Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

[stickdog99]

https://www.zeit.de/2023/42/vertrauen-i ... nwirkungen

Excerpts of this amazing Die Zeit article from this week translated from German via Eugypius:

...

All of a sudden, the press were asking about transparency, trust and the anti-vaccine movement. One Chinese journalist even claimed that the mRNA vaccines … had long-term implications for the vaccinated. Rickard Sandberg, molecular biologist and member of the Nobel Committee, blundered and explained that there had been extremely few side effects in the 13 billion vaccinated people. He meant to speak of 13 billion vaccine doses. His answer probably hasn’t boosted confidence in the vaccines. But confidence is exactly what we need to counteract the vaccine scepticism that is currently spreading both here in Germany and around the world.

A look out of the window of Jens Lassen’s medical practice is enough to see what’s happening. You see a few parked cars, green trees, hedges and brick houses. Nothing special. And that’s the problem: “When I looked out of my window two years ago, there was a huge queue on the street,” says Lassen. “Those days are gone.”

Dr. Lassen, we read, is a general practitioner in Leck, a small town in Nordfriesland. The poor man has been offering Covid vaccines for two weeks, but so far he’s only been able to jab 130 people. At the height of the mass vaccination campaign, he was jabbing at least that many every day. That’s how bad things have gotten for poor Dr. Lassen. It’s a real shame.

Today, Lassen hears questions like: Is it even necessary? Isn’t it harmful to keep doing this? “People don’t wear masks anymore, they go to concerts and go on holiday,” Lassen says. “For many, it doesn’t add up that the pandemic is over but vaccination continues.” …

Indeed, every thinking person should find this odd.

Germans have always doubted the benefits of vaccination, and reports about severe side effects (which of course exist) have been used to stir up opposition. The people who rejected or were sceptical about vaccination for a long time were a small group in Germany. But since the Corona pandemic, this fringe social phenomenon has become a movement with resonance extending far into the centre.

Maybe, just maybe, that has something to do with the shitty nature of the Covid vaccines and the immoderate, irrational radicalism that the vaccinators displayed in 2021. Maybe it wasn’t a great idea to fulminate about vaccine mandates and make vaccine passports a condition for participation in public life. Maybe – as literally every last one of us said at the time – these lunatic hygiene policies would go on to conjure from nothing a massive and enduring resistance movement.

… The German government will likely miss by a wide margin their goal of vaccinating those millions who are at risk from Covid infection this Fall. … The situation with flu vaccines is no better. Here, too, the elderly are the main target group. According to the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), only 43% of those over 60 were vaccinated in the 2021/22 flu season. In general, the vaccination rates for most of the vaccines recommended … for adults are below 50%. Children are also “often vaccinated too late or incompletely,” the RKI reports. Take measles, for example: 95% of children should have received two measles vaccinations before they start school. … Only four federal states achieve this goal.

Child vaccination rates seem to be down across the entire West, not only because of the vaccine scepticism prompted manic Covid vaccinators, but as a direct consequence of virus terror messaging, which kept much of the population cowering under their beds away from hospitals for two years. You’d think, by now, our Zeit journalists might consider that this, too, was a terrible idea, but there’s no chance of that. The real problem is statistical illiteracy and ignorance:

Germans are tired of vaccination – of Covid vaccines, flu vaccines and measles vaccines. And that has a lot to do with the fact that not many people can deal with statistics. Medicine is always about probabilities. Many patients when they’re prescribed a medication don’t know this. Most of the time, the medicine works, but sometimes it doesn’t. Or there are unpleasant side effects. And occasionally, rarely, very rarely, dangerous or even life-threatening side effects. Everyone who has ever read an instruction leaflet knows these risks. You accept them because the disease seems worse than the possible consequences of the treatment. With vaccination, it’s different: someone is vaccinated against something they have not yet contracted. That is probably what makes people so hesitant. They see the possible risk – and suppress the fact that the vaccination minimizes another risk.

...

[Grizzly]

My give a shit meter is nearly empty. ..but posting this anyway invade it may be of some use:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCoFLhDKlA4

[stickdog99]

[stickdog99]

AN INQUIRY INTO AUSTRALIA'S EXCESS MORTALITY BY THE AUSTRALIAN MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS SOCIETY (AMPS)

AMPS held an inquiry into the alarming number of Australia’s Excess Deaths recorded following the COVID-19 “vaccine” rollouts in Canberra at the Australian Federal Parliament on 18 October.

The AMPS delegation included:

Dr Christopher Neil - AMPS President

Dr Duncan Syme - AMPS Vice President

Dr Jeyanthi Kunadhasan - AMPS Treasurer

Kara Thomas - AMPS Secretary

Dr Phillip Altman

Dr Geoff Pain

Dr Andrew Madry

Clare Pain

Papers presented by the delegates and overseas experts have been compiled into a book which will shortly be published and delivered to all Federal and State politicians. This book can be downloaded here.

...

