On March 12th, 2020, Anderson Cooper and Dr. Sanjay Gupta held a global town hall on “Corona Facts and Fears.” During the discussion, Anderson said to the viewing audience, “And, again, if you are concerned about coronavirus, and you haven’t gotten a flu shot…you should get a flu shot.”
Setting safety and efficacy of influenza vaccination aside, is Anderson’s claim that the flu shot will help people fight COVID-19 remotely true? The short answer is no.
In fact, the results of many peer-reviewed, published studies prove that Anderson’s recommendation may have been the worst advice he could have given the public.
In searching the literature, the only study we have been able to find assessing flu shots and coronavirus is a 2020 US Pentagon study that found that the flu shot INCREASES the risks from coronavirus by 36%. “Receiving influenza vaccination may increase the risk of other respiratory viruses, a phenomenon known as “virus interference…’vaccine derived’ virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus…” Here are the findings:
2020 Pentagon study: Flu vaccines increase risk of coronavirus by 36%
Examining non-influenza viruses specifically, the odds of coronavirus in vaccinated individuals were significantly higher when compared to unvaccinated individuals with an odds ratio (association between an exposure and an outcome) of 1.36. In other words, the vaccinated were 36% more likely to get coronavirus.
Many other studies suggest the increased risk of viral respiratory infections from the flu shot:
2018 CDC Study: Flu shots increase risk of non-flu acute respiratory illnesses (ARI) in children
This CDC supported study concluded an increased risk of acute respiratory illness (ARI) among children <18 years caused by non-influenza respiratory pathogens post-influenza vaccination compared to unvaccinated children during the same period.
2011 Australian Study: Flu shot doubled risk of non-influenza viral infections and increased flu risk by 73%
A prospective case-control study in healthy young Australian children found that seasonal flu shots doubled their risk of illness from non-influenza virus infections. Overall, the vaccine increased the risk of virus-associated acute respiratory illness, including influenza, by 73%.
2012 Hong Kong Study: Flu shots increased the risk of non-flu respiratory infections 4.4 times and tripled flu infections
A randomized placebo-controlled trial in Hong Kong children found that flu shots increased the risk of non-influenza viral ARIs fivefold (OR 4.91,CI 1.04—8.14) and, including influenza, tripled the overall viral ARI risk (OR 3.17, CI 1.04—9.83).
2017 Study: Vaccinated children are 5.9 more likely to suffer pneumonia and 30.1 times more likely to have been diagnosed with Allergic Rhinitis than unvaccinated children
Vaccinated children were 30.1 times more likely to have been diagnosed with Allergic Rhinitis and 5.9 times more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia than unvaccinated children.
2014 Study: Influenza-vaccinated children were 1.6 times more likely than unvaccinated children to have a non-influenza “Influenza-like-illness” (ILI)
Even more published science
The well-respected Cochrane Collaboration’s comprehensive 2010 meta-analysis of published influenza vaccine studies found that the influenza vaccination has “no effect” on hospitalization, and that there is “no evidence that vaccines prevent viral transmission or complications.” The Cochrane Researchers concludedthat the scientific evidence “seem[s] to discourage the utilization of vaccination against influenza in healthy adults as a routine public health measure.”
In their meta-analysis, the Cochrane researchers accused the CDC of deliberately misrepresenting the science in order to support their universal influenza vaccination recommendation. Nevertheless, CNN and other mainstream media outlets continually broadcast CDC pronouncements as gospel and, ironically, ridicules those of us who actually read the science as “purveyors of ‘vaccine misinformation”.
This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
Ever since the world became aware of Covid-19 in early 2020, we have warned of the possibility that the government response, may turn out to be worse than the condition itself.
Many have described this response as a form of medical tyranny, sold to us as a temporary measure for the greater good. Two weeks to flatten the curve they said.
Four months into the lockdowns, some of us half jokingly said things like, ‘I hope they lift the lockdowns before the 4th of July, so we can celebrate our freedoms.’
Now we find ourselves eight months in to a two week lockdown with no end in sight. Despite the fact that a Federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled the shut downs were unconstitutional. The Michigan Supreme Court also ruled that the Governor’s emergency orders had violated the constitution. So why hasn’t anything changed?
In this interview Spiro’s guest Dr. Pamela Popper discusses two new lawsuits that she believes could end Covid-1984. The two lawsuits, one in Ohio and one in New Mexico, challenge the root of the problem, the emergency itself.
President Trump took in the early days of 2020 from a position of incredible strength. At the beginning of the year, no serious analyst would have told you that he was in major jeopardy of losing the 2020 election. The American economy was booming, we had solid employment numbers, no major international crises, and the president was setting up a bold agenda for his second term to further “drain the swamp” and bolster his domestic policy priorities. Election fraud was always a potential factor to be monitored, but there was no massive, unprecedented mail-in voting scheme to worry about.
