OKLAHOMA CITY – Doctors in Oklahoma are well within their professional rights to prescribe ivermectin (IVM) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to COVID-19 patients, state Attorney General John O’Connor affirmed, despite the drugs’ disfavored status within the federal health bureaucracy.
“The Attorney General’s office finds no legal basis for a state medical licensure board to discipline a licensed physician for exercising sound judgment and safely prescribing an FDA-approved drug – like ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine – for the off-label purpose of treating a patient with COVID-19,” O’Connor’s office concluded in a February 8 statement, declaring that “healthcare professionals should have every tool available to combat COVID-19.”
“The Attorney General’s office neither condones nor condemns a specific course of treatment for COVID-19,” the release added. “Our office maintains that proper healthcare decisions are to be made between a patient and his or her physician, and the government should not interfere with their relationship.”
Despite being misrepresented in the mainstream media as aquarium cleaner and horse dewormer, respectively, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are both FDA-approved medications with a range of human applications, such that both are listed on the World Health Organization’s Model List of Essential Medicines. Like many medications, ivermectin is also used for horses, but human dosages of the drug for human ailments were not controversial until IVM started gaining notice in the context of COVID-19.
While experts continue to debate the drugs’ effectiveness at treating COVID-19, promising studies as well as reports of positive results have generated significant interest in them, as has the fact that they have been used and studied for far longer than the COVID-19 vaccines, which were developed and released in record time by the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed initiative. Many believe the long-established drugs are safer than relatively new vaccines they believe have been rushed and politicized.
Despite the established safety of IVM and HCQ, and the evolving nature of COVID knowledge, families across the country have had to go to court to force hospitals to let them try the drugs for their loved ones, while doctors have seen their medical licenses threatened for prescribing them – a scenario the Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office indicates will not be tolerated in the Sooner State.
The University of Minnesota, Emory University School of Medicine, Northwestern Medicine, and other medical institutions are currently conducting a major at-home clinical trial to assess ivermectin’s effectiveness at treating COVID-19, as well as that of the drugs metformin and fluvoxamine or any combination of the three.
February 18, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Aletho News | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, HCQ, Ivermectin, United States |
Leave a comment
But “misinformation” is constitutionally protected speech
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is doubling down on a recently revealed policy of tying the issue of domestic terrorism with online “misinformation,” as well as keeping an extra eye on trucker protests.
The document derived from an event that spelled all this out first appeared on February 7 as a bulletin, detailing the allegedly heightened threats the US is facing – not least because of “an online environment filled with false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories.”
What was until recently typical of media op-eds and Twitter exchanges has evidently seeped into official policy, so the DHS now explicitly fears that “misleading narratives” found on the internet have the power to undermine trust in US government, not to mention branding free expression and political differences as dangerous “discord.”
Meanwhile, what is sowing true discord – Covid mandates – are mentioned not as a problem in and of itself, but simply something that gives rise to said “misleading narratives.”
“For example, there is widespread online proliferation of false or misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19. Grievances associated with these themes inspired violent extremist attacks during 2021,” reads the bulletin.
A week later, after this particular take on the situation raised some eyebrows in the Senate, DHS Counter-Terrorism Coordinator John Cohen is defending the document.
Reports, including in the Washington Times, say that Senator Marsha Blackburn described this particular DHS policy as speech policing, while the nonpartisan Center to Advance Security in America (CASA) wants to know more about the department’s “methodology” in coming up with all this.
But according to Cohen “hard analysis” has taken place (he failed to mention whether it produced any “hard evidence”) which he says shows links between “narratives about government’s response to COVID, the 2020 election, immigration, and race.”
And, he continued, the job of the DHS is not to police thought. One would hope the agency does its job, but a question mark lingers over it since Cohen added that the DHS doesn’t monitor individuals who are engaging in constitutionally protected speech.
“Our job’s not to police thought. Our job is to prevent acts of violence. We don’t monitor individuals engaging in constitutionally protected speech,” he said.
“We’ve put in place a series of protections to make sure that as we’re evaluating online content, it’s only relating to threats, and we’re only handling that information in a privacy, civil liberties-protective way.”
Unfortunately for Cohen’s own “narrative” here, in the US, even what passes as “misinformation” is actually constitutionally protected speech.
As for trucker protests, which are treated in Canada as a national security issue, he said the DHS was monitoring them in cooperation with counterparts across the border.
He diminished the number of participants whose goal was “simply” to express opposition to vaccine mandates by saying there were “some people” who were there for that reason.
But, Cohen went on, there are “significant levels of online and physical participation by ideologically motivated violent extremists.”
February 18, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, DHS, United States |
Leave a comment
In this essay, I explain in simple terms why The Great Reset concept of the WEF (which not only includes a large climate change component but is also linked to Covid-19 restrictions) is conceptually unsound but so dangerous that it sparked a Canadian uprising that is spreading around the world.
Ottawa, Canada. 11 February 2022. Donna Laframboise, BigPicNews.
The World Economic Forum (WEF) held a special virtual meeting in early June 2020 to announce the publication of a book written by Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret that laid out a grand manifesto called ‘Covid-19: The Great Reset’. This is what Schwab had to say:
We can emerge from this crisis a better world, if we act quickly and jointly. The changes we have already seen in response to COVID-19 prove that a reset of our economic and social foundations is possible. This is our best chance to instigate stakeholder capitalism – and here’s how it can be achieved.
Schwab and the WEF have promoted the concept of ‘stakeholder capitalism’ for decades but it appears that very early in the pandemic he saw the Covid-19 crisis as a perfect opportunity to implement his vision sooner rather than later. This was a red flag for me because it mirrored the actions of David Attenborough that I’d been documenting for my book, Fallen Icon: Sir David Attenborough and the Walrus Deception. Attenborough saw the shocking film footage of walrus falling to their deaths presented in the Netflix/WWF extravaganza Our Planet as the leverage he needed to kick-start an aggressive campaign to promote action on climate change and curb capitalism.
The topics may seem unrelated but statements made by Attenborough last year were barely distinguishable from those made by the Duke of Edinburgh (Prince Charles) in his support of the WEF’s plan for a total revamping of society. While some have dismissed The Great Reset as a conspiracy theory, the concept is very real but esoteric enough to invite wide interpretation.
Worryingly, as critic Justin Honse has pointed out, the WEF has not been forthcoming about the fact that the stakeholder capitalism idea is “not exactly compatible with democracy”. In addition, it’s easy to see that their aim of having huge societal changes fully implemented by 2030 – a scant eight years from now – would cause concern.
I have read Schwab and Malleret’s book. Contrary to my expectations, I did not find it to be a totally irrational rant. However, three core concepts upon which The Great Reset rests are undeniably false, which renders the manifesto invalid and the proposed ‘solutions’ colossally inappropriate as well as unnecessary:
- That “… there is nothing new about the confinement and lockdowns imposed upon much of the world to manage Covid-19. They have been common practice for centuries.” (pg. 13)
False: Chinese-style lockdowns of millions of healthy citizens are not the same thing as localized quarantines of sick people and their contacts used in modern times to control epidemics.
- That all previous pandemics were followed by a total reorganization of society. (pg. 13-15, and 38)
False: a reorganization of society after a pandemic has not happened since the ‘Black Death’ bubonic plague in the 1300s.
- That future climate catastrophes – but especially ‘extreme weather’ – are inevitable unless extraordinary measures are taken to reduce emissions of CO2. (pg. 25, 141)
False: there is no plausible evidence that ‘extreme weather’ has increased in recent years, despite groundless statements to the contrary. Outputs from modelling regarding possible future conditions are not scientific facts and are based on assumptions that may not be correct.
Since these core concepts are false, The Great Reset and all the societal changes it calls for can be dismissed as ideological drivel. But the ideas are dangerous nevertheless because a large number of very rich and powerful people have bought into the plan. Attenborough and Prince Charles are only two of them: there are many others.
When Attenborough said to the WEF in January 2019, regarding his Netflix ‘Our Planet’ documentary, “If people can truly understand what is at stake, I believe they will give permission to business and governments to get on with the practical solutions,” he implied that democratic votes would be involved.
However, it is easy to see how many people would interpret ‘The Great Reset’ manifesto as a grand plan to circumvent democracy.
In part, this is because they have seen how easy it was for governments around the world to use hastily-declared public health emergency powers to enforce drastic restrictions on people’s movements and their ability to make a living, including the imposition of vaccine passports that pave the way toward more generalized digital ID systems. It doesn’t take much imagination to realize that similar legislation might be enacted to deal with a perceived climate change ‘emergency’.
This seems like a reasonable concern to me, especially when activists have already been insisting governments declare a climate emergency, which many governments have already agreed to do.
It is apparent that Schwab and his supporters realized by April 2020 that mandating the most rigid restrictions imaginable on people’s lives was not only possible in democratic countries but much easier than they anticipated – provided that populations were sufficiently frightened by coordinated media reports and government announcements.
When people around the world submitted with virtually no resistance to lockdowns imposed to protect their lives, it appeared that Schwab and his confederates assumed those same people would readily submit to mandated, communist-style restriction on their freedom to mitigate climate change since it would also be for their own good. However, convincing people that a climate emergency would require acquiescence with even more draconian regulations might be a more difficult challenge. Insisting on 100% compliance with vaccine passports and mask wearing now might make compliance with climate emergency measures and other social changes easier a few years down the line.
Vaccine passports have been defended by many as a necessary mitigation strategy to reduce illness while others have more honestly admitted they are simply a way to coerce the unvaccinated to submit. However, now that it’s apparent that none of the Covid-19 vaccines prevent infection or transmission, many people are interpreting continued insistence on vaccine passports as irrational and dangerous. They are starting to wonder if this is a ploy by governments to advance Great Reset ideology by stealth. Others simply see the danger in governments having so much power to restrict people’s lives.
And now, the assumption that people will continue to comply with mandates and restrictions has hit a giant roadblock – quite literally. A few weeks ago, working class people across Canada said they’d had enough of Covid-19 mandates and backed up their convictions with strategically parked big-rig trucks, farm tractors, and other vehicles. They amassed an astonishing amount of support very quickly, proving it was not a fringe minority opinion.
After three weeks of massive disruption across the country, the truckers continue to insist they will not stop their protests until all mandates and restrictions are lifted: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has steadfastly refused to do so, resorting instead to deriding and slandering the protesters. This week, he invoked Canada’s Emergencies Act to quell the peaceful protests even though the act was never intended for this purpose. Under this authority, Trudeau has threatened every Canadian who donated even $10 to support the peaceful truckers protest with freezing their bank accounts.
His rigid position and draconian actions are making many people wonder why. The pandemic is over and countries around the world are scrapping restrictions, mask mandates, and vaccine passports. Expanding them at this time, as Canada is doing, makes no sense as a public health measure but does if the end game is the adoption of WEF-style societal change. And now you see why I felt it was so critical to show how Attenborough manipulated the falling walrus tragedy to his advantage: he is one of the elites pushing for these WEF transformations.
No wonder the Canadian truckers Freedom Convoy has inspired citizens in other countries such as Australia and France to rise up and fight back against tyrannical ‘health’ restrictions: they understand now that it’s not about Covid-19 anymore.
February 17, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19 |
Leave a comment
One of the major frustrations throughout the COVID-19 crisis has been the failure of high-profile journalists to ask ministers and SAGE scientists challenging questions about the rationale for their – often unprecedented – decisions. When they were not baying for earlier and harder restrictions, the journalists who participated in the numerous coronavirus press conferences typically restricted themselves to questions seeking clarification about the detail of a new rule or imposition rather than imploring the experts to justify the reasoning that led to their non-evidenced diktats.
I am sure I’m not alone in fantasising about the sort of questions I would like to put to the key rule-makers responsible for this extraordinary two-year assault on our basic human rights. Consider, for instance, Professor Chris Whitty, England’s Chief Medical Officer, and his belated support for requiring people to wear masks in community settings, arguably the most insidious of all the COVID-19 restrictions.
This is not an academic issue. Thanks to the Government’s relentless messaging about the purported benefits of face coverings, there is a real danger that widespread community masking – with all the attendant physical, social, psychological and environmental harms – could become a permanent feature, at least in certain sections of our society.
Prof. Whitty’s track record on the contentious issue of masking healthy people is, like that of many of the high-profile political and scientific rule-makers, characterised by contradiction. In early March 2020, he unequivocally stated that healthy people should not be wearing face-coverings. One month later, he was faltering, saying that, “The evidence is weak, but the evidence of a small effect is there under certain circumstances”. Since this time he has supported – or, at least silently colluded – with the pro-mask lobby. What changed his mind? No robust evidence supporting mask efficacy emerged in spring 2020, nor any time since, so what ‘nudged’ him to relinquish his anti-mask stance?
To clarify the reasons for his change of mind, I would be keen to be given the opportunity to ask our Chief Medical Officer the following questions:
- Around April/May 2020, what piece of robust real-world research made you change your mind about the ineffectiveness of masking healthy people in the community?
- As late as December 2020, a WHO document concluded that: “There is only limited and inconsistent scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of masking healthy people in the community.” Do you agree with the BBC Newsnight reporter Deborah Cohen that the WHO’s U-turn on masks was likely to have been the result of political lobbying?
- With regard to the imposition of masks, what has been the specific rationale offered to you by the Government’s behavioural scientists, such as Professor David Halpern?
- Is it merely a coincidence that masks powerfully help enforce the main ‘nudges’ promoted by behavioural scientists to achieve compliance with COVID-19 restrictions?
- Do you agree that the most robust type of scientific evidence is that provided by real-world, randomised controlled trials? If so, how can you reconcile your promotion of mask wearing with the results of such trials that consistently show that masks do not significantly reduce the transmission of respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2?
- Do you agree that, in a democratic free society, the evidential bar for mandating an intervention (such as masking the healthy) should be set very high? If so, do you believe that the empirical evidence for the benefits of masks as a means of reducing viral transmission reaches this threshold?
- There are a wide range of harms (physical, social, psychological and environmental) associated with masking healthy people, including the maintenance of inflated levels of fear that will have contributed significantly to the tens-of-thousands of non-Covid excess deaths and the current mental health crisis. Do you believe that a marginal reduction in viral transmission can compensate for this extensive collateral damage?
- If the Government’s behavioural scientists had not promoted masks as a way of increasing a sense of ‘solidarity’ that encouraged general compliance with the COVID-19 restrictions, can you confirm whether you would have changed your advice?
Growing numbers of people would like to hear Whitty’s answers to these important questions. Given the opportunity, I would be very happy to directly put them to our Chief Medical Officer in a public forum. Failing this, maybe a high-profile journalist will rise to the challenge. Ah, we can but dream.
Dr. Gary Sidley is a retired NHS Consultant Clinical Psychologist, a member of HART and co-founder of the Smile Free campaign.
February 17, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, Human rights, UK |
Leave a comment
Forcing Americans to mask up while traveling goes beyond what US health authorities are legally allowed to do, a new lawsuit coming from Texas argued on Wednesday, demanding the end of the mandate that has been in effect for over a year now.
Congresswoman Elizabeth Van Duyne (R-Texas) filed the lawsuit in a federal court on Wednesday, joined by the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) nonprofit and the state’s Attorney General Ken Paxton. The US government was named as the defendant, along with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and their leaders.
“It is time for all mandates to be lifted, including those affecting airline passengers,” Van Duyne said, accusing the CDC of causing “untold damage” to the US with its “constantly changing science, fluctuating recommendations and oppressive need to control all aspects of society.”
The lawsuit argues that the CDC’s mask mandates amount to an abuse of power and violate constitutional authority – the same reasoning used to successfully challenge the agency’s eviction moratorium in May 2021 and vaccination mandates for cruise lines in July.
“The CDC is relying on specific and narrowly tailored provisions in the law to exercise enormously broad powers Congress has not granted the agency,” said TPPF’s senior attorney Matt Miller. The organization’s general counsel Robert Henneke also denounced the “tyranny” of the Biden administration in the name of Covid-19.
Announcing that he joined the lawsuit, AG Paxton described the mask mandate as “anti-science, virtue-signaling” and called it “not only silly, but illegal too.”
In his very first executive order, President Joe Biden mandated the wearing of face masks on federal property and announced a “100-day masking challenge.” That was 392 days ago. The requirement that travelers on planes, trains, buses and other public transit must wear face coverings went into effect on February 1, 2021 and has been extended three times since. It is currently set to expire in March, unless renewed.
February 16, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
A remarkable trove of documents has been created in New Zealand by an organisation called Te Punaha Matatini—Covid-19 Modelling Aotearoa hosted by the University of Auckland but funded directly by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
Covid-19 Modelling Aotearoa is headed by the wildly inaccurate Covid modeller Dr Shaun Hendy who once predicted 80,000 imminent New Zealand deaths (currently at 53 in NZ) and includes the participation of academics from universities across New Zealand.
The documents are remarkable because they indicate the genesis of the unique and blinkered pandemic perspective of our Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern which has diverged from that followed among other countries and from that found in global science publishing.
The documents in some cases exhibit in their referenced material, a lack of awareness of the extensive content of global science publishing on the pandemic.
One paper of particular interest is entitled:
Evaluating the infodemic: assessing the prevalence and nature of COVID-19 unreliable and untrustworthy information in Aotearoa New Zealand’s social media, January-August 2020
It is hardly remarkable that the New Zealand government uses sophisticated computer systems to closely monitor the social media content of its citizens (what government doesn’t?), but the methods used and the starting point of evaluation are highly indicative of where the repressive and controlling New Zealand Labour government Covid policy began:
- The paper accepts a number of controversial ideas as true at face value such as the zoonotic origin of Covid-19. It describes discussion of a bioengineered origin of Covid in a Chinese lab as Xenophobia and a conspiracy trope, when it actually was, at the time the article was published, a matter of general scientific debate.
- Table 2 (excerpted above) designates some common types of scientific discussion around Covid-19 as ‘disinformation’, most of which were actually the subject of science publishing even in mid 2020. It dismisses them as fallacious without justification. Subsequent data analysis has upheld them in large part. Yet the rejection by Ardern of their moderating tone, was and is used to stoke fear in the whole population.
- Concepts of herd immunity since found to play a highly significant role in reducing Covid severity are dismissed as oversimplification and misrepresentation despite their verified and time-honoured role in developing human immunity.
- Assertions that Covid-19 disproportionately affects those already ill with comorbidities or the aged (a highly verified fact) are outrageously dismissed as the result of ableism.
- Table 3 in the paper asserts additionally that suggestions that the vaccine might have adverse effects or may alter DNA is a conspiracy theory. Subsequently there have been over 1000 papers published worldwide examining the deficiencies in mRNA vaccination safety and adverse effects reporting including evidence published late in 2020 that RNA vaccine genetic sequences can and do integrate into the human genome.
- Mainstream scientists like Dr. Simon Thornley, media personalities like Mike Hosking, and politicians including Gerry Brownlee are described as using conspiracy theories to recruit NZers to right wing causes. All of whom should rightly have been described as high profile public figures stimulating discussion around political and scientific policies affecting a complex subject. The attempt to marginalise Ardern’s political opponents is obvious.
- The paper rejects health and wellbeing narratives, many of which are in fact grounded in mainstream medical advice, as misleading. Thus it specifically rejects self-care options. Yet prior and subsequent research has found many of these lifestyle and dietary options to be helpful if not critical to healthy Covid outcomes and avoidence of serious illness. These include adequate rest, exercise, a balanced diet, and nutritional supplements.
- This rejection of the value of wellbeing programmes has found its obvious conclusion in the formation of New Zealand government mandates. Yet the paper describes the suspicion that there are hidden government agendas to introduce ‘forced vaccination regimes’ as an ‘opportunistic conspiracy theory’. As we now know, these suspicions voiced early on social media are almost indistinguishable from the actual oppressive New Zealand vaccination mandates which Ardern eventually introduced denying employment and impoverishing those wishing to avoid risk and continue to make their own medical choices.
The push to introduce the censorship of scientific information and discussion that characterises the Ardern government is evident throughout the paper. Specific individual scientists tied to the government by both ideology, and in some cases by financial support, are picked out as people who should be the public’s sole sources of reliable information. These include: microbiologist Associate Professor Siouxsie Wiles, physicist Professor Shaun Hendy, and epidemiologist Professor Michael Baker.
The paper says the aim of government messaging should take the form of ‘branding’ designed to teach the public to trust the government alone. Something so close to propaganda as to be almost indistinguishable.
Emphasis in social media on ‘individual rights’ is described as an undesirable import from America. Ardern’s more recent rejection of protests as ‘imported ideas’ echoes Trudeau’s recent dismissal of protestors as ‘taking up space’, both of which hint at exclusionary agendas to come.
In conclusion the paper hints that ‘simply relying on the successful multi-faceted science and public health communication approaches of the government earlier in the pandemic will not be sufficient to debunk’ what it describes as ‘increasing prevalence of conspiracy theories about state control and individual rights’.
And continues:‘a wide-ranging response to the increasing discussion of unreliable sources, untrustworthy narrators, and conspiracy narratives in media, political, and civil society discourses is required’.
It further reports that a computational methodology and process for on-going monitoring of the prevalence of mis- and dis-information, and conspiracy narratives, within Aotearoa New Zealand’s social and mainstream media ecosystems has been established. It describes public access to a plethora of social media platforms, as a problem that needs to be addressed.
The very limited scientific outlook of Covid-19 Modelling Aotearoa is evident in the many other papers it has produced for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. In particular, their narrative has diverged in content from trends now well-understood through published data analysis around the world, including:
- The strident saturation advertising of Covid-19 mRNA vaccination referring to its absolute safety.
- The Ardern doctrine that the government should be the public’s only source of information.
- The confidence Ardern extends to tentative and often subsequently falsified science without feeling the need to update policy.
- The encouragement the government has offered to social media sites to censor content.
- The politicisation of NZ’s Covid-19 policy.
Obviously, the paper and others may have fuelled and validated Ardern’s limited understanding of science. Science is a global, rational, empirical endeavour to arrive at truth, not a process tailor-made to support ideology.
Perhaps its most frightening consequence is Ardern’s rejection of the notion of individual health rights which has obvious historical parallels.
Guy Hatchard PhD was formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID a food testing and certification company (now known as FoodChain ID)
February 16, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, New Zealand |
Leave a comment
Experts who spoke out against lockdowns were labelled as pseudo-scientists who possessed fringe ideas, because pro-lockdown scientists had more followers on social media, particularly Twitter.
Data Science expert Professor John Ioannidis of Stanford University, has compared the expertise of the experts who signed The Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) with those who signed The John Snow Memorandum.
The GBD argued that vulnerable people should be shielded and that everyone else be allowed to get on with their lives in order to build natural immunity against the virus. They warned lockdowns would be devastating for public health and the economy.
The signatories of the Snow Memorandum argued that it would be unethical to let the virus rip, therefore lockdown was essential.
According to The Telegraph :
In an article published in BMJ Open Research, he (Professor Ioannidis) found that both letters were authored by very influential experts, but that the John Snow Memorandum authors had a far greater reach on social media, which made it appear that their view had more support.
By November 2021, just four key signatories of the GBD had more than 50,000 Twitter followers, compared with 13 of the key authors of the JSM.
Prof Ioannidis concluded: “Both the Great Barrington Declaration and John Snow Memorandum include many stellar scientists, but JSM has far more powerful social media presence and this may have shaped the impression that it is the dominant narrative.
“GBD is clearly not a fringe minority report compared with JSM, as many social media and media allude.
“If knowledgeable scientists can have a strong social media presence, massively communicating accurate information to followers, the effect may be highly beneficial.
“Conversely, if scientists themselves are affected by the same problems (misinformation, animosity, loss of decorum and disinhibition, among others) when they communicate in social media, the consequences may be negative.”
Prof Ioannidis also said signatories of the JSM had contributed to the vilification of authors of the GBD through their tweets and op-eds.
John Ioannidis is right on when he says that social media skewed the debate in favour of the lockdown evangelicals, but he has missed one very important point. He seems to have overlooked shadow banning.
It shouldn’t have really mattered that pro-lockdown scientists had more followers on Twitter than their Great Barrington Declaration counterparts.
Twitter and Facebook worked in tandem from the outset of the scamdemic to amplify the posts of academics who supported lockdowns while at the same time limiting the reach of experts who opposed the tyrannical measures.
This meant that users were many times more likely to read pro-lockdown propaganda than they were to read the opinions of sceptics. The social media firms use not very sophisticated algorithms to ensure that their users read what they want them to read.
It’s happening today. The Welsh government has announced plans to give covid jabs to children over five years-old. England will announce later this week.
There are tens of thousands of doctors and scientists who are horrified at the prospect of jabbing young children with an unproven medicine that they do not need.
You and I know who they are, but the majority of people do not. This is because they will never see these experts in their news feeds. Free speech has no greater enemy than social media.
February 16, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Twitter |
Leave a comment
In late January, the CDC published a report that made what might have been regarded as a shocking claim. If you have had Covid, the CDC demonstrated in a chart, you gain robust immunity that is better than that of vaccination, especially concerning duration.
That should be nothing surprising. Brownstone has chronicled 150 studies making that point. What made this new chart different was that it came from the CDC, which has buried the point so deeply for so long as to amount to a near denial.
So there: the CDC says it. So nonchalant! So uneventful!
If people had understood this two years ago, plus been made more completely aware of the dramatic risk gradient by age and health, lockdowns would have been completely untenable.
The society-wide mandates and lockdowns depended on keeping the public ignorant on settled points of cell biology and immunology, plus pressuring social media companies to censor anyone who didn’t fall in line. Here we are all this time later and the truth is coming out.
Had the knowledge of risk gradients and immunities been in the forefront of policy makers’ minds – instead of wild fear and obsequious deference to Fauci – we would have focused on protecting the vulnerable and otherwise allowed society to function normally so that the virus would become endemic. We would not only have saved thousands of lives; we could have avoided the vast economic, educational, cultural, and public-health wreckage all around us.
Somehow at the time, that point was made unsayable for reasons on which we can only speculate. And yet today, the New York Times had said exactly this. In a piece by David Leonhardt called Protecting the Vulnerable, he writes:
With the Omicron wave receding, many places are starting to remove at least some of their remaining pandemic restrictions. This shift could have large benefits. It could reduce the isolation and disruption that have contributed to a long list of societal ills, like rising mental-health problems, drug overdoses, violent crime and, as Substack’s Matthew Yglesias has written, “all kinds of bad behavior.”
At the same time, there remain those who are vulnerable and they deserve protection: “They include the elderly and people with immunodeficiencies that put them at greater Covid risk. According to the C.D.C., more than 75 percent of vaccinated people who have died from Covid had at least four medical risk factors.”
You can read that again: unhealthy but vaccinated people still die. What these people need is to enjoy the protection of herd immunity, the point at which the virus exhausts itself in the face of widespread immunity.
If you have followed this debate, you know exactly the origin of that precise idea now being pushed in part by Leonhardt: The Great Barrington Declaration. This is the document on which Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci ordered a media hit back in October 2020. It advocated nothing more than traditional public health measures as a moderate solution between lockdowns and complete negligence of the virus threat.
As decent as this article is, it overlooks a huge issue, namely why would non-vulnerable populations be forced to get a non-durable vaccine with risks when natural immunity is a known option? Leonhardt doesn’t go there but he should have.
Today, even Anthony Fauci is singing a different tune. He told the Financial Times:
“There is no way we are going to eradicate this virus,” he said. “But I hope we are looking at a time when we have enough people vaccinated and enough people with protection from previous infection that the Covid restrictions will soon be a thing of the past.”
Further:
As we get out of the full-blown pandemic phase of Covid-19, which we are certainly heading out of, these decisions will increasingly be made on a local level rather than centrally decided or mandated. There will also be more people making their own decisions on how they want to deal with the virus.”
Again, this is straight out of the Great Barrington Declaration, almost to a word, but without acknowledgement.
There can be no question that early on in lockdowns, Fauci, the CDC, and the WHO all decided to bury the point that we would get to endemicity the same way we always have.
How did that happen? Paul Allan Offit is an epidemiologist who advises (or did advise) the Biden administration in the early days. He is not my favorite guy but, as things go, he is no Anthony Fauci. He seems sincere and intelligent.
Offit variously appears on podcasts. Last week, he let slip an astonishing thing. He said that early on in the pandemic, he met at the White House with Walensky, Fauci, Collins, and one other person. The topic was whether the Biden administration should recognize natural immunity to Covid — the most well-established fact about cell biology. He and one other person said absolutely. The rest said no.
Here is the remarkable clip.
Offit is fascinating in this interview because it was pretty clear to him that he was revealing something very important but he did not know whether this was going to be some kind of problem. He then proceeded to tell the story. He did not speculate about the reasons. He was smiling and laughing throughout the interview.
The immunity passports in place in three of the biggest American cities (though DC just repealed its own), the entire public sector, plus the attempt to impose them on the whole of the private sector, probably constitute the most invasive, aggressive, and controversial public policy since the Vietnam War draft. It all could have been fixed by a recognition of the immunological reality: the exposed and recovered are protected. That point of science was rejected by Fauci, Collins, and Walensky. The whole Biden administration went along.
We didn’t know until last week that this Offit meeting had even occurred. And surely this is just the tip of the iceberg. The more that time goes on, the more questions are piling up about this gang that wrecked liberty in the US after Inauguration Day 2021, a time when they could have reversed all the restrictions but instead went the other way.
Central to the concern here is what precisely happened in February 2020 to cause Fauci to forge plans to lock down the entire American economy for a virus that he previously said repeatedly could not be stopped. Why did he change his mind? We have plenty of evidence that his change of mind was related to his fear — real or imagined — that the pathogen was made in a lab and was leaked either deliberately or accidentally and that he would likely bear responsibility. Fauci and his friends were on burner phones for weeks and holding secret meetings. The HHS document ordering lockdowns were all forged in these weeks.
If the Republicans take back Congress, they are going to have a real time discovering the inner workings of the deep state here, if they find the courage to look deeply enough. That such an obvious and settled point of science became taboo for a time is truly a scandal for the ages. Now we know that it was a deliberate decision. Why? And why are we only now hearing about it, long after knowing this truth might have saved so much destruction?
Jeffrey A. Tucker is Founder and President of the Brownstone Institute and the author of many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press and ten books in 5 languages, most recently Liberty or Lockdown.
February 16, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, United States |
Leave a comment
At nearly no other time in history has there been this level of fear generated across the world as experienced thus far in 2020 and 2021. The depth and breadth of the strategies used to stoke those fears has been overwhelming.
Emergency use authorizations for drugs that have not proven to be effective in trials,1,2 public mask mandates for which there is no scientific evidence3,4,5 and the suppression and censorship of health information has boosted public fear over a viral illness with a survival rate of over 99%.6
Unfortunately, many of the early effective treatment strategies that can be used at home have also fallen victim to censorship. Ivermectin is one of those strategies. In a computational analysis of the Omicron variant against several therapeutic agents, data show that ivermectin had the best results.7
Yet, as you look objectively at what’s been happening across the world, the fear being generated is not one-sided. The suppression of information by corporations, government agencies and the pharmaceutical industry is one indication of their concern and how far they’re willing to go to ensure the level of fear remains high enough to manipulate behavior.
Consider the statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2019, 4.6% of the U.S. population was diagnosed with heart disease.8 The population at the end of 2019 was 328,239,523.9 This means there were 15,099,018 people with heart disease in the U.S. in 2019. There were 696,962 people who died that year from heart disease,10 which is a death rate of 4.6%.
This is 20 times greater than the death rate from COVID-19. Yet these same agencies were not lobbying for mandates against soda or sugar-laden foods; they weren’t banning smoking and they weren’t mandating exercise — all heart disease risk factors.11
The censorship and suppression of information has hobbled early treatment of COVID-19 in many western nations. Through 2020, public health experts12,13 and the mainstream media14,15 warned against the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. Both are on the World Health Organization’s list of essential drugs,16 but the benefits have been ignored by public health officials and buried by the media.
Newest Ivermectin Study Showed Best Results Against COVID
This study on Cornell University’s preprint website has not yet been peer-reviewed. Researchers used a computational analysis to look at the Omicron variant, which has demonstrated a lower clinical presentation and lower hospital admission rates.17
After having retrieved the complete genome sequence and collecting 30 variants from the database, the researchers analyzed 10 drugs against the virus, including:
- Nirmatrelvir
- Ritonvir
- Ivermectin
- Lopinavir
- Boceprevir
- MPro 13b
- MPro N3
- GC-373
- GC376
- PF-00835231
The researchers found that each of the drugs had some degree of effectiveness against the virus and most were currently in clinical trials. They used molecular docking to find that the mutations in the Omicron variant didn’t significantly affect the interaction between the drugs and the main protease.
An analysis of all 10 drugs found that ivermectin was the most effective drug candidate against the Omicron variant. The testing included Nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid), which is the new protease inhibitor for which the FDA provided an emergency use authorization against COVID in December 2021.18
In other words, Pfizer released a new drug which cost the U.S. taxpayers $5.29 billion or $529 per course of treatment19 and which received an EUA despite the availability of a similar drug that has proven to be more effective and is cheaper, priced between $4820 and $9521 for 20 pills depending on your location.
How Ivermectin Works
Ivermectin is best known for its antiparasitic properties.22 Yet, the drug also has antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties. Studies have shown that ivermectin helps to lower the viral load by inhibiting replication.23 A single dose of ivermectin can kill 99.8% of the virus within 48 hours.24
A meta-analysis in the American Journal of Therapeutics25 showed the drug reduced infection by an average of 86% when used preventively. An observational study26 in Bangladesh evaluated the effectiveness of ivermectin as a prophylaxis for COVID-19 in health care workers.
The data showed four of the 58 volunteers who took 12 mg of ivermectin once a month for four months developed mild COVID symptoms as compared to 44 of the 60 health care workers who declined the medication.
Ivermectin has also been shown to speed recovery, in part by inhibiting inflammation and protecting against organ damage.27 This pathway also lowers the risk of hospitalization and death. Meta analyses have shown an average reduction in mortality that ranges from 75%28 to 83%.29,30
Additionally, the drug also prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 when taken before or after exposure.31 Added together, these benefits make it clear that ivermectin could all but eliminate this pandemic.
Early Intervention Lowers Long COVID and Hospitalization
Some people who have had COVID-19 seem to be unable to fully recover and complain of lingering symptoms of chronic fatigue. Others struggle with mental health problems. One study,32,33 in November 2020, found 18.1% of people who had COVID-19 received their first psychiatric diagnosis in the 14 to 90 days after recovery. Most commonly diagnosed conditions were anxiety disorders, insomnia and dementia.
These symptoms have come to be called long COVID, long-haul COVID, post-COVID syndrome, chronic COVID or long-haul syndrome. They all refer to symptoms that persist for four more weeks after an initial COVID-19 infection. According to Dr. Peter McCullough, board-certified internist and cardiologist, 50% of those who have been sick enough to be hospitalized will have symptoms of long COVID:34
“So, the sicker someone is, and the longer the duration of COVID, the more likely they are to have long COVID syndrome. That’s the reason why we like early treatment. We shorten the duration of symptoms and there’s less of a chance for long COVID syndrome.”
Some of the common symptoms of long COVID include shortness of breath, joint pain, memory, concentration or sleeping problems, muscle pain or headache and loss of smell or taste. According to McCullough, a paper presented by Dr. Bruce Patterson at the International COVID Summit in Rome, September 11 to 14,35 2021:36
“… showed that in individuals who’ve had significant COVID illness, 15 months later the s1 segment of the spike protein is recoverable from human monocytes. That means the body literally has been sprayed with the virus and it spends 15 months, in a sense, trying to clean out the spike protein from our tissues. No wonder people have long COVID syndrome.”
It should come as no surprise that studies have also confirmed that early intervention improves mortality37 and reduces hospitalizations.38 Perhaps one of the greatest crimes in this whole pandemic is the refusal by reigning health authorities to issue early treatment guidance.
Instead, they’ve done everything possible to suppress remedies shown to work. Patients were simply told to stay home and do nothing. Once the infection had worsened to the point of near-death, patients were told to go to the hospital, where most were routinely placed on mechanical ventilation — a practice that was quickly discovered to be lethal.
However, as the featured study39 and others have demonstrated,40 ivermectin is one of the successful treatment protocols that can be used against SARS-CoV-2.
Africa Has Lowest Case and Death Rate, Likely From Ivermectin
Across the world, countries have taken different approaches to address the spread of the virus.41 The steps taken in Africa varied depending on the country, yet the infection and death rates were relatively stable and low across the continent.42
In the last year there have been reports of small areas in the world where the number of infections, deaths or case-fatality rates have been significantly lower than the rest of the world. For example, India’s Uttar Pradesh State43 reported a recovery rate of 98.6% and no further infections.
However, the entire continent of Africa appears to have sidestepped the massive number of infections and deaths predicted for these poorly funded countries with overcrowded cities. Early estimations were that millions would die, but that scenario has not materialized. The World Health Organization has called Africa “one of the least affected regions in the world.”44
There are several factors that may influence the infection rate in Africa. A study from Japan demonstrates that after just 12 days that doctors were allowed to legally prescribe Ivermectin to their patients, the cases dropped dramatically.45
The chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association46 had noticed the low number of infections and deaths in Africa, where many use ivermectin prophylactically and as the core strategy to treat onchocerciasis,47 a parasitic disease also known as river blindness. More than 99% of people infected with river blindness live in 31 African countries.
In addition to ivermectin use in Africa, other medications are also commonly available, such as hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, which have long been used in the treatment and prevention of malaria,48 also endemic in Africa.49 In America, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko has published successful results using hydroxychloroquine and zinc against COVID-19.50,51,52
Finally, Artemisia annua, also known as sweet wormwood, is an herb used in combination therapies to treat malaria.53 It was used in traditional Chinese medicine for more than 2,000 years to treat fever. Today artemisinin, a metabolite of Artemisia, is the current therapeutic option for malaria. The plant has also been studied since the 2003 SARS outbreak for the treatment of coronaviruses, with good results.54,55
In other words, whether by design or default, the medications that have proven to be successful against the virus are commonly used in Africa for other health conditions. While Pfizer tests the short- and long-term effects of a genetic experiment on Israel’s population,56 it appears one continent has demonstrated administration of a 30-year-old, inexpensive drug with a known safety profile could reduce the cases, severity and mortality from this infection.
The question that must be asked and answered to get to the bottom of this plandemic is what is blinding mainstream media, government agencies, public health experts, medical associations, doctors, nurses, and your next-door neighbor from recognizing and speaking out in support of science?
Sources and References
February 15, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Africa, Covid-19, FDA, United States |
Leave a comment
When I try to answer my children’s questions, I am so furious that I can barely speak.
I choose my words slowly. “Many grownups around you have failed.”
Never have I wished so strongly to be wrong than when I remember predictions I made back in March of 2020. And instead, for almost two years and counting, we have collectively failed and keep failing at the primary goal of any society: protecting our children.
The sum total of youth Covid policy comes down to this: millions of kids wearing masks in school, being told to stay away from each other and obsessively avoid germs, and receiving vaccines en masse that they likely do not need.
Why are so few of us speaking up for the children?
“Always be skeptical,” I tell my children, “of anyone who wants you to be scared. Thoughtless fear is dangerous, and one should always try to make decisions when calm. Grownups haven’t been doing a good job of this lately.”
And here is the ultimate crime against our children, perpetuated by two administrations thus far: censorship and removal of jobs and licenses from thousands of respected doctors and researchers who disagree with the dominant Covid narrative, while repeatedly ignoring and ridiculing their simple and honorable message: “Early Covid treatment saves lives.”
This censorship and canceling does not “stop misinformation:” it interrupts the scientific process itself, and leaves a bad taste in the mouths of all who wish to live in a democratic society. And yes, it is still censorship if you urge private companies to do the dirty work for you, again and again.
“Kiddos,” I say, “science is something you DO, not a dogma to be obeyed. And we can all do science, and learn how to think scientifically.”
Many have recently and repeatedly urged our children to “listen to the experts.” To which I respond: a democratic society depends upon education, and not the rote and submissive variety. If we want one of those Democracies, we owe it to our children to model the complexity and necessity of using our brains to come up with our own opinions, in addition to learning what “experts” believe.
“But Mama, they wouldn’t make kids do these things if they were DANGEROUS… would they, Mama?”
And I have to look at my children and blink away tears, because yes: in the current social moment, we adults are allowing our society to slip ever further into Pharma totalitarianism.
“Okay, but Miss Matilsky, these vaccines are safe and effective, and masks are Not a Big Deal Anyway, so why get angry now? The kids should Do Their Part to social-distance, and Slow the Spread!”
Masks are actually part of a very big deal for children, because they interfere with every aspect of normal social functioning, also a big deal is raising an entire generation of kids to believe that hiding their faces is normal, and that it plus “testing” completes their civic duty toward our collective public health.
This is both shameful and a lie. There is not and has never been evidence justifying community-wide mask wearing (and the equally shamefully enormous quantity of plastic garbage that comes from it). It would be nice if masks worked well to protect their wearers and those around them from contagious disease, but they don’t.
Study after study refutes their benefit in community settings, and we can see around us that people spread Covid even when masks are worn scrupulously, even while statistical epidemiology modeling supports the possibility that they might slow the spread if they were thicker, bigger, more widely worn.
I am reminded of the plan to use smaller dinner plates, which in turn was supposed to reduce portion sizes and therefore cause widespread weight loss! But oh, wait… this was similarly a case of wishful theories being confused with actual results.
Ultimately: no amount of ever thicker and more stringently-worn masks, nor fanatic germ-avoidance, will ever make up for the true public health measures that do increase resistance to contagious disease: ensuring access to clean water, clean air, and clean, fresh, wholesome food, not to mention meeting our human need to gather socially for work, relaxation and spiritual pursuits.
And here we grownups must stop beating around the bush, and face the most shameful fact of all: condoning regulatory capture by pharmaceutical companies has become the defining feature in Covid policy mismanagement by two administrations.
Why should we trust them with our children’s health for even one moment, let alone rely on their press releases to guide public policy?
Presidents Trump and Biden, you should be ashamed to have been taken in by these corporations so incredibly adept at manipulation. We need leaders who can identify and protect children from the effects of such bullying.
It is not for me to decide if a vaccine is the right choice for you or your child. And it absolutely is up to me to insist that anyone trying to convince me to accept a medical treatment on my child’s behalf should never promote, pressure, or discuss the matter with my child separately from me (i.e. in schools or anywhere else, or by requiring a medical treatment, test, or vaccine for admission); and not be in the business of marketing their drugs to me for profit.
We failed our children when we made them put their lives on hold while we adults squabbled for two years, and now we fail them even further, while we let politicians and epidemiologists and drug companies experiment with their bodies for reasons that leave nobody healthier, while exposing them to known and unknown risks from policies that aren’t reducing transmission, cases, or the Covid death rate.
How incredibly lonely for our children, to be masked and told to interact with others only cautiously… because so many grownups around them are so fearful and unwilling to learn some of the basic principles of cell biology and scientific inquiry that our kids are supposed to be learning in grade school.
How shameful to coerce medical treatment on those who stand to benefit the least. How on earth will we build up enough trust in our government and our systems if we can’t admit our mistakes and apologize to our children, the way we make them do when they’re wrong?
Step up to the plate, grownups. It’s the least we can do for the generation that will have to care for our messes when we’re old; it would be nice if today’s kids could have productive, meaningful, healthy lives first.
February 15, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19 |
Leave a comment
Western democracies have beckoned many of us, both its citizens, and those who looked across the way at their shining, seemingly self-evident example of relatively “enlightened” governance. Successful Asian powerhouses like Japan and Singapore, and of course Hong Kong (both Asia and Britain in many ways for so long), drew inspiration on how they should be structured, governed and led.
Those in developing countries, or countries where authoritarianism held sway, pined for the rule of law, hoping their leadership might take a cue from Western role models, yearning for the tonic of good leadership and sound social structures, rather than continuing to suffer under corrupt, incompetent, misrule.
And then these countries, unlike Western counterparts, had virtually no social safety nets. Progress, education, prosperity, safety and security, these were the enchantments portrayed across the world.
How Superficial Was It All?
Post COVID, and the fact-free, hysterical over-reaction and meltdown we have still not recovered from, “democratic” countries have been in free fall. Who can not be dismayed by how these “democratically elected” leaders behaved, manipulating and being manipulated by their own systems? How shattering to see the shallowness of character, where in a charade of “public health,” constitutional rules were compromised, fundamental societal norms ignored, and seeking unbridled power, apparently the prevailing narcotic.
The US has unraveled. Fauci is found tripping over his tongue, his “testimony” and his emails, and gross misrepresentations re the “origins” of the coronavirus (the once forbidden fruit of the “Lab Leak”, now a mainstream consideration), gain of function definition and taxonomy, as well as multiple varietals of “guidance” on masks to lockdowns to “vaccine efficacy”, and still, utterly immune to consequence or accountability.
And we have been treated to the rambling, well-nigh unintelligible proclamations and machinations of the US President, reading from “scripts” while the “case-demic” rages. While debasing the Constitutionally sacred right to skepticism, we have seen an ignominious departure from Afghanistan (where on our fourth President dealing with it, we have essentially “gifted” the Taliban a remarkable military arsenal), and the Southern border seems porous to illegal, at times, literally “criminal” migrants. And the Democratic party has become apologists for defunding the police, and ransacking through rampant lawlessness, more than one large American city.
And with all of Mr. Trump’s misadventures with the law, and family cronyism, we are also face-to-face with Hunter Biden, in the fine tradition of the Clinton influence machine, brazenly peddling political influence for massive personal (financial) gain. This happens routinely, though it is common sport in these circles to sneer at African despots, while socializing at country clubs, for their “outrages” on similar fronts.
US law enforcement “enforces” or not, corruption is comprehensive, and ruling junta agendas advance Party interests, not those of the people. The once proud Republic is tottering and teetering as selective use of the law, extra-legal “emergency” powers, massive “mandating” of legally indemnified experimental therapy posing as “vaccines”, endemic abuse of positions of power — all dances side by side with hypocritic injunctions (maskless leaders being served by “masked” servers). HCQ and Ivermectin are availed of by Fauci’s family and Congressional leaders, while the public is treated to gaslighting galore.
Across the pond, a once sane Boris Johnson, rightly proclaiming natural immunity, got spooked by SAGE, and capitulated to widespread nonsense. His large parliamentary majority should have immunized him, instead he retreated into ineffectual flailing as mobs tore down historical statues. Rather than lead a national conversation, “white guilt” was the easy default setting. Scientific charlatans, disproven again and again, brandishing a new population-decimating “plague” were enough to send PM and advisers scurrying towards hysteria and “lockdowns”.
The resulting economic disaster and undermining of the quality of life of millions of people, were apparently a small price to pay. However, their own lifestyles and outings and those of affluent sponsors bypassed the draconian legislation. And so, they knew it was all essentially tommyrot as Wimbledon and office parties were unrestrained in either physical proximity or passionate engagement.
And while the UK is, for now, “liberated” of COVID restrictions, France is “easing up” but without relinquishing the threat of possibly reinstating the “Stalinist” decrees about “vaccination” (though the shots provide no immunity), at the first flutter of Macron’s angst infused paranoia. When you begin to threaten the withdrawal of citizenship and promise brutal force, you know how adrift and panicked a proposition must be.
Other countries “shelving” COVID restrictions include Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Ireland, the Netherlands, Italy and Lithuania. Israel is retaining its infamous “Green Pass” for parties and weddings, and it is being abolished for restaurants, hotels, gyms and theaters.
Overall Madness
The stats shriek their testimony. Late January each of the last two years saw the COVID “peak” overall. With or without “lockdowns,” with or without the silly masks, or whatever absurd companion restrictions came with it, the same results. Two years of “expert remedies” provided primarily a cesspool of sunk costs, as new waves and variants came implacably forward. We were scammed by “approved” experts and Big Pharma, and officiously stripped of rights that were once considered “unalienable” (more on this below).
The “two weeks” to flatten the spread metastasized into endless restrictions on human movement and autonomy with nary an end point in sight. A new cloth mask wearing religion was enforced, and automatons even today walk in fresh air where we have zero evidence of spread, inhaling their own waste. Oh, we also received the “blessings” of fresh segregation (long after we hoped that had been consigned to the dustbin of history) via a biosecurity state, and billions paid out for sheer snake oil (a.k.a. “safety”) – for example the utterly unreliable “testing” regime which couldn’t even be globally harmonized, so the same standards applied. There was not even a pretense of “quality control.”
Anti-humane and economic wars have been waged on people around the world, hitting hardest the most impoverished of course. Constitutions have gone up in flames, and anyone who wished to speak out to preserve that which made life worth living, or interfered with the Big Pharma subsidized autocracy, was demonized as an ”enemy of the state” (more on this below as well).
People around the world saw livelihoods and businesses vanish and had to undergo the sheer humanitarian outrage of multiple rounds of experimental injections, for them, and then their children, just to be able to feed their families or operate in society at all. What does it take to get outraged?
In “advanced societies” (with notable exceptions like Sweden and then states like Florida), local academia made “schools” (when they were actually open, even though children were at virtually zero risk and did not pass on the infection either before the “vaccination” bedlam) virtual penal camps (children eating in the cold, forced spacing, muzzling) to advance political gains and aims while teeming concerts and sporting events made a mockery of these injunctions.
And then, we do not yet even know the magnitude of the adverse impact of these “vaccines.”
The Great Embalming Fiasco
Hats off to the indefatigable Steve Kirsch, entrepreneur and crusader for COVID data that showcases the realities we are dealing with. Steve has offered cash to anyone who can show him the key early treatments don’t work, he has offered to debate public health officials or doctors, and to field doctors and specialists if they don’t wish to debate a so called “layman.”
But he recently brought attention to an alarming finding that deserves to be highlighted. In the United States, fifteen embalmers are seeing odd “fatal clotting” that was first discovered in 2021. As the night follows the day, the mainstream media are scrupulously disinterested, not to mention CDC, and their acolytes.
Specifically, Steve interviews Richard Hirschman, Alabama embalmer, 20 years of experience, and a funeral director. Stew Peters interviewed Mr. Hirschman, generating 800,000 views on Rumble alone.
The facts are damning and well-nigh irrefutable. In the subsequent interview with Mr. Kirsch, Mr. Hirschman clarifies that he started noticing the clots around May or June 2021. They may have been evident earlier, but that’s when he became aware of them.
He knows of no instance of such clots in “unvaccinated” cases (except one instance, someone who had received a transfusion).
Currently, over 50% of the bodies he embalms have these strange clots which he believes are directly caused by “vaccines” and boosters. In January 2022, 65% of all cases he came across (37 out of 57) had these suspicious clots. He roughly handles 600 bodies a year, so this is not “small number” distortion. Also, being COVID recovered and being sane enough to realize he was not at risk, other funeral homes have been contracting his services. So, he truly, in saying “over 50%” is referring to a largely unfiltered group of people.
He says he’s spoken to 15 of his peers who all are seeing the same thing but refuse to speak out publicly. As Steve mentions, this phenomenon is fairly common given the reprisals against anyone speaking up and out, for example school officials being unwilling to reveal the high rates of myocarditis that are suddenly percolating in their schools.
While shunned by mainstream media, Hirschman was contacted by PolitiFact (oxymoronically named) seeking to discredit him, but they ditched the article as presumably nothing compromising was located even by their scavenging.
The line of causation, following Occam’s Razor, of taking the simplest explanation until and if its refuted, is clear. An experimental injectable “therapy” is first used in 2021, which we know results in blood clots, and over 50% of the population are so “injected.” And this coincides almost exactly with the “embalmer’s expose.”
If this is in the vicinity of the truth, then of the 65,000 that die every week in the US, and you discount Hirschman’s “60%” to “40%” to err on the side of caution, that would still be 26,000 dying from the adverse effects per week or 676,000 annual “vaccine” related deaths.
But let’s go further suggests Steve. Assume this analysis is off by 1000X. Then it would be a “mere” 676 annual deaths, which would be 3 times more deadly than the smallpox vaccine which is currently deemed to be too unsafe to use. With even the “possibility” on the other hand, of a 65% death rate, every health agency, every media outlet should be there vetting the data. Not one has.
How could they possibly know there’s nothing there? Not even a request for a tissue sample for analysis by a medical journal. It distils down to a simple conclusion: they don’t care, they don’t want to know. The mania is to “embalm” the truth and in a frenzy, jab away…no matter what.
The Frenzy
The truckers rolled up Parliament Hill in Ottawa, now having sparked parallel outbursts of “civil” and at times not so civil disobedience. They are described with frenzied disdain, as if they were a plague of locusts from scripture.
And their “blasphemies” were there for all to read: “United Against Tyranny,” “No Vaccine Mandates,” “Freedom to Choose.” What gall!
As CJ Hopkins put it,
“Yes, that’s right, New Normal Canada has been invaded and is now under siege by hordes of transphobic Putin-Nazi truckers, racist homophobes, anti-Semitic Islamophobes, and other members of the working classes!”
The media is painting portraits of swastika waving goons, stealing food from the mouths of homeless people, while taking time out to desecrate war memorials. CJ adds
“Rumor has it, a kill-squad of truckers has been prowling the postnatal wards of hospitals, looking for Kuwaiti babies to yank out of their incubators”
as was asserted for the vengeful hordes of “Satanic” Saddam.