What was the government definition of COVID public health success? Is there a public health measurement more indicative of success or failure than all-cause mortality? If it is claimed that many Australian lives were saved, a claim that can only be based on assumption-rich modelling, how is that compatible with rising excess death rates, per week and month, evident from the first half of 2021, well before COVID-19 disease could be construed to be making a serious contribution? Even if we accept, as former Prime Minister Scott Morrison claimed during his ill-fated 2022 election campaign (based very heavily on modelling assumptions), that early pandemic policies had saved 30,000 Australian lives, why is this not evident in the bottom line of all-cause mortality? Were these poor souls saved only to be lost again, alongside many others, to produce the observed excess death? And if so, what factors were and are in play?

We do not agree that COVID-19 itself, or its sequel, so-called Long COVID, is the true driving force of excess mortality. Several of the papers we present demonstrate this elegantly, in particular with Queensland data, with excess death evidenced eight months prior to any sizable burden of SARS-CoV-2 in that locked-down state. Hence, the trend is initiated in the absence of the infection, but squarely in the midst of policies like lockdowns and the vaccine rollout. These easily verifiable facts should have triggered critical evaluation of such policies by public servants, according to the Precautionary Principle. To continue to assert that SARS-CoV-2 is the only explanation needed may constitute wilful blindness; it causes failure to evaluate the possibility that the cure was, in fact, worse than the disease (at least by the time it reached Australian shores).

Much more needs to be said about the role of COVID-19 in the excess death, but we note a paradox that is as yet unexplained by the sanctioned experts. Why did the official death rates attributable to COVID-19 disease only become notable after the vast majority of Australians had received allegedly ‘safe and effective’ vaccines for the infection?

Furthermore, why did the much milder Omicron variant take such a toll on a heavily vaccinated population, if indeed the much-repeated therapeutic claim of protection from severe illness and death was in effect? The Cambridge Dictionary defines ‘failure’ as the fact of someone or something not succeeding. Thus, given the basic issue of excess all-cause mortality, how can mass vaccination and other related policies continue to escape critical review?

Australian Medical Professionals Society

There is continued appeal to COVID-19 itself as all the explanation necessary for the phenomenology of excess mortality. This is seen in Australia and consistently around the heavily vaccinated parts of the developed world. In September 2023, we were informed of the planned non-royal commission into Australia’s pandemic management, with extremely limited investigative scope and presided over by only the most committed government apologists. Is this likely to further the science? Is it likely to give any answers beyond the engrained position?

It is noteworthy that until the implementation of the coercive mandatory lockdowns and vaccination-only strategy, there was no pandemic of death. Yet we now find ourselves in just that, with consecutive increases in excess mortality not seen since wartime. In continued secrecy, our authorities implemented authoritarian pandemic policies, which we and others have noted were in complete contradiction of their own pandemic preparedness plans. Has this behaviour, in one way or another, cost a great many lives? The consequences of the failures are difficult to ignore.

In Australia, we have a serious problem. Government excesses of power created through emergency legislation have been allowed to violate our liberties. They were justified by largely unscientific and readily refutable claims. Fear was wrongly employed by political leaders, using secret health advice to control the public. Health laws gave chief health officers unprecedented powers to do almost anything they thought was reasonable during a pandemic – which can be declared on opinion, and not on evidence, without having to justify their decision.

When has there been a society that prospers because people have been cancelled or removed from their vital work because they dared to disagree with some regime’s unquestionable truth? Do our modern medical authoritarians want to be looked back on with the same disdain with which we judge historical despots?

...

[stickdog99]

While I do not uncritically endorse Toby Roger's rather myopic worldview, I must admit that am I also not sure that he is wrong about any of the points that he makes.

https://tobyrogers.substack.com/p/think ... er-23-2023

...

You don’t have to sign up to join

Progressives think that just because they did not sign up for fascism, they could not possibly be fascist. But that’s not how it works. In 2020 (and probably well before) Pharma, the state, and the military merged. Anyone who fails to condemn this development is aiding and abetting fascism.

Conservatives think that just because they’re not progressives, they could not possibly be fascist. But that’s not how it works either. Anyone who is not actively calling out the iatrogenic crimes of both the Trump administration and the Biden administration is aiding and abetting fascism.

The iatrogenocide is bipartisan, unfortunately.

The ruling class really wants to kill us

In 2020, during the middle of a pandemic caused by CRISPR/Cas9 (gene editing technology), the inventors of CRISPR/Cas9 were given the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

Since then, Covid vaccines have killed more people than the gain-of-function virus. In 2023, the inventors of genetically modified mRNA vaccines were given the Nobel Prize in Medicine.

So the Nobel Prize Committee has now rewarded those who caused the pandemic and those who massively increased its death toll. Pretty astonishing really — the ruling class is publicly giving out MVP awards to the technicians of the iatrogenocide.

...

The negative sum economy

A proper market economy should be a “positive-sum game” — through trade we both end up better off than we were before.

Economists also talk about “zero-sum games” where one person’s gain is another person’s loss so the net benefit to society is zero.

We live in a “negative-sum economy.” Every $1 of profit that Pharma makes, costs the American public $10 to $100 in harms. It’s the opposite of the multiplier effect. It was not always this way. But it’s here now and it’s the reason why the U.S. economy is going down the drain.

...

