Covid-19 « Aletho News

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.

August 12, 2023 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, United States | Leave a comment

What They Did to the Children

By David Bell | Brownstone Institute | August 9, 2023

Children, as any parent knows, are not small adults. Their brain is growing and being acutely shaped by their environment and experience. Social skills and values are learnt from those around them, with teamwork, risk-management, personal boundaries, and tolerance being learned through play with other children. Their immune system is imprinting environmental contact into a set of responses that will shape health in later life. Their bodies grow physically and become adept at physical skills. They learn both trust and mistrust through interaction with adults.

This rapid physical and psychological growth makes children highly vulnerable to harm. Withdrawal of close contact with trusted adults and enforced distancing has large emotional and physical impacts, in common with other primates. Lack of experience also leaves them vulnerable to manipulation by adults who are pushing certain attitudes or beliefs – often called ‘grooming.’ For these reasons, our forebears put specific protections and norms of behaviour in place that elevated the needs of children above adults.

However, protecting children did not involve enclosing them in a padded cell – policy-makers knew this to be harmful to psychological and physical development. It involved allowing children to explore their environment and society, whilst taking measures to shield them from malfeasance, including from those who would harm them directly or through ignorance or neglect.

The act of imposing risks on children for the perceived benefit of adults was therefore considered one of the worst crimes. The most cowardly use of ‘human shields.’

Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child places children at the centre of public decision-making:

“In all actions concerning children…. the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”

When we are complicit in acts that we know are wrong, we naturally look for ways to avoid acknowledging our part in it or excuse the actions as being ‘for a greater good.’ But lying to ourselves is not a good way to correct a wrong. As we have seen in other acts of institutional child abuse, it allows the abuse to fester and expand. It advances the interests and safety of the perpetrators over that of the victims.

Covid as a means for targeting children

In early 2020, a virus outbreak was noted in Wuhan, China. It was soon clear that this relatively novel coronavirus overwhelmingly targeted the sick and elderly, particularly those on unhealthy Western diets. The Diamond Princess incident showed, however, that even among the elderly the vast majority would survive the illness (Covid-19), with many not even becoming ill.

In response, Western public health institutions, politicians, and media turned on children. Society implemented policies never seen before; a whole-of-society approach that was expected to increase poverty and inequality, particularly targeting lower-income people. and disrupt childhood development. It included restrictions on children’s play, education, and communication, and used psychological manipulation to convince them that they were a threat to their parents, teachers, and grandparents. Policies such as isolation and travel restriction, normally applied to criminals, were applied to whole populations.

The novel public health response was designed by a small but influential group of very wealthy people, often called philanthropists, and international institutions which they have funded and co-opted over the past decade. These same people would go on to be greatly enriched through the ensuing response. Encouraged by these same but now even wealthier people governments are now working to entrench these responses to build a poorer, less free and more unequal world into which all children will grow.

Whilst rarely discussed in public spaces, strategies of targeting and sacrificing children for the gratification of adults are not new. However, it is a practice that normally elicits disgust. We can now understand better, having been part of it, how such actions can creep into a society and become integral to its character. People find it easy to condemn the past, whilst excusing the present; asking reparations for past slavery whilst advocating for cheaper batteries produced through current child slavery, or condemning past institutionalized child abuse whilst condoning it when it happens within their own institutions. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was not asking us to look to the past, but to the present. The most mature society is one that can face itself, calmly and with its eyes open.

The abandonment of evidence

Aerosolized respiratory viruses, such as coronaviruses, spread in tiny airborne particles over long distances and are not interrupted by cloth face coverings or surgical masks. This has been long- established and has been confirmed again by the US CDC in a meta-analysis of influenza studies published in May 2020.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus was somewhat unusual (though not unique) in its targeting of a cell receptor in the lining of the respiratory tract, ACE-2 receptors, to enter and infect cells. These are expressed less in children, meaning children are intrinsically less likely to be severely infected or transmit large viral loads to others. This explains the study outcomes early in the Covid-19 epidemic that demonstrated very low transmission from children to school teachers, and adults living with children having a lower-than-average risk. It explains why Sweden, following former evidence-based recommendations from the World Health Organization (WHO), kept schools open with no ill effects on health.

Armed with this knowledge, we (as a society) closed schools and forced children to cover their faces, reducing their educational potential and impairing their development. Knowing that school closures would disproportionately harm low-income children with poorer computer access and home study environments, we ensured that the children of the wealthy would widen their advantage for the next generation. In low-income countries, these school closures worked as expected, increasing child labour and condemning up to 10 million additional girls to child to child marriage and nightly rape.

Abusing children at home

For many, school provides the only stable and secure part of their lives, providing the vital pastoral and counselling work which identifies and supports children in crisis. When pupils are out of school the most vulnerable are the most affected, teachers can’t pick up the early warning signs of abuse or neglect, and children have no one they can tell. For children with special needs, essential access to multi-agency support frequently ceased.

Sport and extracurricular activities are important in children’s lives. Events such as school plays, school trips, choirs, and the first and last days at school mark out their lives and are vital for their social development. Friendships are crucial for their emotional development, particularly during the crucial stages of growth – childhood, adolescence and young adulthood – and especially when there are vulnerabilities or special needs, children need access to family, friends, services, and support.

The result of this neglect, as highlighted by a recent a UCL study on the outcomes of UK government restrictions on children in 2020-2022, was nothing short of a disaster:

“The impact of the pandemic will have detrimental consequences for children and young people in the short and long-term, with many not yet visible, it will have continuing consequences for their future in terms of professional life trajectories, healthy lifestyles, mental well-being, educational opportunities, self-confidence and more besides.”

As the study finds:

“Children were forgotten by policymakers during Covid lockdowns.”

Infants, children, and teenagers endured numerous lockdowns during their most formative years, despite accounting for a diminutive proportion of Covid hospitalisations and deaths. The UCL study found that politicians did not consider children and young people a “priority group” when English lockdowns were enforced. Infants born into the Covid restrictions have marked delays in brain and thought development.

Education is provided to children as it benefits their educational and psychological development, provides a safe and protective environment, and is a way of improving equality. So it was to be expected that when schools closed there would be development losses in very young children, reduced education attainment throughout the age profile, mental health issues, and a rising tide of abuse.

