Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Canadian Politician Derek Sloan Uses Parliament Hill to Give Voices to Censored Doctors and Scientists Blowing the Whistle on COVID-19 Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity

By Brian Shilhavy | Health Impact News | June 18, 2021

One of our many dear Canadian subscribers emailed me a link to a press conference given in Ontario yesterday at Parliament Hill.

PM Derek Sloan arranged the press conference, and invited Dr. Bryan Bridle, Dr. Patrick Phillips, and Dr. Donald Welsh to give short presentations on how good doctors and scientists are being censored in Canada, and being harassed and threatened for speaking the truth, which is not getting out to the masses.

These men are true heroes! They have put their careers and lives on the line to speak the truth about the genocide currently being carried out and the crimes against humanity over the COVID-19 response and bioweapon shots.

PM Derek Sloan stated:

“I’ve consistently stood up for Canadians, where no other federal party would.”

He issued a call for whistleblowers within the medical and scientific community in Ontario to contact him. Shocking stories were told, and all agreed that their stories were not being told in either Parliament or the national media.

So he did this press conference on Parliament Hill.

Dr. Bryan Bridle then spoke, explaining how he has been slandered, harassed, and attacked with fake social media accounts put up in his name. His own colleagues have attacked him, and given out confidential medical information about his own parents. His career has been destroyed for speaking out. He says:

“I don’t recognize the country I was born into.”

Dr. Patrick Phillips was next and stated that due to the lockdowns:

“I’ve never seen so many suicidal children.”

He also related how on April 30th the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario came out with a very “chilling statement,”  basically stating that only approved COVID measures could be discussed with patients, no proven effective early treatments like Ivermectin could be discussed, that Vitamin D is “fake” news, and they were not allowed to say anything negative about the COVID-19 shots.

Basically they just want people to die. That’s the apparent goal.

Threatening to take his license to practice medicine away for promoting early treatments like Ivermectin, he was not willing to let patients die:

“There’s something bigger going on than my medical career at this point, because lives are being lost and we need to speak out.”

Dr. Donald Welsh came next and gave an impassioned talk about the death of science in Canada.

This is from our Rumble channel, and it is also on our Bitchute channel.

June 19, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Florida gov. DeSantis declares victory as federal judge slaps down CDC ‘overreach’ on Covid-19 cruise ship rules

RT | June 19, 2021

Cruise ships may soon operate out of Florida once again, as Governor Ron DeSantis notched a court victory against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in an epic injunction order blasting the “authoritarian” agency.

US District Judge Steven Douglas Merryday on Friday granted Florida’s request to block the CDC “conditional sailing” order against cruise lines. The injunction won’t go into effect until July 18, however, at which point the CDC orders to cruise operators will be considered non-binding considerations, recommendations or guidelines.

“The CDC has been wrong all along, and they knew it,” said the Republican governor, announcing the decision. “The CDC and the Biden Administration concocted a plan to sink the cruise industry, hiding behind bureaucratic delay and lawsuits. Today, we are securing this victory for Florida families, for the cruise industry, and for every state that wants to preserve its rights in the face of unprecedented federal overreach.”

Florida sued the CDC for irreparable harm after some cruise lines threatened to leave the state due to the onerous and burdensome conditions imposed in October 2020 and renewed in April. Among other things, the CDC required cruise operators to build testing laboratories on board, re-do the ship ventilations systems, and have at least 98% of the crew and 95% of the passengers – including children – vaccinated in order to bypass a requirement for simulated cruises first.

Merryday’s exhaustive 124-page ruling seemed to be designed to withstand Supreme Court scrutiny, referencing multiple justices, circuit precedents, case and statutory law, and even history of the CDC and quarantines. He zeroed in on the CDC’s understanding of its authority, however, pointing out that its lawyers repeatedly defined an “outbreak” as even a single instance of human-to-human virus transmission.

By doing so, the CDC claims authority to impose nationwide any measure whatsoever, based only on its director’s discretionary finding of “necessity,” wrote Merryday, calling it “a breathtaking, unprecedented, and acutely and singularly authoritarian claim.”

“One is left to wonder,” the judge wrote, whether the CDC could have tried to “generally shut down sexual intercourse” in the US to prevent the transmission of AIDS, syphilis or herpes. “Political prudence (and difficulty of enforcement) might counsel CDC against this particular prohibition, but the statute, as understood by CDC, certainly erects no barrier,” he noted – then proceeded to reject that understanding.

Merryday’s drubbing of the CDC authority even cited the May ruling by his colleague in DC, Judge Dabney L. Friedrich, which clocked in at only 20 or so pages but disputed the agency’s right to impose a nationwide moratorium on eviction of delinquent renters.

More than 13 million cruise passengers and crew embarked or disembarked in Florida in 2019, patronizing the state’s economy. The cruise industry’s return will be “an important milestone in the fight for freedom,” DeSantis added, pointing out that Florida “continues to thrive while open for business.”

Under DeSantis, Florida has led the way in relaxing Covid-19 restrictions. He has even publicly regretted implementing any lockdowns in the first place.

June 18, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , | Leave a comment

Nerd immunity is the way forward

By Andy Lambeth | The Conservative Woman | June 19, 2021

WE learnt on Monday that lockdown restrictions are being extended for one more month. Like millions of others up and down the country I was shocked and quite deflated by this depressing news. However, having had time to reflect, I feel certain that there is a very cunning plan behind Boris Johnson’s seemingly pointless and cowardly dithering. You may disagree and be of the opinion that if someone looks and sounds like a pathetic, spineless, lying nincompoop then he is indeed a pathetic, spineless, lying nincompoop. It’s a fair point, but please hear me out on this one.

People are still very frightened. They have been queuing up in their thousands to get vaccinated and now eighty per cent of the population has had at least one jab. But this still is not enough to make us feel safe, hence the substantial support for vaccine passports and now child vaccination. Face masks are still everywhere. Not only do we see masks where they are a legal requirement but also on the high street and in the park. Many people are wearing them in their cars and on their bicycles. The other day I saw my neighbour wearing one in his back garden. The really worrying thing is that he was in his swimming pool at the time. Recent polls suggest that eighty per cent of people are completely behind Covid restrictions and a large majority want them to continue until we are all completely safe from the virus. There is genuine fear amongst people everywhere and there is a very good reason for this: They have all become nerds.

