Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 515

England Study Confirms 100 Myocarditis Deaths After COVID Shots

By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D.

In the largest study to date on myocarditis deaths related to COVID-19 vaccination, researchers found that 100 people in England died of myocarditis soon after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.

In the largest study to date on myocarditis deaths related to COVID-19 vaccination, researchers found that 100 people in England died of myocarditis soon after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.

The study, published Aug. 22 in the American Heart Association’s journal, Circulation, found more than half (51) of the deaths occurred within 1 to 28 days after receiving a dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine and just under half (49) of the deaths occurred within 1 to 28 days after a dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

The AstraZeneca vaccine, not authorized for use in the U.S., uses an adenovirus technology similar to that used by Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J), or Janssen) COVID-19 vaccine, which is authorized for emergency use in the U.S.

Prior research has underscored the risk of fatal myocarditis associated with the mRNA technology used in the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. This study showed the technology used in AstraZeneca’s vaccine poses a similar risk.

Dr. Peter McCullough, an internist and cardiologist in Dallas, Texas, in a Sept. 15 tweet highlighted the importance of the new study.

“This study confirms the risk of myocarditis extends to both mRNA vaccines and the adenovirus vaccines,” McCullough told The Defender.

The technology used in AstraZeneca and J&J viral vector vaccines, as The Defender previously reported, causes cells to produce the spike protein, but in a different way than the mRNA shots.

[…]

While this study is important because it presents the largest published series of fatal myocarditis cases and linked them to both mRNA and adenovirus COVID-19 vaccines, McCullough said another of its conclusions is “misleading.”

Researchers misleadingly claim high myocarditis risk from COVID infection

In the study, Patone’s team attempted to compare the risk of getting myocarditis due to vaccination to the risk of getting myocarditis due to a SARS infection and concluded a SARS-CoV-2 infection posed a higher risk of myocarditis compared with the risk associated with a COVID-19 vaccine.

They concluded that, in general, the “risk of hospitalization or death from myocarditis was higher after SARS-CoV-2 [COVID-19] infection than vaccination.”

McCullough said that conclusion is false. “It’s falsely worrying people that they could get myocarditis with a respiratory infection,” he said.

McCullough added:

“The Patone paper is misleading because it’s relying on ICD [International Classification of Diseases] codes of inpatients with COVID, who don’t have adjudicated myocarditis like the outpatients do.”

The ICD codes, he said, are the automated source of hospital data Patone’s team used to determine if a person had experienced myocarditis.

McCullough cited this reference in the study’s methods section:

“The primary outcome of interest was the first hospital admission caused by the myocarditis, or death recorded on the death certificate with the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code (Table S1) related to myocarditis within the study period (December 1, 2020, to December 15, 2022). We used the earliest date of hospitalization or date of death as the event date.”

The ICD codes are triggered by the measurement of cardiac troponin in the hospital, but the measurement of cardiac troponin alone may not be an indicator of actual myocarditis, according to McCullough.

“The reason the patients in the COVID group are hospitalized is due to COVID,” he said. “There’s no adjudication [proving they have an actual case of myocarditis]. There’s no indication that a cardiac MRI was done.”

McCullough continued:

“Now for the vaccine cases of myocarditis, the usual clinical practice is to have cardiac EKGs, troponins [testing], echos, cardiac MRIs — so I guarantee you that the vaccine [cases in the study] are bonafide myocarditis cases, the COVID cases are not.”

[…]

So a team of 20 researchers conducted a study in 2021 of 1,597 athletes screened for myocarditis who had a COVID-19 infection. They published their findings in JAMA, showing COVID-19 infection had a negligible association with myocarditis with less than 3% of athletes experiencing myocarditis and no reports of hospitalizations or deaths due to myocarditis.

[…]

In contrast, we know from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) own data that myocarditis is associated with COVID-19 vaccination, he said. “The U.S. case count that the CDC is confirming as of September 2 is 8,812 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis,” McCullough said.

He added:

“This is a massive number, and we know from papers by Tracy Hoeg, M.D., Ph.D., that the majority of these cases of myocarditis require hospitalization.”

“As a cardiologist, I would say that no case of myocarditis is mild or transient or insignificant. All of this is of extreme significance since it scars the heart. One case of vaccine-induced myocarditis is too many.”

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/england-study-myocarditis-deaths-covid-vaccine/

Nuclear Power Is Too Risky Even in Peacetime. Ukraine Is Tip of Iceberg.

