Tag: covid-19

The Government Wants us to “Get Back to the Vax” Because the COVID jab lies have put parents off of all vaccines

Childhood vaccination rates down by 20% in Australia. Time to celebrate folks! The government has jumped the shark and there is no putting that particular genie back in the bottle.

I will just highlight a few of what I consider to be the outright lies in this piece of rubbish masquerading as a news article.

Australian Medical Association councillor Dr Kenneth McCroary said he was “really disappointed” about the national decrease, warning there is a real risk of it “wreakinghavoc in the future”.

“One in 50 kids used to die from measles, people don’t realise how serious it is,” he said.

“There’s a syndrome — panencephalitis — where the kids get measles, and they’re ok, and then five or 10 years later, their brain essentially turns to mush, and they die within 12months.

Keep reading

9th Circuit and COVID Jabs

A lot is going around on social media related to the 9th Circuit ruling on Health Freedom Defense Fund v. Alberto Carvalho. There is discussion online that this means mandates are done. Unfortunately – that is untrue. This very short substack is to clarify the meaning of this case.

The case is related whether the mRNA jab mandates were allowed under the law. The important point that people are discussing is the part of the case referencing Jacob v. Massachusetts – the case that is relied on to impose vaccine mandates nationally. In the current case the court essentially held that there is a plausible argument that the COVID jabs do not fall under the definition of “vaccine” as it applies in Jacobson.

In Jacobson, the court allowed a small civil penalty to be imposed if someone refused a vaccine in certain circumstances. The definition of vaccine in Jacobson recognized that to be a vaccine an intervention would necessarily prevent the spread of smallpox. In the current case the argument is that, since the COVID jabs do not prevent the transmission of COVID it is not a vaccine but rather a medical intervention. I agree with that argument but this ruling does not mean that argument was won in court.

Keep reading

It Leaked From A US-Backed Lab

For The New York Times, which started this whole fiasco dating from Feb. 27, 2020, with a podcast designed to drum up disease panic, it’s been a drip, drip, drip of truthiness ever since.

A fortnight ago, the paper finally decided to report on vaccine injury from shots that vast majorities never needed and that stop neither infection nor transmission. And now, as of June 3, we have as decisive an article as one can imagine that shows that “a laboratory accident is the most parsimonious explanation of how the pandemic began.”

“Whether the pandemic started on a lab bench or in a market stall, it is undeniable that U.S. federal funding helped to build an unprecedented collection of SARS-like viruses at the Wuhan institute, as well as contributing to research that enhanced them,” the article reads.

“Advocates and funders of the institute’s research, including Dr. Fauci, should cooperate with the investigation to help identify and close the loopholes that allowed such dangerous work to occur. The world must not continue to bear the intolerable risks of research with the potential to cause pandemics.”

The author is scientist Alina Chan of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. For purposes of documentation, let’s go through the points she makes.

1. The SARS-like virus that caused the pandemic emerged in Wuhan, Hubei Province, the Chinese city where the world’s foremost research lab for SARS-like viruses is located.

2. The year before the outbreak, the Wuhan Institute, working with U.S. partners, had proposed creating viruses with SARS‑CoV‑2’s defining feature.

3. The Wuhan lab pursued this type of work under low biosafety conditions that could not have contained an airborne virus as infectious as SARS‑CoV‑2.

4. The hypothesis that COVID-19 came from an animal at the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan is not supported by strong evidence.

5. Key evidence that would be expected if the virus had emerged from the wildlife trade is still missing.

Keep in mind that people saying exactly this from the very outset of the crisis were censored by social media at the behest of government agencies. Media personalities ridiculed this view. It was called a wild conspiracy theory, unworthy of any respectable and responsible person. This went on for three years, with brutal results. People lost large channels and social media followers and accounts. This ruined whole livelihoods.

Keep reading

Celebrity Doctors Promoted Covid Vaccine Without Declaring Payments

The pharmaceutical watchdog is being urged to investigate after celebrity doctors discussed the Covid vaccine on primetime TV without disclosing payments of thousands of pounds from AstraZeneca. The Telegraph has more.

In April of this year, AstraZeneca admitted for the first time in court documents that its Covid vaccine can, in a small percentage of cases, cause a rare and dangerous side effect. The following month, it emerged that the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid vaccine is being withdrawn worldwide.

The revelations prompted a fresh round of debate about the vaccine, with celebrity doctors invited on to television shows to discuss the fallout.

