The War with Medical Fascism

[ccp]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/02/22/upenn-medical-school-forces-diversity-statement-on-teaching-applicants/

My statement would be something that Thomas Sowell might have written

Slavery, that was carried all over the world was and in some places a tragedy ,

Jim Crow was unconstitutional and morally abhorrent.

Today Blacks who work hard and meet qualifications can get into Medical just as easily as anyone who is not black.

look at the numbers of women in medical school .  look at the number of Asians , middle easterners, Africans.

Broken families , lack of encouragement of education, and poverty , keeps people of all races from achieving academic success.

Blacks more so since the Great Society of the 60's, a well meaning but fundamentally flawed concept that has backfired substantially.

Time for leaders who teach Black history to correct this.

Not lower standards or base admissions in a reverse racist way .

Teach the value of the family unit, teach the value of education (like Jews have done for centuries) teach the truth about the failures of the liberal policies.

[G M]

https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1050,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/128/903/993/original/0d77b23f71d81111.jpeg



Trust the experts! Trust the science!!!

[Crafty_Dog]

All 50 states should establish expert groups to provide alternatives to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a Stanford University professor says.

“Every state should have their own second opinion of CDC policy and decision making,” Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of health policy at Stanford, told EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders” program. The interview will premiere on Saturday, February 25 at 7:30pm ET.

Bhattacharya is one of the members of the Public Health Integrity Committee in Florida, formed in late 2022 by Gov. Ron DeSantis.

Overseen by Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo, the committee of experts “will be able to assess recommendations and guidance related to public health and health care, but particularly being able to offer critical assessments of things that bureaucracies like the FDA, CDC, and NIH are doing,” DeSantis said during a roundtable with committee members.

The CDC has issued recommendations on masking, social distancing, and vaccination during the pandemic that have been widely followed, leading to school closures and vaccine mandates. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized the COVID-19 vaccines and have not altered the authorizations despite the vaccines performing worse against newer variants and the risk-benefit calculus, especially among children, growing more uncertain, according to some outside experts. The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) has sought to suppress scientific ideas, including the advocation of focused protection of the elderly instead of locking down healthy people.

“The goal of the committee is essentially just to provide a second opinion when the CDC gets something wrong,” Bhattacharya told The Epoch Times. “Sometimes they’ll get the things right, we’ll say it. … But the the ultimate aim is to say, ‘look, the CDC says x, here’s our scientific view of it.”

Bhattacharya co-wrote the Great Barrington Declaration, a major challenge to the restrictions imposed and promoted by the federal government, and many state governments, during the pandemic. He’s joined on the committee by others, including co-author Martin Kulldorff; Dr. Tracy Hoeg, an epidemiologist whose study contradicted a CDC study on masking; and Dr. Joseph Fraiman, an emergency room doctor and scientist who helped lead a reanalysis of the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials that concluded the vaccinated were at higher risk of serious adverse events.

DeSantis expressed optimism that other states would form similar commissions, but that has so far not been the case.

Bhattacharya said that other states should follow Florida’s lead.

“It’s not like the CDC is some miraculous power that knows best and can distinguish true from false. Let’s have a lot of voices, let’s have those commissions all over the country, all over the world. Let’s set up a institutional structure where you’re you are allowed to contradict the CDC when they get it wrong,” Bhattacharya said.

Critics of the CDC have noted that the agency spread misinformation about vaccines and natural immunity, and have often failed to correct the false statements. Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the CDC’s director, signed a memorandum that was crafted in response to the Great Barrington Declaration, that said in part that transmission of COVID-19 could be mitigated through the use of masks and isolation, and recently suggested lockdowns might be implemented again in the future.

The agency also hid from the public that it detected hundreds of safety signals for the Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines.

Epoch Times Photo
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of health policy at Stanford University, at his home in California on April 17, 2021. (Tal Atzmon/The Epoch Times)
Clashes
Florida officials and the CDC have clashed multiple times, most recently over the explosion of adverse event reports following vaccination in the state.

Ladapo revealed a 1,700 percent increase in reports following COVID-19 vaccination, compared with a 400 percent increase in overall vaccine administration.

“Florida saw a 1,700% increase in adverse event reports after COVID-19 vaccinations. Does that sound safe and effective? I didn’t think so either. That’s why we released this health alert,” Ladapo said.

The CDC told the South Florida Sun-Sentinal that Ladapo’s statement was misleading.

An agency spokesperson pointed out that anyone can submit a report to the system, which the CDC co-manages, and that some of the reported events may not be related to vaccination.

The CDC did not mention that it verifies a number of the reports and that the system is described by officials as “an early warning system to detect possible safety problems in U.S. licensed vaccines.” It helped the CDC determine that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines cause heart inflammation, and that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine causes a severe condition called thrombosis with thrombocytopenia.

Ladapo urged people not to be confused by the CDC, noting that many of the reports are historically lodged by health care providers, who can be penalized if they don’t provide accurate information.

“Why are so many doctors and public health officials bending over backwards to defend the indefensible?” Ladapo said.

Epoch Times Photo
Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, speaks in Washington on June 16, 2022. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Rebuild Public Trust
Another goal of the Florida panel is restoring trust in public health, which, according to polls, has dropped during the pandemic.

“I think the public health works best when we reason with people. We don’t force people to do things. We tell people here’s what the evidence says, here’s where it’s strong, here’s where it’s weak,” Bhattacharya said. “So I want to be able to connect with people without getting deep into the weeds of technical stuff, but also being true to the technical stuff. Right? That kind of public health communication, when it’s effective is really, really powerful, persuasive in a way that that that doesn’t sort of run roughshod over your autonomy.”

Some officials, including Walensky, in 2021 infamously said that people who were vaccinated would not get sick and would not transmit the virus, even though the trials did not show 100 percent efficacy and did not, according to the FDA, provide sufficient evidence to determine efficacy against transmission.

The proper way to communicate is to present evidence from scientific studies and other data, Bhattacharya said. “I think that will be much more effective in the long run than where you make some pronouncement, ‘the vaccine, if you get the vaccine the COVID vaccine, you will not get COVID, you will not pass COVID on—it turns out to be false,” he said. “Now all of a sudden, who’s going to believe the person who said that?”

[Crafty_Dog]

Three Years Late, the Lancet Recognizes Natural Immunity
The public-health clerisy rediscovers a principle of immunology it derided throughout the pandemic.
Allysia Finley
Feb. 26, 2023 1:07 pm ET


The Lancet medical journal this month published a review of 65 studies that concluded prior infection with Covid—i.e., natural immunity—is at least as protective as two doses of mRNA vaccines. The most surprising news was that the study made the mainstream press.

“Immunity acquired from a Covid infection is as protective as vaccination against severe illness and death, study finds,” NBC reported on Feb. 16. The study found that prior infection offered 78.6% protection against reinfection from the original Wuhan, Alpha or Delta variants at 40 weeks, which slipped to 36.1% against Omicron. Protection against severe illness remained around 90% across all variants after 40 weeks. These results exceed what other studies have found for two and even three mRNA doses.

This comes after nearly three years of public-health officials’ dismissing the same hypothesis. But now that experts at the University of Washington have confirmed it in a leading—and left-leaning—journal, it’s fit to print.

The Lancet study’s vindication of natural immunity fits a pandemic pattern: The public-health clerisy rejects an argument that ostensibly threatens its authority; eventually it’s forced to soften its position in the face of incontrovertible evidence; and yet not once does it acknowledge its opponents were right.

The supposition that prior Covid infection could protect against future illness was deeply rooted in immunology before studies bore it out. Those who dismissed natural immunity argued it wasn’t known how long protection against reinfection would last. That’s true. We still don’t know exactly, and it seems to vary by person and variant.

Over their lifetimes people are frequently reinfected with viruses that cause respiratory illnesses, including other coronaviruses. But healthy people rarely get severely ill with a virus to which they’ve already been exposed. Infections generate antibodies in blood and the membranes of the upper respiratory tract that prevent reinfection in the short-term. They also generate and train B and T white blood cells that prevent serious illness after antibodies wane.