But news reports coming out of Wuhan, China indicated that a potentially threatening situation was afoot. On January 29, President Trump acted with haste in authorizing the creation of a White House Coronavirus Task Force. A month later, the small task force expanded to include Vice President Mike Pence as its chairman. In what will be looked back on as a catastrophic delegation mistake, the VP decided to appoint Dr. Deborah Birx as the response coordinator for the task force. Prior to the COVID crisis, Birx was best known for her work on an HIV/AIDS vaccine, which does not exist. She had never been anywhere near having access to the levers of power in America.
The COVID task force would soon grow to 27 members, but several of the individuals appointed to the task force are cabinet level officials, and could not devote their entire portfolio to the coronavirus. That led to an opening that allowed for Dr Anthony Fauci, Dr Deborah Birx, CDC Director Robert Redfield, Surgeon General Jerome Adams, and a few others to monopolize the policy shop set up by the task force for the coronavirus crisis.
With much of the world succumbing to total fear, panic, and hysteria, and a wave of new lockdowns hitting Europe and elsewhere, President Trump remained incredibly level-headed. In discussing COVID-19, the president reminded his colleagues that the “cure could not be worse than the disease.” There was a chance that America would join Sweden and a handful of other nations balking at the trend to hit the self-destruct button.
Fauci and Birx had other plans, and they eventually found a diabolical method to ratchet up the pressure to such an incredible extent that the president would finally agree to their demands.
In mid March, with the “European wave” in full swing, the two government bureaucrats presented junk epidemiological models to the president that seemed more like a hostage-like situation than policy advice. Birx and Fauci vouched for the supposed science of a mere model devised by a handful of academics in England, which claimed that millions of Ameicans would die if President Trump did not lock down the nation immediately. The coronavirus was presented as a ticking time bomb that would wipe out a significant percentage of the nation if the president did not act right away. Under enormous pressure to “do something” to react to the crisis, the president made the fatal mistake of agreeing to what was advertised as a very temporary two week lockdown policy initiative. At the flip of a switch, the president authorized the federal response plan, and state governors were now instituting what was marketed as a 15 day reset in order to retain hospital capacity for the supposedly deadly wave that was coming to America. We were told that after the two weeks, things could then return to normal and that the 30 million small businesses across America would be able to open back up relatively unscathed.
15 Days to Slow The Spread then became 30 Days To Slow The Spread. The so-called crisis kept growing to the point that the task force members were soon not even addressing the end point to their draconian policy demands. The president, who already had severe doubts about the policies pushed by Fauci, Birx, Redfield, and crew, eventually acceded so much territory to the public health bureaucrats that it seemed at times he had handed over the keys to his presidency to the task force.
The Fauci-Birx policy goal posts continued to shift dramatically over the course of the Spring. The goals were no longer about retaining hospital capacity, but permanently transforming the nation into a COVID safety regime, despite the data rolling in showing a disease that was not nearly as threatening as once perceived. The U.S. economy was no longer booming. Instead, it was in a self-inflicted freefall. Tens of millions of Americans were in crisis, and right in the middle of what was now a heated election cycle. The health bureaucrats’ coronavirus policies were tearing apart the fabric of the nation, and the presidency was now very much up for grabs. The president could no longer point to his economic record, his peacetime regime, or his steady hand, because all of these talking points were being compromised by bad coronavirus policies.
All of a sudden, the president was now on defense, having completely lost the narrative to the panic mongers in government and media. The 2020 campaign was very much within the margins of a contested election.
President Trump, having privately evolved to “Team Reason” on COVID policy, and having witnessed the reality that the coronavirus was not living up to its destructive hype once promised by Fauci and Birx, wanted to take action to correct the record.
He tried to reset the narrative and bring back a reasonable, rational policy, but it was too late. America had already decided to buy the pseudoscience that Fauci and Birx, among others, were selling to them. It was no longer politically suitable to simply dismiss his prior capitulation to the public health bureaucrats on his task force. Fauci had become a worshipped celebrity figure with solid approval ratings, and sadly, much of the nation was now propagandized into supporting the disastrous lockdowns that were destroying the nation.
Many on the “Team Reason” side of the debate celebrated the appointment of Dr. Scott Atlas, — at the personal request of President Trump — as a desperately needed breath of fresh air for a task force that was peddling failed ideas and junk science. But Atlas, to no fault of his own, failed to make an impact on the task force. That’s because the fix was in from the beginning. The team assembled by VP Pence, which at this point was unapologetically, publicly recommending an extreme COVID policy agenda of economic and societal destruction, went to work immediately to distance themselves from Atlas, and waged a full fledged information warfare campaign against him.
Sources in the Trump Administration, who had first-hand access to Coronavirus Task Force meetings and conversations, made it clear to me that the health bureaucrats made it their mission to destroy and delegitimize Scott Atlas, who quietly resigned from his role in late November. Sources familiar with Atlas’s thought process told me that he was incredibly frustrated by the government bureaucrats’ devotion to their select non pharmaceutical interventions, such as lockdowns, mask mandates, and other forms of societal and economic devastation. Atlas also remained frustrated by what could be described as a lack of overall intellect on the task force.