This pandemic of nerdishness has completely beleaguered this once brave nation of ours. We have become a society of hopeless, wretched supernerds. We put on our nerdy masks to go to the pub, where we check in with our nerdy apps and clean our hands with nerdy hand sanitiser. When inside we greet our friends with a nerdy elbow rub. We take our nerdy mask off to sit down and socialise and then we put it on again to go to the loo. Our level of nerdishness makes Mr Bean look like James Bond. Many of us who find all of this weird do it anyway because we are too nerdy to realise nothing will happen to us if we refuse. Nerdishness has become ingrained into our psyche and our British way of life.

Mr Johnson is faced with the impossible task of putting an end to all this strange behaviour. He cannot simply say the virus has disappeared, because no one would believe him. On the other hand it would be political suicide for him to admit that the whole thing was an overreaction in the first place. His only option is to give people the opportunity, one by one, to come to that realisation themselves and to develop the confidence to start acting like normal people. In other words we need to develop nerd immunity. This cannot be achieved by the government lifting restrictions: it can only be achieved by them doing the very opposite and pushing our patience and tolerance to its limits. Johnson must therefore ensure that we all have continued exposure to never-ending, ridiculous coronavirus regulations until we build up a natural resistance to it and stop acting like frightened little nerds.

So how does the human body actually develop nerd immunity? I put this question to Professor Dai Ifyougettit, Head of Immunology at Cardiff University Hospital. The professor recounted the story of Kevin, one of the volunteers in his clinical study group, who has fully recovered from being a nerd. When this all started back in March 2020, like many people Kevin thought the pandemic was just as deadly as the Spanish flu of 1918. However, increased exposure to Covid news conferences on the BBC made Kevin start to wonder if things were being exaggerated. As restrictions became more ludicrous and unnecessary Kevin began to start questioning things. The official narrative just didn’t add up and even David Icke began to make a bit more sense than Matt Hancock. ‘I hadn’t become a Covid denier or a conspiracy theorist as such,’ Kevin said, ‘but I had serious doubts about what the Government was telling us.’

Professor Ifyougettit explained how Kevin’s change in perception was the body’s immune system doing its job. To protect him from nerdishness Kevin’s internal defences had forced him to do something that did not come naturally: critical thinking. Some individuals may have major concerns about the adverse side effects of critical thinking and are therefore hesitant. However, if we are to achieve nerd immunity we will all have to be more open to thinking critically. Just one application of critical thinking would be enough to give someone sixty per cent nerd immunity but another one a few weeks later would give up to ninety per cent. After that, critical thinking boosters might be needed. I asked the professor if a stronger dose of critical thinking would offer complete protection from nerdishness. ‘No, it is important to get the dose exactly right,’ he said. ‘Too much critical thinking can cause adverse side effects, such as making you even nerdier.’

Many people are asking why the situation is so different in the US. In particular, states such as Florida and Texas have already made excellent progress with their levels of nerd immunity. I questioned one of the epidemiologists working with the Government advisory body NERDTAG (New and Emerging Really Dorkish Threats Advisory Group). She told me it is likely that progress in some American states has been possible due to pre-existing levels of immunity against nerdishness. On average Americans are a little less nerdy than Brits so they may have had some protection already. She said that the estimated level of nerd immunity in the UK is currently standing at about ten per cent but this has to rise to at least fifty per cent if we are ever to return to normal.

Clearly we have some way to go and so Boris Johnson is doing exactly the right thing in having us on for a little longer until the penny drops. If restrictions are simply lifted at this stage we are under serious threat of a third wave of nerdishness. This would be utterly disastrous for both the country and the Government. Mr Johnson really has no choice but to remain in lockdown and continue his Simple Simon routine until all age groups have been given the opportunity and the incentive to think critically about their nerdish compliance.

Of course some people might argue that although this is a clever and pragmatic strategy there is a hefty price to pay for it. UK debt is over two trillion pounds already and it is rising all the time. More financial compensation will be necessary for any continuation of lockdown measures and so we will undoubtedly need to borrow even more money. However, anyone who knows anything about getting into debt will tell you what you need to do when you cannot afford to pay off what you owe. You borrow more. Then you keep borrowing more and more until paying it back is absolutely inconceivable. That is the only way you can get your debt written off.

So we’re in this for the long haul. There are no easy solutions and we are all going to have to grin and bear it. But don’t despair because if we go through enough pain, nerd immunity will be the light at the end of the tunnel.

June 18, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Willem Engel Interview – The Fight For Freedom In The COVID Age & The Battle For Our Very Humanity

Willem Engel has been neutralized by the Netherlands/EU Totalitarian Regime

By Taylor Hudak | The Last American Vagabond | June 16, 2021

Joining me today is scientist and activist Willem Engel, here to discuss his ongoing legal efforts to fight back against what many are referring to as  ‘crimes against humanity’ being committed under the guise of fighting COVID-19 – and rightly so – as well as what’s at the center of this battle, and that is the fight for humanity itself.

(https://www.rokfin.com/TLAVagabond)
(https://odysee.com/@TLAVagabond:5)
(https://www.bitchute.com/channel/24yVcta8zEjY/)

Source Links:

https://viruswaarheid.nl

https://www.irishtimes.com/topics/topics-7.1213540?article=true&tag_person=Willem+Engel

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56084466

https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2021/02/police-backpedal-on-congratulations-for-curfew-court-case-win/

https://netherlandsnewslive.com/virus-truth-leader-willem-engel-must-go-to-court-for-sedition-inland/118325/

June 18, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

They Denied A Lab Leak At Wuhan. They Are Wrong About Other Things.

By Mary Beth Pfeiffer | Trial Site News | June 16, 2021

After months of denial, the U.S. government has acknowledged that the COVID-19 catastrophe may indeed have originated in a leak from a laboratory in Wuhan, China.

We are now allowed to talk about what until May 13 was a debunked conspiracy theory. Like many facets of the pandemic of our age, Wuhan was censored with the dreaded “disinformation” label, on Facebook and just about everywhere else. Not anymore.

The Wuhan debacle shows what happens when public health institutions have too much power, and the media plays mouthpiece rather than watchdog. Truth suffers. So does trust.

This commentary isn’t about the media’s wholesale buy-in of a possibly mythical pangolin that caused a pandemic.

This is about other potential Wuhans — issues that social and mainstream media have put to rest and closed to honest examination. We are told: Vaccines are safe. Lockdowns are just. We must protect, and be protected from, children. All those statements should be open to debate — and dispute.