Repeat exposures train our immune systems to live with and fight off viruses as they become endemic. Think of it as peaceful coexistence. We tolerate viruses rapidly replicating in our upper respiratory passages, which allows them to transmit to other people, without mounting an overkill immune response that ends up harming ourselves.

Anthony Fauci and two co-authors explained this process last month in the journal Cell Host & Microbe. The concept of natural immunity isn’t scientifically controversial, yet it was disparaged by public-health officials who associated it with opposition to lockdowns and the Great Barrington Declaration in autumn 2020.

Recall that the declaration called for a new pandemic strategy with a focus on protecting the elderly and vulnerable while letting those at low risk for severe illness “live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection.” The aim was to minimize deaths and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

While the goal of herd immunity proved elusive as the virus mutated, the declaration’s central premise was correct: “As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all—including the vulnerable—falls.” This is what has happened over the past three years. Vaccines helped mitigate severe illness while people developed stronger natural immunity.

Although the virus has become more transmissible, we’ve built up what experts call an “immunity wall” that prevents it from spreading like a wildfire through a dense, dry forest, as happened in China after Beijing lifted its zero-Covid policy.

The public-health clerisy worried that acknowledging natural immunity would encourage people to get infected or discourage them from getting vaccines. The first concern was unsupported, and the second was no reason to deny scientific reality. Public-health officials in the U.S. nonetheless dug in and refused to provide exemptions from vaccine mandates for those with natural immunity, as many European countries did.

Meantime, tech companies suppressed discussions of natural immunity. Twitter flagged posts that claimed natural immunity was superior to vaccines as “misleading.” Facebook’s misinformation policy still restricts distribution of content that “implicitly discourages vaccination by advocating for alternatives” such as “natural immunity.”

The false denial of natural immunity caused vaccine skeptics to dig in and fueled suspicions that public-health officials were in the pocket of vaccine makers and dishonest about other things as well.

The Lancet study could serve a useful political purpose by giving public-health officials cover to relax vaccine mandates, which in turn could reduce resistance to vaccines. But this would require the clerisy to concede its opponents were right.

[Crafty_Dog]

Dr. Fauci Comes Clean on Vaccines and Respiratory Viruses

(Mike Mareen/Shutterstock)

By David Bell
February 24, 2023Updated: February 27, 2023

“Attempting to control mucosal respiratory viruses with systemically administered non-replicating vaccines has thus far been largely unsuccessful.” —Dr. Anthony Fauci (former director of NIAID), 2023, commenting on vaccines for COVID-19.

The journal Cell Host & Microbe recently published one of the more important papers of the COVID era: “Rethinking next-generation vaccines for coronaviruses, influenza viruses, and other respiratory viruses.” This elicited surprisingly little fanfare considering its authorship and contents.

Firstly, the final author was Dr. Anthony Fauci, the recently retired director of the United States National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), normally a magnet for the media. Secondly, Dr. Fauci and his co-authors provide evidence that much of what those in authority have told the public regarding COVID vaccines was contrary to what they knew to be true.

Kudos to Dr. Fauci for coming clean on the basics of viruses and immunology. If leading medical journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine or the Lancet had employed editors with such knowledge three years ago, they might have contributed to public health rather than the gutting of society and global human rights. If those in authority had explained these truths and based their policies on them, things would also have been different.

Likewise for the entire medical establishment. Much death, poverty, and inequality might have been avoided. Trust may also have been maintained in the institutions within which they work.

The paper co-written by Dr. Fauci discusses the potential to develop coronavirus vaccines and vaccines for other fast-mutating respiratory viruses. It is best to step through the paper in three parts: reviewing the evidence provided by the authors, noting the residual dogma that persists despite being contrary to this evidence, and lastly considering the implications of the paper regarding the COVID public health response.

Reading the original paper is recommended, as this article only highlights extracts.

1. Poor vaccine efficacy and the superiority of natural immunity.

The review makes clear that vaccines against respiratory viruses such as influenza or coronaviruses (e.g., SARS-CoV-2, which is responsible for COVID) are highly unlikely to achieve the levels of effectiveness we expect from other vaccines. The authors note CDC data showing influenza vaccines, now pushed for all ages from 6 months upward, have an efficacy ranging from just 14 percent to a maximum of 60 percent since 2005 (extending back 17 years would have lowered this to 10 percent, with the average vaccine efficacy just below 40 percent). As Dr Fauci notes, “Our best approved influenza vaccines would be inadequate for licensure for most other vaccine-preventable diseases.”

Indeed, “It is not surprising that none of the predominantly mucosal respiratory viruses have ever been effectively controlled by vaccines.”

The authors provide clear explanations for this lack of efficacy: “The vaccines for these two very different viruses have common characteristics: they elicit incomplete and short-lived protection against evolving virus variants that escape population immunity.”

It is not just the high mutation rate that is a problem, but also the mode of infection: “They replicate predominantly in local mucosal tissue, without causing viremia, and do not significantly encounter the systemic immune system or the full force of adaptive immune responses, which take at least 5–7 days to mature, usually well after the peak of viral replication and onward transmission to others.”

As this honest appraisal notes, COVID vaccines were never expected to significantly reduce infection or transmission.

The authors explain what most infectious disease doctors and immunologists have known throughout the COVID outbreak: that circulating antibodies (IgG and IgM) play only a limited role in controlling infections such as COVID, whilst mucosal antibodies (IgA) in the lining of the upper respiratory tract, not stimulated by injected vaccines, play a far larger role: “The importance of mucosal secretory IgA (sIgA) in pathogen-specific responses against respiratory viral infections has long been appreciated for influenza viruses, RSV and more recently SARS-CoV-2.”

The significance here is that systemic vaccines, as the authors note, do not elicit mucosal IgA production.

The efficacy against severe COVID that systemic vaccines do provide to some unexposed people within a certain window is explained by the following observation: “IgA appears to be a better effector in the upper respiratory tract, whereas IgG is better in the lung.”

The early variants of SARS-CoV-2 were characterized by lung involvement. While the CDC showed that vaccination on top of natural immunity provides almost no added clinical benefit, the reduction in COVID mortality (as distinct from all-cause mortality) claimed for the vaccines between early potential immune suppression and later waning of efficacy has a reasonable immunological basis.

As the NIH acknowledged, T-cells are also a primary defense against coronaviruses, with cross-immunity against SARS-CoV-2 seen in many people not previously infected. Fauci et al. make the interesting observation that T-cell correlates for immunity are found after influenza infection, but not after influenza vaccination. This suggests a further mechanism to explain poorer efficacy of vaccines compared to natural infection, even against early SARS-CoV-2 variants.

In summary, both the coronavirus and influenza vaccines are poor: “The vaccines for these two very different viruses have common characteristics: they elicit incomplete and short-lived protection against evolving virus variants that escape population immunity.”

Clear, and succinctly put.

Struggling With the Dogma

The real value of the paper is in the way it contrasts COVID dogma against evidence. The authors start by noting that as many as 5 million people normally die globally every year from respiratory viruses. A comparison with the World Health Organization’s 6.8 million COVID deaths recorded over three years would have provided useful context (Note: is it important to distinguish deaths from COVID from death totals from the pandemic that include those from COVID and lockdown impact). However, such an acknowledgement would have fit poorly with their following statement:
“SARS-CoV-2 has killed more than 1 million people in the United States.”

This is, of course, false. It is based on deaths after a recent positive PCR result, with CNN’s COVID analyst now admitting the exaggerations involved. More strangely, the authors claim, “The rapid development and deployment of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has saved innumerable lives and helped to achieve early partial pandemic control.”

That the vaccines appear to have saved too many lives for the authors to contemplate is surprising. Dr. Fauci felt able to contemplate numbers of deaths during the first year of the COVID outbreak, when the virus hit a population said to have no prior immunity. Recorded mortality was similar in the second year, after mass vaccination was imposed, despite severe disease being heavily concentrated in a relatively small, well-defined elderly minority who were prioritized by the vaccination program. It is therefore more plausible that the vaccines averted relatively few deaths. Such a lack of effect is fully in line with the expectations of the authors noted above.

Achieving “early partial epidemic control” is just strange for authors who have noted that the IgG response does not really kick in until after the peak of viremia and transmission. Putting dogma up against evidence is really hard when you have staked your reputation on the dogma, so the struggle apparent here is understandable.