Emails surfaced showing that White House Task Force members such as Birx, Fauci, Redfield, and others were enraged that Dr Atlas came to the table with a different set of ideas, and they rightly perceived him as a threat to their monopoly on their pro-lockdown COVID messaging campaigns. Birx, for her part, routinely sent out emails through private channels to media reporters and her colleagues seeking to undermine the ideas presented by Atlas, while simultaneously refusing to defend her ideas or debate his solutions in person.
By the time President Trump decided to rebuke the task force in calling for an expedited return to normalcy, the political damage had already been done. The president’s campaign messaging was stuck in a strange place between attempting to have their COVID cake and eat it too, in recognizing that polling shifted in the direction of the restrictionist camp.
By agreeing to Fauci and Birx’s initial COVID ransom situation demands, the president set in motion a wave of momentum against him that he could never get back.
We are now just days away from President Trump being replaced by Joe Biden, and the White House COVID Task Force, led by career bureaucrats and incompetent politicians, continues its broken mission. For reasons that remain unclear, Fauci, Birx, and the gang remain on the COVID Task Force, and to this day, the White House is still delivering corona panic to states across the nation. The Task Force will live on, and to the not-so-hidden delight of its members, President Trump is president no more.
Both of these doctors have testified to the politicians in Washington, D.C. about their work, but to no avail. Instead, the politicians in D.C. have awarded $TRILLIONS to the pharmaceutical industry to develop dangerous vaccines instead.
The FDA has refused to authorize these safe and effective drugs for emergency use, which is a criminal act, because to deny the work of these doctors has allowed them to issue emergency use authorization to the new mRNA vaccines instead.
However, individual doctors can still prescribe these drugs for off-label use, and Dr. Meryl Nass has compiled a list for the public and where to find doctors who prescribe these effective therapies.
For those who have found a doctor that has prescribed HCQ but their pharmacy will not fulfill the early treatment prescription – it can be overnighted by – Ravkoo Pharmacy : Phone: 863-875-5700
Police are demanding new powers to force entry into the homes of suspected lockdown violators after Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced a new national lockdown in England.
The call was made by David Jamieson, the police and crime commissioner for the West Midlands police, England’s second biggest force.
“For the small minority of people who refuse entry to police officers and obstruct their work, the power of entry would seem to be a useful tool,” said Jamieson.
“I have raised this issue with the policing minister previously and clarity on the power of entry would help police officers enforce the new Covid regulations more easily,” he added.
As we previously highlighted, police are already breaking into people’s homes without warrants under the guise of enforcing lockdown restrictions, so any new law will just codify the process.
Since most of the country was already under a de facto full lockdown, the new national lockdown was announced by Boris Johnson primarily to hand police more draconian powers.
The government has already stated that the new measures will continue until the end of March at the earliest, meaning the next 3 months will be replete with examples of police abusing their powers to target people for simply trying to live their lives.
As we reported earlier, senior Scotland Yard officials have already said they will adopt more “hardline” measures to enforce the lockdown, including interrogating people on the street and handing out more fines.
This despite the fact that Brits were previously informed that police officers wouldn’t be able to attend crimes such as burglaries due to budget cuts.
The China lockdown of 50 million citizens overnight was a key element in the long-standing plan to foist a fake pandemic on humanity.
That lockdown provided the model for the rest of the world.
We are now in phase one of Lockdown Civilization.
The “scientific” rationale? THE VIRUS. The virus that isn’t there. The virus whose existence is unproven.
But the story line works: “We have to follow the China model because the pandemic is sweeping across the globe…”
Close on the heels of this con job, we have the intro to phase two: “In order to deal with future pandemics, we must install a new planetary system of command and control; human behavior must be modified.”
Translation: wall to wall surveillance at a level never achieved before; universal guaranteed income for every human, tied to obedience to all state directives; violate those directives and income is reduced or canceled; the planting of nano devices inside the body which will broadcast physiological changes to central command, and which will receive instructions that modify mood and reaction…
Phase one lockdowns prepare the citizenry to accept phase two.
In other words, phase one had nothing to do with a virus. It was part of the technocratic revolution.
“Artificial intelligence has applications in nearly every human domain, from the instant translation of spoken language to early viral-outbreak detection. But Xi [Xi Jinping, president of China] also wants to use AI’s awesome analytical powers to push China to the cutting edge of surveillance. He wants to build an all-seeing digital system of social control, patrolled by precog algorithms that identify potential dissenters in real time.”
“China already has hundreds of millions of surveillance cameras in place. Xi’s government hopes to soon achieve full video coverage of key public areas. Much of the footage collected by China’s cameras is parsed by algorithms for security threats of one kind or another. In the near future, every person who enters a public space could be identified, instantly, by AI matching them to an ocean of personal data, including their every text communication, and their body’s one-of-a-kind protein-construction schema. In time, algorithms will be able to string together data points from a broad range of sources—travel records, friends and associates, reading habits, purchases—to predict political resistance before it happens. China’s government could soon achieve an unprecedented political stranglehold on more than 1 billion people.”
“China is already developing powerful new surveillance tools, and exporting them to dozens of the world’s actual and would-be autocracies. Over the next few years, those technologies will be refined and integrated into all-encompassing surveillance systems that dictators can plug and play.”
