experts I interviewed all the way back in April, 2020, warned.

None of this is to say that these are easy calculations. How COVID deaths or hospitalizations are weighed against the grave harms from anti-COVID restrictions is a complex question, one that almost certainly yields different answers in different countries and cultures. It may even yield a different policy answer in the same country as the virus and the social conditions which COVID produces evolve. One can debate how the contagiousness of COVID compares to the huge number of people who lose their lives or ability to lead healthy lives every year (so often, this argument is met with the more or less accurate but irrelevant distinction that COVID is contagious while car accidents are not: how does that bear on one’s willingness to endorse road policies (such as allowing driving cars at high speeds) that will inevitably kill large numbers of people or one’s refusal to consider the countervailing costs of anti-COVID measures?).

Put another way, this is not an argument in favor of or against any particular policy undertaken in the name of fighting COVID. What it is, instead, is an attempt to highlight the pervasive and deeply misguided refusal to assign any costs to the harms caused by anti-COVID policies themselves.

Perhaps this irrational mindset is explainable by the fact that COVID hospitalizations and deaths are more dramatic than the more insidious, lurking harms from sustained life disruptions. Perhaps the rapidly declining rates of child-rearing in the West make it more difficult to observe or care about the damage all of this is doing to the developmental abilities and mental health of children. Perhaps other factors — from a psychological desire for parental protection in the form of authoritarian power or a warped sense of “safetyism” — is rendering any cost-benefit analysis morally unacceptable. None of those speculative theories, however, accounts for the virtually unanimous refusal to consider a ban on cars or a 25 mph nationwide speed limit; that willingness to sacrifice huge numbers of lives by opposing life-saving automobile policies seems driven by the inconvenience such policies would impose on particular groups of people.

Whatever is true about motives, what is unacceptable — sociopathic, really — is the insistence on assigning severe costs to just one side of the ledger (harms from COVID itself) while categorically refusing to recognize let alone value the costs on the other side of the ledger (from severe, enduring anti-COVID disruptions to and restrictions on life). Given the reflexive rage that is produced when one tries to make this argument — what immediately emerges are accusations that one is indifferent to COVID deaths — I wanted to walk through the evidence and rationale demonstrating why this approach is reckless, immoral and irrational. That is the argument I examine in both this article and in a 30-minute video I produced for Rumble.

August 25, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

Dr Peter McCullough, Louisiana House Oversight Hearing on Monday, August 16, 2021

HealthFreedomLouisiana | August 23, 2021

Dr Peter McCullough offers expert testimony to the LA House Oversight Hearing on Monday, August 16, 2021.

August 23, 2021 Posted by | Video | , , | Leave a comment

Contacts: Telemedicine Doctors For COVID19 Scripts

By Martha Albertson | Principia Scientific | August 23, 2021

Let’s save as many lives as we can. Below are some of the telemedicine doctors’ contact details who are providing early treatment for “COVID”.

Principia Scientific International scientists and medical experts largely agree that ‘COVID19’ is nothing more than influenza. However, being that many readers have contacted us for details of medical doctors willing and able to provide online prescriptions, we are posting their contact details below for your use.

Here are some of the telemedicine doctors providing early treatment for C19. Ivermectin and/or hydroxychloroquine exstnc.com Ivermectin covid19criticalcare.com/guide-for-this Fluvoxamine cityhealthuc.com/fluvoxamine

IMPORTANT NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER: This list of doctors and medical providers is ONLY a collection of information offered as a convenience to interested members of the public and is neither a recommendation of the provider nor a verification of the provider’s qualifications or practices, medical or otherwise.

  DIRECTORY

Information is not guaranteed to be accurate. A particular medical professional currently may not be accepting new patients.

MULTIPLE COUNTRIES (Telemedicine)

Dr. Darrell DeMello                                   +91-7718079507   darrelldemello@gmail.com

Dr. Fabio Lopes Bueno Netto                  +55 (11) 9 9118 5051  Tel / WhatsApp       fabio@buenonetto.com   (and face to face in São Paulo – Brasil)

AFGHANISTAN

Dr. M. Anwar Noor                                    +93-775313155     anwarnoor285@gmail.com

ARGENTINA

States using IVM: Corrientes, Jujuy, Misiones, Pampa, Salta, Santa Cruz, Tucuman

Dr. Maria Victoria Moreno                        +54-911-5564-0216     victoriamorenocuttle@gmail.com      (Buenos Aires)

AUSTRALIA

Dr. Peter Lewis (IVM)                                 03 9822 9996

AUSTRIA

Dr. Terezia Novotna                                  novotna.terezia7081@gmail.com

BANGLADESH

Dr. Mohammad Tarek Alam                      9120792 93

BELIZE

IVM approved by Belize’s Ministry of Health as a prescription treatment option for Covid-19

BERMUDA

Dr. Henry Dowling                                     (441) 296-7296        office@aiih.net                  https://aiih.net

Dr. Paula Estwick                                        (441) 293-5476        pestwick@nmac.bm         https://www.nmac.bm

BOLIVIA

Bolivian government added IVM to its guidelines for treating coronavirus infections in May 2020

Dr. Andres Zurita                                        +79606228793        andreszc1.11.111@gmail.com      (consultations by telemedine for all Bolivia)

BRASIL (BRAZIL)

Cities using IVM:  Belem, Fortaleza,Itajai, Paranagua, Porto Alegre, Porto Feliz

Dr. Wilton Adriano                                                                      wadrianocc@gmail.com                         (Golania, Goias)

Dr. Felipe Dias Wanderley de Carvalho                                    diasds1313@gmail.com                          (Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais)

Dr. Lucy Kerr                                               55 11 3287 3755                                                                        (São Paulo)

Dr. Maria de Fátima Gomes de Luna                                         mfgdeluna@gmail.com                          (Fortaleza, Ceará)

Dr. Carolina Muniz                                                                       carolina.munizferreira@yahoo.com       (Rio de Janeiro)

Dr. Fabio Lopes Bueno Netto                  55 (11) 9 9118 5051  Tel / WhatsApp       fabio@buenonetto.com   (São Paulo)

Dr. Jussara Resende                                  55 11 98825 6308                                                                      (São Paulo)

Dr. Claudia de Bessa Solmucci                 55 31 4009 8200       cbsolmucci@gmail.com                         (Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais)

BULGARIA

Use of IVM for COVID-19 treatment is common

CANADA

Dr. Umbrine Fatima (Ontario only)        (716) 407-3250           admin@myhealth360wellness.com     myhealth360wellness.com

     Prophylaxis, Active, Long COVID   (appointments only … no walk ins)

CAMEROON

Dr. Sam Enoh                                            samuelenohtanya@gmail.com

CZECH REPUBLIC

Physicians can prescribe Ivermectin for COVID-19 patients; then report it in the Infectious Diseases Information System

CUBA

HCQ available; IVM being tested for COVID-19 treatment

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

IVM is used widely both for prophylaxis and for treatment of COVID-19. Some doctors use HCQ as well.

Dr. José Natalio Redondo Galan       josenatalioredondo@gmail.com

ECUADOR

Dr. Mario Zapata Casares                   drmzc@cidocenter.com

EGYPT

National treatment guidelines issued November 2020

EL SALAVDOR

Government sanctioned protocol includes IVM  https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EYmTD7kXsAIh2L_?format=jpg&name=large

FRANCE

IVM generally available for COVID-19 but patient may have to request it … IVM not included in national guidelines

GUATEMALA

Some municipalities are providing free Covid Kits to those who are sick. The kits include IVM and other items.

HONDURAS

Government approved protocol includes IVM and HCQ

HUNGARY

Clinical trial of IVM for COVID-19 treatment  at the South Pest Central Hospital and the National Institute of Pulmonology

INDIA

Much of India has IVM available as a first line of treatment for COVID-19

Dr. Darrell DeMello                                   7718079507   (Mumbai)  darrelldemello@gmail.com  also treats long-hauler Covid-19

Dr. Jagadish G Donki                                9845917230   (Bangalore) doctor333in@yahoo.co.in also treats long Covid-19 (Post Covid Syndrome)

Dr. Shashikanth Manikappa                                             smanikappa@gmail.com1

Dr. Asiya Kamber Zaidi                                                     asiyazaidia@gmail.com

INDONESIA

Ivermectin permission to treat COVID-19 from the Food and Drug Supervisory Agency (BPOM) and from Ministry of Health

https://www.solotrust.com//read/37899/Indonesia-Pakai-Ivermectin-Untuk-Obat-Terapi-Covid-19#

IRELAND

Dr. Pat Morrissey                                         patmorrissey74@protonmail.com

Dr. William ‘Billy’ Ralph                              00353 53 91 36411           billy.ralph@usa.net

ITALY

IVM for COVID-19 information at:  https://www.farmagalenica.it/ivermectina-contro-covid-capsule-galeniche-in-farmacia/

Prof. Andrea G Stramezzi, MD, PhD          Send a Whatsapp to +39 351 5407910

JAMAICA

Ministry of Health & Wellness does not recommend for or against IVM in COVID-19 treatment (March 2021)

The Ministry recognizes that some doctors are using IVM for treatment of COVID-19

JAPAN

Dr. Haruo Ozaki, chairman, Tokyo Medical Association, recommends use of Ivermectin for COVID-19 patients (9 Feb 2021)

Tokyo Metropolitan Government plans clinical trials of Ivermectin for outpatient treatment of COVID-19 (30 Jan 2021)

MACEDONIA

IVM for COVID-19 treatment approved by MALMED Drug Agency for North Macedonia

MALAYSIA

Health Ministry and Institute for Clinical Research (ICR) clinical trials of Ivermectin for Covid-19

Malaysian Association for the Advancement of Functional and Interdisciplinary Medicine requested immediate Ivermectin use

MEXICO

States using IVM:  Chiapas

Mexico City government is giving away COVID-19 kits with Ivermectin & Azythtromycin through kiosks.

Dr. Ariel Ortiz                                             (866) 893-8005                     https://obesitycontrolcenter.com

NAMIBIA

My Free Doctor                                         +1 850-750-1322   Text        http://www.myfreedoctor.com

NICARAGUA

National treatment guidelines issued January 2021

NIGERIA

Clinical trial ​approved in Lagos state for Ivermectin treatment of Covid-19

PANAMA

Government has approved and stockpiled IVM and HCQ

PARAGUAY

States using IVM: Alto Parna

PERU

National treatment guidelines issued January 2021

Dr. Gustavo Aguirre Chang                       Facebook: Gustavo Aguirre

Dr. Yiduv Pettyd Ordoñez Romero           yiduv@hotmail.com

PHILIPPINES

A licensed physician may prescribe IVM off label at his/her own discretion in consultation with the patient

Dr. Allan A. Landrito                                  09323137060      dr.allan.landrito@gmail.com

POLAND

Dr. Włodzimierz Bodnar                            +48 16 677 00 79     https://przychodnia-przemysl.pl    (treatment is with amantadine, not IVM)

PORTUGAL

Dr. Joaquim Sá Couto                                jsacouto@mac.com         Consultório na Av. da Boavista Nº 117, no Porto/Portugal

Dr. José Manuel Sabino de Jesus             sabinojesus@sapo.pt

SLOVAKIA

January 27, 2021: The Health Ministry approved the therapeutic use of IVM for six months

SOUTH AFRICA

Court order determines that physicians, on their own judgement, may prescribe IVM for treatment of COVID-19 (April 6, 2021)

Dr. Shankara Chetty                                  846102030      please WhatsApp

Dr. Erica Drewes                                       2 721 201 7036  https://drdrewes.agrista.com

Dr. Alex Ekonomakis                                 117961400

Dr. Chantelle Eybers                                 716248492      Dreybers@slendermed.co.za

Dr. Liandi Fourie                                        126530564

Dr. Hema Kalan                                          126632732      info@drhemakalan.com

Dr. Gerrie Lindeque                                   568172275      info@comppharm.co.za       Whatsapp: 060 528 2910

Dr. Claudia Boitshoko Moloabi                                        info@drclaudiamoloabi.com      (IVM prescribed for Covid 19 prophylaxis)

Dr. Zodwa Ngobese                                  824449268

Dr. Gys du Plessis                                      104428929

Dr. Marna Turner                                        834724948

Dr. Mariska van Tonder                             792899753

Dr. Clarice Van Vreden                              012 259 1059  http://www.ifafimedical.com/contact

Dr. Gerhard Vosloo                                   123465935

Bendiga House                                         083/487-4797    info@bendigahouse.org.za            https://www.bendigahouse.org.za/

My Free Doctor                                         +1 850-750-1322   Text        http://www.myfreedoctor.com

SPAIN

Dr. Nyjon Eccles                                        0207 224 4622   https://thenaturaldoctor.org/spanish-clinic/

SRI LANKA

Sarva Medical and Wound Care Clinic    076 101 4433       sarva.patient.data@gmail.com