In recognition of the impact of reality on the COVID vaccine program, we can accept the rather vague acknowledgement that despite vaccination, “significant numbers of fatalities [amongst the vaccinated] still occur.”

As the authors recognize, “Attempting to control mucosal respiratory viruses with systemically administered non-replicating vaccines has thus far been largely unsuccessful.”

The Importance of This Paper

The authors of this paper are not developing new hypotheses to explain why COVID vaccine performance was disappointing. They are simply restating previous knowledge. Predictions of high and sustained vaccine efficacy and of vaccination paving the “way out of the pandemic” were not expected to come true. These claims were a ploy to encourage adherence to a plan that would dramatically enrich certain corporate and public health figures. People with reasonable knowledge of the subject knew the rhetoric to be incorrect, though relatively few said so. The rest, presumably, were fooled.

Fauci and co-authors therefore make an important contribution to the COVID narrative, underlining the deception of the past two years. Claims that this deception promoted an overall good—that there was a “global pandemic” and compliance with mass vaccination would be for the population’s benefit—are refuted by Fauci et al.’s evidence. Mass vaccination, while very successful financially for a small but influential minority, was never expected to work.

Natural immunity was always going to be more effective than vaccines, and statements to the contrary such as the John Snow Memorandum promoted by the Lancet contradicted expert understanding and common sense. Denigration of those pointing out the relative superiority of natural immunity was slander. When the last author of this paper stated publicly that COVID-19 vaccines work much better than natural immunity to protect you against coronavirus, he knew that was highly unlikely to be true.

The public health community misled the public to promote injections with a new class of pharmaceutical. They had no long-term safety data, and the vaccines targeted a virus they knew posed little harm to the vast majority of those to whom they were speaking, while many or most already had more effective natural immunity.

The long-term outcomes of this deception are yet to play out, and they will include a loss of trust in public health and the practice of medicine. This is justified and can be argued to be a good thing. How each person reacts to confirmation that they have been fooled by those who promoted this narrative is an individual choice.

The most foolish reaction would be to pretend that the deception did not occur.

From the Brownstone Institute

[G M]

https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/america-we-have-a-problem

[G M]

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/breaking-matt-hancock-asked-deploy-29375616?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target

Oh!

[G M]

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fauci-prompted-scientists-fabricate-proximal-origins-paper-ruling-out-lab-leak-select

[G M]

https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1632409213166026752?s=20

[Crafty_Dog]

Sent to me by a Dem doctor friend with whom I regularly go back and forth:
===================================================

House Select Subcommittee, GBD, and revisionism
KATELYN JETELINA AND GAVIN YAMEY
MAR 8
      
 



SAVE
▷  LISTEN
 
The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic has started to convene on everything from COVID-19 origins to vaccines. Last week, they called in four scientists to discuss policies, including lockdowns.

COVID-19 control measures are important to discuss. We still don’t know what policies worked best and why. Pandemic health protections had benefits AND harms. There were trade-offs, just like with any health policy. Governments around the world used a wide variety of policies before vaccines were developed.

However, a nuanced discussion of the trade-offs inherent in pandemic control measures was not achieved last week. The Great Barrington Declaration (GBD), for example, dominated the conversation.

It looks like we are entering a new phase of the pandemic—revisionism.

Great Barrington Declaration
In October 2020, the GBD advocated for a distinct approach: isolate the vulnerable while allowing infections to spread among lower-risk members of the population. It claimed this would ultimately achieve herd immunity without the economic and social toll of lockdowns. The authors of the GBD didn’t include any scientific evidence or models, and it was never peer-reviewed.

The idea went viral. A few influential people listened. Trump met with the GBD authors in the Oval Office. Trump’s coronavirus czar, Scott Atlas, embraced and adopted the GBD—for example, he successfully curbed federal testing programs. Florida governor Ron DeSantis was advised by the GBD. But scientific consensus rejected the idea.

Two of the GBD authors were invited to testify last week. One congresswoman said: “History is proving [them] to be right.” But were they right?

The committee would have benefited from looking into the scientific evidence against the GBD and why, ultimately, public health dismissed their ideas.

Epidemiological problems with GBD
Last year mathematicians published epidemiological models to answer the question: What would it have looked like if we had actually deployed the GBD?

They found that in a town of 1 million people in England:

Doing nothing (i.e. no shielding of the vulnerable) would have resulted in 415 deaths per 100,000—equivalent to 230,795 total deaths in England.

This is likely a conservative measure, given that the model didn’t take into account the collapse of healthcare.

“Perfect shielding” (i.e. the GBD approach) would have resulted in 87.6 deaths per 100,000—equivalent to 50,000 total deaths among younger populations.

So, in theory, perfect shielding would save lives compared with no shielding. But theory is very different from practice. There are three major issues:

It is impossible to 100% shield vulnerable adults. In England, 3 in 4 vulnerable people live with other people. There is no “them,” there is only “us,” so shielding them would not be perfect. If shielding had been 80% effective (instead of 100%), the researchers found that there would be massive outbreaks among the vulnerable, resulting in 221.7 per 100,000 deaths. Shielding entire populations worked in some countries in the short term (averting mass death, hospitalization, and orphanhood). It also worked in some Alaskan villages in the 1918 flu pandemic. But trying to shield sub-populations would spark superspreader events. Research shows that infection in younger people led to infections and deaths in older people.


The GBD relied on large numbers of lower-risk individuals becoming infected to build up immunity in the population, yet many people would have likely still changed their behavior to avoid getting infected and sick. Even before England’s first lockdown, there were dramatic changes in behavior—people voluntarily reduced their contact with others. And if health services had been under strain, people would probably have reduced their contacts even further. This would make it even harder to reach herd immunity.

Herd immunity from infection would only have conferred indirect, temporary protection to the shielded vulnerable people. We see this today—although a large proportion of the population has immunity, older adults are still vulnerable to death.

Ethical and logistical problems with GBD
The modeling above assumes that it is actually logistically possible in the U.S. to somehow isolate tens of millions of Americans. This assumption has problems:

How would we have rapidly and accurately identified “the vulnerable”? The U.S. doesn’t have a universal healthcare system or registry.   

How would we have cared for so many isolated people for such a long time? This would have been a LOT of people. Where exactly would they have gone? The GBD made some vague suggestions about “empty hotel rooms.” Did we really have enough rooms for around 100-130 million people?

What about long COVID-19 among the population with infections?

The need for better discussion
Many countries regrouped after the 2003 SARS pandemic, and it was incredibly helpful for their future preparedness and response. We do need to reflect on what went right during the pandemic, what went wrong, and how to do better in the future, like:

Did some states do better than others? What does “better” mean?

What steps should states have taken to mitigate the harms of shelter-in-place orders? Why didn’t all states provide generous food, social, and financial support to those living under such orders?

What is the decision framework for closing and reopening schools in future pandemics?

The discussion has to be serious, genuine, and balanced. Thus far, this has not been the case. It’s clear that achieving a healthier and smarter future isn’t the goal of this Subcommittee. 

We should be very wary of those trying to rewrite history. As Zeynep Tufecki said:

“There's an attempt to relitigate 2020 under the comfort of 2023 vaccines, treatments, [and] population immunity by people… whose policy suggestions were catastrophically wrong. They're pretending 2023 exonerates the deaths they would cause (did cause). I find that awful.”

This Subcommittee is a huge use of resources, which, thus far, has not helped move the conversation forward. The outcome of these rabbit holes do not get us to a better place.

Bottom line
We need to learn lessons from the pandemic to be better and smarter next time. But discussions need to be balanced and informed. For example, recognizing the trade-offs must include recognizing the horrors of uncontrolled transmission. Epidemiological, ethical, and logistical details can’t be left out.

Can we please have a serious conversation about the COVID-19 pandemic and how to prepare for the future? Our lives depend on it.

Love, YLE and GMY

[G M]

Nuremberg 2.0 is coming.

There WILL be accountability.