[stickdog99]

Wakaminenga Maori Government Is Magic Number One - First Prosecutions Of Four New Zealand Officials For COVID19 Crimes Against Humanity And Genocide - Hope For The World

On Saturday 17 June 2023 an historic event took place in New Zealand. A dedicated team of men and women have opened the first sovereign independent Grand Jury Court of justice, Te Wakaminenga Kooti Wakanga nui of Nu Tireni – New Zealand. The Court will deal with civil and criminal claims for all Sovereign Nationals of Nu Tireni NZ who register with the Wakaminenga Maori Government under the jurisdiction of Tikanga and He Wakaputanga.

The first case has been brought by the members of the Wakaminenga Maori Government on behalf of all the people of New Zealand. The case deals with alleged breaches of the sovereign law of He Wakaputanga and crimes of genocide and against humanity.

Senior officials of the Wakaminenga Maori Government witnessed their Leader Upoko Arikinui Ripekatangi of Ngati Maniapoto, Tainui and Ngati Kahu Taitokerau and Deputy Leader Upoko Tuarua Arikinui Kurakamaringi of Te Uepohatu of Te Tairawhiti and Rangatira o Aotearoa Nu Tireni NZ open and bless the Court with ancestral whakatauaki (proverbs), karakia (prayers) and waiata (song).

Rangatira present acknowledged the aroha of their Pakeha brothers and sisters of English and European ancestry. They have united under the supreme, sovereign authority of the constitutional law of Tikanga and He Wakaputanga 1835, and Te Wakaminenga o Te Rangatiratanga of the Congress of Nga Hapu Iwi of the United Tribes and Peoples of New Zealand.

Te Wakaminenga Kooti Wakanga Grand Jury Court has been many years in planning and is now open for all New Zealanders who register with the Maori Government under sovereign Tikanga customary law and He Wakaputanga the Declaration of Independence 1835. The Kooti Wakanga Grand Jury Court is convened under the supervision of the Kooti (Court) Presidency made up of the President of the Court and two deputies and a Court Moderator. These officials conducted the swearing in of a panel of Grand Jurists to commence the first stage of the case dealing with allegations of breaches of He Wakaputanga and crimes of genocide against the people of New Zealand.

Inauguration of the Grand Jury follows extensive talks between Arikinui Ripekatangi and a renowned group of international constitutional lawyers. Their expert legal opinion is that the Maori never ceded sovereignty and retained absolute authority under their ancient Tikanga customary law and the internationally recognised Declaration of Independence He Wakaputanga 1835. This legal opinion confirms the findings of the Te Raki Inquiry under Justice Coxhead published in 2014 and 2022. It fully substantiates the publicly stated position of the Government of the Russian Federation that the Treaty of Waitangi was never ratified by the British contained within a briefing on 7th June 2023 by Maria Zakharova Director of the Department of Information and Press of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The Grand Jury are being presented with the results of an investigation by the Prosecutor of the Court and will determine if it merits a decision to indict the putative defendants and progress to trial by jury or tribunal.

We give thanks to our Creator and acknowledge His divine love and compassion on this kaupapa nui (grand plan) for justice, restoration and peace in our country.

The first court sitting of COJ-07-23-001 was convened to deliver judgment to four convicted New Zealand Government officials, Christopher John Hipkins, Andrew James Little, Ashley Robin Bloomfield and Christopher James for their part in actions that breached He Wakaputanga and actions that led to serious Covid 19 crimes.

[stickdog99]

Solitary MP Andrew Bridgen Demands Answers From Empty Parliament Over UK Excess Death Rate

PODCAST: 30 Minute Free Audio of Andrew Bridgen's Parliamentary Debate on UK Excess Deaths

1) More People Are Dying Now Than During Covid

On Friday 20th October 2023 British MP Andrew Bridgen (Reclaim Party) demanded answers from Parliament over what is behind the alarming rate of excess death in the UK, which is higher now than it was during Covid.

This excess death rate is not denied by government and was openly acknowledged by the minister that responded to Mr Bridgen in Parliament. Yet the government continues to censor any information related to its possible causes.

Andrew Bridgen MP said:

“We've experienced more excess deaths since July 2021 than in the whole of 2020. Unlike the pandemic, however, these deaths are not disproportionately of the old. In other words, the excessive deaths are striking down people in the prime of life. But no-one seems to care…it appears that no-one cares that no-one cares”.

2) The House Did Not Care

Shamefully, British Parliamentarians were notable only due to their absence. Mr Bridgen was seen cutting a solitary figure addressing an empty House. Comparisons to other occasions that make MPs rush to the House were inevitable.



3) The Debate is Suppressed

The difficulty in being able to secure this debate in the first instance was also acknowledged by Mr Bridgen.

“It's taken a lot of effort and more than 20 rejections to be allowed to raise this topic but at last we're here to discuss the number of people dying. Nothing could be more serious. Numerous countries are currently gripped in a period of unexpected mortality, and no one wants to talk about it. ..what we're seeing here is a pattern, repeated across countries, and the rise has not let up”.

When the debate was finally allowed to happen, it was heavily “fact”-checked by the BBC, which appeared bent on displaying contradictory counter-messages across their screen even as Mr Bridgen spoke.

