Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 412
June 11, 2023
Beware of Studies Concluding Autism is Not Associated with Childhood Vaccination
Dr Peter McCullough
As an epidemiologist, I can tell you it takes considerable training and scholarship to determine whether or not a study is valid and to determine if the conclusions are supported by the data. When it comes to childhood vaccines, the world is becoming skeptical of the vaccine industry since the CDC ACIP panel has added the EUA unsafe, ineffective mRNA COVID-19 vaccines for infants starting at 6 months of age.
With the ever expanding ACIP schedule of vaccine quantity and intensity of injections there has been a skyrocketing rate of autism. This has triggered scientists to go back and look at the studies published at the time to reassure parents that routine vaccines did not cause autism. Because so many shots are given at once, it is probably not any individual product that is the culprit, rather “hyper-vaccination” of a bundle of vaccine products that invokes a neurotropic, cytokine mediated inflammatory reaction that in some causes febrile seizures, autism, and immediate death. There are factors related to susceptibility including older parents and siblings with autism, but it remains that hyper-vaccination is a likely provocateur.
Madsen et al used Danish automated health data to evaluate the association of the MMR at age 15 months and autism. Only 40/422 had charts reviewed to verify the diagnosis of autism. Because it is an important diagnosis, all 422 cases should have been adjudicated by two blinded expert child psychiatrists. This study was unlikely to find an association from the outset since not all the vaccines where considered as a “bundle” and compared to children who went “natural” meaning completely unvaccinated with any product.
To make matters worse, the authors found 18% had missed the MMR at 15 months. That proportion seemed high to me so I checked another source. In 2015-2016 Holt et al performed a chart review and found that 55% of those MMR “unvaccinated” in the Danish system were indeed received the MMR documented in the medical record. Hence the Madsen analysis is invalid since both groups had largely received the MMR shot at age 15 months and there was no reporting of the true control group of interest—completely unvaccinated children.
[…]
In studies that are using unadjudicated, automated sources of data, misclassification often biases the results to the null hypothesis making a Type II error, that is, failing to find an association when indeed it is present.
Here is a summary of why Madsen does not rule out MMR or hyper-vaccination as a cause of autism:
non-randomized study with no true placebo groupall 442 cases of autism were not adjudicated by at least two independent child psychiatrists to confirm the diagnosisDanish automated data due no capture all the MMR vaccinations; some (~55%) of the “unvaccinated” had received the MMR vaccineMMR was not considered as part of the multi-injection bundle of hyper-vaccinated children compared to completely natural unvaccinated kids, which is the real control group of interest for autismA similar paper using the same data sources, nearly identical study design, and equally flawed analysis was published similarly in Annals of Internal Medicine in 2019 (Hviid et al). In summary, we cannot rely on the Madsen or Hviid studies to rule out the MMR as a partial determinant of autism. Moreover, studies that make strong conclusions with such faulty data are suspect for investigator bias—meaning the authors intentionally wanted to rule out the association perhaps to advance the vaccine agenda, appease their institutions or research sponsors, or otherwise wished to be willfully blind to the possibility that childhood hyper-vaccination is a determinant of autism.
[…]
Via https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/beware-of-studies-concluding-autism
How to Build an Urban Homestead
The Urban Homestead: Your Guide to Self-Sufficient Living in the Heart of the City
by Kelly Coynce and Eric Knutzen
Process (2010)
Book Review
This book sees three possible options for the future of industrialized society:
More of the same: a ruling elite with access to organic food and solar panels, with ordinary people eating heavily processed foods and being defined as “consumers” rather than citizens.An apocalypse – driven mainly by resource shortages, civilization collapsesA shift in consciousness – a new urban agriculture arises, with people relying on their neighbors and community building rather than big tech.The Urban Homestead offers an extremely comprehensive survival guide for all three of these options. The authors point out how citizens of Shanghai already produce 85% of their veggies within the city and how Cuban city dwellers produce half the fresh fruits and vegetables they consume.
Meanwhile in the West, industrialized farming produces food that is flavorless and nutrition-less (thanks to farming practices that destroy topsoil organisms essential to the production of health plants).
This survival guide provides very comprehensive tips for growing your own fruits and veggies, following a “permaculture* approach; for “guerilla gardening” (feoqinf food gardens on public and abandoned property”; for urban foraging of edible and wild foods; and for raising chickens, ducks, rabbits, pigeons and bees for food production.
The book also has detailed chapters on various food preservation techniques (including fermenting, canning, drying, jellies and jams and yogurt and cheese); DIY cleaning products; DIY water harvesting; growing food in an apartment; DIY energy efficiency schemes; and DIY energy options, including solar ovens and rocket stoves.**
*The permaculture approach emphasizes polycropping (the best technique for minimizing pests): no-till planting (to minimize damage to soil organisms); perennial crops (to minimize soil disruption), eg fruit and nut trees, berry bushes and semi-perennial vegetables such as kale, broccoli, collards and lettuces; and companion planting; and other spray-free pest control techniques.
**Rockets stoves, which are surprisingly easily to build, burn sticks and twigs as fuel and are twice as efficient as conventional wood stoves.
June 10, 2023
New US military base in Syria – what is the US trying to do now?
Vanessa Beeley
There have recently been reports of the US establishing a “new military base” in Syria. This is correct but people should be aware there are already an estimated 24-28 existing bases in Syria clustered around the north-east and extending into central and eastern Syria.
