Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 420
May 13, 2023
Robert Kennedy Jr. Still the Only Presidential Candidate to Be Banned from Instagram
Reclaim the Net
Robert Kennedy Jr., a Democratic candidate for the 2024 United States presidential election, revealed that his account is till banned from Instagram and accused the tech giant of preventing him from accessing the site, despite him being a contender for the White House.
This makes him the only 2024 US presidential candidate that’s unable to post to the influential social media platform and currently being subjected to direct Big Tech censorship.
Former President Donald Trump, who is running for president in 2024 as a Republican candidate, was suspended from Instagram on January 6, 2023 and banned on January 7. However, his ban was lifted on January 25, 2023.
The other 2024 presidential candidates, Joe Biden (D), Marianne Williamson (D), Larry Elder (R), Nikki Haley (R), Asa Hutchinson (R), Vivek Ramaswamy (R), and Corey Stapleton (R), all have active Instagram accounts.
Kennedy was banned from Instagram in February 2021 for violating the platform’s strict speech rules related to the coronavirus and vaccines. The ban came after several Democratic senators and 12 state attorneys general demanded that Kennedy and other Covid vaccine skeptics be deplatformed by Big Tech. Before the ban, Kennedy had over 800,000 Instagram followers.
Instagram’s failure to reinstate Kennedy since announcing his presidential campaign means that he won’t be able to directly post his message to the social media platform’s sizeable audience of two billion monthly active users.
[…]
Via https://reclaimthenet.org/robert-kennedy-jr-still-banned-instagram
Influenza Vaccine Fails to Stop Hospitalization and Death
Uemura K, Ono S, Michihata N, Yamana H, Yasunaga H. Duration of influenza vaccine effectiveness in the elderly in Japan: A retrospective cohort study using large-scale population-based registry data. Vaccine. 2023 May 5;41(19):3092-3098. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.03.066. Epub 2023 Apr 10. PMID: 37045684.Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
Large Japanese Study Shows No Benefit on Hard Outcomes
Influenza vaccination has become a mainstay in American medicine largely as measure to protect the elderly. However in recently decades the FluShot has been pushed on healthcare workers, the general adult public, and starting in 2017 the CDC ACIP Panel stated: “Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons age 6 months and older who do not have a contraindication.” I wondered if the FluShot even did was it was supposed to do originally in the elderly—protect against hospitalization and death. I was disappointed by real world data.
Uemura and coworkers from the Department of Biostatistics & Bioinformatics, Interfaculty Initiative in Information Studies, University of Tokyo, Japan reported on 83,146 individuals who were aged 65 years or older at baseline and were followed up between April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2020.
The multivariable analysis showed a lower incidence of influenza in vaccinated individuals (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-0.51; P < 0.001), however the incidence of hospitalization for influenza did not differ significantly by vaccination status (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.53-1.18; P = 0.249). Protective effectiveness against incidence waned quickly after 4 or 5 months.
These data suggest the massive effort on vaccination in the general population is a waste of time and effort. If the frail and elderly get no overall direct reduction in hospitalization and death, influenza vaccination should be individualized based on pulmonary and systemic risks.
Via https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/influenza-vaccine-fails-to-stop-hospitalization
May 12, 2023
Researchers Had a Simple Test for Determining if an Asymptomatic Person Who Tested Positive for COVID Was Infectious — But CDC, Fauci Ignored It
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. “In June 2020, Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of the World Health Organization’s [WHO] emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, said that transmission from asymptomatic people was ‘very rare,’” a “conclusion based on a number of countries doing very detailed contact tracing.”
A test that can accurately determine whether an individual with a positive PCR test result for COVID-19 is infectious was available as early as May 2020 — but public health authorities appear to have ignored it.
Researchers at Stanford University who developed the test also determined that the vast majority of asymptomatic individuals who tested positive — 96% — did not transmit the virus.
Investigative reporter and author David Zweig, a previous contributor to the release of the “Twitter files,” first reported on the test on his Substack.
[…]“Transmission from asymptomatic people is far, far less common than we were led to believe,” Zweig wrote. “The novel test at Stanford that showed a very low rate of infectious asymptomatic people who had tested positive was available as early as May 2020.”
“Yet the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and other health authorities did nothing,” Zweig said.
Zweig appeared Thursday on The Hill’s “Rising,” where he told the show’s hosts:
“At Stanford, they developed a test in May of 2020, the very beginning of the pandemic, that actually could find out whether or not you were infectious.
“After you had taken a regular PCR test, if it showed you were positive, they could determine whether or not that positive test meant you could actually infect others or not.”