4) The Public Cheered One Solitary MP From the Viewing Gallery

But despite these various difficulties and an empty chamber bereft of MPs, the public viewing gallery was full and members of the public were heard loudly cheering Mr Bridgen, both upon commencing his speech and when concluding.

5) The Prime Hypothesis is Experimental Covid Injections

The majority of these rising deaths are not due to Covid.

Mr Bridgen said:

“…The majority, 58% of these deaths, were not attributed to Covid. We turned society upside down before vaccination for fear of excess deaths from Covid. Today we have substantially more excess deaths, and in younger people, and there's complete and eerie silence..the evidence is unequivocal.”

One would be forgiven therefore for thinking that British MPs would be incredibly concerned about what is killing their constituents at a higher rate than when we locked the entire planet down.

Mr Bridgen said:

“These excess deaths are not due to an ageing population because there are fewer deaths in the diseases of old age. These deaths are not an effect of Covid because they've happened in places where Covid have not reached. And they're not due to low statin prescriptions or under-treated hypertension as Chris Wickey would suggest because prescriptions did not change and in any effect would have taken many years...The prime hypothesis must be the experimental COVID-19 vaccines...“

The same problem is replicated across Europe and the entire world.

Mr Bridgen said:

“There are studies from the Netherlands, Germany and the whole world, each showing that the highest mortality after vaccination was seen in the most heavily vaccinated regions. So.. what are people dying of?”

Mr Bridgen even went so far as to provide a risk / benefit analysis of continuing to provide these experimental Covid injections to an unsuspecting public and the verified danger this places the public in.

Mr Bridgen said:

“Only one COVID-related death was prevented in each of the initial major trials that led to authorisation of the vaccines, and that is taking their data entirely at face value…that means that between 15,000 and 20,000 people had to be injected to prevent a single death from COVID. To prevent a single Covid hospitalisation, over 1,500 people needed to be injected. The trial data showed that 1 in 800 injected people had a serious adverse event, meaning they were hospitalised or had a life-changing or life-threatening condition. The risk of this was twice as high as the chance of preventing a Covid hospitalisation. We're harming 1 in 800 people to supposedly save 1 in 20,000.”

Despite this clear and unambiguous evidence, MPs couldn’t even be bothered to attend, let alone countenance the idea of pulling these dangerous injections.

Despite this clear and unambiguous evidence, MPs couldn’t even be bothered to attend, let alone countenance the idea of pulling these dangerous injections.

much more ...

[stickdog99]

The great lockdown scandal has only just begun

Nobody bothered to model the harms it caused, and almost nobody has shown humility about the mistakes.

...

This week, while giving evidence to the Covid inquiry, Prof Woolhouse made a particularly damning declaration. Though lockdown was often framed as a last resort which no one wanted to impose, he begs to differ. “The harms of the social distancing measures – particularly lockdown, the economic harms, the educational harms, the harms to access to healthcare … societal wellbeing … mental health – were not included in any of the work that SPI-M-O did and, as far as I could tell, no one else was doing it either,” he told the inquiry.

So his team was never even asked to model the harm lockdown might inflict. Nor were they asked to consider alternative ways of mitigating health risks. “The question of how to avoid lockdown was never asked of us,” he added, “and I find that extraordinary.” Too right. This ought to be a national scandal. Saying “hindsight is always 20/20” doesn’t cut it; not only were many people warning about collateral harms at the time, expert authorities weren’t even being asked to consider such warnings.

Myopic decision-making was accompanied by an equally damaging tendency to view the public as a faceless bloc, ignoring the risk levels different individuals faced. So back in March 2020, the nation was, in Woolhouse’s words, “concentrating on schools when we should have been concentrating on care homes”.

This led to two of the pandemic’s most colossal mistakes – the neglect of vulnerable elderly patients and lengthy school closures, even though children were 10,000 times less likely to die from Covid than the elderly and the evidence for school transmission was patchy at best. We are still counting the cost, especially to less privileged pupils.

Eventually lockdown began generating its own absurdist logic, akin to the topsy-turvy world of a Gilbert and Sullivan opera. Conventional wisdom like “protecting the vulnerable” was cast as fringe quackery. Some condemned herd immunity as a conspiracy theory, rather than indisputable scientific reality and, indeed, the basis for vaccination.

...

Meanwhile, in Sweden, state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell stuck to the well-established principles of scientific inquiry and communicated with the public as rational adults. In hindsight, and compared with our own febrile public debate, it’s amazing how heretical this now looks.

...

[stickdog99]

Source: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 23296330v3

[Belligerent Savant]

.
A number of us in this thread — and other threads here— have been calling this out for the past ~2yrs:

The Left Has Forgotten it Used to Rage Against the Machine

BY DR DAVID BELL 24 OCTOBER 2023 7:00 AM


It is tiring to be accused of being ‘far-Right’ by people doing (however unwittingly) the bidding of the corporations and investors who recently made a killing on Covid. It is particularly irritating that such people, whilst deriding low-income workers and the ‘uneducated’, have convinced themselves that they are somehow being virtuous. They call themselves ‘Left’, but so do I. We either need to re-think or ditch these outdated epithets, or be more honest about our positions.