[…]
The smaller of these bases which are more like outposts are regularly repositioned depending on the Syrian or Russian military road maps in that area and any threats of Syrian allied Resistance attacks on US positions.
The new base is small, probably around 50-60 troops and will contain short range air-defence batteries, armoured vehicles and supplies. It has been located in the village of Swediyyah, 40km to the west of Raqqa, on the banks of the Euphrates close to the water pumping station and dam at Tabqa.
It has been reported by local sources that the Kurdish Separatist forces under control of the US and Israel ethnically cleansed the village of Swediyyah under the pretext of punishment for celebrating President Assad’s speech at the Arab League Summit in Jeddah.
This means the ‘SDF’ act as auxiliaries to the illegal US military occupation of the north-eastern territories of Syria just as the White Helmets have done for armed groups dominated by Al Qaeda in the north-west, Idlib. White Helmets were regularly sent ahead to force people out of their homes in order to provide accommodation for extremist armed gangs.
This is not the first time that the US has positioned forces in this area but with the recent Russian/Syrian troop build up near the city of Deir Ezzor and the reported arrival of Iranian weapons and equipment, it is clearly a strategic move by the US to defend its western flanks from attack.
The more sinister strategy is the potential for control over the water supply at the Tabqa dam which had already previously been controlled by ISIS and was bombed by the US as reported by the New York Times.
[…]
This war crime is particularly poignant as the US is currently crying “war crime” over the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam on the Dnieper River in Kherson Oblast, Ukraine on the 6th June 2023 – blamed on Russia without any evidence or investigation, of course. Many independent analysts have already pointed the finger of blame at Kiev following the ‘who benefits’ rule.
The following map shows the location of the new base in relation to the much larger US illegal military base at Al Tanf on the border with Jordan and Iraq. The grey shapes are potential ISIS cells embedded in the territory between the two bases – operating under control of the US and conducting regular attacks on civilians and Syrian military positions or equipment.
The gold circles in the north-east are the ISIS holding camps – basically a terrorist pool that the US dips into and maneuvers between Syria and Iraq to carry out isolated attacks on Iraqi and Syrian military and essential infrastructure. ( map is from Liveuamap which is known to be partisan towards the terrorist armed groups in Syria).
The US is clearly trying to position the new base in order to be able to receive supplies and weapons potentially from Al Tanf – there is a 55km exclusion zone established by the US around Al Tanf to provide protection for the armed groups, including ISIS, that are being trained in this zone.
It has been reported by Mid-East Discourse (and others) that HIMARS have been supplied to the armed groups under US control in the Syrian-free zone and live fire exercises are regularly conducted. I hope I don’t need to mention that this US base is illegally established on Syrian territory and the US is training a known terrorist entity to carry out attacks against Syrian civilians and military.
At least four HIMARS launchers are currently deployed at al-Tanf garrison. The system can fire GMLRS rockets, which have a range of 70 kilometers, as well as the MGM-140 ATACMS tactical ballistic missile that has a rage of up to 300 kilometers.
Around 200 US troops and some 300 MaT fighters are usually present at al-Tanf, which was established in 2016 to block a road linking the Syrian capital, Damascus, with the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.
This means that the US military and the terrorist proxy forces have the capability to target Damascus from the Al Tanf-occupied Syrian territory. Recently there has been an uptick in Russian air-force activity around Al Tanf targeting terrorist bases and equipment, frustrating US operations in the area.
A SouthFront report in May alleges that sources in Iraq have informed them of US plans to extend the Ayn Al Assad airbase in Anbar, Iraq and to build a new military base in the same area.
‘The unnamed sources suggested that the U.S. wants to establish a presence in al-Anbar, which borders both Syria and Jordan, because it hosts some of Iraq’s richest oil and gas fields.’
However lets take a look at how this alleged new US base in Anbar might tie in with the new base in Syria:
So, with an expansion of the Ayn Al Assad airbase in Anbar, the establishment of a new Iraqi military base close to the already fortified Al Tanf base and the Rukban ‘refugee’ camp to the south of Al Tanf which is known to be a recruitment hub for terrorist armed groups and the road connections to the new Euphrates base we can see what the US is trying to achieve.
The US is well aware that Damascus’ and Russian patience is wearing thin with the US allied occupation of Syrian agricultural and energy resources. The recent Iran/Russia/Syria discussions with Turkiye’s President Erdogan and the potential of a deal being brokered to withdraw Turkish troops and terrorist proxies from Syrian territory does not bode well for an already isolated US military. Like Israel, the US military personnel are surrounded by hostile factions who are currently carrying out guerilla warfare against the US bases.
[…]
The recent Syrian/Russian military build-up signals an increase in pressure on the US occupation forces. With NATO forces (covert) and proxies sinking in the Ukraine quagmire does the US have the resolve to dig in further in Syria and to potentially confront Russia, Syria, Iran and allies on the ground and in the air? Does it even have the military hardware available to defend itself against attacks having poured weapons into Ukraine since February 2022.
Are US military personnel not aware they are not defending ‘national security’ as is so often the pretext for their illegal presence on sovereign nation territory? They know they are partnering with ISIS not fighting a “global war on terror” and they must know they are stealing Syrian resources including 80% of Syrian oil thus deepening the misery for millions of Syrians. If they endorse US foreign policy on this basis they are war criminals and it is entirely justified for Syrian allied forces to drive them out of Syrian territory by any means available.