“China’s government could harvest footage from equivalent Chinese products. They could tap the cameras attached to ride-share cars, or the self-driving vehicles that may soon replace them: Automated vehicles will be covered in a whole host of sensors, including some that will take in information much richer than 2-D video. Data from a massive fleet of them could be stitched together, and supplemented by other City Brain streams, to produce a 3-D model of the city that’s updated second by second. Each refresh could log every human’s location within the model. Such a system would make unidentified faces a priority, perhaps by sending drone swarms to secure a positive ID.”
“An authoritarian state with enough processing power could force the makers of such software to feed every blip of a citizen’s neural activity into a government database. China has recently been pushing citizens to download and use a propaganda app. The government could use emotion-tracking software to monitor reactions to a political stimulus within an app. A silent, suppressed response to a meme or a clip from a Xi speech would be a meaningful data point to a precog algorithm.”
“All of these time-synced feeds of on-the-ground data could be supplemented by footage from drones, whose gigapixel cameras can record whole cityscapes in the kind of crystalline detail that allows for license-plate reading and gait recognition. ‘Spy bird’ drones already swoop and circle above Chinese cities, disguised as doves. City Brain’s feeds could be synthesized with data from systems in other urban areas, to form a multidimensional, real-time account of nearly all human activity within China. Server farms across China will soon be able to hold multiple angles of high-definition footage of every moment of every Chinese person’s life.”
“The government might soon have a rich, auto-populating data profile for all of its 1 billion–plus citizens. Each profile would comprise millions of data points, including the person’s every appearance in surveilled space, as well as all of her communications and purchases. Her threat risk to the party’s power could constantly be updated in real time, with a more granular score than those used in China’s pilot ‘social credit’ schemes, which already aim to give every citizen a public social-reputation score based on things like social-media connections and buying habits. Algorithms could monitor her digital data score, along with everyone else’s, continuously, without ever feeling the fatigue that hit Stasi officers working the late shift. False positives—deeming someone a threat for innocuous behavior—would be encouraged, in order to boost the system’s built-in chilling effects, so that she’d turn her sharp eyes on her own behavior, to avoid the slightest appearance of dissent.”
“If her risk factor fluctuated upward—whether due to some suspicious pattern in her movements, her social associations, her insufficient attention to a propaganda-consumption app, or some correlation known only to the AI—a purely automated system could limit her movement. It could prevent her from purchasing plane or train tickets. It could disallow passage through checkpoints. It could remotely commandeer ‘smart locks’ in public or private spaces, to confine her until security forces arrived.”
“Each time a person’s face is recognized, or her voice recorded, or her text messages intercepted, this information could be attached, instantly, to her government-ID number, police records, tax returns, property filings, and employment history. It could be cross-referenced with her medical records and DNA, of which the Chinese police boast they have the world’s largest collection.”
“The country [China] is now the world’s leading seller of AI-powered surveillance equipment. In Malaysia, the government is working with Yitu, a Chinese AI start-up, to bring facial-recognition technology to Kuala Lumpur’s police as a complement to Alibaba’s City Brain platform. Chinese companies also bid to outfit every one of Singapore’s 110,000 lampposts with facial-recognition cameras.”
In South Asia, the Chinese government has supplied surveillance equipment to Sri Lanka. On the old Silk Road, the Chinese company Dahua is lining the streets of Mongolia’s capital with AI-assisted surveillance cameras. Farther west, in Serbia, Huawei is helping set up a ‘safe-city system,’ complete with facial-recognition cameras and joint patrols conducted by Serbian and Chinese police aimed at helping Chinese tourists to feel safe.”
“In the early aughts, the Chinese telecom titan ZTE sold Ethiopia a wireless network with built-in backdoor access for the government. In a later crackdown, dissidents were rounded up for brutal interrogations, during which they were played audio from recent phone calls they’d made. Today, Kenya, Uganda, and Mauritius are outfitting major cities with Chinese-made surveillance networks.”
“In Egypt, Chinese developers are looking to finance the construction of a new capital. It’s slated to run on a ‘smart city’ platform similar to City Brain, although a vendor has not yet been named. In southern Africa, Zambia has agreed to buy more than $1 billion in telecom equipment from China, including internet-monitoring technology. China’s Hikvision, the world’s largest manufacturer of AI-enabled surveillance cameras, has an office in Johannesburg.”
“In 2018, CloudWalk Technology, a Guangzhou-based start-up spun out of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, inked a deal with the Zimbabwean government to set up a surveillance network. Its terms require Harare to send images of its inhabitants—a rich data set, given that Zimbabwe has absorbed migration flows from all across sub-Saharan Africa—back to CloudWalk’s Chinese offices, allowing the company to fine-tune its software’s ability to recognize dark-skinned faces, which have previously proved tricky for its algorithms.”