Dr. K T Sundaresan                                    drsundaresan@gmail.com

TAIWAN

Dr. Kai-Jow Tsai                                          https://www.drtsaiclinic.com

TANZANIA

Dr. Leopoldo Salmaso                              +255 686655555   or  +39 329 0044616   (Whatsapp & Telegram)        Also for Italian expatriates

THAILAND

Dr. Aubonrutt Wannawisute                     LINE ID: audperio;    081-3063061

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

Dr. Elias Barrios                                          (868) 2219281       Instagram: dreliasbarrios

UNITED KINGDOM

Dr. Nyjon Eccles                                         +44 (0)207 7224 4622            https://thenaturaldoctor.org

USA

(see below)

VENEZUELA

Government has approved COVID-19 treatment protocol includes IVM and HCQ

ZIMBABWE

The Medicines Control Authority of Zimbabwe (MCAZ) has approved use of IVM for prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19

Dr. Jackie Stone                                                  https://www.facebook.com/jackie.stone.39794

—————————

USA

MULTIPLE STATES (Telemedicine)

Dr. Miguel Antonatos                              (855) 767-8559   https://text2md.com

       (States: AL, AZ, CO, FL, GA, GU, IA, ID, IL, KS, KY, MD, ME, MI, MN, MS, ND, NE, NJ, NV, NY, OK, SC, SD, TN, UT, VT, WA, WI, WV)

Nicole Baldwin, ARNP FNP-BC              https://www.pushhealth.com/practices/63477/new-patients/narnp

     (States: AZ, CO, FL, IA, ID, IN, MA, MD, MO, MT, ND, NJ, NM, NY, WI, WY)

Anne Blanchette, PAC, FNTP                 https://www.pushhealth.com/practices/99043/new-patients/ablanchette

      (States: AZ, FL, ID, IL, UT, WA)

Dr. Rafael F. Cruz                                      www.RegenMedKy.com    (Go to website and click blue TELEHEALTH box)

      (States: AL, AK, CT, FL, GA, HI, ID, IN, KS, KY, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, NC, NH, NJ, NV, NY, OH, OK, PA, SC, TN, WV)

Dr. Darrell DeMello                                  +91-7718079507 darrelldemello@gmail.com  (located in India; consults in the USA)

JP Denham, ARNP           objectivehealthpartnership@pm.me              https://www.pushhealth.com/practices/104928/new-patients/jdenham

      (States:  AZ, FL, ID, MD, MI, OR, WA)

Dr. Alieta Eck                                            (732) 463-0303   eckmds@gmail.com

Dr. Harolyn C. Gilles                                (602) 909-6347  drlwright007@gmail.com  (prescribe non-controlled substances such as IVM in all 50 states)

Dr. Syed Haider                                        (281) 219-7367 Text or better yet sign up: http://www.drsyedhaider.com/

       (States: AK, AZ, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MO, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NV, NY,

        OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WV, WI, WY)

Glenmore Hendricks, RNP                        glenmore.hendricks@sipmd.com

       (States:  AZ, CA, IA, MA, MI, MT, OR, TX, VA)

Dr. Eder Hernández DMSc,PA-C            (956) 546-2000; (956) 518-7444; (956) 731-6699        www.valleymedcovid19.com

Dr. Richard Herrscher                              (972) 473-7544                                                             www.aircaremd.com

Dr. Peter Hibberd                                    (561) 655-4477;  (561) 725-2356 (text)

     (States: FL, TX, CA, IL, CT, IN, KY)

Dr. Joseph N. Holmes                             (980) 264-9020   Text preferred

Dr. Mollie James                                      www.IvermectinCan.com  (telemedicine consults for prevention, active and long-haul)

     (States: AR, IA, IL, KY, MO, OK)

Victoria James, APRN, FNP-C               victoria@appleadayvirtucalclinic.com       https://www.appleadayvirtualclinic.com/

     (States: AZ, FL, MD, NV, OR, WA)

Dr. Rob Karas                                           (479) 966-5088;  (479) 770-4343                                   https://karashealthcare.com/

Dr. Kevin Kargman                                   (856) 261-3068   Text

     (States: AZ, CT, GA, ID, IN, KY,  MI, NJ, OK, WV, WY)

Dr. Michelle Eva Morholt, DNP, FNP-C  (360) 230-8070   https://ubucares.com    $200 prophylaxis & active treatments with agreement of 2 follow-

     (States: FL, UT, WA)                          up visits to assure safety. Long-haul for our primary care patients only. Call, text, or facetime appointments.

Janna Mustafina CRNP                            www.ecarenow.net

     (States: AZ, CO, DC, FL, MD, NV, RI, UT, WY)

Dr. Ryan D. Partovi                                   (760) 224-3033    www.drpartovi.com      (Nationwide via Telehealth)

Dr. Clifford F. Porter                                 (512) 553-1501                                                              www.txmedicalcare.com

Dr. Felecia Sumner                                   https://www.pushhealth.com/practices/16805/new-patients/fsumner

     (States:  AZ, FL, IL, NC, NJ, PA)

Dr. Keri Topouzian                                    (248) 240-0450  askdrt@gmail.com       prophylaxis, current infections, long covid

     (States: CO, MI, TX)

Patricia Trafford, FNP                               (480) 496-8340   tricia@anewhealth.org       http://www.anewhealth.org

Dr. Michael Uphues                                  muphuesmagic@gmail.com

     (States: FL, IL, IN, MT, NV, TN)

Harmony Vance, ARNP                            https://www.pushhealth.com/practices/23909/new-patients/harmony

     (States: FL, MA, MD, NM, NV, WA)

Dr. Arnoldo Padilla Vazquez                   https://mycatholicdoctor.com/resources/doctors/arnoldo-padilla-vazquez-md/

     (States: AL, AZ, CO, FL, GA, IA, ID, IL, KS, MD, ME, MN, MT, ND, NE, NH, NV, OK, OR, SD, TN, UT, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY)

Dr. Marivic Villa                                        (352) 561-6299; (352) 430-4460; Text only (352) 430-8166   VillaHealthCenter.com  (Televisit anywhere in US)

Dr. Fred Wagshul                                     (888) 788-9101   LungCenterofAmerica.org

Brian Weinstein MS APN NPC                                                                                            www.synergyhealthdpc.com  (all 50 states)

Jennifer Wright MSN, ACP-C                 https://doctorsstudio.com/i-mask-covid-19-protocol/  (treatment available only via online purchase)

Dr. Anna Yoder, DNP                               Book an appt at:  www.telehealthnp.com           Prophylaxis $75; Covid+ $85, long haulers $115

       (States: AZ, CA, CO, HI, ID, LA, MN, MO, MT, NC, ND, NE, NV, OR, PA, SD, WA, WV)

America’s Frontline Doctors                   https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.org/covid-19/how-do-i-get-covid-19-medication

iCareVIP                                                    (888) 447-7902   https://icarevip.com

My Free Doctor                                        (850) 750-1322   Text          http://www.myfreedoctor.com    (all 50 states)

ALABAMA

Dr. David Calderwood                             (256) 535-5944

Rebecca Halechko, CRNP, FNP-BC        (205) 624-4325   southernwellness@outlook.com

ALASKA

​Renae Blanton, MSN, FNP-BC                                            renae_b@yahoo.com

ARIZONA

Kayla Berns, RN, BSN                              (623) 524-4000

Sarah Fuller, FNP-C                                 www.valleymobilemedical.com/covid-19-resources       sarah@valleymobilemedical.com (for questions)

           Same day appointments available if initiated by 10 am. Visits for treatment, prophylaxis, long-haul starting at $79.

Dr. David Jensen                                      (480) 444-8715   djensenmedical@gmail.com

Dr. Karen E. Lee                                        (520) 395-2220                                                                 https://www.tucsonfamilygeriatric.com

Zhanna Tarjeft, FNP-BC                           (480) 550-9551   z@sproutshealth.com                          www.sproutshealth.com

Dr. Todd Winton                                       (480) 704-1050   https://activelifestyleclinic.com     (In person and Telemedicine available)

ARKANSAS

Dr. Rob Karas                                            (479) 966-5088;  (479) 770-4343                                      https://karashealthcare.com/

Dr. Sharron Mason                                   (501) 463-9079

CALIFORNIA

Dr. Margaret Aranda                                (800) 992-9280   dra@ArandaMDenterprises.com        www.arandaMDenterprises.com

Dr. Joshua Batt                                         https://www.pushhealth.com/practices/488/new-patients/jbatt        (Free sign up and initial consult)

​Dr. Jose R. Cilliani                                    (714) 541-5252

Dr. Brenden Cochran               (425) 361-7945   https://interactivehealthclinic.com  (APPOINTMENT REQUIRED – BOOKED INTO SEPT. NO PREVENTATIVE CARE)

Dr. George C. Fareed                              (760) 351-4400

Dr. Sabine Hazan                                     (805) 339-0221

Dr. Jorge L. Moreno                                (323) 726-6289    info@Center-For-Wellness.net           (In person and telemedicine)

Dr. Alice Pien                                            (949) 428-4500

Dr. Brian M.Tyson                                     (760) 592-4351

Dr. Tom Yarema                                                                    DrTom.com/IvermectinInfo

COLORADO

Tracy Dark, FNP                                       (303) 481-8079

Siegfried Emme, FNP                              (970) 227-0526   ziggyrock1@msn.com                            www.lovelandmedicalclinic.com

Dr. Katia Meier                                         (303) 790-7860   betterhealth@clearskymedical.com     www.clearskymedical.com

CONNECTICUT

Dr. Martin Owen                                                                 https://mycatholicdoctor.com/make-appointment/martin-owen-m-d/

Dr. Steven Phillips                                    (203) 544-0005

Dr. Robban Sica                                       (203) 799-7733   support@drsica.com   www.centerhealingarts.org    (prophylaxis, active, long haul)

FLORIDA

Dr. Michael Austin                                   (813) 964-5901  COVID-19_Help@affinitywellness.net

Dr. Bruce Boros                                        (305) 294-0011

Danielle Carrera DNP, APRN                                             Please go to PushHealth.com and use code: DCARRERA  (prophylaxis, exposed, positive)

Dr. William J. Cole, Jr.                             (941) 371-7171   email: DrCole@RetireThePandemic.Com

Janice A. Dennis, FNP, APRRN               (561) 847-0573  (call or text)       janiceicurn@bellsouth.net

Dr. Umbrine Fatima                                 (716) 407-3250   admin@myhealth360wellness.com    myhealth360wellness.com (Prophylaxis, Active, Long)

Dr. Bernard Garcia                                   (954) 771-2111

Dr. Stephen E. Grable                             (904) 247-7455   drgrable.com

Vanessa Hamalian NP                             (941) 253-2530   Telemed for Florida only.   $85/visit.   Make telemed appt at: www.latitudeclinic.com

Dr. Peter H. Hibberd                                (561) 655-4477;  561-725-2356 (text)

Dr. Michael M. Jacobs                             (850) 912-2000

Dr. Nabeel Kouka                                     (305) 280-0505   info@salus.md       www.salus.md

Dr. Jasen Kobobel                                   (321) 636-0005   (appointments only with patients already established with his practice)

Dr. Ben Marble                                         (850) 776-5555

Dr. Michelle Eva Morholt, DNP, FNP-C  (360) 230-8070   https://ubucares.com    $200 prophylaxis or active, 2 follow-up visits for safety

Dr. Angeli Maun Akey                                                         FIRRIMupDoctors@gmail.com  (telemedicine)

Dr. William Nields              .                                                 HeadwatersHealthJax@gmail.com

Dr. Juliana Rajter                                      (954) 906-6000

Dr. Jean-Jacques Rajter                          (954) 906-6000

Dr. Tara A. Solomon                                 (954) 984-8892   Ext 1     www.drtarasolomon.com

Dr. Juan Pascal Suarez-Lopez                 (407) 843-0151

Dr. Andres Felipe Velasco                       (386) 574-1423

Brian Weinstein, NP                                 (888) 329-0120

Dr. Vladimir Zelenko                                (845) 537-2742   text for appointment         https://www.vladimirzelenkomd.com

GEORGIA

Dr. Jason N. Cox                                      (912) 632-6000

Dr. Jimmy A. Malaver                               jmalaver1@netzero.net     prophylaxis for exposed medical personnel; treatment for sick outpatients

Dr. M. Todd Trebony                                (229) 454-5964   Juvenescence Medical Spa, 91 S Underwood St, Camilla, Ga 31730

USMed Clinic                                            (678) 974-1240

IDAHO

Dr. Ryan N. Cole                                       (208) 472-1082

Cynthia Culp NP-C, IFMCP                     (208) 888-6886   https://fmidaho.com

Joseph W. Petrie, PAC                             (208) 833-3773   contact@gemexpresscare.com        www.gemexpresscare.com

ILLINOIS

Dr. Alan F. Bain                                         (312) 236-7010   https://docintheloop.com

Dr. William Crevier                                   (708) 349-0070   COVID-19 consultation, prophylaxis, treatment only in our office. Bring any labs, EKGs.