The IAEA, is in the business of promoting nuclear energy even as it decries the grave risks around the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.

By Linda Pentz Gunter

 Truthout

The alarms raised by the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over the dire situation around Ukraine’s war-torn Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant offer the most extreme — and most compelling — case for discontinuing the use of nuclear power.

The consequences of an attack on the six-reactor Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station could result in a core meltdown, a fuel pool fire or radioactive waste cask breach that would send a radioactive plume across potentially thousands of miles, depending on the scale of the disaster and the direction of the wind.

Fires are the biggest risk, especially for the unprotected fuel pools that are not housed within the more robust containment area of the reactor building. Given the proximity of the six Zaporizhzhia units to each other, a fire at one of the Zaporizhzhia reactors or fuel pools could spread to any or all of the other five.

The radioactive fallout released by such fires and explosions would persist in the environment for decades or longer. The 1986 Chornobyl disaster in Ukraine, which involved only one, relatively new reactor with a small radioactive load, rendered 1,000 square miles of land — the Exclusion Zone — too radioactive for human habitation even today. Ukraine is home to a total of 15 reactors, most dating back to the 1980s, plus the closed but still dangerous Chornobyl site. As such, they all house huge radioactive inventories of fuel, in the reactors and irradiated in the pools and waste casks.

However, it is not enough simply to admonish warring countries, as the United Nations has done, not to shell nuclear power plants — likely unenforceable given the violently entrenched conflict over the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Nuclear power is also a liability beyond the war zone.

Numerous studies by the nonprofit advocacy group Beyond Nuclear, where I work, have demonstrated that keeping current reactors running, and especially building new ones, is too slow and too expensive a way to address the climate crisis. Added to that, nuclear power has never solved its radioactive waste problem, and mining the uranium needed to fuel reactors comes with significant environmental justice violations.

Furthermore, nuclear power cannot be relied upon to operate safely, or even at all, under the now rapidly worsening climate conditions. Many plants are coastal and vulnerable to sea-level rise. Flooding is also a risk at inland reactors, all of which sit on a body of water, needed to cool the reactor.

Drought and heat waves reduce those cooling water supplies, or render the water too warm to use, forcing reactors to power or even shut down, as we have already seen in France. Wildfires could result in catastrophic conflagrations at nuclear plants. Nuclear plants also need to shut down in violent weather conditions. All of these deficiencies of reliability are directly related to the high risks of using nuclear power.

Nuclear power is also not an efficient way to reduce carbon emissions. In fact, As Stanford professor of civil and environmental engineering, Amory Lovins, continues to point out, nuclear power actually makes climate change worse.

Renewable energy can achieve greater carbon emissions reductions faster and at less cost than nuclear power. Combining renewables with energy efficiency is even more effective. Lovins has shown that, in the U.S., it now costs more to run the country’s aging reactor fleet than to provide the same services through new renewables, or by using electricity more efficiently.

Nuclear power and renewables also have a tendency to cancel each other out. Countries that have prioritized nuclear power have squeezed out renewables. As a result, nuclear-dependent countries such as France have scant renewable energy supplies for essential backup when nuclear power shuts down due to war, weather extremes, or other factors. As a result, France imports renewable electricity from Germany, a net power exporter and where nuclear power is about to be 100 percent phased out.

Nuclear power is also expensive. “New plants cost 3–8x or 5–13x more per kWh than unsubsidized new solar or wind power, so new nuclear power produces 3–13x fewer kWh per dollar and therefore displaces 3–13x less carbon per dollar than new renewables,” Lovins wrote in Bloomberg last December.

In fact, current analysis shows that nuclear power is the most expensive form of energy, and renewables are the least expensive, when factoring the costs of construction and installation. The investment bank Lazard analyzed the levelized costs of energy (a measure of the average net cost of electricity generation over the lifetime of a generator), concluding that wind and solar energy are about five times cheaper than nuclear power.

The costs of wind and solar have declined by 90 percent between 2009 and 2021, while nuclear costs have increased by 23 percent over the same time period, according to the 2022 Annual Energy Outlook from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

As Stanford professor of civil and environmental engineering Mark Jacobson showed this year with his 100 percent renewable road map, the U.S. could meet all its clean energy needs with renewables and zero nuclear power.

Jacobson’s paper also lays to rest the red herring argument over land use. Nuclear proponents assert that nuclear plants take up less space than wind or solar farms. But Jacobson’s plan “requires only ~0.29% and 0.55% of U.S. land area for footprint and spacing, respectively, for new energy technologies.”