“Having set up beachheads in Asia, Europe, and Africa, China’s AI companies are now pushing into Latin America, a region the Chinese government describes as a ‘core economic interest.’ China financed Ecuador’s $240 million purchase of a surveillance-camera system. Bolivia, too, has bought surveillance equipment with help from a loan from Beijing. Venezuela recently debuted a new national ID-card system that logs citizens’ political affiliations in a database built by ZTE…”
That gives you a chilling outline of Lockdown, phase two.
Lockdowns were never about a virus or a pandemic.
Lockdown Civilization has been in the planning and development stage for a long time.
People say, “Why? Why are they doing this?”
The short answer is, because they want to and they can.
Technocrats don’t view life as life. They view it as a system, and this is their most comprehensive system to date.
Jon Rappoport is the author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
The New York legislature is weighing a bill that would let the authorities take anyone suspected of having or being exposed to a contagious disease and hold them indefinitely – even forcibly medicating them.
Under the new law, New Yorkers may be dragged out of their homes and locked up on mere suspicion of having been ‘exposed’ to the novel coronavirus — no positive test or even symptoms necessary. Once imprisoned in one of the state’s purpose-built facilities, individuals may be forced to submit to a “prescribed course of treatment” including drugs and vaccines — and even then, freedom is not guaranteed.
The state’s nightmarish Assembly Bill A416 would see targets locked away for as long as 60 days without a hearing. And while the prisoner has a right to legal counsel, New York health authorities will have the ultimate say in deciding when – and if – they’re no longer contagious. Assuming they ever were in the first place, that is.
Given how unreliable the PCR tests used to screen for the coronavirus are, producing up to 90 percent false positives by some estimates, Governor Andrew Cuomo’s facilities will almost certainly be flooded with the contacts of healthy people erroneously deemed ‘cases.’ But like the governor’s decision to send Covid-19 patients into nursing homes, killing tens of thousands of elderly people, confining the healthy with the sick only guarantees that more of the healthy will fall ill with each passing day. The state thus gets a bump in case numbers, justifying further repression of its citizens under the guise of yet another virus ‘surge.’
Nor should the psychological effects of being indefinitely detained for no logical reason in a Kafkaesque bureaucratic nightmare be underestimated. This set-up could keep victims locked away for months, even years. Germany and Switzerland have already begun targeting high-profile dissidents for institutionalization, including doctors and lawyers, and other countries have made it easier to have troublemakers hustled off to the asylum.
Last month, a California neurologist published a paper claiming that belief in Covid-19 “conspiracy theories” was the result of brain damage and hinting that institutionalization might be the only option for these incurable “patients.”
Unlike in a criminal case, authorities seeking to medically imprison some inconvenient figure need not supply proof of the individual’s contagious potential. Instead, they merely must show the person is a danger to themselves or others — deliberately vague criteria that leaves plenty of room for judicial abuses.
Indeed, merely posting criticism of New York’s totalitarian experiment could merit a stay in one of Cuomo’s detention centers. According to the World Health Organization and its many media mouthpieces, sharing unauthorized facts is driving an “infodemic” just as dangerous as the virus itself — meaning those sharing such content are harming others.
Under those guidelines, one could easily justify yanking a pregnant woman out of her home for posting ‘wrongthink’ on social media — and indeed, Australian police boasted about doing just that weeks ago.Lest New Yorkers believe this horrific bill is an aberration, it’s far from the only power grab the state assembly has launched. Another piece of pending legislation seeks to make vaccines mandatory “in certain situations” — an ominously vague stipulation that the bill’s author later clarified meant “all individuals or groups of individuals who… are proven safe to receive such a vaccine.” Don’t want to play guinea pig to Big Pharma? Too bad!
New York has already eliminated religious exemptions for vaccination and has previously attempted to force flu shots on all state healthcare workers – even though the jabs are notoriously ineffective.
But this time, the Cuomo administration is going further with plans to inoculate drug addicts in state facilities with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines — whether they want the jab or not. So much for ‘my body, my choice.’
The transformation of New York City from a mecca of arts and culture to a quivering jello-mold of an authoritarian hellhole would not have happened nearly so quickly if the authorities had encountered even minimal resistance at the start of the pandemic.
But New Yorkers, despite a reputation for being independent, strong-willed, and distrustful of authority, dropped those attributes like a hot potato and commenced industriously licking boot. The ruling class can’t believe its good luck — no need to coerce these supine rag dolls into doing our bidding! — so they’re letting their imaginations run wild while outsourcing surveillance duties to the ordinary people who’ve found their meaning in life snitching on their fellow man.
What will it take for New Yorkers to wake up to what’s being done to them in the name of eradicating a virus with a 99.7 percent survival rate? How many neighbors will have to be ‘disappeared’ into the quarantine system? These are not merely rhetorical questions. Americans will have to decide sooner or later what side they’re on.
Helen Buyniski is an American journalist and political commentator at RT. Follow her on Twitter @velocirapture23
Rates of influenza have remained persistently low through late 2020 and into 2021, cratering from levels a year ago and raising the puzzling specter of sharply reduced influenza transmission rates even as positive tests for COVID-19 have shattered numerous records over the last several weeks.
Where have all the flu cases gone?