I have spent the last eight months attacking another insidious COVID myth. It holds that there is no early treatment.

This actual disinformation has led to deaths and debility. In reporting it, the guardians of media have endowed public figures and institutions with wisdom they surely did not and do not have. Once definitive, Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health and Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus of the World Health Organization have reversed themselves on a potential Wuhan lab leak.

Then: “Extremely unlikely,” WHO said after a cursory probe.

Now: “Not convinced” the virus came from nature, said Fauci.

What else might they have gotten wrong?

‘Trusted’ News

Just months into the pandemic, research suggested that a handful of approved generic drugs could potentially quell COVID and save lives. By late last year, a safe drug that won its developers the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2015 had risen to the top: ivermectin.

Fifty-eight trials now show this 40-year-old drug, off patent since 1997, greatly reduces the ravages of COVID. It lessens severity, lowers hospitalization, and saves lives. Significantly, it also prevents infection.

That few Americans know this is a direct result of two things: First is an unreasonably high, and shifting, bar set by the NIH, FDA and WHO, which collectively reject, cherry-pick or ignore what is now a trove of studies. Second is a media campaign that upholds the anti-IVM dictum, using charged language – from “controversial” to “snake oil” — that makes doctors, medical journals and other media fearful of backlash.

In a case of government propaganda, the Food and Drug Administration actually warned against ivermectin last spring, based, it said, on “multiple” people sickened by an animal formulation, which turned out to be four. Moreover, FDA admitted it “hadn’t studied” the considerable data then available on treatment with the human form.

As government failed us, mainstream and social media did something unique in modern history. Google, YouTube, Facebook, BBC, Washington Post, Associated Press, Reuters and others conspired to shape content and coverage in the government’s image.

They called it, ironically, the Trusted News Initiative. It existed to ferret out falsehoods and declare certainty in a rapidly changing information landscape. The media became a COVID fact-checking apparatus, devoid of nuance or meaningful investigation.

In the wake of Wuhan relevations, some outlets are now correcting the record.

Vaccine OR Treatment

From the start, there was no room for both vaccines and treatments under the statute that has allowed millions of Americans to be vaccinated with an unlicensed, largely unstudied substance. The key mechanism on which this turned was the vaccine’s “Emergency Use Authorization,” which can be granted by the FDA only if there is “no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing or treating” a disease.

But even as the vaccine was minimally tested and maximally hyped, there was an alternative. Ivermectin.

“It’s the most effective antiviral agent we have,” Dr. Paul E. Marik, co-founder of Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, said in a conversation for this article. “If the WHO was to say that or the NIH — were they to approve ivermectin — the EUA for all the vaccines would become invalid.”

Ivermectin, said FLCCC president Dr. Pierre Kory, “would kneecap the entire global vaccine policy around the world.”

The choice was always vaccines OR treatment. Not both. Operation Warp Speed spent three times as much — $18 billion — to develop a vaccine as it did to develop a treatment. Moreover, money for therapeutics went largely toward costly new drugs, some of which failed and others still in development.

The media did not question the oversight of existing drugs and emerging research. Instead, it became an arm of government in a shared single fixed goal: Vaccinate quickly and at any expense.

A Year Lost

America’s COVID Czar Anthony Fauci predicted in July of 2020 that an antiviral would be available by that fall. Then, last December he said his “highest priority” was a quick-acting COVID drug. In reality, NIH waited until April 29, 2021 to announce a large study of safety-tested, FDA-approved drugs. That was roughly 400 days – and nearly 600,000 U.S. deaths — into the pandemic.

Forget a few dozen studies – most from other countries — that universally agreed on ivermectin’s efficacy. Forget a peer-reviewed meta-analysis that showed 83 percent fewer deaths. Forget the experiences of hundreds of real treating doctors in the U.S. and around the world.

Viewed in the kindest possible way, that delay, that lost year, wasn’t so much intentional as institutionalized. U.S. treatments are driven by the integral and outsized influence of pharmaceutical money on the regulatory process, and no one was putting up $20 million for what are considered, questionably, the “gold-standard” of evidence-based medicine: randomized control trials.

Dr. Robert Malone, a vaccine researcher and inventor of mRNA technology, went bankrupt trying to repurpose old antiviral drugs to treat the Zika virus in the 2010s. “The investment community had zero interest because there’s no way to make a buck,” he said in a must-see podcast on pandemic missteps. “The financial incentives around drug repurposing are such that it doesn’t get done.”

Ivermectin is the penicillin of COVID, particularly when combined with other generics like fluvoxamine and the vilified but effective hydroxychloroquine. Now, however, as at the start of COVID, newly infected patients are still denied treatment and turned back into the community, often to infect others.

As Malone put it, “We’re sending people home and telling them not to come back until your lips are blue.”

“Were this a hundred years ago,” a Pennsylvania opthamologist named Neil Chasin told me months ago, “and Ivermectin was available, it would be used everywhere.”

Media Sees No Evil

The dereliction of duty, by the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal (with the Wuhan exception), Associated Press, USA Today and other media giants, likely cost many thousands of lives. The questions that were never asked, the issues never investigated, include:

–In April 2020, Fauci endorsed the high-priced anti-viral remdesivir, calling it the “standard of care” before the first study was published. Did anyone in those investigative powerhouses question the financial ties between the NIH and the drug’s maker, Gilead? Did they care that the study showed no mortality improvement, and the trial’s endpoint was changed to improve benefits so marginal that the WHO advises against the drug?

–Hospitals vehemently oppose ivermectin, forcing some patients’ families to obtain court orders to get it. Does this comport with their liberal use of treatments like monoclonal antibodies and convalescent plasma that are still considered experimental? Just 19 deaths were associated with ivermectin in 20 years; 503 were linked to remdesivir in its first year. Annualized, that’s roughly a 500-fold higher toll for remdesivir. Why is ivermectin — safe, FDA-approved — not used off-label, especially in dying ICU patients, when the potential harm is miniscule?

–The COVID pandemic has led to the most widespread, government-sanctioned wave of censorship and authoritarian message control in American history. Rather than fighting this, the media carries the water. When Merck disingenuously disavowed ivermectin’s safety — a drug it gave away by the billion in a life-saving campaign against parasites — widespread media reports failed to note the company’s potential to make big money on patented new drugs on which it was already working.