In this context, one should also not forget that a 1,000 square mile radioactively dangerous exclusion zone is not exactly a productive use of land.

Jacobson also addresses concerns around jobs, pointing out that a 100 percent renewable economy delivers “~4.7 million more long-term, full-time jobs than lost across the U.S.”

Even under COVID-19 recovery conditions in 2021, renewable energy delivered growth in the U.S. job market. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, “solar energy jobs increased by 5.4%, adding 17,212 new jobs. Wind energy jobs increased by 2.9%, adding 3,347 new jobs. Energy efficiency jobs increased by 2.7%, adding 57,741 new jobs.” Meanwhile, “nuclear electricity, coal, and petroleum jobs decreased in 2021.”

The promised and much-touted “new” reactors remain an illusory mirage. As physicist Edwin Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists writes in Advanced Isn’t Always Better, they come with numerous and unaddressed safety problems that fail to justify the kind of financial support they currently receive, largely through tax payer-funded subsidies.

Many of the so-called next generation of reactor designs are considered “small,” but they can range from truly small 10 megawatts to not really small at all 450-550 megawatts.

One of these “small modular reactors” is the Natrium, a project of billionaire Bill Gates. Gates has already received an $80 million subsidy for a scheme that nuclear nonproliferation experts such as Gregory S. Jones view as a high proliferation risk. Jones sees the project as a likely failure with an unrealistic timeline that would only deliver the reactor, if at all, several decades from now, far too late to address the climate crisis.

Furthermore, small modular reactors rely on an assembly line of mass production in order to be even vaguely economical. This is an unattractive business proposition since it is more economic to build one large reactor than hundreds if not thousands of small ones and explains why the small modular reactor design, which has been around for decades, has been consistently rejected by investors.

Given all the evidence, what explains the pervasively stubborn insistence on the continued use of nuclear energy, and government-funded nuclear expansion plans, when it is clearly the least-suitable answer to the climate crisis on every front?

Perhaps a clue is to be found in a 2017 report by the Energy Futures Initiative — The U.S. Nuclear Energy Enterprise: A Key National Security Enabler — which states that: “a strong domestic supply chain is needed to provide for nuclear Navy requirements. This supply chain has an inherent and very strong overlap with the commercial nuclear energy sector and has a strong presence in states with commercial nuclear power plants.”

Perhaps a clue is to be found in a 2017 report by the Energy Futures Initiative — The U.S. Nuclear Energy Enterprise: A Key National Security Enabler — which states that: “a strong domestic supply chain is needed to provide for nuclear Navy requirements. This supply chain has an inherent and very strong overlap with the commercial nuclear energy sector and has a strong presence in states with commercial nuclear power plants.”

A 2019 Atlantic Council report — The Value of the US Nuclear Power Complex to US National Security — reiterates this, stating: “Civil nuclear underpins military nuclear” and that “the lack of a civilian nuclear sector would present an immediate and significant economic shock (and impact on the labor force) — which, in turn, would have immediate and longer-term budgetary implications for the US government.”

This is a connection that many who oppose nuclear weapons, but not nuclear power, fail to recognize. And it’s a pathway further enabled by the IAEA, which is in the business of promoting nuclear energy even as it decries the grave risks around the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.

The alarms raised by the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over the dire situation around Ukraine’s war-torn Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant offer the most extreme — and most compelling — case for discontinuing the use of nuclear power.

The consequences of an attack on the six-reactor Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station could result in a core meltdown, a fuel pool fire or radioactive waste cask breach that would send a radioactive plume across potentially thousands of miles, depending on the scale of the disaster and the direction of the wind.

Fires are the biggest risk, especially for the unprotected fuel pools that are not housed within the more robust containment area of the reactor building. Given the proximity of the six Zaporizhzhia units to each other, a fire at one of the Zaporizhzhia reactors or fuel pools could spread to any or all of the other five.

The radioactive fallout released by such fires and explosions would persist in the environment for decades or longer. The 1986 Chornobyl disaster in Ukraine, which involved only one, relatively new reactor with a small radioactive load, rendered 1,000 square miles of land — the Exclusion Zone — too radioactive for human habitation even today. Ukraine is home to a total of 15 reactors, most dating back to the 1980s, plus the closed but still dangerous Chornobyl site. As such, they all house huge radioactive inventories of fuel, in the reactors and irradiated in the pools and waste casks.