Epidemiologist Knut Wittkowski thinks he can answer the riddle.
“Influenza has been renamed COVID in large part,” said theformer head of biostatistics, epidemiology and research design at Rockefeller University.
“There may be quite a number of influenza cases included in the ‘presumed COVID’ category of people who have COVID symptoms (which Influenza symptoms can be mistaken for), but are not tested for SARS RNA,” Wittkowski told Just the News on Thursday.
Those patients, he argued, “also may have some SARS RNA sitting in their nose while being infected with Influenza, in which case the influenza would be ‘confirmed’ to be COVID.”
The weekly comparisons are even starker: This week one year ago, the positive clinical rate was 22%, where now it stands at 0.1%.
Those low numbers continue trends observed earlier in the year in which flu rates have remained at near-zero levels. The trend is not limited to the U.S. Worldwide, health authorities have all reported sharply decreased influenza levels throughout what is normally peak flu season in the northern hemisphere. Rates in the southern hemisphere were also low this year.
COVID mitigation measures cited even as COVID cases surge
Numerous experts have pointed to the ongoing COVID-19 mitigation measures — including mask-wearing, physical separation, and other anti-virus tactics — as an explanation for decreased flu levels.
Timothy Sly, an epidemiology professor at Ryerson University in Toronto, told Just the News that “the reduced incidence of seasonal influenza is almost certainly due to the protection that a large proportion of the population has been using for many months.” Those measures, he said, are “designed to be effective against any airborne respiratory virus.”
Holden Maecker, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford University, echoed that assessment. “I feel pretty confident that the COVID-19 mitigation measures have caused the reduction in flu cases this year,” he said. “Masks, social distancing, and hand washing are all effective counter-measures against colds and flu.”
Speculating on why COVID levels have continued to soar if those measures have been so effective at stopping the flu, Maecker said: “I think it’s because (1) there is less pre-existing immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in the population, whereas most of us have had vaccines and/or previous bouts with flu; and (2) the SARS-CoV-2 virus seems to spread more easily than influenza, including more aerosol transmission and ‘super-spreader’ events. Flu transmission is almost entirely close-range droplets and hand-to-nose or eyes contact.”
Sly also argued that the different dynamics of COVID-19 and influenza transmission likely play a role.
Claiming that mask-wearing and social distancing are not universal, Sly said that “major transmission events” can result in explosive spread of the coronavirus
“All viral acute respiratory infections will be curtailed by distancing and masking: influenzas A and B, Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), common cold (more than 100 types of virus), and of course, CoV-19,” he said. “But if the precautions are not universal, the transmissions that DO take place will have different consequences and rates of spread.”
Wittkowski — who has been among the relatively few academics to consistently criticize widespread COVID mitigation measures — counters that there was “no evidence to support” the contention that masks would stop influenza while failing to stop COVID.
“I think that these viruses are more similar than people want to acknowledge,” he continued. “People know everybody is wearing masks and distancing, and so people want to come up with things that are good about it.”
Public health officials have at times struggled to explain why positive COVID tests have surged upward in places — such as California, Pennsylvania and elsewhere — where policies such as social distancing and mask mandates have been in place for months.
Politicians and health experts have claimed at times that those surging numbers are being driven by individuals who are failing to wear masks and socially distance themselves from others, though such assertions are not often accompanied by much supporting evidence.
A 2019 World Health Organization study, meanwhile, found “no evidence that [wearing a mask] is effective in reducing transmission” of influenza, potentially suggesting that masks may not be playing much role in the currently reduced influenza levels being seen throughout the world.
Wittkowski, who has numerous times over the course of the pandemic called for an end to lockdowns, social distancing measures, and mask mandates, dismissed the idea that those policies could ultimately have much effect on the spread of COVID-19. He has argued that herd immunity, either through natural infections or through a vaccine, is the only way to blunt transmission of the virus. “Pandemics end in the same way,” he said, “whether we do something or not.”
After a hundred years of intense propaganda promoting the idea that diseases are everywhere, and each disease is caused by a single germ, which must be killed by a medical drug…
The fallout has been extreme, to say the least.
Let’s start here:
When will hysterical defenders of “science” face up to the destruction the US medical system is causing?
Millions of masked people, who border on hysteria, believe they know COVID science.
On closer examination, these people believe what their television sets tell them. They believe Fauci because he’s on television, and he’s talking from the White House, and he disagrees with Trump.
Of the millions who believe in Fauci television science, there are many who will say science is “studies.” They are quite sure these studies back up what Fauci and Redfield are spouting, and any contradictory studies would be artifacts dreamed up by secret minions of Trump.
COVID case numbers and death numbers are being fraudulently inflated to the skies. That’s an enormous crime, because the lockdowns and the economic devastation have been based on these data.
Now I want to apply that same direct analysis to the entire US medical system. In this instance…
True data are buried, hidden, and ignored.
What data? Actual numbers of deaths and maiming CAUSED by medical treatment.
When you see the dimensions of this crime and this mass human tragedy, you’ll also see further implications—titanic insurance fraud, tax fraud, and, indeed, millions upon millions of work-hours irretrievably lost to the nation’s economy.