–More importantly, the evidence in favor of ivermectin aligns so uniformly that the odds of it being wrong are infinitesimal. Why not read the studies? Why not talk to doctors who have used the drug and patients who have taken it?

The unholy alliance of media and money was foreshadowed at a 2016 conference on preparation for the next SARS epidemic. There, Peter Daszak, whose NIH funding for virus research in China is under scrutiny, emphasized the need to use the press. He is quoted in the proceedings:

“A key driver is the media, and the economics follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage … Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of process, Daszak stated.”

So far, the hype has prevailed. But it can be wrong. Can we now talk about ivermectin?

***

Mary Beth Pfeiffer is an investigative journalist and author of two books. A list of her article links can be found here.

June 17, 2021 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Are the Covid-19 vaccines “safe and effective”?

Steve Kirsch | Trial Site News | June 16, 2021

A video presentation by Steve Kirsch, Executive Director of the Covid-19 Early Treatment Fund.

Watch Video at Trial Site News

Are there any risks associated with the COVID-19 vaccines currently authorized on an emergency use basis by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)? Presently three genetic-based vaccines have been authorized via the emergency order including two mRNA-based vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech) as well as the adenovirus-based Johnson and Johnson product. Developed at historical speed under Operation Warp Speed, the mRNA-based technology foretells enormous implications for healthcare including the prospect of vaccines for cancer. An amazing research prowess has unfolded in response to the COVID-19 pandemic heralding profound breakthroughs that’ll benefit society for years to come. Governmental authorities have declared the vaccines both safe and effective and as TrialSite recently reported based on a change of law that waives the need for informed consent with investigational products. Both the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and FDA have declared that the risk-benefit analyses strongly indicate the risks of not getting a vaccination outweigh any risk of vaccination. They argue that the risks associated with COVID-19 are materially greater. Moreover, health authorities are on record that there is absolutely no correlation associated with the COVID-19 vaccines to any deaths as indicated by the CDC declaration. But have they sufficiently probed and pursued granular investigation into their own data? Have they undertaken the comprehensive  analyses associated with what in the CDC VAERS is now close to 6,000 deaths. Are all of these unrelated to the vaccines? Steve Kirsch, the founder and executive director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF),  a regular contributor to the TrialSite recently conducted a more systematic and thorough analysis of the VAERS and CDC adverse event and death numbers reported in conjunction with the COVID-19 vaccines. The results are disturbing to say the least. TrialSite offers no opinion here other than the presentation of the highly successful MIT-trained engineer who has invested millions of his own funds into early stage treatment options targeting COVID-19. What follows is a summary of his deep dive into VAERS presented in this video.

Official CDC Position

The CDC is on the record that the now nearly 6,000 deaths reported in VAERS since December 2020, including “A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccine.”

The analysis provided by Kirsch suggests that while nearly 6,000 are now entered into the voluntary system, he suggests the actual number could be undercounted by a magnitude of up to 5 times and a review of direct CDC excess death data indicates what the notable entrepreneur counts as 25,000 deaths that could be associated with the coronavirus vaccines.

The Presentation

The Kirsch presentation starts with an introduction to the CDC Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System known as VAERS with a review of some key indicators including reported deaths. Open to the public, he reveals by June 4th the following adverse events were associated with the COVID-19 vaccines:

Reported Event #s
Deaths 5,088
Hospitalizations 19,587
Urgent Care 43,891
Office Visits 58,800
Heart Attacks 2,190
Anaphylaxis 1,459
Bells Palsy 1,737
Thrombocytopenia/Low Platelet 1,564
Myocarditis/Pericarditis 1,087

A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines.

At 12:15 into the presentation Mr. Kirsch reveals a data distribution revealing a dramatic spike in deaths associated with the COVID-19. Moreover in this data analysis it’s revealed that the majority of deaths occur closer to the actual time of the vaccination event indicating a higher probability of a causal relationship.

At 12:49 he presents the data findings indicating that overwhelming the incidents of heart attacks associated with the VAERS COVID-19 vaccine spike within a day to three days after the vaccination event.  He also emphasizes that the indication of Myocarditis/Pericarditis actually increases with vaccination as age decreases which is counter intuitive in that young people should have less probability of experiencing such heart related troubles. Is the vaccine causally connected to this data?

At 15:51 in the presentation Kirsch depicts again the growing numbers of deaths corresponding to the release of the vaccines under emergency use authorization by mid-December 2020. At 18:55 he reveals a corresponding increase in excess deaths reported by the CDC.

Kirsch goes on at 26:13 to discuss the imperative to consider a time out in the process to at least investigate these safety data signals.  At 28:09 Kirsch raises the imperative for informed consent under the Declaration of Helsinki. Although as TrialSite reported the law was changed in 2016 thus waiving the need for informed consent with investigational products deemed safe.

At 32:22 Mr. Kirsch discusses early treatment options for COVID-19.  He shares that considerable research has gone on pointing to a number of potential treatments for early onset COVID-19 that can serve to help combat COVID-19.  A risk-benefit comparison at 41:50 showcases at least one argument that early stage treatments currently under study should be accelerated.

The presenter offers a plethora of other information that merits review for those interested in a debate on this topic.

Kirsch commented on the findings “The narrative is that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective but the truth is that the data points to an otherwise alternative conclusion.”  Kirsch declared that “if anyone was paying attention they would have picked up these safety signals by the end of January.”

Data-Driven Truth or Random Coincidence?

TrialSIte cannot advocate one position over another but rather can serve to share information that fits within the guidelines of the platform for purposes of discussion and hopefully healthy debate.  This isn’t a platform for attacking others but rather one that fosters awareness, transparency and engagement.  The data present in the CDC VAERS database as well as the CDC death reports do indicate a material spike in activity associated with the coronavirus vaccines.  Does the CDC’s position that none of these deaths are conclusively correlated to the vaccine itself despite the data in this presentation revealing a disturbing trend of adverse events and death within a day to three days within the vaccination event?  It’s not clear but TrialSite invites the CDC and others on to the platform to put forth an explanation.

June 17, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

NHS GP witnessed first-hand the catastrophic way Matt Hancock failed the old and vulnerable

By Malcolm Kendrick | RT | June 14, 2021

The Health Secretary claims he “tried” to throw a protective ring around care homes but, from my experience in the early days of the pandemic, he couldn’t have come up with a more disastrous and deadly policy.