However, it is not enough simply to admonish warring countries, as the United Nations has done, not to shell nuclear power plants — likely unenforceable given the violently entrenched conflict over the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Nuclear power is also a liability beyond the war zone.

Numerous studies by the nonprofit advocacy group Beyond Nuclear, where I work, have demonstrated that keeping current reactors running, and especially building new ones, is too slow and too expensive a way to address the climate crisis. Added to that, nuclear power has never solved its radioactive waste problem, and mining the uranium needed to fuel reactors comes with significant environmental justice violations.

Furthermore, nuclear power cannot be relied upon to operate safely, or even at all, under the now rapidly worsening climate conditions. Many plants are coastal and vulnerable to sea-level rise. Flooding is also a risk at inland reactors, all of which sit on a body of water, needed to cool the reactor.

Drought and heat waves reduce those cooling water supplies, or render the water too warm to use, forcing reactors to power or even shut down, as we have already seen in France. Wildfires could result in catastrophic conflagrations at nuclear plants. Nuclear plants also need to shut down in violent weather conditions. All of these deficiencies of reliability are directly related to the high risks of using nuclear power.

Nuclear power is also not an efficient way to reduce carbon emissions. In fact, As Stanford professor of civil and environmental engineering, Amory Lovins, continues to point out, nuclear power actually makes climate change worse.

Renewable energy can achieve greater carbon emissions reductions faster and at less cost than nuclear power. Combining renewables with energy efficiency is even more effective. Lovins has shown that, in the U.S., it now costs more to run the country’s aging reactor fleet than to provide the same services through new renewables, or by using electricity more efficiently.

Nuclear power and renewables also have a tendency to cancel each other out. Countries that have prioritized nuclear power have squeezed out renewables. As a result, nuclear-dependent countries such as France have scant renewable energy supplies for essential backup when nuclear power shuts down due to war, weather extremes, or other factors. As a result, France imports renewable electricity from Germany, a net power exporter and where nuclear power is about to be 100 percent phased out.

Nuclear power is also expensive. “New plants cost 3–8x or 5–13x more per kWh than unsubsidized new solar or wind power, so new nuclear power produces 3–13x fewer kWh per dollar and therefore displaces 3–13x less carbon per dollar than new renewables,” Lovins wrote in Bloomberg last December.

In fact, current analysis shows that nuclear power is the most expensive form of energy, and renewables are the least expensive, when factoring the costs of construction and installation. The investment bank Lazard analyzed the levelized costs of energy (a measure of the average net cost of electricity generation over the lifetime of a generator), concluding that wind and solar energy are about five times cheaper than nuclear power.

The costs of wind and solar have declined by 90 percent between 2009 and 2021, while nuclear costs have increased by 23 percent over the same time period, according to the 2022 Annual Energy Outlook from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

As Stanford professor of civil and environmental engineering Mark Jacobson showed this year with his 100 percent renewable road map, the U.S. could meet all its clean energy needs with renewables and zero nuclear power.

Jacobson’s paper also lays to rest the red herring argument over land use. Nuclear proponents assert that nuclear plants take up less space than wind or solar farms. But Jacobson’s plan “requires only ~0.29% and 0.55% of U.S. land area for footprint and spacing, respectively, for new energy technologies.”

In this context, one should also not forget that a 1,000 square mile radioactively dangerous exclusion zone is not exactly a productive use of land.

Jacobson also addresses concerns around jobs, pointing out that a 100 percent renewable economy delivers “~4.7 million more long-term, full-time jobs than lost across the U.S.”

Even under COVID-19 recovery conditions in 2021, renewable energy delivered growth in the U.S. job market. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, “solar energy jobs increased by 5.4%, adding 17,212 new jobs. Wind energy jobs increased by 2.9%, adding 3,347 new jobs. Energy efficiency jobs increased by 2.7%, adding 57,741 new jobs.” Meanwhile, “nuclear electricity, coal, and petroleum jobs decreased in 2021.”

The promised and much-touted “new” reactors remain an illusory mirage. As physicist Edwin Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists writes in Advanced Isn’t Always Better, they come with numerous and unaddressed safety problems that fail to justify the kind of financial support they currently receive, largely through tax payer-funded subsidies.

Many of the so-called next generation of reactor designs are considered “small,” but they can range from truly small 10 megawatts to not really small at all 450-550 megawatts.

One of these “small modular reactors” is the Natrium, a project of billionaire Bill Gates. Gates has already received an $80 million subsidy for a scheme that nuclear nonproliferation experts such as Gregory S. Jones view as a high proliferation risk. Jones sees the project as a likely failure with an unrealistic timeline that would only deliver the reactor, if at all, several decades from now, far too late to address the climate crisis.