Zweig wrote that while the standard PCR test commonly administered during the COVID-19 pandemic “detects whether someone has the virus … it cannot detect whether the person is capable of infecting others.”
The test developed by Stanford researchers, however, was able to accomplish this. As Zweig explained:
“SARS-CoV-2 is a positive or ‘plus-stranded’ RNA virus. For it to replicate it must do so with a minus strand.
“Brilliantly, the Stanford test looks to see if the minus strand is present. If it is then that indicates the virus is actively replicating, which means it’s potentially infectious. If the minus strand is absent then the virus is not replicating. (It is not possible to transmit the virus if it is not replicating.)”
Benjamin Pinsky, Ph.D., medical director of Stanford’s Clinical Virology Laboratory and medical co-director for Point of Care Testing, was one of the researchers involved in the development of the test. He told Zweig the purpose of the test was to help hospital clinicians accurately determine if patients were infectious or not.
“The minus strand test gave a definitive answer one way or another,” Zweig wrote. But although the test was available as early as May 2020, the CDC did not publish the researchers’ paper about the test until February 2021.
The paper, published in the Emerging Infectious Diseases journal, stated that the analytical validation for the test was conducted “during May-June 2020.”
By publishing the paper in early 2021, federal agencies “certainly were aware that this test existed” even prior to its publication date, Zweig told “Rising.”
“This raises serious questions for those in charge of the CDC, NIH [National Institutes of Health], and NIAID [National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases] for why resources were not allocated toward making this test broadly available,” Zweig wrote on his Substack, adding:
“Though the test was developed for use in hospitals, its utility outside of a medical setting is obvious.
“Regular people could have paid for the test to find out after they got over a bout of COVID whether they were still infectious or not, enabling them to go to work, visit relatives, and so on. Millions of kids could have tested out of isolation.”
Zweig told “Rising” that while it’s unclear why the paper wasn’t put out more broadly, “the fascinating part is we had this tool to give us an answer to a question that was merely conjecture for the entire pandemic.”
What’s more, according to Zweig, Stanford researchers “later looked at data from this test from July of 2020 through April 2022, and answered the question health authorities neglected to answer,” finding that “only 4% of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive patients were shown to be infectious.”
Zweig noted, however, that this percentage did decrease during the “Omicron wave,” where the infection rate among asymptomatic patients “peaked at about 25%.”
One of the researchers involved with the follow-up study, Dr. Ralph Tayyar, is an Infectious Diseases fellow at Stanford. He presented his findings at the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America’s conference in April and told Zweig that the effectiveness of restrictions on asymptomatic individuals was likely lower than claimed.
Using the classroom environment as an analogy, Tayyar told Zweig, “The probability of a kid in class who is not sick actually being infectious is very low.”
Tayyar noted that while public health officials did not adopt the Stanford test, Stanford itself stopped conducting admission screen testing. He said there was no evidence that this resulted in an increase in transmission of COVID-19.
“The CDC could have immediately conducted a huge study to actually answer the question health officials had only been conjecturing about — what percentage of positive people without symptoms have the capability of infecting others,” Zweig said, but opted not to.
Instead, Zweig wrote, during the first few months of the COVID-19 pandemic, “The specter of asymptomatic transmission undergirded not just policies on masks, but on distancing, and quarantines as well.”
According to Zweig, Dr. Anthony Fauci referred to the purported threat of asymptomatic spread to justify his “180 on community mask recommendations.” For instance, Fauci told The Washington Post in July 2020:
“We didn’t realize the extent of asymptotic spread … as the weeks and months came by, two things became clear: one, that there wasn’t a shortage of masks, we had plenty of masks and coverings that you could put on that’s plain cloth … so that took care of that problem.
“Secondly, we fully realized that there are a lot of people who are asymptomatic who are spreading infection. So, it became clear that we absolutely should be wearing masks consistently.”
The concept of “silent spread” was so influential that Dr. Deborah Birx, the White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator from Feb. 27, 2020, to Jan. 20, 2021, named her book “Silent Invasion: The Untold Story of the Trump Administration, Covid-19, and Preventing the Next Pandemic Before It’s Too Late” after it, Zweig said.
“The entire apparatus of our pandemic response — which, most consequentially, kept millions of healthy children out of full-time school for more than a year — was based on this notion,” Zweig wrote.
Other studies also showed that asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 was uncommon.
“In June 2020, Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of the World Health Organization’s [WHO] emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, said that transmission from asymptomatic people was ‘very rare,’” a “conclusion based on a number of countries doing very detailed contact tracing,” Zweig wrote.