Insurance companies are paying out billions of dollars for medical treatment that is destructive, not helpful.
Insurance companies are also paying billions in death benefits as a result of doctors, not diseases, killing people.
And all this medical destruction is being subsidized by the taxpayer.
No one has calculated the $$ cost. No one can calculate the tragic human cost.
Now here is the analysis. Understand that the vital data in these mainstream reports have been briefly revealed, then hidden.
ONE: “The Epidemic of Sickness and Death from Prescription Drugs.” The author is Donald Light, who teaches at Rowan University, and was the 2013 recipient of ASA’s [American Sociological Association’s] Distinguished Career Award for the Practice of Sociology. Light is a founding fellow of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. In 2013, he was a fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard. He is a Lokey Visiting Professor at Stanford University.
Donald Light: “Epidemiologically, appropriately prescribed, prescription drugs are the fourth leading cause of death, tied with stroke at about 2,460 deaths each week in the United States. About 330,000 patients die each year from prescription drugs in the United States and Europe. They [the drugs] cause an epidemic of about 20 times more hospitalizations [6.6 million annually], as well as falls, road accidents, and [annually] about 80 million medically minor problems such as pains, discomforts, and dysfunctions that hobble productivity or the ability to care for others. Deaths and adverse effects from overmedication, errors, and self-medication would increase these figures.” (ASA publication, “Footnotes,” November 2014)
TWO: Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998: “Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients.”
The authors, led by Jason Lazarou, culled 39 previous studies on patients in hospitals. These patients, who received drugs in hospitals, or were admitted to hospitals because they were suffering from the drugs doctors had given them, met the following fate:
Every year, in the US, between 76,000 and 137,000 hospitalized patients die as a direct result of the drugs.
Beyond that, every year 2.2 million hospitalized patients experience serious adverse reactions to the drugs.
The authors write: “… Our study on ADRs [Adverse Drug Reactions], which excludes medication errors, had a different objective: to show that there are a large number of ADRs even when the drugs are properly prescribed and administered.”
So this study had nothing to do with doctor errors, nurse errors, or improper combining of drugs. And it only counted people killed or maimed who were admitted to hospitals. It didn’t begin to tally all the people taking pharmaceuticals who died as consequence of the drugs, at home.
THREE: July 26, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association ; author, Dr. Barbara Starfield, revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health; “Is US health really the best in the world?”
Starfield reported that the US medical system kills 225,000 Americans per year. 106,000 as a result of FDA-approved medical drugs, and 119,000 as a result of mistreatment and errors in hospitals. Extrapolate the numbers to a decade: that’s 2.25 million deaths. You might want to read that last number again.
I interviewed Starfield in 2009. I asked her whether she was aware of any overall effort by the US government to eliminate this holocaust. She answered a resounding NO. She also said her estimate of medically caused deaths in America was on the conservative side.
FOUR: BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989). Author, Jeanne Lenzer. Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices: “It [the Institute] calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing ‘serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.’”
The report called this “one of the most significant perils to humans resulting from human activity.”
The report was compiled by outside researchers who went into the FDA’s own database of “serious adverse [medical-drug] events.”
Therefore, to say the FDA isn’t aware of this finding would be absurd. The FDA knows. The FDA knows and it isn’t saying anything about it, because the FDA certifies, as safe and effective, all the medical drugs that are routinely maiming and killing Americans. Every public health agency knows the truth.
FIVE: None of the above reports factor in death or injury by vaccine.
The US system for reporting severe adverse effects of vaccines is broken.
Barbara Loe Fisher, of the private National Vaccine Information Center, has put together a reasonable analysis:
“But how many children have [adverse] vaccine reactions every year? Is it really only one in 110,000 or one in a million who are left permanently disabled after vaccination? Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler observed in 1993 that less than 1 percent of doctors report adverse events following prescription drug use. [See DA Kessler, ‘Introducing MEDWatch,’ JAMA, June 2, 1993: 2765-2768]”
“There have been estimates that perhaps less than 5 or 10 percent of doctors report hospitalizations, injuries, deaths, or other serious health problems following vaccination. The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act contained no legal sanctions for not reporting; doctors can refuse to report and suffer no consequences.”
“Even so, each year about 12,000 reports are made to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System [VAERS]; parents as well as doctors can make those reports. [See RT Chen, B. Hibbs, ‘Vaccine safety,’ Pediatric Annals, July 1998: 445-458]”
“However, if that number represents only 10 percent of what is actually occurring, then the actual number may be 120,000 vaccine-adverse events [per year]. If doctors report vaccine reactions as infrequently as Dr. Kessler said they report prescription-drug reactions, and the number 12,000 is only 1 percent of the actual total, then the real number may be 1.2 million vaccine-adverse events annually.”
Medical crimes.
Medically caused deaths of friends, family members, loved ones, who are buried along with the truth.
No criminal investigations, no prosecutions, no guilty verdicts, no prison sentences.
But of course, you can believe everything leading lights of the US medical system tell you about COVID.