Sent to me by a Dem doctor friend with whom I regularly go back and forth:
===================================================

House Select Subcommittee, GBD, and revisionism
KATELYN JETELINA AND GAVIN YAMEY
MAR 8
      
 



SAVE
▷  LISTEN
 
The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic has started to convene on everything from COVID-19 origins to vaccines. Last week, they called in four scientists to discuss policies, including lockdowns.

COVID-19 control measures are important to discuss. We still don’t know what policies worked best and why. Pandemic health protections had benefits AND harms. There were trade-offs, just like with any health policy. Governments around the world used a wide variety of policies before vaccines were developed.

However, a nuanced discussion of the trade-offs inherent in pandemic control measures was not achieved last week. The Great Barrington Declaration (GBD), for example, dominated the conversation.

It looks like we are entering a new phase of the pandemic—revisionism.

Great Barrington Declaration
In October 2020, the GBD advocated for a distinct approach: isolate the vulnerable while allowing infections to spread among lower-risk members of the population. It claimed this would ultimately achieve herd immunity without the economic and social toll of lockdowns. The authors of the GBD didn’t include any scientific evidence or models, and it was never peer-reviewed.

The idea went viral. A few influential people listened. Trump met with the GBD authors in the Oval Office. Trump’s coronavirus czar, Scott Atlas, embraced and adopted the GBD—for example, he successfully curbed federal testing programs. Florida governor Ron DeSantis was advised by the GBD. But scientific consensus rejected the idea.

Two of the GBD authors were invited to testify last week. One congresswoman said: “History is proving [them] to be right.” But were they right?

The committee would have benefited from looking into the scientific evidence against the GBD and why, ultimately, public health dismissed their ideas.

Epidemiological problems with GBD
Last year mathematicians published epidemiological models to answer the question: What would it have looked like if we had actually deployed the GBD?

They found that in a town of 1 million people in England:

Doing nothing (i.e. no shielding of the vulnerable) would have resulted in 415 deaths per 100,000—equivalent to 230,795 total deaths in England.

This is likely a conservative measure, given that the model didn’t take into account the collapse of healthcare.

“Perfect shielding” (i.e. the GBD approach) would have resulted in 87.6 deaths per 100,000—equivalent to 50,000 total deaths among younger populations.

So, in theory, perfect shielding would save lives compared with no shielding. But theory is very different from practice. There are three major issues:

It is impossible to 100% shield vulnerable adults. In England, 3 in 4 vulnerable people live with other people. There is no “them,” there is only “us,” so shielding them would not be perfect. If shielding had been 80% effective (instead of 100%), the researchers found that there would be massive outbreaks among the vulnerable, resulting in 221.7 per 100,000 deaths. Shielding entire populations worked in some countries in the short term (averting mass death, hospitalization, and orphanhood). It also worked in some Alaskan villages in the 1918 flu pandemic. But trying to shield sub-populations would spark superspreader events. Research shows that infection in younger people led to infections and deaths in older people.


The GBD relied on large numbers of lower-risk individuals becoming infected to build up immunity in the population, yet many people would have likely still changed their behavior to avoid getting infected and sick. Even before England’s first lockdown, there were dramatic changes in behavior—people voluntarily reduced their contact with others. And if health services had been under strain, people would probably have reduced their contacts even further. This would make it even harder to reach herd immunity.

Herd immunity from infection would only have conferred indirect, temporary protection to the shielded vulnerable people. We see this today—although a large proportion of the population has immunity, older adults are still vulnerable to death.

Ethical and logistical problems with GBD
The modeling above assumes that it is actually logistically possible in the U.S. to somehow isolate tens of millions of Americans. This assumption has problems:

How would we have rapidly and accurately identified “the vulnerable”? The U.S. doesn’t have a universal healthcare system or registry.   

How would we have cared for so many isolated people for such a long time? This would have been a LOT of people. Where exactly would they have gone? The GBD made some vague suggestions about “empty hotel rooms.” Did we really have enough rooms for around 100-130 million people?

What about long COVID-19 among the population with infections?

The need for better discussion
Many countries regrouped after the 2003 SARS pandemic, and it was incredibly helpful for their future preparedness and response. We do need to reflect on what went right during the pandemic, what went wrong, and how to do better in the future, like:

Did some states do better than others? What does “better” mean?

What steps should states have taken to mitigate the harms of shelter-in-place orders? Why didn’t all states provide generous food, social, and financial support to those living under such orders?

What is the decision framework for closing and reopening schools in future pandemics?

The discussion has to be serious, genuine, and balanced. Thus far, this has not been the case. It’s clear that achieving a healthier and smarter future isn’t the goal of this Subcommittee. 

We should be very wary of those trying to rewrite history. As Zeynep Tufecki said:

“There's an attempt to relitigate 2020 under the comfort of 2023 vaccines, treatments, [and] population immunity by people… whose policy suggestions were catastrophically wrong. They're pretending 2023 exonerates the deaths they would cause (did cause). I find that awful.”

This Subcommittee is a huge use of resources, which, thus far, has not helped move the conversation forward. The outcome of these rabbit holes do not get us to a better place.

Bottom line
We need to learn lessons from the pandemic to be better and smarter next time. But discussions need to be balanced and informed. For example, recognizing the trade-offs must include recognizing the horrors of uncontrolled transmission. Epidemiological, ethical, and logistical details can’t be left out.

Can we please have a serious conversation about the COVID-19 pandemic and how to prepare for the future? Our lives depend on it.

Love, YLE and GMY

[G M]

Nuremberg 2.0 is coming.

There WILL be accountability.

Sent to me by a Dem doctor friend with whom I regularly go back and forth:
===================================================

House Select Subcommittee, GBD, and revisionism
KATELYN JETELINA AND GAVIN YAMEY
MAR 8
      
 



SAVE
▷  LISTEN
 
The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic has started to convene on everything from COVID-19 origins to vaccines. Last week, they called in four scientists to discuss policies, including lockdowns.

COVID-19 control measures are important to discuss. We still don’t know what policies worked best and why. Pandemic health protections had benefits AND harms. There were trade-offs, just like with any health policy. Governments around the world used a wide variety of policies before vaccines were developed.

However, a nuanced discussion of the trade-offs inherent in pandemic control measures was not achieved last week. The Great Barrington Declaration (GBD), for example, dominated the conversation.

It looks like we are entering a new phase of the pandemic—revisionism.

Great Barrington Declaration
In October 2020, the GBD advocated for a distinct approach: isolate the vulnerable while allowing infections to spread among lower-risk members of the population. It claimed this would ultimately achieve herd immunity without the economic and social toll of lockdowns. The authors of the GBD didn’t include any scientific evidence or models, and it was never peer-reviewed.

The idea went viral. A few influential people listened. Trump met with the GBD authors in the Oval Office. Trump’s coronavirus czar, Scott Atlas, embraced and adopted the GBD—for example, he successfully curbed federal testing programs. Florida governor Ron DeSantis was advised by the GBD. But scientific consensus rejected the idea.

Two of the GBD authors were invited to testify last week. One congresswoman said: “History is proving [them] to be right.” But were they right?

The committee would have benefited from looking into the scientific evidence against the GBD and why, ultimately, public health dismissed their ideas.

Epidemiological problems with GBD
Last year mathematicians published epidemiological models to answer the question: What would it have looked like if we had actually deployed the GBD?

They found that in a town of 1 million people in England:

Doing nothing (i.e. no shielding of the vulnerable) would have resulted in 415 deaths per 100,000—equivalent to 230,795 total deaths in England.

This is likely a conservative measure, given that the model didn’t take into account the collapse of healthcare.

“Perfect shielding” (i.e. the GBD approach) would have resulted in 87.6 deaths per 100,000—equivalent to 50,000 total deaths among younger populations.

So, in theory, perfect shielding would save lives compared with no shielding. But theory is very different from practice. There are three major issues:

It is impossible to 100% shield vulnerable adults. In England, 3 in 4 vulnerable people live with other people. There is no “them,” there is only “us,” so shielding them would not be perfect. If shielding had been 80% effective (instead of 100%), the researchers found that there would be massive outbreaks among the vulnerable, resulting in 221.7 per 100,000 deaths. Shielding entire populations worked in some countries in the short term (averting mass death, hospitalization, and orphanhood). It also worked in some Alaskan villages in the 1918 flu pandemic. But trying to shield sub-populations would spark superspreader events. Research shows that infection in younger people led to infections and deaths in older people.