Furthermore, small modular reactors rely on an assembly line of mass production in order to be even vaguely economical. This is an unattractive business proposition since it is more economic to build one large reactor than hundreds if not thousands of small ones and explains why the small modular reactor design, which has been around for decades, has been consistently rejected by investors.

Given all the evidence, what explains the pervasively stubborn insistence on the continued use of nuclear energy, and government-funded nuclear expansion plans, when it is clearly the least-suitable answer to the climate crisis on every front?

[…]

Via https://antinuclear.net/2022/09/13/a1-nuclear-power-is-too-risky-even-in-peacetime-ukraine-is-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/

Why You Shouldn’t Take MSM’s Polio Alarmism at Face Value

By Children’s Health Defense Team

Judging by recent news reports and government actions, public health officials are preparing us for a new epoch of polio alarmism, one that stands to serve the same purpose as the earlier waves of browbeating by media and officials — namely, to steer a frightened public toward further vaccination.

Before COVID-19, “polio” was perhaps the condition carrying the strongest cultural baggage as a trigger for parental and societal fears, thanks to years of branding that included images of children immured in cumbersome iron lungs.

For both polio and COVID-19, the public panic fomented by the media served the underlying medical-pharmaceutical agenda of promoting mass vaccination.

Even back in the pre-polio-vaccine days of 1937, an anonymous editorialist for the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) sought to put cases of polio-attributed paralysis — relatively rare — in perspective, suggesting, “Without the overemphasis in the press the vast majority of people would not have been concerned by the few hundreds of cases among many millions of people.”

The JAMA editorialist also berated officials for stoking polio fears, arguing that “panic appears in the minds of the public” in part because poliomyelitis “is a visibly crippling disease,” but also because the panic “is frequently reflected in the statements and actions of public officials.”

[…]

Judging by recent news reports and government actions, however, the Scaremongering and Vacillation Committee is preparing us for a new epoch of polio alarmism, one that stands to serve the same purpose as the earlier waves of browbeating by media and officials — namely, to steer a frightened public toward further vaccination.

It’s all in the sewage

This past summer in New York, officials asserted a link between a single case of adult paralysis and genetic fragments in sewage samples purportedly matching oral polio vaccine components.

Although the U.S. does not administer oral polio vaccines, the conventional theory is that individuals who receive oral doses in other countries pose a “shedding” risk that can leave detectable vaccine-related genetic material in stool samples and sewage.

On this tenuous basis, New York’s governor on Sept. 9 declared a state disaster.

Disasters turn out to be a handy means of “opening up more vaccine resources,” including resources to go after New York counties where, from the state’s perspective, polio vaccination rates are too low.

Thus, the state is deputizing “midwives, pharmacists, emergency medical workers and other health care workers” to administer polio vaccines and boosters to virtually all and sundry, including children and babies who have not yet started the polio vaccination series; adults who are either unvaccinated, partially vaccinated or “unsure whether they received the vaccine”; and individuals (such as healthcare providers and wastewater treatment workers) deemed to be at “increased risk.”

In London, meanwhile, health authorities are aggressively pushing polio boosters citywide for 1- through 9-year-olds on the basis of suspect sewage samples alone — with no cases of the disease.

U.K. officials described the vaccination campaign as “a precautionary measure.”

And in Israel, where authorities pronounced polio the cause of a 3-year-old’s paralysis earlier this year, multiple cities suddenly reported “traces” of polio in sewage, prompting media hype about “spread” and exhortations for children and teens ages 7 through 17 years to get the oral polio vaccine.

Sewage shenanigans?

New York, London and Jerusalem were three of the jurisdictions that imposed the harshest COVID-19 restrictions and pushed the COVID-19 jabs the hardest — showing themselves to be willing agents for tyranny disguised as a health emergency.

At a time when large segments of the public have awakened to the dangers of the COVID-19 shots and more parents than ever are questioning childhood vaccines, is this influential triumvirate’s drum-beating about a possible polio resurgence — including calls for widespread polio vaccination — a mere coincidence?

At the very least, the provocative sewage claims by these powers-that-be should be scrutinized.

An explication of sewage surveillance gives credit to an early-2000s study in Helsinki as one of the first to effectively use sewage to snitch on putative polioviruses.

