Archive for the ‘Viruses’ Category

What Are The Real Risks of Genetic Manipulation Technology? Part 1.

https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/what-are-the-real-risks-of-genetic?

What Are the Real Risks of Genetic Manipulation Technology? Part 1.

The public must have a say in its own future. Profiteering technocrats must not decide for all of us.

Here’s question I recently received:

Dear Dr. Jack:

Are you concerned about gene modification technology?

Yes, I am deeply concerned about gene modification technology. Like all tech, it can be used for good and evil. Before I go into the ways it can be abused and lead to harm, we have to distinguish between two type of gene modification technology: somatic gene modification technology (SGMT, non-heritable) and genetic modification technology (heritable). In Part 1 of this series, I will focus on SGMT.

Somatic gene modification technology (SGMT) changes genes in an individual in a way that is not passed on to future generations. There are some promising applications of this technology, and most who have looked into the risks of gene modification tech seriously take the position that when the genetic modification reverses a disease state – as would be possible in certain forms of blindness, cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy – without increasing the risk of other medical issues – such as cancer – then gene modification technology is a good thing. The genetic information would be integrated in limited number of cells in a person of a particular type, such as the retina, or in specific lung tissue. (Read about Gene Therapy for Cystic Fibrosis).

This use could be seen as as curing individuals of conditions they inherited. The problem is that society will have to decide where to draw the line between reversing a negative condition, and merely enhancing a human being (improvement), such as enhancement of athletic performance (gene doping). Let’s call this problem “The First Slippery Slope” (you’ll see why in a minute).

Knowing how big Pharma and big medicine operate as well as I do, my crystal ball tells me exactly what could happen over the next 5-30 years with SGMT:

  1. It will be allowed for use in individual to reverse inherited, deadly or painful conditions.
  2. A black market of genetic improvement “therapies” will spring up. It will be extremely expensive, and only the elite will be able to afford these “improvements”. These will include athletes, and those who have adopted “transhumanism”. There’s a small chance (around 1%) that this is already happening. Early adopters risk cancer due to off-target modifications: unintended mutations, of the type that has been seen in the Crispr/Cas9 gene editing system. These problems are being addressed.
  3. The medical community will begin to pathologize conditions where the technology could be used to improve human beings. “Conditions” with fancy names like muscular asthenia will be contrived. Dr. Atlas will provide an injection of an mRNA with a retrovirus that infects muscle cells and causes more responsiveness to ambient growth hormone, and we’ll see a return to ads like these:

The Second Slippery Slope will be brought on by market forces that use the fixtures of societal influence and power to bring about compliance. This is not mere theory; we’ve see this before with voluntary vaccination programs that become mandated. Via a combination of legislation and PR to induce voluntary trust, those who will benefit financially will abuse the public’s trust and bring about, one way or the other, enforcement to maximize their market share without adding anything of real additional competitive value to an open market (this is also called “Rent-Seeking”).

Another Second Slippery Slope, from Meuhlbacher and Kirchler (2010).

  1. Somatic gene modification used to reduce the risk of heritable risk of early onset dementia and neurodegeneration will be allowed, but then a route to increase intelligence will be found via genetic modification. At first it will be used by the elite – those who have funds for this boutique-level genetic improvements. But when Pharma recognizing the market is much larger, medical terms such as hypointelligence will be normalized by pathologizing below-level intelligence levels. The obedient media will inform the public that it’s now considered unethical to not vaccinate your newborn child against hypointelligence, and well-meaning, loving parents who comply will help change the cultural norm.
  2. Social behavioral gene “therapy”. Scientists have already identified over 40 genes associated with aggression in humans and mice. One study reports a “warrior gene” – MAOA-L gene – that predicts whether a person will be aggressive when “provoked”. Someone will find a way to reduce aggression in mice via gene therapy. Studies will be done involving mice put under stress that causes them to be violent toward each other, to demonstrate that the treated mice won’t harm other mice. Human trials will be done on the most violent criminals and on children with autism who self-harm or hurt others. Criminals convicted of violent acts will be offered a choice: prison, or social behavioral gene therapy. The promise of a future without crime will be seen as looming, just over the horizon, and parents will be forced to test their children for evidence of “genetic aggression syndrome” and transfect their children to help eliminate violent crime from society. The specific therapy will likely be “gene inhibition therapy”, in which a gene that causes the brain to produce silencing RNA that shuts down the production of proteins associated with aggression will be transfected into infants.
  3. Somewhere along the way, an Elon Musk-like figure will emerge that champions genetic modification to improve our species. Alternatively, in these Regulatory States of America, it will be more likely than not be a regulatory committee in HHS that votes to approve (and thereby mandate) genetic modification therapies. The committee will be infiltrated by people with direct conflicts of interests and ties to companies that own the patents on genetic modification therapies. He, she, or it will become, like The High Evolutionary of Marvel Comics, might even be early adopters – those who has demonstrated the utility of brain-enhancement by gene modification. Being super-intelligent, they will garner followers who take it upon themselves to decide the evolutionary fate of humanity.