However, “the next day, after criticism from some health professionals, WHO officials walked back her statement, and Van Kerkhove said it was a ‘complex question,’” Zweig added.
And an editorial published in The BMJ in December 2020 stated that “Searching for people who are asymptomatic yet infectious is like searching for needles that appear and reappear transiently in haystacks.”
However, these findings were overshadowed by research claiming that a substantial percentage of COVID-19 infections were caused by asymptomatic individuals.
According to Zweig, such findings “supported the health authorities’ messaging … justified various community interventions” and were “covered everywhere.”
“[Many] of the actions we were told — or compelled — to take, including an acceptance of all those closed or half-empty schools, had little to no benefit,” Zweig wrote. “Schools — as they did in Sweden — and most of society could have simply followed the classic advice ‘if you’re sick, stay home,’ and we would have ended up in the same place.”
[…]
FBI Contractor Created Fake Online IDs to Infiltrate Chatrooms Organizing Against Vaccine Mandates
An FBI surveillance contractor infiltrated the chatrooms of two airline industry groups opposed to vaccine mandates to collect intelligence on the groups’ organizing activities, investigative journalist Lee Fang reported.
The contractor, Flashpoint, which in the past infiltrated Islamic terror groups, now focuses on “anti-vaccine” groups and other domestic political organizations, according to Fang.
In a webinar presentation for clients last year, which Fang analyzed on his Substack, Flashpoint analyst Vlad Cuiujuclu demonstrated his company’s methods for identifying and entering encrypted Telegram chat groups.
He explained how the company attempted to join chatrooms of transportation workers resisting the COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
Fang described the presentation:
“‘In this case, we’re searching for a closed channel of U.S. Freedom Flyers,’ said Cuiujuclu. ‘It’s basically a group that opposed vaccination and masks.’
“As he clicked through a database, Cuiujuclu showed a chat group on Telegram sponsored by Airline Professionals For Justice, another group formed by airline industry workers opposed to the mandate. The forum, he added, provided useful insights, including Zoom links for meetings of the grassroots organization.
“‘Private chats,’ said Cuiujuclu, ‘require for you to have an invite link,’ which he noted can often either be found by scrolling through public forums or by ‘engag[ing] the admin of that channel.’”
Flashpoint also offers clients artificial intelligence and internet scraping tools.
According to Fang, the firm is a leader in the “threat intelligence industry,” a growing number of security and surveillance firms that create fake online identities to infiltrate Discord chats, WhatsApp groups, Reddit forums and dark web message boards to gather information for clients, including corporations and the FBI, to monitor potential threats.
Joshua Yoder, president of US Freedom Flyers, said he is aware that Flashpoint infiltrated private chat groups associated with his organization.
Yoder told The Defender:
“Tradecraft and other strategies are often used to gain inside knowledge of conservative organizations with the intent to disrupt, mislead and otherwise thwart effective campaigns.
“Infiltration is a tactic used by the deep state to prevent the truth from being told by attempting to destroy the advancement of the message. The team at US Freedom Flyers has been successful in recognizing these attacks and we have taken decisive actions to protect the organization and our members.”
Aviation industry workers were some of the most vocal and organized against COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
They wrote an open letter to the aviation industry signed by thousands of organizations, physicians and pilots. They also organized research on the risks of vaccines for pilots, spoke publicly about the “culture of fear and intimidation” around the mandates in the industry, and filed multiple lawsuits in Canada, the Netherlands, and the U.S.
US Freedom Flyers brought a lawsuit against Atlas Air, one of the largest air cargo carriers in the aviation industry, in May 2022.
Fang told The Defender the targeting of American citizens resisting the vaccine mandates fits into a long history of surveillance being used to subvert democracy. He said:
“There is a long sordid history of informants and surveillance contractors working to undermine democratic engagement in this country.
“The push against regular citizens opposed to COVID-19 vaccine mandates has come in many forms: censorship, demonization and in this case, surveillance.”
The growing market for spying on domestic dissent
Flashpoint advertises its surveillance success on its website, providing examples of its work undermining environmental activism, G20 protests and protests against the aviation industry.
The webpages describing these activities were taken down after Fang published his investigation, but they can be found on the Wayback Machine internet archive.
For example, Flashpoint described its capacity to monitor activists organizing against pollution and the aviation industry. The website said:
“By monitoring the situation and assessing tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP’s), Flashpoint was able to assess the impact of upcoming protests, and determine that these groups would likely continue to protest and attempt to impede airport construction and expansion projects through direct action. …
“Based on this information, Flashpoint customers were able to take actions to help control the impact to business operations, and to ensure the safety of their employees and facilities as well as the safety of those protesting.”
