Author Archive

‘Truly Frightening:’ Feds Give Tech Companies Until May 2 to ‘Turn Over COVID-19 Misinformation’

Lyme/MSIDS patients need to understand that when the government attacks free speech and dissenting medical opinions, it’s just a matter of time before the ‘eye or Mordor’ swings to any subject that they deem ‘misinformation,’ including but not limited to Lyme/MSIDS, vaccines, autism, MS, and more.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/feds-tech-companies-turn-over-covid-19-misinformation/

‘Truly Frightening:’ Feds Give Tech Companies Until May 2 to ‘Turn Over COVID-19 Misinformation’

Two U.S. Senators this week introduced a bill that could criminalize First Amendment rights, while the U.S. Surgeon General formally demanded tech companies turn over data on organizations and individuals who post “COVID-19 misinformation” on social media platforms.
Two news stories this week reveal how the federal government plans to treat COVID “misinformation” as a crime.

Two news stories this week reveal how the federal government plans to treat COVID “misinformation” as a crime, and what role tech companies will play in rounding up the “criminal.”

This is truly frightening.

Two U.S. Senators this week introduced a bill to provide tech companies cover via legislation that could make it possible for Congress to “legalize” censorship and criminalize First Amendment rights to freedom of speech.

Here’s a press release describing the bill:

“U.S. Senators Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), both members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, on Wednesday introduced legislation to counter the threat that misinformation and disinformation pose to public health as evidenced by the widespread false narratives throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The Promoting Public Health Information Act would support efforts across the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and with outside stakeholders to communicate effectively during a public health emergency and address health misinformation.”

Here is what Murphy had to say about the bill:

“Throughout this pandemic, the impact of misinformation has been devastating. Rumors and conspiracy theories about the efficacy of masking or the safety of vaccines still run rampant on social media and have caused thousands of deaths that could have been prevented.

“This legislation will help us get smart about how to tackle misinformation and effectively promote science-based health information, especially as we continue fighting COVID-19 and prepare for future public health emergencies.”

In other words, the feds are asking detailed information about the demographics “exposed to misinformation,” allowing them to determine who’s reading what, and to obtain their names.

Next, in the last paragraph of this New York Times article, “The surgeon general calls on Big Tech to turn over Covid-19 misinformation data,” we learn that the federal government wants citizens to start “sharing” information on “misinformation:”

“‘We’re asking anyone with relevant insights — from original research and data sets to personal stories that speak to the role of misinformation in public health — to share them with us,’ Dr. [Vivek] Murthy said.”

Isn’t that sweet?

This is how they dress up the Stasi in 21st-century euphemism to encourage ratting out your friends and neighbors: “Please share with the feds. They care what you think.”

Sure they do.

According to the Times:

“President Biden’s surgeon general on Thursday formally requested major tech platforms submit information about the scale of COVID-19 misinformation on social networks, search engines, crowdsourced platforms, e-commerce platforms and instant messaging systems.

“The request for information from the surgeon general’s office demanded tech platforms send data and analysis on the prevalence of COVID-19 misinformation on their sites, starting with common examples of vaccine misinformation documented by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The notice asks the companies to submit ‘exactly how many users saw or may have been exposed to instances of COVID-19 misinformation,’ as well as aggregate data on demographics that may have been disproportionately exposed to, or affected by, the misinformation.

“The surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy, also demanded information from the platforms about the major sources of Covid-19 misinformation, including those that engaged in the sale of unproven Covid-19 products, services and treatments.

“‘Technology companies now have the opportunity to be open and transparent with the American people about the misinformation on their platforms,’” Murthy said in an emailed statement. He added: “‘This is about protecting the nation’s health.’”

“Companies have until May 2 to submit the data. Denying requests for information does not carry a penalty, but the notice is the first formal request from the Biden administration of the tech companies to submit COVID-19 misinformation data, according to the surgeon general’s office.

“Six months ago, Murthy used his first formal advisory to the U.S. to deliver a broadside against tech and social media companies, which he accused of not doing enough to stop the spread of dangerous health misinformation — especially about COVID-19. He called the misinformation “an urgent threat to public health.”