Dr. Ranj Singh, who regularly appears on the BBC as a talking head, was paid £22,500 by AstraZeneca in 2021, according to records from the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI).

Last month, he led a discussion on the BBC breakfast show Morning Live about the safety of the AstraZeneca vaccine and the “serious but rare” complications associated with it. He failed to declare his payments from the pharmaceutical giant to either the BBC or to viewers.

A BBC spokesman said they were unaware of the payments ahead of the show, adding: “The segment on the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine was balanced and covered reported risks and benefits. We became aware of Dr. Ranj’s 2021 work for the manufacturer after this segment aired and have now addressed this within the show.”

Dr. Nighat Arif, who became a familiar face on television during the pandemic including on BBC Breakfast, was paid £10,000 by Astra-Zeneca in 2022.

Keep reading

A new study finds that covid injections cause tinnitus

There’s a new paper on the loose that supports what many of us have been stating as fact for years: tinnitus is caused by the covid-19 injections.

The paper was published in Frontiers in Pharmacology on 22 May 2024 and is entitled ‘Covid-19 vaccination-related tinnitus is associated with pre-vaccination metabolic disorders’.1 The paper demonstrates a causal link between tinnitus and covid-19 injections using a survey on 398 cases of covid-19 injection-related tinnitus, and 699,839 covid-19 injection-related reports in the VAERS from 2021.

They found 7 main things:

  1. tinnitus report frequencies for Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen vaccines in VAERS are 47, 51 and 70 cases per million full vaccination;
  2. the symptom onset was often rapid;
  3. more women than men reported tinnitus and the sex difference increased with age;
  4. for 2-dose vaccines, the frequency of tinnitus was higher following the first dose than the second dose;
  5. for 2-dose vaccines, the chance of worsening tinnitus symptoms after the second dose was approximately 50%;
  6. tinnitus was correlated with other neurological and psychiatric symptoms; and,
  7. pre-existing metabolic syndromes were correlated with the severity of the reported tinnitus.

I can confirm and corroborate almost every single one of these points using only VAERS data, and in science, reproduction is ESSENTIAL. It is staggering how many (percentage-wise) peer-reviewed studies cannot be replicated.

1. Tinnitus report frequencies for Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen vaccines in VAERS are 47, 51 and 70 cases per million full vaccination. (NB: these rates are for 2 doses.)

Keep reading

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules mRNA COVID-19 Jab is NOT a Vaccine Under Traditional Medical Definitions

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has delivered a seismic decision that could reshape public health policy across the nation.

In a contentious case involving the Health Freedom Defense Fund and other plaintiffs versus the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the court has declared that mRNA COVID-19 injections do not qualify as vaccines under traditional medical definitions.

The case revolved around the LAUSD’s COVID-19 vaccination policy, which required all employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by a specified deadline.

The plaintiffs argued that the district’s vaccine mandate infringed upon their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment, as the mRNA injections do not prevent the transmission of COVID-19 but merely mitigate symptoms for the recipient.

The court’s opinion, penned by Circuit Judge R. Nelson and supported by Judge Collins, asserts that the mRNA shots, marketed as vaccines, do not effectively prevent the transmission of COVID-19 but merely reduce symptoms in those who contract the virus. This crucial distinction undermines the foundational premise of the vaccine mandates enforced by various governmental and educational institutions.

Judge Nelson pointed out that the mandate was inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s century-old ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a case that upheld the state’s right to enforce smallpox vaccinations due to their proven effectiveness in preventing disease spread. In contrast, the mRNA COVID-19 shots do not offer such public health benefits, thus failing the criteria established by Jacobson.

The ruling points out that traditional vaccines are designed to provide immunity and prevent transmission, which is not conclusively proven in the case of mRNA COVID-19 shots.

Keep reading

The Trouble with Testing

Deborah Birx is at it again, urging mass testing for the detection of bird flu. She wants cows and dairy workers examined to ferret out asymptomatic infections and exposures in animals and people. We have the technology so why not use it, she demands to know. We are making the same mistake we made with Covid early on, she argues. 

The role of testing is relatively uncontroversial but it probably should be. Early on in the Covid crisis, though completely against the lockdowns, I was an enthusiast for testing simply because I thought doing so would overcome the epistemic void that was driving public panic. 

If you are scared of a disease and have no means to discover whether or not you have it, what is your choice but to hop around in a frenzy and comply with every edict? That was my thinking in any case. We live and learn. 