    Well, I don’t know if it’s me, or that I found Marvel Comic scenarios that match my predictions so well. I’ve scared myself enough already with this Part 1 of this series, and I’ve just started.

You can read more of my prognostication of this type more formally approached in this peer-reviewed analysis in Biological Theory, which I published in 2021.

Lyons-Weiler, J. 2021. Who are We, and Who (or What) Do We Want to Become? An Evolutionary Perspective on Biotransformative Technologies. Biological Theory.

PS I’m currently in Facebook jail for a week for calling out WashPo for attributing causality of Ivermectin to side effects based on phone calls to poison control center… instead of citing peer-reviewed clinical research studies. So please do me a favor and share this article across Facebook, Twitter, MeWe, Gettr and help right the wrongs of censorship.

If you’re not yet a paid subscriber, please consider pitching in. Your $7 per month paid subscription will power articles like these.

___________________

**Comment**

Before you write this off as a piece of science fiction, mRNA technology is already being promoted for cancer, HIV, autoimmune disorders, genetic diseases, as well as in Lyme-land:  https://grist.org/health/how-mrna-technology-could-create-a-new-vaccine-against-ticks/

SUMMARY:

  • The article predictably starts with the false narrative that the climate is behind tick proliferation.  Not a word is uttered on our government’s role in spreading ticks and disease.
  • The article also predictably mentions that approximately 500,000 are diagnosed with Lyme but fail to mention that this is a YEARLY rate and doesn’t touch the millions chronically infected.
  • It does state that there is no coordinated national response like for STDs or COVID but fails to mention that there is plenty of controversy on Lyme being sexually transmitted.  Better to stick to the script.
  • But the high numbers and the lack of national response is ALWAYS utilized for the vaccine angle.  ALWAYS.  And it’s getting mighty old.
  • A vaccine, according to the author who is just another shill for Big Pharma, is the magic pill and would solve all our problems.  If only.
  • Of course they repeat the oft repeated mantra that some crazies complained that the last Lyme vaccine caused side effects – but had negligible evidence.  Please go here for the ‘negligible’ evidence.
  • Superheros from Yale are trying to revive a Lyme vaccine that of course looks nothing like the last one. (For all you crazies who are actually worried about such nonsense)
  • And guess what?  The Yale “dream team” is using messenger RNA, the same stuff that Pfizer and Moderna are using in their COVID “vaccines” which don’t stop transmission or infection, have caused more adverse reactions and death than another other vaccine in the history of VAERS, and are actually causing antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) which is making the “vaccinated” more prone to illness with COVID variants.  “Vaccine” failure has been proven. But, who wants to be a Debbie Downer?
  • Despite the fact the mRNA shot for Lyme hasn’t even been tested in humans yet, everything about the article makes it appear to be the answer to all our woes. (Except for those crazies who question everything)
  • The article ends by promoting a national response to “take the responsibility off of individual patients,” who are currently responsible for buying their own DEET, protective clothing, and doing tick checks.

No thanks. I’d rather take responsibility for myself than trust organizations that are so riddled with conflicts of interest they’ve forgotten long ago what truth actually sounds like.