INDIANA

AccuDoc Urgent Care                             (812) 932-3224   https://www.accudocurgentcare.com

Melissa Donahue, FNP                            (765) 201-0746

Dr. A Brooks Parker                                  (317) 300-4091   (call to schedule a Zoom meeting; ask for Dr. Parker)

KENTUCKY

Dr. James Buckmaster                             (270) 831-2004   http://corpuschristi-clinic.com      also treats via telemedicine in Tennessee

MAINE

Dr. Dustin Sulak                                                                   https://integr8health.com/

MARYLAND

Dr. Alan R. Vinitsky                                                               enlightened_medicine@yahoo.com

MASSACHUSETTS

Dr. Kathleen O’Neil-Smith                                                   FIRRIMupDoctors@gmail.com  (telemedicine)          Medicare not accepted

MICHIGAN

Dr. Jacqueline Chirco                             (248) 302-0473                                                                        https://askdrt.weebly.com

Dr. James Lewerenz                                (248) 289-6643   longevityhealthinstitute@yahoo.com       https://www.longevityhealthinstituteinc.com/

MINNESOTA

Catherine McCulley, CNP                       (605) 271-1020   cmcculley@2bhealthy.org       www.marywuebbenwellness.com   (office visit only)

MISSOURI

Dr. Helen Gelhot                                      (314) 576-0094    md@privatemdstl.com   522 North New Ballas Rd. Suite 122; Creve Coeur, MO 63141

Timothy Hubbard, PA-C                          (417) 363-3900    info@417housecalls.com          www.417housecalls.com

Keri Sutton, NP-C                                    (417) 881-4994    integrativehealthcarespringfieldmo.com

Dr. Luke Van Kirk                                      (417) 351-2900    covid@command.md             www.command.md

NEVADA

Dr. Joshua Batt                                         https://www.pushhealth.com/practices/488/new-patients/jbatt          (Free sign up and initial consult)

Dr. Arezo M. Fathie                                  (702) 407-9994

Dr. Harolyn C. Gilles                                 (602) 929-6347   drlwright711@icloud.com    (Scottsdale)  $105 for COVID early or long-haul initial consult

James M. Gocke, APRN                          (775) 782-1610    jgocke@cvmchospital.org    Ironwood Primary Care

Dr. Patrick G. Ticman                               (702) 877-5199

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Dr. Robban Sica                                       (203) 799-7733   support@drsica.com   www.centerhealingarts.org    (prophylaxis, active, long haul)

NEW JERSEY

Dr. Alieta Eck                                            (732) 463-0303   eckmds@gmail.com

Dr. Eric Osgood                                       (no phone calls)       drohsogood@gmail.com          prophylaxis, early treatment, longhaul

Jennifer Wright MSN, ANP-C                                            www.doctorsstudio.com          treatment is available only via online purchase

NEW MEXICO

Stephanie Wilks, FNP-C                          (575) 433-3000

NEW YORK

Dr. Robert J. Aquino                                (631) 547-4100

Kathleen Breault NP CNM                      (518) 944-1637   (Will provide telemedicine)

Dr. Umbrine Fatima                                 (716) 407-3250   admin@myhealth360wellness.com    myhealth360wellness.com (Prophylaxis, Active, Long)

Dr. Nabeel Kouka                                     (305) 280-0505   info@salus.md       www.salus.md

NORTH CAROLINA

Kenneth C. Farmer, ANP                         (910) 399-8666   https://pleasureislandhealth.com

Dr. Joseph N. Holmes                             (980) 264-9020   text preferred

Dr. Prachee Jain                                       thehometowndoctor@gmail.com   thehometowndoctors.com   (COVID-19 positive only; no prophylaxis)

Dr. James Johnston                                 Sign up: yourhomemedicalcare.com   home-visit physician for patients within 30 mins of Charlotte beltway

Dr. Jodi Stutts                                           (704) 360-5190   jodi519@hotmail.com  (COVID-19 positive patients only; no prophylaxis)

Leslie Ware, PA-C, MEd                           (980) 949-6000   leslie@ahawdpc.com         ahawdpc.com/home-2/

OHIO

Dr. Trent Austin                                        (513) 845-4558     www.accudocurgentcare.com

Dr. A. Patrick Jonas                                  (937) 427-7540

Dr. Jennifer Pfleghaar                              (567) 336-6001

Dr. Brad Schneider                                   (234) 414-0215

Dr. Fred Wagshul                                     (888) 788-9101

OKLAHOMA

Dr. Gayle Bounds                                     (405) 224-6484   drdee55@earthlink.net

Dr. Curt Coggins                                      (918) 245-1328   St. John Clinic, Ascension; Sand Springs.  Practice is closed to new patients.

Dr. Randy Grellner                                    (918) 725-1599

Dr. Jim Meehan                                        (918) 600-2240   www.meehanmd.com

Laura Moreno, FNP                                  (405) 861-0224

Dr. James Ross                                         (918) 932-2909

Dr. Kerri Williams                                     www.medclub.clinic   (prophylaxis, current infection, long COVID)

PENNSYLVANIA

Dr. Alexis S. Lieberman                           (215) 774-1166    only patients under age 18

Dr. Safiyya Shabazz                                  (215) 924-2440    https://www.fountainmedonline.com/contact

Dr. Regina Smith                                      (717) 795-9566

SOUTH CAROLINA

Carolina Health & Wellness Services     (843) 996-4908  admin@chwpeds.com    Telehealth for Virginia and South Carolina

Dr. Martin Owen                                                                https://mycatholicdoctor.com/make-appointment/martin-owen-m-d/

SOUTH DAKOTA

Catherine McCulley, CNP                       (605) 271-1020   cmcculley@2bhealthy.org       www.marywuebbenwellness.com   (office visit only)

TENNESSEE

Dr. George Graves; Danny Nelson FNP (423) 949-2171   DrGeorgeGraves@Gmail.com

Dr. Dawn Linn                                           (615) 551-9707   drdawnlinn@gmail.com  impressionshendersonville.com (COVID-19+ only; no prophylaxis)

TEXAS

Dr. Robin Armstrong                                (409) 938-5000

Dr. Kimberly Barbolla                               (903) 320-3200

Dr. Hong Davis                                         (972) 867-5888   call or text.     hormonedrd@gmail.com

Dr. Alison Garza                                       (956) 393-2200   https://www.dralisongarza.net/contact

Susan Harris, MSN, CNM, FNP-C           (972) 304-6400   tharris@lifestreammed.com           http://lifestreammed.com

Dr. Eder Hernández DMSc,PA-C             (956) 546-2000; (956) 518-7444; (956) 731-6699        www.valleymedcovid19.com

Dr. Richard Herrscher                               (972) 473-7544   www.aircaremd.com

Dr. Deborah M. Holubec                         (214) 509-9691   rpcc.dholubec@protonmail.com

Dr. Stella Immanuel                                  (281) 530-1230

Dr.  Imran Khan                                                                    ihaw@protonmail.com

April E. López NP, MSN                           (956) 627-5555

Dr. Ivette Lozano                                      (214) 660-1616

Cynthia Malowitz, ANP-BC, FNP-C        (361) 937-2121 or (361) 937-2124   www.bayareaquickcare.com   $35 telemedicine visit for uninsured

Raynell Odom, FNP                                 (830) 391-0877

Dr. Russell Phillips                                    (469) 916-4436   russellp@thecellspa.com            www.thecellspa.com

Dr. Clifford F. Porter                                 (512) 553-1501                                                        www.txmedicalcare.com

Dr. Brian Procter                                       (972) 562-8388

Wendy Starnes, APRN, NP                      (903) 320-3200

Dr. David Sheridan                                   (281) 705-6690    dps@pmlctex.com            Available for telemedicine – email or call

Dr. Cami Jo  Tice-Harrouff, DNP                                        camijo.ticeharouff@mycatholicdoctor.com

Dr. Ibidunni Omolayo Ukegbu                (469) 453-2008    https://pearlmedclinic.com

Dr. Barry Ungerleider                                                           https://preventionwithivermectin.com       Telemedicine consult $250 if RX issued

Dr. Richard G. Urso                                   (713) 668-6828

UTAH

Dr. David Jensen                                      (480) 444-8715   djensenmedical@gmail.com

Dr. Michelle Eva Morholt, DNP, FNP-C  (360) 230-8070   https://ubucares.com    $200 prophylaxis or active, 2 follow-up visits for safety

VIRGINIA

Carolina Health & Wellness Services      (843) 996-4908   admin@chwpeds.com    Telehealth for Virginia and South Carolina

Dr. Mary Ellen Gallagher                          (703) 527-6664   dr.meg@comcast.net      including pediatric care

WASHINGTON

Dr. David D. Bot                                                                  psychiatry520@gmail.com

Dr. Brenden Cochran               (425) 361-7945   https://interactivehealthclinic.com  (APPOINTMENT REQUIRED – BOOKED INTO SEPT. NO PREVENTATIVE CARE)

Dr. Carrie Hardy                                        (360) 629-2222   https://stanwoodintegrativemedicine.com

Dr. Michelle Eva Morholt, DNP, FNP-C  (360) 230-8070    https://ubucares.com    $200 prophylaxis or active, 2 follow-up visits for safety

WISCONSIN

Dr. Kristen Lindgren                                 (920) 737-1625     www.Lindgren.Health

Dr. Steven Meress                                    (920) 922-5433     nurse@foxvalleywellness.com            https://foxvalleywellness.com

Dr. Kristen Reynolds                                                              goldenreyenergy@gmail.com            https://www.goldenreyenergy.com

​Dr. John E. Whitcomb                             (262) 784-5300      info@LiveLongMD.com (early and long COVID-19 patients)

August 23, 2021 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Robert Dingwall: We Need to Hold Advocates of Mask Mandates to Account

By Toby Young | The Daily Sceptic | August 23, 2021 

Robert Dingwall, a Professor at Nottingham Trent University and a leading sociologist, has written an excellent piece for Social Science Space criticising the imposition of mask mandates, given the paucity of evidence that masks interrupt transmission and the lack of any robust evaluation of the harms masks cause.

First, Professor Dingwall looks at the two main sources of evidence purporting to show that masks are effective.

One is studies at various scales of the impact of mask mandates on reported infection rates. These may compare cities, states, provinces or entire nations using time series data to look for inflections of rates that may be attributable to the mandates. A great deal of mathematical ingenuity has been expended in trying to control for the numerous confounders from biases in reporting, differences in diagnosis, leads and lags in public behaviour in response to the mandates, seasonal fluctuations, mobility – the list is almost endless. By the time these manipulations are complete, though, it is very difficult to conclude that there is any clear and obvious effect. Infection rates do not seem to vary much between comparable communities regardless of the NPIs that have been introduced. I have yet to see a study that identifies a clear and unequivocal benefit from a mask mandate in the form of an obvious inflection point attributable to the intervention. For all the reasons cited, this would be hard to find so perhaps we should not treat its absence as conclusive proof of a lack of benefit so much as something that is consistent with the RCT evidence that any benefit is likely to be minimal.

The other main source of evidence is laboratory studies of the properties of masks using techniques from physics and engineering. Some studies treat masks as a straightforward air filtration experiment. These are well-controlled and reproducible, but bear little resemblance to real-world conditions. The more sophisticated studies use mannikins to create a jet of air carrying inert particles into a controlled space, mimicking human exhalation. Masks can then be used to interrupt the air flow. The resulting measurements are the basis for computational models that provide more general descriptions of the spread of particles, which may be used to create video simulations. These studies are often elegant but suffer familiar problems in generalising to real-world environments. Within reason, the experimenter can manipulate the average velocity of the jet, the size of particles and the permeability of the mask in ways that aim to mimic breathing at different rates, coughing or sneezing. To get reliable measurements, including video or photographic evidence of the dispersion of the particles, the simulated exhalations must enter still air. Air, however, is never still in the real world. In any space there are thermal currents that are moving air around and dispersing exhalations in ways that are not captured, and probably cannot be captured, by the experimenter in a physically meaningful way. The efficacy of masks is also sensitive to the choice of particle size. If the experimenter favours droplets, larger particles, masks capture these quite well – but they also fall quickly to the ground and are unlikely to be inhaled by anyone at a normal social distance. If the experimenter favours aerosols, smaller particles, these are likely to pass through or around cloth masks, whose pore size is typically significantly larger than the aerosol particles. In which case the masks may filter a small proportion of the particles but probably let most through or around the edges. Where higher quality masks have been mandated, the community evidence runs into the same problems as before.

Having concluded that neither body of evidence is remotely persuasive, he then turns to the potential harms that masks do.