As a GP working mainly with elderly patients in care homes and intermediate care I witnessed, at first hand, the absolute disaster that was the government policy at the start of the Covid-19 outbreak. Elderly patients who were Covid-19 positive, or not tested, or perhaps even negative, were simply shovelled out of hospitals and into care homes. ‘The hospitals must be cleared out… nothing else matters.’

At the time there was no PPE available… at all. In fact, in many care homes staff were actually ordered by the management not to wear PPE. This was also the case in hospitals. Not that it would have made a great deal of difference in most care homes where patients with dementia often wander happily from room to room without masks, and oblivious to any potential danger. I had to usher one or two out of the nurse’s office from time to time.

In my work with intermediate-care patients, looking after those who were too well to be in an acute hospital bed, but not yet well enough to be at home, we were placed under massive pressure to just send everyone home. That is, if they were Covid-19 positive, or not, or untested, where they could spread it to their – often elderly – relatives. Alternatively, they could infect their carers who would then travel to the homes of other elderly people they were looking after – without PPE.

In fact, if you wanted to design a system of ensuring that every single vulnerable person in the country gained full exposure to Covid-19, you could not have done a better job. I wrote various increasingly frustrated emails to various managers, but they simply stated they were just following policy so ‘you can’t blame me’. Policy set at the very top.

Here is an example of the type of email I was sending in April 2020. You may sense the frustration (I have changed the names of the unit and wards, for confidentiality reasons).

“I think this is very simple, Unit A is currently ‘hot’. We have five patients and four staff ‘Covid positive’ swabbed. Eight patients have now died of Covid.

“If we admit Covid negative patients into Unit A this is putting them at great risk of being infected. So, we should stop admissions. The only ones that should come in are those found positive, recovered, and 14 days post positive swab – at least.

“Equally if we discharge patients, we are, almost certainly, spreading Covid around the entire care community. Until fourteen days have passed.

“There is also a plan to send Covid positive patients to ward B, and keep Unit A as green (no Covid). The only way Unit A can be green is if we stop admitting patients. Because, once new patients reach Unit A they are likely to get infected, then another 14 – 21 days must pass. So, we will go round and round, forever.

“Also, another plan is to send high risk staff to Unit A, and have low risk staff in ward B, so the staff will be swapped around. Again, Unit A is currently red hot. We will be endangering high risk staff if we send them to Unit A. Some of them will get infected. Then, they will incubate for 7 – 14 days. They will infect patients, and other staff, then they will go off sick. Then, some of them may well die.

“The current plan seems to be to admit elderly vulnerable patients into a high risk Covid ‘hot’ environment and hope they don’t get Covid. We have already seen staff to patient transmission in Unit A. So, some of these patients will get infected, with a very high risk of dying….”

In a way, it is hard to blame management who were trying to follow every changing edict from above. Edicts often directly contradicting what they had been told the day before. It was chaos. Now, we have Matt Hancock, the UK Health Secretary, stating, amazingly without being struck down by a lightning bolt, that he threw a ring of steel around care homes and elderly hospital units at the time. A… ring… of… steel. This was presumably to stop anyone escaping somewhere safer. Of course, he now says that the most important word in his statement is ‘tried’ as in ‘We tried to throw a ring of steel…’

This will now be his perfect defence. I didn’t say we succeeded, I only said that we tried. How completely pathetic. First, he did the exact opposite of trying. He put in place policies that were directly responsible for the massive number of deaths in care homes. He commanded hospitals to be emptied of elderly patients. What’s his next excuse? ‘Lots of the other countries did the same thing.’ Which is true. But you can hardly claim you are a leader, if all you managed to do was follow others down a disastrous policy failure.

How many deaths did this cause? Well, during the first wave of Covid-19 it has been estimated that 40% of deaths occurred in care homes. Here from the Nuffield trust:

“The burden of the virus fell much more severely on care homes (relative to the population generally) in the first wave. Of the 48,213 Covid deaths registered between mid-March and mid-June, 40% were care home residents.”

There are around half a million residents in care homes, which is 0.7% of the entire population. Yet they had 40% of the deaths. Yes, the elderly, especially those in care homes, were most likely to die from Covid-19. But this was known very early on. In Italy, where Covid-19 first hit Europe, the average age of death was 82, and almost all of those who died had other significant diseases.

If there was one population that needed to be protected it was elderly, vulnerable care home residents. Matt Hancock presided over policy decisions that threw care home residents under a bus. Now he is trying to claim he did all he could to protect them. Anyone who works in the health service, or in the care sector, knows exactly what he did.

Malcolm Kendrick is doctor and author who works as a GP in the National Health Service in England. His blog can be read here and his book, ‘Doctoring Data – How to Sort Out Medical Advice from Medical Nonsense,’ is available here.

June 16, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Why do brilliant doctors and scientists toe the party line against COVID treatments?

By James V. DeLong | American Thinker | June 16, 2021

One should believe the science, and the scientific evidence is overwhelming that ivermectin (IVM) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are effective for preventing and treating COVID, especially when combined with other drugs.

The studies supporting this conclusion are readily available and endorsed by clinicians and scientists with awesome credentials. See, for example, the work of Pierre Kory and his team, the BIRD Group, Peter McCullough, Harvey Risch, Brett Weinstein/Steve Kirsch/Robert Malone, and many others.

The information has been available since the start of the pandemic. As early as April of 2020, some clinicians were saving their patients and pleading, in vain, with the health authorities to investigate the value of these drugs.

Throughout this time, the major social media companies have suppressed this vital information. Facebook seems to be the most ruthless. YouTube and Twitter are close behind, though some information escapes the eagle eye of the censors.

Facebook’s censorship fits ill with its assurance in its SEC filings:

COVID-19 Response. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we launched multiple initiatives to support the global public health community’s work to keep people safe and informed. We took steps to provide our community with access to accurate information, stop misinformation and harmful content, and support global health experts, local governments, businesses, and communities. . . We also launched an information center on Facebook and Instagram to provide our community with real-time updates, information, and the ability to offer and ask for help. We have already connected over two billion people to authoritative COVID-19 information[.]

In its zeal to “keep people safe and informed,” Facebook also deplatforms groups that question the safety of the vaccines.