Category:

Activism, Lyme, vaccines, Viruses

BMJ Demands Immediate Vaccine Data

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/02/01/bmj-demands-immediate-vaccine-data

BMJ Demands Immediate Vaccine Data

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola
Feb. 1, 2022

Story at-a-glance –

  • BMJ editor Peter Doshi has publicly called for release of raw data from the clinical trials that led to the emergency use authorization of the COVID-19 shots. The FDA has a statutory obligation to publish the Pfizer data after drug approval, leaving Moderna, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca to provide the raw data
  • The delay in releasing raw data is reminiscent of Roche’s handling of Tamiflu and Gilead’s determination to get authorization for remdesivir to treat COVID-19, despite clinical data demonstrating the drug showed little or no positive effect
  • At least one Pfizer testing facility had poor practices, including data that were falsified, patients who were unblinded and poorly trained people hired to administer the injections
  • In an opinion piece published coincidentally on the day the FDA announced full approval of the Pfizer injection, Doshi noted Pfizer’s August 2021 preprint paper held no new information since April 2021, and the shot demonstrated waning immunity in Israel, where it was used exclusively

While other Big Pharma manufacturers have developed and released a COVID-19 genetic therapy injection, only shots from Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson have been approved in the U.S.1

The British Medical Journal (BMJ) editor Peter Doshi, an associate professor of pharmaceutical health services research at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, has called for the release of the clinical trial raw data on which the emergency use authorizations were based.2

As of December 2021, there were 12 countries with the capacity to produce the shots being distributed throughout the world, with approximately 200 vaccine candidates that are in preclinical development.3 According to OpenVAERS,4 there have been 1,053,828 adverse events reported as of January 14, 2022, and of those 593,078 (56.2%) are attributed to the Pfizer/BioNTech shot.

Of the three emergency use authorization approved shots in the U.S., Pfizer’s Comirnaty was the only one approved for full use by the FDA in August 2021.5 The thing is, Comirnaty is not available in the U.S., and won’t be made available as long as doses of the Emergency Use Authorized Pfizer shot, BNT162b2, remain.6

In other words, the shot that has triggered more than half of all adverse events is the one that is being touted as approved by the FDA — when in reality the shot that was actually approved isn’t even available yet. Dr. Peter Marks, FDA’s director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research wrote this as justification for the approval to do this in the FDA press release:7

“Our scientific and medical experts conducted an incredibly thorough and thoughtful evaluation of this vaccine. We evaluated scientific data and information included in hundreds of thousands of pages, conducted our own analyses of Comirnaty’s safety and effectiveness, and performed a detailed assessment of the manufacturing processes, including inspections of the manufacturing facilities.”

It is the FDA’s statutory obligation8 to publish this “incredibly thorough” evaluation of the data and their own analysis within 30 days of a drug approval. Yet, after a Freedom of Information Act request and subsequent lawsuit by a nonprofit group to release the data,9 the FDA proposed to release documentation over many decades.

Ultimately, they asked a federal judge to give them 75 years to complete the process,10 but in January 2022 a federal judge ordered the FDA to accelerate this schedule to eight months.11

Pfizer Won’t Accept Requests for Trial Data Until 2025

According to Doshi,12 it will take Pfizer at least 24 months after the study completion date listed on ClinicalTrials.gov13 to even consider a request to release the primary data. Doshi calls this an “unacceptable delay,” and yet the lack of access to data is not unique to Pfizer.

Moderna and AstraZeneca14 have both indicated they will have similar delays in releasing their data.15 Since only the data from Pfizer can be released by the FDA, it falls to Moderna, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca to provide the raw data. Doshi points out that raw data for other therapeutics tied to COVID-19 are also difficult to uncover.

For example, the published reports of the monoclonal antibody therapy produced by Regeneron state that any raw data will not be released to others.16 Only the methods and findings will be released, and the raw data will only be considered once the drug has been approved and if there’s legal authority to share it.

Likewise, Doshi notes the raw data from the National Institutes of Health for the drug promoted to treat COVID-19 — remdesivir — is limited, with the accompanying explanation: “The longitudinal data set only contains a small subset of the protocol and statistical analysis plan objectives.”17 Doshi argues the point, writing:

“We are left with publications but no access to the underlying data on reasonable request. This is worrying for trial participants, researchers, clinicians, journal editors, policy makers, and the public. The journals that have published these primary studies may argue that they faced an awkward dilemma, caught between making the summary findings available quickly and upholding the best ethical values that support timely access to underlying data.