The precautionary principle also requires a proper evaluation of the potential harms. Few such studies have actually been done but relevant issues can readily be identified. Four are clearly important. First, they discriminate against a large group of people with communicative disabilities of speech and hearing, with neurodisabilities, such as autism or Aspergers, or with mental health issues, such as prior trauma from confinement as an abused child or as a survivor of sexual assault. Second, they discriminate against people who have medical consequences such as acute skin infections, eye infections or respiratory infections as a result of mask use. In the pre-pandemic world, such people could find workplaces where these issues were avoided but they cannot escape the mandates. Third, there is the impact on child development, particularly in relation to language and social interaction. The American Academy of Pediatrics claimed that there was no evidence for this, but there is a substantial body of research from psychology, education and linguistics establishing the importance of observing faces, particularly for small children. Fourth, and perhaps hardest to measure, there is the impact on community levels of fear and anxiety. This, indeed, has been the ultimate fall-back for committed advocates of masks – they may not have an impact on the transmission of the virus but they remind everyone that there is a pandemic going on and that they should be cautious every time they set foot outside their home – the safety of the home is assumed, of course. The consequence, of course, is that we are nudged towards regarding our fellow human beings as no more than potential vectors of infection. Everyone is guilty until proven innocent. The trust on which everyday life depends in modern societies is fatally compromised.

He concludes that mask mandates should never have been introduced, given the paucity of the evidence and the lack of research into potential harms.

If we do not think it is acceptable to have our lives ordered in ways that discriminate against large sections of the population, that impair the development of children, that damage the mental health of the nation and that make each of us fearful of the other, then it is time to hold the advocates of masking to account for the quality of evidence. It is simply too fragile to justify coercive measures, whether by the state or by private actors. Why has there been so little investment in RCTs? Why are mask advocates now arguing that RCTs would be unethical because the benefits are obvious, when they patently are not? It is more unethical to perpetuate a practice without evidence than to challenge one’s preconceptions. This is truly how science progresses and debate should be conducted.

Worth reading in full.

August 23, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

The Vapor, the Hot Hat, & the Witches’ Potion

By Margaret Anna Alice | Through The Looking Glass | August 3, 2021

Once upon a time in a prosperous land, a rumor swept across the kingdom that there was an invisible vapor floating through the air. Many vapors had come before, but this one was so extraordinary, it called for an extraordinary response.

This vapor, the town criers cried, could kill you at any time, anywhere. You could get it by talking, breathing, or singing. You could get it by standing or walking too closely to someone. You could even get it by playing. And the scariest thing of all—you could get it and not even know you had it.

The only way to escape was to hide indoors, keep away from people, and rub your hands with a clear jelly every time you touched something. Merchants stopped trading, apprentices stopped learning, and people stopped seeing people.

Every day, the town criers yelled out the number of people who had caught the vapor, although most didn’t know it since they felt the same as usual—just a lot more scared. They only learned they had it because of a certain spell a sorcerer had written down before the vapor came. The sorcerer had said it wasn’t supposed to be cast for vapors and couldn’t tell people if they had caught a vapor or not. But the sorcerer had died, and the king’s counselors decided to cast the spell, anyway, and that is how people found out they had the vapor.

The town criers shouted the latest death tolls so often their voices grew hoarse. Almost every one who died was very, very old or very, very sick or very, very fat. Hardly anyone else died, and at the end of the year, it would turn out about the same number had died as had in other years.

Still, it was a very scary vapor, and the entire kingdom had to change for the good of the public. The land was no longer prosperous, but the king just minted more coins and tossed them out to his subjects so they wouldn’t notice right away.

Eventually, people were told they could come out of hiding and the marketplace could open back up if everyone followed a few rules. They had to wear a hot, scratchy hat that covered their ears and eyes so the vapor couldn’t get into their earholes or eyeholes. They had to hop five times forward and five times backward if they accidentally got too close to another person. And, of course, they had to rub their hands with jelly after touching anything.

Some people thought the hats looked silly and were even a little dangerous since they made it hard for them to hear and see and made them sweat in the summer. The hopping took so much time, people weren’t able to get much done. When those people didn’t wear the hats or hop around, the rest of the people got very, very angry and said it was their fault people were dying and getting sick and couldn’t live the way they used to live. Some even took to wearing two or more hats for extra protection against the anti-hatters and anti-hoppers.

Every so often, the king would tell people to hide back inside again because too many people were catching the vapor. They couldn’t work or shop or visit people they loved. There wasn’t much to do besides lie around listening to the town criers, who always let people know how scared and angry and resentful they should all feel, especially toward the anti-hatters and anti-hoppers.

Suddenly, people started feeling more hopeful. A few witches who were richer than all the world’s kingdoms and queendoms combined offered to make a potion people would need to swallow every so often to keep them safe from the vapor—but it would only work if everyone drank it together.

It took a few months, but eventually the witches each had their own flavor—grape and orange and tropical punch—and they were ready to pour them into people’s mouths. Whenever potions had been made in the past, the witches had had to spend years and years making sure it was safe before giving it to people. This time, though, the vapor was so scary, they skipped all those steps so people could be saved sooner. They even got the king to issue a special decree so no one could hurt the witches if anything bad happened to them after drinking the potion. The king gathered three-quarters of the coins he had collected from the people that year and presented them to the witches.

Almost everybody couldn’t wait to drink the grape or orange or tropical punch potion. They bragged about going to get it and told everyone after they got their first and second drinks. When they came across someone who didn’t want to drink it, they got very, very cross. The town criers told everyone to yell at the anti-drinkers because it was their fault they couldn’t go back to life like it was before the vapor.

Something strange happened after people started drinking the potion. Some of them caught the vapor, anyway, but that was because it was a version of the vapor the witches hadn’t planned for—still, it was important to drink both doses of the potion because it was better than not drinking them. To be safe, though, the town criers said they should go back to wearing hot hats and hopping—although most hadn’t stopped to begin with because they were afraid of what would happen if they did (or worse, they might be mistaken for an anti-hatter, anti-hopper, or anti-drinker).

Even stranger, some of the people who had drunk the potion died either right after or not long after drinking it. Unlike the people who died from the vapor, these people were often very, very young or very, very healthy or very, very fit. The town criers never shouted about these deaths. If anyone brought it up, they called them an anti-hatter, anti-hopper, and anti-drinker.

Being an anti-drinker was the worst of all because everyone knows you need to drink to survive. If you’re against drinking the potion, you must surely be against drinking water, too, and we all know you can’t live without drinking water.

Not everyone who drank the potion died. Some just had peculiar things happen to their bodies. They shook all the time or got rare diseases or noticed parts of their bodies stopped working. They were bedridden or lame or hurt in different ways and couldn’t live the way they did before or even after the vapor. The town criers didn’t tell anyone about these people, either.

And then there were the drinkers who felt perfectly fine … for now. The potion had never been tried for longer than a few months, so no one was really sure what would happen in the next year or two or longer. It was also a different kind of potion than anyone had ever drunk before. This potion changed something inside you that could never be undone. People would also need to drink new versions of the potion every few months, and the king would need to continue giving three-quarters of the kingdom’s coins to the witches forever, or at least as long as the kingdom existed.

All the surviving drinkers were grateful to the witches and thanked them for saving their lives. They proudly displayed a mark on their chin that meant they’d drunk the potion. The ones who’d drunk it twice had two marks.

Those who didn’t have any marks were to blame for the kingdom’s problems. They weren’t permitted to shop in the marketplace or work or apprentice or take part in any public activities. They were shamed and shunned for being a threat to the people of the land. These people started to feel like they should leave the kingdom, but they weren’t allowed to travel without the double marks, and besides, all the other kingdoms and queendoms were the same as theirs, anyway. There wasn’t anyplace left where people weren’t afraid of the vapor and where they didn’t demand that everyone drink the potion.

Soon, the king decided the anti-drinkers were so dangerous, they would need to be locked in a dungeon until they agreed to drink the potion. They were free to choose whichever flavor they liked. If they decided not to drink, they would simply remain in the dungeon. It was entirely up to them.

One year passed, and then another. There were fewer and fewer people left in the kingdom. Eventually, so few people were left, the king could no longer collect enough coins to pay the witches. The rest of the kingdoms and queendoms around the world were in the same fix. They decided to join together into one king-queendom so they could collect enough coins to buy the potion.

After eight more years passed, there weren’t enough people left in all the world to cover the witches’ dues. The rulers decided everything that belonged to the people now belonged to the king-queendom. The people could still live in their hovels, but they wouldn’t own anything. They could earn their keep through labor—indeed, they might be put to work making the potion!

People no longer needed to decide what they wanted to do or be in life because the king-queendom would decide for them. People didn’t need to pay for anything because all the subjects got equally small amounts of the necessities. Everyone looked the same, acted the same, and thought the same.

Most people didn’t remember what it was like before the vapor. Some didn’t even know there was such a time.

The rulers, on the other hand, never wanted for anything. Nor did their friends, the town criers. The witches were the wealthiest of all—and deservedly so, as they had saved the world from the deadly vapor.

It wasn’t long before there were no more subjects. The rulers, the counselors, the town criers, and the witches had all the earth’s riches to themselves, and they lived happily ever after.

If you liked this post from Margaret Anna Alice Through the Looking Glass, why not share it? You can also Buy Me a Coffeedonate via PayPal,

© Margaret Anna Alice, LLC

August 22, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Is Natural Immunity More Effective Than the COVID Shot?

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | August 18, 2021

According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data,1 COVID-19 “cases” have trended downward since peaking during the first and second week of January 2021.

covid-19 cases

At first glance, this decline appears to be occurring in tandem with the rollout of COVID shots. January 1, 2021, only 0.5% of the U.S. population had received a COVID shot. By mid-April, an estimated 31% had received one or more shots,2 and as of July 13, 48.3% were fully “vaccinated.”3

However, as noted in a July 12, 2021, STAT News article,4 “cases” had started their downward trend before COVID shots were widely used. “Following patterns from previous pandemics, the precipitous decline in new cases of Covid-19 started well before a meaningful number of people had been vaccinated,” Robert M. Kaplan, Professor Emeritus at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, writes. He continues:

“Nearly 50 years ago, medical sociologists John and Sonja McKinlay examined5 death rates from 10 serious diseases: tuberculosis, scarlet fever, influenzae, pneumonia, diphtheria, whooping cough, measles, smallpox, typhoid, and polio. In each case, the new therapy or vaccine credited with overcoming it was introduced well after the disease was in decline.

More recently, historian Thomas McKeown noted6 that deaths from bronchitis, pneumonia, and influenza had begun rapidly falling 35 years before the introduction of new medicines that were credited with their conquest. These historical analyses are relevant to the current pandemic.”

‘Case’ Decline Preceded Widespread Implementation of Jab

As noted by Kaplan, COVID-19 “cases” peaked in early January 2021. January 8, more than 300,000 new positive test results were recorded on a daily basis. By February 21, that had declined to a daily new case count of 55,000. COVID-19 gene modification injections were granted emergency use authorization at the end of December 2020, but by February 21, only 5.9% of American adults had been fully vaccinated with two doses.

Despite such a low vaccination rate, new “cases” had declined by 82%. Considering health authorities claim we need 70% of Americans vaccinated in order to achieve herd immunity and stop the spread of this virus, this simply makes no sense. Clearly, the COVID shots had nothing to do with the decline in positive test results.

To be clear, reported cases mean positive test results, and we now know the vast majority of positive PCR tests have been, and still are, false positives. They’re not sick. They simply had a false “positive.” Right now, we’re also faced with yet another situation that complicates attempts at data analysis, and Kaplan understandably did not address any of these confounding factors.

But just so you’re aware, if you have been fully “vaccinated,” then the CDC recommends running the PCR test at a cycle threshold (CT) of 28 or lower, which dramatically lowers your chance of a false positive result, but if you are unvaccinated, the PCR test is recommended to be run at a CT of 40 or higher, virtually guaranteeing a false positive.

This is just one way by which the CDC is manipulating data to make the COVID shots appear more effective than they are. This also allows them to falsely claim that the vast majority of new cases are among the unvaccinated.

Naturally, if unvaccinated are tested in such a way as to maximize false positives, then they’re going to make up the bulk of the so-called caseload. In reality, though, the vast majority of them aren’t sick.

Meanwhile, those who have received the jabs only count as a COVID case if they’re hospitalized and/or die with a positive test result. These widely differing testing strategies skew the data and allow for false interpretations to be made.

Natural Immunity Explains Decline in Cases

As noted by Kaplan, the most reasonable explanation for declining rates of SARS-CoV-2 appears to be natural immunity from previous infections, which vary considerably from state to state.7 He goes on to cite a study8 by the National Institutes of Health, which suggests SARS-CoV-2 prevalence was 4.8 times higher than previously thought, thanks to undiagnosed infection.

In other words, they claim that for every reported positive test result, there were likely nearly five additional people who had the infection but didn’t get a diagnosis. To analyze this data further, Kaplan calculated the natural immunity rate by dividing the new estimated number of people naturally infected by the population of any given state. He writes:9

“By mid-February 2021, an estimated 150 million people in the U.S. (30 million times five) may have had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. By April, I estimated the natural immunity rate to be above 55% in 10 states: Arizona, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin.