The GBD relied on large numbers of lower-risk individuals becoming infected to build up immunity in the population, yet many people would have likely still changed their behavior to avoid getting infected and sick. Even before England’s first lockdown, there were dramatic changes in behavior—people voluntarily reduced their contact with others. And if health services had been under strain, people would probably have reduced their contacts even further. This would make it even harder to reach herd immunity.

Herd immunity from infection would only have conferred indirect, temporary protection to the shielded vulnerable people. We see this today—although a large proportion of the population has immunity, older adults are still vulnerable to death.

Ethical and logistical problems with GBD
The modeling above assumes that it is actually logistically possible in the U.S. to somehow isolate tens of millions of Americans. This assumption has problems:

How would we have rapidly and accurately identified “the vulnerable”? The U.S. doesn’t have a universal healthcare system or registry.   

How would we have cared for so many isolated people for such a long time? This would have been a LOT of people. Where exactly would they have gone? The GBD made some vague suggestions about “empty hotel rooms.” Did we really have enough rooms for around 100-130 million people?

What about long COVID-19 among the population with infections?

The need for better discussion
Many countries regrouped after the 2003 SARS pandemic, and it was incredibly helpful for their future preparedness and response. We do need to reflect on what went right during the pandemic, what went wrong, and how to do better in the future, like:

Did some states do better than others? What does “better” mean?

What steps should states have taken to mitigate the harms of shelter-in-place orders? Why didn’t all states provide generous food, social, and financial support to those living under such orders?

What is the decision framework for closing and reopening schools in future pandemics?

The discussion has to be serious, genuine, and balanced. Thus far, this has not been the case. It’s clear that achieving a healthier and smarter future isn’t the goal of this Subcommittee. 

We should be very wary of those trying to rewrite history. As Zeynep Tufecki said:

“There's an attempt to relitigate 2020 under the comfort of 2023 vaccines, treatments, [and] population immunity by people… whose policy suggestions were catastrophically wrong. They're pretending 2023 exonerates the deaths they would cause (did cause). I find that awful.”

This Subcommittee is a huge use of resources, which, thus far, has not helped move the conversation forward. The outcome of these rabbit holes do not get us to a better place.

Bottom line
We need to learn lessons from the pandemic to be better and smarter next time. But discussions need to be balanced and informed. For example, recognizing the trade-offs must include recognizing the horrors of uncontrolled transmission. Epidemiological, ethical, and logistical details can’t be left out.

Can we please have a serious conversation about the COVID-19 pandemic and how to prepare for the future? Our lives depend on it.

Love, YLE and GMY

[G M]

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/scott-atlas-americas-covid-response-was-based-lies

[G M]

https://ace.mu.nu/archives/403498.php

[Crafty_Dog]

https://dailycaller.com/2023/03/10/house-unanimously-votes-to-declassify-covid-19-intelligence/?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking&pnespid=t6Z3ByVbOqMKxaTZuG7uDs6cvUr_CpFtPOejy_0ztxpm4zzc31BCNTpHi.TdZljeh5p9.JYk

[G M]

https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/america-we-have-a-problem

https://drpanda.substack.com/p/emergency-at-30000-feet

[G M]

https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/america-we-have-a-problem

https://drpanda.substack.com/p/emergency-at-30000-feet

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21681055/veteran-british-airways-pilot-dies/

[ccp]

where does it say anything about this being due to vaccine?

so every sudden death is assumed to be vaccine related?

you plenty of fodder to past then for the rest of eternity

[G M]

where does it say anything about this being due to vaccine?

so every sudden death is assumed to be vaccine related?

you plenty of fodder to past then for the rest of eternity

Why did the FAA change the EKG standard for pilots?

https://www.theepochtimes.com/worries-over-pilots-health-public-safety-soar-after-feds-change-heart-test-limit_5004258.html

[ccp]

you did not answer my point

you do not know the pilot death in the hotel has anything to do with vaccine

this is why they always have 2 pilots in commercial flights

[G M]

you did not answer my point

you do not know the pilot death in the hotel has anything to do with vaccine

this is why they always have 2 pilots in commercial flights

I don't know, but I strongly suspect.

Why did the FAA change the EKG standard after the pilots were mandated to take the ClotShot to remain employed?

[ccp]

reports of myocarditis

[G M]

reports of myocarditis

So, the ClotShot damaged the hearts of commercial pilots requiring the standards be lowered, otherwise we would have masses of pilots grounded and the global aviation system grinds to a halt.

[G M]

reports of myocarditis

So, the ClotShot damaged the hearts of commercial pilots requiring the standards be lowered, otherwise we would have masses of pilots grounded and the global aviation system grinds to a halt.

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/the-faa-has-very-quietly-tacitly

[ccp]

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2023/03/15/fauci-gop-attacking-me-because-i-fulfilled-my-responsibility-to-tell-the-truth-dont-know-what-theyre-talking-about-covering-up/

maybe he could think about this more if he sat in a jail cell for 5 yrs.

[G M]

reports of myocarditis

So, the ClotShot damaged the hearts of commercial pilots requiring the standards be lowered, otherwise we would have masses of pilots grounded and the global aviation system grinds to a halt.

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/the-faa-has-very-quietly-tacitly

[G M]

https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1636060053269512194

[Crafty_Dog]

Please stop with the raccoon dogs
ALEX BERENSON
MAR 17
 

SAVE
 
Last night, The Atlantic - of course it was The Atlantic - had BREAKING NEWS!

And by BREAKING NEWS I mean yet another migraine-inducing story purporting to show that Sars-Cov-2 emerged naturally, rather than leaking from a lab.

Before we get to the story, which takes about two seconds to debunk, it’s worth nothing that even Dr. Anthony S. Fauci is in the process of giving up on the natural origins theory for . On CNN on Sunday, he claimed that even if Sars-COV-2 escaped from a lab after scientists found it in a cave and transported it for research, he would consider that a naturally occurring outbreak.


SOURCE

What?

I say again, what?

Assume this version of events is true. It’s not. Chinese scientists were definitely performing “gain-of-function” research on coronaviruses in Wuhan, and the odds are overwhelming that it was one of those viruses that leaked. We know this for several reasons, including that Sars-Cov-2 has certain features that largely do not exist in wild bat coronaviruses but are common in engineered coronaviruses.

Further, Fauci’s theory makes no sense because if the Chinese had found Sars-COV-2 in a wild bat and transported it, they would have had every reason to go back to the cave where they’d found it the first time and get it again, thus PROVING it was naturally occurring. They’d know exactly where to get it! They wouldn’t have to look. They could have done so immediately (or after a couple of months had passed and they’d destroyed all the evidence that they’d ever found it before).

But let’s pretend Fauci’s theory makes sense. Let’s say that researchers found Sars-COV-2 in a wild bat, and brought it to a lab, where it leaked.

How can he, or anyone, call that a “natural occurrence”? The virus was stuck in a cave in a bat, like innumerable other coronaviruses since time immemorial. Where is the evidence it ever would have infected a human, much less caused a worldwide epidemic, had virologists not given it every possible opportunity to do so, by bringing it to the middle of a 10-million-person city and then trying to grow it?

If SARS-Cov-2 leaked from a lab, that’s a lab leak. Even Tony Fauci can’t spin that reality away.

[G M]

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/covid-19-vaccines-can-cause-permanent-disabilities-says-german-health-minister

[G M]

https://slaynews.com/news/children-dying-highest-rate-decades-study-researchers-warn/

Sumos hardest hit!

[G M]

https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1050,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/132/484/140/original/5f7600bb7912f7e9.png

[G M]

https://www.theburningplatform.com/2023/03/20/pfizer-cdc-withheld-evidence-of-myocarditis-after-covid-shots-new-documents-reveal/

[Crafty_Dog]

Epidemic of Sudden Adult Deaths Finally Made News
Joseph Mercola
Mar 20 2023

Insurance industry research from 2016 showed that group life policyholders are considerably healthier than the general U.S. population. They tend to be younger, well-educated, and employed with Fortune 500 companies. So, what happened in 2021 to turn the tables so dramatically?


Story at-a-Glance

Former BlackRock fund manager Edward Dowd is bringing attention to the surge in deaths and disability that has occurred since the COVID-19 shot campaign rolled out.

Group life policyholders, who are typically healthier than the general population, experienced mortality spikes of 40 percent in 2021
Disability numbers among the workforce reached a high of 33.2 million in September 2022, with numbers still trending up—a highly unusual increase.

Central banks, pharmaceutical companies, Big Tech, and the media all benefited from the pandemic and have an interest in covering up what Dowd describes as a “large global murder scene.”

Dowd believes there’s enough alarming data to warrant the COVID-19 shot program being stopped immediately, as the death and disability from the shots could easily exceed that from COVID-19.

Former BlackRock analyst and fund manager Edward Dowd is one of the brave few who have been trying to get the word out about the dangers of COVID-19 shots. While I’ve interviewed him twice—once about the mathematical certainty of a financial collapse and a second time about his book, “Cause Unknown: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 and 2022,“—his information is finally getting mainstream media attention.

In an interview with Tucker Carlson, he explains that media outlets like Yahoo have picked up on the undeniable increase in deaths among young, healthy adults. However, they’re quick to state that such deaths are not due to COVID-19 shots.1 But Dowd isn’t deterred. As A Midwestern Doctor noted on Substack:2

“Ed Dowd has focused on utilizing a narrower set of evidence and tying it to one of the most persuasive arguments currently available for shifting the narrative. A statistically impossible spike in sudden deaths has occurred in the healthiest segment of the population and has happened in tandem with a spike in disability (this is why we are now having labor shortages).”

Dowd is intent on bringing global attention to this surge in deaths and disability that has occurred since the COVID-19 shot campaign rolled out, and he’s not willing to let anyone, or any entity, stop him. “We have the data. We have the evidence,” he says, “and there’s a large global murder scene that just occurred.”3

Insurance Company Data Reveal 40 Percent Death Surge

“Cause Unknown” details data showing the shots are a crime against humanity. Some of that data comes from private insurance companies, which love to sell group life insurance policies to large Fortune 500 corporations and mid-sized companies because they hardly ever have to pay out on a claim.

Workers at these corporations tend to be in good health, with industry data suggesting the group life policyholders have one-third the mortality rate of the general U.S. population. The death rates have historically been highly predictable among this group—until 2021. A report released by the Society of Actuaries4 found mortality spikes of 40 percent or more that year.

Insurance companies had sizable increases in payouts for death and disability. Dowd tweeted Feb. 1, 2022, that financial insurance company Unum reported a significant increase in their benefit ratio (payouts versus premiums) in their life segment. Dowd tweeted:5

“In 2021 they saw a 17.4% increase vs 2020. This is higher than the 13.3% increase vs 2019. So the higher payouts in 21 are occurring with a miracle vaccine & less virulent strains … In 2019 the unit had $266 million profit, last year a profit of $82 million & this year a loss of -$192 million. A swing of $458 million lower over 2 years. Important to remember these are employed working age folks.”

Dowd also reported data from funeral homes, including the company Carriage Services, which was flooded with business. He tweeted:6

“Business has been quite good since the introduction of the vaccines & the stock was up 106% in 2021. Curious no? Guys this is shocking as 89% of Funeral homes are private in US. We are seeing the tip of the iceberg.”

Steve Kirsch also published data on Substack7 showing that, among the COVID-jabbed aged 65 and younger, sudden death was the No. 1 cause of death in 2021 and 2022. The second was cardiac-related death and cancer was third. Importantly, the incidence of turbo-charged cancer among the jabbed was significant in this group, and myocarditis killed more than COVID-19.

In addition to sudden deaths, cardiac issues became a major cause of death in vaccinated young people under the age of 65. No myocarditis deaths were seen among unvaxxed people in the same age group.

Disability Numbers Skyrocket

Dowd also looked into the number of disabled people in the United States, using high-frequency data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The agency uses a monthly telephone survey that asks, “Are you or someone in your home disabled and not able to work?” Prior to COVID-19 shots, Dowd said, there were 29 million to 30 million disabled people on an absolute basis, a rate that remained steady for four or five years.

In February 2021, a trend change occurred, reaching a high of 33.2 million in September 2022, with numbers still trending up. That’s a three standard deviation rate of change since May 2021, which means that the chance of this happening is 0.03 percent—highly unusual.

Dowd explains, “Of the 3.2 million newly disabled Americans, 1.7 were employed but came from the employed population of the country.” This is significant, he says, because:8

“The employed people of this country are, generally speaking, by the very fact that they wake up in the morning, get in their car and drive to work, healthier than the general U.S. population.

“By the very nature of doing work, you’re healthier. And that’s a fact that’s never been challenged before. The health outcome for the employed has been disastrous. Since February 2021, their disability rate is up 31 percent … the general U.S. population’s disability rate is up 9 percent.”

Dowd believes this jump in disability among the workforce is the reason why there’s a labor shortage and you’re seeing “help wanted” signs much more than in the past. He also observed an interesting trend among people who quit or left the workforce during this time period—their disability rate didn’t jump like those still working, many of whom were likely subjected to shot mandates to keep their jobs:9

“More importantly, those not in the labor force—those who quit or got fired—their disability rate is only up 4 percent. And I suspect those are the people who either didn’t take the vaccine and were fired or quit and refused to take the vaccine. So those of us who have had the best health outcomes in the country since [COVID-19] vaccination began are those not in the labor force.”

‘There’s a Coverup’

Mass COVID-19 shots and mandates are the only factors that changed during that time that would make being employed a risk to your health, but the government isn’t investigating them. Why? “There’s a coverup, at the very least,” Dowd says, adding:10

“I don’t know that they’re protecting Pfizer, per se. They’re protecting all sorts of monied interests. When this COVID thing happened, there were a lot of beneficiaries from it. Central banks got off the hook from, what I saw, was a global slowdown, so they were able to print unprecedented amounts of money to cover up what we’re going to have eventually, a global sovereign debt default—it’s coming. So they got off the hook.

“You had the tech companies excited, licking their chops, for the new surveillance economy. They knew that was coming. So, they joyfully entered into partnership with the government to censor any dissent. And they were excited about those future cashflows of surveillance.

“Then you have the pharma companies who were going to be able to make money off of, what they saw, were unlimited vaccines, quarterly injections, that was the plan at the time … under the color of law. And then you have the media companies who were getting cashflows from pharmaceutical companies and also the government.

“We found out the government paid media companies to promote the vaccine … momentum built and there was a conspiracy of interests. Now that the vaccine is coming to light that it’s causing death and injury, they all have an interest to keep this thing under wraps.”

The More Vaxxed the Country, the Higher the Excess Deaths

Dowd believes the effects of COVID-19 shots appear to be cumulative, so he urges those who’ve already been injected to stop getting boosters. He also feels there’s enough alarming data to warrant the COVID-19 shot program being stopped immediately, as the death and disability from the shots could easily exceed that from COVID-19.

“This is the greatest crime scene I’ve ever seen in my life,” he says. “The greatest humanitarian toll we’re ever going to talk about. And it’s going to last with us for years to come. The economic ramifications are stark.”11

Dowd and colleagues have been tracking what they call Humanity Projects at their website, Phinance Technologies.12 There, you can see the data they’re tracking along with their related analyses. They state:

“We live in a world where regulatory institutions are captured by financial and political interests, either unwilling or unable to get to the truth of the issues they set out to investigate and regulate on behalf of the individuals in society.

“Without unbiased and comprehensive research, there is a risk of misguided policy decisions at best, and at worst, negligence and malpractice. Never has this been more apparent than during the Covid-19 pandemic. In this context, we need independent agents to act as gatekeepers of the public interest. We intend to be such agents, and to provide high-quality research to other individuals and institutions who seek similar outcomes.”

One trend they’ve found is that the more vaccinated the country, the higher the excess mortality. Denmark, which is one of the most highly vaccinated, stands out. “They had an interesting experience,” Dowd says.13

“Every age cohort experienced greater excess mortality year over year. So 2021 was over 2020, and 2022 was over 2021, across all age cohorts … their death rate was on the decline … and it’s going back up. So Denmark has experienced detrimental health outcomes. Curiously enough, while I was writing the book, they effectively banned the vaccine for [those] under 50, where they said, ‘We’d rather you get COVID than take the vaccine.'”

Health Agencies ‘in Coverup Mode’


Download Interview Transcript | Video Link

When asked why health agencies aren’t stepping in to investigate the surge in sudden deaths, Dowd suspects they’re all MIA [missing in action] because “they’re in coverup mode.” “I won’t rest until we stop what’s going on,” he says, adding that a lot of first responders are still facing mandates to get the shot and some universities still require it.

He’s hoping for more whistleblowers to come out and congressional hearings to break through the deafening “misinformation” narrative that’s still very much permeating society.

Critics of his data suggest the excess deaths are due to long COVID, but Dowd says he has yet to see a study showing this is the case—and there’s no definition of what long COVID actually is. Further, many “long COVID” symptoms mirror adverse reactions to COVID-19 shots.

If you or a loved one has been affected, the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Working Group’s I-RECOVER14 protocol can be downloaded in full,15 giving you step-by-step instructions on how to treat reactions from COVID-19 injections.16

Originally published March 18, 2023 on Mercola.com

◇ References:

1 Yahoo Feb. 4, 2023
2 Substack, A Midwestern Doctor Feb. 24, 2023
3 Bitchute, Tucker Carlson Interviews Ed Dowd Feb. 25, 2023, 10:00
4 SOA Research Institute, Group Life COVID-19 Mortality Survey Report, August 2022
5 Twitter Feb. 1, 2022
6 Twitter, Ed Dowd Feb. 2, 2022
7 Steve Kirsch Substack Dec. 27, 2022
8 Bitchute, Tucker Carlson Interviews Ed Dowd Feb. 25, 2023, 17:00
9 Bitchute, Tucker Carlson Interviews Ed Dowd Feb. 25, 2023, 19:22
10, 11 Bitchute, Tucker Carlson Interviews Ed Dowd Feb. 25, 2023, 21:30
12 Phinance Technologies, Humanity Projects
13 Bitchute, Tucker Carlson Interviews Ed Dowd Feb. 25, 2023, 29:00
14, 15 FLCCC Alliance, I-RECOVER
16 FLCCC Alliance, I-RECOVER, Post-Vaccine Treatment Protocol

[Crafty_Dog]

second

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/health/fl-ne-letter-to-florida-surgeon-general-20230310-ni3gmpvf6bertmozhghdcqungu-story.html

[G M]

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/generalinfectiousdisease/103595

[Crafty_Dog]

Bill Gates Plots a Global Pandemic Prison State
By Jeffrey A. Tucker
March 21, 2023Updated: March 21, 2023


Commentary

An epic disaster like the COVID response, one might suppose, should inspire some humility and rethinking on how public health could have gone so wrong. They had their run at it but created a global disaster for the ages.

This is more than obvious to any competent observer. The next step might be to see if there are any places where matters went rather well, and Sweden comes first to mind. The educational losses were non-existent because they didn’t close schools. In general life went on as normal and with very good results.

One might suppose the Swedish way would be vindicated. Sadly, our leaders care nothing for evidence, apparently. Their concern is for power and money at any cost. As a result, we are witnessing a concerted effort not only to double down on errors the next time but make them even worse.

The top two exhibits emerged over the weekend.

New York Times: “We’re Making the Same Mistakes Again” by Bill Gates.

Wall Street Journal: “What Worked Against Covid: Masks, Closures and Vaccines” by Tom Frieden (former head of CDC).

Gates deploys his privileged place at the New York Times to agitate once again for a Global Health Emergency Corps, ensconced at the World Health Organization and managed by the same people who created the pandemic response this time around. In other words, it would be the core of the global government pushing more lockdowns for the world—lockdowns to wait for another round of vaccines.

If you can believe it, he has learned nothing from the last mess that he created. Indeed, he is completely shameless about it. In his view, the only problem is that we didn’t lock down fast enough, get vaccines out fast enough, and conduct enough research ahead of time to craft the perfect vaccine. And yes, this necessarily requires gain-of-function research.

In other words, in Gates’s view, we need to have research continue to fiddle around in labs with tricks that anticipate pathogens of the future, thus again raising the risk of lab leaks that then necessitate fixes that can only be produced and distributed by the pharmaceutical companies in which he has such heavy investments.

As a result, we have this hellish loop in play: gain-of-function research to anticipate the next pathogen by creating it and thus risking a lab leak that releases the pathogen that then has to be fixed by the vaccines themselves but the world has to lock down until they can be put into billions of arms.

And keep in mind that Gates isn’t just another bloke writing an op-ed. He is the de facto owner of the World Health Organization himself, so his push for a permanent pandemic bureaucracy carries a lot of weight. His dream bureaucracy would override national sovereignty to make sure that never again would there be another Sweden.

“It’s difficult ‌‌for any one country to stop a disease from spreading on its own,” he writes “Many of the most meaningful actions require‌‌ coordination from the highest levels of government.”

The model is always the same and it is taken from the world of computer science. There is a clean hard drive, analogized to the human body or whole societies. They are working fine but then an exogenous threat comes along in the form of malware. In order to defeat it, we need software that is updated. You clearly should not turn on your computer until you can get the hard drive cleaned up.

I’m serious here: Gates’s understanding of viruses is no more sophisticated than that. He has learned absolutely nothing in years. He is still repeating the ridiculous lines from his TED Talks from years ago.

In reality, this has nothing to do with biological viruses, which we evolved to manage through the immune system, a concept that is entirely lost on him. He finds it inconceivable that the best strategy for healthy people is to meet the virus and train the immune system. Indeed, he is appalled by that idea, favoring only more injectable substances designed to fight diseases.

Also lost on him is the way in which viruses—whether from labs or nature—all must obey the natural epidemiological dynamics of pathogenic spread. The more deadly they are, the less likely they are to spread. And the reverse is also true: the more prevalent they are, like COVID, the less severe they are.

The reason is simple: a pathogen needs a living host. Yes, there are other variables such as latency, which is how long the virus lives in the host before debilitating symptoms appear. Other than that, a lab cannot create anything that games its ways out of this matrix.

If you can understand that paragraph, I can promise you this. You now know far more about viruses than Bill Gates. And yet it is he who has the decisive influence over pandemic policy the world over. The reason is extremely crude: it’s his money. It certainly isn’t his intelligence. In fact, it is rather shocking how his money alone has managed to buy the silence of scientists the world over, who have shown themselves to be appallingly obsequious and deferential to the crankism that Gates has been peddling for decades.

A good example comes from Tom Frieden, the author of the above mentioned piece in the Wall Street Journal. For all the problems of the pandemic response, he writes, we know what works: masking, lockdowns, and vaccines (ideally mandated). The piece is infuriating to the point that it is frustrating even to write a response. And this is because his conclusion is already baked into the prose. He throws out a flurry of links to other studies in case you doubt his veracity, while carefully avoiding the huge numbers of studies that show otherwise.

So, yes, I spent too much time over the week actually looking at the evidence for his thesis. On masks, he cites preposterous studies from three years ago. One looked at masking in Arizona over three weeks and came up with a difference in infection rates. But that study was during the smallest initial wave from 2020 and is entirely invalidated by subsequent analyses of the same two counties, not to mention the many hundreds of quality studies that have shown absolutely no difference in viral spread contingent on masking.

Another study comes from a Navy ship in which people were asked to self-report. It’s not even serious science and yet this former head of the CDC cites it. That same study was pushed by the CDC to justify its own push for masks. It appeared in the MMWR series over three years that included some of the worst science ever distributed by a modern bureaucracy.

On the business closures, Frieden doesn’t even bother to cite a study in defense of them. He just asserts the right of governments to shut businesses if they want to. What these people never mention is that business closures also include the government’s right to shut your home to house parties and your church to worship services. In other words, this amounts to a massive attack on human rights hard won over 1,000 years.

Finally, on matters of vaccine efficacy, every study he cites is based on bogus computer models that can generate any conclusion one desires based on the parameters of the input variables. They are the types of models that serious scientists working, for example, in economics stopped using many decades ago. And yet the epidemiologists are still wallowing in them in order to make a case for their preferred policies.

Of course he ignores the many hundreds of studies from the United States and the world that show no relationship at all between government interventions and good health outcomes during the pandemic.

There is a reason to be deeply alarmed by these two articles. The authors speak for some of the world’s most powerful people. They are explaining exactly what they want to do. They are completely impervious to evidence. And they reveal every ambition to override, reverse, and effectively abolish everything once known as freedom.

Incredibly, they have the chutzpah to write this stuff in the midst of the carnage they created from last time. All of which reminds me of the famous summary of the Roman empire as written by the great historian Tacitus, paraphrasing Calgacus:

“These plunderers of the world, after exhausting the land by their devastations, are rifling the ocean: stimulated by avarice, if their enemy be rich; by ambition, if poor; unsatiated by the East and by the West: the only people who behold wealth and indigence with equal avidity. To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace.”

Bill Gates and Tom Frieden have made a desert and call it health.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

[G M]

https://twitter.com/Michael_Yon/status/1638468254753767424?s=20

[G M]

https://archive.fo/UYr7K


Not effective, but it’s safe!

Right?

[Crafty_Dog]

Have not listened yet, but it comes well recommended to me.


https://kunstler.com/podcast/kunstlercast-372-a-conversation-with-dr-david-e-martin-prosecuting-covid-crimes/

[ccp]

"Must be obesity, or global warming"

went up 130%!

does not say what the overall number of cases

maybe was 10 now 23 .

could be they had silent corona infections
not unusual for people to not even know they had it.

lets get Batacharrya on here to tell us it is all covid shots

[G M]

"Must be obesity, or global warming"

went up 130%!

does not say what the overall number of cases

maybe was 10 now 23 .

could be they had silent corona infections
not unusual for people to not even know they had it.

lets get Batacharrya on here to tell us it is all covid shots

So, the ClotShot was supposed to stop you from getting infected and stop the spread, right?

Now it’s Covid, not the ClotShot giving myocardial inflammation without making the victims noticeably Ill?

Are you aware of unvaccinated populations suddenly developing myocarditis?

Is that why all the Amish died off ?

[ccp]

are you aware that many at risk lives were saved with the vaccine?

yes or no.

I have already stated my thoughts on the matter on the board, indeed just recently .

[Crafty_Dog]

I leave GM to answer your question as he will.

As for me, I get it.  I took my then 89 year old mother to get her shot.  She was in a high risk categories (age, diabetes) so it made sense.

Putting aside for the moment the bodily autonomy issue, OTOH it is quite a bit less clear to me that it made/makes sense medically speaking as people get younger.  IMO it is anger provoking to promote that school children should get vaxxed (absent distinctive characteristics) and positively authoritarian to coerce it.

Quite a bit less clear to me that those with natural antibodies are better off in the long run vaxxing.  Indeed, my choice has been not to vaxx.

Three questions for you CCP: 

1) If I understand correctly, the vaxxes do not prevent transmission.  If so, what basis for coercion?

2)  If the vaxxes are effective, what basis for coercion?

3)  Coercion, yes or no?

And, in answer to your question:  "are you aware that many at risk lives were saved with the vaccine?"  My personal answer is that it depends on the group. 

Old, fat, diabetics with high blood pressure?  OF COURSE!

School age children?  NO!

Where the boundary between the two lies would be a matter to be determined by honest data-- which has been in short supply.

[ccp]

I already answered most of it

here is from the epidemics thread :

"I agree the vaccine is more dangerous (though rare) to children then the virus itself

also it is not from what I can tell preventing spread
though it does reduce severe infection which is really only a concern for those at higher risk."

your questions :

If I understand correctly, the vaxxes do not prevent transmission.  If so, what basis for coercion?

we did not know that early on
remember the Trump vaccine was pushed out in record time.

you at least state you "get it" it for those at high risk

as for those who were at low risk I always questioned that
I did not go around at any time telling parents to have all their children vaxxed

as for GM he won't agree to anything
he will just post more death and destruction links

[G M]

I already answered most of it

here is from the epidemics thread :

"I agree the vaccine is more dangerous (though rare) to children then the virus itself

also it is not from what I can tell preventing spread
though it does reduce severe infection which is really only a concern for those at higher risk."

your questions :

If I understand correctly, the vaxxes do not prevent transmission.  If so, what basis for coercion?

we did not know that early on
remember the Trump vaccine was pushed out in record time.

you at least state you "get it" it for those at high risk

as for those who were at low risk I always questioned that
I did not go around at any time telling parents to have all their children vaxxed

as for GM he won't agree to anything
he will just post more death and destruction links

The same medical establishment that tells us "Gender confirmation surgery" saves lives tells us that the Covid mRNA therapy is safe and effective.

Is there reason to doubt that?

[ccp]

being suspicious of the medical establishment or questioning is good.

but when the evidence points to lower death rates for those vaccinated (like those unvaxxed who have had the infection )

seems to be clear.

you called the disruption the epidemic would have.
we debated choices - shut everything down or let things fly as they were.

We shut things down - yes recommended by "experts" who noted in the '18 flu pandemic some cities that closed down fared better then those that did not .   seems sensible.

But when it seemed like the intended "fix" was causing so much economic havoc many including us here questioned is the fix worse then the disease.

others said we need to be stricter - with reports of overburdened hospitals and overflowing numbers of sick and dying overwhelming acute health services ( as well as doctors closing down their offices)

that did not seem to be unreasonable.

did distancing work did mask help
   I have not taken the time to read about that but probably not much if at all.
   did it make sense to close down public events schools businesses etc
   No one really knew frankly

as for mask wearing it turned out to be much more impossible to prove it didn't work or did . My last read and can prevent transmission to a small extent but those who breath in the virus.

as for vaccines should they have been mandatory

no perfect answer
I think making them mandatory for some did seem reasonable
trying to make it so for everyone especially for those at low risk was not

health care workers people who work in NH
and yes - the military
and maybe airplanes

for public events hard to say
it seemed like a reasonable idea as opposed to cancelling events

the medical establishment seemed to be slow getting "data" but then there was data coming in from all places often contradictory so I don't know if more could have been done faster.  the journals had endless studies in the beginning
so people were trying

and once it became clear the vaccines does not seem to prevent spread requirements should have been lifted sooner

this is the most objective I can be
rather then taking one side and everything else is bad or wrong etc








 

[G M]

https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1639701146141958148

[ccp]

everything in medicine is risk VS. benefit

a tylenol can kill

your post :
more myocarditis
in men "under 40"  from shot then infection .
I think I posted many times I have for some time now posted
that the vaccine should not be given to those at low risk.

we did not know that early on did we .
the option was to study the vaccine longer and delay widespread use while epidemic is raging and killing people vs taking the risk and trying to limit it's damage to the economy and lives .

Trump certainly pushed for the latter .

PS
funny how the "vigilant fox" leaves out data for those at high risk

[Crafty_Dog]

Thank you for the thoughtful posts CCP.

[ccp]

appreciate the reply CD

the medical establishment did not handle this well
the CDC clearly bungled it early on
but we meant well

no good answer
in the end after all said done and not done I wonder if we would have been off simply not doing anything - once the cat is out of the bag with such an epidemic it is already too late really it seems

From my company's CEO yesterday:

"The White House just announced that it plans to disband its COVID-19 response team, all three dozen staffers, this May. The government will now convene inter-agency groups to prep for the next pandemic. And the public health emergency (PHE) declared in response to the Covid pandemic will officially end May 11th (the monkeypox PHE expired in January and the opioid PHE is ongoing). "

I am really interested in what the next prep means .  How do we "prep"
Do we follow a Bill Gates Orwellian approach ? ( I dread the thought)

Do we close the borders ? ( seems like best approach - but then we don't even keep or test illegals )

Do we shut everything and wipe out our economy for our descendants?
I do not know..

Very tough to figure it out.

One last thought , I had a problem seeing military personnel refusing direct orders to get the vaccine .

Of course I am not in the military so maybe easy for me to say
but if the brass order shots - I don't get why ok to refuse
Suppose our military refuses to go overseas because they might be hurt .....