In our view, there is no dilemma; the anonymized individual participant data from clinical trials must be made available for independent scrutiny.”

Access to the underlying data is necessary for transparent decision-making. Each of these are essential steps for public health safety. Doshi notes18 that had information been revealed as to why the vaccine trials were not used to test efficacy against the infection, countries would have learned earlier about how the vaccine allowed transmission in the pandemic and would have been able to plan public health strategies accordingly.

Pfizer has been a habitual offender in shady dealings, having been sued in multiple venues over unethical drug testing, illegal marketing practices,19 bribery in multiple countries,20 environmental violations,21 labor and worker safety violations and more.22,23

Doshi cites documentation24 that three of the companies have had past criminal and civil settlements costing them billions of dollars, one pleaded guilty to fraud and other drug companies have jumped into developing a genetic injection with no track record before the pandemic. These actions create doubt that the raw data will adequately support the manufacturers claims.

Lack of Raw Data After Drug Release Reminiscent of Tamiflu

Doshi recalls that 12 years ago the scientific community called for the release of raw data from clinical trials from another drug that was stockpiled by governments around the world in the middle of a different pandemic.25

In this case, most of the trials that formed the foundation of the government approval and stockpiling of Tamiflu were sponsored by the manufacturer and ghost written by writers paid by the manufacturer. Ironically, those who were listed as principal authors did not have access to the raw data.

The history of Tamiflu also parallels remdesivir, a drug that has little or no positive effect on treatment of COVID.26 Dr. Tom Jefferson is an epidemiologist who works for the Cochrane Collaboration, an organization that collects and reviews medical research findings.

In his presentation at the Symposium about Scientific Freedom in Copenhagen,27 Jefferson described the intricate and complex journey he and his team took to publish the only Cochrane review that was based solely on raw unpublished regulatory data for Tamiflu.

Ultimately, his review demonstrated that the drug shortened the duration of symptoms from flu by less than one day. However, the struggle to obtain the data was nearly as eye-opening as the results.

It took four years for Roche to deliver 150,000 pages of clinical data to Jefferson’s team.28 After getting the data, Jefferson found that although the drug was used worldwide, the WHO had never vetted the raw data, nor had the European Medicines Agency, nor had the CDC.

The FDA had seen the data, however, which prompted them to request a published statement on the label “saying serious bacterial infections may begin with influenza-like symptoms or may coexist with or without complications … but Tamiflu has not been shown to prevent such complications.”29 Jefferson commented: “The FDA was saying, this business about complications, no evidence of that.”

Jefferson also notes that even a decade after the Tamiflu Phase 3 trials were completed, they remained unpublished. From an analysis the team determined:

“there was no convincing trial evidence that Tamiflu affected influenza complications and treatment or influenza infections in prophylaxis.”30

At Least One Pfizer Shot Testing Facility Had Poor Practices

Paul Thacker, investigative journalist from the BMJ, reported on evidence presented by researchers in a Texas privately-owned clinical research lab that the data integrity in Pfizer’s vaccine trial was suspect.31 While this should have been front-page news in 2021, the mainstream media completely ignored it.

According to Brook Jackson, a veteran clinical research coordinator with 20 years of experience, the Pfizer Phase 3 COVID jab trial included data that were falsified, patients who were unblinded and poorly trained people hired to administer the injections. Additionally, follow up on any adverse side effects reported by the participants lagged significantly.

Thacker led the article with the statement: “Revelations of poor practices at a contract research company helping to carry out Pfizer’s pivotal COVID-19 vaccine trial raise questions about data integrity and regulatory oversight.”32

Jackson attempted to inform her superiors multiple times. When her concerns were ignored, she called the FDA and filed an email complaint. Hours later she was fired after working just two weeks. According to her separation letter the management had decided she was “not a good fit” for the company. According to Jackson, this was the first time she’d ever been fired in her 20-year career as a clinical research coordinator.

While the briefing document that Pfizer submitted to the FDA in the application for an emergency use authorization contained no indication of any problems at the lab, Jackson has since provided The BMJ with “dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings and emails”33 proving her concerns were valid.