At the other end of the continuum, I estimated the natural immunity rate to be below 35% in the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington …

By the end of 2020, new infections were already rapidly declining in nearly all of the 10 states where the majority may have had natural immunity, well before more than a minuscule percentage of Americans were fully vaccinated. In 80% of these states, the day when new cases were at their peak occurred before vaccines were available.

In contrast, the 10 states with lower rates of previous infections were much more likely to experience new upticks in Covid-19 cases in March and April … By the end of May, states with fewer new infections had significantly lower vaccination rates than states with more new infections.”

COVID Shots Cannot Eliminate COVID-19

So, SARS-CoV-2 cases were actually higher in states where natural immunity was low but vaccination rates were high. Meanwhile, in states where natural immunity due to undiagnosed exposure was high, but vaccination rates were low, the daily new caseload was also lower.

This makes sense if natural immunity is highly effective (which, historically it has always been and there’s no reason to suspect SARS-CoV-2 is any different in that regard). It also makes sense if the COVID shots aren’t really offering any significant protection against infection, which we also know is the case.

Vaccine manufacturers have already admitted these COVID shots will not provide immunity, meaning they will not prevent you from being infected. The idea behind these gene modification injections is that if/when you do get infected, you’ll hopefully experience milder symptoms, even though you’re still infectious and can spread the virus to others.

Kaplan ends his analysis by saying that COVID shots are a safer way to achieve herd immunity, and that they are “the best tool available for assuring that the smoldering fire of [COVID-19] is extinguished.” I disagree, based on two major issues.

First, and perhaps most importantly, this is an untested “vaccine” and we have no idea of the short-term let alone long-term damage it will cause, as any reasonable effort at collecting this data has been actively suppressed. Secondly, the survivability of COVID-19 outside of nursing homes is 99.74%. If you’re under the age of 40, your chance of surviving a bout of COVID-19 is 99.99%.10,11,12

You can’t really improve your chances of surviving beyond that, so COVID shots cannot realistically end the pandemic. Meanwhile, the COVID shots come with an ever-growing list of potential side effects that can take years if not decades off your natural life span. The shots are particularly unnecessary for anyone with natural immunity,13 yet that’s what the CDC recommends.14

Why Push COVID Jab on Those with Natural Immunity?

In January 2021, Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, a cardiac surgeon and patient advocate, sent a public letter15 to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration commissioner detailing the risks of vaccinating individuals who have previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2, or who have an active SARS-CoV-2 infection.

He urged the FDA to require prescreening for SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins to reduce the risk of injuries and deaths following vaccination, as the vaccine may trigger an adverse immune response in those who have already been infected with the virus. In March 2021, Fox TV host Tucker Carlson interviewed him about these risks. In that interview, Noorchashm said:16

“I think it’s a dramatic error on part of public health officials to try to put this vaccine into a one-size-fits-all paradigm … We’re going to take this problem we have with the COVID-19 pandemic, where a half-percent of the population is susceptible to dying, and compound it by causing totally avoidable harm by vaccinating people who are already infected …

The signal is deafening, the people who are having complications or adverse events are the people who have recently or are currently or previously infected [with COVID]. I don’t think we can ignore this.”

In an email to The Defender, Noorchashm fleshed out his concerns, saying:17

“Viral antigens persist in the tissues of the naturally infected for months. When the vaccine is used too early after a natural infection, or worse during an active infection, the vaccine force activates a powerful immune response that attacks the tissues where the natural viral antigens are persisting. This, I suggest, is the cause of the high level of adverse events and, likely deaths, we are seeing in the recently infected following vaccination.”

Despite being widely ignored, Noorchashm continues to push for the implementation of prevaccine screening using PCR or rapid antigen testing to determine whether the individual has an active infection, and an IgG antibody test to determine past infection.

If either test is positive, he recommends delaying vaccination for a minimum of three to six months to allow your IgG levels to wane. At that point, he recommends testing your blood IgG level and use that as a guide to decide the timing of your vaccination.

Those with Natural Immunity Have Higher Risk of Side Effects

Mere weeks after Noorchashm’s letter to the FDA, an international survey18 confirmed his concerns. After surveying 2,002 people who had received a first dose of COVID-19 vaccine, they found that those who had previously had COVID-19 experienced “significantly increased incidence and severity” of side effects, compared to those who did not have natural immunity.

The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were linked to a higher incidence of side effects compared to the viral vector-based COVID-19 vaccines, but tended to be milder, local reactions. Systemic reactions, such as anaphylaxis, flu-like illness and breathlessness, were more likely to occur with the viral vector COVID-19 vaccines.

Like Noorchashm before them, the researchers called on health officials to reevaluate their vaccination recommendations for people who’ve had COVID-19:19

“People with prior COVID-19 exposure were largely excluded from the vaccine trials and, as a result, the safety and reactogenicity of the vaccines in this population have not been previously fully evaluated. For the first time, this study demonstrates a significant association between prior COVID19 infection and a significantly higher incidence and severity of self-reported side effects after vaccination for COVID-19.

Consistently, compared to the first dose of the vaccine, we found an increased incidence and severity of self-reported side effects after the second dose, when recipients had been previously exposed to viral antigen.

In view of the rapidly accumulating data demonstrating that COVID-19 survivors generally have adequate natural immunity for at least 6 months, it may be appropriate to re-evaluate the recommendation for immediate vaccination of this group.”

CDC Misrepresents Data to Push Jab on Those with Immunity

So far, the CDC has refused to change its stance on the matter. Instead, officials at the agency seem to have doubled down and actually go out of their way to misrepresent data in an effort to harass those with natural immunity to inappropriately take the jab, which is clearly clinically unnecessary.

In a report issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) December 18, 2020, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was said to have “consistent high efficacy” of 92% or more among people with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.20

After looking at the Pfizer trial data, Rep. Thomas Massie — a Republican Congressman for Kentucky and an award-winning scientist in his own right — discovered that’s completely wrong. In a January 30, 2021, Full Measure report, investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson described how Massie tried, in vain, to get the CDC to correct its error. According to Massie:21,22

“There is no efficacy demonstrated in the Pfizer trial among participants with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infections and actually there’s no proof in the Moderna trial either …

It [the CDC report] says the exact opposite of what the data says. They’re giving people the impression that this vaccine will save your life, or save you from suffering, even if you’ve already had the virus and recovered, which has not been demonstrated in either the Pfizer or the Moderna trial.”

After multiple phone calls, CDC deputy director Dr. Anne Schuchat finally acknowledged the error and told Massie it would be fixed. “As you note correctly, there is not sufficient analysis to show that in the subset of only the people with prior infection, there’s efficacy. So, you’re correct that that sentence is wrong and that we need to make a correction of it,” Schuchat said in the recorded call.

January 29, 2021, the CDC issued its supposed correction, but rather than fix the error, they simply rephrased the mistake in a different way. This was the “correction” they issued:

“Consistent high efficacy (≥92%) was observed across age, sex, race, and ethnicity categories and among persons with underlying medical conditions. Efficacy was similarly high in a secondary analysis including participants both with or without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

As you can see, the “correction” still misleadingly suggests that vaccination is effective for those previously infected, even though the data showed no such thing. Children of ever-younger ages are also being pushed to get the COVID jab, even though they have the absolute lowest risk of dying from COVID-19 of any group.

Data23 from the first 12 months of the pandemic in the U.K. show just 25 people under the age of 18 died from or with COVID-19.24 In all, 251 children under 18 were admitted to intensive care between March 2020 and February 2021. The absolute risk of death from COVID-19 in children is 2 in 1 million.

Vaccine Provides Far Less Protection Than Natural Immunity

While some claim vaccine-induced immunity offers greater protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection than natural immunity, historical and current real-world data simply fail to support this non-common sense assertion.

As recently reported by Attkisson25,26 and David Rosenberg 7 Israeli National News,27 recent Israeli data show those who have received the COVID jab are 6.72 times more likely to get infected than people who have recovered from natural infection.

Among the 7,700 new COVID cases diagnosed so far during the current wave of infections that began in May 2021, 39% were vaccinated (about 3,000 cases), 1% (72 patients) had recovered from a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and 60% were neither vaccinated nor previously infected. Israeli National News notes:28

“With a total of 835,792 Israelis known to have recovered from the virus, the 72 instances of reinfection amount to 0.0086% of people who were already infected with COVID.

By contrast, Israelis who were vaccinated were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after natural infection, with over 3,000 of the 5,193,499, or 0.0578%, of Israelis who were vaccinated getting infected in the latest wave.”

Breakthrough Infections Are on the Rise

Other Israeli data also suggest the limited protection offered by the COVID shot is rapidly eroding. August 1, 2021, director of Israel’s Public Health Services, Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis, announced half of all COVID-19 infections were among the fully vaccinated.29 Signs of more serious disease among fully vaccinated are also emerging, she said, particularly in those over the age of 60.

Even worse, August 5, Dr. Kobi Haviv, director of the Herzog Hospital in Jerusalem, appeared on Channel 13 News, reporting that 95% of severely ill COVID-19 patients are fully vaccinated, and that they make up 85% to 90% of COVID-related hospitalizations overall.30

Other areas where a clear majority of residents have been vaccinated are also seeing spikes in breakthrough cases. In Gibraltar, which has a 99% COVID jab compliance rate, COVID cases have risen by 2,500% since June 1, 2021.31

US Outbreak Shatters ‘Pandemic of Unvaccinated’ Narrative

An investigation by the CDC32,33 also dispels the narrative that we’re in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.” An outbreak in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, resulted in 469 new COVID cases among residents who had traveled into town between July 3 and July 17, 2021.

Of these cases, 74% were fully vaccinated, as were 80% of those requiring hospitalization.Most, but not all, had the Delta variant of the virus. The CDC also found that fully vaccinated individuals who contract the infection had as high a viral load in their nasal passages as unvaccinated individuals who got infected.34 This means the vaccinated are just as infectious as the unvaccinated. According to Attkisson:35

“CDC’s newest findings on so-called ‘breakthrough’ infections in vaccinated people are mirrored by other data releases. Illinois health officials recently announced36 more than 160 fully-vaccinated people have died of Covid-19, and at least 644 been hospitalized; 10 deaths and 51 hospitalizations counted in the prior week …

In July, New Jersey reported 49 fully vaccinated residents had died of Covid; 27 in Louisiana; 80 in Massachusetts … Nationally, as of July 12, CDC said it was aware of more than 4,400 people who got Covid-19 after being fully vaccinated and had to be hospitalized; and 1,063 fully vaccinated people who died of Covid.”

It is important to note this data is over 1 month old now and it is likely that many thousands of fully “vaccinated” have now died from COVID-19.

Natural Immunity Appears Robust and Long-Lasting

An argument we’re starting to hear more of now is that even though natural immunity after recovery from infection appears to be quite good, “we don’t know how long it’ll last.” This is rather disingenuous, seeing how natural immunity is typically lifelong, and studies have shown natural immunity against SARS-CoV-2 is at bare minimum longer lasting than vaccine-induced immunity.

Here’s a sampling of scholarly publications that have investigated natural immunity as it pertains to SARS-CoV-2 infection. There are several more in addition to these:

Science Immunology October 202038 found that “RBD-targeted antibodies are excellent markers of previous and recent infection, that differential isotype measurements can help distinguish between recent and older infections, and that IgG responses persist over the first few months after infection and are highly correlated with neutralizing antibodies.”

The BMJ January 202139 concluded that “Of 11, 000 health care workers who had proved evidence of infection during the first wave of the pandemic in the U.K. between March and April 2020, none had symptomatic reinfection in the second wave of the virus between October and November 2020.”

Science February 202140 reported that “Substantial immune memory is generated after COVID-19, involving all four major types of immune memory [antibodies, memory B cells, memory CD8+ T cells, and memory CD4+ T cells]. About 95% of subjects retained immune memory at ~6 months after infection. Circulating antibody titers were not predictive of T cell memory.

Thus, simple serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies do not reflect the richness and durability of immune memory to SARS-CoV-2.” A 2,800-person study found no symptomatic reinfections over a ~118-day window, and a 1,246-person study observed no symptomatic reinfections over 6 months.

A February 2021 study posted on the prepublication server medRxiv41 concluded that “Natural infection appears to elicit strong protection against reinfection with an efficacy ~95% for at least seven months.”

An April 2021 study posted on medRxiv42 reported “the overall estimated level of protection from prior SARS-CoV-2 infection for documented infection is 94.8%; hospitalization 94.1%; and severe illness 96·4%. Our results question the need to vaccinate previously-infected individuals.”

Another April 2021 study posted on the preprint server BioRxiv43 concluded that “following a typical case of mild COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cells not only persist but continuously differentiate in a coordinated fashion well into convalescence, into a state characteristic of long-lived, self-renewing memory.”