The following is my recent report for UK Column News on the emergence of the new US base near the Euphrates:
[…]
Via https://beeley.substack.com/p/new-us-military-base-in-syria-what?publication_id=716517
Inquiries About Unvaccinated Blood on the Rise
(Tauseef Mustafa/AFP via Getty Images)
The demand for unvaccinated blood is on the rise, a blood products and services provider said.
Kirby Winn, public relations manager of ImpactLife, says that while the hospitals his company serves have not expressed any interest in receiving unvaccinated blood, he has noticed the demand for “pure blood” rising from the general population.
According to its website, ImpactLife provides blood products and services to more than 120 hospitals in Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, and Wisconsin.
“We have a lot of conversations with people who have questions and concerns about this,” Winn told The Epoch Times.
However, he acknowledged that those who ask questions about receiving blood from vaccinated donors “might not be satisfied with the answers.”
In a joint statement (pdf) issued on Jan. 26, the Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies, America’s Blood Centers, and the American Red Cross vouched for the safety of America’s blood supply, assuring the public that “vaccines do not pose a risk to patients receiving blood transfusions.”
As Winn explained, blood providers nationally “are confident that this is the right position” and they “continue to monitor blood transfusion-related incidents with the recipients of blood transfusions through a process called hemovigilance.”
“As far as the medical treatment goes, it’s not relevant if the donor is vaccinated or not vaccinated for COVID and we don’t track it,” Winn said. “When people come in to give blood we don’t ask the question, ‘Have you received a COVID vaccine or have you not received a COVID- vaccine.’”
Vaccinated DonorsThe Jan. 26 joint statement also assured the public that because “there is no scientific evidence that demonstrates adverse outcomes” from blood transfusions from vaccinated donors, there is “no medical reason to distinguish or separate blood donations from individuals who have received a COVID-19 vaccination.”
However, the Red Cross states on its website that donors who received a COVID-19 vaccine will “need to provide the manufacturer name” when they come to donate.
“Upon vaccination, you should receive a card or printout indicating what COVID-19 vaccine was received, and we encourage you to bring that card with you to your next donation,” the Red Cross advises. “In most cases, there is no deferral time for individuals who received a COVID-19 vaccine as long as they are symptom-free and feeling well at the time of donation.”
While the FDA updated its information on Jan. 11, 2022, saying it “does not recommend using COVID-19 laboratory tests to screen routine blood donors,” it also said that “the blood establishment’s responsible physician must evaluate prospective donors and determine eligibility.”
The FDA further advised that donor candidates who were diagnosed with or tested positive for COVID-19 should “refrain from donating blood for at least 10 days after complete resolution of symptoms.” However, “individuals who are tested and found positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies” in their blood “can donate without a waiting period and without performing a diagnostic test.”
[…]
Masking and social isolation measures divided America’s population into two camps. Those who embraced the mandates became intolerant of those who rejected them, and vice versa. According to data compiled by USA Facts, approximately 81 percent of Americans have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine as of May 10. About 70 percent are considered fully vaccinated. Those vaccines triggered a whole new era of segregation: the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated.
Blood ClotsThe safety of COVID-19 vaccines became a highly-controversial issue after they were rolled out.
An analysis (pdf) regarding the demand for unvaccinated blood, issued Dec. 17, 2022, noted that “embalmers have reported finding unusual clots not only in deceased people” who’ve received COVID-19 vaccinations “but also in those who have had a blood transfusion.”
The analysis included comments from Steve Kirsch, executive director of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, who concluded that “the risk is not zero.”
A study led by the State University of New York at Buffalo (UB) and published on Feb. 1 in the Journal of Clinical and Translational Science confirmed that COVID-19 vaccines do pose a small risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), or blood clots.
Dr. Peter L. Elkin, first author of the paper and a UB distinguished professor, called the risk “trivial,” noting that “about 1.4 cases per million” vaccinated patients were affected.
Mark Sherwood, a naturopathic doctor with the Functional Medicine Institute, suggests other factors are involved.
“I have talked to morticians who have been in the business for 25 and 30 years and they are indeed seeing an increase in clots in the bodies of both vaccinated and unvaccinated people,” Sherwood told The Epoch Times. “Further, they indicate to me that the question of vaccination or not is coming up more.”
[…]
Japan Begins Secretly Releasing Irradiated Water From Fukushima Disaster Into The Ocean
Zero Hedge
Tokyo Electric Power Company (better known as TEPCO) started releasing irradiated seawater from Monday afternoon into an underwater tunnel that has been built to release Fukushima nuclear contaminated water into the sea, Japan’s public broadcaster NHK said on Tuesday.
According to TEPCO, the tunnel will be filled with some 6,000 tons of seawater by around noon on Tuesday.
The process, according to China Daily, was carried out “secretly” on Monday because Japan’s unilateral decision of dumping more than 1.3 million metric tons of treated but still radioactive water into the ocean provoked consistent protests from neighboring countries, such as China, Pacific Island communities and civil society groups in the most affected prefectures such as Fukushima, Iwate and Miyagi.
And instead of targeting what will be a tangible environmental catastrophe in just days, the hollow and hypocritical virtue signaling talking heads continue droning on about such meaningless drivel as ESG and global warming.
