Bret Weinstein: Likelihood of Lab Leak is 95%
Which means the current vaccines are bio-weapons. Think about it.
Bret Weinstein: Likelihood of Lab Leak is 95%
Which means the current vaccines are bio-weapons. Think about it.
The US wants to use these vaccines to expand its global influence and prove that “democracy” (neoliberal capitalism) is the best socioeconomic system to spur innovation and provide basic necessities for people, which is clearly doomed to fail since the severity of the Covid-19 pandemic was driven by this system in the first place.
June 26, 2021
is a Prague-based American journalist, columnist and political commentator. He has a syndicated column at CGTN and is a freelance reporter for international news agencies including Xinhua News Agency.
Pfizer vaccine © Reuters
A safety group from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently said that there’s a “likely association” between myocarditis, a rare inflammatory condition of the heart, for young adults and adolescents after receiving their second dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna Covid-19 vaccines. The fact that the media is largely brushing this aside and countries aren’t pulling them pending a safety review, like they did with the Johnson & Johnson or AstraZeneca vaccines, shows an innate bias towards for-profit medicine.
There have been instances like this before with the mRNA vaccines. Whereas blood clotting concerns have been the impetus for some countries to pull the Johnson & Johnson or AstraZeneca vaccines until a safety review could be undertaken, a study by Oxford University published on April 15 suggests that these complications actually have a higher incidence with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
According to the study, the risk of portal vein thrombosis (a blood clot in the liver) appears to be 30 times higher with the mRNA vaccines made by Moderna and Pfizer than with AstraZeneca’s. As well, the risk of cerebral vein thrombosis (a blood clot in the brain) appears to be quite similar with both AstraZeneca (five in a million) and those mRNA vaccines (four in a million).
This was pretty much ignored in the media and there’s been no public outrage about this. It begs the question in both of these cases, why? There could be many reasons but I think two reasons immediately come to mind that are obviously interlinked.
First, the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are the only two for-profit vaccines on the market. The already-massive drug company Pfizer raked in $900 million in the first quarter of this year. Big Pharma is a massive lobby in Washington and is also a huge patron of the news media, so it’s no wonder everyone’s hushing up about any potential dangers from these vaccines.
There’s simply too much at stake for the US and its ultra-wealthy ruling class to make a fuss about these particular vaccines even though they did the same thing with other vaccines that are being sold not-for-profit.
Second, these vaccines, Pfizer in particular, are the cornerstone of the US-led global vaccination effort that has now pledged 1 billion doses to poor countries. If it were the case that these vaccines were pulled, countries might lose faith in them, pull them and then the US would lose some of the soft power it’s looking for through these donations.
The US wants to use these vaccines to expand its global influence and prove that “democracy” (neoliberal capitalism) is the best socioeconomic system to spur innovation and provide basic necessities for people, which is clearly doomed to fail since the severity of the Covid-19 pandemic was driven by this system in the first place.
Put simply, the US wants to pull a “come-from-behind” victory on the pandemic and prove that its brand of for-profit medicine can address a global health emergency even though putting profits ahead of people is exactly why millions of people, including over 600,000 Americans, died from Covid-19. At the same time, Moderna and Pfizer are more than happy to lap up profits paid for mainly by Johnny Taxpayer.
To be perfectly clear, I am not advocating against taking mRNA vaccines. These vaccines are shown to be highly effective against transmission, hospitalization and death, so of course you should take them. Any potential risks are far outweighed by potential complications from actually catching Covid-19, especially as more virulent variants, like the Delta or Gamma variants, become predominant in many parts of the world.
This is no doubt a solid reason why public health experts are not in an uproar about potential dangers from the mRNA vaccines, since they’re the most widely available in the United States and many other countries. This is especially true if you live in a country like the US, where now virtually every Covid-19 death is preventable with vaccination. With governments unlikely to reinstate social distancing measures when variant-driven cases swing up, getting inoculated is crucial to protecting your health.
However, what I’m trying to say here is that when these arguments are only used to defend for-profit companies’ products, and thus help them profit even more, it reeks of corruption. This corruption becomes even more obvious when media outlets glorify Big Pharma, only to rediscover their critical faculties when they write about vaccines developed in countries like China, Russia, Iran or Cuba, as well as not-for-profit Western-developed vaccines like AstraZeneca or Johnson & Johnson.
The fact is that the best vaccine is the one you have access to, therefore no vaccine should be getting biased coverage or attention from media outlets or government officials.
GUEST BIO: Bret Weinstein is and evolutionary biologist, author, and co-host of the DarkHorse Podcast.
A major witness in the United States’ Department of Justice case against Julian Assange has admitted to fabricating key accusations in the indictment against the Wikileaks founder
26. júní 2021
A major witness in the United States’ Department of Justice case against Julian Assange has admitted to fabricating key accusations in the indictment against the Wikileaks founder. The witness, who has a documented history with sociopathy and has received several convictions for sexual abuse of minors and wide-ranging financial fraud, made the admission in a newly published interview in Stundin where he also confessed to having continued his crime spree whilst working with the Department of Justice and FBI and receiving a promise of immunity from prosecution.
The man in question, Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson, was recruited by US authorities to build a case against Assange after misleading them to believe he was previously a close associate of his. In fact he had volunteered on a limited basis to raise money for Wikileaks in 2010 but was found to have used that opportunity to embezzle more than $50,000 from the organization. Julian Assange was visiting Thordarson’s home country of Iceland around this time due to his work with Icelandic media and members of parliament in preparing the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, a press freedom project that produced a parliamentary resolution supporting whistleblowers and investigative journalism.
The United States is currently seeking Assange’s extradition from the United Kingdom in order to try him for espionage relating to the release of leaked classified documents. If convicted, he could face up to 175 years in prison. The indictment has sparked fears for press freedoms in the United States and beyond and prompted strong statements in support of Assange from Amnesty International, Reporters without borders, the editorial staff of the Washington Post and many others.
US officials presented an updated version of an indictment against him to a Magistrate court in London last summer. The veracity of the information contained therein is now directly contradicted by the main witness, whose testimony it is based on.
The court documents refer to Mr Thordarson simply as “Teenager” (a reference to his youthful appearance rather than true age, he is 28 years old) and Iceland as “NATO Country 1” but make no real effort to hide the identity of either. They purport to show that Assange instructed Thordarson to commit computer intrusions or hacking in Iceland.
The aim of this addition to the indictment was apparently to shore up and support the conspiracy charge against Assange in relation to his interactions with Chelsea Manning. Those occurred around the same time he resided in Iceland and the authors of the indictment felt they could strengthen their case by alleging he was involved in illegal activity there as well. This activity was said to include attempts to hack into the computers of members of parliament and record their conversations.
In fact, Thordarson now admits to Stundin that Assange never asked him to hack or access phone recordings of MPs. His new claim is that he had in fact received some files from a third party who claimed to have recorded MPs and had offered to share them with Assange without having any idea what they actually contained. He claims he never checked the contents of the files or even if they contained audio recordings as his third party source suggested. He further admits the claim, that Assange had instructed or asked him to access computers in order to find any such recordings, is false.
Nonetheless, the tactics employed by US officials appear to have been successful as can be gleaned from the ruling of Magistrate Court Judge Vanessa Baraitser on January 4th of this year. Although she ruled against extradition, she did so purely on humanitarian grounds relating to Assange’s health concerns, suicide risk and the conditions he would face in confinement in US prisons. With regards to the actual accusations made in the indictment Baraitser sided with the arguments of the American legal team, including citing the specific samples from Iceland which are now seriously called into question.
Other misleading elements can be found in the indictment, and later reflected in the Magistrate’s judgement, based on Thordarson’s now admitted lies. One is a reference to Icelandic bank documents. The Magistrate court judgement reads: “It is alleged that Mr. Assange and Teenager failed a joint attempt to decrypt a file stolen from a “NATO country 1” bank”.
Thordarson admits to Stundin that this actually refers to a well publicised event in which an encrypted file was leaked from an Icelandic bank and assumed to contain information about defaulted loans provided by the Icelandic Landsbanki. The bank went under in the fall of 2008, along with almost all other financial institutions in Iceland, and plunged the country into a severe economic crisis. The file was at this time, in summer of 2010, shared by many online who attempted to decrypt it for the public interest purpose of revealing what precipitated the financial crisis. Nothing supports the claim that this file was even “stolen” per se, as it was assumed to have been distributed by whistleblowers from inside the failed bank.
Continue with story:
Here’s what we do to save the world. We confiscate all the wealth in the world from any one that has over, let’s say, 100 million dollars. We create a just society, a just world where no one goes hungry, free Medicare for everyone on the planet, a home with a growing garden for everyone, no more Big Pharma, no more regular politics, no more political parties, no going to Mars until everyone is taken care of on this beautiful planet. We re-invest in a just society where the psychopaths have no say.
Oh, The people we confiscated their wealth? We will be a caring society. We will put them all in a beautiful private Island where they will need nothing. They will have a blissful life surrounded by great medical mental health teams to heal their personality disorders. Any one who wants more than he or she needs is mentally ill.
Russell Brand: In my latest Under The Skin podcast I spoke with Indian scholar, food sovereignty advocate and environmental activist #VandanaShiva. In this video she speaks about #BillGates‘s book, the colonisation of land and food production, however she provides us with hopeful and powerful words of advice that might help us challenge these Tech Giants and monopolies.
Global Research, June 25, 2021
Children’s Health Defense 24 June 2021
Dr. Robert Malone told Tucker Carlson we know the vaccines pose risks, but it’s hard to assess them because the government isn’t capturing the data “rigorously enough,” so we don’t have the information we need to make a reasonable decision.
In the segment below on last night’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson interviewed Dr. Robert Malone, creator of mRNA vaccine technology, about his opinion that COVID vaccines are unsafe for certain people, and how YouTube censored him for discussing vaccine safety.
YouTube took down an episode of the Dark Horse Podcast that featured an interview with Malone, despite Malone likely being “the single most qualified person on the planet” to discuss vaccine risks, Carlson explained. “He helped create the mRNA technology used in COVID vaccines.”
Malone’s comment followed news this week that within 24 hours of the World Health Organization (WHO) updating its guidance on who should get the COVID vaccine — with this statement: “Children should not be vaccinated for the moment” — the WHO removed the statement. The revised guidance now says the vaccines are “suitable for use” by children “over the age of 12.”
Malone told Carlson:
“One of my concerns is the government is not being transparent with us. I’m of the opinion that people have the right to decide whether to accept vaccines or not, especially since these are experimental vaccines. This is a fundamental right having to do with clinical research ethics.”
We know there are risks, but it’s hard to assess them because the government isn’t capturing the data “rigorously enough,” Malone said. “We don’t have the information we need to make a reasonable decision.”
Malone said the risk-benefit analysis has not been done.
“Normally, at this stage, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunizations Practices would’ve performed those risk-benefit analyses,” said Malone. “They would be data-based and science-based. They’re not right now.”
The study found that out of the first 100 reported deaths in nursing home residents who received the Pfizer vaccine, 10 were “likely” due to the vaccine. An additional 26 deaths were “possibly” caused by the vaccine, said the study authors.
Watch Tucker Carlson’s segment here:
Global Research, June 25, 2021
Big Tech is driving a new wave of colonization in the name of sustainability and “net zero” carbon emissions
Tech billionaire Bill Gates, now the largest owner of farmland in the U.S., is at the root of the problem, pushing technology as the only mechanism to save the world, and in so doing denying real solutions
Shiva calls Gates’ book, “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster,” which pushes for the elimination of age-old farming traditions and widespread adoption of fake meat, “rubbish”
According to Shiva, in order to force the world to accept this new food and agricultural system, new conditionalities are being created through net zero “nature-based” solutions, which will only further destroy indigenous people and small farmers
Net zero does not mean zero emissions, Shiva says; it means the rich polluters will continue to pollute and also grab the land and resources of those who have not polluted
Vandana Shiva is a brilliant mind calling for inhabitants of the Earth to unite against forces that are threatening to destroy the planet, in part via a new wave of colonization in the name of sustainability.
Tech billionaire Bill Gates, now the largest owner of farmland in the U.S.,1 is at the root of the problem, pushing technology as the only mechanism to save the world, and in so doing denying real solutions. This path is not accidental but carefully orchestrated to amass wealth, power and control, while making all but the elite subservient.
In my interview with Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., she spoke about Gates Ag One,2 which is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, where Monsanto is also headquartered.
“Gates Ag One is one [type of] agriculture for the whole world, organized top down. He’s written about it. We have a whole section on it in our new report,3 ‘Gates to a Global Empire,’” she said. This includes digital farming, in which farmers are surveilled and mined for their agricultural data, which is then repackaged and sold back to them.
Bill Gates’ New Book Is ‘Rubbish’
In the above Under the Skin podcast with Russel Brand, Shiva takes aim at Gates’ book “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need,” which was released in February 20214 — calling it “rubbish:”5
“Just by chance I was reading the rubbish in Bill Gates’ new book. I normally don’t read rubbish but when they want to be rulers through rubbish, I read it. And it’s lovely because he says the greenhouse gases from factory farms are not because of factory farms and putting animals in prisons … it’s because the cows were the problem. They had four stomachs and the four stomachs make the methane.”
The reason cows in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) emit methane that smells is because they’re fed an unnatural diet of grains and placed in crowded quarters. It’s not a natural phenomenon. It’s a man-made one. “You walk behind a good cow on a grazing pasture, she’s not stinking,” Shiva said.6
The strong recommendation to replace beef with fake meat is also made in Gates’ book7 — another example of replacing a whole, natural food with something engineered, heavily processed and fake. It all stems from an overreaching theme of arrogance and the desire for recolonization and a global empire.
The idea is to imply, or create the environment in which, survival isn’t possible without technology. “It is a denial of the richness of agroecological knowledges and practices that are resurging around the world,” according to one of Navdanya’s reports.8
Shiva founded Navdanya, a nonprofit organization promoting biodiversity, organic farming and seed saving, in 1994. She has also travelled the globe to warn other countries, including Africa, about plans to displace rural farmers so investors can turn the land into industrial farms to export the commodities.
Gates’ book talks about eliminating age-old farming traditions, which Shiva believes must be protected. Speaking with Brand, Shiva said:9
“He [Gates] has put the Indian plow that has existed for 10,000 years and says this primitive technology must go. I call this, as the future technology, a partnership between our bodies, the body of the Earth, and the body of the animals — realizing that we are not masters but we are there to serve through what Gandhi called bread labor, the labor of our body in the service of the Earth, in the service of community.
So we are for sure at an epic moment where everything wrong is being given a new life just at the time when the world was waking up … I think this is happening … because of arrogance … we’ve destroyed every international law, we’ve destroyed all democracy, we have locked people into fear … you know, the British empire had that arrogance.” Breaking the Sacred Relationship With Food
Industrialization started the process of severing humans’ age-old connections to their food and the land on which it’s grown. “Now, with digitalization,” Shiva said, “they would like to end it forever.”10Tech giants, in an effort to drive home digital agriculture, are working to reduce life to software11 while advancing digital surveillance systems.
So far, Shiva’s organization has managed to prevent Gates from introducing a seed surveillance startup, where farmers would not be allowed to grow seeds unless approved by Gates’ surveillance system. The data mining, Shiva says, is needed because they don’t actually know agriculture.
This is why Gates finances the policing of farmers. He needs to mine their data to learn how farming is actually done. In countering the tech giants’ attempts to remove humans’ sacred relationship to food, Shiva states we can fight back by remembering and focusing on a few essential principles:12
“We’ve got to bring to the center of our everyday life the rituals that make life sacred,” Shiva said. “Our breath … breath is what connects us to the world … water connects us to the world. Food connects us to the world.”13
‘Net Zero’ Nonsense
Gates has been vocal that achieving “net zero” emissions will be the “most amazing thing humanity has ever done.”14 By 2030, he’s pushing for drastic, fundamental changes, including widespread consumption of fake meat, adoption of next generation nuclear energy and growing a fugus as a new type of nutritional protein.15
The deadline Gates has given to reach net zero emissions is 2050,16 likely because he wants to realize his global vision during his lifetime. But according to Shiva, in order to force the world to accept this new food and agricultural system, new conditionalities are being created through net zero “nature-based” solutions. Navdanya’s report, “Earth Democracy: Connecting Rights of Mother Earth to Human Rights and Well-Being of All,” explains:17
“If ‘feeding the world’ through chemicals and dwarf varieties bred for chemicals was the false narrative created to impose the Green Revolution, the new false narrative is ‘sustainability’ and ‘saving the planet.’ In the new ‘net zero’ world, farmers will not be respected and rewarded as custodians of the land and caregivers, as Annadatas, the providers of our food and health.
They will not be paid a fair and just price for growing healthy food through ecological processes, which protect and regenerate the farming systems as a whole.
They will be paid for linear extraction of fragments of the ecological functions of the system, which can be tied to the new ‘net zero’ false climate solution based on a fake calculus, fake science allowing continued emissions while taking control over the land of indigenous people and small farmers.
‘Net Zero’ is a new strategy to get rid of small farmers in first through ‘digital farming’ and ‘farming without farmers’ and then through the burden of fake carbon accounting.
Carbon offsets and the new accounting trick of ‘net zero’ does not mean zero emissions. It means the rich polluters will continue to pollute and also grab the land and resources of those who have not polluted — indigenous people and small farmers — for carbon offsets.”
Gates already alluded to this double-standard in responding to those who criticized him for the hypocrisy of being a serious polluter himself, with a 66,000 square-foot mansion, a private jet, 242,000 acres of farmland and investments in fossil fuel-dependent industries such as airlines, heavy machinery and cars.18
This pollution is acceptable, Gates said, because, “I am offsetting my carbon emissions by buying clean aviation fuel, and funding carbon capture and funding low-cost housing projects to use electricity instead of natural gas.”19
Carbon Colonization and Carbon Slavery
Carbon colonization and carbon slavery are two terms being used to explain the reality behind carbon trade, which is being regarded by Big Tech as the next big opportunity, Shiva says.20 Carbon trade refers to the buying and selling of credits that allow a company to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide,21 but by buying up credits from nonpolluters, industry can continue to pollute.
Technocracy is also a resource-based economic system, which is why the World Economic Forum talks about the creation of “sustainable digital finance,”22 a carbon-based economy and carbon credit trading.23 As explained on its website:24
“Digital finance refers to the integration of big data, artificial intelligence (AI), mobile platforms, blockchain and the Internet of things (IoT) in the provision of financial services. Sustainable finance refers to financial services integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria into the business or investment decisions.
When combined, sustainable digital finance can take advantage of emerging technologies to analyze data, power investment decisions and grow jobs in sectors supporting a transition to a low-carbon economy.”
As Navdanya’s report explains, however, this will ultimately further remove the rights of small farmers, who will be forced into a new form of data slavery:25
“A global ‘seal’ of approval based on fake science, fake economics of maximizing profits through extraction will create new data slavery for farmers. Instead of using their own heads and cocreating with the Earth, they will be forced to buy ‘Big Data.’ Instead of obeying the laws of Mother Earth, they will be forced to obey algorithms created by Big Tech and Big Ag.”
Focusing solely on carbon reductionism also misses the point that “forests, lands, ecosystems are so much more than the carbon stored in them,” and putting conditionalities on small farmers will only make environmental injustices worse. The report adds:26
“Conditionalities under any condition violate democratic principles and human rights. Farmers are guided by Earth care. The culture of Earth care needs to be respected and rewarded because it is centered on rights of the Earth and rights of all her children … Conditionalities put on the nonpolluters by the polluters who want to continue to pollute is unjust and ecologically, morally and ethically bankrupt.”
‘The Universe Is Divine’
According to the ancient Vedas, the universe is divine, and everything therein — even the smallest grass — is an expression of the divine. “When I go to villages,” Shiva told Brand, “women will do sacred ceremonies with indigenous seed. They will never use a hybrid seed for a sacred ceremony … It’s quite amazing. No one told them, but they have that understanding of integrity and what the sacred means. It means to treat without violation.”27
The universe exists for the well-being of all, but her gifts must be enjoyed without greed, Shiva explained. Taking more than your share is theft, and will only backfire. The solution to true sustainability doesn’t lie with new technology, but in relying on the natural “technology” that is the universe:28
“It is by learning from the Earth that we can regenerate the Earth. We have to become students of Mother Earth, not try and dominate her. When we practice agriculture in unison with the Earth’s ecological processes aligned with the ecological laws of nature and the Earth, we evolve an agriculture of care for the land, for the soil. We participate in the process of regenerating the seed and biodiversity, soil and water.”
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 27 YouTube April 13, 2021
Featured image is a screenshot from the video
How real is the folklore behind the legend of Barhoot Well, a mysterious geological anomaly that exists in Hadramaut Yemen?
by: Nolan Barton
June 25, 2021
The Well of Barhout, also known as the “Well of Hell” in eastern Yemen, is a natural wonder surrounded by mystery and tales of demons.
Located in the desert of Al-Mahra province, the giant hole is 30 meters (100 feet) wide and thought to be anywhere between 100 and 200 meters (328 feet and 820 feet) deep. Local folklore says it was created as a prison for the demons, a reputation bolstered by the foul and toxic odors rising from its depths. Some have called it “the mouth of hell.”
It wasn’t actually burning like hell or like the Darvaza Crater, nicknamed “Door to Hell,” in the desert of north Turkmenistan.
The crater, which is 69 meters (226 feet) wide and 30 meters (100 feet) deep, is located in a natural gas field in Ahal Province in Turkmenistan, which has the sixth-largest reserves in the world. The crater’s origin is disputed, but the theory most widely accepted involves a Soviet expedition to explore for gas.
A local geologist claims the borehole was set alight in 1971 over fears that it was emitting poisonous gases. It has now been burning for half a century.
Chris Fogwill, a professor of glaciology and paleoclimatology at Keele University, told the DailyMail that it is most likely a sinkhole caused by the erosion of limestone or moving geological salts or brines. Sinkholes can be caused by any number of activities, including drilling, mining or construction. (Related: Enormous, possibly radioactive sinkhole swallows an acre of Louisiana, causes forced evacuations.)
“The erosion around the edge suggests it is not new,” Fogwill noted.
Local authorities say they don’t know what lies below. The well is said to be one of the most, if not the most, hated spot in the country and contains the “worst water on the planet.”
“It’s very deep – we’ve never reached the bottom of this well, as there’s little oxygen and no ventilation,” said Salah Babhair, director-general of Mahra’s geological survey and mineral resources authority. “We have gone to visit the area and entered the well, reaching more than 50-60 meters down into it. We noticed strange things inside. We also smelled something strange. It’s a mysterious situation.”
Little can be seen from the edge of the hole, except the birds that fly in and out of its depth. Videographers seeking close-ups of the inside of the well can’t capture anything relevant or interesting. Sunlight doesn’t extend far into its depth and local superstition has it that objects near the hole can be sucked towards it.
Some say it is a portal, an extraordinary opening that connects travelers to distant realms. A good portal is a shortcut, a door into the unknown. But experts say that portals open and close dozens of times each day and typically located thousands of miles from Earth.
Some suggest the well is a supervolcano that will eventually erupt but can’t back up the theory with scientific evidence. (Related: Volcanoes beneath ice in Antarctica could erupt and leave the planet “uninhabitable,” warn researchers.)
Babhair said that the well was “millions and millions” of years old. “These places require more study, research and investigation,” he said.
Over the centuries, stories have circulated of malign, supernatural figures known as jinns or genies living in the well. Many local residents remain uneasy about visiting the vast hole, or even talking about it, for fear of ill-fortune.
Yemenis have had enough bad luck as it is. The country has been embroiled in a civil war since 2014 between the government and the Huthi rebels. According to the United Nations, Yemen is suffering the world’s worst humanitarian crisis with tens of thousands killed, millions displaced and two-thirds of its nearly 30 million people dependent on some form of aid.
By Will Jones
24 June 2021
A review of efficacy and safety data for the COVID-19 vaccines by three scientists has been published in the peer-reviewed journal Vaccines and comes to the disturbing conclusion that for every three deaths the vaccines prevent, two people die from an adverse reaction, while another four suffer serious side effects. The authors conclude: “This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.”
Here is the abstract:
Background: COVID-19 vaccines have had expedited reviews without sufficient safety data. We wanted to compare risks and benefits.
Method: We calculated the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) from a large Israeli field study to prevent one death. We accessed the Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) database of the European Medicines Agency and of the Dutch National Register (lareb.nl) to extract the number of cases reporting severe side effects and the number of cases with fatal side effects.
Result: The NNTV is between 200–700 to prevent one case of COVID-19 for the mRNA vaccine marketed by Pfizer, while the NNTV to prevent one death is between 9,000 and 50,000 (95% confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate. The number of cases experiencing adverse reactions has been reported to be 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. Currently, we see 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11 per 100,000 vaccinations. For three deaths prevented by vaccination, we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination.
Conclusions: This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.
The authors note this conclusion is based on the reported adverse reactions, whereas the true number of adverse reactions may be considerably more.
Finally, we note that from experience with reporting side effects from other drugs, only a small fraction of side effects is reported to adverse events databases. The median underreporting can be as high as 95%. Given this fact and the high number of serious side effects already reported, the current political trend to vaccinate children who are at very low risk of suffering from COVID-19 in the first place must be reconsidered.
They note that the “risks and benefits” of the vaccines are “on the same order of magnitude” and suggest: “Perhaps it might be necessary to dampen the enthusiasm by sober facts?”
The present assessment raises the question whether it would be necessary to rethink policies and use COVID-19 vaccines more sparingly and with some discretion only in those that are willing to accept the risk because they feel more at risk from the true infection than the mock infection. Perhaps it might be necessary to dampen the enthusiasm by sober facts? In our view, the EMA and national authorities should instigate a safety review into the safety database of COVID-19 vaccines and governments should carefully consider their policies in light of these data. Ideally, independent scientists should carry out thorough case reviews of the very severe cases, so that there can be evidence-based recommendations on who is likely to benefit from a SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and who is in danger of suffering from side effects. Currently, our estimates show that we have to accept four fatal and 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations in order to save the lives of 2–11 individuals per 100,000 vaccinations, placing risks and benefits on the same order of magnitude.
The full study can be found here.
UPDATE: The study has been updated. It originally stated that: “For three deaths prevented by vaccination, we have to accept one inflicted by vaccination.” This has been amended to say “we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination”. This article has been updated accordingly.
BY TYLER DURDEN FRIDAY, JUN 25, 2021
The research, which used methods from conservation science, according to reports, finds that the most probable date of the emergence of the virus was November 17, 2019.
The paper notes that SARS-CoV-2 could have first appeared from early October and concludes that it had already circled the globe by January 2020.
The findings correlate EXACTLY with U.S. Intelligence that at least three researchers working at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where coronavirus experiments were being conducted, were hospitalised in mid November 2019 with symptoms matching those of COVID.
The conclusion of the paper also dovetails with previously unconfirmed claims by the South China Morning Post that there exists Chinese government data documenting initial cases on November 17, 2019, the exact same day that the new paper cites as the most likely time of the emergence of the virus.
The evidence is now overwhelming that the lab was the origin point of the pandemic.
As we reported yesterday, a scientist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle claims to have located genetic sequences from early coronavirus cases in China that had been deleted from both US and Chinese databases.
The sequences show the virus was circulating in Wuhan before any cases were linked to the infamous wet market, as they are three steps more similar to the bat coronaviruses than the virus samples from the market.
Commenting on the subsequent deletion of the data from both Chinese and US databases by Chinese scientists Dr Jesse Bloom noted that it “seems likely that the sequences were deleted to obscure their existence.”
Alina Chan, a researcher with Harvard’s Broad Institute tweeted “Why would scientists ask international databases to delete key data that informs us about how Covid-19 began in Wuhan?”
Yet another study was also published Thursday in the Scientific Reports journal that concludes SARS-CoV-2 binds to human receptors much more efficiently than other species, suggesting that the virus was already adapted to humans when it first emerged.
The team of Australian scientists who conducted the research said that while it doesn’t prove the lab leak hypothesis, it proves that the theory cannot be ruled out.
Previous studies have noted that the genetic sequence of the virus, ‘CGG-CGG’, does not occur anywhere in nature, yet it is the exact combination commonly used in ‘gain of function’ research, which is known to have been used with coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
* * *
Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/
In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. We need you to sign up for our free newsletter here. Support our sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Also, we urgently need your financial support here.
Late Friday afternoon, June 25 as predicted, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence spoon-fed the media nine unclassified pages of the UAP Task Force report, reporters’ appetites having already been whetted by Florida Senator Marco Rubio’s boilerplate comments about it being “an important first step,” etc.
Journalists need to start working on the next step.
To be sure, the new seriousness in mainstream media regarding UFOs is a refreshing change, but there are still problems. Disclosure activist Steve Bassett reported today he’s archived more than a thousand articles in the last few months. Coverage by the New York Times, CBS News, Reuters, and New Yorker magazine, among others, has been admirable in recent weeks. But across the pond, BBC this week humiliated itself with a couple of reports showing there’s still work to be done.
First, there was a repugnant display of open contempt expressed by BBC News with Katty and Christian co-hosts Katty Kay and Christian Fraser-complete with giggling, smirks, eye rolls and even a lame joke about needing “X-Files music” to accompany the piece. The story itself, about the then-pending release of the American UAP report, was factual and straightforward. It included the now-famous video recorded by astonished American pilots tracking a UFO tearing across the ocean. When the report concluded, Fraser deadpanned, “I’m excited,” before both burst out laughing. Kay picked up the cue: “Stay with us on BBC News, more serious things still to come,” which led directly into teasing a story about a Hampshire man discovering he has an ancestral connection to President Joe Biden. This, from the BBC!
Over on the radio, there was a story — also serious enough, factual, etc. by Today’s Sophie Long [Go to the 1:23 mark] on how the U.S. is grappling with the UAP problem. After she signed off, co-host Nick Robinson, sounding amused by what he apparently regarded as the novelty of it, picked up the cue: “Sophie Long reporting there on something I didn’t know existed — the ‘UFO community!’ Who knew?”
Where even to begin?
The BBC couldn’t possibly have illustrated the historical disconnect between the reality of the UFO phenomenon and mainstream journalism in a more embarrassing fashion. Britain, after all, was the site of one of the most fascinating and exhaustively reported UFO cases of all time, the Rendlesham Forest mystery. Here was an incident (a series of them, actually) not so long ago that’s been dubbed “Britain’s Roswell,” which featured allegations not of a crash but a landing for which there are living, on-the-record eyewitnesses, one of whom claims to have not only seen the craft, but touched it.
More recently, less than 50 miles from BBC’s London studios where Kay and Fraser whooped it up, there was the 2007 incident over the English Channel involving two UFOs (one of which was estimated to have been a mile long) and was seen by multiple commercial pilots, their passengers, was captured on radar and investigated by Britain’s equivalent of the FAA. One of the pilots, Captain Ray Bower, provides an astonishing detailed account in American journalist Leslie Kean’s absorbing book UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record.
Imagine being a journalist in the 21st century and being unaware of such things. Imagine being surprised to learn — “Who knew?” — that people exist who are so inquisitive and driven to learn more about UFOs that they basically have been doing your job because you won’t.
Scientists and skeptics bristle that ufology is a “pseudoscience,” but that mistakenly presumes that ufologists are practicing science, or claim that they are. Generally speaking, they are not. Most lack the scientific training and education, and in any event, the subject of study basically defies the tools of science to unpack it.
No, ufologists are not pseudo-scientists, and they are not scientists.
They are journalists.
The UAP intelligence assessment released Friday covers 144 reports made between November 2004 and March 2021 (and fails to explain literally all but one of them). That time frame, along with the spike in serious government-and-UFOs reportage that has occurred since the New York Times story in 2017 gives the impression that the story — regardless of whether one defines “the story” as UFOs themselves or the government’s engagement with the phenomena — is new. It is not new, and implying as much is a disservice to the public.
Nor has it been entirely ignored by journalists. The problem is that these journalists are volunteers, citizen activists who have worked for decades to pry loose a tremendous amount of information that has been consumed by a limited audience. With notable exceptions such as George Knapp and Leslie Kean, they are not employed by any professional media outlet. They’ve been branded by the media as UFO “buffs” or “enthusiasts,” or “conspiracy theorists.” If they’re lucky, they might get “investigator.”
It’s time to cut the crap.
Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein made their first few steps investigating Nixon’s reelection campaign armed with fewer facts than are contained in a single chapter of Kean’s book, which was published in 2010 to wide acclaim. Two young reporters smelled smoke, and they found a fire that burned Nixon all the way back to San Clemente. The adage “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire” applies here. In this case, the smoke is acknowledgement by the government that UFOs are real. Thanks to ufologists, we know that the government has been intensely interested in the phenomenon for since the mid-20th century and has gone to great lengths to keep that fact secret. The smoke is there; the fire is one with enormous implications for humanity.
Mainstream journalists have long been criticized (with some justification) of relying too heavily on official sources and statements when reporting on the government. So in newsrooms and journalism schools across the land, there will soon be fascinating conversations that take into account this astounding irony: When candid statements by government officials acknowledging the reality and inexplicable weirdness of UFOS were made on the record — which is what happened in May 2001 when dozens of ex-military, government officials and others addressed Washington D.C.’s National Press Club— journalists (for the most part) didn’t take advantage of that window of opportunity. It was a one-day story, then they moved on to other things.
Another topic to knock around: The history of American journalism, from coverage of the White House and wars all the way down to the smallest city and county governments, shows that some of the best work is the result of reporters digging into public records, prying them loose from bureaucrats who don’t want to release them.
Why, then, does it take a teenager to jump-start his own FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) operation to go after UFO documents (among others) and post them online? That’s what John Greenewald Jr. did in 1996 when he was 15, launching Black Vault. Today, there are more than 2 million documents there, includings thousands related to UFOs. He may not have had a degree (or training, for that matter) in journalism from the University of Oregon, but he did the work that no one else was doing.
Ufologists have been clamoring for and expecting “Disclosure” for decades, because they’d done enough investigating, reviewing documents, visiting sites, developing sources and interviewing witnesses and experiencers (i.e., journalism) to know that there is something to disclose, much more than we learned today. The mainstream press have been reluctant to follow, precisely for reasons identified in today’s report: “Sociological stigmas.” If anything positive has come out this, it’s that the stigma is evaporating.
Fact is, vast swaths of information and testimony about UFOs and the engagement by some unknown non-human “other” with humanity has already been disclosed. It’s been in plain view for decades. Those in the mainstream need to get caught up, and start having serious conversations about how they’re going to cover the story. Because this story is real, it’s not like “normal” stories, and it’s not going away. Today’s UAP report is but a tiny piece of the very tip of the iceberg. It’s time to dive deep.
, focuses on UFO/UAP news, culture, and analysis. Here are a few of our other articles on this subject:
Today, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released the unclassified version of the famous UAP Task Force Report, officially titled “Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.” It’s dated June 25, 2021.
The entire paper is just nine pages long, and that includes the title page as well as two Appendix pages, which add nothing to the report. So it’s essentially six pages. I suspect that everyone who reads this, including anyone from the general public who lack any real knowledge of UFO/UAP, will be extremely surprised at how threadbare this report is. Granted, we were led some time ago to understand it would be thin, to say the least. And I was certainly not expecting anything substantial at this point, but even so, I must say I was expecting more than six pages.
Frankly, this report is an exercise in bureaucratic jargon, and the unclassified version at least clearly seeks to avoid providing much of any genuine information.
However – and this is a big however – there are very interesting tidbits buried in here. And indeed, despite the fact that this report studiously avoids trying to make any conclusions about UAP, it contains a potentially provocative conclusion. The only problem is that you have to lift out a few statements that are scattered in different sections and piece them together.
Point number one. Although the authors do not point to any specific culprit as being the primary source of these objects, they do state that they found no evidence that any of these objects were U.S.-derived technology. Of course, we knew this in advance, more or less, from the various media reports that already came out.
Point number two. But there is something else. The authors found no evidence that any of these UAP (144 reports, incidentally) came from Russia, China, or any other foreign nation.
Point number three. Furthermore, the report also states that these UAP are for the most part solid, real objects and surely appear to be technological.
Point number four. It’s also stated that these objects have caused a fair amount of havoc during U.S. military exercises and a number of near-mid-air collisions.
Point number five. Some of these objects apparently are puzzling in their flight characteristics and not easily explainable.
Each of these various statements are scattered throughout the report, easy for the casual reader to miss, typically buried within long-winded sentences and paragraphs.
But this report, despite its skimpy nature, opens up a potential public relations problem. After all, if not U.S. tech (military or industry) and not a foreign nation, and they appear to be solid and technological, and they cause an air safety hazard and a potential national security “challenge,” and they sometimes exhibit puzzling flight characteristics, then what are we talking about?
With that said, I’ll do a quick breakdown of the various (small) sections within the report, although it’s probably just as easy if you read the report yourself.
First is the “Scope and Assumptions” section, which merely states that this report:
“provides an overview for policymakers of the challenges associated with characterizing the potential threat posed by UAP while also providing relevant processes, policies, technologies, and training for the U.S. military and other U.S. government (USG) personnel if and when they encounter UAP, so as to enhance the Intelligence Community’s (IC) ability to understand the threat.”
Presumably whoever wrote this run-on sentence failed English Composition 101. Aside from that, we learn that the purpose of the report is not to explain what these objects are, but merely to provide an overview of the challenges of understanding a potential UAP threat.
In other words, there is no information in this report about any specific UAP/UFO event. This is important to recognize. There are no cases specifically described.
Which means that for the general public, at least, there is no information upon which to gain a clear picture of precisely what was examined.
The “Executive Summary,” provides a barebones summary of the following sections. But first, a disclaimer:
“The limited amount of high-quality reporting on Unidentified Ariel Phenomena (UAP) hampers our ability to draw firm conclusions about the nature or intent of UAP.”
Therefore, right away we see this report is not going to give us any firm conclusions about anything.
We also learn that this report covers the years 2004 to 2021, and apparently really zeroing in mainly on the last few years, following the codification of UAP reporting procedures as indicated by the United States Navy in 2019 (although there is no indication about the nature of those procedures). So presumably they looked at the Tic Tac case but never mentioned a word about it. Or any other case.
In this section, the report does state that:
“most of the UAP reports probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors…”
While the report emphasizes that there are probably multiple answers to the UAP reports it investigated, only one actual case seems to have an explanation at all (a stray balloon that was losing air).
Two other statements are noteworthy. One is that UAP clearly pose a flight safety issue, and “may pose a challenge to U.S. national security.”
The other noteworthy statement in the Executive Summary is simply a call for better and more streamlined processes to screen and process UAP reports.
The next section, entitled “Available Reporting Largely Inconclusive” is perhaps the most interesting section of the report. Such as it is. Perhaps the most interesting piece of data we get is that there were 144 reports studied by the task force, all of which originated from US government sources. Of these, 80 reports involved observation with multiple sensors. Another interesting fact is that most of these reports were situations in which UAP interrupted preplanned training or other military activities.
Precious few details. We learned that in 18 incidents, observers reported unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics. Some of these included the ability
“… to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernible means of propulsion.”
Apparently a small amount of data seem to show “UAP demonstrating acceleration or a degree of signature management.” Like everything in this report, the language is ultra bureaucratic, vague, and really forces you the reader to go through a process of translation from bureaucratese into ordinary English. But with a little bit of work we get the idea that some of these objects demonstrated extraordinary flight characteristics.
And that’s essentially it for that section. No other real details to work with.
The next small section simply states that most of these reports very likely have one of five possible explanations, although no numbers or statistics are provided. The categories are:
This is interesting because I personally was wondering if they would include private contractors and the like, and apparently they are doing so here. The report does state,
“we were unable to confirm, however, that these systems accounted for any of the UAP reports we collected.”
It must be stated that this is not any kind of blanket denial that US technology is behind this. The report repeatedly emphasizes the lack of sufficient data, and does a consistent job of bowing out of any kind of conclusions. All they are saying here essentially is that they could not confirm that US technology was behind any of these reports. That essentially means nothing. They clearly were not ruling it out.
I believe this essentially contradicts earlier news reports that indicated this report had ruled out U.S. technology as a potential source of these reports. If I am not mistaken, this was a statement by Luis Elizondo. But from how I read this report, no such conclusion was made. They simply found no evidence.
Next potential category for UAP reports are:
The last category of potential UAP sources is simply called “Other.” And no, not a single reference or even hint that this could refer to anything extraterrestrial. For the authors of this report, it simply seems to refer to anything that requires “additional scientific knowledge” to study.
When you really read this section carefully, you find that it’s essentially empty of content. Even the title “UAP PROBABLY LACK A SINGLE EXPLANATION” gives me the impression that there was really no analysis performed. One gets the impression that they don’t even have an idea of what are the most likely explanations. Presumably the classified version of this report is a bit more sophisticated.
A short section relating to flight safety threats and potential national security “challenges” follows. We learned that the task force collected 11 reports of documented incidents in which pilots reported near misses with a UAP. That is interesting.
Under the subsection of potential national security challenges, we do get a very interesting statement. Easily lost in the shuffle.
“We currently lack data to indicate any UAP are part of a foreign collection program or indicative of a major technological advancement by a potential adversary.”
And there it is. Obviously none of these conclusions are even remotely definitive, but I find it very interesting that the report seems provisionally to discount U.S. technology and foreign adversaries as the source of these UAPs. Any logical mind is going to wonder about the implication. If not U.S., if not foreign nations, what are we left with? The question is not even asked. The implications are buried within the mass of bureaucratic language.
However, the report does state that a number of these UAP have been detected near military facilities or by aircraft carrying the U.S. government’s “most advanced sensor systems.”
The final section is a call for more money to go into UAP analysis, standardization of reporting procedures, etc. It states that the ability to collect these reports was severely hampered in earlier years, and really only started to become halfway decent in the last few years, following the U.S. Navy’s reorganization of the reporting process.
That’s essentially the report. Definitely a disappointment to anyone anticipating genuine data, much less images or video. But buried within this report, amid all of its qualifications, is the provisional conclusion that this phenomenon cannot be attributed to U.S. military or industrial technology, nor that of foreign adversaries. It furthermore states that these objects clearly appear to be solid and technological. You do the math.
Obviously the point of this unclassified version of the report is to bore the public to death about UAP, because despite the interesting tidbits in here, there is nothing even remotely exciting about this. The report would make an excellent sleep-aid. But despite the best efforts of the authors, there is something to work with here. The phenomenon is real, it’s technological, it’s an annoyance and potentially even a threat, some of the objects operate in ways that seem difficult or challenging to explain, and none of the cases examined pointed to the U.S., Russia, China, or any other nation.
My guess is that the classified version of this report will leak out soon enough. I have no inside information to that effect, just my best hunch. Someone will get the rest out to the public soon. Let’s see.