Imbalances in the make-up of the microbiome may also be implicated in persisting inflammatory symptoms, dubbed ‘long COVID’, the findings suggest.
COVID-19 is primarily a respiratory illness, but the evidence suggests that the gut may also have a role.
As the gut is the largest immunological organ in the body and its resident microbes are known to influence immune responses, the researchers wanted to find out if the gut microbiome might also affect the immune system response to COVID-19 infection.
They therefore obtained blood and stool samples and medical records from 100 hospital inpatients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection between February and May 2020 and from 78 people without COVID-19 who were taking part in a microbiome study before the pandemic.
The severity of COVID-19 was classified as mild in the absence of x-ray evidence of pneumonia; moderate if pneumonia with fever and respiratory tract symptoms were detected; severe if patients found it very difficult to breathe normally; and critical if they needed mechanical ventilation or experienced organ failure requiring intensive care.
To characterise the gut microbiome, 41 of the COVID patients provided multiple stool samples while in hospital, 27 of whom provided serial stool samples up to 30 days after clearance of SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19.
Analysis of all 274 stool samples showed that the make-up of the gut microbiome differed significantly between patients with and without COVID-19, irrespective of whether they had been treated with drugs, including antibiotics.
COVID patients had higher numbers of Ruminococcus gnavus, Ruminococcus torques and Bacteroides dorei species than people without the infection.
And they had far fewer of the species that can influence immune system response, such as Bifidobacterium adolescentis, Faecalibacterium prausnitzii and Eubacterium rectale.
Lower numbers of F. prausnitzii and Bifidobacterium bifidum were particularly associated with infection severity after taking account of antibiotic use and patient age.
And the numbers of these bacteria remained low in the samples collected up to 30 days after infected patients had cleared the virus from their bodies.
COVID-19 infection prompts the immune system to produce inflammatory cytokines in response. In some cases, this response can be excessive (‘cytokine storm’), causing widespread tissue damage, septic shock, and multiorgan failure.
Analysis of the blood samples showed that the microbial imbalance found in the COVID patients was also associated with raised levels of inflammatory cytokines and blood markers of tissue damage, such as C-reactive protein and certain enzymes.
This suggests that the gut microbiome might influence the immune system response to COVID-19 infection and potentially affect disease severity and outcome, say the researchers.
“In light of reports that a subset of recovered patients with COVID-19 experience persistent symptoms, such as fatigue, dyspnoea [breathlessness] and joint pains, some over 80 days after initial onset of symptoms, we posit that the dysbiotic gut microbiome could contribute to immune-related health problems post-COVID-19,” they write.
This is an observational study, and as such, can’t establish cause, added to which the gut microbiome varies widely among different populations, so the changes observed in this study may not be applicable to other COVID patients elsewhere, caution the researchers.
But they point to mounting evidence showing that gut microbes are linked to inflammatory diseases within and beyond the gut.
And they conclude: “Bolstering of beneficial gut species depleted in COVID-19 could serve as a novel avenue to mitigate severe disease, underscoring the importance of managing patients’ gut microbiota during and after COVID-19.”
In a controlled clinical trial, the researchers gathered 267 participants with CLD. These patients suffered from different kinds of liver-related conditions, including hepatitis B and C, cirrhosis due to alcohol intake and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). One group, comprised of 196 patients, received zinc supplementation twice daily. The other group, which had 71 patients, did not. Both groups however, received other standard treatments, including amino acid supplementation.
After three years, the study’s findings affirmed what the researchers suspected: the zinc group exhibited improved liver function and a reduction in inflammatory markers as well as a lower risk of developing liver cancer. Meanwhile, the liver health of patients who did not receive zinc deteriorated throughout the study.
Moreover, the researchers were able to identify the molecular mechanisms underlying zinc’s effects. According to their findings, when the body does not have enough zinc, it causes liver-specific cells called hepatic stellate cells to activate. This leads to lipid peroxidation, a process where reactive oxygen species attack polyunsaturated fats. It initiates a self-propagating chain reaction that results in the accumulation of fat in the liver. According to their findings, this fatty accumulation may contribute to several liver diseases.
Overall, the study showed that consuming more zinc – or at least meeting the recommended intake – may prevent liver cancer and promote overall liver health.
Zinc is essential for the normal development and function of your immune system, as it protects against susceptibility to pathogens, mediates natural killer cells, activates T-lymphocytes, regulates macrophages, and is central to DNA replication.
You have at least 300 enzymes that require zinc to function normally.
Evidence shows zinc helps protect the body from COVID-19 by impairing viral replication in the cell, supporting ciliary growth and function in the respiratory system, and improving the respiratory epithelial barrier.
A cold can last as short as a week, but in children and the elderly, it can last longer. Cold symptoms include a stuffy head, runny nose, sore throat, headache, and sometimes a fever. These are some of the same symptoms of influenza, but the symptoms are often worse and include fever and body chills.
It wasn’t until the work of Dr. Ananda Prasad in the 1970s that zinc was acknowledged as an essential mineral. A decade earlier, Prasad was studying young men who had grown up in Egypt and never attained their normal height.
After supplementing with zinc, the men grew “significantly taller.” In the 1970s, zinc was acknowledged by the National Academy of Sciences as a mineral fundamental to many aspects of health. Prasad collaborated with a scientist from the University of Michigan to demonstrate that zinc influences immunity.
Research in the past decade has identified the crucial role that zinc plays in curtailing the length and severity of upper respiratory infections. A meta-analysis published in 2017 found those who took a zinc supplement of 80 to 92 milligrams (mg) each day at the beginning of cold symptoms saw a reduction in the length of their cold by 33 percent.
Although research has demonstrated the significant positive effect zinc has on the immune system and on shortening upper respiratory infections caused by common cold viruses, further research in 2020 demonstrated that zinc is crucial to immune system function and deficiency may be linked to individuals who have severe COVID-19 illness.
Zinc Crucial for Immune System Development
Since the 1970s, scientists have discovered several facts about zinc and how it plays a central role in the immune system. Your immune system is your body’s first line of defense. Whether this is against infectious disease, wound infections, or chronic disease, your immune system plays a crucial role.
Researchers have spent decades studying the different ways that you can support your immune system to improve function. Nutrients play a vital role in supporting your immune system, and one of those nutrients is zinc.
There are academics who also support Zelenko’s efforts, including some at the University of Texas, which hosts a download page describing the history and citations behind the Zelenko Protocol. Zelenko and the Front Line critical care doctors used their knowledge of the association between zinc and your immune system to develop their successful protocols. Data has shown:
People who are deficient in zinc have an increased susceptibility to pathogens, including through the skin barrier.
Zinc mediates nonspecific immunity, including natural killer cells and neutrophils.
Zinc deficiency prevents the activation of T-lymphocytes, production of Th1 cytokine, and the ability of B lymphocytes to help. During deficiency, B lymphocyte development is also compromised.
Deficiency affects the function of macrophage cells, which can trigger cytokine production and dysregulated intracellular death.
Zinc is central to DNA replication, RNA transcription, and cell activation and division.
Evidence Zinc Helps Protect Against COVID-19
Campbell describes several functions by which zinc helps protect the body from COVID-19, including helping to stop viruses from entering cells. Zinc also supports the growth and function of ciliary hairs in the respiratory system that move microbes and debris up and out of the airways. These hairs move in a synchronized beat, like rowers in a boat.
One study published in the American Journal of Rhinology and Allergy showed that zinc helps to stimulate the ciliary beat frequency and may help improve mucociliary clearance, which is essential for clearing the lungs of mucous. Another group of scientists found that supplementing animals deficient in zinc affected the length of the cilia and number of epithelial cells in the bronchus.
Research has shown zinc also functions to improve the respiratory epithelial barrier, the “skin” that lines your respiratory tract and is constantly exposed to particles and microbes from the air you breathe. Evidence has shown that zinc influences interferon-gamma, a type of cytokine. Cytokines are proteins that act like smoke signals to alert the immune system to an invader. Interferon-gamma plays a significant role in defending against intracellular pathogens. When there is a reduction in this cytokine, it results in immunological impairment.
While the jury is still out on whether interferon-gamma plays a role as an anti-tumor mechanism, some studies have shown that it does have a positive effect on patients’ survival of certain cancers.
As you’ve likely heard throughout 2020, zinc also has a direct effect on viral replication inside the cells.
A great way to learn about zinc is a short video Dr. John Campbell posted on YouTube. He reviews some of the science behind the association between zinc and the immune system and shares his belief that zinc is one biological basis some people suffer more severe COVID infections.
Campbell describes some of the effects that zinc has inside the cells, including decreasing the effects of RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, often called replicase since it helps replicate the virus inside the cells.
Zinc Deficiency Linked to Multiple Health Conditions
As Campbell points out, a zinc deficiency can significantly impact your immune system, but it can also result in a hyper-inflammatory response from proinflammatory cytokines. Thus, with a deficiency in zinc, you not only get more viral infections, but these trigger an increase in the hyper-inflammatory response.
Campbell points out that many conditions associated with a zinc deficiency are also known comorbidities for COVID-19. These conditions include:
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
Being on diuretics
Kidney disease and liver cirrhosis/damage
Zinc Ionophores Improve Effectiveness
In a short MedCram video posted on YouTube, Dr. Roger Seheult reviews the compelling evidence that suggests how zinc ionophores (a chemical that helps ions cross cell membranes) improve zinc uptake into the cell. This is a crucial component of stopping viral replication. As Seheult explains, zinc cannot easily penetrate the fatty walls of the cell but needs to be inside the cell to stop viral replication.
There are several zinc ionophores that can do the job. In this video, Seheult describes the role that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine play. Hydroxychloroquine is the ionophore that Zelenko uses in his protocol to move zinc into the cells.
In his peer-reviewed study, the researchers compared 141 treated patients against 377 untreated patients from the same community.
The data collection showed only four of the 141 treated patients were hospitalized and 58 of the untreated patients were hospitalized. One patient in the treatment group died and 13 patients in the untreated group died.
There are also other natural compounds that may work to get zinc into cells, except for perhaps in the most serious cases. Two that have been studied include quercetin and epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), which is found in green tea.
In a comparative study, researchers evaluated quercetin and EGCG as zinc ionophores. They demonstrated ionophore action on a lipid membrane system and concluded that these polyphenols may raise zinc levels in the cells and have a significant impact on the biological action of zinc.
Interestingly, quercetin is also a potent antiviral, and quercetin and EGCG have the added advantage of inhibiting the 3CL protease. According to a 2020 study in the Journal of Enzyme Inhibition and Medicinal Chemistry, the ability to inhibit SARS coronaviruses “is presumed to be directly linked to suppress the activity of SARS-CoV 3CLpro in some cases.”
Zinc Vitamins May Trigger a Copper Imbalance
Zinc deficiency is not uncommon. Experts believe that about 17.3 percent of the global population is deficient and it is estimated most people over 65 consume just 50 percent of the recommended amount of zinc.
Early zinc deficiency is largely subclinical—meaning you do not have symptoms that a doctor would treat—yet it does impact the immune system. Although you may be tempted to begin supplementing with zinc, it’s important to realize that your body has an intricate method of maintaining a balance of trace minerals such as copper, iron, chromium, and zinc. The best way to readily achieve proper balance is to get your minerals from real food.
Although it may be necessary to supplement during illness when your body needs more zinc, I recommend trying to meet your daily requirement from foods. These are some of the bestfoodsources of zinc:
We’ve long known that zinc can be effective when it comes to shortening the duration of the common cold, and we also know that many common colds are caused by coronaviruses. That has left many people wondering if zinc can help alleviate the impact of the novel coronavirus that is wreaking havoc across the planet, COVID-19.
Zinc is an essential mineral for human health, but we generally don’t need large quantities of it; around 15 milligrams a day is considered reasonable. Responsible for our immune system, wound healing, eyesight, and brain development, it has also been shown to possess antiviral activity.
In one study, people who took zinc while experiencing cold symptoms experienced a far shorter average cold duration than a control group at 4.5 days versus eight days. The participants took roughly 80 milligrams per day, which may be above the daily requirement but is unlikely to cause problems if taken in the short term.
Researchers don’t know exactly why it has this effect, but they think it may prevent the virus from getting into cells by binding with a protein that normally helps it get inside; it could also be that it lowers the level of inflammatory substances found in the blood known as cytokines.
Zinc may help with other coronaviruses, but how useful is it for COVID-19?
One critical care specialist and pulmonologist recently took a closer look at a study carried out into how intracellular zinc can inhibit the SARS-CoV-2 version of coronavirus and how it might also be helpful in fighting the current COVID-19.
The study showed that zinc works by inhibiting coronavirus RNA polymerase activity. It essentially blocks the synthesis of RNA so that the virus is unable to keep replicating.
Because there are a lot of similarities between the two types of coronavirus, it’s reasonable to expect that zinc could affect the current iteration in a similar way. However, this finding pertains to intracellular zinc, or the zinc inside your cells, so zinc lozenges may not be helpful based on that finding.
While it’s not known if taking zinc orally can raise your intracellular zinc levels the way liposomal products can, it wouldn’t hurt to increase your zinc intake by consuming foods that are good sources of the mineral.
Topping the list of good zinc sources is oysters, which stand head and shoulders above other foods when it comes to zinc content. Other good sources of zinc include crab, beef, and lobster.
Is zinc a “silver bullet” against coronavirus?
There was a bit of controversy when online posts attributed to pathologist and coronavirus researcher Dr. James Robb claimed zinc lozenges were a “silver bullet against the coronavirus.” While he has said that his words were misrepresented, he maintained that, given its effects on inhibiting the replication of viruses such as coronaviruses, it may be helpful in the current pandemic.
However, he emphasized that there is no experimental support for such a claim. Nevertheless, he recommends that people suck on zinc lozenges as few times a day should they experience cold-like symptoms, preferably while lying down.
Although we can’t say with 100 percent certainty that zinc can indeed help with coronavirus, taking it is unlikely to hurt and may even help with other health issues. In fact, a deficiency of the mineral can cause problems like hair loss, compromised immunity, high cholesterol, chronic fatigue and osteoporosis.
Researchers and doctors the world over are working hard to uncover ways to address COVID-19. Natural treatments like zinc might not be a panacea, but ensuring you get enough of it is still a great way to enhance your health.
Hope is for fools: a new study claims that people are having problems reintegrating into normal life due to compulsive anxiety over the virus. This is what ridiculous campaigns designed to make people overly fearful result in.
A small study claiming that “residual anxiety” over coronavirus may lead people to encounter difficulties reintegrating into society, even after the decline of the virus, has been widely reported this week. The authors, who surveyed 300 individuals in the UK, claim that people are increasingly experiencing what they call “Covid anxiety syndrome,” characterised by “compulsively” checking symptoms, avoiding public spaces, and obsessive cleaning, even as cases are declining in the UK.
Yet this ‘syndrome’ is a peculiar one, as it appears difficult to distinguish between these ‘symptoms’ and those behaviours and attributes that have been expressly promoted as desirable responses to the pandemic. Perhaps dimly aware of this possibility, the study’s authors offer a feeble attempt to distinguish between activities promoted by public health campaigners and those that are “maladaptive.” Anxiety about Covid is a problem, the authors claim, when people act in “overly safe ways.”
However, from the point of view of public health promotion, no amount of risk aversion is too great. Indeed, a level of fear so great that people cannot leave their houses was seen as a desirable outcome of public health policy during the pandemic. Even the pathologization of people continuing to act fearfully in spite of a decline in cases is difficult to sustain. Beliefs that things were getting better and that the virus was ‘under control’ have been widely pointed to as causing its resurgence around the world. Hope is for fools. Those who know, know we should never stop fearing.
Extreme though it is, this is not an entirely new development. For decades, we have seen the decline of explicitly moral exhortations to change behaviours in favour of encouraging and spreading fears about associated health risks. Thus, for example, we are no longer told to avoid alcohol because it is a vice, but rather because it is a risk to our health.
Indeed, a state of constant awareness of potential threats to one’s health, no matter how small, is positively encouraged as a desirable attribute of the modern citizen. It is no surprise then that many people would answer a survey indicating heightened anxiety and fear about coronavirus related phenomena. We are constantly told that this is how the good, responsible citizen should react.
Yet even a heightened level of fear for one’s personal safety is not enough for policymakers. Increasingly, this shift from moral to harm-based behavioural controls has slipped into harms to others. So, claims-makers move from “don’t drink because it harms your health” to “don’t drink because it harms your children’s mental health.” During the pandemic, we saw this emphasis on other directed harms in warnings to young people not to go out, lest they “kill granny.”
Doubtless, each one of us has at some point passed on a virus to another person who was ill as a result. But we lived with this as a normal part of life, partially buffered by our ignorance of this fact. Now, we are encouraged to become hyper aware of how even the act of breathing can be a murderous act, as a series of government ads showing the deadly effects of apparently everyday activities were designed to show.
Thus, risk aversion acquires a moral edge. The good, moral person is the one who shows the most awareness of risk. Indeed, even prior to coronavirus, whole celebrity-backed campaigns have grown up around simply ‘raising awareness’ of new and exotic risks. Risk awareness itself becomes a form of moral goodness.
None of this is encapsulated by making sense of fears about coronavirus through the trend of finding, naming and – potentially lucratively – treating new ‘syndromes’ and anxieties. Indeed, doing so only feeds into these broader trends. Naming new syndromes encourages people to be on the lookout for ever more symptoms. Watch out for a suspicious cough on the one hand, and ‘excessive’ anxiety about that cough on the other. In the end, citizens can’t win. But risk entrepreneurs win in droves.
We can’t find our way out of the never-ending sense of health in crisis by dreaming up new ways to be ill. Instead, we need to refuse to see ourselves as forever patients in waiting.
After all the talk and concern, hope and urging, Bill Gates arrived this week at a critical point in his journey as an outspoken proponent for the science needed to combat the COVID-19 pandemic: the Microsoft co-founder received his first dose of vaccine against the deadly virus.
Masked up with his sleeve up in a photo he shared on Twitter Friday morning, Gates said he received the shot this week and that he feels great.
One of the benefits of being 65 is that I’m eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine. I got my first dose this week, and I feel great. Thank you to all of the scientists, trial participants, regulators, and frontline healthcare workers who got us to this point. pic.twitter.com/67SIfrG1Yd
In his tweet, Gates thanked those who got us to this point — without thanking himself. The billionaire philanthropist has been a leading advocate for a globally coordinated response to the pandemic since the early days of the crisis a year ago. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has committed hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for COVID-19 initiatives, including vaccine development and distribution.
As development of vaccines proceeded at an unprecedented pace, disinformation around the treatments and Gates’ involvement also spread, fueled by social media conspiracy theorists seizing on heightened political polarization in the United States. Melinda Gates told The New York Times that the fact that she and her husband have been targeted pointed to fear and people who were looking to point to somebody or some thing or some institution. The Trump administration did not help with its politicization of vaccine development, she said.
Among the outlandish theories spread online, some said Gates had a hand in developing vaccines with a microchip that would be implanted into anyone who was injected.
Earlier this week, both Gateses tweeted their willingness to work with President Joe Biden’s administration on tackling America’s toughest challenges — including COVID-19.
With Americans across the country working together, more people get a COVID-19 vaccine every day, bringing us closer to a time when life will look much more like normal. Until then, we can slow the spread of the virus and save lives by continuing to distance and wear masks.
Covid vaccines may not fully prevent people from passing the virus on to others, the deputy chief medical officer for England said. Professor Jonathan Van-Tam said that if those who have been vaccinated begin easing off because they are protected, they are potentially putting at risk those further down the priority list who still need the jabs.
His warning came as the latest Government figures showed the number receiving the first dose of the vaccine across the UK has passed 5.8 million, with a record 478,248 getting the jab in a single day. Prof Van-Tam, writing in the Telegraph, said it was still not known if people who had been vaccinated could still pass on the virus to others, even though they were protected from falling ill themselves
‘So even after you have had both doses of the vaccine you may still give Covid to someone else and the chains of transmission will then continue,’ he wrote.
‘If you change your behaviour you could still be spreading the virus, keeping the number of cases high and putting others at risk who also need their vaccine but are further down the queue. ‘Regardless of whether someone has had their vaccination or not, it is vital that everyone follows the national restrictions and public health advice, as protection takes up to three weeks to kick in and we don’t yet know the impact of vaccines on transmission.
‘The vaccine has brought considerable hope and we are in the final furlong of the pandemic but for now, vaccinated or not, we still have to follow the guidance for a bit longer.’ Prof Van-Tam also hit back at doctors who have criticised the decision to extend the gap between the first and second doses of the vaccine to 12 weeks.
The British Medical Association has written to the chief medical officer for England urging a rethink, saying that in the case of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine a maximum gap of six weeks had been mandated by the World Heath Organisation (WHO). Prof Van-Tam said that extending the gap was the quickest way to get a first dose to as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
He said: ‘But what none of these (who ask reasonable questions) will tell me is: who on the at-risk list should suffer slower access to their first dose so that someone else who’s already had one dose (and therefore most of the protection) can get a second?’
BMA council chairman Dr Chaand Nagpaul said that while he understood the ‘rationale’ behind the decision, no other country is taking the UK’s approach. ‘We think the flexibility that the WHO offers of extending to 42 days is being stretched far too much to go from six weeks right through to 12 weeks,’ he said. ‘Obviously the protection will not vanish after six weeks but what we do not know is what level of protection will be offered.
We should not be extrapolating data where we don’t have it.’ Separately, a further 32 vaccine sites are set to open across the country this week including one at the museum made famous as the set of hit TV series Peaky Blinders. The sites include the Black Country Living Museum in Dudley, which featured in the long-running TV show, a racecourse, a football stadium and a former Ikea store.
Update (1630ET): In what can only be described as a somewhat concerning turn of events, health experts from Wuhan, China, called on Norway and other countries to suspend the use of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines produced by companies such as Pfizer, especially among elderly people (following the surge in deaths in Norway described below)
China’s Global Times reports Chinese experts said the death incident should be assessed cautiously to understand whether the death was caused by vaccines or other preexisting conditions of these individuals.
Yang Zhanqiu, a virologist from Wuhan University, told the Global Times on Friday that the death incident, if proven to be caused by the vaccines, showed that the effect of the Pfizer vaccine and other mRNA vaccines is not as good as expected, as the main purpose of mRNA vaccines is to heal patients.
A Beijing-based immunologist, who requested anonymity, told the Global Times on Friday that the world should suspend the use of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine represented by Pfizer, as this new technology has not proven safety in large-scale use or in preventing any infectious diseases.
Older people, especially those over 80, should not be recommended to receive any COVID-19 vaccine, he said.
All of which is a problem since it is the elderly who are at most risk (quite frankly at any real risk at all) and thus who need the protection the most. The Chinese health experts instead say that the most elderly and frail should be recommended to take medicines to improve their immune system.
Of course, one cannot help but note the irony of scientists from the source of the plague that has killed millions around the world and destroyed lives/economies almost everywhere, is now calling for the cessation of the process to protect against the plague.
As we detailed earlier, Norway health authorities are reporting COVID-19 vaccine news of monumental importance at a moment the US is rushing to get an initial some 30 million doses into the arms of the elderly and those with chronic health conditions: sick patients over 80 are particularly at risk for devastating side effects.Vaccines: “Death by Coincidence”. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Thus for this vulnerable demographic which is currently first in line in North America, the “cure” could be worse than the disease. Bloomberg notes that it’s “the most cautious statement yet from a European health authority” regarding potential adverse vaccine health risks.
“For those with the most severe frailty, even relatively mild vaccine side effects can have serious consequences,” the Norwegian Institute of Public Health said.
The health authority said further in its most blunt statement cautioning against a policy of a blanket promotion of the vaccine for all:
“For those who have a very short remaining life span anyway, the benefit of the vaccine may be marginal or irrelevant.”
This comes after a handful of global cases, including an elderly patient in France, where a recipient died within hours of receiving their first-round of the vaccine.
Thus far Norway says it has administered doses to up to 33,000 people, including the elderly, but are already finding it “too risky” for the terminally ill and people over 80 that are in frail condition. Given only 33,000 injected so far, the reported death count is already staggering and is causing officials to sound the alarm:
Norwegian officials said 23 people had died in the country a short time after receiving their first dose of the vaccine. Of those deaths, 13 have so far been autopsied, with the results suggesting that common side effects may have contributed to severe reactions in frail, elderly people, according to the Norwegian Medicines Agency.
But despite the warnings being featured prominently at the end of this week in Bloomberg and multiple other mainstream publications, again we doubt this will do anything in terms of putting the brakes on the rushed vaccine rollout in the US where it’s precisely the elderly, frail, and those prone to persistent health conditions that are being urged on by state and federal policies to be first in line.
How many of these deaths came after the Pfizer vaccine? It would be good to know after the news from Norway. https://t.co/TtazlDpG0s
Meanwhile, Bloomberg had this to say of the most common vaccine brands in Norway and the West:
Representatives for Pfizer and BioNTech didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine approved late last year has been used most broadly, with a similar shot from Moderna Inc. approved earlier this month also now being administered.
Norway initiated its COVID-19 vaccinations last month on the heels of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine receiving approval by the European Medicines Agency. Norway’s infections are approaching 60,000 out of total population of 5.3 million, including over 500 deaths.
Many skeptics in Europe and the US still have severe reservations about the vaccines, even as big pharma and governments continually insist they are completely safe.
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
The Facts:Norway has registered a total of 29 deaths among people over the age of 75 who’ve had their first Covid-19 vaccination shot, raising questions over which groups to target in national inoculation programs.
Reflect On:Should freedom of choice always remain here? Should governments and private institutions not be allowed to mandate this vaccine in order to have access to certain rights and freedoms?
What Happened: 29 patients who were quite old and frail have died following their first dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination. As a result, Norwegian officials have since adjusted their advice on who should get the COVID-19 vaccine.
This doesn’t come as a surprise to many given the fact that the clinical trials were conducted with people who are healthy. Older and sick people with co-morbidities were not used in the trials, and people with severe allergies and other diseases that can make one more susceptible to vaccine injury were not used either. It can be confusing given the fact that vaccination is being encouraged for the elderly in nursing homes and those who are more vulnerable to COVID-19.
Steinar Madsen, medical director of the Norwegian Medicines Agency (NOMA), told the British Medical Journal (BMJ) that “There is no certain connection between these deaths and the vaccine.”
On the 15th of January it was 23 deaths, Bloomberg is now reporting that a total of 29 deaths among people over the age of 75 who’ve had their first COVID-19 shot. They point out that “Until Friday, Pfizer/BioNTech was the only vaccine available in Norway”, stating that the Norwegian Medicines Agency told them that as a result “all deaths are thus linked to this vaccine.”
“There are 13 deaths that have been assessed, and we are aware of another 16 deaths that are currently being assessed,” the agency said. All the reported deaths related to “elderly people with serious basic disorders,” it said. “Most people have experienced the expected side effects of the vaccine, such as nausea and vomiting, fever, local reactions at the injection site, and worsening of their underlying condition.”
There is a possibility that these common adverse reactions, that are not dangerous in fitter, younger patients and are not unusual with vaccines, may aggravate underlying disease in the elderly. We are not alarmed or worried about this, because these are very rare occurrences and they occurred in very frail patients with very serious disease. We are not asking for doctors to continue with vaccination, but to carry out extra evaluation of very sick people whose underlying condition might be aggravated by it. This evaluation includes discussing the risks and benefits of vaccination with the patient and their families to decide whether or not vaccination is the best course.
The BMJ article goes on to point out that the Paul Ehrlich Institute in Germany is also investigating 10 deaths shortly after COVID-19 vaccination, and closes with the following information:
In a statement, Pfizer said, “Pfizer and BioNTech are aware of reported deaths following administration of BNT162b2. We are working with NOMA to gather all the relevant information.
“Norwegian authorities have prioritised the immunisation of residents in nursing homes, most of whom are very elderly with underlying medical conditions and some of whom are terminally ill. NOMA confirm the number of incidents so far is not alarming, and in line with expectations. All reported deaths will be thoroughly evaluated by NOMA to determine if these incidents are related to the vaccine. The Norwegian government will also consider adjusting their vaccination instructions to take the patients’ health into more consideration.
“Our immediate thoughts are with the bereaved families.”
Vaccine Hesitancy is Growing Among Healthcare Workers: Vaccine hesitancy is growing all over the globe, one of the latest examples comes from Riverside County, California. It has a population of approximately 2.4 million, and about 50 percent of healthcare workers in the county are refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine despite the fact that they have top priority and access to it. At Providence Holy Cross Medical Center in Mission Hills, one in five frontline nurses and doctors have declined the shot. Roughly 20% to 40% of L.A. County’s frontline workers who were offered the vaccine did the same, according to county public health officials. You can read more about that story here.
Vaccine hesitancy among physicians and academics is nothing new. To illustrate this I often point to a conference held at the end of 2019 put on by the World Health Organization (WHO). At the conference, Dr. Heidi Larson a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project Emphasized this point, having stated,
The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers. We have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen…still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider.
A study published in the journal EbioMedicineas far back as 2013 outlines this point, among many others.
Pfizer’s Questionable History: Losing faith in “big pharma” does not come without good reason. For example, in 2010 Robert G. Evans, PhD, Centre for Health Services and Policy Research Emeritus Professor, Vancouver School of Economics, UBC, published a paper that’s accessible in PubMed titled “Tough on Crime? Pfizer and the CIHR.”
In it, he outlines the fact that,
Pfizer has been a “habitual offender,” persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results. Since 2002 the company and its subsidiaries have been assessed $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards. The 2.3-billion settlement…set a new record for both criminal fines and total penalties. A link with Pfizer might well advance the commercialization of Canadian research.
Suppressing clinical trial results is something I’ve come across multiple times with several different medicines. Five years ago I wrote about how big pharma did not share adverse reactions people had and harmful results from their clinical trials for commonly used antidepressant drugs.
Even scientists from within federal these health regulatory agencies have been sounding the alarm. For example, a few years ago more than a dozen scientists from within the CDC put out an anonymous public statement detailing the influence corporations have on government policies. They were referred to as the Spider Papers.
The Takeaway: Given the fact that everything is not black and white, especially when it comes to vaccine safety, do we really want to give government health agencies and/or private institutions the right to enforce mandatory vaccination requirements when their efficacy have been called into question? Should people have the freedom of choice? It’s a subject that has many people polarized in their beliefs, but at the end of the day the sharing of information, opinion and evidence should not be shut down, discouraged, ridiculed or censored.
In a day and age where more people are starting to see our planet in a completely different light, one which has more and more questioning the human experience and why we live the way we do it seems the ‘crack down’ on free thought gets tighter and tighter. Do we really want to live in a world where we lose the right to choose what we do with our own body, or one where certain rights and freedoms are taken away if we don’t comply? The next question is, what do we do about it? Those who are in a position to enforce these measures must, it seems, have a shift in consciousness and refuse to implement them. There doesn’t seem to be a clear cut answer, but there is no doubt that we are currently going through that possible process, we are living in it.
Declarations by health officials and vaccine makers that deaths and injuries following COVID vaccinations are unrelated coincidences are becoming a pattern.
They’re also depriving people of the information they need to make informed decisions.
The official handling last week of the deaths of two Danes and a Miami doctor following their COVID jabs highlights the gaping holes in the government’s surveillance system for detecting post-marketing vaccine reactions.
These incidents suggest that health officials will be unlikely to give the public authentic risk profiles for the emergency use COVID vaccines.
Accurate risk profiles allow regulators to determine if a medical intervention is causing more harm than good and consumers to make rational choices about their own use of a product.
Regulators usually develop risk assessments during preclinical trials by comparing health outcomes in individuals receiving the intervention against a placebo group. Such studies must be large enough to detect rare injuries and of sufficient duration to reveal ailments with long diagnosis horizons.
The existence of the placebo group makes it difficult to conceal or misattribute injuries. Conversely, the absence of a placebo group in post-vaccination surveillance systems makes it easy for self-interested pharmaceutical and regulatory officials to undercount injuries by attributing them to coincidence.
Coincidence is turning out to be quite lethal to COVID vaccine recipients.
Death by coincidence
Shortly after reporting the Danish deaths and prior to any autopsies, Tanja Eriksen, acting head of Denmark’s Pharmacovigilance Unit, told the Danish newspaper, EkstaBladet, that the Danish Medicines Agency had determined that coincidence probably killed the two Danish citizens whose deaths followed their vaccinations.
One of the deaths was a citizen who had “severe lung disease.” The existence of the comorbidity suggested that the death was therefore coincidental. The second citizen received the vaccine at a “very old age,” and therefore also expired from coincidence.
“When vaccinated in fragile groups, one would expect there to be deaths,” explained Eriksen, using logic seldom applied by health officials to deaths from the COVID-19 virus. “This will happen regardless of whether they are vaccinated or not.”
These simple declarations — that deaths and injuries following vaccination are unrelated coincidences — are becoming a pattern.
On Dec. 20, 2020, World Today News reported the death of an 85-year-old man in Kalmar, Sweden, one day after he received the vaccine. Dr. Mattias Alvunger of the Kalmar Hospital dismissed concerns about the death being related to the vaccine, calling the fact that it was reported to the Swedish Medical Products Agency as “routine.”
On January 1, Sonia Acevedo, a 41-year-old Portugese nurse and mother of two, died two days after receiving the Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine. Her father told the Daily Mail that she never drank alcohol and was in perfect health. Nevertheless, Portugal’s Health Authority dismissed her death as a sad coincidence.
Israel also reported two deaths from the coincidence pandemic: one in a 75-year-old man in Beit She’an, and the other an 88-year-old man. Both died two hours after vaccination. Israeli health officials warned the public not to attribute the deaths to the vaccine.
In Lucerne, Switzerland, a 91-year-old man died five days after getting Pfizer/BioNtech’s vaccine. Swiss authorities called any connection “highly unlikely.”
On January 3, Dr. Gregory Michael, a beloved Miami obstetrician and enthusiastic COVID-19 vaccine booster, died of a hemorrhagic stroke after receiving Pfizer/BioNtech’s vaccine. Dr. Michael developed acute idiopathic thrombocytopeniapurpura (ITP) — a known vaccine side effect — immediately after receiving the jab. His platelet count dropped from 150,000 to zero and never rebounded.
An army of experts from around the world, involved in the vaccine program, consulted in doomed efforts to restore Dr. Michael’s platelet count. The inevitable brain hemorrhage killed him two weeks later. Michael’s wife said that her husband’s death was “100% linked to the vaccine. She added that he was physically healthy, exercised often, rarely drank alcohol, never smoked cigarettes and had no known comorbidities.
Nevertheless, Pfizer dismissed Michael’s injuries as another sad coincidence: “We do not believe at this time that there is any direct connection to the vaccine.” Pfizer pointed out that ITP is also caused by excess drinking and reasoned that “there have been no recorded safety signals identified in trials from vaccinations so far.”
On Tuesday, the New York Times quoted Dr. Jerry Spivak, a blood disorder expert at Johns Hopkins University, saying “I think it’s a medical certainty that the vaccine was related.”
An injury that occurs at that frequency would not likely be seen in Pfizer/BioNtech’s Phase II clinical trial because only 22,000 people received the vaccine. However, an injury of this severity occurring once in every 25,000 shots could debilitate or kill 12,000 of the 300 million Americans to whom the company hopes to give the jab.
The public can expect to see more of this strategic chicanery: When a healthy 32-year-old Mexican doctor was hospitalized with encephalitis — inflammation of his brain and spinal cord — after receiving the Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine, Mexican doctors dismissed the injury as unrelated to the vaccination, reasoning that the condition had not been detected in Pfizer/ BioNtech’s clinical trials.
This week an Auburn, New York nursing home reported, without any apparent irony, that 32 of 193 residents have died since the facility began administering the Pfizer vaccine on Dec. 21. The company claims that its clients are dying of COVID-19 infections, not the vaccine.
Equally disturbing, additional deaths may have gone altogether unreported.
Among Dr. Michael’s many grateful patients was Tessa Levy, who had a scheduled appointment with him for the Tuesday after his death on Jan. 3. Michaels delivered all four of Tessa’s children, saving one of them with an ingenious split-second diagnosis of a rare heart condition that would have otherwise killed the boy.
Tessa is the daughter of my close friend, the famous Beverly Hills surgeon, Dr. George Boris. “He was a healthy, strong, vigorous guy,” Tessa told me about Michaels. “He never showed any health problems.”
On New Year’s Eve, Dr. Boris’s brother-in-law, Murray Brazner, also died suddenly, one week after receiving the Pfizer vaccine. Neither the vaccine company nor any health agency took notice of his sudden unexpected death. “No autopsy was performed, and his death isn’t recorded as a vaccine injury. It makes you wonder,” Dr. Boris told me.
Mr. Brazner’s death illustrates an even graver problem: Many injuries may be escaping notice by the surveillance system and the media. Unreported stories similar to Dr. Brazner’s tragedy are already common complaints on social media.
On Jan. 2, Janice Hisle lamented on Facebook that her friend’s mom, an Ohio woman, died after receiving the vaccine. According to Hisle, the woman developed a high fever hours after the jab and died a “couple days” later. “I am so angry for my friend,” she commented, “who is crying because relatives were not allowed to see her before she was vaccinated. They thought the vaccine would ‘open the door.’”
We could find no mention of the Ohio woman’s death in media records or official COVID-vaccine death tallies.
One might assume that if deaths following COVID-19 vaccine can be so easily dismissed or ignored, lesser injuries will also escape notice.
The all-too-familiar vaccine propaganda playbook
The routine of reflexively dismissing suspicious deaths and injuries as unrelated to vaccination not only calls into doubt the official data tallies on vaccine injuries, it also contrasts markedly with the habit among public health officials of authoritatively attributing every death to COVID-19 so long as the deceased tested positive for COVID within 60 days of death using a PCR test notorious for producing false positives.
In fact, the $48 billion COVID vaccine enterprise shares three defining features with every new vaccine introduced since 1986:
1. Systematic exaggeration of risk from the target disease. (Pharma calls this project “Disease Branding.”)
2. Systematic exaggeration of vaccine efficacy.
3. Systematically downplaying vaccine risks.
1. Exaggerating disease risk:
Regulatory agencies count every death as a COVID death, so long as the deceased tested positive for COVID within 60 days of death — no matter that he may have died in a motorcycle crash.