Also, oddly enough, there has not been a peep about this clear and present ocean disaster from either the original Greta, or her new and improved for mass-consumption replacement, Sophia Kianni, who lately appears to be more focused on building up her scantily-clad, environmentally-fighting image than, well, fighting for the environment…
View this post on Instagram A post shared by Sophia Kianni (@sophiakianni)
Under Japan’s plan, once filled with seawater, the tunnel, which was completed this April, will guide contaminated water from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi power plant to a point about 1 kilometer offshore. And now, the whole release system is almost complete, except for a reservoir that will store those contaminated water before its release. TEPCO said before that all construction work will be done by the end of this month.
If it’s done, the release would be sufficient to fill about 500 Olympic-sized swimming pools and the water has been used to cool highly radioactive damaged reactor cores as the massive earthquake and tsunami destroyed the Fukushima plant’s cooling systems, triggering the meltdown of three reactors and the release of large amounts of radiation.
Palestine Ripe for Chinese Mediation
Chinese President Xi Jinping (L) with the visiting Palestine President Mahmoud Abbas, Beijing, 18th July, 2017
The US Secretary of State Antony Blinken drew a blank in Riyadh in his mission to coax Saudi Arabia to grant diplomatic recognition to Israel and resuscitate the moribund Abraham Accord. The Saudi stance is unwavering: a two-state solution to Palestine problem first; normalisation with Israel can only come after that.
The Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud said at his joint press conference with Biden on Thursday that “without finding a pathway to peace for the Palestinian people, without addressing that challenge, any normalisation will have limited benefits. And therefore, I think we should continue to focus on finding a pathway towards a two-state solution, on finding a pathway towards giving the Palestinians dignity and justice. And I think the US has a similar view, that it’s important to continue on those efforts.”
Blinken later called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to brief him. The state department readout mentioned that they “discussed areas of mutual interest, including expanding and deepening Israel’s integration into the Middle East through normalisation with countries in the region.”
After the Saudi snub to the US, Beijing announced on Friday that at the invitation of Chinese President Xi Jinping, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will pay a state visit to China from June 13 to 16. On the same day, at the daily press briefing, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin effusively spoke of Abbas and “the high-level friendly relations between China and Palestine.” Wang reiterated Beijing’s intention to mediate between Palestine and Israel and mentioned President Xi’s hands-on role.
To quote Wang, “The Palestinian question is at the heart of the Middle East issue and matters to the region’s peace and stability and global equity and justice. China has all along firmly supported the Palestinian people’s just cause of restoring their legitimate national rights. For ten consecutive years, President Xi Jinping has sent congratulatory messages to the special commemorative meeting in observance of the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. More than once he put forward China’s proposals for resolving the Palestinian question, stressing the need to resolutely advance a political settlement based on the two-state solution and intensify international efforts for peace. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, China will continue to work with the international community for a comprehensive, just and enduring solution to the Palestinian question at an early date.”
In the Chinese political system, the foreign ministry rarely invokes the name of Xi Jinping. At the very least, Abbas’s visit to China and China’s public diplomacy track on the whole would suggest that Beijing may have sounded Israel and other important stakeholders — Saudi Arabia, in particular — and found that the early signs are encouraging.
With Abraham Accord turning into a pipe dream, Israel has nowhere to go and nothing more to lose as it emerges that the US is struggling to shore up its regional influence.
Without doubt, Palestine problem is at the core of the Middle East crisis. For the past four decades, the US and Israel deflected attention by whipping up paranoia about Shia Iran’s threat to the Sunni Arab regimes but with the Saudi-Iranian normalisation, it appears Washington and Tel Aviv hoisted their own petard.
Last Thursday, the prominent Russian newspaper Izvestia reported that “reconciliation between Tehran and Riyadh is in full swing.” It quoted the commander of Iranian Navy, Rear Admiral Shahram Irani disclosing that a number of countries in the region, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, are going to form a “new maritime coalition for actions in the northern waters of the Indian Ocean.”
Interestingly, the UAE recently decided to withdraw from the US-led maritime security coalition operating in the Middle East, explaining that the decision came “after a lengthy assessment of the effectiveness of security cooperation with all partners.”
Now, Tehran is proposing a regional coalition instead. According to the Qatari news portal Al-Jadid, the navvies of Gulf states, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Oman, will form a coalition together with China.
By the way, Prince Faisal underscored at Thursday’s press conference with Blinken: “China is an important partner for the kingdom and most countries in the region, and I think that partnership has given us and China significant benefits. And that cooperation is likely to grow just because China’s economic impact in the region and beyond is likely to grow as its economy continues to grow.”
The expert opinion in Moscow is that a regional coalition will be “a positive course of events, because the stabilisation of the situation in this territory will have an appropriate impact on neighbouring regions: Central Asia, and potentially Transcaucasia… a geopolitical confrontation had been imposed on Riyadh and Tehran for a long time, not only in the physical space of the region, but also at the ideological and value level… Iran and Saudi Arabia have finally figured out that they have a common interest… You can call it a breakthrough. Most of the experts and analysts expected this in the medium term.”
The prominent Kremlin politician Alexei Pushkov has written in his Telegram channel that all these trends are “a demonstration of the new independence of the countries of the non-Western world, which are developing relations among themselves without much regard for the United States.”
But rhetoric aside, it was left to Prince Faisal in a revealing remark at the press conference, in Blinken’s presence, to frame the profound winds of change sweeping across the Middle East:
“I think we are all capable of having multiple partnerships and multiple engagements, and the U.S. does the same in many instances. So I am not caught up in this really negative view of this. I think we can – we can actually build a partnership that crosses these borders. I think I’ve heard statements also from the US about a desire to find pathways to better cooperation, even with China. So I think we can only encourage that, because we see the future in cooperation, we see the future in collaboration, and that means between everybody.”
This is also where Recep Erdogan’s victory in the Turkish election becomes a tipping point, as it has a multiplier effect on the regional yearnings for a new dawn that were eloquently framed by Prince Faisal. Indeed, the mediation on the Saudi-Iranian rapprochement lends credibility to Beijing’s initiative on the Palestine issue. Russia whole-heartedly backs the initiative. (Moscow is also navigating Saudi Arabia’s membership of BRICS for an early decision.)
That said, Palestine issue has proved to be intractable so far. But then, the crux of the matter is that Washington was lacking in dedication and sincerity of purpose and US domestic politics played havoc. The US had all the advantages but it looked at any Palestinian settlement primarily through the geopolitical prism with a view to preserve its regional hegemony, control the oil market, punish Iran and use the Iran bogey to promote arms sales, exclude Russia from the region, and above all, pin down the regional states to the petrodollar phenomenon which sustains dollar’s status as reserve currency.
Enter China with a clean slate. China has excellent relations with Israel. Evidently, Israel is brooding about a dark future. The old swagger has vanished. Netanyahu looks tired and old. Whereas, from the full height of its regional prestige today, China is well-placed to offer to Israel a new creative pathway backed by all regional states, which even the non-state actors of the so-called “axis of resistance” will not dare to undermine.
Via https://www.indianpunchline.com/palestine-is-ripe-for-chinese-mediation/
June 9, 2023
‘Reckless in the Extreme’: FDA Panel Recommends New RSV Shot for Use in Healthy Infants
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. Advisors to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Thursday recommended approval of AstraZeneca’s new monoclonal antibody, which the drugmaker said is designed to protect infants and toddlers up to age 2 from respiratory syncytial virus, but medical experts interviewed by The Defender called the move “reckless” and “preposterous.”
The drug, nirsevimab, would be delivered to newborns in a single shot at birth or “just before the start of a baby’s first RSV season, or as a larger dose in a second RSV season in children who are highly vulnerable,” CNN reported.
Members of the independent committee, which includes several pediatricians, “were enthusiastic about the potential” of the antibody, STAT reported, as was Thomas Triomphe, executive vice president of vaccines at Sanofi, which will market the drug in the U.S.
[…]
But medical experts interviewed by The Defender raised a number of concerns, including what they said was inadequate safety testing.
“It’s preposterous to give this drug prophylactically, especially without adequate safety testing,” said Brian Hooker, Ph.D., P.E., senior director of science and research for Children’s Health Defense (CHD).
AstraZeneca reported only 48% efficacy for the drug. And Hooker noted that the “circulating half-life of the antibodies is probably less than one month so the protection would be minimal at best.”
Hooker also commented on the fact that 12 infant deaths were recorded during the clinical trial, which the FDA committee claimed were “unrelated” to the antibody:
“It appears that this vote was meant to bolster uptake and popularity of the RSV vaccines that are now approved for maternal use. The very low rate of effectiveness for such a therapy is troubling as the conservative estimate is below 50%, which is usually a hard metric for drug approval.
“Also, it seems odd that four infants in the trial would die of cardiac arrest — with no information given, it leaves one to wonder why these children would die in such a way. Also, there should be further investigation into the two SIDS [sudden infant death syndrome] deaths that occurred during the trial.”
Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist, biological warfare epidemiologist and member of CHD’s scientific advisory committee, told The Defender,“It is reckless in the extreme to inject very young babies with an inadequately tested monoclonal antibody drug to prevent a condition that for most of them will be no more than a cold.”
Cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough told The Defender that while monoclonal antibodies are “generally safe” for children, he questioned the benefit of such a treatment for what he called a “mild” infection. He said:
“Monoclonal antibodies are generally safe in children and adults; however, I am concerned broad infant population uptake may disrupt normal thymus and immune system development that easily handle infections such as RSV, influenza, rhinovirus, adenovirus and SARS-CoV-2.
“RSV is a characteristically mild infantile infection easily resolved with conventional nebulizers. I believe nirsevimab would not be clinical-indicated for all infants and likely would be utilized in high-risk babies with congenital heart or lung disease, such as cystic fibrosis, or those with prior thoracotomies for heart surgery, where respiratory mechanics would be compromised.”
The FDA committee’s positive recommendation for nirsevimab, also known as Beyfortus, comes just weeks after the agency approved GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals’ Arexvy, the first-ever RSV vaccine for older adults, and recommended Abrysvo, Pfizer’s RSV vaccine for pregnant women.
[…]
FDA: Infant deaths during clinical trial ‘unrelated’ to the treatment
CNBC reported that the FDA review identified no safety concerns with nirsevimab, but also reported that 12 infants died during the trials.
According to CNBC:
“Four died from cardiac disease, two died from gastroenteritis, two died from unknown causes but were likely cases [of] sudden infant death syndrome, one died from a tumor, one died from COVID, one died from a skull fracture, and one died of pneumonia.”
Dr. Melissa Baylor, who according to CNBC is “an FDA official,” said, “Most deaths were due to an underlying disease. None of the deaths appeared to be related to nirsevimab.”
But according to STAT, “There are questions that remain to be answered” about nirsevimab that require “further study.”
For instance, no data are available “about whether giving nirsevimab to a baby whose mother was vaccinated against RSV during pregnancy would give the infant more protection or would be a waste of the product.”
STAT noted that several members of the FDA committee “worried that the dose given in the first year of life might be too small to benefit a baby who was 8 months or older when receiving the injection, depending on the size of the baby.”
Baylor also expressed concerns about how nirsevimab would interact with vaccines in development — such as Pfizer’s Abrysvo — that confer protective antibodies to the fetus by administering the shot to the mother.
CNBC reported that “Other monoclonal antibodies have been associated with serious allergic reactions, skin rashes and other hypersensitivity reactions.”
According to Baylor, the FDA did not identify “any cases of serious allergic reactions in the nirsevimab trials,” while “cases of skin rash and hypersensitivity reactions were low in infants who received the antibody.” She added that cases of such side effects are expected to be observed if the treatment receives FDA approval.
Manish Shroff, AstraZeneca’s head of patient safety, said, “Safety is of utmost importance” to the drugmaker and that it will “keep a close eye” on the safety of nirsevimab via a “global monitoring system,” CNBC reported.
According to Endpoints News, nirsevimab has already received regulatory approval in the EU, U.K. and Canada, but “it has not yet launched in any of those markets.”
According to CNBC, “Nirsevimab is administered as a single injection with the dose depending on the infant’s weight.”
[…]
Nirsevimab is not the first monoclonal antibody for RSV. According to STAT, AstraZeneca’s Synagis (palivizumab) is approved in the U.S. and EU, and “protects against infection in high-risk infants.”
According to CNBC, it is intended “only for preterm infants and those with lung and congenital heart conditions that are [at] high risk of severe disease” and is administered monthly, whereas nirsevimab “would be administered to healthy infants.”
Endpoints News reported that “AstraZeneca leads all development and manufacturing activities” for nirsevimab, “while Sanofi is responsible for marketing activities and revenue recognition” — for which the drugmaker paid $129 million “to be part of the collaboration.”
Is RSV really a danger for most infants?
CNBC previously reported that the U.S. “suffered an unusually severe RSV season” this past winter. The New York Times reported on a “tripledemic” involving RSV, flu and COVID-19, “that swamped children’s hospitals and some I.C.U. wards.”
One U.S. county — Orange County, California — declared a local health emergency and issued a proclamation of local emergency in November 2022, citing rising RSV cases among children in the region, and the Biden administration subsequently declared a public health emergency that month.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), nearly all children are infected with RSV before the age of 2.
While CNBC characterized RSV as a “public health threat” that “kills nearly 100 babies in the United States every year,” Nass questioned the danger it poses to most infants.
In May, Nass wrote that the CDC published a paper on RSV deaths in infants between 2009 and 2021, which found “were only a total of 300 deaths in children less than one year over the 12 years, or 25 on average per year.”
Nass added that the number of injuries that may be caused by vaccines or other treatments during pregnancy “is almost certainly going to outweigh the loss of 25 babies a year from RSV.”
In her remarks to The Defender, Nass drew comparisons with the hepatitis B vaccine for children, saying that adverse effects from the treatment may appear later in childhood and are not likely to be connected to the drug:
“The hepatitis B vaccine, recommended for all children at birth in the US, and received by about 75%, was never tested for babies’ safety — over more than a few days — before the program started, or since.
“Because no one can know what a very young baby will become at birth, it is impossible to attribute a lower IQ, hyperactivity, less nimble limbs or any other problem that shows up later, to an injected drug given shortly after birth. So those connections, if any, are unlikely to be identified.”
[…]
Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/rsv-monoclonal-antibody-shot-infants/
Most US adults declining COVID boosters as CDC warns of health risks: ‘Relatively little protection’
Adults who aren’t current on their COVID-19 vaccine booster doses may have “relatively little remaining protection” against hospitalization compared to those who haven’t been vaccinated at all, suggests a new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The study spanned multiple states and examined more than 85,000 hospitalizations of people with “COVID-like illness.”
Dr. Shana Johnson, a physical medicine and rehabilitation physician in Scottsdale, Arizona, was not involved in the CDC study but reviewed its findings.
PRIOR COVID INFECTION PROVIDES JUST AS MUCH PROTECTION AS VACCINES, NEW STUDY FINDS
The good news, Johnson said, is that the bivalent mRNA vaccine protects against the most severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and critical disease (ICU admission and death), Johnson said.
The not-so-good news: The durability or duration of protection was not great, she noted.
Adults who aren’t current with their COVID-19 booster doses may have “relatively little remaining protection” against hospitalization compared to those who haven’t been vaccinated at all, suggests a new CDC study. (iStock)
“For adults, the vaccine effectiveness dropped from 62% at two months after vaccination to 24% at four to six months for protection against COVID-19 hospitalization,” Johnson said.
“Durability was better for preventing critical COVID-19 disease, at 50% at four to six months after vaccination.”
[…]
Only 20% of US adults receiving booster doses
Despite the CDC’s September 2022 recommendation that all vaccinated people 12 years and older should receive a booster dose, the vast majority of Americans have not received it.
WOMEN MORE LIKELY TO SUFFER FROM ‘LONG COVID,’ BUT HEALTHY HABITS CAN LOWER THE RISK
As of May 10, 2023, only 1 in 5 (20.5%) U.S. adults had received a bivalent booster dose.
And most of that group had received their last vaccine dose more than a year ago, the CDC reported in the study findings.
[…]
Taliban successfully eradicates poppy cultivation: Report
Toor Khan (right) razing a poppy field to the ground along with fellow Taliban members. (Photo Credit BBC)
The Cradle | June 8, 2023The Taliban government of Afghanistan has carried out “truly unprecedented reductions in poppy cultivation” in 2023, according to a new analysis published by Alcis, a UK-based geographic information services firm specializing in geospatial data collection, statistical analysis and visualization.
The poppy reduction followed a ban on drugs in Afghanistan issued in April 2022 by Taliban leader Mullah Haibatullah, only seven months after the Islamic movement took power following the August 2021 US military withdrawal from the country.
Alcis reports that an effective ban on poppy cultivation is in place and that opium production in 2023 will be negligible compared to 2022. High resolution imagery analyzed by the firm shows that in the province of Helmand, poppy cultivation was reduced from 120,000 hectares in 2022 to less than 1,000 hectares in 2023. This amounts to the largest reduction in poppy cultivation ever recorded in the country, including after the Taliban banned poppy production in 2000, one year before losing power following the 2001 US invasion.
As a result, wheat cultivation now dominates provinces in the south and southwest, where some 80% of Afghanistan’s total poppy crop had previously been grown.
The Taliban announced the ban on poppy cultivation in April 2022, but allowed the harvest of the poppy crop planted in the fall of 2021, fearing that banning or destroying it so close to the harvest season and after farmers had invested considerable time and resources in their poppy fields would provoke widespread unrest.
The Taliban then banned the planting of new poppy crops moving forward and destroyed any poppy fields planted after that time in violation of the ban.
Over the course of the summer of 2022, the Taliban also targeted the methamphetamine industry by destroying the ephedra crop and ephedrine labs across the country.
These findings were confirmed by journalists from the BBC, who traveled to Afghanistan this month while embedded with Taliban members destroying remaining poppy fields with sticks.
The BBC noted that the loss of supply of Afghan heroin may lead to increases in the “synthetic drugs, which can be far more nasty than opium,” among US and European drug users.
The BBC noted further that “opium was also grown freely in areas controlled by the US-backed former Afghan regime, something the BBC witnessed prior to the Taliban takeover in 2021.”
Indeed, the heroin trade has played a role in the conflicts plaguing the war-torn country since the 1970s.
In the late 1970s and in the 1980s, the CIA relied on Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI) and its Afghan mujahideen clients to wage war against the Soviet-backed Afghan government, and against Soviet forces which occupied the country in support of the government.
According to historian Alfred McCoy, the ISI, and mujahideen soon became key players in the burgeoning cross-border opium traffic.
McCoy writes that “The CIA looked the other way while Afghanistan’s opium production grew from about 100 tonnes annually in the 1970s to 2,000 tonnes by 1991. In 1979 and 1980, just as the CIA effort was beginning to ramp up, a network of heroin laboratories opened along the Afghan-Pakistan frontier. That region soon became the world’s largest heroin producer. By 1984, it supplied a staggering 60% of the US market and 80% of the European.”
McCoy writes further that, “Caravans carrying CIA arms into that region for the resistance often returned to Pakistan loaded down with opium – sometimes, reported the New York Times, ‘with the assent of Pakistani or American intelligence officers who supported the resistance.’”
As reporting from journalist Gary Webb showed, the CIA was transporting weapons by plane to its proxy army in Nicaragua, the Contras, while the planes returned to the US loaded with cocaine, during this same period. Declassified US government documents later acknowledged that US officials relied on the drug trade to fund arms purchases for the Contras.
The Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989 was followed by years of chaos as warlords competed for control of the country. In 1996, the Taliban came to power and imposed a measure of order on the country. In 2000, the Islamic movement banned poppy production.
However, US forces invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 and quickly toppled the Taliban. Poppy cultivation and the heroin trade flourished.
In 2004, Antonio Maria Costa, Executive Director United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, reported that opium cultivation increased by two-thirds that year and had spread to all 32 provinces, “making narcotics the main engine of economic growth” in the country.
In 2010, a growing Taliban insurgency prompted President Obama to launch his Afghan surge, which sent an additional 17,000 US troops to the country. The surge was launched at Marja, a remote market town in Helmand province.
Alfred McCoy writes that, “As waves of helicopters descended on its outskirts spitting up clouds of dust, hundreds of marines sprinted through fields of sprouting opium poppies toward the village’s mud-walled compounds. Though their targets were the local Taliban guerrillas, the marines were, in fact, occupying one of the capitals of the global heroin trade.”
McCoy noted further that the US-backed “Afghan army seemed to be losing a war that was now driven – in ways that eluded most observers – by a battle for control of the country’s opium profits. In Helmand province, both Taliban rebels and provincial officials are locked in a struggle for control of the lucrative drug traffic.”
As Simon Spedding of the University of South Australia observed, “The simple facts are that opium production was high under the US-influenced government of Afghanistan of the 1970s, decreased 10-fold by 2001 under the Taliban, and then increased 30-fold and more under the US to the same level as in the 1970s … These are facts, whereas the idea that the CIA runs opium from Afghanistan would be a conspiracy theory—unless, you thought about the United Nations statistics or happened to have been to Afghanistan.”
Via https://alethonews.com/2023/06/08/taliban-successfully-eradicates-poppy-cultivation-report/
Querying the Existence of a Covid Pandemic
By HART Health Advisory an Recovery Team
Words are powerful: handle with care
Covid-19 has been described as a global pandemic but does this title give it a severity and indeed fear factor way beyond its actual impact?
The word pandemic used to have a very specific meaning. It was used to describe a scenario where there was extensive incapacitation of key workers and large numbers of deaths, including young people. A genuine pandemic is not something that would have needed billions of dollars in advertising for people to even notice and fear. Using this long-established definition of the word, we conclude that there was in fact no global pandemic in 2020. The word was deliberately misapplied and weaponised against an unsuspecting public. Let us be clear, this article is not questioning the existence of a virus SARS-CoV-2 or an illness named Covid-19, but even the choice of ‘SARS’ (Severe Acquired Respiratory Syndrome) as the name for this coronavirus was already setting the scene for systematic fear-mongering.
The notion of a ‘pandemic’ was relentlessly promulgated through mainstream media to ramp up fear in the population, to help enforce unprecedented lockdowns and other extremely harmful policies (e.g school closures and universal mask wearing) and to push through Emergency Use Authorisations of novel technology mRNA and viral vector DNA products.
This would not have been possible were it not for three false premises that covid was:
novel;extremely lethal; andunprecedented.It was none of these things. It was no more novel than numerous other viruses which emerge each year in terms of the ability to be recognised by our immune systems. It was no more lethal than bad influenza viruses of the past and was less lethal than seasonal influenza for the young. Intensive care stays were longer than have been observed with flu, though whether that was due to a virus directly or caused by our changed response to how we treated respiratory infections is unclear. Overall it was a treatable, seasonal respiratory virus mostly affecting the old and infirm.
HART has written previously on how similar the mortality was to the bad influenza winter of the year 2000. The mortality data for 2020 is unremarkable globally when compared to previous influenza seasons except perhaps in New York City and Northern Italy. In both of these outliers, the data emerging is raising uncomfortable questions about the relative contribution of the virus versus the impact of policy-related responses when considering the extraordinary number of deaths reported. In spite of these outliers, global mortality data shows no evidence of a global pandemic. It could be argued that a once in every 20 year event should not be minimised, but nor does it justify an all of society emergency response or the institution of a permanent biosecurity surveillance state.
Figure 1 showing ONS crude mortality rates since 1840
Without the highly flawed PCR case data and draconian global restrictions on doctors’ freedom to treat their patients as they saw fit, there would be nothing particularly notable about this year. Outside of PCR driven data, a small rise in the number of calls to ambulances for breathing difficulties was observed, though it is possible that hysteria and fear may be responsible for at least part of this. We might have noticed an unusually late spike in influenza-like illness but not much more. Mortality-wise, it would appear as a mid-range ‘bad flu’ year. It is worth reading the work of Professor Denis Rancourt on mortality data, who has been pointing out this inconvenient truth since early 2021.1,2
Interestingly, the WHO quietly altered the accepted definition of ‘pandemic’ in 2009, just before the so-called H1N1 ‘pandemic’. The rushed-to-market Pandemrix vaccine which was pushed hard in the face of the imaginary ‘pandemic’ was subsequently pulled from the market due to life-changing side effects (often in children), a signal picked first up in Finland but later found elsewhere.
In essence, they used exactly the same playbook in 2020, but seemed to have ironed out some of the ‘problems’ encountered the first time round. Vicious behavioural psychology tactics were the main tools used to ‘correct’ these ‘problems’. Shaming people into believing they may ‘kill granny’ was a master-stroke. They used guilt, shame and the threat of ostracism, these being some of the most powerful drivers of human behaviour. There was even an identical cast of characters; Fauci, Drosten and Gates, all reporting for duty, aided and abetted by the bought and paid for media machine working on 24 hour overdrive.
In 2003, an influenza pandemic was defined as follows:
“An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in several simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.”
In 2009, the WHO decided, in their infinite wisdom, to get rid of the words “enormous numbers of deaths and illness.” from the definition. You would think deaths and serious illness were the only meaningful characteristics of a ‘deadly pandemic’.
To successfully fight against the globalist mission creep of tyrannical public health measures, we must collectively stop stoking the ‘deadly pandemic’ fire. If we continue to allow this falsehood to embed in public consciousness, all of the unethical horrors enacted will simply be repeated for the next non-pandemic-pandemic.
Without the requirement for excess deaths and widespread serious illness, malevolent profit-driven interests can simply will a ‘pandemic’ into existence on finding any new mutation amongst the global virus population. A strategy to force countries to invest heavily in searching for genetic anomalies will fuel the pandemic creation industry. Once one is found, the response can be fuelled by using fraudulent test data and media advertising, as they did very successfully in 2020. We cannot allow this to happen again and must therefore reclaim the word ‘pandemic’ to ensure it is only applied in the correct way.
We expect a reflexive objection to this article from some quarters on the basis that the case has not been adequately argued that covid had minimal impact on overall mortality in 2020. This fact is irrelevant when challenging the terrifyingly inappropriate global response. The world’s population was sold a serious lethal deadly pandemic which – we were told – necessitated the reordering of society. The ‘new normal‘ as it was affectionately called by so many perfectly in-sync global leaders. In the event, we did not have a serious lethal deadly pandemic, and what has happened (and continues to happen) is based on a lie. Arguing about whether or not some bits of the lie might have a modicum of truth in them is a distraction from much bigger questions which need addressing.
[…]
The Most Revolutionary Act
- Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's profile
- 11 followers