The wages of this sin of official mendacity and private enforcement of The Official Narrative is death. Of the 600,000 Americans who died of COVID (at least according to official numbers), a defensible estimate is that 500,000 could have been saved. And it continues, even as the evidence in favor of these treatments continues to confirm their value.

These facts raise a puzzling issue of corporate governance. All of these companies are controlled by boards of directors composed of the crème de la crème of the American elite.  See the members of the Board of Facebook, Twitter, and Alphabet (which owns YouTube). They are well compensated. For example, Alphabet directors get $75,000 to $100,000 in fees, plus bonuses such as stock options that can boost total annual compensation to almost half a million.

Board members are mostly from the corporate and financial worlds, but not entirely. A Twitter director is Fei-Fei Liu, a Canadian cancer researcher, whose personal opinion would be worth knowing. Facebook’s board includes Peter Thiel, one of the most brilliant entrepreneurs of our time, and chair of the company’s Compensation, Nominating, and Governance Committee. Until 2018, the Alphabet Board included Shirley Tilghman, a distinguished molecular biologist. Her opinion on the censorship would also be interesting.

So what is going on here? These people are far too sophisticated to take at face value all the statements of Anthony Fauci or the World Health Organization. They did not get rich and powerful by being so credulous, and their refusal to look behind the Wizard’s curtain demands explanation.

Because stupidity won’t serve, the most logical explanation is strategic cowardice. As long as the companies can pretend to believe Fauci and WHO, they will not bear legal responsibility for any consequences. Were they to provide alternative information, they have reason to fear a weaponized Deep State, which could make a company’s life hell.  All the quasi-monopoly social media outlets need continuing government forbearance.

But neither should one neglect sloth and greed.  For an individual director to raise the alarm would require work to review the literature and would risk the loss of a lucrative board seat. It is easier to pretend to believe the staff’s assurances.

As to the moral responsibility for the unnecessary fatalities, remember the old Tom Lehrer song: “Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That’s not my department!” In the end, if cornered, the directors can claim that they were just following orders and blame Fauci.

But one would like to see the news media start asking them for an explanation.

June 16, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Perspex Screens Installed to Stop COVID May Have Actually Increased Its Spread

Al Seib / Contributor via Getty Images
By Paul Joseph Watson | Summit News | June 16, 2021

A leaked Whitehall document seen by Politico suggests that perspex screens installed to stop the transmission of COVID-19 may actually have increased its spread.

Businesses and schools were told by the government to install the screens as a condition of re-opening after the first lockdown and they were widely used by ‘essential’ shops throughout the entire period.

Politico’s Alex Wickham writes that the perspex screens could be about to be scrapped given new information the government has received on their efficacy.

“Ministers are also being advised that those perspex screens that have appeared in some offices and restaurants are unlikely to have any benefit in terms of preventing transmission,” states the report.

“Problems include them not being positioned correctly, with the possibility that they actually increase the risk of transmission by blocking airflow. Therefore there is clear guidance to ministers that these perspex screens should be scrapped.”

Despite the report, government ministers say there is no plan to change advice on installing the screens in businesses.

What other COVID-19 measures put in place to fight the spread of the virus have been utterly useless or actually made it worse?

A study on the effectiveness of face masks involving 6,000 participants in Denmark found “there was no statistically significant difference between those who wore masks and those who did not when it came to being infected by Covid-19.”

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

HIV Now Sets the Pace in the Bogus-vaxx Race

‘HIV’ and ‘AIDS’ are just as bogus as the ‘novel coronavirus’ and ‘Covid.’ Yet they’re now setting the pace in the vaxx-development race.

By Rosemary Frei, MSc | June 14, 2021

This month marks the 40th anniversary of the first report of what was subsequently dubbed ‘acquired immunodeficiency syndrome’ or ‘AIDS.’

Officials like Anthony Fauci are using the occasion to spread the message that vaccines for HIV, which is the virus said to cause AIDS, will soon be rolling out. Forty years of fruitless effort supposedly are suddenly successful thanks to the precedent of the lightening-speed and ‘successful’ development of Covid vaccines.

Fauci said June 4 in an MSNBC interview by Rachel Maddow that because of “the technologies that have now been perfected, particularly the mRNA technology and other vaccine platforms that were perfected and used in Covid-19, I believe strongly we’ll go back and be able to really forward and advance the HIV [vaccine] effort.”

A June 6 Guardian article says that Fauci “holds out hope that the three HIV vaccines in advanced clinical trials will prove at least 50% efficacious, justifying a global roll out. But he now hopes mRNA or other advanced technologies could yield even more powerful HIV vaccines.”

Note that under Fauci, in July 2020 as part of Operation Warp Speed, four major NIAID-funded HIV global clinical-trials networks were retooled into the Covid-19 Prevention Network (COVPN). People in the network help create vaxxes and other ‘treatments’ for both HIV and Covid.

And already by April 14, 2020, mRNA ‘vaccine’ maker Moderna had announced that soon they’ll be conducting small human trials on their experimental jabs against HIV and the flu.

So far, at least 26 different mRNA shots are on the way from Moderna, in addition to their three types of Covid jabs. The shots in development range from two for HIV to one ‘personalized cancer vaccine.’

Among the main funders of Moderna’s mRNA HIV-vaxx development is the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. AIDS is a special focus of Gates’s, including through the Global Fund and especially for people in sub-Saharan Africa.

Vaccines are immensely profitable: the new, Covid jabs are topping the all-time charts for medical money-making. Plus vaccine makers have no liability for the illnesses and deaths they cause. Therefore using the name ‘vaccine’ for all ‘treatments,’ no matter what they contain, is a formula for making huge amounts of money with very little downside.

And the potential market for HIV ‘vaccines’ alone is very large. For example, an October 2020 paper in the journal Lancet HIV — on the use of two experimental HIV vaxxes made by Janssen in healthy, HIV-negative people, and funded by among others the Gates Foundation — starts with the sentence, “Current estimates of 37.9 million people living with HIV worldwide and 1.7 million new infections annually, with no cure on the horizon, make development of an effective prophylactic vaccine a global priority.” (The paper’s authors reported very high rates of adverse events to the vaccines, but still assessed the shots as being “generally safe and well-tolerated.”)

All of this is despite the fact that HIV has not been detected by anything other than indirect methods such as antibody, T-cell and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. HIV also has not been clearly shown to cause disease. Nor has it been isolated or rigorously imaged via electron microscopy. Isolation is a necessary step before sequencing – because otherwise the resulting sequences reflect a heterogeneous mix of material rather than pure virus. Details on this are below.