The BMJ also learned that Jackson’s allegations were supported by others. Months later, Jackson reconnected with employees who were either fired from the lab or who left. One official sent a text message to Jackson saying, “everything that you complained about was spot on.”34

Two other former employees spoke to The BMJ anonymously confirming the broad allegations made in Jackson’s complaint, with one person saying she had worked on more than four dozen trials during her career, but had never experienced the type of work environment at Ventavia on the Pfizer trial.

For example, in several cases there weren’t enough employees to swab the trial participants who were reporting symptoms, even though the trial required lab confirmation of symptomatic COVID-19 as a primary endpoint. The employee called the data produced by the Ventavia lab for the Pfizer trial “a crazy mess.”35

Preprint Data Demonstrate Waning Immunity by March 2021

Doshi also addressed the need for adequate and controlled studies with long-term follow-up before granting approval for vaccinations, most notably the COVID-19 genetic therapy injection.36 In an opinion piece published August 23, 2021, he discussed the updated results that Pfizer had posted for their ongoing Phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine trial.37

Months before, the company had announced the vaccine efficacy was estimated to be “up to six months” after injection.38 While updated results were published one year after the trial began,39 there were not 10 months of data in the follow-up. The paper appeared to be based on the same data included in the April 1, 2021, news release from Pfizer.40

The efficacy results were identical, claiming 91.3% efficacy against symptomatic disease “up to six months of follow-up.” Doshi points out that this matters because it is thus far the most information Pfizer had offered to the public as they were pursuing full approval from the FDA. Both Pfizer41 and the CDC42 have claimed the shot is 95% effective.

Without addressing whether that 95% is absolute or relative risk reduction, or how Pfizer arrived at those claims, it’s also important to note that little can be said about how long vaccine-induced immunity could last when researchers had only measured two months of data.

“Waning immunity” is a known issue for some vaccines, such as the influenza shot.43 Doshi notes44 there have been some studies that found near zero effectiveness only three months after the flu vaccine was administered. The crucial question is the level of effectiveness of the vaccine after an individual is exposed to the virus.

In early July 2021, Israel’s Ministry of Health reported that efficacy against asymptomatic disease fell dramatically in the months following vaccinations. Israel exclusively uses the Pfizer vaccine, which Pfizer’s chief scientific officer, Philip Dormitzer, told a Zoom meeting:45

“Early in the pandemic we established a relationship with the Israeli Ministry of Health where they used exclusively the Pfizer vaccine and then monitored it very closely, so we had a sort of laboratory where we could see the effect.”

Only 7% of Trial Participants Reached 6 Months of Data

Data released from Israel show the efficacy fell to 64% over one month from June 6, 2021, to July 5, 2021.46 By late July, the efficacy had dropped dramatically again to 39%.47 While these numbers are low, the FDA’s expectation is that any approved vaccine should be at least 50% effective.48

Starting in December 2020, Pfizer unblinded the majority of the participants in the trial and allowed the placebo group to get vaccinated. By March 13, 2021, 93% of those participating in the Pfizer trial had been unblinded. This means the reference to six months of safety and efficacy in the preprint paper reports on only the 7% of trial participants that reached six months of the blinded follow up.

While the paper was published one year after the trial began, the data reported do not go past the first six months, which is the time period in which Israel reports efficacy dropped to 39%. Doshi goes on to say:49

“It is hard to imagine that the <10% of trial participants who remained blinded at six months (which presumably further dwindled after 13 March 2021) could constitute a reliable or valid sample to produce further findings. And the preprint does not report any demographic comparisons to justify future analyses.”

Although claims have been made that the vaccine prevents severe disease, the trials were not designed to study severe disease, which Doshi details in another paper published in The BMJ.50 In the opinion piece published in The BMJ, Doshi writes:51

“But here we are, with FDA reportedly on the verge of granting a marketing license 13 months into the still ongoing, two-year pivotal trial, with no reported data past 13 March 2021, unclear efficacy after six months due to unblinding, evidence of waning protection irrespective of the Delta variant, and limited reporting of safety data.”

Coincidentally, the very day Doshi’s paper was published in The BMJ, the FDA announced approval for the Pfizer COVID-19 shot being marketed as Comirnaty.52

Yet, without adequate data analysis, and with mounting numbers of adverse events reported to VAERS,53 the FDA still expanded eligibility for the jab to include children 12 years and older to receive a single booster dose and approved emergency use authorization for children 5 years old and older.54 Doshi ends with a reasoned and logical call to action to the FDA:55

“FDA should be demanding that the companies complete the two-year follow-up, as originally planned (even without a placebo group, much can still be learned about safety). They should demand adequate, controlled studies using patient outcomes in the now substantial population of people who have recovered from covid. And regulators should bolster public trust by helping ensure that everyone can access the underlying data.”

Sources and References

Category:

research, vaccines, Viruses

Level of Evidence & WaPo’s Claims of Ivermectin Toxicity & “Over 500,000 Deaths Could Have Been Prevented”

https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/level-of-evidence-and-washington?

Level of Evidence and Washington Post’s Claims of Ivermectin Toxicity

A letter to the editor of NEJM is cited as providing evidence of a host of toxic side effects… but in tracking down the reference, the evidence falls far short of “toxic” and “causal”.

The Washington Post’s article, “Online archives where scientists post their research spark information revolution” writes about a non-peer-reviewed study on Ivermectin was “retracted” by a pre-print server (technically, an impossible feat given that preprint servers do not technically “publish” studies, because the works are not peer-reviewed).

They also throw in this sentence:

“not to mention contributed to a host of serious side effects among those who ingested ivermectin with no proven benefit against covid-19.”

That reads as if the study found a host of serious side effects, but the WashPo article linked to a letter to the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.

Was this letter a peer-reviewed study that demonstrated causality of the alleged side effects WashPo claims the study has “contributed to”?

No. It was not. The letter merely described 21 reported sets of symptoms following Ivermectin use based on phone calls to a poison control center:

“Of the 21 persons who called in August, 11 were men, and most were older than 60 years of age (median age, 64; range, 20 to 81). Approximately half (11 persons) were reported to have used ivermectin to prevent Covid-19, and the remaining persons had been using the drug to treat Covid-19 symptoms. Three persons had received prescriptions from physicians or veterinarians, and 17 had purchased veterinary formulations; the source of ivermectin for the remaining person was not confirmed. Symptoms had developed in most persons within 2 hours after a large, single, first-time dose. In 6 persons, symptoms had developed gradually after several days to weeks of repeated doses taken every other day or twice weekly. One person had also been taking vitamin D to treat or prevent Covid-19. Reported doses ingested by the persons who had been using veterinary products ranged from 6.8 mg to 125 mg of 1.87% paste and 20 to 50 mg of the 1% solution. The dose of the human-use tablets was 21 mg per dose twice weekly for prevention.

Six of the 21 persons were hospitalized for toxic effects from ivermectin use; all 6 reported preventive use, including the 3 who had obtained the drug by prescription. Four received care in an intensive care unit, and none died. Symptoms were gastrointestinal distress in 4 persons, confusion in 3, ataxia and weakness in 2, hypotension in 2, and seizures in 1. Of the persons who were not admitted to a hospital, most had gastrointestinal distress, dizziness, confusion, vision symptoms, or rash.

These cases illustrate the potential toxic effects of ivermectin..”

The question for the WashPo article author, and WashPo, is how is this “a host of serious side effects” when

(1) Frequency data are not available (we don’t know how many people were using Ivermectin. Is 21 a lot? A little? 1 in 1,000? 1 in 1,000,000?

(2) Causality has not been determined (calls from poison control are not clinical study-level evidence). GI issues, ataxia and hypotension also happen in people taking any number of over-the-counter drugs, prescription drugs and vaccines.

(3) None of these events are considered “serious” (Seizures following vaccination are not considered “serious”).

Imagine if Ivermectin were a vaccine… and 21 phone calls later, the reported outcomes were reported as “caused by” and “serious”.

It seems that the level of evidence need to bury an inexpensive treatment is far, far less than needed to determine causality of vaccine injury.

With this type of loose “reporting”, the legacy press loses yet another point on the credibility scale.

Make that four points (-4).

Actually, make it five: WashPo fails to report the 77 other studies on Ivermectin.

This is why people who read the news need to check the references and see for themselves whether their news source is accurately representing what’s going on.

And it’s time we start holding such “news” outlets accountable for their abuse of the public trust and of scientific evidence.

_________________

https://thehighwire.com/videos/over-500000-covid-deaths-could-have-been-prevented/

“OVER 500,000 COVID DEATHS COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED”

On the heels of the groundbreaking ‘Covid-19: Second Opinion” panel, Dr. Richard Urso joins Del in-studio to talk through some of the most eye-opening statements from the over 5 hour long hearing featuring the greatest minds in science and health.

Dr. Urso corrects Senator Johnson who stated that there weren’t any treatments at the beginning of the ‘pandemic.’ Urso states there were effective treatments that worked from the very get-go. He used a combination of HCQ, azithromcin, vitamin D, aspirin, and steroids way back in March.

Urso also states the denial of natural immunity needs to STOP, and that he has never called the FDA, NIH, or the CDC ONE time for advice.  Those organizations are not involved in medical education. Their dictating medical practices also needs to stop. The current regime needs to be completely reinvented because it is corporate practice of medicine telling doctors what to do when they already know what to do.

Go here for a four-part talk by Dr. Urso covering everything from COVID testing, deaths, lockdowns, to effective treatments.

Also, go here for “The Indefensible Approval of Pfizer and Merck Drugs Compared to the Snubbing of Ivermectin.”

It is quite clear there are two standards. The ‘powers that be’ can do no wrong and can say anything they want even if it’s completely untrue, illogical, and unscientific.

#SecondOpinion #RonJohnson #DrRichardUrso

For more:

Category:

Activism, Treatment, vaccines, Viruses

Another Paper Apologizes Over Its COVID Coverage & Worst Journalism of the Year Goes To….

https://www.activistpost.com/2022/01/we-failed-danish-newspaper-apologizes-for-its-covid-coverage

“We Failed”: Danish Newspaper Apologizes For Its COVID Coverage

January 24, 2022

By Jon Miltimore

A Danish newspaper has apologized to its readers for not questioning the government’s data and narratives more throughout the first two years of the pandemic.

The Ekstra Bladet, founded in 1904, said it should have done more due diligence in examining the government’s data and conclusions before reporting them:

“For ALMOST two years, we – the press and the population – have been almost hypnotically preoccupied with the authorities’ daily coronatal,” wrote Bladet journalist Brian Weichardt. “THE CONSTANT mental alertness has worn out tremendously on all of us. That is why we – the press – must also take stock of our own efforts. And we have failed.”

In the mea culpa, which went viral on Twitter earlier this month, Weichardt suggested the newspaper should have asked more questions about how public health officials were tabulating data….. (See link for article)

__________________

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/and-prize-worst-journalism-year-goes

And The Prize For “Worst Journalism Of The Year” Goes To…

by Tyler Durden
Saturday, Jan 29, 2022 – 10:30 AM

Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org,

Media Lies & the Sacred Rites of the Vaccine Cult

The coverage of Szilveszter Csollany’s death shows you being called an “anti-vaxxer” is more about what you think, than what you do.

The Independent has put out an early (and strong) entry for “Worst Journalism of the Year” award, reporting yesterday the death of Hungarian gymnastics coach Szilveszter Csollany under the headline:

Anti-vax Olympic gold medalist Szilveszter Csollany dies of Covid, aged 51

The journalism is terrible, criminally bad. (Go to link for article)

_________________

Go here for a rousing message to a “Manic Mainstream Media” by Del BigTree

**Comment**

Too bad we aren’t hearing apologies from the media in the U.S. Unfortunately, they are bought out, lock stock and barrel.

SUMMARY:

  • Hospitalization numbers are nearly 30% higher than the actual figure due to the difference between being hospitalized due to a positive test rather than actual illness.
  • Journalists should have avoided the state’s rhetoric and narrative on hospitalizations and COVID injections.
  • U.S. media have viewed Fauci’s utterances as a kind of gospel.  MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace could have been speaking for many when she called herself “a Fauci groupie.”
  • Fauci has been featured on magazine covers, is the topic of a Disney biopic, and has at least 400 media events—even though his role is not a public relations.
  • Treated like a King, the media doesn’t question or criticize Fauci despite his pandemic flip-flops.  Some journalists have published articles pushing back on narratives problematic to Fauci’s public messaging at his request.
  • To those critical of him, “….they’re really criticizing science,” Fauci said in November, “because I represent science.”

Important excerpt:

It’s merely to say journalists (and citizens) should recognize their proximity to power and influence, and realize that experts, like politicians, don’t shed self-interest simply because of the work they do. The expert’s data and comments should be scrutinized, dissected, and discussed, not treated as gospel or used as prima facie evidence for coercive policies. (As the economist Ludwig von Mises once pointed out, there is no “ought in science”; science can only tell us what is.)

Ekstra Bladet, Denmark’s newspaper, appears to have gleaned some of these lessons during the pandemic.

Let’s hope more news outlets around the world do the same.

For more: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2021/08/05/germanys-top-newspaper-apologizes-for-fear-driven-covid-coverage/

Unfortunately, media in the U.S. isn’t gleaning these lessons and continues to be a mouth-piece of Big Pharma, Big Tech, and government bureaucrats who have severe conflicts of interest and who haven’t treated a patient in 40 years. The reason for this is quite simple, they are bought out.

Category:

Activism, vaccines, Viruses

Embalmers Finding Arteries Filled with Clots & Photo of Baseball-Sized Clot

**UPDATE June, 2022**

Listen to this podcast with Dr. Jane Ruby where she explains in detail the substance being found in autopsies upon the vaxxed.  Scroll to 9:00 where she explains it and shows pictures.

https://rumble.com/vti2i0-embalmers-discover-horror-dr.-ruby-exclusive-arteries-filled-with-rubbery-  Video Here (Approx. 10 Min)

Embalmers Discover Horror: Dr. Ruby Exclusive: Arteries Filled With Rubbery Clots

January 28, 2022

Dr. Jane Ruby speaks with embalmers whom have had trouble getting embalming fluid into many who are deceased.  All of a sudden they are finding white, rubbery blood-clots clogging up the veins of the deceases.  A group of embalmers have saved hundreds of samples as proof.

For more:

___________________

https://thecovidblog.com/2022/01/28/mark-ruston-british-man-temporarily-banned-from-facebook-after-sharing-gruesome-photo-of-post-astrazeneca-baseball-sized-blood-clot-in-his-arm/  (Go here for article)

Mark Ruston: British man temporarily banned from Facebook after sharing gruesome photo of post-AstraZeneca, baseball-sized blood clot in his arm

TheCOVIDBlog.com
January 28, 2022

Summary:

  • Ruston made the top of the list for the AstraZeneca shot due to being a kidney transplant recipient. 
  • He was taking immunosuppressant drugs due to the transplant so his immune system wouldn’t attack the new kidney.
  • He was told the COVID jab was “safe and effective”
  • He fell ill days after the first shot but seemed to recover for the second shot.
  • After the 2nd shot his body temp plummeted for three months and he developed a “foul smelling” discharge from his nose, severe headaches, and patchy vision.
  • He checked into the hospital and a blood clot was discovered in his leg. Blood thinners dissolved it before damage occurred. 
  • For five years he got dialysis 3 times a week due to his failing kidney and got a surgical procedure done connecting an artery and a vein for an easy access point to streamline the dialysis process. 
  • After the COVID shots he woke up and wrote, “It felt like razor blades were being repeatedly dragged through my left arm.”
  • He called an ambulance and tested positive for COVID.  He was left in a waiting room for 18 hours despite the large growth in his arm – his second blood clot in months.
  • The condition is known as arteriovenous fistula thrombosis – a blood clot in the dialysis access point.
  • A few days after surgery to remove the growth, he was back in the hospital where doctors discovered more blood clots in his arms and chest.
  • He remained in the hospital for 3 days with heparin IV to dissolve the clots.
  • Facebook suspended him for “going against our standards for misinformation.”
  • AstraZeneca never received EUA in the U.S. and eight European countries suspended it, and even “vaccine” proponents have avoided it due to all the negative press.  Only Australia is pushing it, despite the populace shunning it. It appears to be being pushed in poor countries under the guise of altruism.

Please also see the list of patients getting appendages amputated after the shots.

Also, read about graphene, discovered within the shots and how it is causing the clotting.

For more:

Category:

Activism, vaccines, Viruses