However, it was the oral polio vaccine that furnished the basis for the experiment:

“Scientists flushed a polio vaccine down a toilet 20 kilometres [about 12 miles] away from a wastewater treatment plant. The researchers then collected wastewater samples … over four days, and showed they could still detect the vaccine after 800 million litres of wastewater had passed through the system.”

What was it about the hardy vaccine that seemingly and scarily allowed it to resist millions of flushes?

The researchers didn’t ask, though a 2021 study showing bioaccumulation of “rotavirus vaccine strains” in oysters suggests the question remains pertinent.

Instead, public health authorities decided to add wastewater monitoring to their disease (not vaccine) surveillance toolkit.

The fallible PCR, again

Wastewater experts admit their surveillance techniques are fallible and far from reliable.

Earlier this year, Tufts University professor Amy Rosenberg cautioned that analysis of wastewater “is a chemically and biologically complex process” involving “multiple steps that are difficult to standardize and that require systematic controls,” with wastewater often containing “compounds that can interfere” with the principal method used to spot pathogens.

That “principal method,” since the 1990s, is the very same polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique abused to such an extent during COVID-19 as to now be roundly denounced as “useless.”

Rosenberg also noted “privacy and ethical concerns,” describing, then glossing over, the potential for misuse if wastewater data are linked with identifiable genetic or personal data — linkages that may be enabled by concurrent social media analysis or intelligence from geographic information systems.

In a paper published in August 2021, a group of 70 international experts also bemoaned the lack of “harmonized” quality assurance/quality control procedures, admitting that false or “inconclusive” results could conceivably cause “policymakers, public health officials, and the public to lose confidence” in the utility of wastewater monitoring.

However, there seems to be little risk of rejection by public health officials.

Au contraire, using the coronavirus as the excuse, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) enthusiastically is positioning wastewater surveillance as a “new frontier for public health,” at the same time that leading schools of public health are declaring it the “next frontier” specifically in the fight against polio.

And water scientists who can see which way the funding winds are blowing are rushing to endorse sewage monitoring despite the pitfalls they readily acknowledge, with Rosenberg calling for its further development and expansion and supporting Harry-Potter-style “constant vigilance.”

Others even helpfully point out how officials could easily use wastewater analyses to justify “isolation practices” and implementation of stay-at-home directives, masking, social distancing or other “mitigation measures”  — never mind that COVID-19 conclusively demonstrated the arbitrariness and lack of science behind such measures.

Paralysis by any other name …

As Children’s Health Defense has pointed out in other articles, “There is, and always was, ample evidence to suggest that poisoning — whether by lead arsenate, DDT, or later, the toxic ingredients in polio vaccines themselves — is the most credible explanation for the paralytic symptoms and deaths that were labeled as ‘polio.’”

Ditto for the “polio-like illnesses” and deaths chalked up to “acute flaccid myelitis” and “acute flaccid paralysis,” which, like polio, authorities conveniently blame on lurking viruses rather than finger chemical — or vaccine — culprits.

For children presenting with severe respiratory illness, the CDC is even recommending healthcare providers make testing for these other viruses “a typical part of their diagnostic routine” using — what else? — PCR methods.

If public health officials were truly concerned about sewage and what it can tell us, why not focus on addressing “the health issues associated with long-term simultaneous exposure to a large number of pharmaceutical products” — including the active ingredients and metabolites of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, cardiovascular drugs, antidepressants and antipsychotics — “known to partially survive the conventional process of wastewater treatment?”

In some settings, upgrading sewage systems — as part of classic water, sanitation and hygiene interventions — could also make a critical difference.

Instead, having rated polio a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern” in 2014, the WHO chose to grant Emergency Use Listing status in late 2020 to an unlicensed oral polio vaccine funded by Bill Gates — and other experts are calling for “guarantee mechanisms” to incentivize the expansion of the polio vaccine supply chain.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/mainstream-media-polio-vaccine-alarmism/

Federation of State Medical Boards Attacks Physicians Over COVID ‘Misinformation’ — Who’s Behind It?

By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D

The dissemination of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and disinformation by physicians” and its recommendations for disciplinary action have some critics questioning the organization’s motivation and the source of its authority and funding.

The Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) has taken a stand against what it refers to as “the dissemination of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and disinformation by physicians and other healthcare professionals on social media platforms, online and in the media,” going so far as to recommend disciplinary action.

In a July 2021 press release, the FSMB warned physicians they could risk “disciplinary action by state medical boards, including the suspension or revocation of their medical license.”