But as we see from the examples above, when it comes to COVID vaccine injuries, the opposite presumption governs: the comorbidity is always the cause of death — even when, as with Dr. Michaels, there are no known comorbidities.
2. Systematic exaggeration of vaccine efficacy:
Pfizer touts a 95% efficacy rate in its clinical trials, but this is a meaningless measure of “relative efficacy” based on a tiny cohort of 94 people in the placebo group who got mild cases of COVID during the clinical trials.
This is an injury rate of 1 in every 40 jabs. This means that the 150 shots necessary to avert one mild case of COVID will cause serious injury to at least three people.
If the clinical trials are good predictors, that rate is likely to increase dramatically after the second shot (the clinical trials suggested that almost all the benefits of COVID vaccination and vast majority of injuries were associated with the second dose).
We don’t know the true risk of death from the vaccine since regulators have rendered virtually every death invisible by attributing them all to coincidence.
The 1-in-40 risk of “serious injury” from Pfizer’s COVID vaccine is consistent with what we know about other vaccines.
Nevertheless, it is only by clinging to this “designed to fail” system that regulators and industry have maintained their pretense that current vaccine risk profiles are acceptable.
A 2010 study funded by HHS concluded that VAERS captured “fewer than 1% of injuries.” In other words, the actual injury rates from mandated vaccines are more than 100x what HHS has been telling the public!
The 2010 HHS study found that the true risk for serious adverse events was 26/1,000, or one in 37.
Similarly, Merck’s clinical trials for Gardasil found that an astonishing half of all vaccine recipientssuffered from adverse events, which Merck euphemistically called “new medical conditions,” and that 2.3% of vaccine recipients (1 in 43) suffered from autoimmune disease within six months of vaccination.
Similarly, a recent Italian study found that 46% of vaccine recipients (462 adverse events per 1,000 doses) suffered adverse events, with 11% of these rated “serious,” meaning 38 serious adverse events per 1,000 vaccinated individuals. These include grave gastrointestinal and “serious neurological disorders.” This amounts to a “serious” injury rate of 1/26.
Holocaust survivor Vera Sharav of the Alliance for Human Research Protection has observed that, “Everyone who gets any of these vaccines is participating in a vast medical experiment.”
Health officials generally concur that the granting of “emergency use authorization” to the rollout of experimental vaccine technologies with only a few weeks of safety testing, two years before the scheduled completion of Phase 2 testing, is a great human experiment, involving millions of subjects.
But researchers are unlikely to see all of the safety signals if a badly designed surveillance system allows local health officials and company employees the discretion to dismiss any serious injury as unrelated.
Brave new world dystopia is unfolding in plain sight, freedoms as once known fast eroding.
Are they heading for elimination altogether in the West and elsewhere?
Is totalitarian rule enforced by police state harshness becoming the new abnormal?
Is the US land of opportunity/land of the free and home of the brave a distant memory?
Eroding for years, life as once known in the US and West are on a fast track for elimination if not challenged to halt what’s underway.
Seasonal flu/influenza that occurs annually with no mass hysteria fear-mongering, house arrest by lockdowns and quarantines, face masks that harm health instead of protecting it, social distancing and all the rest have done infinitely more harm to most people than any number of illnesses combined.
Renamed (made-in-the-USA) covid, it’s a vehicle for transforming free societies into totalitarian ones — complementing what’s gone on up to now following the US state-sponsored 9/11 mother of all false flags.
What’s happening and hardening is what no one yearning to breathe free should accept.
But it’s going on and advancing, supported by Big Media.
It includes a diabolical scheme to silence dissent by eliminating truth-telling divergence from the falsified official narrative.
America’s Bill of Rights are fast disappearing.
October 2001 Patriot Act legislation trampled on them by greatly eroding the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, 8th and 14th Bill of Rights amendments to the US Constitution.
Calling for Patriot Act 2.0, Biden/Harris want the draconian 2001 law hardened for greater police state control to further weaken/then eliminate a free and open society.
Their stimulus plan calls for nationwide mass-vaxxing with high-risk, experimental, DNA-altering, hazardous to health mRNA vaccines that provide no protection and likely harm to countless numbers of people if taken as directed.
Will they be required ahead for air travel and free movement, along with access to employment, education, and other public places?
Will daily lives and routines no longer be possible without proof of covid immunity — not gotten from vaxxing?
Will what was inconceivable not long ago become reality ahead by what Biden/Harris and likeminded US hardliners have in mind?
Is the scheme a diabolical depopulation plot to eliminate maximum numbers of what Henry Kissinger once called “useless eaters” — in the US and worldwide?
A so-called US Vaccination Credential Initiative (VCI) was established.
Its sponsors include Microsoft, Oracle, the Mayo Clinic, the Commons Project, Change Healthcare, the Rockefeller Foundation, other corporate interests, likely mass-vaxxing advocate Bill Gates and US dark forces.
VCI calls itself “a coalition of public and private partners committed to empowering individuals with digital access to their vaccination records (sic).”
It’s part of a diabolical, deep state, Great Reset plot for draconian control over our lives — for ill, not good, to further erode and eliminate fundamental freedoms.
It’s unrelated to “protect(ing) and improv(ing) (our) health…safety, and privacy.”
Its aims are polar opposite the above mass deception.
It calls for digital access to health, vaxxing, and related information — for greater government intrusion into and control over our lives.
“Participating technology and other collaborating partners agree to support Vaccination Data Sources in issuing SMART Health Cards” — to aid diabolical aims sought by US dark forces at home and worldwide.
In response to what’s planned, UK-based Big Brother Watch (BBW) director Silkie Carlo said the following:
“Vaccine passports would create the backbone of an oppressive digital ID system and could easily lead to a health apartheid that’s incompatible with a free and democratic country,” adding:
“Digital IDs would lead to sensitive records spanning medical, work, travel, and biometric data about each and every one of us being held at the fingertips of authorities and state bureaucrats.”
“This dangerous plan would normalize identity checks, increase state control over law-abiding citizens, and create a honeypot for cybercriminals.”
BBW’s website warned about “(a) wave of emergency powers and extreme measures in response to (seasonal flu renamed covid that) brought about the greatest loss of liberty in (UK) history,” the US and other Western societies.
Vaccine passports are part of a diabolical plot to transform free societies into dystopian ones on the phony pretext of protecting our health and well-being that’s greatly harmed by what’s going on and planned.
Cannabis activists in Washington, D.C. are planning to offer a free bag of marijuana to those receiving the vaccine for Covid-19, the group DC Marijuana Justice announced this week. The free cannabis giveaway, dubbed Joints for Jabs, is being arranged to coincide with vaccine clinics expected to open in the nation’s capital soon, DCMJ wrote in a press release on Monday.
With Joints for Jabs, the DCMJ activists hope to highlight the need for further cannabis policy reform at the national and local level while bringing awareness to the importance of equitable distribution of the Covid-19 vaccine. Once local health officials begin offering vaccines to the general public, dozens of home cannabis cultivators will celebrate the occasion by handing out free bags of marijuana outside vaccination centers. Locations and times of the Joints for Jabs giveaways will be announced after DCMJ has more information about local vaccination sites.
“We are looking for ways to safely celebrate the end of the pandemic and we know nothing brings people together like cannabis,” said Nikolas Schiller, the group’s co-founder. “DCMJ believes that cannabis should be consumed safely and responsibly, and the pandemic has made this incredibly difficult for many adults to share their homegrown cannabis. When enough adults are inoculated with the coronavirus vaccine, it will be time to celebrate – not just the end of the pandemic, but the beginning of the end of cannabis prohibition in the United States.”
A Teachable Moment For Pot People
Adam Eidinger, another DCMJ co-founder, said that he hopes that the marijuana giveaways increase traffic to the city’s vaccination centers. He would also like to see Joints for Jabs serve as an educational opportunity for those unconvinced of the medical value of marijuana as well as members of the cannabis community, many of whom are skeptical of today’s medicine.
“If you believe in the science that supports medical cannabis, you should believe the science that supports the efficacy of the vaccine,” Eidinger told DCist.
Local cannabis growers have already pledged three pounds of marijuana for the giveaways, and organizers are hoping to have amassed five pounds of pot by the time the events begin. The group will also be offering cannabis seeds named “Grosso’s Green” in honor of marijuana patient, activist and former D.C. Councilmember David Grosso, who left the city council last year.
“I think it’s totally cool” to have a strain of marijuana named for him, Grosso said.
Inauguration Weed Giveaway Postponed
Plans for a DCMJ marijuana giveaway to be held in honor of the inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden have been put on hold until more people have been vaccinated and the coronavirus pandemic begins to be brought under control. In 2017, the group handed out thousands of joints during the inauguration of the now outgoing president in a gesture that Eidinger characterized as an “olive branch to Trump supporters.”
DCMJ hopes to reschedule the event for July, when a public inaugural celebration is reportedly being planned for the National Mall in place of the traditional January festivities. This year, however, activists will be passing out bags of loose marijuana instead of joints, many of which were fired up immediately last time around, in violation of local laws. Nixing the joints is also an effort to make the giveaway more hygienic.
“Four years ago, we handed out over 10,000 joints — and we licked those joints,” Eidinger said. “Today, we think that’s an issue.”
A History Of Creative And Effective Activism
DCMJ was founded in 2013, leading to the drafting of an ordinance to legalize possession and cultivation of cannabis by adults the following year. The group has continued to advocate for cannabis policy reform through a variety of creative demonstrations, including the deployment of giant inflatable faux joints more than 50 feet long at the Capitol, White House and the 2016 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.
The group is now advocating for Senate passage of the MORE Act, a landmark bill that would legalize marijuana at the federal level that was approved by the House of Representatives last month.
“While no legislation is perfect, the MORE Act addresses many demands that DC Marijuana Justice has been making for years,” Eidinger said in Monday’s statement from the group. “We asked Presidents Obama and Trump, and now we are asking President-elect Biden to take executive action on cannabis reform within the first 100 days.”
HSBC bank has told its customers that wearing masks inside its branches is mandatory and those who refuse could see their accounts closed.
The warning comes as a further 1,234 deaths from Covid-19 were recorded in a single day. null
A number of retailers and banks made similar decisions recently to stop customers from entering their stores or branches without masks, as is law.
A spokesman for the bank told The Mirror that as per government guidelines, all customers must wear face masks unless they are medically exempt from doing so.
Those who refuse to comply will be refused service and could even have their bank accounts withdrawn.
Jackie Uhi, head of branch network, HSBC UK said: “Our branch colleagues are key workers, continuing to go to work in our branches every day so that customers who need them can access essential financial services.
“Sadly, some people are failing to protect themselves, our branch colleagues and other customers by refusing to wear a face covering inside our branches or observe social distancing.
“Our colleagues deserve respect and should not have to face violent or abusive behaviour. Consider whether you need to visit the branch or could manage your banking from the safety of your home via our digital channels.
“If you do visit us, please wear a face covering and maintain a safe distance from others. If individuals put themselves or our colleagues at risk, without a medical exemption, we reserve the right to withdraw their account.”
The Post Office confirmed that it will not yet be copying this action and it will not refuse entry to anyone who does not have a face mask.
A spokesperson for the Post Office said: “Postmasters that they can ask a customer who is not wearing a facemask if they are medically exempt, but the customer is not required to provide medical proof if they do not have it with them when they visit a branch.
“Post Office will implement any updated guidance issued by the UK Government or Devolved Governments. At this stage, Post Office has not advised Postmasters to refuse entry to any customer that does not have a face mask.”
London saw another 10,000 cases of Covid-19 today and a further 231 deaths.
The rise in cases has triggered new safety measures across the high street, with essential stores increasing security to help curb infection rates.
German discounter Aldi said customers will be turned away at the door if they don’t comply with coronavirus rules from today.
Giles Hurley, chief executive officer at Aldi UK said: “The safety of our colleagues and customers is our number one priority. Wearing a mask is mandatory for everyone that shops at Aldi, except for the small number of people who have a medical exemption.”
Tesco, Asda, Waitrose, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons have also introduced similar measures this week.
“To protect our customers and colleagues, we won’t let anyone into our stores who is not wearing a face covering, unless they are exempt in line with government guidance,” Tesco said in a statement.
“Our colleagues are working hard in difficult circumstances to make sure everyone can get what they need, and we’d ask everyone to please be kind, patient and respectful as we all work to keep each other safe.”
Tesco said it was also asking customers to shop alone, unless they are a carer or with children.
Asda issued a similar statement. It said if customers had forgotten a face covering, it would continue to offer them one free of charge.
“But should a customer refuse to wear a covering without a valid medical reason and be in any way challenging to our colleagues about doing so – our security colleagues will refuse their entry,” it said.
The John Lewis Partnership also said face coverings would be mandatory at its Waitrose supermarkets.
The British Retail Consortium, which represents more than 170 major retailers including the big supermarket groups, said on Monday it was the police’s responsibility to enforce face coverings and called for their support.
Today’s brave new world may be heading in directions beyond what Orwell and Huxley imagined.
It’s facilitated by made-in-the USA covid and economic collapse.
For ordinary Americans, it created worse hard times than during the Great Depression.
It’s facilitating the greatest ever wealth transfer from most people to the privileged few.
It’s part of a grand scheme for transforming the US and other Western states into ruler-serf societies.
Covid is another form of seasonal flu/influenza, an annual epidemic in the US and elsewhere that affects millions of people.
It comes and goes like clockwork without mass hysteria fear-mongering, partial or full shutdowns causing mass unemployment, mask-wearing that does more harm than good, and social distancing.
All of the above with likely more on the way seems more like a Hollywood horror film than reality.
Interventionist hawks comprising the Biden/Harris regime’s national security team likely means escalated militarism and endless wars over the next four years while vital homeland needs go begging — along with all of the above.
The World Economic Forum-promoted Great Reset may be on the way — a scheme promoted executive chairman Klaus Schwab.
Paul Craig Roberts called him an “insane tyrant,” his scheme intended to “end…human autonomy, (facilitated by) implantable microchips (to control) our bodies and brains.”
It aims to control and exploit ordinary people so privileged ones can benefit more than already.
It’s a dystopian nightmare — wrapped in deceptive equitable socioeconomic rhetoric.
Neoliberal harshness expanded a large-scale underclass in the US and West.
Great Reset planners intend expanding it further toward their goal — ruler/serf societies in the West and worldwide.
Digital health passports may be part of their scheme to facilitate hazardous mass vaxxing.
Will they be required for employment, attending school, air travel, other public transportation, hotel reservations, restaurant dining, in-store shopping, attending a sporting event, and other social interactions?
Will daily lives and routines no longer be possible without proof of covid immunity?
Will what was inconceivable not long ago become reality ahead?
Will something similar to what Britain’s Boris Johnson has in mind be on the way?
Despite unreliable PCR tests that produce false positives and negatives time and again — rendering them useless — Johnson aims to start mass-testing.
He wants to “identify people who are (covid) negative…who are not infectious so we can allow them to behave in a more normal way, in the knowledge they cannot infect anyone else.”
Will he require a health passport for Brits to resume daily life — which includes mass-vaxxing?
Rushed development of hazardous to human health covid vaccines are close to being rolled out.
Is something similar to what’s planned in Britain coming to the US and other Western societies — a brave new world more unfit to live in than already?
On Friday, Children Health Defense chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said the following about Pfizer and Moderna covid vaccines:
Will “a significant percentage of people who are going to get the vaccine…get sicker than they would from covid…?”
Moderna vaccine development showed “100% of the people had some side effects, many of them mild.”
But “20% of the high-dose test subjects had serious side effects.”
“(W)e have to ask ourselves (if it’s) better to get covid, at least for most age groups, then it is to get the vaccine?”
On his Children’s Health Defense website, Kennedy discussed a New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) mass-vaxxing strategy.
It recommends voluntary use initially. If “unsuccessful,” mandate it, adding:
“(P)rinciples of public health ethics support trying less burdensome policies before moving to more burdensome ones.”
Voluntary vaxxing “should be limited to a matter of weeks” — followed by federal and state legislation that mandates it.
Noncompliance should incur “substantial penalties…(like) employment suspension or stay-at-home orders.”
According to Kennedy, authors of the NEJM article are connected to the (Bill) Gates Foundation, a leading promoter of mass-vaxxing.
The NEJM’s “article is a revealing — and horrifying — blueprint for Pharma’s imposition of mandates that could require hundreds of millions of reluctant Americans to submit to a risky medical procedure with poorly-tested, ineffective, zero-liability vaccines,” Kennedy explained, adding:
“The NEJM has once again confirmed its former editor Marcia Angell’s warning that this once renowned journal has devolved into a propaganda vessel for Pharma.”
Other than diabolical brave new world plotters, who could have imagined earlier what’s unfolding in real time now.
Air travel may be affected early in the new year.
According to the International Air Transport Association’s Nick Careen:
IATA is “in the final development phase (of a) digital passport” to show if international travelers were vaccinated against covid.
IATA will urge all international carriers to adopt what the association is promoting.
Will domestic carriers in the US, West and elsewhere go the same way?
Will federal and local governments, businesses, and operators of whatever involves public interactions follow suit?
If voluntary compliance with covid vaxxing doesn’t work, will mandating it be implemented?
Is a draconian new way of life on the way under hardened police state rules?
Mass nonviolent resistance is the only alternative, pushing back against what no just societies would tolerate.
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
According to the London Telegraph, UK vaccine passports “could be rolled out across the UK” if Boris Johnson’s “trial” run goes as planned.
Biometrics firm iProov and cybersecurity firm Mvine developed a digital passport for the trial in two so far unnamed designated areas.
While Britain’s science and research funding agency OK’d £75,000 for the project, Johnson’s health department said there was “no plan” to take this step.
Getting underway this month, it’ll continue for about two months.
Saying one thing, then doing another, happens time and again in the West and elsewhere.
Minister Michael Gove earlier said vaccine passports are “not the plan” going forward. He lied.
Johnson’s mass-vaxxing chief Nadhim Zahawi said we’re ‘looking at the technology.’ ”
In December, he said the following:
“I think mandating vaccinations is discriminatory and completely wrong…and I would urge businesses listening to this debate today not to even think about this,” adding:
“We have absolutely no plans for vaccine passporting.” Like Gove, he lied.
An anti-vaccine passport petition now circulating in Britain got hundreds of thousands of signatures, stating the following:
“I want the government to prevent any restrictions being placed on those who refuse to have any potential covid-19 vaccine.”
“This includes restrictions on travel, social events, such as concerts or sports. No restrictions whatsoever.”
Ignored by Zahawi, days earlier he about-faced, saying that he expects bars, cinemas, restaurants and sports stadiums to demand proof of vaxxing against covid (aka renamed seasonal flu) for access to these, perhaps other public areas and travel.
Are mandated vaccine passports coming to Britain ahead?
Will health apartheid come to the US and other Western countries?
Denmark announced development of “immunity passports” to include “tracking and (Big Brother) surveillance.”
Ontario, Canada authorities are exploring their use to include restrictions on travel and access to public venues if unvaxxed.
Israel’s Netanyahu regime said vaxxed individuals will get “green passports,” affording them access to public places.
Other Western ruling authorities indicated that vaccine passports are coming for ‘life to get back to normal (sic).”
All vaccines are hazardous to health, experimental covid ones most hazardous of all.
Preserving and protecting health demands shunning them.
Mandating immunity passports for access to public places will harden totalitarian rule in nations taking this unacceptable step.
Is that’s what’s coming later this year, a diabolical brave new world?
Will free movement no longer be allowed without digital proof of vaxxing with what risks serious harm to human health?
According to a Johnson regime health department statement:
It’s “everyone’s responsibility to do the right thing for their own health (sic), and for the benefit of the wider community (sic),” adding:
Johnson hardliners “will carefully consider all options to improve vaccination rates, should that be necessary.”
Reportedly, UK airlines and hotels support vaccine passports for use of their services.
According to a statement by unnamed UK officials:
“Those who refuse to get the (covid) jab would likely be refused entry to venues.”
Is the same coming for UK workplaces and schools?
Will a mandatory digital ID system come next for Big Brother mass-surveillance in Western and other societies?
All of the above may be part of what diabolical Great Reset planners intend in pursuing establishment of ruler-serf societies worldwide.
Will daily lives and routines no longer be possible without vaccine passports?
Will what was inconceivable not long ago become reality ahead?
Will what’s unfolding go beyond what Orwell and Huxley imagined?
Will dystopian harshness in the West and elsewhere be the new abnormal in the coming months?
If mass resistance doesn’t challenge what may be coming, fundamental freedoms no longer will exist.
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at email@example.com. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
On Aug. 30, 1954, Bernice E. Eddy, a veteran scientist at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., was checking a batch of a new polio vaccine for safety.
Created by Jonas Salk, the vaccine was hailed as the miracle drug that would conquer the dreaded illness that killed and paralyzed children. Eddy’s job was to examine samples submitted by the companies planning to make it.
As she checked a sample from Cutter Laboratories in Berkeley, Calif., she noticed that the vaccine designed to protect against the disease had instead given polio to a test monkey. Rather than containing killed virus to create immunity, the sample from Cutter contained live, infectious virus.
Something was wrong. “There’s going to be a disaster,” she told a friend.
As scientists and politicians desperately search for medicines to slow the deadly coronavirus, and as President Trump touts a malaria drug as a remedy, a look back to the 1955 polio vaccine tragedy shows how hazardous such a search can be, especially under intense public pressure.
Despite Eddy’s warnings, an estimated 120,000 children that year were injected with the Cutter vaccine, according to Paul A. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
It was “one of the worst biological disasters in American history: a man-made polio epidemic,” Offit wrote.
In those days, polio, or infantile paralysis, was a terror.
“A national poll … found that polio was second only to the atomic bomb as the thing that Americans feared most,” Offit wrote.
“People weren’t sure how you got it,” he said in an interview last week. “Therefore, they were scared of everything. They didn’t want to buy a piece of fruit at the grocery store. It’s the same now. … Everybody’s walking around with gloves on, with masks on, scared to shake anybody’s hand.”
“I remember my mother … wouldn’t let us go to a public swimming pool,” said Offit, 69. We “all had to go into one of those little plastic pools in the back so that we wouldn’t be in a public place.”
The worst polio outbreak in U.S. history struck in 1952, the year after Offit was born. It infected 57,000 people, paralyzed 21,000 and killed 3,145. The next year there were 35,000 infections, and 38,000 the year after that.
Many survivors had to wear painful metal braces on their paralyzed legs or had to be placed in so-called iron lungs, which helped them breathe. There was no vaccine and few treatments. (One bogus approach was to spray acid into the noses of children to block the virus. All it did was ruin the sense of smell.)
Often polio victims were children, but the most famous affected American was President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who got polio and was paralyzed from the waist down in 1921 when he was 39.
In 1951, Jonas Salk of the University of Pittsburgh’s medical school received a grant from the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis to find a vaccine. During intense months of research, he took live polio virus and killed it with formaldehyde until it was not infectious but still provided virus-fighting antibodies.
When tests showed that the vaccine was safe, Salk told his wife, “I’ve got it,” Offit wrote.
Word of his success soon leaked out. Public pressure grew for the vaccine and for a large-scale trial.
In 1953, Salk tested it on himself, his wife and three children.
On April 26, 1954, Randy Kerr, a 6-year-old second-grader from Falls Church, Va., stood in the cafeteria of the Franklin Sherman Elementary School in McLean and became the first to be vaccinated in a massive field study.
Salk’s vaccine was given to 420,000 children. A placebo was given to 200,000. And 1.2 million were given nothing.
The study found that children who did not get the vaccine were three times more likely to be paralyzed with polio than those who received the vaccine.
A year later, on April 12, 1955, when officials announced the results at a news conference at the University of Michigan, there was jubilation. Reporters hollered: “It works! It works!” Offit wrote.
The news made front-page headlines across the country. “People wept,” Offit said. “There were parades in Jonas Salk’s honor. … That’s what contributed to the tragedy of Cutter more than anything else … the irony.”
That same day, licenses were hurriedly granted to several drug companies, including Cutter Laboratories, to make the vaccine.
But the officials granting the licenses were never told of Eddy’s findings, Offit wrote.
The year before, Eddy’s scrutiny of the Cutter vaccine had continued through the summer and fall.
It must have been a difficult time. She was 52. Her husband, Jerald Guy Wooley, 64, a fellow National Institutes of Health scientist, had died suddenly the previous April, leaving her with three daughters, two of them still at home in Bethesda, according to his obituary. Her mother moved in to help out.
Eddy was born in 1903 in Glen Dale, W.Va., a small town on the Ohio River, south of Wheeling, according to a 1985 biographical sketch by Elizabeth Moot O’Hern. Her father was a doctor.
She had started at NIH in 1937, had headed testing of vaccines for influenza, and in 1954 was asked to help test the Salk polio vaccine. The pressure was intense. “For weeks she and her staff worked around-the-clock, seven days a week,” O’Hern wrote.
“This was a product that had never been made before, and they were going to use it right away,” Eddy had said.
She began testing Cutter’s samples in August 1954 and continued through November, according to a later report in the Congressional Record. She found that three of the six samples paralyzed test monkeys.
“What do you think is wrong with these monkeys?” she asked a colleague, Offit recounted.
“They were given polio,” the colleague replied.
“No,” Eddy said. “They were given the … vaccine.”
Eddy’s discovery suggested that Cutter’s manufacturing process was flawed. Its vaccine should have contained only killed virus.
She reported her findings to William Workman, head of the NIH Laboratory of Biologics Control.
But amid the scientific and bureaucratic chaos, Workman never told the licensing committee, Offit wrote.
Starting on the evening of April 12, 1955, batches of the Salk vaccine made by five drug firms were shipped out in boxes marked “POLIO VACCINE: RUSH.”
About 165,000 doses of Cutter’s went out.
Within weeks, reports of mysterious polio infections started coming in.
On April 27, 7-year-old Susan Pierce, of Pocatello, Idaho, died of polio days after getting the Cutter vaccine. She had been placed in an iron lung just before she died. Her brother Kenneth had been vaccinated at the same time, but he was okay.
Other cases followed.
Alton Ochsner, a professor of surgery at Tulane Medical School and founder of the Ochsner Clinic in New Orleans, gave the vaccine to his grandson Eugene Davis, Offit wrote. The child died May 4.
Not only did some people injected with the tainted vaccine get sick, but some who got the vaccine went on to infect family members and neighbors.
On June 5, 1955, 33-year-old Annabelle Nelson of Montpelier, Idaho, died of polio after her two children had been given the vaccine in April, according to news reports at the time.
The government ordered the Cutter vaccine withdrawn on April 27. But damage had been done.
“By April 30, within forty-eight hours of the recall,” Offit wrote. “Cutter’s vaccine had paralyzed or killed twenty-five children: fourteen in California, seven in Idaho, two in Washington, one in Illinois, and one in Colorado.”
On May 6, all polio vaccinations were postponed. They were resumed on May 15 after the government had rechecked the vaccines for safety. But people were still frightened.
Offit recalled his mother asking their doctor: “What’s the story? Should we be getting this vaccine or not?”
Eventually, he was vaccinated when he was about 6 years old.
Years later, in a suit brought against Cutter, the firm was found not negligent in making its vaccine because it had done its best making a new drug that was complicated to produce.
But it was found financially liable for the calamity it had caused during that spring of 1955.
The jury foreman said: “Cutter Laboratories [brought] to market a … vaccine which when given to plaintiffs caused them to come down with polio.”
ROME — In a forthcoming television interview, Pope Francis says he will soon receive a coronavirus vaccination, perhaps as early as next week, while calling the inoculation a duty for everyone.
“I believe that ethically everyone needs to receive the vaccine,” Francis said in an interview with Italy’s TG5 that will air Sunday.
Francis did not specify the exact timing of his inoculation, but the pontiff said the Vatican’s vaccine rollout will begin next week and that he had already booked an appointment.
Francis’s plan sends a significant pro-vaccine signal to the world’s 1.3 billion Catholics. But it also marks a crucial step in safeguarding an 84-year-old who is missing part of a lung, doesn’t like to wear a mask and relishes face-to-face interaction.
Vatican watchers had widely expected that Francis would be administered the jab, and he has spoken favorably for months about the international vaccine effort, calling it a light of hope “in this time of darkness.” Until now, though, the Vatican had remained vague on its vaccine plans for the pope. The Holy See said only that its campaign would first target the elderly, medical personnel and those most in contact with the public.
The Vatican’s health director said the city-state will be using the vaccine produced by Pfizer-BioNTech.
In the upcoming interview, Francis suggested his own perspective on vaccines had been shaped by childhood memories of polio, when “so many kids ended up paralyzed because of this and there was a desperation to receive the vaccine.”
“I don’t know why some will say, ‘No, the vaccine is dangerous.’ ” Francis said. “But if doctors offer it to you as something that can work, that poses no special risk, why not take it? There is a suicidal denialism that I wouldn’t know how to explain, but today you need to take the vaccine.”
The journalist who conducted the Friday interview of the pope, Fabio Marchese Ragona, shared a passage of the transcript with The Washington Post.
Almost since the beginning of the pandemic, Francis has seemed to have the vaccine on his radar. In May he said the search for vaccines should be “transparent and selfless.” And he has said several times that leaders must ensure that vaccines are provided to the poor, the sick and the vulnerable.
Once fully vaccinated with the two doses, Francis — and the church — will still have to behave cautiously. Medical experts say even those vaccinated should wear a mask. But the pontiff can more easily resume some of the activities that have been on hold for nearly a year, such as international travel. Francis is planning a trip in early March to Iraq, what will be his first venture outside of Italy since the start of the pandemic.
Francis, who complained of feeling “caged” during Italy’s initial spring lockdown, has made it clear that he does not want to be a Zoom-only pope. As that initial clampdown loosened, he tried to reclaim the parts of his papacy he seemed to miss the most, mixing to a greater degree with crowds and meeting with pilgrims. Even amid Europe’s second wave, Francis has continued to host groups and hold in-person meetings.
The pontiffs resistance to mask-wearing has perplexed some inside the church, and by forgoing masks in meetings, he is bucking the Vatican’s own safety protocols. Neither he nor the Vatican has offered an explanation for his decision to generally go mask-free.
The pope’s inoculation will hardly mark the first instance of church vaccine endorsement. Last month, the Vatican’s doctrinal watchdog said it was “morally acceptable” for Catholics to receive the vaccines that have used cell lines derived from aborted fetuses. Before that guidance, several U.S. bishops had suggested such vaccines were immoral.
“From the ethical point of view,” the Vatican said, “the morality of vaccination depends not only on the duty to protect one’s own health, but also on the duty to pursue the common good.”
What we are watching is a change in control and an engineering of new control systems. So think of this as a coup d’état”.
So says Catherine Austin Fitts in an excellent recent video interview about what lies behind the Covid-19 agenda. It was removed by YouTube after 2.7 million views but at the time of writing was still available on vimeo.
The global ruling elite are trying to install “economic totalitarianism”, she warns, a new way of ordering the world based on technocracy, transhumanism and complete control over every aspect of our lives.
She declares: “I would describe this as a slavery system”.
When Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum initially announced his plan for a Great Reset, a New Normal or Fourth Industrial Revolution “unlike anything humankind has experienced before”, few of us understood quite what he had in mind.
In recent months this has been changing, with more and more people doing research and realising the alarming truth about what is currently being foisted on us.
The system’s gatekeepers have being doing their best to dismiss this awareness as mere “conspiracy theories”. Schwab’s views are just the words of one elderly German man, they argue, with a limited capacity for influencing the way the whole world is actually run.
But, in fact, Schwab’s Great Reset is not just rhetoric: he and his corporate accomplices have been busy, for many years, building up a massive networks of collaborators to spring their heist.
One of these is the Global Shapers Community, set up by Schwab in 2011, registered in Geneva, Switzerland, and based at the World Economic Forum offices.
It describes itself on its website as “a network of young people driving dialogue, action and change”, representing “the power of youth in action”.
The site explains that the organisation involves nearly 10,000 “Shapers” and 3,000 “Alumni”, organised in more than 400 hubs across 150 countries.
“Projects are wide-ranging – from responding to disasters and combating poverty, to fighting climate change and building inclusive communities. Shapers are diverse in expertise, education, income and race, but are united by their desire to bring about change”.
The “story” that the WEF tells us (to use its own term) is that the Global Shapers scheme is about “building a movement”.
It declares: “We believe in a world where young people are central to solution building, policy-making and lasting change.
“This generation has inherited enormous global challenges, but has the ability to confront the status quo and offer youth-led solutions for change”.
A “story” indeed. The Global Shapers are centrally run, from WEF HQ, and their “solutions” are far from “youth-led”.
As its 2019-2020 annual report makes clear, the project’s aim is to “mobilize” people to “influence policy and drive action”.
It is a sophisticated attempt to use a phoney worldwide “movement” to push human society into a direction which will profit a tiny group of business sharks.
It is the negation of democracy, because the future they have in mind for us, their nightmarish system of slavery, is obviously not one which most people desire.
They can only get away with it by pulling the wool over our eyes, by dressing it up as an attempt to “fight Covid” or “save the planet” or increase “inclusivity”.
This deception at the heart of the Global Shapers scheme means that it can accurately be described as a conspiracy – a conspiracy by a self-interested elite launched against the vast majority of humankind.
Because the WEF’s “movement” is a sham, and is intended purely to advance the views and interests of the WEF and its backers, not just any young person is allowed to play a “central” role in the kind of “lasting change” the WEF has in mind.
A careful filtering and screening process has been set up to ensure that only the right kind of young person, aged between 18 and 27, is allowed into the “movement”.
The Brussels Global Shapers specify that they are looking for those who are “exceptional in their potential” and who have “the desire to create impact”.
The London Global Shapers explain: “Each application is assessed by at least four Shapers, based on a broad range of criteria and the mean score is taken”.
The listed criteria are “impact motivation”, “commitment & community mindset”, “achievement” (“we’re looking for candidates who have established a track record of leadership and demonstrated impact in their field, or who are firmly on a leadership trajectory”) and “leadership potential”.
Would-be recruits are warned that they are expected to make an effort for the Shaping cause: “We require a minimum of 1–2 hours per week of time for the hub, additional commitment in terms of attending local and regional events, and active leadership and/or participation in hub projects.
“Every year we struggle with more amazing applicants than available spaces and it’s important that every hub member contributes to our community”.
And why should any young person want to be part of the Global Shapers?
“As Shapers, we have the unique opportunity to launch and participate in projects with support from the community and WEF. “Aside from projects, the extraordinary convening power of both WEF and our own members allows us access to organise and attend events with world-class speakers and other participants.
“Moreover, membership of the hub provides access to engage with the broader World Economic Forum community, including the opportunity to apply to attend the WEF Annual Meeting in Davos and other major events”.
The Global Shapers like to use the word “impact” a lot, even in their recruitment material.
They probably think they are being very clever, because some of the young people they are trying to attract, as well as the general public, will imagine that “impact” just means something about making a big difference to the world.
But, in fact, it is a blatant reference to social impact investment, one of the most insidious elements of the Great Reset agenda, in which people are reduced to the status of “human capital” for financial parasites.
It is hardly surprising that it is mentioned so often by the phoney “community” he and his colleagues have manufactured.
Indeed, one of the Global Shapers’ official partners is cloud computing business Salesforce, headed by billionaire Marc Benioff, owner of Time magazine and inaugural chair of the WEF’s Forum Center for the Fourth Industrial Revolution in San Francisco.
Nevertheless, the sheer relentless insistence with which the term “Fourth Industrial Revolution” is pumped out in report after report in the ‘Shaping My City’s Future’ section is still quite astonishing!
Two weeks after getting a first dose of a Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, a 56-year-old doctor in South Florida died this week, possibly the nation’s first death linked to the vaccine.
Health officials from Florida and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are investigating what role, if any, the vaccine played in the death of Dr. Gregory Michael, a Miami-Beach obstetrician who, his family says, was in otherwise good health.
Michael received his first dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine on Dec. 18 at Mount Sinai Medical Center, according to a Facebook post from his wife, Heidi Neckelmann.
Three days later, small spots began to appear on his feet and hands and he went to the emergency room at Mount Sinai, where he has worked in private practice for 15 years, according to his personal website.
His blood count was far below normal ranges, according to Neckelmann, and he was admitted to the intensive care unit.
For two weeks, she said, doctors tried to raise Michael’s platelet count. “Experts from all over the country were involved in his care,” she wrote. “No matter what they did, the platelets count refused to go up.”
She wrote that Michael was “conscious and energetic” through the process. But just days before a last resort surgery, he suffered a stroke and died.
Neckelmann did not respond to calls and emails Thursday seeking comment.
Darren Caprara, director of operations at the Miami-Dade medical examiner’s office, said Michael died sometime between the night of Jan. 3 and the early morning of Jan. 4.
Caprara completed an autopsy by Jan. 5, but it is too early to make any conclusions, he said. Michael’s samples have been sent to experts at the CDC for testing. Caprara also will work with the Florida Department of Health.
“Nothing has been finalized,” he said. “Everything is still pending.”
Michael’s death is the first that the Miami-Dade medical examiner’s office has investigated where a COVID-19 vaccine is suspected to have played a role, Caprara said.
A spokesman for the CDC said the agency is investigating only one death in which a vaccine may have been involved. He would not confirm that Michael’s death is the case under investigation.
In a statement to the South Florida Sun Sentinel, a spokesman for Pfizer said the company is aware of Michael’s death and said it was a “highly unusual clinical case.”
The spokesman said the company is investigating but does not believe “there is any direct connection to the vaccine” at this time.
“It is important to note that serious adverse events, including deaths that are unrelated to the vaccine, are unfortunately likely to occur at a similar rate as they would in the general population,” he said.
The CDC spokesman said investigators will “evaluate the situation as more information becomes available and provide timely updates on what is known and any necessary action.”
He said more than 5 million people have received COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S. and the CDC and Food and Drug Administration are monitoring data related to vaccine safety.
A report released by the CDC on Wednesday analyzed reactions to the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine. Of the nearly 2 million doses given out by Dec. 23, only 4,393 “adverse events” were reported, according to the report.
A total of 175 cases were reviewed for the possibility of a severe allergic reaction that can be life-threatening and “does occur rarely after vaccination,” according to the report. Twenty-one cases of the allergic reaction were found, including 17 in people with a documented history of allergies.
The report concluded that a severe allergic reaction to the Pfizer vaccine appears to be “rare” but cautioned that the conclusion is being made based on limited data.
Even though I thought I had answered these questions, smart people whom I respect keep asking if the virus is real. So here is another stab at answering this.
Yes, the virus is real. A misleading CDC/FDA document originally written in February but reposted months later stated there was no quantifiable sample of SARS-CoV-2 available. That is not true. Here, CDC tells you how they cultured it and how you can get some–as long as your institution satisfies stringent criteria. CDC’s discussion of its culture technique was published in its own journal, Emerging Infectious Diseases. The artice concludes:
We have deposited information on the SARS-CoV-2 USA-WA1/2020 viral strain described here into the Biodefense and Emerging Infections Research Resources Repository, ATCC and the World Reference Center for Emerging Viruses and Arboviruses, University of Texas Medical Branch, to serve as the SARS-CoV-2 reference strain for the United States. The SARS-CoV-2 fourth passage virus has been sequenced and maintains a nucleotide sequence identical to that of the original clinical strain from the United States. These deposits make this virus strain available to the domestic and international public health, academic, and pharmaceutical sectors for basic research, diagnostic development, antiviral testing, and vaccine development. We hope broad access will expedite countermeasure development and testing and enable a better understanding of the transmissibility and pathogenesis of this novel emerging virus.
A large number of people who don’t know a lot about viruses, but were cognizant of the nonsense the public is being fed about most other aspects of the Covid-19 pandemic, understandably concluded there was no virus. Perhaps the government agencies that supplied the information from which they drew this conclusion did so cunningly, with the hope to entrap the unwary.
Thankfully, a New Zealand microbiology professor explains what took place as a result of poor wording in requests for information.
Some people still clamour that Koch’s Postulates have not been met wrt SARS-CoV-2–but they were met, as closely as possible, in animal models like the Golden Syrian hamster. [Why are the Syrians always getting slammed?] You can’t infect a human to test Koch’s postulates, and then publish it, and not be arrested.
What about photomicrographs of SARS-CoV-2? It turns out that some of the early photographs were misinterpretations by their authors and did NOT, in fact, provide reliable pictures of the virus. See this Correspondence in the Lancet about published photomicrographs that mistook endoplasmic reticulum for virus, for instance. (Strangely enough, two of the coauthors of the fabricated Lancet paper damning chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine were coauthors of a Lancet article and response that got photos of the virus wrong: Mandeep Mehra and Frank Ruschitzka. They admitted no mistakes either time.)
But it seems that good pictures of the virus have been taken. For instance, see figure 2 in this paper.
Please look at the links before dismissing the virus. We have been given misinformation about masks, lockdowns, tests, case numbers, deaths, asymptomatic spread, proper treatment, etc. But there truly is a mean new virus out there. It looks like some nasty features were engineered in.
We have vitamins, minerals, and drugs that can effectively manage the infection, particularly when treated early. I don’t doubt that environmental toxins and electromagnetic fields may increase our susceptibility to infection. But there truly is a new coronavirus out there. Our governments and health officials have simply done every single thing wrong to manage it, greatly prolonging and worsening the situation.
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Anthrax Vaccine.
We are at war. Yes. And I don’t mean the West against the East, against Russia and China, nor the entire world against an invisible corona virus.
No. We, the common people, are at war against an ever more authoritarian and tyrannical elitist Globalist system, reigned by a small group of multi-billionaires, that planned already decades ago to take power over the people, to control them, reduce them to what a minute elite believes is an “adequate number” to inhabit Mother Earth – and to digitize and robotize the rest of the survivors, as a sort of serfs. It’s a combination of George Orwell’s “1984” and Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”.
Welcome to the age of the transhumans. If we allow it.
That’s why vaccination is needed in warp speed, to inject us with transgenic substances that may change our DNA, lest we may wake up, or at least a critical mass may become conscious – and change the dynamics. Because dynamics are not predictable, especially not in the long-term.
The war is real and the sooner we all realize it, the sooner those in masks and those in social distancing take cognizance of the worldwide “anti-human” dystopian situations we have allowed our governments to bestow on us, the better our chance to retake our sovereign selves.
Today we are confronted with totally illegal and oppressive rules, all imposed under the pretext of “health protection”.
Non-obedience is punishable by huge fines; military and police enforced rules: Mask wearing, social distancing, keeping within the allowed radius of our “homes”, quarantining, staying away from our friends and families.
Actually, the sooner, We, the People, will take up an old forgotten characteristic of human kind – “solidarity” – and fight this war with our solidarity, with our love for each other, for mankind, with our love for LIFE and our Love for Mother Earth, the sooner we become again independent, self-assured beings, an attribute we have lost gradually over the last decades, at the latest since the beginning of the neoliberal onslaught of the 1980s.
Slice by tiny slice of human rights and civil rights have been cut off under false pretexts and propaganda – “security” – to the point where we, drowned in propagated dangers of all kinds, begged for more security and gladly gave away more of our freedoms and rights. How sad.
Now, the salami has been sliced away.
We suddenly realize, there is nothing left. Its irrecoverable.
We have allowed it to happen before our eyes, for promised comfort and propaganda lies by these small groups of elitists – by the Globalists, in their thirst for endless power and endless greed – and endless enlargements of their riches, of their billions. – Are billions of any monetary union “riches”? – Doubtfully. They have no love. No soul, no heart just a mechanical blood-pump that keeps them alive, if you can call that a “life”.
These people, the Globalists, they have sunk so deep in their moral dysfunction, totally devoid of ethics, that their time has come – either to be judged against international human rights standards, war crimes and crimes against humanity – similar as was done by the Nuremberg Trials after World War II, or to disappear, blinded away by a new epoch of Light.
As the number of awakening people is increasing, the western Powers that Be (PTB) are becoming increasingly nervous and spare no efforts coercing all kinds of people, para-government, administrative staff, medical personnel, even independent medical doctors into defending and promoting the official narrative.
It is so obvious, when you have known these people in “normal” times, their progressive opinions suddenly turning, by 180 degrees, to the official narrative, defending the government lies, the lies of the bought “scientific Task Forces” that “advise” the governments, and thereby provide governments with alibis to “tighten the screws” a bit more (Ms. Merkel’s remarks) around the people, the very people the governments should defend and work for; the lies and deceptive messages coming from “scientists” who may have been promised “eternal, endless ladders of careers”, or of lives in a hidden paradise?
What more may they get in turn for trying to subvert their friends’, peers’, patients’ opinions about the horror disease “covid-19”? – Possibly something that is as good as life itself – and is basically cost free for the avaricious rich. For example, a vax-certificate without having been vaxxed by the toxic injections, maybe by a placebo – opening the world of travel and pleasurable activities to them as “before”.
By the way, has anybody noticed that in this 2020 / 2021 winter flu-season, the flu has all but disappeared? – Why? – It has conveniently been folded into covid, to fatten and exaggerate the covid statistics. It’s a must, dictated by the Globalists, the “invisible” top echelon, whose names may not be pronounced. Governments have to comply with “covid quotas”, in order to survive the hammer of the Globalists.
Other special benefits for those selected and complacent defender of the official narrative, the placebo-vaxxed, may include dispensation from social distancing, mask wearing, quarantining – and who knows, a hefty monetary award. Nothing would be surprising, when you see how this tiny evil cell is growing like a cancer to take over full power of the world – including and especially Russia and China, where the bulk of the world’s natural resources are buried, and where technological and economic advances far outrank the greed-economy of the west. They will not succeed.
What if the peons don’t behave? – Job loss, withdrawal of medical licenses, physical threats to families and loved ones, and more.
Screen Shot: NTD, December 16, 2020
The Globalists evil actions and influence-peddling is hitting a wall in the East, where they are confronted with educated and awakened people.
We are at war. Indeed. The 99.999% against the 0.001%.
Their tactics are dividing to conquer, accompanied by this latest brilliant idea – launching an invisible enemy, a virus, a plandemic, and a fear campaign to oppress and tyrannize the entire world, all 193 UN member countries.
The infamous words, spoken already more than half a century ago by Rockefeller protégé, Henry Kissinger, comes to mind:
“Who controls food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.”
“People everywhere are eager to bid farewell to 2020, a year in which our lives were turned upside down by power-mad elites who seized the Covid-19 pandemic as a chance to go full police state.
But be careful what you wish for…. merely putting up a new calendar does nothing to address [the mounting repression and tyranny], which seem certain to reach a breaking point.
Humanity has been pushed to the limit with arbitrary rules, enforced poverty, and mandated isolation — it will only take a spark or two for things to explode.”
And it continues –
”As vaccines are rolled out to the general public, the divide between those obeying the rules and the dissidents will only grow. Those who decline to get the jab will be treated as pariahs, banned from some public spaces and told it’s their fault life hasn’t gone back to normal, just as so-called “anti-maskers” have been.”
And more glorious prospects
“Anyone who isn’t thrilled by the idea of ingesting an experimental compound whose makers have been indemnified from any lawsuits, will be deemed an enemy of the state, even separated from their children or removed from their home as a health risk. Neighbors will gleefully rat each other out for the equivalent of an extra chocolate ration, meaning even the most slavishly obedient individuals could end up in “quarncentration camps” for upsetting the wrong person.”
Yes, we are in the midst of war.
A war that has already ravaged our society, divided it all the way down to families and friends.
If we are not careful, we may not look our children and grandchildren in the eyes, because we knew, we ought to have known what was and is going on, what is being done, by a small dark power elite – the Globalists. We must step out of our comfort zone, and confront the enemy with an awakened mind of consciousness and a heart filled with love – but also with fierce resistance.
If we fail to step up and stand up for our rights, this war goes on to prepare future generations – to abstain from congregating with other people.
They are already indoctrinating our kids into keeping away from friends, school colleagues, peers, and from playing in groups with each other – as the New Normal.
The self-declared cupula – the crème of the crop of civilization – the Globalist evil masters, already compromised and continue to do so, the education systems throughout the globe to instill into kids and young adults that wearing masks is essential for survival, and “social distancing” is the only way forward.
Breaking the Social Fabric. Towards Totalitarian Rule
They, the Globalists, know damned well that once a civilization has lost its natural cohesion – the social fabric is broken, the very fabric that keeps a civilization together and dynamically advancing, they have won the battle. Maybe not the war, since the war will last as long as there is resistance. The “dynamic advancing” – or simply dynamics itself – is their nightmare, because dynamics is what makes life tick – life, people, societies, entire nations and continents. Without dynamics life on the planet would stand still.
And that’s what they want – a Globalist dictator, controlling a small population of serfs, or robotized slaves, that move only when told, own nothing and are given a digital blockchain controlled universal income, that, depending on their behavior and obedience, they may use to buy food, pleasure and comfort. Once the slaves are dispensable or incorrigible, their electronically controlled brains are simply turned off – RIP.
This may turn out to be the most devastating war mankind has ever fought.
May We, the People, see through this horrendous sham which is already now playing out, in Year One of the UN Agenda 21 /30;
And may We, the People, the commons, win this war against a power-thirsty elite and its bought administrators and “scientists” throughout the world – and restore a sovereign, unmasked, socially coherent society – in solidarity.
See the following Global Research articles by Peter Koenig on the “The Great Reset”
Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes:From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).
Peter Koenig is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Stop waiting for a miracle drug: A Boston University doctor says a sufficient amount of vitamin D can cut the risk of catching coronavirus by 54%.
“People have been looking for the magic drug or waiting for the vaccine and not looking for something this simple,” said Dr. Michael Holick, professor of medicine, physiology and biophysics at Boston University School of Medicine.
Holick and his colleagues studied blood samples from Quest Diagnostics of more than 190,000 Americans from all 50 states and found that those who had deficient levels of vitamin D had 54% higher COVID positivity compared to those with adequate levels of vitamin D in the blood.
The risk of getting coronavirus continued to decline as vitamin D levels increased, the study, published in the Public Library of Science One peer-reviewed journal shows.
“The higher your vitamin D status, lower was your risk,” Holick said.
Many people are vitamin D-deficient because there are only small amounts in food, Holick said. Most vitamin D comes from sun exposure and many are deprived, especially during winter months.
But the sunshine vitamin is easy to find and relatively cheap in drug stores, and taking vitamin D pills comes at no risk. “It’s perfectly safe,” Holick said.
“It’s considered to be, by many, the nutrient of the decade,” Holick said.
COVID-19 positivity is strongly associated with vitamin D levels in the blood, a relationship that stayed the same across different races, sexes and age ranges, the study states.
Vitamin D suppresses excessive cytokine release that can present as a cytokine storm, a common cause of COVID-related morbidity and mortality.
A deficiency in the nutrient alters the immune system, making one more likely to get upper respiratory infections, Holick said.
Throughout the pandemic, people of color have been disproportionately affected by coronavirus, experiencing a higher risk of acquiring it and having serious complications, according to the Centers for Disease Control.
Holick’s study examined the ZIP codes of people of color and found patients from predominantly Black and Hispanic ZIP codes had lower levels of vitamin D and were also more likely to have coronavirus than in patients from predominantly white, non-Hispanic ZIP codes.
The average adult needs around 2,000 units of vitamin D a day, Holick said. He said he’s been taking 6,000 units a day for decades and is in great health.
Several other studies on vitamin D have shown its benefits to the immune system.
Research published with the National Institutes of Health showed people with lower vitamin D levels were more likely to self-report a recent upper respiratory tract infection than those with sufficient levels.
Another study of more than 11,000 participants published in the British Medical Journal found vitamin D supplementation reduced the risk of acute respiratory tract infection among all participants.
“Vitamin D definitely improves your overall immunity to fight infections,” Holick said.
Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) tests are used worldwide to “diagnose” Sars-Cov-2 infection. An in-depth investigation reveals clear scientific evidence proving that these tests are not accurate and create a statistically significant percentage of false positives. Positive results more likely indicate “ordinary respiratory diseases like the common cold.”
In fact, American biochemist Kary Mullis, now deceased, who won the Noble Prize in chemistry for creating PCR technology, repeatedly stated throughout his career that it should not be used to test for viruses. This technology is designed to replicate DNA sequences, not test for coronavirus infections.
Executive Action Required
President Trump must take immediate action to investigate and hold members of the FDA, CDC and WHO accountable for scientific fraud and Crimes Against the Humanity.
If he does not take immediate action, he is thereby complicit in what clearly amounts to Crimes Against Humanity, as this report will detail.
Multiple U.S. Intelligence Community contacts have verified the accuracy of the extensive investigative report, conducted by award-winning journalist Torsten Engelbrecht, featured below. While they do take issue with some of the reports verbiage, they corroborate the main findings: PCR tests should not be relied upon for accurate results and create a significant percentage of false positives.
We also feature a New York Times report from 2007, entitled, “Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t,” which also clearly reveals how scientifically inaccurate PCR tests are, featuring many shocking statements from medical experts on the use of these tests, clearly laying out how they result in false positives and lead to dangerous exaggerations and false alarms.
Note: We are NOT reporting that the coronavirus is a complete hoax. You should take precautions and consult your doctor for best safety practices.
We are reporting, as the evidence reveals, that the number of COVID-positive results and the number of COVID-related deaths have been significantly exaggerated.
Based on our findings, the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration should not be trusted or relied upon for accurate information, and needs to be immediately investigated and held accountable for Crimes Against Humanity.
Before reading Engelbrecht’s investigation into the science that proves how fraudulent “COVID-19 testing” is, let’s recap the overall state of what can accurately be defined as an “attack” on us.
For your family’s sake, please do not instinctively dismiss any of these facts. Please read this entire post before it gets deleted by corrupt censors.
Fact 1) As thousands of Doctors worldwide have proven, there are several effective treatments for this coronavirus. (source one, two, three, four, five, six)
Fact 2) The effective treatments have been censored and suppressed for reasons including but not limited to:
a) They are inexpensive, i.e. Big Pharma can’t profit off of them;
b) They completely derail the wider-agenda of those interests who are exploiting this virus to implement the most oppressive economic, “health” and surveillance system ever;
c) There is an FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) law which only allows the mass “vaccination” program to continue if there are no other effective treatments. There is also a EUA “National Security” stipulation that requires a significant percentage of the population to be at risk of death, which is another reason why fraudulent false-positive testing is being used, as you will see below. (source)
For all of these reasons, the effective treatments have been suppressed; leading to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of people.
Fact 3) The handling of this virus has resulted in an all-out economic disaster that has destroyed the livelihood and financial security of billions of people worldwide, leading to unprecedented rates of debt, depression, drug abuse, overdoses and suicides. Meanwhile, the CARES Act and global central banking operations in response to this “crisis” have resulted in an unprecedented consolidation of wealth by the world’s richest 0.01%. (source one, two, three, four)
Fact 4) The lockdown, quarantine and closer of schools, religious services, sports, recreational activities, social events, shopping, food and workplaces, along with social distancing measures and mandatory mask use, in combination with criminally negligent 24/7 mainstream media virus fear propaganda, amounts to psychological torture and abuse on an unprecedented scale, which has torn apart and separated many families, and has done significant damage to the psychological wellbeing of billions of people, particularly young children, worldwide. (source)
Fact 5) Underfunded and cash-strapped hospitals have been financially incentivized to record as many COVID-related deaths as possible, resulting in a statistically significant number of falsely reported COVID-related deaths. On top of that, hospitals have also been heavily incentivized to put people on ventilators, which has also contributed to thousands of additional unnecessary deaths. (source one, two)
Now that we have a better understanding of the overall situation, of the Crimes Against Humanity that have been strategically implemented thus far, let’s look at the science that reveals the fraudulent testing process. Here’s is Torsten Engelbrecht’s report:
Though the whole world relies on RT-PCR to “diagnose” Sars-Cov-2 infection, the science is clear: they are not fit for purpose.
Lockdowns and hygienic measures around the world are based on numbers of cases and mortality rates created by the SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests used to identify “positive” patients, whereby “positive” is usually equated with “infected.”
However, when looking closely at the facts, the conclusion is that these PCR tests are meaningless as a diagnostic tool to determine an alleged infection by SARS-CoV-2.
Unfounded “Test, test, test” Mantra
At the media briefing on COVID-19 on March 16, 2020, the WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said:
“We have a simple message for all countries: test, test, test.”
The message was spread through headlines around the world, for instance by Reuters and the BBC.
Still on May 3, the moderator of the Heute Journal — one of the most important news magazines on German television — was passing the mantra of the corona dogma on to his audience with the admonishing words:
“Test, test, test — that is the credo at the moment, and it is the only way to really understand how much the coronavirus is spreading.”
This indicates that the belief in the validity of the PCR tests is so strong that it equals a religion that tolerates virtually no contradiction.
As Walter Lippmann, the two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and perhaps the most influential journalist of the 20th century said: “Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.”
So to start, it is very remarkable that Kary Mullis himself, the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology, did not think alike. His invention got him the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1993.
The reason is that the intended use of the PCR was, and still is, to apply it as a manufacturing technique, being able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times, and not as a diagnostic tool to detect viruses.
How declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in disaster was described by Gina Kolata in her 2007 New York Times article, “Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.” (full article below)
Lack of a valid gold standard
Moreover, it is worth mentioning that the PCR tests used to identify so-called COVID-19 patients presumably infected by what is called SARS-CoV-2 do not have a valid gold standard to compare them with.
This is a fundamental point. Tests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness — strictly speaking their “sensitivity”  and “specificity” — by comparison with a “gold standard,” meaning the most accurate method available.
As an example, for a pregnancy test the gold standard would be the pregnancy itself. As Australian infectious diseases specialist Sanjaya Senanayake, for example, stated in an ABC TV interview in an answer to the question “How accurate is the [COVID-19] testing?”:
“If we had a new test for picking up [the bacterium] golden staph in blood, we’ve already got blood cultures, that’s our gold standard we’ve been using for decades, and we could match this new test against that. But for COVID-19 we don’t have a gold standard test.”
Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University confirms this. In her paper “Interpreting a COVID-19 test result,” published recently in The British Medical Journal, she writes that there is a “lack of such a clear-cut ‘gold-standard’ for COVID-19 testing.”
But instead of classifying the tests as unsuitable for SARS-CoV-2 detection and COVID-19 diagnosis, or instead of pointing out that only a virus, proven through isolation and purification, can be a solid gold standard, Watson claims in all seriousness that, “pragmatically” COVID-19 diagnosis itself, remarkably including PCR testing itself, “may be the best available ‘gold standard.’” But this is not scientifically sound.
Apart from the fact that it is downright absurd to take the PCR test itself as part of the gold standard to evaluate the PCR test, there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, as even people such as Thomas Löscher, former head of the Department of Infection and Tropical Medicine at the University of Munich and member of the Federal Association of German Internists, conceded to us. 
If there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, COVID-19 diagnosis — contrary to Watson’s statement — cannot be suitable for serving as a valid gold standard.
In addition, “experts” such as Watson overlook the fact that only virus isolation, i.e. an unequivocal virus proof, can be the gold standard.
That is why I asked Watson how COVID-19 diagnosis “may be the best available gold standard,” if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, and also whether the virus itself, that is virus isolation, wouldn’t be the best available/possible gold standard, but she hasn’t answered these questions yet – despite multiple requests. She has not yet responded to our rapid response post on her article in which we address exactly the same points, either, though she wrote us on June 2nd: “I will try to post a reply later this week when I have a chance.”
[She never replied.]
No proof for the RNA being of viral origin
Now the question is: What is required first for virus isolation/proof? We need to know where the RNA for which the PCR tests are calibrated comes from.
As textbooks (e.g., White/Fenner. Medical Virology, 1986, p. 9) as well as leading virus researchers such as Luc Montagnier or Dominic Dwyer state, particle purification — i.e. the separation of an object from everything else that is not that object, as for instance Nobel laureate Marie Curie purified 100 mg of radium chloride in 1898 by extracting it from tons of pitchblende — is an essential pre-requisite for proving the existence of a virus, and thus to prove that the RNA from the particle in question comes from a new virus.
The reason for this is that PCR is extremely sensitive, which means it can detect even the smallest pieces of DNA or RNA — but it cannot determine where these particles came from. That has to be determined beforehand.
Because the PCR tests are calibrated for gene sequences (in this case RNA sequences because SARS-CoV-2 is believed to be a RNA virus), we have to know that these gene snippets are part of the looked-for virus. And to know that, correct isolation and purification of the presumed virus has to be executed.
Hence, we have asked the science teams of the relevant papers which are referred to in the context of SARS-CoV-2 for proof whether the electron-microscopic shots depicted in their in vitro experiments show purified viruses.
But not a single team could answer that question with “yes” — and nobody said purification was not a necessary step. We only got answers like “No, we did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification.”
We asked several study authors “Do your electron micrographs show the purified virus?”, they gave the following responses:
Study 1: Leo L. M. Poon; Malik Peiris. “Emergence of a novel human coronavirus threatening human health,” Nature Medicine, March 2020
Replying Author: Malik Peiris
Date: May 12, 2020
Answer: “The image is the virus budding from an infected cell. It is not purified virus.”
Study 2: Myung-Guk Han et al. “Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19,” Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives, February 2020
Replying Author: Myung-Guk Han
Date: May 6, 2020
Answer: “We could not estimate the degree of purification because we do not purify and concentrate the virus cultured in cells.”
Study 3: Wan Beom Park et al. “Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea,” Journal of Korean Medical Science, February 24, 2020
Replying Author: Wan Beom Park
Date: March 19, 2020
Answer: “We did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification.”
Study 4: Na Zhu et al., “A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China,” 2019, New England Journal of Medicine, February 20, 2020
Replying Author: Wenjie Tan
Date: March 18, 2020
Answer: “[We show] an image of sedimented virus particles, not purified ones.”
Regarding the mentioned papers it is clear that what is shown in the electron micrographs (EMs) is the end result of the experiment, meaning there is no other result that they could have made EMs from.
That is to say, if the authors of these studies concede that their published EMs do not show purified particles, then they definitely do not possess purified particles claimed to be viral.
[In this context, it has to be remarked that some researchers use the term “isolation” in their papers, but the procedures described therein do not represent a proper isolation (purification) process. Consequently, in this context the term “isolation” is misused.]
Thus, the authors of four of the principal, early 2020 papers claiming discovery of a new coronavirus concede they had no proof that the origin of the virus genome was viral-like particles or cellular debris, pure or impure, or particles of any kind. In other words, the existence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA is based on faith, not fact.
We have also contacted Dr Charles Calisher, who is a seasoned virologist. In 2001, Science published an “impassioned plea… to the younger generation” from several veteran virologists, among them Calisher, saying that:
[Modern virus detection methods like] “sleek polymerase chain reaction… tell little or nothing about how a virus multiplies, which animals carry it, [or] how it makes people sick. [It is] like trying to say whether somebody has bad breath by looking at his fingerprint..” 
And that’s why we asked Dr Calisher whether he knows one single paper in which SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated and finally really purified. His answer:
“I know of no such a publication. I have kept an eye out for one.” 
This actually means that one cannot conclude that the RNA gene sequences, which the scientists took from the tissue samples prepared in the mentioned in vitro trials and for which the PCR tests are finally being “calibrated,” belong to a specific virus — in this case SARS-CoV-2.
In addition, there is no scientific proof that those RNA sequences are the causative agent of what is called COVID-19.
In order to establish a causal connection, one way or the other, i.e. beyond virus isolation and purification, it would have been absolutely necessary to carry out an experiment that satisfies the four Koch’s postulates. But there is no such experiment, as Amory Devereux and Rosemary Frei recently revealed for OffGuardian.
The necessity to fulfill these postulates regarding SARS-CoV-2 is demonstrated not least by the fact that attempts have been made to fulfill them. But even researchers claiming they have done it, in reality, did not succeed.
One example is a study published in Nature on May 7. This trial, besides other procedures which render the study invalid, did not meet any of the postulates.
For instance, the alleged “infected” laboratory mice did not show any relevant clinical symptoms clearly attributable to pneumonia, which according to the third postulate should actually occur if a dangerous and potentially deadly virus was really at work there. The slight bristles and weight loss, which were observed temporarily in the animals are negligible, not only because they could have been caused by the procedure itself, but also because the weight went back to normal again.
Also, no animal died except those they killed to perform the autopsies. And let’s not forget: These experiments should have been done before developing a test, which is not the case.
Revealingly, none of the leading German representatives of the official theory about SARS-Cov-2/COVID-19 — the Robert Koch-Institute (RKI), Alexander S. Kekulé (University of Halle), Hartmut Hengel and Ralf Bartenschlager (German Society for Virology), the aforementioned Thomas Löscher, Ulrich Dirnagl (Charité Berlin) or Georg Bornkamm (virologist and professor emeritus at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Munich) — could answer the following question:
If the particles that are claimed to be to be SARS-CoV-2 have not been purified, how do you want to be sure that the RNA gene sequences of these particles belong to a specific new virus?
Particularly, if there are studies showing that substances such as antibiotics that are added to the test tubes in the in vitro experiments carried out for virus detection can “stress” the cell culture in a way that new gene sequences are being formed that were not previously detectable— an aspect that Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock already drew attention to in her Nobel Lecture back in 1983.
It should not go unmentioned that we finally got the Charité – the employer of Christian Drosten, Germany’s most influential virologist in respect of COVID-19, advisor to the German government and co-developer of the PCR test, which was the first to be “accepted” (not validated!) by the WHO worldwide – to answer questions on the topic.
But we didn’t get answers until June 18, 2020, after months of non-response. In the end, we achieved it only with the help of Berlin lawyer Viviane Fischer.
Regarding our question: “Has the Charité convinced itself that appropriate particle purification was carried out?,” the Charité concedes that they didn’t use purified particles.
Although they claim “virologists at the Charité are sure that they are testing for the virus,” in their paper (Corman et al.) they state:
“RNA was extracted from clinical samples with the MagNA Pure 96 system (Roche, Penzberg, Germany) and from cell culture supernatants with the viral RNA mini kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany).”
That means they just assumed the RNA was viral.
Incidentally, the Corman et al. paper, published on January 23, 2020 didn’t even go through a proper peer review process, nor were the procedures outlined therein accompanied by controls — although it is only through these two things that scientific work becomes really solid.
Irrational test results
It is also certain that we cannot know the false positive rate of the PCR tests without widespread testing of people who certainly do not have the virus, proven by a method which is independent of the test (having a solid gold standard).
Therefore, it is hardly surprising that there are several papers illustrating irrational test results.
For example, already in February the health authority in China’s Guangdong province reported that people have fully recovered from illness blamed on COVID-19, started to test “negative,” and then tested “positive” again.
A month later, a paper published in the Journal of Medical Virology showed that 29 out of 610 patients at a hospital in Wuhan had 3 to 6 test results that flipped between “negative,” “positive” and “dubious.”
A third example is a study from Singapore in which tests were carried out almost daily on 18 patients. The majority went from “positive” to “negative” back to “positive” at least once, and up to five times in one patient.
“It has been widely reported that the RT-qPCR [Reverse Transcriptase quantitative PCR] test kits used to detect SARSCoV-2 RNA in human specimens are generating many false positive results and are not sensitive enough to detect some real positive cases.”
In other words, even if we theoretically assume that these PCR tests can really detect a viral infection, the tests would be practically worthless, and would only cause an unfounded scare among the “positive” people tested.
This becomes also evident considering the positive predictive value (PPV).
The PPV indicates the probability that a person with a positive test result is truly “positive” (ie. has the supposed virus), and it depends on two factors: the prevalence of the virus in the general population and the specificity of the test, that is the percentage of people without disease in whom the test is correctly “negative” (a test with a specificity of 95% incorrectly gives a positive result in 5 out of 100 non-infected people).
With the same specificity, the higher the prevalence, the higher the PPV.
The results must, of course, be viewed very critically, first because it is not possible to calculate the specificity without a solid gold standard, as outlined, and second because the calculations in the article are based on the specificity determined in the study by Jessica Watson, which is potentially worthless, as also mentioned.
But if you abstract from it, assuming that the underlying specificity of 95% is correct and that we know the prevalence, even the mainstream medical journal Deutsches Ärzteblatt reports that the SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests may have “a shockingly low” PPV.
In one of the three scenarios, figuring with an assumed prevalence of 3%, the PPV was only 30 percent, which means that 70 percent of the people tested “positive” are not “positive” at all. Yet “they are prescribed quarantine,” as even the Ärzteblatt notes critically….
All this fits with the fact that the CDC and the FDA, for instance, concede in their files that the “SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests” are not suitable for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.
“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.”
“This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.”
And the FDA admits that: “positive results… do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.”
Remarkably, in the instruction manuals of PCR tests we can also read that they are not intended as a diagnostic test, as for instance in those by Altona Diagnostics and Creative Diagnostics. 
To quote another one, in the product announcement of the LightMix Modular Assays produced by TIB Molbiol — which were developed using the Corman et al. protocol — and distributed by Roche, we read:
“These assays are not intended for use as an aid in the diagnosis of coronavirus infection.”
“For research use only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures.”
Where is the evidence that the tests can measure the “viral load”?
There is also reason to conclude that the PCR test from Roche and others cannot even detect the targeted genes.
Moreover, in the product descriptions of the RT-qPCR tests for SARS-COV-2 it says they are “qualitative” tests, contrary to the fact that the “q” in “qPCR” stands for “quantitative.”
If these tests are not “quantitative” tests, they don’t show how many viral particles are in the body.
That is crucial because, in order to even begin talking about actual illness in the real world not only in a laboratory, the patient would need to have millions and millions of viral particles actively replicating in their body.
That is to say, the CDC, WHO, FDA or the RKI may assert that the tests can measure the so-called “viral load,” i.e. how many viral particles are in the body. “But this has never been proven. That is an enormous scandal,” as the journalist Jon Rappoport points out.
This is not only because the term “viral load” is deception. If you put the question, “What is viral load?”, at a dinner party, people take it to mean viruses circulating in the bloodstream. They’re surprised to learn it’s actually RNA molecules.
Also, to prove beyond any doubt that the PCR can measure how much a person is “burdened” with a disease-causing virus, the following experiment would have had to be carried out, which has not happened yet:
You take, let’s say, a few hundred or even thousand people and remove tissue samples from them. Make sure the people who take the samples do not perform the test. The testers will never know who the patients are and what condition they’re in.
The testers run their PCR on the tissue samples. In each case, they say which virus they found and how much of it they found.
Then, for example, in patients 29, 86, 199, 272, and 293 they found a great deal of what they claim is a virus. Now we un-blind those patients. They should all be sick, because they have so much virus replicating in their bodies. But are they really sick — or are they fit as a fiddle?
With the help of the aforementioned lawyer Viviane Fischer, I finally got the Charité to answer the question of whether the test developed by Corman et al. — the so-called “Drosten PCR test” — is a quantitative test.
But the Charité was not willing to answer this question “yes.” Instead, the Charité wrote:
“If real-time RT-PCR is involved, to the knowledge of the Charité in most cases these are… limited to qualitative detection.”
According to Corman et al., the E-gene assay is likely to detect all Asian viruses, while the other assays in both tests are supposed to be more specific for sequences labelled “SARS-CoV-2.”
Besides the questionable purpose of having either a preliminary or a confirmatory test that is likely to detect all Asian viruses, at the beginning of April the WHO changed the algorithm, recommending that from then on a test can be regarded as “positive” even if just the E-gene assay (which is likely to detect all Asian viruses!) gives a “positive” result.
This means that a confirmed unspecific test result is officially sold as specific.
That change of algorithm increased the “case” numbers. Tests using the E-gene assay are produced for example by Roche, TIB Molbiol and R-Biopharm.
High CQ values make the test results even more meaningless
Another essential problem is that many PCR tests have a “cycle quantification” (Cq) value of over 35, and some, including the “Drosten PCR test,” even have a Cq of 45.
The Cq value specifies how many cycles of DNA replication are required to detect a real signal from biological samples.
“Cq values higher than 40 are suspect because of the implied low efficiency and generally should not be reported,” as it says in the MIQE guidelines.
MIQE stands for “Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments,” a set of guidelines that describe the minimum information necessary for evaluating publications on Real-Time PCR, also called quantitative PCR, or qPCR.
“If you have to go more than 40 cycles to amplify a single-copy gene, there is something seriously wrong with your PCR.”
The MIQE guidelines have been developed under the aegis of Stephen A. Bustin, Professor of Molecular Medicine, a world-renowned expert on quantitative PCR and author of the book A-Z of Quantitative PCR, which has been called “the bible of qPCR.”
In a recent podcast interview Bustin points out that “the use of such arbitrary Cq cut-offs is not ideal, because they may be either too low (eliminating valid results) or too high (increasing false “positive” results).”
According to him, a Cq in the 20s to 30s should be aimed at, and there is concern regarding the reliability of the results for any Cq over 35.
If the Cq value gets too high, it becomes difficult to distinguish real signal from background, for example due to reactions of primers and fluorescent probes, and hence there is a higher probability of false positives.
Moreover, among other factors that can alter the result, before starting with the actual PCR, in case you are looking for presumed RNA viruses such as SARS-CoV-2, the RNA must be converted to complementary DNA (cDNA) with the enzyme Reverse Transcriptase — hence the “RT” at the beginning of “PCR” or “qPCR.”
But this transformation process is “widely recognized as inefficient and variable,” as Jessica Schwaber from the Centre for Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine in Toronto and two research colleagues pointed out in a 2019 paper.
Stephen A. Bustin acknowledges problems with PCR in a comparable way.
For example, he pointed to the problem that in the course of the conversion process (RNA to cDNA) the amount of DNA obtained with the same RNA base material can vary widely, even by a factor of 10 (see above interview).
Considering that the DNA sequences get doubled at every cycle, even a slight variation becomes magnified and can thus alter the result, annihilating the test’s reliable informative value.
So how can it be that those who claim the PCR tests are highly meaningful for so-called COVID-19 diagnosis blind out the fundamental inadequacies of these tests — even if they are confronted with questions regarding their validity?
Certainly, the apologists of the novel coronavirus hypothesis should have dealt with these questions before throwing the tests on the market and putting basically the whole world under lockdown, not least because these are questions that come to mind immediately for anyone with even a spark of scientific understanding.
Thus, the thought inevitably emerges that financial and political interests play a decisive role for this ignorance about scientific obligations. NB, the WHO, for example has financial ties with drug companies, as the British Medical Journal showed in 2010.
Experts criticize “that the notorious corruption and conflicts of interest at WHO have continued, even grown” since then. The CDC as well, to take another big player, is obviously no better off.
Finally, the reasons and possible motives remain speculative, and many involved surely act in good faith; but the science is clear: The numbers generated by these RT-PCR tests do not in the least justify frightening people who have been tested “positive” and imposing lockdown measures that plunge countless people into poverty and despair or even drive them to suicide.
A “positive” result may have serious consequences for the patients as well, because then all non-viral factors are excluded from the diagnosis and the patients are treated with highly toxic drugs and invasive intubations.
Especially for elderly people and patients with pre-existing conditions such a treatment can be fatal, as we have outlined in the article “Fatal Therapie.”
Without doubt excess mortality rates are caused by the therapy and by the lockdown measures, while the “COVID-19” death statistics comprise also patients who died of a variety of diseases, redefined as COVID-19 only because of a “positive” test result whose value could not be more doubtful.
 Sensitivity is defined as the proportion of patients with disease in whom the test is positive; and specificity is defined as the proportion of patients without disease in whom the test is negative.
 E-mail from Prof. Thomas Löscher from March 6, 2020
 Martin Enserink. Virology. Old guard urges virologists to go back to basics, Science, July 6, 2001, p. 24
 E-mail from Charles Calisher from May 10, 2020
Apple and Google last week announced a joint contact tracing effort that would use Bluetooth technology to help alert people who have been in close proximity to someone who tested positive for COVID-19. Similar proposals have been put forward by an MIT-associated effort called PACT as well as by multiple Europeangroups.
These proposals differ from the traditional public health technique of “contact tracing” to try to stop the spread of a disease. In place of human interviewers, they would use location or proximity data generated by mobile phones to contact people who may have been exposed.
While some of these systems could offer public health benefits, they may also cause significant risks to privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. If such systems are to work, there must be widespread, free, and quick testing available. The systems must also be widely adopted, but that will not happen if people do not trust them. For there to be trust, the tool must protect privacy, be voluntary, and store data on an individual’s device rather than in a centralized repository.
A well-designed tool would give people actionable medical information while also protecting privacy and giving users control, but a poorly designed one could pose unnecessary and significant risks to privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. To help distinguish between the two, the ACLU is publishing a set of technology principlesagainst which developers, the public, and policymakers can judge any contact tracing apps and protocols.
Technology principles that embed privacy by design are one important type of protection. There still need to be strict policies to mitigate against overreach and abuse. These policies, at a minimum, should include:
Voluntariness — Whenever possible, a person testing positive must consent to any data sharing by the app. The decision to use a tracking app should be voluntary and uncoerced. Installation, use, or reporting must not be a precondition for returning to work or school, for example.
Use Limitations — The data should not be used for purposes other than public health — not for advertising and especially not for any punitive or law enforcement purposes.
Minimization — Policies must be in place to ensure that only necessary information is collected and to prohibit any data sharing with anyone outside of the public health effort.
Data Destruction — Both the technology and related policies and procedures should ensure deletion of data when there is no longer a need to hold it.
Transparency — If the government obtains any data, it must be fully transparent about what data it is acquiring, from where, and how it is using that data.
No Mission Creep – Policies must be in place to ensure tracking does not outlive the effort against COVID-19.
These policies, at a minimum, must be in place to ensure that any tracking app will be effective and will accord with civil liberties and human rights.
The Apple/Google proposal, for instance, offers a strong start when measured against these technology principles. Rather than track sensitive location histories, the Apple/Google protocol aims to use Bluetooth technology to record one phone’s proximity to another. Then, if a person tests positive, those logs can be used to notify people who were within Bluetooth range and refer them for testing, recommend self-isolation, or encourage treatment if any exists. Like the similar proposals, it relies on Bluetooth because the location data our cell phones generate is not accurate enoughfor contact tracing.
Like location histories, however, proximity records can be highly revealing because they expose who we spend time with. To their credit, the Apple/Google developers have considered that privacy problem. Rather than identify the people who own the phones, apps based on the protocol would use identifiers that cannot easily be traced back to phone owners.
As of this writing, the Apple/Google protocol could better address certain important privacy-related questions, however. For example, how does the tool define an epidemiologically relevant “contact”? The public needs to know if it is a good technological approximation of what public health professionals believe is a concern. Otherwise, the tool could be collecting far more personal information than is warranted by the crisis or could cause too many false alarms. And if there is indeed a plan to terminate the program at the conclusion of the pandemic, what criteria are the companies using to indicate when to press the built-in self-destruct button?
Another issue is whether phone users control when to submit their proximity logs for publication to the exposure database. These decisions should be made by the phone user. There may be good reasons why people do not want to upload all their data. User control can help to reduce false positives, for example if a user knows that identified contacts during that time were inaccurate (because they were in a car or wearing protective gear). It would also encourage people whose records include particularly sensitive contact information to at least volunteer the non-sensitive part of their records rather than fail to participate completely.
Also, when users share their proximity logs, what will they reveal? Right now, under the Apple/Google proposal, an infected user publicly shares a set of keys. Each key provides 24 hours of linkable data — a length of time that threatens the promised anonymity of the system. It is too easy to re-identify someone from 24 hours of data and the current proposal makes it impossible for the user to redact selected times during the day. There are other options that would ensure that identifiers published in the exposure database are as difficult as possible to connect to a person’s name or identity.
Voluntariness is particularly important. A critical mass of people will need to use a contact tracing app for it to be an effective public health mechanism, but some proposals to obtain that level of adoption have been coercive and scary. This is the wrong approach. When people feel that their phones are antagonistic rather than helpful, they will just turn location functions off or turn their phones off entirely. Others could simply leave their phone at home or acquire and register a second, dummy phone that is not their primary device with which they leave home. Good public health measures will leverage people’s own incentives to report disease, respond to warnings, and help stop the virus’s spread.
In the coming weeks and months, we are going to see a push to reopen the economy — an effort that will rely heavily on public health measures that include contact tracing. Bluetooth proximity tracking may be tried as a part of such efforts, though we don’t know how practical it will prove in real-world deployments. But privacy-by-design principles and the policy safeguards outlined here must be core to that effort if we are to benefit from a proximity tracking tool that can give people actionable medical information while also protecting privacy and giving users control.
Proposals to use the tracking capabilities of our cell phones to help fight COVID-19 have probably received more attention than any other technology issue during the pandemic. Here at the ACLU, we have beenskeptical of schemes to use apps for contact tracing or exposure warnings from the beginning, but it is clearer than ever that such tools are unlikely to work, and that the debate over such tracking is largely a sideshow to the principal coronavirus health needs.
We have said from the outset that location-based contact tracing was untenable, but that the concept of “proximity tracking” — in which Bluetooth signals emitted by phones are used to notify people who may have been exposed — seemed both more plausible and less of a threat to privacy. Indeed, a number of serious institutions began working on this concept early in the pandemic, most notably Apple and Google, which have already implemented a version of the concept in their mobile operating systems.
Some of the problems with tech-assisted contact tracing have been apparent from the beginning, such as the social dimensions of the challenge. Smartphone ownership is not evenly distributedby income, race, or age, threatening to create disparate effects from such schemes. And even the most comprehensive, all-seeing contact tracing system is of little use without social and medical systems in place to help those who may have the virus — including access to medical care, testing, and support for those who are quarantined. Those systems are all inadequate in the United States today.
Other problems with technology-assisted contact tracing have become more apparent as the pandemic has played out. Specifically, such tracing appears to be squeezed from two directions. On the one hand, a tool shouldn’t pick up every fleeting encounter and swamp users with too many meaningless notifications. On the other, if it is confined to reporting sustained close contacts of the kind that are most likely to result in transmission, the tool is not likely to improve upon old-fashioned human contact tracing. Those are the kinds of contacts that people are likely to remember. And those memories, relayed to human contact tracers, are more likely to identify a patient’s significant past exposures than an automated app that can’t determine, for example, whether two people were separated by glass or a wall.
A difficult disease to trace
The first problem — the danger of generating far too many “exposure notifications” — is considerable. As one commentator put it, “actual transmission events are rare compared to the number of interactions people have.” Swamping users with false notifications would be useless and annoying at best, and seriously disruptive and counterproductive at worst. Ultimately, people will stop taking the notifications seriously, or just uninstall the app.
That problem is made worse by the fact that COVID-19 is a more difficult disease to trace than many. As a group of prominent epidemiologists from the University of Minnesota explained in a report on contact tracing, contact tracing is less effective when:
1. Contacts are difficult to trace, such as when a disease is transmitted through the air. Respiratory transmission appears to be the primary way COVID-19 is transmitted. Compared to the kind of contact tracing that has long been done with HIV, where transmission takes place through sex or blood, the virus that causes COVID-19 is much harder to track. One cough or sneeze from a stranger may be enough to infect an unlucky passerby — as can sharing an interior space with a “super-spreader” who is on the other side of a large room.
2. The infection rate in a community is high. In the United States, as of this writing (July 2020), there are currently around 50,000 new coronavirus cases being identified every day. As the Minnesota report puts it, “contact tracing is most effective either early in the course of an outbreak or much later in the outbreak when other measures have reduced disease incidence to low levels.” The U.S. may someday reach the point where cases are once again sporadic rather than widespread, but for now expertsrecommend concentrating contact tracing on contacts within households, healthcare and other high-risk settings, and case clusters — an approach much more amenable to manual contact tracing.
These factors increase the risk of generating too many exposure notifications to be useful. Serious technical challenges with using smartphones for contact tracing also increase that risk. One of the biggest questions has always been how to use Bluetooth to judge which encounters are worthy of being recorded as potential transmission events. Judgments have to be made about how close a person needs to be, and for how much time, to meet the warning threshold. That becomes even trickier since Bluetooth can’t reliably measure distances. The strength of a Bluetooth signal varies not only with distance, but also from phone to phone, and from owner to owner. The frequency at which Bluetooth operates (2.4 GHz) is one that is easily absorbed by water, including the water in the human body, which means that signal strength can vary significantly depending upon whether a person has their phone in their front or back pocket, and how much that person weighs.
Complicating matters is the fact that existing contact-tracing apps are being thrown together very quickly. Google and Apple moved from concept to a finalized product in less than 12 weeks. They should be commended for stepping up in an emergency, but we shouldn’t expect it to work well anytime soon. As is clear to any experienced software developer, their product is basically an early prototype that’s being pushed into production. In a normal world, they would be testing their app on groups of hundreds and then thousands of people in cities and a variety of other real-world situations. Through no fault of Apple and Google, there simply hasn’t been the opportunity to do the kind of engineering development and refinement that a project like this really needs.
And of course, what is true of software developed by Apple and Google is even more true of apps developed in a rush by state governments like North Dakota and Rhode Island, or other nations like South Korea. South Korea has been lauded for its high-tech coronavirus response. But the quarantine app the country has been using put people’s names, locations, and other private information at risk by failing to follow basic cybersecurity practices.
While effective technology-assisted contact tracing apps must avoid generating too many exposure notifications, they must also establish that they can improve upon or significantly augment old-fashioned human contact tracing.
Epidemiologists emphasize that contact tracing has always been a tricky and sensitive job. Getting people to trust any official enough to open up about their potentially privacy-sensitive whereabouts and contacts is a skill — one that requires“training and development of a specialized skill set” as well as “consideration of local contexts, communities, and cultures.”
That is especially true since those who are identified as having been exposed to the coronavirus are asked to self-quarantine for two weeks — putting much or all of their life on hold, and possibly risking the loss of a job or income, necessitating the finding of new caregivers for dependents, and imposing various other costs. That’s something that a friend will be reluctant to impose upon another friend by giving their name — especially where no social support is provided to those asked to self-quarantine. As the Minnesota report warned, “If people perceive the economic, social, or other costs of compliance with contact tracing are greater than its value, it won’t be successful.”
There are many reasons to doubt that these tricky issues can be navigated better through technology. As report co-author Michael Osterholm put it, “Having been in public health for 45 years, and having cut my teeth in surveillance in many different ways — I don’t think most people would comply. If I got notifications that I’d been exposed to [someone] with COVID, would I self-isolate for 14 days at home, because I got a text on my phone?”
The sensitive privacy and trust issues that human contact tracers face are likely to be amplified in the technology realm. People who are reluctant to tell contact tracers where they’ve been are likely to be even more reluctant to let an app carry such information. By building tools with very strong, cleverly constructed privacy protections, Apple, Google, and others have created the best possible chance of engendering trust in those apps, but those protections still have gaps. People who refuse to wear a mask are unlikely to deliberately install tracking software on their phone, whatever privacy assurances they are given. Nor are many members of Black, Brown, and immigrant communitiesfor whom “trust in the authorities is non-existent.”
Some experts have estimated that at least 60 percent of a population would have to run an app for it to become effective. Others think apps can be modestly helpful even with much smaller adoption rates. But aside from trust issues, the number of people willing to participate seems to have gone down since the first months of the outbreak, as “social distancing fatigue” has set in and public panic over the virus has given way to a more measured caution (and in too many cases, an abandonment of all caution whatsoever).
The bottom line is that there are too few reasons to think that apps will prove more helpful than human memories elicited by experienced contact tracers. The promise of exposure notifications lies in the space between the large pool of incidental contacts that people have, and the smaller number of significant contacts that they remember. The apps promise to track contacts that are close and sustained enough to pose a serious risk of exposure yet beyond the subject’s memory. For most people, that space may simply not be large enough to be useful.
Real-World Experiences in States and Other Countries
Unsurprisingly, given these problems, the states and countries that have experimented with using technology-assisted contact tracing have not met with much success. The use of technology by China and some other Asian countries has received a lot of attention, but as the Minnesota epidemiologists point out, “we don’t know exactly what methods were used, how many cases were involved, and what the estimated impact was in reducing transmission since other mitigation strategies were employed at the same time” in those countries.
That lack of measurement is true throughout the world. An MIT survey of global digital contact-tracing efforts found 43 countries in some stage of offering a product. Ten of those countries are relying on the privacy-preserving Apple/Google protocol, with the rest a jumble of different architectures and policies. It may not be quite true, as UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson declaredon June 24, that “No country in the world has a working contact tracing app” — Germany has launched an app that has been downloaded over 14 million times so far, and India claims 131 million downloads for its app and 900,000 users who have been contacted and told to self-isolate. But we don’t know if those numbers represent a high enough proportion of the populations to actually have an impact on slowing the disease in Germany and India, let alone in countries with lower adoption rates. We also don’t know how effective it is to simply tell people to self-isolate, in the absence of social support for them to do so.
It’s also worth noting that in some countries such as China and India, digital tracking is imposed in authoritarian ways that would cause most people who value civil liberties to recoil.
In the U.S., a few states have attempted to launch apps, including Utah, where things went so badly that one program was shut down within 72 hours of its launch, and another one had not led to any contract tracing a month after its launch. An app in North and South Dakota ran into trouble quickly when it was revealed to be sharing data with a private location-data company. Overall, state efforts so far have been plagued by “technical glitches and a general lack of interest by their residents.” A survey by Business Insider found that only three states planned to use the Apple/Google technology. Others had not decided, but 17 states reported that they had no plans to use smartphone-based contact tracing at all.
Those who have worked on privacy-preserving exposure notification apps should be commended for stepping up. They have dedicated their skills toward trying to save lives and restore people’s freedom, and they did a very good job creating a privacy-preserving approach that was not only the most likely to be trusted and effective, but also the least likely to permanently change our world for the worse.
Nevertheless, it does not appear to be working out. “A lot of this is just distraction,” Osterholm concluded of all the talk over digital contact tracing. “I just don’t see any of this materializing.” Given what we know about the technology, we are inclined to agree.
The US remains wholly incapable of tracing Covid-19 contagion, but if it tried, we might wind up with “the worst of both worlds” – a horror of coercion and confusion that still failed to stop the epidemic.
“Low income communities, particularly Black and Brown communities, have reasonable fears that at least some law enforcement agencies might use access to contact tracing data to harass them.”
I spoke to Bay Area privacy activist Tracy Rosenberg about the danger that data contact tracing to track the spread of COVID-19 will become available to the surveillance state.
Ann Garrison: Many fear that digital contact tracing to stop the spread of COVID-19 will expand surveillance states’ ability to curtail privacy and control their populations. Can you explain what contact tracing is?
Tracy Rosenberg: Contact tracing is the process of creating a map of a person’s movements and associations in order to identify the possible spread of infectious disease. Before the age of digital technology, it was an onerous process of paper surveys, which while they contained very personal information, had some practical limitations on any additional use. In the age of digital technology, the ability to retain, repurpose and search large data chains is greater than it has ever been in human history. Contact tracing data, when performed by government public health agencies, is medical health data and is protected by the same laws that protect other health data.
AG: What dangers does it pose?
TR: Well, there are quite a few. One is emergency protocols. A large tracing program set up under emergency conditions can often lead to incomplete frameworks and poorly trained personnel, including some with relatively little or no familiarity with health data protections. When data protections, storage and access protocols are not well-planned, leaks, hacks and unauthorized access sometimes occur.
AG: Can you describe what a well-planned data protection plan would be? Who would have access to what and who not, and how would we know that the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Mossad hadn’t gotten into it?
TR: It’s not an easy question, but generally data protection requires retention limits (i.e., only keeping things for as long as you actually need them and no longer), disaggregating bulk data from personally identifying information as soon as possible, clear demarcations of access by job title, several layers of anti-hacking security protections, clear consent procedures, and training. An emergency like a pandemic is always the enemy of planned data protections. But there have been efforts.
For example, California privacy groups tried to pass protective legislation in 2020 for contact tracing software (AB 1782 and AB 660) that among other things would have established procedures for providing and revoking consent, required at least some level of encryption for stored data, required public reports and metrics every 90 days, and prevented law enforcement agencies from participating in or having access to contact tracing data. (That’s a broad summary, but it gives you the idea.) Sadly, both bills were vetoed by Gavin Newsom who argued that he did not want regulations that might slow down contact tracing efforts in the state.
It’s a habitual trend in American politics that we don’t want to address privacy issues during emergencies, which has then led to revelations of upsetting practices after the fact. In theory, agencies like FBI, CIA, NSA, and Mossad (to use your examples) should have no access to health data that is already protected by law. But in an emergency, with a bunch of entities that are both public and private rushing in to try to help and set up new processes–that is exactly how the guard rails slip and things happen that aren’t supposed to happen.
AG: Doesn’t any privacy protection plan or policy depend on the good faith of those expected to follow it? This is true with any policy, but the use of Big Data seems particularly difficult to detect.
TR: Good faith only goes so far. Firstly, it probably isn’t that good an idea to depend on the intentions of government agencies, which are filled with a large variety of people. While I believe most public health workers are dedicated and conscientious, one can never say anything concrete about 100% of the people involved in anything, and the nature of a pandemic is to draw in other additional agencies and entities with relatively little experience with handling large amounts of health data and personally identifying information (PII). In general, our approach to privacy regulations is that enforcement is required. A policy without enforcement protocols and consequences for violations is a recommendation. The vetoed California bills I mentioned both included private rights of actions that allow anyone to take a legal action to ensure compliance. Basically crowdsourced enforcement, which provides a step that can be taken if and when good faith is not enough.
There isn’t any doubt that the use and distribution of any set of Big Data can be hard to detect in real time. The only privacy protection that is 100% bulletproof is not to collect the information in the first place. But if that’s not an option (and a reasonable case can be made that it probably isn’t, at least in the early stages of a pandemic), then enforceable regulations are the next best thing.
At this point in the COVID-19 pandemic in the US, case numbers are far exceeding any realistic contact tracing program, so we may have the worst of both worlds, which is half-assed and partial contact tracing with limited effect on actually reining in the pandemic and with no effective or enforceable regulations.
AG: The California Development Department has been announcing jobs for contact tracers every day since the COVID pandemic began, and employment information is readily available on the Web. They usually include the promise that you can “work from home” and don’t require much experience. What kind of training do you think contact tracers should have?
TR: A thorough review of federal and state protections for medical data. A one-way data uplink that removes data access once it is submitted to a public health agency so it cannot be recovered and stored on a personal hard drive or shared.
AG: What about cross-state and cross-border contact tracing? How is that being handled?
TR: Best as I can tell, remarkably ad hoc and randomly. Since the federal government under Trump has largely shifted pandemic response onto the states to deal with, there is a big handicap in dealing with cross-state episodes. We’ve seen that with incidents like the MA conference that allegedly spread a great deal of virus in the early days of the pandemic as conference-goers went home all across the country, but primarily to the large urban cities, and the few attempts at national contact tracing of Florida spring break participants. Probably the most active federal involvement apart from some of the vaccines has been at the airports, but as we’ve seen it’s been pretty marginal, with random travel bans on some foreign countries at some times, and somewhat chaotic testing protocols that I’m not sure people really believe are that effective, given the limitations of PCR testing for infection.
AG: What are some of the other dangers of contact tracing?
TR: Another issue is consent. The right to agree or not agree to participate in contact tracing is an important privacy value. While very few have advocated for mandatory participation in the US, that would potentially be a privacy issue. What is more worrisome is what we call coerced participation, which is pressure from employers or social service agencies which impairs freely given consent by suggesting adverse consequences for those who do not participate. California had proposed bills in 2020 to ban retaliation against individuals who chose not to participate, but Governor Newsom vetoed those contact tracing regulatory protocols.
AG: It’s worth noting here that Governor Newsom is widely considered to be a future presidential candidate.
AG: It seems that most contact tracing is done with cell phone apps that people are downloading voluntarily, although Singapore is also deploying a wearable token. Are most people who now choose to participate in contact tracing downloading an app onto their phone?
TR: The Apple/Google Notify app is a fairly widespread mode of contact tracing. There are a lot of downloads of the app, although there is no real way to verify how many of those people have turned on Bluetooth to use the app and how many are carrying their cell phone everywhere they go. As I said, this particular app was developed to minimize privacy risks and does not collect too much PII. However, testing facilities, which are run in a lot of different ways in different states, may also be engaging in contact tracing with positive test results, and how all of that is working across the country is a bit unclear. There are also anecdotal reports of large employers engaging in some ad hoc contact tracing when their employees test positive, which of course happens in a black box.
AG: Singapore has already excluded anyone who refuses to participate in contact tracing access to public space, and openly stated that they will make data available to police to investigate crimes. That’s not surprising because Singapore is one of the most tightly and openly controlled states in the world. Who is pressing for mandatory participation here?
TR: I don’t think anyone has openly pushed for mandatory participation in contact tracing. If they have, I’m not aware of it. But there is concern about coerced participation with employers pressuring employees, or educational bureaucracies pressuring teachers and students that would have people fearing informal retaliation or discrimination if they prefer not to participate. In my view, mandated participation requires extensive safeguards. Laissez-faire should not operate in only one direction. If the government will not take action to safeguard my personal information, then I have a choice whether to trust them with it—or not.
AG: What’s next on your list of concerns?
TR: Another is technology. As with anything else, technology can make large-scale tasks much easier, but it can also introduce more problems. Automated contact tracing programs can potentially introduce greater scale and speed, but also introduce storage and access questions that can impair data safety, sometimes in ways that are not clear until something bad happens. It bears repeating that the California Notify app, one of the first automated contact tracing programs to go forward with public distribution, was carefully designed with privacy rights in mind and, at least on paper, its protocol should prevent many of the problems that could be anticipated.
AG: Can you give us an example of “something bad happening”?
TR: A list on the dark web or even the plain old Internet of people with positive COVID tests in the last month in Philadelphia with the names and addresses of anyone they can remember having contact with, secured by a hacker. A FOIA request that comes back in 2022 with emails from FBI agents referring to “tapping into” the NY COVID database to find someone they are looking for. Vaccine passports required for bus, train, and plane travel that cannot be acquired without a social security number, which turns undocumented Americans into literal fugitives in the country they live in and turns victims of identity theft into one big no-travel list. None of these things are impossible from a badly regulated contact tracing effort.
AG: What about law enforcement access outside Singapore, where it’s already acknowledged?
TR: That’s of course one of the greatest concerns. First responders are sometimes seen as participants in contact tracing administration. While this can make sense on the EMS public health end, it becomes concerning when extended to police and fire. One of the restraints that California’s 2020 legislation sought to establish was a red line keeping police out of contact tracing. But, as mentioned, that was vetoed by California’s governor.
Communities have what I think are reasonable fears based on past experiences that at least some law enforcement agencies might use access to contact tracing data to harass low income communities, especially in Black and Brown neighborhoods or homeless people. It is definitely true that some police agencies have demonstrated ongoing violations of data-sharing limitations of all kinds, which usually come to light after the fact, so the role of law enforcement in contact tracing is an ongoing concern.
AG: Anything else?
TR: Beyond those four specific concerns, there are always broader concerns that lists of “the exposed” or “the infected,” like any government list of people (like lists of “suspected terrorists” or “antifa” or “black identity extremists”), could under certain political conditions be used to strip some level of Constitutional protections from the people on the list. This would be a secretive government activity unsanctioned by law, but it has certainly happened before in American history.
AG: Since the Snowden release about NSA surveillance, many people assume that the horse is out of the barn, that we have no privacy left, but I know you continue to work on privacy issues with multiple coalitions and at multiple levels of government. Can you explain why you still have hope and think this is worth doing?
TR: Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which more or less legalized most of the NSA’s snooping, was not renewed by Congress after 20 years. That’s a big deal. In reality, although an agency like the NSA has enormous access, the numbers of people they actually touch is tens of thousands in a year, while there are hundreds of millions in the US. So there is plenty of room to protect literally mountains of collected data, first by trying to reduce the size of the mountain and secondly by installing guardrails to limit abuse and misuse. It is never a question of 100% success because that won’t happen, but I can say after several years that the visibility of the conversation and the acknowledgment of the risks have increased by a quantum amount from say 2013 to 2021. I do not think this pandemic emergency has (at least not yet and not in the United States) set loose the kind of mass privacy violations unleashed by 9-11. That said, it has unleashed an economic crisis and social control limitations that become increasingly debilitating the longer they drag on. And it is not wrong to say that the economic disenfranchisement of millions over the course of a year certainly can work in the interests of oppression and authoritarianism. A state of ongoing emergency is a state in which things that would never fly in a non-emergency can become institutionalized.
AG: There’s a lot of concern about contact tracing expressed in mainstream outlets. What could you say about how widespread and effective the resistance to abuse of the data has been so far?
TR: With regard to the pandemic, objections to masks and social distancing as well as business closures and fears about the vaccines have been all tangled up with contact tracing worries in kind of a soup of general anxiety. It has been difficult to separate out all of the pieces into coherent public policy recommendations. So I’d say we have widespread and ineffective resistance. Probably the folks pursuing eviction moratoriums have been the most successful in getting protections actually put into place, and even those have been only partially effective. We definitely have not provided the economic support people need for a real disease-prevention lockdown, nor have we made it possible to identify everyone exposed and assist them with a real isolation period to stop any spread. Without those things, we end up with a very, very long period of emergency, which has huge risks as outlined above.
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Ann Garrison is an independent journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In 2014, she received the Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza Democracy and Peace Prizefor promoting peace through her reporting on conflict in the African Great Lakes Region. Please help support her work on Patreon. She can be reached on Twitter @AnnGarrison and at ann(at)anngarrison(dot)com.
You see them everywhere. Men and women walking down the street, all of them with masks on their faces and cell phones in their hands. People jogging, with masks covering their faces and cell phones in their hands. Mothers wheeling their babies with one hand, holding a cell phone in the other hand, with a mask covering their face.
The world has gone insane.
Back in May, the President of Tanzania announced that a goat, a quail, and a papaya had tested positive for COVID-19. People did not stop eating papayas. But when farmed minks began testing positive, the response has been to kill them all.
After a few minks in the Netherlands tested positive in April, 570,000 minks were slaughtered. Minks started testing positive and being killed in Denmark in June, and on November 4, Denmark announced it would destroy the rest of its 17 million minks. Sanity finally broke out in that country, and the eradication campaign stopped after only 2.5 million minks were slaughtered. But minks have also been killed in Spain, Sweden, Greece, France, and the United States.
Lions, tigers and leopards in zoos have tested positive.
This is what you are supposed to do: “Isolate the pet from everyone else, including other pets.” “Keep your pet at least 6 feet away from other pets and people.”
“If you have a private backyard where your dog can go to the bathroom, do not take them for walks.” But, the CDC warns, “Do not wipe or bathe your pet with… hand sanitizer,” and “Do not try to put a mask on your pet.”
It is becoming obvious that no matter what you test — minks, lions, dogs, papayas, people, or anything else — you will get positive results, and that the results mean nothing. Just wait until someone tests a cow. Kill all the cows, and no more meat or dairy products! Vaccinate every pet and farm animal in the world! Do contact tracing for every pet that comes in contact with an infected pet!
We have a pandemic, all right, but it is a pandemic of insanity, not COVID-19. The world — the entire world, not just a few people or a few countries or a few cultures — has forgotten what life is. Life is community. It is social contact, touching, breathing, sharing. It is oxygen. People are dying because their masks are making them hypoxic. Cancer cells thrive in the absence of oxygen.
If you have cancer, and you wear a mask, you are making your cancer grow. And life is bacteria and viruses. Ninety-nine percent of all bacteria and viruses are beneficial and necessary — necessary for life, and necessary for evolution. If you disinfect the surface of the earth, you will put an end to life. We did not disinfect the world for smallpox, influenza, measles, or tuberculosis. But we are doing it for “COVID-19.”
And we are blaming every symptom known to man on “COVID-19.” COVID-19 is a respiratory virus, closely related to the common cold. But we have made a caricature of it. Suddenly a coronavirus is a magical piece of RNA, created by Dracula, that will damage your kidneys or your heart or give you a stroke.
There is another, very real pandemic that is out of control: a pandemic of radiation. A pandemic that does cause kidney and heart damage and strokes, in addition to pneumonia. The radiation is produced by cell phones. The cell phones with which mothers are irradiating their babies, and joggers are irradiating their hearts. The cell phones with which 7 billion people are irradiating the birds, insects and flowers around them. The radiation that will kill all 7 billion of us, unless we put an end to it.
Take Back Your Health Conference, January 23-24, 2021
I will be speaking about these issues at the 2021 Take Back Your Health (TBYH) Conference. This year’s conference, featuring doctors, immunologists, environmental experts, and others, is titled Our Global Microbiome: Understanding Our Relationship with the Viruses, Bacteria and Molds Around Us.
This is a controversial issue which has been raised by several prominent scientists.
On January 7, 2020 the Chinese authorities “identify a new type of virus” which was “isolated”. The CDC also confirmed that the virus had been isolated. But no specific details were released.
During a discussion on LinkedIn with a microbiologist, I came to know how they described virus isolation, which is as follows:
“A virus isolate is a virus isolated from an infected host. The process is called “isolation,” which separates viruses from the hosts.”
It means that for microbiologists and virologists, taking a swab sample, which separates virus from the host, is considered as “virus isolation.” This interpretation does not reflect the correct meaning and understanding of the subject of isolation.
But, they imply and promote the true meaning of the process of isolation, i.e., to obtain something by extraction, purification, and identification, reflected by well-known pretty pictures of the DNA/RNA, proteins, and viruses such as a spherical body with spikes (aka coronavirus).
The virologists’ version of the definition is incorrect and causing the problem. Wherever one looks for the virus, one always finds a suffix with it, e.g., “virus isolate,” “virus culture,” “virus lysate,” etc., (which are soups, mixtures or gunks), never “virus” alone; however, it is presented and promoted as pure “virus.”
The made-up definition of “virus-isolation” makes the story of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, its infection, and pandemic very clear, i.e., nothing is real about them, but all are fake. No one has seen the virus, found it, or isolated it as claimed. It is all bogus.
People might ask, then what about the PCR tests, DNA/RNA sequences, protein structures, etc.? They are all reflections of rituals, ignorantly using highly sophisticated and costly chemistry equipment, to make people believe science is being followed. However, nothing is real or relates to the virus.
To conduct such experiments accurately, scientists/technicians must-have reference samples or standards to calibrate the equipment and validate the tests. The reference standards can only come from independently isolated and thoroughly characterized pure virus. However, as the pure virus has never been isolated, one cannot have reference standards and calibrators; hence all the claimed experimentation becomes scientifically null and void, reflecting a fraud.
Such requirements are not unique to virus isolation or assessment. These are standard and must requirement, referred to as validation, for product assessment by the authorities, such as FDA and USP. It is impossible to get products approved for marketing without this validation step. However, validation of tests and testing for viruses and their components are slipping through the regulatory oversight.
Currently, for the SARS-CoV-2 assessment, the work starts with the assumption that it exists. Without validating the techniques, some experiments are being conducted following ritualistic steps (SOPs) to generate “data” and pretty pictures to show that it exists. It is hard to believe that such deceptive practices can occur in modern-day science and escape authorities’ scrutiny and audit.
Like the virus’s assumed existence, it is further assumed that the associated disease (COVID-19) exists, is contagious, spreading uncontrollably, and potentially people are dying or will die in large numbers. There is no available scientific evidence to support these claims except counting the false positive test results, obtained mostly from the non-validated and false PCR test.
It is important to note that there is no scientific evidence showing that SARS-CoV-2 is causing the illness. It cannot be shown because the virus (SARS-CoV-2) is neither available nor exists, as noted above. Hence, its link to the disease cannot be established. It would be safe to confirm now that the COVID-19 is a hoax.
Therefore, considering the current flawed science practices, it becomes a fact that anyone diagnosed with COVID-19 should be regarded as a misdiagnosed case, and accordingly, the incorrect corresponding follow-up treatments.
Physicians need to examine patients without considering the presence of COVID-19 in all cases. They should be challenging the current “scientific” rationale of the COVID-19 diagnosis rather than following the media’s narrative or provided SOPs.
Patients who take a longer time to recover or died with COVID-19 diagnosis could very well be because of misdiagnosis and, by extension, mistreatment or no treatment (e.g., extended quarantine or isolation without treatment).
Similarly, as the virus does not exist, vaccine administration and development become irrelevant; hence, they need to be discontinued.
Authorities should take prompt action adjusting the pandemic monitoring and treatment considering the above described recent information regarding the virus’s non-existence.
Dr. Saeed A. Qureshi is a Canadian specialist in pharmacology and biotechnology
The provision received very little attention, in part because it wasn’t included in the text of the 5,593-page legislation, but as a “committee comment”attached to the annual intelligence authorization act, which was rolled into the massive bill.
The Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), said in the comment that it “directs the [director of national intelligence], in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the heads of such other agencies … to submit a report within 180 days of the date of enactment of the Act, to the congressional intelligence and armed services committees on unidentified aerial phenomena.”
The report must address “observed airborne objects that have not been identified” and should include a “detailed analysis of unidentified phenomena data collected by: a. geospatial intelligence; b. signals intelligence; c. human intelligence; and d. measurement and signals intelligence,” the committee said.
The report must also contain “[a] detailed analysis of data of the FBI, which was derived from investigations of intrusions of unidentified aerial phenomena data over restricted United States airspace … and an assessment of whether this unidentified aerial phenomena activity may be attributed to one or more foreign adversaries.”
Former Pentagon and legislative officials confirmed Tuesday to the publication The Debrief that the package begins the clock on UFO disclosures.
Defense Department spokesperson Sue Gough told The Post: “We are aware that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence committee report on the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal 2021 included a requirement for the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, to submit a report on unidentified aerial phenomena (UAPs) within 180 days of enactment.”
Chris Mellon, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for intelligence, told The Debrief that “the newly enacted Intelligence Authorization Act incorporates the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report language calling for an unclassified, all-source report on the UAP phenomenon. This was accomplished in the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the bill.”
“Consequently, it’s now fair to say that the request for an unclassified report on the UAP phenomenon enjoys the support of both parties in both Houses of Congress,” said Mellon, who is also a former staff director of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
“Assuming the Executive Branch honors this important request, the nation will at long last have an objective basis for assessing the validity of the issue and its national security implications. This is an extraordinary and long overdue opportunity.”
Mellon added: “I’m hopeful the new Administration will rigorously execute its oversight prerogatives because the concerns of the public and numerous U.S. military personnel have been ignored by a complacent national security bureaucracy for far too long.”
Nick Pope, who ran the “UFO office” of the UK’s Ministry of Defence, told The Post, “I welcome this move, which shows how seriously the phenomenon is being taken in the intelligence community.”
Pope said that “the Pentagon’s Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force is probably already drafting the report for DNI to send to the Senate Intelligence Committee. Questions remain about what the report will say and how much can ever be made public, given the highly classified nature of some of the material, but this is a step in the right direction.”
Trump as commander-in-chief has brushed off questions about UFOs and possible alien life. “I’m not a believer, but you know, I guess anything is possible,” he said in an interview last year.
This text was originally published on October 28, 2020 shortly before the US November elections.
This message is for anyone who has concerns about the upcoming U.S. elections, the potential for chaos and civil unrest, or those who fear what a “second wave” of Covid-19 could mean for the future of humanity.
We are in the last few months of a tumultuous year and it appears there might be more unprecedented events on the way. As we near election 2020, it’s important to step back and analyze the potential plans of the “Predator Class”.
Specifically, it’s important to understand a number of recent government simulations and exercises.
First, let’s look at the exercise known as Event 201.
One year ago, on October 18, 2019, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation partnered with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and the World Economic Forum on a high-level pandemic exercise known as Event 201. Event 201 simulated how the world would respond to a fictional coronavirus pandemic known as CAPS which swept around the planet. The simulation imagined 65 million people dying, mass lock downs, quarantines, censorship of alternative viewpoints under the guise of fighting “disinformation,” and even floated the idea of arresting people who question the pandemic narrative.
Coincidentally, one of the players involved with Event 201 was Dr. Michael Ryan, the head of the World Health Organization’s team responsible for the international containment and treatment of COVID-19. Ryan has called for looking into families to find potentially sick individuals and isolate them from their families.
Due to the vast web of connections between Bill Gates and nearly every organization connected to the COVID-19 fight, a growing number of researchers are questioning the motivations of Gates and the other officials involved in the Event 201 exercise.
Simulations and Scenarios:
Crimson Contagion (August 2019),
Another exercise known as Crimson Contagion simulated an outbreak of a respiratory virus originating from China. From August 13 to August 16, 2019, Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), headed by Alex Azar, partnered with numerous national, state, and local organization for the exercise. According to the results of the October 2019 draft report, the spread of the novel avian influenza (H7N9) resulted in 110 million infected Americans, 7.7 million hospitalizations, and 586,000 deaths.
Clade X (May 2018)
Another simulation known as Clade X took place on May 2018. This event examined the response to a pandemic resulting from the release of a fictional virus known as Clade X. In the simulation, the virus was released by a terror group called A Brighter Dawn. As the outbreak spread through the United States, the participants asked what would be needed if the President issued a federal quarantine, noting that authorities would need to “Determine (the) level of force authorized to maintain quarantine.” The Clade X exercise also resulted in the federal government nationalizing the healthcare system.
The leaders of these controversial pandemic simulations that took place before the Coronavirus crisis have longstanding connections to the U.S. Intelligence and the U.S. Department of Defense. Even more troubling is that key players in the exercises – specifically, Event 201 and Clade X – share a common history in another biowarfare simulation known as Dark Winter.
Darkest Winter Exercise (June 2001)
The Dark Winter exercise took place in June 2001, only months before the 9/11 attacks. This exercise took place at Andrews Air Force Base in Camp Springs, Maryland, and involved several Congressmen, a former CIA director, a former FBI director, government insiders and privileged members of the press. The exercise simulated the use of smallpox as a biological weapon against the American public.
During the Dark Winter exercise authorities attempt to stop the spread of “dangerous misinformation” and “unverified” cures, just like with the Event 201 simulation.
Dark Winter further discusses the suppression and removal of civil liberties, such as the possibility of the President to invoke “The Insurrection Act”, which would allow the military to act as law enforcement upon request by a State governor, as well as the possibility of “martial rule.” The script says martial rule may “include, but are not limited to, prohibition of free assembly, national travel ban, quarantine of certain areas, suspension of the writ of habeas corpus [i.e. arrest without due process], and/or military trials in the event that the court system becomes dysfunctional.”
What is important to know is Dark Winter was largely written and designed by Tara O’Toole and Thomas Inglesby of the Johns Hopkins Center along with Randy Larsen and Mark DeMier of the Analytic Services (ANSER) Institute for Homeland Security.
O’Toole, Inglesby, and Larsen were directly involved in the response to the alleged anthrax attacks which took place in the days after September 11, 2001. These scientists personally briefedVice President Cheney on Dark Winter.
Simulation Event 201
Coincidentally, Event 201 was co-hosted by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, which is currently led by Dark Winter co-author Thomas Inglesby. Tara O’Toole was also a key player in the Clade X simulation.
The name for the exercise comes from a statement made by Robert Kadlec, a veteran of the George W. Bush administration and a former lobbyist for military intelligence/intelligence contractors. In the script, Kadlec states that the lack of smallpox vaccines for the U.S. populace means that “it could be a very dark winter for America.” Kadlec is now leading HHS’ Covid-19 response and was also involved in the Trump administration’s 2019 “Crimson Contagion” exercises.
Eerily, Kadlec’s statements in 201 exercise were recently repeated nearly word for word by Richard Bright, former director of Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority. Bright was recently celebrated as a whistleblower who attempted to hold the Trump administration accountable during the COVID-19 battle. However, while speaking in front of Congress, Bright stated, “without clear planning and implementation of the steps that I and other experts have outlined, 2020 will be darkest winter in modern history.” Now, maybe Bright is simply a concerned scientist warning about the potential for more sick people, but his use of the phrase “darkest winter” is hard to ignore.
When hearing the statements from Kadlec and Bright we ought to consider the corporate media’s promotion of a potential “second wave” of COVID-19. Bill Gates and other influential pundits and health authorities have consistently warned about a second wave which was slated to arrive in the fall of 2020. As of mid-October 2020, reports are beginning to come in that “cases are on the rise”. This is what makes the statement from Richard Bright all the more concerning.
Election 2020 Chaos Incoming?
This leads us to a number of recent simulations of the 2020 U.S. election which have resulted in chaos and potential civil war. It would be easy to dismiss these exercises as politically driven fantasy if the people involved had not already publicly advised their candidate not to concede the election under any circumstances.
Most recently, media reports indicated the Transition Integrity Project (TIP) held a number of exercises simulating what might happen in the event Donald Trump loses the 2020 election, but refuses to leave office. The TIP itself is a secretive group made up of “Never Trump” neocon Republicans and Democrats associated with the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton.
The Boston Globe reported that the TIP met in June to simulate the 11-week period between Election Day on November 3rd and Inauguration Day on January 20, 2021. The exercises state that “Trump and his Republican allies used every apparatus of government — the Postal Service, state lawmakers, the Justice Department, federal agents, and the military — to hold onto power, and Democrats took to the courts and the streets to try to stop it.”
The TIP envisioned one scenario where Trump wins and Biden refuses to concede and instead asks for a recount and makes several demands, including to give statehood to Washington, DC and Puerto Rico, and divide California into 5 states. In the exercises Joe Biden is played by John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign manager and chief of staff to former President Bill Clinton. The simulations essentially end in a constitutional crisis where there is no clear President and the Supreme Court or possibly the military play a deciding role.
This unprecedented event could be disastrous for American life as it is likely activists from both sides of the vote would take to the streets to protest what they believe is a theft by their opponents. If you think protests and fights between “extreme leftists” and “extreme right” wingers are contentious, just wait until they both feel shafted during the presidential election.
Those opposed to Trump will claim Biden won and Trump is attempting to steal the election and create a fascist dictatorship. The Trump supporters will say the Radical Leftist Democrats are attempting a coup to establish a “Communist Police State”. The result will be neighbor turning against neighbor, family members disowning one another, and some political activists may escalate their tactics from protests to violence.
Other groups were similarly engaged in “war games” that predicted complete chaos in the U.S. on election day as well as the imposition of martial law. This includes the “Operation Blackout” simulations conducted by the U.S.-Israeli company, Cybereason. That company has considerable ties to the U.S. and Israeli intelligence.
Operation Blackout involved hackers taking control of city buses around the U.S., crashing into voters waiting in line at polling stations, hacked traffic lights causing accidents, and the release of “deepfakes” to manipulate the public. The simulation resulted in the cancellation of the 2020 election and the imposition of martial law.
While Donald Trump continues to stoke the flames of division and uncertainty surrounding election 2020, the Establishment is also preparing for the possibility of martial law in response to this chaos. Meanwhile, the public is being prepped for a second wave of COVID-19 infections which could lead to the foreshadowed Darkest Winter. While we don’t care to instill fear we do encourage everyone to heed these warnings and be prepared for potential unrest in the days and weeks following the election.
Are You Prepared?
In conclusion, I believe we may have a narrow window of time to inform our friends and family, and motivate them to prepare for what may be on the horizon.
We can spend our time attempting to convince them of the lies of COVID-19.
We can also try to educate them about the numerous exercises predicting chaos and civil unrest across the United States.
As important as education is in the Information War; now might be the time to focus our energy on helping our families be prepared for what may come. Rather than attempting to convince them to see what you see or believe what you believe, perhaps we can simply help keep them safe until they can clearly see the writing on the wall.
Again, if you are hearing of these exercises and topics for the first time, please listen with an open mind.
I want to emphasize that I do not write these words in hopes of inspiring fear or stress. In fact, I hope that this analysis can paint a clear enough picture of the grim reality we are facing so we may act! It is only by honestly facing our circumstances that we can hope to influence and change the path of humanity.
This is a historic time to be alive and we have the opportunity to play a powerful role. It’s time to shake off the shackles and expose those who seek to hold us back for their own sick purposes.Sources/Further Reading:
Draconian NY State Assembly Bill A416 calls for indefinitely detainment of residents considered to be “disease carriers (sic).”
It’s aimed at seasonal flu/influenza, diabolically disguised as covid.
It’s all-about wanting to eliminate fundamental freedoms on the phony pretext of protecting them.
If the bill becomes law and is adopted in similar form by increasing numbers of other states — perhaps by congressional legislation as well, imagine what’s possible ahead.
According to CDC data, “(d)uring the (US) 2019-2020 influenza season” — from late fall through early spring — the agency estimated that influenza “was associated with 38 million illnesses, 18 million medical visits, 405,000 hospitalizations, and 22,000 deaths.”
Similar numbers happen annually around six months of the year during cold weather months.
If the above legislation becomes law in many, most, or all US states, anyone becoming ill from what happens to tens of millions of Americans annually could be virtually criminalized and isolated from society for an indefinite period of time.
The above is the stuff that draconian police state rule is made of.
It may be coming to a neighborhood near you, including your own.
This is what New York’s undemocratic Dem Governor Andrew Cuomo may sign into law for state residents.
It would likely apply to visitors as well who become ill from influenza while in the state for business, pleasure, or other reasons.
The above is one example among many others to show how US police state rule may work once hardened to its full potential.
It’s coming without mass resistance before it’s too late.
NY legislative language calls for “the removal of cases, contacts and carriers of communicable diseases that are potentially dangerous to the public health (sic).”
Large scale seasonal flu/influenza outbreaks occur annually with no fear-mongering created mass hysteria, no lockdowns, quarantines, social distancing or mask-wearing.
Before this year, there was no threat of virtual mass incarceration for getting sick from an illness that does not risk the health and well-being of many others.
Why is this year different from earlier ones?
It’s all-about a long ago planned diabolical plot by US dark forces now called The Great Reset.
What’s deceptively called a “unique window of opportunity” for world leaders to reshape “global relations…national economies, the priorities of societies, the nature of business models, and the management of a global commons” is code language for planned dystopian rule to replace free societies.
It’s all-about exploiting most people worldwide so privileged ones can benefit more than already.
It’s about controlling all aspect of our lives, including what we eat, where we’re allowed to go and work, along with instituting mass surveillance, abolishing free expression, and banning dissent.
It’s for making what’s intolerable the law of the land, resisters for restoration of fundamental freedoms perhaps locked up in gulag hell forever.
The NY measure authorizes the governor to indefinitely detain “in internment camps” anyone falling ill from what’s diagnosed as seasonal flu/influenza, or covid (aka flu by another name).
He can order internment based on PCR tests that nearly always produce false positive results so they’re worthless.
Perhaps he can target anyone in the state considered undesirable by claiming they’re ill from flu even when not scientifically so.
Is the US incrementally becoming Nazified in plain sight with no one paying attention to what’s going on?
Last year by executive order, Cuomo mandated detainment of thousands of state residents in nursing homes for becoming ill from flu called covid — also based on worthless PCR tests.
If Bill A416 is replicated nationwide in the US, everyone called ill from covid (flu by another name) will be at risk of indefinite detainment for the crime of illness authorities consider a threat to public health — even when not true.
Perhaps that’s where things are heading in the new year — the rule of law at risk of abandonment to the whims of Great Reset draconian rule.
Based on what’s going on, it bears repeating what I’ve stressed time and again.
We have a choice. Resist what’s unacceptable while there’s time or risk loss of fundamental freedoms altogether — totalitarian harshness becoming the law of the land.
It comes down to living free or being subjugated by a draconian higher power — freedom as once known and hope lost forever.
That’s the disturbing state of things in the US and other Western societies.
They’ve always been fantasy democracies, never the real thing.
They’re heading toward becoming full-blown totalitarian police states.
Tinkering around the edges for positive change won’t work. It never does, notably not now.
The only viable option is mass resistance before freedoms and hope are lost.
The unacceptable alternative is serfdom amounting to modern-day enslavement.
If official numbers are to be believed, the United States is one of the worst hit countries in terms of COVID-19 infections and deaths. According to the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), at the time of writing, there are supposedly 19 million COVID-19 caseswith an alleged 300,000+ deaths suggesting between a 1-2% chance of dying from COVID-19 if infected by it.
However, these numbers are problematic – even before questioning the validity of the statistics themselves leading to them.
For example – asymptomatic cases will likely go both untested and unreported, meaning many more people are actually being infected by COVID-19, exhibiting no symptoms, receiving no treatment, and most certainly not making it into the CDC’s “cases” statistics.
This means that your chances of being infected by COVID-19 and dying are actually much, much less than the often touted claim of 1-2%. Only those who exhibit severe enough symptoms to be tested and/or treated will make it into the statistics of “cases.”
In terms of framing any pandemic, an exaggeration of the lethality of the virus becomes a fundamental issue. If this information by itself is carelessly or dishonestly presented to the public without mention of the many more people likely being infected and exhibiting no symptoms at all, panic can, and clearly has been spread across society and the world, enabling extreme policies to glide through approval, beginning the process of disfigurement society now suffers today.
This was a fact highlighted by the work of Dr. John Ioannidis who, even at the onset of COVID-19, attempted to raise the alarm about needlessly stoking public hysteria, the folly of driving public health policy without proper data, and the catastrophic impact it would have – and is now clearly having – on society if this trend isn’t reversed.
A video interview conducted by Journeyman Pictures from April 2020 noted Dr. Ioannidis’ breakdown of data and the results of his own studies conducted to illustrate exactly this. His study included widespread serological (antibody) testing in Santa Clara County, California to see how many individuals may have been infected by COVID-19 but simply never exhibited symptoms, or symptoms serious enough to seek medical attention and be tested for COVID-19.
Dr. Ioannidis would note:
“If you compare the numbers that we estimate to have been infected, which vary from 48,000-81,000, versus the number of documented cases that would correspond to the same time horizon around April 1st, when we had 956 cases documented in Santa Clara County, we realize that the number of infected people is somewhere between 50 and 85 times more compared to what we thought, compared to what had been documented. Immediately, that means that the infection fatality rate, the chance of dying, the probability of dying, if you are infected, diminishes by 50-85 fold, because the denominator in the calculation becomes 50-85 fold bigger. If you take these numbers into account, they suggest that the infection fatality rate for this new coronavirus is likely to be in the same ballpark as seasonal influenza.”
Dr. Ioannidis also noted that there was a large gradient regarding death rates based on age and underlying medical conditions, with the risk of death for people under 65 with no underlying medical conditions being virtually negligible.
The need for wider testing to fully establish mature datasets – as Dr. Ioannidis and his team at Stanford illustrated – and efforts to communicate to the public the difference between the infection fatality ratio (IFR) and the case fatality ratio (CFR), have been neglected by Western governments and even more so by the Western corporate media. In some cases, efforts appear to be being made to deliberately obfuscate or confuse this crucial information in order to continue stoking panic and hysteria.
But in addition to this, there is the fact that governments – particularly in the West – have been caught using dubious or disorganized methods to tally COVID-19 deaths – meaning that both IFR and CFR numbers could be easily skewed.
For example, British state-funded media outlet, the BBC in an August 2020 article titled, “Coronavirus: England death count review reduces UK toll by 5,000,” would admit:
A review of how deaths from coronavirus are counted in England has reduced the UK death toll by more than 5,000, to 41,329, the government has announced.
The article also noted that:
The new methodology for counting deaths means the total number of people in the UK who have died from Covid-19 comes down from 46,706 to 41,329 – a reduction of 12%.
The article revealed that Public Health England had “included everyone who had tested positive [for COVID-19], even if they died months afterwards and their death may have had another cause.”
Similar statistical gymnastics are being performed in the US. Even the New York Times raised the issue fairly early on in article, “Is the Coronavirus Death Tally Inflated? Here’s Why Experts Say No,” clearly inferring that there may be a problem with the official methodology, and went on to explain throughout the article how it is impossible to ever know since accurate counts – or even accurate systems to use in counting – may not presently exist in the US.
In other words: the current systems are less than perfect and vulnerable to systemic distortions in the presentation of data. Again, this is a fundamental issue when public health policy is based on the perceived severity of the epidemic.
The Real Impact of COVID-19
Based on what were clearly misused and incomplete statistics, the US, the UK, and much of Western Europe have led the world in stoking unprecedented hysteria, enforcing travel restrictions and lockdowns, including the closing of businesses and schools, and grinding the economies of the world to a halt either directly or indirectly – in a manner similar to but with an impact much greater than the US-led global “War on Terror” starting in 2001.
Pressure from “international organizations” like the World Health Organization (WHO) using its UN-affiliated platform to declare a “global pandemic,” along with Western governments and the corporations that dominate foreign and domestic policy, has created a global crisis – not in terms of human health, but in terms of socioeconomics.
Businesses are closed – not because those who regularly run or patronize them are in hospital beds or dead – but by order of governments, and with official policy backing from organizations like the WHO.
The mainstream media has played a key role in this – not only repeating narratives provided by governments and healthcare institutions uncritically, but refusing to fulfill their role as watchdogs and investigators searching out impropriety.
It is a state of hysteria that is crippling small and medium-sized businesses (SME), but a boon to big-business.
Headlines from papers like the Wall Street Journal admit, “Big Tech Companies Reap Gains as Covid-19 Fuels Shift in Demand,” or as the Guardian reported, “Amazon third-quarter earnings soar as pandemic sales triple profits,” make it clear that some big-businesses are profiting from the hysteria.
Moreover, the Guardian report, “The mystery of which US businesses are profiting from the coronavirus bailout,” reveals how struggling big-businesses are being bailed out by government money – while the SME sector, the real pulse of any vibrant economy and society – is being left behind.
But there is one industry who stands out above all others to benefit, an industry notorious for its deeply rooted corruption, and an industry that has already been caught using its ties with international organizations like the WHO to declare pandemics, stoke hysteria, and profit handsomely from the resulting chaos.
It’s the West’s pharmaceutical industry.
At no time in human history has it been more powerful and influential than it is now. And at no other time in human history has it been so dangerous.
Big-Pharma: The Least Trustworthy Pandemic Partner
Western Big-Pharma’s profiteering and corruption under ordinary circumstances is already shocking. The current climate of public confusion, panic, and growing socioeconomic desperation only invites the industry’s impropriety to new levels.
Pharmaceutical corporations like Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, and Moderna – having received billions of dollars directly or indirectly from taxpayers to develop COVID-19 vaccines – have long, documented histories of corruption, including bribing regulators, doctors, and governments.
They have also been caught falsifying safety and efficacy data. They have promoted the use of their products for patients in cases not approved of by regulators, including on children.
They have even been caught knowingly selling products they knew were dangerous or even deadly – withholding critical information from both regulators and the public.
Pfizer alone – as its COVID-19 vaccine began rolling out publicly – was under investigation this year, according to its own Security Exchange Commission (SEC) filing, for its Greenstone generics business over antitrust concerns, for manufacturing issues regarding Quillivant XR, regarding quality issues over the manufacturing of auto-injectors, over corruption inquiries regarding its Russian and Chinese operations, and in regards to lawsuits in Mexico over the manufacturing of Zantac and a cancer-causing chemical called N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) found in the product.
The investigation regarding Zantac finally prompted the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – who had originally approved the drug – to request it be pulled from the market after finding it is indeed linked to an increased likelihood of causing cancer.
The Wall Street Journal in a 2020 article titled, “Pfizer Receives Inquiry From SEC Bribery Unit,” would note of Pfizer’s past scandals that:
Pfizer has had past run-ins with U.S. authorities over allegations of bribery among its operations abroad. The company in 2012 agreed to pay $60.2 million to settle investigations by the SEC and the Justice Department into alleged violations of the FCPA in several countries in Europe and Asia, including China and Russia.
The US Department of Justice in its own statement regarding part of the 2012 payout by Pfizer would note:
According to court documents, Pfizer H.C.P. made a broad range of improper payments to numerous government officials in Bulgaria, Croatia, Kazakhstan and Russia – including hospital administrators, members of regulatory and purchasing committees and other health care professionals – and sought to improperly influence government decisions in these countries regarding the approval and registration of Pfizer Inc. products, the award of pharmaceutical tenders and the level of sales of Pfizer Inc. products. According to court documents, Pfizer H.C.P. used numerous mechanisms to improperly influence government officials, including sham consulting contracts, an exclusive distributorship and improper travel and cash payments.
Such bribery might help explain why Pfizer and other pharmaceutical corporations are able to sell dangerous products like cancer-causing Zantac or – in the case of fellow COVID-19 vaccine producer Johnson and Johnson – cancer-causing baby powder – for years before mounting lawsuits and public outrage spur regulators to finally do their job properly.
In Johnson & Johnson’s case, a Reuters investigation would note (emphasis added):
Facing thousands of lawsuits alleging that its talc caused cancer, J&J insists on the safety and purity of its iconic product. But internal documents examined by Reuters show that the company’s powder was sometimes tainted with carcinogenic asbestos and that J&J kept that information from regulators and the public.
What this illustrates is a consistent pattern of corruption stretching across Pfizer’s (and Johnson & Johnson’s) manufacturing process to their business practices and spanning years. It is an entire industry that repeatedly engages in dangerous impropriety, is repeatedly investigated and fined, but allowed to not only continue conducting business – but is still entrusted with matters critical to public healthcare.
The implications it has for the process of developing, approving, producing, and distributing vaccines for COVID-19 should be obvious.
The 2009 H1N1 “Heist”
Despite the immense amount of publicly-known corruption engaged in by the Western pharmaceutical industry and the obviously troubling implications it has for the current COVID-19 vaccine rollout – it is only one dimension of a much wider problem.
There is also the Western pharmaceutical industry’s known history of creating public scares to attract massive government contracts and wield power and influence over public discourse regarding human healthcare issues.
The same large corporate media outlets today helping fuel public hysteria regarding COVID-19 and promoting big-pharma’s vaccine rollout had previously reported on past instances of big-pharma crying “pandemic,” using its influence over international organizations like the WHO, and securing massive government contracts worth billions of dollars for unnecessary and ineffective medication and vaccines.
Think back to 2009 and the H1N1 “Swine Flu” scare. Following the WHO’s dramatic declaration of a “global pandemic,” the headlines and articles from the mainstream Western media read almost identical to those being circulated today regarding COVID-19.
Seven months into the flu pandemic of 2009, North America leads the world in cases, the WHO says.
Unlike elsewhere, the new H1N1 never exited stage left after its debut appearance in late April. In fact, it’s making more noise than ever. Mexico has experienced more cases of pandemic flu since September than it did over the first four months of the pandemic this spring.
The ratcheting up of hysteria continued both from the WHO and across the Western media, accompanied by drives to fund vaccine development and stockpile medication like Roche’s Tamiflu.
The UK Daily Mail in a 2009 article titled, “Tamiflu: What you MUST know as swine flu threatens to strike,” would claim:
The Government has announced that stocks of drugs – known as antivirals – to fight the imminent threat of a swine flu pandemic are being built up to cover more than 50million people – or 80 per cent of the country’s population.
But as hysteria faded, the truth emerged. Articles began to appear like this one from Reuters in 2014 titled, “Stockpiles of Roche Tamiflu drug are waste of money, review finds,” which noted:
Researchers who have fought for years to get full data on Roche’s flu medicine Tamiflu said on Thursday that governments who stockpile it are wasting billions of dollars on a drug whose effectiveness is in doubt.
The article also pointed out:
Tamiflu sales hit almost $3 billion in 2009 – mostly due to its use in the H1N1 flu pandemic – but they have since declined.
There were also Roche’s financial ties to WHO experts who designated the appearance of H1N1 as a “pandemic,” helping pave the way for the public hysteria required to fuel Roche’s profits from selling what was essentially a useless drug to government stockpiles.
The BBC in their 2010 article, “WHO swine flu experts ‘linked’ with drug companies,” would report:
Key scientists behind World Health Organization advice on stockpiling of pandemic flu drugs had financial ties with companies which stood to profit, an investigation has found.
Roche was mentioned by name by the BBC (emphasis added):
The advice prompted many countries around the world into buying up large stocks of Tamiflu, made by Roche, and Relenza manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline.
Despite these revelations post-H1N1 after 2009, the very same actors have taken the stage for a repeat performance in 2020 – with little to no alarm from the same media organizations who ignored the H1N1 “heist” in 2009 and reluctantly reported on it only long after the damage was done.
Big-Pharma’s Pandemic Industrial Complex
Over the past ten years – big pharma’s control over the WHO and its influence over both the media and Western governments has only grown.
Powerful organizations like the Wellcome Trust – which claims to be an “independent foundation” funded through an investment portfolio – counts several large pharmaceutical corporations – Novartis, Roche, Johnson & Johnson, and Abbott Labs – on their list of “significant directly held public equity holdings.”
Its governance includes representatives from the pharmaceutical industry, various Western governments, academia, the media, and of course the WHO itself.
It is an institutionalization of the conflicting interests that have tolerated, accommodated, even helped expand the unwarranted power, wealth, influence, and corruption of big pharma.
And while Wellcome Trust claims to be “independent” of corporate and government ties, alongside the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – it has helped create another front organization called The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) – through which it accepts and disperses huge amounts of Western taxpayers’ money.
The work of CEPI directly impacts the business prospects of many of the corporations Wellcome Trust owns stocks in – with its investments paying off above average amid this most recent round of public hysteria and government spending on this latest declared pandemic.
International Publishers Limited in an article titled, “Wellcome Trust ‘prospers’ under COVID-19 fallout with 12.3% return,” would report:
Wellcome Trust’s portfolio has not just survived, but prospered, in the highly volatile environment following the COVID-19 outbreak, according to Eliza Manningham-Buller, the charity’s chair, introducing its annual report which unveiled a 12.3% return for the year to 30 September 2020, up on the 6.9% of the previous year.
The trust, which supports medical research worldwide, is the UK’s largest charity, with a £29.1bn (€31.9bn) portfolio at end-September 2020. Wellcome’s investments have returned an average 12.1% a year over the past decade.
It’s worth noting that back in March, both Wellcome and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation provided$125 million in “seed funding” to accelerate certain pharmaceutical products claiming to treat COVID-19, including Gilead Science’s antiviral Remdesivir. Despite failing repeatedly in clinical trials, and after the National Institute of Health (NIH) was exposed attempting to rewrite the rules in their attempt to salvage the drug’s reputation as a viable therapeutic for COVID-19 – Remdedivir was continually hyped in the media by Bill Gates and NIH Director Anthony Fauci, and is still defended by the WHO to this day.
It’s also important to note that as of 2020, the number one funder of the World Health Organization is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, who supplied the WHO with approximately $531 millionin its 2018-19 biennial budget, roughly 12% of WHO’s total budget.
Unlike the H1N1 scare and multiple scandals that emerged out from behind the smokescreen of public hysteria deliberately created around it, the COVID-19 crisis has been sustained for now nearly a year with enduring regiments being put in place to condition and control the public – and to control the flow of information through traditional channels as well as online and particularly across US-based social media platforms, and direct public funding into the coffers of the healthcare and pharmaceutical industry.
At the same time, other major industries are either being spared the same regulations and restrictions strangling smaller businesses out of existence, or being bailed out by public funding.
It has gone from the “H1N1 Heist” of 2009 to what appears to be a “Pandemic Industrial Complex” taking shape today.
How far this goes in shaping – or more accurately – disfiguring society, is up to those people who can clearly see public and private sectors conspiring together and consisting of the least reliable partners for actually taking on a real pandemic and protecting the public from it – if that is truly what we are facing.
On one hand, even if we believe the statistics and claims being made on a daily basis by the mainstream media and government representatives, we can see for ourselves the corporations elected by the government to create the solutions claimed are needed to end the crisis, are guilty of serial abuses including the production and distribution of entirely unsafe products – products developed and “approved” of by government regulators under normal conditions that would go on to making people ill or even killing them.
But the COVID-19 vaccines being rolled out now aren’t even going through that process. They have instead been rushed through approval and unpredictable results and adverse effects are already emerging.
It harkens back to another chapter involving a novel virus – 1976’s Swine Flu – where vaccines were rushed into production and resulted in mounting adverse effects, particularly paralyzing Guillain-Barré syndrome in over 400 individuals. And these were only the cases that were reported, as the true total of those who suffered varying degrees of complications will never be fully known.
In 1976, the vaccination program was abandoned and the government’s response deemed a failure of historic proportions. But apparently the lessons learned then, or in 2009, have been lost entirely today – and in some cases – deliberately buried by a complicit media.
If COVID-19 is the crisis we are told it is – why isn’t there a greater demand for more trustworthy and transparent partners to work with to face it? These would be partners capable of acknowledging past mistakes and explaining how their plan today differs from those in the past.
But unfortunately, history has already taught us that pandemics can be declared – not because they actually exist and/or pose as grave a threat as government, media and corporate stakeholders claim – but because profits are to be made by big pharma, in connection with those in organizations like the WHO who have the unique power to declare pandemics, and perpetuate them regardless of the truth.
We watched for two decades as the West orchestrated an entirely false “War on Terror” around the globe, justifying actions as extreme as invasions, wars, and illegal occupations of other countries and the expenditure of trillions of dollars of taxpayers’ money.
Is it really that hard to imagine as possible, this formula being reworked atop the 2009 H1N1 scandals and pushed forward aggressively?
*** Author Brian Berletic, formerly known under his pen name Tony Cartalucci, is Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher, writer and special contributor to 21st Century Wire. See more of his work at Tony’s archive. Over the last decade, his work has been published on a number of popular news and analysis websites, and also on the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”. Also, you can follow him on VK here.
“Protecting children from all dangers is my damned father’s duty,” sang Reinhard Mey. Our offspring currently need protection from the rigid corona regime in schools.
Serious damage is done to our sons and daughters through masking and social distance rules, through constant ventilation in freezing cold and the suppression of their vital needs for contact and impartiality – both physically and mentally.
In addition, their self-confidence is broken by the constant suggestion that they are a changing risk of infection. In addition, they are trained into conformism and submission to constraints.
Which generation is growing up there? Do we think our children are not systemically relevant and are we therefore only too willing to sacrifice them on the altar of the prevailing corona narrative? We must finally defend ourselves against the organized lovelessness to which our children are exposed.
As a historian, I have been deeply appalled for months at how a whole society, whole nations, can be led collectively into division and, above all, irrationality solely on the basis of mass PCR tests.
For weeks I have been wondering: Where is the so-called academic elite of Europe in the areas of history, political science, sociology and psychology which stands up and says: Enough! With a total “war against the virus”, according to Emmanuel Macron, – as in any war – thousands or millions of “civilians” – in this case healthy people – lose their livelihoods, make sick, and ultimately killed (1).
Where are the many celebrities in Europe from science, the arts, literature, music and film who come together in public and shout: Enough! We demand an end to Covid-19 totalitarianism, not just in the media!
Three years ago the renowned German historian Philipp Blom, who lives in Vienna, wrote the admonishing book: “What is at stake!” Meanwhile everything is at stake: human rights, social peace, freedom, democracy, prosperity, work, tolerance, public health – not because of the virus, but the highly disproportionate nature of measures such as “lockdown” – and simply human dignity.
For all these humane achievements people fought for centuries and many lost their lives. These achievements are not a law of nature, not divisible, not negotiable, not interpretable and also not measurable.
It was not without reason that the greatest peacemaker of all time, Mahatma Gandhi, gave us a warning: Whoever accepts injustice in silence is complicit!
As a reminder: the legacy of totalitarianism and fascism: Between 1914 and 1970, around 100 million people lost their lives in all world wars and civil wars, in all totalitarian societies in Europe, both right-wing and left-wing ideologies.
All of Europe’s totalitarian systems – National Socialism, Stalinism, Italian fascism, Franco’s dictatorship in Spain, etc. – they were all made possible not by those in power, not by the leaders and commanders, but without exception and again and again by the tolerant or silent majority. By the informers, but also by those who were discouraged and fearful. By those concerned about their belongings. In the end, almost everyone lost everything: their belongings, honor and human dignity.
I am writing here not only as a historian and researcher on the rights of children, but primarily as a father of three.
Most of the public play facilities for children were closed on World Playday for Children on May 29th and World Children’s Day on June 1st, while beer gardens and hardware stores had been open for weeks.
A society that implicitly says that children and young people are not “systemically relevant” does not want a future!
Since the end of March at the latest and until today, all international studies on SARS-CoV-2 have shown the following:
Children and adolescents play no role in the infection process, they rarely become infected and, if at all, they usually do not get sick at all (2).
A positive PCR test result does not automatically mean: infected! By now every journalist – also in Germany and Austria – should be familiar, understandable and comprehensible. And infected with SARS-CoV-2 does not automatically mean that you get Covid-19.
It is not without reason that every PCR test manufacturer points out: The test is not suitable for diagnostic purposes.
Therefore, mask compulsory and quarantine for children and adolescents, based solely on a positive PCR test, are child abuse and simply a crime of humanity.
Because to this day there is not a single evidence-based medical and therefore no legal justification for this!
The “Parents Stand Up” initiative carried out a nationwide survey among schoolchildren about the requirement to mask in schools. A first interim report of 2,300 questionnaires shows the following devastating picture:
For example, 44.1 percent of the students surveyed suffer from breathing difficulties. 73 percent of headaches, 86.4 percent of fatigue, 65.7 percent of concentration disorders, 38 percent of dizziness and around 36 percent of anxiety states.
As a reminder, for centuries the schools of Europe were primarily a place of religious, political or ideological indoctrination and also a place of violence. For months I have been oppressed by the feeling that, since March, Europe has literally released all the negative spirits of the last centuries from the bottle in one fell swoop.
Now a small excerpt from the interim evaluation of 2,300 questionnaires at mainly German kindergartens and schools in 2020:
In some crèches and kindergartens, parents have to leave their children at the door, even during the so-called acclimatization phase, because adults are not allowed to accompany them!
School classes with masks and wet jackets sit all day in classrooms with the windows open!
Again and again, students collapse because of wearing masks and are also punished with denunciation and exclusion!
Again and again it is suggested to young people that if you don’t wear a mask you are a murderer! In the meantime, however, dozens of studies have shown that wearing everyday masks to curb the spread of the virus does absolutely nothing.
Schoolchildren are only allowed to drink and go to the toilet according to the schedule, not when needed!
In some schools it is no longer allowed to shower and blow-dry your hair after swimming lessons!
Again and again children are terrified, with the argument: If you don’t wear a mask, it’s your fault when grandpa and grandma die!
This list is madness, it is pathology. Here healthy people are made sick.
A human rights disaster.
With what right – in the double sense of the word – do we simply steal everything from an entire generation of children and young people? Relationship and friendship, education and training, sport and health, freedom and self-efficacy, the acquisition of vital skills, simply and completely the future!
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, recently spoke of a “human rights disaster” at the 41st session of the Human Rights Council. “But if the rule of law is not respected, the health emergency threatens to turn into a human rights catastrophe, the negative effects of which will long surpass those of the pandemic itself,” warned the UN High Commissioner.
To all the highest and constitutional judges in Germany and Austria: Immediately end all Covid-19 measures for young people, for children and adolescents, end the mask requirement and school closings, end the exaggerated hygiene and distance rules, come to your senses and look to Sweden!
The young Astrid Lindgren, author of Pipi Longstocking, wrote in her diary in the 1940s: “Mankind has lost its mind.”
Sweden in 2020. To date, this country has not carried out a lockdown, nor has it introduced a general mask requirement. No school closings and, above all, no masking requirements for children and young people. In Sweden, the hundred thousand people prophesied by Angela Merkel, Sebastian Kurz, Christian Drosten and Co have not died to this day. Sweden does not make the healthy sick and does not abuse its children and adolescents with mask force.
Could it be that Covid-19 has mutated into a political virus in many parts of Europe? A small but possibly clarifying detail: Sweden is still neither in the euro zone nor a member of NATO. While Germany and Austria, for example, are in the second “lockdown”, schools, restaurants, fitness studios, cinemas, etc. are open in neighboring Switzerland.
First judgment on the general obligation to quarantine
A Portuguese court of appeal (Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa) is the first court in Europe to lift the general quarantine requirement for those who have tested positive with a judgment of November 11, 2020. His reasoning: The principle “in dubio pro reo” applies to courts. The PCR tests are unreliable and tested positive means neither necessarily contagious nor infected. According to the court, a medical diagnosis can only be made by a doctor (3).
Can it be that we are merely witnessing a gigantic and historically unprecedented medical-political abuse of power?
That a virus is being used as a scapegoat for something else?
Children and adolescents are not a virus risk for society, not even for the old, the sick and the elderly. Children are and will remain our only future!
Anyone who cannot stand a child’s laughter, who cannot bear the mental health of a child, who forces children to use masks and distance rules, is sick themselves. Not suffering from Covid-19, but from lovelessness, ignorance, hatred and dehumanization.
The history of mankind shows one thing impressively: no epidemic, no single virus can cause as much hardship, suffering, illness, misery and even death as a mentally ill society, human presumption and, above all, overconfidence.
We should protect our children from that!
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
(1) On March 16, 2020, French President Emmanuel Macron spoke of war seven times in his State of the Union address (1st lockdown) regarding the corona crisis: “We are at war, a health war, for sure. We are not fighting against an army or any other nation, but the enemy is there, insecure, fleeting and on the advance. (…) We are at war. “
(2) There are now numerous international online platforms that publish uncommented international research reports, studies, evaluations, court rulings, etc. on Covid-19. For example the Swiss platform Swiss Policy Research.
(3) The original court ruling is available at: infosperber.ch
A selection of international research results on SARS-CoV-2 and children and adolescents:
The Icelandic tracing pioneer Kari Stephanson, CEO of deCODEgenetics, did not find a single case in which a child under ten had infected their parents.
The director of the US CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention), Robert Redfield, said that the number of additional suicides and drug deaths among adolescents in recent months has been far greater than the number of Covid-19 deaths.
According to the US state health authority CDC, three times more children up to 14 years of age have died of influenza than of Covid-19 (101 versus 31) since the beginning of 2020. To put that in perspective: The USA has around 328 million inhabitants and the general mental and physical health of children and adolescents in the USA has been consistently poor for over 20 years than in any other western country. Even before Covid-19 and for years, around 2.5 million children in the United States have been homeless.
A joint report from Sweden (without closing primary schools) and Finland (with closing primary schools) found that there was no difference in infection rates among children in the two countries. This joint state report was published by Sweden and Finland via the international press agency Reuters, which reported on it on July 15, 2020. So weeks before the state corona terror was introduced in schools in some German federal states such as North Rhine-Westphalia or Bavaria.
A British study found that up to 60 percent of children and adolescents and around 6 percent of adults already have cross-reactive antibodies against the new coronavirus that have arisen through contact with previous coronaviruses.
After the first lockdown, Saxony was the first federal state to start regular school operations, which were scientifically supported by Dresden University. Study leader Reinhard Berner explained to the Frankfurter Allgemeine on July 13th that in terms of Covid-19, in summary, children act more as a brake on the infection than as a carrier. See also “Corona consequences for children”
Sure, I could have written my last article for Health Impact News for the year 2020 with a look back on how terrible the year was, but looking forward to better times in 2021. Undoubtedly, that would have been a more popular article.
But then I would have had to lie to you. Because if one truly understands what has happened in 2020, then you should also understand that this Plandemic was just the prelude, and things are now about to get a lot worse.
2019 is history, and we will NEVER go back to the kind of life we had back then. The Globalists know this, and for those who reject being spoon-fed the propaganda that is called “news” in the pharma-owned corporate media, we know it too.
Since there has been a threat hanging over us in the Alternative Health media of being censored once the new COVID vaccines started being distributed, I have already written what needs to be understood at the close of 2020, since I had no idea how much longer we would be allowed to continue publishing and have worked hard to get this information to our readers as quickly as possible.
Pretty much everything concerning COVID19 was predicted and planned for before the first cases were even reported in Wuhan, China at the beginning of the year. See our page on the “Plandemic” in our COVID Information Center.
The Globalists have also announced what is in the pipeline and coming next.
That includes a Dark Winter, and a “Digital Pandemic” which will strike our infrastructure through Cyber attacks and make COVID19 look like “a small disturbance” in comparison, according to Klaus Schwab, the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum. See:
Things will not get better until a significant portion of our population understands that Government is our ENEMY, no matter who is in office, because politicians at the top are puppets being controlled by their handlers, the Shadow Government that is run by the corporate Wall Street Billionaires and the Central Bankers.
Those who still believe that Trump is not one of them and expect him to save our nation, you will be sorely disappointed soon, even if he does come through and start arresting people in the “Deep State” and retains the presidency.
I have previously written who is the top person running the show, and explained many times now how we are uselessly fighting each other if we prefer one political party over the other.
For my real end of the year message to you, please read:
As we end this year on a very somber note, I share with you this video published by ReallyGraceful about what this year has done to our children.
Leaving a lucrative career as a nephrologist (kidney doctor), Dr. Suzanne Humphries is now free to actually help cure people.
In this autobiography she explains why good doctors are constrained within the current corrupt medical system from practicing real, ethical medicine.
One of the sane voices when it comes to examining the science behind modern-day vaccines, no pro-vaccine extremist doctors have ever dared to debate her in public.
The World Economic Forum (WEF) warns of a new crisis of “even more significant economic and social implications than COVID19.” .What threat could possibly be more impactful?
Christian breaks down the WEF’s “Cyber Polygon” tabletop exercise, its participants, and predictive programming around a looming large scale cyberattack on critical infrastructure that would unleash a Dark Winter and help to usher in the Great Reset.
According to Jeremy Jurgens, WEF Managing Director ( https://youtu.be/5ZRg5kiH9Is ): .“I believe that there will be another crisis. It will be more significant. It will be faster than what we’ve seen with COVID. The impact will be greater, and as a result the economic and social implications will be even more significant.”
According to Klaus Schwab ( https://youtu.be/0DKRvS-C04o ) : Ukrainian Crisis Video News: War in Donbass, Washington Pressures Russia, US Armored Vehicles to Latvia“We all know, but still pay insufficient attention, to the frightening scenario of a comprehensive cyber attack could bring a complete halt to the power supply, transportation, hospital services, our society as a whole. The COVID-19 crisis would be seen in this respect as a small disturbance in comparison to a major cyberattack. To use the COVID19 crisis as a timely opportunity to reflect on the lessons the cybersecurity community can draw and improve our unpreparedness for a potential cyber-pandemic.”,
In a December 9, 2020, Twitter thread,1Michael P. Senger, an attorney and author of the September 2020 article,2 “China’s Global Lockdown Propaganda Campaign,” reviewed the largely hidden impacts of global lockdowns. Ivor Cummins’ video also reviews data showing just how “hugely ineffective” lockdowns have been.
As one would expect, shutting down businesses for extended periods of time leads to businesses going under for impaired cash flow from lack of revenue. Back in August 2020, Bloomberg reported3that more than half of all small business owners feared their businesses wouldn’t survive. They were right.
According to a September 2020 economic impact report4 by Yelp, 163,735 U.S. businesses had closed their doors as of August 31, 2020, and of those, 60% — a total of 97,966 businesses — were permanent closures.5 As noted by Senger:6
“That ’leaders’ across the world transformed into tyrants, believing they had a right to bankrupt their subjects, is the core evil of lockdown.”
The Greatest Wealth Transfer in History
How does shutting small businesses but allowing big box stores to stay open protect public health? There’s really no rhyme or reason for such a decision, other than to shift wealth away from small, private business owners to multinational corporations.
While working-class Americans have been forced to file for unemployment by the tens of millions, the top five richest people in the U.S. increased their wealth by 26% between March 18 and June 17, 2020.7 Since the beginning of the pandemic, the collective wealth of 651 billionaires in the U.S. rose by more than 36% ($1 trillion).8 The assets of these 651 billionaires is now nearly double that of the combined wealth of the least wealthy 165 million Americans.
As noted by Frank Clemente, executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness, “Never before has America seen such an accumulation of wealth in so few hands.”9
Far from being the great equalizer, COVID-19 is the greatest wealth transfer scheme in the history of the world. Indeed, you may as well call it what it is: grand-scale asset theft from the poor and middle class. A December 14, 2020, article10 in The Defender reviews who has benefited from pandemic measures the most, from the finance and tech industries to the pharmaceutical and military-intelligence sectors.
Minority-Owned Businesses Have Taken Biggest Hit
According to an August 10, 2020, article11 by Forbes, pandemic measures had eliminated nearly half of all Black-owned small businesses in the U.S. by the end of April 2020. It cites data from a New York Fed report,12 which found that “Black-owned businesses were more than twice as likely to shutter as their white counterparts.”
While nationally representative data on small businesses showed active business ownership dropped 22% between February and April 2020, the number of businesses owned by Blacks dropped by 41%. The decline in Latin-owned businesses was 32%; Asian-owned 26%; and White-owned 17%. According to Forbes:13
“At the same time, Black-owned firms, already smarting from a Great Recession that hurt them badly, already entered the crisis with ‘weaker cash positions, weaker bank relationships, and preexisting funding gaps.’ ‘Even the healthiest Black firms were financially disadvantaged at the onset of COVID-19,’ said the report.”
Food Insecurity at Staggering Levels
Mere weeks into the pandemic, Americans were lining up at food banks. An April 12, 2020, article14in The New York Times showed miles-long lines in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Miami, Florida and elsewhere:
“In many cities, lines outside food pantries have become glaring symbols of financial precarity, showing how quickly the pandemic has devastated working people’s finances.
In San Antonio, 10,000 families began arriving before dawn on Thursday at a now-shuttered swap meet hall to receive boxes of food. Normally, 200 to 400 families might show up during a normal food distribution.
‘It’s a wave of need,’ said Eric Cooper, president of the San Antonio Food Bank. ‘They were all let go. There’s no savings. There’s no slack in their household budget. The money’s run out. It just shows how desperate people are.’”
The situation is much the same in other countries. An April 10, 2020, report15 by the Financial Times cited survey results showing an estimated 3 million Britons had gone without food at some point in the previous three weeks. An estimated 1 million people had by then already lost all sources of income.
Anna Taylor, executive director for the Food Foundation in the U.K., told the Financial Times there’s a “food poverty problem that has not been dealt with” that is now becoming glaringly apparent — and that was mere weeks into the pandemic. We’re now nine months down the line, and governments around the world are again calling for lockdowns over the winter holidays.
Mental Health Slides as Despair Grows
That forcing people into poverty will have a detrimental effect on their mental health is also not surprising. A Canadian survey16 in early October 2020 found 22% of Canadians experienced high anxiety levels — four times higher than the prepandemic rate — and 13% reported severe depression.
In the U.S., an August 2020 survey17,18 by the American Psychological Association found Gen-Z’ers are among the hardest hit in this regard, with young adults aged 18 to 23 reporting the highest levels of stress and depression.
More than 7 out of 10 in this age group reported symptoms of depression in the two weeks before the survey. Among teens aged 13 to 17, 51% said the pandemic makes it impossible to plan for the future. Sixty-seven percent of college-aged respondents echoed this concern.
With despair comes drug-related problems, and according to the American Medical Association, the drug overdose epidemic has significantly worsened and become more complicated this year. “More than 40 states have reported increases in opioid-related mortality as well as ongoing concerns for those with a mental illness or substance use disorder,” the AMA reported in an Issue Brief19 updated December 9, 2020.
A list of national news included in the AMA’s brief20 include reports of increases in overdose-related cardiac arrests, surges in street fentanyl leading to deaths in the thousands and a “dramatic increase” in illicit opioid fatalities. Spikes and record numbers of overdose deaths have been reported in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Florida and many other states.
Young Adults Dying in Greater Than Normal Numbers
That pandemic measures are doing more harm than good can also be seen in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data21,22 showing that, compared to previous years, excess deaths among 25- to 44-year-olds has increased by a remarkable 26.5%, even though this age group accounts for fewer than 3% of COVID-19-related deaths.
To put it bluntly, in our misguided efforts to prevent the elderly and immune compromised from dying from COVID-19, we’re sacrificing people who are in the prime of their lives. As noted by Senger:23
“Per CDC, despite mass PCR testing and disproportionate false positives, at least 100,947 excess deaths in 2020 were not even linked to COVID-19 AT ALL. In other words, over 100,000 Americans were murdered this year by their OWN GOVERNMENT.”
Lockdowns Dramatically Increase Domestic Abuse
Rising despair is also reflected in statistics showing dramatic increases in domestic abuse, rape, child sex abuse and suicides. By July 2020, Ireland reported a 98% increase in people seeking counseling for rape and child sex abuse.24
Data from the British group Women’s Aid showed 61% of domestic abuse victims reported abuse had worsened during the lockdown.25 The number of women killed by their domestic partners also doubled during the first three weeks of lockdowns in the U.K.26
In the U.S., data27 from a Massachusetts hospital revealed a dramatic jump in patients seeking emergency care after being battered by their domestic partner in the nine weeks between March 11 and May 3, 2020, when the state had ordered schools closed.
During this time, 26 patients were treated for domestic abuse injuries that included strangulation, stabbing, burns and gunshot wounds. That’s just one shy of the number of cases seen in the same time period during 2018 and 2019 combined. In other words, domestic abuse cases were nearly double the annual norm for that hospital.
In early April 2020, United Nations secretary-general Antonio Guterres warned28 of a “horrifying” surge in global domestic abuse linked to pandemic lockdowns as calls to helplines in some countries had by then already doubled.29 The number of people looking into divorce in the U.S. was also 34% higher in March through June 2020 compared to the same time frame in 2019.30
Children Brought to Suffer in Countless Ways
Child abuse, meanwhile, is less likely to be detected and reported thanks to virtual schooling. As noted by Human Rights Watch:31
“More than 1.5 billion students are out of school. Widespread job and income loss and economic insecurity among families are likely to increase rates of child labor, sexual exploitation, teenage pregnancy, and child marriage.
Stresses on families, particularly those living under quarantines and lockdowns, are increasing the incidence of domestic violence … ‘The risks posed by the COVID-19 crisis to children are enormous,’ said Jo Becker, children’s rights advocacy director at Human Rights Watch …
Child abuse is less likely to be detected during the COVID-19 crisis, as child protection agencies have reduced monitoring to avoid spreading the virus, and teachers are less able to detect signs of ill treatment with schools closed.”
There are signs of rising child abuse though, including a British study32 that found a shocking 1,493% rise in the incidence of abusive head trauma among children during the first month of the lockdown, compared to the same time period in the previous three years.
Children are also in danger of falling behind socially and developmentally, even if they’re not exposed to direct abuse. In November 2020, The Guardian reported that many children are regressing mentally and physically as a result of the lockdowns.33All this for a virus that caused no above-average mortality in countries without lockdowns … In other words, all for absolutely nothing. ~ Michael P. Senger
The Washington Post reported34 scholastic achievement gaps have widened in the U.S. and early literacy among kindergarteners has seen a sharp decline this year.
According to The Economist,35 American children over the age of 10 cut physical activity by half during the lockdown, spending most of their time playing video games and eating junk food. Indeed, closing parks and beaches right along with small businesses and schools was undoubtedly among the most ignorant and destructive pandemic measures of all.
As noted by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in “How the Government Uses Fear to Control,” research from the 1980s found that for every 1-point rise in unemployment there were 37,000 excess deaths, 4,000 excess imprisonments and 3,300 excess admissions into mental institutions. Kennedy also cites recent data from a hospital in San Francisco that stated they saw one year’s-worth of suicides in a single month, a 1,200% increase.
In September 2020, Cook Children’s Hospital in Fort Worth, Texas, admitted a record number of 37 pediatric patients who had tried to commit suicide. Dr. Kia Carter, medical director of Psychiatry at Cook Children’s told CBS:36
“September of 2020 has been the highest month ever that we’ve seen suicidal patients admitted to our medical center … Suicide has become the second leading cause of death for kids and adolescents in the last year, versus two years ago when it was the third leading cause of death.”
In Japan — which didn’t even implement lockdowns — government statistics reveal more people died from suicide in the month of October than have died from COVID-19 all year.37 While only 2,087 Japanese had died from COVID-19 as of November 27, 2020, the suicide toll in October alone was 2,153. Women make up the lion’s share of suicides, and hotlines are also reporting that women are confessing thoughts of killing their children out of sheer desperation.
Developing World Fares Even Worse
As horrible as all of these statistics are, they don’t even begin to compare to the tragedies taking place in developing nations. In India, millions of migrant workers were stranded early on in the pandemic without a way to make a living and unable to leave the cities due to lockdown orders.38
Food lines stretched for miles in South Africa at the end of April 202039 and in Saudi Arabia, “hundreds if not thousands” of African migrants — mostly Ethiopian men — have been left to die from lack of food and water in COVID-19 detention centers after a moratorium on deportation was issued in April, according to an August 30, 2020, report by The Telegraph.40
The United Nations estimates pandemic responses have “pushed an additional 150 million children into multidimensional poverty — deprived of education, health, housing, nutrition, sanitation or water,”41 and at the end of April 2020 warned the world was facing “famine of biblical proportions, with only a limited amount of time to act before starvation claims hundreds of millions of lives.”42
“All this for a virus that caused no above-average mortality in countries without lockdowns — and which WHO estimates already infected 10% of people worldwide by October. In other words, all for absolutely nothing,” Senger writes.43
Pandemics Highlight Pre-Existing Health Inequalities
Indeed, an ever-growing number of doctors, academics and scientists are now questioning the validity of using PCR tests to diagnose “cases,” the usefulness of face masks, the questionable classification of COVID-19 deaths, and the suppression of scientifically verified methods of prevention and treatment, as well as the safety and usefulness of COVID-19 vaccines.
There are clear problems in all of these areas, yet questions and logical thinking have been, and continue to be, met with harsh resistance and denial. Those leading the charge in terms of pandemic responses have not been shy about their censoring of counter-narratives, almost without exception.
When it comes to the disease itself, we now know certain comorbidities significantly raise your risk of complications and deaths. Among the top ones are obesity, insulin resistance and vitamin D deficiency.
While these conditions are exceptionally common overall, they’re particularly prevalent in Black and indigenous communities, and when combined with inadequate access to health care, these groups also end up being disproportionally affected by COVID-19.44
COVID-19 Is a Class War
While the media and political and economic institutions claim the pandemic narrative is based on scientific consensus, this clearly isn’t the case. There’s no evidence supporting universal mask use, for example, and there’s even less scientific support for lockdowns — a strategy based on a high school project that won third place.45
James Corbett of the Corbett Report discusses this shocking revelation in the video above. Now, as many small businesses are failing thanks to months-long shutdowns and employment opportunities look bleak, world leaders are suddenly joining the World Economic Forum in calling for a Great Resetof the economy.46
This is hardly a random coincidence. This plan, which has been in the works for decades, will further empower and enrich wealthy, unelected powerbrokers while enslaving and impoverishing everyone else. The fact that the pandemic has been used to shift wealth from the poor and middle class to the ultra-wealthy is clear for anyone to see at this point. As noted by IPS News:47
“The COVID pandemic has not been the ‘Great Equalizer’ as suggested by the likes of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and members of the World Economic Forum. Rather, it has exacerbated existing inequalities along gender, race and economic class divides across the world.48”
The Global Restructuring
At this point, it should be obvious for anyone paying attention that the pandemic is being prolonged and exaggerated for a reason, and it’s not because there’s concern for life. Quite the contrary.
It’s a ploy to quite literally enslave the global population within a digital surveillance system49 — a system so unnatural and inhumane that no rational population would ever voluntarily go down that road.
“The ‘Great Reset’ seeks to … expand corporate control of natural resources and state surveillance of individuals,” IPS News writes.50 “In the post-pandemic ‘Great Reset,’ there would not be much life left outside the technological-corporate nexus dominated by monolithic agribusiness, pharmaceutical, communication, defense and other inter-connected corporations, and the governments and media serving them.
The proponents of the ‘Great Reset’51 envisage a Brave New World where, ‘You will own nothing. And you will be happy. Whatever you want, you will rent, and it will be delivered by drones.’
But it is more likely that this elite-led revolution will make the vast majority of humanity a powerless appendage of technology with little consciousness and meaning in their lives.”
It should also be clear that most if not all pandemic restrictions to freedom are meant to become permanent. In other words, these past nine months have been a preview of the world the technocratic elite wants to implement as part of the new social and economic order.
It’s important to understand that now’s the time to fight back: to resist any and all unconstitutional edicts. Once the “new world order” is in place, you will no longer be able to do a thing about it.
Your life — your health, educational and work opportunities, your finances and your very identity — will be so meshed with the automated technological infrastructure that any attempt to break free will result in you being locked out or erased from the system, leaving you with no ability to learn, work, travel or engage in commerce.
It sounds far-fetched, I know, but when you follow the technocratic plan to its inevitable end, that’s basically what you end up with. The warning signs are all around us, if we’re willing to see them for what they actually are. The only question now is whether enough people are willing to resist it to make a difference.
Most important of all is the need to release the fear. It’s a fearful public that allows the technocratic elite to dictate the future and rip away our personal freedoms. It’s fear that allows tyranny to flourish. Really look at the data, so you can see for yourself that panic is unwarranted, and that the so-called “solutions” to the pandemic are in fact a path of total destruction.
This destruction — both moral and economic — is necessary for the Great Reset to occur. The technocratic elite need everything and everyone to fall apart in order to justify the implementation of their new system. Without this desperation, no one would agree to what they have planned.
Last but not least, now is also the time to take control of your own health. Make it a point to really take care of yourself. Remember, insulin resistance, obesity and vitamin D deficiency top the list of comorbidities that significantly raise your risk complications and death from COVID-19.
These are also underlying factors in a host of other chronic diseases, including mental health problems, so by addressing them, you’ll improve your chances of getting through this challenging time with your health and sanity intact. You can find tons of information about how to reverse all of these issues by searching my article archives.
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Alleged Mutation of the H1N1 virus, then in 2009 and now in 2020-2021 with the SARS-2-CoV virus.
This article was first published on September 29, 2009.
The World Health Organization, the UN agency (ir-)responsible for declaring a Phase 6 “PANDEMIC” global alert over what it calls H1N1 Influenza A or Swine Flu, whose chief Dr Margaret Chan has repeatedly warned that while Swine Flu to date had been rather mild, that the emergency declaration was necessary because it “could mutate” aggressively into a deadly pandemic killing millions, now admits well into the flu season in the Northern Hemisphere that H1N1 has apparently not mutated.
Margaret Chan, the head of the World Health Organization, at a meeting with health officials in her native Hong Kong, has just stated that the swine flu virus has not yet mutated into a more deadly strain. WHO Director of the Initiative for Vaccine Research, Dr Marie-Paule Kieny, reinforced that statement in a press conference September 24 in Geneva when she stated, “we are lucky that the pandemic is moderate in severity that most people experience a mild illness and recover spontaneously.” That means recovery with no vaccination, no Tamiflu or other dangerous ”antiviral” drugs. Just with letting nature take its course.
Last summer, when the WHO decided to declare a global “pandemic emergency” over what it called the H1N1 Influenza A global spread, it also announced in a notice buried among its press releases that most countries had stopped testing ill populations for H1N1, and that the WHO therefore simply arbitrarily “assumed” all patients with a stated set of symptoms were automatically H1N1 victims. So the H1N1 pandemic case counts, to quote the WHO, “no longer reflect actual disease activity.”
The symptoms the WHO listed as indication that a patient has H1N1? A fever, cough, sore throat, headache… in short, all the symptoms of a common cold. The pandemic declaration by the agency entrusted by the UN with monitoring and guarding the world’s health came anyway, on recommendation of the WHO’s “experts,” the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts, or SAGE.
However, even though the WHO admits it is not testing patients for H1N1 around the world, they also state that the H1N1 “pandemic virus” is becoming more common than the common seasonal flu virus. A simple question in the interest of accuracy: How in hell’s blazes do they know that if they stopped testing around the world? Gut feeling? WHO’s “intuition” that everyone who has a fever, cough, headache and or sore throat around the world automatically must have H1N1? The alarming aspect of this entire charade is that it will likely have severe health consequences for millions or tens of millions of some three billion people around the world targeted to get injections of largely untested so-called H1N1 Swine Flu vaccines.The H1N1 Swine Flu Pandemic: Manipulating Data to Enrich Drug Companies
Vaccines for South nations?
Equally bizarre is the fact that in her latest comments, the WHO’s Chan seemed preoccupied with how to get vaccines to poorer countries mainly in the Southern Hemisphere. Yet the same WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts, SAGE, states on the WHO official website that H1N1 does not pose a major risk to the Southern Hemisphere.
The number of swine flu cases is now expected to rise as the Northern Hemisphere moves into winter, WHO Director-General Margaret Chan says. But she claims that the biggest challenge in combatting the pandemic would be ensuring enough vaccines got to the world’s poorest countries. Three billion doses could be produced worldwide annually, enough to cover almost half the world’s population, Chan said.
The WHO is working to raise a billion dollars to help buy vaccines for developing countries that cannot produce them themselves. The United States and several other countries have stated they plan to make 10 percent of their vaccine supply available to others in need. The vehicle to raise funds for the apparently not-threatened countries of the south is a public-private partnership of the WHO established in 2000, called GAVI.
Tricks with WHO death data
Another little known fact about the WHO pandemic operation which gives their dire warnings about H1N1 the necessary gravitas to scare the dickens out of pregnant women, parents and just about anybody, are the death statistics constantly cited when data on purported H1N1 cases are mentioned. As of the last report at end September 2009 the WHO claimed 3917 deaths due to H1N1 Influenza A or Swine Flu.
In most cases, even the WHO and the Atlanta US Government’s CDC has been forced to admit, deaths were in patients who already had some severe respiratory disorder or grave illness when they contracted what was named H1N1 Influenza A. They never to date have offered the slightest proof that it was not those grave prior illnesses which caused death and that the flu symptoms were merely a coincident event, what epidemiologists term an “opportunistic infection.”
But it gets even more interesting. The WHO, it turns out, lumps its statistics for flu deaths together with those from pneumonia, a completely separate and far more common illness and a far larger cause of death, in a disease classification it calls “Influenza and Pneumonia (J09-J18).”
So in 2007 the WHO recorded 21883 deaths attributed to “flu and pneumonia” without dividing each as to direct cause. But of those WHO classifications, flu itself only goes for symptoms in categories J09-J11. The entire rest of the categories deal with pneumonia and related lung infectious manifestations. Yet far and away the largest group of deaths from infectious diseases comes from pneumonia, not from influenza. The number of certified deaths from “influenza virus”, with or without pneumonia complications was a far less alarming 14 persons in 2007. This clever trick allows pharmaceutical manufacturers like GlaxoSmithKline or Baxter Labs to promote their “flu” vaccines.
If we are dealing with an illness whose symptoms in the vast majority of cases are mild and disappear from itself with no medication after five or more days, and whose mortality rate is at worst infinitesimally small, there would be no need for panic, no need to line up in queues to get jabbed with untested vaccines whose contents including various adjuvants like aluminum hydroxide and nanoparticles are potentially nerve crippling or even death-causing. But then that would not be “good” for Bill Gates, David Rockefeller and other members of the Good Club, would it?
F. William Engdahl, author of Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order.
F. William Engdahl is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization
Of relevance to the ongoing debate on the Covid vaccine, this incisive article by Dr. Gary Kohls was first published by Global Research on May 3, 2017.
“The full extent of the Gardasil scandal needs to be assessed:everyone knew when this vaccine was released on the American market that it would prove to be worthless…I predict that Gardasil will become the greatest medical scandal of all time because at some point in time, the evidence will add up to prove that this vaccine, technical and scientific feat that it may be, has absolutely no effect on cervical cancer and that all the very many adverse effects which destroy lives and even kill, serve no other purpose than to generate profit for the manufacturers. Gardasil is useless and costs a fortune and decision-makers at all levels are aware of it! Cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, paralysis of the lower limbs, vaccine-induced MS and vaccine-induced encephalitis can be found, whatever the vaccine.” — Dr Bernard Dalbergue(former Merck employee)
“No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable…for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death.”– President Ronald Reagan, as he signed The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986,absolving drug companies from all medico-legal liability when children die, are injured or are disabled from vaccine injuries, thus reversing many of the intentions of the original legislation establishing the FDA
“The human immune system is divided into two major classes:
1) Cellular Immunity,(for which injected vaccines do absolutely nothing, except to weaken it) located in the mucous membranes of the gastrointestinal and respiratory tracts and their respective lymph nodes and
2) Humoral Immunity, with production of antigen-specific antibodies by plasma cells in the bone marrow. For eons of time the mucous membranes of the gastrointestinal and respiratory tracts have been the primary sites of infectious microbe entry into the body so that, of necessity, mucosal/cellular immunity has evolved as the primary defense system, with humoral immunity serving a secondary or backup role…Vaccines are reversing these roles, attempting to substitute vaccine-induced humoral immunity for the far more efficient mucosal immunity, the latter in turn undergoing a process of “atrophy of disuse” as a result of this role-switching.” – Harold Buttram, MD
“In the field of chemical toxicology it is universally recognized that combinations of toxins may bring exponential increases of toxicity; ie, a combination of two chemicals may bring a 10-fold increase in toxicity, three chemicals 100-fold increases. This same principle almost certainly applies to the immunosuppressive effects of viral vaccines when administered in combination, as with the MMR vaccine, among which the measles vaccine is (known to be)exceptionally immunosuppresive.” – Harold Buttram, MD
“…the NIH (National Institutes of Health) is incapable of conducting conflict-free research. …it is clear that the system managing our vaccine program is corrupt beyond repair and needs a complete overhaul.” – Lori Mellwain, National Autism Association board chair
“It is difficult to get a man to understandsomething, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” –Upton Sinclair, whose 1903 novel “Jungle” led to President Theodore Roosevelt’s pushing through the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906.
Last year there was an article published in my local newspaper describing an outbreak of a syndrome afflicting a group of young women. The syndrome was eventually labeled by the Mayo Clinic as Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS). As with most of the many iatrogenic illnesses (whose known causes are drug-induced or are caused by physician-prescribed “treatments” such as vaccine administration), the medical establishment regards POTS as having “no known cause”.
The young women involved were students that had, according to the article, been ill for an unspecified number of months. The young women were underclass women in a local high school, where they had found each other and started a support group. At least two of them had had symptoms since age the early teens, the typical age at which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) mandate (for pre-sexually active girls) a series of three intramuscular, aluminum-containing inoculations using one of the two FDA-approved, so-called “anti-cervical cancer” vaccines (the Human Papilloma Virus [HPV] vaccines Gardisil and Cervarix).
The Big Pharma giant Merck (of Vioxx and MMR/mumps infamy) makes and markets Gardisil and the equally large Big Pharma giant GlaxoSmithKline (of Paxil and Wellbutrin infamy) makes and markets Cervarix. Gardisil contains 4 genetically-engineered human papilloma virus-like antigens in it and Cervarix contains 2. The two vaccines have been approved by the heavily conflicted FDA (corrupted by industry shills) for safety and efficacy and have been pushed by the equally heavily conflicted CDC and AAP. The vaccines are described in more detail in previous Duty to Warn columns (see the links below).
The young women had been sickened for months with symptoms that included (according to the newspaper article) dizziness, light-headedness, fainting, headaches, stomach pains, cramps, nausea, “brain fog”, flushing, purplish legs, reddened hands and numbing fatigue. The most frustrating symptom mentioned in the article was that of chronic fatigue.
Because I had been doing a lot of research on the American epidemic of vaccine-induced (and therefore iatrogenic) illnesses, I wondered if some of the women had received their series of aluminum-containing HPV shots – or perhaps may have received other vaccinations known to cause vaccine-injuries. Unfortunately I was unable to find out more specific clinical details, but the information given made me want to search the literature.
Eventually, I found out that some of the young women had eventually gone to the Mayo Clinic where they received a diagnosis of Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (“of unknown etiology”) – and therefore the girls were offered no cure or suggestions about prevention. And one can assume that they weren’t given any advice about avoiding receiving any toxic substance that could have triggered the illness. Read on.
Even though the FDA approved the vaccine to (theoretically) prevent HPV-associated cancer of the uterine cervix, no one will ever be certain if any cancers will actually be prevented until 20 – 30 years from now, because that is how long cancer of the cervix takes to develop after exposure to the carcinogenic virus. And the clinical trial results presented to the FDA only lasted a few years! Nevertheless, the FDA approved the inoculants, and the CDC and AAP immediately started recommending the very expensive shots (up to $130 per shot, not including office visit charges!) for girls of middle school age before there is any sexual activity).
Merck’s safety review group acknowledged a number of adverse events observed in the clinical trials of Gardisil, which physicians are supposed to inform patients or parents about before obtaining permission to inject the hazardous substance into the bodies of children.
Gardisil’s product insert states:
“local injectionsite reactions, syncope (fainting), dizziness, nausea, headaches, hypersensitivity reactions (such as rashes, hives, itching and anaphylaxis), Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), transverse myelitis, motor neuron disease, venous thromboembolic events (blood clots), pancreatitis, autoimmune disorders, pregnancy, and death.”
“may cause soreness at the injection site (the arm), headaches and low-grade fever. Sometimes dizziness or fainting occurs after the injection. Remaining seated for 15 minutes after the injection can reduce the risk of fainting. In addition, Cervarix might also cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or abdominal pain.”
Note that the Mayo Clinic cleverly fails to mention any of the serious life-threatening adverse effects that were listed by the manufacturers, specifically not mentioning death or autoimmune disorders. The principle of informed consent is obviously being side-stepped – even by the Mayo Clinic.
Soon after Gardisil was introduced into the CDC’s recommended pediatric vaccination schedule, the independent Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) started reporting numerous adverse events related to the HPV injections, including fainting, pain at the injection site, headaches, nausea, fever, tonic-clonic (jerking) muscular movements and seizure-like activity. Fainting was particularly common after injections. The fainting spells sometimes caused serious injuries, such as head injuries.
Just two years after Gardisil’s introduction into the US market, VAERS reported 32 deaths, more or less equally distributed after the first, second or third inoculation. The median interval from vaccination to death was 14.5 days.
Other less-frequent illnesses reported by VAERS included:
“autoimmune hemolytic anemia, idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, lymphadenopathy, pulmonary embolus, nausea, pancreatitis, vomiting, asthenia (weakness), chills, death, fatigue, malaise, autoimmune diseases, hypersensitivity reactions (including anaphylactic/anaphylactoid reactions, bronchospasm, and urticaria), arthralgia, myalgia, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, dizziness, Guillain-Barré syndrome, headache, motor neuron disease, paralysis, seizures, syncope (sometimes resulting in falling with injury), transverse myelitis, and deep venous thrombosis.”
According to the VAERS website, as of January 2015 there have been 220 HPV vaccine-related deaths, 1,283 chronically disabled patients, 3,945 hospital admissions, 12,305 admissions to emergency rooms, 595 abnormal Pap smears (including 262 cases of cervical dysplasia and 100 cases of cervical cancer!). Note that the FDA has previously admitted that as few as 1% of adverse reactions to drugs or vaccines are ever reported by patients or physicians so these numbers are likely to be falsely low. The real number of adverse events related to HPV could be as high as 100 times more that the reported statistics above!
Vaccine-related illnesses or deaths, just like many chronic illnesses from toxic exposures, can be delayed by months. Therefore it is likely that adverse reactions to any vaccine (or prescription drug, for that matter) may not be recognized by the patient or her doctor as being caused by the toxic substance, particularly the occurrence of a vaccine-induced chronic fatigue syndrome, autoimmune disorders or POTS.
It is also likely, since physicians are widely and thoroughly indoctrinated into the belief system that all vaccines are totally safe and totally effective, they would tend to be unwilling to admit to any vaccine-related adverse event.
I end this article with some more quotes from vaccinology and immunology experts about the serious problems of America’s vaccine industry (and the studied lack of media attention to the truth about vaccines and iatrogenic illnesses) and then end with a few excerpts from some of the multitude of medical journal articles that support the assertions and warnings above.
Knowledgeable and informed observers of Big Pharma’s tendency to habitually lie about the value of their newest blockbuster products are shocked at how the medical establishment has accepted these new and dangerous vaccines without much skepticism. Just claiming that Gardisil will prevent future cancers of the cervix is almost laughable – if it weren’t so serious.
My column on the absurdity of the medical profession mandating a series of routine HPV vaccinations to all adolescents on the untested and unproven theory that they will prevent cancer 20 – 30 years in the future, can be accessed at:
My column about vaccine-induced injuries, including vaccine-induced chronic childhood illnesses, vaccine-induced autoimmune disorders, aluminum adjuvant toxicity and vaccine-induced mitochondrial toxicity can be accessed at:
Below are some useful quotes and also abstracts from peer-reviewed medical journal articles that pertain to and support this discussion.
“The autism epidemic is real, and excessive vaccinations are the cause.” – Dr Bernard Rimland
“Completely unvaccinated children have less chronic disease and a lower risk of autism than
vaccinated children.” — J. B. Handley, Jr – founder of Operation Rescue
“The soaring incidence of physical and mental illnesses among today’s children (may be) causally related to current childhood vaccine programs. Primary among these is the large-scale contamination of the measles, mumps, and influenza vaccines with retroviruses capable of engrafting their genetics into the DNA of childhood recipients. This is rendered more likely because of the cavalier disregard with which combinations of viral vaccines are now being administered, primarily involving the MMR vaccines…in spite of the toxicology principle that combinations of toxins may bring exponential (10-fold or 100-fold) increases in toxicity.” – Harold Buttram, MD
“The really sad thing is the amount of doctors I’ve spoken to who say to me, ‘Del, I know that vaccines are causing autism, but I won’t say it on camera because the pharmaceutical industry will destroy my career just like they did to Andy Wakefield.’” — Del Bigtree, Producer of “Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe”
“…our current results are consistent with the existing evidence on the toxicology and pharmacokinetics of Aluminum adjuvants which altogether strongly implicate these compounds as contributors to the rising prevalence of neurobehavioral disorders in children. Given that autism has devastating consequences in a life of a child, and that currently in the developed world over 1% of children suffer from some form of Autism Spectrum Disorder, it would seem wise to make efforts towards reducing infant exposure to aluminum from vaccines.“ — C A Shaw, PhD
“There is a serious problem with vaccine safety. Vaccine aluminum adjuvant has adverse neurological effects, at dosages that are recommended by the US CDC. Vaccine critics are supported by the science. Parents refusing to vaccinate according to the recommended CDC schedule are supported by the science. Use aluminum-containing vaccines with great caution, or not at all.” – C. A. Shaw, PhD http://vaccinepapers.org/category/aluminum/
“Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant…research clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences.” — From Tomljenovic and Shaw’s journal article “Aluminum Vaccine Adjuvants: Are They Safe?”
Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia (POTS) with Chronic Fatigue After HPV Vaccination as Part of the “ASIA Syndrome”
Tomljenovic L, Colafrancesco S, Perricone C, and Shoenfeld Y
We report the case of a 14-year-old girl who developed postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) with chronic fatigue 2 months following Gardasil vaccination. The patient suffered from persistent headaches, dizziness, recurrent syncope, poor motor coordination, weakness, fatigue, myalgias, numbness, tachycardia, dyspnea, visual disturbances, phonophobia, cognitive impairment, insomnia, gastrointestinal disturbances, and a weight loss of 20 pounds.
The psychiatric evaluation ruled out the possibility that her symptoms were psychogenic or related to anxiety disorders. Furthermore, the patient tested positive for ANA (1:1280), lupus anticoagulant, and antiphospholipid.
On clinical examination she presented livedo reticularis and was diagnosed with Raynaud’s syndrome. This case fulfills the criteria for the autoimmune/auto-inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA).
Because human papillomavirus vaccination is universally recommended to teenagers and because POTS frequently results in long-term disabilities (as was the case in our patient), a thorough follow-up of patients who present with relevant complaints after vaccination is strongly recommended.
Autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (Shoenfeld’s syndrome): clinical and immunological spectrum
Shoenfeld, Y. et al
An adjuvant is a substance that enhances the antigen-specific immune response, induces the release of inflammatory cytokines…The immunological consequence of these actions is to stimulate the innate and adaptive immune response. The activation of the immune system by adjuvants, a desirable effect, could trigger manifestations of autoimmunity or autoimmune disease. Recently, a new syndrome was introduced, autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA), that includes postvaccination phenomena, macrophagic myofasciitis, Gulf War syndrome and siliconosis. This syndrome is characterized by nonspecific and specific manifestations of autoimmune disease. The main substances associated with ASIA are squalene (Gulf War syndrome), aluminum hydroxide (postvaccination phenomena, macrophagic myofasciitis) and silicone with siliconosis.
Long-term persistence of vaccine-derived aluminum hydroxide is associated with chronic cognitive dysfunction,
Gherardi RK, et al
Macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF) is an emerging condition, characterized by specific muscle lesions assessing long-term persistence of aluminum hydroxide within macrophages at the site of previous immunization. Affected patients mainly complain of arthromyalgias, chronic fatigue, and cognitive difficulties. We designed a comprehensive battery of neuropsychological tests to prospectively delineate MMF-associated cognitive dysfunction (MACD).
Compared to control patients with arthritis and chronic pain, MMF patients had pronounced and specific cognitive impairment. MACD mainly affected (i) both visual and verbal memory; (ii) executive functions, including attention, working memory, and planning; and (iii) left ear extinction at dichotic listening test. Cognitive deficits did not correlate with pain, fatigue, depression, or disease duration. Pathophysiological mechanisms underlying MACD remain to be determined.
In conclusion, long-term persistence of vaccine-derived aluminum hydroxide within the body assessed by MMF is associated with cognitive dysfunction, not solely due to chronic pain, fatigue and depression.
A role for the body burden of aluminium in vaccine-associated macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF) and chronic fatigue syndrome
Exley C, Gherardi RK, et al
Macrophagic myofasciitis and chronic fatigue syndrome are severely disabling conditions which may be caused by adverse reactions to aluminium-containing adjuvants in vaccines. While a little is known of disease aetiology both conditions are characterised by an aberrant immune response, have a number of prominent symptoms in common and are coincident in many individuals. Herein, we have described a case of vaccine-associated chronic fatigue syndrome and macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF) in an individual demonstrating aluminium overload. This is the first report linking the latter with either of these two conditions and the possibility is considered that the coincident aluminium overload contributed significantly to the severity of these conditions in this individual. This case has highlighted potential dangers associated with aluminium-containing adjuvants and we have elucidated a possible mechanism whereby vaccination involving aluminium-containing adjuvants could trigger the cascade of immunological events which are associated with autoimmune conditions including chronic fatigue syndrome and macrophagic myofasciitis.
Dr Kohls is a retired physician from Duluth, MN, USA. In the decade prior to his retirement, he practiced what could best be described as “holistic (non-drug) and preventive mental health care”. Since his retirement, he has written a weekly column for the Duluth Reader, an alternative newsweekly magazine. His columns mostly deal with the dangers of American imperialism, friendly fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism, and the dangers of Big Pharma, psychiatric drugging, the over-vaccinating of children and other movements that threaten American democracy, civility, health and longevity and the future of the planet.
According to the WHO, seasonal flu/influenza practically disappeared this year in the southern hemisphere.
“In tropical South America, there were no influenza detections…”
“Globally… influenza activity remained at lower levels than expected for this time of the year.” Lower means flu practically didn’t show up this year like always before. Where have all the flu outbreaks gone?
Separately, the WHO claimed that “various hygiene (including mask wearing) and physical distancing measures…likely played a role in reducing influenza virus transmission.”
Mask-wearing is ineffective and potentially harmful to health. Masks are porous. They have to be. Otherwise wearers would suffocate. Aerosol spores are minuscule. Able to penetrate all masks and concentrate beneath them risks greater harm to wearers than avoiding their use.
Everything ordered or recommended this year for protection did infinitely more harm than good — notably from lost jobs and income during lockdowns and quarantines.
The CDC casually said “(s)easonal influenza activity in the United States remains lower than usual for this time of year.”
It practically disappeared — or did it?
Covid is “seasonal influenza” in disguise — in the US and worldwide.
In its latest weekly reporting period pre-yearend, the CDC said:
“The percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive for influenza at clinical laboratories is” one-10th of 1%.
It’s practically nonexistent.
For the three-month period in the US ending in late December, findings were vitually the same.
There’s almost no seasonal influenza showing up this year because their outbreaks are called covid.
Overall worldwide, seasonal influenza is around 98% lower this year than in earlier flu seasons.
WHO spokesperson Dr. Sylvie Briand recently claimed that “literally there was nearly no flu in the Southern Hemisphere” in 2020, adding:
“We hope that the situation will be the same in the Northern Hemisphere” at end of this flu season.
If the current trend continues as is highly likely, the incidence of seasonal influenza will be minuscule compared to previous years in northern and southern hemispheres.
At the same time in the US nationwide and worldwide, high numbers of covid are reported.
If accurately identified, they’d be called influenza that shows up annually in the US and abroad like clockwork.
It’s unaccompanied by fear-mongering mass hysteria, lockdowns, quarantines, mask-wearing, social distancing, and most important:
No economic collapse occurs that caused the Greatest Main Street Depression in US history this year that’s likely to be protracted to maintain social control and continue transferring unprecedented amounts of wealth from ordinary people to the wealthy.
They’re enjoying a bonanza of riches from what’s going on at the expense of most others.
On December 15, Nature.com noted that “(m)easures meant to tame the coronavirus pandemic are quashing influenza and most other respiratory diseases” — calling what’s going on the “influenza fizzle.”
Claiming “lockdowns stopped flu in its tracks, (outbreaks) plummet(ting) by 98% in the United States” ignored that what’s called covid is seasonal influenza.
The great 2020 disappearing flu passes largely under the mass media’s radar.
Media proliferated mass deception and power of repetition get most people to believe that what’s harmful to health and well-being is beneficial.
Despite this success, Danish leaders recently found themselves on the defensive. The reason is that Danes aren’t wearing face masks, and local authorities for the most part aren’t even recommending them.
This prompted Berlingske, the country’s oldest newspaper, to complain that Danes had positioned themselves “to the right of Trump.”
“The whole world is wearing face masks, even Donald Trump,” Berlingske pointed out.
This apparently did not sit well with Danish health officials. They responded by noting there is little conclusive evidence that face masks are an effective way to limit the spread of respiratory viruses.
“All these countries recommending face masks haven’t made their decisions based on new studies,” said Henning Bundgaard, chief physician at Denmark’s Rigshospitale, according toBloomberg News. (Denmark has since updated its guidelines to encourage, but not require, the use of masks on public transit where social distancing may not be possible.)
Denmark is not alone.
Despite a global stampede of mask-wearing, data show that 80-90 percent of people in Finland and Holland say they “never” wear masks when they go out, a sharp contrast to the 80-90 percent of people in Spain and Italy who say they “always” wear masks when they go out.
Dutch public health officials recently explained why they’re not recommending masks.
“From a medical point of view, there is no evidence of a medical effect of wearing face masks, so we decided not to impose a national obligation,” said Medical Care Minister Tamara van Ark.
Others, echoing statements similar to the US Surgeon General from early March, said masks could make individuals sicker and exacerbate the spread of the virus.
“Face masks in public places are not necessary, based on all the current evidence,” saidCoen Berends, spokesman for the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment. “There is no benefit and there may even be negative impact.”
The truth is masks have become the new wedge issue, the latest phase of the culture war. Mask opponents tend to see mask wearers as “fraidy cats” or virtue-signalling “sheeple” who willfully ignore basic science. Mask supporters, on the other hand, often see people who refuse to wear masks as selfish Trumpkins … who willfully ignore basic science.
There’s not a lot of middle ground to be found and there’s no easy way to sit this one out. We all have to go outside, so at some point we all are required to don the mask or not.
It’s clear from the data that despite the impression of Americans as selfish rebel cowboys who won’t wear a mask to protect others, Americans are wearing masks far more than many people in European countries.
Polls show Americans are wearing masks at record levels, though a political divide remains: 98 percent of Democrats report wearing masks in public compared to 66 percent of Republicans and 85 percent of Independents. (These numbers, no doubt, are to some extent the product of mask requirements in cities and states.)
Whether one is pro-mask or anti-mask, the fact of the matter is that face coverings have become politicized to an unhealthy degree, which stands to only further pollute the science.
Last month, for example, researchers at Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy responded to demands they remove an article that found mask requirements were “not based on sound data.”
The school, to its credit, did not remove the article, but instead opted to address the objectionscritics of their research had raised.
There is a similar principle in the realm of public health: the Principle of Effectiveness.
Public health officials say the idea makes it clear that public health organizations have a responsibility to not harm the people they are assigned to protect.
“If a community is at risk, the government may have a duty to recommend interventions, as long as those interventions will cause no harm, or are the least harmful option,” wrote Claire J. Horwell Professor of Geohealth at Durham University and Fiona McDonald, Co-Director of the Australian Centre for Health Law Research at Queensland University of Technology. “If an agency follows the principle of effectiveness, it will only recommend an intervention that they know to be effective.”
The problem with mask mandates is that public health officials are not merely recommending a precaution that may or may not be effective.
They are using force to make people submit to a state order that could ultimately make individuals or entire populations sicker, according to world-leading public health officials.
That is not just a violation of the Effectiveness Principle. It’s a violation of a basic personal freedom.
Mask advocates might mean well, but they overlook a basic reality: humans spontaneously alter behavior during pandemics. Scientific evidence shows that American workplaces and consumers changed the patterns of their travel before lockdown orders were issued.
As I’ve previously noted, this should come as no surprise: Humans are intelligent, instinctive, and self-preserving mammals who generally seek to avoid high-risk behavior. The natural law of spontaneous order shows that people naturally take actions of self-protection by constantly analyzing risk.
Instead of ordering people to “mask-up” under penalty of fines or jail time, scientists and public health officials should get back to playing their most important role: developing sound research on which people can freely make informed decisions.
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image: From left to right: Professor Henning Bundgaard, Tamara van Ark, Anders Tegnell | Composite image by FEE (Rigshospitalet, Wikimedia Commons)
Of relevance to the debate on vaccines, this incisive and carefully researched article first published by Global Research on May 28. 2020
I am not a scientist. I am not a doctor. I am not a biotech engineer. I am not an attorney. However, I read, listen, appreciate and try to understand those who are.
I was an investment banker until politics made it impossible to continue to practice my art. I was trained as a portfolio strategist—so I map my world by watching the financial flows and allocation of resources. I was also trained as a conspiracy generator and foot soldier—conspiracies being the fundamental organizing principle of how things get done in our world. It was not until I left the establishment that I learned that those not in the club had been trained to disparage and avoid conspiracies—a clever trick that sabotages their efforts to gather power.
My response to living at war with agencies of the U.S. government for a time was to answer the questions of people who were sufficiently courageous and curious to solicit my opinion. Over many years, that response transformed into two businesses. One was The Solari Report, which continues to grow as a global intelligence network – we seek to help each other understand what is happening, to navigate and contribute to positive outcomes. The other was serving as an investment advisor to individuals and families through Solari Investment Advisory Services. After ten years, I converted that business to doing an ESG screen. What those who use it want—that is not otherwise readily available in the retail market—is a screen that reflects knowledge of financial and political corruption. Tracking the metastasizing corruption, it’s an art, not a science.
When you help a family with their finances, it is imperative to understand all their risk issues. Their financial success depends on successful mitigation of all risk – whether financial or non-financial – they encounter in their daily lives. All non-financial risks impact the allocation of family resources – attention, time, assets and money.
Many of my clients and their children had been devastated and drained by health care failures and corruption–and the most common catalyst for this devastation was vaccine death and injury. After their lengthy and horrendous experiences with the health care establishment, they would invariably ask, “If the corruption is this bad in medicine, food and health, what is going on in the financial world?” Chilled by the thought, they would search out a financial professional who was schooled in U.S. government and financial corruption. And they would find me.
The result of this flow of bright, educated people blessed with the resources to pay for my time was that, for ten years, I got quite an education about the disabilities and death inflicted on our children by what I now call “the great poisoning.” As a result, I had the opportunity to repeatedly price out the human damage to all concerned–not just the affected children but their parents, siblings and future generations—mapping the financial costs of vaccine injury again and again and again.
These cases were not as unusual as you might expect. Currently 54% of American children have one or more chronic diseases. Doctors that I trust assure me the number is much higher as many children and their families can not afford the care and testing necessary to properly diagnose what ails them.
One of the mothers featured in VAXXED—a must-watch documentary for any awake citizen, as is its sequel VAXXED II:
The People’s Truth—estimated that a heavily autistic child would cost present value $5MM to raise and care for over a lifetime. When my clients who were grandparents insisted that they would not interfere with their children’s vaccine choices because it was “none of their business,” I would say, “Really? Who has the $5MM? You or your kids?
When your kids need the $5MM to raise their vaccine-injured child, are you going to refuse them? You are the banker, and it is your money that is at risk here, so it is your business. Do you want to spend that $5MM on growing a strong family through the generations or on managing a disabled child who did not have to be disabled?” Often, that $5MM in expenditures also translates into divorce, depression and lost opportunities for siblings.
My clients helped me find the best resources—books, documentaries, articles—on vaccines. You will find many of them linked or reviewed at The Solari Report, including in our Library.
Of all the questions that I had, the one that I spent the most time researching and thinking about was why. Why was the medical establishment intentionally poisoning generations of children? Many of the writers who researched and wrote about vaccine injury and death assumed it was a mistake—resulting from the orthodoxy of a medical establishment that could not face or deal with its mistakes and liabilities. That never made sense to me. Writings by Forrest Maready, Jon Rappoport, Dr. Suzanne Humphries and Arthur Firstenberg have helped me understand the role of vaccines in the con man trick of saving money for insurance companies and the legally liable.
Here is one example of how the trick may play out. A toxin creates a disease. The toxin might be pesticides or industrial pollution or wireless technology radiation. The toxin damages millions of people and their communities. Companies or their insurance provider may be liable for civil or criminal violations. A virus is blamed. A “cure” is found in a “vaccine.” The pesticide or other toxic exposure is halted just as the vaccine is introduced, and presto, the sickness goes away. The vaccine is declared a success, and the inventor is declared a hero. A potential financial catastrophe has been converted to a profit, including for investors and pension funds. As a portfolio strategist, I admit it has been a brilliant trick and likely has protected the insurance industry from the bankrupting losses it would experience if it had to fairly compensate the people and families destroyed.
Thanks to the work of Robert Kennedy and Mary Holland of Childrens Health Defense, I now understand the enormous profits generated by so-called “vaccines” subsequent to the passage of The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 and the creation of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program – a federal no-fault mechanism for compensating vaccine-related injuries or death by establishing a claim procedure involving the United States Court of Federal Claims and special masters.
Call a drug or biotech cocktail a “vaccine” and pharmecutical and biotech companies are free from any liabilities – the taxpayer pays. Unfortunately, this system has become an open invitation to make billions from “injectibles” particularly where government regulations and laws can be used to create a market through mandates. Unfortunately, various schemes have developed for government agencies and legislators as well as corporate media to participate in the billions of profits – resulting in significant conflicts of interest.
The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act became law in 2005, adding to corporate freedoms from liability. The Act
“is a controversial tort liability shield intended to protect vaccine manufacturers from financial risk in the event of a declared public health emergency. The act specifically affords to drug makers immunity from potential financial liability for clinical trials of avian influenza vaccine at the discretion of the Executive branch of government. PREPA strengthens and consolidates the oversight of litigation against pharmaceutical companies under the purview of the secretary of Health and Human Services (~ Wikipedia.)”
Over time, this has evolved to the engineering of epidemics—the medical version of false flags. In theory, these can be “psyops” or events engineered with chemical warfare, biowarfare, or wireless technology. If this sounds bizarre, dive into all the writings of the “Targeted Individuals.”
I learned about this first-hand when I was litigating with the Department of Justice and was experiencing significant physical harassment. I tried to hire several security firms; they would check my references and then decline the work, saying it was too dangerous. The last one took pity and warned me not to worry about electronic weaponry, letting me know that my main problem would be low-grade biowarfare. This biowarfare expert predicted that the opposing team would drill holes in the wall of my house and inject the “invisible enemy.” Sure enough, that is exactly what happened. I sold my house and left town. That journey began a long process of learning how poisoning and nonlethal weapons are used—whether to move people out of rent-controlled apartments, sicken the elderly to move them to more expensive government subsidized housing, gangstalk political or business targets, or weaken or kill litigants—and the list goes on. Poisoning turned out to be a much more common tactic in the game of political and economic warfare in America than I had previously understood.
After I finished my litigation, I spent several years detoxing from heavy metal toxicity – including of lead, arsenic, and aluminum. As I drove around America, I realized it was not just me. Americans increasingly looked like a people struggling with high loads of heavy metals toxicity. In the process of significantly decreasing my unusually high levels of heavy metals, I learned what a difference the toxic load had made to my outlook, my energy, and my ability to handle complex information.
This brings me to the question of what exactly a vaccine is and what exactly is in the concoctions being injected into people today as well as the witches brews currently under development.
In 2017, Italian researchers reviewed the ingredients of 44 types of so-called “vaccines.” They discovered heavy metal debris and biological contamination in every human vaccine they tested. The researchers stated,
“The quantity of foreign bodies detected and, in some cases, their unusual chemical compositions baffled us.” They then drew the obvious conclusion, namely, that because the micro- and nanocontaminants were “neither biocompatible nor biodegradable,” they were “biopersistent” and could cause inflammatory effects right away—or later (see this)
Whatever the ingredients of vaccines have been to date, nothing is more bizarre than the proposals of what might be included in them in the future.
Strategies—already well-funded and well on the way—include brain-machine interface nanotechnology, digital identity tracking devices, and technology with an expiration date that can be managed and turned off remotely. One report indicated that the Danish government and US Navy had been paying one tech company in Denmark to make an injectible chip that would be compatible with one of the leading cryptocurrencies.
I was recently reading Mary Holland’s excellent 2012 review of U.S. vaccine court decisions (”Compulsory vaccination, the Constitution, and the hepatitis B mandate for infants and young children,” Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics) and I froze and thought, “Why are we calling the injectibles that Bill Gates and his colleagues are promoting ‘vaccines’? Are they really vaccines?”
Most people are familiar with how Bill Gates made and kept his fortune. He acquired an operating system that was loaded into your computer. It was widely rumored that the U.S. intelligence agencies had a back door. The simultaneous and sudden explosion of computer viruses then made it necessary to regularly update your operating system, allowing Gates and his associates to regularly add whatever they wanted into your software. One of my more knowledgeable software developers once said to me in the 1990s—when Microsoft really took off—”Microsoft makes really sh***y software.” But of course, the software was not really their business. Their business was accessing and aggregating all of your data. Surveillance capitalism was underway.
The Department of Justice launched an antitrust case against Microsoft in 1998, just as the $21 trillion started to disappear from the U.S. government—no doubt with the help of specially designed software and IT systems. During the settlement negotiations that permitted Gates to keep his fortune, he started the Gates Foundation and his new philanthropy career. I laughed the other day when my tweet of one of Robert Kennedy Jr.’s articles from Children’s Health Defense—describing the gruesome technology Gates is hoping to roll out through “injectibles” –inspired a response: “Well, I guess he is finally fulfilling his side of his antitrust settlement.”
If you look at what is being created and proposed in the way of injectibles, it looks to me like these technological developments are organized around several potential goals.
The first and most important goal is the replacement of the existing U.S. dollar currency system used by the general population with a digital transaction system that can be combined with digital identification and tracking. The goal is to end currencies as we know them and replace them with an embedded credit card system that can be integrated with various forms of control, potentially including mind control.
“De-dollarization” is threating the dollar global reserve system. The M1 and M2 money supply have increased in the double digits over the last year as a result of a new round of quantitative easing by the Fed.
The reason we have not entered into hyper-inflation is because of the dramatic drop in money velocity occasioned by converting Covid-19 into an engineered shut down of significant economic activity and the banruptcy of millions of small and medium sized businesses. The managers of the dollar system are under urgent pressure to use new technology to centralize economic flows and preserve their control of the financial system.
Just as Gates installed an operating system in our computers, now the vision is to install an operating system in our bodies and use “viruses” to mandate an initial installation followed by regular updates.
Now I appreciate why Gates and his colleagues want to call these technologies “vaccines.” If they can persuade the body politic that injectible credit cards or injectible surveillance trackers or injectable brain-macine interface nanotechnologies are “vaccines,” then they can enjoy the protection of a century or more of legal decisions and laws that support their efforts to mandate what they want to do.
As well, they can insist that U.S. taxpayers fund—through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program–the damages for which they would otherwise be liable as a result of their experiments – and violations of the Nuremberg Code and numerous civil and criminal laws – on the general population. The scheme is quite clever. Get the general population to go along with defining their new injectible high-tech concoctions as “vaccines” and they can slip them right into the vaccine pipeline. No need to worry about the disease and death that results from something this unnatural delivered quickly. The notion of an emergency along with contact tracing and freedom from liability can protect you from the millions of likely deaths from such human experimentation. Ideally, you can blame the deaths on a virus.
A colleague once told me how Websters Dictionary came about. Webster said that the way the evildoers would change the Constitution was not by amending it but by changing the definitions—a legal sneak attack.
I believe that Gates and the pharma and biotech industries are literally reaching to create a global control grid by installing digital interface components and hooking us up to Microsoft’s new $10 billion JEDI cloud at the Department of Defense as well as Amazon’s multi-billion cloud contract for the CIA that is shared with all US intelligence agencies.
Why do you think President Trump has the military organizing to stockpile syringes for vaccines? It is likely because the military is installing the roaming operating system for integration into their cloud. Remember—the winner in the AI superpower race is the AI system with access to the most data. Accessing your body and my body on a 24/7 basis generates a lot of data. If the Chinese do it, the Americans will want to do it too. The role out of human “operating systems” may be one of the reasons why the competition of Huawei and 5G telecommunications has become so fractious. As Frank Clegg, former President of Microsoft Canada has warned us, 5G was developed by the Israelis for crowd control.
In the face of global “de-dollarization,” this is how the dollar syndicate can assert the central control it needs to maintain and extend its global reserve currency financial power. This includes protecting its leadership from the civil and criminal liabiility related to explosive levels of financial and health care fraud in recent decades.
Which brings me back to you and me. Why are we calling these formulations “vaccines”?
If I understand the history of case law, vaccines, in legal terms, are medicine. Intentional heavy metal poisoning is not medicine. Injectible surveillance components are not medicine. Injectible credit cards are not medicine. Injectible brain-machine interface is not a medicine. Immunity for insurance companies is not the creation of human immunity.
We need to stop allowing these concoctions to be referred to by a word that the courts and the general population define and treat as medicine and protect from legal and financial liability.
The perpetrators of this fraud are trying a very neat trick–one that will help them go much faster and cancel out a lot of risk at our death, disease and expense. I understand why they are doing it.
What I don’t understand is why we are helping them. Why are we acquiescing in calling these bizarre and deeply dangerous concoctions “vaccines”? Whatever they are, they are not medicine.
So, what shall our naming convention be? What name shall we give to the relevant poisons, neurological damaging metals and digital shackles?
Whatever we call them, I know one thing. THEY ARE NOT MEDICINE, WHICH MEANS THEY SURE ARE NOT VACCINES.
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
The Facts:The American Institute for Economic Research recently shared some information that calls into question the effectiveness of lockdown measures for combating COVID.
Reflect On:Are we doing more harm than the virus by implementing lockdowns? Are governments representing the will of the people and talking with independendent scientists/experts who oppose the measures being taken? Why are these experts ignored/unacknowledged?
We are currently in the “second wave” of COVID, and almost a year into the pandemic that’s seen government health authorities shut down entire countries and mandate masks as well as social distancing. Many doctors and scientists have been raising a number of concerns that completely oppose these measures that’ve been taken to combat the virus. One great examples is The Great Barrington Declaration, which I’ve written about before. It was initiated by Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School a physician and epidemiologist. It has an impressive list of co-signers and has also been signed by more than 50,000 doctors and scientists.
It’s odd that one political doctor, like Anthony Fauci for example, is given instant virality to share their opinion yet hundreds, if not thousands of world renowned experts who oppose what we’ve been hearing in mainstream media are completely ignored and unacknowledged. In a major global pandemic you would think that government health authorities would work together with a number of independent scientists and organizations to figure out what’s truly the right move for humanity. Instead, the reality seems to be that, as Kamran Abbas, executive editor of the British Medical Journal and the editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization points out, the “medical-political complex” is corrupt & suppressing science.
Implementation of the current draconian measures that so extremely restrict fundamental rights can only be justified if there is reason to fear that a truly, exceptionally dangerous virus is threatening us. Do any scientifically sound data exist to support this contention for COVID-19? I assert that the answer is simply, no. –Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, a specialist in microbiology and one of the most cited research scientists in German history.
In the article they argue that, “In a saner world, the burden of proof really should belong to the lockdowners, since it is they who overthrew 100 years of public-health wisdom and replaced it with an untested, top-down imposition on freedom and human rights. They never accepted that burden. They took it as axiomatic that a virus could be intimidated and frightened by credentials, edicts, speeches, and masked gendarmes.”
The ease to which people could be terrorised into surrendering basic freedoms which are fundamental to our existence..came as a shock to me…History will look back on measures – as a monument of collective hysteria & government folly.” – Jonathan Sumption, former British supreme court justice. (source)
These ideas were also a common theme early on during the first lockdown. Not only are there severe economic impacts that are impoverishing people, health consequences were also seen. For example, a report published in the British Medical Journal titled Covid-19: “Staggering number” of extra deaths in community is not explained by covid-19″ has suggested that quarantine measures in the United Kingdom as a result of the new coronavirus may have already killed more UK seniors than the coronavirus has during the months of April and May .
An estimate from the United Nations World Food Program indicating that pandemic lockdowns causing breaks in the food chain are expected to push 135 million people into severe hunger and starvation by the end of this year.
According to the AIER,
The pro-lockdown evidence is shockingly thin, and based largely on comparing real-world outcomes against dire computer-generated forecasts derived from empirically untested models, and then merely positing that stringencies and “nonpharmaceutical interventions” account for the difference between the fictionalized vs. the real outcome. The anti-lockdown studies, on the other hand, are evidence-based, robust, and thorough, grappling with the data we have (with all its flaws) and looking at the results in light of controls on the population.
AIER gathered data that was put together by engineer Ivor Cummins Ivor Cummins but has also added its own in the summary they posted, which you can see below. The studies are focused only on lockdown measures and they “do not get into the myriad of associated issues that have vexed the world such as mask mandates, PCR-testing issues, death misclassification problem, or any particular issues associated with travel restrictions, restaurant closures, and hundreds of other particulars about which whole libraries will be written in the future.”
2. “Was Germany’s Corona Lockdown Necessary?” by Christof Kuhbandner, Stefan Homburg, Harald Walach, Stefan Hockertz. Advance: Sage Preprint, June 23, 2020. “Official data from Germany’s RKI agency suggest strongly that the spread of the coronavirus in Germany receded autonomously, before any interventions became effective. Several reasons for such an autonomous decline have been suggested. One is that differences in host susceptibility and behavior can result in herd immunity at a relatively low prevalence level. Accounting for individual variation in susceptibility or exposure to the coronavirus yields a maximum of 17% to 20% of the population that needs to be infected to reach herd immunity, an estimate that is empirically supported by the cohort of the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Another reason is that seasonality may also play an important role in dissipation.”
3. “Estimation of the current development of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in Germany” by Matthias an der Heiden, Osamah Hamouda. Robert Koch-Institut, April 22, 2020. “In general, however, not all infected people develop symptoms, not all those who develop symptoms go to a doctor’s office, not all who go to the doctor are tested and not all who test positive are also recorded in a data collection system. In addition, there is a certain amount of time between all these individual steps, so that no survey system, no matter how good, can make a statement about the current infection process without additional assumptions and calculations.”
4. Did COVID-19 infections decline before UK lockdown? by Simon N. Wood. Cornell University pre-print, August 8, 2020. “A Bayesian inverse problem approach applied to UK data on COVID-19 deaths and the disease duration distribution suggests that infections were in decline before full UK lockdown (24 March 2020), and that infections in Sweden started to decline only a day or two later. An analysis of UK data using the model of Flaxman et al. (2020, Nature 584) gives the same result under relaxation of its prior assumptions on R.”
5. “Comment on Flaxman et al. (2020): The illusory effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe” by Stefan Homburg and Christof Kuhbandner. June 17, 2020. Advance, Sage Pre-Print. “In a recent article, Flaxman et al. allege that non-pharmaceutical interventions imposed by 11 European countries saved millions of lives. We show that their methods involve circular reasoning. The purported effects are pure artefacts, which contradict the data. Moreover, we demonstrate that the United Kingdom’s lockdown was both superfluous and ineffective.”
6. Professor Ben Israel’s Analysis of virus transmission. April 16, 2020. “Some may claim that the decline in the number of additional patients every day is a result of the tight lockdown imposed by the government and health authorities. Examining the data of different countries around the world casts a heavy question mark on the above statement. It turns out that a similar pattern – rapid increase in infections that reaches a peak in the sixth week and declines from the eighth week – is common to all countries in which the disease was discovered, regardless of their response policies: some imposed a severe and immediate lockdown that included not only ‘social distancing’ and banning crowding, but also shutout of economy (like Israel); some ‘ignored’ the infection and continued almost a normal life (such as Taiwan, Korea or Sweden), and some initially adopted a lenient policy but soon reversed to a complete lockdown (such as Italy or the State of New York). Nonetheless, the data shows similar time constants amongst all these countries in regard to the initial rapid growth and the decline of the disease.”
7. “Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19 in Europe: a quasi-experimental study” by Paul Raymond Hunter, Felipe Colon-Gonzalez, Julii Suzanne Brainard, Steve Rushton. MedRxiv Pre-print May 1, 2020. “The current epidemic of COVID-19 is unparalleled in recent history as are the social distancing interventions that have led to a significant halt on the economic and social life of so many countries. However, there is very little empirical evidence about which social distancing measures have the most impact… From both sets of modelling, we found that closure of education facilities, prohibiting mass gatherings and closure of some non-essential businesses were associated with reduced incidence whereas stay at home orders and closure of all non-businesses was not associated with any independent additional impact.”
8. “Full lockdown policies in Western Europe countries have no evident impacts on the COVID-19 epidemic” by Thomas Meunier. MedRxiv Pre-print May 1, 2020. “This phenomenological study assesses the impacts of full lockdown strategies applied in Italy, France, Spain and United Kingdom, on the slowdown of the 2020 COVID-19 outbreak. Comparing the trajectory of the epidemic before and after the lockdown, we find no evidence of any discontinuity in the growth rate, doubling time, and reproduction number trends. Extrapolating pre-lockdown growth rate trends, we provide estimates of the death toll in the absence of any lockdown policies, and show that these strategies might not have saved any life in western Europe. We also show that neighboring countries applying less restrictive social distancing measures (as opposed to police-enforced home containment) experience a very similar time evolution of the epidemic.”
9. “Trajectory of COVID-19 epidemic in Europe” by Marco Colombo, Joseph Mellor, Helen M Colhoun, M. Gabriela M. Gomes, Paul M McKeigue. MedRxiv Pre-print. Posted September 28, 2020. “The classic Susceptible-Infected-Recovered model formulated by Kermack and McKendrick assumes that all individuals in the population are equally susceptible to infection. From fitting such a model to the trajectory of mortality from COVID-19 in 11 European countries up to 4 May 2020 Flaxman et al. concluded that ‘major non-pharmaceutical interventions — and lockdowns in particular — have had a large effect on reducing transmission’. We show that relaxing the assumption of homogeneity to allow for individual variation in susceptibility or connectivity gives a model that has better fit to the data and more accurate 14-day forward prediction of mortality. Allowing for heterogeneity reduces the estimate of ‘counterfactual’ deaths that would have occurred if there had been no interventions from 3.2 million to 262,000, implying that most of the slowing and reversal of COVID-19 mortality is explained by the build-up of herd immunity. The estimate of the herd immunity threshold depends on the value specified for the infection fatality ratio (IFR): a value of 0.3% for the IFR gives 15% for the average herd immunity threshold.”
10. “Effect of school closures on mortality from coronavirus disease 2019: old and new predictions” by Ken Rice, Ben Wynne, Victoria Martin, Graeme J Ackland. British Medical Journal, September 15, 2020. “The findings of this study suggest that prompt interventions were shown to be highly effective at reducing peak demand for intensive care unit (ICU) beds but also prolong the epidemic, in some cases resulting in more deaths long term. This happens because covid-19 related mortality is highly skewed towards older age groups. In the absence of an effective vaccination programme, none of the proposed mitigation strategies in the UK would reduce the predicted total number of deaths below 200 000.”
11. “Modeling social distancing strategies to prevent SARS-CoV2 spread in Israel- A Cost-effectiveness analysis” by Amir Shlomai, Ari Leshno, Ella H Sklan, Moshe Leshno. MedRxiv Pre-Print. September 20, 2020. “A nationwide lockdown is expected to save on average 274 (median 124, interquartile range (IQR): 71-221) lives compared to the ‘testing, tracing, and isolation’ approach. However, the ICER will be on average $45,104,156 (median $ 49.6 million, IQR: 22.7-220.1) to prevent one case of death. Conclusions: A national lockdown has a moderate advantage in saving lives with tremendous costs and possible overwhelming economic effects. These findings should assist decision-makers in dealing with additional waves of this pandemic.”
12. Too Little of a Good Thing A Paradox of Moderate Infection Control, by Ted Cohen and Marc Lipsitch. Epidemiology. 2008 Jul; 19(4): 588–589. “The link between limiting pathogen exposure and improving public health is not always so straightforward. Reducing the risk that each member of a community will be exposed to a pathogen has the attendant effect of increasing the average age at which infections occur. For pathogens that inflict greater morbidity at older ages, interventions that reduce but do not eliminate exposure can paradoxically increase the number of cases of severe disease by shifting the burden of infection toward older individuals.”
13. “Smart Thinking, Lockdown and COVID-19: Implications for Public Policy” by Morris Altman. Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, 2020. “The response to COVID-19 has been overwhelmingly to lockdown much of the world’s economies in order to minimize death rates as well as the immediate negative effects of COVID-19. I argue that such policy is too often de-contextualized as it ignores policy externalities, assumes death rate calculations are appropriately accurate and, and as well, assumes focusing on direct Covid-19 effects to maximize human welfare is appropriate. As a result of this approach current policy can be misdirected and with highly negative effects on human welfare. Moreover, such policies can inadvertently result in not minimizing death rates (incorporating externalities) at all, especially in the long run. Such misdirected and sub-optimal policy is a product of policy makers using inappropriate mental models which are lacking in a number of key areas; the failure to take a more comprehensive macro perspective to address the virus, using bad heuristics or decision-making tools, relatedly not recognizing the differential effects of the virus, and adopting herding strategy (follow-the-leader) when developing policy. Improving the decision-making environment, inclusive of providing more comprehensive governance and improving mental models could have lockdowns throughout the world thus yielding much higher levels of human welfare.”
14. “SARS-CoV-2 waves in Europe: A 2-stratum SEIRS model solution” by Levan Djaparidze and Federico Lois. MedRxiv pre-print, October 23, 2020. “We found that 180-day of mandatory isolations to healthy <60 (i.e. schools and workplaces closed) produces more final deaths if the vaccination date is later than (Madrid: Feb 23 2021; Catalonia: Dec 28 2020; Paris: Jan 14 2021; London: Jan 22 2021). We also modeled how average isolation levels change the probability of getting infected for a single individual that isolates differently than average. That led us to realize disease damages to third parties due to virus spreading can be calculated and to postulate that an individual has the right to avoid isolation during epidemics (SARS-CoV-2 or any other).”
15. “Did Lockdown Work? An Economist’s Cross-Country Comparison” by Christian Bjørnskov. SSRN working paper, August 2, 2020. “The lockdowns in most Western countries have thrown the world into the most severe recession since World War II and the most rapidly developing recession ever seen in mature market economies. They have also caused an erosion of fundamental rights and the separation of powers in a large part of the world as both democratic and autocratic regimes have misused their emergency powers and ignored constitutional limits to policy-making (Bjørnskov and Voigt, 2020). It is therefore important to evaluate whether and to which extent the lockdowns have worked as officially intended: to suppress the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and prevent deaths associated with it. Comparing weekly mortality in 24 European countries, the findings in this paper suggest that more severe lockdown policies have not been associated with lower mortality. In other words, the lockdowns have not worked as intended.”
16.”Four Stylized Facts about COVID-19” (alt-link) by Andrew Atkeson, Karen Kopecky, and Tao Zha. NBER working paper 27719, August 2020. “One of the central policy questions regarding the COVID-19 pandemic is the question of which non-pharmeceutical interventions governments might use to influence the transmission of the disease. Our ability to identify empirically which NPI’s have what impact on disease transmission depends on there being enough independent variation in both NPI’s and disease transmission across locations as well as our having robust procedures for controlling for other observed and unobserved factors that might be influencing disease transmission. The facts that we document in this paper cast doubt on this premise…. The existing literature has concluded that NPI policy and social distancing have been essential to reducing the spread of COVID-19 and the number of deaths due to this deadly pandemic. The stylized facts established in this paper challenge this conclusion.”
17. “How does Belarus have one of the lowest death rates in Europe?” by Kata Karáth. British Medical Journal, September 15, 2020. “Belarus’s beleaguered government remains unfazed by covid-19. President Aleksander Lukashenko, who has been in power since 1994, has flatly denied the seriousness of the pandemic, refusing to impose a lockdown, close schools, or cancel mass events like the Belarusian football league or the Victory Day parade. Yet the country’s death rate is among the lowest in Europe—just over 700 in a population of 9.5 million with over 73 000 confirmed cases.”
18. “Association between living with children and outcomes from COVID-19: an OpenSAFELY cohort study of 12 million adults in England” by Harriet Forbes, Caroline E Morton, Seb Bacon et al., by MedRxiv, November 2, 2020. “Among 9,157,814 adults ≤65 years, living with children 0-11 years was not associated with increased risks of recorded SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 related hospital or ICU admission but was associated with reduced risk of COVID-19 death (HR 0.75, 95%CI 0.62-0.92). Living with children aged 12-18 years was associated with a small increased risk of recorded SARS-CoV-2 infection (HR 1.08, 95%CI 1.03-1.13), but not associated with other COVID-19 outcomes. Living with children of any age was also associated with lower risk of dying from non-COVID-19 causes. Among 2,567,671 adults >65 years there was no association between living with children and outcomes related to SARS-CoV-2. We observed no consistent changes in risk following school closure.”
19. “Exploring inter-country coronavirus mortality“ By Trevor Nell, Ian McGorian, Nick Hudson. Pandata, July 7, 2020. “For each country put forward as an example, usually in some pairwise comparison and with an attendant single cause explanation, there are a host of countries that fail the expectation. We set out to model the disease with every expectation of failure. In choosing variables it was obvious from the outset that there would be contradictory outcomes in the real world. But there were certain variables that appeared to be reliable markers as they had surfaced in much of the media and pre-print papers. These included age, co-morbidity prevalence and the seemingly light population mortality rates in poorer countries than that in richer countries. Even the worst among developing nations—a clutch of countries in equatorial Latin America—have seen lighter overall population mortality than the developed world. Our aim therefore was not to develop the final answer, rather to seek common cause variables that would go some way to providing an explanation and stimulating discussion. There are some very obvious outliers in this theory, not the least of these being Japan. We test and find wanting the popular notions that lockdowns with their attendant social distancing and various other NPIs confer protection.”
20. “Covid-19 Mortality: A Matter of Vulnerability Among Nations Facing Limited Margins of Adaptation” by Quentin De Larochelambert, Andy Marc, Juliana Antero, Eric Le Bourg, and Jean-François Toussaint. Frontiers in Public Health, 19 November 2020. “Higher Covid death rates are observed in the [25/65°] latitude and in the [−35/−125°] longitude ranges. The national criteria most associated with death rate are life expectancy and its slowdown, public health context (metabolic and non-communicable diseases (NCD) burden vs. infectious diseases prevalence), economy (growth national product, financial support), and environment (temperature, ultra-violet index). Stringency of the measures settled to fight pandemia, including lockdown, did not appear to be linked with death rate. Countries that already experienced a stagnation or regression of life expectancy, with high income and NCD rates, had the highest price to pay. This burden was not alleviated by more stringent public decisions. Inherent factors have predetermined the Covid-19 mortality: understanding them may improve prevention strategies by increasing population resilience through better physical fitness and immunity.”
21. “States with the Fewest Coronavirus Restrictions” by Adam McCann. WalletHub, Oct 6, 2020. This study assesses and ranks stringencies in the United States by states. The results are plotted against deaths per capita and unemployment. The graphics reveal no relationship in stringency level as it relates to the death rates, but finds a clear relationship between stringency and unemployment.
22. The Mystery of Taiwan: Commentary on the Lancet Study of Taiwan and New Zealand, by Amelia Janaskie. American Institute for Economic Research, November 2, 2020. “The Taiwanese case reveals something extraordinary about pandemic response. As much as public-health authorities imagine that the trajectory of a new virus can be influenced or even controlled by policies and responses, the current and past experiences of coronavirus illustrate a different point. The severity of a new virus might have far more to do with endogenous factors within a population rather than the political response. According to the lockdown narrative, Taiwan did almost everything ‘wrong’ but generated what might in fact be the best results in terms of public health of any country in the world.”
23. “Predicting the Trajectory of Any COVID19 Epidemic From the Best Straight Line” by Michael Levitt, Andrea Scaiewicz, Francesco Zonta. MedRxiv, Pre-print, June 30, 2020. “Comparison of locations with over 50 deaths shows all outbreaks have a common feature: H(t) defined as loge(X(t)/X(t-1)) decreases linearly on a log scale, where X(t) is the total number of Cases or Deaths on day, t (we use ln for loge). The downward slopes vary by about a factor of three with time constants (1/slope) of between 1 and 3 weeks; this suggests it may be possible to predict when an outbreak will end. Is it possible to go beyond this and perform early prediction of the outcome in terms of the eventual plateau number of total confirmed cases or deaths? We test this hypothesis by showing that the trajectory of cases or deaths in any outbreak can be converted into a straight line. Specifically Y(t)≡−ln(ln(N/X(t)),is a straight line for the correct plateau value N, which is determined by a new method, Best-Line Fitting (BLF). BLF involves a straight-line facilitation extrapolation needed for prediction; it is blindingly fast and amenable to optimization. We find that in some locations that entire trajectory can be predicted early, whereas others take longer to follow this simple functional form.”
24. “Government mandated lockdowns do not reduce Covid-19 deaths: implications for evaluating the stringent New Zealand response” by John Gibson. New Zealand Economic Papers, August 25, 2020. “The New Zealand policy response to Coronavirus was the most stringent in the world during the Level 4 lockdown. Up to 10 billion dollars of output (≈3.3% of GDP) was lost in moving to Level 4 rather than staying at Level 2, according to Treasury calculations. For lockdown to be optimal requires large health benefits to offset this output loss. Forecast deaths from epidemiological models are not valid counterfactuals, due to poor identification. Instead, I use empirical data, based on variation amongst United States counties, over one-fifth of which just had social distancing rather than lockdown. Political drivers of lockdown provide identification. Lockdowns do not reduce Covid-19 deaths. This pattern is visible on each date that key lockdown decisions were made in New Zealand. The apparent ineffectiveness of lockdowns suggests that New Zealand suffered large economic costs for little benefit in terms of lives saved.”
25. “Lockdowns and Closures vs COVID – 19: COVID Wins” by Surjit S Bhalla, executive director for India of the International Monetary Fund. “For the first time in human history, lockdowns were used as a strategy to counter the virus. While conventional wisdom, to date, has been that lockdowns were successful (ranging from mild to spectacular) we find not one piece of evidence supporting this claim.”
The Takeaway: The COVID pandemic has most definitely been acatalyst for a big shift in consciousness that’s being experienced by the collective mind. Many people have had a change in the way they perceive our world and have started to question whether or not government, big pharma and big tech actually have our best interests at heart. A lot has been exposed during this pandemic that has many people losing trust in these entities, and it begs the question, is this really the type of human experience we want to create for ourselves? Should we really give governments so much power to the point where they can decide to lockdown the planet against the will of so many people, while at the same time label those who oppose these measures as “conspiracy theorists?” Would it be better if they simply presented the science, data, as well as acknowledged the science and data on the other side of the coin and make recommendations to the population instead? Why are so many people so polarized in their beliefs to the point where they can’t even attempt to understand why another person, with an opposing view, sees the pandemic the way they do? Can we step into the shoes and perceive from the level of another person we disagree with? Are we not supposed to question the actions of our governments?
Political parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people. From these great staffs, both of the old parties have ganged aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare they have become the tools of corrupt interests which use them in martialling [sic] to serve their selfish purposes. Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day. – Theodore Roosevelt
These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.
Amongst 100’s of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.
The Facts:Ontario public health clearly states that deaths will be marked as COVID deaths whether or not it’s clear if COVID was the cause or contributed to the death. This means that those who did not die as a result of COVID are included in the death count.
Reflect On:Why is there so much confusion surrounding this pandemic? Why is there such a strong campaign of censorship of information that is going hand in hand with it?
What Happened: Ontario (Canada) Public Health has a page on their website titled “How Ontario is responding to COVID-19.” On it, they clearly state that deaths are being marked as COVID deaths and are being included in the COVID death count regardless of whether or not COVID actually contributed to or caused the death. They state the following… “any case marked as “Fatal” is included in the deaths data. Deaths are included whether or not COVID-19 was determined to be a contributing or underlying cause of death…”
This statement from Ontario Public Health echoes statements made multiple times by Canadian public health agencies and personnel. According to Ontario Ministry Health Senior Communications Advisor Anna Miller,
As a result of how data is recorded by health units into public health information databases, the ministry is not able to accurately separate how many people died directly because of COVID versus those who died with a COVID infection.
Again, this means when we observe the COVID-19 death count in Ontario, Canada, we are observing an inaccurate number given the fact that those who died with COVID may not have necessarily died as a result of it. Theoretically if a person committed suicide and tested positive for COVID or died in a car crash, of a heart attack, of cancer, diabetes or any other illness, they are also included in the COVID death count. Let’s not forget the fact that a positive PCR test does not mean one has COVID.
This has been common theme during the span of this pandemic so far. For example, in late June Toronto (Ontario, Canada) Public Health tweeted that “Individuals who have died with COVID-19, but not as a result of COVID-19 are included in the case counts for COVID-19 deaths in Toronto.”
It’s not just in Canada where we’ve seen these types of statements being made, it’s all over the world. There are multiple examples from the United States that we’ve written about before.
For example, Dr. Ngozi Ezike, Director of the Illinois Department of Public Health stated the following during the first wave of the pandemic,
If you were in hospice and had already been given a few weeks to live and then you were also found to have COVID, that would be counted as a COVID death, despite if you died of a clear alternative cause it’s still listed as a COVID death. So, everyone who is listed as a COVID death that doesn’t mean that was the cause of the death, but they had COVID at the time of death.
During the first wave, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment had to announce a change to how it tallies coronavirus deaths due to complaints that it inflated the numbers.
The only issue is that we can’t know how many people have been added to the COVID death count in multiple places across the globe that did not actually die as a result of COVID. Theoretically, this could drive the global death count significantly lower than the official numbers we are getting.
At the end of the summer the CDC put out data showing that 94% of deaths that have been marked as COVID deaths had at least two or there other causes listed. Out of all the deaths that have been labelled as a COVID-19 death in the United States up to the end of August, for 6% of them COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned and for 94% of the deaths there were other causes and conditions in addition to COVID-19. The CDC states that “for deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.” So how do we know that COVID was the cause for many of these deaths or even contributed? Many believe COVID was the cause and even contributed to the comorbitities listed. You can view the updated numbers here in table 3 from the CDC as they are similar.
We also saw this very early on in Italy, where 99 percent of those who were marked as COVID deaths had multiple comorbidities.
With the last two examples it’s important to mention that COVID may have been the cause or even a contributing factor. We already know that people with comorbidities as well as the elderly are the most vulnerable. We also know that for people 70 years and younger the survival rate of the virus is 99.95 percent, according to Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD,PhD, from the Stanford University School of Medicine. This is why approximately 50,000 doctors and scientists have now signed The Great Barrington Declaration strongly opposing lockdown measures, citing information showing that they are doing more harm than good and explaining that we don’t have to lockdown everything to protect the vulnerable. There are, according to them, more proper and efficient ways of doing so.
Why This Is Important: There are a lot of questions on the minds of many people, not only with regards to the severity of the virus, PCR testing, and the measures being taken by governments to combat it, but also the fact that information, evidence, science and expert opinion during this pandemic has been heavily censored. A lot of scientists and doctors have been doing their best to create awareness about this as we don’t hear a peep from the mainstream about it. Social media outlets have been censoring and blocking information that opposes the official narrative that’s beamed out by government health authorities. It’s odd how one scientist, like Dr. Anthony Fauci for example, can get all the air time in the world and given instant virality, yet thousands of other experts it the field who share an opposite opinion are completely ignored. It raises a lot of questions and red flags.
Over the last few months, I have seen academic articles and op-eds by professors retracted or labeled “fake news” by social media platforms. Often, no explanation is provided. I am concerned about this heavy-handedness and, at times, outright censorship. – Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH (source)
The bottom line is, science is being suppressed, and this is no secret. Below is a tweet from Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a Harvard professor of medicine that emphasizes this point, which was also recently emphasized by Kamran Abbas, a doctor, executive editor of the British Medical Journal, and the editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization. He has published an article about COVID-19, the suppression of science and the politicization of medicine. There are many examples to choose from, I thought I’d simply mention these few to get my point across. It’s also not surprising to find conflicts of interests among government COVID advisors.
The Takeaway: A big problem we seem to be having today as a collective is that we are unable to communicate and discuss controversial issues or stances, or what are labelled as controversial stances appropriately. This is in large part due to the fact that these stances are heavily censored and ridiculed by mainstream media, a lot of information is labelled as controversial or a “conspiracy theory” which leads to a lack of understanding by the masses. It also makes it easy to not even entertain or have a discussion around the topic. Why do we have such a hard time entertaining what are deemed controversial stances? Why do we have such a hard time suspending our own beliefs and taking on other beliefs that contradict our own? Why do we have such a hard time understanding the view of another person and why they feel that way? Why have we become so polarized in what we believe in to the point where we can’t even have appropriate conversations about it with each other? Why do so many people respond with hatred, anger and ridicule when it comes to an opposing view? What’s going on here? Is information really the solution, because sometimes extremely credible information and evidence is completely ignored in order to protect one’s own belief system.
These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.
Amongst 100’s of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.
This article first published by Global Research on May 24, 2019 is of utmost relevance to the ongoing debate on the Covid Vaccine.
In October 2014, the conference of Catholic bishops in Kenya released a statement regarding the tetanus vaccine programme implemented under UN auspices. (see the statement below)
The issue was subsequently addressed by Kenya’s Catholic Doctors Association. (see article below).
Published below are the following texts:
a recent review article pertaining to the 2014 findings of Kenya’s Catholic Doctors Association concerning the tetanus vaccine. No update is provided in this article with regard to Kenya.
the original 2014 statement by the Conference of Catholic Bishops.
the 2014 response by UNICEF and the WHO with regard to the tetanus vaccine.
May 23, 2019
According to LifeSiteNews, [November 2014] a Catholic publication, the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association is charging UNICEF and WHO with sterilizing millions of girls and women under cover of an anti-tetanus vaccination program sponsored by the Kenyan government.
The Kenyan government denies there is anything wrong with the vaccine, and says it is perfectly safe.
The Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, however, saw evidence to the contrary, and had six different samples of the tetanus vaccine from various locations around Kenya sent to an independent laboratory in South Africa for testing.
The results confirmed their worst fears: all six samples tested positive for the HCG antigen. The HCG antigen is used in anti-fertility vaccines, but was found present in tetanus vaccines targeted to young girls and women of childbearing age. Dr. Ngare, spokesman for the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, stated in a bulletin released November 4:
“This proved right our worst fears; that this WHO campaign is not about eradicating neonatal tetanus but a well-coordinated forceful population control mass sterilization exercise using a proven fertility regulating vaccine. This evidence was presented to the Ministry of Health before the third round of immunization but was ignored.” (Source.)
Dr. Ngare brought up several points about the mass tetanus vaccination program in Kenya that caused the Catholic doctors to become suspicious:
Dr. Ngare told LifeSiteNews that several things alerted doctors in the Church’s far-flung medical system of 54 hospitals, 83 health centres, and 17 medical and nursing schools to the possibility the anti-tetanus campaign was secretly an anti-fertility campaign.
Why, they ask does it involve an unprecedented five shots (or “jabs” as they are known, in Kenya) over more than two years and why is it applied only to women of childbearing years, and why is it being conducted without the usual fanfare of government publicity?
“Usually we give a series three shots over two to three years, we give it anyone who comes into the clinic with an open wound, men, women or children.” said Dr. Ngare.
But it is the five vaccination regime that is most alarming. “The only time tetanus vaccine has been given in five doses is when it is used as a carrier in fertility regulating vaccines laced with the pregnancy hormone, Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (HCG) developed by WHO in 1992.” (Source.)
UNICEF: A History of Taking Advantage of Disasters to Mass Vaccinate
It should be noted that UNICEF and WHO distribute these vaccines for free, and that there are financial incentives for the Kenyan government to participate in these programs. When funds from the UN are not enough to purchase yearly allotments of vaccines, an organization started and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI, provides extra funding for many of these vaccination programs in poor countries. (See: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Vaccine Empire on Trial in India.)
Also, there was no outbreak of tetanus in Kenya, only the perceived “threat” of tetanus due to local flood conditions.
These local disasters are a common reason UNICEF goes into poorer countries with free vaccines to begin mass vaccination programs.
It seems quite apparent that UNICEF and WHO use these local disasters to mass vaccinate people, mainly children and young women. Massive education and propaganda efforts are also necessary to convince the local populations that they need these vaccines. Here is a video UNICEF produced for the tetanus vaccine in Kenya. Notice how they use school teachers and local doctors to do the educating, even though the vaccines are produced by western countries.
At least in Kenya, Catholic doctors are acting and taking a stand against what they see as an involuntary mass sterilization campaign designed to control the population of Africans.
PRESS STATEMENT BY THE CATHOLIC HEALTH COMMISSION OF KENYA – KENYA CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS ON THE NATIONAL TETANUS VACCINATION CAMPAIGN SCHEDULED FOR 13TH – 19THOCTOBER 2014
Health service delivery forms an integral part of evangelization for the Catholic Church. As such, the role played through the Church’s health Apostolate in Kenya cannot be understated.
The Church has an extensive network of health facilities that include 58 hospitals, 83 health centers, 311 dispensaries and 17 medical training institutions. Our health facilities offer a wide range preventive and curative health services, including vaccination. The Catholic Church coordinates these services through the Catholic Health Commission of Kenya – Kenya Conference of Catholic Bishops (KCCB).
The Catholic Health Commission of Kenya, currently meeting at St Patrick’s Pastoral Center Kabula in Bungoma, with health facility managers from 24 Catholic Dioceses are deeply concerned about the following issues regarding the Tetanus vaccination campaign scheduled for of 13th – 19th October 2014:
There has not been adequate stakeholder engagement for consultation both in the preparation for the campaign. The Catholic Church has not been engaged as members and participants of the Health Sector Coordinating Committee and in the respective Technical Working Group. This is despite previous promises by the Ministry of Health to be engaged as a key stakeholder.
There has been limited public awareness unlike other related campaigns like Polio vaccination.
There has been limited public information on the rationale with a background that has informed the initiative since we raised an issue in March 2014.
We are still keen on having the Ministry of Health give Kenyans adequate responses to the following key pertinent questions:
Is there a tetanus crisis in Kenya? If this is so, why has it not been declared?
Why does the campaign target women of 14 – 49years?
Why has the campaign left out young girls, boys and men even if they are all prone to tetanus?
In the midst of so many life threatening diseases in Kenya, why has tetanus been prioritized?
We are not convinced that the government has taken adequate responsibility to ensure that Tetanus Toxoid vaccine (TT) laced with Beta human chorionic gonadotropin (b-HCG) sub unit is not being used by the sponsoring development partners. This has previously been used by the same partners in Philippines, Nicaragua and Mexico to vaccinate women against future pregnancy. Beta HCG sub unit is a hormone necessary for pregnancy.
When injected as a vaccine to a non-pregnant woman, this Beta HCG sub unit combined with tetanus toxoid develops antibodies against tetanus and HCG so that if a woman’s egg becomes fertilized, her own natural HCG will be destroyed rendering her permanently infertile. In this situation tetanus vaccination has been used as a birth control method.
We retain that the tetanus vaccination campaign bears the hallmarks of the programmes that were carried out in Philippines, Mexico and Nicaragua. We would want to participate in ensuring that the vaccines to be administered are free of this hormone.
The Catholic Church acknowledges that maternal and neonatal care is imperative in prevention of death; the Church therefore maintains that adequate and clear information is provided to the general public to avoid misinformation and propaganda in regard to the vaccine. The sanctity of Life and the dignity of the human person must always be priorities in health care and the Catholic Church, in the absence of proper and adequate information will not shy away from raising moral questions on matters affecting human life.
Rt. Rev. Paul Kariuki Njiru
Chairman, Catholic Health Commission of Kenya – KCCB
Rt. Rev. Joseph Mbatia
Vice Chairman, Catholic Health Commission of Kenya – KCCB
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) express their deep concern about the misinformation circulating in the media on the quality of the Tetanus Toxoid (TT) Vaccine in Kenya.
The allegations are that the tetanus vaccine used by the Government of Kenya and UN agencies is contaminated with a hormone (hCG) that can cause miscarriages and render some women sterile. These grave allegations are not backed up by evidence, and risk negatively impacting national immunization programmes for children and women.
Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) is a hormone produced by the placenta, during pregnancy. hCG is also produced in the pituitary glands of males and females of all ages. However, very high levels pose risks to pregnancy.
We have taken note of test results claiming to show levels of hCG in samples submitted to some clinical laboratories. However it is important to note that testing for the content of a medicine, e.g TT Vaccine needs to be done in a suitable laboratory, and from a sample of the actual medicine/vaccine obtained from an unopened pack and not a blood sample. Furthermore the Pharmacy and Poisons Board – the legally mandated National Regulatory Authority has the capacity and mandate to determine the quality, safety and efficacy of medicines and to advise the Government accordingly.
WHO and UNICEF confirm that the vaccines are safe and are procured from a pre-qualified manufacturer. This safety is assured through a three-pronged global testing system and the vaccine has reached more than 130 million women with at least two doses of TT vaccines in 52 countries.
Given most tetanus cases in Kenya are among newborns, the target group of Kenya’s TT vaccination campaigns is girls and women (15-49 years), with a particular emphasis on those in the most marginalized areas. We note with concern that Kenya is one of the 25 countries where tetanus is still a public health problem, killing hundreds of newborns every year.WHO and UNICEF reiterate our readiness to support the Government of Kenya in its efforts to provide safe and quality assured vaccines for the immunization programmes.
Dr. Custodia Mandlhate WHO Representative Kenya
Dr. Pirkko Heinonen Acting Representative UNICEF Kenya
For more information kindly contact:
Edita Nsubuga Chief of Communication, UNICEF Kenya Tel: +254 (20) 762 2977 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
On December 9, the US war department announced its “distribution plan” for covid mass-vaxxing.
Service members to be vaxxed include active duty personnel — including National Guard troops — their family members, war department civilian personnel and their families.
“Distribution will be conducted in phases,” it was announced.
US forces in South Korea — including military and civilian healthcare personnel — will be vaxxed first with Moderna’s high-risk, inadequately tested, experimental vaccine.
Like Pfizer’s entry into the covid mass-vaxxing sweepstakes, Moderna’s vaccine in NOT approved by the FDA.
Both were given Emergency Authorization Use (EAU) green-lighting for widespread mass-vaxxing — despite the high-risk of what the CDC calls an “health impact event” or an “adverse event.”
Either may require medical treatment for what’s potentially life-threatening like anaphylaxis — or any one or more major illnesses that can cause death like heart disease and cancer.
In five days after US mass-vaxxing began on December 14, over 5,000 “health impact events” were reported.
How many more went unreported is unknown. Nor is there information on the seriousness of health issues experienced.
All vaccines are high-risk. Experimental ones like Pfizer’s and Moderna’s may cause widespread serious health issues only known much later.
During the 1991 Gulf War, around 150,000 US troops were vaxxed for anthrax.
Short-term it caused redness, swelling and fever that’s associated with all vaccines.
Serious health issues weren’t discovered until later called Gulf War syndrome.
Experimental anthrax vaccines contained squalene-based adjuvants that caused severe autoimmune diseases and deaths among Gulf War veterans later on.
They included rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, neuritis risking later paralysis, uveitis risking blindness, neurological harm, congenital disabilities in offspring, cognitive impairment, and systemic lupus erythematosus, among other health issues.
The latter disease can harm joints, skin, brain, lungs, kidneys, and blood vessels.
From 1990 to 2001, over two million doses of anthrax vaccine were administered to US military personnel.
According to Stars and Stripes, the Veterans Affairs Department denied over 80% of benefits claims filed by military vets for health issues related to the Gulf War or later vaxxing for anthrax.
Research showed that squalene-based adjuvants are directly linked to Gulf War syndrome.
Since COVID-19 was declared a pandemic, families have been separated, businesses have been shuttered and schools have been closed down. Many people are living their lives shrouded in fear of Sars-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 — a direct response to media coverage and health officials’ claims of its dire associated risks.
Understanding the real risks, and being able to make choices on how to live your life in response to them, is only possible, however, if you have real facts, like how many have died from the virus and what the death rate actually is. Is it a lethal virus that warrants lockdowns and panic, or is it one more akin to influenza, which can indeed be deadly but, in most cases, is not?
Early on during the pandemic, COVID-19 infection mortality rate claims varied from 2.7% to 7%, with most being in the 4% range. But according to some experts, the actual infection mortality rate may be much lower, ranging from 0.05% to 1%, with a median of about 0.25%.1
The number of COVID-19 deaths may also be skewed, as health officials may count deaths from unrelated causes — even gunshots and motorcycle accidents — as COVID-19 deaths if the person had the virus within the last 30 days.2
Are COVID-19 Deaths Being Inflated?
In Grand County, Colorado, five COVID-19 deaths were reported, but according to coroner Brenda Bock, two of them were actually deaths from gunshot wounds. Speaking to CBS4 News, Bock spoke out against the misleading classifications, as the deaths from gunshot wounds were counted as COVID-19 deaths because the victims had tested positive within 30 days.
The distinction comes down to some tricky working: deaths “among” COVID-19 cases and deaths “due to” COVID-19. Someone who died with COVID-19 may be counted as a death among COVID-19 cases, even if the virus had nothing to do with their death. When a death is said to be “due to” COVID-19, this is intended when COVID-19 caused or significantly contributed to the death.
According to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, even deaths among COVID-19 cases must be reported to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):
“This information is required by the CDC and is crucial for public health surveillance, as it provides more information about disease transmission and can help identify risk factors among all deaths across populations.”3
But according to Bock, the inflated numbers could hurt the region’s economy, which is largely dependent on tourism:
“It’s absurd that they would even put that on there.Would you want to go to a county that has really high death numbers? Would you want to go visit that county because they are contagious? You know I might get it, and I could die if all of a sudden one county has a high death count. We don’t have it, and we don’t need those numbers inflated.”4
Hundreds of ‘COVID-19 Deaths’ Subtracted in Washington
Washington state was also accused of inflating COVID-19 deaths, by up to 13%. According to the Freedom Foundation, the state’s Department of Health was counting every death in a person who had previously tested positive for COVID-19 as related to the virus.
While the governor denied the inflation, internal emails revealed in May 2020 that the Department of Health (DOH) was, in fact, counting deaths in their official COVID death numbers that weren’t directly due to the virus.5
By December 2020, Washington’s DOH had responded by subtracting more than 200 deaths from its COVID-19 fatality count after “methodological improvements.” However, a Freedom Foundation analysis suggests their fatality counts are still too high. And if this is going on in Washington, it’s likely happening in other states and countries as well.
According to the analysis, some of the questionable examples of the DOH’s “COVID-19 deaths” include the following:6
Motorcycle Death Initially Counted as COVID-19 Death
Another misleading instance occurred in Orlando, Florida, where a man in his 20s who died in a motorcycle accident was initially counted as a COVID-19 death because he had tested positive. In a significant stretch, Orange County health officer Dr. Raul Pino told FOX 35 News, “[Yo]u could actually argue that it could have been the COVID-19 that caused him to crash.”7
That death was reportedly removed from the official count, but how many others weren’t? In April 2020, Dr. Ngozi Ezike, director of the Illinois Department of Public Health, also detailed the loose case definition being used for COVID-19 deaths:
“If you were in hospice and had already been given a few weeks to live, and then you also were found to have COVID, that would be counted as a COVID death. It means technically even if you died of a clear alternate cause, but you had COVID at the same time, it’s still listed as a COVID death.
So, everyone who’s listed as a COVID death doesn’t mean that that was the cause of the death, but they had COVID at the time of the death.”8
Are Total Deaths in 2020 Excessive?
Michael Yeadon, Ph.D., a former vice-president and chief scientific adviser of the drug company Pfizer and founder and CEO of the biotech company Ziarco, now owned by Novartis, said in an interview, “You cannot have a lethal pandemic stalking the land and not have excess deaths.” Yet, excess deaths on the level of a lethal pandemic just aren’t occurring.
About 1,700 people die each day in the U.K. in any given year, Yeadon says — but many of these deaths are now falsely attributed to COVID-19. “I’m calling out the statistics, and even the claim that there is an ongoing pandemic, as false,” he said, noting that the definition of a “coronavirus death” in the U.K. is anyone who dies, from any cause, within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test.
Some estimates suggested that 2020 deaths may top 3.2 million when all the final figures are added up,12 but how many of those deaths are directly attributable to COVID-19?
According to Yeadon, some of the slight uptick in deaths being presorted in the U.K. — primarily people aged 45 to 65, with equal distribution between the sexes — are mainly from heart disease, stroke and cancer, which suggests they are excess deaths caused by inaccessibility of routine medical care as people are either afraid of or discouraged from going to the hospital.
These deaths may be characterized as being COVID related, but that’s only because they have been falsely lumped into that category due to a positive test being recorded within 28 days of death. In the U.S., other deaths have also increased, including, according to Robert Anderson of the CDC, “an unexpected number of deaths from certain types of heart and circulatory diseases, diabetes and dementia.”13
Drug overdose deaths are also at record numbers. According to the AP, in late December 2020, “the CDC reported more than 81,000 drug overdose deaths in the 12 months ending in May, making it the highest number ever recorded in a one-year period.”14
Flu Deaths Disappear
Another curiosity in 2020 is what happened to the flu. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) tracks influenza (flu) and pneumonia deaths weekly through the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Mortality Reporting System. But, “April 4, 2020 was the last week in-season preliminary burden estimates were provided,” the CDC wrote on its 2019-2020 U.S. flu season webpage.15
The reason the estimates stopped in April is because flu cases plummeted so low that they’re hardly worth tracking. In an update posted December 3, 2020, the CDC stated:
“The model used to generate influenza in-season preliminary burden estimates uses current season flu hospitalization data. Reported flu hospitalizations are too low at this time to generate an estimate.”16
They also added, “The number of hospitalizations estimated so far this season is lower than end-of-season total hospitalization estimates for any season since CDC began making these estimates.”17Meanwhile, the “COVID” deaths the CDC has been reporting are actually a combination of pneumonia, flu and COVID deaths, under a new category listed as “PIC” (Pneumonia, Influenza, COVID).
Their COVIDView webpage, which provides a weekly surveillance summary of U.S. COVID-19 activity, states that levels of SARS-CoV-2 and “associated illnesses” have been increasing since September 2020, while the percentage of deaths due to pneumonia, flu and COVID-19 has been on the rise since October.18
As noted by professor William M. Briggs, a statistical consultant and policy advisor at The Heartland Institute, a free-market think tank, “CDC, up until about July 2020, counted flu and pneumonia deaths separately, been doing this forever, then just mysteriously stopped … It’s become very difficult to tell the difference between these,”19 referring to the combined tracking of deaths from “PIC.”
Selection Bias and Problems With Testing
Dr. Reid Sheftall has also suggested that COVID-19 fatality rates may be inflated, by about 40 times. In an interview with Ivor Cummins, a biochemical engineer with a background in medical device engineering,20 he said selection bias was being used in the counting of cases, and organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and CDC were drastically undercounting the number of people who were infected, which inflated the mortality rate.
Sheftall looked for data in which every case had been counted, ending up with a cruise ship, in which every person had been tested, and a small town in Germany that had also tested all residents. “When I crunched the numbers, the infection fatality rate came out to 0.14%, so I knew … there were some gross errors going on.” Sheftall cited COVID-19 survival rates by age, posted by the CDC September 10, 2020, which are as follows:21
Ages 0 to 19: 99.997%
Ages 20 to 49: 99.98%
Ages 50 to 69: 99.5%
Ages 70 and up: 94.6%
This translates into a 0.1% infection fatality rate, using the CDC’s own numbers. More than 224.5 million COVID-19 tests have been conducted in the U.S,22 which includes an unknown number of tests conducted on people with no symptoms.
The costs for such testing could be used for a more productive purpose, according to Sheftall, particularly for asymptomatic people. “The whole basis of medicine,” he says, is to test people with symptoms so you can find out what’s wrong and treat them accordingly:
“In 2017 to 2018 … between 70 and 80 million people in America got the flu … nobody noticed for the most part and no one was tested. I’m a doctor and I vaguely remember that it was a bad flu season. That was it. And yet with COVID we’re testing so many people you wouldn’t believe it.”23
What’s more, positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests have proven remarkably unreliable with high false result rates, and a positive test does not mean that an active infection is present.
Fear May Be Causing More Deaths
Taken together, what’s clear about the COVID-19 fatality rates being reported is that there’s a lot of room for error and misinterpretation. Solid analysis of any “excess” deaths being attributed to COVID-19 are needed before policy decisions are made. When this was done in England in October 2020, deaths were only 1% higher than expected, and many of them were due to heart disease, stroke and diabetes.
“Notably” fewer deaths due to respiratory conditions and acute respiratory infections were found, yet deaths occurring in homes due to non-COVID-causes increased. This may be another sad outcome of the fear being propagated in relation to COVID-19. According to the study,
“The data suggest that mortality has shifted from hospital to home, especially for deaths not associated with COVID-19. This ‘displacement’ may be due to the reluctance of individuals to receive treatment in hospital or of clinicians to admit non-covid patients … Deaths in the home remain persistently high, and yet they receive little attention.”24
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Free citizens who stand up against tyranny have nothing against those in power. They do nothing to them. They fight for a more just order, for their right to life, to freedom, peace and security. When nothing else helps, that is the message of Thomas More’s novel “Utopia”, then it helps to do things radically differently. (1) For the humanist scholar, the small island state was a counter-model to the decaying society of England at the time.
For the author, a liberal social order with free people is the counter-model to the present totalitarian form of rule of unfreedom, violence and exploitation. This vision of the future, for which every full-minded and unblinded citizen should fight, was already held by some mature people like Peter Kropotkin and other liberal socialists more than 100 years ago. However, since they had only anticipated and not yet recognised the emotional reactions of human beings and were also vehemently opposed by authoritarian-minded contemporaries, they were unable to put their progressive ideas into practice. Thus, man is still not free today.
Gottfried Keller: Step outside the front door yourself and see what is available!
Every individual is called upon to make his or her contribution to solving the pressing problems of our time. And of course we are able to do so if we are aware that it depends on each and every one of us. Why not muster the courage to use our own minds and not repress the monstrosities of today, but to see them and stand up against them – intellectually, emotionally, politically. Overcome the inertia of the heart and act! Against all odds, muster the determination to seek the truth and thereby preserve our dignity as human beings and create a future worth living for ourselves and our children.
The Swiss poet and novelist Gottfried Keller (1819-1890) put it this way:
“No government and no battalions (…) are able to protect law and freedom where the citizen is unable to step outside the front door himself and see what is available.” (Zurich Novellen)
Albert Camus: Every human being has a more or less large sphere of influence
Shortly after the outbreak of the Second World War, the Nobel Prize winner for literature Albert Camus (1913-1960), one of the most important intellectuals of the 20th century, commented in a “Letter to a Desperate Man” on the role of the individual in a situation perceived as hopeless. (2) These are thoughts that document and deeply touch Camus’s relevance to our own day.
The useful task that, in Camus’ view, the person seeking advice still has to fulfil after the outbreak of the Great War is also a task for every individual in our present time, the worldwide war of the ruling clique against us citizens:
“You write to me that this war depresses you, that you would be ready to die, but that you cannot bear this worldwide stupidity, this bloodthirsty cowardice and this criminal naivety that still believes human problems can be solved with blood. I read your lines and I understand you. I understand you, but I can no longer follow you when you make a rule of life out of this despair and want to retreat behind your disgust because everything is useless. For despair is a feeling and not a state. You cannot remain in it. And the feeling must give way to a clear realisation of things.” (3)
“(…) First of all, you must ask yourself whether you have really done everything to prevent this war. (…) But I am sure that you did not do everything that was necessary, any more than any of us. You were not able to prevent it? No, that’s not true. This war was not inevitable, you know that. (…) There is still a useful task to be done.” (4)
“You have a task, do not doubt it. Every person has a more or less large sphere of influence. He owes it to his shortcomings as well as to his advantages. But be that as it may, it is there and it can be used immediately. Do not drive anyone to riot. You have to be sparing with the blood and freedom of others. But you can convince ten, twenty, thirty people that this war was neither inevitable nor is it, that all means have not yet been tried to stop it, that it must be said, written if possible, shouted out if necessary! These ten or thirty people will spread the word to ten others, who will in turn spread it. If inertia holds you back, well then, start all over again with others.”
In conclusion, Camus encourages the advice-seeker not to despair of history, in which the individual is capable of everything:
“Individuals are what send us to our deaths today. Why should other individuals not succeed in giving peace to the world? Only one must begin without thinking of such great goals. Remember that war is waged as much with the enthusiasm of those who want it as with the despair of those who reject it with all the strength of their souls.” (5)
“The Internationale” is the world-famous struggle song of the socialist workers’ movement, whose call to the last stand was issued to the international workers’ movement after the violent suppression of the Paris Commune in May 1871. (6) The German version of the original French text by Emil Luckhard (1910) reads:
“Wake up, damned of this earth, who are still forced to starve! (…) Army of slaves, wake up! (…) Peoples, hear the signals! To the final battle! (…) No higher being, no god, no emperor, no tribune can save us! To deliver us from misery, that we can only do ourselves!”
After the revolt, let the people go free!
Karl Marx (1818-1883) – drawing on Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872) – argued that man’s consciousness is shaped by social conditions and thus brought man back to earth. His materialist conception of history was a tremendous intrusion into the emotional world of man. Marx and some liberal socialists began to see man correctly – and this man began to deal with himself. Before that, the tendency prevailed in schools and universities that man’s soul merely undergoes a trial here in this world and that eternal life only begins in heaven.
Since religion is associated with fear and terror, man believes as long as he is afraid. In the materialistic view of history, belief in gods and supernatural beings ceases. When man has more knowledge about nature and more certainty, he becomes calmer and no longer has this emotional reaction. He is a different person: he is not afraid of life, of starvation or of exploitation; he has time to develop, to read, to learn scientific knowledge and to think about the world.
The Russian anarchist, geographer and writer Prince Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921) observed both nature and natural beings and related his findings to human beings. In his book “Mutual Aid in the Animal and Human World”, Kropotkin writes that in nature and society there is by no means only a struggle of all against all (social Darwinism), but that the principle of “mutual aid” also prevails. Those living beings that implement this principle would survive more successfully.
Scientific depth psychology is based on these findings. According to this, man is a naturally social being, oriented towards the community of his fellow human beings. He also has a natural inclination towards good, towards the knowledge of truth and towards community life. We do not have to be afraid of this human being. He wants to live in freedom and peace, without violence and war – just like all of us.
Leading man to freedom!
The freedom that is to be (re)given to man, because it is his by nature, is of course not the freedom to exploit the other man and to plunder his hard-earned savings. This is the “freedom” that the ruling clique in capitalism means and that makes man involuntarily corrupt. To give man freedom is to give him the right to a decent life, to justice, security and tranquillity.
This principle of freedom means that every working person knows, should he no longer be able to work for reasons of old age or illness, that he will not then be dismissed, but can continue to live just as before: he will continue to receive his last wage, keep his flat and not have to beg for soup in the communal kitchen or at the church. If he should die unexpectedly because of an accident, his family will continue to be provided for and his children can attend a good school.
In a free society, he not only has security but also peace of mind. No so-called authority will rise to rule over him; there will be no violence, no war, no military service, no hardship, no lunatic asylum, no prisons. External freedom will also lead to internal freedom: Man will have a different consciousness, a different thinking, a different relationship with his fellow man, a different feeling towards the dear God.
How do we set up the new social order?
Will we again establish a dictatorship and force the human being? Or will we believe in man, associate ourselves with him, empathise with him, appeal to him? He wants to live well with his children and have a roof over his head. This human being will cooperate in a free society because this corresponds to his nature. We do not have to be afraid of him. We do not have to see any danger in freedom either. If someone is not willing or able to live in a community, then he will be taken along by the others. The sick will be dealt with in the same way; they will not be a nuisance. On the contrary, in a free society they will get well.
Let us leave man free and demand nothing of him! He will gladly accept this and behave differently because he finds a different social situation. Man can change, Marx said – and depth psychology confirms this. He should also be given the same freedom. The churches will not be closed like the Bolsheviks did in Russia, because that hurts people deep inside, in their faith, in their dependence, in their fear. They then feel attacked in their minds, in their souls, and are called upon to fight against it. One must not take religion away from people, but leave them free to pray. It is not the state that decides, but the individual and the community. In the present principle of violence and authority, man cannot develop.
Some mature people who have had a laid table have guessed that the prevailing capitalist system is not right. How many beneficiaries there are in this system who do not contribute to the maintenance of the community. It was Peter Kropotkin, Mikhail Bakunin and a few more rich people who have had the opportunity to educate and research. But they would not allow the liberal socialists to strive for a community in which free association prevailed, in which each person decided which path to choose, with whom to associate and how to live. That is why they were bitterly opposed.
In a free society, the consciousness of man changes
Karl Marx was right: when man has the security of his life, he thinks differently. He has different thoughts, different feelings and a different relationship to his fellow man.
Man becomes different when he has the table laid. He has different feelings than the one who lives in insecurity, is exploited, is poor, is afraid of hail and lightning that God will send him if he does not pray enough. Afraid that the good Lord will set his house on fire or send hail and smash the grain so that he starves. In his whole emotional life and thi