What’s left out of the testing issue is the great question of why. Is it track, trace, and isolate? That has been proven impossible – and long known to be impossible – in the case of a fast-spreading and fast-mutating respiratory virus with a zoonotic reservoir. They tried it anyway with many states quickly hiring tens of thousands of contact tracers. 

Keep reading

Retraction scandal update

By now you’ve hopefully read my report from the weekend about the alleged forced retraction of a Covid vaccine cancer-risk study (the ‘Jiang and Mei paper’) after it generated a huge amount of publicity.

The exposé has ignited a lot of discussion, including some posts I want to recommend to you…

The Jiang and Mei story is just one of many examples of papers showing Covid vaccine harms, which pass peer-review but are later retracted following an activist witch hunt. Examples that come to mind are Mark Skidmore’s paper estimating 290,000 Covid vaccine fatalities for 2021 in the US (Skidmore was eventually exonerated and his paper published in a different journal), and several papers by 

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, 

Jessica Rose and colleagues showing various Covid vaccine harms.

We knew that activist pile-ons precipitated such retractions, but we couldn’t prove that they were the reason for the retractions… until the Jiang and Mei paper.

“This could be the first time that political pressure has been proven to have been exerted to force the retraction of a valid scientific paper of such significance,” says 

Dr Ah Kahn Syed (Arkmedic) in a follow up post to mine.

Keep reading

‘Time to Ground the Plane’: FDA Advisers Recommend JN.1 COVID Vaccines Despite Growing Evidence of Cancer Risks

In a unanimous 16-0 vote, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) vaccine advisory committee today recommended a monovalent JN.1-lineage vaccine composition for 2024-2025 Formula for COVID-19 vaccines.

The JN.1 variant has been most dominant this year, Reuters reported.

Last year, the agency’s committee recommended COVID-19 vaccines targeting XBB.1.5, a subvariant of Omicron that dominated the U.S. from November 2021 to 2022.

The committee today also discussed which specific strains within the JN.1-lineage group — such as subvariants KP.2 and KP.3 — the vaccines should target. The FDA said it will later issue an official recommendation to manufacturers about what subvariants it wants to target within the JN.1-lineage group.

David Wiseman, Ph.D., a bioscience researcher, told the committee that in recommending continued COVID-19 vaccination, the FDA may be putting the U.S. public’s health at risk. “Based on the totality of evidence, it is reasonable to believe that the product [COVID-19 vaccines] may be unsafe,” he said.

Keep reading

“On Hospital and Nursing Home Death Protocols”

For our book, The Courage to Face COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex, I interviewed several people who’d lost a family member after he or she was admitted to hospital with severe COVID-19 symptoms.

The typical scenario they described was that the family member had started off with mild flu-like symptoms that worsened around day 7 or 8 ,with steadily increasing difficulty in breathing. At the time, many were completely unaware of even the possibility of early treatment because their primary doctors mentioned nothing about it. And so, with panic setting in or with a blood oxygen level below 90, the decision was made to admit the family member to hospital.

Though the witnesses I interviewed were from all over the country, their experiences with hospitals were all the same—namely, no treatment was offered to their sick family members apart from supplemental oxygen, Remdesivir, and then intubation and ventilation, ultimately resulting in death.

Several witnesses heard about treatment modalities such as methylprednisolone, ivermectin, and anti-coagulants only after their family members were languishing in hospital. To their astonishment, hospital doctors steadfastly refused to administer these drugs to their dying family members, and hospital administrators even fought court orders to do so.

After hearing several of these stories, I began to suspect what initially seemed unthinkable, but increasingly struck me as that only plausible explanation for the conduct of these hospitalists—namely, that they had, for some dreadful reason, agreed to play along with a systematic euthanasia program.

My suspicion grew when I interviewed witnesses who told me of smuggling ivermectin into hospital rooms and clandestinely giving it to their family members, some of whom then quickly improved. One woman told me a terrifying story of receiving a call from an angry doctor who was dumbfounded by her husband’s recovery, as it was apparently incongruous with the usual inexorable demise he had observed in other patients.

“The doctor suspected I’d given my husband something and he angrily demanded to know what it was,” the woman related. “He said he wanted to know if it was a prescription drug and which pharmacy had prescribed it. It was like he wanted to get the pharmacist into trouble.”

I was reminded of these stories this afternoon when I read a post by fellow Substack author, Katharine Watt, in which she argues that nihilistic hospital protocols were not only the result of stupidity, groupthink, and perverse financial incentives provided for by the PREP and CARES Acts.

Keep reading