In the UK, 840 million school days were lost to the class of 2021 and nearly two million of England’s nine million pupils are still failing to attend school regularly. As early as November 2020, Ofsted, the body which inspects and reports on schools in England, reported that the majority of children were going backwards educationally. Regression was found in communication skills, physical development, and independence. These impacts are seen across Europe, and are likely to be lifelong. Despite this, the policies continued.

In the United States, school closures affected an estimated 24.2 million US schoolchildren absent from school (1.6 billion worldwide) and the educative deterioration there is particularly clear. Schoolchildren have fallen behind in their learning by almost a year according to the latest assessments from the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP). About a third of the students didn’t reach the lowest reading benchmark and maths saw the steepest decline in history. As poorer students will have less access to the internet and support for remote learning, school closures also widen racial and ethnic inequalities.

And when schools did reopen in the UK a damaging and restrictive set of regulations were introduced wearing masks, testing, bubbles, playground restrictions, and static timetables. Post-primary children were spending all day in the same room, masked for 9 hours per day if they used public transport to get to school. Isolation and quarantining led to continual absences. Teachers trained to know this approach was harmful continued to implement it.

The recent Ofsted report from Spring 2022 highlighted the damaging effects of the restrictions on the development of young children and should have been enough to set alarm bells ringing as it recorded:

Delays in babies’ physical development
A generation of babies struggling to crawl and communicate
Babies suffering delays in learning to walk
Delays in speech and language (noted to be partly attributable to imposition of facemasks).

This latter has also been noted by practitioners such as the Head of the Speech and Language unit in N. Ireland:

“A growing number of young children are experiencing significant communication problems following the lockdowns and some who can’t talk at all, they grunt or they point at things they want and who don’t know how to speak to the other children.”

A study by Irish researchers found that babies born during March to May 2020, when Ireland was locked down, were less likely to be able to say at least one definitive word, point, or wave goodbye at 12 months old. A further study published in Nature found children aged 3 months – 3 years scored almost two standard deviations lower in a proxy measurement of development similar to IQ. With 90 percent of brain development taking place in the first five years of life, this has been tragic. Many children in this age group are now starting school far behind, biting and hitting, overwhelmed around large groups and unable to settle and learn with the social and educational skills of a child two years younger.

From a mental health viewpoint, we as a society attacked the mental health of children, following policies we knew were harmful and even designed to stoke fear; a direct form of abuse. Children were shut away in their bedrooms, isolated from friends, told they were a danger to others and that non-compliance may kill granny. An agenda of fear was imposed on them.

In the UK there are an astonishing one million children awaiting mental health support, whilst more than 400,000 children and young people a month are being treated for mental health problems – the highest number on record. More than a third of young people said they feel their life is spiralling out of control and more than 60 percent of 16-25-year-olds said they were scared about their generation’s future, 80 percent of young people reporting a deterioration in their emotional well-being.

As early as autumn 2020, UK’s Ofsted had identified:

A 42 percent in self-harm and eating disorders
An ‘explosion’ of children with disabling tic disorders
record numbers of children being prescribed antidepressants
Increases in self-harm

In addition, five times more children and young people committed suicide than died of COVID-19 during the first year of the pandemic in the UK. In the US, CDC reported that emergency department visits were 50.6 percent higher among girls aged 12–17 due to suicide attempts From early 2020, it was known that children were barely affected by the virus, having a 99.9987 percent survival chance, while they were not a danger to others.

Abusing children far away

Numbers are not people, so when we discuss dead or harmed children in large numbers, it can be difficult to understand the real impact. This allows us to gloss over the impact. However, UNICEF tells us that almost a quarter of a million children were killed by the lockdowns in 2020 in South Asia alone. That is 228,000, each with a mother and father, probably brothers or sisters.

Most additional child lockdown deaths will have been particularly unpleasant, as malnutrition and infections are hard ways to die. These deaths were anticipated by the WHO and the public health community in general. They would have lived without the lockdowns, as (so) they were ‘added’ deaths.

The WHO estimates about 60,000 additional children are dying each year since 2020 from malaria. Many more are dying from tuberculosis and other childhood illnesses. With about a billion additional people in severe food deprivation (near starvation), there will probably be some millions more hard, painful deaths to come. It is hard to watch a child dying. But someone like us, often a parent, watched and suffered through each of these deaths.

While many in the public health and ‘humanitarian’ industries tell tales about stopping a global pandemic, those watching these deaths knew they were unnecessary. They knew that these children had been betrayed. Some perhaps can still claim ignorance, as the Western media has found discussion of these realities awkward. Their main private sponsors are profiting from the programs causing these deaths, as others once benefitted from the abuse and killing to secure cheap rubber of the Belgian Congo or the mining of rare metals in Africa today. Exposing mass child deaths-for-profit will not please the investment houses that own both media and media’s Pharma sponsors. But deaths are the same whether the media covers it or not.

Why we did this

There is no simple answer as to why society reversed its norms of behaviour and pretended, en masse, that lies were truth and truth was a lie. Nor a simple answer as to why child welfare came to be considered dispensable, and children a threat to others. Those who orchestrated the closing of schools knew that it would increase long-term poverty and, therefore, poor health. They knew of the inevitability of increased child labour, child brides, starvation, and death. This is why we run clinics, support food programmes, and try to educate children.

None of the harms from the Covid response were at all unexpected. The children of the wealthy benefitted, whilst the children of the less well-off were disproportionately harmed. This is the way society has worked historically – we just fooled ourselves that we had developed something better.

What is most concerning is that three years in, we are not just ignoring what we did, but are planning to expand and institutionalize these practices. Those who gained most financially from Covid-19, who backed this society-wide attack on the most vulnerable, wish this to be a permanent feature of life. There is no serious enquiry into the harms of the global response because these were expected, and those in charge have profited from them.

The desired reset was achieved; we have reset our expectations regarding truth, decency, and the care of children. In an amoral world the happiness, the health, and the life of a child only carries the importance we are told to attach to it. To change that, we would have to stand against the tide. History will remember those who did and those who did not.

David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. He is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO), Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, WA, USA.

August 12, 2023 Posted by aletho | Science and Pseudo-Science, Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, Human rights | Leave a comment

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.

August 11, 2023 Posted by aletho | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine | Leave a comment

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.

Here, I need to cite specific examples …

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.

