New Book by Doctors for COVID Ethics Details Dangers of mRNA Vaccines
By Margot DesBois | The Defender | August 15, 2023
The Doctors for COVID Ethics (D4CE), an international group of physicians and scientists, last month released a new book, “mRNA Vaccine Toxicity,” an extensive assessment of the mechanisms and manifestations of mRNA vaccine technology harm, through the perspectives of immunology, pathology, pharmacokinetics, epidemiology and medical history.
The book is available to download free of charge or order in print.
D4CE, led by microbiologist and immunologist Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, consists of more than 100 medical practitioners and researchers from 30 countries who “oppose the ongoing abuse of science and medicine for the destruction of peoples’ health, livelihoods, and even lives,” and believe “this abuse includes but is not limited to the ‘public health’ measures taken in the contrived COVID ‘pandemic.’”
In the months following the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) issuance of emergency approval for the COVID-19 vaccines, D4CE wrote a series of open letters to the EMA warning of short-term and long-term health dangers from these experimental products and calling for their immediate withdrawal.
During the past two years, the group has conducted five online symposia and published numerous articles, letters, video presentations and other resources on current threats to health and freedom posed by the COVID-19 public health mandates.
Written and edited by D4CE founding signatory and biochemist Dr. Michael Palmer, “mRNA Vaccine Toxicity ” includes chapter contributions by Bhakdi; Brian Hooker, Ph.D., Children’s Health Defense (CHD) senior director of science and research; Margot DesBois, CHD science fellow; and biochemist David Rasnick, Ph.D.
In the book’s afterword, Catherine Austin Fitts, president of Solari, Inc., publisher of the Solari Report, provides insight into the broader implications of this scientific information and encourages readers to pass on this knowledge and resist the future deployment of harmful medical technologies.
The foreword by CHD President Mary Holland, reproduced in full below, previews the book’s contents:
Anyone alive today may be forgiven for experiencing PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) about all things COVID—the lockdowns, the fear-mongering, the masking, the testing, the censorship, the suppression of effective treatments, the coerced experimental gene-based shots, and the pervasive injuries and deaths. After three years of horror, it is only human to want to put this behind us and to forget.
Yet this book makes abundantly clear that we would do so at our own peril. This undeclared war against humanity is not over, and we must arm ourselves with knowledge.
The book’s purpose is to explain what the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine toxicity means for future mRNA vaccines. It outlines three potential mechanisms that likely account for what’s happened: (1) the toxicity of the lipid nanoparticles; (2) the toxicity of the vaccine-induced spike proteins; and (3) the immune system’s response to them.
It concludes that the immune system’s response to the spike proteins is the most significant toxic factor because it both corresponds to the autopsy findings of inflammation and immune system damage and jibes with the theoretical mechanisms of harm.
The book’s conclusion is bleak: “Every future mRNA vaccine will induce our cells to produce its own specific antigen, related to the particular microbe it targets. We must therefore expect each such vaccine to induce immunological damage on a similar scale as we have witnessed with those directed against COVID-19.”
Recognizing that myriad mRNA vaccines are in the pipeline or already on the market—against flu, RSV, HIV, malaria, cancer, allergies, heart disease, to name a few—this knowledge is as chilling as it is critical.
The book warns: “First and foremost, we must accept that we are indeed in our governments’ crosshairs. Instead of relying on their treacherous and malevolent guidance, we must therefore watch out for ourselves and our loved ones—do our own research and seek out honest health advice wherever it may be found, be it inside or outside the established venues of science and of medicine.”
You hold in your hands an indispensable primer. The book is comprehensive, drawing on a wide array of published scientific literature, reasonably short and highly readable—156 pages of text and 20 pages of citations—providing required reading on virology, immunology and toxicology. It has excellent citations, illustrations of viral and immune mechanisms, and stained tissue photographs of those who died from COVID-19 shots.
The chapter on the epidemiology of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine adverse events is illuminating—looking at the vast harms to date. Here we learn that 13 billion COVID vaccine doses have been administered worldwide—almost two doses for each person on the planet. And the US dispensed 650 million doses, causing millions of adverse events.
The types of injuries are remarkable for their breadth—including myocarditis, blood clotting throughout the body and neurological, immunological and reproductive harms. Still, the CDC has the audacity to call the vaccines “safe” and to recommend them for all people 6 months and up on at least an annual basis.
The final chapter by David Rasnick chronicles how AIDS and HIV became the “blueprint for the perversion of medical science” that we continue to live through today. In the 1980s, Dr. Tony Fauci initiated “science by press release,” proclaiming and enforcing an entirely unproven AIDS narrative.
Rasnick cogently explains that the AIDS orthodoxy is false, having never been proven despite 40 years and billions of dollars invested. He writes:
“[A]s incredible as this may sound, there has not been a single scientific study designed or conducted to determine whether or not AIDS—or even HIV—is sexually transmitted. . . .
“Since WWII—but especially in recent decades—the stifling of debate and the persecution of dissenters has become entrenched in virtually every major field of science in the US. It is particularly virulent in the so-called biomedical sciences. . . .
“The conjoining of government, big business and academe which President Eisenhower warned about in 1961 now rules the world. . . . The COVID-19 fraud is the AIDS scam writ large. . . . We are in the middle of a global totalitarian takeover and things are going to get much worse in the months ahead.”
The book’s overall conclusion echoes Rasnick:
“It is not possible to interpret the actions of the authorities as ‘honest mistakes.’ Too much has occurred that points unequivocally to a sinister agenda behind the gene-based COVID-19 vaccines. The rushed approval without necessity, the outright threats and the coercion, the systematic censorship of honest science and the suppression of the truth about the numerous killed or severely injured vaccine victims have all gone on for far too long to permit of any doubts as to intent and purpose.
“Our governments and the national and international administrative bodies are waging an undeclared war on all of us . . . [T]his war has been going on for decades, and we must expect it to continue and to escalate.”
While this well-founded information is both alarming and depressing, knowledge is power. If we come to grips with the reality that past and future harm from mRNA vaccines is both intentional and inevitable, we can protect ourselves and our loved ones.
Forewarned is forearmed. Read this book and keep it close as a reference until we’ve turned the page on this dark chapter in global history.
Margot DesBois is a science and research fellow with Children’s Health Defense.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
U.S. Lawyers Reiterate Claim Ivermectin was never prohibited for treating COVID-19
Attorneys restate claim that FDA merely advised doctors against IVM for dying patients, but did NOT prohibit it.
BY JOHN LEAKE | COURAGEOUS DISCOURSE | AUGUST 14, 2023
Last November, I wrote the following post:
The Epoch Times recently reported an astonishing statement by a U.S. government lawyer in a federal court in Texas, where the FDA is being sued by Dr. Paul Marik of Virginia, Dr. Mary Bowden of Texas, and Dr. Robert Apter of Arizona. The three plaintiffs claim the FDA illegally prohibited them from prescribing the drug to their patients. At a November 1 hearing, U.S. lawyer Isaac Belfer argued for the defendant:
The cited statements were not directives. They were not mandatory. They were recommendations. They said what parties should do. They said, for example, why you should not take ivermectin to treat COVID-19. They did not say you may not do it, you must not do it. They did not say it’s prohibited or it’s unlawful. They also did not say that doctors may not prescribe ivermectin.”
If Belfer’s assertion is true, it raises a very urgent question: On what legal grounds did hospitals all over the United States refuse to administer ivermectin to severely ill COVID-19 patients, even when patients and their family members begged for the drug to be administered?
If ivermectin was not prohibited by the FDA or any other U.S. medical authority for treating COVID-19, why did Dr. Paul Marik’s hospital prohibit him from administering the drug to his dying patients? Why was Dr. Mary Bowden reported to the Texas Medical Board for disciplinary action when she prescribed it? Why did many pharmacists fear losing their licenses if they filled ivermectin prescriptions for treating COVID-19?
In our book, The Courage to Face COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex, Dr. McCullough and I document numerous instances of hospitals flatly refusing to grant the wishes of dying patients and their family members for ivermectin.
All these patients asked for was to be allowed to try the drug (FDA-approved for River Blindness, Elephantiasis, and Scabies) for COVID-19. The patients and their kin gladly indemnified the hospitals and arranged to have their independent primary care doctors deliver and administer the drug. Nevertheless:
- Hospital administrators absolutely refused to grant this wish.
- Hospital attorneys fought tooth and nail against using ivermectin to treat COVID-19 patients, doing everything in their power to challenge patient lawsuits and appeal court orders to administer the drug.