“The request for information is part of President Biden’s National COVID-⁠19 Preparedness Plan, which the White House detailed on Wednesday and which is a road map for a new stage of the pandemic where COVID-19 causes ‘minimal disruption,’ according to the White House.

Biden first revealed details of the plan during his State of the Union address Tuesday night.

“In addition to demanding misinformation data from the tech platforms, the surgeon general called on healthcare providers and the public to submit information about how COVID-19 misinformation has negatively influenced patients and communities.

“‘We’re asking anyone with relevant insights — from original research and data sets to personal stories that speak to the role of misinformation in public health — to share them with us,’” Murthy said.”

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.

Category:

Activism, vaccines, Viruses

The Chronic Lyme Debate Part 3

https://www.change.org/p/the-us-senate-calling-for-a-congressional-investigation-of-the-cdc-idsa-and-aldf/u

The Chronic Lyme Debate Part 3

Carl Tuttle

Hudson, NH, United States

Mar 5, 2022 — 

Ongoing email sent to the TBDWG regarding the Klempner antibiotic trials…

Thanks goes out to Denise Longman who recalled the following article written by Lorraine Johnson.

———- Original Message ———-
From: CARL TUTTLE <runagain@comcast.net>
To: “Dennis.Dixon1@nih.hhs.gov” <Dennis.Dixon1@nih.hhs.gov>, “SSood@nshs.edu” <SSood@nshs.edu>
Cc:  “tickbornedisease@hhs.gov” <tickbornedisease@hhs.gov>
(All members of the TBDWG)
Date: 03/04/2022 8:16 AM
Subject: Re: The Chronic Lyme Debate

To: The Tick-Borne Disease Working Group,

Well worth the time to review Lorraine Johnson’s article below…

Message to the Federal Representatives and Dr. Sunil K. Sood; stop sabotaging the good intentions of the TBDWG! – Carl Tuttle

Aug 29, 2012

LYMEPOLICYWONK: New Study Reveals Fatal Flaws in NIH Klempner Trial Statistical Analysis. Is this Error Human, Incompetence or Worse?

https://www.lymedisease.org/lymepolicywonk-new-study-reveals-fatal-flaws-in-nih-klempner-trial-statistical-analysis-is-this-error-human-incompetence-or-worse

A new study by Allison DeLong, Barbara Blossom, Dr. Elizabeth Maloney, and Dr. Steven Phillips entitled “Antibiotic Retreatment of Lyme disease in Patients with Persistent Symptoms: A Biostatistical Review of Randomized, Placebo-controlled, Clinical Trials” examined the quality of the studies, statistical analysis and conclusions reached by the four NIH-funded clinical trials for persistent Lyme disease. For this blog, I am going to focus on one of them, the Klempner trial. It is the trial most commonly cited by the Infectious Diseases Society of America to support the IDSA guidelines recommendation that patients who remain ill after treatment should not be retreated. The trial involved both a seropositive arm (patients who tested positive for Lyme disease) and a seronegative arm (patients who tested negative for Lyme disease).

So what was the fatal error in the Klempner study?

Researchers who design clinical trials define when a treatment is considered a success. Does the treatment work or not?  How much does a patient have to improve before you can say the treatment helped? Do they have to return to perfect health?  Clinical trials usually require that patients improve, but not that they return to perfect health.  DeLong found that the Klempner trial set the level for determining treatment success excessively high. For instance, in the seronegative arm of the trial, treatment success required that patients not simply return to the norm for the general population, but instead surpass the norm by essentially one full standard deviation.  That type of success is unheard of in clinical trials.

More specifically, the Klempner study used too high a level to determine success on something called the SF-36 scale. It used a measure that was not clinically meaningful.  Let’s look at this in context.  While other chronic diseases set the bar for improvement on the SF-36 between 2 to 5, the Klempner trial set the bar at roughly 7 and 9 in the seropositive arm and between 9 and 13 in the seronegative arm. This amount of improvement is far higher than the amount of improvement that could reasonably be expected among the chronically ill.

If the Klempner trial had used a clinically meaningful measure of success, say between 2 and 5, it would have had to have used much, much larger sample sizes, which it did not have.  For instance setting the clinically meaningful measure of success at 2 would have required a sample of 400 or more per treatment arm. The sample sizes in Klempner were only 78 (seropositive) and 51 (seronegative)—a sample size which would not yield statistically significant results. When researchers select an excessively large treatment effect required for success, as was done here, the size of the sample required is reduced.  The trade-off, however, is that the results are not clinically meaningful.