And if with a few restoratives, you come to, and remind yourself this is Canada, and this seems rather fanciful, remember this characterization of the protestor’s motives has passed muster by the “fact checkers” who are been elevated to the tribunal of truth, and have showered us with such unimpeachable insight about masks, early treatments, “vaccine” safety and effectiveness, and so much more.
Truculent Trudeau in his own Twitter blessed words:
“Today in the House, Members of Parliament unanimously condemned the antisemitism, Islamophobia, anti-Black racism, homophobia, and transphobia that we’ve seen on display in Ottawa over the past number of days.”
Who’s the satirist, CJ or the prime minister of Canada? The latter has been hidden in a bunker, after his boosted self, tested positive for COVID, hurling epithets at these rascally, depraved truckers, who decided to draw a civilizational line in the sand – long overdue.
All over the world, all creeds, colors, ages, families with kids, working class and simply sane and humane citizens are flocking to the streets against this surreal Covidian cult charade. And their stance and presence is a powerful rebuke to the face muzzling, socially distancing against an airborne pathogen, double boosting with obsolete “therapeutics,” brigade.
Therefore, governments have to somehow “try” to declare victory and roll the nonsense back, before the edifice is shamed into confessing its absurdity. We have to pray their desperation does not boil over into even more acute manifestations of authoritarian distemper.
Woe Betide Any Accountability
Of course, the convoy was not even covered in the mainstream media, despite it representing the most important protest in modern times in Canada. Despite no coverage, public opinion in Canada swung 15% to create a solid majority against both restrictions and mandates.
Suddenly a new slogan is born, “living with COVID.” As epidemiology would have mandated from the outset.
But the sloganeering is pernicious, as it has been since Nixon’s Press Secretary Ron Ziegler intoned, “mistakes were made.” The chalice of responsibility thus escaped his lips, rather than a genuine acceptance and reckoning. Was the mistake the lies and illegality or “getting caught?” Kudos to Thomas Harrington of the Brownstone Institute for helping us to forage for this moral understanding.
The deliberately obfuscating language, now a cornerstone of political life, is a form of vandalism of the public trust. Mr. Ziegler was for some time the widespread prototype of the oily dissembler who should not be holding public office in a serious Republic.
However, today, he seems the grandfather of public communication, disgustingly so. When moral responsibility is diluted in this way, we have little clarity. How did the disgraceful Iraq war get mandated and how are war criminals who led it being recognized with honors today? Who caused the financial meltdown? Who is actually accountable?
The COVID saga has been made possible, in all its pervasive implausibility by this new reflex of “changing the subject” if moral accountability is asserted or challenging the “source” of ideas rather than actually engaging the ideas themselves.
So those who have been undermining our human dignity and freedom are being threatened with potential meltdown. Some key Democratic governors reading the tea leaves re possible electoral annihilation, are lifting the idiotic mask mandates in their states. The excuse? The mild Omicron variant. That’s easier than admitting two decades of science has been utterly consistent on the uselessness of face muzzles to alter the spread of respiratory viruses within the general population in any statistically significant way.
All the countries like Britain, Norway and others, who are dismantling COVID restrictions, claim that the “leaky” “vaccines” that don’t ward off reinfection nor prevent spread but suppress symptoms for a brief window of efficacy, were responsible for opening society back up after we faced the “terror” of a coronavirus with a 99%+ recovery rate for those not in the most vulnerable demographic (above 70 with multiple comorbidities, with an average age of death of 82, beyond life expectancy virtually everywhere). A sick, deluded stance, with shattered lives everywhere and the widespread debris of our constitutional protections and civil liberties, but hey, “let’s do a little sidestep” as the old song says.
When physical autonomy is up for grabs due to “non-science” then all other liberties are ornamental. So we must tell this tale straight on, lest “mistakes were made” becomes our pathetic hymnal as we lurch from one contrived crisis to another.
COVID as Trojan Horse
The real battle will not be about mandates, but our refusal to “normalize” the underlying legal and ethical outrages of this period. Already, in the US, Homeland “Insecurity” is claiming that spreading “misinformation” would be tantamount to a “terrorist act.” You have to gag when you read their assertion of “current heightened threat environment” being triggered by “The proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in US government institutions.”
Ah! The fount of “WMD” never runs dry. The founders of the American Republic, once a fragile revolutionary, embryonic experiment in self-government in the 18th century, enshrined free speech in the “first” Amendment.
By contrast, imagine elected cronies, on numerous payrolls, endowing themselves the right to determine what is “false” or “misleading.” And government that has lied about so much, distorted so much to perpetuate the jabbing mania, including subjecting children to it on no grounds whatsoever, believes it is just “entitled” to public trust?
Just as Macron has scant moral standing going against the tide of liberation washing over Europe to lecture Putin on “democracy” (hence 60% of those polled in France assessed the visit a “failure”), but even more so, seemingly benign Britain has announced plans to put an increased emphasis on “personal responsibility” and “duties to the wider society” as well as not “abusing” rights. And who will determine any of this? Music swells… the grand majesty of today’s crony riddled political parties, or at the very least, the one in current electoral ascendance.
This is to be an articulated “bill of rights” and veering away from those “unalienable rights” that no government could impugn or interfere with, we will have a parasitic “quid pro quo” with the state, now acting as ethical puppeteer. “Rights”, precisely as they sound, are “innate” and not a gift from callow, feckless politicians, or indeed anyone else.
This is what must really be stopped. The legalizing of the insulation from responsibility of those whose only legitimacy derives from serving the people and safeguarding (not editing) their rights.
Imagine if our worst fears about the longer-term immunosuppressive impact of these “vaccines” come to pass? I pray they don’t. Let’s hope they are just incompetent. But whatever is the case we must take stock, we must use the disinfectant of “facts” to deal with distortions, no matter of what type. But challenging these may get you thrown in with terrorists, allowing government wide latitude in addressing being jolted by such revelations.
March 2020 cannot happen again, when in panic, and ignoring mounting data, governments asserted themselves over individual rights by declaring an “emergency” (which it seems will not stop “emerging”). We ignored the impact on the vulnerable, the poor, on children, on those running personal businesses, those needing other medical care, and we never debated “cost-benefit” before blowing up society and shutting down the planet.
The world became an authoritarian police state. And it is reluctantly having to have that wrested from its grip. The unconditional nature of free speech and core rights are critical to keep governments from embarking on dubious “crusades” allegedly for the public good. It keeps scientific/medical bodies from claiming to be a “Ministry of Truth” and doubling down on grotesque mistakes to avoid accountability.
Self-anointed potentates and virtue signaling mobs have to be held in check by this scaffolding of rights we are fighting for, the right to interrogate narratives and do a deep dive into facts. How we live is our business to decide, not a privilege granted by government if you conform to their often-self-serving vision. Let us never again cede that.
It may be the world will have to take tuition from new exemplars, as our Western role models have sadly become so tarnished. Japan, for example, never fully locked down, has refused mandates and has actually been scientifically open to early treatments like Ivermectin. In a statistical repudiation of the science-free narrative that had been coming out of Western governments, Africa, with 6% “vaccination” has only 3% of the world’s COVID ascribed fatalities.
But wherever and however, all together, we must renew human traditions, and rediscover discourse, and commit to educating ourselves so our “voice” is meaningful.
Essential human needs beckon… to live, to contemplate, to take decisions, to love, to kick off enterprise, to adventure, to explore, and yes to both be “safe” and to trust our ability to navigate challenges and manageable dangers. If we don’t, we will find ourselves in a hell not suitable for human habitation. If we do, this debased chapter can give way to the glory of being radiantly, autonomously alive.
February 15, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights |
Leave a comment
If you regard the United States as perhaps flawed but overall a force for good in the world . . .
Aletho News
Aletho News 