“We certainly have seen a distinct shift back to people in their 60s, 50s and even late or mid 40s and even younger,” he said.
Mr. Masson revealed he had been asked a number of times about increased death rates but had no particular explanation other than Covid being “let rip”.
“Processed food, our lifestyle, staying up late, drinking, stress and that’s been very evident through the past couple of years,” Mr Masson said
Britain has seen a 10% increase above what would be the expected number of deaths since April. The main causes have been cited as circulatory diseases and diabetes. Prof. Robson said it was unclear what was driving the excess deaths in Australia.
Undertakers in Australia are experiencing high demand for their services with people dying in abnormally high numbers in a “worrying” trend doctors can’t explain. Daily Mail Australiahas the story.
Martin Masson, who is managing director of Tribute Funeral Services in the western Melbourne suburb of Ravenhall, said there is no shortage of work for him and others in the industry as official figures confirm Aussies are dying at a higher rate in 2022.
“We’ve been consistently busy now since the first of this year,” Mr Masson told Daily Mail Australia.
“We have certainly seen an increase in the need for our services as have done a lot of other directors.”
Mr. Masson believed more working age Australians are dying but doesn’t have specific statistics to back this.
“We certainly have seen a distinct shift back to people in their 60s, 50s and even late or mid 40s and even younger,” he said.
Mr. Masson revealed he had been asked a number of times about increased death rates but had no particular explanation other than Covid being “let rip”.
“Processed food, our lifestyle, staying up late, drinking, stress and that’s been very evident through the past couple of years,” Mr Masson said
“These all go into causing deaths, whether that’s premature or at their time I don’t know.”
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) confirms Australians have been dying at rate higher than normal this year. When mortality rates climb above historical averages, without being explicable by having an ageing population, they are termed ‘excess deaths’.
“There has been excess mortality recorded in 2022 across all months, with both the number of deaths and the rate of death generally higher than historical averages,” an ABS spokesperson told Daily Mail Australia.
“In May, there were 16,124 deaths, which is 13.5% higher than the average of deaths we would normally see occurring in May (14,202).”
Covid was a substantial proportion of those deaths with 862 deaths “directly attributable to the virus in May”.
However, there were also more than the expected number of deaths from dementia, diabetes and ischaemic heart diseases. Cancer deaths had also increased but in line with an ageing population. The ABS said those dying were still largely over 75.
Peak doctors’ body the Australian Medical Association (AMA) told Daily Mail Australia it was ‘worrying’ that deaths are climbing and it reflected what is being seen overseas.
“We have seen the ABS statistics that mirror a worrying trend in other countries like the U.K.,” AMA President Professor Steve Robson said.
Britain has seen a 10% increase above what would be the expected number of deaths since April. The main causes have been cited as circulatory diseases and diabetes. Prof. Robson said it was unclear what was driving the excess deaths in Australia.
“There needs to be some research into why this is happening,” he said. However, he pointed to some “likely factors” that could be a hangover from the Covid period of isolation and restrictions. A major likely cause was that people either couldn’t or were scared of seeing a doctor because of infection risk.
The Health Ranger sat down recently with Jonathan Landsman to talk about the explosion of cancer cases that many doctors are seeing in the age of Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccines.”
Landsman is a natural health veteran who has been focused on cancer for some years now, observing details that often fall through the cracks linking the disease to modern medicine.
In this case, Fauci Flu shots were unleashed under Operation Warp Speed, and now some cancers are raging at rates 1,000 percent higher than previously. (Related: Covid jab spike proteins destroy human DNA, paving the way for the growth and spread of cancer cells.)
“What’s happening is, the spike proteins … are attaching and decreasing the ACE2 receptor expression,” Landsman explained to the Health Ranger, emphasizing that ACE2 receptors are located all throughout the body.
“These spike proteins are spreading and infecting all the cells in the body. And what’s happening is this is allowing those infections to attach to the outside of the cell, and then inject themselves inside the cell, causing organ damage and severe illness … and is especially increasing the risk of advanced-stage cancers.”
You can watch the full interview from Brighteon.com below:
It is only a matter of time before every fully jabbed person experiences the consequences of the shots
Landsman says he gets emails every single day from people who are concerned that covid jabs are causing themselves and their loved ones to get sick, including with cancer.
Cancer patients who were previously in remission are now seeing their cancers reappear post-injection, which only further supports the notion that the jabs are responsible.
Landsman describes the vaccine spike proteins as the key, and the body’s ACE2 receptors are the doorway through which disease and ultimately death are delivered to a “fully vaccinated” person’s body.
Both the government and the corporate-controlled media still insist that mRNA (messenger RNA) technology – this is what replicates spike protein production throughout the body, just as a reminder, turning it into a spike protein factory – is not permanent and does not affect DNA. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Dr. Judy Mikovits told the Health Ranger in a previous interview that the presence of glyphosate inside the body – and most people today have this deadly chemical circulating in their bloodstream – only amplifies the damage caused by vaccine spike proteins.
“Because of the presence of glyphosate, and the fact that there’s a phosphate group in that … it potentiates the cell membrane pathway that is used by mRNA to enter the cells,” the Health Ranger explained during his interview with Landsman.
“What that means is … one of the explanations for why some people are more damaged than others is that some people are eating non-organic foods.”
This and so much more is discussed in the interview, which you will not want to miss.
“People I know are battling breast and brain cancers since they took the Jaberwalkie!” wrote a commenter at Brighteon.com, affirming what Landsman and the Health Ranger are saying.
“Cancer came back in one person and a relative went to three funerals in one week, but didn’t realize the cause,” added another.
“Roundup is everywhere, including in corn syrup, which is used in candy and soda,” added another. “It is also sprayed on corn, wheat, oats, peanuts, beans, canola oil, and more.”
Be sure to check out the Stop Cancer Class, which is Landsman’s docu-class for avoiding and overcoming cancer, to learn more. (NOTE: This Stop Cancer affiliate link benefits and supports Brighteon.com.)
She explains that pharmaceutical companies usually conduct final drug trials on human patients and wait for adverse reactions and results before releasing a new treatment. They did not do this. “But we, the Canadian and U.S. public, were phase three of clinical trials. We very quickly started to see issues such as miscarriages and myocarditis. We’ve seen Guillaume Barré and Bells Palsy before with other vaccinations, but not at this level, not at this rate and intensity,” says Nodwell.
“I could see that there was only one road, one solution. It was a vaccine-only exit.” – Bethan Nodwell
In an interview with RAIR Foundation USA, one of the co-founders of Freedom Fighters Canada explains how she knew from the beginning that the covid scare was not what it was purported to be.
Bethan Nodwell, a nurse who formerly worked in a small hospital in rural Quebec, just a short drive from Ottawa, recounts the confusing early days of the pandemic. “Everything kept on changing,” she says. “It came in hard and furious. And when Trump suggested that hydroxychloroquine might work, there was immediate resistance. ‘No, it’s dangerous,’ we were told.” However, Nodwell knew hydroxychloroquine is used widely to treat lupus, arthritis, and other immune-compromised conditions. “We’ve given it to millions of children in Africa and India,” she says, noting its safety record. But her colleagues were unwilling to try. “It was all about waiting for the vaccine,” she recalls. “I could see that there was only one road, one solution. It was a vaccine-only exit.”
This raised red flags for Nodwell. “I found that odd as usual; we’d be using anything we could for therapeutics, for preventative, anything for post-infection.”
Nodwell quickly found that opinion turned against her. Called irresponsible and reckless, she declined to participate in phase three of the clinical trials of the mRNA shots. She explains that pharmaceutical companies usually conduct final drug trials on human patients and wait for adverse reactions and results before releasing a new treatment. They did not do this. “But we, the Canadian and U.S. public, were phase three of clinical trials. We very quickly started to see issues such as miscarriages and myocarditis. We’ve seen Guillaume Barré and Bells Palsy before with other vaccinations, but not at this level, not at this rate and intensity,” says Nodwell.
She also realized during the first lockdown the harm this was doing to vulnerable children. “I called the teachers at school and told them we had to get the children back into the classroom. It was dangerous for children in abusive environments. We also saw increased domestic abuse and violence in emergency rooms, women and children coming in terrible states. The lockdowns did formidable damage.”
Next came the masking. With her nursing expertise, Nodwell understood immediately that masking was ineffective. “If you really want to be protected, you’d need a hazmat suit,” she explains. “And yet, we watched everyone get involved with the Kabuki theatre, participate, believe, and chastise those who weren’t enrolled.”
As the inefficacy of vaccines and their dangerous side effects become more widely reported, the resistance to vaccine mandates and booster shots worldwide appears to be growing. Denmark has banned the shots for those under 18 and the U.K. for those 11 and under. However, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau seems to have missed the memo on the scientific evidence and continues to drive Canadians of all ages towards them. This poses a problem for Freedom Fighters Canada, says Nodwell, because there are now so many threats to our personal freedoms. “Are we going to focus on the vaccines, focus on the digital I.D.’s, on transhumanism, on inflation,” she asks. “We are being attacked on so many fronts.”
Thanks to the colossal failure of Canada’s ArriveCAN app in airports, the issue of digital I.D. has focused many people’s attention on the issue. “We hope that more and more people don’t comply,” says Nodwell. “Because digital I.D.’s tie into a social credit system. There are so many hints of what is to come. It’s very disconcerting.”
Miranda Sellick
Miranda Sellick has been a journalist for more than 25 years. She has worked for newspapers in the U.K. and Canada and is the author of two books. She was aware that the covid play was not what it appeared to be very soon after it was unleashed on the world.
On Monday, Aug. 23, Chris Amyotte, a 42-year-old father of seven, died after Vancouver police shot him six times with a bean bag gun.
This death was preventable and the result of an act of police violence. This was not the first time a person asking for help died at the hands of police in Canada.
My guess is that we are being depopulated with chemtrails, fake food, fake medicine, fake media, way too much stress, big pharma, fake politics, fake reality, bio-weapons, and more. Lou
Researchers report dramatic rise in cancer in people under 50
But a novel pathogen that causes mutlisystem inflammation and immune system exhaustion massive is not hypothesized for involvement?
“If we carefully analyze each aspect of ‘world war’ on COVID-19, we can see how each tactic and high-tech ‘weapon’ has harmed human health, destabilized civil society, and possibly disrupted the ecological balance between the human population and the virus, while enriching private interests and empowering financially captured government regulators.”
August 17, 2022, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky publicly admitted the agency’s COVID response “fell short,” and that an internal reorganization has been launched to improve response times and data sharing, and to make health guidance easier to understand. Six days before this announcement, the CDC published updated COVID guidance, now matching what “misinformation spreaders” have called for all along
The vow to revamp fails to take into account the real reasons why people no longer trust the CDC, namely their dishonesty, their suppression of science that doesn’t fit the Great Reset narrative, and their protection of Big Pharma at the expense of American lives, including children and pregnant women
Despite widespread failures and blatant corruption within the CDC, the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration, the Health and Human Services’ (HHS) is asking for a bigger budget. Its proposed budget for 2023 is $1.7 TRILLION in mandatory spending and another $127.3 BILLION in discretionary spending
Of those budgeted trillions, the CDC will in 2023 receive about 1% of the HHS budget, or $10.6 billion — $2.3 billion more than its 2022 appropriation — and this includes “mandatory funding to establish a Vaccines for Adults program”
The CDC being wrong on everything about the pandemic — and taking two and a half years to admit even a fraction of it — is proof positive that centralizing health care decisions is a bad idea. Ideally, all that HHS money should be divided among the states. We’d be far better off with local community programs handling current HHS services — including pandemic response
*
After botching the COVID response in every possible and improbable way, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now wants more money — and more power.
August 17, 2022, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky publicly admitted the agency’s COVID response “fell short,” and that an internal reorganization has been launched to improve response times and data sharing, and to make health guidance easier to understand.1,2
“My goal is a new, public health action-oriented culture at CDC that emphasizes accountability, collaboration, communication, and timeliness,” Walensky said in a statement.
The problem is that reorganization will not fix the foundational problem, which is that the CDC can’t seem to quit protecting Big Pharma the expense of public health. Americans have lost faith in the CDC for the simple reason that it’s been lying to us day in and day out for two and a half years.
They’ve flouted basic rules and regulations, they’ve redefined well-established medical terms to suit the chosen narrative, they’ve made recommendations without scientific support while telling us to “trust the science.” They’ve completely ignored massive, unprecedented safety signals for both the COVID jabs and remdesivir, flatly refusing to answer questions about the mounting deaths and injuries from these drugs.
They’ve refused to take into account other public health parameters such as suicides and alcoholism caused by lockdowns, and deaths due to lack of treatment for chronic conditions such as heart disease, diabetes and cancer. They’re also refusing to address what is clearly deteriorating immune function among the COVID-jabbed. The list goes on.
What’s more, she admitted her source for the “95% effective” claim was a CNN report (which in turn pulled its information directly from a Pfizer press release). That’s the level of data gathering for decision making we’re dealing with here.
I guess that’s what happens when the vast majority of CDC employees, including Walensky herself, work from home for years on end. Considering Walensky STILL works from home to this day,3,4 one also wonders how effective these supposed reorganization efforts can actually be.
The CDC is a wholly captured agency, beholden to Big Pharma, and as long as a single decision maker remains, they can reorganize and restructure to their hearts’ content. It won’t change a thing. As noted by The Defender,5 the CDC needs to be replaced with “a public health model that operates independently from Big Pharma.”
Health and Human Services to Get $1.7 Trillion
Failures and ineptitudes be damned, the Health and Human Services’ (HHS) proposed budget6 for 2023 is now an eye-popping $1.7 TRILLION in mandatory spending (up from 1.5 trillion in 20227), and another $127.3 BILLION in discretionary spending (down from 131.8 billion in 20228).
Operating divisions9 under the HHS include not only the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration, but also the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid and several others. In total, the HHS employs some 80,000 people.10
Of those budgeted trillions, the CDC will in 2023 receive 1% of the HHS budget or $10.6 billion11 — $2.3 billion more than its 2022 appropriation — and this includes “mandatory funding to establish a Vaccines for Adults program.”
Yet with all that supposed brain power and money, what exactly do they accomplish? I would argue “precious little,” and the CDC’s COVID response is a perfect example of how our taxpayer funds are being wasted on advice that range from bad to worse.
The problem with concentrated power is that it gets corrupted. After 69 years, it seems the HHS is finally entering its death throes, as corruption within many of its operating divisions is now shockingly blatant.
The same goes for the World Health Organization. Incidentally, its biannual budget for 2022-2023 of $6.7 billion12 is dwarfed by the HHS budget. Still, the WHO is now seeking to gain control over health decisions globally. I explain why this is such a horrendous and unworkable idea in “The WHO Is a Corrupt, Unhealthy Organization.”
The CDC being wrong on everything about the pandemic, and taking two and a half years to admit even a fraction of it, is proof positive that centralizing health care decisions is a bad idea. Ideally, all that money should be divided among the states. We’d be far better off with local community programs handling current HHS services — including pandemic response.
CDC’s Botched Test Kits
The errors of the CDC are too numerous to recount in a single article, but let’s take a look at one of the doozies, namely its botched COVID test. As reported by HealthDay reporters Robert Preidt and Robin Foster, back in December 2021:13
“Along with being contaminated, there was also a basic design flaw in COVID-19 testing kits created by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention early in the pandemic, a new agency review shows.
It was already known that the PCR kits were contaminated, but the CDC’s findings published Wednesday in the journal PLOS ONE14 are the first to note a design error that caused false positives.
When the CDC’s test kits were developed and distributed in the early weeks of the pandemic, there were no other authorized tests available … The agency started shipping the test kits to public health laboratories in early February 2020, but many labs soon told the CDC that the tests were producing inconclusive results.
The CDC acknowledged later that month that the kits were flawed, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration officials said in April that poor manufacturing practices had caused contamination of the kits …”
So, the tests had not just one but two problems. First, they were contaminated with synthetic fragments, sequences of genetic material from the virus that are used to ensure the test is working properly. These synthetic sequences are thought to have contaminated the kits during quality testing, as they were being manufactured in the same CDC lab where quality testing took place.
Secondly, the CDC failed to catch a serious design flaw. The test was designed to detect the presence of three specific genetic regions or sequences of the virus. The test kit included a set of primers that bound to and made copies of those regions (when they were present in the patient, indicating exposure to the virus), as well as probes that fluoresced to signal that copying was taking place.
To work properly, these primers and probes had to bind to the genetic sequences, but not to each other. Here, one of the probes had a tendency to bind to one of the primers, thereby triggering a fluorescent signal, suggesting a positive result. This is how the test ended up producing an unacceptable number of false positives.
Eventually, smaller private companies ended up providing most of the PCR tests — without encountering these contamination and design flaw problems. The fact that the PCR test cannot identify an active infection and were used to create a false “casedemic” is another story, which we’ve covered multiple times. Here too, the CDC displayed shocking dishonesty, alternatively hiding and manipulating data to make the pandemic out to be something it really wasn’t.
They also recommended mask wearing despite overwhelming scientific evidence showing masks don’t prevent the spread of viruses. Time and again, CDC leadership made public health decisions on what appears to have been nothing more than assumption, personal opinion or fear — and that’s if you’re kind enough to exclude the possibility of fraud and collusion to benefit Big Pharma and the globalist Great Reset agenda.
Did HHS Create the Problem?
As mentioned, the HHS runs the NIH and CDC, both of which are implicated in the creation of SARS-CoV-2. So, basically, the same circle of people who may have created the problem are also in charge of solving it and providing a cure.
We’ve already seen how “effective” they’ve been in that regard. They’ve devastated public health with useless lockdowns, mask mandates and social distancing, and killed an as-yet undetermined but extraordinarily high number of people with improper, dangerous and experimental treatments.
As noted in “Why the COVID Jab Should Be Banned for Pregnant Women,” the CDC to this day insists pregnant women get the COVID shot,15 despite trial data suggesting it may cause miscarriage in 8 out of 10 cases.16,17,18 Will reorganization eventually correct this murderous advice?
In an August 2, 2022, Current Affairs interview,19 professor Jeffrey Sachs, chair of The Lancet’s COVID-19 Commission, said he believes the U.S. government is preventing a thorough investigation into the origin of the pandemic, for the simple reason that the virus was the result of U.S. research. Indeed, there are patents spanning decades to suggest that’s true (see “Patents Prove SARS-CoV-2 Is a Manufactured Virus”).
If our very worst suspicions are true, then the U.S. government funded not only one bioweapon but two — the original SARS-CoV-2 and the gene transfer injections misrepresented as “COVID vaccines.” And the HHS divisions of the FDA and CDC went along with all of it, not even pausing at the possibility of killing or injuring 6-month-old infants and toddlers.
Waging War on Pathogens Is a Failed Strategy
In an August 10, 2022, Brownstone Institute article, Aaron Vandiver, a wildlife conservationist, writer and former litigator, reviews why the global war on pathogens is a failed strategy that needs to end:20
“Bill Gates has called the global response to COVID-19 a ‘world war.’ His militaristic language has been echoed by Anthony Fauci and other architects of COVID-19 policy for the last two and half years … I believe that an ecological perspective reveals many of the flaws inherent in an aggressive high-tech attack on a pathogen…
To me, the ‘war’ on COVID-19 has been characterized by a destructive set of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that appear to be deeply engrained in our political and economic institutions, and which form a pattern that should be recognizable to conservationists and ecologists.
1. Aggressive intervention in complex natural processes using new, poorly understood technologies designed to achieve narrowly defined short-term goals, with disregard for the potential long-term ramifications;
2. Profiteering by private interests that own the technologies, enabled by government entities and ‘experts’ that have been financially captured by those interests;
3. Followed by a cascade of unintended consequences.”
In the remainder of the article,21 Vandiver goes into several aggressive and destructive COVID interventions in greater detail — and their consequences. I recommend reading through it.
Importantly, when we go to war against pathogens, we go to war against ourselves, because without pathogens we cannot exist. The key to health is balanced co-existence with bacteria, viruses and other pathogens, which exist by the trillions in and on our bodies.
The Twisted Logic Behind Gain-of-Function Research
Vandiver, like Sachs, also points out that gain-of-function research funded by the NIH appears to be the most logical and most heavily supported theory as to the origin of the pandemic, and that denial of the lab leak theory is underpinned by reckless scientists unwilling to recognize the risks inherent in their work.
“Most fail to realize that Fauci and other proponents of ‘gain of function’ have long shown reckless disregard for the risks of tampering with natural viruses, expressing a paranoid attitude toward nature that is the antithesis of respect for ecology,” Vandiver writes.
“Fauci and others claim that ‘Mother Nature Is the Ultimate Bioterrorist’ to justify their Frankenstein-like efforts to hunt down the most dangerous viruses that exist in wild nature, take them to labs like the one in Wuhan, and tinker around with them to make them more dangerous and deadly.
Their twisted logic seems to be that if they intentionally create superviruses, they can somehow anticipate and prepare for natural pandemics. Most objective observers, however, say that ‘gain of function’ is a military-industrial boondoggle that has no practical benefit whatsoever and dramatically increases the risk of pandemics …
It remains inconclusive whether ‘gain of function’ research actually caused the COVID-19 pandemic, but its potential to have done so is a vivid example of how powerful actors like Fauci use technological tools to interfere with natural processes, with disregard if not outright contempt for the long-term ecological consequences, thereby creating opportunities to exercise more power.”
In conclusion, Vandiver notes:22
“If we carefully analyze each aspect of ‘world war’ on COVID-19, we can see how each tactic and high-tech ‘weapon’ has harmed human health, destabilized civil society, and possibly disrupted the ecological balance between the human population and the virus, while enriching private interests and empowering financially captured government regulators.
The ‘war’ has been characterized the distinct pattern that I described at the beginning of this essay … This destructive pattern appears to be deeply ingrained in our institutions and in the outlook of our leaders. It largely defines our society’s dysfunctional relationship with the natural world.
An ecological perspective that keeps this pattern in mind, and takes into account all of the consequences of launching high-tech ‘wars’ on pathogens or any other part of our environment may help us avoid similar catastrophes in the future, or at least to recognize them.”
Death by Medicine
In “Are Medical Errors Still the Third Leading Cause of Death?” I review the now decades-long history of modern medicine being a leading cause of death, at times spinning up to take first place, and rarely dipping below fourth. Several studies and investigations over the years have placed medicine and medical errors as the third leading cause of death in the U.S.
The pandemic has revealed just how dangerous it is to listen to dog whistles like “trust the science.” Which science? The one Big Pharma concocts to make money or the one that double checks and investigates claims independently?
The CDC’s COVID policies were all wrong — consistently 180 degrees from helpful — and have only recently been updated23 to match what all of us “misinformation spreaders” have been saying for well over two years. That update was published August 11, just six days before Walensky announced the CDC’s reorganization plans.
I’m not buying the idea that the CDC suddenly realized it was going in the wrong direction. They knew it from the start, and they did it intentionally. I suspect they’re only now starting to course correct because mainstream media are losing its grip on the public.
Mainstream media were their cover for every obnoxious, unscientific recommendation, and without that brainwashing arm, the CDC has no way to turn but back. Like Dr. Anthony Fauci, they probably realize that the political tide is turning, people are fed up with the “1984” double-speak, and if Republicans take the House in November, the CDC could well be facing any number of investigations.
Senators Promise Investigations
August 23, 2022, two U.S. senators promised a “full-throated investigation” of Fauci’s and former NIH-chief Francis Collins’ potential roles in the origin of the pandemic, and issued a formal request for the HHS and NIH to preserve documents and communications.24
Leadership at the CDC and FDA also need to be investigated and questioned about the ins and outs of their decision making. Not that I think they’ll ever admit to “working for the devil,” meaning the Deep State cabal that is using COVID as a cover for a global takeover, but there needs to be a reckoning nonetheless.
Those willing to sacrifice the lives, futures and Constitutional rights of Americans on behalf of these transhumanist psychopaths need to be ruthlessly weeded out. And then, we need to implement new public health systems, perhaps new agencies, with powers that are more limited in scope and state-run rather than federal.
Never, ever, should an agency like the CDC be allowed to ban doctors from treating patients, for example, based on their own expertise and experience. What has happened during this pandemic, and is still happening, is a true crime against humanity. We must never forget how health officials, government officials, media and other influencers tried to foment hatred against the unvaccinated, and how they’ve been willing to discriminate to the point of death.
The CDC has now backtracked on discrimination, agreeing people should not be treated based on their vaccination status. But we remember the calls for “re-education camps” and no-fly lists. Backtracking is not going to erase the attempts to destroy the lives of those who refused to play their Russian roulette.
I, for one, would love to hear the CDC explain why they have ignored the blaring safety signal of nearly 1.3 MILLION reports of COVID jab injuries in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).25 Wouldn’t you?
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
A brave nurse named Sue Evans blew the whistle on this monstrosity back in 2005. Over time, whistleblowers, doctors, nurses, journalists, reporters, parents and patients were able to expose the clinic for pushing trans-activism, not evidence-based medicine.
This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author
According to the Gender Mapping Project, in America there are now over 200 gender-bending clinics that prey on children, enabling gender delusions and allowing mass castration of youth. Just a decade ago, there were only ten of these clinics in America. This predatory industry continues to expand its violence toward youth, unchallenged.
However, in London, something big just went down, a move that will shake trans-activism to its core. The National Health Service (NHS) just shut down one of the most aggressive gender-bending youth clinics in the world, and all gender mutilations of children must cease operations there by 2023.
Trans activists infiltrate mental health clinics and gag psychotherapists to take youth down a dark and destructive path
For nearly two decades, the prestigious Tavistock Centre in London, England accepted youth mental health patients who struggled with gender dysphoria. Fifteen years ago, the center specialized in therapy — listening to patients and talking through their problems. Drugs were a last resort. However, over the years, the clinic began taking a hasty, one-size-fits-all approach to dealing with gender dysphoria, pushing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones on youth, while encouraging identity delusions and the total mutilation of the child’s genitalia. At its peak in 2019, the clinic was getting 3,000 referrals a year to further confuse and castrate all youth that walked through the doors.
Puberty blockers are medically described as gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists. These drugs suppress the further development of secondary-sex characteristics like breast tissue in females or facial hair in males. Cross-sex hormones refer to the use of: testosterone in females who want to pretend they were born male, and estrogen for males who want to pretend they were born female.
Forcing hormone therapies on youth is NOT “trans rights.” This is a perverted attack on human anatomy, a macabre form of child abuse; a predatory, sexually abusive experiment. Over the years, this is exactly what the Tavistock Center had become, a conveyor-belt for transgenderism. The center allowed trans activists to infiltrate the clinic and prey upon the mental, physical, emotional and spiritual struggles presented by troubled and confused youth. Psychotherapy was replaced with trans activism that forced clinicians to accept all delusions of gender and mandatory cross-sex hormonal treatments.
Brave nurse exposes predatory youth castration operation at prestigious Tavistock Centre in London
A brave nurse named Sue Evans blew the whistle on this monstrosity back in 2005. Over time, whistleblowers, doctors, nurses, journalists, reporters, parents and patients were able to expose the clinic for pushing trans-activism, not evidence-based medicine. As a senior clinical lecturer, Sue created and delivered psychotherapy training courses for the staff. She ultimately went on to serve in the Gender Identity Development Service, where she and a team of seven clinicians oversaw approximately 100 cases a year– mostly boys – who believed they were born in the wrong body. She reports that her colleagues were quick to prescribe puberty blockers and cross sex hormones without getting a basic understanding of the child’s internal world. “I knew from my experience in working with adolescents that any diagnostic assessment arrived at after such a short time span would have been superficial,” she wrote.
Sue also said that senior clinicians would regularly meet with a transgender patient-advocacy group called Mermaids. “As time progressed, it seemed clear that groups like Mermaids were exerting influence over doctors and clinicians in the service—sometimes dictating the expectations of care for our patients,” she warned.
The clinic started adopting policies that forced clinicians to use gender pronouns that the patients preferred. Sue remembers being threatened with litigation if she did not go along with the delusions. She said, as a mental health care professional, it didn’t matter whether she had legitimate questions. It didn’t matter whether she questioned the appropriateness of the treatment that the patients were demanding. She had to give in to their mental illness and go along with their desires for gender delusion, hormonal castration and genital mutilation. The clinicians were no longer allowed to think of gender dysphoria as a mental illness.
Sue contends that services for youth should be more holistic, taking into consideration the whole child, and adopt better clinical standards, not activism aimed at destroying their physiology and anatomy. Read the whole story on how the how Tavistock’s gender-bending youth castration operation came tumbling down…
Today, trans-activists and predatory ilk go online in chat groups to prey on youth and encourage them to denounce their upbringing, their family, and the reality of who they truly are. These trans-activists prey on youth — their feelings, curiosities, insecurities, sexual desires — so they will give in to experimental thoughts, pornography addictions, gender transitions, genital mutilation, etc. These predatory acts are done to coerce youth to accept a fictitious new identity, to tear them away from their family, their faith and their true identity.
As technocracy and transhumanism have risen to the fore, they have brought with them their own form of science — “scientism” — which is basically the religion of science. In other words, it’s a belief even in the absence of evidence, or in the face of contrary evidence, and this is a very serious problem
The clearest problem with the admonition to “believe the science” is that bona fide experts are found on all sides of any given empirical question
The scientific priesthood is intolerant to new ideas while, simultaneously, search engines and digitization of scientific literature have eroded their authority as gatekeepers of knowledge
The way things look right now, the gatekeepers to the scientific priesthood don’t seem to have any intention to open its doors to outsiders and independent thinkers. If anything, they’re trying to massively increase their control over the information we’re allowed to see and share, even to the point of proposing the creation of certifying boards to police physicians’ sharing of medical opinions
The idea that a group of people can be the sole arbiters of “truth” is irrational. Individual biases always creep in, and the greater the influence of such a group, the more ingrained and dogmatic those biases will become, until the system is corrupted to the core. One could argue that dogmatic faith in nonexistent scientific consensuses is the reason for why we are where we are today
*
Science has long been regarded as a stronghold of logic and reason. Scientists don’t draw conclusions based on emotions, feelings or sheer faith. It’s all about building a body of reproducible evidence. Well, that’s what it used to be, but as technocracy and transhumanism have risen to the fore, it has brought with it its own form of science — “scientism” — which is basically the religion of science. Sheldon Richman with The Libertarian Institute writes:1
“The popular slogan today is ‘Believe in science.’ It’s often used as a weapon against people who reject not science in principle but rather one or another prominent scientific proposition, whether it be about the COVID-19 vaccine, climate change … to mention a few …
The clearest problem with the admonition to ‘believe in science’ is that … well-credentialed scientists — that is, bona fide experts — are found on both (or all) sides of a given empirical question … Moreover, no one, not even scientists, are immune from group-think and confirmation bias …
Apparently, under the believers’ model of science, truth comes down from a secular Mount Sinai (Mount Science?) thanks to a set of anointed scientists, and those declarations are not to be questioned. The dissenters can be ignored because they are outside the elect. How did the elect achieve its exalted station? Often, but not always, it was through the political process …
But that’s not science; it’s religion, or at least it’s the stereotype of religion that the ‘science believers’ oppose in the name of enlightenment. What it yields is dogma and, in effect, accusations of heresy. In real science, no elect and no Mount Science exists.
Real science is a rough-and-tumble process of hypothesizing, public testing, attempted replication, theory formation, dissent and rebuttal, refutation (perhaps), revision (perhaps), and confirmation (perhaps). It’s an unending process, as it obviously must be …
The institutional power to declare matters settled by consensus opens the door to all kinds of mischief that violate the spirit of science and potentially harm the public financially and otherwise.”
Technocracy News also added a comment2 to Richman’s article, noting that “Scientism is at the root of both technocracy and transhumanism, indicating that the revolution waged against the world is religious in nature.”
Whether the war against humanity is truly underpinned by religion or not is open for debate and interpretation. But what is clear is that something has shifted science away from its conventional foundation into something that very much resembles religious faith. In other words, it’s a belief even in the absence of evidence, or in the face of contrary evidence, and this is a very serious problem.
Scientific Gatekeeping as a Priesthood
In “Against Scientific Gatekeeping,”3 published in the May 2022 issue of Reason magazine, Dr. Jeffrey Singer argues that “science should be a profession, not a priesthood.” Indeed, yet that’s basically what it has become. Singer starts out by reviewing the early discovery of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment against COVID-19, and the subsequent demonization of anyone who supported its off-label use.
He then goes on to discuss the scientific priesthood’s intolerance to new ideas while, simultaneously, “search engines and the digitization of scientific literature have forever eroded their authority as gatekeepers of knowledge.” He writes:4
“Most people prefer experts, of course, especially when it comes to health care … But a problem arises when some of those experts exert outsized influence over the opinions of other experts and thereby establish an orthodoxy enforced by a priesthood. If anyone, expert or otherwise, questions the orthodoxy, they commit heresy. The result is groupthink, which undermines the scientific process.
The COVID-19 pandemic provided many examples. Most medical scientists, for instance, uncritically accepted the epidemiological pronouncements of government-affiliated physicians who were not epidemiologists. At the same time, they dismissed epidemiologists as ‘fringe’ when those specialists dared to question the conventional wisdom …
The deference to government-endorsed positions is probably related to funding … President Dwight Eisenhower … warned that ‘we should be alert to the … danger that public policy could itself become captive of a scientific technological elite.’ Today we face both problems …
It is easy to understand why the scientific priesthood views the democratization of health care opinions as a threat to its authority and influence. In response, medical experts typically wave the flag of credentialism: If you don’t have an M.D. or another relevant advanced degree, they suggest, you should shut up and do as you’re told.
But credentials are not always proof of competence, and relying on them can lead to the automatic rejection of valuable insights … Scott Atlas, a former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford Medical School, has published and critically reviewed hundreds of medical research papers. He is a member of the Nominating Committee for the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology.
Yet when Atlas commented on COVID-19 issues, the priesthood and its journalistic entourage derided him because he is ‘not an infectious disease expert’ — as if a 30-year career in academic medicine does not provide enough background to understand and analyze public health data. Why? Because this physician had the temerity to contradict the public health establishment.”
The Need to Reassess Dogmatic Thinking
Singer reviews several other examples of bonafide experts who got thrown under the proverbial bus by the medical priesthood during the years of COVID, and highlights instances where we can now, rather conclusively, prove that public health officials made bad calls.
Several studies have concluded that lockdowns had no beneficial impact on infection rates and COVID deaths, for example, while disproportionally harming the young and the poor. Yet no one has publicly admitted this strategy was an unwise one that should be permanently abandoned and never repeated.
Many studies have also demonstrated that natural immunity is better than the COVID jab, yet no changes have been made to the official recommendation to inject everyone, whether COVID recovered or not.
“Just as public health officials must abandon a ‘zero COVID’ strategy and accept that the virus will be endemic, the science priesthood must adapt to a world where specialized knowledge has been democratized,” Singer writes.5
“For scientific knowledge to advance, scientists must reach a rapprochement with the uncredentialed. They must not dismiss lay hypotheses or observations out of hand. They must fight against the understandable desire to avoid any hypothesis that might upset the health bureaucrats who control billions of research grant dollars.
It is always useful to challenge and reassess long-held premises and dogmas. People outside of a field might provide valuable perspectives that can be missed by those within it.”
Effort to Muzzle Doctors Continues
The way things look right now, the gatekeepers to the scientific priesthood don’t seem to have any intention to open its doors to outsiders and independent thinkers.
If anything, they’re trying to massively increase their control over the information we’re allowed to see and share, even to the point of proposing the creation of private medical certifying boards to police physicians’ sharing of medical opinions online and elsewhere. In a May 31, 2022, Substack article, independent medical journalist Paul Thacker writes:6
“This of course, is laughable. We have plenty of evidence that medical boards are incapable of regulating physician behavior simply by looking at the history of drug scandals in America, none of which could have occurred without the complicity of corrupt doctors — few if any of whom were later sanctioned by their own profession.
Anyone notice a medical board going after Duke University’s Dr. Ralph Snyderman for aiding the Sacklers’ opioid scheme and helping spread disinformation that these highly addictive drugs are NOT … highly addictive?
Of course not. Snyderman built up Duke University into the 3rd most prestigious medical school in the States. Despite spreading disinformation about opioids that killed tens of thousands of Americans, he’s obviously a great doctor …
Oddly enough, one of the most prolific tweeters on COVID-19 vaccines is Baylor University’s Dr. Peter Hotez. And while Hotez has spread disinformation about vaccines — in one example, stating that vaccines mandates were never going to happen and were just a dog whistle by anti-vaccine groups — don’t expect any state medical board to come after him.
The reality is that, during the pandemic, the medical profession has become cheerleaders for vaccines, not skeptics. So when a couple MDs write an essay in the NEJM saying we need to confront COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, you automatically know they don’t mean someone like Hotez who has tweeted vaccine misinformation, but who has also religiously promoted COVID-19 vaccines.”
Thacker goes on to detail the history of Dr. Edward Michna, who has spent a large portion of his career promoting and defending the use of opioids for several different drug companies. He’s also conducted several pain trials involving opioids, and despite having received many tens of thousands of dollars from opioid makers, he didn’t disclose those competing interests.
“In coming months, documents will be released, further explaining what the opioid manufacturers did. But nothing … NOTHING will happen to Dr. Edward Michna for defending these companies,” Thacker writes.7 “That’s why nobody should believe … the idea that doctors can regulate doctors. Doctors have had forever to do this, and they continually fail.”
Without Free Discourse, Science Dies
It seems the moral of all these stories is that without free discourse, science cannot flourish and falsehoods become harder to weed out. Free speech is a requirement for any well-functioning system, whether we’re talking about politics, medicine, science or anything else.One could argue that dogmatic faith in nonexistent scientific consensuses is the reason for why we are where we are today. Gatekeepers to the scientific priesthood have already allowed science to be corrupted to the point its barely recognizable. The answer, then, is not more of the same, but less.
The idea that a group of people, no matter how well-intended, can be the sole arbiters of “truth” is irrational on its face, because who among us can claim to know all there is to know? Individual biases always creep in, and the greater the influence of such a group, the more ingrained and dogmatic those biases will become, until the system is corrupted to the core.
One could argue that dogmatic faith in nonexistent scientific consensuses is the reason for why we are where we are today. Gatekeepers to the scientific priesthood have already allowed science to be corrupted to the point its barely recognizable. The answer, then, is not more of the same, but less. We need less censorship and more open-minded sharing of viewpoints, opinions and interpretations.
And when it comes to creating medical boards to police medical “misinformation” shared by doctors, we already know how that would work out. While Thacker doesn’t mention this, many doctors have been targeted by various professional boards, including state medical boards, for publicly opposing COVID measures such as mask and COVID shot mandates. I discussed this in “Medical Boards Hunting Down Doctors Over Mask Mandates.”
Transforming the Health Care System
In his book, “Curable: How an Unlikely Group of Radical Innovators Is Trying to Transform Our Health Care System,” Travis Christofferson addresses questions such as: “What has happened to American health care?” and “What are the foundational disruptions or corruptions in the system?”
His book, in some ways, is based on the theory promoted in Michael Lewis’ book and subsequent film, “Moneyball.” It describes how you can use statistics to massively improve a flawed system.
“Moneyball” showed how, within a simple game of baseball, you can have massive inefficiencies, and by taking away the human biases and just applying statistics to find what is undervalued, you can massively boost the performance of a team.
When I interviewed Christofferson about his book, he offered several examples of how statistics and removal of human biases can be used in the same way to improve inefficiencies within the medical system. For example, the diabetic drug metformin has “massive repositories of data” suggesting it can be useful against a plethora of chronic diseases, including cancer, and it’s extremely affordable.
The reason it’s rarely prescribed for any of these other indications is because there’s a financial motivation to capitalize on more expensive treatments, even if they don’t work well. By focusing on undervalued treatments and low-cost prevention, health care costs could be driven way down, while simultaneously improving patient outcomes.
Another example comes from Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania. By introducing a Fresh Food Farmacy for Type 2 diabetics, Geisinger Health was able to reduce its per-year outlays and cost for Type 2 diabetics by a whopping 80%. Patients with prediabetes or Type 2 diabetes are given a prescription for fresh, whole foods, and allowed two free meals a day from the Farmacy, along with intensive care and educational support.
A third example is Intermountain Health. In addition to paying its doctors a fixed salary plus bonuses based on patients’ health outcomes, they also assess differences between treatments to see which works best.
For example, patients are always given antibiotics before surgery, but it’s never been established when the optimal time to administer the drugs is. Intermountain compared medical records, finding the optimal time was two hours before surgery, which cut their surgical infection rate by more than half.
Bias Corrupts and Corruption Is Inherently Destructive
These are all examples of how we can effectively and efficiently move medicine forward. By silencing debate and discussion, and by ignoring data and statistics, which has become the norm in this COVID era, the conventional health care system is headed for collapse.
This seems particularly true when you consider hospitals have, over the past two years, completely shredded patients’ trust by mistreating and outright killing COVID-19 patients with the most dangerous treatments available. Rather than collaborating with peers, most doctors have blindly followed financially-driven and politically biased protocols handed down from the reigning “priesthood,” and the results have been nothing short of disastrous.
Speaking of disastrous, California has introduced a bill8 that will strip doctors of their medical licenses if they express medical views that the state does not agree with, basically reducing medicine to a state-sanctioned one-size-fits-all endeavor. Absolutely nothing good can come of such a plan. I discussed this in “Bill Seeks to Muzzle Doctors Who Tell the Truth About COVID.”
This bill, AB-2098, was passed by House vote (53 to 20), May 26, 2022, and is currently in the Senate.9 If this law is passed in California, we will probably begin to see similar or identical bills introduced in other states as well.
If your trust in doctors has already waned, implementation of such a law is sure to carpet bomb whatever trust is left into oblivion, because all you’ll be able to get, no matter who you go to, is the state-sponsored opinion. What happens then? How do we care for our health if our doctors are legally prevented from giving us their best advice? This is such a radical departure from sanity and sound practice that it’s hard to even imagine what medicine will look like at that point.
The answer, I believe, will be for good, caring medical professionals to start building parallel health care systems, such as those detailed in Christofferson’s book, “Curable.” We may also have to take on greater responsibility for finding solutions to our own health problems. “Take control of your health” has been my motto and tagline since I started this website, but it’s more important now than ever.
In years past, one of the greatest risks a patient faced was a doctor lacking nutritional know-how. In the future, the greatest risk could be doctors outright lying to you, even to the point of sending you to a more or less certain death, just to stay in practice. I hope it won’t come to that. But prevent it, we must resist and oppose these kinds of treacherous plots wherever and whenever they crop up.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
While the Free Market Medical Association [FMMA] is made up of buyers, sellers, and intermediaries, we decided this year to focus primarily on buyers. That decision inspired the remarks I’ll make today. We have always believed that the growth of this movement hinged on an empowered, enlightened, and red-pilled buyer. The seller’s then forced to accommodate buyer preferences.
In spite of the claims of the woke Left, a failure of the free market is not to blame for the disaster known as the American healthcare system. It is precisely the opposite. The disastrous part is thanks to the government intervention and interference that has prevented the market from working its magic. The absence of an unfettered market is to blame. How do we know this? We know this because in every other industry, a free market leads to higher quality and lower prices. We know this because once upon a time, not that long ago, affordable high-quality care was the rule, at least until big government entered the scene. We also know this because the movement started by this organization has spread, and everywhere it goes, it brings higher quality and lower prices.
But what exactly does it mean to say market discipline is absent? To answer this question is the key, I believe, to discovering the path to the high quality and affordability that only a free market can provide.
In short, market discipline is weak or absent to the extent that the buyer has been placed at a disadvantage. Government is to blame for the weakened bargaining position of the buyer, as the predatory state’s primary business is to sell favors to the sellers. Indeed, the government at all levels has been busy selling favors to industry big shots, and every favor sold weakens the influence and choices the buyer has in the marketplace. This is why Dr. Per Bylund refers to government regulations as choice restrictions. While this all sounds like common sense, I think a granular look at the buyer-seller relationship will yield some useful insights, particularly the importance of the buyer’s role and the hazard of placing too much importance on the seller’s role in this industry.
What did Ludwig von Mises have to say about the role of the buyer in an exchange? In his brilliant 1944 book titled Bureaucracy, he said:
The capitalists, the enterprisers, and the farmers are instrumental in the conduct of economic affairs. They are at the helm and steer the ship. But they are not free to shape its course. They are not supreme, they are steersmen only, bound to obey unconditionally the captain’s orders. The captain is the consumer.
The real bosses [under capitalism] are the consumers. They, by their buying and by their abstention from buying, decide who should own the capital and run the plants. They determine what should be produced and in what quantity and quality. Their attitudes result either in profit or in loss for the enterpriser. They make poor men rich and rich men poor. They are no easy bosses. They are full of whims and fancies, changeable and unpredictable. They do not care a whit for past merit. As soon as something is offered to them that they like better or is cheaper, they desert their old purveyors.
This, of course, is what the cartel has worked so hard to change. Without question, hospitals and their industry pals have bribed legislators and bureaucrats to avoid the same competitive market discipline that made the economic miracle of this country the envy of the world. For this reason, we must always focus on the consumer’s interests and completely discount any poor-mouthing claims of the sellers, claims which give cover to the dysfunctional arrangement we now endure.
Let’s go back even further, to the nineteenth century, when French economic Frédéric Bastiat penned his famous satirical essay “The Candlemakers’ Petition” in 1845. Here’s what he had to say about giving the seller the advantage over the buyer:
We are suffering from the intolerable competition of a foreign rival, placed, it would seem, in a condition so far superior to ours for the production of light that he absolutely inundates our national market with it at a price fabulously reduced. The moment he shows himself, our trade leaves us—all consumers apply to him; and a branch of native industry, having countless ramifications, is all at once rendered completely stagnant. This rival, who is none other than the sun, wages war mercilessly against us….
What we pray for is that it may please you to pass a law ordering the shutting up of all windows, skylights, dormer-windows, outside and inside shutters, curtains, blinds, bull’s-eyes; in a word, of all openings, holes, chinks, clefts, and fissures, by or through which the light of the sun has been in use to enter houses, to the prejudice of the meritorious manufactures with which we flatter ourselves that we have accommodated our country—a country that, in gratitude, ought not to abandon us now to a strife so unequal.
Mises and Bastiat knew full well what would happen if the buyer was placed at a disadvantage, whatever excuse the sellers or producers used.
Before I continue, we should distinguish between mutually beneficial exchange and a zero-sum, or leveraged, exchange. Always remember that the buyer and seller never voluntarily come together to exchange unless it is to the advantage of both. The seller of the milk values three dollars more than his milk, and the buyer values the milk more than his three dollars. Both parties emerge from the transaction improved from their prior position. A zero-sum exchange, in contrast, is where one party wins at the other’s expense. In this type of exchange, the buyer or the seller is victimized by the other party. This is the business model of government, and this is the business model of the medical cronies government enables. Think predator and prey. Think of yourself as clean sheets and the cronies as Amber Heard.
While there are two methods of exchange, there are two types of buyers: legitimate and illegitimate. A legitimate buyer respects mutually beneficial exchange and is represented by individual patients and any others who work as a good-faith proxy on an individual’s behalf, whether a self-funded plan or a cost-sharing ministry. Government and traditional insurance companies are illegitimate, zero-sum buyers, whose hit-and-run model is based on leveraged exchange and whose interests are diametrically opposed to the interests of patients. Patient and consumer misery are consistent with their goals. Government buyers in countries with universal care plans take this to the extreme with coerced euthanasia plans, as a citizen’s death helps their balance sheet. Doctors in Great Britain are actually paid a bounty for any sick or elderly patients they can lead to the euthanasia slaughterhouse.
There are also two types of sellers: those who seek to maximize revenue and those who seek to maximize delivery of value. The resulting combinations of these buyer and seller types can result in one or even both parties, buyer and seller, acting in bad faith. Think pure bad faith when a hospital owns an insurance company. Think pure bad faith with an accountable care organization model, where a hospital basically owns an HMO. The patient is completely disenfranchised, vulnerable, and without an advocate, as both the buyer and the seller are illegitimate. Things are a little better for the patient when only one of the parties to the exchange is illegitimate—say, when a legitimate cost-sharing ministry or the self-funded employer buys from a price-gouging hospital. The patient experience is maximized when both parties are legitimate and seek mutual benefit. In this instance of symbiotic legitimacy, the provision of a substandard service invites the merciless market forces that will put one out of business. The quality question is therefore solved when both buyer and seller are legitimate. Quality is “baked in,” as FMMA cofounder Jay Kempton says.
When the government places consumers at a disadvantage, prices soar and quality plummets. This is clear in any market where hospital consolidation has taken place. It became crystal clear when the number of insurance companies was intentionally downsized by the Unaffordable Care Act’s medical loss ratio. The before- and after-Obamacare stock price of UnitedHealthcare makes the point that when consumer choice is limited, prices soar.When the government places sellers like hospitals or physicians at a disadvantage, with price controls or a heavy regulatory burden, shortages materialize and quality plummets. Burdensome regulations are crafted by industry participants large enough to survive—and as smaller sellers surrender, the ensuing consolidation that leads to higher prices results. The result of all this: government can more easily sell to disadvantaged consumers than disadvantaged sellers because the sellers are more willing to spend big money for advantages that can make them rich. The one thing the cronies fear is an equal playing field, the real competition of the free market. This is the core goal of the crony cartel, escaping real competition and ensuring that the seller always has the advantage. Don’t be fooled when a big insurance company and a big hospital system provide a theatrical display where one agrees to play the victim to the other, hoping people will pick sides. This is an important part of ensuring the scam stays alive, as this theatrical distraction provides an important decoy for the real play, one where the hospital and the carrier work side by side.
It hasn’t always been this way. I was fortunate during my premed years to shadow two great and extremely busy surgeons, Dr. Don Garrett and Dr. Richard Allgood. There were two hospitals in town, neither one of which could survive without these two. Drs. Garrett and Allgood never hesitated to move patients from one hospital to the other if one hospital failed to provide what the patients needed. These hospitals had to compete with each other for their referrals, and failure to do so meant disaster for them. The hospitals were accountable to all the referring physicians, essentially the proxy buyers for their patients. I should point out that the better the physician’s reputation, the busier they were, and therefore the hospital that couldn’t cater to the great doctors was punished even more severely, a quality control measure largely absent today. This was the case all over the country. As late as 1990, when I started my practice in Oklahoma City, physicians, and surgeons, some of whom—like Norman Imes, who is in this room—moved their patients or threatened to move their patients to other facilities if the hospital didn’t provide what their patients needed. In Oklahoma City, Deaconess Hospital, right across the street from the huge Baptist Hospital, provided a quality check and ensured that both hospitals had provided a quality experience for the patients and for the referring physicians. It was not uncommon for a physician to move all of his patients from one hospital to another until conditions improved. The Surgery Center of Oklahoma was successful early on due to the failure of area hospitals to provide orthopedic surgeons what they needed to care for their patients.
The role of the federal government in this power shift, away from patient and physician choice, is painfully clear and, once again, the obvious result of the auctioning of our consumer choices to the medical sellers. Medical sellers have been purchasing the choices of consumers and patients for a long time, and they are good at it. In Nashville a few weeks ago, a Washington insider told me the following story about the passage of Obamacare. Industry representatives and lobbyists had locked arms in opposition to Obamacare, assuming they would almost certainly be victimized by it. One by one, opponents were picked off. Those remaining and opposed wondered what was going on. The administration simply followed the money. Where were the biggest lobbies? The American Hospital Association, initially opposed to Obamacare, was told that their biggest fear, it seemed, was competition, primarily from physician-owned facilities. Therefore, if the AHA would support this law, Barry Soetoro (Obama’s real name), would see to it that new physician-owned facilities were banned and those in existence would be prohibited from expanding. The hospitals abandoned the opposition. The insurance carriers initially opposed, were promised a medical loss ratio, which would put all but four or five of them out of business. They, too, left the opposition. Last but not least, Big Pharma was told that it seemed their future profitability would come from biological drugs, as the growth in generic drugs would eat into their margins. They were promised a twenty-year ban on competition from biologics produced in foreign countries. They, too, left the opposition, and the next week, the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] declared foreign biologics unsafe. As outrageous as this is, it is a broken record. Government intervenes on behalf of the few who can afford to buy their intervention, and the vast majority, the rest of us, pay the price. One incredibly disruptive intervention was when the federal government through its bankrupt arm Medicare decided to pay double for physician services delivered by hospital-employed physicians. It should come as no surprise that the percentage of independently practicing physicians has been on the decline ever since. This cynical move was meant to protect hospitals from the competition and demands for quality that physicians like Drs. Garrett, Allgood, Imes, and many others had made.
Currently, hospitals are no longer accountable to their medical staff, having purchased a large part of their staff, essentially making geldings of them all. Patients are now largely denied the advocacy they had in the past when independent physicians went to bat for them, voting with their feet. If a hospital was no good, physicians walked away. Now, if a hospital is no good, the hospital continues to see the flow of referrals from their kept referral sources, who are financially penalized for doing anything else. “Whose bread I eat, his song I must sing.” When someone asks me how I know free market facilities and physicians can provide quality, I tell them that referrals in a free market are not guaranteed, buyers can walk away.
I would argue that the quality of care delivered by a medical facility is directly related to the extent to which that facility is accountable to its medical staff. “What percentage of your medical staff is employed?” should be a question those attempting to measure quality should ask. To be clear, hospitals with employed staff do not have to be any good to retain business, a result of the corporate rather than physician control of patient care. Clearly, the root cause has been a shift in the balance of power, where the medical seller, the hospital, has gained the upper hand over the patient and their advocate.
This shift in power to the seller, in most cases the hospital, has become the new normal, and so ingrained in the industry that those who provide more efficient, cheaper, and better services are paradoxically criticized rather than applauded, as these fragile hospital systems might not survive a challenge to the fortress they’ve built. Not only has the balance of power been shifted, but any challenge to this balance also meets a swift and brutal response, usually on “fairness” and “social” grounds. When the late Tom Coburn, one of the Surgery Center of Oklahoma’s greatest defenders, was told by a hospital executive that it wasn’t fair to compare his hospital to the Surgery Center of Oklahoma, Coburn said, “You are right. They pay tax.” Tax advantages are one thing. Certificates of need, blacklisting by insurance carriers, and banning of physician-owned facilities by the Unaffordable Care Act: these are just a few examples of power granted to the sellers by the legislative concubines, always at the expense of the buyer.
This power shift has been with us so long that even those who claim to be free marketeers can get sucked in. Here is a comment at the website mises.org in response to a very positive article about a patient experience at the Surgery Center of Oklahoma. This comment is a tribute to the success of the hospital’s poor-mouthing propaganda campaign:
Interesting article but such a simple example of surgeries that were predictable and went as planned. Medical care can be much more complicated. Sometimes a surgeon finds the surgery is much more difficult than expected once it has begun. Complications after surgery can extend a hospital stay or send a patient back into the hospital as happened to my husband. People recover at different rates that probably can’t be predicted. My neurology surgery years ago was delayed six hours because the surgery before me turned out to be much harder than expected. If you get regular checkups there is no way to anticipate what lab work the doc may want and where that might lead, all affecting the cost.
Ah. The poor hospital, suffering from so much uncertainty. The author of this comment is not unique, having succumbed to the supposed plight of the seller, discounting the buyer’s role.
“In what other industry are the problems of the seller the buyer’s problem?” asks Jay Kempton.
How is it that craftsmen and others in the market provide quotes about the uncertainty they face? Many years ago, I solicited a bid from a carpenter to build a deck in my backyard. He made some measurements, asked what type of wood I had in mind, and gave me a bid. He encountered some difficulty setting his posts due to a rock formation not far under the surface, but this wasn’t his first rodeo, and he had made an allowance for this. Difficulties that he had encountered in the past were baked into his margin. If these difficulties didn’t materialize, he was more profitable. If they did, he had made an allowance. A margin based on the idea of a bell curve is not that difficult and is exactly how our prices are constructed at the Surgery Center of Oklahoma. Why are hospitals exempt from this discipline? Why is the uncertainty every other industry must endure intolerable in the medical industry? Or to the point of our message today, why are the difficulties of the seller of any interest whatsoever to the buyer or the public at large?
How can this ever change? This will change when the medical buyer, like every other consumer, lays true claim to his proper place and votes with his feet when treated with contempt. Hospital executives don’t worry about buyers with choices. They cannot fathom the idea that there is any such thing as a choice in an industry devoted to limiting choice. With their heads in the sand, drunk with arrogance, the time is now for buyers, particularly the self-funded buyers, to act. They can begin by understanding and embracing their rightful place and therefore the power they wield and then acting with confidence. As Matt Ohrt has said, “Quit feeding the beast,” and demand that sellers accommodate your preferences. As the awareness of our free-market movement spreads, the shift in power to the consumer is inevitable, a shift that is already increasingly visible.
The eternal challenge of government has been the subjugation of the many by the few, for if the few awaken to the government’s countless scams, the mass of people will become unmanageable and ungovernable. They will revolt. The challenge of the medical-industrial complex has also been the subjugation of the many by the few. The healthcare system in this country is not a disaster for everyone, after all. It is an orgy of robbery of the many by the few. Governments and this medical cartel use the same methods to maintain control, using fear, primarily. Fear, along with the purposeful placement of the seller at an advantage, and therefore placing the consumer and patient at a disadvantage, has kept the masses from rising up. Until now. The revolution has begun, and the traditional mold is crumbling. The alternative healthcare nation is within view. The time for the confident medical consumer has arrived, and the time has also arrived for price gougers and the rest of the bandits to fear a discriminating buyer and in enterprise recognize the customer as captain, as Mises did.
A group of 57 leading scientists, doctors and policy experts has released a report calling in to question the safety and efficacy of the current COVID-19 vaccines and are now calling for an immediate end to all vaccine programs. We urge you to read and share this damning report.
There are two certainties regarding the global distribution of Covid-19 vaccines. The first is that governments and the vast majority of the mainstream media are pushing with all their might to get these experimental drugs into as many people as possible. The second is that those who are willing to face the scorn that comes with asking serious questions about vaccines are critical players in our ongoing effort to spread the truth.
You can read an advanced copy of this manuscript in preprint below. It has been prepared by nearly five dozen highly respected doctors, scientists, and public policy experts from across the globe to be urgently sent to world leaders as well as all who are associated with the production and distribution of the various Covid-19 vaccines in circulation today.
-enVolve, May 8, 2021
*
Original Source: Authorea
SARS-CoV-2 mass vaccination: Urgent questions on vaccine safety that demand answers from international health agencies, regulatory authorities, governments and vaccine developers
Abstract
Since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, the race for testing new platforms designed to confer immunity against SARS-CoV-2, has been rampant and unprecedented, leading to emergency authorization of various vaccines. Despite progress on early multidrug therapy for COVID-19 patients, the current mandate is to immunize the world population as quickly as possible. The lack of thorough testing in animals prior to clinical trials, and authorization based on safety data generated during trials that lasted less than 3.5 months, raise questions regarding the safety of these vaccines. The recently identified role of SARS-CoV-2 glycoprotein Spike for inducing endothelial damage characteristic of COVID-19, even in absence of infection, is extremely relevant given that most of the authorized vaccines induce the production of Spike glycoprotein in the recipients. Given the high rate of occurrence of adverse effects, and the wide range of types of adverse effects that have been reported to date, as well as the potential for vaccine-driven disease enhancement, Th2-immunopathology, autoimmunity, and immune evasion, there is a need for a better understanding of the benefits and risks of mass vaccination, particularly in the groups that were excluded in the clinical trials. Despite calls for caution, the risks of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination have been minimized or ignored by health organizations and government authorities. We appeal to the need for a pluralistic dialogue in the context of health policies, emphasizing critical questions that require urgent answers if we wish to avoid a global erosion of public confidence in science and public health.
Introduction
Since COVID-19 was declared a pandemic in March 2020, over 150 million cases and 3 million deaths have been reported worldwide. Despite progress on early ambulatory, multidrug-therapy for high-risk patients, resulting in 85% reductions in COVID-19 hospitalization and death [1], the current paradigm for control is mass-vaccination. While we recognize the effort involved in development, production and emergency authorization of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, we are concerned that risks have been minimized or ignored by health organizations and government authorities, despite calls for caution [2-8].
Vaccines for other coronaviruses have never been approved for humans, and data generated in the development of coronavirus vaccines designed to elicit neutralizing antibodies show that they may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) and Th2 immunopathology, regardless of the vaccine platform and delivery method [9-11]. Vaccine-driven disease enhancement in animals vaccinated against SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV is known to occur following viral challenge, and has been attributed to immune complexes and Fc-mediated viral capture by macrophages, which augment T-cell activation and inflammation [11-13].
In March 2020, vaccine immunologists and coronavirus experts assessed SARS-CoV-2 vaccine risks based on SARS-CoV-vaccine trials in animal models. The expert group concluded that ADE and immunopathology were a real concern, but stated that their risk was insufficient to delay clinical trials, although continued monitoring would be necessary [14]. While there is no clear evidence of the occurrence of ADE and vaccine-related immunopathology in volunteers immunized with SARS-CoV-2 vaccines [15], safety trials to date have not specifically addressed these serious adverse effects (SAE). Given that the follow-up of volunteers did not exceed 2-3.5 months after the second dose [16-19], it is unlikely such SAE would have been observed. Despite92 errors in reporting, it cannot be ignored that even accounting for the number of vaccines administered, according to the US Vaccine Adverse Effect Reporting System (VAERS), the number of deaths per million vaccine doses administered has increased more than 10-fold. We believe there is an urgent need for open scientific dialogue on vaccine safety in the context of large-scale immunization. In this paper, we describe some of the risks of mass vaccination in the context of phase 3 trial exclusion criteria and discuss the SAE reported in national and regional adverse effect registration systems. We highlight unanswered questions and draw attention to the need for a more cautious approach to mass vaccination.
SARS-CoV-2 phase 3 trial exclusion criteria
With few exceptions, SARS-CoV-2 vaccine trials excluded the elderly [16-19], making it impossible to identify the occurrence of post-vaccination eosinophilia and enhanced inflammation in elderly people. Studies of SARS-CoV vaccines showed that immunized elderly mice were at particularly high risk of life-threatening Th2 immunopathology [9,20]. Despite this evidence and the extremely limited data on safety and efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the elderly, mass-vaccination campaigns have focused on this age group from the start. Most trials also excluded pregnant and lactating volunteers, as well as those with chronic and serious conditions such as tuberculosis, hepatitis C, autoimmunity, coagulopathies, cancer, and immune suppression [16-29], although these recipients are now being offered the vaccine under the premise of safety.
Another criterion for exclusion from nearly all trials was prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2. This is unfortunate as it denied the opportunity of obtaining extremely relevant information concerning post-vaccination ADE in people that already have anti-SARS-Cov-2 antibodies. To the best of our knowledge, ADE is not being monitored systematically for any age or medical condition group currently being administered the vaccine. Moreover, despite a substantial proportion of the population already having antibodies [21], tests to determine SARS-CoV-2-antibody status prior to administration of the vaccine are not conducted routinely.
Will serious adverse effects from the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines go unnoticed?
COVID-19 encompasses a wide clinical spectrum, ranging from very mild to severe pulmonary pathology and fatal multi-organ disease with inflammatory, cardiovascular, and blood coagulation dysregulation [22-24]. In this sense, cases of vaccine-related ADE or immunopathology would be clinically-indistinguishable from severe COVID-19 [25]. Furthermore, even in the absence of SARS-CoV-2 virus, Spike glycoprotein alone causes endothelial damage and hypertension in vitro and in vivo in Syrian hamsters by down-regulating angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and impairing mitochondrial function [26]. Although these findings need to be confirmed in humans, the implications of this finding are staggering, as all vaccines authorized for emergency use are based on the delivery or induction of Spike glycoprotein synthesis. In the case of mRNA vaccines and adenovirus-vectorized vaccines, not a single study has examined the duration of Spike production in humans following vaccination. Under the cautionary principle, it is parsimonious to consider vaccine-induced Spike synthesis could cause clinical signs of severe COVID-19, and erroneously be counted as new cases of SARS-CoV-2 infections. If so, the true adverse effects of the current global vaccination strategy may never be recognized unless studies specifically examine this question. There is already non-causal evidence of temporary or sustained increases138 in COVID-19 deaths following vaccination in some countries (Fig. 1) and in light of Spike’s pathogenicity, these deaths must be studied in depth to determine whether they are related to vaccination.
Unanticipated adverse reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines
Another critical issue to consider given the global scale of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is autoimmunity. SARS-CoV-2 has numerous immunogenic proteins, and all but one of its immunogenic epitopes have similarities to human proteins [27]. These may act as a source of antigens, leading to autoimmunity [28]. While it is true that the same effects could be observed during natural infection with SARS-CoV-2, vaccination is intended for most of the world population, while it is estimated that only 10% of the world population has been infected by SARS-CoV-2, according to Dr. Michael Ryan, head of emergencies at the World Health Organization. We have been unable to find evidence that any of the currently authorized vaccines screened and excluded homologous immunogenic epitopes to avoid potential autoimmunity due to pathogenic priming.
Some adverse reactions, including blood-clotting disorders, have already been reported in healthy and young vaccinated people. These cases led to the suspension or cancellation of the use of adenoviral vectorized ChAdOx1-nCov-19 and Janssen vaccinesin some countries. It has now been proposed that vaccination with ChAdOx1-nCov-19 can result in immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) mediated by platelet-activating antibodies against Platelet factor-4, which clinically mimics autoimmune heparin-induced thrombocytopenia [29]. Unfortunately, the risk was overlooked when authorizing these vaccines, although adenovirus-induced thrombocytopenia has been known for more than a decade, and has been a consistent event with adenoviral vectors [30]. The risk of VITT would presumably be higher in those already at risk of blood clots, including women who use oral contraceptives [31], making it imperative for clinicians to advise their patients accordingly.
At the population level, there could also be vaccine-related impacts. SARS-CoV-2 is a fast-evolving RNA virus that has so far produced more than 40,000 variants [32,33] some of which affect the antigenic domain of Spike glycoprotein [34,35]. Given the high mutation rates, vaccine-induced synthesis of high levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2-Spike antibodies could theoretically lead to suboptimal responses against subsequent infections by other variants in vaccinated individuals [36], a phenomenon known as “original antigenic sin” [37] or antigenic priming [38]. It is unknown to what extent mutations that affect SARS-CoV-2 antigenicity will become fixed during viral evolution [39], but vaccines could plausibly act as selective forces driving variants with higher infectivity or transmissibility. Considering the high similarity between known SARS-CoV-2 variants, this scenario is unlikely [32,34] but if future variants were to differ more in key epitopes, the global vaccination strategy might have helped shape an even more dangerous virus. This risk has recently been brought to the attention of the WHO as an open letter [40].
Discussion
The risks outlined here are a major obstacle to continuing global SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Evidence on the safety of all SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is needed before exposing more people to the184 risk of these experiments, since releasing a candidate vaccine without time to fully understand the resulting impact on health could lead to an exacerbation of the current global crisis [41]. Risk-stratification of vaccine recipients is essential. According to the UK government, people below 60 years of age have an extremely low risk of dying from COVID-191 187 . However, according to Eudravigillance, most of the serious adverse effects following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination occur in people aged 18-64. Of particular concern is the planned vaccination schedule for children aged 6 years and older in the United States and the UK. Dr. Anthony Fauci recently anticipated that teenagers across the country will be vaccinated in the autumn and younger children in early 2022, and the UK is awaiting trial results to commence vaccination of 11 million children under 18. There is a lack of scientific justification for subjecting healthy children to experimental vaccines, given that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that they have a 99.997% survival rate if infected with SARS-CoV-2. Not only is COVID-19 irrelevant as a threat to this age group, but there is no reliable evidence to support vaccine efficacy or effectiveness in this population or to rule out harmful side effects of these experimental vaccines. In this sense, when physicians advise patients on the elective administration of COVID-19 vaccination, there is a great need to better understand the benefits and risk of administration, particularly in understudied groups.
In conclusion, in the context of the rushed emergency-use-authorization of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, and the current gaps in our understanding of their safety, the following questions must be raised:
Is it known whether cross-reactive antibodies from previous coronavirus infections or vaccine206 induced antibodies may influence the risk of unintended pathogenesis following vaccination with COVID-19?
Has the specific risk of ADE, immunopathology, autoimmunity, and serious adverse reactions been clearly disclosed to vaccine recipients to meet the medical ethics standard of patient understanding for informed consent? If not, what are the reasons, and how could it be implemented?
What is the rationale for administering the vaccine to every individual when the risk of dying from COVID-19 is not equal across age groups and clinical conditions and when the phase 3 trials excluded the elderly, children and frequent specific conditions?
What are the legal rights of patients if they are harmed by a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine? Who will cover the costs of medical treatment? If claims were to be settled with public money, has the public been made aware that the vaccine manufacturers have been granted immunity, and their responsibility to compensate those harmed by the vaccine has been transferred to the tax-payers?
In the context of these concerns, we propose halting mass-vaccination and opening an urgent pluralistic, critical, and scientifically-based dialogue on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among scientists, medical doctors, international health agencies, regulatory authorities, governments, and vaccine developers. This is the only way to bridge the current gap between scientific evidence and public health policy regarding the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. We are convinced that humanity deserves a deeper understanding of the risks than what is currently touted as the official position. An open scientific dialogue is urgent and indispensable to avoid erosion of public confidence in science and public health and to ensure that the WHO and national health authorities protect the interests of humanity during the current pandemic. Returning public health policy to evidence-based medicine, relying on a careful evaluation of the relevant scientific research, is urgent. It is imperative to follow the science.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
*
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.
Notes on Authors
1Epidemiólogos Argentinos Metadisciplinarios. República Argentina.
2Baylor University Medical Center. Dallas, Texas, USA.
3Monestir de Sant Benet de Montserrat, Montserrat, Spain
4INSERM U781 Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, Université Paris Descartes-Sorbonne Cité, Institut Imagine, Paris, France.
5School of Natural Sciences. Autonomous University of Querétaro, Querétaro, Mexico.
6Retired Professor of Medical Immunology. Universidad de Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico.
7Médicos por la Verdad Puerto Rico. Ashford Medical Center. San Juan, Puerto Rico.
8Retired Professor of Clinical Diagnostic Processes. University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain
9Urologist Hospital Comarcal de Monforte, University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
10Biólogos por la Verdad, Spain.
11Retired Biologist. University of Barcelona. Specialized in Microbiology. Barcelona, Spain.
12Center for Integrative Medicine MICAEL (Medicina Integrativa Centro Antroposófico Educando en Libertad). Mendoza, República Argentina.
13Médicos por la Verdad Argentina. República Argentina. ´
14Médicos por la Verdad Uruguay. República Oriental del Uruguay.
15Médicos por la Libertad Chile. República de Chile.
16Physician, orthopedic specialist. República de Chile.
17Médicos por la Verdad Perú. República del Perú.
18Médicos por la Verdad Guatemala. República de Guatemala.
McCullough PA, Alexander PE, Armstrong R, et al. Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). Rev Cardiovasc Med (2020) 21:517–530. doi:10.31083/j.rcm.2020.04.264
Arvin AM, Fink K, Schmid MA, et al. A perspective on potential antibody- dependent enhancement of SARS-CoV-2. Nature (2020) 484:353–363. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2538-8
Coish JM, MacNeil AJ. Out of the frying pan and into the fire? Due diligence warranted for ADE in COVID-19. Microbes Infect (2020) 22(9):405-406. doi:10.1016/j.micinf.2020.06.006
Eroshenko N, Gill T, Keaveney ML, et al. Implications of antibody-dependent enhancement of infection for SARS-CoV-2 countermeasures. Nature Biotechnol (2020) 38:788–797. doi:10.1038/s41587-020-0577-1
Poland GA. Tortoises, hares, and vaccines: A cautionary note for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development. Vaccine (2020) 38:4219–4220. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.04.073
Shibo J. Don’t rush to deploy COVID-19 vaccines and drugs without sufficient safety guarantees. Nature (2000) 579,321. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-00751-9
Munoz FA, Cramer JP, Dekker CL, et al. Vaccine-associated enhanced disease: Case definition and guidelines for data collection, analysis, and presentation of immunization safety data. Vaccine (2021) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.01.055
Cardozo T, Veazey R. Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines worsening clinical disease. Int J Clin Pract (2020) 28:e13795. doi: 10.1111/ijcp.13795
Bolles D, Long K, Adnihothram S, et al. A double-inactivated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus vaccine provides incomplete protection in mice and induces increased eosinophilic proinflammatory pulmonary response upon challenge. J Virol (2001) 85:12201–12215. doi:10.1128/JVI.06048-11
Weingartl H, Czub M, Czub S, et al. Immunization with modified vaccinia virus Ankarabased recombinant vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome is associated with enhanced hepatitis in ferrets. J Virol (2004) 78:12672–12676. doi:10.1128/JVI.78.22.12672-12676.2004272
Tseng CT, Sbrana E, Iwata-Yoshikawa N, et al. Immunization with SARS coronavirus vaccines leads to pulmonary immunopathology on challenge with the SARS virus. PLoS One (2012) 7(4):e35421. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035421
Iwasaki A, Yang Y. The potential danger of suboptimal antibody responses in COVID-19. Nat Rev Immunol (2020) 20:339–341. doi:10.1038/s41577-020-0321-6
Vennema H, de Groot RJ, Harbour DA, et al. Early death after feline infectious peritonitis virus challenge due to recombinant vaccinia virus immunization. J Virol (1990) 64:1407-1409
Lambert PH, Ambrosino DM, Andersen SR, et al. Consensus summary report for CEPI/BC March 12-13, 2020 meeting: Assessment of risk of disease enhancement with COVID-19 vaccines. Vaccine (2020) 38(31):4783-4791. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.05.064
de Alwis R, Chen S, Gan S, et al. Impact of immune enhancement on Covid-19 polyclonal hyperimmune globulin therapy and vaccine development. EbioMedicine (2020) 55:102768. doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102768
Folegatti PM, Ewer KJ, Aley PK, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV287 19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: a preliminary report of a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet (2020) 396:467–783. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31604-4
Polack FP, Thomas SJ, Kitchin N. Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine. N Engl J Med (2020) 383:2603–2615. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2034577
Ramasamy MN, Minassian AM, Ewer KJ, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine administered in a prime-boost regimen in young and old adults (COV002): a single-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial. Lancet (2021) 396:1979–93. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32466-1
Chu L, McPhee R, Huang W, et al. mRNA-1273 Study Group. A preliminary report of a randomized controlled phase 2 trial of the safety and immunogenicity of mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Vaccine (2021) S0264-410X(21)00153-5. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.02.007
Liu L, Wei Q, Lin Q, et al. Anti-spike IgG causes severe acute lung injury by skewing macrophage responses during acute SARS-CoV infection. JCI Insight (2019) 4(4):e123158. doi:10.1172/jci.insight.123158.
Martines RB, Ritter JM, Matkovic E, et al. Pathology and Pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 Associated with Fatal Coronavirus Disease, United States Emerg Infect Dis (2020) 26:2005-2015. doi:10.3201/eid2609.202095
Wu Z, McGoogan JM. Characteristics of and Important Lessons From the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outbreak in China: Summary of a Report of 72 314 Cases From the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. JAMA (2020) 323:1239-1242. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.2648
Xu Z, Shi L, Wang Y, et al. Pathological findings of COVID-19 associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Lancet Respiratory Med (2020) 8:420-422 doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30076-X
Negro F. Is antibody-dependent enhancement playing a role in COVID-19 pathogenesis? Swiss Medical Weekly (2020) 150:w20249. doi:10.4414/smw.2020.20249317
Lei Y, Zhang J, Schiavon CR et al., Spike Protein Impairs Endothelial Function via Downregulation of ACE 2. Circulation Res (2021) 128:1323–1326. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.318902
Lyons-Weiler J. Pathogenic priming likely contributes to serious and critical illness and mortality in COVID-19 via autoimmunity, J Translational Autoimmunity (2020) 3:100051. doi:10.1016/j.jtauto.2020.100051
An H, Park J. Molecular Mimicry Map (3M) of SARS-CoV-2: Prediction of potentially immunopathogenic SARS-CoV-2 epitopes via a novel immunoinformatic approach. bioRxiv [Preprint]. 12 November 2020 [cited 2020 April 19] https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.12.344424
Greinacher A, Thiele T, Warkentin TE, Weisser K, Kyrle PA, Eichinger S. Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCov-19 Vaccination. N Engl J Med (2021). doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2104840
Othman M, Labelle A, Mazzetti I et al. Adenovirus-induced thrombocytopenia: the role of von Willebrand factor and P-selectin in mediating accelerated platelet clearance. Blood (2007) 109:2832–2839. doi:10.1182/blood-2006-06-032524
Ortel TL. Acquired thrombotic risk factors in the critical care setting. Crit Care Med (2010) 38(2 Suppl):S43-50. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181c9ccc8
Grubaugh ND, Petrone ME, Holmes EC. We shouldn’t worry when a virus mutates during disease outbreaks. Nat Microbiol (2020) 5:529–530. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-020-0690-4
Greaney AJ, Starr TN, Gilchuk P, et al. Complete Mapping of Mutations to the SARS-CoV339 2 Spike Receptor-Binding Domain that Escape Antibody Recognition. Cell Host Microbe (2021) 29:44–57.e9. doi:10.1016/j.chom.2020.11.007.
Lauring AS, Hodcroft EB. Genetic Variants of SARS-CoV-2—What Do They Mean? JAMA (2021) 325:529–531. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.27124
Zhang L, Jackson CB, Mou H, et al. The D614G mutation in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein reduces S1 shedding and increases infectivity. bioRxiv [Preprint]. June 12 2020 [cited 2021 Apr 19] https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.12.148726
Korber B, Fischer WM, Gnanakaran S et al. Sheffield COVID-19 Genomics Group. Tracking changes in SARS-CoV-2 spike: evidence that D614G increases infectivity of the COVID-19 virus. Cell (2020) 182:812-827.e19. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.06.043
Francis T. On the doctrine of original antigenic sin. Proc Am Philos Soc (1960) 104:572–578.
Vibroud C, Epstein SL. First flu is forever. Science (2016) 354:706–707. doi:10.1126/science.aak9816
Weisblum Y, Schmidt F, Zhang F, et al. Escape from neutralizing antibodies by SARS354 CoV-2 spike protein variants. Elife (2020) 9:e61312. doi:10.7554/eLife.61312
Coish JM, MacNeil AJ. Out of the frying pan and into the fire? Due diligence warranted for ADE in COVID-19. Microbes Infect (2020) 22(9):405-406. doi:10.1016/j.micinf.2020.06.006
We are Fiona Godlee and Kamran Abbasi, editors of The BMJ, one of the world’s oldest and most influential general medical journals. We are writing to raise serious concerns about the “fact checking” being undertaken by third party providers on behalf of Facebook/Meta.
In September, a former employee of Ventavia, a contract research company helping carry out the main Pfizer covid-19 vaccine trial, began providing The BMJ with dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails. These materials revealed a host of poor clinical trial research practices occurring at Ventavia that could impact data integrity and patient safety. We also discovered that, despite receiving a direct complaint about these problems over a year ago, the FDA did not inspect Ventavia’s trial sites.
The BMJ commissioned an investigative reporter to write up the story for our journal. The article was published on 2 November, following legal review, external peer review and subject to The BMJ’s usual high level editorial oversight and review.[1]
But from November 10, readers began reporting a variety of problems when trying to share our article. Some reported being unable to share it. Many others reported having their posts flagged with a warning about “Missing context … Independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people.” Those trying to post the article were informed by Facebook that people who repeatedly share “false information” might have their posts moved lower in Facebook’s News Feed. Group administrators where the article was shared received messages from Facebook informing them that such posts were “partly false.”
Readers were directed to a “fact check” performed by a Facebook contractor named Lead Stories.[2]
We find the “fact check” performed by Lead Stories to be inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible.
— It fails to provide any assertions of fact that The BMJ article got wrong
— It has a nonsensical title: “Fact Check: The British Medical Journal Did NOT Reveal Disqualifying And Ignored Reports Of Flaws In Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Trials”
— The first paragraph inaccurately labels The BMJ a “news blog”
— It contains a screenshot of our article with a stamp over it stating “Flaws Reviewed,” despite the Lead Stories article not identifying anything false or untrue in The BMJ article
— It published the story on its website under a URL that contains the phrase “hoax-alert”
We have contacted Lead Stories, but they refuse to change anything about their article or actions that have led to Facebook flagging our article.
We have also contacted Facebook directly, requesting immediate removal of the “fact checking” label and any link to the Lead Stories article, thereby allowing our readers to freely share the article on your platform.
There is also a wider concern that we wish to raise. We are aware that The BMJ is not the only high quality information provider to have been affected by the incompetence of Meta’s fact checking regime. To give one other example, we would highlight the treatment by Instagram (also owned by Meta) of Cochrane, the international provider of high quality systematic reviews of the medical evidence.[3] Rather than investing a proportion of Meta’s substantial profits to help ensure the accuracy of medical information shared through social media, you have apparently delegated responsibility to people incompetent in carrying out this crucial task. Fact checking has been a staple of good journalism for decades. What has happened in this instance should be of concern to anyone who values and relies on sources such as The BMJ.
We hope you will act swiftly: specifically to correct the error relating to The BMJ’s article and to review the processes that led to the error; and generally to reconsider your investment in and approach to fact checking overall.
Best wishes,
Fiona Godlee, editor in chief Kamran Abbasi, incoming editor in chief The BMJ
Competing interests: As current and incoming editors in chief, we are responsible for everything The BMJ contains.
References:
[1] Thacker PD. Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial. BMJ. 2021 Nov 2;375:n2635. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n2635. PMID: 34728500. https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635
Letting politicians dictate patient care, which prevents physicians from practicing medicine and saving patients’ lives, is a core problem, say Drs. Robert Malone and Peter McCullough.
Dr. Robert Malone and Dr. Peter McCullough call for politics to get out of the health care arena.
The government controlling health care is a core problem, as politicians have stepped in to dictate patient care, which doesn’t allow physicians to practice medicine and save patients’ lives.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) hasn’t published most of the data it’s been collecting during the pandemic, constituting scientific fraud.
The CDC has become a purely political organization and arm of the executive branch.
Lack of data transparency at the CDC, between the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Pfizer regarding clinical trial data and about injection side effects registered in a Department of Defense database, is putting Americans’ health at risk.
Medical freedom is a right that must be protected for all — it transcends politics and applies to people regardless of political party.
Speaking with The New American at the Conservative Political Action Committee conference in Orlando, Florida, Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology, and Dr. Peter McCullough, cardiologist, internist and epidemiologist, called for politics to get out of the health care arena.
“This disease has been politicized, and it shouldn’t have been,” Malone said, referring to COVID-19. The government controlling health care is a core problem, Malone says, as politicians have stepped in to dictate patient care.
“Frankly, Tony Fauci is a politician at this point,” Malone added, explaining that politicians are now mandating health care through a “menu-driven system,” which doesn’t allow physicians like McCullough to practice medicine and save patients’ lives.
“They’re trying to implement a strategy, which is a top-down one, that’s favored by insurance companies, that’s favored by Big Pharma, favored by big hospital chains, but is absolutely not the kind of medical care that the American people want,” Malone explained.
Early treatment suppressed
McCullough, who was once a full professor of medicine at Texas A&M College of Medicine in Dallas and the editor of two medical journals, who has published 650 peer-reviewed papers, has been vocal throughout the pandemic about the importance of early treatment.
This is the first time in his career when he saw medical providers not offering early treatment for a disease.
It typically takes two to three weeks for someone with COVID-19 to get sick enough to be hospitalized, and during that time early treatment can be lifesaving. However, during the pandemic, treatment was largely withheld until a person was hospitalized.
The rationale was that there have been no large, randomized trials conducted to know which treatments are safe and effective but, as McCullough said, “We can’t wait for large randomized trials … Something got in the minds of doctors and nurses and everyone to not treat COVID-19. I couldn’t stand it.”
He and colleagues worked feverishly to figure out a treatment — why didn’t national health organizations do so also?
“Our government and other governments, and the entire world, has not lifted a finger to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death anywhere,” McCullough said, pointing out the irony:
“If there was a kid with asthma, would we let the kid wheeze and choke for two weeks before the kid has to go to the hospital? No, we give the child medications. We don’t have randomized trials for every single thing that we do.”
While some physician organizations have stepped up and are treating COVID-19 patients:
“The ivory tower today still is not treating patients. The party line in my health system is, do not treat a COVID-19 patient as an outpatient. Wait for them to get sick enough to be admitted because my health system … follows the National Institutes of Health or the [sic] follows the Center for Disease Control, period.”
CDC caught withholding data
An exposé by The New York Times revealed in February 2022 that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) hasn’t published most of the data it’s been collecting during the pandemic.
Data such as U.S. hospitalizations for COVID-19 according to age, race and injection status are among the statistics that the CDC has been hiding from the American public.
And while the CDC published data on COVID-19 boosters’ effectiveness in adults under 65, it didn’t include data for 18- to 49-year-olds, “the group least likely to benefit from extra shots.”
According to CDC spokeswoman Kristen Nordlund, the CDC hasn’t released all of the data “because basically, at the end of the day, it’s not yet ready for prime time.” But, The New York Times reported, “Another reason is fear that the information might be misinterpreted, Ms. Nordlund said.”
In reality, had the data revealed what the CDC wanted, it would have been released. In their official reasoning, however, Nordlund said that the data represent only 10% of the U.S. population, using that as an argument for why they didn’t release it.
“But the CDC has relied on the same level of sampling to track influenza for years,” according to The New York Times. Further, it noted:
“[T]he C.D.C. has been routinely collecting information since the Covid vaccines were first rolled out last year, according to a federal official familiar with the effort. The agency has been reluctant to make those figures public, the official said, because they might be misinterpreted as the vaccines being ineffective.”
Misinterpreted?
“Let’s be clear,” Steve Kirsch, executive director of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, wrote:
“The only way the vaccine data could be interpreted as ineffective by us ‘misinformation spreaders’ is if the data shows the vaccines don’t work … The truth is the data didn’t support their narrative so they hid it.
“Do you think they would hide the data if it showed the vaccines worked? Of course not! … CDC admits it withheld data from the public because they didn’t want to create vaccine hesitancy.”
CDC engaged in scientific fraud
Malone believes that the CDC withholding evidence about COVID-19 shot safety is scientific fraud (6:18):
“If I was to publish a study in which I had a large body of epidemiological data, and I decided to only publish part of it, because I wanted to advance some agenda, I would be guilty of scientific fraud. The paper would be withdrawn, I would be kicked out of my academic institution … I would be guilty of scientific fraud. That’s what this is.”
The CDC, he says, has become more of a political arm and is not serving its intended function of providing frontline data. “They’ve become purely a political organization and arm of the executive branch, and what they have done is, in my opinion, obscene,” Malone said (6:18).
The CDC’s politicization and dereliction in their duties underlie the attacks that Malone and McCullough have sustained, as anything that doesn’t have the CDC’s mark of approval is deemed misinformation.
“But now we’ve learned who’s really been spreading medical misinformation is the CDC,” Malone said (7:00). “I think we’re allowed an apology.”
Further, with the continued release of data, “it turns out we are completely vindicated,” Malone continued (8:17).
“We have been speaking the truth and it’s a truth that’s been hidden from the American public and, more important, it’s been hidden from other physicians and it’s been hidden from public health authorities … What’s going on here is criminal in my opinion.”
Lack of data transparency putting Americans at risk
The CDC’s refusal to publish pertinent pandemic data is only one example of a lack of transparency that’s put Americans’ health at risk. “The most important data that the CDC holds is on vaccine safety,” McCullough says (7:05).
“They have millions of reports. So they have a lot of data to go over and they owe America an explanation on safety. There is a prevailing view, in the CDC and in the FDA, they’re the official sponsors of the U.S. vaccine program, and the prevailing view is that the vaccine will not be effective until everybody takes it — and not just once but in a repetitive, serial fashion. And I can tell you that prevailing view, in my personal estimation, is flawed.”
Other areas of concern on data transparency include the FDA and Pfizer attempting to hide clinical trial data for 75 years. “When I saw that, that’s when I got very vocal and said fraud has occurred. How do I know that? They won’t show us the clinical data,” former Blackrock portfolio managerEdward Dowd said.
This should be a red flag for all Americans. McCullough said (9:30):
“The FDA and Pfizer are being sued for release of their full dossier. Many of you know that there now is an accelerated release of the data, but the reluctance to release information on a biological product that each and every American is being asked — if not mandated — to take, the reluctance to do so should make everyone concerned.”
Disturbing Department of Defense (DOD) data on COVID injection side effects have also been uncovered. DOD whistleblowers data-mined the DOD health database, revealing significant increases in rates of miscarriage, cancer, neurological disease and stillbirths since COVID-19 jabs rolled out (18:48). This has also been kept quiet. McCullough explained (9:30):
“The other area of data transparency we’re extremely concerned about is the Department of Defense epidemiological database information … it’s clear there is a manyfold increase across many disease categories among our servicemen year over year. The only thing that’s changed is the administration of the vaccines in large numbers.”
We’re now at a crossroads, and many experts believe it’s only a matter of time before the criminals behind this scheme are held accountable.
“Data transparency at this point in time will be an area that … will be intensively investigated, and for those who are close to the data, I think they do have a choice coming up,” McCullough said (9:30).
“And it’s going to be a matter of them making the right choice of where they want to end up — on what side of history.”
Please, remember that this is a question-everything blog. A thinking blog. A conspiracy blog. If you want confirmation of your beliefs, do go visit the mainstream media. I am still a scientist (social sciences) at heart and I need to know the truth, not the pre-packaged manufactured crap that passes as journalism, etc.
Anyway, If Dr. Kaufman is right, we all have to re-think what is going on. This is starting to look like population control. The old method repeated ad nauseam: Create a problem, wait for the reaction, and come up with the solution, which you had since the beginning. The old propaganda game.
If the virus is a hoax, it is being done at the same time that the entire planet is deploying the 5G infrastructure. That’s antennas every 500 meters in your neighborhood. Something like that. Think about it, if people die because of extra sensitivity to 5G microwave radiation, you can blame COVID-19.
David Icke was deleted on Youtube and (pretentious) Vimeo last week just for making that connection. 5G and COVID.
I don’t know where the truth is right now but I will not stop questioning everything. I will especially question anything that comes from the media or the medical /Big Pharma establishment, as the narratives from both are constructed with fake ideologies and fake statistics. For example, what is the leading cause of death in North America? Wrong. Most will answer heart attacks and cancer. Medical error and overdose deaths from legal drugs are the number cause of death in North America. (See John Rappaport)
By the way, I hope these experts are right and that this is another false flag but I am following the rules of isolation like everyone else. The whole situation scares me. The unknown is the worse. Lou
Below is our list of twelve medical experts whose opinions on the coronavirus outbreak contradict the official narratives of the MSM, and the memes so prevalent on social media.
Dr Sucharit Bhakdi is a specialist in microbiology. He was a professor at the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz and head of the Institute for Medical Microbiology and Hygiene and one of the most cited research scientists in German history.
What he says:
We are afraid that 1 million infections with the new virus will lead to 30 deaths per day over the next 100 days. But we do not realise that 20, 30, 40 or 100 patients positive for normal coronaviruses are already dying every day.
[The government’s anti-COVID19 measures] are grotesque, absurd and very dangerous […] The life expectancy of millions is being shortened. The horrifying impact on the world economy threatens the existence of countless people. The consequences on medical care are profound. Already services to patients in need are reduced, operations cancelled, practices empty, hospital personnel dwindling. All this will impact profoundly on our whole society.
All these measures are leading to self-destruction and collective suicide based on nothing but a spook.
*
Dr Wolfgang Wodarg is a German physician specialising in Pulmonology, politician and former chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. In 2009 he called for an inquiry into alleged conflicts of interest surrounding the EU response to the Swine Flu pandemic.
What he says:
Politicians are being courted by scientists…scientists who want to be important to get money for their institutions. Scientists who just swim along in the mainstream and want their part of it […] And what is missing right now is a rational way of looking at things.
We should be asking questions like “How did you find out this virus was dangerous?”, “How was it before?”, “Didn’t we have the same thing last year?”, “Is it even something new?”
That’s missing.
*
Dr Joel Kettner s professor of Community Health Sciences and Surgery at Manitoba University, former Chief Public Health Officer for Manitoba province and Medical Director of the International Centre for Infectious Diseases.
I have never seen anything like this, anything anywhere near like this. I’m not talking about the pandemic, because I’ve seen 30 of them, one every year. It is called influenza. And other respiratory illness viruses, we don’t always know what they are. But I’ve never seen this reaction, and I’m trying to understand why.
[…]
I worry about the message to the public, about the fear of coming into contact with people, being in the same space as people, shaking their hands, having meetings with people. I worry about many, many consequences related to that.
[…]
In Hubei, in the province of Hubei, where there has been the most cases and deaths by far, the actual number of cases reported is 1 per 1000 people and the actual rate of deaths reported is 1 per 20,000. So maybe that would help to put things into perspective.
Dr John Ioannidis Professor of Medicine, of Health Research and Policy and of Biomedical Data Science, at Stanford University School of Medicine and a Professor of Statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences. He is director of the Stanford Prevention Research Center, and co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS).
He is also the editor-in-chief of the European Journal of Clinical Investigation. He was chairman at the Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine as well as adjunct professor at Tufts University School of Medicine.
As a physician, scientist and author he has made contributions to evidence-based medicine, epidemiology, data science and clinical research. In addition, he pioneered the field of meta-research. He has shown that much of the published research does not meet good scientific standards of evidence.
Patients who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 are disproportionately those with severe symptoms and bad outcomes. As most health systems have limited testing capacity, selection bias may even worsen in the near future.
The one situation where an entire, closed population was tested was the Diamond Princess cruise ship and its quarantine passengers. The case fatality rate there was 1.0%, but this was a largely elderly population, in which the death rate from Covid-19 is much higher.
[…]
Could the Covid-19 case fatality rate be that low? No, some say, pointing to the high rate in elderly people. However, even some so-called mild or common-cold-type coronaviruses that have been known for decades can have case fatality rates as high as 8% when they infect elderly people in nursing homes.
[…]
If we had not known about a new virus out there, and had not checked individuals with PCR tests, the number of total deaths due to “influenza-like illness” would not seem unusual this year. At most, we might have casually noted that flu this season seems to be a bit worse than average.
– “A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data”, Stat News, 17th March 2020
*
Dr Yoram Lass is an Israeli physician, politician and former Director General of the Health Ministry. He also worked as Associate Dean of the Tel Aviv University Medical School and during the 1980s presented the science-based television show Tatzpit.
Italy is known for its enormous morbidity in respiratory problems, more than three times any other European country. In the US about 40,000 people die in a regular flu season and so far 40-50 people have died of the coronavirus, most of them in a nursing home in Kirkland, Washington.
[…]
In every country, more people die from regular flu compared with those who die from the coronavirus.
[…]
…there is a very good example that we all forget: the swine flu in 2009. That was a virus that reached the world from Mexico and until today there is no vaccination against it. But what? At that time there was no Facebook or there maybe was but it was still in its infancy. The coronavirus, in contrast, is a virus with public relations.
Whoever thinks that governments end viruses is wrong.
– Interview in Globes, March 22nd 2020
*
Dr Pietro Vernazza is a Swiss physician specialising Infectious Diseases at the Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen and Professor of Health Policy.
What he says:
We have reliable figures from Italy and a work by epidemiologists, which has been published in the renowned science journal ‹Science›, which examined the spread in China. This makes it clear that around 85 percent of all infections have occurred without anyone noticing the infection. 90 percent of the deceased patients are verifiably over 70 years old, 50 percent over 80 years.
[…]
In Italy, one in ten people diagnosed die, according to the findings of the Science publication, that is statistically one of every 1,000 people infected. Each individual case is tragic, but often – similar to the flu season – it affects people who are at the end of their lives.
[…]
If we close the schools, we will prevent the children from quickly becoming immune.
[…]
We should better integrate the scientific facts into the political decisions.
– Interview in St. Galler Tagblatt, 22nd March 2020
*
Frank Ulrich Montgomery is German radiologist, former President of the German Medical Association and Deputy Chairman of the World Medical Association.
I’m not a fan of lockdown. Anyone who imposes something like this must also say when and how to pick it up again. Since we have to assume that the virus will be with us for a long time, I wonder when we will return to normal? You can’t keep schools and daycare centers closed until the end of the year. Because it will take at least that long until we have a vaccine. Italy has imposed a lockdown and has the opposite effect. They quickly reached their capacity limits, but did not slow down the virus spread within the lockdown.
– Interview in General Anzeiger, 18th March 2020
*
Prof. Hendrik Streeck is a German HIV researcher, epidemiologist and clinical trialist. He is professor of virology, and the director of the Institute of Virology and HIV Research, at Bonn University.
The new pathogen is not that dangerous, it is even less dangerous than Sars-1. The special thing is that Sars-CoV-2 replicates in the upper throat area and is therefore much more infectious because the virus jumps from throat to throat, so to speak. But that is also an advantage: Because Sars-1 replicates in the deep lungs, it is not so infectious, but it definitely gets on the lungs, which makes it more dangerous.
[…]
You also have to take into account that the Sars-CoV-2 deaths in Germany were exclusively old people. In Heinsberg, for example, a 78-year-old man with previous illnesses died of heart failure, and that without Sars-2 lung involvement. Since he was infected, he naturally appears in the Covid 19 statistics. But the question is whether he would not have died anyway, even without Sars-2.
– Interview in Frankfurter Allgemeine, 16th March 2020
*
Dr Yanis Roussel et. al. – A team of researchers from the Institut Hospitalo-universitaire Méditerranée Infection, Marseille and the Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Marseille, conducting a peer-reviewed study on Coronavirus mortality for the government of France under the ‘Investments for the Future’ programme.
The problem of SARS-CoV-2 is probably overestimated, as 2.6 million people die of respiratory infections each year compared with less than 4000 deaths for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of writing.
[…]
This study compared the mortality rate of SARS-CoV-2 in OECD countries (1.3%) with the mortality rate of common coronaviruses identified in AP-HM patients (0.8%) from 1 January 2013 to 2 March 2020. Chi-squared test was performed, and the P-value was 0.11 (not significant).
[…]
…it should be noted that systematic studies of other coronaviruses (but not yet for SARS-CoV-2) have found that the percentage of asymptomatic carriers is equal to or even higher than the percentage of symptomatic patients. The same data for SARS-CoV-2 may soon be available, which will further reduce the relative risk associated with this specific pathology.
– “SARS-CoV-2: fear versus data”, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, 19th March 2020
*
Dr. David Katz is an American physician and founding director of the Yale University Prevention Research Center
I am deeply concerned that the social, economic and public health consequences of this near-total meltdown of normal life — schools and businesses closed, gatherings banned — will be long-lasting and calamitous, possibly graver than the direct toll of the virus itself. The stock market will bounce back in time, but many businesses never will. The unemployment, impoverishment and despair likely to result will be public health scourges of the first order.
– “Is Our Fight Against Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease?”, New York Times 20th March 2020
*
Michael T. Osterholm is regents professor and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.
Consider the effect of shutting down offices, schools, transportation systems, restaurants, hotels, stores, theaters, concert halls, sporting events and other venues indefinitely and leaving all of their workers unemployed and on the public dole. The likely result would be not just a depression but a complete economic breakdown, with countless permanently lost jobs, long before a vaccine is ready or natural immunity takes hold.
[…]
[T]he best alternative will probably entail letting those at low risk for serious disease continue to work, keep business and manufacturing operating, and “run” society, while at the same time advising higher-risk individuals to protect themselves through physical distancing and ramping up our health-care capacity as aggressively as possible. With this battle plan, we could gradually build up immunity without destroying the financial structure on which our lives are based.
– “Facing covid-19 reality: A national lockdown is no cure”, Washington Post 21st March 2020
*
Dr Peter Goetzsche is Professor of Clinical Research Design and Analysis at the University of Copenhagen and founder of the Cochrane Medical Collaboration. He has written several books on corruption in the field of medicine and the power of big pharmaceutical companies.
Our main problem is that no one will ever get in trouble for measures that are too draconian. They will only get in trouble if they do too little. So, our politicians and those working with public health do much more than they should do.
No such draconian measures were applied during the 2009 influenza pandemic, and they obviously cannot be applied every winter, which is all year round, as it is always winter somewhere. We cannot close down the whole world permanently.
Should it turn out that the epidemic wanes before long, there will be a queue of people wanting to take credit for this. And we can be damned sure draconian measures will be applied again next time. But remember the joke about tigers. “Why do you blow the horn?” “To keep the tigers away.” “But there are no tigers here.” “There you see!”
– “Corona: an epidemic of mass panic”, blog post on Deadly Medicines 21st March 2020
*
If you can find any other examples of noteworthy experts deviating from the mainstream narrative, please post them below. As always, this list have been impossible to build without Swiss Propaganda Research. Follow their work and share widely. An indispensable resource.
Dr. Samira Mubareka poses in this undated handout photo. The ongoing fight against the COVID-19 pandemic could get a boost if Canadians paid more attention to the relative humidity levels in public and private spaces, according to a growing body of international research. Doctors, scientists and engineers agree that sufficient indoor air moisture levels can have a powerful but little-understood effect on the transmission of airborne diseases. While the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19 is currently treated as one that’s transmitted through droplet infection rather than the air, research on exactly how it passes between humans is still underway. THE CANADIAN PRESS/HO – Sunnybrook Hospital
The ongoing fight against the COVID-19 pandemic could get a boost if Canadians paid more attention to the relative humidity levels in public and private spaces, according to a growing body of international research.
Doctors, scientists and engineers agree that sufficient indoor air moisture levels can have a powerful but little-understood effect on the transmission of airborne diseases. While the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19 is currently treated as one that’s transmitted through droplet infection rather than the air, research on exactly how it passes between humans is still underway.
Most buildings, however, fall short of the recommended threshold of 40 to 60 per cent relative humidity, particularly in countries with colder, dryer climates such as Canada.
Addressing the issue now, they contend, could confer some immediate short-term benefits and offer a powerful tool for warding off similar epidemics in the future.
“Transmission is greater in dry air, infectivity is higher in dry air, and the ability of a human being to fight infection is impaired,” said Dr. Stephanie Taylor, a graduate of and lecturer at Harvard Medical School. “Any one of those would be important, but all three of them are in play.”
Taylor concedes that the notion may seem counter-intuitive, saying the idea of humidity conjures images of fetid swamps and disease-bearing mosquitoes. But she said a growing body of research has suggested that relative humidity levels that are much more comfortable for humans offer a host of benefits.
Well we haven’t all died yet. In fact my readership has gone up over the last few weeks. So what’s going on? I don’t know but I repeat what I said in an earlier post: A mind-xxxx is underway. So very many things don’t add up, not least the absolutely hysterical reaction. And for sure the figures don’t add up. RT has a particularly good analysis by Irish journalist Peter Andrews. Worth a read.
“You can bet that the institutions of international government, and the “experts” advising them, will try to massage and cherry-pick statistics to present the version of events that most closely matches their worst-case scenarios. The fact is, according to their early predictions, we are already long overdue millions of Covid-19 deaths that have failed to materialise. But even when Covid-19 deaths are recorded, we have seen how it could be that people are dying with coronavirus rather than dying of it.”
On The Spectator website Dr John Lee, a recently retired NHS consultant and professor of pathology said that ‘’we have yet to see any statistical evidence for excess deaths, in any part of the world’’. To check this out, I looked at the British government’s own statistics on total deaths registered weekly across the UK. It shows that in the week ending on the 8th of March 2019, 10,898 people died in total in the UK. This year, in the week ending the 6th of March 2020, the equivalent figure was almost identical: 10,895. Make of that what you will.”
Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter, chair of the Winton Centre for Evidence and Risk Communication at Cambridge University says that if the deaths are towards the lower end of the current estimates, say at around 20,000 in the UK, Covid-19 will end up having ‘’a minimal impact on overall mortality for 2020’’. He told R4 that his findings showed, to his own professed astonishment, that if someone contracts the coronavirus, they’ve got almost exactly the same chance of dying over the ensuing few weeks as they would normally have of dying over the next year, no matter what their age or background health.”
In Ireland heroic patriot Gemma O’Doherty shows on twitter that “the Dublin Docklands have never been quieter. Nobody is even bothering to man the ‘testing centre’ which is supposed to be overwhelmed while some HSE [Health Service Executive] insiders are quietly admitting Coronavirus is a ‘spook exercise.’”
So there you have it. Now go back into hibernation.
“Our citizens should know the urgent facts…but they don’t because our media serves imperial, not popular interests. They lie, deceive, connive and suppress what everyone needs to know, substituting managed news misinformation and rubbish for hard truths…”—Oliver Stone
Tales from the Conspiratum 