A May 2020 report in the journal Immunity 44 confirmed that SARS-CoV-2-specific neutralizing antibodies are detected in COVID-19 convalescent subjects, as well as cellular immune responses. Here, they found that neutralizing antibody titers do correlate with the number of virus-specific T cells.

A May 2021 Nature article45 found SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells, which are a crucial source of protective antibodies. Even after mild infection, anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibodies were detectable beyond 11 months’ post-infection.

A May 2021 study in E Clinical Medicine 46 found “antibody detection is possible for almost a year post-natural infection of COVID-19.” According to the authors, “Based on current evidence, we hypothesize that antibodies to both S and N-proteins after natural infection may persist for longer than previously thought, thereby providing evidence of sustainability that may influence post-pandemic planning.”

Cure-Hub data47 confirm that while COVID shots can generate higher antibody levels than natural infection, this does not mean vaccine-induced immunity is more protective. Importantly, natural immunity confers much wider protection as your body recognizes all five proteins of the virus and not just one. With the COVID shot, your body only recognizes one of these proteins, the spike protein.

A June 2021 Nature article48 points out that “Wang et al. show that, between 6 and 12 months after infection, the concentration of neutralizing antibodies remains unchanged. That the acute immune reaction extends even beyond six months is suggested by the authors’ analysis of SARS-CoV-2-specific memory B cells in the blood of the convalescent individuals over the course of the year.

These memory B cells continuously enhance the reactivity of their SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies through a process known as somatic hypermutation. The good news is that the evidence thus far predicts that infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces long-term immunity in most individuals.”

Another June Nature paper concluded that “In the absence of vaccination antibody reactivity [to the receptor binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2], neutralizing activity and the number of RBD-specific memory B cells remain relatively stable from 6 to 12 months.” According to the authors, the data suggest “immunity in convalescent individuals will be very long lasting.”

What Makes Natural Immunity Superior?

The reason natural immunity is superior to vaccine-induced immunity is because viruses contain five different proteins. The COVID shot induces antibodies against just one of those proteins, the spike protein, and no T cell immunity. When you’re infected with the whole virus, you develop antibodies against all parts of the virus, plus memory T cells.

This also means natural immunity offers better protection against variants, as it recognizes several parts of the virus. If there are significant alternations to the spike protein, as with the Delta variant, vaccine-induced immunity can be evaded. Not so with natural immunity, as the other proteins are still recognized and attacked.

Not only that but the COVID jabs actually actively promote the production of variants for which they provide virtually no protection at all, while those with natural immunity do not cause variants and are nearly universally protected against them.

If we are to depend on vaccine-induced immunity, as public health officials are urging us to do, we’ll end up on a never-ending booster treadmill. Boosters will absolutely be necessary, as the shot offers such narrow protection against a single protein of the virus. Already, Moderna has publicly stated that the need for additional boosters is expected.

Ultimately It’s About Wealth Transfer, Power and Control

Government agencies typically don’t issue recommendations without ulterior motives. Since current recommendations make absolutely no sense from a medical and scientific standpoint, what might the reason be for these illogical and reprehensibly unethical recommendations to inject people who don’t need it with experimental gene modification technology?

Why are they so hell-bent on getting a needle in every arm? And why are they refusing to perform any kind of risk-benefit analysis?

Data already indicate these COVID-19 injections could be the most dangerous medical product we’ve ever seen, and a June 24, 2021, peer-reviewed study published in the medical journal Vaccines warned we are in fact killing nearly as many with the shots as would die from COVID-19 itself.50

Using data from a large Israeli field study and two European drug reactions databases, they recalculated the NNTV for Pfizer’s mRNA shot. To prevent one case of COVID-19, anywhere between 200 and 700 had to be injected. To prevent a single death, the NNTV was between 9,000 and 50,000, with 16,000 as a point estimate.

Meanwhile, the number of people reporting adverse reactions from the shots was 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. For serious side effects, there were 16 reports per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects was 4.11 per 100,000 vaccinations.

The final calculation suggested that for every three COVID-19 deaths prevented, two died from the shots. “This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy,” the authors concluded.

As has become the trend, a letter expressing “concern” about the study was published June 28, 2021, resulting in the paper being abruptly retracted July 2, 2021, against the authors’ objections. They disagreed with the accusation that their data and subsequent conclusion were misrepresentative, but the paper was retracted before they had time to publish a rebuttal.

Based on everything we’ve discovered so far, it seems a pandemic virus industrial complex is running the show, with a goal to eliminate medical rights and personal freedoms in order to centralize power, control and wealth.

By the looks of things, the COVID-19 mass psychosis and loss of any rational thinking by nearly half the population will continue to persist as long as the propaganda continues. Fear will continue and if need be, other engineered viruses may be released, for which they’ll create even more gene modification injections.

I believe the truth will eventually be so overwhelming, it’ll sweep away the confusion and the lies.

Sources and References

August 18, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Perspectives on the Pandemic – Episode 19 – DR. PETER MCCULLOUGH (1 OF 2)

Perspectives on the Pandemic, August 14, 2021

Renowned physician and professor of medicine Dr. Peter McCullough describes early treatment protocols for COVID-19 that have saved countless lives… and the forces that have aligned themselves against their widespread adoption.

Below are resources for early outpatient treatment:

https://aapsonline.org/
https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/math-plus-protocol/
https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33315116/

The following are the references cited by Dr. McCullough in our interview:

https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(20)30673-2/fulltext
https://scholarlycommons.henryford.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1139&context=infectiousdiseases_articles
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34051877/
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2767593
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202007.0025/v1
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34130113/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w#Sec4
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-lab-testing-2021.1-eng
https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html
https://jameslyonsweiler.com/2021/01/31/follow-the-science-not-mere-authority-on-covid19-pcr-false-positive-rates/
https://www.hackensackmeridianhealth.org/press-releases/2021/01/19/hackensack-meridians-john-theurer-cancer-center-jtcc-observational-study-suggests-role-for-hydroxycholorquine-as-outpatient-treatment-for-covid-19-infection/
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#Comorbidities
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext
https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306987721001419

August 18, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | Leave a comment

Can ‘Big Brother’ Save You From a Virus?

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | August 17, 2021

In June 2021, the U.S. National Security Council released a new “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism” document.1 While it’s being largely framed as a tool to fight White supremacy and political extremism, the definition of what constitutes a “domestic terrorist” is incredibly vague and based on ideologies rather than specific behaviors.

It’s not difficult to imagine this policy being used to silence political opposition simply by labeling anyone who disagrees with the government as a domestic terrorist and charging them with a hate crime.

We’re already seeing signs suggesting that this is the path we’re on. July 28, 2021, Dr. Peter Hotez published a paper2 in PLOS Biology titled “Mounting Antiscience Aggression in the United States,” in which he suggests criticizing Dr. Anthony Fauci and other scientists ought to be labeled a “hate crime.” Commenting on the paper, Paul Joseph Watson at Summit News writes:3

“This is yet another transparent effort to dehumanize anti-lockdown protesters and demonize people who merely want to exercise bodily autonomy while elevating Fauci and his ilk to Pope-like status. Science isn’t supposed to be a religious dogma that is set in stone, it’s an ever-evolving knowledge base that changes and improves thanks to dissent and skepticism.”

Science Depends on Questioning and Challenging Assumptions

Attorney Jonathan Turley also responded to Hotez’s paper in an August 4, 2021, blog post, saying:4

“’Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.’ Feynman’s statement captures how science depends upon constant questioning and challenging of assumptions …

[T]here remain important debates over not just the underlying science relation to Covid-19 but the implications for such science for public policies. Criminalizing aspects of that debate would ratchet up the threats against those with dissenting views, including some scientists. That would harm not just free speech but science in the long run.”

Should We Have Protected Classes That Cannot Be Questioned?

Turley also points out how making scientists a protected class (and one would assume only those with specific political leanings) is a slippery slope that will likely have unwieldy ramifications:5

“The federal hate crime laws focus on basis of a person’s characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity. We have seen calls for adding professions like police officers, which I also opposed.

As with police officers, the inclusion of such professions would have a direct and inimical impact on free speech in our society. Indeed, it would create a slippery slope as other professions demand inclusion from reporters to ministers to physicians. Hate crimes would quickly apply to a wide array of people due to their occupations.”

Will America Accept No-Fly List for Unvaccinated?

Writing for The Atlantic,6 former assistant secretary for Homeland Security Juliette Kayyem posits that people who do not want to be part of the COVID injection experiment “need to bear the burden” when it comes to preventing the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

“The number of COVID-19 cases keeps growing, even though remarkably safe, effective vaccines are widely available,” Kayyem writes.7 “Many public agencies are responding by reimposing masking rules on everyone.

But at this stage of the pandemic, tougher universal restrictions are not the solution to continuing viral spread. While flying, vaccinated people should no longer carry the burden for unvaccinated people.

The White House has rejected a nationwide vaccine mandate … but a no-fly list for unvaccinated adults is an obvious step that the federal government should take.

It will help limit the risk of transmission at destinations where unvaccinated people travel — and, by setting norms that restrict certain privileges to vaccinated people, will also help raise the stagnant vaccination rates that are keeping both the economy and society from fully recovering.”

Travel Ban Identified as Effective Coercion Strategy

According to Kayyem, traveling in general and flying in particular is not a human right, and putting unvaccinated individuals on a no-fly list is a matter of national security, in the sense that the country needs to protect itself from people capable of spreading this dangerous virus.

She makes no mention of the scientifically confirmed fact that none of the COVID shots actually prevent you from getting infected, and that “vaccinated” individuals carry the same viral load as the unvaccinated,8,9 which means they’re just as infectious. The main difference is that vaccinated individuals might not realize that they’re carriers, as the primary effect when the injections do work is lessening symptoms of infection.

Kayyem also cites a New York Times and Kaiser Family Foundation poll in which 41% of unvaccinated respondents had said prohibition on airline travel would sway their decision, including 11% of those “adamantly opposed” to vaccination. In other words, where free doughnuts and million-dollar lotteries have failed to coerce people to get the shot, an airline travel ban might do the trick.

Despite her former position within government, she makes no mention of laws forbidding coercion of medical volunteers, such as the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 46 (subpart A, the Belmont report),10 the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights treaty,11 the Declaration of Helsinki12 or the Nuremberg Code.13 Supreme court rulings have also clarified that Americans have the right to choose their own health care in general.14,15

Reframing to Confuse the Issue

Kayyem suggests circumventing such basic human rights by reframing the issue. She writes:16

“The public debate about making vaccination a precondition for travel, employment, and other activities has described this approach as vaccine mandates, a term that … suggests that unvaccinated people are being ordered around arbitrarily.

What is actually going on, mostly, is that institutions are shifting burdens to unvaccinated people … rather than imposing greater burdens on everyone.

Americans still have a choice to go unvaccinated, but that means giving up on certain societal benefits. Nobody has a constitutional right to attend The Lion King on Broadway or work at Disney or Walmart … People who still want to wait and see about the vaccines can continue doing so. They just can’t keep pushing all the costs on everyone else.”

As pointed out by Swift Headline,17 the owner of Atlantic magazine, Laurene Powell Jobs, the billionaire widow of Steve Jobs, owns two private jets herself, giving her the freedom to fly around the world at will, regardless what vaccine mandates might be in place. Many other ultra-rich individuals would also be able to ignore the rules due to wealth alone, essentially turning them into a protected class. Swift Headline points out this projection:18

“The Atlantic went on to say unvaccinated people who are exercising their individual rights as free Americans ‘do not deserve’ to be a ‘protected class’ …

Jobs’s wealth and class status is detailed in Breitbart News’ Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow’s book, ‘Breaking the News: Exposing the Establishment Media’s Hidden Deals and Secret Corruptions,’ which ‘exposes the hidden connections between the establishment media and the activist left.’

As Marlow details, Jobs’s past is a privileged one … Jobs ‘married well and inherited a lot of money, and her wealth is tied up in some of world’s biggest companies,’ Marlow continues. ‘She is the establishment.’”

The Price of Admission to Society

August 2, 2021, the San Francisco Chronicle also published an opinion piece19 by the Chronicle editorial board, in which they suggested we ought to “Make vaccination the price of admission to society.” One way to evaluate the reasonableness of such a proposition is to replace COVID “vaccination” with anything else. How about: “Make proof of contraception use the price of admission to bars and nightclubs.”

“Make clear skin the price of admission to gyms and public swimming pools.” “Make being taller than 5’ 9” the price of admission to theme parks.” “Make having a BMI below 25 the price of admission to airline flights.” “Make proof of not having an illness the price of admission to in-hospital care.”

According to the Chronicle editorial board, “the unvaccinated account for over 95% of hospitalizations and deaths.”20 The board does not cite where it got that data from, so let’s review the source of that data.