And in a lengthier statement issued in April 2022, the nonprofit — which says it “serves as the voice for state medical boards” — appeared to advocate for laws like the one sitting on California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk that would punish doctors who share COVID-19 “misinformation” with their patients.

[…]

In its July 2021 press release, the FSMB did not define what it meant by “misinformation or disinformation,” yet the American Board of Internal Medicine and the American Board of Family Medicine subsequently issued a joint statement supporting the FSMB’s position.

[…]

But some critics of the FSMB’s aggressive “misinformation” policy questioned where the organization derives its authority and who’s really behind it.

What is the FSMB — and who funds it?

Created in 1912 at a “small annual gathering of state board executive officers with no permanent staff or headquarters,” the FSMB today has almost 200 employees and two national headquarters — one in Texas and another in Washington, D.C.

The private tax-exempt 501(c)(6) trade association says it supports “America’s state medical boards in licensing, disciplining and regulating physicians and other healthcare professionals” and works to “keep patients safe.”

Since its inception, the FSMB has been staffed with members who presently or previously held positions with other medical governing bodies.

In fact, FSMB’s leadership — in conjunction with the U.S. government — in May 1994 spawned another medical authority agency — the International Association of Medical Regulatory Authorities (IAMRA).

According to IAMRA’s website, the IAMRA was formed when “FSMB, under contract with the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), planned and hosted the 1st International Conference on Medical Regulation in Washington, D.C.”

FSMB and IAMRA share an office address in Texas. Their official phone numbers are nearly identical. And when a person calls the phone number listed on IAMRA’s website, the prerecorded welcome message tells the caller they’ve reached FSMB and IAMRA, in that order.

FSMB’s president and CEO, Chaudry, is also the secretary of the IAMRA. This overlapping of leadership positions extends beyond FSMB and IAMRA into medical councils in other countries.

For example, Dr. Emanuel Garcia, a psychiatrist living in New Zealand who publicly voiced concern about the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, noted in an Aug. 22 article for Global Research that the chair-elect of the IAMRA, Joan Simeon, “just happens” to be the CEO of the Medical Council of New Zealand.

Garcia, who questioned whether the FSMB and IAMRA’s true motivations were ensuring safe medical practices, said:

“In casting an eye over the years since the dramatic introduction of the COVID pandemic, the near total shutdown of the world, the immense transfer of wealth from the middle and poorer classes upwards, the universal imposition of an inadequately tested so-called vaccine, and the vehement suppression of critical early treatment, one cannot but conclude that there is indeed an agenda beyond health and welfare.

“The FSMB and the IAMRA have shown by their actions that they are tools whose task is to further this agenda, and that this agenda is both anti-medical and inhumane.”

In addition to contracting with the U.S. government and IAMRA, the FSMB runs its own foundation that functions as a separate 501(c)(3) organization but is supported by a “generous seed endowment” from the FSMB.

Last April, the FSMB foundation celebrated its 10-year anniversary by hosting its annual fundraising luncheon. Its annual highbrow luncheons have raised thousands of dollars to support the organization’s activities, including “the study of state responses to the COVID-10 pandemic.”

The FSMB foundation’s website does not disclose its donors.

Commenting on the FSMB’s July 2021 statement, “Spreading COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation May Put Medical License at Risk,” Garcia said, “The outstanding question remains: Where does the FSMB derive its authority to regulate United States medical boards and, through its apparent international partner, the IAMRA, direct medical councils around the world to discipline doctors?”

So many questions …

Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist and biological warfare epidemiologist who had her medical license suspended in January for “spreading misinformation,” told The Defender the FSMB’s authoritative actions raise many questions.

Nass, a member of the Children’s Health Defense scientific advisory committee, outlined the questions in an email:

Why would a nonprofit with no regulatory authority suddenly decide it was important to trash the First Amendment, the Nuremberg Code and other legal doctrines to push for punishing doctors who fail to tell the government’s story and use COVID-19 treatments the government doesn’t want used?Why is the FSMB monitoring the states and collecting information on their attempts to investigate and/or punish doctors for doing their duty to act as  learned intermediaries to their patients?Why did the American Board of Internal Medicine, the American Board of Family Medicine, the American Medical Association and the American Association of Pediatrics push identical policies in lockstep in mid-2021 that would destroy physician autonomy, when physicians are, one would think, their clients?Why did the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists push for experimental vaccinations during all trimesters of pregnancy?

Nass suggested all of these questions should be investigated.