Now let’s look at the consequences from being spectacularly wrong …

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.

Career benefits can come from ego-boosting feature stories …

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.”

My own ‘case study’ is the corollary of this maxim …

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.

This said, this should also be said …

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.

August 9, 2023 Posted by aletho | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19 | Leave a comment

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.

August 7, 2023 Posted by aletho | Science and Pseudo-Science | CDC, Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, FDA, Moderna, Novavax, Pfizer | Leave a comment

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”.

August 7, 2023 Posted by aletho | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, UK | Leave a comment

COVID QUESTIONERS DEEMED ‘DOMESTIC TERRORISTS’

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | August 3, 2023

A trip down memory lane chronicling how Homeland Security labeled us all ‘domestic terrorists’ for trying to warn people about the harms of the COVID shots, masking kids, warnings and attacks meant to achieve COVID compliance. Will the same op be run during a climate emergency?

August 7, 2023 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Video | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, United States | Leave a comment

How the current version of the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty (aka Bureau Text) encourages rather than prevents pandemics

BY MERYL NASS | AUGUST 5, 2023

Weapons of Mass Destruction: Chem Bio

Traditionally, Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) were Chemical, Biological, Radiologic and Nuclear (CBRN).

The people of the world don’t want them used on us—they are cheap ways to kill and maim lots of people at once. And so international treaties were created to try to prevent their development (sometimes) and use. First was the Geneva Protocol of 1925, banning the use of biological and chemical weapons in war. The US and many nations signed it, but it took 50 years for the US to ratify it, so we believed we were not bound by it.

The US used chemical weapons subsequently. The US probably used biological weapons in the Korean War, and perhaps in Vietnam, which experienced an odd outbreak of plague during the war. The use of napalm, white phosphorus, agent orange (with its dioxin excipient causing massive numbers of birth defects and other tragedies) and possibly other chemical weapons led to much pushback, especially since we had signed the Geneva Protocol and we were supposed to be a civilized nation.

In 1968, a young Seymour Hersh wrote a book about the US chemical and biological warfare program. In 1969 Congressman Richard D. McCarthy wrote the book “Ultimate Folly” about the US production and use of chemical and biological weapons. Prof. Matthew Meselson’s review of the book noted,

Our operation, “Flying Ranch Hand, ” has sprayed anti-plant chemi-

cals over an area almost the size of the state of Massachusetts, over

10 per cent of it cropland. “Ranch Hand” no longer has much to do with

the official justification of preventing ambush. Rather, it has become

a kind of environmental warfare, devastating vast tracts of forest in

order to facilitate our aerial reconnaisance. Our use of “super tear

gas” (it is also a powerful lung irritant) has escalated from the originally

announced purpose of saving lives in “riot control-like situations” to the

full-scale combat use of gas artillery shells, gas rockets and gas bombs

to enhance the killing power of conventional high explosive and flame

weapons. Fourteen million pounds have been used thus far, enough

to cover all of Vietnam with a field effective concentration. Many

nations, including some of our own allies have expressed the opinion

that this kind of gas warfare violates the Geneva Protocol, a view

shared by M cCarthy.

A Biological Weapons Convention

Amid great pushback over US conduct in Vietnam, in November 1969 President Nixon announced to the world we were going to end the US biowarfare program (but not the chemical program). In February 1970 Nixon announced we would also get rid of our toxin weapons (snake, snail, frog, fish, bacterial and fungal toxins that could be used for assassinations, etc.). Furthermore, Nixon said the US would initiate an international treaty to prevent the use of these weapons ever again. And we did: the 1972 Convention on the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological (biological) and toxin weapons and on their destruction, or Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) for short, which entered into force in 1975.

The BWC established conferences to be held every 5 years to strengthen the Convention. The expectation was that these would add a method to call for ‘challenge inspections’ to prevent cheating and would add sanctions (punishments) if nations did not comply with the treaty. However, the US has consistently blocked the addition of protocols that would have an impact on cheating. By now, everyone knows that cheating occurs and is likely widespread.

A leak in an anthrax production facility in Sverdlovsk, USSR in 1979 caused the deaths of about 60 people. A clear BWC violation. US experiments with anthrax production during the Clinton administration, detailed by Judith Miller et al. in the 2001 book Germs were also thought by experts to have transgressed the BWC.

In 1997 a Chemical Weapons Convention came into force. It took over 20 years, but all official stocks of chemical weapons have been destroyed by the USA and by Russia and the other 193 member nation signatories.

Pandemics or Biological Warfare?

So here we are. It is 2023 and the WHO Director General has declared 2 pandemics (the current terminology is ‘Public Health Emergency of International Concern’) over the past 3 and a half years: COVID-19 and monkeypox, which was renamed MPOX to “avoid stigma.” I am sure the monkeys were relieved by the name change.

I have previously (in my substack) described why I believe both SARS-CoV-2 and MPOX were bioengineered pathogens that came from labs. I do not know if they leaked or were deliberately released, but I am leaning toward deliberately released for both of them, based on where they appeared, how they spread, and in particular the official responses to each—neither of which was explained accurately to the public, and yet we never changed course, even when the lack of efficacy with masks, social distancing, EUA drugs and vaccines had become clear.

Vaccines: the Chicken or the Egg?

Both the monkeypox vaccines (there are two, Jynneos and ACAM2000) are known to cause myocarditis, as do the two COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and the Novavax vaccine. The Novavax vaccine was first associated with myocarditis during its clinical trial in Australia. I have written about all this previously on substack.

How frequently does myocarditis occur after these vaccines? If you use elevated cardiac enzymes as your marker, ACAM2000 caused this in one in thirty people receiving it for the first time. If you use other measures like abnormal cardiac MRI or echo, according to the CDC it occurs in one in 175 vaccinees. We do not know the number for Jynneos, but there was some degree of elevation of cardiac enzymes in 10% and 18% of recipients in two small prelicensure studies. My guess for the mRNA vaccines is that they are somewhere in this range. I don’t know about Novavax’ vaccine.

Why would our governments push 5 separate vaccines all known to cause myocarditis on young males who have been at extremely low risk from COVID, and who simply get a few pimples for 1-4 weeks from monkeypox unless they are immunocompromised? It’s an important question. It does not make medical sense. Especially when the vaccine probably does not work — Jynneos didn’t on the monkeys in whom it was tested. And CDC has clammed up about the 2,000 Congolese healthcare workers on whom CDC tested it for efficacy and safety in 2017. (I have detailed this too in earlier substacks.)

The health authorities could have just been ignorant—that could explain the first 8 months of the COVID vaccines’ rollout. But once they figured out, and even announced in August 2021 that the vaccines did not prevent catching COVID or transmitting it, why did they still push it on low risk populations who were clearly at greater risk from a vaccine side effect?

Once this is acknowledged, you realize that maybe the vaccines were not made for the pandemic, and instead the pandemic was made to roll out the vaccines. I’m not sure. But I’m suspicious. And the fact that multiple countries contracted for 10 doses per person makes me even more suspicious—for vaccines whose safety and efficacy had not been established. WHY would you want ten doses apiece? Three maybe. But ten?

Furthermore, you don’t need a vaccine passport aka digital ID aka justification to convert to all-electronic money unless you are giving out regular boosters. Were the vaccines conceived of as the pathway to getting our vaccinations, health records, official documents and financial transactions all online—as Ukraine has already done?

A Pandemic Treaty and Amendments: Brought to you by the same people who mismanaged the past 3 years, to save us from themselves?

The same US government and western governments that imposed draconian measures on their citizens to force us to be vaccinated and take dangerous, expensive, experimental drugs and withheld the good drugs, decided in 2021 we needed a pandemic treaty to prevent and ameliorate future pandemics or biological warfare events… so we would not suffer as we did with the COVID pandemic.

Except COVID was a disaster due to its mismanagement (or should I say dismanagement or malmanagement?) by our nations’ rulers, their bosses and the WHO. Hundreds of millions of our fellow human being were slammed into extreme poverty—by nations following guidelines issued by the WHO, whose main job it was to protect exactly those people. Tens of millions died from starvation as a result. Yet the WHO blathers on about equity, diversity and solidarity—having itself caused the worst (manmade) food crisis in our lifetimes. Have you heard any apology or explanation?

How can anyone with a brain believe the public health officials who messed up COVID so badly want to spare us from another medical and economic disaster, after they imposed the last one on us? And the fact that no governments or health officials will admit their mistakes — especially how they made it nearly impossible to obtain the cheap and safe drugs that effectively treat COVID — why would we let them plan anything, let alone an international treaty that will bind our governments to obey the WHO’s dictates? How thoughtful of these officials to want to spend a king’s ransom of our money to prevent the next government-caused disaster.

We are fed up with secret vaccine contracts, waivers of liability for junk medical products, and spikes in sudden deaths and chronic disabilities. No more secret negotiations. Please shove your pandemic planning where the sun…

The Gain of Function farce

Obviously, the best way to spare us from another pandemic is to immediately stop funding “Gain of Function”* research, and get rid of what has already been funded and created. Let all the nations make big bonfires and burn up their evil creations at the same time, while allowing other nations to inspect their biological facilities and records.

But the WHO in its Bureau Text of the draft Pandemic Treaty has a plan that is the exact opposite of this. In the WHO’s world, which almost all nations’ rulers have bought into, all the governments will share any and all viruses and bacteria they come up with that have “pandemic potential” — share them with all the other governments. They are supposed to sequence them and then put the sequence online. No kidding. Then the WHO and all the Faucis of the world would gain access to every Frankenstein virus, at once. Presumably a bunch of hackers would also gain access to the sequences. Does this make you feel more secure?

The WHO Treaty draft incentivizes Gain Of Function research

At least this plan makes clear whose side everyone is on. Fauci, Tedros and their ilk at the WHO, and those managing biodefense and biomedical research for nation states are on one side, the side that gains access to even more biological weapons, and the rest of us are on the other, at their mercy.

This crazy plan used to be called proliferation of weapons of mass destruction—and it is almost certainly illegal. But it is their plan. Governments will all share the weapons. And they are to put a lot more money into biolabs, and especially into genomic sequencing. Presumably so they can make even better weapons, and maybe they will even get around to cures or antidotes. But who will get the cures? It wasn’t us during the COVID-19 pandemic. Here is where you can read the current Treaty draft:

https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb5/A_INB5_6-en.pdf

Pages 10 and 11:

What else is in the Treaty? Gain of Function research (designed to make pathogens more transmissible or more virulent) is explicitly incentivized. Administrative hurdles to it must be minimized, while unintended consequences (pandemics) should be prevented: (page 14)

Vaccines will be rolled out speedily under future testing protocols

Just in case you thought the COVID vaccines took too long to be rolled out, the WHO has plans to shorten testing. There will be new clinical trial platforms. Nations must increase clinical trial capacity. (Might that mean mandating people to be human subjects in out-of-the-way Africa, for example?). And there will be new “mechanisms to facilitate the rapid interpretation of data from clinical trials” as well as “strategies for managing liability risks.” (page 14)

Manufacturer and government liability will be “managed”

Nations are supposed to use existing models as a reference for compensation of injuries due to pandemic vaccines. Of course, most countries do not have vaccine injury compensation schemes, and when they do the benefits are usually minimal. The US government scheme for injuries due to COVID pandemic products (the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program or CICP) has compensated 4 (yes, FOUR) people as of July 1, 2023. All pandemic EUA drugs and vaccines fall into this program (monoclonal antibodies, early remdesivir, paxlovid, molnupiravir, some ventilators and all COVID vaccines). There have been nearly 12,000 claims made to the CICP related to a COVID product. Slightly over 1,000 have been adjudicated while 10,886 are pending review. Twenty claims were deemed eligible and are waiting to see whether they can collect. A total of 983 people, or 98% had their claims denied. About 90% of all claimants filed for a vaccine injury.

The treaty draft also demands weakening the regulation of medical drugs and vaccines during emergencies under the rubric of Regulatory Strengthening. As announced in the UK last week, where ‘trusted partner’ approvals will be used to speed licensure, this is moving toward a single regulatory agency approval or authorization, to be immediately adopted by other nations (p 25)

Why would any developed country sign up for this? Is this what we the people want?

The WHO did sweeten the pot, however. Remember how the need to respect “human rights, dignity, and freedom of persons” was removed in the WHO’s draft IHR Amendments that are being negotiated? Well, WHO apparently did not like us pointing that out—so the old human rights language that was removed from the International Health Regulations draft has been added to this newest version of the Treaty.

There is much more I could say about problems with this draft of the Treaty, but I will save them for another time.

Please share this brief analysis of the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty. We must EXIT the WHO.

*Gain of Function is a euphemism for biological warfare reserch or germ warfare research. It is so foolhardy that it was banned in the US for SARS coronaviruses and avian flu viruses from 2014-2017 due to public outcry by scientists. Then in 2017 Fauci and Collins lifted the moratorium, claimed they were putting safeguards in place, which were just a handwaving exercise, and off we were to the races: creating new bioweapons. Fauci and Collins had the nerve to publish their opinion that the risk was ‘worth it.’

August 6, 2023 Posted by aletho | Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, WHO | Leave a comment

PSYOP-19 UPDATE: New Variant Spreading Across UK – As Overall Cases Continue to Rise

2nd Smartest Guy in the World | August 5, 2023

The followup “pandemic” trial balloon intended to gauge the level of future societal “mandate” compliance has now been officially deployed.

According to the latest Mockingbird article by SKY NEWS entitled, COVID-19: New variant spreading across UK – as overall cases continue to rise:

A new COVID variant is spreading across the UK, according to the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) – and already makes up one in seven new cases.

Scientifically known as EG.5.1, it is descended from the Omicron variant of COVID.

The UKHSA has been monitoring its prevalence in the country due to increasing cases internationally, particularly in Asia, and it was classified as a variant here on 31 July.

Since viruses never mutate into more virulent strains, we must ask: is this another gain of function (GoF) release by the usual Intelligence Industrial Complex criminals, and their useful idiot “expert” apparatchiks ahead of the fall and winter flu season, or is this a consequence of the ~~“vaccinated”~~ genetically modified humans incubating and transmitting new viral mutations as a function of the Modified mRNA slow kill bioweapon injections?

In the week beginning 10 July, one in nine cases were down to the variant.

The latest data suggests it now accounts for 14.6% of cases – the second most prevalent in the UK.

It appears to be spreading quickly and could be one reason why there has been a recent rise in cases and hospitalisations.

COVID-19 rates have continued to increase – up from 3.7% of 4,403 respiratory cases last week to 5.4% of 4,396 this week.

The latest data also shows the COVID-19 hospital admission rate was 1.97 per 100,000 population, an increase from 1.17 per 100,000 in the previous UKHSA report.

Officials say they are “closely” monitoring the situation as COVID case rates continue to rise.

It is no surprise that the wholly fraudulent PCR tests are what these “officials” are yet again referencing; in other words, they are up to their same old junk science tricks.

“We have also seen a small rise in hospital admission rates in most age groups, particularly among the elderly,” said Dr Mary Ramsay, head of immunisation at the UKHSA.

“Overall levels of admission still remain extremely low and we are not currently seeing a similar increase in ICU admissions.

“We will continue to monitor these rates closely.”

Senicide is the gift that keeps on giving, as said “officials” happily discharge liabilities and assets of the elderly useless eaters. Any eugenics program worth it’s salt always commences with the oldsters, and then works it way across ever larger swaths of society.

The Arcturus XBB.1.16 variant – another descendant of Omicron – is the most dominant, UKHSA figures show. It makes up 39.4% of all cases.

Another variant with a menacing name and lots of decimals, another opportunity for the One World Government’s main eugenics node in the WHO to fear-monger:

The World Health Organisation (WHO) started tracking the EG.5.1 variant just over two weeks ago.

As this Substack has exposed on several occasions now, the WHO’s director-general is a Marxist war criminal deliberately selected for his extreme sociopathy by the Rockefeller Crime Syndicate’s most prominent puppet and genocidal frankenmosquito advocate Billy Boy Gates:

WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said though people are better protected by vaccines and prior infection, countries should not let down their guard.

“WHO continues to advise people at high risk to wear a mask in crowded places, to get boosters when recommended, and to ensure adequate ventilation indoors,” he said.

They also just can’t let up on the absurdly useless MK Ultra masks, because ensuring that the genetically ruined slaves reinforce their mass induced fear slavery is an effective means of self-policing into ever more mindless compliance.

“And we urge governments to maintain and not dismantle the systems they built for COVID-19.”

Of course, the WHO urges that their unconstitutional and anti-human systems for PSYOP-19 not to be dismantled because they need their said systems for their followup PSYOP-23 “pandemic” this fall.

What the WHO certainly does not want you to know is that inexpensive repurposed drugs will act as prophylaxis against all of their “pandemics,” along with the associated plethora of their “vaccine” induced adverse events like turbo cancers, and prion-based diseases, all while also protecting the genetically unmodified refuseniks from “vaccine” shedding, and environmental damage.

Do NOT comply.

August 6, 2023 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights | Leave a comment

The “War on Climate Change” is coming… again

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | August 3, 2023

Last week, a senior member of Parliament for the UK’s Labour Party went on television demanding the UK – maybe even the entire world – be on a “war-like footing” to combat climate change.

Speaking on the BBC’s flagship political magazine Newsnight, Barry Gardiner MP argued for unity of purpose against climate change’s “existential threat”:

“… if this were a war we wouldn’t be arguing about whether the Labour strategy or the Tory strategy were better, we would be working together to try and win […] Well, it is a war. It is a war for survival and climate change threatens everything […] So actually instead of playing party political games about who is up, who is down, what we need to be doing is saying let’s get together, let’s mobilise on a war footing and that is what is needed…”

Two days later, the exact same thoughts were expressed in a Financial Times column by Camilla Cavendish, former head of David Cameron’s Downing Street policy unit and Kennedy School of Government alumnus:

The answer is surely to invoke a wartime spirit, and make the fight against climate change a joint endeavour against a common enemy. If the public and political will is there, human ingenuity can prevail, with remarkable speed. In the second world war, America transformed its manufacturing base to produce tanks and ammunition. The Covid pandemic resulted in the discovery and development of vaccines at scale, saving millions of lives.

It’s interesting to note the comparison to Covid, but we’ll come back that.

The campaign isn’t isolated to the UK, in fact it kicked off on the other side of the Atlantic, with the Inquirer running an article headlined “President Biden should address the nation and declare war…on climate change” on July 16th, which argued:

Biden and his aides need to grab that metaphorical bullhorn and call the TV networks to announce a prime-time address from the Oval Office that will declare a national emergency — in essence, a state of war — to fight climate change.

Joe Biden himself called climate change an “existential threat” on July 27th.

The invocation of metaphorical war is of course nothing new.

“War” is a very important word in the world of politics and propaganda. It has – or is assumed to have – an immediate effect on the collective public mind; an instant connection to generations of shared memories, that promotes feelings of conformity and solidarity.

Some psychological study or focus group clearly figured this out decades ago, and as such the word “war” is frequently used to control narratives.

In Western “democracies” the deployment of the W word is code for bi-partisan agreement, attempting to breed faux solidarity between the same people they encourage to hate each other 90% of the time, whilst branding any dissenters as outsiders who are a threat to the safety of the group.

More pragmatically, being “at war” creates an “emergency” which justifies “temporary” suppression of human rights and freedoms and permits increases in the powers assumed by the state.

OffG – and others – have discussed this ad infinitum, past a certain point any authoritarian government needs to exist in a state of war in order to avoid collapse, and so enemies are created that, by their nature, can remain forever never undefeated.

See: “The War on Drugs”, “The War on Terror”, “The War on Covid”

… and, now, the war on climate change.

Or, more properly, “the war on climate change… again”.

Because neither Barry Gardiner nor Camilla Cavendish are the first person to express this thought. Not even close.

Then-Prince now-King Charles expressed the exact same sentiment in the exact same words in a speech to the COP26 in November 2021, contemporary opinion pieces in the Guardian agreed with him.

They were, in fact, echoing a University College London report from May 2021.

CNN warned we were “losing the war on climate change” in April 2019, plagiarizing the exact same headline in The Economist from a year earlier in August 2018.

Bill McKibben wrote “We’re under attack from climate change—and our only hope is to mobilize like we did in WWII” for the New Republic in August 2016.

Venkatesh Rao wrote “Why Solving Climate Change Will Be Like Mobilizing for War” for the Atlantic in October 2015, repeating the same arguments from a CNN article four months earlier.

Hell, all the way back in 2003 the New York Times was running editorials “After Iraq: Declare war on global warming”

(Ah, remember when Climate Change hadn’t yet received it’s unfalsifiability makeover and was still just known as “global warming”?)

Essentially, every few months they trot out this idea of “declaring war on climate change”, get almost no engagement from the public, and then go back to spouting alarmism and fear porn for a while before trying again.

They have been doing this for years. So far it has not worked.

… but this time might be a little different.

Why? Because we now live in a post-Covid society.

Consider, with the exception of the vaccines, everything brought on by Covid – the lockdowns, the financial collapse, all of the “Great Reset” – was originally meant to be a “response” to climate change.

They had a package of “solutions” ready and waiting for a public “reaction” that never came. People were simply never scared enough at the idea the world might get a bit warmer.

It could be argued that global warming’s repeated failure to spark a global panic is the very reason they resorted to “Covid” in the first place, but whatever the cause-and-effect relationship the fact of the matter is that Covid has laid a foundation for the “war on climate change” that never existed before.

“anti-Covid measures” provide precedent both for the use of extreme ‘responses’ and their apparent “effectiveness”
Covid created enough fear that they can increase climate hysteria by linking environmentalism to future potential “pandemics”
Covid (allegedly) “inspired global cooperation” and “demonstrated what we can achieve when we all work together”
Covid lockdowns (allegedly) “showed how the world can heal” by cutting emissions.
And, most vitally, the roll out of the Covid narrative demonstrated that once people have invested their virtue or personality in a story you can tell them almost anything relating to that story and they’ll be incentivised to believe you – NO MATTER HOW ABSURD IT MIGHT BE.

We noted earlier that several recent articles “declaring war on climate change” reference Covid, almost always as a global success story.

It is now commonplace to talk about avoiding climate disaster through the medium of Covid. The United Nations, the Council on Foreign Relations and International Monetary Fund have all run articles in the last couple of years with near-identical titles eg:

What the Coronavirus Pandemic Teaches Us About Fighting Climate Change

Perhaps the most blatant example of using Covid imagery to sell climate change and globalism is the call to create a “Global Climate Organization”, from Dr David King in the Independent a few days ago (our emphasis):

“In terms of a health crisis, such as the Covid crisis, we have a World Health Organisation and it’s based in Geneva and is part of the United Nations. We don’t have a world climate crisis organisation. That’s what we need, so that all countries of the world could come together through a body of this kind, as we do when there’s a health crisis, we all contribute to the cost of the WHO. We need a global system that pulls us all together to battle with this external threat to our manageable future.”

We know what this is, this is the “pivot from Covid to climate” they literally told us was coming.

The “Great Reset” has made a good start, but they still have a raft of fun policies they want to introduce (eg. rationing food). In a post Covid world, they are hoping to finally make “climate change” frightening enough that people will beg them to completely reshape the world as they see fit.

The amusing part is that it still doesn’t feel like it’s landing, to be honest.

Outside of the media echo-chamber and the virtue-signalers, all the “terrifying” temperature maps, the experts warning that “millions will die instantly” if they turn their air conditioning off, the new buzzphrase of “global boiling” is being met with a bit of a “meh”.

Unfortunate for them, because they’ve set themselves a deadline. Every year that passes without catastrophic climate breakdown, every summer the ice caps don’t disappear, every unseasonably cold or wet July is another nail in the coffin of their narrative, a few more normies disengaging from the story.

Which is probably why the coverage of “heatwave cerberus” and “global boiling” is fervid verging on feverish. There is an element of sweaty-palmed desperation seeping into every tweet, every headline.

They are running out of time.

The dark corollary of that is that someday soon they may well give up trying to persuade people, and start trying to force them.

August 3, 2023 Posted by aletho | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, UK | Leave a comment

Pfizer Ad Spreads Misinformation

BY DAVID ZWEIG | SILENT LUNCH | AUGUST 1, 2023

A Pfizer ad on Twitter claims that 3 out of 4 US adults are at “high risk” for severe Covid-19.

This ad is highly misleading or, arguably, outright false.

Problem 1: What is “high” risk?

We don’t know because Pfizer doesn’t define it.

The graphic in the ad cites a study as the source of its claim “3 out of 4 US adults are at high risk for severe Covid-19.” Except the study never uses the term “high risk.” Rather, the study is on people at “increased risk.”

“Increased risk,” of course is quite different from “high risk.” Obviously, high risk is worse than merely increased risk. I need not explain why Pfizer would choose language in its ad that exaggerates the risk of Covid.

Problem 2: The cited study itself doesn’t even define “increased risk.” Does that mean a 0.1% increase, a 1% increase, 20% increase, 1000% increase? On this point, the study includes the following caveat: “the effect size of each risk factor was not taken into account in our analysis, so this report does not address degree of risk. Effect estimates of severe COVID-19 risk factors are widely variable and ultimately unreliable.”

Digging a little deeper, the study links to a CDC webpage that gives a list of conditions for people who are “more likely to get very sick with COVID-19” and uses “higher risk,” “increased risk,” “greater risk” and “high risk” in its text, seemingly interchangeably. The page gives a long list of medical conditions—from cancer to diabetes to depression. Still, we don’t know what “more likely” or “increased risk” actually means. This webpage, in turn, links to another CDC webpage that describes “Underlying Medical Conditions Associated with Higher Risk for Severe COVID-19.”

We’ve gone from the scary “high” risk (not defined), to “increased” risk (also not defined), to “higher risk.” How is “higher risk” defined? Here is what the page says:

Higher risk is defined as an underlying medical condition or risk factor that has a published meta-analysis or systematic review or underwent the CDC systematic review process. The meta-analysis or systematic review demonstrates a conclusive increase in risk for at least one severe COVID-19 outcome.

So we are now three layers deep and we still don’t have a quantifiable definition for what, exactly, “high,” “increased,” or “higher” even means, nor a clear differentiation of what the first study acknowledges is a wide variability in estimates of risk factors. I’m sure there is a quantifiable threshold defined somewhere, but I stopped digging because this isn’t even the main problem.

Problem 3 (the main problem): The data from the cited study in the Pfizer ad saying 3 out of 4 US adults are at high (aka increased) risk of severe Covid are from 2015-2018. But this ad is being run in July 2023—after nearly the entire population has either already been infected, vaccinated, or both, each circumstance, we have been told, decreases one’s risk of severe Covid. In other words, Pfizer’s own ad suggests that prior infection and vaccination have not reduced the number of people at high risk of severe Covid. Does Pfizer want us to believe that its product—the vaccine—did not lower the rate of people at high risk of severe Covid?

The fact is, 3 out of 4 US adults are not at “high” risk of severe Covid. This statement is based on data from before accounting for the protective effect of infection and vaccination. Moreover, “high risk” is not defined and appears to simply be a made up description.

We’ve heard a lot about “misinformation” in the past few years. Generally, the government and media have pointed the finger at so-called “anti-vaxxers” and “conspiracy theorists.” A critical spotlight from the government has rarely seemed to shine on claims made by Pfizer. Advertisements like this misinform and unnecessarily scare people, perhaps pushing some of them into taking additional doses of the vaccine, or therapeutics like Paxlovid (also made by Pfizer), that have potential harms, and for many people, especially now, without clear benefit.

August 2, 2023 Posted by aletho | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Pfizer, United States | Leave a comment

‘It’s Murder’: Remdesivir Victims Decry FDA’s Shocking New Move

By Stella Paul | American Thinker | July 28, 2023

Remdesivir may be the most despised drug in American history, earning the nickname Run Death Is Near for its lethal record during COVID. Experts claimed that it would stop COVID; instead, it stopped kidney function, then blasted the liver and other organs. Now this reviled destroyer of kidneys has been approved by the FDA for COVID treatment of kidney patients. Does anybody else feel as if the FDA is shoving its power in our faces and laughing at us?

I’ve been joining online support groups for people who lost loved ones to the Remdesivir Protocol — a nightmarish sequence in which a patient is isolated in the hospital, bullied into taking Remdesivir, ventilated, and then sedated to death. Thousands of Americans were killed this way, possibly hundreds of thousands.

These support groups are a deeply somber business. Grieving faces fill the screen of people who lost a parent, spouse, sibling, or child. Some speak with icy anger; some choke back sobs as they tell of the deadly abuse inflicted on their loved ones, shattering their families forever.

I asked them what they thought of the FDA’s decision to approve Remdesivir for people with severe renal impairment, including dialysis. “Morally, how can you do that?” Joyce Wilson said. “It’s a death sentence. They didn’t care if people had kidney issues or not. My husband went into the hospital in kidney distress. They exacerbated it with Remdesivir. Then they ventilated him, and he died.”

“This is absurd,” Tracy Bird told me. “The FDA can no longer be trusted with any drug under any circumstances. It’s all conflicts of interest. My husband Jeff had strong kidney function when he went in the hospital. They gave him Remdesivir, and three days later, he was in kidney failure.”

“My daughter’s story is no different than anyone else’s,” Denise Fritter said. “Jamie was 36 and looking forward to getting married. The hospital refused to consider any other modalities of treatment for her. They insisted on Remdesivir. Then they put her on a vent and murdered her. I think the FDA is using Remdesivir to fulfill their own agenda.”

Cheri Martin, who lost her husband Steven to the protocol, chimed in with thoughts on the agenda: “They’re going to use this decision as a way to clean house of renal patients and people on dialysis. It’s saving a ton of money for Medicare over the next twenty years.”

“I can’t believe the FDA would approve this,” MaryLou said. “My son was 37 years old. He went into the hospital with two blood clots, but his kidneys were functioning. They gave him Remdesivir, and in twelve hours, his kidneys stopped working, and his organs began to fail. We never saw him open his eyes again.”

Michelle Conway said, “I took my husband to the E.R., and the next day, they told me he was going on Remdesivir. I said absolutely not. I wanted him on other treatments, but they refused all of it. They isolated him and told him he had to have Remdesivir or he’d die, and he agreed. I got to watch his last rites over a video conference. I know he was murdered by Remdesivir.”

A woman I’ll call Maya joined the support group for the first time to share her story. She’s a survivor of the hospital protocol, and there aren’t many of those. “I refused Remdesivir, and I refused the ventilator. But they find other ways to take you out. The doctors were pissed at me. They called my husband to pressure him. They fear-monger you with all these lies. And they pull your loved ones away from you. I was all by myself trying to make decisions.”

The discussion often turned to the weird carelessness and indifference to standard medical procedures in the hospitals during COVID. “Multiple times in my husband’s record, it said he was not a candidate for Remdesivir,” Lisa said. “They gave it to him anyway, and he went into renal failure and died.”

“The Remdesivir fact sheet clearly states that it may cause kidney and liver failure. And that’s exactly what happened to my husband Richard,” Michelle Strassburg said. “They’re doubling down on this preposterous decision. I’m at a loss for words.”

“It’s so important that in their own literature of Remdesivir, they state that it’s supposed to be given early,” Catherine said. “Yet they kept stalling my husband. They sent him home and said to sign up for monoclonal antibodies. But when he showed up for it, they said they were too backed up. By the time he was hospitalized, he was really sick. They gave him Remdesivir, and he had a stroke.”

Everyone in the group knows about the financial incentives that drove the hospital’s insistence on Remdesivir. The federal government paid hospitals a staggering 20% bonus on the entire hospital bill of patients treated with Remdesivir. They also handed out lavish extra payments for ventilating patients. And, perhaps most tellingly, the feds rewarded hospitals with more money for patients who died of COVID instead of those who were healed.

Gregory Gandrud, the treasurer of the California Republican Party, understands financial incentives well. He explained the money behind his hospitalization. “They gave me $37,000’s worth of Remdesivir, but it obviously didn’t help because I wound up on a ventilator. My hospital bill was $920,000 for the 44 days I was there. Nobody offered me ivermectin, which is cheap, effective, has no side effects, and you can take at home.”

Many in the group expressed frustration at trying to get justice. The PREP Act indemnified medical institutions from any actions they took during the federally declared COVID emergency. Lawyers are reluctant to take cases because they don’t see how to break through the hospitals’ indemnity shield.

After the support group, I spoke with Jamie Scher, who told me that her legal team was ready to file a complaint against Gilead today. Gilead is the lucky maker of Remdesivir, enjoying fabulous profits from this previous loser of a drug, which turned into a billion-dollar winner during COVID.

Jamie said she has over 1,000 plaintiffs, and, unfortunately, the list is growing daily. She’s working hard to raise funds for the lawsuit; people interested in finding out more can visit her website at myerandscher.com.

Another way to circumvent the PREP Act may be to get malpractice insurance carriers to not insure hospitals and doctors for the use of this protocol and lethal drugs like Remdesivir. Jamie said prosecutors could then hold them accountable for intentionally killing people, knowing that these drugs do not help; they only harm.

I confess that after these support groups, I find it difficult to sleep. I keep reliving the anguish of these wonderful people. “They think we’re stupid,” I hear Erin say. Denise’s sobs echo in my head, as she cries, “Why did God take my daughter from me? I’ll never know.” But her voice strengthens as she adds, “I do know we’re all warriors in a spiritual battle.” And Catherine offers words of hope: “Despite it all, I believe we’re going to get justice.”

Follow Stella on Twitter at @StellaPaulNY. Email: StellaPaulNY@gmail.com.

August 1, 2023 Posted by aletho | Corruption, Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Covid-19, FDA, United States | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »

“Historic Russia”: The Land Putin Will Not Give Back

Aletho News Videos

or go to

Aletho News Archives – Video-Images

Book Review

Why the War on Conspiracy Theories Is Bad Public Policy

By Kevin Barrett • Unz Review • February 1, 2019

A Review of Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas by Cass Sunstein (based on an earlier paper co-authored with Adrian Vermeule); In Defense of Troublemakers: The Power of Dissent in Life and Business by Charlan Nemeth; and Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them, edited by Joseph E. Uscinski

On January 25 2018 YouTube unleashed the latest salvo in the war on conspiracy theories, saying “we’ll begin reducing recommendations of borderline content and content that could misinform users in harmful ways—such as videos promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness, claiming the earth is flat, or making blatantly false claims about historic events like 9/11.”

At first glance that sounds reasonable. Nobody wants YouTube or anyone else to recommend bad information. And almost everyone agrees that phony miracle cures, flat earthism, and blatantly false claims about 9/11 and other historical events are undesirable.

But if we stop and seriously consider those words, we notice a couple of problems. First, the word “recommend” is not just misleading but mendacious. YouTube obviously doesn’t really recommend anything. When it says it does, it is lying. … continue

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Aletho News

Enter your email address to receive new posts by email.

Email Address:

Join 2,366 other subscribers
Visits Since December 2009
- 7,779,227 hits
Looking for something?

Search for:
Archives
Archives
Calendar

October 2026

M T W T F S S

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30 31

« Sep
Categories

Aletho News Civil Liberties Corruption Deception Economics Environmentalism Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism Fake News False Flag Terrorism Full Spectrum Dominance Illegal Occupation Mainstream Media, Warmongering Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity Militarism Progressive Hypocrite Russophobia Science and Pseudo-Science Solidarity and Activism Subjugation - Torture Supremacism, Social Darwinism Timeless or most popular Video War Crimes Wars for Israel
Tags
Afghanistan Africa AIPAC al-Qaeda Australia BBC Benjamin Netanyahu Brazil Canada CDC Central Intelligence Agency China CIA CNN Covid-19 COVID-19 Vaccine Donald Trump Egypt European Union Facebook FBI FDA France Gaza Germany Google Hamas Hebron Hezbollah Hillary Clinton Human rights Hungary India Iran Iraq ISIS Israel Israeli settlement Japan Jerusalem Joe Biden Korea Latin America Lebanon Libya Middle East National Security Agency NATO New York Times North Korea NSA Obama Pakistan Palestine Poland Qatar Russia Sanctions against Iran Saudi Arabia Syria The Guardian Turkiye Twitter UAE UK Ukraine United Nations United States USA Venezuela Washington Post West Bank WHO Yemen Zionism

October 2026
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
	1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31

Aletho News
If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
No Tricks Zone
Contact:

atheonews (at) gmail.com
Disclaimer

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.

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

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.

Dr. Fauci’s successor … that’s ‘high cotton’ as we say in Alabama.

Featured Video

Book Review

By Kevin Barrett • Unz Review • February 1, 2019

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Aletho News

Visits Since December 2009

Looking for something?

Archives

Calendar

Categories

Tags

Contact:

Disclaimer

Site info