As explanation, the following is a list of some actual ‘Left’ policies I have always supported. They lean towards public health issues, as this is relevant to the times. They include:

An emphasis on human rights, bodily autonomy and freedom of movement.

An effort to limit inequality in wealth distribution.

Decolonisation, i.e., large rich countries and the corporations in them (or that run them) should not dictate to, or extract wealth from, smaller and poorer countries.

Community-based influence or control on local policy and resources, particularly healthcare.

A publicly funded health system that ensures reasonably equal access to good basic care.

Free and equal opportunity for education, to reduce poverty and improve gender equality.

Constitutional democracy, where governments exist on the will of the people, and inviolable rules protect minorities.

Free speech (essential to stop dictators from entrenching themselves and to ensure progress).

Willingness to stand your ground for the above principles, even at some personal cost.

The list could go on, but generally this is where I was, and remain. This is why, ignorantly or not, I have always voted that way. Working in global health, I had thought that was where most of my colleagues were, though I was fine with those that differed. However, with notable exceptions, nearly all have actively supported the following list of antithetical policies during the past few years:

Mandated face coverings and injections, and vilification and exclusion of individuals and minorities who refused (note: ‘exclusion’ is the opposite of ‘inclusion’, so the opposite of DEI).

Desperation to defend the largest concentration of wealth in the history of humankind, with ‘Left-wing’ media lauding the recipients (and sponsored by them).

Imposition of global policies geared to ensure broad uptake in low-income countries of Western health products to address a Western problem (e.g. ‘No one is safe until everyone is safe’), at the cost of deterioration of the health issues that actually impact low-income countries most.

Increasing centralisation in international public health policy, with the World Health Organisation (WHO), ‘philanthropists’ and a parrot-like sponsored media pushing the same policies onto young mothers in Nigerian villages that they push on aged-care centres in Seattle.

Restricting healthcare access across much of the globe, from chemotherapy for NHS cancer patients in Britain and basic birthing support for young mothers in Kenya.

Advocating for school closures that will ensure increased poverty for the next generation, widening gender inequality, promoting child marriage and child labour.

Rule by emergency decree, because the public may choose differently from the Government. Then planning for a transfer of powers to WHO for any health event, or even the threat of one, that WHO staff in a comfortable Swiss city deem to call an ’emergency’.

Development of a whole new concept called an ‘infodemic’. This involves people who are losing their right to show their face, work or visit family, questioning the regime that is removing these rights. The same regime that is profiting from their confinement. In an ‘infodemic’, the people asking the questions are deemed to be the problem, not the regime. (Remember when raging against the machine was a thing?)

Support for these actions requires an abandonment of any inclination to stand for those principles that we (the ‘Left’) once believed in. Perhaps to hide this weakness from themselves, many now label human rights advocates and free-speech defenders as ‘anti-whatever’ or ‘whatever-denier (insert the latest thing, it is usually incoherent, or use the derogatory ‘free-dumb’ instead).

If someone cannot see through this piece of Orwellian double-speak played out in the media and in life, benefiting the few at the expense of the many, then the behavioural psychology is working as intended. They won’t recognise reality until they snap out of it. But for those who agree with the first list above, but still persist in closing down debate and name-calling, self-reflection might bring a return of strength.

People can change their minds. Intelligent people do as they learn new things and find time to think.

Which brings us to the obvious conclusion. The new movement of cancellation, vilification, exclusion and abuse is not a Left or Right movement. It promotes a form of totalitarianism closer to fascism than anything else, whilst calling others ‘fascist’ for valuing free thought and free association. Fascism is not a synonym for freedom; it has a different and unpleasant meaning.

We live in a divided society. The divide is political. It is between those who value democracy, equality and intrinsic human worth and those who think it virtuous to deride them. Those who still recognise these values as worthy should stop calling people stupid names and start asking, and allowing, questions. Inclusiveness is not a dogma; it is fundamentally the opposite. There is strength in diversity, not in subservience to another’s uniformity.

Dr. David Bell is a clinical and public health physician with a PhD in population health and background in internal medicine, modelling and epidemiology of infectious disease. Previously, he was Programme Head for Malaria and Acute Febrile Disease at FIND in Geneva and coordinated malaria diagnostics strategy with the World Health Organisation. He is a member of the Executive Committee of PANDA.

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/10/24/the ... e-machine/

[stickdog99]

On Vaxx Mandates and the Broken Social Justice™ Moral Compass on College Campuses

In political discourse – and perhaps this is an inexorable feature of human tribalistic psychology -- there exists a dichotomy between what Noam Chomsky and others have described as “worthy” and “unworthy” victims of state violence and other forms of oppression.

(I would be remiss, although it is not the focus of this article, to not note that vaunted leftist intellectual Noam Chomsky became one of the most hardline COVID authoritarians on the planet. He descended so far morally as to advocate starving out the unvaccinated by locking them in their homes until they complied with mandates.)

Returning to the topic of “worthy” and “unworthy” victims, the Palestinians, as can be seen in recent college protests, are very much in vogue as “worthy” victims.



(Let’s not get sidetracked; this is not a treatise on the Palestine vs. Israel conflict. I bring up this example of a “worthy” victim because it is timely and apropos.)

On the other hand, college students (along with everyone else in the population at large) who were forced to receive unnecessary and often extremely damaging experimental medical treatments with no public health benefit are very much placed in the latter category (“unworthy victims”) by the same ideological cohort that champions the Palestinian cause.

Accordingly, the victims of COVID tyranny get no sympathy from the mainstream academic institutions nor the students and faculty who outsource their critical thinking to them.

Instead, anyone who asks questions about vaccine mandates – and even anyone injured by the shots – is subject to ridicule by the mainstream media and the mainstream culture it fosters.

...



(On the hypocrisy of bodily autonomy, which is tangentially related to this topic, I will only note in passing, although it could constitute an entire article, the “my body, my choice” hypocrisy of pro-choice activists who suddenly have nothing to say about needle rape with an experimental drug as a requirement to attend school. When a woman is denied access to an abortion by the state, she is a “worthy” victim of coercion. When that same woman is required to submit to an injection with a product she doesn’t want, she is an “unworthy” victim.)



Perception influenced by media and academic bubbles and the resulting ideological possession inform the level of outrage of activists over any given issue, and who constitutes a “worthy” victim and who does not. Such ideologues have no reservoir of sympathy for, or solidarity with, their own peers who have been forced to suffer for many years at this point for the sake of pharmaceutical profiteering and technocratic social control.

Please do not misunderstand: this is not to equate the explosive latent war in the Middle East and COVID-19 vaxx mandates. One is obviously geopolitical and millennia-old and highly ripe for sensationalism in the media. The other is a domestic policy matter and relatively new and slow-burning.
The caveat of unfair comparisons aside, allow me to briefly make the case that the COVID crimes of the past few years dwarf, by any metric, what is currently unfolding in the Middle East – the main difference between the two, in terms of media presentation, and hence public perception, being that the COVID crimes do not convey scenes of bombings and bloodied children and therefore do not have the same visceral impact on the viewer or reader.

This might engender criticism as hyperbole, but I believe that history will regard the COVID-19 crimes by the Public Health™ authorities and the pharmaceutical industry – first, the creation of SARS-CoV-2 in the in a dingy communist lab using money funneled to it by Anthony Fauci’s NIAID through EcoHealth Alliance; second, the resulting mRNA gene therapies deceptively marketed as “vaccines” and authorized under fraudulent premises; third, the forced uptake of said mRNA gene therapies by way of unconstitutional and unethical vaxx mandates and weaponized lockdowns – as the greatest crime in human history, with a death toll in the millions and climbing. The final tally of dead victims may exceed a billion when the totality of the truth emerges, as it will one day, about the vaxxes’ adverse side effects, the mass starvation induced by global lockdowns and demolished supply lines, the wrecked mental health induced by the same, etc.

Related: Pfizer Used Separate Manufacturing Processes for COVID Shots Used in Clinical Trials, Public Distribution

We need justice. We need an end to brutal vaxx and masking mandates on college campuses and throughout civil society. After the immediate injustices are remedied, we need Nuremberg 2.0 to ensure nothing like the crimes of the past three years are ever permitted to occur again.

[stickdog99]

More proof the mRNAs rewire the immune system with unknown long-term effects

The biggest study yet on post-jab IgG4 "class switching" just came out. You will be shocked - SHOCKED - to hear American researchers had nothing to do with it.

Many people who receive mRNA Covid jabs wind up with profound changes in their immune systems that usually arise only after prolonged exposure to allergens like bee venom, a new study confirms.

The changes seem to reduce the immune response to Covid as the body adjusts to the unnaturally high antibody levels mRNA jabs initially produce.

They may account for the paradoxical fact that despite Omicron’s mildness, jab fanatics like Stephen Colbert recently have reported failing to clear Covid infections quickly. The immune system changes are unique to mRNA and not seen in people who get other kinds of Covid vaccines, the study found.

The study also showed a powerful immunosuppressant given for eczema suppresses the changes - further raising questions about the potential relationship between skin and autoimmune disorders and the mRNAs.

Scientists in the Netherlands carried out the study, which included 604 patients and was funded by the Dutch government.

The researchers posted their findings online as a preprint weeks ago, but the paper has received no mainstream media coverage despite its implications. It confirms and expands upon two earlier papers that showed similar immune system changes.

(Three shots of mRNA equals IgG4. Nope, nobody saw this coming. Nope, nobody really knows what it means. And nobody in the United States seems too interested in finding out.)




SOURCE

In each paper, scientists reported people who had received at least three mRNA shots showed a sharp increase in a type of antibodies called IgG4.

IgG antibodies persist for months in the blood after someone is infected with an “antigen” - a foreign invader like the coronavirus. They are the most common antibodies the immune system produces.

In the case of the coronavirus, IgG antibodies attach to the spike protein that juts out from the surface of the virus. They then either prevent the virus from locking on the body’s cells and reproducing, or recruit other parts of the immune system to attack the virus.

But IgG antibodies come in different subclasses.

IgG4 is generally the rarest, and the last the body makes. The IgG4 subtype does not recruit other parts of the immune system to attack the virus, though can still “neutralize” the virus by keeping the virus from attaching to cells. Usually, the IgG4 class make up less than 5 percent of all IgG antibodies, and often less than 1 percent.

But the scientists found that after a third shot, IgG4 made up about 21 percent of all the IgG antibodies they found in the average healthy adult. The levels varied very widely, though, and in 1 in 4 adults IgG4 was nearly 50 percent of all IgG antibodies.

Because IgG4 is so uncommon when the immune system is working normally, no one really knows what the impact of much-higher-than-normal IgG4 levels may be. “Accurately deciphering the negative consequences, if any, of increased IgG4 levels will be difficult,” one expert wrote in January, after the first IgG4 papers appeared.

But the uncertainties don’t end there.

No one knows whether IgG4 levels will keep rising with further boosters or repeated Covid infections. No one knows whether Omicron’s spike will keep mutating away from the antibodies that people who receive the initial vaccines made.

For over a year, Omicron’s general mildness has largely muted these concerns. Paxlovid has also helped the most vulnerable. So while Covid infections continue, few people are being hospitalized or dying from the illness.

Still, at least anecdotally, stories like this are not uncommon:



Finally, the Dutch paper contained the intriguing finding that patients taking dupilumab - a new drug that blocks an immune stimulant called IL-4 and is used to treat eczema - had almost no increase in IgG4. So did patients taking older drugs called tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, which are used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune diseases.

Those drugs, which are powerful immune system modulators, should not be necessary to undo the impact of a properly working vaccine on the immune system. Yet that is exactly what dupilumab and the TNF inhibitors appeared to do. They normalized immune responses and reduced IgG4 levels in people who received the mRNAs.

The question is why - and what their impact may say about the overall effect of the mRNAs on the immune system. Case reports worldwide suggest that in rare cases the mRNAs cause autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis and even Type 1 diabetes; no one really knows why.

But don’t expect American scientists to be helpful in answering any of those questions.

The United States - home of two of the three mRNA Covid vaccine companies - continues to do everything possible to deny even the theoretical possibility of mRNA side effects. All three IgG4 papers came from European researchers.

After all, you can’t report bad news if you don’t find it.

And you can’t find it if you don’t look.

[stickdog99]

Contamination in mRNA Shots ‘Serious Regulatory Oversight’

The discovery of excessive levels of DNA contamination in the mRNA COVID shots has raised questions about how it got there, and what it means for people who may have been injected with contaminated products. Scientists have some answers, and a lot of questions…

Earlier this year, Umbrella News reported that genomics scientist Kevin McKernan claimed to have found plasmid DNA contamination – anywhere between 18-70 times above legal limits – in the mRNA Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

“I wasn’t actually looking for it,” McKernan said in an interview, in which he recounts being “shocked” at finding the contamination while running an unrelated experiment in his Boston lab in early 2023. McKernan posted his findings to social media, and other scientists began running their own experiments and sharing notes.

One of these scientists was cancer genomics expert and mRNA proponent Dr. Phillip Buckhaults, who was initially skeptical of McKernan’s findings, until he replicated them multiple times in his own lab. On 14 September, Dr. Buckhaults, who has taken the mRNA vaccines himself, testified in a South Carolina Senate hearing that he too had found lots of “itty bitty bits” of plasmid DNA contamination in the mRNA vaccines, which he likened to scattered buckshot.



Dr Buckhaults said that these DNA fragments, “may be causing some of the rare but serious side effects, like death from cardiac arrest. There is a very real hazard,” he went on, that the contaminant DNA fragments will integrate with a person’s genome and become a “permanent fixture of the cell,” leading to autoimmune problems and cancers in some people who have had the vaccinations. He also noted that these genome changes can “last for generations.”

The eminent Prof. Wafik El-Deiry, Director of the Cancer Centre at Brown University, shares Dr. Bukhaults’ concerns. He notes that the lipid nanoparticles casing around the contaminant DNA fragments provides a means for them to “now easily get in the cells. If they get into cells they can integrate in the genome which is permanent, heritable and has a theoretical risk of causing cancer depending on where in the genome they integrate.”

Dr. Buckhaults and McKernan have noted that in the Pfizer vaccine (but not Moderna), the presence of an SV40 promoter sequence in the DNA contamination makes the possibility of genomic integration even more likely. This sequence was not disclosed in Pfizer’s submission to the regulators.



Pictured: Slides from Kevin McKernan’s presentation to the FDA, 15 June 2023. (Source: Kevin McKernan)

“It’s used in gene therapies,” explains McKernan, referring to scientific work out of Rochester University which shows that the SV40 promoter is “effective at getting DNA into the nucleus, which is what you need to make gene therapy work.”

Both scientists emphasise that the risks of genomic integration and adverse events from the DNA contamination are currently theoretical, and need to be tested in further studies. They also agree that these effects would probably be rare.

However, McKernan says, “the end numbers are so large that you can’t rule it out. The number of molecules that are in each shot isn’t ‘one.’ It’s like a billion or more of these DNA molecules. So we have billions of contaminants going to billions of people.”

A new Canadian study of 27 mRNA vaccine vials just upped the ante on McKernan’s numbers, concluding that there are “billions to hundreds of billions of DNA molecules per dose” in the Moderna and Pfizer mRNA shots. The preprint, which is about to go through peer review, assessed vaccines from lots approved for children, and several of the bivalent boosters, including Moderna’s XBB.1.5 booster.

Multiple other labs around the world now claim to have replicated McKernan’s finding of plasmid DNA contamination in the shots, which is thought to be a by-product of the upscaled production method.

The process used for mass manufacture of the mRNA vaccines involves using E. coli bacteria to make copies of DNA plasmids, from which the vaccine mRNA is then produced. It is fragments of these bacterial DNA plasmids that have since been found in the mRNA vaccines.

Testifying in the same South Carolina Senate hearing after Dr. Buckaults, toxicologist and microbiologist Dr. Janci Lindsay added a few more concerns about the production process of the mRNA vaccines to the mounting pile.

While most of the plasmid DNA fragments detected in the vaccines have been relatively small, if some are larger and intact, “they can infect the E. coli in your gut… which means you can be a perpetual spike factory, because they’re self-replicating,” said Dr. Lindsay. “That’s a problem.”

Dr. Lindsay stated that the DNA fragments carry an antibiotic resistant gene which can make your gut bacteria resistant to commonly used antibiotics. “If these transfect the E. coli in your gut, it can make your gut and other bacteria resistant to those antibiotics. That is a huge, huge risk.”

A third risk raised by Dr. Lindsay is the possibility that the vaccines are contaminated with endotoxin, which is the outer membrane of the E. coli bacteria used to grow DNA plasmids. Endotoxins, “can cause anaphylaxis and even death. And that may be what caused some of the rapid deaths that occurred right after people got these shots,” explained Dr. Lindsay.



The possibility of endotoxin contamination in the mRNA vaccines was raised by Australian scientist Dr. Geoff Pain at an independent inquiry into Australia’s excess mortality, at Parliament House on 18 October 2023.

With the alleged presence of DNA contamination and its concomitant theoretical risks based on the scientific literature and pharmacovigilance databases, one might imagine that the regulators would respond with alarm.

However, when Dr. Buckhaults and McKernan sent their findings to the FDA, neither received a response. Umbrella News sent their findings to the TGA for comment, and a spokesperson for the TGA responded, “all batches of COVID-19 vaccines distributed to Australians have been tested for the presence of contaminants including residual DNA template levels.”

“With over a billion doses of the mRNA vaccines administered, no safety concerns related to residual DNA have been identified. In general, with regard to the mRNA vaccines, while concerns have been raised previously as theoretical issues, available scientific evidence supports the conclusion that the vaccines are safe and effective.”

The TGA did not provide any scientific studies testing for genomic integration, cancer, or any of the other potential adverse events identified in the scientific literature as potential risks of DNA contamination in support of its statement.

That the regulators do not seem concerned about the alleged DNA contamination in the mRNA vaccines, said Dr. Buckhaults, could partly be because the current regulations around allowable DNA contamination limits are not suitable for this new type of vaccine.

The difference lies in the distinction between whether the DNA contamination is ‘naked’ (as in traditional vaccines), or ‘packaged’ in lipid nanoparticle casing (as in new mRNA vaccines). A bit of naked DNA contamination is not a problem, Buckhaults explained, because it gets, “chewed up immediately upon vaccination, and there’s no real mechanism for it to get inside the cells.”

But with the introduction of the mRNA vaccines, the regulators, “inappropriately applied that regulatory limit to this new kind of vaccine where everything is encapsulated in this lipid nanoparticle… able to dump its content into a cell,” said Dr. Buckhaults. “I think this is a real, serious regulatory oversight that happened at the federal level.”

At an expert hearing on the DNA contamination issue hosted by the World Council for Health on 9 October, world-leading scientists and medical professionals, including McKernan and Dr. Lindsay, presented on the risks of the contamination in the shots and offered a six-point call to action to mobilise the scientific community in advancing research and legal action on the matter.

While Dr. Buckhaults remains optimistic about the future of the mRNA platform, particularly as a potential treatment for cancers, he stated that he will not be taking any more of the mRNA COVID vaccines without first testing them to ensure they are free from contamination.

Dr. Lindsay is less optimistic, stating, “I disagree with Dr. Buckhaults in that I think this is the most dangerous platform that has ever been released on mankind.” Dr. Lindsay is campaigning for the shots to be suspended until pharmacovigilance safety signals have been properly investigated.

Despite their differences, all the scientists involved agree on two things. First, the DNA contamination is there. Second, there is an urgent need for further research to test whether the contaminant DNA fragments are lingering in the cells of mRNA vaccinated people, whether they are causing adverse events, and whether they are integrating into the genome of vaccinated people.

[stickdog99]

Dr. Meryl Nass: Why did Tony Fauci risk everything to call for a coverup of COVID's lab origin? There was a lot more to it than protecting himself and NIAID for sponsoring Wuhan research

[stickdog99]