- Even when hospital doctors acknowledged that the patients were dying, they insisted it was better to let the disease take its natural course rather than allow patients to try ivermectin.
- Even when patients’ families succeeded in getting a court orders to administer the drug, many hospitals still refused, even at the risk of being held in contempt of court.
Several readers have told us that our chapters covering this shameful scandal— Chapters 38: Begging for the Wonder Drug and Chapter 40: Graduating into Eternity—are horrifying beyond belief.
Now we hear U.S. government lawyers arguing in court that the FDA never prohibited using ivermectin to treat COVID-19 patients, but merely recommended not using it. This indicates that hospitals had no legal grounds for denying sick patients a drug that could have helped them. How is withholding medicine from a sick man any different from withholding a life ring from a man who has fallen overboard in high seas?
For families who watched their loved ones slip away after being denied the right to try ivermectin, U.S. attorney Isaac Belfer’s statement may be interpreted as declaring open season for lawsuits against hospital administrators and doctors.
After I wrote the above post, I exchanged an e-mail with Dr. Marik in which he expressed profound discouragement about U.S. Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown’s granting of the government’s Motion to Dismiss the case on the grounds of sovereign immunity.
Nevertheless, Dr. Marik and his co-plaintiffs, Robert L. Apter and Mary Talley Bowden, appealed the dismissal and are now being heard before a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Once again, attorneys for the U.S. government are in the hot seat about their mendacious claims about the FDA’s directive to doctors and hospitals against prescribing or administering Ivermectin, either to outpatients or to patients dying in hospital.
Instead of acknowledging the obvious reality that the FDA did indeed DIRECT doctors and hospitals against administering Ivermectin, U.S. attorneys continue to insist that the FDA’s communiques were mere advice.
This preposterous argument not only overlooks the plain language of the FDA’s communiques, it also overlooks the salient fact that numerous doctors (like Paul Marik) were fired from their jobs for administering ivermectin to their dying patients, and the fact that many State Medical Boards revoked doctors’ licenses for doing the same. If these punitive actions taken against doctors were NOT based on the FDA’s directives, on what grounds were they taken?
As was just reported by Just the News columnist Greg Piper:
The 5th Circuit panel seemed skeptical of Civil Division Appellate Attorney Ashley Honold’s argument that the FDA’s “informational statements” against ivermectin, including its conflation of human and animal dosages, were “merely quips” about reported problems after “self-medicating” rather than “prohibit[ing] anyone” from using ivermectin.
Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod cited the phrase “Stop it” in the agency’s viral “You are not a horse” post on X, then known as Twitter. “If you were in English class, they would say that was a command. … That is different than ‘we’re providing helpful information,'” she told Honold.
Readers of this Substack will probably agree with my sentiment that enough is enough of lying and obfuscating U.S. government agency officials and their mercenary lawyers. It’s time for the grown-up, reasonable citizenry of this country to join Marik, Bowden, et al. in suing the pants off the FDA and other U.S. agencies against whom there is a preponderance of evidence that they have unlawfully interfered with the doctor-patient relationship and committed negligent homicide, fraud, and concealment.
Cry havoc and let slip the plaintiffs’ attorneys! Sue the FDA; sue doctors and hospital administrators; and sue the medical boards. Let them pay for the damages they have inflicted on the families of patients who were denied ivermectin until their last breaths. Let them pay for the massive damage and distress they have caused for courageous doctors like Paul Marik and his colleagues who tried to help their patients.
First ‘confirmed’ cases in America were on U.S. aircraft carrier …
Or this should have been the obvious conclusion from a strangely-ignored antibody study
The USS Theodore Roosevelt left San Diego on January 17, 2020. Some sailors had shore leave at a port of call in Vietnam March 5-9. There seems to have been little interest in the question of how crew members were first infected or when “case zero” on the ship experienced symptoms. In a future article, I’ll point out that an “outbreak of norovirus” occurred on the ship Feb. 2-22. Only 382 of the ship’s 4,800 crew members “voluntarily” participated in the antibody study. At one time, officials said at least 1,000 crew members would participate in the antibody study.
BY BILL RICE, JR. | AUGUST 14, 2023
For a few weeks in early spring 2020, the drama of an outbreak of COVID-19 on the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt was world news.
Inexplicably, however, journalists and Covid researchers missed or ignored several blockbuster findings that could re-write key (and, I believe, false) narratives about this novel virus. In this author’s opinion, this possibly represents an intentional disinformation campaign perpetrated by “trusted” Naval and public health officials.
A later antibody study of a sample of the ship’s crew members produced several eye-opening findings. In my view, two findings qualify as particularly significant:
Information contained in the study strongly suggests that at least two crew members (and most likely several other crew members) had already been infected with the novel coronavirus when the ship sailed from San Diego on January 17, 2020.
The date is significant as this would be three days before the CDC reported the first “confirmed” Covid case in America. (This case was “confirmed” on January 20, 2020 but the PCR sample was taken on January 18.)
Language in the Roosevelt study definitely “confirms” that at least two sailors, both of whom later tested positive for antibodies, experienced Covid symptoms between Jan. 12-17, 2020.
For more than three years, “official” Covid histories state the first “confirmed” case in America was a man from Washington who’d recently returned from Wuhan, China. As developed below, crew members of the USS Roosevelt could, in fact, be listed as “confirmed” cases and by themselves debunk the narrative that America’s first cases came from travelers returning from Wuhan.
The same antibody results suggest that at least 59.7 percent of the ship’s approximately 4,800 crew members had already been infected by mid to late April 2020. This means approximately 3,000 crew members had contracted the virus by this date.
Sadly, Aviation Ordnanceman Chief Petty Officer Charles Robert Thacker Jr., 41, passed away on April 13, 2020 reportedly from complications of Covid. Officer Thacker tested positive for Covid March 30th and was in isolation in housing on Guam when he was found unresponsive April 9th. According to published reports, Thacker was receiving twice-a-day medical evaluations. He had gone to the Naval hospital in Guam on April 4th, but had been discharged back to his isolation quarters. It’s unclear how his medical condition deteriorated so rapidly without anyone knowing. It’s also unclear if he was staying by himself or with other sailors in isolation. I hope CDC and Navy officials can provide more details in a future interview, which I’ve requested. According to antibody and PCR test results, approximately 3,000 Roosevelt crew members were infected by Covid and Thacker was the only death. As of April 16, six of 4,800 crew members were hospitalized. Many sailors who were hospitalized seemed to have been hospitalized as a precaution, according to various press reports.
According to news reports, only one crew member, age 41, died from “complications of Covid.” (A future article will provide details that make me think the public hasn’t learned the full story of the death of Chief Petty Officer Charles Robert Thacker Jr.).
As the vast majority of Roosevelt crew members were under the age of 40, this one death reveals that the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) for crew members under age 41 was 0.0000 percent.
In my opinion, the second big headline from this antibody study should have been: “Covid poses virtually no mortality risk to anyone middle age or younger … even in the worst and most intense spread environments.”
Instead, the prevailing narrative remained that Covid was a serious threat to “everyone” in the world, even though lessons from the Roosevelt proved this was not the case.
Two other naval vessels had ‘outbreaks’ where antibody tests
The above finding was further reinforced by two other “outbreaks” on military vessels from approximately the same time period.
Sixty percent of crew members on the French air craft carrier The Charles De Gaulle tested positive for antibodies after an outbreak said to have begun in March 2020.
According to this chart, 74.75 percent of crew members of this French aircraft carrier either had “confirmed” or “suspected” cases of Covid (60 percent of de Gaulle crew members tested positive for antibodies, the same percentage as the Roosevelt study)
None of the 1,739 sailors on the de Gaulle died. Also, an outbreak that infected at least 41 percent of the 333 crew members on the guided missile destroyer USS Kidd resulted in no deaths.
This means that Covid outbreaks that spread through three military ships between January – April 2020 – potentially affecting almost 7,000 Navy personnel – resulted in only one (presumed) Covid death.
According to results of antibody and PCR tests administered to crew members of these three Naval vessels, a total of 4,408 sailors were either “confirmed” or “probable/suspect” Covid cases.
As only one crew member died from Covid, the Infection Fatality Rate was 0.022 percent – which is significantly lower than the infection fatality rate for influenza (which is often reported as 0.1 percent).
Most news reports in the early months of the official pandemic said the IFR from Covid was between 1 and 4 percent, meaning that at least 1 in 100 people infected with this virus would later die from complications caused by this new and contagious virus.
However, among Naval personnel believed to have contracted this virus while serving on these three vessels, only 1 of 4,408 likely-infected sailors died from Covid.
Expressed as a fraction, the IFR for flu (0.1 percent) corresponds to 1 death in 1,000 flu cases. From this statistic, one could state that influenza is at least four times more deadly than Covid … at least among healthy young and middle-aged sailors.
It should also be emphasized that sailors on all three vessels lived with the virus in extremely-cramped quarters with the virus circulating for weeks or months. In other words, it’s hard to produce a more virulent environment for virus spread.
In the opinion of this journalist, neither of these two findings have received the attention they warrant. Study findings which should have been Page-1 news around the world have barely been cited by researchers, with most members of the public probably unaware of these two narrative-shifting findings.
See top graph … Figure 3 from the Roosevelt antibody study presents information on the number of sailors who tested positive for antibodies between April 20-24. The two cases on the far right would pre-date the fist confirmed Covid case in America. At least six antibody-positive crew members had symptoms before the ship’s port-of-call in Vietnam (March 5-9, 2020). The study does not address how these sailors – isolated and confined to the ship for many weeks – contracted the virus. Note also that most of the antibody positive sailors either did not test positive with a PCR test or had yet to receive a PCR test, which begs the questions of how and when these crew members contracted the virus their positive antibody tests say they’d definitely contracted. None of the positive sailors were interviewed by CDC or Navy officials.
Roosevelt Antibody Study key findings …
On April 20-24, 382 Roosevelt crew members “voluntarily” donated blood for antibody tests. (Positive results on an antibody tests show/suggest “prior infection.”)
Quick Comments:
- 382 crew members is only 7.9 percent of the crew of approximately 4,800.
- Earlier reports said the Navy and CDC were going to test at least 1,000 crew members for antibodies. I’ve never learned why the study was down-sized dramatically or wasn’t made mandatory, which one thinks might have been the case in time of an alleged medical crisis and world-wide pandemic.
– As I will show in a future article, 98.1 percent of the crew of the Charles de Gaulle were tested for antibodies.
60, 62 or “nearly” 66 percent infected …
All three figures are used in the Roosevelt study, with 60 percent being the most common percentage. From the study:
N = 382 – Survey respondents/participants
N = 228 positive (antibody) ELISA result (59.7 percent)
N = 238 had “previous or current Covid infection (62 percent)
One sentence in the study reads:
“Nearly two thirds of persons in this sample had positive ELISA test results, which indicate previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2.”
In my opinion, these could be labelled as ‘confirmed’ cases …
In several places in the study, authors define a “current or previous infection.” For example:
- “Current or previous SARS-CoV-2 infection is defined as a positive RT-PCR test result or a reactive antibody result determined by testing performed at CDC laboratories on specimens collected during April 20–24, 2020.”
“… (4) Previous or current SARS-CoV-2 infection was defined as a positive real-time RT-PCR result or positive ELISA (antibody) result.”
Quick comments:
Although different semantic interpretations might be offered, in my opinion, the above language says at least two Roosevelt cases should be “confirmed” as “early cases” that happened before the first “confirmed” case in America.
That is, all 228 sailors who tested positive via ELISA antibody tests satisfied the definition of individuals who had “current or previous” Covid infections. This figure would include the two sailors who tested positive and experienced Covid symptoms 98 and 99 days before receiving their antibody tests.
As far as I’m aware, this might be the only CDC study that defines a Covid case as someone who tested positive on an ELISA antibody test.
This language is extremely significant as hundreds of other early cases in the world could/might be “confirmed” if the same definitions used in the Roosevelt study also applied to these likely early cases.
Move the birthday of Covid spread up several months …
If this criteria applied to other likely/possible cases, the timeline of the “start date” of virus spread would be moved up at least three months. The first “confirmed cases” would be November 2019, or October 2019 if not September 2019 … but certainly not January 20, 2020.
For example, I’ve identified many Americans – as well as citizens from France, Italy and the UK – who tested positive via antibody tests (including several/many who tested positive with ELISA antibody tests). These possible/likely cases include many citizens who experienced Covid symptoms in late 2019. None of these citizens have been “confirmed” as Covid cases.
Almost all other studies define or confirm Covid cases as individuals who tested positive via a PCR test. As almost no PCR tests were administered to Americans prior to March 2020, it is literally impossible to “confirm” an early case via the “PCR-positive” confirmation protocol.
Again, modifying the definition of “previously-infected” individuals to include those who tested positive via an antibody test should be viewed as very significant and represents a stark departure from other CDC statements.
Symptoms and symptom onset dates matter …
Significantly, Roosevelt study participants filled out questionnaires, providing information on when sailors experienced Covid/ILI symptoms. Participants reported what symptoms they experienced, how many symptoms and, most significantly, self-reported dates where they first experienced these symptoms. (Most antibody-positive sailors experienced at least four symptoms; many experienced six or more symptoms).
The data that immediately jumped out to me (but apparently no one else) was the two crew members who self-reported symptoms 99 and 98 days before donating blood for this serology test (donation dates were April 20-24, 2020).
Working backward from April 20-24, 2020, the crew member who experienced symptoms 99 days before donating blood would have been symptomatic January 12-16, 2020. The sailor who experienced symptoms 98 days earlier would have been symptomatic January 13-17.
Comments:
Inexplicably, Navy and CDC medical personnel did not interview either of these sailors, both of whom could/would have qualified as “case zero” in America. In fact, no sailor in the survey was questioned about their symptoms.
From study: “… although the date of any symptom onset was collected, information on timing, duration, and severity of individual symptoms was not collected.”
“Symptom onset” typically occurs two to 14 days after infection. This means these two sailors, if they had Covid, were infected even earlier in January. For the sailor who experienced symptoms 99 days earlier, the infection date could have been between December 29, 2019 and January 15, 2020.
While the ship left San Diego January 17, 2020, I’ve yet to learn when sailors began to board the ship. My assumption is sailors boarded the ship at least several days before the ship got underway to prepare for its deployment, which lasted approximately 70 days.
If any crew members were symptomatic or infected with Covid on or before January 17, these crew members would almost certainly have begun to infect any “close contacts” who didn’t already have natural immunity.
(The possibility some crew members might have already been infected as early as November 2019, or perhaps even earlier, does not seem to have been considered by any public health official or journalist. At least to me, The Red Cross antibody study proves that residents of California had been infected by November 2019. If this was the case with some Roosevelt crew members, these crew members would likely have come on board the ship with natural immunity.)
In my opinion, if the CDC and Navy had tested the vast majority of the crew for antibodies, and these crew members had also filled out symptom questionnaires, the number of possible cases pre-dating the first confirmed case in America would have been much larger than two possible American “case zeroes.”
That is, by severely limiting the size of this antibody study, CDC and Navy authors limited the number of other possible early cases the study might have identified.
At least four other crew members who tested positive for antibodies (six in total) self-reported symptoms before the ship arrived at port in Vietnam Mach 5-9.
Twelve crew members who later tested positive for antibodies self-reported symptoms 41 or more days before giving blood for their antibody tests. Again, if the study size was much larger, many more sailors would have likely reported “symptom onset” dates before the ship’s port of call in Vietnam, as well as other crew members who were perhaps infected prior to January 20, 2020.
MORE DISCUSSION …
I can’t say the Navy/CDC “concealed evidence” of early spread because the information that made me suspect this is included in the study. Indeed, the key information is depicted on a graph (“Figure 3”) of the study. Also, text in the study makes this conclusion almost impossible to miss. For example:
“Among 12 participants with positive ELISA results >40 days after symptom onset, eight maintained positive microneutralization test results, including two participants who were tested >3 months after symptom onset.”
The Roosevelt antibody study, which was published online on June 8, was covered by prominent news organizations, including The New York Times and Reuters. The NY Times actually put the key information in its sub-headline:
Headline: “After Outbreak on Carrier Roosevelt, Many Have Antibodies”
Sub-headline: “A C.D.C. study found that some sailors showed protection against the coronavirus three months after the onset of symptoms”
FWIW, the sub-headline is not entirely accurate as 99 and 98 days would be “more than three months” after onset of symptoms. I mention the Times’ headline only to point out that no Times’ journalist or editor seems to have figured out that the first known case in America could have been a member of this ship (although the newspaper’s own headline should have told them this).
The story also quotes the study’s corresponding author Daniel Payne, who highlighted the fact some crew members had apparently had Covid antibodies for several months. (I have requested an interview with Dr. Payne).
“This is a promising indicator of immunity,” said Daniel C. Payne, an epidemiologist and one of the lead authors of the study … “We don’t know how long-lasting, for sure, but it is promising.”
Previous stories mentioned the growing number of “positive cases” on the ship, but none reported anywhere close to 60 percent of the crew being infected. For example, by April 21 (one day after the antibody tests had begun), 678 sailors had tested positive via a PCR test (14.1 percent of the crew).
Reuters’ journalist correctly highlighted the fact the study’s “results could indicate a far higher presence of the coronavirus.”
However, the journalist seems to de-amplify the significance of such a large percentage of positives with this latter text:
“… one of the Navy officials said that may not be the case because of the way the study was carried out … The outbreak investigation did not encompass the entire crew, and the results of this study cannot be generalized to the entire crew,” the official said.
The article later includes this disclaimer: “Medical groups, such as the American Medical Association, have warned that serology tests can lead to false positives.”
Like all journalists who wrote articles about this study, the Reuters reporter never asked why the project didn’t encompass the entire crew nor does this journalist question the assumed predicate (that a larger sample might have produced lower antibody-positive percentages than the study/sample that was performed. As noted, a sample of almost 100 percent of French sailors produced the identical percentage of antibody positives – 60 percent).
Nor do the journalists challenge the AMA’s statement that antibody tests “can” produce “false positives.” The author and the AMA could have noted, accurately, that serology tests “can” also lead to false negatives.
That is, if antibody tests are producing more “false negatives” than “false positives,” serology “prevalence” percentages in many/most antibody studies might be even higher than reported.
Such (requisite?) sentences support my belief that any antibody test that suggests much higher percentages of “early” cases will be routinely maligned or spun as being somehow insignificant.
One of the most disturbing take-aways from my “early spread” research is that, as far as I can tell, 100 percent of mainstream or corporate journalists, are not going to investigate credible evidence of early spread.
I understand why government and public health officials might want to cover-up evidence their “virus-origins” narrative was wrong all along, but I don’t understand why the “skeptical, watchdog” press would participate in what must be a massive conspiracy to conceal the truth.
I’ve harvested too much previously-unreported information from my research into Navy ship antibody studies to include in one article. Future articles will highlight other findings which have received little or no scrutiny to date – findings I believe deserve scrutiny, even if belated.
***
AUTHOR’S NOTE: Anyone with relevant information about the outbreak on the Roosevelt or any Naval vessel can email the author at: wjricejunior@gmail.com.
I would be very interested to hear from any Roosevelt crew members. Confidentiality will be protected.
The “Wellness-to-Fascism Pipeline” Baffles Experts as Truth Marches On
Congregating and Caring about Your Health is Dangerous to our Democracy
BY IGOR CHUDOV | AUGUST 13, 2023
Be careful with your workouts! An article from the Guardian alerts us to a “wellness-to-fascism pipeline.”
“People who study conspiracy theories” are worried that joining gyms and trying to get healthy makes people descend into what these experts describe as fascism, explains author James Ball.
James has a peculiar idea of what fascism is, however:
According to James, only fascists question masks, lockdowns, or the BBC. Good people mysteriously become “fascists” when they join gyms or look after their wellness.
Some of the most dangerous people, believe it or not, are personal trainers!
Some people’s problems escalated when their personal trainer learned about their work. “I had three successive personal trainers who were anti-vax. One Belgian, two Swiss,” I was told by a British man who has spent most of the past decade working in Europe for the World Economic Forum, which organises the annual summit at Davos for politicians and the world’s elite.
The poor WEF chap above was even dropped by his personal trainer when his employment at the WEF was revealed:
When the trainer found out the man worked for the World Economic Forum, he was immediately cut off.
Most worryingly for the “conspiracy expert” Peter Knight, people of all political persuasions, right or left, end up in the same place when they realize that “everything is a lie”:
Peter Knight has the strangest explanation, by gender, as to why people “get sucked into conspiracy theories.”
He explains that men are drawn into conspiracies because of the “involuntary celibacy” movement.
It is not that difficult to imagine why young men hitting the gym might be susceptible to QAnon and its ilk. This group spends a lot of time online, there is a supposed crisis of masculinity manifesting in the “incel” (involuntary celibacy) movement and similar, and numerous rightwing influencers have been targeting this group.
Mind you, at the beginning of the article, James Ball discussed how personal trainers are the superspreaders of conspiracies. Have you ever seen an involuntarily celibate gym personal trainer?
His explanation of why women believe the same theories could not be more different! Women, it turns out, believe the same conspiracies as men because of the “female data gap”!
“Far too often, we blame women for turning to alternative medicine, painting them as credulous and even dangerous,” she says. “But the blame does not lie with the women – it lies with the gender data gap. Thanks to hundreds of years of treating the male body as the default in medicine, we simply do not know enough about how disease manifests in the female body.”
There is a much simpler explanation as to why people believe the “Covid was lab-made” conspiracy theory, “Covid vaccine does not work” conspiracy theory, or “15-minute cities are promoted by the World Economic Forum” theory.
The explanation is that these theories are true. Both genders are capable of critical thinking, seeing the truth, and sharing it.
This simple explanation does not insult millions of thinking men by portraying them as “incels,” nor does it portray women as stupid creatures confused by the imaginary “gender data gap.”
Trying to find explanations for complicated but important events affecting us and not believing dishonest press is not fascism. God gave us brains for a reason – to think for ourselves! Critical thinking is the opposite of fascism, which requires uncritical obedience to the state ideology.
Despite its stupidity, the Guardian’s article exposes the most important social network that the press, fact-checkers, and the powers-to-be cannot control.
This social network is people physically and directly interacting with each other and sharing news and opinions.
It cannot be suppressed by means other than drastic lockdowns, which kept people at home in 2020. The gyms, far from being uniquely instrumental in developing critical thinking, are simply places where people congregate and share stuff while doing something pleasant. Thus, not surprisingly, gym-goers share explanations of current events with their peers without any censorship or any algorithmic intermediary.
The Guardian recognizes this:
Society’s discussion of QAnon, anti-vaxxers and other fringe conspiracies is heavily focused on what happens in digital spaces – perhaps too much so, to the exclusion of all else. The solution, though, is unlikely to be microphones in every gym and treatment room, monitoring what gets said to clients.
The conspiracy experts are baffled by this development and ironically blame “isolation,” even though the phenomenon they observe is rooted in physical interaction between people:
Jane has her own theory as to why her wellness group got radicalised and she did not – and it’s one that aligns with concerns from conspiracy experts, too. “I think it’s the isolation,” she concludes, citing lockdown as the catalyst, before noting the irony that conspiracies then kick off a cycle of increasing isolation by forcing believers to reject the wider world.
“It becomes very isolating because then their attitude is all: ‘Mainstream media … they lie about everything.’”
I do not think of myself and my dear subscribers as isolated: we congregate here, we read newspapers, although critically, and we interact with friends or relatives. Anyone can say anything they want in the comments. Am I wrong?
The Jab Or Not The Jab
Tactics and strategy in our irregular war
By Emanuel E. Garcia, M.D. | August 11, 2023
Those of us in the ‘resistance’ or ‘opposition’ — we skeptics who question and have questioned the covidian debacle and all of its accoutrements — seem inevitably to fall into discussions about the Jab. Deaths, adverse events, excess mortality, turbo cancers, immune dysregulation — you name it — but it is almost as if the Jab is some kind of black hole with a gravitational pull that sucks us all in and, in the end, directs our tactics and strategy rather monomaniacally for dealing with the Covidian Onslaught.
Let me be clear about my own position. From the beginning, when Covid Mania swept across the world, I felt that there was never a need for a vaccine of any kind.
Why?
First, because the illness or conglomeration of symptoms that appeared to be the result of a contagious pathogen was never as lethal as the Corporate Media led us to believe. It was, in fact, no more lethal than a bad flu, as eminent epidemiologist John Ioannidis demonstrated relatively early. Second, because treatments for the illness had also been developed and appeared to have been quite successful. Third, because I had faith in sound preventive measures such as sunlight, exercise, nutrition, the vitamins C and D, among others, as well as the wisdom and strength of our natural immune response.
During one interview I said, in fact, that the only way I would receive the Covid Jab would be if I were shot dead first.
As events unfolded in 2020 and beyond, the push for the Jab as the only way out of the pandemic that never really was, became quite intense. Big Pharma could certainly smell the massive profits, profits guaranteed by agreements that absolved these manufacturers from any harms associated with their product, and governments around the world colluded by seducing, cajoling and then, ultimately, coercing people into receiving the one-size-fits-all solution.
At first they told us the Jab was our only way out, and that it prevented us from getting, transmitting and dying from Covid. The Jabs of course did nothing of the sort. Their mechanisms of action, which included tampering with our genome and manufacturing a spike protein in numbers far exceeding what could occur with a natural infection, bespoke disaster. And, indeed, disaster has befallen and disaster will, I am certain, only worsen, for those who were either naive, terrified, gullible, stupid or indifferent enough to queue up for inoculations, and for those who were coerced into receiving them upon pain of loss of income and loss of inclusion in society.
The Jab, however, disastrous as it is, is but one of a number of instruments employed to do us harm.
Let’s not forget the effects of the lockdowns, masking, ‘social’ distancing; let’s not forget the active suppression of early treatment; let’s not forget the demolition of small businesses and the upwards transfer of trillions to the already super-rich; let’s not forget the ceaseless and unremitting drumbeat of fear; let’s not forget how our medical and governmental institutions betrayed our trust; let’s not forget the intrusions upon our privacy and our bank accounts, and the stalwart push for universal health passes and digital identification.
We are, and have been, buffeted on many fronts, with a single end in sight for those in the Globalist Mafia Cartel who have been doing the buffeting: murder and enslavement.
How may we, who can see the agenda, best combat the onslaught? Is it by showing over and over the many instances of Jab-related adverse events and sudden deaths? Or is it by planting our stake in the ground in defense of basic human rights and freedoms?
I have argued and continue to argue that there will always be another Jab — in fact, there will be a plethora of Jabs in our future. The more fundamental and abiding issue is preservation of our unalienable rights to physical and mental sovereignty and freedom of expression.
We must understand that this massive and unique Covid psyops, global in scope and relentless in pressure, has been deviously constructed to be impervious to logical rebuttal. For example, a neighbour of mine who nearly died from a blood clot, was told by her doctors not that the Covid Jab may have been a causative factor, but that Covid itself was. In the face of our rightful assertions that the Covid Jab is dangerous, a Jab recipient who is healthy will think we’re crazy, thanks to fate, human individuality and resilience, and/or variable Jab batches.
It is now time for us to draw the larger picture for those who are sitting on the fence or wandering the pastures on its other side. The larger picture of how the Few are oppressing the Many, of how the rights we are born with — rights not conferred or bequeathed by governments — are being trampled, and how censoring dissident and questioning voices is never and has never been the work of democratically-oriented societies.
At the Parliament Protest of 2022 here in Wellington, New Zealand, people from all walks and echelons of the citizenry came together, in unity, against the unlawful and unjustifiable imposition of mandates, against the usurpation of our most cherished, fundamental and precious human inheritance: autonomy and freedom.
Directing our energies to this transcendent matter, the matter of preserving autonomy and freedom and choice, is paramount — and positive — and far more likely to breach the resistance of sleepwalkers than a focus on the perils of the Jab which they themselves have taken so readily, given their unshakable and unquestioning belief in the wondrous benevolence of vaccine medicine.
Let’s get started, let’s emphasize freedom and social connections and a new way of healing and let us, in so doing, lead by example.
Sen. Ron Johnson Says Pandemic “Preplanned By An Elite Group Of People” Who Conducted “Event 201”
By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | August 13, 2023
And now, better late than never, a US politician recognizes that all may not have been what it seemed with the pandemic – and its tyrannical response.
Senator Ron Johnson on Friday told Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo that Covid-19, and its response, were “preplanned by an elite group of people” who conducted “Event 201” – a joint exercise conducted by John Hopkins, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum – which envisioned the spread of a coronavirus pandemic in South America which included over 65 million deaths worldwide.
The simulation concluded that national governments are nowhere near ready for a pandemic.
“We are going down a very dangerous path, but it is a path that is being laid out and planned by an elite group of people that want to take total control over our lives, and that’s what they are doing, bit by bit,” said Johnson, who sits on the Senate Homeland Security Committee and is a ranking member of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
To which Bartiromo responded: “It is just extraordinary to me that the government was working with social media to amplify lies and suppress truth and has been doing so repeatedly. We just saw the Facebook story, the Twitter files, all of the all the way, government officials from the CDC, FBI, you know CIA, a thousand people according to the reporters working on the Twitter files, worked with social media to amplify lies and suppress truth.
Why couldn’t the American people know that, you know, there were other alternatives to treat Covid why can’t American people know there were side effects with the vaccine?
Johnson then said: “This is all preplanned by an elite group of people, that is what I am talking about, Event 201 occurred in late 2019, prior to the rest of us knowing about the pandemic. Again — this is very concerning in terms of what is happening, what continues to be planned for our loss of freedom,” adding “ It needs to be exposed but unfortunately, very few people even in Congress are willing to take a look at this. They all pushed the vaccine, they don’t want to be made aware of the fact that vaccines might have caused injuries or death, so many people simply just don’t want to admit they were wrong and they’re going to do everything they can to make sure they’re not proven wrong.”
“We are up against a very powerful group of people here, Maria.”
Watch:
Free Speech To The Supreme Court — And Beyond!
Historic Missouri v. Biden Censorship Lawsuit Likely Headed To Supreme Court
BY ALEX GUTENTAG | PUBLIC | AUGUST 11, 2023
Yesterday the Fifth Circuit court heard oral arguments in the Missouri v. Biden case, and the judges did not hold back. One judge suggested the government “strongarms” social media companies and that their meetings had included “veiled and not-so-veiled threats.”
Another judge described the exchange between the Biden administration and tech companies as the government saying, “Jump!” and the companies responding, “How high?”
“That’s a really nice social media company you got there. It’d be a shame if something happened to it,” the judge said, describing the government’s coercive tactics.
Attorney John Sauer, representing Louisiana, masterfully argued that the government had repeatedly violated the First Amendment. He pointed to specific evidence of coercion in the Facebook Files.
“You have a really interesting snapshot into what Facebook C-suite is saying,” Sauer explained. “They’re emailing Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg and saying things like… ‘Why were we taking out speech about the origins of covid and the lab leak theory?’” The response, Sauer said, was, “Well, we shouldn’t have done it, but we’re under pressure from the administration.”
He also cited an email from Nick Clegg, Facebook President of Global Affairs, that pointed to “bigger fish to fry with the Administration – data flows, etc.”
On Monday, Public reported that these “data flows” referred to leverage the Biden administration had over the company; Facebook needed the White House to negotiate a deal with the European Union. Only through this deal could Facebook maintain access to user data that is crucial for its $1.2 billion annual European business.
But Sauer also made it clear that coercion was not the only basis on which the court could rule against the Biden administration. Joint activity between the White House and social media platforms would also be unconstitutional.
Sauer compared what the government had done to book burning. “Imagine a scenario where senior White House staffers contact book publishers… and tell them, ‘We want to have a book burning program, and we want to help you implement this program… We want to identify for you the books that we want burned, and by the way, the books that we want burned are the books that criticize the administration and its policies.”
Daniel Tenny, the attorney for the Department of Justice, was left nitpicking and misrepresenting the record. In one instance, he denied that Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins had hatched a plan to orchestrate a “takedown” of the Great Barrington Declaration. Why? Because, Tenny said, according to their emails, they actually planned a takedown of “the premises of the Great Barrington Declaration.”
Tenny also stated that social media companies had not removed any true content. From the case’s discovery as well as the Facebook Files we know that is far from true. Facebook, against internal research and advice, did remove “often-true content” that might discourage people from getting vaccinated. Facebook’s own emails clearly suggest that the company only did this due to pressure from figures within the Biden Administration.
Tenny also claimed that when Rob Flaherty, the White House director of Digital Strategy, dropped the F-bomb in an exchange with Facebook it was not about content moderation. In fact, it was precisely about content moderation and occurred during a conversation about how Instagram was throttling Biden’s account. Ironically, the account couldn’t gain followers because Meta’s algorithm had determined that it was spreading vaccine misinformation.
Later, Sauer demolished an earthquake hypothetical that Tenny had introduced to justify state-sponsored censorship. “You can say this earthquake-related speech that’s disinformation is false, it’s wrong,” Sauer said. “The government can say it’s bad, but the government can’t say, ‘Social media platforms, you need to take it down.’ Just like a government can’t stand at the podium and say, ‘Barnes and Noble, you need to burn the bad books, burn the Communist books, whatever it is.’ They can’t say take down speech on the basis of content.”
Based on this hearing, the plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden may have a strong chance of winning. Biden’s DOJ simply had no valid arguments to present. The evidence is clear: the administration brazenly engaged in an unlawful censorship campaign and instrumentalized private companies to do its bidding. This total disregard for fundamental civil liberties will be a stain on the Democratic Party for years to come.
The Supreme Court will be the supreme victory in the US, but our free speech work won’t be done after we win there. No nation enjoys free speech protections like ours. And so, after we win in the US, you can expect to see us helping our allies abroad achieve similar protections from government strongarming, aka censorship, in their own nations.
Preprint Servers Censored Research That Contradicted Government’s COVID Narrative
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | August 9, 2023
Preprint servers are being used to censor scholarly papers critical of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and policy errors made by the Biden administration, according to Vinay Prasad, M.D., MPH.
Prasad, hematologist-oncologist, professor and director of a medical policy lab at the University of California San Francisco said his lab has submitted hundreds of papers to preprint servers — but only those that deviate from the official COVID-19 narrative have been rejected.
The basis for rejecting those papers is inconsistent with standards applied for other topics or with the fundamental rules of the servers, Prasad explained in a recent Substack post and YouTube video on the topic.
“All [rejected papers] are consistent with scientific practices and norms, and similar papers not critical of the CDC or Biden administration have been accepted,” Prasad wrote.
“If only papers that praise the CDC are acceptable by preprint servers,” he added, “then the role of science as a check and balance on incorrect policy is subverted.”
Preprint servers were established to address inefficiencies in academic publishing. The peer-review process typically takes months or more, delaying the real-time sharing of scientific findings with the public.
Also, many journals are proprietary and can only be accessed through expensive personal or institutional subscriptions.
Preprint servers offer a location for scientific reports and papers to be available to the public while the paper goes through peer review — making scientific findings available immediately and for free and opening them up to broader public debate.
There is no peer-review process for preprints, although there is a vetting process.
Prasad said preprint servers are supposed to be neutral and supposed to post all research conducted with a clearly explained and reproducible methodology. The goal, Prasad said, is to be inclusive and make scientific debate possible.
But instead, Prasad said, several of the preprint servers have become “gatekeepers” for what science gets published.
“When the people who work there are rabid, politicized and biased,” he said, “I think that’s a problem.”
‘The preprint servers are really a disgrace’
To test the bias of preprint servers, Prasad’s lab did a comprehensive analysis of its own preprints. Lab staff analyzed outcomes for all preprints they submitted to SSRN, medRxiv (pronounced “med archive”) and Zenodo servers — which he noted is a “reproducible systematic methodology.”
They found “a startling pattern of censorship and inconsistent standards from preprint servers. Preprint servers appear to be playing politics,” Prasad wrote.
Specifically, MedRxiv and SSRN have declined to post articles critical of the CDC, mask and vaccine mandates and the Biden administration’s healthcare policies.
“Preprint servers are not supposed to be journals — they are not supposed to reject articles merely because the people running them disagree with the arguments within.”
But the analysis suggests they are doing just that. Even the preprint of Prasad’s analysis was rejected by both medRxiv and SSRN.
“They don’t want to post a preprint that makes their own preprint server look bad,” he said, adding, “That’s pathetic. You have to post it because it’s factually true.”
Examples of censored articles demonstrate the bias behind the servers’ decisions.
One paper re-analyzed a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine that found cloth masks reduced the rates of COVID-19 transmission in some Massachusetts schools.
Prasad’s lab found that by simply lengthening the timeframe of the data analyzed in the observational analysis, the paper’s conclusion was invalidated. The data showed instead that masks did not slow the spread.
The servers didn’t post their paper, he said, citing “the need to be cautious about posting medical content.”
Prasad said the article was censored, “because it calls into question something that, frankly speaking, is pretty stupid, which is masking children with cloth masks — a stupid intervention derived by someone who cannot read randomized controlled trials and then pushed with the full force of the federal government — with no credible evidence and no randomized data.”
The servers censored Prasad’s lab’s comprehensive analysis of preprint bias using the same justification — “the need to be cautious about medical content.”
He said, “No one could possibly believe that this paper would require the need to be cautious — it merely documents your [preprint server’s] prior screw-ups.”
Another censored preprint reported on the lab’s systematic review and meta-analysis of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination in 5 to 11-year-olds. The paper critiqued the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval of the drug for that age group.
The SSRN also removed that preprint citing, again, “the need to be cautious about medical content.”
SSRN used the same “boilerplate language” to remove the lab’s review of methodologies and conclusions in Cochrane reports. Those findings supported the controversial conclusion of the Cochrane review that community masking had no impact on slowing the spread of COVID-19.
Another article, rejected by medRxiv, which documented statistical and numerical errors made by the CDC during the pandemic, was already accepted by a journal and is one of the 10 most downloaded articles of all time on SSRN.
“Here’s the point,” Prasad said, “You don’t have to agree with me, but this preprint server is not even letting the audience of scientists decide. Who gave them this authority? They don’t get to peer review the article. That’s not their purview.”
Overall the team found that 38% of their submissions to preprint servers were rejected or removed. Yet, these rejected articles eventually were published and extensively downloaded.
“The median number of downloads for a rejected/removed article that was later accepted by a different server was 4,142 vs. 300 for articles submitted and accepted without rejection or removal,” he said.
Their analysis found that overall, Zenodo does not censor articles, but SSRN and medRxiv do.
So, he said, these organizations, established to make science transparent and uncensored have become gatekeepers “for their friends, for the views that they like.”
He also said their policies were inconsistent, with no clear scientific principles guiding rejection.
“They’re rejecting 38[%] of our articles because these are critical of establishment COVID-19 policies,” he said, adding:
“The COVID-19 pandemic is in fact a great example of … how people in power suppress minority views even when those views are meritorious — like toddlers shouldn’t mask, school should be open, you don’t need to mandate boosters, you shouldn’t mandate boosters for young men, nobody who had COVID should have to get the vaccine — those are sensible medical policies that are correct.
“History will vindicate them. They were all censored at one time or the other… The preprint servers are really a disgrace.”
Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Always Follow the … ‘Incentives.’
Dr. Karen Landers is widely admired in my state and is a hero to journalists and editors at our state’s largest news organization … But I’m not a big fan.
BY BILL RICE, JR. | AUGUST 8, 2023
As my readers know, I write articles and make posts anywhere I can which try to advance my hypothesis that the novel coronavirus was spreading widely in late 2019.
After I made yet another “early spread” post, a colleague made a reply that sums up everything far better than I’ve done to date. Here’s his astute post:
“There is absolutely no incentive for about 99%+ of the scientists in the world (administrative state, academic, private, corporate) to ever want to truly trace down the origin timing (and a case zero may be an impossibility). They would all look like quack minions if they discovered something other than the narrative. Too many threw all of their chips into the narrative ship and should that ship sink…”
All this fellow skeptic did with this post was frame the debate using incentives as the psychological motivating factor that explains everything that happens. In doing this, he reminded me to always examine every topic from a “risk-reward” perspective.
The incentives – positive or negative – are all that really matter.
Why do many people, especially those in leadership positions, act in nefarious, disingenuous ways? Why are they not interested in exposing untruths?
To answer this question, one has to imagine the repercussions or harm such people would suffer if the truth was exposed. (These would be professional “risks”) […]
… and then compare these negative outcomes (disincentives) to the rewards or benefits that would (and did) accrue to these same individuals if they simply went along with authorized narratives many of these people must have known were either lies or, at least, very possibly, falsehoods.
Two case studies from my own state …
To illustrate my point, I can reference two “public health leaders” in my own state as case studies.
Dr. Fauci’s successor … that’s ‘high cotton’ as we say in Alabama.
The first example is Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo, who previously served as director of UAB’s Division of Infectious Diseases, and was recently named as Dr. Anthony Fauci’s successor at the NIAD.
The second example is Dr. Karen Landers, one of the top officials at the Alabama Department of Public Health and the primary media spokesperson for this high-profile public health agency.
In my strong opinion, both public health leaders enthusiastically and daily promoted myriad Covid falsehoods.
I also do not think either person could have risen to these high-ranking positions without having some intelligence. At some point, it must have occurred to both individuals that the positions they were championing weren’t necessarily supported by certain statistics, data or scientific studies.
Still, they supported all of these false or dubious positions.
Also, significantly, they took absolutely no steps to debunk any of these false or dubious narratives.
I’m confident in writing that both Dr. Marrazzo and Dr. Landers …
Supported draconian and civil-liberty-eviscerating lockdowns as a non-pharmaceutical “mitigation” measure, unprecedented measures they assured the public would slow or stop the spread of the coronavirus.
They both supported mask mandates that did nothing to slow virus spread and probably caused harm to the people forced to wear masks 8 to 12 hours a day for months or years.
They supported school closings and, once schools re-opened, student masking and social distancing.
They pushed the bogus narrative that Covid was a serious health risk to every citizen, including children who faced virtually zero mortality risk.
They endorsed the proposition that proven drugs like ivermectin and HCQ should not be used to treat Covid patients.
They either endorsed or didn’t criticize the myriad new “Covid protocols” used in hospitals even though these treatment protocols probably caused numerous unnecessary deaths.
They supported endless testing of asymptomatic citizens with PCR tests, testing which accomplished little if nothing to slow or stop spread or future cases.
They also never mentioned or questioned the fact the 40 to 45-cycle PCR tests were producing millions of bogus or dubious “cases.”
As far as I’m aware, neither Dr. Marrazzo nor Dr. Landers ever questioned the safety of Remdesivir, which many (ignored) scientists and doctors say killed many patients. (Update. Read this. Yes, Dr. Marrazzo “supported” Remdesivir. Big-time).
They never took any interest in investigating the possibility the coronavirus was spreading widely in America by late 2019 (although I myself presented both of them compelling evidence this was almost-certainly a fact).
And, of course, they strongly supported everyone over the age of 6 months getting a “vaccine.”
They both enthusiastically participated in the campaign to vilify the unvaccinated and spread the false narrative this was a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”
Today, they both still say the vaccine is incredibly safe and poses no real risks for anyone who got the original series of shots or now the extra “boosters,” which they still encourage everyone to get, including pregnant women and children.
Of course, these examples are my opinion, but these are opinions backed up by millions of skeptics, including countless intelligent scientists, doctors and writers/thinkers.
If our opinions are wrong, neither of these two alleged experts and public health authorities have ever agreed to a public debate to engage with these skeptics. This factual observation tells us these are not real scientists, who are happy to engage in scientific debates.
So what consequences have these alleged experts suffered from being spectacularly and stunningly wrong about so many important public health subjects?
Answer: There were no negative consequences. In fact, the careers of both ladies flourished.
As noted, Dr. Marrazzo just got the biggest promotion in the world of science, replacing “Science Himself” Dr. Fauci as the head of the agency that basically controls scientific research in America.
As far as I know, Dr. Landers didn’t get a promotion, but she’s still one of the public faces of the Alabama Department of Public Health, an agency which has never had more power or influence.
She certainly never had to worry about losing her cushy and prestigious job.
And both are literally celebrated as heroes of public health in my state.
In a recent article about Dr. Marrazzo’s big promotion, I pointed out that al.com (the largest “news organization” in Alabama) wrote a glowing piece on Dr. Marrazzo as a leader who “made a difference” in Alabama. In fact, the headline said Dr. Marrazzo actually made the citizens of our state “smarter.”
The same news organization also celebrated the contributions of Dr. Landers in a series of articles that told readers who Alabamians should exalt as brave and all-knowing public health heroes.
This series – “21 Alabamians who made a difference in 2021 – ” (highlighted) people who … made our state a better place to live this year.”
Excerpt: “Landers … has become a key public figure as the state battles COVID-19. Her calm demeanor and straight-forward answers have been a reassuring voice amid the changing health landscape …”
Regarding those alleged “straight-forward answers,” I’ve interviewed Dr. Landers and sent her office many emails trying to find out why the ADPH didn’t investigate two people who almost certainly had Covid in late 2019; trying to find out how many Alabama children really died “from” Covid and what the cycle threshold was on the PCR tests the agency used to determine Covid “cases.”
I can report I’ve never gotten one “straight forward answer” from this lady and/or this public health agency.
I also speculate I’m probably the only journalist in my state who doesn’t consider the information disseminated by this agency as infallible.
But my main point is the point my colleague made at the beginning of this article. That is, these two people clearly personally benefitted from spreading false or dubious Covid (dis)information.
Today’s thought exercise considers what would have happened to their careers if they’d acted like me and actually questioned a few of the authorized Covid narratives.
I can make these predictions with high levels of confidence: Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo wouldn’t be getting ready to replace Dr. Fauci … and Dr. Karen Landers would now be retired from the ADPH.
Nor would either person have been the subject of the fawning feature stories al.com published.
Above, I write neither of these ladies is stupid. That is, they figured out all of the above on their own:
“Go along with the authorized narrative” = “Fantastic career accolades and unlimited prospects.”
“Challenge the authorized narrative” = “That’s it for my public health career.”
And one can multiply these two “cost-benefit” case studies by every public health official in the world and by just about every political leader or every person who leads any important organization.
All the operative incentives point to … one authorized narrative being protected and pushed … forever and ever, I guess.
While I would argue the actions and statements of these public health officials contributed to many unnecessary deaths and immeasurable harm to countless Alabamians and made residents of our state dumber not “smarter,” from their perspective or from their (selfish) mental calculations … they definitely “chose wisely.”
I’ll end with a “case study” of someone who did challenge the authorized narratives – me.
Did I suffer any professional or personal “harm” by opposing the authorized narrative?
Well, I lost friends. Some family members are embarrassed by my efforts and rarely talk to me anymore.
My Facebook account was suspended and de-boosted repeatedly, which meant a professional writer couldn’t do any writing that would reach a large audience using that speech platform.
I could find only one news organization (uncoverDC.com) that would pay me to write contrarian Covid articles.
My main job or skill set is as a “journalist,” but I’m now-un-hirable at 100-percent of corporate news organizations.
However, if I wrote the type articles al.com journalists write, I’d probably have no problem landing a real (paying) job in journalism. If I’d kept my real views private, all my former friends would still think it was okay to interact with me. Family members wouldn’t be nervous about engaging with me.
My professional and financial prospects would probably be much better than they are today.
So about that “road less travelled” … before you take it, you better think long and hard about where it might lead.
Actually, though, the world and all its roads can lead us to interesting places. God might have a larger plan for all of us, even the contrarians.
As it turns out, I’m as poor as I’ve ever been, but my writing (thanks to starting a Substack newsletter) has reached more people than ever and my words might be influencing more “debates” than ever.
I certainly don’t want this article to come across as whining because I wouldn’t change anything I’ve done.
If a few people like me didn’t criticize people like Dr. Marrazzo and Dr. Landers, who would?
The world does need at least a few contrarians … and I guess this is my lot/purpose in life.
When you write as much as I do, you have to do a little thinking about the topics you’re writing about.
At least I now understand why the world is full of “leaders” like Dr. Marrazzo and Dr. Landers.
In investigative journalism, “follow the money” is supposed to guide our thinking. But I might adjust that maxim to say … follow the incentives. They’re all backwards, but at least this tells us why the world’s like it is.
CDC, Pharma Giants Angle for Annual COVID Shots Despite ‘Unclear’ Science
By Monica Dutcher | The Defender | August 7, 2023
The U.S. House of Representatives Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic wants to know more about plans by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to recommend annual COVID-19 vaccines.
During a July interview with Spectrum News, CDC Director Mandy Cohen said she “anticipate[s] that COVID will become similar to flu shots, where … you get your annual flu shot and you get your annual COVID shot.”
As part of the House investigation into federal COVID-19 vaccination mandates and policies, Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) last week sent a letter to Cohen, stating:
“It is unclear if the science supports such a recommendation. If this anticipated CDC recommendation occurs, it will mark a significant change in federal policy and guidance regarding COVID-19 vaccines and the way in which they are utilized.”
Wenstrup requested all documents and communications about any annual — “or any other time-based iteration” — recommendation for COVID-19 booster shots, including correspondence between or among the CDC, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (also under the subcommittee’s investigation), the White House, the CDC Foundation, CDC contractors and any other CDC stakeholders.
Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax are slated in September to release new single-strain COVID-19 shots targeting the Omicron subvariant XBB.1.5. These vaccines are not yet approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but manufacturers are following the June 15 recommendations of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC).
The committee of 21 independent advisers in June voted unanimously that any new vaccine should protect against just one strain of the virus — a departure from the available bivalent vaccines — and should target one of the three Omicron subvariants currently circulating, including XBB.1.5.
The XBB.1.5 variant spread globally in the first quarter of 2023, reaching dominance in North America, and other parts of the world by April, according to the FDA’s briefing document for the June meeting.
‘We really don’t know what the COVID season is’
FDA advisers in January raised concerns about shifting to a yearly schedule for COVID-19 vaccines. Unlike the flu, which thrives in the winter months, COVID-19’s spread has proved erratic, consistently mutating into new variants.
Dr. Mark Sawyer, professor of clinical pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, told CNBC that describing COVID-19 as seasonal “could be problematic” because “we really don’t know what the COVID season is.”
Dr. Peter McCullough, author of “The Courage to Face COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex,” told The Defender :
“COVID-19 respiratory illness is now like a mild head cold. There is no seasonal pattern. The COVID-19 vaccines have failed to stop transmission or protect against hospitalization and death.
“The products on the market have theoretical efficacy of less than six months. Annual COVID-19 shots have no clinical indication, medical necessity, are not durable for 12 months and have never been tested for use on a yearly schedule.
“On Dec. 7, 2022 in a U.S. Senate panel on vaccines, I called for all COVID-19 vaccines to be removed from the market because they are not safe for human use. There has been no objection to that testimony from public health officials.”
NBC News reported that Dr. Peter Marks, the FDA’s top vaccine regulator, acknowledged during an FDA advisory committee meeting in January that “simplifying the COVID-19 vaccine schedule to be exactly like the flu may not be possible.”
Pfizer hopes otherwise. The drug company’s chief scientific officer, Dr. Mikael Dolsten, thinks an annual COVID-19 vaccine would improve vaccine sentiment, telling CNBC the public grew dissatisfied with mandates during the earlier stages of the pandemic.
He said:
“Unfortunately some people see vaccines as part of that [the mandates].
“I think of it like the introduction of seat belts for cars. People didn’t want to wear them at first, but over time they realized how much seat belts protect them. Now everyone uses them today. That’s kind of how the vaccine story needs to be reimagined.”
An annual schedule, Dolsten added, may help people view COVID-19 shots as another “very natural part” of protecting their health.
CDC director ‘very worried about parents not vaccinating kids’
In addition to the ambiguity surrounding COVID-19 vaccine scheduling, there is no consensus among medical experts on which patients would be recommended for an annual jab.
Dr. Paul Offit, a vaccine scientist, professor of pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and a member of VRBPAC, took issue with not only the annual model but also with administering COVID-19 vaccines to low-risk groups.
Offit told CNN:
“If the goal of the vaccine is the stated goal, which is protection against severe disease, do you really need a yearly vaccine for otherwise healthy people less than 75? I mean, is this the flu model? Because I would argue it shouldn’t be.”
Health advocacy groups and doctors argue against authorizing mRNA shots in young children and babies. As of July 28 — when data were last updated in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) — there were 6,591 reports of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination in children under age 6.
Cohen said she is “very worried about parents not vaccinating kids,” telling Spectrum News, “There’s plenty of other things that are hard as parents that we can’t do. This is one we can do to protect our kids.”
McCullough described Cohen as “fully entrenched in the bio-pharmaceutical complex” and “on the wrong side of every pandemic public health intervention.”
Jeffrey A. Tucker, founder and president of the Brownstone Institute, said Cohen’s career has been punctuated by “heartbreaking fear-mongering, pseudo-science, and propaganda,” adding that “she passed with flying colors all three tests of compliance: closures, masking, and vaccine mandates.”
Reduced trust in vaccines and the CDC concerns Cohen, who plans to rehabilitate that trust by focusing on “transparency, execution and building relationships with the public, health leaders and politicians.”
A survey by the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health published in the journal Health Affairs found that roughly a quarter of Americans have little to no trust in the CDC for health information, including 10% who do not trust the agency at all.
The CDC currently recommends the primary series of mRNA shots, or the first two doses of the updated vaccine be given weeks apart, followed months later by a booster shot. The FDA updated its guidance for these shots in August 2022 to contain a bivalent formulation targeting the original viral strain plus the BA.4 and BA.5 Omicron subvariants.
Pfizer is working on a combined flu/COVID-19 vaccine, expected to be available after 2024. Moderna is also working on a “next-gen flu-COVID combo” vaccine. Other vaccine makers are following suit.
Monica Dutcher is a Maryland-based senior reporter for The Defender.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Everything you need to know about Covid’s “Eris” Variant
By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | August 7, 2023
The big news the last couple of days is that “Covid” is back… again. This time it’s the “Eris” variant, named after the Greek goddess of strife and discord, it supposedly is causing a spike in cases for the first time in… who cares how long.
The bulk of reporting on it is detailing how it’s supposedly related to Omicron or Arcturus or all the other names they flash in the headlines.
That, or the symptoms.
They are a runny nose and a sore throat and…well, you know. The only noteworthy thing to mention here is that the “loss of taste of smell” – so long sold as Covid’s calling card – is no longer considered a common symptom.
Yahoo even reported – without a shred of irony – that the alleged up-tick in “cases” was due to people spending more time indoors:
Bad weather encouraging people to spend more time indoors and waning immunity have been blamed for the rise
… a peculiar position to take, considering lockdown is meant to have helped, last time.
Anyway, without further ado, here is everything you really need to know about the Eris variant:
It’s bullshit.
Just like all the others.
Nothing else really needs to be said, does it?
Sure the media are setting up softballs for us to hammer over the fence, talking about the “symptoms” and “infection” rate again as if the past three years haven’t rendered all those words meaningless. But we are – or should be – well past that point of arguing against the mainstream.
We know everything we need to know about the symptoms – they are “generally mild” and “flu-like”, because Covid is nothing but re-branded endemic respiratory diseases. We know the death statistics are made up and the tests don’t work except to manufacture cases.
We know all this, even this repeating of it is unnecessary, to be honest.
The only aspect of Eris worth discussing is why it’s in the papers, and even that answer is briefer than usual.
Eris exists because the “Cerberus” heatwave is over, and July was unseasonably cold and damp in the UK. Because Autumn will be setting in soon enough and there are no more major sporting events for Just Stop Oil to disrupt for a while.
In short, Eris is what happens when people refuse to panic about climate change.
In fact, we can probably expect headlines linking Eris to the climate in the next few days.
The trouble with that is, just like climate change, people can only be scared by words for so long. The media repeated “global warming” so much the words lost their meaning, and filled the papers with so many apocalyptic predictions that never came to pass that people got numbed to it, they filter it out now even if they don’t realise they do.
The same will happen with covid; the more they bring it back for a jump scare, the less people will jump.
That’s probably why they’re laying the groundwork “the next pandemic” of “disease X”.
Featured Video
US Middle East Policy: The Growing Propensity for Genocide
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The New Baghdad Pact
By Dr Bouthaina Shaaban | February 23, 2017
A recently declassified CIA document prepared in 1983, and released on 20 January 2017, shows that the United States had at the time encouraged Saddam Hussein to attack Syria, which would have led to a vicious conflict between the two countries, thus draining their resources.
The report, which was then prepared by CIA officer Graham Fuller, indicates that the US tried adamantly to convince Saddam to attack Syria under any pretense available, in order to get the two most powerful countries in the Arab East to destroy each other, turning their attention away from the Arab-Israeli conflict. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Israeli soldiers kill UNICEF truck drivers delivering water to Gaza families
- Iran defends limits on Strait of Hormuz passage
- ‘We warned you’: Hormuz Strait back to pervious state amid US blockade
- Iran rejects uranium transfer, warns of response to naval blockade
- US Middle East Policy: The Growing Propensity for Genocide
- Daniel Davis: Iran Reopens the Strait of Hormuz
- Trump taps military-grade flu pandemic architect to lead CDC amid simultaneous gain-of-function and vax development
- Israeli General: War with Iran does not serve Israel as global standing erodes over Gaza
- The collapse is real – Lebanon ceasefire marks a historic strategic defeat
- Trump keeps Hormuz blockade despite Iran reopening passage
- If Americans Knew
- Israel relegates another population to life in tents – Daily Update
- Senate again fails to block weapons to Israel
- Think the Iran war is a disaster? Blame these DC think tanks first.
- Number of Palestinian Prisoners Rises By 83% Since October 2023
- 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
- 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 