Flashpoint was founded by Evan Kohlmann, former NBC News contributor who investigated Islamic terror groups and whom The Intercept described as “the U.S. government’s go-to expert witness in terrorism prosecutions.”
Jack Poulson of Tech Inquiry, a group that researches the surveillance industry, told Fang that “Flashpoint has been selling its chatroom infiltration services to companies and governments for years.”
But, he said, it has shifted its focus from “surveilling Muslims after September 11” and “followed the money into both the Pentagon’s information warfare programs and the business of monitoring domestic protest groups.”
Last year, Flashpoint acquired Echosec Systems, another intelligence contractor, and last month it formalized a partnership with Google Cloud.
These acquisitions come in addition to “a steady stream of contracts to Flashpoint in recent years from the FBI, the Department of Defense, Treasury Department, and Department of Homeland Security, among other agencies,” Fang wrote.
Fang also spoke to Jay Bhattacharya, M.D., Ph.D., professor of medicine at Stanford University, research associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research and one of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration.
Bhattacharya said:
“This kind of domestic spying violates the implicit protection Americans have in these kinds of settings.
“This isn’t terrorism, this doesn’t have anything to do with national security.
“This is a private set of employees, workers who are trying to maintain their jobs in the face of unscientific demands for COVID vaccinations.”
Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fbi-fake-online-ids-chatrooms-vaccine-mandates/
COVID Was Not Dangerous to Unvaccinated Pregnant Women
Igor ChudovRemember the endless media hysterics about COVID being “dangerous to unvaccinated pregnant women”?
A recent report MBRRACE-UK throws doubt on such statements. It covers 2018-2020, so the year of 2020 was a part of the COVID pandemic.
In the UK, in 2020 (before COVID vaccines), only NINE women died from (or with) COVID-19 during pregnancy or up to six weeks after giving birth.
Remember that in 2020, all pregnant women in the UK were unvaccinated. COVID was at its worst in 2020.
COVID was quite rampant in the UK at the time. According to Our World in Data, the UK had 94,194 COVID deaths in 2020. However, only nine deaths out of those involved pregnant women.
ONS reports that England and Wales had 613,936 live births in 2020.
So,
Pregnant women’s COVID deaths (9 total) were less than one in ten thousand overall COVID deaths.Pregnant women’s deaths (9 total) were less than one in 68,000 (sixty-eight thousand) births.In other words, for every pregnant woman who died of COVID in 2020, over 68,000 did NOT die.Every death is a tragedy, especially those of future mothers. Those nine deaths were tragic for the families involved. I am very sorry for each of the nine women who died with COVID in the UK in 2020. I am relieved, however, that the number of deaths among pregnant women was far less than what the media intimated.
Was COVID a great danger to pregnant women? The numbers above suggest that the chance of dying from COVID for unvaccinated women in 2020 was very remote, as there was less than one COVID death per 68,000 births.
To me, this cannot be considered “particularly dangerous.” Pregnant women are young (most are under 40), and Covid is not particularly deadly to that age category.
So, those who believed that COVID-19 puts future mothers’ lives at tremendous risk were lied to. Pregnant women were given false information to nudge them to get vaccinated.
[…]
Via https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/covid-was-not-dangerous-to-unvaccinated
Does the Whooping Cough Jab Prevent Whooping Cough?
The evidence that convinced me this vaccine is both ineffective and dangerous.
Whooping Cough is a disease that killed 5000 -10,000 people between the years 1900 and 1934 according to the Centre for Disease Control. From 1970-1988, only 5 -10 people died each year of whooping cough (also known as pertussis/diphtheria). What is the cause for this decline? Mainstream institutions tell us that this is because of the introduction of the vaccine. However, the national vaccination program did not begin until the 1940s in the United States and not until 1957 in England. By this time, whooping cough had already been reduced by 92-99% in the population1.
Dr. Gordon T Stewart explains in his 1981 report on infectious disease:
“Historically, the dominant and obvious fact is that most, if not all, major communicable diseases have become less serious in all developed countries for 50 years or more. Whooping cough is no exception. It has behaved in this respect like measles and similarly to scarlet fever and diphtheria, in each of which at least 80% of the total decline in mortality, since records began to be kept in the United Kingdom in 1860, occurred before any vaccine or antimicrobial drugs were available and 90% or more before there was any national vaccine programme.”2
This is the primary argument that tells me that the vaccine was not responsible for eradicating Whooping Cough.
What is Whooping Cough?
In a report by Dr. WC Rucker, Assistant Surgeon General in the United States Public Health Service, explains whooping cough in 1911.
“The disease is not infrequently complicated by inflammation of the lungs, and the violent coughing which occurs is apt to produce a harmful dilation of the lung tissue itself. It is by no means uncommon in underfed children for the disease to be followed by a tuberculosis of the lungs. Cases of paralysis complicating whooping cough have been reported, and the changes in the eye due to haemorrhages into that organ produced by coughing have also been noted. It is thus seen that whooping cough, which is estimated killed over 10,000 American children in the year 1911, is a disease seriously affecting the public health and demanding earnest attention.”
Whooping cough is also known as pertussis. The vaccine used to “prevent” whooping cough is called the DTP (Diptheria,-Tetanus Toxoid Pertussis) vaccine.
Does the Vaccine Work to Prevent Whooping Cough?
If we believe the vaccine provides protection to children from the disease, we would expect that vaccinated children would develop the disease less frequently than unvaccinated children. Unvaccinated children should be getting the disease more often. Let us see what the data indicate:
[…]
Via
Covid jab spike proteins persist in brain tissue, potentially causing long-term brain damage
Dr Eddy Betterman
A new pre-print paper published at bioRxiv reveals that long after a person gets “vaccinated” for the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) with an mRNA series of injections, the spike proteins generated as a result of the shots persist in their brain tissue.
Researchers out of Germany and Denmark evaluated brain tissue samples both in mouse models and post-mortem humans, looking for the presence and distribution of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. They specifically looked at the skull-meninges-brain axis.
They found that spike protein from the shots accumulates in the skull marrow, brain meninges, and brain parenchyma, further explaining that the “injection of the spike protein alone caused cell death in the brain, highlighting a direct effect on brain tissue.”
(Related: Experts warned this would happen but were ignored.)
Even long after a “positive” covid test and infection has passed, spike proteins continue to remain lodged in the human brain. Researchers say these lingering spike proteins could contribute to long-term neurological symptoms such as brain “fog” and brain tissue loss.
“The spike protein was associated with neutrophil-related pathways and dysregulation of the proteins involved in the PI3K-AKT as well as complement and coagulation pathway,” the paper explains.
“Overall, our findings suggest that SARS-CoV-2 spike protein trafficking from CNS borders into the brain parenchyma and identified differentially regulated pathways may present insights into mechanisms underlying immediate and long-term consequences of SARS-CoV-2 and present diagnostic and therapeutic opportunities.”
Do covid jab spike proteins EVER leave the body?Up until recently, the federal government, along with some state and local authorities, were pressing Americans to continue getting repeated covid shots and “boosters,” claiming that doing so was the only way to prevent this type of toxic buildup from occurring.
It turns out that the more covid shots a person takes, the more these spikes proteins and who-knows-what-else gets distributed throughout the body, including inside brain tissue, resulting in potentially very serious long-term health problems.
Early on, the world was promised that the contents of these shots dissipate not long after they are injected, leaving behind nothing more than immunity and protection against covid. We now know that this was all a lie, and that the contents of the shots do linger, perhaps forever, while the protection does not.
Walter Chestnut from WMCResearch.org was warning about this back in 2021 following the launch of Operation Warp Speed. He stated that the “robust immune response” the shots supposedly produce, at least according to government officials, “may come at a lethal cost” – and he was right.
It turns out that numerous peer-reviewed studies even back then revealed that spike proteins from the injections lodge themselves throughout the body and stay there, deactivating a person’s telomerase, causing premature aging and possibly death.
As telomeres shorten over time, they expose a person’s DNA to increasing levels of corruption, which is when aging symptoms really start to appear. In the case of covid shots, their spike proteins appear to accelerate the breakdown of telomerase, resulting in rapid aging and premature death for many.
[…]
Social Structure in Medieval Ireland
Episode 17 Celtic Women, Families and Social Structure
The Celtic World
Dr Jennifer Paxton (2018)
Film Review
Paxton cites historian Daniel Binchy in describing medieval Irish society (the same mostly applies to medieval Wales) as tribal, rural, hierarchical and familial.
Tribal
Medieval Ireland had at least 100 kings at any one time. Each king ruled a kinship group of a few thousand people.
Rural
There were no cities in early Ireland, and its five provinces (Ulster, Connacht, Meath, Leinster and Munster) were purely geographic designations with no political authority.
Hierarchical
Membership of the nobility required having clients dependent on you. There were two kinds of clientship, free and base. A free client paid higher rent and could end the clientship at will. He was required to provide some labor services for the lord (or get one of his own clients to provide it) and to participate in his war band. A base client received land and a few cattle in return for labor services, diary products, grain, malt and meat he paid as rent. He also helped dig the lord’s grave, patrolled border lands and participated in expeditions to weaker territories. He had to pay a fee to leave a base clientship.
Aside from the nobility, there were learned classes consisting of poets, lawyers and (prior to Christianity) Druids. Unlike lawyers in rest of Europe, Irish lawyers remained independent of the church. Like poets, they were allowed free passage between warring kingdoms.
The honor price for killing or maiming someone was based on their wealth and occupation. It was calculated in “cumal,” with one cumal equal to one slave girl or three cows. Kings, bishops and high poets had the highest honor price, followed by nobles and learned classes, followed by farmers. Slaves, who were regarded as property, had no honor price. Wealthy Irish could also file suit if some maimed or insulted them.
Irish kings weren’t lawgivers in medieval Ireland, where the legal system relied mainly on common law, judges and lawyers. However many legal texts, recopied many times, survive from the Middle Ages. One law that was extremely frustrating for British colonizers was “distraint,” a legal method of forcing someone to comply with a judge’s order by simply helping yourself to the loser’s cattle.* It was also acceptable to pressure someone into complying by fasting on their doorstep.**
Familial
In Ireland, all property transactions had to be approved by everyone descended from the same great grandfather. A family could be artificially extended by adopting foster children, and women joined joined their husband’s kinship group. Legal marriage wasn’t required so long as a woman’s partner acknowledged paternity of her offspring. Owing to the absence of a criminal legal system, it was up to the kinship group to file suit on behalf of a murdered family member.
Early Ireland was an extremely patriarchal society although Irish women had somewhat more rights than those of Britain or Europe.
In both Wales and Ireland, women could initiate divorce and couples could form temporary unions that could be dissolved by mutual consentThere were women poets and doctors in medieval Ireland.Some women were allowed to own property, but in most jurisdictions it was forbidden.There was considerable evidence of polygamy among high status men.Slave girls were often sexually exploited by their masters.If a woman dissolved her marriage, she returned to her father’s guardianship.*This was necessary in a society where there was no infrastructure to enforce laws.
**This tradition gave rise to hunger strikes as a weapon in the fight for Irish independence in the early 20th century and during the “troubles” in Northern Ireland.
Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.
https://pukeariki.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/video/5701024/5701054
May 11, 2023
‘Data Are Unequivocal’: Florida Surgeon General Fires Back at FDA, CDC on COVID Vaccines
By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. Claiming that a “lack of transparency only harms Americans’ faith in science,” Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, M.D., Ph.D., this week called on the nation’s top public health officials to “publicly” explain 12 key issues related to the COVID-19 vaccine rollout.
In a letter sent Wednesday to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Robert Califf and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky, Ladapo said:
“Your ongoing decision to ignore many of the risks associated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines alongside your efforts to manipulate the public into thinking they are harmless, have resulted in a deep distrust in the American health care system.
“Beginning with Operation Warp Speed, and possibly to be continued with an additional $5 billion investment in Project NextGen, the federal government has relentlessly forced a premature vaccine into the arms of the American people with little to no concern for the serious adverse ramifications.”
Ladapo said the “data are unequivocal: After the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) reporting increased by 1,700%, including a 4,400% increase in life-threatening conditions.”
Ladapo listed 12 points of data and demanded the health officials “publicly” explain their decision-making process around those data.
Commenting on the letter, blogger Igor Chudov said the surgeon general asks “all the right questions” about COVID-19 vaccines — and exposes the FDA and the CDC as “charlatans” engaging in “medical quackery.”
Chudov summarized Ladapo’s questions:
Why were randomized clinical trials not conducted for “Covid boosters” (such trials were necessary to establish that they are safe and effective)Why did the FDA ignore many subclinical myocarditis reports and allow Pfizer to postpone its report on subclinical myocarditis?Why were vaccine side effects intentionally ignored in V-Safe?Why did the FDA allow Pfizer to hide the results of its clinical trial of Covid vaccines in pregnant women, that ended in 2022?Why are the FDA and the CDC hiding negative effectiveness of Covid vaccines?Wednesday’s letter is the latest in an ongoing exchange between Florida’s surgeon general and the agencies’ top officials that began when Ladapo, in a Feb. 15 letter, expressed concern about the adverse effects of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and asked FDA and CDC officials for greater transparency in publicly acknowledging these effects.
The letter corresponded with a health alert Ladapo issued that same day to the Florida healthcare sector and the public warning that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines caused a “substantial increase” in reports of adverse events in Florida.
The letter and health alert summarized the substantial increase in VAERS reports in Florida after the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, including for life-threatening conditions.
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.
Just because “correlation ≠ causation” doesn’t mean we should abandon common sense. https://t.co/uknKQoeowQ
— Joseph A. Ladapo, MD, PhD (@FLSurgeonGen) February 16, 2023
On March 10, Califf and Walensky responded to the letter and alert by saying their agencies were monitoring data for potential risks and that Ladapo had focused his letter on “rare” events.
According to Wall Street Journal writer Allysia Finley, Califf and Walenky in their response resorted to “personal attacks” on Ladapo and “ignored the science” he presented.
On Wednesday, Ladapo fired back at Califf and Walensky in a tweet:
When I asked the feds for more honesty and transparency around COVID-19 vaccine data, they replied with a word salad of pandering and gaslighting.
Here’s my response. Let’s try again, @CDCgov @US_FDA. pic.twitter.com/PEDXyARCJF
— Joseph A. Ladapo, MD, PhD (@FLSurgeonGen) May 11, 2023
In October 2022, Florida became the first state to recommend against mRNA COVID-19 vaccination of children and men up to age 39.
[…]
Leading OB-GYN Group Accepted $11 Million From CDC to Push COVID Shots on Pregnant Women
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) bankrolled the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to the tune of $11 million to promote COVID-19 vaccination as “safe and effective” for pregnant women, according to an investigation published this week by attorney Maggie Thorp.
Documents obtained by Thorp through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request revealed that the CDC and ACOG entered into multiple “cooperative agreements” to carry out work largely designed and controlled by the CDC and contingent on ACOG’s adherence to the CDC’s policies on COVID-19 infection and control.
ACOG is the “premier” professional membership organization for obstetricians and gynecologists with more than 60,000 members across the Americas, its website reports.
Broadly, the grants supported the development of social media communications strategies, toolkits supporting “effective COVID-19 vaccination conversations” between doctors and patients, and the hiring of a global public health communications firm, APCO Worldwide, to produce various communications materials.
According to Thorp, from December 2020, when the vaccines came on the market, through July 21, 2021, ACOG held a neutral position on vaccination during pregnancy, recommending that pregnant women “be free to make their own decision regarding COVID-19 vaccination.”
But that recommendation “abruptly changed on July 30, 2020,” Thorp said, to recommend vaccination for pregnant women.
Today, ACOG “recommends that all eligible persons aged 6 months and older, including pregnant and lactating individuals, receive a COVID-19 vaccine or vaccine series,” and a booster.
The money for the grants comes from COVID-19-related federal funding opportunities, such as the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act and the CARES Act, according to the grant documents.
Grant recipients, and any “flow-down” organizations they may award money from these grants to, must comply with “existing and future directives and guidance” from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the CDC’s parent organization, regarding the control and spread of COVID-19.
That also includes sharing any data collected in grant-funded activities, including COVID-19 testing data, with the CDC.
‘Vast, covert government operation unleashed … at the height of our fear and isolation’
This CDC-ACOG collaboration forms part of the CDC’s and HHS’ strategic approach to COVID-19 vaccination encapsulated in its “We Can Do This” public education campaign.
Through the campaign, HHS and CDC sought in their own words to “motivate behavior change,” through strategic messaging, often developed by public relations firms, using “market research, key messages, partnerships and outreach, paid and earned media, and sample creative,” across all areas of people’s lives.
With $3 billion in federal funding from the Biden White House for states to distribute to local agencies and nonprofits and hundreds of millions of dollars in direct grants to medical associations and nonprofits, the HHS and CDC sought to train and fund “trusted messengers” such as teachers, religious leaders, social media influencers, community leaders and members and others, who would deliver the CDC’s message, but without the CDC’s brand.
This also included, Thorp wrote, creating the COVID-19 Community Corps — reminiscent of Theodore Roosevelt’s Civilian Conservation Corps work relief program that put millions to work during the Great Depression — described as “a nationwide, grassroots network of local voices people know and trust to encourage Americans to get vaccinated.”
The COVID-19 Community Corps targeted “vaccine-hesitant” populations, including pregnant women, Thorp’s investigation revealed.
Thorp called the “trusted messengers” the CDC’s “Trojan horses” that used interpersonal relations of trust to enter into people’s personal lives and communicate the CDC’s message.
[…]
CDC, ACOG had data showing risks to pregnant women but pushed vaccines anyway
Dr. James Thorp, board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist and maternal-fetal medicine physician who also contributed to the research, told The Defender he thought it was particularly troubling that regulatory agencies and medical associations were aware of risks to pregnant women and yet pushed the vaccines.
Red flags in Pfizer’s data regarding the possible adverse effects of the vaccines for pregnant women were leaked in 2021, according to James Thorp. He said:
“They had the data. So they must have said, ‘Okay, we’re not going to be transparent with the data. We’re going to denigrate their data and our own data (VAERS and Pfizer 5.3.6), and suggest that — all the morbidity and danger signals and mortality, we’re just gonna brush it off.
‘And we’re going to spend $13 billion on psychological operations, fifth-generation war, to convince everybody in the world that it is safe and effective and necessary in the most vulnerable populations: pregnant women, pre-born and newborn babies, and the next most vulnerable population, children.’”
“It’s one thing when you’re trying to pull off this mass marketing campaign using marketing tactics that companies have been using for years to sell regular products such as candies, foods or clothing,” James Thorp said, “But they’re doing this with untested gene therapy products in pregnancy.
He added:
“The Department of Defense, HHS, CDC, ACOG, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology and others are unequivocally attempting to abolish a highly-revered, God-ordained, gold standard doctrine that has been memorialized and honored and has withstood the scientific test of time over millennia: Never give novel substances in pregnancy without short-term and long-term outcome studies in the offspring.
[…]
Maggie Thorp added that if the HHS and CDC were directing people’s behavior as they explicitly sought to through these grants, “Then there is no informed consent happening.”
CDC participated in ‘all aspects of carrying out’ ACOG grants
The cooperative agreements stipulated by the CDC would have “substantial programmatic involvement” after the grant is awarded. Above and beyond the monitoring and review typical of CDC grants, in these cases, CDC program staff would also “assist, coordinate, or participate in all aspects of carrying out the awards.”
Maggie Thorp identified the grants on USAspending.gov and got the details through a FOIA request, but the response was heavily redacted.
One grant set an April 30, 2021, deadline — which she noted was prior to when ACOG publicly recommended vaccination for pregnant women — to create an “Emergency Resource Request Tool (ERR)” to target OB-GYNs “and the women they serve.”
The purpose of the ERR tools changed over time. By March 2022, they were focused on “developing, maintaining, and promoting tools to combat misinformation on COVID-19, which has emerged as a significant barrier to the uptake of vaccination during pregnancy,” Maggie Thorp quoted from the FOIA documents.
Another ERR tool involved developing some type of communications tool — it is unclear from the redacted FOIA specifically what it entailed — that would be piloted by ACOG and the American Academy of Pediatrics, which is another COVID-19 Community Corps member.
Another $300,000 went to a contract with APCO Worldwide, “a global public health communication vendor” to develop a COVID-19 Social Media Communications toolkit to provide “key messaging and talking points around COVID-19 for dissemination,” to create virtual training sessions for ACOG members, and to develop a podcast series for members to keep them up-to-date on CDC recommendations.
In October 2021, a multi-year grant addressing breast cancer and other maternal health issues was revised to direct $3,000,000 toward “Engaging Women’s Health Care Providers for Effective COVID-19 Vaccine Conversations” and $300,000 toward “Improving Ob/Gyn’s Ability to support COVID-19 Vaccination, Mental Health, Social Support.”
That grant was renewed in 2022, with $2 million toward the “Vaccines Conversations” effort.
Rather than coordinate plans and messages with its membership, ACOG, in exchange for this grant money, committed to working closely with the CDC, sharing information and efforts, discussing recommendations and meeting frequently to “ensure that recommendations are aligned between the two organizations.”
Clinicians told to document vaccine refusal in medical records
Specific details of the grants were heavily redacted in the FOIA documents Maggie Thorp received. But she pointed to ACOG’s website for evidence of the grant work. On one page, the organization offers a “Conversation Guide” with messaging language on the vaccine for physicians.
The key advice to clinicians is that all pregnant women should be vaccinated and boosted at any time in their pregnancy, that those who refuse should have it documented in their record, and that follow-up visits should focus on continuing to try to convince them to accept vaccination.
[…]
The website also lists “key messages” that should be communicated to pregnant women, including that COVID-19 is quite dangerous for pregnant women, and that there “may be” increased risk of stillbirth. But, the “messaging list” says, there are no “maternal or fetal” effects associated with the COVID-19 vaccines, proven by a “growing body of evidence.”
These recommended talking points remain on ACOG’s website today.
The CDC promoted and continues to promote, the COVID-19 vaccines as safe for pregnant women despite recent revelations that as early as January 2021, the U.S. regulatory agencies were aware of indications in Pfizer’s own data that the vaccines pose serious risks for pregnant women.
[…]
Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/obgyn-cdc-covid-vaccine-pregnant/
The Most Revolutionary Act
- Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's profile
- 11 followers