In an August 5, 2021, video statement, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky noted that this statistic was obtained by looking at hospitalization and mortality data from January through June 2021 — a timeframe during which the vast majority of the United States population were unvaccinated.

When you look at more recent data, the trend is swinging in the opposite direction.

January 1, 2021, only 0.5% of the U.S. population had received a COVID shot. By mid-April, an estimated 31% had received one or more shots,21 and as of June 15, 48.7% were fully “vaccinated.”22

The CDC has also pointed out that you are not considered “fully vaccinated” until two weeks after your second dose (in the case of Pfizer or Moderna), which is given six weeks after your first shot.23 This means that if you receive your first dose on June 1, you won’t be “fully vaccinated” until eight weeks later, around August 1.

So, the narrative that we’re in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” was created by using statistics from a time period when the U.S. as a whole was largely unvaccinated. When you look at more recent data, the trend is swinging in the opposite direction.

Vaccinated Now Comprise the Bulk of Hospitalizations

For example, August 1, 2021, Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis, director of Israel’s Public Health Services, announced half of all COVID-19 infections were among the fully vaccinated.24

A few days later, August 5, Dr. Kobi Haviv, director of the Herzog Hospital in Jerusalem, appeared on Channel 13 News, reporting that 95% of severely ill COVID-19 patients are fully vaccinated, and that they make up 85% to 90% of COVID related hospitalizations overall.25

In Scotland, official data on hospitalizations and deaths show 87% of those who have died from COVID-19 in the third wave that began in early July were vaccinated,26 and in Gibraltar, which has a 99% COVID jab compliance rate, COVID cases have risen by 2,500% since June 1, 2021.27

A CDC investigation of an outbreak in Barnstable County, Massachusetts between July 6 through July 25, 2021, found 74% of those who received a diagnosis of COVID19, and 80% of hospitalizations, were among the fully vaccinated.28,29 Most, but not all, had the Delta variant.

“What the breakthrough cases appear to show is that the delta variant of the coronavirus is more easily carried and transmitted by vaccinated people than its predecessors,” the Chronicle editorial board writes.30

“In any case, the greater apparent transmissibility of the variant makes it that much more important to protect as many people as possible from severe COVID by increasing inoculation rates.”

What the board appears to be saying is that unvaccinated people must be protected against severe infection, against their will, if need be, and the best way to do that is to discriminate against them and treat them like second-class citizens.

Again, a simple way to check the reasonableness of this argument is to swap out the COVID reference for something else. How about, “It’s important to protect as many people as possible from dying in car accidents by raising car prices so fewer people can get behind the wheel.”

Can ‘Big Brother’ Save You From a Virus?

As early as April 2020, The Times in the U.K. weighed in with similar suggestions, stating “We need Big Brother to beat this virus.”31 Clare Foges, the author of the piece in question, went on to say, “Don’t let the civil liberties lobby blind us to the fact that greater state surveillance, including ID cards, is required.”

The argument that Big Brother can protect us from infection is ludicrous on its face, because no amount of people surveillance can prevent microscopic viruses from circulating.

The No. 1 place of viral spread is in institutions, such as nursing homes and hospitals, yet the staff within them are among the most well-trained in pathogenic control. If trained hospital staff can’t prevent the spread of viruses, how can government officials do it?

Importantly, the argument that we need vaccine passports to prove we’re “clean” enough to participate in society immediately falls apart when you take into account the fact that the COVID shots do not provide immunity. You can still be infected, carry the virus and spread it to others.

We’ve already seen several examples of situations where 100% of people were fully “vaccinated” against COVID-19 yet an outbreak occurred. We’ve even seen over 100 fully COVID injected people die from COVID in one state alone, Massachusetts,32 so it is likely there are now many thousands of fully “vaccinated” who have died from COVID.

Even a 100% Vaccination Rate Cannot Eliminate COVID

Most recently, Carnival cruise lines experienced an outbreak despite every last person on that ship having proof of COVID “vaccination.”33 The cruise liner had even intentionally reduced capacity from 4,000 to 2,800 to provide ample social distancing capability. None of the measures worked. People got sick anyway, which makes perfect sense if you remember that the shot doesn’t provide immunity, only symptom reduction.

Cases such as these clearly reveal that even if everyone gets the shot, SARS-CoV-2 will mutate and continue to circulate, taking people out here and there. To think that giving up basic rights and freedoms is the answer simply isn’t logical. Taking responsibility for your own health is, and that includes deciding if and how you want to protect yourself from SARS-CoV-2.

Not everyone is deathly afraid of COVID-19. Many realize there are safe and effective treatments available, such as the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance’s I-MASS Prevention and At-Home Treatment protocol and I-MASK+ Early Outpatient Treatment protocol.

Nebulized hydrogen peroxide can also be used for prevention and treatment of COVID-19, as detailed in Dr. David Brownstein’s case paper34 and Dr. Thomas Levy’s free e-book, “Rapid Virus Recovery.” And if there’s effective treatment, there’s little need to risk permanent side effects from an experimental gene technology that can only provide a narrow range of protection in the first place.

August 17, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

CDC Records: 12,791 DEAD and 682,873 Injuries Following COVID-19 Experimental Shots

By Brian Shilhavy | Health Impact News | August 16, 2021

According to the most recent stats released by the CDC this past Saturday, August 14, 2021, their Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) now has recorded more than twice as many deaths following the non-FDA approved experimental COVID-19 shots during the past 8 and a half months, than deaths recorded following ALL FDA approved vaccines for the past 30 years.

This has to be the most censored information in the U.S. right now, even though these statistics come directly from the CDC.

They have now recorded 12,791 deaths, 16,044 permanent disabilities, 70,667 emergency room visits, 51,242 hospitalizations, 13,139 life threatening events, among 682,873 reported injuries from 571,831 cases.

The CDC’s official response to these statistics is that they are basically coincidences, and are not related to the experimental COVID-19 shots.

Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. (Source.)

Trusting in the CDC for COVID-19 safety information is quite obviously deadly. Because it is widely known that these statistics that they admit to are but a fraction of actual cases, as very few medical professionals are willing to classify an injury or death as caused by COVID-19 injections.

By way of contrast, deaths following all FDA-approved vaccines for the 30 years prior to the emergency use authorizations of the COVID-19 shots total 6,068 over 30 years according to the CDC.

What are NOT included in these 12,791 deaths the CDC is reporting following COVID-19 shots, are the number of fetal deaths following COVID-19 injections into pregnant women, which now numbers 1,360 deaths according to the CDC.

Source

The FDA and CDC Serve Big Pharma – Not the Public

The Big Pharma cartel is now fully in control of just about every aspect of our lives. They own the corporate media which is not reporting any of these statistics from VAERS, and they control the health agencies like the NIH, the CDC, and the FDA.

They are rushing now to remove the emergency use authorization on these COVID-19 shots, so that they can legally be mandated, and the Pentagon has already stated that they will mandate them for the U.S. Military in September.

The FDA has also just recently approved a 3rd booster COVID-19 shot “for those who are immunocompromised.”

Los Angeles County started offering these 3rd Pfizer COVID-19 shots this past weekend.

Anthony Fauci did the Sunday talk show tour yesterday, and stated that Americans need to surrender their liberties (yes, he actually said that) because we are all fighting a common enemy, “the virus.”

In addition, the Department of Homeland Security has now issued a bulletin declaring that anyone who questions COVID-19 measures like masks and “vaccines” are potential “domestic terrorists.”

They are using a bogus COVID-19 “outbreak” called the “Delta variant,” and the CDC has already been caught lying about who are actually being hospitalized right now, falsely stating that the “unvaccinated” are filling up hospitals, when almost the exact opposite is happening around the world.

Israel, Australia Report 95-99% Hospitalized are Fully Vaccinated

August 16, 2021 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

The IPCC Report & the Pivot from Covid to Climate

The New Normal brigade are prepping us for a change of direction

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | August 16, 2021

The latest IPCC report on climate change was released last week, and has signalled a sea-change in the ongoing “big issue”. The Pandemic was fun while it lasted, but it’s time it faded back and we got on with the next stage.

That’s not just my interpretation either, they are quite literally saying it themselves.

Usually, when there’s a big narrative shift looming, you can find one key article that tells you everything you need to know about the plan. For the IPCC report, it’s this iNews article by Andrew Marr. Where he literally uses the phrase “hinge to climate from Covid” several times:

“There is a great turn coming, a change in the terms of political debate, a period of hinge. We are swinging from the many months of coronavirus obsession into an autumn which will be dominated, rightly, by the climate emergency. But much of what we have learned from Covid-19 – about the state, authority, journalism and civil society – is directly applicable to what’s coming next.”

The media have, naturally, been full of headlines on the IPCC report, with varying degrees of alarmism and insanity.

“It’s now or never!” screams the Guardian as a “climate reckoning” is upon us. The Sun calls it a “full fledged arson attack on the planet!

But none of them outline just what the next few months have in store for us better than Marr. The goblinoid face of the establishment, who nauseatingly cheered on Blair in Iraq, can always be relied upon to keep on message. He’s always right there saying the right thing at the right time. And this piece is no exception.

He headlines “Treat people like grown-ups and they will fight climate change like Covid-19”, adding [our emphasis]:

“Education works. We are following the science and as we continue to do so, we will successfully tackle climate-change issues in the same way we faced down the coronavirus.”

He never outright states what this “same way” is, exactly, but it’s not really hard to imagine what he means. His article isn’t about the future, anyway, it’s all about the past.

It’s tracking the tools deployed during the “pandemic”, and how effective they were. A performance review for the politicians and “journalists” who have successfully parlayed a “virus” that poses almost zero danger to the general public into a full-fledged remodelling of society.

He points out how politicians under-estimated how willingly people would leverage their freedoms:

“To begin with [Western leaders] worried that voters would not accept restrictions on their liberties for the greater good. By and large, they were wrong. […] This shaped how Germans, Americans, the French and British – and many more – responded, and allowed societies to change direction faster than anyone would have predicted.”

How easily the media were able to spread misinformation that controlled public opinion:

“The media, so often blamed for almost everything, found new ways to explain complex scientific arguments in ways that most people understood.”

And how these lessons can be applied to messaging on climate change going forward:

“This is a core lesson that needs to be learned, as we hinge from Covid to climate. Public understanding of science has become a security issue. Without it, there will be no public support for the hard decisions on transport, heating and land use.”

The whole thing reads that way, like a cross between a press release and a progress report. Appearing a blithe opinion piece to the uninitiated, but having a clear second layer of meaning to those who know how to read it.

There are throwaway lines propping up globalism (“how little nature notices national borders”), and brief praise for China’s authoritarian government vs the West’s “slapdash” approach and “tardy lockdowns”, but those are B plots.

The story here is “hey guys, this all worked much better than we thought it would, we could do the same thing for climate change”.

DOES THIS MEAN THAT THE PANDEMIC IS OVER?

Not “over”, but certainly on the decline. It’s obvious that the press are prepping the groundwork to leave Covid behind, and turn their focus to the next stage of the Great Reset.

But, all that said, it will be a difficult sell. Harder than Covid, in some ways, because people are so much more used to climate alarm calls. For want of a better word, they have become somewhat immune to it.

What’s more, the establishment clearly knows this, because they’re keeping the pandemic warm on the backburner. Ready to bring it back to the boil should the need arise.

We’re being told the disease will be endemic, but that “Delta has changed the endgame” and that “herd immunity is impossible

The pandemic is becoming a new forever war, akin to the war on terror. We won’t ever win it, but it will disappear from headlines until they need to shock or distract people.

Marr, for example, doesn’t declare the pandemic over, instead he says:

“The pandemic is not, of course, yet over. It will end raggedly and slowly; and politicians who proclaim victory will quickly sound foolish[…]it will probably feel as if we have beaten this thing.”

Before adding the ubiquitous riders that will keep the “threat” of the Covid alive in the public imagination:

“The Delta variant may be the most contagious virus ever [and] can reinfect the double-vaccinated […] Britain is going to face a period of “bumpiness” in transmission rates and uncertainty about the near future […] the winter may be tough […] Booster jabs will become routine.”

There’s clearly a plan in place. He practically spells it out, claiming Covid19 will be pushed off the front pages…

“Though not every day… this will be bumpy. There will be sudden scares about the emergence of a possible new variant somewhere unexpected; and urgent questions about biosecurity at Heathrow. There will be stories about outbreaks in care homes, or a sudden spike in infections in particular age or ethnic groups.”

Do you see what he’s saying yet?

The pandemic isn’t over, it will just “feel” like it is, while they fill the front pages with big red numbers about climate change.

If people don’t respond to those big red numbers the way they should… well, there just might be another variant. Maybe a racist one.

The pandemic has served its purpose, but they won’t end it yet. Not until they’re sure everyone is good and scared of something else.

SO WHAT COMES NEXT?

It’s not hard to see exactly where this all leads. Mostly because they’re telling us.