You can believe everything the press—who buries the truth about this medical holocaust—tells you about COVID.
Given the reports on medically caused death and maiming I’ve just cited and described in this article, it’s obvious that…
Leading medical journals around the world, which routinely publish glowing accounts of clinical trials of medical drugs…
Are spilling over with rank fraud, on page after page.
Indeed, here is a stunning quote from a woman who has quite probably read and analyzed more medical-drug studies than any doctor in the world:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption)
Compare that quote with one from “the father of COVID science,” Tony Fauci. In an interview with the National Geographic, Fauci stated: “Anybody can claim to be an expert even when they have no idea what they’re talking about… If something is published in places like New England Journal of Medicine, Science, Nature, Cell, or JAMA—you know, generally that is quite well peer-reviewed because the editors and the editorial staff of those journals really take things very seriously.”
They take things so seriously, they routinely publish glowing studies of medical drugs that are killing people in great numbers.
Jon Rappoport is the author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
This one is jam packed with all the data and science you need – to STAY SAFE! – seriously, this one has revelations a plenty…
NOTE: My extensive research and interviewing / video/sound editing and much more does require support – please consider helping if you can with monthly donation to support me directly, or one-off payment: https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_…
The problem posed by disinformation online is increasingly serious, the BBC’s director general has said.
Tim Davie told the Radio Times: “Traditional journalism has been playing catchup in the disinformation world.”
He added that 2020 has repeatedly highlighted the dangers of the internet as conspiracy theories about coronavirus and the US election were circulated online.
“News sources such as the BBC need to work harder than ever to expose fake news and separate fact from fiction,” he said. “We need to take care that trusted news is not blown off course by claims that are unfounded, however widespread they become.
“And we need to recognise that we are up against the well-funded, state-backed actors who see news as an extension of state influence and a tool for disrupting our societies and democracies.”
Davie said he was proud of the BBC’s effort to “stand up for integrity in news and fight disinformation on the frontline”.
Could this be the same BBC, who rely on Greenpeace for their climate change reports?
Is it the same BBC, which has just broadcast a woefully one-sided indoctrination programme, masquerading as a “Royal Institution Christmas Lecture”?
Or which trumpeted Christian Aid’s mendacious report on extreme weather, without the slightest attempt to check or challenge it?
Or broadcast a Panorama documentary on UK extreme weather, that was so misleading it should have carried a warning label?
All these instances have occurred in just the last month, and many more examples can be found over the years of outright lies, misinformation, omission of relevant facts, bias and a stubborn refusal to report the views of those experts who don’t agree with the BBC’s climate agenda.
And that’s before we even get started on the BBC’s political and anti-Brexit bias.
What Mr Davie is really saying, of course, is that we must all get our “news” from the BBC, and ignore other sources in case we discover the true facts.
… Groupthink was extensively studied by Yale psychologist Irving L. Janis and described in his 1982 book Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes.
Janis was curious about how teams of highly intelligent and motivated people—the “best and the brightest” as David Halberstam called them in his 1972 book of the same name—could have come up with political policy disasters like the Vietnam War, Watergate, Pearl Harbor and the Bay of Pigs. Similarly, in 2008 and 2009, we saw the best and brightest in the world’s financial sphere crash thanks to some incredibly stupid decisions, such as allowing sub-prime mortgages to people on the verge of bankruptcy.
In other words, Janis studied why and how groups of highly intelligent professional bureaucrats and, yes, even scientists, screw up, sometimes disastrously and almost always unnecessarily. The reason, Janis believed, was “groupthink.” He quotes Nietzsche’s observation that “madness is the exception in individuals but the rule in groups,” and notes that groupthink occurs when “subtle constraints … prevent a [group] member from fully exercising his critical powers and from openly expressing doubts when most others in the group appear to have reached a consensus.”[2]
Janis found that even if the group leader expresses an openness to new ideas, group members value consensus more than critical thinking; groups are thus led astray by excessive “concurrence-seeking behavior.”[3] Therefore, Janis wrote, groupthink is “a model of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.”[4]
The groupthink syndrome
The result is what Janis calls “the groupthink syndrome.” This consists of three main categories of symptoms:
1. Overestimate of the group’s power and morality, including “an unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality, inclining the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their actions.” [emphasis added]
2. Closed-mindedness, including a refusal to consider alternative explanations and stereotyped negative views of those who aren’t part of the group’s consensus. The group takes on a “win-lose fighting stance” toward alternative views.[5]
3. Pressure toward uniformity, including “a shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgments conforming to the majority view”; “direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group’s stereotypes”; and “the emergence of self-appointed mind-guards … who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions.”[6]
It’s obvious that alarmist climate science—as explicitly and extensively revealed in the Climatic Research Unit’s “Climategate” emails—shares all of these defects of groupthink, including a huge emphasis on maintaining consensus, a sense that because they are saving the world, alarmist climate scientists are beyond the normal moral constraints of scientific honesty (“overestimation of the group’s power and morality”), and vilification of those (“deniers”) who don’t share the consensus. … Read full article
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 