Many researchers say that small sample size trials are unethical because they can literally steer scientists down the wrong path.  That’s what the Klempner study did.  It was a waste of money, a waste of time, and it has led research down the wrong path for the last 10 years.

Was it a matter of researcher incompetence?  DeLong and colleagues point out that studies on the level of improvement that is clinically meaningful for other chronic diseases had not been done at the time the Klempner trial was conducted. So the Klempner researchers did not know that they were using an excessively large treatment effect at the time they conducted the study.  Does that take the researchers off the hook?  Not really.  First of all, once the studies on the way to measure success in chronic disease had been conducted, the Klempner team could have acknowledged a possible error.

Second, the Klempner team could have avoided “overstating” its findings and highlighted the potential for error.  The ethical implications of exaggeration in science are understood by other scientific societies.  For example, the code of conduct for the American Chemical Society states: “Public comments on scientific matters should be made with care and accuracy, without unsubstantiated, exaggerated, or premature statements.”

Instead, the Klempner study concluded flatly that retreatment was ineffective.  The NIH press release headline read: “Chronic Lyme Disease Symptoms Not Helped by Intensive Antibiotic Treatment.”  It further concluded that “ it is unlikely that a longer course of treatment or different antibiotic combination would result in greater improvement than what we found in these studies.” This conclusion was clearly beyond the scope of the study since it did not test other antibiotics or other durations of antibiotic therapy.

In short, rather than acknowledging the potential weaknesses of its findings and encouraging further research, the Klempner study overstated its conclusions and firmly shut the door on future science.  Dr. Klempner himself then sat on the 2006 IDSA Lyme disease guidelines panel, which used his study to deny seriously ill patients any access to care. Research of fellow panel members on a guideline panel may be less likely to be critically challenged, and the IDSA guidelines are riddled with references from the panel members.

This guideline recommendation has caused untold suffering by patients, who are essentially told to simply live with the symptoms of chronic Lyme, which can cause disability equivalent to that of congestive heart failure. For example, 25% of over 4,000 patients who responded to a survey by LymeDisease.org have been on disability at some point in their illness.  If a guidelines panel is going to preclude further care of patients this ill, they should be absolutely certain that further treatment will not be beneficial.  And, they should err on the side of treatment. Denying patients access to care when treatment options are available results in unnecessary suffering.

All of this brings us back to what Congressman Smith referred to as the “lost decade” of research in Lyme disease.  He was referring to the delay in publishing the Embers research trial which found persistent infection in monkeys after treatment using the Klempner protocol.  The lack of scientific rigor in the Klempner trial coupled with the delay in publication of the Embers trial has caused the Lyme community enormous harm.  Both studies were NIH funded, and, again we are left to wonder why the NIH and Dr. Phil Baker, who headed up Lyme research for the NIH, failed to properly oversee and follow-up on this research.  Why aren’t they setting the record straight now that they have the information?

It brings to mind a comment that Dr. Stephen Barthold made at the congressional hearing chaired by Congressman Smith:

There is overwhelming evidence in a variety of animal species as well as humans that B. burgdorferi persists without treatment, but the crucial question is does it survive following treatment, and if so, do surviving spirochetes cause “chronic” Lyme Disease or PLDS? These questions cannot be answered by speculative and expensive human clinical trials motivated by firmly held dogmatism.

Hear! Hear!

References:

Delong, A. K., B. Blossom, et al. (2012). “Antibiotic retreatment of Lyme disease in patients with persistent symptoms: A biostatistical review of randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trials.” Contemp Clin Trials.

Klempner, M., L. Hu, et al. (2001). “Two controlled trials of antibiotic treatment in patients with persistent symptoms and a history of Lyme disease.” N Engl J Med 345(2): 85-92.

Embers, M. E., S. W. Barthold, et al. (2012). “Persistence of Borrelia burgdorferi in Rhesus Macaques following Antibiotic Treatment of Disseminated Infection.” PLoS ONE 7(1): e29914.

My previous blog postings regarding the Embers monkey trials and their importance for Lyme patients can be found here.

The LYME POLICY WONK blog is written by Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA, who is the Chief Executive Officer of LymeDisease.org, formerly CALDA. Contact her at lbjohnson@lymedisease.org.

__________________

**Comment**

Hopefully by now it’s become abundantly clear that this, right here, is the MO of our corrupt public health ‘authorities’ and the researchers who obtain grants from the government. The conflicts of interest are rife and continue on unabated. These people design studies for a predetermined outcome and then make it public policy.  If they have done this for 40 years in Lyme-land, they can do it for anything, and are.

This website has been posting on the corruption with COVID from the beginning, including the suppressed and banned treatments, suppression of free speech, and shoddy, fraudulent research that is being used to push a narrative in public health policy.

  • For instance, epidemiologist Kurt Wittkowsky stated back in March of 2020 that lockdowns did not “flatten the curve,” but in fact sharpened the curve of COVID infections.
  • A top WHO official stated, ‘Stop using lockdowns’ to control COVID; they are “terrible, ghastly, global catastrophe.’
  • France’s former vaccine policy chief stated that COVID policy is “completely stupid” & “unethical.”
  • A pathologist stated, “Believe nothing you’ve been told. It’s all been a pack of lies, from start to finish – pure propaganda.” 
  • A well known doctor has shredded the CDC by announcing it “abandoned science.”
  • A PhD, and editor in Chief at Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law states that it’s time to reboot public health, and for a CDC/NIAID/FDA walk-away movement.
  • Creator of mRNA technology states that everything being done is illegal and goes against the Nuremberg code and the Belmont Report.

Had these experts been listened to, businesses & schools would have remained open, the economy wouldn’t have suffered like it did, lives could have been saved that were lost due to isolation, depression, and fear, and we wouldn’t be dealing with a pandemic of children needing speech therapy due to mask wearing.

History does repeat itself.  It is imperative we learn from these ghastly mistakes.

Category:

Activism, Lyme, Viruses

US Senate Passes Bill to End COVID-19. Internal Memo Shows Biden, CDC Following Poll Numbers, Not Science & Will Your Governor Stand Up Against Tyranny?

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us-senate-passes-bill-to-end-covid-19-national-emergency

US Senate Passes Bill to End COVID-19 National Emergency

By Zachary Stieber
March 3, 2022 Updated: March 3, 2022

The U.S. Senate on March 3 approved a measure that would end the national emergency over COVID-19.

The resolution passed 48–47 on a party-line vote.

All Republicans voted for S.J.Res. 38, which would end the national emergency declared by President Donald Trump on March 13, 2020. All Democrats voted against the declaration, which has been extended twice by President Joe Biden.

Five senators missed the vote, including three Democrats.  (See link for article)

_________________

**Comment**

The Bill now heads to the House of Representatives, which if remains partisan will also vote against the declaration.  The White House said on March 3 that Biden would veto it.

Please listen to this video with Dr. Malone and Dr. McCullough. They explain how COVID has been politicized, with government controlling health care, resulting in a tragedy with a huge loss of human life.

Also, please sign this petition demanding Congress step up to shield our children, not public health profiteers.

_________________

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/internal-memo-biden-cdc-following-poll-numbers-not-science/

Internal Memo Shows Biden, CDC Following Poll Numbers, Not Science

In his State of the Union address Tuesday, President Biden parrotted COVID talking points circulated in a memo by the firm that conducted polling for his 2020 presidential campaign. The Feb. 24 memo came out days before Biden’s address and just one day before the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention eased masking restrictions.

An internal memo from a firm that conducted polling for President Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign advises the Democratic Party on how it can present itself as having “defeated” COVID-19. 

The content of the Feb. 24 memo, “Taking the Win over COVID-19,” closely matches statements Biden made Tuesday during Tuesday’s State of the Union address.

The two-page memo was distributed to “interested parties” by Impact Research, a public opinion research firm that provides “strategic thoughts for Democrats positioning themselves on COVID-19 after nearly two years of the pandemic.”

The “strategic thoughts” proffered by Impact Research include:

  • Declare the crisis phase of COVID over and push for feeling and acting more normal.
  • Recognize that people are “worn out” and feeling real harm from the years-long restrictions and take their side.
  • Acknowledge COVID still exists and likely will for a long time.
  • Don’t set “COVID zero” as the victory condition.
  • Stop talking about restrictions and the unknown future ahead.

(See link for article)

_____________________

**Comment**

Recently Dr. Vinay Prasad MD gave a scathing review of how the CDC has abandoned science.  I would argue that this is not new as they have abandoned science for 40 years regarding Lyme/MSIDS, as well as many other diseases and issues. Here, another doctor states the CDC doesn’t even bother to read the science, and here a pathologist calls Fauci the most ‘vile person living on the planet at this time.’  France’s vaccine policy chief was fired for stating COVID policy is “completely stupid” and “unethical.”

So despite the talking heads on TV, and the bought out media pushing the accepted narrative, desperately trying to shout down dissenters, there is a growing movement of doctors and scientists screaming about government corruption and conflicts of interest which have been used to take away medical freedom and personal liberties.  Please share and educate this with others so they have a more balanced understanding, because this glaring issue isn’t going away any time soon and will take effort on our part to bring this evil to light.  IMO, COVID has brought the issue out into the light but again, it’s not new.

https://standforhealthfreedom.com/interview/will-your-governor-stand/

Primaries Are Your Secret Weapon

**Content for this blog came from discussion with Leah Wilson, Executive Director of Stand for health Freedom, and from “Advocacy Lifeline with Dawn Richardson,” Episode 14 at 48:42, February 14, 2022. 

Imagine this: There is talk of another lockdown in your state. You know the devastation it will cause so you pick up the phone and call your governor’s office. You let them know your concerns. You tell others to do the same. The next week you see a headline that your governor will keep businesses and schools open. Your voice was heard.

This is not a fantasy. This happens when we build relationships with people who will represent us. The primaries give us an amazing opportunity to do just that.

How will the 2022 primaries help us fight federal tyranny?

When the federal government issues an Order or guidance or other health policy, your governor can choose or refuse compliance. When the CDC changes their hive-mind about masks again, your governor decides whether the state will mandate. When vaccine mandates were pushed from the White House, governors aligned with attorneys general to sue. Health and welfare are the Constitutionally-protected domain of the states, but covid policy has attacked the right of States to protect health of their residents.

In 2022, 36 governors across the US will face voters. These races are critical for the liberty of all Americans. Governors will either set the tone for cultural freedom or pave the way for bad policies to continue. Some governors championed health freedom over the past two years, and some destroyed it. If you live in a state where your informed consent and health privacy was trampled on, you’ll want to be extra vigilant about finding a gubernatorial candidate who will fight for you and your family because we know the White House will keep pushing to control local health decisions.

Michigan is one such state. Gubernatorial candidate Dr. Garrett Soldano, a chiropractor and small business-owner, founded Unlock Michigan to energize citizens of the state to take a stand against covid lockdown policies that harmed small businesses and drove people to leave the state of Michigan. He mobilized over half a million Michiganders to speak out against Governor Whitmer’s oppressive mandates and lockdowns through a successful lawsuit. He is now taking that energy one step further by tossing his hat in the ring to become the Republican Party candidate.

Check out this interview with Mr. Soldano by Leah Wilson, Executive Director of Stand for Health Freedom to get a feel for why the primary is so important for government races across the nation.

Watch the Interview

Your choice for governor will affect the level of privacy you have for health decisions for your family. It will affect how you can school your children, and what they may learn. The decision impacts business, which drives job growth and eventually population in your state. Dr. Soldano explains how common sense solutions can hold the line in the state’s top office while citizens take back liberties that were stolen from us by federal pandemic policies. He knows that “America’s greatest asset is the people.”

So, who cares about primaries?

People who want their voices heard and their candidates in office care about primaries. Smart voters know their votes matter even more in primaries than in general elections.

Primaries give you the most bang for your buck.

  • Your vote has even more of an impact. Primaries historically have low voter turnout. If you cast a vote where 1 million people are voting, your one-in-a-million vote doesn’t weigh in as much as when you cast a vote with 1000 other people.
  • This is the best time to get one-on-one time with your candidate. During the primaries, the candidates want to talk with you. They want to hear what issues are important to the people they want to represent. The time to build relationships is now. Once your candidate is elected, they will be busy with bills and other duties of their office. Their time will be very limited and their focus pulled in many directions.
  • Your candidate will remember you helped get them there. Right now, a candidate’s focus is on the voters. While you get to know them, you will let them get to know you and how you can help them while they’re in office. Candidates are human, and humans are driven by relationships.
  • If you want your values represented in the general election, vote now. Primaries are the way political parties choose who runs in the general election. Many people simply vote along party lines. They trust their party chose the best person for the job, they assume their views are aligned with their party. They let the party do their thinking for them. But you know within a party there are many differing views. The primaries are the time to make sure your values and priorities are the focus of the candidates representing the party. The party’s priorities and positions for the general election are decided on in the primaries.

What do you do when you find a candidate you like?

When you find a candidate you like, support them. Donate to their campaign, go to or call their campaign office and ask how you can volunteer to help. Show up for them and show them how many others will do the same. When they are elected, they will remember your help and support. They will remember your passion for the issues and your ability to get engaged with the political process.

Health freedom is at the front of everyone’s mind after years of pandemic policy. We can use the primaries as leverage to shift the momentum in America back to respect for our health, our bodies, our privacy, our families, and our Constitution.

Take Action!

Go to our Vote for Health Freedom page, or Text the letters VHF to 52886, to learn about candidates in your area!
Vote for Health Freedom
Tell your candidates to take our Health Freedom Survey so we can support those who will stand for health freedom!
Candidate Survey

Category:

Activism, vaccines, Viruses

UK & US Data: COVID-19 “Vaccine”-Induced Fatality High & Israeli Ministry of Health Conducts “Vaccine” Survey: So Many Serious Events They Started Deleting Them

https://www.skirsch.com/covid/Seneff_costBenefit.pdf

COVID–19 and All–Cause Mortality Data by Age Group Reveals Risk of COVID Vaccine–Induced Fatality is Equal to or Greater than the Risk of a COVID death for all Age Groups Under 80 Years Old as of 6 February 2022.

Kathy Dopp, MS Mathematics and Stephanie Seneff, PhD
13 February 2022.

Abstract

As of 6 February 2022, based on publicly available official UK and US data, all age groups under 50
years old are at greater risk of fatality after receiving a COVID–19 inoculation than an unvaccinated
person is at risk of a COVID–19 death. All age groups under 80 years old have virtually no benefit from receiving a COVID–19 inoculation, and the younger ages incur significant risk. This analysis is
conservative because it ignores the fact that inoculation–induced adverse events such as thrombosis, myocarditis, Bell’s palsy, and other vaccine–induced injuries can lead to shortened life span. When one takes into consideration the fact that there is approximately a 90% decrease in risk of COVID–19 death if early treatment is provided to all symptomatic high–risk persons, one can only conclude that mandates of COVID–19 inoculations are ill–advised. Considering the emergence of antibody–resistant variants like Delta and Omicron, for most age groups COVID–19 vaccine inoculations result in higher death rates than COVID–19 does for the unvaccinated.

____________________

SUMMARY:

  • For those under age 18, “vaccination” increases their COVID death rate and they are 51 times more likely to die from the inoculation than to die from COVID if not vaccinated.
  • Those aged 18 to 29 are 16 times more likely to die from COVID vaccination than to prevent one COVID death and are eight times more likely to die from vaccination than to die from COVID if not vaccinated.
  • Those aged 30 to 39 are 15 times more likely to die from COVID inoculation than to prevent one COVID death, and seven times more likely to die from the inoculation than to die from COVID if not vaccinated.
  • Those aged 40 to 49 are nine times more likely to die from the COVID inoculation than likely to prevent one COVID death in this age group, and five times more likely to die from the inoculation than to die from COVID if not vaccinated.
  • Those aged 50 to 59 are twice (two times) more likely to die from the COVID inoculation than to prevent one COVID death and are slightly more likely to die from the inoculation than to die from COVID if not vaccinated.
  • Those aged 60 to 79 are virtually equally likely to die from the COVID inoculation as to prevent one COVID death or die from COVID if not vaccinated.
  • Those aged 80+ are 0.13% less likely to die from the COVID inoculation than to die from COVID if not vaccinated.