Establishment voices have already talked about “climate lockdowns”, and the UK’s Science Advisor Patrick Vallance wrote, last week, about how:

“nothing short of transforming society will avert catastrophe”

This isn’t new. This has been bubbling along in the background for months (I have already written two articles about it), but the message is being refined into a simple three-step process:

  1. Point out all the ways Covid and climate change are similar.
  2. Emphasise that Climate Change is much more of a threat than Covid. Use the word “existential.” A lot.
  3. Argue that since we were willing to change to fight Covid, we should do the same for climate.[optional]

You can see it in Marr’s article.

The comparison:

“The interesting thing is that so much of the world’s experience during the pandemic relates quite closely to the climate crisis – our human interrelatedness, the importance of effective governance, the centrality of science and its communication.”

Followed by the “covid is worse” [my emphasis]:

“Of course, the two challenges are different. So far, a little over 4.3 million people have died from Covid. Australian and Chinese academics estimate that around five million people are dying each year from the effects of climate change […] Suffice it to say that even if the Delta variant is the most infectious disease mankind has so far faced, the climate emergency is at another level – a reshaper of geography, highly unpredictable and, in short, existential for the planet and its inhabitants.”

Patrick Vallance does the same in his article in the Guardian, and then again in The Times. There are several others along the same lines, such as this one from the Hill, or this one from the International Monetary Fund.

It’s also apparent that the same tactics of demonising any opposition and attempting to turn it into an opportunity to virtue-signal will be used. There are lots of articles comparing “covid denial” and “climate denial”, or otherwise attempting to politicise the issue.

So, the way they’re going to talk about (or should we say say “market”?) climate change action is fairly clear. But what are these hypothetical actions going to be?

Are we seeing any hints as to what this “transformation of society” might entail? Or what these “tough decisions” could be?

Well, there were whispers of climate lockdowns, but they have died away since the outraged reaction. There’s always talk of other schemes, like limiting flightsoutlawing beef and “personal carbon allowances”, but these are hardly new.

Andrew Marr’s article contains a couple of hints. But the only specific policy he mentions is forcing households to replace their boilers (“at a high cost to millions of families”), and this somewhat creepy allusion to the importance of the Deep State:

“A final lesson is that Westminster and the state are two very different things. The state includes the NHS, national science labs, networks of experts […] I now feel we should spend less time on the distracting national puppet show and more time thinking about what I might delicately call the deeper sources of authority.”

(Attacking democracy for hampering “drastic efforts” is a concerning trend, one to watch out for)

Mostly, though, the mainstream voices are being very quiet on specifics. I suspect partly to stop the spread of what Marr calls “an outbreak of conspiracy theories in new media”, but mostly because they’re not sure exactly what they want to do yet, and they don’t believe the majority mentally prepared enough.

The COP26 Climate Summit in Glasgow, this November, will be something to keep an eye on. Expect a lot of scary stories in the weeks leading up to it, and then a lot of “policy recommendations” in its wake.

We’re pivoting to climate change guys. Great Reset Phase II is upon us.

August 16, 2021 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

The Lies Behind the ‘Pandemic of Unvaxxed’

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | August 16, 2021

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the White House and most mainstream media, what we have now is a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”1

According to the official narrative, 99% of COVID-19 deaths and 95% of COVID-related hospitalizations are occurring among the unvaccinated. In a July 16, 2021, White House press briefing,2 CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky claimed “over 97% of people who are entering the hospital right now are unvaccinated.”

But as reported by Fox News anchor Laura Ingraham on “The Ingraham Angle,” “that statistic is grossly misleading,”3 and in an August 5, 2021, video statement, Walensky inadvertently revealed how that 95% to 99% statistic was created.

Grossly Misleading Data Manipulation

As it turns out, to achieve those statistics, the CDC included hospitalization and mortality data from January through June 2021. It does not include more recent data or data related to the Delta variant, which is now the most prevalent strain in circulation. The problem is, the vast majority of the United States population was unvaccinated during that timeframe.

January 1, 2021, only 0.5% of the U.S. population had received a COVID shot. By mid-April, an estimated 31% had received one or more shots,4 and as of June 15, 48.7% were fully “vaccinated.”5 Keep in mind that you’re not “fully vaccinated” until two weeks after your second dose (in the case of Pfizer or Moderna), which is given six weeks after your first shot. This is according to the CDC.6

So, those receiving an initial dose in June, for example, won’t be “fully vaccinated” until eight weeks later, sometime in July or August.

By using statistics from a time period when the U.S. as a whole was largely unvaccinated, the CDC is now claiming we’re in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” in an effort to demonize those who still have not agreed to receive this experimental gene modification injection.

Selective Pressure Promotes Emergence of New Variants

Here’s what Canadian viral immunologist and vaccine researcher Dr. Byram Bridle told Ingraham about the claim that we’re in a pandemic of the unvaxxed, and that the unvaccinated are hotbeds for dangerous variants:

“Absolutely, it’s untrue to be calling this a pandemic of the unvaccinated. And it’s certainly untrue … that the unvaccinated are somehow driving the emergence of the novel variants. This goes against every scientific principle that we understand.

The reality is, the nature of the vaccines we are using right now, and the way we’re rolling them out, are going to be applying selective pressure to this virus to promote the emergence of new variants. Again, this is based on sound principles.

We have to look no further than … the emergence of antibiotic resistance … The principle is this: If you have a biological entity that is prone to mutation — and the SARS-CoV-2, like all coronaviruses is prone to mutation — and you apply a narrowly focused selective pressure that is nonlethal, and you do this over a long period of time, this is the recipe for driving the emergence of novel variants.

This is exactly what we’re doing. Our vaccines are focused on a single protein of the virus, so the virus only has to alter one protein, and the vaccines don’t come close to providing sterilizing immunity.

People who are vaccinated still get infected, it only seems particularly good at blunting the disease, and what that tells you therefore is that these vaccines in the vast majority of people are applying a nonlethal pressure, narrowly focused on one protein, and the vaccine rollout is occurring over a long period of time. That’s the recipe for driving variants.”

Natural Immunity Offers Far Superior Protection

Bridle also explains why natural immunity offers robust protection against all variants, whereas vaccine-induced immunity can’t. When you acquire the infection naturally, your body develops antibodies against ALL of the viral proteins whereas the COVID shots only trigger antibodies against one, namely the spike protein.

As mentioned above, when you have antibodies against just one of the viral proteins, the virus only needs to mutate that one protein in order to evade your immune system. When you have natural immunity, on the other hand, your antibodies will recognize all parts of the virus, so even if the spike protein is mutated, your body will recognize other parts of the virus and mount an attack against those.

That SARS-CoV-2 works the same way other viruses do was shown in a Nature Reviews Immunology study7 by Alessandro Sette and Shane Crotty, published in October 2020. The study, “Cross-Reactive Memory T Cells and Herd Immunity to SARS-CoV-2” argued that naturally-acquired immunity against SARS-CoV-2 is potent, long-lasting and very broad in scope, as you develop both antibodies and T cells that target multiple components of the virus and not just one.

If we are to depend on vaccine-induced immunity, as public health officials are urging us to do, we’ll end up on a never-ending booster treadmill. Boosters will absolutely be necessary, as the shot offers such narrow protection against a single protein of the virus. Already, data around the world show vaccine-induced protection is waning rapidly in the face of new variants, and Moderna has publicly stated that the need for additional boosters is expected.8

How Dangerous Is the Delta Variant?

According to Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Delta variant is both more transmissible and more dangerous than the original virus and previous variants. July 4, 2021, he told NBC News:9

“It is more effective and efficient in its ability to transmit from person to person. And studies that we’ve seen where they have been the variant that’s dominated in other countries, it’s clear that it appears to be more lethal in the sense of more serious — allow you to get more serious disease leading to hospitalization, and in some cases leading to deaths.”

In a June 29, 2021, interview,10 Fauci called the Delta variant “a game-changer” for unvaccinated people, warning it will devastate the unvaccinated population while vaccinated individuals are protected against it.

Remember, Fauci is not a clinician and has never treated someone infected with SARS-CoV-2. Other health experts and practicing physicians who treat COVID-19 patients disagree with Fauci’s claims, arguing that not only is the Delta variant not more dangerous, it’s certainly not more dangerous for the unvaccinated.

As reported by Ingraham in June 2021 (video above), there’s an evolutionary genetics theory called Muller’s Ratchet, which states that as an outbreak starts to peter out, the virus tends to mutate into a more transmissible form, but at the same time it grows weaker, causing far less serious infection. According to epidemiologist and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, this is exactly what we’re seeing. He told Ingraham:

“The good news is on the 18th of June, the United Kingdom presented their 16th report11 on the mutations — and they’re doing a great job, much better than our CDC — and what they demonstrated is that the Delta is more contagious but it’s far less deadly, far less worrisome. In fact, it’s a much weaker virus than both the U.K. [Alpha] and the South African [Beta] variants.”

Spike Mutations Render Vaccinated Vulnerable to Delta

Importantly, the Delta variant contains three different mutations, all in the spike protein. This, McCullough explains, allows this variant to evade the immune responses in those who have received the COVID jabs — but not those who have natural immunity which, again, is much broader. In a June 30, 2021, appearance on Fox News, McCullough stated:12

“It is very clear from the UK Technical Briefing13 that was published June 18th that the vaccine provides no protection against the Delta variant. It’s a very mild variant.

Whether you get the vaccine or not, patients will get some very mild symptoms like a cold and they can be easily managed … Patients who have severe symptoms or at high risk, we can use simple drug combinations at home and get them through the illness. So, there’s no reason now to push vaccinations.”

Children’s Health Defense chief scientific officer Brian Hooker, Ph.D., has echoed McCullough’s sentiments. The Defender quotes Hooker:14

“What we’re seeing is virus evolution 101. Viruses like to survive, so killing the host (i.e. the human who is infected) defeats the purpose because killing the host kills the virus, too. For this reason, new variants of viruses that circulate widely through the population tend to become more transmissive but less pathogenic. In other words, they will spread more easily from person to person, but they will cause less damage to the host.

The vaccine focuses on the spike protein, whereas natural immunity focuses on the entire virus.

Natural immunity — with a more diverse array of antibodies and T-cell receptors — will provide better protection overall as it has more targets in which to attack the virus, whereas vaccine-derived immunity only focuses on one portion of the virus, in this case, the spike protein. Once that portion of the virus has mutated sufficiently, the vaccine no longer is effective.”

Real-World Data Show Most of Infected are Fully ‘Vaccinated’

Real-world data from areas with high COVID jab rates show the complete converse of what media, the CDC and White House officials are telling us. In addition to the British Technical Briefing No. 16,15 cited above, we have additional data from Israel, Scotland, Massachusetts and Gibraltar:

August 1, 2021, director of Israel’s Public Health Services, Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis, announced half of all COVID-19 infections were among the fully vaccinated.16 Signs of more serious disease among fully vaccinated are also emerging, she said, particularly in those over the age of 60.

A few days later, August 5, Dr. Kobi Haviv, director of the Herzog Hospital in Jerusalem, appeared on Channel 13 News, reporting that 95% of severely ill COVID-19 patients are fully vaccinated, and that they make up 85% to 90% of COVID-related hospitalizations overall.17 As of August 2, 2021, 66.9% of Israelis had received at least one dose of Pfizer’s injection, which is used exclusively in Israel; 62.2% had received two doses.18

In Scotland, official data on hospitalizations and deaths show 87% of those who have died from COVID-19 in the third wave that began in early July were vaccinated.19

A CDC investigation of an outbreak in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, between July 6 through July 25, 2021, found 74% of those who received a diagnosis of COVID19, and 80% of hospitalizations, were among the fully vaccinated.20,21 Most, but not all, had the Delta variant of the virus.

The CDC also found that fully vaccinated individuals who contract the infection have as high a viral load in their nasal passages as unvaccinated individuals who get infected.22 This means the vaccinated are just as infectious as the unvaccinated.

In Gibraltar, which has a 99% COVID jab compliance rate, COVID cases have risen by 2,500% since June 1, 2021.23

While those who benefit from keeping the pandemic going would like you to cower in fear at the thought of the Delta variant, there’s really no evidence that it’s any worse than the original. It’s more transmissible, yes, but far less dangerous, as its primary symptoms are that of a regular cold.

According to Harvard and Stanford professors, the actual number of Americans dying from or with COVID-19 are actually at an all-time low, so alarmism is uncalled for.24

And, as for viral social media posts by doctors and nurses claiming hospitals are overflowing with unvaccinated COVID patients, don’t believe them. Most are bots. We’ve repeatedly seen evidence that fearmongering is being spread not by real people but by fake accounts run by artificial intelligence. This includes blue check accounts. Here’s a sampling of recent bot farm tweets trying to scare everyone:25

bot farm tweets
bot farm tweet

Don’t Fear It, Just Treat It

In closing, remember there are several different treatment protocols for COVID-19 that appear just as effective for variants as for the original virus, including the following:

Sources and References

August 16, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment