Saturday, July 10, 2021

CDC releases new mask guidance for K-12 schools, says vaccinations should be tracked



(ZEROHEDGE) – After telling the public that there's no reason yet to believe they will need COVID "booster shots," the CDC released more updated guidance on Friday morning. This time, the updated guidance focused on precautions that K-12 public schools should take during the upcoming 2021-2022 school year.

Most importantly, the guidance included a directive that schools should remain open regardless – even in the event of an outbreak – regardless of whether all COVID-prevention strategies can be implemented.

The new federal guidelines aren't mandatory, but they're supposed to give public school administrators a framework to help navigate the complexities of teaching during the COVID era.

Read the full story ›

The post CDC releases new mask guidance for K-12 schools, says vaccinations should be tracked appeared first on WND.


Darryl Cooper: Why Trump Supporters Are Pissed Off And Don't Trust Anything

As the ruling class went to absurd lengths to try and dismantle Donald Trump, pissed off supporters watched in horror as a captured media peddled lie after lie - typically based on anonymous leaks from deep state bureaucrats, and as  powerful agents within America's intelligence apparatus falsified


People Who Recover From COVID-19 At "Very Low Risk" Of Re-Infection: Study

People Who Recover From COVID-19 At "Very Low Risk" Of Re-Infection: Study

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

People who have contracted COVID-19 and recovered should know that the risk for re-infection is very low, a doctor said after a study he worked on was published.

Researchers analyzed records from Curative, a clinical laboratory based in San Dimas that specializes in COVID-19 testing and has during the pandemic been conducting routine workforce screening. None of the 254 employees who had COVID-19 and recovered became re-infected, while four of the 739 who were fully vaccinated contracted the disease.

“The big takeaway was that if you are not vaccinated, and were not previously infected, one, you have a very high risk getting infected—24 percent of employees over a year tested positive. However, on the flip side, if you were vaccinated or previously infected your risk was near zero,” Dr. Jeffrey Klausner, clinical professor of preventive medicine and medicine at the University of Southern California’s Keck School of Medicine, told The Epoch Times.

Klausner and Dr. Noah Kojima of the University of California, Los Angeles’ Department of Medicine joined with Curative workers to analyze the records. They released a pre-print, or pre-peer reviewed version of the study online this week.

Researchers found that of the 4,313 employees who were not previously infected or fully vaccinated, 254 became infected.

The findings add to the growing body of research that indicates people who had COVID-19 and recovered enjoy a similar level of protection as those who have gotten a vaccine, following a study in the United Kingdom and one by Cleveland Clinic researchers.

“It should give confidence to people who have recovered that they are at very low risk for repeat infection and some experts including myself believe that protection is equal to vaccination,” Klausner told The Epoch Times.

“And we’re trying to update policy such that people who have recovered have the same privileges and access as people who are vaccinated.”

According to federal guidance, vaccines should be administered to people irrespective of whether they’ve had COVID-19 in the past.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has said officials are aware of evidence suggesting natural immunity among those who have been infected but has not altered its recommendations to incorporate that evidence.

We do not comment on non-CDC authored papers. We continually evaluate the science that leads to our guidance, and if it needs to be changed, we will be base that on our own research and studies,” a spokesman told The Epoch Times in an email last month.

A transmission electron micrograph shows SARS-CoV-2 virus particles, isolated from a patient. (NIAID)

The limitations of the new study, which has been submitted to a journal and is being peer reviewed, include the possibility employees could have tested positive for COVID-19 outside of the routine screening, or employee testing program.

The group plans to conduct more analysis on the Curative data.

Dr. David Boulware, professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, told The Epoch Times via email that the study “adds to the body of literature that generally healthy adults

SARS-CoV-2 is another name for the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, which causes COVID-19.

Boulware, who was not involved in the research, noted that the median age of those tested was 29 years old and very likely included few people 65 years old or older, or many people without immune system problems.

“Thus, this may not apply to elderly persons or persons with substantial co-morbidities—but does likely apply to adults 18-65 years of age without major medical problems,” he said, adding that because the follow-up time period of those studied was relatively short, the paper does not give insight into longer-term protection.

“Long term protection is more unknown, which is why persons with prior infection still are recommended to receive at least 1 vaccine dose, but there is not any urgency to receive the vaccine (and waiting ~3 months likely would be fine),” he said.

Klausner said that besides bolstering the idea of natural immunity, the study shows that vaccination in the workplace is important.

“We need to continue to promote workplace vaccination requirements. Businesses have the authority and have the ability and have the legal power to require employees get vaccinated,” he said. “And I think this did the support that benefits of that.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/10/2021 - 11:32


Vaccination Does Not Protect Against Delta Variant


Guest Post by Paul Craig Roberts

Israeli Officials Announce that Half of Those Newly Affected with Covid Were Fully Vaccinated

The Open Question is whether the Delta Variant is caused by the vaccine.

Governments are trying to create a new scare with the Delta Variant, but Boston University infectious disease specialist Davidson Hamer reports: “We are learning that many of the breakthrough infections are asymptomatic or they are very mild and brief in duration.”

Don’t count on the facts prevailing. A return to lockdowns, masks, isolation, and booster shots of a dangerous “vaccine” is a  likely agenda.

100 “scientists” signed a letter claiming the coronavirus was transmitted from bats.  Clearly, this is an attempted coverup of the documented fact in NIH records that NIH financed the development of the virus both at University of North Carolina and then in the Wuhan lab.  With Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and other establishment figures predicting the arrival of a worst virus, we can only wonder what else the establishment has in store for us.

William Engdahl reports on the large numbers of people cut down not by Covid but by the “vaccine”

Biden Wants to Send Federal Police to Your Home to  Vaccinate You with a Dangerous Experimental Technology

Dr. Stephen Frost bemoans the death of medical ethics:

Trial attorney Reiner Fuellmich leads a team of 1,000 lawyers and 10,000 medical and scientific experts in legal proceedings against the Big Pharma-controlled CDC  for Covid crimes against humanity. Those responsible for the Corona Scandal “must be criminally prosecuted and sued for civil damages.”

As you can see from these few examples, there is enormous professional discontent with the “Covid pandemic.”  Ask yourself why you hear nothing about it from the presstitutes and public health bureaucrats.  Why are the politicians silent?  Where is the public debate?  We only hear what shills for Big Pharma are paid to say.  What is really going on?

In case you missed it: 


It is for certain, Covid is going to be a money-making, control panacea for ever: 


Iceland Ran a 4-Year Experiment on Shorter Working Weeks. The Results Are Great

For four years between 2015 and 2019, roughly 2,500 Icelanders were involved in two major experiments to see how a shorter working week would affect productivity. Now the results are in – and the experiments seem to have been a resounding success.


Banned IP Address

This IP address [] is barred from all access to the forum. Either this address is associated with an anonymous proxy service of some kind, or it has been flagged as belonging to or being used by someone who has abused the forum.


The Deadly Censorship of Ivermectin


DarkHorse host Bret Weinstein, Ph.D., has conducted a couple of long and really valuable interviews in recent weeks. One was with a lung and ICU specialist, Dr. Pierre Kory, who is also the president and chief medical officer1 of the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC). The FLCCC has published three different COVID-19 protocols, all of which include the use of ivermectin:

  • I-MASK+2 — a prevention and early at-home treatment protocol
  • I-MATH+3 — an in-hospital treatment protocol. The clinical and scientific rationale for this protocol has been peer-reviewed and was published in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine4 in mid-December 2020
  • I-RECOVER5 — a long-term management protocol for long-haul syndrome

In another episode, Weinstein interviewed Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine technology.6 In both instances, YouTube deleted the videos. Why? Because they discussed science showing ivermectin works against COVID-19 and the hazards of COVID gene therapies. Never mind the fact that Kory and Malone are the widely recognized leading experts in their fields.

In the wake of this targeted takedown, podcast host Joe Rogan invited Weinstein and Kory in for an “emergency podcast” about the censorship of ivermectin. As noted by Weinstein in a June 23, 2021, tweet, “The censorship campaign obscuring Ivermectin (as prophylactic against SARS-CoV2 and as treatment for COVID-19) kills.”7

Indeed, we now know that early treatment is crucial to prevent complications, hospitalizations, death and/or long-haul syndrome, so censoring this information is inexcusable, and has without doubt resulted in needless deaths.

What Is Misinformation?

As Weinstein explains, there are several things in dire need of discussion. For starters, there’s the issue of YouTube’s community guidelines and posting rules, which are so vague that it’s impossible to determine beforehand if something is going to be deemed in violation.

Violations, in turn, threaten the ability of people like Weinstein to make a living. His entire family depends on the income generated through his YouTube channel. He now has two strikes against him, where YouTube claims he’s been posting “spam” and “medical misinformation.” One more, and the entire channel will be demonetized.

A central problem here is, who determines what misinformation is? YouTube has taken the stance that anything that goes against what the World Health Organization says is medical misinformation. However, the WHO doesn’t always agree with other public health agencies.

For example, the WHO does not recommend the drug remdesivir, but the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does, and virtually all U.S. hospitals routinely use the drug on COVID-19 patients.

Another example where the WHO and the CDC are in disagreement is how the virus can be transmitted. While the CDC admits SARS-CoV-2 is an airborne virus that transmits through the air, the WHO does not list air as a form of transmission. So, is the CDC putting out medical misinformation?

Censorship Is a Disinformation Tool

As Weinstein rightly points out, if the WHO (or virtually every federal regulatory agency for that matter) has been captured and is being influenced by industry, in this case Big Pharma, and is itself putting out information that goes against medical science, then this is something that must be discussed and exposed. That is precisely what he did in the two episodes that YouTube wiped.

If an organization is putting out medical misinformation, and talking about this is censored, the end result is going to be devastating to public health. Overall, we’re in an untenable situation, Weinstein says, as people are losing their livelihoods simply for discussing the science and laying out the evidence. Licensed, practicing doctors are prevented from sharing practical knowledge that can save lives.

The fact that YouTube is making up the rules as they go is clear. One of Weinstein’s interviews was deemed to be “spam.” How can a discussion between highly respected and well-credentialed scientists and medical professionals be spam? YouTube obviously couldn’t determine what was incorrect about it so they simply made up an excuse to take the video down.

Or more likely, they knew exactly what they were doing and removed it because it countered what appears to be their primary agenda, which is to promote the COVID jab.

As noted in the featured interview, censorship is actually a form of disinformation, which is defined as “information given to hide the actual truth.” A perfect example of this is the suppression of the lab-leak theory. For a year and a half, no one was allowed to discuss the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 originated in a Wuhan lab. There’s no telling how many tens of thousands of people lost their social media accounts, including yours truly, because they violated this rule.

The lab-leak theory was “debunked,” according to all the industry-backed fact checkers. Now, all of a sudden, the evidence has somehow taken root and everyone is talking about it. Mainstream media pundits are squirming in their seats, trying to explain why they overlooked the obvious and roundly dismissed the evidence for so long. What was “misinformation” yesterday is now “fact.”

Who decided this? Big Tech censored verifiable facts for a year and a half, and there’s every reason to assume they censored it on behalf of someone. They grossly misinformed — nay, disinformed — the public, yet they’re not held accountable for any of it.

The Manufacturing of Medical and Scientific Consensus

As noted by Weinstein, the idea that medical and scientific consensus can be established seemingly from one day to another in the middle of a pandemic involving a novel virus is simply not believable. It cannot happen, because scientific and medical consensus arises over time, as experts challenge each other’s theories.

A hypothesis may sound good, but will break apart once another piece of evidence is added. So, it changes over time. What happened here, however, over the last year and a half, is that a consensus was declared early on, and subsequent evidence was simply discarded as misinformation.

The examples of this are numerous. Take vitamin D, for example. We’ve long known vitamin D influences your immune system. Yet the manufactured consensus declared vitamin D irrelevant in the case of COVID-19, and this stance remains to this day, even though dozens of studies have now demonstrated that vitamin D plays a crucial role in COVID-19 outcomes specifically.

The lab leak theory is another example. Manufactured consensus declared it bunk, and that was it. Face masks were declared effective without any evidence, and anyone pointing out the discrepancy between this recommendation and what the scientific literature was showing was simply declared to be violating some vaguely defined “community standards.”

Manufactured consensus declared hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin dangerous and/or useless, saying we can’t possibly risk using these drugs unless they’re proven safe and effective in large randomized controlled trials (RCTs). As noted by Weinstein, they willingly roll the dice when it comes to the novel COVID shots, yet apply ridiculously high standards of safety and effectiveness when it comes to off-patent drugs that have decades of safe use.

There’s something very unnatural and unscientific about all of this, and that raises serious questions about intent. What is the intent behind these manufactured consensuses that by any reasonable standard have been proven flawed or incorrect?

For all the talk about preventing dangerous misinformation being spread by the average person, governments, Big Pharma, Big Tech and nongovernmental organizations that have a great deal of influence over nations, have in fact engaged in the biggest disinformation campaign in human history. The question is why?

As noted by Kory, over time, he has developed a deep cynicism about many of the agencies and organizations that are supposed to protect public health, because their recommendations and conclusions do not comport with good science. And, if we trust them exclusively, we can get into real trouble.

The thing is, there must be a reason for why they don’t follow the science, and that, most likely, is because they’re beholden to financial interests. If the science doesn’t support those financial interests, it’s disregarded.

This is why, by and large, there’s a very clear dividing line between those who promote the ideas of the WHO, the CDC and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and those who don’t.

Those who disagree with the manufactured consensus are almost exclusively independent, meaning they’re not financially dependent on an organization, company or agency to which the facts are inconvenient.

“Heretics” also tend promote products that they cannot make a profit from, such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, two drugs that have been used for so long they’re off-patent. Alternatively, they recommend natural products like vitamin D, which is virtually free, especially if you get it from optimal sun exposure.

Gold Standard Evidence Supports Ivermectin

As noted by Kory, while the WHO insists large RCTs must be completed before ivermectin (or hydroxychloroquine) can be recommended, RCTs actually are not the gold standard in terms of scientific evidence. Meta-analyses are.

The reason for this is because any given trial can be skewed by any number of protocol factors. When you do a meta-analysis of several trials, even if those trials are small, you have the best chance of detecting signals of danger or benefit because it corrects for flaws in the various protocols.

In the case of ivermectin, FLCCC recently conducted a meta-analysis8 of 24 RCTs, which clearly demonstrates that ivermectin produces “large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance.”

They also found that when used as a preventive, ivermectin “significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19.” In one study, of those given a dose of 0.4 mg per kilo on Day 1 and a second dose on Day 7, only 2% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 10% of controls who did not get the drug.

In another, family members of patients who had tested positive were given two doses of 0.25 mg/kg, 72 hours apart. At follow up two weeks later, only 7.4% of the exposed family members who took ivermectin tested positive, compared to 58.4% of those who did not take ivermectin.

Ivermectin distribution campaigns have resulted in rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality, which indicate that ivermectin is effective in all phases of COVID-19.

In a third, which unfortunately was unblended, the difference between the two groups was even greater. Only 6.7% of the ivermectin group tested positive compared to 73.3% of controls. Still, according to the FLCCC, “the difference between the two groups was so large and similar to the other prophylaxis trial results that confounders alone are unlikely to explain such a result.”

The FLCCC also points out that ivermectin distribution campaigns have resulted in “rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality,” which indicate that ivermectin is “effective in all phases of COVID-19.” For example, in Brazil, three regions distributed ivermectin to its residents, while at least six others did not. The difference in average weekly deaths is stark.

In Santa Catarina, average weekly deaths declined by 36% after two weeks of ivermectin distribution, whereas two neighboring regions in the South saw declines of just 3% and 5%. Amapa in the North saw a 75% decline, while the Amazonas had a 42% decline and Para saw an increase of 13%. Importantly, ivermectin’s effectiveness also appears largely unaffected by variants, meaning it has worked on any and all variants that have so far popped up around the world.

Kory also points out that once you can see from clinical evidence that something really is working, then conducting RCTs becomes unethical, as you know you’re condemning the control group to poor outcomes or death. This is, in fact, the same argument vaccine makers now use to justify the elimination of control groups by giving everyone the vaccine.

All of that said, RCT evidence for ivermectin will hopefully come from the British PRINCIPLE trial,9 which began June 23, 2021. Ivermectin will be evaluated as an outpatient treatment in this study, which will be the largest clinical trial to date.

How Ivermectin Works

While ivermectin is best known for its antiparasitic properties, it also has both antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties. With regard to how it can help against SARS-CoV-2 infection, studies10 have shown ivermectin lowers your viral load by inhibiting replication.

In “COVID-19: Antiparasitic Offers Treatment Hope,” I review data showing a single dose of ivermectin killed 99.8% of SARS-CoV-2 in 48 hours. A recent meta-analysis11 by Dr. Tess Lawrie found the drug reduced COVID-19 infection by an average of 86% when used preventatively. 

An observational study12 from Bangladesh, which looked at ivermectin as a preexposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 among health care workers, found only four of the 58 volunteers who took 12 mg of ivermectin once per month for four months developed mild COVID-19 symptoms between May and August 2020, compared to 44 of the 60 health care workers who had declined the medication.

Ivermectin has also been shown to speed recovery, in part by inhibiting inflammation through several pathways and protecting against organ damage. This, of course, also lowers your risk of hospitalization and death, which has been confirmed in several studies.

Meta-analyses have shown average reductions in mortality ranging from 75%13 to 83%14,15 The drug has also been shown to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 when taken before or after exposure. When you add all of these benefits together, it seems fairly clear that ivermectin use could vaporize this pandemic.

Where You Can Learn More

While ivermectin certainly appears to be a useful strategy, which is why I am covering it, it is not my primary recommendation. In terms of prevention, I believe your best bet is to optimize your vitamin D level, as your body needs vitamin D for a wide variety of functions, including a healthy immune response.

As for early treatment, I recommend nebulized hydrogen peroxide treatment,16,17 which is inexpensive, highly effective and completely harmless when you’re using the low (0.04% to 0.1%) peroxide concentration recommended.

All of that said, ivermectin and several other remedies certainly have a place, and it’s good to know they exist and work well. On the whole, there’s really no reason to remain panicked about COVID-19. If you want to learn more about ivermectin, there are several places where you can do that, including the following:

April 24 through 25, 2021, Dr. Tess Lawrie, director of Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd.,18 hosted the first International Ivermectin for COVID Conference online19

Twelve medical experts20 from around the world — including Kory — shared their knowledge, reviewing mechanism of action, protocols for prevention and treatment, including so-called long-hauler syndrome, research findings and real world data. All of the lectures, which were recorded via Zoom, can be viewed on Bird-Group.org21

An easy-to-read and print one-page summary of the clinical trial evidence for ivermectin can be downloaded from the FLCCC website22

A more comprehensive, 31-page review of trials data has been published in the journal Frontiers of Pharmacology23

The FLCCC website also has a helpful FAQ section where Kory and Dr. Paul Marik, also of the FLCCC, answer common questions about the drug and its recommended use24

A listing of all ivermectin trials done to date, with links to the published studies, can be found on c19Ivermectin.com25

Mark Your Calendars for VERY Important Interview!

Please be sure to mark your calendar so you don’t miss my groundbreaking interview with Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, July 4, 2021. We discuss the very distinct possibility that everyone who receives the COVID jab may die from complications in the next two to three years.

You should have plenty of time to view this vitally important exchange of information as it is the national Fourth of July holiday. We literally share life-changing information, so please be sure to read it and share with your friends.

This is largely because getting the jab now immediately places the injected individual in the very high risk of dying from COVID. Most have the false assurance that they are protected but, in reality, they are far more vulnerable and as a result will not take very aggressive proactive measures to avoid dying from pathogenic priming or paradoxical immune enhancement before it is too late.



Western States Brace For Record Heat Wave This Weekend

Western States Brace For Record Heat Wave This Weekend

We outlined Tuesday that multiple heat waves would plague the Western half of the US. The first round struck early in the week and lasted through mid-week, and the second is just beginning. 

The worst of the second wave is expected to affect upwards of 28 million people from California to Washington State. 

Excessive heat warnings have already been posted for California, Nevada, western Arizona, and western Utah. Watches have also been posted for interior portions of Oregon and southern Idaho.

Large swaths of the West could experience temperatures 20 or more degrees above average. Below is a temperature anomalies forecast showing the heat dome could last through mid-next week

"Extreme heat will significantly increase the potential for heat related illnesses," the National Weather Service in Hanford, Califonia, warned. "Confidence is very high for a dangerous heat wave to persist through Monday and maybe into Tuesday."

The sweltering heat could reach double digits in some areas. 

In Hanford itself, temperatures could hit 110 degrees Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday. Records in Hanford date to 1899, and show that highs of 110 degrees or greater have occurred on four or more consecutive days on only five occasions. That makes the duration and magnitude of the episode a once in roughly 20-year event.

Sacramento is looking at a five-day stretch with highs in the triple digits, including a forecast 110 degrees Saturday. Redding is likely to hit 113 degrees Friday, 115 on Saturday and 113 on Sunday. Highs Monday may be a slightly less inhospitable 110 degrees. The city has never recorded more than three consecutive days at 113 degrees or greater.

Modesto, Calif., will see highs around 108 degrees both weekend days.

Potentially more concerning will be the overnight lows, which won't be very low at all — temperatures may dip only into the upper 70s or lower 80s in some spots. On Saturday night, Modesto is projected to fall only to 80 degrees before temperatures skyrocket again in the morning. In fact, most of the Central Valley will not fall beneath 80 degrees during the overnight period on Saturday.

Central Valley locations "will be extremely warm overnight, where high minimum temp records may be achieved as well," wrote the Weather Service in Sacramento. Warm overnight lows are especially dangerous for anyone without air conditioning because they make it difficult for the body to enter its natural cooling phase.

It's not just central California that will be experiencing saunalike warmth. Salt Lake City could be near 100 degrees each day through Monday. Las Vegas will be scorched by heat that's extreme even for the Nevada desert, with highs in the 110s likely through Tuesday. Both weekend days could peak near 117 degrees. In Las Vegas, a hint of monsoonal moisture sneaking in from the southwest could help hold overnight lows in the 90s. 

A few other long-standing records could topple, like in the Yosemite Valley of California, which is forecast to hit 110 degrees both weekend days. It's been 106 years since that last occurred.

Saturday's predicted high of 130 degrees would match the Earth's highest reliably measured temperature since at least 1931. (Death Valley also reached 130 last August.) On Sunday and Monday, it's forecast to hit 129 and 127. - The Washington Post

The good news is that positive temperature anomalies should decrease across the Western half of the US by the middle of next week and hopefully return the region to average temperatures. 

Meanwhile, heat wave after heat wave in the West is causing concern about a ferocious wildfire season, power prices spiking, rolling blackouts, crop losses, water shortages, grasshopper plague, among other things. 

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/09/2021 - 22:00


COVID-19: More than 13,000 women report changes to periods after having vaccine but experts say fertility not affected

Women's fears, in part rooted in conspiracy theories promoted by anti-vaccination groups online, are unfounded, experts agree, as there is no evidence to believe the COVID jab affects fertility.


UK Regulator Quietly Recognises Pfizer and Moderna Vaccines May Result in Heart Damage, Reports Say

The NHS announced at the end of June that over 45 million Britons had received at least one jab against the coronavirus, while 33 million were fully vaccinated.


Banned IP Address

This IP address [] is barred from all access to the forum. Either this address is associated with an anonymous proxy service of some kind, or it has been flagged as belonging to or being used by someone who has abused the forum.


Biologist to Tucker: If Ivermectin proven effective against COVID, it moots vaccine push

An evolutionary biologist claimed Friday that, should the anti-malarial drug Ivermectin be proven effective against the coronavirus, it would moot the usage of and potentially the ability to administer the U.S.


Covid: Children's extremely low risk confirmed by study

The overall risk of children becoming severely ill or dying from Covid is extremely low, a new analysis of Covid infection data confirms.


Covid cases in jabbed Brits soar 85% in a week – as expert reveals 5 symptoms to watch for

DAILY Covid cases have soared by 85 per cent in vaccinated Brits in one week, data reveals. Around 11,000 people are falling sick with the virus each day compared with 6,000 a week ago, according to the ZOE Covid Symptom Study.


Full testimony of former HHS Covid Adviser: ‘Asymptomatic transmission more myth than reality’

As discussed recently on the TrialSite, the world's leading online media platform and social network dedicated to objectively tracking clinical trials, an Op-Ed contributor questioned the practice of shut downs associated with asymptomatic COVID-19 spread.


Friday, July 9, 2021

The Mystery Plague That Is Killing Countless Birds In 9 States And Washington D.C. Has Gotten A Lot Worse

The Mystery Plague That Is Killing Countless Birds In 9 States And Washington D.C. Has Gotten A Lot Worse

Authored by Michael Snyder via,

Large numbers of birds are dropping dead from a “mystery disease” throughout much of the eastern half of the country, and scientists still have absolutely no idea why this is happening.  They have tested the dead birds for a whole host of known illnesses, but those tests have not revealed the cause of this plague.  We are being told that a lot of the affected birds appear to develop neurological problems, and many of them go completely blind before they finally die.  The “mystery disease” has spread to more states since I first wrote about this plague, and at this point the list of affected areas includes Washington D.C., Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana.  If authorities are unable to find a solution, will this plague eventually spread across the entire nation?

I don’t know why the mainstream media is not giving this story more coverage, because this is quickly turning into a major crisis.

The following comes directly from a statement that was posted late last week on the official website of the USGS

In late May, wildlife managers in Washington D.C., Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and Kentucky began receiving reports of sick and dying birds with eye swelling and crusty discharge, as well as neurological signs. More recently, additional reports have been received from Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana. While the majority of affected birds are reported to be fledgling common grackles, blue jays, European starlings and American robins, other species of songbirds have been reported as well. No definitive cause(s) of illness or death have been determined at this time. No human health or domestic livestock and poultry issues have been reported.

The natural resource management agencies in the affected states and the District of Columbia, along with the National Park Service, are continuing to work with diagnostic laboratories to investigate the cause(s) of this event. Those laboratories include the USGS National Wildlife Health Center, the University of Georgia Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study, the University of Pennsylvania Wildlife Futures Program and the Indiana Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory.

With each passing day, more birds are going blind and more birds are dying.

In Virginia, an animal control professional named Jennifer Toussaint will never forget the first time that she encountered baby blue jays that had been afflicted by this mysterious illness

Jennifer Toussaint, chief of animal control in Arlington, Virginia, can’t forget the four baby blue jays. In late May, worried residents had delivered the fledglings to her clinic just outside of Washington, D.C., within just a few hours. Each was plump, indicating “their parents had done a great job caring for them,” Toussaint says. But the birds were lethargic, unable to keep their balance, and blinded by crusty, oozing patches that had grown over their eyes.

Toussaint and her staff soon reached a gloomy diagnosis: the jays were the latest victims of a mysterious deadly disease that had emerged in their area just a few weeks earlier and had already killed countless wild birds. There was no known treatment, so they euthanized the jays. “It was difficult to feel so helpless,” Toussaint recalls.

Experts have never seen anything like this before, and they are in a race to try to find some answers.

Whatever is causing this, it appears to be affecting a wide range of species

Several species of birds have been affected by the mystery illness, according to the University of Pennsylvania: blue jay, European starling, common grackle, American robin, northern cardinal, house finch, house sparrow, Eastern bluebird, red-bellied woodpecker, Carolina chickadee, and Carolina wren.

And at this point, the “mystery disease” appears to have spread very widely.

For example, in the state of Virginia there have been confirmed reports “in the counties and cities of Alexandria, Arlington, Clarke, Fairfax, Falls Church, Fauquier, Frederick, Loudoun, Manassas, Prince William, Shenandoah, Warren, and Winchester.”

In Indiana, cases have now been identified in 53 different counties.

So if this is something that is spreading from bird to bird, it is spreading very easily and it is spreading very rapidly.

But at this point we don’t know for sure that it is some sort of a disease, because so far all of the tests that have been done haven’t come up with much of anything….

Natural resource management agencies in all of the affected states and D.C. are working with the National Park Service to investigate this event.

So far, several infectious agents have not been detected in any of the birds that have been tested, including Salmonella and Chlamydia, avian influenza, West Nile virus and other flaviviruses, Newcastle disease virus and other paramyxoviruses, herpesviruses and poxviruses, and Trichomonas parasites.

Something other than a disease could potentially be causing this plague.

We just don’t know.

At one point it was being theorized that eating cicadas was causing these birds to become ill, but scientists appear to have ruled this theory out

But the cicadas appear to be blameless. Birds tend to avoid eating fungus-ridden cicadas, and sick birds have been observed in areas where cicadas were rare. “It does not look like it’s a match,” says Brian Evans, a migratory bird ecologist with the Smithsonian’s National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute.

So many strange things have been happening in 2021.

As I discussed yesterday, right now we are witnessing a horrifying plague of grasshoppers in the western half of the country, and at the same time we have a nightmarish plague of dead birds in the eastern half of the country.

On top of everything else, we are right in the midst of a “megadrought” which may end up becoming the worst in the entire history of our nation.

Many believe that it is just a “coincidence” that so many bad things are happening to us all at once, and perhaps they are correct.

But nobody can deny that our world has gotten a whole lot crazier over the last couple of years, and I expect quite a bit more craziness during the second half of 2021.

*  *  *

Michael’s new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/09/2021 - 17:00


Number of Reported COVID Cases Among Fully Vaccinated Continues to Climb


Via Children’s Health Defense

Reports of COVID breakthrough cases among fully vaccinated people continue to rise.

Reports of COVID breakthrough cases among fully vaccinated people continue to rise — as of June 28, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports 4,686 breakthrough cases resulting in death and hospitalization.

Nearly 30 people in Louisiana who were fully vaccinated against COVID died from the virus, according to the Louisiana Department of Health (LDH).

Dr. Joseph Kanter, LDH state health officer and medical director, said 27 people between the ages of 28 and 93 died with COVID more than two weeks after being fully vaccinated.

“These are people who died from COVID, from complications of COVID, despite being vaccinated because the vaccine is not 100% [effective] and people with weakened immune systems, people who are a little bit older, and some people for reasons we don’t really understand, might not mount a full immune response to the vaccine,” he said.

According to the LDH, 1,563 breakthrough cases have been reported. As of June 7, 94 fully vaccinated people were hospitalized statewide with COVID-like symptoms.

Kanter said breakthrough cases are rare, but as infections increase, the number of breakthrough cases are expected to go up.

It’s unclear if the Delta variant is contributing to the sudden increase in COVID breakthrough cases in Louisiana.

More than 7,500 COVID breakthrough cases reported in California

According to the San Francisco Examiner, more than 7,550 breakthrough cases have been reported through June 23 among fully vaccinated Californians.

Most cases were minor, but 62 people died from COVID, according to the California Department of Public Health. California’s public health agency reported 584 fully vaccinated people had been hospitalized with COVID infection, but hospitalization status wasn’t available for 46% of post-vaccination cases.

On July 7, state health officials reported 2,013 new infections among all Californians, including 24 deaths.

Dr. Eugene Choi, a Los Angeles radiologist, contracted COVID in June, nearly six months after his first dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

At first, “I did not think of COVID,” said Choi. “I thought … OK, it must be that other flus and colds are coming out of the woodwork.”

As Choi’s fever progressed, he decided to get a COVID test and it was positive. His wife, also vaccinated, and their 2-year-old son also contracted COVID.

Nashville woman gets COVID, gets vaccinated, gets COVID again

Verity Rodrigues, 41, had COVID prior to being fully vaccinated with Pfizer’s vaccine in February. In May, the Nashville psychologist was diagnosed with COVID for a second time.

The historic scale of the COVID vaccination effort means thousands of people have contracted COVID after vaccination, Nashville Public Radio reported. The experience has become so common the CDC stopped reporting breakthrough cases unless a patient is hospitalized or dies.

According to a report by the Tennessee Department of Health (TDH), breakthrough cases have resulted in 140 hospitalizations and 20 deaths in the state. As of May 1, TDH has not counted all breakthrough cases as the CDC “asked that only severe outcomes (hospitalization or death) be reported.”

Public health officials in Tennessee are doing random genetic sequencing of positive COVID tests to track variants, but have not determined which variants are responsible for the breakthrough cases.

Study shows half of adults in Israel and UK infected with Delta variant were fully vaccinated

As The Defender reported June 29, a new study in the UK showed 12 (or 29%) of 42 fully vaccinated people died after catching the Delta variant. In Public Health England’s technical briefing on June 25, that figure had risen to 43% (50 of 117), with the majority (60%) having received at least one dose.

According to The Wall Street Journal, almost half of adults in Israel infected in an outbreak of the Delta variant were fully vaccinated with Pfizer’s vaccine.

Chezy Levy, director-general of Israel’s health ministry, told state broadcaster Kan Bet that about 40% to 50% of new cases appeared in people who had been vaccinated, Haaretz reported.

“Even though the numbers are low, the fact that this is reaching vaccinated people means … that we are still checking how many vaccinated people have also been infected,” Levy said.

Levy said a third of the new daily cases occurred in people who had been vaccinated. Though they are preliminary, the figures show the Delta variant may spread even in places like Israel where large portions of the population have been vaccinated.

In a recent analysis by the Israeli government, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine appeared to be less effective against COVID infections caused by the Delta variant.

In a brief statement issued Monday, the government said as of June 6, the vaccine provided only 64% protection against infection. In May — when the Alpha variant dominated in Israel and the Delta strain had not yet spread widely — government data showed the shot was 95.3% effective against all infections, CNN reported.

The government added the vaccine was now only 93% effective in preventing severe disease and hospitalizations, compared to 97% reported in The Lancet in May. Underlying data and other details about the analysis have not been released.


Covid19 – the final nail in coffin of medical research


Guest Post by Malcolm Kendrick

The lamps are going out all over Europe, we shall not see them lit again in our life-time.”
Edward Grey

Several years ago, I wrote a book called Doctoring Data. It was my attempt to help people navigate their way through medical headlines and medical data.

One of the main reasons I was stimulated to write it, is because I had become deeply concerned that science, especially medical science, had been almost fully taken over by commercial interests. With the end result that much of the data we were getting bombarded with was enormously biased, and thus corrupted. I wanted to show how some of this bias gets built-in.

I was not alone in my concerns. As far back as 2005, John Ioannidis wrote the very highly cited paper ‘Why most Published Research Findings are False’. It has been downloaded and read by many, many, thousands of researchers over the years, so they can’t say they don’t know:

Moreover for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.”

Marcia Angell, who edited the New England Journal of Medicine for twenty years, wrote the following. It is a quote I have used many times, in many different talks:

It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.”

Peter Gotzsche, who set up the Nordic Cochrane Collaboration, and who was booted out of said Cochrane collaboration for questioning the HPV vaccine (used to prevent cervical cancer) wrote the book. Deadly Medicine and Organised Crime [How big pharma has corrupted healthcare].

The book cover states:

The main reason we take so many drugs is that drug companies don’t sell drugs, they sell lies about drugs…virtually everything we know about drugs is what the companies have chosen to tell us and our doctors… if you don’t believe the system is out of control, please e-mail me and explain why drugs are the third leading cause of death.”

Richard Smith edited the British Medical Journal (BMJ) for many years. He now writes a blog, amongst other things. A few years ago, he commented:

Twenty years ago this week, the statistician Doug Altman published an editorial in the BMJ arguing that much medical research was of poor quality and misleading. In his editorial entitled ‘The scandal of Poor Medical Research.’ Altman wrote that much research was seriously flawed through the use of inappropriate designs, unrepresentative sample, small sample, incorrect methods of analysis and faulty interpretation… Twenty years later, I feel that things are not better, but worse…

In 2002 I spent eight marvellous weeks in a 15th palazzo in Venice writing a book on medical journals, the major outlets for medical research, and the dismal conclusion that things were badly wrong with journals and the research they published. My confidence that ‘things can only get better’ has largely drained away.”

Essentially, medical research has inexorably turned into an industry. A very lucrative industry. Many medical journals now charge authors thousands of dollars to publish their research. This ensures that it is very difficult for any researcher, not supported by a university, or a pharmaceutical company, to afford to publish anything, unless they are independently wealthy.

The journals then have the cheek to claim copyright, and charge money to anyone who actually wants to read, or download the full paper. Fifty dollars for a few on-line pages! They then bill for reprints, they charge for advertising. Those who had the temerity to write the article get nothing – and nor do the peer reviewers.

It is all very profitable. Last time I looked the Return on Investment (profit) was thirty-five per-cent for the big publishing houses. It was Robert Maxwell who first saw this opportunity for money-making.

Driven by financial imperative, the research itself has also, inevitably, become biased. He who pays the paper calls the tune. Pharmaceutical companies, food manufacturers and suchlike. They can certainly afford the publication fees.

In addition to all the financial and peer-review pressure, if you dare swim against the approved mainstream views you will, very often, be ruthlessly attacked. As many people know, I am a critic of the cholesterol hypothesis, along with my band of brothers…we few, we happy few. In the 1970s, Kilmer McCully, who plays double bass in our band, was looking into a cause of cardiovascular disease that went against the mainstream view. This is what happened to him:

Thomas N. James, a cardiologist and president of the University of Texas Medical Branch who was also the president of the American Heart Association in 1979 and ’80, is even harsher [regarding the treatment of McCully]. ”It was worse than that – you couldn’t get ideas funded that went in other directions than cholesterol,” he says. ”You were intentionally discouraged from pursuing alternative questions. I’ve never dealt with a subject in my life that elicited such an immediate hostile response.”

It took two years for McCully to find a new research job. His children were reaching college age; he and his wife refinanced their house and borrowed from her parents. McCully says that his job search developed a pattern: he would hear of an opening, go for interviews and then the process would grind to a stop. Finally, he heard rumors of what he calls ”poison phone calls” from Harvard. ”It smelled to high heaven,” he says.’

McCully says that when he was interviewed on Canadian television after he left Harvard, he received a call from the public-affairs director of Mass. General. ”He told me to shut up,” McCully recalls. ”He said he didn’t want the names of Harvard and Mass. General associated with my theories.’

More recently, I was sent a link to an article outlining the attacks made on another researcher who published a paper that found that being overweight meant having a (slightly) lower risk of death than being of ‘normal weight. This, would never do:

A naïve researcher published a scientific article in a respectable journal. She thought her article was straightforward and defensible. It used only publicly available data, and her findings were consistent with much of the literature on the topic. Her coauthors included two distinguished statisticians.

To her surprise, her publication was met with unusual attacks from some unexpected sources within the research community. These attacks were by and large not pursued through normal channels of scientific discussion. Her research became the target of an aggressive campaign that included insults, errors, misinformation, social media posts, behind-the-scenes gossip and maneuvers, and complaints to her employer.

The goal appeared to be to undermine and discredit her work. The controversy was something deliberately manufactured, and the attacks primarily consisted of repeated assertions of preconceived opinions. She learned first-hand the antagonism that could be provoked by inconvenient scientific findings. Guidelines and recommendations should be based on objective and unbiased data. Development of public health policy and clinical recommendations is complex and needs to be evidence-based rather than belief-based. This can be challenging when a hot-button topic is involved.

Those who lead the attacks on her were my very favourite researchers, Walter Willet and Frank Hu. Two eminent researchers from Harvard who I nickname Tweedledum and Tweedledummer. Harvard itself has become an institution, which, along with Oxford University, comes up a lot in tales of bullying and intimidation. Willet and Hu are internationally known for promoting vegetarian and vegan diets. Willet is a key figure in the EAT-Lancet initiative.

Where is science in all this? I feel the need to state, at this point, that I don’t mind attacks on ideas. I like robust debate. Science can only progress through a process of new hypotheses being proposed, being attacked, being refined and strengthened – or obliterated. But what we see now is not science. It is the obliteration of science itself:

Anyone who has been a scientist for more than 20 years will realize that there has been a progressive decline in the honesty of communications between scientists, between scientists and their institutions and the outside world.

Yet, real science must be an area where truth is the rule; or else the activity simply stops being scient and becomes something else: Zombie science. Zombie science is a science that is dead, but is artificially keep moving by a continual infusion of funding. From a distance Zombie science looks like the real thing, the surface features of a science are in place – white coats, laboratories, computer programming, PhDs, papers, conferences, prizes etc. But the Zombie is not interested in the pursuit of truth – its citations are externally-controlled and directed at non-scientific goals, and inside the Zombie everything is rotten…

Scientists are usually too careful and clever to risk telling outright lies, but instead they push the envelope of exaggeration, selectivity and distortion as far as possible. And tolerance for this kind of untruthfulness has greatly increased over recent years. So, it is now routine for scientists deliberately to ‘hype’ the significance of their status and performance and ‘spin’ the importance of their research.

– Bruce Charlton: Professor of Theoretical Medicine

I was already pretty depressed with the direction that medical science was taking. Then COVID19 came along, the distortion and hype became so outrageous that I almost gave up trying to establish what was true, and was just made up nonsense.

For example, I stated, right at the start of the COVID19 pandemic, that vitamin D could be important in protecting against the virus. For having the audacity to say this, I was attacked by the fact checkers. Indeed, anyone promoting vitamin D to reduce the risk of COVID19 infection, was ruthlessly hounded.

Guess what. Here from 17th June:

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients are far more likely to die or to end up in severe or critical condition if they are vitamin D-deficient, Israeli researchers have found.

In a study conducted in a Galilee hospital, 26 percent of vitamin D-deficient coronavirus patients died, while among other patients the figure was at 3%.

“This is a very, very significant discrepancy, which represents a big clue that starting the disease with very low vitamin D leads to increased mortality and more severity,” Dr. Amir Bashkin, endocrinologist and part of the research team, told The Times of Israel.”

I also recommended vitamin C for those already in hospital. Again, I was attacked, as was everyone who has dared to mention COVID19 and vitamin C in the same sentence.

Yet, we know that vitamin C is essential for the health and wellbeing of blood vessels, and the endothelial cells that line them. In severe infection the body burns through vitamin C, and people can become ‘scrobutic’ (the name given to severe lack of vitamin C).

Vitamin C is also known to have powerful anti-viral activity. It has been known for years. Here, from an article in 1996:

Over the years, it has become well recognized that ascorbate can bolster the natural defense mechanisms of the host and provide protection not only against infectious disease, but also against cancer and other chronic degenerative diseases. The functions involved in ascorbate’s enhancement of host resistance to disease include its biosynthetic (hy-droxylating), antioxidant, and immunostimulatory activities. In addition, ascorbate exerts a direct antiviral action that may confer specific protection against viral disease. The vitamin has been found to inactivate a wide spectrum of viruses as well as suppress viral replication abd expression in infected cell.”

I like quoting research on vitamins from way before COVID19 appeared, where people were simply looking at Vitamin C without the entire medico-industrial complex looking over their shoulder, ready to stamp out anything they don’t like.

Despite a mass of evidence that Vitamin C has benefits against viral infection, it is a complete no-go area and no-one even dares to research it now. Facebook removes any content relating to Vitamin C and COVID19.

As of today, any criticism of the mainstream narrative is simply being removed. Those who dare to raise their heads above the parapet, have them chopped off:

Dr Francis Christian, practising surgeon and clinical professor of general surgery at the University of Saskatchewan, has been immediately suspended from all teaching and will be permanently removed from his role as of September.

Dr Christian has been a surgeon for more than 20 years and began working in Saskatoon in 2007. He was appointed Director of the Surgical Humanities Program and Director of Quality and Patient Safety in 2018 and co-founded the Surgical Humanities Program. Dr. Christian is also the Editor of the Journal of The Surgical Humanities.

On June 17th Dr Christian released a statement to over 200 of his colleagues, expressing concern over the lack of informed consent involved in Canada’s “Covid19 vaccination” program, especially regarding children.

To be clear, Dr Christian’s position is hardly an extreme one.

He believes the virus is real, he believes in vaccination as a general principle, he believes the elderly and vulnerable may benefit from the Covid “vaccine”… he simply doesn’t agree it should be used on children, and feels parents are not being given enough information for properly informed consent.

When I wrote Doctoring Data, a few years ago, I included the following thoughts about the increasing censorship and punishment that was already very clearly out in the open:

…where does it end? Well, we know where it ends.

First, they came for the communists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist

Then they came for the socialists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist

Then they came from the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist

Then they came for me, and there was no-one left to speak for me

Do you think this is a massive over-reaction? Do I really believe that we are heading for some form of totalitarian stated, where dissent against the medical ‘experts’ will be punishable by imprisonment? Well, yes, I do. We are already in a situation where doctors who fail to follow the dreaded ‘guidelines’ can be sued, or dragged in front the General Medical Council, and struck of. Thus losing their job and income…

Where next?

The lamps are not just going out all over Europe. They are going out, all over the world.


Scientific reasons for waiting to get the COVID vaccine

I voted for Donald Trump twice, but that has nothing to do with my hesitancy to get the vaccine. I'm a Christian, and that has nothing to do with it either. Even the fact that I had COVID and should be immune doesn't matter to me. My reason is based on science and science alone.


Censorship Is Being Used To Institutionalize Disinformation and To Discredit Reliable Information: The Case of Naomi Wolf


Naomi Wolf, feminist and liberal Democrat icon, has been censored and deplatformed by Twitter and Youtube. Ms. Wolf’s sin is that she “raised questions regarding the COVID-19 vaccine side effects, the constitutionality of lockdowns, and the candor of Anthony Fauci, head of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).”

Social, print, and TV media prohibit any questioning of the establishment’s Covid narrative. Not even famous scientists with pockets full of proof are allowed to share their concerns.

Wolf is discovering that being a leading-light Democrat is no license for telling the truth. The social media nazis next sicced the presstitutes on her. The lying scum presstitutes ran stories that she was an “antivaxer,” a new sin that has been moved to the top just below “systemic racist,” and she was accused of posting vaccine misinformation. These charges were false as is everything in the presstitute media.

Presstitute media for which she has written for years ran stories against her without bothering to ask her side of the story. Wolf’s fate is a perfect example of a leading characteristic of our time: the replacement of authority figures by nonentities.

Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and independent thinkers have similarly been witch-haunted for years. On the Internet comment sections are used to attack writers, reporters, and experts who depart from the official narratives. An operative writes a nasty lie in a comment section, and it is then spread into social media. Then trolls take it to Wikipedia, and the lie becomes part of the attacked person’s biography.

The same thing happens to books. Trolls use Amazon book reviews to drive away readers. An example is the book, The Most Dangerous Book Ever Published: Deadly Deception Exposed, edited by Soren Roest Korsgaard. The book is a collection of essays by Korsgaard, James Corbett, Gideon Polya, myself, and several others. A reviewer—a person no one has ever heard of—sought to discredit the book by writing that an essay by Polya, who is Jewish, “is blatant anti-semitism.” I have never had a Youtube account, but the troll writes that he used to follow me on Youtube. He accuses me of being a “member in good standing of the KKK” and alleges that I am guilty of writing “an apologia for Adolf Hitler.”

Ad hominem attacks devoid of fact have crowded out of public debate evidence-based analysis. Emotional leftists assign moral positions to arguments according to the left’s beliefs. Truth for them is emotion-based, not evidence-based. This is why total dumbshits at Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and Google have no qualms about censoring distinguished independent scientists. Suppressing the truth, or, if you like, dissent, has become the function of social, print, TV media, book reviewers, and commentators on Internet web sites.

Wikipedia’s co-founder, Larry Sanger, agrees that Wikipedia has become a weapon wielded by the left and Zionists for the suppression of their critics. Sanger wrote, “Wikipedia, like many other deeply biased institutions of our brave new digital world, has made itself into a kind of thought police that has de facto shackled conservative viewpoints with which they disagree. Democracy cannot thrive under such conditions: I maintain that Wikipedia has become an opponent of vigorous democracy.”

If you want to know the truth, ignore those praised by the establishment and seek out those who are defamed. The Most Dangerous Book Ever Published is certainly regarded as dangerous by the establishment. That is all the proof that you need that the book is reliable.

The post Censorship Is Being Used To Institutionalize Disinformation and To Discredit Reliable Information: The Case of Naomi Wolf appeared first on LewRockwell.


NIAID, Moderna Had COVID Vaccine Candidate in December 2019


So much has happened over the past year that it may be hard to remember what life was like pre-COVID. But let’s flash back to December 2019, when the idea of social distancing, compulsory masking and lockdowns would have been met with disbelief and outrage by most Americans.

At that time, most were blissfully unaware of the pandemic that would change the world in the next few months. It wasn’t until December 31, 2019, that the COVID-19 outbreak was first reported from Wuhan, China,1 and at this point it was only referred to as cases of viral pneumonia, not a novel coronavirus.2 I say “most” because it seems some people may have been aware of something lurking much earlier than it appeared.

In confidential documents3 revealed by the U.K.’s Daily Expose, Moderna, together with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), sent mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill December 12, 2019 — raising significant red flags. As The Daily Expose reported:4

“What did Moderna [and NIAID] know that we didn’t? In 2019 there was not any singular coronavirus posing a threat to humanity which would warrant a vaccine, and evidence suggests there hasn’t been a singular coronavirus posing a threat to humanity throughout 2020 and 2021 either.”

COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate Was Released Prior to Pandemic

The confidential disclosure agreement relays a material transfer agreement between the providers — Moderna, NIAID and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) — and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The providers agreed to transfer “mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates developed and jointly-owned by NIAID and Moderna” to the university’s investigator.5

“The material transfer agreement was signed the December 12th 2019 by Ralph Baric, PhD, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and then signed by Jacqueline Quay, Director of Licensing and Innovation Support at the University of North Carolina on December 16th 2019,” Daily Expose noted.

At this point, some backstory information is more than relevant. We know with great certainty that researchers at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) had access to and were doing gain-of-function research on coronaviruses, and manipulating them to become more infectious and to more easily infect humans. We also know that they collaborated with scientists in the U.S. and received funding from the National Institutes of Health for such research.

Baric, who signed the material transfer agreement to investigate the mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidate before there was a known COVID-19 pandemic, pioneered techniques for genetically manipulating coronaviruses, according to Peter Gøtzsche with the Institute for Scientific Freedom,6 and these became a major focus for WIV.

Baric worked closely with Shi Zhengli, Ph.D., the director of WIV’s Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases, also known as “bat woman,” on research using genetic engineering to create a “new bat SARS-like virus ... that can jump directly from its bat hosts to humans.” According to Gøtzsche:7

“Their work focused on enhancing the ability of bat viruses to attack humans so as to ‘examine the emergence potential.’ In 2015, they created a novel virus by taking the backbone of the SARS virus replacing its spike protein with one from another bat virus known as SHC014-CoV. This manufactured virus was able to infect a lab culture of cells from the human airways.

They wrote that scientific review panels might deem their research too risky to pursue but argued that it had the potential to prepare for and mitigate future outbreaks. However, the value of gain-of-function studies in preventing the COVID-19 pandemic was negative, as this research highly likely created the pandemic.”

Moderna Gets Emergency Use Approval for COVID Vaccines

The rest of the story, as the saying goes, is history. December 12, 2019, Amy Petrick, Ph.D., NIAID’s technology transfer specialist, signed the agreement, along with Dr. Barney Graham, an investigator for NIAID, whose signature is undated.8 May 12, 2020, just months later, Moderna was granted a fast-track designation for its mRNA-1273 vaccine by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. According to Moderna’s news release:9

“mRNA-1273 is an mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 encoding for a prefusion stabilized form of the Spike (S) protein, which was selected by Moderna in collaboration with investigators from Vaccine Research Center (VRC) at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a part of the NIH.”

December 18, 2020 — about one year after the material transfer agreement was signed — the FDA issued emergency use authorization for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for use in individuals 18 years of age and older.10 June 10, 2021, Moderna also filed for emergency use authorization for its COVID-19 shot to be used in U.S. adolescents aged 12 to 17 years.11 Yet, we still have no answers to some glaring questions:12

“It was not until January 9th 2020 that the WHO reported13 Chinese authorities had determined the outbreak was due to a novel coronavirus which later became known as SARS-CoV-2 with the alleged resultant disease dubbed COVID-19. So why was an mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidate developed by Moderna being transferred to the University of North Carolina on December 12th 2019?

… Perhaps Moderna and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases would like to explain themselves in a court of law?”

SARS-CoV-2 Appears To Be Uniquely Able to Infect Humans

Nikolai Petrovsky, professor of endocrinology at Flinders University College of Medicine in Adelaide, Australia, is among those who has stated SARS-CoV-2 appears to be optimally designed to infect humans.14

His team sought to identify a way by which animals might have comingled to give rise to SARS-CoV-2, but concluded that it could not be a naturally occurring virus. Petrovsky has previously stated it appears far more likely that the virus was created in a laboratory without the use of genetic engineering, by growing it in different kinds of animal cells.15

To adapt the virus to humans, it would have been grown in cells that have the human ACE2 receptor. Over time, the virus would then adapt and eventually gain the ability to bind to the human receptor. U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) pointed out that the issue of binding sites is an important one, as the distinctive binding sites of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein "confer 'near-optimal' binding and entry of the virus into human cells."16

Scientists have argued that SARS-CoV-2's unique binding sites may be the result of either natural spillover in the wild or deliberate recombination of an unidentified viral ancestor. Baric and others, including Peter Daszak, EcoHealth Alliance president, to which he is closely tied, were quick to dismiss the lab-leak hypothesis, which suggests that SARS-CoV-2 accidently leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan, China. Yet, according to Gøtzsche:17

“On 9 December 2019, just before the outbreak of the pandemic, Daszak gave an interview in which he talked in glowing terms of how his researchers at the Wuhan Institute had created over 100 new SARS- related coronaviruses, some of which could get into human cells and could cause untreatable SARS disease in humanized mice … ”

Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance funded controversial GOF research at WIV; NIAID gave funding to the EcoHealth Alliance, which then funneled it to WIV.18 Daszak, despite working closely with WIV, was part of the World Health Organization’s investigative team charged with identifying the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Not surprisingly, the team dismissed the lab-accident theory.

Baric’s SARS-Like Virus Wasn’t Made Public Until May 2020

Regarding the novel SARS-like virus that Shi and Baric created in 2015, this research was conducted using a grant from EcoHealth Alliance.

While the information relating to the virus’ DNA and RNA sequences was supposed to have been submitted to a national biotechnology information database when the research was published, this wasn’t done until years later, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. As reported by Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director for the Organic Consumers Association:19

“The work, ‘A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence,’20 published in Nature in 2015 during the NIH’s moratorium21 on gain-of-function research, was grandfathered in because it was initiated before the moratorium … and because the request by Shi and Baric to continue their research during the moratorium was approved by the NIH.

As a condition of publication, Nature, like most scientific journals, requires22 authors to submit new DNA and RNA sequences to GenBank, the U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information Database. Yet the new SARS-like virus Shi and Baric created wasn’t deposited23 in GenBank until May 2020.”

Meanwhile, both Baric24 and Daszak were involved in organizing the publication of a scientific statement, published in The Lancet and signed by 26 additional scientists, condemning inquiries into the lab-leak hypothesis as “conspiracy theory.”25

Daszak was also made a commissioner of the Lancet Commission on COVID-19, but now that his extreme conflict of interest has been made public, he was recused from the commission.26

Baric, Daszak Downplay Lab-Leak Theory

At the time The Lancet statement was released in February 2020, Daszak had advised Baric against adding his signature because he wanted to “put it out in a way that doesn't link it back to our collaboration so we maximize an independent voice.”27 The authors also declared no competing interests.

In an update published June 21, 2021, The Lancet stated, “Some readers have questioned the validity of this disclosure, particularly as it relates to one of the authors, Peter Daszak.”28 The journal invited the authors to “re-evaluate their competing interests,” and Daszak suddenly had much more to say. His updated disclosure statement reads, in part:29

“EcoHealth Alliance's work in China includes collaboration with a range of universities and governmental health and environmental science organizations, all of which are listed in prior publications, three of which received funding from US federal agencies as part of EcoHealth Alliance grants or cooperative agreements, as publicly reported by NIH.

… EcoHealth Alliance's work in China involves assessing the risk of viral spillover across the wildlife–livestock–human interface, and includes behavioral and serological surveys of people, and ecological and virological analyses of animals.

This work includes the identification of viral sequences in bat samples, and has resulted in the isolation of three bat SARS-related coronaviruses that are now used as reagents to test therapeutics and vaccines.

It also includes the production of a small number of recombinant bat coronaviruses to analyze cell entry and other characteristics of bat coronaviruses for which only the genetic sequences are available.”

Also of note, a special review board, the Potential Pandemic Pathogens Control and Oversight (P3CO) committee, was created within the Department of Health and Human Services to evaluate whether grants involving dangerous pathogens are worth the risks.

Baden-Mayer explained, “This committee was set up as a condition for lifting the 2014-2017 moratorium on gain-of-function research. The P3CO committee operates in secret. Not even a membership list has been released.”30

Daszak stated in his updated disclosure, “NIH reviewed the planned recombinant virus work and deemed it does not meet the criteria that would warrant further specific review by its Potential Pandemic Pathogen Care and Oversight (P3CO) committee.”31

However, according to Rutgers University professor Richard Ebright, an NIH grant for research involving the modification of bat coronaviruses at the WIV was sneaked through because the NIAID didn’t flag it for review.32 In other words, the WIV received federal funding from the NIAID without the research first receiving a green-light from the HHS review board.

The NIAID apparently used a convenient loophole in the review framework. As it turns out, it’s the funding agency’s responsibility to flag potential GOF research for review. If it doesn’t, the review board has no knowledge of it. According to Ebright, the NIAID and NIH have “systemically thwarted — indeed systematically nullified — the HHS P3CO Framework by declining to flag and forward proposals for review.”33

Who Knew What, and When?

We now have proof that Moderna and NIAID sent their mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates to Baric at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in mid-December 2019. Were they aware that COVID-19 was circulating at that time, or did they have knowledge far before that such a vaccine would soon be in demand? The red flags, and cover-ups, continue to mount, but ultimately the truth will prevail.