BY BILL RICE, JR. | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | JUNE 9, 2022
On June 8th 2022, I sent the following email to several reporters and one editor at al.com, which is the largest news organisation in my state of Alabama. I encourage other Daily Sceptic readers to send the same type of email to the major news organisations in their cities or states.
I don’t expect this news organisation to follow-up on my story suggestions and answer any of my questions, although I would be happy to be proven wrong. My main purpose is to create a record that shows that these reporters and editors are aware of many data points which strongly suggest that Covid vaccines are not ‘safe and effective’ (or necessary for children), and confirm that these ‘watchdog’ journalists will not share these types of stories with their readers. Nor will they pursue their own investigations that might corroborate (or impeach) these findings.
If enough readers participate in this similar experiment, this collective evidence (and the non-responses to our ‘story suggestions’) might provide strong evidence that the mainstream media are conspiring (or at least capitulating) in the cover-up of information that would debunk or challenge many elements of the alleged ‘settled science’ about Covid vaccines. In the opinion of this correspondent, such a finding – suggesting an obvious bias and censorship – would itself constitute an alarming and disturbing scandal.
Note: Story links and excerpts (several from the Daily Sceptic) are provided below this post.
Dear [journalists who routinely write Covid stories and an editor]:
I write to bring to your attention six articles that strongly suggest that Covid vaccines are not “safe and effective” nor necessary for many people. See story links below.
My real purpose in writing is to encourage al.com to do its own reporting to see if your reporters can confirm that the trends depicted in this quantifiable data are, perhaps, also being seen in Alabama.
Specifically:
I’ve come to believe that journalism or independent investigations that would challenge key parts of the ‘Covid narrative’ is not allowed at mainstream news organisations. Can you provide examples from your own reporting that would debunk or refute this theory? Is al.com going to follow up on these articles with your own reporting? If not, why not? Have reporters been told that certain Covid stories cannot be reported? Which al.com journalists have written any story that challenges or questions key parts of the CDC’s ‘settled science’?
Thank you for your consideration.
Bill Rice, Jr.
Supporting link and excerpts:
Virology Journal has published a letter from a cardiovascular surgeon, Kenji Yamamoto, setting out the case for ceasing all Covid vaccine booster programmes on safety grounds, calling Covid vaccines a “major risk factor for infections in critically ill patients”. His own cardiovascular surgery department at Okamura Memorial Hospital, Japan, has seen numerous complications in vaccinated patients, including some deaths, he says.
The National Health Service has confirmed in response to a freedom of information request that ambulance call-outs relating to immediate care required for a debilitating condition affecting the heart nearly doubled in the whole of 2021 and are still on the rise further in 2022. But the most concerning published figures show that they have also doubled among people under the age of 30.
“Indiana Life Insurance CEO Says Deaths Are Up Among people Ages 18-64“:
We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business – not just at OneAmerica,” the company’s CEO Scott Davison said during an online news conference this week. “The data is consistent across every player in that business.” …
Davison said the increase in deaths represents “huge, huge numbers,” and that’s it’s not elderly people who are dying, but “primarily working-age people 18 to 64” … “Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic,” he said. “So 40% is just unheard of.
On Wednesday, Dowd noted that funeral home company Carriage Services saw a 28% increase in September 2021 vs. 2020, and a 13% increase in August vs. the same period. Funerals and cremations are up 12% and 13% respectively on the quarter.
“Unbelievable U.K. Vaccine Report Update“:
Already evident in previous weeks is that for all but the youngest group, the vaccinated were getting infected at higher rates than the unvaccinated … In several age groups, it would appear the double vaccinated are infected at four to five time the rate of the unvaccinated …
Looking at double (not triple) vaccinated, it appears they have higher rates of hospitalisation for all ages over 60, and comparable rates for ages 18-59.
In this case, the rate of death of the unboosted fully vaccinated is basically twice as high for the over 70 year olds.
“For Majority of U.K. children, Covid Mortality is 0.000“:
Only six of the 25 Covid deaths in the U.K. in the first 12 month of the pandemic occurred among children without pre-existing serious medical conditions … This represents a mortality risk to ‘healthy’ children of approximately 0.0001%.
By Thomas Lambert | The Counter Signal | June 16, 2022
Perhaps a sign of the times, Ontario has finally taken a step forward by ending its schizophrenic daily reports on COVID.
Indeed, it wasn’t so long ago that Premier Doug Ford was making daily appearances to warn those in the province of the dangers of COVID and to push getting vaccinated. However, just weeks after the Freedom Convoy protest began its cross-country trip to Ottawa, Ford made noticeable changes to his rhetoric, saying it was time to get back to normal.
However, while it’s undoubtedly a good sign the Ford government doesn’t feel the need to provide daily reports on COVID anymore, the decision isn’t without caveat, as the province will continue providing COVID data weekly.
“As of June 16, all COVID-19 datasets will be updated weekly on Thursdays by 2 pm,” the Ontario Data Catalogue reads.
This policy change comes only five days after Ontario ended nearly all remaining mask requirements, including those that applied to public transit.
Besides returning to normal, another motivation for moving away from daily COVID reports on vaccination status, cases, hospitalizations, and deaths may be due to what recent data has shown.
As previously reported by The Counter Signal, the per capita case rate, hospitalization rate, and death rate by vaccination status all show that the vaccine makes almost no difference.
Moreover, those who have received a booster dose appear to be the worst off, having the highest rates of infection, hospitalization, and death per capita of any vaccination group, both in the province and Canada.
This reality completely shatters the ongoing mainstream narrative regarding the necessity of continued vaccination, with natural immunity appearing to be more than adequate — if not better — at preventing transmission and severe illness.
Either way, Ontarians and Canadians more generally might not be done with COVID quite yet, as both the federal and provincial governments have indicated that they’re more than willing to bring restrictions and mandates back in the Fall during flu season.
From virus origins to the Nordic paradox: the nine great covid mysteries
Swiss Policy Research | June 2022
1) Coronavirus origin
The genetic evidence strongly suggests that SARS-CoV-2 has a lab-related origin. This is due to various unique genetic properties relating to the so-called furin cleavage site (FCS), such as a CGG-coded double-arginine codon (the “smoking gun” according to Nobel Prize winning US virologist David Baltimore), an amino acid sequence identical to the human alpha-ENaC protein subunit, and a so-called Golden Gate seamless cloning site right next to the FCS. In addition, large investigations both inside and outside of China found no animal origin of SARS-CoV-2.
Such a lab-related origin is consistent with a lab leak either in China or in the US, or with a deliberate release of the virus (similar to the 2001 US anthrax letters). Indeed, leaked documents show that in the years prior to the 2019 outbreak, the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), several US labs, and Pentagon contractor “EcoHealth Alliance” were working on, or considering, the insertion of an FCS into SARS-related coronaviruses to “defuse the threat of bat-borne coronaviruses” (project DEFUSE).