This also holds true for the novel coronavirus.

Phalanxes of officials such as Fauci censor these inconvenient facts. And they keep the public captive, overloaded and off-balance with an avalanche of complex and contradictory jargon, modelling and scientific studies.

The Myth of HIV and of AIDS

Kary Mullis won the Nobel Prize in 1993 for inventing PCR. He died in August 2019. There are many videos of him demolishing Fauci and/or the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. He also discusses this in his autobiography Dancing Naked in the Mind Field.

For example, Mullis said the following in one of his video interviews: “He [Fauci] doesn’t know anything really about anything, and I’d say that to his face. Nothing! … He doesn’t understand electron microscopy, and he doesn’t understand medicine, and he should not be in a position like he’s in…. Tony Fauci does not mind going on television in front of the people [taxpayers] who pay his salary and lie directly into the camera.”

Indeed, falsely claiming to have isolated HIV and imaged it with electron microscopy are key parts of the artifice used by Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo to assert in 1984 that they’d discovered HIV and that it causes AIDS.

The same applies to the novel coronavirus. For example, one of today’s top electron microscopy experts – Duke University pathology professor Sara Miller — herself failed in an April 2021 paper to prove that an electron-microscopy image shows the novel coronavirus. She simply asserted it’s the virus without giving information on, or even references to, the techniques used to show that it is. (If she had given information, it certainly would have relied on the use of antibodies, because they are the main tool for identification purposes. But as I document in my article The Antibody Deception, antibodies cross-react with many other things and therefore cannot accurately pick out the novel coronavirus.)

Mullis wrote the foreword to the very long but very important book Inventing the AIDS Virus. The book was published in 1996 and is by Peter Duesberg, a University of California, Berkeley, professor of biochemistry, biophysics and structural biology. It details the genesis of the HIV-AIDS myth and is still highly relevant today. (Note that Duesberg believes the virus exists but is harmless because it doesn’t multiply in the body, while Mullis believed the virus doesn’t exist at all.)[Note added June 14 after article posted: Mullis apparently did believe the virus exists. See for example this video, which a friend just emailed me. However, I stand by my assertion that HIV has never been conclusively isolated or imaged. Even Mullis’s statements in that video can be seen as indicating HIV is virtually impossible to conclusively isolate or image.]

Mullis writes this in the forward:

“We [he and Duesberg] have not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the people on earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus called HIV. There is simply no scientific evidence demonstrating that it is true,” wrote Mullis in that foreword. “… We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake.”

In the book, Duesberg documents that one main part of the trajectory toward the creation of the myth started in 1912, with the reorganization of the U.S.’s Public Health Service. Another key part was the creation in 1946 of the predecessor of the current CDC — with its predilection for deeming ‘outbreaks’ to be due to infectious diseases, and then testing, tracking and quarantining people under the premise of stopping the spread.

(Two of many valuable insights by Duesberg are on page 137-138: “The CDC has … continued to exploit public trust by transforming seasonal flus and other minor epidemics into monstrous crises and by manufacturing contagious plagues out of noninfectious medical conditions.” And, “[E]pidemiologists have classically studied clusters of sick people as clues to subtle environmental hazards, not infectious agents. But when public health officials issue ominous warnings about mysterious disease outbreaks, they terrify the public with visions of deadly pandemics.”)

Duesberg also details, on pages 174 to188, the failure of HIV to fulfill Koch’s postulates. And on page 202 he concludes that, “AIDS fails all epidemiological criteria of an infectious disease.”

(I believe the same is true for Covid.)

Duesberg points, in addition, to the reasons ‘experts’ give for why it’s virtually impossible to directly detect the virus. For example, he writes on page 206 that:

“[I]f little or no HIV can be found in the body, scientists propose hidden reservoirs and special routes of infection. If only antibodies against HIV [rather than HIV itself] can be found, researchers call them ‘nonneutralizing’ (or ineffective) antibodies and assert that the virus mutates too fast for the antibodies to keep up…. All these hypotheses are constantly being disproved or shown to be irrelevant, but the reservoir of new evasions is inexhaustible.”

That of course parallels the pranks ‘experts’ are playing on the public with respect to the novel coronavirus and Covid.

There are many other prominent people who have spent decades exposing the HIV-AIDS hoax. They include: activist and journalist John Lauritsen in his many articles and his books including The AIDS War: Propaganda, Profiteering and Genocide from the Medical-Industrial Complex; microbiologist Eleni Papadopulos in, among others, a 2004 paper detailing the fatal flaws in the HIV-AIDS hypothesis, a 1997 interview and an October 2020 interview; journalist Jon Rappoport in dozens of blog posts including his March 8, 2021 one, and in his 1988 book AIDS Inc.; and Duesberg’s colleague David Rasnick in many formats such as a 2009 article they co-authored, and his blog, including this May 2021 post. (Rappoport and Rasnick, among others, also have pointed out the striking parallels in the politics and deception surrounding HIV and AIDS and the novel coronavirus and COVID.)

What Are the Real Causes of ‘AIDS’?

Duesberg makes the strong case that ‘AIDS’ is actually 30 conditions inappropriately lumped into the single category. And he demonstrates that the main causes are: toxicity from AZT and other meds given to people who test positive for HIV (more on this below); toxicity from recreational drugs like nitrite inhalants — AKA ‘poppers’; and overuse of antibiotics.

In countries such as Africa, the causes also include poverty, malnutrition, lack of indoor plumbing and tropical infections.

Lauritsen also details this in his 1993 book The AIDS War.

“‘AIDS’ … is defined entirely in terms of other, old diseases, in conjunction with dubious test results and even more dubious assumptions. Although people are undeniably sick, ‘AIDS’ itself does not really exist; it is a phoney construct,” Lauritsen states on page 180 of the book.

Yet virtually all the funding for the vast HIV/AIDS research-administrative-medical-industrial complex assumes HIV is the cause of ‘AIDS.’

In 1984, just three years after the first report of what later would be dubbed AIDS, Fauci became the head of NIAID.

AIDS made him a star: he’s good at grabbing the spotlight with his gift of glib gab, and under his tenure NIAID ballooned thanks to a huge inflow of AIDS-related funding.

Just three years later, in 1987, the first medication for HIV went on the market: AZT, which is highly toxic.

