Covid-19 « Aletho News

There Was No Pandemic

By Denis G. Rancourt, PhD | June 22, 2023

This is radical.

The essay is based on my May 17, 2023 testimony for the National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) in Ottawa, Canada, my 894-page book of exhibits in support of that testimony, and our continued research.

I am an accomplished interdisciplinary scientist and physicist, and a former tenured Full Professor of physics and lead scientist, originally at the University of Ottawa.

I have written over 30 scientific reports relevant to COVID, starting April 18, 2020 for the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (ocla.ca/covid), and recently for a new non-profit corporation (correlation‑canada.org/research). Presently, all my work and interviews about COVID are documented on my website created to circumvent the barrage of censorship.

In addition to critical reviews of published science, the main data that my collaborators and I analyse is all‑cause mortality.

All-cause mortality by time (day, week, month, year, period), by jurisdiction (country, state, province, county), and by individual characteristics of the deceased (age, sex, race, living accomodations) is the most reliable data for detecting and epidemiologically characterizing events causing death, and for gauging the population-level impact of any surge or collapse in deaths from any cause.

Such data is not susceptible to reporting bias or to any bias in attributing causes of death. We have used it to detect and characterize seasonality, heat waves, earthquakes, economic collapses, wars, population aging, long-term societal development, and societal assaults such as those occurring in the COVID period, in many countries around the world, and over recent history, 1900-present.

Interestingly, none of the post-second-world-war Centers-for-Disease-Control-and-Prevention-promoted (CDC‑promoted) viral respiratory disease pandemics (1957-58, “H2N2”; 1968, “H3N2”; 2009, “H1N1 again”) can be detected in the all‑cause mortality of any country. Unlike all the other causes of death that are known to affect mortality, these so‑called pandemics did not cause any detectable increase in mortality, anywhere.

The large 1918 mortality event, which was recruited to be a textbook viral respiratory disease pandemic (“H1N1”), occurred prior to the inventions of antibiotics and the electron microscope, under horrific post-war public-sanitation and economic-stress conditions. The 1918 deaths have been proven by histopathology of preserved lung tissue to have been caused by bacterial pneumonia. This is shown in several independent and non-contested published studies.

My first report analysing all-cause mortality was published on June 2, 2020, at censorship-prone Research Gate, and was entitled “All-cause mortality during COVID-19 – No plague and a likely signature of mass homicide by government response”. It showed that hot spots of sudden surges in all‑cause mortality occurred only in specific locations in the Northern-hemisphere Western World, which were synchronous with the March 11, 2020 declaration of a pandemic. Such synchronicity is impossible within the presumed framework of a spreading viral respiratory disease, with or without airplanes, because the calculated time from seeding to mortality surge is highly dependent on local societal circumstances, by several months to years. I attributed the excess deaths to aggressive measures and hospital treatment protocols known to have been applied suddenly at that time in those localities.

The work was pursued in greater depth with collaborators for several years and continues. We have shown repeatedly that excess mortality most often refused to cross national borders and inter-state lines. The invisible virus targets the poor and disabled and carries a passport. It also never kills until governments impose socio-economic and care-structure transformations on vulnerable groups within the domestic population.

Here are my conclusions, from our detailed studies of all-cause mortality in the COVID period, in combination with socio-economic and vaccine-rollout data:

If there had been no pandemic propaganda or coercion, and governments and the medical establishment had simply gone on with business as usual, then there would not have been any excess mortality
There was no pandemic causing excess mortality
Measures caused excess mortality
COVID-19 vaccination caused excess mortality

Regarding the vaccines, we quantified many instances in which a rapid rollout of a dose in the imposed vaccine schedule was synchronous with an otherwise unexpected peak in all-cause mortality, at times in the seasonal cycle and of magnitudes that have not previously been seen in the historic record of mortality.

In this way, we showed that the vaccination campaign in India caused the deaths of 3.7 million fragile residents. In Western countries, we quantified the average all-ages rate of death to be 1 death for every 2000 injections, to increase exponentially with age (doubling every additional 5 years of age), and to be as large as 1 death for every 100 injections for those 80 years and older. We estimated that the vaccines had killed 13 million worldwide.

If one accepts my above-numbered conclusions, and the analyses that we have performed, then there are several implications about how one perceives reality regarding what actually did and did not occur.

First, whereas epidemics of fatal infections are very real in care homes, in hospitals, and with degenerate living conditions, the viral respiratory pandemic risk promoted by the USA‑led “pandemic response” industry is not a thing. It is most likely fabricated and maintained for ulterior motives, other than saving humanity.

Second, in addition to natural events (heat waves, earthquakes, extended large-scale droughts), significant events that negatively affect mortality are large assaults against domestic populations, affecting vulnerable residents, such as:

sudden devastating economic deterioration (the Great Depression, the dust bowl, the dissolution of the Soviet Union),
war (including social-class restructuring),
imperial or economic occupation and exploitation (including large-scale exploitative land use), and
the well-documented measures and destruction applied during the COVID period.

Otherwise, in a stable society, mortality is extremely robust and is not subject to large rapid changes. There is no empirical evidence that large changes in mortality can be induced by sudden appearances of new pathogens. In the contemporary era of the dominant human species, humanity is its worst enemy, not nature.

Third, coercive measures imposed to reduce the risk of transmission (such as distancing, direction arrows, lockdown, isolation, quarantine, Plexiglas barriers, face shields and face masks, elbow bumps, etc.) are palpably unscientific; and the underlying concern itself regarding “spread” was not ever warranted and is irrational, since there is no evidence in reliable mortality data that there ever was a particularly virulent pathogen.

In fact, the very notion of “spread” during the COVID period is rigorously disproved by the temporal and spatial variations of excess all-cause mortality, everywhere that it is sufficiently quantified, worldwide. For example, the presumed virus that killed 1.3 million poor and disabled residents of the USA did not cross the more-than-thousand-kilometer land border with Canada, despite continuous and intense economic exchanges. Likewise, the presumed virus that caused synchronous mortality hotspots in March-April-May 2020 (such as in New York, Madrid region, London, Stockholm, and northern Italy) did not spread beyond those hotspots.

Interestingly, in this regard, the historical seasonal variations (12 month period) in all-cause mortality, known for more than 100 years, are inverted in the northern and southern global hemispheres, and show no evidence of “spread” whatsoever. Instead, these patterns, in a given hemisphere, show synchronous increases and decreases of mortality across the entire hemisphere. Would the “spreading” causal agent(s) always take exactly 6 months to cross into the other hemisphere, where it again causes mortality changes that are synchronous across the hemisphere? Many epidemiologists have long-ago concluded that person-to-person “contact” spreading of respiratory diseases cannot explain and is disproved by the seasonal patterns of all-cause mortality. Why the CDC et al. are not systematically ridiculed in this regard is beyond this scientist’s comprehension.

Instead, outside of extremely poor living conditions, we should look to the body of work produced by Professor Sheldon Cohen and co‑authors (USA) who established that two dominant factors control whether intentionally challenged college students become infected and the severity of the respiratory illness when they are infected:

degree of experienced psychological stress
degree of social isolation

The negative impact of experienced psychological stress on the immune system is a large current and established area of scientific study, dutifully ignored by vaccine interests, and we now know that the said impact is dramatically larger in elderly individuals, where nutrition (gut biome ecology) is an important co-factor.

Of course, I do not mean that causal agents do not exist, such as bacteria, which can cause pneumonia; nor that there are not dangerous environmental concentrations of such causal agents in proximity to fragile individuals, such as in hospitals and on clinicians’ hands, notoriously.

Fourth, since our conclusion is that there is no evidence that there was any particularly virulent pathogen causing excess mortality, the debate about gain-of-function research and an escaped bioweapon is irrelevant.

I do not mean that the Department of Defence (DoD) does not fund gain-of-function and bioweapon research (abroad, in particular), I do not mean that there are not many US patents for genetically modified microbial organisms having potential military applications, and I do not mean that there have not previously been impactful escapes or releases of bioweapon vectors and pathogens. For example, the Lyme disease controversy in the USA may be an example of a bioweapon leak (see Kris Newby’s 2019 book “Bitten: The Secret History of Lyme Disease and Biological Weapons”).

Generally, for obvious reasons, any pathogen that is extremely virulent will not also be extremely contagious. There are billions of years of cumulative evolutionary pressures against the existence of any such pathogen, and that result will be deeply encoded into all lifeforms.

Furthermore, it would be suicidal for any regime to vehemently seek to create such a pathogen. Bioweapons are intended to be delivered to specific target areas, except in the science fiction wherein immunity from a bioweapon that is both extremely virulent and extremely contagious can be reliably delivered to one’s own population and soldiers.

In my view, if anything COVID is close to being a bioweapon, it is the military capacity to massively, and repeatedly, rollout individual injections, which are physical vectors for whichever substances the regime wishes to selectively inject into chosen populations, while imposing complete compliance down to one’s own body, under the cover of protecting public health.

This is the same regime that practices wars of complete nation destruction and societal annihilation, under the cover of spreading democracy and women’s rights. And I do not mean China.

Fifth, again, since our conclusion is that there is no evidence that there was any particularly virulent pathogen causing excess mortality, there was no need for any special treatment protocols, beyond the usual thoughtful, case-by-case, diagnostics followed by the clinician’s chosen best approach.

Instead, vicious new protocols killed patients in hotspots that applied those protocols in the first months of the declared pandemic.

This was followed in many states by imposed coercive societal measures, which were contrary to individual health: fear, panic, paranoia, induced psychological stress, social isolation, self-victimization, loss of work and volunteer activity, loss of social status, loss of employment, business bankruptcy, loss of usefulness, loss of caretakers, loss of venues and mobility, suppression of freedom of expression, etc.

Only the professional class did better, comfortably working from home, close to family, while being catered to by an army of specialised home-delivery services.

Unfortunately, the medical establishment did not limit itself to assaulting and isolating vulnerable patients in hospitals and care facilities. It also systematically withdrew normal care, and attacked physicians who refused to do so.

In virtually the entire Western World, antibiotic prescriptions were cut and maintained low by approximately 50% of the pre-COVID rates. This would have had devastating effects in the USA, in particular, where:

the CDC’s own statistics, based on death certificates, has approximately 50% of the million or so deaths associated with COVID having bacterial pneumonia as a listed comorbidity (there was a massive epidemic of bacterial pneumonia in the USA, which no one talked about)
the Southern poor states historically have much higher antibiotic prescription rates (this implies high susceptibility to bacterial pneumonia)
excess mortality during the COVID period is very strongly correlated (r = +0.86) — in fact proportional to — state-wise poverty

Sixth, since our conclusion is that there is no evidence that there was any particularly virulent pathogen causing excess mortality, there was no public-health reason to develop and deploy vaccines; not even if one accepted the tenuous proposition that any vaccine has ever been effective against a presumed viral respiratory disease.

Add to this that all vaccines are intrinsically dangerous and our above-described vaccine-dose fatality rate quantifications, and we must recognize that the vaccines contributed significantly to excess mortality everywhere that they were imposed.

In conclusion, the excess mortality was not caused by any particularly virulent new pathogen. COVID so-called response in-effect was a massive multi-pronged state and iatrogenic attack against populations, and against societal support structures, which caused all the excess mortality, in every jurisdiction.

It is only natural now to ask “what drove this?”, “who benefited?” and “which groups sustained permanent structural disadvantages?”

In my view, the COVID assault can only be understood in the symbiotic contexts of geopolitics and large-scale social-class transformations. Dominance and exploitation are the drivers. The failing USA-centered global hegemony and its machinations create dangerous conditions for virtually everyone.

June 30, 2023 Posted by aletho | Book Review, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Canada, CDC, Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, United States | Leave a comment

CISA Was Behind the Attempt to Control Your Thoughts, Speech, and Life

Brownstone Institute | June 30, 2023

Keeping up with the corruption of the Covid regime feels like drinking from a firehose. The volume of the fraud, the pace of new discoveries, and the breadth of the operations are overwhelming. This makes it imperative for groups like Brownstone Institute to digest the onslaught of information and communicate salient themes and dispositive facts, particularly given the dereliction of mainstream media.

On Monday, the House Judiciary Committee released a report on how the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) “colluded with Big Tech and ‘disinformation’ partners to censor Americans,” adding to the informational firehose we work to imbibe.

The 36-page report raises three familiar issues: first, government actors worked with third parties to overturn the First Amendment; second, censors prioritized political narratives over truthfulness; and third, an unaccountable bureaucracy hijacked American society.

CISA’s Collusion to Overturn the First Amendment

The House Report reveals that CISA, a branch of the Department of Homeland Security, worked with social media platforms to censor posts it considered dis-, mis-, or malinformation. Brian Scully, the head of CISA’s censorship team, conceded that this process, known as “switchboarding,” would “trigger content moderation.”

Additionally, CISA funded the nonprofit EI-ISAC in 2020 to bolster its censorship operations. EI-ISAC worked to report and track “misinformation across all channels and platforms.” In launching the nonprofit, the government boasted that it “leverage[d] DHS CISA’s relationship with social media organizations to ensure priority treatment of misinformation reports.”

The switchboard programs directly contradict sworn testimony from CISA Director Jen Easterly. “We don’t censor anything… we don’t flag anything to social media organizations at all,” Esterly told Congress in March. “We don’t do any censorship.” Her statement was more than a lie; it omitted the institutionalization of the practice she denied. The agency’s initiatives relied on a collusive apparatus of private-public partnerships designed to suppress unapproved information.

This should sound familiar.

Alex Berenson gained access to thousands of Twitter communications that uncovered concrete evidence that government actors – including White House Covid Advisor Andy Slavitt – worked to censor him for criticizing Biden’s Covid policies.

White House Director of Digital Strategy Rob Flaherty privately lobbied social media groups to remove a video of Tucker Carlson reporting the link between Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine and blood clots.

Facebook worked with the CDC to censor posts related to the Covid “lab-leak” hypothesis. Company employees later met with the Department of Health and Human Services to de-platform the “disinformation dozen,” a group including Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

These were not cherry-picked examples – they were part of an institutional collusion to strip Americans of their First Amendment rights. Journalists Michael Shellenberger and Matt Taibbi exposed the “Censorship Industrial Complex,” a collection of the world’s most powerful government agencies, NGOs, and private corporations that worked together to silence dissent.

The Supreme Court has held that it is “axiomatic” that the government cannot “induce, encourage, or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.” Yet, CISA has joined the disturbing tendency of public-private partnerships designed to impede Americans’ right to information and freedom of speech.

Political Operatives

Second, these programs were not idealistic attempts to promote the truth; they were calculated programs designed to quash inconvenient but truthful narratives.

The report outlines how CISA censored “malinformation – truthful information that, according to the government, may carry the potential to mislead.” Journalist Lee Fang later wrote that the malinformation campaign “highlights not only the broad authority that the federal government has to shape the political content available to the public, but also the toolkit that it relies upon to limit scrutiny in the regulation of speech.”

In this system, uncensored information has a tacit government approval, amounting to a system of widespread propaganda.

“State and local election officials used the CISA-funded EI-ISAC in an effort to silence criticism and political dissent,” the report notes. “For example, in August 2022, a Loudon County, Virginia, government official reported a Tweet featuring an unedited video of a county official ‘because it was posted as part of a larger campaign to discredit the word of’ that official. The Loudon County official’s remark that the account she flagged ‘is connected to Parents Against Critical Race Theory’ reveals that her ‘misinformation report’ was nothing more than a politically motivated censorship attempt.”

The officials supporting the operation remained unrepentant in their aim to advance political agendas. Dr. Kate Starbird, a member of CISA’s “Misinformation & Disinformation” subcommittee, lamented that many Americans seem to “accept malinformation as ‘speech’ and within democratic norms.”

Of course, the program explicitly violated the Constitution. The First Amendment does not discriminate based on the veracity of a statement. “Some false statements are inevitable if there is to be an open and vigorous expression of views in public and private conversation,” the Supreme Court’s controlling opinion held in United States v. Alvarez. But CISA – led by zealots like Dr. Starbird – appointed themselves the arbiters of truth and worked with the most powerful information companies in the world to purge dissent.

This was part of a larger political campaign.

Hunter Biden’s laptop, natural immunity, the lab-leak theory, and side effects of the vaccine were all censored at the government’s behest. The truth of the reports were not at issue; instead, they presented inconvenient narratives for Washington’s political class, who then used the Orwellian label of “malinformation” to lend cover to eviscerating the First Amendment.

The Terror of the Administrative State

Third, the report exposes the increasing power of the administrative state. Federal bureaucrats rely on anonymity and unaccountability. Private industry employees could never oversee a disaster like the Covid response and maintain their jobs. It’d be like if BP’s head of safety for the Gulf of Mexico received a promotion after the oil spill.

But unelected officilals like CISA officials enjoy ever-increasing power over Americans’ lives without having to answer for their calamities. Suzanne Spaulding, a member of the Misinformation & Disinformation Subcommittee, warned that it was “only a matter of time before someone realizes we exist and starts asking about our work.”

Spaulding’s comment reflects the power that CISA wields and the benefit it derives from its lack of public exposure. Most Americans have never heard of CISA despite its overwhelming influence over lockdowns.

In March 2020, CISA divided the American workforce into categories of “essential” and “nonessential.” Within hours, California became the first state to issue a “stay at home” edict. This began a previously unimaginable assault on Americans’ civil liberties.

The House Report indicates that CISA was a central actor in censoring criticism of the Covid regime in the ensuing months and years. The agency is representative of the cabal of censorial and unaccountable officials engaged in public-private partnerships designed to keep us in the dark.

June 30, 2023 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | CISA, Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, United States | Leave a comment

Rogan’s RFK interview is full of vitally-important taboo info

BY BILL RICE, JR. | JUNE 26, 2023

Yesterday, I spent several hours reading the transcript of the 3-hour interview RFK, Jr. recently did with Joe Rogan. The conversation was fascinating. Any U.S. citizen interested in more detailed information on Kennedy’s thoughts can simply watch this interview (a link to the Rogan episode and a transcript are included in this article which summarizes the interview).

I particularly recommend the final paragraphs of the CHD article, where Kennedy talks about the mothers of autistic children who finally convinced him to look into a possible connection between vaccines and autism.

Here are highlights that jumped out to me after reading transcripts of the entire interview:

Kennedy said (again) that he’s NOT running on the “vaccine issue” and only talks about vaccines when specifically asked a question about them by an interviewer.

However, he did say he’s not going to dodge a legitimate question when asked. He also said that he didn’t plan on doing any more in-depth interviews like this in the future, suggesting this conversation with Rogan should provide sufficient answers on why and how he got so interested in the vaccine issue … an intellectual quest which later informed his conviction that the entire public health establishment has become brazenly and shockingly corrupt and captured.

Kennedy said alarms went off when he had a phone conversation with Dr. Paul Offit about mercury in vaccines and caught this extremely-influential vaccine booster in an obvious lie. Kennedy also noted that this man said he would get back to him with specific scientific studies that backed up his vaccine autism point (that there was bad “mercury” and “safe” mercury). Kennedy said this revered scientist never did provide the promised study(ies).

Kennedy also recounts a similar conversation with Dr. Fauci, who told Kennedy that he would provide germane studies on some topic Kennedy had challenged Fauci on …. and Fauci never followed through.

One of Kennedy’s main points is that whenever he wanted to see the published peer-reviewed scientific studies backing different conclusions of the Science Establishment … the members of the Scientific Establishment couldn’t and didn’t do this.

Kennedy also notes he personally knows and had spoken to many leading authorities in the public health bureaucracies and he always got the impression these leaders had not read any of the scientific studies that Kennedy had read. They weren’t even familiar with these studies.

On censorship and no debates …

Rogan talked a good bit about censorship and how he (Rogan) had been maligned and intentionally discredited for comments he’d made. Almost as an aside, Kennedy noted that he had been censored for “18 years” (!)

… Kennedy also said that nobody has ever debated him on these topics, and cited examples of “debates” or events that were supposed to happen and never did.

One such “debate” was supposed to be Kennedy vs. one of these alleged science authorities at a hearing in the Connecticut Senate (if memory serves, on the autism question).

According to Kennedy, a Connecticut elected official asked Kennedy to participate in a hearing with this other authority. Later, Kennedy was told it would be him vs. two executives, then three, then four.

Kennedy, as it turns out, would only get six minutes to make his points. Still, Kennedy said (paraphrasing): “This is not fair, but okay. I’ll be there.” The debate/testimony was later cancelled – after Kennedy had flown “on the red-eye” to Connecticut on his own dime to participate. Nobody told him why this hearing with him was cancelled. Kennedy just assumes someone told these people to NOT debate RFK, Jr. This scenario should sound very familiar today. (Think the “Hotez debate.”)

I found Kennedy’s points about the explosion of autism to be very convincing. His main point is that nobody his age (or my age) grew up with anyone who had the severe autism that is common with many children today.Kennedy does note that observations such as this do NOT equal scientific “causation” or “correlation” … but when so many mothers of autistic children keep reaching the same conclusion, this should be enough anecdotal evidence to launch serious and real scientific studies and genuine scientific investigations, Kennedy argues.

Kennedy’s points about VAERS picking up only a tiny fraction of vaccine injuries and deaths are very persuasive and important. (This is the topic of one of my next articles, which will highlight the fact Ed Dowd’s work on “all-cause excess” deaths is STILL being ignored by the mainstream media – 18 months after Dowd, among others, began to highlight this.)

Regarding Kennedy’s book on Dr. Fauci ….

Regarding his book The Real Anthony Fauci, Kennedy notes that the book sold more than one million copies in its “first three months.” Oddly (to me), Kennedy said he doesn’t know how many copies this book sold after this because he hasn’t looked at the numbers.

I’ve been curious about the book’s cumulative sales figure as every story I can find on the book says only that it “sold more than one million copies.”

This is certainly a true statement, but I wonder if the book might have sold at least two million copies by now. Kennedy also points out that nobody at mainstream “news” organizations reviewed the book and very few “independent” book-sellers ever stocked the book in their stores (a point I made in a recent column.) Also, for some reason, lists of “best-selling” books often omitted The Real Anthony Fauci from these sales rankings.

The above anecdotes should tell the public that most owners of book stores (and the “free press”) believe in banning certain books (more specifically, they don’t stock or mention books that question the prevailing orthodoxy).

Question: How many copies of The Real Anthony Fauci would have been sold if this book had been available in bookstores all over the world (like other big best-sellers)? Would this have made a difference and perhaps saved lives?

Note: Joe Rogan said his entire thinking about vaccines, public health and Kennedy changed dramatically after he did read this book. Question: Think if Rogan had not read this book. He probably would have never had Kennedy on his show and Rogan probably would never have become one of the leading contrarian voices on the “authorized narrative.” This shows the power of the written word or of one book … and why such a book had to be censored.

According to Kennedy, the vast majority of the book’s sales came from just one source – Amazon. (Authors like Naomi Wolf and many other skeptics of the official narratives have also published “taboo” Covid books. This question also occurs to me: How many additional copies of these books would have been sold if readers interested in these topics had seen them and been able to buy them if they had been available in local bookstore? (I guess this is another “unknown unknowable.”)

* Rogan made interesting points about how other podcasters are seemingly being bullied with the threat of “de-platforming” or “de-monetization” if the hosts of these shows invite contrarian Covid speakers onto their shows as guests (including Rogan himself).

* Rogan mentioned that he knows several comedian friends who think like he does, which he suggests helped him maintain his sanity in these New Normal Covid times. Kennedy later asked Rogan (paraphrasing), “Who are these people? I haven’t heard any stand-up comedians doing gigs where they poke fun of this Covid madness.” The Kimmels and Colberts of the world were (and still are) all singing from the same “authorized narrative” hymnal.

Kennedy provides a good bit of detail about his life as an environmental lawyer and how he and his allies in his cause helped clean up the Hudson River waterways. It was his belief that mercury was getting into fish that later led him to believe that the same toxic mercury (far more dangerous than lead, according to Kennedy) was being injected into children with their mandatory vaccines.

According to Kennedy, this was a point that mothers kept making to him at Kennedy’s speaking engagements. Finally, one of these mothers showed up at his house, dropped an 18-inch pile of documents on his door step and told Kennedy she wasn’t leaving until he read these documents.

Kennedy read them … and the rest is … history … History that also explains why Robert Kennedy, Jr. is now the No. 1 threat to the Big Pharma/Medicine/Science establishment. It also explains how a once popular liberal environmental lawyer almost instantly became a pariah to the Establishment and a conspiracy-spreading, wacko kook.

Defining “the experts,” and which ones we’re not supposed to listen to …

Kennedy notes that he has filed “hundreds” of lawsuits and every one of them deal with “science.” Regarding the narrative that everyone should “trust the science and the experts,” Kennedy makes a great point in his conversation with Rogan:

Every lawsuit he has ever been a part of includes “experts” … from both sides. Kennedy gives an example of one big environmental lawsuit where the defendants called experts from prestigious academic institutions like Harvard, Stanford and Yale as witnesses. But the plaintiffs also called “expert” witnesses who were professors at the same colleges. So the obvious question is: What “experts” are more credible? This, Kennedy says, is for a jury to decide (and plenty of juries sided with Kennedy’s experts).

Kennedy also pointed out that almost all of the “new” vaccines since the late ’80s allegedly “protect” children from diseases that do not pose a real health risk to them. He gave the example of the Hepatitis B vaccine newborns get at the hospital. Kennedy pointed out this is a “vaccine” to allegedly provide “protection” against a disease that might affect only a few of these children 16 to 30 years later – if they became a prostitute or a needle drug user.

I thought Kennedy was also very persuasive, making his point that advancements in nutrition, sanitation and “engineering” almost completely explain the disappearance of most childhood or adult diseases in the last century or so (for example, refrigeration.)

This leads people like me to conclude that the Mother of All medical scams might be the one that tells us that “vaccines” are the wonder-drug of our times and have saved millions of lives. This is almost certainly a “false” or at least “dubious” narrative. (But a profitable one for Big Pharma).

The “95-percent effective” canard …

Yet another fascinating segment was when Kennedy explains the “95 percent effective” canard. He points out that the best metric flowing from Pfizer’s limited safety trials should have been the conclusion that it takes 22,000 doses of Covid vaccine to (maybe) prevent one “Covid” death.

If this is the case (and it apparently is), “You better be sure that vaccine isn’t causing any deaths,” Kennedy states. As Kennedy points out, in the Pfizer trials only three people died from Covid in the ensuing six months – one person in the “vaccinated” group, and two in the “unvaccinated” group.

However, four or five more people in the “vaccinated” group later died from “all causes.” But identifying deaths from “any cause” was not a goal of the study. (It took a Freedom of Information request and a judge’s ruling to release this key information to the public … something Pfizer didn’t want to do for 75 years).

So trial participants had a much greater chance of dying (from any cause) if they’d received the Covid vaccine than if they had not been vaccinated. Question asked by Kennedy: Shouldn’t this data point/finding have been the big headline and enough to stop the vaccines?

Regarding the “vaccines-cause autism” theory, Kennedy does not definitively or categorically blame just vaccines. He seems to be saying many factors probably explain this – including vaccines.

Kennedy notes that when he was a child he received three childhood vaccines. Today, children MUST get 72 shots (from 16 vaccines). Kennedy also noted that five of his children suffer from food allergies, something that also was almost unheard of when Kennedy was growing up.

1986 law changed everything that followed …

Kennedy also did a great job explaining how Big Pharma got immunity from vaccine lawsuits, per hugely-significant legislation passed in the Reagan administration in 1986. This gave Big Pharma a license to make “billions of dollars,” Kennedy argues.

All Pharma companies had to do was come up with a new “vaccine” and make sure this vaccine got placed on the childhood immunization schedule (which apparently was a sure-thing).

I also found it interesting that RFK, Jr. acknowledges that his own uncle, Sen. Ted Kennedy – who was chairman of an important Senate Health Committee at the time – helped pass this world-changing legislation. That is, it wasn’t just President Reagan who made this possible; it was the Democrats in Congress too – including his own uncle.

Kennedy also debunks the accepted wisdom that vaccines are “safe” by pointing out the whole reason this legislation was passed into law was because vaccines are obviously not (always) safe. Vaccines are inherently unsafe – this is why the industry needed legal immunity from lawsuits to keep producing them, says Kennedy.

Main take-away …

My main-take away from this in-depth interview is how well Kennedy knows this material. During this 3-hour interview, Kennedy didn’t refer to any notes. He cited study after study from memory. He had read these studies – critically – and quickly identified the holes and likely cover-ups in them.

I’m convinced this is the real reason no expert or authority will debate someone like Kennedy (or, for example, Steve Kirsch). They all know Kennedy knows this material better than they do. And they all know that they can’t answer Kennedy’s key questions.

Hopefully, more people will take the time to watch this 3-hour interview or read the transcripts. If they do, they’ll see that Kennedy is not some crazy “kook.” I also commend Joe Rogan for giving RFK, Jr. this 3-hour platform to express his views and more fully discuss these life-and-death public health issues.

June 29, 2023 Posted by aletho | Book Review, Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, United States | Leave a comment

The disgrace of Australia’s pandemic betrayal

By Paul Collits | TCW Defending Freedom | June 27, 2023

What exactly do you do when your country betrays you and disgraces itself before the world? When you find out that it is run by thugs and goons? When just about no one in the political class has the moral compass and the spine to stand up for you? When your fellow citizens turn on you if you dared to question things?

If you are John Stapleton, a retired Aussie journalist, you write a 450-page book about it. You call it Australia Breaks Apart. You write uncomprehendingly, elegantly, passionately, even elegiacally, ashamed, still shaking your head in disbelief, three years after a ho-hum virus called by the powers-that-be ‘Covid’ reached our shores.

Surely these words could be written about just about every country in the world, you might think. Two quick responses – we were the worst, and surely we, of all places, should have been above all this.

Whether the book explains to international readers how this all happened, I’m not sure. I am far from certain that anyone could explain it. But let us explore what the book does do.

The title suggests one of the main themes, that of division and enmity. There were members of the dobber class, the Covid winners (largely in the employ of government or corporates), the lap-top class, the blatherers. People on ‘the other side’ were routinely demonised. Granny killers, conspiracy theorists, neo-Nazis and so on. Many of these folks were morally upright, seasoned professionals, not rent-a-crowd ideologues. Australia did indeed break apart, literally as well as socially. State and territory borders were closed by spooked politicians on a whim and for very few Covid cases. Fear and derangement were everywhere. Subjugation.

There are things in the book that even those who lived through the nightmare will not have known. These matters should have been known, and most likely would have been, if not for the cover-ups and the wilful non-reportage of stories in the interest of defending ‘the narrative’.

The book tells not only the story of Covid policy excesses, but also of a resistance movement that grew into something astonishing. This underground, though in plain sight, movement of angry men and women became hundreds of thousands, if not millions. It has remained invisible only because the quisling Covid class and their corrupt media puppets refused to acknowledge that it even existed, other than being a ‘tiny’ bunch of anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorists to be ignored.

John Stapleton doesn’t ignore them. He tells their story. This makes his book unique. The expected villains are all there, in graphic detail – Victoria premier Daniel Andrews, a truly appalling political figure, the thug police, the slippery bob-each-way villain-prime minister Scott Morrison, the other premiers and chief ministers, the unaccountable bureaucrats, the public health gauleiters, the Pharma-funded academics, the media shills. But what emerges in the book is an account of how resistance to tyranny can form and grow. This will be an invaluable resource when the medical totalitarians come for us next time, as surely they will.

The story is told through the eyes of Old Alex (the author), an old-time ‘pressman’ with a nose for a story and an unquenchable desire to unearth the truth. And, importantly, an open mind and no corporate constraints. Like many Covid dissidents, Stapleton made new friends during the Covid years, just about all of them independent truth-tellers. Citizen journalists. And he lost all sense of mainstream journalism having a soul and a purpose. Silent journalists were high up on Stapleton’s list of Covid criminals to be despised. But the stories of new voices and new connections among the refuseniks show the book to be about heroes as well as villains.

Journalism had very few dissidents who spoke out. Nor did the public servants or politicians or the police, but there were a few brave souls among the latter (for example) who broke ranks and saw Covid police brutality as a hill on which (professionally) to die. There was Andrew Cooney in New South Wales and Krystle Mitchell in Victoria.

These brave hearts were not willing to go along to get along, as rubber bullets penetrated backs, grandmothers were shoved to the pavement then pepper-sprayed, and the heads of mentally challenged innocents were smashed against concrete floors in downtown Melbourne. These stories of fascist policing were systematically smothered by the legacy media and the protesters pilloried and defamed.

The book details so much more. The scandal of the quarantine camps, for example. Those gazillion-dollar, Orwellian white elephants. The bullshit Covid-speak pronouncements from on high. The thousands upon thousands of (often massive) fines for Covid misdemeanours. The National Cabinet mutual protection narratives. All based on lies. Deadly lies. Some of the Covid class still promote the shots. Amid the ever-rising, murky waters of excess deaths. Including, perhaps, that of the Australian legend Shane Warne. Deaths still unexamined by the Covid class.

We need this book, and those like it. More straight history than exposé, but no less significant for this. True crime reporting, if you will. And if you didn’t hate the Covid class before you open the book, I guarantee you will by the end, if not sooner.

There are those who might say, why dredge it all up again since we have ‘moved on’? Well, among those that Covid refuseniks detest the most, the ‘let’s just move on’ types rank pretty high. This book should be for them to read and to reflect upon. To contemplate the massive pain caused, and to ponder the fact that it is all likely to happen again, what with the great reset people and the pandemic planning industry already on high alert for the first opportunity to crank up the machine again. Moving on, not holding ‘them’, the Covid class, to account, will only make the next instalment all the more likely.

Oh yes, for those who lived through the nightmare, John Stapleton’s gripping book, while reviving painful memories in great detail, is a must-read account of the evil that men (and women) do. It is a thundering reminder, too, of the need for Covid accountability, and a spur to further action among a new Coalition of the Willing minded to pursue it, and who simply must not give up the fight in the face of performative Covid class insouciance. It is ironic, too, that Australia Breaks Apart has been published just as the stampede for the exit door by Covid’s decision-makers has reached a crescendo.

In the dying days of the narrative, there was a national election, with one party of despised Covideers replaced by another, and around a third of now largely unrepresented voters, many of them the deplorables featured in Stapleton’s book, refusing to support either major party. The great political escape raises the question, was all the protesting worth it? I recently put a similar question to Ian Plimer, the doyen of Australian climate sceptics – why does he keep writing books when the climate writing seems to be on the wall? He replied that it was critical that when the history of all this comes to be written one day, there will be a record of the madness.

Buy this book, this chronicle of the new totalitarianism, the definitive account of Covid Australia, then circulate it widely among those might think it didn’t really matter what they did to us. A short review cannot do justice to this deeply authentic, often transcendent and, indeed, magisterial work. An astonishing achievement. An Australian story.

June 29, 2023 Posted by aletho | Book Review, Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | Australia, Covid-19, Human rights | Leave a comment

Covering up crime – the real purpose of the Covid Inquiry

By Dr Mark Shaw | TCW Defending Freedom | June 27, 2023

Why is there so little discussion about why those responsible for deceiving the public in relation to Covid policy have not been subject to a criminal investigation? Are we really meant to believe that no crimes have been committed, that it was all ‘happenstance’? Have their positions of authority exempted them from action being taken? Or are there other reasons?

As the Covid Inquiry started, it is an irony that, almost simultaneously, Boris Johnson was found guilty of the ‘crime’ of misleading Parliament. He was aware of the potential punishment and decided to jump before he was pushed but, either way, the effect of the Parliamentary Standards Committee’s verdict on their inquiry was to end his political career. Yet if politicians or those in power mislead the public there seems to be no such ‘justice’.

What I want to demonstrate here, with evidence, is that the Covid Inquiry is as much a means of deceiving the public as the Covid policy instigators achieved. The inquiry’s alleged aims are to ‘help Government and society learn from the pandemic and better prepare for further epidemics’. Lady Hallett has also stated that ‘no one will be found guilty or innocent in the inquiry – the idea is to learn lessons’.

Such statements preclude any investigation into whether any crimes have been committed. What I am seeing in this inquiry is a platform to allow those (fully or partly) responsible to stage excuses and divert attention from that most paramount of issues: that we, the public, were painfully and utterly deceived. The matter of stalling is significant here because most of the national outrages which have come to light in recent years e.g. the sub-postmasters, Grenfell, blood transfusion and maternity scandals, all stem from ‘crimes’ committed long, long ago (ten to 30-plus years), ensuring that justice has all but been denied.

Typical of the smokescreens, irrelevance and delaying tactics of the inquiry was the appearance last week of England’s chief medical officer Chris Whitty. His platitudes – the ‘big weakness’ was a lack of ‘radicalism’ in thinking before the crisis took hold, ‘the terrible truth’, the ‘tragedy’ that ‘pandemics feed off inequality and drive inequality’ and while ‘we did pick up on it, [the knowledge] needs to be embedded right from day one’ – seemed directly aimed at quelling further questions, putting responsibility beyond him and even warning of future pandemic threats such as sexually transmitted diseases.

With his self-pitying talk, the perpetrator became the victim, not the public on whom his policies were imposed, thus deflecting any possibility that he and others may be (criminally) responsible.

On what basis are we to decide whether crimes were committed by those co-ordinating Covid policy? According to Oxford Reference, the definition of a crime is as follows: ‘A crime is held to be an offence that goes beyond the personal and into the public sphere, breaking prohibitory rules or laws, to which legitimate punishments or sanctions are attached, and that requires the intervention of a public authority (the state or a local body).’

With regards to the elements of a crime: ‘It is generally agreed that the essential ingredients of any crime are (1) a voluntary act or omission (‘actus rea’), accompanied by (2) a certain state of mind (‘mens rea’ or’mental state’) – whereby guilt is attributed to a person who acts ‘purposely’, ‘knowingly’, ‘recklessly’ or, more rarely, ‘negligently’.

A large class of ‘public welfare offences’ involving such things as economic regulations or laws concerning public health and safety also exist where the mens rea requirement does not apply in order to allow the prosecution to establish the defendant’s intent, or even negligence.

The principle of legality is recognised in almost all legal systems throughout the world as the keystone of criminal law. It is employed so that there can be no crime without a rule of law; thus, immoral or antisocial conduct not forbidden and punished by law is not criminal.

Is there a chance that the actions taken by those co-ordinating Covid policy were not covered by a particular rule of law and so could not be broken? I don’t believe so. What I do believe is that we can demonstrate that there was a failure of duty of care and that harmful and potentially injurious acts were wilfully committed against the UK population as follows:

● No cost/benefit or weighing of harmful v beneficial effects. The public were not given fair warning that these considerations had not been carried out and that, in effect, the public health was being risked with the potential to cause more harm than good socially, healthwise and economically.

● Clear evidence that the public were deliberately frightened and misled over the true threat of the virus to make them comply with orders.

● The public were denied fair scrutiny of Covid 19 policy via emergency legislation that bypassed a democratic process of rigorous Parliamentary debate.

● Experts and opinion formers who held contrarian views were prevented from airing these views in parliament and were actively censored throughout the MSM. A secret surveillance unit in Whitehall was set up to monitor and spy on dissenting voices and censor dissenting platforms.

● Number 10 press briefings displayed unbalanced representation through slides, datasets and transcripts.

● Failure to warn the public of the limitations of modelling to forecast the nature and course of a pandemic, especially when carried out by a single or very limited number of establishments.

● Failure to scrutinise the warp speed emergency authorisation of novel gene therapies as vaccines, exposing the public to inadequately tested products with minimum quality control.

● Constant and insistent claims that these ‘vaccines’ were safe and effective’; prevented transmission; provided better protection than natural immunity.

● The promulgation that it was a public duty to be vaccinated.

● Failure to properly scrutinise the MHRA adverse event reports linked to Covid vaccines.

● Failure to investigate the marked and statistically significant increase in excess deaths.

There are possibly more examples but the focus here is on those for which we have the most clear and damning evidence.

The Covid Inquiry is ignoring what might allow us, in Lady Hallett’s own words, ‘to learn lessons’ about the abuse of power. By holding an inquiry prior to investigating to what extent the public were deceived (legally or illegally), there is little chance that ‘society will learn from the pandemic and better prepare for further epidemics’.

June 28, 2023 Posted by aletho | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, UK | Leave a comment

We Are Finally Entering a Phase of Covid ‘Narrative Collapse’, Says Oxford Epidemiologist

BY WILL JONES | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | JUNE 27, 2023

As new research confirms that lockdowns caused immeasurable harm, particularly to children, University of Oxford Professor of Epidemiology Sunetra Gupta has written in the Telegraph that “we are entering a phase of ‘narrative collapse’”. However, many are still refusing to recognise that the problem wasn’t just school closures; it was lockdown. Here’s an excerpt.

It is understandable that, during lockdown, some professionals were cautious so as not to antagonise those who had the power to put an end to these practices. But it is time to put such concerns aside and establish a rational framework that prevents such a disaster from recurring.

It was clear from the outset that the risk of dying from SARS-CoV-2 infection was negligible in healthy children. It follows that they did not need protection from infection. Closing schools, forcing them to wear masks and endure the hardships of social distancing, and vaccinating them, could only be justified in terms of stopping community spread. None of these measures had a reasonable impact on the dynamics of infection.

So, is the lesson that, next time, we must lock down but keep schools open? Many of us would bargain for that, especially if we put higher education institutions into the mix, as young adults were also robbed of critical experiences at a delicate time in their lives. But by the time we implemented all these compassionate exclusions to lockdown, including the maintenance of all essential services, what we are looking at is the focused protection of the vulnerable rather than a policy that is effective against the spread of infection.

This is because there is no halfway house when it comes to halting the spread of a new pathogen. The curve between a full-scale lockdown and let-it-rip is anything but a steady slope.

It could be argued that the reason closing schools made hardly any difference was because lockdowns are, ultimately, an extremely ineffective way of stopping spread. Certainly, border closures can be used in very specific circumstances to prevent a pathogen from exiting or entering a community. But there were no credible empirical or theoretical reasons to believe that we could use social distancing measures to snuff it out once it was here. There were plenty of reasons to believe that trying to do so would cause a lot of harm.

The discussion around the effects of Covid policies on children confirms that we are entering a phase of ‘narrative collapse’ in the perception of how the crisis was handled. But it still needs to be accepted that keeping a lid on the spread of Covid without closing schools is a fantasy; there is therefore no way to reconcile the philosophy of lockdown with avoidance of harm to children. The only coherent strategy is one of focused protection, in which vulnerable people are protected without imposing egregious costs on those not at risk.

Worth reading in full.

June 28, 2023 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, Human rights | Leave a comment

Pandemic Leaders Were Biodefense Puppets and Profiteers

By Debbie Lerman | Brownstone Institute | June 26, 2023

Scandalous incompetence. Profound stupidity. Astounding errors. This is how many analysts – including Dr. Vinay Prasad, Dr. Scott Atlas, and popular Substack commentator eugyppius – explain how leading public health experts could prescribe so many terrible pandemic response policies.

And it’s true: the so-called experts certainly have made themselves look foolish over the last three years: Public health leaders like Rochelle Walensky and Anthony Fauci make false claims, or contradict themselves repeatedly, on subjects related to the pandemic response, while leading scientists, like Peter Hotez in the US and Christian Drosten in Germany, are equally susceptible to such flip-flops and lies. Then there are the internationally renowned medical researchers, like Eric Topol, who repeatedly commit obvious errors in interpreting Covid-related research studies. [ref]

All of these figures publicly and aggressively promoted anti-public health policies, including universal masking, social distancing, mass testing and quarantining of healthy people, lockdowns and vaccine mandates.

It seems like an open-and-shut case: Dumb policies, dumb people in charge of those policies.

This might be true in a few individual cases of public health or medical leaders who really are incapable of understanding even high school level science. However, if we look at leading pandemic public health and medical experts as a group – a group consisting of the most powerful, widely published, and well-paid researchers and scientists in the world – that simple explanation sounds much less convincing.

Even if you believe that most medical researchers are shills for pharmaceutical companies and that scientists rarely break new ground anymore, I think you’d be hard-pressed to claim that they lack basic analytical skills or a solid educational background in the areas they’ve studied. Most doctors and scientists with advanced degrees know how to analyze simple scientific documents and understand basic data.

Additionally, those doctors and public health professionals who were deemed experts during the pandemic were also clever enough to have climbed the academic, scientific, and/or government ladders to the highest levels.

They might be unscrupulous, sycophantic, greedy, or power-mongering. You might think they make bad moral or ethical decisions. But it defies logic to say that every single one of them understands simple scientific data less than, say, someone like me or you. In fact, I find that to be a facile, superficial judgment that does not get to the root cause of their seemingly stupid, incompetent behavior.

Returning to some specific examples, I would argue that it is irrational to conclude, as Dr. Prasad did, that someone like Dr. Topol, Founder and Director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, who has published over 1,300 peer-reviewed articles and is one of the top 10 most cited researchers in medicine [ref] cannot read research papers “at a high level.” And it is equally unlikely that Anthony Fauci, who managed to ascend and remain atop the highest scientific perch in the federal government for many decades, controlling billions of dollars in research grants [ref], was too dumb to know that masks don’t stop viruses.

There must, therefore, be a different reason why all the top pro-lockdown scientists and public health experts – in perfect lockstep – suddenly started (and continue to this day) to misread studies and advocate policies that they had claimed in the past were unnecessary, making themselves look like fools.

Public health experts were messengers for the biodefense response

The most crucial single fact to know and remember when trying to understand the craziness of Covid times is this:

The public health experts were not responsible for pandemic response policy. The military-intelligence-biodefense leadership was in charge.

In previous articles, I examined in great detail the government documents that show how standard tenets of public health pandemic management were abruptly and secretly thrown out during Covid. The most startling switch was the replacement of the public health agencies by the National Security Council and Department of Homeland Security at the helm of pandemic policy and planning.

As part of the secret switch, all communications – defined in every previous pandemic planning document as the responsibility of the CDC – were taken over by the National Security Council under the auspices of the White House Task Force. The CDC was not even allowed to hold its own press conferences!

As a Senate report from December 2022 notes:

From March through June 2020, CDC was not permitted to conduct public briefings, despite multiple requests by the agency and CDC media requests were “rarely cleared.” HHS stated that by early April 2020, “after several attempts to get approvals,” its Office of Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs “stopped asking” the White House “for a while.” (p. 8)

When public health and medical experts blanketed the airwaves and Internet with “recommendations” urging universal masking, mass testing and quarantining of asymptomatic people, vaccine mandates, and other anti-public health policies – or when they promoted obviously flawed studies that supported the quarantine-until-vaccine biodefense agenda – they were not doing so because they were dumb, incompetent, or misguided.

They were performing the role that the leaders of the national security/biodefense response gave them: to be the trusted public face that made people believe quarantine-until-vaccine was a legitimate public health response.

Why did public health leaders go along with the biodefense agenda?

We have to imagine ourselves in the position of public health and medical experts at top government positions when the intelligence-military-biodefense network took over the pandemic response.

What would you do if you were a government employee, or a scientist dependent on government grants, and you were told that the quarantine-until-vaccine policy was actually the only way to deal with this particular engineered potential bioweapon?

How would you behave if an unprecedented event in human history happened on your watch: an engineered virus designed as a potential bioweapon was spreading around the world, and the people who designed it told you that terrifying the entire population into locking down and waiting for a vaccine was the only way to stop it from killing many millions?

More mundanely, if your position and power depended on going along with whatever the powers-that-be in the NSC and DHS told you to do – if your job and livelihood were on the line – would you go against the narrative and risk losing it all?

And, finally, in a more venal vane: what if you stood to gain a lot more money and/or power by advocating for policies that might not be the gold standard of public health, but that you told yourself could bring about major innovations (vaccines/countermeasures) that would save humanity from future pandemics?

We know how the most prominent Covid “experts” answered those questions. Not because they were dumb, but because they had a lot to lose and/or a lot to gain by going along with the biodefense narrative – and they were told millions would die if they failed to do so.

Why understanding the motives of public health leaders during Covid is so important

Paradoxically, deeming public health experts stupid and incompetent actually reinforces the consensus narrative: that lockdowns and vaccines were part of a public health plan. In this reading, the response may have been terrible, or it may have gone awry, but it was still just a stupid public health plan designed by incompetent public health leaders.

Such a conclusion leads to calls for misguided and necessarily ineffectual solutions: Even if we replaced every single HHS employee or defunded the HHS or even the WHO altogether, we would not solve the problem and would be poised to repeat the entire pandemic fiasco all over again.

The only way to avoid such repetition is to recognize the Covid catastrophe for what it was: an international counterterrorism effort focused myopically on lockdowns and vaccines, to the exclusion of all traditional and time-tested public health protocols.

We need to wake up to the fact that, since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 (if not earlier), we have ceded control of the agencies that are supposed to be in charge of public health to an international military-intelligence-pharmaceutical cartel.

This “public-private partnership” of bioterrorism experts and vaccine developers is not interested in public health at all, except as a cover for their very secret and very lucrative biowarfare research and countermeasure development.

Public health was shunted aside during the Covid pandemic, and the public health leaders were used as trusted “experts” to convey biowarfare edicts to the population. Their cooperation does not reflect stupidity or incompetence. Making such claims contributes to the coverup of the much more sinister and dangerous transfer of power that their seemingly foolish behavior was meant to hide.

June 27, 2023 Posted by aletho | Corruption, Deception, Militarism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | CDC, Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, HHS | Leave a comment

Widow says husband was KILLED as punishment “for being unvaccinated”

By Jacqui Deevoy | Unity News Network | April 29, 2023

Registered nurse Elena Vlaica, 46, has spoken out many times about the murder of her husband Stuart in hospital 17 months ago. She claims that 54-year-old Stuart, who’d been admitted to hospital with a possible chest infection, was bullied, humiliated, overdosed and experimented on before he was finally killed.

On his admission into hospital on October 26th 2021, he was put on a cpap machine at 100% pressure which, Elena says, destroyed his lungs. “They could have easily given him oxygen but they didn’t. He didn’t need to go on a cpap.”

All necessary medication was stopped. “Stuart was on blood pressure tablets and antidepressants,” explains Elena, “but these were stopped as soon as he was deemed end of life. Sudden withdrawal of antidepressants can cause dramatic side effects, so once these started up, the doctors started treating them with other medications.”

Stuart was put on a ‘nil by mouth’ regime. Elena wasn’t aware of this at the time but found out months later after she managed to get hold of her husband’s medical notes with the help of a solicitor. “He had no food or water for 11 days,” says a tearful Elena. “He was crying. He said he was hungry. It’s all in the notes.”

Without informing Elena, medics then put Stuart on an end of life care pathway. “I had no idea this was happening at the time: no one at the hospital told me and I wasn’t allowed to visit because of Covid rules.”

Elena discovered from Stuart’s medical notes after his death that the 120kg dad and grandad had tried to escape from the hospital FOUR times. “He was a big man and it took four medics to pin him down and sedate him. It breaks my heart thinking about this. He wanted to go home and they stopped him by physically restraining him and drugging him.”

A consultant started calling Elena on FaceTime every day. “He called me every day for 10 days at the same time. The language he used was strange. It was if he was MK Ultra brainwashed. He’d always start the conversation saying that Stuart was unvaccinated. He’d say three things over and over – Covid, unvaccinated, end of life. It was like some kind of NLP (neurolinguistic programming). He told me Stuart would not be leaving the hospital alive. I argued and fought. I’d seen his blood test results: they were normal. My Stuart was not a dying man. He just had a chest infection. I wanted him home.”

Elena later discovered that, in order to prevent Stuart leaving the hospital, not only did they sedate him with Midazolam and morphine (two drugs that should never be used together but had started being used concomitantly as a Covid protocol), they also cut off his clothes and catheterised him.

Elena, heartbroken, sighs: “All this to stop him running away. To humiliate him further they cut off his clothes and catheterised him. He was kept naked. He didn’t need a catheter: he was able to use a toilet, although obviously not after they sedated him.”

To keep him under control, Stuart was given regular large doses of benzodiazepine sedative Midazolam and opiate morphine. He was given over 100mgs in total, enough (according to one expert) “to take down an elephant.” (It’s well-documented that these drugs are used as lethal injections in the US to execute Death Row prisoners.) As a nurse, Elena knows that Stuart had been given a deadly dose. “I’m amazed he stayed alive as long as he did. He was a fighter though and he wanted to come home.”

As if all this wasn’t horrific enough, the doctors were also testing out new Covid treatments on Stuart. Again, Elena knew nothing of this until after his death. “They started giving him several on-trial Covid medications, unapproved in the UK – they tested Remdesivir on him, which is known to destroy the liver and kidneys and has killed thousands in the US where Anthony Fauci recommended it as a Covid treatment; they pumped him full of monoclonal antibodies… on top of antibiotics. It was like a Nazi experiment. No consent. The Nuremberg Code was not adhered to. To be used as a human guinea pig without giving any consent is a violation of human rights. How did they get away with it?”

The day of Stuart’s death is the stuff of horror movies. On November 6th 2021 at 1pm, Elena had a call from the hospital to let her know that her Stuart was dying. When she arrived, Elena could see he was heavily sedated. “He looked like he was in a coma. I know now he was in a Midazolam coma. I was kissing him and I could see his saturation levels improving. He knew I was there and I knew he was fighting for his life. When the junior doctor saw me looking at the monitor, she switched it off. At that moment a nurse appeared with five 10ml syringes on a blue tray. She pushed two of them into Stuart’s canula, he took three breaths, then died in my arms. I shouted “she’s killed him!” then broke down. I don’t remember getting home that night.”

Looking back at everything Stuart suffered, Elena truly believes that he was being punished for not having taken the experimental jab. “Every day, they mentioned it. They seemed very judgmental about it. Stuart and I had decided together not to get the jabs because we felt they were too new and there wasn’t enough information about them. I told the doctors this but they didn’t like it.

“I’m 100% certain that my Stuart was punished for being unvaccinated. And his punishment was death.”

The police and a coroner were asked to investigate. They refused.

“It’s hard to know where to turn and what to do,” laments widow Elena. “The people who’ve done this are my colleagues. I worked on that ward. They did everything they could to kill him and they succeeded. To punish him. These psychopaths need to be held accountable and I will not stop seeking justice for my Stuart until every single one of them is in jail.”

Elena Vlaica appears in upcoming documentary ‘Playing God’, produced by Jacqui Deevoy and Trailblazer Films. Please support the project here:

https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/playing-god

June 27, 2023 Posted by aletho | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, UK | Leave a comment

Was SARS-CoV-2 entirely novel or particularly deadly?

BY THOMAS VERDUYN, DR TODD KENYON, DR JONATHAN ENGLER | PANDA | JUNE 22, 2023

As part of our inquiry into the drivers of excess deaths, we take a step back and address the central theme of the Covid-era narrative: that SARS-CoV-2 is a novel virus that is so deadly that drastic measures were needed to contain it.

In the previous articles of this mini series about excess deaths we looked at how effective the Covid shots were at arresting Covid [1, 2] and also how bad the “first wave” in New York city was.[3] There are good reasons behind why we chose to address these two topics first. One reason is that an honest look at these issues helps establish a balanced understanding of what might be driving excess deaths since 2020. Another reason is that both topics were central to the official narrative emanating from government sources and the mainstream media. We were told that the whole point of the lockdowns was to delay the spread of SARS-CoV-2 until a vaccine could be developed that would spare us from overwhelmed hospitals like what happened in places like New York and Italy.

As has been shown, and to put it mildly, the Covid shots did not perform nearly as well as promised. Sadly, the burden of the adverse events caused by the experimental shots turned out to be worse than the disease.[4] Furthermore, by a close examination of excess deaths in New York city in early 2020, and in particular by a comparison to what happened on the Diamond Princess, it was concluded that the tragedy in New York was not compatible with the spread of a virus such as SARS-CoV-2, let alone any other generally mild respiratory virus.

All of this presses us to take a step back and address the central theme of the Covid-era narrative, namely the idea that SARS-CoV-2 is a novel virus that is particularly deadly; so deadly that drastic measures were needed to contain it. We begin with a look at the idea that the virus is novel.

1. How novel is SARS-CoV-2?

In the field of virology, the term “novel virus” typically means that the virus was recently discovered. This definition, of course, tells us nothing at all about when the virus first existed. Thus, for instance, the first human-coronavirus was found in 1961.[5] It was labeled B814 and identified as a cause of the common cold. This does not mean that this particular cold-causing coronavirus suddenly appeared in that year. No, and much to the rather, it only means someone finally found it. The ability to isolate, identify and sequence RNA viruses is a relatively new science. The patent on the process used in PCR machines was first granted in 1987.[6] It was in 2003, only 20 years ago, that the first human reference genome was sequenced. Despite all the efforts by many scientists, mankind has not yet sequenced every virus on planet earth. It is quite possible we never will. As a result, we are hardly in a position to assert when a particular virus (or strain of a virus) first appeared. Even if sequencing of a virus could prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was made in a laboratory, unless we had lab records to prove when it was made, it would still be nearly impossible to determine when it first infected someone. At best we might be able to estimate a timeframe by using antibody tests applied to stored specimens. The fact that SARS-CoV-2 is a relatively mild virus with symptoms similar to that caused by the flu only compounds the challenge. All we know for certain about this virus is that labs first began testing for it in early 2020.

The real problem with all of this is that during the Covid era the term “novel virus” was used by many outlets (including universities, journals, the media, and government officials) to mean something quite different from “recently discovered.”[7] For example, the GoodRx website has an article in which the authors say that “SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is a “novel coronavirus.” This means it’s different from all viruses like it.” They go on to say that “In medicine, novel refers to a virus or bacteria that wasn’t known to affect humans. This means that the bug is either brand new or was only found in animals or other life forms.” [8] Likewise, Dr. Tam, the chief medical officer of Canada, recently wrote, “In March 2020, Canada was faced with a… virulent pathogen… for which there was no natural immunity… and no effective antivirals.” So we see that the official narrative was not only that SARS-CoV-2 was recently discovered, but that it did not exist before late December 2019, was different from other viruses, was newly capable of infecting humans, was entirely new to our immune system, and was outside the scope of what doctors knew how to treat.

Are any of these claims true? Other than the fact that it was recently identified, the other claims are either false or dubious at best. It is useful to examine each claim on its own. We begin with a brief investigation into the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 existed before December 2019. Actually, there is growing evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was around long before it suddenly acquired international attention. For instance, by searching through the public sequencing data archives, a group of researchers found that soil samples collected in Antarctica between Dec 2018 and Jan 2019 contained “sequence fragments matching the SARS-CoV-2 reference genome…” [9] This was so contrary to the official narrative that the authors later suggested that it had to be on account of laboratory contamination issues. But their findings were not unique. For example, by examining human blood samples taken in Italy before the Covid era, researchers found that already by September of 2019 some individuals (none of whom were sick at the time) had SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies in their blood.[10 11] Other studies have found similarly.[12] Therefore, there is good evidence that the virus existed long before it garnered any attention.

Second, was SARS-CoV-2 that different from other viruses? The very fact that the virus was named “SARS-CoV-2” informs us that virologists think it is similar enough to SARS that it didn’t even warrant an entirely new name. Indeed, the two viruses are said to share “79.5% sequence identity.” [13] Despite the 20.5% difference, and notwithstanding the 17 year time lapse, studies have shown that people that were infected with SARS “possess long-lasting memory T cells… that displayed robust cross-reactivity to the N-protein of SARS-CoV-2.”[14] Therefore, although possessing differences, it cannot be said that this virus is that different from other coronaviruses.

Third, was this virus newly capable of infecting humans? To answer this question, it may help to consider RaTG13, a bat coronavirus that is said to be the closest to our virus. The two viruses are reported to be 96% similar.[15] Although it is commonly assumed that bat coronaviruses cannot infect humans without either a modification to its RNA or via an intermediate host, it is possible that bat coronaviruses jump to humans all the time, only without making us sick. For instance, a study done in 2018 found good evidence to conclude that bat coronaviruses are capable of infecting humans regularly, noting also that the “infections were subclinical or caused only mild symptoms.” [16] Conversely, experiments with blood samples of health care workers known to have had Covid demonstrated efficient neutralization of RaTG13.[15] Of particular significance in this regard is the little known fact that the PCR test for Covid, as designed by Drosten, was initially verified by making sure it detected coronaviruses from “bats in Europe and Asia.”[17] In other words, a positive PCR test may have indicated nothing more or less than the presence of a harmless bat coronavirus already endemic among humans. Although the Drosten test was later superseded by other tests, the official narrative emerged rapidly out of case detection using the Drosten test. Unfortunately, it is not clear to what extent this influenced early test results. In any case, it is certainly not novel that a virus of this sort could infect humans.

Fourth, is this virus entirely new to our immune system? Certainly not, for it was known from early on in the Covid-era that a significant percentage of people were immune to this supposedly novel virus. We previously observed that only 19% (712 of 3711) of the people on board the Diamond Princess cruise ship tested positive for the virus, and of these only a smaller fraction yet actually became ill.[4] Similarly, a group of researchers from Singapore “detected SARS-CoV-2 specific T cells in individuals with no history of SARS [or] Covid-19.” Remarkably, they also detected T cells in people that had no known contact with anyone that had had either SARS or Covid.[14] Likewise, a study in the UK found that many health care workers repeatedly tested negative despite repeated exposure to Covid.[18] The authors of that study concluded that “some individuals may clear subclinical infection before seroconversion.” Why did so many people never get Covid? Multiple researchers have concluded that it was likely a result of memory T-cells from a previous infection with a common cold or flu.[19, 20, 21, 22]

What percentage of people had sufficient prior immunity to prevent illness? Those same researchers found it was about 50%. For instance, a study by Grifoni et al “detected SARS-CoV-2-reactive CD4+ T cells in ~ 40% – 60% of unexposed individuals, suggesting cross-reactive T cell recognition between circulating ‘common cold’ coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2.” [23] In other words, about half the population was destined to never become noticeably ill from Covid for the simple reason that they recently had a cold. Nor is this particularly surprising since it was known that the original SARS virus had also cross-reacted with other coronaviruses.[24] Thus, the virus was not entirely novel to our immune system.

Fifth, was this virus new to doctors? As may be gathered from the fact that Covid was around long before March 2020, it is almost certain that before doctors were told that they were dealing with a novel virus that they supposedly did not know how to treat, they must have unknowingly treated Covid as if it was any normal respiratory or influenza-like-illness. To the best of our knowledge, there is no record of doctors reporting an unusual increase in untreatable respiratory disease, at least not until the WHO officially declared Covid a pandemic. Even after doctors were advised it was an entirely new disease, treatment protocols were rapidly developed in multiple places.[25, 26, 27]

In summary, SARS-CoV-2 was “novel” only in the sense that it was first discovered in early 2020. It is certain that it existed globally for at least six months before this. Already by January 2020 about half the world’s population was immune to this virus. Nor was Covid outside the parameters of known treatments available for respiratory diseases. These facts should have been front and center in the media, and should have had a strong influence on government policies. Sadly, all this information was buried.

Of course, if Covid was not novel, it is impossible that it should have caused any excess deaths in 2020. It follows from this sobering conclusion that any and all excess deaths had to have been caused by other factors.

2. How deadly was Covid?

As was just pointed out, at least half of the population was essentially immune to Covid. For these people Covid was a non-issue. What about the other half? How lethal was it for them? Central to a proper answer of this question is the fact that our immune system is confronted with novel proteins all the time. Our survival does not depend on us having seen them or anything similar before. Rather, the immune system learns from all foreign material, remembers the experience, and serves to make future encounters less noteworthy. If at some point in the future a virus should arise that was both novel to our immune system and untreatable, even this would not necessarily mean that the virus was something to fear; certainly not to the extent of causing a cataclysm like we have recently witnessed.

In a previous article of this series [1] we made mention of a World Health Organization bulletin that estimated the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of Covid to be 0.23%.[28] That same bulletin also advised it might be substantially less than this. As data accumulated, the IFR was indeed found to be lower, eventually converging on a global average of about 0.15%.[29] For people under 70 years old, the average IFR of Covid drops down to 0.07%.[30] Of course these estimates were determined using information from death certificates and PCR test results, which (as shall be explained below) may have introduced significant inflationary errors into the results. The IFR of Covid may therefore be much less than 0.15%.

Moreover, it is well established that severe Covid illness is generally linked to those with underlying medical conditions, meaning it is rare in healthy individuals. For instance, a study looking at more than half a million people hospitalized in the USA with Covid found that 94.9% “had at least 1 underlying medical condition.” [31]

Nevertheless, for the sake of argument let us accept these estimates at face value and proceed to ask how Covid compares with the flu? The IFR of influenza is generally considered to be about 0.1%, and in a typical season about 8% of Americans get sick from the flu.[32] As for Covid, despite the unprecedented numbers of people that were tested for this virus, the total number of Covid cases in the USA during 2020 totaled 19.2 million,[33] or about 5.7% of the population. Thus, by all metrics it would appear that Covid in 2020 was on par with or less than a normal flu season.

The fact that Covid is not a particularly lethal disease was known since early 2020. For instance, the UK government officially declared that “as of 19 March 2020, Covid-19 is no longer considered to be an HCID in the UK.” [34] The acronym HCID stands for “high consequence infectious diseases.” Therefore, for the vast majority of people, the wonderful and immensely complicated human immune system was more than adequate to fight off a Covid infection.

If in fact Covid was only as bad as a normal flu season, why did it garner so much attention? And why have government dashboards suggested that Covid is causing millions of excess deaths in the world? The answer to the first of these two questions will have to be postponed for a future article. As for the second question, it is helpful to look a little closer at excess deaths in 2020. A recent study by Levitt et al analyzed all-cause mortality rates in 33 countries from 2009 to 2021. They found that during this 13 year window, the year 2020 was the worst year with the highest mortality for only four countries: “UK, Italy, Spain and Belgium.” [35] Another 10 countries had “the highest mortality in 2021.” (USA and Poland were the worst). As for the remaining 19 countries, either 2009 or 2010 had the highest mortality.

Was there anything particularly special about 2009 that made it the worst year for more than half these countries? Actually, it was found to be the worst for two simple reasons: mortality rates have in general been decreasing over time, and 2009 is as far back as the study went. Of interest is that in 2009 the WHO declared a pandemic on account of the H1N1 virus. Nothing special came of it, however, for “the total number of influenza-related deaths worldwide… proved similar to the number in a relatively mild year of seasonal influenza.” [36]

The fact that 2020 was the worst year for only 4 of these 33 countries lends support to our conclusion that Covid was about as bad as a normal flu season. The fact that 2021 was the worst year for 10 countries helps reinforce our previous findings that the Covid shots did very little to prevent Covid deaths and instead caused a great deal of deaths from adverse events.

3. Covid Data Issues

How is it possible that a mortality analysis seems to contradict reports about millions of Covid cases and deaths? There are several good reasons for this apparent discrepancy. For starters, and as was mentioned in a previous article,[1] on April 20, 2020 the WHO mandated changes to the way death certificates were to be filled out. The document stated that “a death due to Covid-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness.” [37] In other words, since influenza typically has identical symptoms to Covid, flu deaths were to be labeled as Covid deaths. While this may be useful for “surveillance purposes,” it does not help us determine if Covid caused any excess deaths. Nor is it useful for making accurate comparisons between Covid and the flu. And it most definitely makes it difficult to calculate the IFR of Covid.

The WHO document went on to say: “A death due to Covid-19 may not be attributed to another disease (e.g. cancer)… Always apply these instructions whether they can be considered medically correct or not.” Therefore, even if cancer was the actual cause of death, if the person so much as tested positive for Covid, the death certificate was to say that Covid was the cause of death. The end result of this change in policy is that the number of deaths caused by Covid has been significantly over-counted in most countries.[38, 39, 40, 41] What was not affected by the protocol change was how many people died from all causes. This is why all-cause mortality studies are so relevant during the Covid-era.

Another issue muddying the waters is the PCR test used to identify a Covid case. Despite the fact that the PCR test is based on remarkable technology, it has various shortcomings when used as it was to establish a Covid case. Very briefly, a few such issues are:

If the cycle threshold is too high, it will return a high number of false positives.[42]
As disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positives increases.[43, 44]
The number and type of primers used for identifying the presence of SARS-CoV-2 has the potential to pick up fragments originating from some other source.[45, 46] (As we saw above, harmless bat coronaviruses may give a false positive.)
The PCR test is capable of finding virus fragments,or intact virus in the airway, but is not capable of determining if a person is actually infected with Covid. Since clinical symptoms were not required to be present, many uninfected individuals falsely tested positive. [47, 48]

Every issue listed above has the tendency to inflate Covid deaths.

4. Covid in Canada

To put things into perspective, and to tie all these ideas together, it is appropriate to consider one particular country in more detail as an example. Let us consider Canada. Statistics Canada records that 16,151 deaths in 2020 were attributed to Covid.[49] This is slightly more than twice the number of deaths attributed to “Influenza and Pneumonia” in an average year in Canada (7304 deaths/yr). How is it possible that Covid was more than twice as deadly as the flu if the two illnesses are about the same?

The answer is either that the number of Covid deaths was overcounted due to all the issues just mentioned or that influenza deaths were underdiagnosed in the past. Unfortunately, it is now nearly impossible to determine the exact error rate. Nevertheless, by considering only the last of the issues in the above list, it is possible to demonstrate how significant the inflation factor really is.

Dr. Bullard, head of the provincial laboratory in Winnipeg Manitoba, testified that PCR tests do not verify infection and were never intended to be used to diagnose respiratory illness.[50] He went on to say that about 56% of positives in Canada belonged to people that were not infected with Covid. If we accept this percentage, in all likelihood at least 56% of the deaths attributed to Covid in Canada were a result of a false positive. Applying this error rate to Covid deaths in Canada in 2020 brings the number of deaths down to 7,106. It is duly noted that this number is slightly lower than the yearly average for influenza deaths in the preceding four years. If we use this adjusted amount, and plot mortality in Canada in 2020 by the top 15 leading causes of death, we can see the relative significance of Covid in Canada.

Figure 1. Source: Statistics Canada. Table 13-10-0392-01

Covid mortality was adjusted down by 56% to account for false positives.

In Figure 1 above, cancer and heart issues dwarf all other causes of death. The number of deaths attributed to flu and pneumonia is several thousand below average. This resulted from the fact that, according to the WHO mandate, many deaths that would normally have been classified as influenza were labeled as Covid because the two are clinically compatible illnesses. Also, Canadian labs changed the way they tested for the flu: “changes in laboratory testing practices as a result of the public health response to… Covid-19… may affect the comparability of data to previous… seasons.” [51] What is clear from this chart is that Covid was not particularly lethal, was no worse than a normal flu season, and certainly unworthy of the unprecedented attention it received.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is safe to say that SARS-CoV-2 was “novel” in early 2020 solely because of the simple fact that that is when it was first detected. Not only was Covid treatable, but at least 50% of people had sufficient immunity from a previous common cold to prevent noticeable illness. It can also be said that Covid was not unusually lethal, since the mortality burden was only as bad as a normal flu season. Covid mortality (when adjusted for only one of several factors) ranked ninth among the leading causes of death in Canada, the same rank normally held by influenza and pneumonia.

Of course, it could be argued that the reason Covid deaths were this low is because government mandated lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions prevented a Covid catastrophe. It is this important topic that we plan to cover in our next article of this series.

References

Kenyon, Todd et al, “It is impossible that the vaccines saved 14 million lives in 2021,” Panda, 2023, https://pandata.org/drivers-of-excess-deaths-part1/
Verduyn et al, “How many lives were actually saved by the Covid-19 vaccines?” Panda, 2023, https://pandata.org/how-many-lives-were-actually-saved-by-the-covid-19-vaccines/
Kenyon, Todd et al, “What the Diamond Princess tells us about NYC in spring 2020,” Panda, 2023, https://pandata.org/what-the-diamond-princess-tells-us-about-nyc-in-spring-2020/
Verduyn, Thomas et al, “Did side effects from the Covid shots cause an excess mortality?” Panda, 2023, https://pandata.org/did-side-effects-from-the-covid-shots-cause-any-excess-mortality/
Akronson, Jeffrey, “Covid-19: First coronavirus was described in The BMJ in 1965,” BMJ 2020;369:m1547
Mulley, Kary, US Patent, 1987, http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/cc/f0/3e/dc51b1fb4af2e6/US4683202.pdf
Morris, Dylan, “Novelty Means Severity: The Key To the Pandemic,” Insight, 2021, https://www.theinsight.org/p/novelty-means-severity-the-key-to
Billingsley, Alyssa, Pinto-Garcia, Patricia, “The Novel Coronavirus: What Are Novel Viruses, and How Do They Impact Public Health?” GoodRx Health, 2023, https://www.goodrx.com/conditions/covid-19/what-does-novel-coronavirus-mean-science-medical-definition
István Csabai, Krisztián Papp, Dávid Visontai et al. “Unique SARS-CoV-2 variant found in public sequence data of Antarctic soil samples collected in 2018-2019,” 23 December 2021, PREPRINT (Version 1) available at Research Square https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1177047/v1
Apolone G, Montomoli E, Manenti A, et al. “Unexpected detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the prepandemic period in Italy.” Tumori Journal. 2021;107(5):446-451. doi:10.1177/0300891620974755
Antonella Amendola, et al, “Molecular evidence for SARS-CoV-2 in samples collected from patients with morbilliform eruptions since late 2019 in Lombardy, northern Italy,” Environmental Research, Volume 215, Part 1, 2022, 113979,ISSN 0013-9351, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935122013068
Jones, Will, “The Evidence COVID-19 Was Spreading Silently Around the World in Late 2019,” 2022, The Daily Sceptic, The Evidence COVID-19 Was Spreading Silently Around the World in Late 2019 – The Daily Sceptic
Rossi GA, Sacco O, Mancino E, Cristiani L, Midulla F. “Differences and similarities between SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2: spike receptor-binding domain recognition and host cell infection with support of cellular serine proteases.” Infection. 2020 Oct;48(5):665-669. doi: 10.1007/s15010-020-01486-5. Epub 2020 Jul 31. PMID: 32737833; PMCID: PMC7393809
Le Bert, N., Tan, A.T., Kunasegaran, K. et al. “SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls.” Nature 584, 457–462 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2550-z
Cantoni, D., Mayora-Neto, M., Thakur, N. et al. “Pseudotyped Bat Coronavirus RaTG13 is efficiently neutralised by convalescent sera from SARS-CoV-2 infected patients.” Commun Biol 5, 409 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-022-03325-9
Wang, N., Li, SY., Yang, XL. et al. “Serological Evidence of Bat SARS-Related Coronavirus Infection in Humans, China.” Virol. Sin. 33, 104–107 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12250-018-0012-7
Corman, Victor M et al, “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR,” Eurosurveillance, 25, 2000045 (2020), https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045
Swadling, L., Diniz, M.O., Schmidt, N.M. et al. “Pre-existing polymerase-specific T cells expand in abortive seronegative SARS-CoV-2.” Nature 601, 110–117 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04186-8
Jose Mateus et al., “Selective and cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2 T cell epitopes in unexposed humans.” Science, 370,89-94(2020). DOI:10.1126/science.abd3871
Lipsitch, M., Grad, Y.H., Sette, A. et al. “Cross-reactive memory T cells and herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2.” Nat Rev Immunol 20, 709–713 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41577-020-00460-4
Humbert, Marion et al, “Functional SARS-CoV-2 cross-reactive CD4+ T cells established in early childhood decline with age,” PNAS, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2220320120
Mahajan, S., Kode, V., Bhojak, K. et al. “Immunodominant T-cell epitopes from the SARS-CoV-2 spike antigen reveal robust pre-existing T-cell immunity in unexposed individuals.” Sci Rep 11, 13164 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-92521-4
Grifoni, Alba et al, “Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals,” Cell, 2020, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.05.015
Patrick, David et al, “An Outbreak of Human Coronavirus OC43 Infection and Serological Cross-Reactivity with SARS Coronavirus,” Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology, 2006, https://doi.org/10.1155/2006/152612
Front Line Covid Critical Care Alliance, Treatment Protocol, https://covid19criticalcare.com/treatment-protocols/
Heart Advisory & Recovery Team, Ivermectin, https://www.hartgroup.org/category/ivermectin/
McCullough PA, et al, “Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19).” Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2020 Dec 30;21(4):517-530. doi: 10.31083/j.rcm.2020.04.264. PMID: 33387997.
Ioannidis, John P A. (‎2021)‎. “Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data.” Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 99 (‎1)‎, 19 – 33F. World Health Organization. http://dx.doi.org/10.2471/BLT.20.265892
Ioannidis, John P A. “Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of COVID-19: An overview of systematic evaluations,” European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13554
Pezzullo AM, Axfors C, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Apostolatos A, Ioannidis JPA. “Age-stratified infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in the non-elderly population.” Environ Res. 2023 Jan 1;216(Pt 3):114655. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2022.114655. Epub 2022 Oct 28. PMID: 36341800; PMCID: PMC9613797.
Kompaniyets, Lyudmyla et al, “Underlying Medical Conditions and Severe Illness Among 540,667 Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19, March 2020–March 2021,” CDC 2021, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd18.210123external icon
Anonymous, “Key Facts About Influenza (Flu),” CDC 2022, https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/keyfacts.htm
Anonymous, Our World In Data, Coronavirus (COVID-19) Cases – Our World in Data
Anonymous, “Guidance High consequence infectious diseases (HCID),” UK government, 2020, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid
Levitt, M., Zonta, F. & Ioannidis, J.P.A. “Excess death estimates from multiverse analysis in 2009–2021.” Eur J Epidemiol (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-023-00998-2
Fineberg, Harvey, “Pandemic Preparedness and Response — Lessons from the H1N1 Influenza of 2009,” N Engl J Med 2014; 370:1335-1342 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra1208802
Anonymous, “International Guidelines for Certification and Classification (coding) of Covid-19 as Cause of Death,” World Health Organization, 2020, https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/classification/icd/covid-19/guidelines-cause-of-death-covid-19-20200420-en.pdf (pg 3)
Audie, Joseph, “Using CDC data and death certificate standards to propose a preliminary estimate for the number of US COVID-19 associated deaths that were caused by or contributed to by SARS-CoV-2 infection,” Research Gate, 2020, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344228032_Using_CDC_data_and_death_certificate_standards_to_propose_a_preliminary_estimate_for_the_number_of_US_COVID-19_associated_deaths_that_were_caused_by_or_contributed_to_by_SARS-CoV-2_infection
Fenton, Norman & Neil, Martin & McLachlan, Scott. (2021). What proportion of people with COVID-19 do not get symptoms?. 10.13140/RG.2.2.33939.60968.
Jensen, Scott, 2023, https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=PHxj_Luclxs&feature=youtu.be
Beaudoin, John, “500,000 Death Certificates Tell of Signals, Fraud, and Unlawful Deaths,” 2023, https://rumble.com/v2a7wtk-john-beaudoin-500000-death-certificates-tell-of-signals-fraud-and-unlawful-.html
La Scola B, Le Bideau M, Andreani J, Hoang VT, Grimaldier C, Colson P, Gautret P, Raoult D. “Viral RNA load as determined by cell culture as a management tool for discharge of SARS-CoV-2 patients from infectious disease wards.” Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2020 Jun;39(6):1059-1061. doi: 10.1007/s10096-020-03913-9. Epub 2020 Apr 27. PMID: 32342252; PMCID: PMC7185831.
Anonymous, “WHO Information Notice for Users 2020/05: Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2,” World Health Organization, 2021, https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05
Deeks, John, “Why the school testing regime needs to change,” The Post, 2021, https://unherd.com/thepost/why-the-school-testing-regime-needs-to-change/
Neil, Martin, “Put to the test: use of rapid testing technologies for covid-19,” BMJ 2021; 372 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n208
Neil, Martin, “UK lighthouse laboratories testing for SARS-COV-2 may have breached WHO Emergency Use Assessment and potentially violated Manufacturer Instructions for Use.” Probability and Risk, 2021, https://probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2021/02/uk-lighthouse-laboratories-testing-for.html?m=1
Deeks, Jonathan, “Operation Moonshot proposals are scientifically unsound,” BMJ 2020; 370 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3699
Pollock A M, Lancaster J. “Asymptomatic transmission of covid-19” BMJ 2020; 371 :m4851 doi:10.1136/bmj.m4851
Anonymous, Statistics Canada. Table 13-10-0392-01 “Deaths and age-specific mortality rates, by selected grouped causes” DOI: https://doi.org/10.25318/1310039201-eng
Anonymous, “Manitoba Chief Microbiologist and Laboratory Specialist: 56% of positive “cases” are not infectious,” JCCF, 2021, https://www.jccf.ca/manitoba-chief-microbiologist-and-laboratory-specialist-56-of-positive-cases-are-not-infectious/
Government of Canada, “FluWatch annual report: 2019-2020 influenza season,” 2021, https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/diseases-conditions/fluwatch/2019-2020/annual-report.html

June 25, 2023 Posted by aletho | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Canada, Covid-19 | Leave a comment

NEW CDC DIRECTOR: LEADER OR FOLLOWER?

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | June 23, 2023

President Joe Biden’s new pick for CDC director, Dr. Mandy Cohen, has an interesting track record as lead health director of North Carolina’s pandemic response. Find out the scientific methods she used to create policy and guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic.

June 25, 2023 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | CDC, Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, Joe Biden, United States | Leave a comment

Never in my wildest dreams…

… or never in my wildest nightmares?

Health Advisory & Recovery Team | June 23, 2023

This was the opening phrase in a Twitter post from Dr Lisa Iannattone,on 15 June. The whole Tweet read, “Never in my wildest dreams could I have predicted a future where a new virus would become the #1 infectious disease killer of children and that medical leadership would decide the vaccine for this virus is NOT important for kids, and NOT promote it”

Those of us at HART might rephrase this, “Never in my wildest NIGHTMARE could I have predicted a future where, for a virus with such a low impact on children, medical leadership would decide that a novel-technology vaccine with NO long-term safety data IS important for kids to take and WOULD promote it — and in some countries even mandate it — in a vain attempt to protect their grandparents”.

The tweet was linked to this news item from Oxford University dated 31st January 2023 so it seems to have taken Dr L several months to read it! “A new study led by researchers at the University of Oxford’s Department of Computer Science has found that, between 2021 and 2022, COVID-19 was a leading cause of death in children and young people in the United States, ranking eighth overall. The results demonstrate that pharmaceutical and public health interventions should continue to be applied to limit the spread of the coronavirus and protect against severe disease in this age group.”

The study itself used publicly available US data to look at deaths in children and young people (CYP) aged 0-19, where COVID-19 was ‘the underlying cause of death’ and to look at rankings of causes of death from 2019 onwards. The finding emphasised in the Tweet was that COVID-19 ranked “first in deaths caused by infectious or respiratory diseases.” The next sentence, unsurprisingly omitted from the Tweet, is however vital when putting this into context “COVID-19 deaths constituted 2% of all causes of death in this age group.”

A group looking at data in England from March 2020 to March 2021, found that deaths of children with a positive PCR test gave a similar 2% of all childhood deaths. However, unlike the more recent US study, this study did a thorough notes review for all the deaths and found that in less than half of the cases was COVID-19 either the underlying or a contributory cause of death, accounting for only 0.8% of total deaths for this age group. Fortunately, child deaths are rare and a Child Death Review system has been in place in England and Wales since 2008 to look for preventable causes, so the idea of looking at cases in detail is nothing new.

Like the importance of looking at absolute risk reduction rather than relative risk reduction for judging vaccine efficacy, it is vital to look at the absolute risk of a child dying from COVID-19. Whilst any child death is a tragedy for the family concerned, the risk of death from a respiratory virus is small compared with risks of say accidental death or suicide, which are also conditions the reduction of which should be the concern of Public Health departments. People, including children, dying of other conditions also find it harder to fight off viral infections. It is therefore inevitable that excessive testing will link viruses to dying children. However, the idea that these deaths could have been prevented has no basis in evidence.

It is noteworthy that the number of deaths in under 20s in the US, did not diminish with the arrival of the vaccines — one could even be forgiven for thinking they have increased.

June 24, 2023 Posted by aletho | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, UK, United States | Leave a comment

Re Early Spread, what did President Trump NOT Know

… And why didn’t he know it? Were his advisors concealing key information from him? Here’s what SHOULD have happened ….

BY BILL RICE, JR. | JUNE 24, 2023

A fascinating “what-might-have been” article published by The Brownstone Institute presents evidence that one White House meeting – later cancelled – might have prevented the lockdowns and much of the Covid madness that later ensued.

According to author Eric Hartmann, Stanford scientist Dr. John Ioannidis and a team of other “elite” scientists were set to meet with President Trump. The goal: Let the President know that every scientist didn’t think like Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx.

(Ioannidis later became famous, or infamous, for showing that, for most citizens, the Infection Fatality Rate for this virus was roughly the same or lower than the death risk of the flu.)

The article’s salient points hinge on my favorite taboo subject – “early spread” – as Ioannidis is among the group who believed many Americans had probably already been infected by this virus by mid-March 2020.

This would mean any lockdowns to slow or stop the spread – or “flatten the curve” – were probably pointless and would cause far more harm than these draconian, unprecedented “mitigation” measures would prevent.

For me, the article also raises this intriguing question: What did certain officials know (about virus origins and spread) … and when did they know this?

Although my formal “science education” ended in 11th grade, my parents and God bestowed me with common sense, which I’m going to employ in today’s thought exercise, which shows what I would have done if I was Donald Trump or if I was the Science King of the World in the first 75 days of 2020.

Something like the events that follow SHOULD have happened in the pivotal, history-changing weeks of early 2020.

The fact something like this did NOT happen provides another giant tell about how corrupt and captured our science establishment has become.

I’m no scientist, but here’s what I would have done ….

The key “known knowable” in the “virus origins” saga is perhaps this nugget of information:

On the last day of December 2019, Chinese officials reported a pneumonia-like illness of “unknown origins” to the World Health Organization.

For the entire global “public health” establishment, this was a Super Bowl-type event.

“Okay, guys, this might be the Big One we’ve all been predicting. Let’s all get hot and prove our expert bonafides and save the world,” etc.

What would I have done when this news hit the Emergency Bat Wire?

First, I would have asked, “Okay, what are the symptoms of this alleged/possible new disease?”

Next, I would have asked: “Is it possible this possible new virus was already infecting people outside of Wuhan?”

Knowing the symptoms of this new disease are almost exactly like Influenza-Like Illnesses (ILI), I would have immediately started looking at all the weekly ILI “Surveillance Reports” produced by all 50 U.S. state health agencies and the CDC.

I would have asked: “Have we had a conspicuous spike of people going to the doctor with similar symptoms? For example, are people getting more flu tests than in previous flu seasons?”

As it turns out, as I showed in a recent article, the answer is/was, “Yes. No doubt.”

The next thing I would have done is told all my public health colleagues: “Guys, we need to develop an antibody assay to test for this new disease ASAP.”

After our crack scientists and medical labs had developed a suitable antibody test (China had one by late January 2020), I would have said: “We need to test ‘archived’ blood we already have in storage and see if any Americans had developed antibodies to this virus before, say, Dec. 30, 2019.”

My next Question: “Do we have any stored archived blood we can actually test for Covid antibodies?”

Answer: As it turns out, we do.

The Red Cross (and several other blood-bank organizations) actually collects tens of thousands of pints of blood every single day. One assumes at least some of this blood must be saved for weeks or months.

I would then order that we expedite the testing of every vial of “archived blood” in the country – Blood from California, Washington, New Jersey, Florida, Nebraska, Texas, Alabama – from all 50 states.

The whole purpose of this exercise would be to provide data and intelligence on how many people may have already been infected by this virus.

As Science King, I’d order that we use our invaluable new antibody-diagnostic tool to test samples collected from October 2019 through February 2020.

This way we could see if more blood donors in January had Covid antibodies than in November. If this was the case, we’d have what some might call “a virus-spread situation.”

Another point I would have made: Why do we have to depend on the Red Cross to provide us blood we can test for antibodies? We’re the U.S. Government; can’t we start collecting our own blood? Tell people it’s for a good cause – “Science.”

Apparently, the U.S. only had one batch of archived blood that could be tested ….

As readers of Bill Rice, Jr’s Substack Newsletter surely know by now, the CDC identified ONE tranche of saved Red Cross blood from three states, with that blood having been collected Dec. 13-16, 2019.

But surely this was not the only archived blood that had been saved and could have been tested (given that this was, after all, a “national emergency” – The Mother of All Live Exercises.)

But let’s say this was the only 1,900 vials of blood in the country available for antibody testing.

I would have said: “Okay, let’s at least go ahead and test that blood … but let’s test it as fast as we can …. Before we order the whole country to lock down.”

At some point, these 1,900 pints of Red Cross blood were tested for Covid antibodies, but, to this day, nobody knows WHEN these preserved blood specimens were tested. For all we know, that blood might have been tested by the end of February 2020 (weeks before the lockdowns were ordered) … or in September 2020, nine months after the blood had originally been collected.

All we know is the CDC (itself) published a “study” in late November 2020 telling everyone that at least 39 of those blood donors (2.04 percent of the tested cohort) did test positive for IgG (and/or IgM) antibodies via an ELISA antibody test.

So, to be clear, the dad-blasted virus was here – in at least three U.S. states in November 2019. That’s what the CDC’s own antibody test showed.

And President Trump – and Bill Rice, Jr. – could have known this by March 2020 if the Science officials had just put a “rush job” on the testing project. I mean, how long does it really take to test 1,900 units of blood for antibodies? Probably a couple of days.

I also note that the “Red Cross Antibody Study” results were published AFTER the 2020 presidential election – when the vaccine had already begun to be rolled out.

We also know (I think) President Trump wasn’t told anything like this in the weeks between January and March 2020:

“Mr. President, we’ve got a lot of blood we are currently testing to see if any Americans might have had this virus in November or December 2019. It’s possible, sir, this virus was already spreading pretty widely in America a couple of months ago. If this is the case, lockdowns to slow or stop virus spread probably won’t do much good.”

For what it’s worth, my conjecture is that SOMEONE in our Science/Virus-Fighting Leadership didn’t want the President (and/or the public) to know this non-trivial information.

Certainly nobody ordered any Red Cross archived blood to be tested as soon as possible.

(Also, just as certainly, no Cracker Jack investigative journalist at The New York Times, Wall Street Journal or “Sixty Minutes” asked any questions like: “Is there any evidence this virus has already been spreading around the world?”)

My main point is that nobody at NIH, NIAID, the HHS, the CDC or any member of the White House’s Covid Leadership Team said, “Let’s hold on here. Let’s see what these blood donor antibody tests tell us.”

When it came to locking down a couple billion people on the planet, why check any antibody test results first?

So what does this basic information tell us?

It tells me “someone” wanted to conceal evidence of early spread in America … that these trusted public health officials didn’t want to “confirm” anything that might stop or “call-off” the lockdowns.

… and, if we didn’t have the lockdowns, we might not have had 250 million Americans lining up to get a rushed, experimental” mRNA “vaccine,” a shot that was mandatory for many Americans if they wanted to keep their jobs or keep attending college.

Eric Hartmann’s article is about a White House meeting that did NOT take place, a meeting that might have changed history for the better if it had taken place.

Regarding Hartmann’s article, I’d simply highlight the topics that could and should have been brought up at said non-meeting … but weren’t … for some reason.

So what might this reason have been?

My strong hunch is that “someone” (or several people) knew, or at least strongly suspected, that this virus had already spread around the world, including America.

This prompts one final question: How in the hell could this person or people have known this?

It seems to me they knew what they didn’t want anyone to investigate. They didn’t want anyone to find undeniable evidence of early spread and then publicize said evidence to the entire world. Again, how did these people know or suspect what those investigations would have revealed?

June 24, 2023 Posted by aletho | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | CDC, Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, HHS, NIAID, NIH | 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
- 7,779,375 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

Figure 1. Source: Statistics Canada. Table 13-10-0392-01

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