____________________

https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/the-israeli-ministry-of-health-actually

The Israeli Ministry of Health Actually Did a Survey of Adverse Events after The Booster Dose

And it’s absolutely devastating

Well surprise, surprise. The Israeli Ministry of Health (MoH) conducted an actual survey of about two thousand people 3-4 weeks after they received the third (booster) shot of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, asking them about the adverse events they experienced following vaccination. The results are absolutely devastating to the COVID-19 vaccine program and the push for vaccine mandates.  (See link for article)

SUMMARY:

  • While the Israeli public was told by ‘every talking head on TV and every newspaper’ that the shots were extremely safe, the MoH and CDC completely ignored the unambiguous and unprecedented safety signals emanating from VAERS and IMOH, both of which are known to have a huge problem of under-reported events. Further, they took a page from Big Pharma’s playbook by deliberately failing to gather data appropriately to reflect what was happening in reality.
  • MoH put up a Facebook post deriding all the “fake news” about side effects that was quickly flooded with thousands of comments from those who were harmed.
  • MoH apparently panicked and were ‘caught in the act’ of deleting hundreds if not thousands of comments by people reading the comments who took videos of them being deleted. There are currently 27,000 comments but it’s unknown how many were deleted.  ICAN just issued a FOIA request to the CDC for a VAERS report that seemingly disappeared without a trace about a two year old boy “began bleeding out of the mouth, eyes, nose and ears within 6 hours” after the Pfizer jab.
  • MoH never investigated why so many never got the 2nd dose, even though it cost them eligibility for the green pass and the right to work.
  • Israeli data played a starring role for the FDA advisory hearing on boosters, where they again assured the shots were extremely safe due to the fact they had received so few reports, even when the ones they did receive were determined not to be linked to the shots – including a woman who had a stroke immediately after the jab. 
  • The article then painstakingly goes through the important take-aways from the survey which shows high numbers being adversely affected, even requiring hospitalization, and had difficulty performing daily activities, developed neurological problems, experienced a worsening of symptoms in those with pre-existing autoimmune disorders, depression, or anxiety, disruptions to menstrual cycles, etc.
  • This chart shows the under reporting factor (URF) for four adverse events (if you can’t read it, go to top link of article): 
  • The results of this survey should have put an immediate end to government plans for boosters.
  • The article, through a chart, shows that a sizable percentage of adverse events began on the same day as the “vaccination,” but that those in charge who are denying any causality are engaged ‘in an exercise of ghoulish gaslighting,’ where they shouldn’t be able to sleep at night.
  • The survey doesn’t show the percentage of people who died within a month of being “vaccinated”
  • Based on v-safe data, the CDC reported an overall hospitalization rate within a week of the first dose of 0.1%, which was also the rate for people who received a booster and primary series all from Pfizer only.
    • 28% were unable to perform normal daily activities, or 22% of the ‘Pfizer only’ group (this compares to 29% in the MoH survey).
  • The article goes in-depth into numerous adverse events and it is worth your time to look at the charts.

Category:

Activism, vaccines, Viruses

Nurse in Agonizing Pain for Years Finally Diagnosed with Lyme/MSIDS

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/nurse-agony-diagnosed-lyme-disease

By Lucy John, and Chloe Burrell

March 2, 2022

A nurse who has spent the majority of her life in pain has finally been diagnosed with a host of tick-borne illnesses, including Lyme disease.

Louise Cole-Jones, 38, has suffered from a variety of symptoms for the last 20 years. Despite being a qualified nurse, she claims that she had been overlooked by health professionals who misdiagnosed her on a number of occasions.

However, almost two decades after being bitten by a tick aged 18, Louise, from Maesycwmmer, Wales, has finally been diagnosed with what has been affecting her both mentally and physically.  (See link for article)

Louise Cole-Jones has suffered from a range of symptoms
Louise Cole-Jones has suffered from a range of symptoms (Image: Louise Cole-Jones)

___________________

**Comment**

Yet another misdiagnosed or undiagnosed patient left to languish for decades who could have had a completely different outcome had she been properly diagnosed and treated early.

Again, everyone knows prompt diagnosis and treatment is key, yet nothing changes. 

For more:

Category:

Activism, Lyme