AZT has killed huge numbers of people, thanks in large part to Fauci pushing the message that it is ‘safe and effective.’

“I would say there were hundreds of thousands of people killed by AZT. And many — perhaps most — of them were perfectly healthy before they were put on the drugs,” Lauritsen told me in a telephone interview from his home in Boston. “They got a positive result on the worthless HIV tests, and then they were told to put time on their side and take AZT. And of course it killed them.”

AZT made a mint for its first manufacturer, Burroughs-Wellcome, and then for its second and current maker, GlaxoSmithKline (which bought Burroughs Wellcome in 1995).

Fauci and other powerful officials have also pushed other deadly drugs, such as Bristol-Myers Squibb’s didanosine (ddI).

Duesberg and Lauritsen detail how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration was pressured into giving ddI fast-track approval in 1991 — despite clear evidence that it is toxic, and that there were no placebo-controlled safety or efficacy studies conducted on it.

Even Wikipedia, which usually censors information that criticizes big pharma, states that about one-quarter of people taking ddI develop peripheral neuropathy. And in 2010 the FDA issued a warning that a serious liver disease can occur in people taking ddI.

Today there are at least 46 FDA-approved drugs for people who have tested positive for HIV, according to this list. (The list includes AZT — but for some reason not ddI, even though it’s apparently still on the market).

The most popular of these meds are for ‘pre-exposure prophylaxis’ (PrEP)(also known as ‘treatment as prevention’ or TasP).

Sound familiar? It’s like the billions of perfectly healthy people who are taking the Covid shots.

Most PrEP is combinations of several drugs, many of which are repurposed, older, HIV meds.

The latter include drugs as tenofovir, lamivudine and emtricitabine. These are a type of drug known as nucleoside analogues (AKA nucleoside inhibitors or nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors). And they have the same, and potentially very dangerous, mechanism of action as AZT and ddI: that is, they stop DNA synthesis from taking place in cells throughout the body.

[Full disclosure: in the mid- to late 1990s as a freelance medical writer I co-wrote marketing materials for HIV drugs such as lamivudine and tenofovir through a Toronto, Ontario, marketing agency called Jeffrey Simbrow Associates. Then later, until the mid-2000s, as a medical journalist I wrote many stories for trade publications about HIV drugs. I somehow was completely unaware of the controversy surrounding these drugs and HIV and AIDS.]

Today tens of millions of healthy people are taking PrEP because they’ve been led to believe this will either prevent infection, or lower their HIV levels to undetectable (the latter goes by the slogan ‘U=U’ for ‘undetectable = untransmissible’). And information is suppressed that many people who have tested positive for HIV but haven’t taken any medication remain healthy for decades.

Over the last year, PreP sales have been sliding somewhat, as has HIV testing. ‘Experts’ are blaming this on the curtailment of usual accessible care during the pandemic. (And they’re also telling scary tales of untreated ‘HIV/AIDS’ potentially interfering with efforts to quash Covid.)

Enter the news about HIV vaxxes being on the horizon — and their potentially huge market.

There are tens of millions of people who have tested positive, and many many more being tested every day.

Plus, most people would prefer an HIV vaxx instead of a daily pill; pills are expensive and inconvenient.

Central Players in the HIV and Novel Coronavirus Capers

Not surprisingly, there are major overlaps between the key figures in the HIV-AIDS and novel coronavirus-COVID agendas. And they’re not just the usual suspects such as Bill Gates.

They include names such as Larry Corey, Myron Cohen and Lindsey Baden.

Corey leads the HIV Vaccine Trials Network, a position he’s held since 1999, and which now is the operational center for the COVID-19 Prevention Network (COVPN – mentioned earlier). He also is co-leading vaccine testing at the COVPN – which started, last summer, with a Phase 3 study of one of Moderna’s mRNA Covid jabs.

Cohen is director of the Institute for Global Health and Infections Diseases, and a prof of medical microbiology, immunology and epidemiology at University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.

Cohen also is co-principal investigator of the another of the four networks that form COVPN, the HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN). (The other two are the Infectious Diseases Clinical Research Consortium and the AIDS Clinical Trials Group.)

They’re testing PrEP drugs and antibodies. The latter includes the AbCellera/Eli Lilly antibody bamlanivumab.

The results of one of those studies, on bamlanivumab for workers and residents in care homes, were announced on Jan. 21 by Lilly via a press release. They were published in the prominent Journal of the American Medical Association on June 3, 2021, with Cohen as the lead author. (In my The Antibody Deception article I described how it’s virtually impossible for bamlanivumab to be an effective treatment for anything.)

Baden is the deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), a position he’s had since 2005. And he’s also a long-time associate prof at the Harvard Medical School.

He has been working toward HIV vaxxes since at least 2007

Baden’s pushing both the HIV and Covid agendas forward at warp speed. For example, he’s the first author on the Dec. 30, 2020, NEJM paper that concluded that one of Moderna Covid vaccines has “94.1% efficacy at preventing Covid-19 illness.”

Baden is funded by, among many others, Moderna, the Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, Janssen, the Military HIV Research Program and NIAID (see pages 2 and 3 of the disclosure forms for the paper’s authors).

There also are many other ways that the money pipers call Baden’s tune.

For example, since February 2020 Baden has been giving once-weekly audio interviews for NEJM, together with the journal’s editor-in-chief Eric Rubin. The pair use this prominent pulpit to, among other things, endorse mass vaccination for Covid including in minorities, pregnant women and children.

And Baden, Corey and Cohen were among the co-authors of a March 2021 NEJM paper titled, ‘Two randomized trials of neutralizing antibodies to prevent HIV-1 acquisition.’ In other, using antibodies for PrEP.

There are hundreds of other key players in the parallel HIV-COVID play. You can use PubMed to look up the papers and conflicts of interest of prominent scientists in your area who have been among those pushing the Covid agenda.

They include everyone from the infamous Neil Ferguson to one of the two co-chairs of the Canadian COVID-19 Immunity Task Force, Catherine Hankins.

They’re all engaged in the gold rush for bogus ‘vaccines’ and other ‘treatments’ for an array of non-existent or benign conditions.

After obtaining an MSc in molecular biology from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary, Rosemary Frei became a freelance writer. For the next 22 years she was a medical writer and journalist. She pivoted again in early 2016 to full-time, independent activism and investigative journalism. Her website is RosemaryFrei.ca.

June 16, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »