Elon Musk’s Comments On Mechanical Ventilation Betrayed A Stunning Amount of Ignorance – Part 1
BY PIERRE KORY, MD, MPA | NOVEMBER 15, 2023
Recently, Elon Musk was interviewed by Joe Rogan where he shared that, early in Covid, he had access to front-line data in China and “talked to doctors from Wuhan,” implying that if we had known what he knew, our use of mechanical ventilation would have been different. That is almost certainly true but he then went on to make several inaccurate statements which I think further fuel widespread misunderstanding and overestimation of the actual negative impacts of mechanical ventilation use during Covid in the U.S.
Now, I find it shocking that I might be putting myself in a position to defend the U.S. Covid response as that would be an outrageous endeavor, however, I take issue with his subsequent statements on mechanical ventilation use as they were almost completely wrong (almost).
I hate misinformation (inaccurate /false information) about Covid and I believe Elon trafficked in the same. I do not believe he did so out of willful, malevolent intent as that would be disinformation (what the now corporate controlled U.S. government regime does to us). His comments were instead borne of a stunning amount of ignorance regarding the real risks of mechanical ventilation and exactly how mechanical ventilation was misused (and not misused) both in China and in the U.S. during that first wave. So, here is my attempt to “set the record straight.”
ELON: “We had 20,000 employees in China and during the first wave we had nobody die and nobody get ill.”
This is both interesting and unsurprising and almost certainly accurate. It brings back harsh memories of all the fear porn that was being blasted out by the world’s media with cherry-picked images of scenes from the hardest hit areas like Wuhan, Lombardy, New York, Seattle etc. They did this while the vast majority of urban areas in the country and around the world did not experience such tidal waves of people in acute respiratory failure.
Although news media trying to get as many eyeballs glued to their shows is not new (i.e. “if it bleeds it leads”) in early Covid, it soon became apparent to many (in my world at least) that they also did so to instill widespread fear to increase compliance with what were soon to be draconian violations of civil liberty, bodily autonomy, informed consent, and free speech. Those violations were deemed necessary in their plight to coerce the entire U.S. population to be vaccinated. This is probably a good time to re-read the anonymous poem I posted last year titled “Message to the Unvaccinated.” Link here:
However, on this point of instilling the greatest amount of fear possible, a recent post by A Midwestern Doctor quoted Scott Atlas, a completely sane member of the White House’s insane Coronavirus Task Force:
As often happened, Fauci spoke up to support Dr. Birx’s concerns, saying people need to be warned even more strongly about the dangers of the virus spreading, about wearing masks and distancing. He claimed Americans didn’t think the virus was serious, and that was the reason cases spread. I was honestly surprised. I thought people were already panic-stricken. Normal life had virtually ceased to exist, even eliminating serious medical care or last visits with dying family. Meanwhile the media were on-message 24/7, instructing the public about masks and social distancing; there were signs and announcements demanding masks and diagrams about distancing everywhere; healthy young people were outside riding bicycles or driving their cars alone, wearing masks. Indeed, surveys showed that most adults perceived grossly exaggerated risks, particularly but not only younger people; and yes, a high percentage were obeying the edicts, distancing and wearing masks, according to virtually every published survey.
I challenged him to clarify his point, because I couldn’t believe my ears. “So you think people aren’t frightened enough?”
He [Fauci] said, “Yes, they need to be more afraid.”
To me, this was another moment of Kafkaesque absurdity. I replied, “I totally disagree. People are paralyzed with fear. Fear is one of the main problems at this point.” Inside, I was also shocked at his thought process, as such an influential face of the pandemic. Instilling fear in the public is absolutely counter to what a leader in public health should do. To me, it is frankly immoral, although I kept that to myself.”
Note: Fauci also fear-mongered for his own benefit throughout the AIDS crisis (which amongst other things created significant stigmatization towards the gay community as Fauci asserted without evidence that HIV might be transmitted without physical contact).
ELON: I called doctors in Wuhan and asked “what are some of the biggest mistakes you made in the first wave” and they said “we put far too many people on mechanical ventilators.”
My motivation for writing this post is to try to correct (but not completely refute) the now widespread, strong belief that it was the “ventilators” that killed people and that if we did not use mechanical ventilators, many lives would have been saved. Or, similarly, “if they hadn’t put my (wife/mother/father etc) on a ventilator, they would be alive today.”
I largely and strongly disagree with the latter assessment (but not completely). The reason for my disagreement is that, based on my experiences running Covid ICU’s at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City, Greenville Memorial Hospital in South Carolina, St. Lukes Medical Center in Milwaukee, and Aspirus Wausau in Central Wisconsin, it wasn’t the vents that killed people. It was the lack of effective treatments being adopted.
Initially, it was the lack of any treatment (i.e. “supportive care only” approaches, particularly at UW) that led to widespread death after what was often weeks on a ventilator and later it morphed into sub-optimal, insufficiently aggressive, sometimes harmful, monolithic treatments like Remdesivir and a modest dose of corticosteroids instead of a broad, multi-component, safe, synergistic combination of therapies such as the MATH+ protocol that FLCCC members were using and recommending for hospital patients (forgive me for I am biased). However, Elon then said the following regarding mechanical ventilation:
“This is what is exactly damaging the lungs it is not Covid. The treatment, the cure is worse than the disease.”
“People yelled at me saying I am not a doctor but I said yeah but I do make spaceships with life support systems, what do you do?”
Well, Elon, although I don’t build spaceships, I actually used and taught mechanical ventilation to keep people alive for a living and did so throughout most of Covid. Further, mechanical ventilation was a deep interest if not passion of mine for almost 20 years prior.
The act of of sedating and paralyzing someone to place an endotracheal tube through their vocal cords and into their trachea is called “intubation” and is required to transition someone to support by an invasive mechanical ventilator. What I witnessed in the first wave (but not later waves) was doctors favoring “early intubation/mechanical ventilation” out of fear that the patient would suddenly crash (intubating a “crashing” patient is a higher risk procedure). And yes, another subtle, but not overt motivation, very early on, was to “protect” staff from exhaled breath due to fear of heated high flow nasal cannulas (this is an intermediate support device often used to avoid intubation) – more on this issue/aspect in Part 3 which is already available here).
Now, although it is true that each extra day on a ventilator can worsen prognosis, the harms are much more from prolonged, poorly responsive illness requiring prolonged sedation and immobility which then cause confusion/delirium and disuse atrophy of the muscles. So for him to say it is the ventilators which damage the lungs more than Covid is completely off – know that patients with neurological injuries affecting respiration can be kept alive safely on ventilators for weeks to months to years to decades without significant “damage” accumulating to the lungs.
Admittedly, the situation of someone with a lung injury is different in that inappropriate ventilator settings can certainly further damage the lungs, but with modern ventilator techniques such as low tidal volumes, daily spontaneous breathing trials, use of appropriate positive-end expiratory pressure, highly responsive inhalation triggers etc, the harms of mechanical ventilation to the lungs are generally minimal.
To wit, I have successfully extubated thousands of patients in my career despite devastating injuries to their lungs requiring prolonged periods on the ventilator, even in situations where the ventilator was particularly difficult to set in order to achieve the holy grail of mechanical ventilation, that of “patient-ventilator synchrony.” All I am saying is that his comment on the harms of mechanical ventilation was grossly overstated to an un-credible degree. He then went further:
“The treatment is worse than the disease.”
Ugh. Mechanical ventilation is not and has never been a treatment, it is simply a means to support a patient’s breathing to keep them alive while you administer therapies (more on this below) to reverse the underlying insult or infection that landed them on the ventilator in the first place – no-one, and I mean no-one in medicine has ever viewed the ventilator as a treatment or cure for anything.
However, the initial practice of “early intubation” caused unmanageable and chaotic situations in many hospitals by increasing demand for ICU rooms and ventilators, but I will argue below that this situation was almost completely fueled by the lack of effective treatments being adopted.
This is a key distinction, i.e the harm of ineffectively or not treating the disease far, far outweighed the harms of intubating too early. Further, “early” intubations largely occurred during the first wave, and as physicians became more familiar with the disease they began to defer intubation to much more advanced degrees of respiratory failure and hypoxemia (obviously there were exceptions to this, but, as I mentioned above, I travelled and worked fairly widely, and in each center I found that the ICU docs quickly learned to defer intubation to as late as possible in Covid induced hypoxemic respiratory failure. This issue is what I will explore in further detail in Part 2.
I instead maintain that the absurdly high death rates in many hospitals in the U.S and across the world in the early waves of Covid was due to an over-reliance on “supportive care only” approaches (i.e. limiting interventions to just supplemental oxygen, fluids, nutrition, fever suppressants, mechanical ventilation). Rarely were effective treatments targeting the underlying pathophysiology being offerred at most academic medical centers based on the widespread belief that patients were dying of a viral pneumonia and that no effective anti-viral therapies existed.
What was not being sufficiently taught or disseminated at that time is that Covid-19 disease had multiple phases, i.e. an early “viral replicative phase” marked by typical viral syndrome symptoms such as cough, fever, congestion, sore throat, fatigue etc with a minority of those patients then going on to develop the later “hyper-inflammatory phase” involving the lungs. The FLCCC tried very hard to alert “the system” to the fact that early studies found no live, culturable virus in patient secretions beyond Day 6 (cue the folks who state there is no virus and/or they don’t exist. To those, all I can offer is this excellent post addressing the issue by A Midwestern Doctor).
Thus, after about Day 6, a minority of Covid-19 patients began to develop morphed a hyper-inflammatory, pulmonary phase due largely to activated macrophages (an immune cell) as well as micro-clumping or clotting of blood cells and proteins. In this latter phase, anti-inflammatory or immunosuppressive therapies combined with anti-coagulants were required (this is why the FLCCC recommended corticosteroids and blood thinners in hospital patients from the outset and were observing excellent results with early use).
To wit, my first paper on Covid (and the one I am most proud of) was initially drafted in April of 2020. I argued then that Covid-19 pulmonary disease was not a viral pneumonia but instead an “organizing pneumonia” (a form of lung injury with many causes (viruses are only one of them) but whose mainstay of therapy is corticosteroids).
From the abstract:
I arrived at that hypothesis after a couple of weeks of being mystified by the repeated presentations of Covid patients with what was called at the time, “happy hypoxia”, i.e. the state of requiring high amounts of supplemental oxygen yet without exhibiting a significant increase in the work of breathing.
I knew I had seen “happy hypoxia” on a couple of occasions in my career but could not remember what was wrong with those patients until one morning during a shower before an ICU shift in New York City it hit me – “these patients remind me of patients with organizing pneumonia!” As soon as I got to work, before my shift, I called Dr. Jeff Kanne at the University of Wisconsin, one of the top chest radiologists in the world and an expert on organizing pneumonia.
“Jeff, what would you say if I told you that I think that all of these Covid patients are suffering from organizing pneumonia?” I asked. His answer? “Of course they are. We wrote this up in March in the journal Radiology after an expert panel that I chaired completed our review of all the CT scans from Wuhan.” They had actually written in their expert report that “the most common reported CT findings in Covid-19 patients are typical of an organizing pneumonia pattern of lung injury.”
“Clinicians don’t read radiology journals,” I shouted into the phone. “We need to publish this in a clinical medical journal! Like NOW!” We quickly agreed that we would write it up together.
I went home after my ICU shift and started working furiously. The paper included radiographic, pathologic, and clinical evidence to try to prove that the pulmonary phase of Covid-19 was an organizing pneumonia and that the first line of therapy for this condition was (wait for it)… corticosteroids.
Note that my paper above was not published until September 2020 due to 5 journals rejecting it, with one journal rejecting it because a peer-reviewer said “this cannot be published until a randomized controlled trial of corticosteroids is conducted.” Welcome to my life.
The problem we in the FLCCC had with getting the world to use corticosteroids in the hospital phase were many and will be explored in Part 2 (already available).
Mayo Clinic is Sued For Suspending Doctor Over Online Posts on Covid and Transgenderism
By Ben Squires | Reclaim The Net | November 15, 2023
Dr. Michael Joyner, backed by the Academic Freedom Alliance (AFA), has initiated a lawsuit against the Mayo Clinic College, including its president and board chair. The suit arises from disciplinary actions taken against Joyner following his public comments on topics within his field of expertise. Specifically, the controversy revolves around statements he made to the New York Times about gender differences in athletic performance and to CNN regarding the use of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 treatment. The Mayo Clinic’s response, which involved suspension, salary review implications, and strict media interview oversight, is at the heart of this legal challenge.
We obtained a copy of the complaint for you here.
Lucas Morel, chair of the AFA’s academic committee, emphasized the lawsuit’s significance, asserting that “academic freedom is a key guarantor of scientific integrity.”
Morel expects the case to establish a precedent for the freedom of scientists and academics to express their professional opinions without undue influence from financial or political interests. The AFA, which previously supported Joyner during his disciplinary hearings, is now financing this lawsuit, highlighting the organization’s commitment to protecting academic freedom.
Joyner’s legal action, filed with the State of Minnesota’s Third Judicial District, seeks compensation for the damages incurred from the disciplinary measures. These included a week-long unpaid suspension, denial of salary increase, and a potential termination threat, all of which have reportedly harmed Joyner’s finances and professional reputation. The lawsuit, handled by Allen Harris Law, was filed after allowing the defendants to review and respond, which they declined.
What does the WHO say about its power to enforce the Pandemic Treaty (and International Health Regulations)?
By MERYL NASS | NOVEMBER 12, 2023
Many people have insisted that the WHO could not make the US do anything. Let me remind those people that the US government under Biden is instrumental in pushing forward the WHO proposals, and so it will comply. Here is what the WHO says:
What is meant by a ‘convention, agreement or other international instrument’?
Conventions, framework agreements and treaties are all examples of international instruments, which are legal agreements made between countries that are binding.
Why did WHO’s Member States decide to create an accord for pandemic preparedness and response?
In light of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, WHO’s 194 Member States established a process to draft and negotiate a new convention, agreement, or other international instrument (referred to in the rest of this FAQ, generally, as an “accord”) on pandemic preparedness and response. This was driven by the need to ensure communities, governments, and all sectors of society – within countries and globally – are better prepared and protected, in order to prevent and respond to future pandemics. The great loss of human life, disruption to households and societies at large, and impact on development are among the factors cited by governments to support the need for lasting action to prevent a repeat of such crises.
[Ho ho ho—Nass]
At the heart of the proposed accord is the need to ensure equity in both access to the tools needed to prevent pandemics (including technologies like vaccines, personal protective equipment, information and expertise) and access to health care for all people.
[If this were true, why do the treaty and amendments only discuss health “coverage” which means health insurance, rather than health care? The WHO knows the difference, but only demands “coverage”—a sop to the insurance industry.
Furthermore, the WHO demands censorship of information not in agreement with the WHO’s narratives, not free sharing of information—so much for information equity—and its so-called expertise was used to overdose hospitalized patients with HCQ without informed consent, when these unfortunates were enrolled in the WHO’s “SOLIDARITY” trial. Its expertise led to demanding that nations stop the use of HCQ and ivermectin for COVID and administer more shots. Who needs this expertise? —Nass]
Who else is involved in the process for the accord?
Besides WHO Member States, the process for developing a possible new accord is providing extensive opportunities for engagement with relevant stakeholders, including other United Nations system bodies, and a wide range of other non-State actors in official relations with the WHO, to ensure robust and inclusive participation in the proceedings of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body. Furthermore, WHO is seeking complementary inputs through public hearings with stakeholders including: international organizations; civil society; the private sector; philanthropic organizations; scientific, medical, public policy and academic institutions and other entities with relevant knowledge, experience and/or expertise.
[In other words, Bill Gates, who was the largest funder of the WHO the year Trump defunded the organization, gets the lion’s share of input, while we peons get none. Trump then turned around and funded Gate’s’ charity GAVI with the money, and GAVI turned around and gave it back to the WHO. That was our money, by the way.—Nass]
—There is more of this nonsense on this webpage, but you can go look it up yourself if you have the stomach for it.—Meryl
CPSO Pronounces Judgment Over Dr Trozzi
But the shots are still toxic, Pfizer committed fraud, everyone has been assaulted, and we must act now to save lives.
Dr Mark Trozzi | November 6, 2023
Health Canada recognizes that Pfizer committed fraud. The shots turn out to be even worse than I thought. They contain large quantities of DNA, and multiple genetic sequences including a very dangerous SV40 promoter sequence which promotes permanent genetic modification, disease, and cancer. Sadly, innocent people are uninformed and lining up for injections that they would never agree to if they knew what was in them and what it can do to them.
Here is my ten minute video to update you, with a focus on current priorities and strategies. Crisis is a combination of danger and opportunity. The SV40 revelation marks severe danger, but it is also an opportunity to finally set things right. This video includes genuinely kind and honest advice for the CPSO administrators and staff; and a small request for you to please share your judgement of me as a doctor with the CPSO.
Please Share Your Judgment of Dr Trozzi with the CPSO here:
- CPSO Compliment a physician https://www.cpso.on.ca/en/Public/Public-Information/Compliment-a-physician
- or by email direct to feedback@cpso.on.ca
CPSO v. Trozzi – Case Update – November 1, 2023
COLLEGE DENIES DR. TROZZI’S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
We are the Administrative State and You are Not
The Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal has ruled that Dr. Mark Trozzi is guilty of professional misconduct and dishonourable conduct and is incompetent in the practice of medicine for questioning the government’s Covid-19 narrative. He was also found guilty of professional misconduct and was deemed incompetent for writing medical exemptions for Covid-19 injections in support of a patient’s right to refuse coerced medical treatment under Ontario’s Health Care Consent Act and section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In 2021, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario established three Covid-19 restrictions through website statements — doctors were forbidden from: (i) making any statements that discourage anyone from following Covid-19 public policies and recommendations; (ii) prescribing alternative Health Canada approved medications for the treatment of Covid-19; and (iii) writing medical exemptions for Covid-19 injections, unless a patient had suffered a severe allergic reaction or developed myocarditis after a first shot. Based on the restrictions relating to freedom of expression and medical exemptions, the College issued investigation orders against Dr. Trozzi in 2021.
This eventually led to a five-day hearing in July of 2023 during which the College Tribunal focused its prosecution on Dr. Trozzi’s daily newsletter at drtrozzi.org, where he had supposedly caused harm by spreading “misinformation” about Covid-19 science. The College was particularly concerned with Dr. Trozzi’s view that neither Big Pharma nor Health Canada had done the due diligence required to prove the Covid-19 injections were safe and effective. The Tribunal concluded that his views were inflammatory, unprofessional and worthy of censure. On November 10th, the Tribunal will hold a penalty hearing to determine whether to revoke the licence of the 25-year ER veteran and former university professor.
Trozzi’s lawyer, Michael Alexander, commented: “The Tribunal wrote up the prosecution’s position on almost every issue. The one saving grace was the College’s acknowledgement that the right to free expression includes the right to make statements that may be wrong or mistaken. However, that position is difficult to reconcile with the Tribunal’s view that Dr. Trozzi can be punished for spreading misinformation.“
He added: “The Tribunal did not address our argument that the College lacked the authority to investigate and prosecute Dr. Trozzi since its Covid-19 restrictions were merely recommendations rather than binding rules or regulations, even though we cited the Ontario Divisional Court and the Ontario Court of Appeal in support of our position.”
Further, he stated: “The Tribunal totally ignored our cross-examination of the College’s expert witnesses, which makes the entire decision a complete travesty. On cross, the College’s main expert witness on Covid science, Dr. Andrew Gardam, admitted that he had never responded to the 41-page expert report provided by Dr. Trozzi in which he rebutted Gardam’s own 8-page expert report with 29 scientific citations. As a result, in closing submissions, we argued that Dr. Trozzi was unrefuted on Covid science; yet, the Tribunal made no mention of this fact.”
Finally, he added: “The Tribunal also paid no attention to the fact that the Supreme Court recognized an expansive right to freedom of expression as an inherent feature of parliamentary government as early as 1939, which gives the right a higher status than it enjoys under the Charter. In matters of law, we will appeal the decision to the Divisional Court on the standard of correctness.”
For media inquiries, please contact Michael Alexander by cell at 416-318-4512 and by e-mail at malexanderjd@protonmail.com.
Please support the fight to restore ethical medicine and the rule of law in Ontario and Canada.
Please sign this petition to defend my license to practice medicine in Ontario and ultimately restore Canadians’ access to many honest doctors who have been persecuted for resisting the unethical and unscientific covid agenda.
Reports about Dr Trozzi and the CPSO from others:
- Life site News: Dr. Mark Trozzi may lose medical license for defying COVID narrative
- Epoch Times Tribunal Finds Ontario Doctor Critical of COVID Measures Committed Professional Misconduct
- Derek Sloan Funding the Fight: Dr. Trozzi Latest Update – May Lose Licence Next Week
- Denis Rancourt, “In Canada, Dr Mark Trozzi has opposed the toxic death-causing vaccine in every way he can, so the CPSO @cpso has decided that he is incompetent! ( And “disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional”)”
Here’s a history to be proud of, and “accused” of:
- To follow Dr Trozzi’s public covid truth mission beginning January 2021 and right up until the present start here
- Or to begin with the most recent and work your way back start here
DNA Contamination/ SV40 promoter sequence/ Pfizer’s Fraud/ Health Canada
- Dr Trozzi Alert | There’s DNA in the RNA Shots. Lots! April 2023
- World Council For Health Urgent Panel of Global Experts Confirm Dangerous Criminal Undeclared DNA In Pfizer And Moderna Covid-19 “Vaccines”
- Epoch Times regarding plasmid DNA contamination and Health Canada
Cancer:
Canadian doctor sounds alarm over ‘turbo cancers’ in young people due to COVID jabs. ‘I’ve never seen anything like this,’ said Dr. William Makis regarding ‘stage four’ cancers presenting in young people and uncharacteristically aggressive leukemias.
Outcomes after Early Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin: An Analysis of 30,423 COVID-19 patients
By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH | Courageous Discourse | November 6, 2023
We perform prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials to test drugs, vaccines, devices, and other products for safety and efficacy. Randomization is important since it handles: 1) selection bias, 2) all known and unknown confounders. Despite the hundreds of billions of dollars spent during the pandemic, we did not have an investment in large, multidrug prospective, randomized, placebo controlled trials or comparative studies to test the best drug regimens.
In the end, what patients care about is how they feel, function, and survive. When it came to COVID-19, whether randomized or not, if patients survived if they were in the optimally treated group. The only way to assess how a high-risk population fared in the pandemic is to report on a large sample of patients sick with COVID-19 with a large number of the outcome of of interest—death.
Brouqui et al reported from a French database of 30,423 COVID-19 patients of whom 535 succumbed to the illness. In great detail, the investigators report mortality according to ambulatory treatment received, hospitalization, and the course over the following six weeks.
An explosive discussion with ex-CDC scientist Norman Pieniazek
BY MARTIN NEIL, JONATHAN ENGLER, AND JESSICA HOCKETT | OCTOBER 30, 2023
Dr Norman Pieniazek is a molecular biologist, geneticist, epidemiologist with 147 publications in virology and parasitology. Before he retired, he spent 24 years working at the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in the USA. He has also spent time abroad including time working in Spain and Poland.
We met up with Norman for what was planned to be a short meeting to introduce ourselves and informally discuss common interests around covid. However, this turned into a two-hour long, wide-ranging and fascinating discussion that touched on a huge number of topics.
Early on in the meeting Norman made the wise suggestion that we record and share the discussion. So, he hit the record button on Skype and we started again. The video, accessible below, is approximately two hours long. Be aware that, given it wasn’t planned as an ‘interview’ or for broadcast, it is largely unstructured. However, for those short of time here is a synopsis of the discussion with a focus on what Norman said1:
- The bacterial pneumonia hypothesis suggests that early treatment – hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin and antibiotics address bacterial infection. Norman confirmed bacteria are everywhere in our bodies including in the lungs, creating an ever-present potentially hazardous predisposition that, given the right circumstances, might cause a deadly bacterial pneumonia infection.
- Well-understood remedies such as the stockpile of antibiotics, as recommended by Fauci, were cast aside in 2020. Bacterial infection can cause sepsis hence we need antibiotics. A Cytokine storm is caused by bacterial infection in the lungs, filling them with fluid; this lowers the oxygen level in the blood because of poor lung function.
- In-person diagnosis by a physician based on physical symptoms was largely replaced by the PCR test, and with the rise in tele-health visits, social distancing etc physicians stopped using stethoscopes to listen to a patient’s chest. This is an essential diagnostic tool to enable a doctor to audibly tell whether a patient has crossed the line into a bacterial infection which will then require antibiotics.
- Norman knew Donald Henderson who co-authored a classic work on how to best respond to a flu epidemic. Henderson and colleagues did not recommend any of the NPIs that were followed during covid because of the obvious severe health, social and economic costs. (As an aside this work was co-authored by Prof. Thomas Inglesby at John Hopkins who attended Event 201 and, oddly, recommended NPIs be used for covid – the very same ones he had rejected previously).
- Orthodox immunology was ignored – herd immunity is a fiction given there is a ‘soup’ of constantly mutating coronaviruses.
- Why didn’t scientists at the CDC question things early in 2020? Work from home restrictions meant that people at CDC couldn’t communicate and coordinate to overturn the madness being imposed from the ‘sixth floor’ top brass. You could not isolate CDC from the HHS (Health and Human Services) and it was HHS that were calling the shots.
- The Wuhan scientists were on a routine ‘fishing expedition’ for coronaviruses and unusual pneumonias. Why was this work being done in Wuhan? It is easier to do in China because it is legal and because there are lots of hospitals, in a concentrated area, where the population is in relatively poor health. Also, it is easier to get permission to perform a painful bronchial lavage procedure on patients to obtain pathogens in China; this is much harder to do in the USA. This procedure is done in the lower respiratory tract and guarantees higher quality samples than can be obtained using swabs, which really just measure the quality of the air that has entered your upper respiratory tract.
- To determine what pathogen is causing lower respiratory tract symptoms you should not use swabs and PCR. Why not? CDC acknowledges the inability of swabs to collect causative agents as reported by the EPIC study in these 2015 NEJM articles (one done on adults and one on children). Hence a positive result gained from a sample taken from the upper throat or the nose does not mean an infection is caused by the detected pathogen.
- In 2002-2004 SARS-COV was not subject to mass PCR testing, yet SARS-COV-2 was. PCR was used for SARS-COV but only on samples taken using bronchial lavage, but NOT from swab samples taken from the nose or upper throat.2
- Wu et al discovered WH-Human-1 using samples collected by bronchial lavage, and next generation sequencing of the collected genetic samples, and ultimately reported it in GenBank.
- Before reporting on GenBank they published a preprint identifying the genetic sequences3, which was appropriated and found its way into the hands of Corman and Drosten, who then decided to exploit it for personal gain (via commercial PCR testing), fabricating a story about validating it against SARS-1. It was subsequently renamed SARS-COV-2. (For a proposed timeline of events see here).
- Norman thinks SARS-COV-2 is simply a beta coronavirus (a cold), one of the many thousands of cold viruses that had remained undiscovered until 2020, but which have always been ever present in nature.
- SARS-COV-2 cannot be a novel virus created in a lab or by natural zoonotic mutation. It is simply novel to detection4. As soon as the EUA approved PCR tests started to be used the virus was simultaneously discovered in a number of disparate geographical regions. There was no evidence of sudden spread.
- In effect the results of any test are as much determined by the choice of test to apply as by the presence/absence of viruses. Norman says, “you will find whatever you want to find”. Hence people will be symptomless yet will have a lot of, whatever viruses happen to be around in their nose or throat.
- The established taxonomy of viruses is unusable simply because there are so many unknown viruses circulating in the wild.
- The mRNA vaccine technology ended in a ‘garbage heap’, because it is extremely toxic, and was rendered obsolete by protein subunit vaccines by 2019. So, the mRNA vaccines were doomed from the start. Subunit (protein-based) vaccines have been known since the late 1970s, but Moderna, Pfizer and BioNTech needed a way to realise a return on their vast investments in mRNA. Hence the pandemic.
- Novavax is a protein subunit vaccine, based on the spike protein, which was available in August 2020 but did not get approval from the FDA. Although it is protein based it will stay in the deltoid muscle injection site. It was however approved in Canada. It may not be very good for you (and ineffective against coronaviruses), but it is less dangerous than the mRNA vaccines.
- mRNA vaccines were found to be too dangerous for animals. Also, arguments that they are a safe basis for cancer drugs are based on lies. There is a competing technology called humanised monoclonal antibodies that cured President Carter from a melanoma that had migrated to his brain and there are now 500 versions of these drugs currently available.
- Norman was told that the patent on the flu vaccines, grown in eggs, expired in 2020. Hence there was little ROI in continuing with this technology.
- Viruses are in your respiratory tract and antibodies, responding to vaccines, are in your blood. These two things do not match well because the antibodies in the blood do not get into the lungs. The immune system ‘stays away’ from the complex respiratory system that deals with the thousands of pathogens we breathe in with every breath.
- Are serology studies a pointless exercise? Because of wide variation between individual’s antibody measurement only makes sense by studying change in any single individual over time.
- Testing for antibodies means nothing because antibodies in the blood cannot travel to the lungs to react.
- Testing for antigens is a cheaper and less sensitive version of the PCR test with the same limitation.
- Norman is very sceptical of a number of covid virus theories including those by Walter Chesnut and JJCoey’s infectious clone theory, though they weren’t discussed in any great detail and were probably not characterised fully (or maybe even fairly).
- The issue with ‘infectious clones’ is that ‘you do not know what to create’ because there are millions of sequences of coronavirus so there is no ‘clonality’ and each one has 30 thousand nucleotides and there are combinatorically infinite changes you could potentially need to consider when creating a coronavirus5. It therefore isn’t possible to know what to change, via Gain of Function (GoF), to make the virus behave in more dangerous ways.
- As part of the ‘partnership for peace’ programme in 1994 Norman hired two ex-Soviet bioweapons scientists and asked them ‘how come you worked for 20 years and didn’t create any new deadly viruses?’
- They can create thousands of virus combinations, but the problem is how to test these creations. There is no way to test the billions and billions of possible changes to a virus and identify which changes to the sequence are ‘bad’. You need the phenotype, and you cannot deduce the phenotype from the genotype. So how would GoF researchers – E.g., EcoHealth alliance – know exactly what to create?
- The claim that Saddam Hussian had biological weapons was groundless and this was confirmed to Norman by Donald Henderson who was involved at the time and who said it was not possible.
- Thus, GoF claims that changes to spike protein and furin cleavage sites make a virus more deadly are fiction. It isn’t possible and there is no proof they can produce deadly bioweapons. Those advocating this position and making these claims – EcoHealth alliance (Fauci, Baric and Duszak) should get fired by their bosses for producing “not a tiger but a kitty”.
- We discussed Gulf War syndrome. Norman said people imagine anthrax is dangerous, but the ex-Soviet bioweapons researchers said to attack New York with anthrax would need 20,000 Boeing 747s flying over the city, dropping millions of tons of anthrax spores from a low height then people spreading it with shovels. The only way to infect people with anthrax is by direct means via an oxygen line or a direct injection.
- Norman said the Tokyo gas attack was successful in Japan because the terrorist used sarin, a nerve agent. The biological agents used, botulinum and anthrax, fortunately failed.
- Within the CDC Fauci was called the ‘mean midget’ and during the AIDS epidemic he sunk Robert Gallo by inventing the story that Gallo had stolen the HIV virus from Luc Montagnier, thus destroying Gallo’s chances of being awarded the Nobel prize (he was also denied a patent).
- Fauci is “not stupid, he is mean”. Fauci wanted to get a Nobel prize, but he didn’t get a Nobel prize for AIDS, so he wanted it for the Wuhan virus. In January 2023 knowing that he wasn’t going to get the Nobel prize he “pulled the plug” and published this paper saying new types of vaccines are needed for respiratory infections, as an act of spite.
We learned a lot from Norman and are very grateful to him for giving us his valuable time. You will notice that we briefly discussed the vaccines, but you will be very pleased to hear that Norman has agreed to follow up with another meeting in early December to share his thoughts on this important topic (see here for a sneak peek)
You can access Norman’s other material on YouTube and Facebook (much of his material is in Polish and Norman speaks six languages!) His twitter handle is @normanpie.
1 Note that this synopsis is not a verbatim and true transcription of the conversation.
2 This document presents evidence PCR was used to collect samples, but no mass testing was undertaken.
3 Submitted (05-JAN-2020) Department of Zoonoses, National Institute of Communicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. The first submission to GenBank had two subsequent revisions.
4 The supposed ‘novel and deadly’ attributes of the virus are discussed extensively here.
5 See this paper. “Mammals are the reservoir hosts of the majority of emerging zoonoses (2, 3, 18). If we assume that all 5,486 described mammalian species (19) harbor an average of 58 viruses in the nine families of interest (as estimated here in P. giganteus) and that these viruses exhibit 100% host specificity, the total richness of mammalian viruses awaiting discovery exceeds ~320,000.”
Critics of Biden’s ‘Censorship Regime’ Say Government Dragging Its Feet on Lawsuit
By Aaron Kheriaty, MD | Human Flourishing | November 3, 2023
M.J. Koch over at the New York Sun has published a very good article on Missouri v. Biden and the Supreme Court’s decision to place a temporary stay on the injunction until they can rule on the case:
Next year’s presidential election may have something to do with the slow pace of Missouri v. Biden.
The Biden administration is said to be dragging its feet on an explosive free speech case against its alleged “Orwellian” censorship of social media platforms. Those leading the lawsuit say it’s because the government wants to continue its censorship regime as long as possible before the presidential election.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, Missouri v. Biden. In certifying it, the high court last week also approved the government’s request for a stay on a preliminary injunction from the Fifth Circuit. The injunction would’ve enjoined the government from continuing what two lower courts called a “coordinated campaign” by top federal officials and agencies to suppress undesirable opinions on public issues such as Covid lockdowns and election integrity.
The suspension of that injunction “is a green light for future censorship,” the founder of the civil rights group representing four of the plaintiffs in the case, Philip Hamburger, of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, tells the Sun. The high court appears to be siding with the executive branch in its latest legal action…. “Undoubtedly,” Mr. Hamburger says, “there’s deference, in the sense of political deference, to the government.”
Next year’s presidential election might have something to do with this “deference.” Oral arguments in Murthy will be heard in January or February, but the court won’t complete its review until late in the spring. Even if the ruling requires the government to immediately desist its behavior, several more months of the status quo will have passed as the contest for the U.S. presidency intensifies.
You can read the rest of the article, which includes my comments on this issue, here.
How (not) to Relativize the Holocaust
By CJ Hopkins | Consent Factory | November 1, 2023
OK, I owe everyone an apology. I get it now. I’ve seen the light. I finally understand the true nature of my thoughtcrimes, and I take responsibility for them, and I stand ready to pay my debt to society.
I have to thank the State of Israel for bringing about this sudden epiphany. How it happened was, Gilad Erdan, Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations, and his delegation wore yellow Stars of David, i.e., the ones the Nazis forced the Jews to wear in public, at a Security Council session to make a statement. According to The Jerusalem Post, Ambassador Erdan then made remarks comparing the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel to the Holocaust.
“When Jewish babies were burned in Auschwitz, the world was silent, and today Jewish babies were burned in Be’eri and the towns of the South by the Nazi Hamas – and the world is silent again. I will make you remember the shame of your silence every time you look at me,” Arden said. “I will wear the yellow patch until the Nazi Hamas is eliminated and until the Security Council stops being silent and condemns the October 7 massacre. Some of you have learned nothing in the last eighty years! Some of you have forgotten why the United Nations was founded. So I will remind you. From today on, every time you look at me you will remember. When my grandfather and his children were sent to Auschwitz, the world was silent. When his wife and their seven children were sent to the gas chambers, the world was silent. When their bodies were burned alongside millions of other Jewish children, the world was silent,” Erdan said, comparing the silence of the UN about the Hamas massacre on October 7 to the silence of the international community regarding the horrors of the Holocaust.
Now, I’ll be honest, the first thought that went through my head when I read that Jerusalem Post piece was, “Great! Here’s an Israeli diplomat doing exactly what I’m being prosecuted for doing, and no one’s going to prosecute him! All I need to do is bring this to the attention of the Berlin District Court, and they’ll dismiss my case!”
But then I had my epiphany.
Basically, my epiphany was, I realized the two things are completely different, i.e., Israel’s use of a Nazi symbol to make a political statement and me doing the same thing … well, almost the same thing. I’ve never actually relativized or minimized or trivialized or compared anything to the Holocaust, as Gilad Erdan did at the UN. Actually, I’ve advised against doing that. But that doesn’t let me off the hook for my thoughtcrimes! No, I did what I did, and I will have to answer for it in January at the District Court of Berlin!
For readers unfamiliar with my case, what I did was, I tweeted these two Tweets featuring the the cover art of my book, The Rise of the New Normal Reich, which is banned in Germany, and referring to the medical-looking masks that everyone was forced to wear during 2020-2022 as “ideological conformity symbols.”
You can read the background on my case here, or here, or here, or listen to me talk about it here, or here, or here, so I won’t go on about it here.
The important thing is, I understand now how totally wrong (and criminal) it was to do that, and how what I did is completely different from what UN Ambassador Erdan just did!
For starters, it wasn’t just those two Tweets. No, on Twitter, Facebook, and in my essays, and interviews, and, basically, every chance I got, for two years, I compared the rise of the “New Normal” to the rise of Nazi Germany in the 1930s. I noted the similarities between these two forms of totalitarianism: the declaration of a “state of emergency” as a pretext to justify the cancellation of constitutional rights and rule by decree; the propaganda; the censorship; the criminalization of dissent; the mandatory displays of ideological conformity; the invasion of bodily autonomy; the segregation, demonization, and persecution of a scapegoat underclass; and so on … all the classic hallmarks of totalitarian systems.
I understand now how wrong (and criminal) that was.
Watching the Israelis whip out their yellow Stars of David at the Security Council clarified for me when it is and isn’t appropriate to compare things to the Nazis.
Check me, but I think I’ve got it straight now.
When governments and non-governmental entities roll out a “New Normal” on account of a completely fictional “apocalyptic pandemic,” lock people down in their homes for months, terrorize them with official propaganda, force everybody to wear medical-looking masks to display their conformity to the new official “reality” and create the appearance of a deadly plague, outlaw political protests, censor dissent, segregate and demonize anyone refusing to conform to the new official ideology, and otherwise transform societies into pathologized de facto police states, those governments and global non-governmental entities are absolutely nothing like the Nazis.
On the other hand, Hamas, the Islamist political and military organization that governs the Gaza Strip, is definitely exactly like the Nazis … except that there are only around 25,000 of them, and their “Reich” is a tiny stretch of land that has been totally blockaded by Israel for years, and is completely surrounded by an “Israel-Gaza barrier,” and has been under Israeli military occupation since 1967. But, otherwise, Hamas is exactly like the Nazis!
See, the thing I didn’t quite understand when I tweeted my thoughtcrimes in 2022 was that being “exactly like the Nazis” has nothing to do with the actual history of Nazi Germany or totalitarianism per se. I was operating under the assumption that it did. That’s no excuse. I should have known better. Obviously, no one should ever be allowed to compare the rise of Nazism in Germany to any other totalitarian system or movement, no matter how blatantly similar it may be. In fact, the history of the rise of Nazism in Germany is irrelevant to, well, basically everything, unless your discussion is strictly limited to the Holocaust, or if you’re relativizing the Holocaust in defense of Israel’s right to defend itself … in which case, sure, break out those yellow stars and go nuts with the Holocaust comparisons.
Seriously, check my reasoning on this, because I don’t want to get it wrong again and end up facing yet another prosecution. Based on my new post-epiphany understanding, questioning the details of the official account of the October 7 attack is “Holocaust denial.” Hundreds of thousands of people peacefully demonstrating in support of Palestinians is a “hate march.” “Hamas Holocaust denial is dragging us into a new Dark Age.” The October 7 massacre was “barbarism as consequential as the Holocaust,” or at least as barbaric as the Babyn Yar massacre!
How am I doing? Am I good so far? I haven’t relativized the Holocaust, have I?
OK, one more test, just to make sure I’ve got my mind right around this stuff. If I, or anyone, were to compare what the State of Israel is doing to the Palestinians in Gaza to, I don’t know, let’s say, just hypothetically, the liquidation of the Warsaw ghetto, that would be completely inappropriate, and anti-Semitic, and a hate crime, right? I mean, the IDF isn’t liquidating the strip. They’re defending Israel against Hamas, and are doing their best to protect civilians as they bomb whole neighborhoods into heaps of rubble, wiping out thousands of men, women, and children, entire extended families, who are trapped inside the “Israel-Gaza barrier,” and have nowhere to run or hide from the slaughter.
If anyone were to make that comparison, that would definitely be relativizing the Holocaust, right? That would be like calling for “the extermination of the Jews,” or literally dressing up like Hitler and walking around barking Nazi slogans in public. In fact, anyone comparing the Israeli-occupied Gaza Strip to the Warsaw Ghetto, or to any other enclave of any other Nazi-occupied territory, is relativizing, minimizing, and trivializing the Holocaust, and should be fired from their job, blacklisted, and publicly condemned as “a Hamas-loving anti-Semite.”
Help me out. Am I getting the hang of this?
I hope so. All I can do at this point is apologize for leading people astray with all that stuff I wrote about “The New Normal Reich” and “pathologized totalitarianism” during 2020-2022. That, and try to make amends by humiliating myself on social media …
… which seems to be going pretty well so far.
Anyway, I am terribly sorry. No more “Holocaust relativizing” for me! I have seen how it is wrong, and terribly wrong, to compare anything to Nazi Germany, ever. I have learned my lesson. I’m cured! Praise god!
The Depopulation Bomb: A Halloween Sci-Fi Tale
By Clayton J. Baker, MD | Brownstone Institute | October 31, 2023
The following fictional story may or may not bear resemblance to events in real life.
Imagine, if you will, that you are a first-generation high tech gazillionaire. In fact, at one time you were said to be the richest man on earth, although that is no longer the case. Nevertheless, you remain unimaginably wealthy, with all the responsibilities and burdens that such wealth brings. (Given the extremely unusual circumstances of this tale, to make it more relatable, we will assign you a fictional name.) Your birth certificate reads Gilbert Harvey Bates III, but the world knows you as Gil Bates.
Gil Bates’s erstwhile net-worth preeminence (stolen as it was by an upstart online retailer named Biff Jezos) is not the only important loss he has suffered. Also in the rearview mirror is his youth, his marriage, and his position as CEO of the behemoth tech company he created, MacroHardTM.
After Gil Bates stepped down as CEO of MacroHardTM, he focused on his philanthropic work. The centerpiece of this work is the immensely well-funded (and therefore immensely influential) Bates Foundation. The Foundation’s scope may be mind-bogglingly broad, but one problem especially consumed Bates: there are far too many people on the planet.
In his youth, Gil Bates read a controversial book called The Overpopulation Bomb, written by a visionary scientist named Saul Derelicht. That alarming book, a huge bestseller in its day, described a neo-Malthusian hell on earth resulting from human overpopulation, and proposed mass sterilization and other aggressive population reduction techniques as the solution.
Gil Bates became convinced, and remains convinced – especially as the worldwide human population has soared beyond 8 billion units – that Homo sapiens have obscenely overpopulated the planet. Once Bates had sold software packages to the great majority of them, he vowed that this existential threat to the planet must be addressed.
But what was to be done? How could this great affront to Gaia be reconciled? When it comes to a responsibility so great, a task so immense, no single man – not even Gil Bates – could hope to accomplish it alone.
Fortunately for the future of Earth, Bates knew a host of like-minded, enlightened elites, pre-eminent individuals of great wealth, power, and worldwide influence. Among the most important:
- A dour Teutonic economist named Kraut Schlob. The son of an ambitious industrialist who built flamethrowers for the Third Reich, Schlob is the founder and chairman of the World Enslavement Forum. The Forum has become the premier worldwide gathering of hyper-elites who wish to discuss globalist policies, and enjoy the company of high-end prostitutes, free from the prying eyes of commoners.
- An immensely powerful – if embarrassingly vertically challenged – American health bureaucrat named Dr. Fantoni Auci. For decades, Dr. Auci controlled the overwhelming majority of US Government medical research funding. As such, no one in the vast American network of hospitals, research institutes, or universities dares to cross Dr. Auci, and he wields similar influence internationally. In fact, he oversees funding for multiple secret virology research laboratories, as far away as China.
- A mysterious veterinarian named Adalbert Ghoula. Ghoula is the CEO of Kaiser, Inc., the world’s largest and most rapacious pharmaceutical company, which Ghoula has grown into a veritable modern day IG Farben. In his earlier days, Ghoula oversaw the development of a vaccine that successfully induces the chemical castration and sterilization of swine.
The consensus, reached after lengthy consultations with these men and other luminaries, was that the worldwide human population must be reduced from 8 billion to 500 million units.
But how? Several possible avenues were proposed.
- War has been used for millennia to reduce populations, and while highly effective locally or regionally, it would be entirely ineffective at removing the necessary fifteen-sixteenths of people on Earth. After all, the deadliest war in history, World War II, resulted in a mere 80 million deaths, just 3 percent of the world’s population at the time.
- The use of a bomb was considered a special kind of bomb, reminiscent of the “neutron bomb” of yore, which would supposedly reduce populations while sparing infrastructure. This seemed closer to the mark than all-out war, but ultimately it was determined that setting off bombs would be both impractical and far too obvious. After all, even herd animals will not consent to being openly and massively slaughtered, no matter how necessary the culling may be. The herd must be kept forever in the dark.
- A plague, a pestilence, a pandemic seemed more promising. Past naturally occurring pandemics had reduced human populations much more successfully than wars. The Black Death of 1346-53 may have reduced the world population by as much as 25 percent, a much more encouraging number than the measly 3 percent from World War II. As an added economic bonus, the Black Death served as a very effective concentrator of wealth for the survivors, as it caused minimal collateral property loss.
However, a more detailed review of historical worldwide population estimates demonstrated that a pandemic alone could only serve as a temporizing measure at best. Most estimates show that by 1400, the worldwide population had unfortunately returned to its pre-plague total.
Clearly, the necessary 94 percent reduction in population could not be achieved by culling the herd alone. Sterilization would be needed as well. But how to achieve such mass sterilization? Many H. sapiens possess an intense desire to procreate – that’s the source of the problem, after all. Unfortunately, prior historical initiatives for mandatory sterilization – even those of limited scale and scope, such as those targeting the mentally deficient – have met great opposition, at least in the so-called “free” nations.
- However, a vaccine could be used for mass sterilization. Ghoula’s earlier work at Kaiser was proof of this. But a fundamental problem remained: how to get the unsuspecting population – specifically, its children and young adults – to take the stealth-sterilizing inoculation?
The solution, when it came, was a thing of beauty, sublimely subtle and symmetrical. The answer was a two-step process: a pandemic and a vaccine. One population reduction device would be released, presented as a worldwide plague. It would be followed by a second population reduction device, presented as the cure.
And the technology was already in place to make it happen. It merely had to be perfected, then enacted.
Employing the Black Magic of gain-of-function virology research, an animal respiratory virus, previously never infecting humans, was genetically engineered to readily infect and spread amongst humans. At a key moment in political history, when a particularly bothersome populist American President named T. Ronald Dump was running for reelection, the virus was released from a Chinese laboratory into the human population.
As the new virus spread, reports of the death and devastation it wrought were spread as well. In actuality, the virus had been engineered so that it was deadly only to the frail, chronically ill, and very old. It was cleverly propagandized, however, as a threat to persons of all ages, a modern day Black Death of sorts.
The US deep state, desperate to disrupt the Dump presidency and remove him from office, were willing partners to manage the control and manipulation of the population through propaganda, and to enforce unprecedented, prolonged lockdowns of society. Remarkably, they even convinced President Dump to sanction the lockdowns, and to fund the development of the vaccine. Most other countries followed suit.
The new virus rapidly killed off many of the oldest and sickest members of society, as would be expected of a novel respiratory virus. However, the locked-down and isolated populations were barraged with media messages that stirred up mass terror of the virus. Businesses were closed, save for those deemed “essential.” Schools were closed, though children were already known to be at statistically zero risk of death. Dissenters were harassed, scapegoated, and punished.
Then, a solution to the pandemic was presented: the vaccine. The vaccine was the savior, the only way out of this crisis.
A few irritating, contrarian dissenters fought back. They protested for civil rights. They stressed the near impossibility of producing an effective vaccine against a rapidly mutating respiratory virus. They identified numerous “safety signals” found in the vaccine trials, and tried to expose these as best they could. But the mainstream media drowned them out, the social media companies (controlled by the deep state) censored them ruthlessly, and after all, once the vaccines were mandated, most people took at least a couple of doses.
And the joke was on the dissenters in another, more important respect. These meddlesome do-gooders were indeed intelligent enough to identify the toxicities inherent in the vaccines. But they decried them as “safety signals.” The fatal toxicities they identified still seemed to them to be flaws, mistakes, and the unfortunate results of a hasty and mad rush to make money off of the pandemic.
Imagine the naïvete.
Early in the vaccine “rollout,” young women reported abnormal vaginal bleeding and other menstrual problems after receiving the vaccines, raising concerns about potential unintended consequences to female reproduction. Pathologists found ovaries infiltrated with multiple toxins from the vaccines, both the dreaded “spoke” protein of the virus and “lucid nanoparticles” from the vaccine’s delivery system. Even occluded Fallopian tubes were identified.
Soon thereafter, reports appeared in the alternative media of dramatically increased numbers of sudden deaths, primarily in young men, after receiving the vaccine. It often visibly occurred in athletes while on the playing field. This caused considerable alarm, impossible as it was to hide.
In a masterful demonstration of the “limited hangout,” officials acknowledged the sudden death phenomenon, but would not even allow mention of the vaccine as a possible cause within the mainstream medical community. Instead, protocols and clinics for this sudden epidemic of heart disease in the young were established, but strangely without any official curiosity as to the cause. All they knew for sure was that it couldn’t be the vaccine.
Of course, the infamous “spoke” protein, the same viral antigen chosen by the vaccine’s designers to induce the vaccinated patient’s body to produce in quantity, just happens to be the most toxic part of the virus. The “spoke” protein deposits itself in tissues throughout the body, wreaking havoc wherever it goes. It has a particular affinity for the heart muscle, causing the inflammatory process known as myocarditis that leads to cardiac arrests.
“Spoke” doesn’t stop with the heart, however. It is a remarkably versatile toxin, a sort of Swiss Army monkey wrench in the human body. It causes gigantic, gruesome, rubbery blood clots in the vasculature, seizures in the central nervous system, the aforementioned deposits in ovaries and Fallopian tubes (and testes, for that matter), etcetera, etcetera. What a stroke of genius to choose “spoke” as the antigen the vaccines induce replication of!
The vaccines held another nasty little secret, which even the pathetic, naïve resistance only recognized much later. The vaccines were “contaminated” with plasmids containing MV-40 and MV-40-like DNA sequences. Yes, that MV-40, the monkey virus known to cause cancer in multiple animal species.
Could the appearance of so-called “turbo cancers” in vaccinated persons somehow be related to this “contamination?” Well, another limited hangout, this time courtesy of Healthcare Canada, took care of that.
Excess death rates rose dramatically after the vaccine rollout. Birth rates plummeted. To the do-gooders, refuseniks, and dissidents, this was a scandal.
But what did they know? To use a phrase all-too-familiar to the seasoned software developer, these toxicities were not bugs, but features. The vaccines were working exactly as they were supposed to work.
Silly plebes! The “vaccines” were actually a deliberate, multi-pronged, population reduction device. They were designed to kill a percentage of young people – mostly male – outright, to poison and disable the female reproductive system at multiple points, and to insert teratogenic plasmids into recipients’ cells, to pick off others at undisclosed, later dates. They were merely packaged and marketed as a vaccine against a (lab-manufactured) flu-like illness.
As successful as they have been, there remains so much more work yet to be done.
A definite lull occurred in the population’s acceptance of repeated injections of the vaccine. The dissidents may be naïve, but they are persistent, and sometimes effective to a degree. But ultimately they will fail.
The general population is lazy, uneducated, and easily terrified. (Some say they are being done a favor by being culled.) They are accustomed to the precedents set by other vaccines. Their reluctance will be worn down with time. Of course respiratory viruses are imperfect targets for vaccines. Once again, that’s not a bug, it’s a feature! It only means that a new booster of the vaccine will be needed every year – at least.
With each new round of boosters, a new population of girls and young women will be rendered infertile. A new group of boys and young men will suffer cardiac arrest – a very quick and painless way to die, really.
Countless others will contract cancers – turbo cancer, to use the current term for these rapidly progressing and deadly malignancies, often of unusual types – bone cancers, muscle cancers, and other former rarities. Not an easy way to die, admittedly. But these tumors mercifully progress to end stage very swiftly, and their value as a population reduction device is undeniable.
Have no fear. It is only a matter of time; only a matter of lather, rinse, repeat. As long as the herd allows itself to be sent through the sheep dip whenever and however often the shepherds proclaim is necessary, H. sapiens will get to 500 million. All courtesy of a type of bomb after all, but in this case a microscopic bomb that is released in each person via a tiny little injection: The Depopulation Bomb.
Happy Halloween!
C.J. Baker, M.D. is an internal medicine physician with a quarter century in clinical practice. He has held numerous academic medical appointments, and his work has appeared in many journals, including the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine. From 2012 to 2018 he was Clinical Associate Professor of Medical Humanities and Bioethics at the University of Rochester.
Now that the dust has settled on the Covid-19 pandemic, what should we learn for the future?
Dr Scott Mitchell shares his personal view of how the situation was handled
Guernsey Press | October 9, 2023
The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic was unprecedented in most of our lifetimes. Not since the Second World War has anything had such a major and widespread negative impact on humanity.
In early 2020, the world was alerted to a novel coronavirus causing severe pneumonia in Wuhan, China. Initially, I was not overly concerned, as the previous coronavirus outbreaks in the last 20 years (Sars and Mers), although with reported high lethality, had been largely restricted to geographic regions. In fact, I had travelled to China towards the end of Sars in 2003 and recall being held up following an internal flight while the authorities checked travellers’ temperatures. Fortunately, I was released and allowed on my way once they were satisfied I had no signs of infection.
However, I became very concerned once the new disease hit north Italy, with media reports of hospitals being overwhelmed. There was no known proven treatment, and later, when it afflicted New York City, sadly 88% of those ventilated died.
In Guernsey, the CCA promptly convened. Although I don’t have any intimate knowledge of their discussions, I suspect the modelling from Neil Ferguson at ICL, which suggested that as many as 500,000 people could die in the UK if no action was taken, had a great influence on their decision making, and as a result the Bailiwick entered a full lockdown on 25 March 2020 – the day after the UK.
Guernsey’s Strategic Pandemic Influenza Plan, having only just been drafted in January 2020, has no mention of lockdowns. Although this was expecting influenza, that type of virus can potentially cause an even more fatal disease, such as that which occurred in 1918. No doubt the CCA were put in a difficult position, potentially having to face something much worse than ever envisioned.
In addition, Guernsey is geographically isolated and has limited healthcare resources, such as personnel and hospital/ICU beds, so deviating from a pre-determined strategy to quarantine the island while the threat could be fully evaluated was a reasonable initial approach.
Lockdowns went from ‘two weeks to flatten the curve’ to extended periods of months or more. Doing nothing was clearly not an option, however the prolonged closure of society brings with it undeniable collateral damage, including mental health problems, delayed diagnoses of serious diseases such as cancer, and a significant economic burden. Those who were able to work from home were less affected by the latter, but those with manual jobs were prohibited from working and earning. This resulted in significant cost – with most of the States’ pandemic expenditure of nearly £100m. spent on income and business support. Although Guernsey was able to return to relatively normal life on-island with fewer restrictions than the UK, travel was far from normal, requiring up to 14 days of quarantine for those arriving on the island. It could never be a long-term solution to essentially be cut off from the rest of the world.
So, was there any alternative strategy? Professor John Ioannidis of Stanford had published early on that the infection fatality rate was around 0.2%, and later found it was under 0.1% for those under 70 years of age. Increasing age beyond this was well documented to be the single greatest risk factor for severe Covid-19 and hospitalisation/death, and people with conditions such as obesity, diabetes and high blood pressure were also at higher risk.
In October 2020, three professors of medicine (Sunetra Gupta of Oxford, Martin Kulldorff of Yale and Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford) suggested a different approach; the Great Barrington Declaration – targeted protection of the vulnerable, while allowing the rest of society to continue relatively normally. Would this have been a better strategy?
Mandated non-pharmaceutical interventions were later brought in. These included masking, social distancing, and hand-washing. Early on, a number of health officials stated there was no recommendation for masks in the community, yet later this advice was reversed, despite a Danish randomised study and later a Cochrane review concluding there was little or no evidence for mask effectiveness.
The advice was also inconsistent – one would have to enter a pub or restaurant wearing a mask but could sit for hours without one. Social distancing may have reduced spread by larger exhaled droplets, but spread by aerosols (smaller particles), which can remain in the air for longer periods, was under-appreciated.
The strategy had become one of varying restrictions while waiting on the proposed solution – a vaccine. Several pharmaceutical companies produced candidates which quickly entered trials. In late 2020 results of these were published from three companies, all claiming efficacy rates over 90%, albeit these were relative risk reductions. They were proposed to be safe, although there was no medium- or long-term data.
The mass vaccination programme started in late December 2020, beginning with the elderly, the most vulnerable and front-line healthcare workers. Undoubtedly Covid-19 could be a severe and fatal disease, so on a risk-benefit analysis, offering such an investigational therapy to those at risk could be justified. However, they were subsequently offered to younger and younger age groups. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation met and decided there was insufficient benefit to offer them to 12-15-year-olds. Despite this the chief medical officers in the UK decided they should be, and soon after Guernsey followed suit (then later offered them to children as young as five years old). This was especially perplexing given that it was a disease of negligible risk to children and there was a known risk of myocarditis (heart muscle inflammation), especially in teenage males. A study analysing the original trial data reported an overall serious adverse event rate of one in 800.
Although the vaccines were never mandated, there was coercion to take them. I frequently heard that individuals were only taking them in order to travel. While some of this was outside Guernsey’s control, local people who had not taken the vaccines were subject to isolation requirements on-island. At the same time visitors and tourists who had taken them could enter without any restriction or testing. There were some studies at the time showing similar viral loads in people whether vaccinated or not, suggesting limited impact on infection and transmission. Real world data supports this. The last figures published by the States on 28 March 2023 shows over 95% of reported cases of Covid-19 had taken at least a primary course of vaccines. In addition, a recent Cleveland Clinic study suggested that with cumulative doses, one was more likely to get Covid.
Even if the vaccines were proven to reduce infections and transmission, would it have been ethically right to impose conditions on those who had chosen not to have them?
So how effective are the vaccines at preventing death? Data just released by the ONS shows that between 1 April 2021 and 31 May 2023 in England there were 8,850 deaths involving Covid-19 in the unvaccinated and 52,000 deaths in the vaccinated. Between January and May 2023, 95% of deaths were in the vaccinated.
Is the widespread use of a vaccine that does not significantly impact on infection and transmission helping to promote variants?
Why wasn’t a more holistic strategy adopted, such as promoting weight loss, exercise and maintaining a sufficient level of vitamin D? Deficiency of the latter was correlated with worse outcomes in several studies, while being a safe and inexpensive intervention.
Repurposed drugs with an established safety profile such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were vilified. Both are inexpensive drugs known to work on more than one condition. The data from human studies remains mixed (and fraudulent negative data was published in the Lancet on the former), but at the same time expensive drugs such as remdesivir were approved – it didn’t reduce mortality in hospitalised patients and increased the risk of kidney failure, at a cost of £2,000 per course.
An inexpensive pharmaceutical intervention that did become proven for severe Covid-19 were corticosteroids – showing a significant reduction in mortality in patients requiring oxygen or ventilatory support. Unfortunately, the WHO had recommended against them from the outset of the pandemic. Dr Pierre Kory went before the US Senate in May 2020 to testify on their use, based on existing published data on acute respiratory distress syndrome and reports from doctors using them as being a ‘game changer’. Two months later, they were adopted as a standard of care when Oxford published the results of their recovery trial.
Data from the Greffe shows there was no increased mortality in 2020 and 2021, yet Guernsey experienced the most deaths for at least a decade in 2022. This echoes similar excess ongoing mortality in the UK and multiple other countries. What is this due to?
The States’ recent Covid Review was a missed opportunity to properly evaluate the response to the pandemic.
I ask, how much of the disruption to our lives was due to the virus, and how much from the response to it?
Was it all proportionate, and what should we learn for the future?
A doctor’s insight into vaccine injury
By Thomas Lane | TCW Defending Freedom | October 30, 2023
Dr Keith Berkowitz is a founding member, with Dr Pierre Kory, of the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC). He is treating a lot of vaccine-injured patients at his practice in midtown Manhattan. Dr Berkowitz was kind enough to answer a few questions on the Covid vaccine and the vaccine injured.
***
Who is most at risk for vaccine injury?
One thought is that if someone had Covid first, and then got the vaccine after being sick, the rates of vaccine injury were higher because they already had an antibody response, their immune system was already revved up, and then they got an injection of another antigen. Another group I see is people with autoimmune disease, they seem to be more triggered. I have several cases of people who had dormant autoimmune disease, such as ulcerative colitis and rheumatoid arthritis, and post vaccine it got retriggered. What people forget about vaccines is that they have an immunosuppressive effect. So in that two- to three-week period, the immune system takes a hit, which makes the body vulnerable to other illnesses. The third group I see that are most at risk of vaccine injury are people with high histamine levels.
What are the most common symptoms of vaccine injury?
Mildest is probably loss of taste and smell, mild digestive issues, or a cough. More severe are the autoimmune responses, the neurological symptoms, like brain fog, and tinnitus (which is one of the toughest to treat), myocarditis and pericarditis (inflammation of the heart), cancer, which I would call the most severe.
Is that new cancers, or cancers that have returned?
I’m seeing both.
Which autoimmune diseases are you seeing?
First, autoimmune disease is what I’m seeing most in vaccine injury. Specifically thyroid disease, more than anything else. What’s interesting is that I’m seeing normal thyroid function, and positive thyroid antibodies. So typically we wouldn’t check for thyroid antibodies if thyroid function was normal. So that group is often missed for that reason.
Would you say any vaccine was worse than the others?
It seems to be batch-related. That’s the question. There’s a theory that 10 per cent of the batches, roughly, caused 90 per cent of the issues. If you look at the original technology, the mRNA was created at a 70 per cent purity. There’s speculation that, because of manufacturing issues, they weren’t able to create that level of purity, and achieved only 50-55 per cent purity. So does one really know if that level of purity works? Especially being that it was never tested.
Why is there so much denial around vaccine injury?
I think there was a blind trust of the government and the pharmaceutical companies, coupled with a fear aspect of Covid (remember people thought that 50 per cent of hospitalised Covid patients died, when it was more like less than 1 per cent). Fear made people not think any more, and now they’re in denial about the choice they made. Another thing I can’t figure out: If you’re vaccinated, how does an unvaccinated person put you at risk? Also, why did doctors not do their own research? It was blind faith. Medications all have side effects – why was this one different?
How do you respond to the proponents of the vaccine who say, regarding vaccine injury, correlation is not causation?
That’s true, but why are they not even looking into it? If they are so confident, then just study it. What do they have to lose? Why not disprove it? Why is disproving it a major issue for them? If you don’t agree with me, prove me wrong.
Traditionally, vaccines take 10-15 years to get approval, because all that time they are studying long-term effects. The Covid vaccine, which was administered as soon as it was created, is still only about three years old. Therefore, have we yet to see the potential damage it can cause?
Absolutely. Do you know what percentage of drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration are withdrawn within five years? 31 per cent. One out of three drugs are taken off the market within five years. That’s incredibly high. That tells me we’re not checking properly. Now with this vaccine, one of my biggest questions is why did we decide to use new technology? Is a pandemic the right time to test new technology? I would argue probably not. And why did some countries around the world, like China and Russia, not use this technology? And at the end of the day we have to ask, was the treatment worse than the problem? And should medical products be tied to financial incentives? That creates a huge conflict. There were incentives to use the vaccine. If a drug or a treatment was really that good, would you need to push it like that?
Any final comments?
This is going to take years to figure out. It isn’t going away any time soon. I feel bad for the people who took something which they thought they were doing for the right reason, and now they are suffering. And they’re not being helped. Why does the government create a long Covid initiative, but not a vaccine-injured initiative? Why are we ignoring these patients? And why are we [in the US] approving a product for over six-month-olds when other countries are saying over 65 years? Another thing that doesn’t make sense is a study on teenagers showed that we have to vaccinate a million young men to prevent one hospitalisation. And the potential in a million doses is 1,000 with side effects. So the hospital to side effect rate is one to a thousand. It doesn’t make any sense! My worry is the trust in the medical system may never come back. And I’m not sure that it’s not deserved.
Featured Video
Iran, China & Russia v. Trump
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Free Book
Tell Me Again, Who Made The Desert Bloom?
Lawrence of Cyberia | March 19, 2010
In December 1945 and January 1946, the British Mandate authorities carried out an extensive survey of Palestine, in support of the work of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine. The results were published in the Survey of Palestine, which has been scanned and made available online by Palestine Remembered; all 1300 pages can be read here.
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Persian Gulf oil production can take two years to recover from war: IEA chief
- Washington hiding billion-dollar combat losses to Iran’s precision strikes: Report
- Israel Considers Ceasefire a Betrayal
- Iran Opens Strait of Hormuz for Duration of Lebanon Ceasefire
- Russian security chief issues warning to four NATO states
- Seyed M. Marandi: U.S. Naval Blockade & Ground Invasion of Iran?
- The Iran War Exposes the Emptiness of American ‘Strength’ in East Asia
- Europe’s Drone Pipeline to Ukraine Could Soon be in Russia’s Crosshairs – Analyst
- EU spied on Orban for years – former Slovak minister
- Fact-Checking the “Placebo Control” Fact Checkers
- If Americans Knew
- With multiple “ceasefires” in place, Israel keeps on killing in Gaza and Lebanon – Daily Update
- Mearsheimer: Israel Owns Trump
- Mark Levin and Jonathan Pollard Push for Nuking Iran
- TCN: America Enables Israel’s Crimes
- Israel’s Next Leader Will Be Just Like Bibi – but Without the Corruption
- Born into war, raised across borders: The story of Gaza’s premature babies separated from their parents amid Israel’s genocide
- Israeli soldiers suspected of raping Palestinian detainee allowed to return to service
- Gaza flooded with sweets as fuel and medicine withheld, health official warns
- Israel, US ready for wars to resume, as Gaza healthcare is in freefall – Daily Update
- Commentary: take away Israel’s biggest weapon
- No Tricks Zone
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
- New Study: No Linear Warming Or Glacier Retreat Along Northern Antarctic Peninsula Since 1980s
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
Aletho News 