Claims that SARS-CoV-2 is unlikely to have a lab origin (by some US/Western virologists linked to NIAID director Dr. Anthony Fauci), or that a lab leak could only have occurred in Wuhan (e.g. by former British intelligence chief Richard Dearlove), are scientifically unfounded or deceptive.
Read more:
Figure: US and Chinese coronavirus researchers at a 2018 symposium in Wuhan
2) 2019 US respiratory disease wave
In mid to late 2019, the US experienced several mysterious and unresolved events that may or may not be linked to each other and to the origin of SARS-CoV-2.
For instance, in early July 2019 the US CDC closed the biodefense research lab at Fort Detrick over “containment breaches” and “safety concerns”.
Also in July 2019, some nursing homes in northern Virginia, about 50 miles from Fort Detrick, reported an outbreak of a “mystery respiratory disease”, typically “starting with a cough”, that claimed several lives. At the time, the US CDC could not identify the pathogen causing the respiratory disease. In 2020, both the CDC and the nursing homes turned down requests to re-investigate the pathogen that caused the mysterious outbreaks.
Beginning in June 2019, the US experienced a mysterious wave of respiratory disease, later termed “EVALI”, with symptoms almost identical to covid, including pneumonia even in young people. The official explanation of “vitamin E acetate” as a filler in illegal THC vapes was not convincing, as the addition of this substance hadn’t been a new phenomenon. Moreover, “EVALI” essentially disappeared in parallel to the onset of the covid pandemic in early 2020. Nevertheless, the CDC never (publicly) re-investigated the 2019 “EVALI” cases for the presence of SARS-CoV-2.
On 18 October 2019, the Military World Games were held in Wuhan, during which several participants contracted a covid-like disease, according to later reports. China would later argue that SARS-CoV-2 may have been imported to Wuhan by US participants of the military games.
Also on 18 October 2019, a one-day coronavirus pandemic simulation exercise called Event 201 was held in New York City. The event was organized by the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security and was sponsored by the Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum.
When doctors in Wuhan noticed unusual cases of pneumonia in young people, they quickly suspected that this could be another SARS coronavirus outbreak. In contrast, when US doctors noticed very similar cases a few months earlier, they first thought of illegal drugs.
Read more:
Figure: July 2019 nursing home respiratory disease outbreaks and US military biolabs
3) The Wuhan lockdown
The ostensible success of the Wuhan lockdown in January 2020 was instrumental in justifying the many failed and highly disruptive lockdowns in other countries. Only in 2022 did China impose new lockdowns on major cities such as Shenzhen, Shanghai and Beijing.
Did the Wuhan lockdown in January 2020 really end coronavirus infections in the city, or did the covid winter wave in Wuhan simply end by itself, as it did in many other countries? But why did covid not return to Wuhan in 2020 or 2021, in contrast to most other countries? And why did coronavirus spread internationally, but not, initially, within China, despite the fact that Wuhan was a travel hub during the Chinese New Year in January 2020? By spring 2020, less than 5% of Wuhan citizens had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, compared to about 25% of citizens in New York City.
Furthermore, who was behind the creation and distribution of the fake videos and photos supposedly showing coronavirus-infected people “keeling over” in the streets of Wuhan? In January 2020, about a dozen of these videos and photos were shared by Western news agencies, major media outlets and on social media, ramping up fear and panic during the early days of the pandemic.
Read more: Did China stage the videos of people collapsing in Wuhan? (SPR)
Figure: AFP photograph of a “man dead in the streets of Wuhan”.
4) Omicron origin
In November 2021, the so-called omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 emerged in South Africa. Unlike previous coronavirus variants, the genetic evidence strongly indicates that omicron did not evolve naturally from previous variants, but emerged from virological or vaccine research. In fact, the omicron variant goes back to the earliest coronavirus strain and includes about two dozen mutations mysteriously “copied from scientific publications”. Omicron turned out to be highly infectious and strongly immune evasive, but much milder than previous SARS-CoV-2 variants.
Read more: Synthetic origin of SARS-CoV2 Omicron (StopGOF)
Figure: Non-natural emergence of omicron variant
5) Coronavirus transmission (small-scale)
Initially, most health authorities argued that SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted primarily via respiratory droplets (“wear your mask”) and via object surfaces (“wash your hands”). In reality, these are likely the least important modes of transmission. Instead, indoor respiratory aerosols emerged as the most important mode of transmission, despite denials by most health authorities for over a year.
Aerosol transmission likely explains why face masks and even N95/FFP2 masks (if worn by non-professionals) had essentially no effect on infection rates.
Nevertheless, several important questions concerning modes of transmission remain unsolved.
For instance, why are outdoor infections extremely rare, even if people are standing very close to each other and are singing or shouting? Is it because of aerosol dilution?
Why is infectious virus measurable for hours or even days on many surfaces (in lab studies), but actual infections via surfaces appear to be extremely rare in most real-world studies? Is it because transmission via hands and surfaces is much less effective than via respiratory aerosols?
Finally, what role does the dreaded fecal-aerosol mode of transmission play (e.g. via public toilets, air conditioning or sewage systems)? It is well known that infectious coronavirus is excreted via stool for longer periods than via respiration, but only China took this potential mode of transmission seriously (e.g. by applying toilet disinfection and the infamous “anal swabs”).
Read more: The face mask folly in retrospect (SPR)
Figure: US mask mandates without benefit
6) Coronavirus transmission (large-scale)
Ever since the discovery of influenza virus in the early 1930s, fundamental questions concerning respiratory virus epidemiology have remained unanswered.
During the coronavirus pandemic, it was observed that SARS-CoV-2 fully displaced influenza viruses and many other respiratory viruses. Influenza viruses only returned once a country had achieved a SARS-CoV-2 population infection rate of about 75%, regardless of interventions like face masks or lockdowns. Similarly, new SARS-CoV-2 variants repeatedly displaced previous variants, often within weeks.
Already during previous flu pandemics, new flu strains permanently displaced previous flu strains. How do viral interference and viral displacement work? Why do these viruses not coexist in parallel? There seems to be some kind of “the winner takes it all” principle at work, possibly linked to exponential, aerosol-mediated transmission and host immunity properties. Whatever the mechanism, the speed of global viral displacement is truly astounding.
Seasonality of respiratory virus transmission is also still largely unexplained. Is it driven by temperature, air humidity, vitamin D status or other factors? Why is there seasonality in northern and southern temperate climate zones, but not in tropical and subtropical climate zones? Why do some viruses breach seasonal patterns, such as the swine flu virus in 2009 and the SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron variants in 2021/2022? It may once again have to do with aerosol transmission and relative infectiousness of a virus.
There are also mysterious virus transmission patterns at continental scales. For instance, in Europe both flu waves and SARS-CoV-2 waves typically start at the western end of the continent (e.g. in Portugal, Spain and Britain) and move eastwards. In the US, SARS-CoV-2 infections have oscillated between states in the southeast (e.g. Florida) and in the northwest (e.g. Washington and Montana). These mysterious but natural patterns caused confusion because, coincidentally, covid vaccination rates were higher in western Europe than in eastern Europe, and higher in northern US states than in southern US states.
Another deep mystery is why respiratory virus infection waves are ending all by themselves, long before having infected the entire population of a country or region. This is a phenomenon that has been known for many decades (or indeed centuries), yet during the coronavirus pandemic, many health authorities falsely believed or asserted that without interventions such as lockdowns, infections would simply continue increasing exponentially. Some researchers have argued that respiratory viruses circulate within social networks (e.g. households and schools), and that transmission breaks down as soon as a network has been exhausted.
Read more: The return of the flu (SPR)
Figure: Displacement and return of the flu in India
7) The East Asian paradox
Until the arrival of the omicron variant, most East Asian countries and some Southeast Asian countries have avoided major coronavirus waves. In countries like North Korea, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan, one might argue that this was due to rapid and strict border controls. But this doesn’t explain the case of Japan, which hosted the Summer Olympic Games in 2021 and never introduced any major restrictions on social and business life. It also doesn’t explain the case of Indochinese countries with very low infection and death rates prior to 2022.
Initially, it was believed that face masks made the difference, but face masks failed everywhere else, and they also failed in East Asia with the arrival of the delta and omicron variants. Furthermore, they had failed during previous flu epidemics in East Asian countries.
Another explanation was some kind of pre-existing immunity against coronaviruses similar to SARS-CoV-2. But such pre-existing immunity could never be confirmed, and it wouldn’t necessarily be expected in very urban countries such as Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. Even in Laos, where SARS-related bat coronaviruses originate, a study found cross-reactive (but not necessarily neutralizing) antibodies in only 5% of the general population and in about 20% of people with direct contact to bats and wildlife.
Other explanations include genetic or metabolic differences. For instance, it has been noted that the countries most resilient against SARS-CoV-2 are the very countries with the lowest obesity rates in the world, whereas countries with high obesity rates were most severely affected by covid (e.g. in Europe and the US, Latin America, South Africa and Arab countries), unless they applied strict border controls (e.g. Australia, New Zealand, Canada). Indeed, obesity may contribute not just to coronavirus disease, but also to coronavirus transmission (via higher viral loads and higher levels of exhaled bioaerosols).
Already in 2020 it was observed that on average just 10% of infected individuals were responsible for about 80% of coronavirus transmission (so-called overdispersion factor, k), and secondary infection rates even within households were at most 15%. Even small differences in these parameters between populations – because of obesity rates or other factors – may have a major impact on transmission dynamics.
Whatever the cause or the causes of the paradox, the highly infectious and immune-evasive omicron variant eventually overwhelmed even East Asian countries.
Read more: The zero-covid countries (SPR) and Obesity and Pandemic (SPR)
Figure: Mask compliance and infections in Taiwan
8) The Nordic paradox
The Scandinavian or Nordic paradox is not about no-lockdown Sweden, as Sweden showed a pandemic excess mortality very similar to (or even lower than) other countries in Western Europe. Thus, Sweden neither “failed” nor did it have the “lowest excess mortality in Europe”.
Rather, the Scandinavian or Nordic paradox is about the very low pre-omicron covid infection and death rates in other Nordic countries, i.e. Iceland, Denmark, Norway and Finland. The paradox arises because during most of the pandemic, these countries had fewer domestic restrictions than most other Western countries, including Sweden.
It could be argued that in all of these countries, remote geography and early border controls, supported by preemptive lockdowns, may have played a key role in keeping domestic infections at very low levels. In addition, Iceland, Norway and Finland – but not Denmark – have by far the lowest population weighted densities among European countries (about four times lower than Sweden, which is quite similar to other European countries, such as Belgium and Germany). This might have helped slow down domestic coronavirus transmission.
Nevertheless, the Nordic paradox may not yet be fully resolved. Could Sweden have been “like Finland”? Could other European countries have been “like Norway”?
Read more: Sweden vindicated (SPR)
Figure: Covid mortality in European countries
9) Covid and Kids
In contrast to many other virus infections, children have been least affected by SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, prior to delta and omicron, small children had a significantly lower infection and transmission rate than adults, as the transmission rate increased linearly with age up to the age of 20.
It has been proposed that lower expression of ACE2 cell receptors or a different immune response might have explained these differences, but the question has never really been settled. One may also wonder if the lower transmission rate in (Western) children and in East Asian people (prior to omicron) may have had the same biological cause.
At any rate, the fact that covid generally remains mild in children, and that schools were not “drivers of the pandemic”, means that closing schools was one of the worst blunders of the pandemic response.
Read more: Covid and Kids: The Evidence (SPR)
Figure: Lower covid infection/transmission in children (pre-delta/omic
By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | June 11, 2022
Yesterday Sky News and the Huffington Post and several other outlets all flared up near-identical headlines warning that …
Covid Infections Increase For First Time In Two Months
The HuffPo goes on to explain in more detail…
The jump is thought to have been caused by increases in cases compatible with the original Omicron variant BA.1 and the newer variants BA.4 and BA.5, according to the Office for National Statistics.
All the articles cite the Office of National Statistics (ONS) talking about Omicron and seem to consider this an explanation.
None of them mentions the fact the UK’s Health Security Agency (UKHSA) literally changed the definition of a Covid “case” back in February, making it almost inevitable cases would go up.
It’s all detailed in this post from the UKHSA site, helpfully titled “Changing the COVID-19 Case Definition”.
The article explains that the UKHSA will be moving on from the traditional meaning of “cases”, and instead counting what they call “case episodes”.
Meaning that, up until now, one person repeatedly testing positive for “Covid” throughout the pandemic was considered one “case”:
Until now, COVID-19 cases have been reported at the individual level: every positive test taken and reported by one person has been considered part of a single case record, initiated by their first positive test.
But from now on different positive tests of the same person will be considered separate “cases” as long as they are 90 days apart:
Positive test results that are 90 days apart (regardless of negative tests in between) will be considered as a separate episode of infection, and therefore the person is counted as a case more than once.
The supposed justification for this decision is “waning immunity” and the Omicron variant causing spikes in “reinfections”:
Although reinfections were initially very rare, we have seen the number rising slowly over the last two years, as immunity from prior infection wanes and new variants emerge. During the Omicron variant wave, the number and proportion of people being reinfected with SARS-CoV-2 has increased.
However, the inevitable consequence of this decision will be to make the case numbers go up. The press not including this in their story about the rising case numbers is – at best – astonishing incompetence.
In fact, making case numbers go up is literally the only impact it will have.
The UKHSA goes out of its way to point this out, highlighting that the change will have no effect at all on how they monitor infections, since they already treat new positive tests as new cases for the purpose of contract tracing, and have been doing so all along:
contact tracing has undertaken a very safe practice of following all positive cases, regardless of whether they were possible reinfections or cases of prolonged infection.
So, in short, whether or not the change is scientifically justified, it is a purely aesthetic one that will have no impact on anything, except to make case numbers look bigger.
And, of course, it’s not scientifically justified.
They have already stretched the meaning of “cases” well past its breaking point by defining anyone who tests positive as a “Covid case” whether or not they have any symptoms.
Now every single person who, over the past two years, tested positive on the useless PCR tests and was declared a “case”, can test positive again on the same useless PCR and be declared a new case.
Of course, messing with language to inflate statistics has been the modus operandi since the beginning of the “pandemic”. “Fully vaccinated”, “herd immunity”, “cause of death”, “vaccine”, “case” all have been subject to “updated” definition.
Clearly, this further torturing of statistics is about maintaining the flagging “pandemic” narrative.
Allowing people to become more than one “case” means the ever-increasing numbers of people rejecting the vaccines, masks and hysteria can be countered by the steadily dwindling number of NPCs who still religiously take Covid at face value.
It’s a desperation move. One that, hopefully, people will see right through.
Free West Media | June 12, 2022
Apparently the stance against doctors who work according to their Hippocratic oath and the medical code of ethics is being tightened internationally.
The enforcement of masks is an important goal in order to be able to continue the pandemic, as is known from internal protocols of the Israeli Ministry of Health or statements by the Austrian Director of Public Health. Masks have become a sign of submission while at the same time renouncing fundamental rights.
Even in Switzerland, which is known to be more liberal with the measures and had already lifted many random measures in mid-February, completely disproportionate action was taken against doctors. On social media, users likened the raid to how police would normally respond to a terror threat.
This is already happening in Germany, as the criminal judgment against Dr. Ronald Weikl showed. In Germany, such an act would be less surprising in view of the many house searches, even against judges who had issued “unwanted” judgements, also in connection with masks for children.
The regional court of Passau, Germany is expected to pass a verdict against the “mask doctor” Weikl for writing blank exemption certificates against the mask requirement.
“Whether it was a matter of issuing false health certificates, which is punishable under §278 of the German Criminal Code (StGB), as alleged by the prosecution, or only of medical certificates, for which §278 (StGB) does not apply at all,” noted the Children’s Health Defense Fund.
Weikl acted in the best interest of his patients, his lawyer explained and this should not have led to an indictment due to the lack of a criminal act on his part. The legal principle of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege applies, which means that one cannot be punished for doing something that is not prohibited by law – showing concern for his patients and especially children.
The law in Switzerland expressly provides for exceptions to the mask requirement. However, some authorities and the public prosecutor’s offices obviously do not care. For months there has been a veritable witch hunt against doctors who are critical of the measures.
Like Weikl, the Bern psychiatrist Dr. medical Ruke Wyler had issued mask certificates for her patients. The practice of the psychiatrist, who had only fulfilled her medical duty, was stormed in a heavy and a completely disproportionate police operation.
The scientific network Aletheia reported on the raid on the doctor’s practice. Critical doctors who question Corona measures to protect their own patients are being addressed and sanctioned, both abroad and in Switzerland.
Under the supervision of armed police officers wearing bulletproof vests, her computer hard drive was confiscated and patient files were taken away. People who wanted to support the doctor were asked to leave the building under threat of violence.
The Aletheia network said they were extremely concerned about these developments. Doctors who had issued mask certificates for the benefit of their patients did so because, after a thorough study of the data, they had come to the conclusion that wearing masks would be of no benefit, would be only harmful, first and foremost for children.
The medical certificates issued by the doctor could in no way be deemed to be incorrect since there has been no examination by the police or the public prosecutor’s office; this is a matter for medical expertise and the professional code of conduct for physicians. Medical professionals are free from directives, especially from non-physicians.
The vast majority of Corona measures are based on the narrative of the epidemiologically relevant asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2, which has long been refuted. This means that all non-pharmacological measures that go beyond hygiene and self-isolation for sick people (antisocial distancing, masks in public spaces, isolation, quarantine, contact tracing, school closures and curfews) are ineffective and harmful for asymptomatic people who were previously considered healthy.
By Rob Slane | The Blog Mire | June 10, 2022
One of the many things that continues to baffle me about the public response to all things Covid, is that the number of people demanding answers to the following questions is pitifully and inexplicably low:
These questions should unite both those who believe with their whole heart that Lockdowns were necessary and saved lives, and those like me who believe they were utterly futile on their own terms, and have caused untold destruction. They should unite both those who believe that masks were necessary and saved lives, and those like me who believe them to have been utterly futile on their own terms, and a destructive dehumanising force designed to perpetuate fear. They should unite both those who think that the so-called vaccines were safe and effective, and those who believe these blood-clotting, immune-suppressing, gene-editing injections to have been useless on their own terms, and the cause of mass casualties, which will one day be found to have killed millions upon millions of people over the course of several years.
All of us should be demanding who was behind this, why they were doing it, and how it came to be unleashed on humanity. For the fact is that a cytotoxic Spike Protein, with HIV Gp120 inserts which infect and destroy immune cells, was created in a laboratory and added to a coronavirus in gain-of-function research. Why are people not interested in who did this to them and why? Why are they not interested in who was behind something that was used to basically mess up their lives, and the entire planet, for the last two years, and long into the future.
If this were a movie, everybody would be waiting with baited breath for the super villains — Fauci, Daszak, Baric, Gates, Schwab to name but five — to face the reckoning. And yet crickets. It’s a bit like if Hitler had survived in 1945 and the Jews and other people groups who suffered under his murderous regime shrugged their shoulders and said, “We need to move on. When’s my next holiday coming?” To those who think the comparison is ludicrous, I would point out that the official number of deaths from the lab-created, souped up coronavirus now exceeds the number 6 million — an infamous historical number — and I would add to it that the number of deaths from Phase 2 of the operation will, in the end, dwarf that number many times over.
What do I mean Phase 2 of the operation? I mean the fiendishly clever plan to inject billions of people around the world with a totally new, experimental product which would cause their bodies to produce the same gain-of-function Spike Protein, replete with the HIV Gp120 insert, by the billions, for an unknown amount of time. The entire point of Phase 1 — the release of the lab-created SARS-CoV-2 — was to create the fear that would lead to these injections. Does anybody seriously still believe these products were an improvised, off-the-cuff response to that virus? If so, perhaps they’d care to explain how all four major manufacturers of these products (Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna, Johnson and Johnson) all just happened to choose the same cytotoxic Spike Protein as the part of the virus that the human body would produce? As Mike Yeadon, former Pfizer VP for Allergy and Respiratory Research has pointed out, it is the most dangerous part of the virus, as well as that which mutates the most quickly, making it the most unsuitable part to use in a vaccine. And yet four companies did just that. Perhaps they’d also care to explain Moderna’s confidentiality agreement with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to ‘transfer mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates’ in December 2019. There is no doubt at all that Covid-19 was known about long before you and I ever got to hear about it, as this mention of it in the US Department of Defense database in November 2019, in a contract connected to one of those harmless and benevolent Ukrainian biolabs, clearly shows. There is, therefore, no doubt that the manufacturers of the bioweapon masquerading as a vaccine knew about it and were on it well before it was a thing for the rest of us.
These so-called vaccines, which were never safe nor effective, have already killed or maimed millions around the world. But the real damage is only just beginning. Not only do they train the body to produce antibodies to fight a non-existent enemy — the long-departed original SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein, which is a bit like the 21st Century British Army training to fight a battalion in Hitler’s Wehrmacht — but even more crucially, they infect and kill crucial T-cells. Which is why the ‘vaccinated’ keep getting Covid reinfections — their immune systems have been left defenseless, and with each recurring bout it becomes increasingly depleted.
Which brings us on to Phase 3. Whilst Phase 1 was about freaking people out with a virus that was dangerous to very few (albeit eminently treatable), and Phase 2 was about injecting people with the poison shot masquerading as the solution, Phase 3 is — I believe — all about covering up the effects of the depleted immune systems of millions of people, to ensure that most people continue to ask no questions and many of them ‘go gentle into that good night’. How? By the release of another lab-created, gain-of-function pathogen, which will be used to explain away the ‘mysterious’ deaths of people with crippled immune systems. If Phase 1 and 2 were fiendishly clever, this is from the pit of Gehenna itself.
Alarmingly, there is a probability that such a pathogen has indeed been released, although it is still too early to know if this is what a grinning William Gates III described as ‘the next one’. Much like the Event 201 simulation in October 2019, which just happened to simulate a global coronavirus pandemic, at the March 2021 Munich Security Conference a ‘Tabletop Exercise’ was conducted entitled, ‘Strengthening Global Systems to Prevent and Respond to High-Consequence Biological Threats.’ Here’s the blurb:
“The exercise scenario portrayed a deadly, global pandemic involving an unusual strain of monkeypox virus that emerged in the fictional nation of Brinia and spread globally over 18 months. Ultimately, the exercise scenario revealed that the initial outbreak was caused by a terrorist attack using a pathogen engineered in a laboratory with inadequate biosafety and biosecurity provisions and weak oversight. By the end of the exercise, the fictional pandemic resulted in more than three billion cases and 270 million fatalities worldwide.”
Hmm? A Monkeypox pandemic! Starting when exactly? Why, would you believe it — in mid-May 2022. And lo and behold, in mid-May 2022, an outbreak of an unusual strain of Monkeypox began. As per the timeline set out on page 10 of their document, the international response would then start around 5th June 2022. And would you believe it, in this last week which began on 5th June, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) update its alert level for Monkeypox to Level 2, the UK Government upgraded Monkeypox to the same category of diseases as leprosy and plague, and the WHO came along to claim that the virus may be spread by ‘community transmission’. Add to this that this particular strain of Monkeypox appears to have been lab-created, and almost inexplicably appeared in about 10 western countries at the same time, and it looks like the timeline in the simulation might not have been entirely a coincidence.
I’m genuinely unsure at this point whether Monkeypox is Phase 3. I’ve heard many say that it would be impossible to create the same level of fear as with Covid, but I’m not so sure. The 2021 Tabletop Exercise had 270 million deaths by the end of 2023, and I have this horrible feeling that a new lab-created pathogen, unleashed on a world where millions have just had their immune systems horribly damaged, could send many to untimely deaths. I pray not; I fear so.
But whether the next thing is Monkeypox, or the great Bird Flu pandemic, as predicted by former CDC Director Robert Redfield, or perhaps Covid redivivus, it is quite clear to anyone with their eyes open and their wits about them that we are well and truly enslaved in the Medical Despotism I predicted back in April 2020:
‘Being “led by the science” is turning out to be an unmitigated disaster, yet it will be “the science” — or Government-approved science — which will be proposed as the saviour. To stop such situations occurring again, we will be told that we must avail ourselves of more technology, more monitoring, more checks, more vaccines, more controls. … Personally, I’d rather trust myself into the hands of the Living God than surrender to the Bill Gatesian Social Distancing Medical Despotism of compulsory vaccines, certifications and health apps that is starting to take shape around us.’
I wish people had listened to the few of us who pleaded with them back then not to fall for the lies of the criminals who were foisting this upon us. Perhaps we could have halted it in its tracks.
Professor Marilyn James, Professor of Health Economics, Professor David Paton, Professor of Industrial Economics | Health Advisory & Recovery Team | June 10, 2022
“It is possible that lockdown will go down as one of the greatest peacetime policy failures in modern history” – Professor Douglas Allen[1]
In March 2021, we wrote two sections in ‘Covid-19 the evidence’, namely ‘Economic impacts – the true cost of lockdown’ and ‘Lockdowns – do they work?’. Over a year later, we have revisited not only the financial costs of lockdowns but also the societal costs, the impact on healthcare and the lack of evidence for overall benefit.
Assessing the economic costs of lockdowns and other Covid-19 restrictions is not easy, partly because the pandemic itself would have impacted economic activity independent of Government restrictions. However, we do now have considerable evidence that both voluntary behaviour change and government restrictions have significant economic effects.[2],[3] Further, voluntary changes tend to have most impact on the activity of groups most vulnerable to Covid, whilst Government restrictions have a disproportionate effect on those least vulnerable. This means that not only do most mandatory restrictions have a significant economic impact, but any benefits in terms of reductions in hospitalisations or deaths are minimal.[4]
Many of the immediate economic consequences of lockdowns were masked by the eye-watering amount of money spent by governments on furlough and business support schemes. Given the limited evidence that stay-at home measures and business closures have any significant impact on infection rates[5], the question needs to be asked whether the billions spent paying business to shut down and people not to work could have been used better by building up capacity in the health system. The stay at home message of “protect the NHS” may have been no more than elaborate code for don’t highlight years of dwindling funding that failed to keep pace with growing population and demand in health care, with the NHS entering the pandemic with spending per GDP at the lowest level since 2009.[6]
Although furlough and business support schemes have had success in limiting the impact on unemployment, the longer-term economic consequences of lockdowns are now becoming clear. The lack of spending opportunities during lockdown contributes to a build-up of personal and corporate savings. As restrictions have eased, people begin to spend these savings and, combined with the supply chain issues that have built up in the meantime, sustained inflation is the inevitable result. Even worse, having spent about £70 billion[7] paying healthy people not to work via the furlough scheme and some £150 billion in total on support measures[8], the ability of the government to respond to this lockdown-induced cost-of-living crisis via either tax cuts or increased benefits, is limited due to the hit to public finances caused by lockdown-induced government spending.
It is perhaps no surprise that a series of research papers looking at data from Australia[9], the UK[10], Canada[11] and the US[12], have concluded that the costs of lockdowns exceed any plausible estimate of the benefits many times over.
The pandemic saw one disease prioritised over all others. It is now painfully clear that the “all others” are set to suffer with longer and larger health consequences than those of the covid-19 crisis itself. The report issued by the BMA is terrifying in every sense.[13] At the start of the pandemic 4.24m were waiting for elective treatment this now stands at 6.18m. Ridsdale makes the point “stay home” may well have contributed to excess deaths as people died at home without access to care and government policy prioritised covid above all other health concerns[14]. This figure of 6.18m masks and continues to mask the lack of referrals that occurred. There is no reason to suppose demand has dropped for elective care, yet, since the pandemic there have been 4.51 m fewer elective referrals. The latest figures show some 300,000 are waiting over a year for treatment. Again, this figure is masked by GPs under referring, reporting their ability to make referrals is severely constrained, yet the patients are still sitting at primary care level needing care. If the elective surgical figure continues to remain well below pre pandemic levels, NHS waiting lists will only continue to rise. Add to this routinely soaring long waits of over 12 hours at emergency department level and the gap between target time for cancer surgery and actual time to getting surgery increasing, the health picture created by covid prioritisation in the UK is frightening.
Lockdowns created isolation from our social and working worlds. The latest report from MIND states “Isolation and loneliness have made people’s mental health worse – with young people particularly badly affected.”[15] Similar can be said for older people especially those in care homes. The unintended consequences of removing activity, family and social interaction from the elderly may be more serious than the direct disease consequences of covid, with isolation being listed as cause of death in a number of care homes in the USA.[16]
Given what we now know, it is hard to disagree with the conclusion of Professor Doug Allen’s analysis of lockdown costs and benefits in Canada that “lockdown will go down as one of the greatest peacetime policy failures in modern history.” 1
References
The NY Times announces that henceforth, clinical trials for Covid-19 shots must be abandoned because real world data makes the cartel look bad
By Toby Rogers | June 9, 2022
I. Pharma is losing the game so they are throwing the chess board across the room
The NY Times published a vile piece of fascist Pharma propaganda today. Berenson flagged the online version of the article yesterday. As you know, I have been yelling about the FDA’s Orwellian “Future Framework” for weeks because it’s literally the worst idea in the history of public health.
It turns out that it’s even worse than I thought.
Pharma has already begun a PR offensive to get it across the line and Sharon LaFraniere of the NY Times was eager to do their bidding.
Here’s what’s happening. The mRNA shots are not working against SARS-CoV-2. Everyone knows this. So Moderna and Pfizer are racing to reformulate these shots. The reformulated shots are not working either. Just last week Moderna was touting a bivalent shot that combined Alpha + Beta, but now, apparently, they’ve abandoned that approach. The NY Times article hypes a Moderna shot targeting earlier Omicron variants (it does not say, but perhaps BA.2 and BA.2.12.1?). However evidence from South Africa shows that BA.4 and BA.5 are outcompeting the earlier Omicron variants and the reformulated Moderna shot probably won’t work against the new strains (the virus evolved for a reason — to evade vaccines).
So what are predatory pharmaceutical companies and their feckless government enablers supposed to do!? Abandon clinical trials altogether!
Here’s how the NY Times describes this scheme:
… many experts worry that the virus is evolving so quickly that it is outpacing the ability to modify vaccines, at least as long as the United States relies on human clinical trials for results.
See, it’s not that coronavirus vaccine have failed over and over again (even though they have). It’s that This Wily Virus(TM) is just evolving so quickly that we could not possibly allow human clinical trials of coronavirus vaccines ever again. The only way to beat This Wily Virus(TM) at this point is to abandon science.
Of course it gets worse. The NY Times elaborates:
The problem is that Moderna and Pfizer — the maker of the other main coronavirus vaccine in the United States — do not have enough time now to run more human clinical trials and still manufacture shots before the fall, when the Biden administration is hoping to be able to offer an updated vaccine to counter what public health experts predict will be a winter surge.
See, it’s not that rapacious pharmaceutical companies want to suck all wealth out of the world and put it into their own pockets while setting up a 1,000 year Pharma Reich. No, no, no, silly. It’s just that they “do not have enough time” to do actual science anymore so they are just going to skip all that. Don’t you worry your little head about it.
Furthermore, only a conspiracy theorist would believe that the FDA has abandoned all of its statutory responsibilities to protect public health in order to prostitute themselves to Pharma. The Correct Understanding(TM) is that the FDA is being forced by circumstances outside their control to abandon science. This is not a problem because the cartel is truth, the cartel has always been truth, and since the cartel has decided to abandon science altogether then that’s the new science.
Henceforth, quite literally, the peasants will be forced every six months to inject whatever they are told, with no questions asked, and “they will be [required by law to be] happy about it”.
Instead of human clinical trials the FDA will rely on a few test tube and mouse studies. In the article, Fauci describes this as, “alternative pathways of decision.” That guy just oozes totalitarianism at this point.
So if the “Future Framework” is approved on June 28 the new rules will be: a pharmaceutical company can claim that some new injection creates antibodies in a test tube or mouse (that no one else can see or audit). Done! Ship it and inject it! That’s it. Even though the FDA admits that there are no “correlates of protection.”
In the replies to my earlier articles about the Future Framework some astute readers have pointed out that the FDA has already abandoned human trials when it comes to Covid-19 shots in kids. None of the Moderna or Pfizer clinical trials in kids showed any real world health benefit at all. So they switched to looking at antibodies in the blood and use this tortured mental gymnastics called “immunobridging” to conjure up hypothetical future benefits that never materialize in the real world. Abandoning even the pretense of human trials and moving to test tubes and mice is the obvious next step in this complete abandonment of science.
When people say “I Believe The Science(TM)” what they really mean is “I Support The Genocide.” That’s what’s happening. The FDA has not done science in two years, probably much longer than that.
There is no left and right in politics anymore. Just, the FDA Pharma Fascist Party where members are expected to participate in self-genocide for “the good of society” (read: the profits of the cartel)
vs.
the Rebel Alliance where we practice actual science, critical thinking, logic, and reason, and work every day to protect human health and dignity.
Any politician who wants the 18 million votes of single-issue medical freedom voters in November needs to know that there must be hearings, arrests, and trials of the bureaucrats at FDA, CDC, NIAID, HHS, and NIH who did this to us.
II. What is to be done?
In the meantime, here are the email addresses for all of the public health political appointees, FDA staff, and VRBPAC members who have a say in connection with the “Future Framework”. Please contact them to urge them to reject this nonsense (proposed subject line and email text below — or share your own personal story).
Subject line: The “Future Framework” is the WORST idea in the history of public health. Please vote NO.
1. No Covid-19 shots for kids that failed clinical trials. According to the journal Nature Medicine, children and young people have a 99.995% recovery rate. According to the CDC, the overwhelming majority of children already have natural immunity. The harms from Covid-19 shots in kids are catastrophic.
2. The FDA and CDC must pivot to therapeutics. About twenty off-the-shelf treatments are more effective than vaccines (if used for prophylaxis or early intervention). Get these safe and effective medicines to people who need them and let doctors be doctors again and treat patients based on their own best clinical judgment.
3. Any reformulated Covid-19 shots MUST go through proper HUMAN clinical trials and FDA review. That means:
• large (50,000+ person) double-blind randomized controlled trials with inert saline placebos conducted by an independent third party;
• safety and efficacy studies for two years prior to any application; monitor the treatment and control group for the rest of their lives to record non-specific effects;
• must provide sterilizing immunity with greater than 90% efficacy and less than 0.1% Grade 3 Adverse Events; and
• proper monitoring for carcinogenesis, mutagenesis, and impairment of fertility.
[Contact list:]
sean.mccluskie@hhs.gov, commissioner@fda.hhs.gov, DeanofPublicHealth@brown.edu, Aux7@cdc.gov, Peter.Marks@fda.hhs.gov, Hong.Yang@fda.hhs.gov, Richard.Forshee@fda.hhs.gov, Huilee.Wong@fda.hhs.gov, Leslie.Ball@fda.hhs.gov, Doran.Fink@fda.hhs.gov, CBERVRBPAC@fda.hhs.gov, hanae@bcm.edu, paula.annunziato@merck.com, adam.berger@nih.gov, hbernstein@northwell.edu, acohn@cdc.gov, anc0@cdc.gov, hjanes@fredhutch.org, hgans@stanford.edu, david.kim@hhs.gov, asmonto@umich.edu, offit@chop.edu, spergam@fredhutch.org, Jportnoy@cmh.edu, erubin@hsph.harvard.edu, erubin@nejm.org, ashane@emory.edu, swamy002@mc.duke.edu, fullerao@umich.edu, bgellin@rockfound.org, RandyHawkins@cdrewu.edu, officeofthepresident@mmc.edu, JYLee@uams.edu, ofer.levy@childrens.harvard.edu, wayne_marasco@dfci.harvard.edu, cmeissner@tuftsmedicalcenter.org, mrn8d@virginia.edu, stanley-perlman@uiowa.edu, reingold@berkeley.edu, mhsawyer@ucsd.edu, mew2@cdc.gov
III. The FDA has opened the formal comment portal for the “Future Framework”
If you prefer the official route, you can lodge a formal comment with the FDA by following the instructions (here). Enter docket number FDA-2022-N-0905 at https://www.regulations.gov by June 22 to tell the FDA what you think of their proposed plan to abandon clinical trials for Covid-19 shots in perpetuity.
By Dr David Bell | Pandemics – Data and Analytics | June 9, 2022
The World Health Organization (WHO), and the growing pandemic preparedness industry sponsoring it, has faced considerable challenges in maintaining support for its COVID-19 response. It has addressed this difficult situation with simple and uniform messaging. The compliance thus achieved by the WHO has been vital to achieving a successful concentration of wealth, benefitting not just its major sponsors, but also the army of global health staff who have remained obedient throughout.
Threatening this progress, a skeptical minority within the public sphere have been using evidence and rational argument to undermine the pandemic industry’s potential. As the pandemic preparedness and response narrative is poorly defensible on rational criteria, such criticism and opposition must be dealt with and dismissed by other means. This is being achieved through the creation of a dogma around mass COVID-19 vaccination sufficiently separated from reality as to render the normal processes of debate irrelevant. If the gap between pandemic messaging and reality can be kept sufficiently wide, few passengers can step off, and this lucrative gravy train becomes unstoppable.
Small lies can be argued against, big lies become matters of faith
The development and mass deployment of vaccines has been a key component of the COVID-19 response, underpinning much of the transfer of wealth from lower-income people and countries to large Pharma, their investors and the global health workforce they sponsor. Against a background of rapidly increasing global poverty, this unprecedented increase in wealth has in turn raised the potential for unprecedented funding to global health institutions – the mostly Western-based industry that fills offices and drains aid budgets in Europe and North America. A significant cognitive decoupling has been necessary across this sector to achieve sufficient uniformity of voice and purpose, as the institutions involved were ostensibly intended to improve the health and uphold the rights of those less financially fortunate. To achieve success, staff of the WHO and other international organizations therefore had to be enabled to signal virtuous intent while acting in concert for corporate gain.
Vaccines traditionally protect the vaccinated against a target pathogen and humans tend to develop good immunity after respiratory virus infections. These two realities create an urgent problem for the pandemic preparedness industry, as the increased financing set to expand their reach is dependent on successfully convincing the world that these truths are indeed fallacies. Thus, to sell COVAX, the WHO’s financing facility for mass COVID-19 vaccination and the model for future pandemic responses, it was vital for the WHO to ensure that the obvious nonsensical nature of the programme would be ignored. This required coordination and adherence to a single simple message, repeated incessantly to stifle external opinion; a slogan so ridiculous that it becomes inarguable. In other words, it required propaganda.
It is essential to focus people on simplistic slogans if the aim is to suppress their tendency for independent thought and to make any venture in that direction a cause of stress. If people can see their respected authority figures standing behind a statement that is otherwise obviously false, it becomes easier to accept that the false must be true than to stand alone against authority and the crowd. Once one’s colleagues are on-board, the Asch conformity phenomenon kicks in – if everyone else is saying ‘X’, then it surely must be ‘X’, even if it looks like ‘Y’. If a health programme flies in the face of all existing medical knowledge, it must therefore be supported by a sufficiently strong dogma to negate evidence-based arguments. It is a testament to the power of group-think, loyalty to sponsors and the allure of money that this has, thus far, been brilliantly achieved.
COVAX – Selling the golden goose
“No one is safe, until everyone is safe”, the WHO’s COVAX motto, fulfills all the above criteria.
Most people want to be safe – and to achieve industry aims, the public must be convinced that others, not just themselves, are the key to their personal safety. They must support the blame or coercion being applied to these others. But the brilliance of ‘No one is safe, until everyone is safe’ is not just in its appeal to self-preservation and its divisiveness, but in its simple stupidity.
1) For the slogan to be true, the vaccine must be transmission-blocking only. It must not protect the vaccinated individual. Otherwise, their safety will not be dependent on the vaccination of others. However, the WHO and its partners also claim that “COVID-19 vaccines provide strong protection against serious illness, hospitalization and death”. Therefore, in promoting its ‘No one is safe’ slogan, WHO staff must collectively proclaim a falsehood. This builds loyalty and cohesion, as a lie is more easily maintained within a like-minded group.
2) To be ‘safe’ from a virus, one must either be intrinsically at very low risk (as most people are to most viruses) or gain immunity.
Inevitably, SARS-CoV-2 has continued spreading, including from the vaccinated. Based on serology from Africa, India and the USA, and the highly transmissible Omicron variant, we can now be confident that nearly all the world’s population have post-infection immunity. It is no biological surprise that immunity gained from a respiratory tract infection with whole virus reduces disease severity more effectively than injection with spike-protein or its mRNA precursors. Claiming that mass vaccination still has public health relevance in these populations requires both abandonment of logic, and a willingness to dispense with decades of prior scientific learning. It requires acceptance of dogma.
A final component of the COVAX strategy, to lock-in celebrity support and enable those promoting the vaccine to still feel virtuous, is ‘vaccine equity’. People in rich countries are having boosters whilst many of the ‘global poor’ still await their first doses. The lack of benefit to be obtained from these doses, and the requirement of coercion to attain high coverage, are irrelevant – inequity in vaccine distribution simply has to be ‘bad’. Whilst pushing more boosters on high income markets, the same Pharma companies can look good by demanding vaccine equity, advocating for the ‘disadvantaged’. In reality this diverts resources from areas of greater need, thereby killing more children, but such fine print will never make the front pages. Commodity equity expands markets and provides returns, while health equity does not. Fear of being vilified as anti-equity helps keep skeptics quiet.
Bolting down the golden goose
Science, including public health, were previously held to be based on processes of logic, based on an acceptance that aspects of our world are grounded in discoverable truth. This concept is a threat to COVAX and the wider pandemic preparedness narrative. It is a threat to the return on investment of the pandemic industry’s sponsors. Greed is a stronger driver than truth, and it must be allowed to run free if society is to be truly reset in favor of those who wish to concentrate and control its wealth.
Despite its massive internal contradictions, disproportionate cost, coercion, and requirement for its promoters to live obvious lies, COVAX and the entire mass-vaccination paradigm has created a strong model for the success of the wider pandemic preparedness project. If truth in public health can be so readily dispensed with, and those working in the field so willingly corralled, the potential for milking the public’s trust and desire for safety presents unprecedented potential for profit. As this wealth accumulates, it supports the continuing advocacy and manipulation required to keep its adherents loyal. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle – we can expect to see more outbreaks, health emergencies and pandemics declared, more vaccines rolled out, and more wealth concentrated as a result. An unstoppable cycle burying truth under a growing fog of fear and falsehood.
That, at least, is the plan. The eventual outcome will depend on whether truth, human rights, equality and trust were ever fundamental to maintaining societal cohesion and peace. If they were, then let us hope the chaos that follows their abandonment is somehow contained. For now, business is business, and the golden goose, bolted down in a hall of lies, will keep on laying.
The Defender | June 8, 2022
Members of Congress today demanded answers from Dr. Robert M. Califf, commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as the agency reviews Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for COVID-19 shots in children age 5 and under.
The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) is meeting on four separate occasions in June to discuss additional EUAs that would provide cradle-to-grave COVID-19 shots — and to consider a “Future Framework” that will permanently lower the bar for safety and efficacy, according to Toby Rogers, Ph.D.
A letter signed by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Rep. Bill Posey (R-Fla.) and 16 other members of Congress today asked Commissioner Califf 19 questions about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines for young children.
The questions focused on the youngest children (6 months to 5 years) due to the Congress members’ concerns about what they called the FDA’s “one-size-fits-all” approach to the vaccines.
“The data show that the risks of serious adverse outcomes for COVID for children five and under is very low and as such the standard for evaluating EUA interventions must be very high,” the letter states.
“We believe it is prudent and necessary that the FDA provide answers to a number of questions before approving EUA vaccines for children under age 5, including more than 70% of whom are already seropositive for COVID-19.”
The VRBPAC meetings began Tuesday. The meeting schedule is:
The Congress members’ letter presses the FDA to address unanswered questions regarding the risks and benefits of administering COVID-19 vaccines to children.
They ask the FDA to explain, among many other things:
Finally, the letter asks Commissioner Califf to “please list the medical emergencies [among] children 0 to 4 years old that enables the FDA to approve the COVID vaccine for children using its EUA.”
Children’s Health Defense calls for action
Mary Holland, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) president and general counsel, called the FDA’s Future Framework proposal “quite possibly the worst idea in the history of public health.”
Children under 18 with no comorbidities have virtually no risk of death from COVID-19, according to a November 2021 study published in Nature.
A July 2021 preprint paper found children have a 99.995% recovery rate, and the vast majority of children have minimal symptoms.
The Nature study described how children between 3 and 11 years of age mount effective, robust and sustained immune responses to COVID-19.
The CDC’s own data show that at least 75.2% of children ages 0 to 11 and 74.2% of adolescents ages 12 to 17 already have superior natural immunity.
There is no clinically significant health benefit from the mRNA vaccines, according to Moderna. Reporting on its Phase 2/3 KidCOVE study, the company said, “the absence of any severe disease, hospitalization or death in the study precludes the assessment of vaccine efficacy against these endpoints.”
Preliminary data showed the shots were only about 44% effective at preventing symptomatic infection in children 6 months to 2 years old, and 37% effective in children ages 2 to 5 — both below the 50% level that regulators generally called the minimum level for EUA approval in 2020.
In New York, officials observed that Pfizer’s efficacy against Omicron plummeted from 68% to 12% after 7 weeks in children ages 5 to 11.
“These shots are dangerous and carry very real risks,” Holland said.
Studies show vaccinated children face a substantial risk of myocarditis. Moderna’s EUA application, originally filed in June 2021, has already been held up because of a clear safety signal for myocarditis, which prompted a number of European countries to prohibit its use in young people.
Additionally, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System or VAERS has more than 48,500 reports of adverse events in children, including 112 deaths (as of May 27), and a growing number of reports of encephalopathies, clotting issues, diabetes and neurological problems in children following COVID-19 shots.
© 2022 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
By Will Henney | Reclaim The Net | June 10, 2022
The South China Morning Post interviewed experts who believe there could now be a big market for facial recognition cameras to “detect signs of COVID-19.”
The news outlet cited a report by Everbright Securities that claimed that about 2 million devices for detecting infection and confirming vaccination and test results could be put in public venues like entertainment venues, hospitals, office buildings and shopping centers.
Everbright estimated that the market to be about 50 billion yuan ($7.5), with market leaders like Hikvision and SenseTime expected to leverage the opportunities. Another player in the surveillance market, Telpo, already makes facial recognition technology that can check the temperatures of multiple people.
The paper quoted Wang Feng, a financial services expert, saying: “The market potential here cannot be matched anywhere else in the world, because these smart devices will be widely used in big cities to meet stringent virus control rules. Operators of shopping malls and cinemas will buy the machines to improve efficiency of their verification processes.”
The facial biometrics device would, in theory, check test results, vaccination status, and recent movements before allowing someone to enter a certain venue. Everbright said that each device would cost between 2,000 and 10,000 yuan ($300 to $1,500).
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Lisa Pease | Consortium News | September 16, 2013
More than a half century ago, just after midnight on Sept. 18, 1961, the plane carrying UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld and 15 others went down in a plane crash over Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia). All 16 died, but the facts of the crash were provocatively mysterious. … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 