A history of ties to Big Pharma

Historically, there is evidence of Big Pharma funneling money to the FSMB.

For example, a decade ago, MedPage Today broke the story on how the FSMB turned to a pharmaceutical company with a $3.1 million request to underwrite the cost of producing and distributing a book about its opioid prescribing policy.

After the FSMB’s guidelines for the use of opioids to treat chronic pain patients were adopted as a model policy, the organization asked Purdue Pharmaceuticals for $100,000 to help pay for printing and distributing the policy to 700,000 practicing doctors.

The initial $100,000 was just a small downpayment on the $3.1 million the FSMB’s foundation estimated it would cost for its campaign to get out the word about the “safe” use of opioid analgesics in the treatment of chronic pain, according to MedPage.

The FSMB also has a history of challenging and attacking non-pharmaceutical medical approaches used by integrative doctors as falling outside the “standard of care” as they define it.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/federation-of-state-medical-boards-covid-misinformation/

Taizong and the Rise of the Tang

Episode 21: Taizong* and the Rise of the Tang

Foundations of Eastern Civilizaiton

Dr Craig Benjamin (2013)

Film Review

The Tang Dynasty (618 – 907 AD) was known for strong benevolent rule, diplomatic prowess, a surging economy (thanks to a resumption of Silk Road trade and a government monopoly on salt, liquor and tea production) and major military expansion.

Lui Huan, the first Tang emperor, was a Sui governor and member of the royal family when he deposed the last Sui emperor Yang Guang. Lui Huan maintained power by establishing an extremely sophisticated Confucian bureaucracy and undermining local nobles by making direct land grants to peasant

He established the very first state schools (which wouldn’t arrive in the West for another 1,000 years) and re-established competitive exams (on Confucian philosophy) for government officials. The Tang Dynasty was also known for a well-maintained transport system (of roads and canals) and a sophisticated courier system relying on hundreds of horses, thousands of human runners and a government network of inns and stables for travelers.

Lui Han continued to improve on the Equal Field System started under the Wei Dynasty. The system operated under the premise that all land belonged to the emperor (rather than a few powerful nobles). Although approximately 1/5 of this land was passed down through families, 4/5 could be reassigned by the state depending on family circumstances.

The Tang Dynasty brought Manchuria came under Chinese control and made Sella in Korea a tributary state. The Tang military conquered Tibet, as well as briefly occupying Vietnam, and their conquests in Western Asia extended as far as the Aral Sea.

Chinese western expansion halted following the 751 AD Battle of Talas (in modern day Kyrgyzstan), in which allied Muslim and Tibetan armies overpowered Chinese troops and forced them to retreat.

The initial Tang emperors were extremely tolerant of the foreign religions (mostly Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism and Nestorian Christianity) practiced by hundreds of thousands of foreign immigrants.

The Tang Dynasty is also famous for introducing the first paper money, which began as receipts for its primary industrial products (paper, cast iron, silk and porcelain).

Between 624 -705 AD China was ruled by the empress Wu Zetam, who began as the emperor Gaozong’s concubine and took over the government after he suffered a stroke.

*Emperor Taizong of Tang, previously Prince of Qin, personal name Li Shimin, was the second emperor of the Tang dynasty of China, ruling from 626 to 649. He is traditionally regarded as a co-founder of the dynasty for his role in encouraging Li Yuan, his father, to rebel against the Sui dynasty.

Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/video/5808608/5808651

Half of Americans Think U.S. Will No Longer be a Global Superpower Within Ten Years



NWO Report

Posted BY: Chris Menahan | Information Liberation

A new YouGov/Economist poll asking Americans about the likelihood of various “dire political scenarios” found that half the country think that within ten years the US will no longer be a global superpower and there will be a “total economic collapse.” 

From YouGov:

Among 15 potential future scenarios involving instability or political violence, the one that most Americans consider likely in the next decade is that the U.S. ceases to be a global superpower (50% say this), followed by a total collapse of the U.S. economy (47%). Each of the 15 dire scenarios is considered somewhat or very likely in the next decade by at least 20% of Americans.

[…] 37% of Americans say [a civil war] is at least somewhat likely to occur.

[…]

After an end to the U.S.’s global-superpower status and economic collapse, the next most likely scenario is that the U.S. will cease to be a democracy (39% say this is likely within the next decade). Slightly more say it’s likely the U.S. will become a fascist dictatorship (31%) than say it will become a communist dictatorship (21%). (The poll didn’t ask whether people believe a given scenario has already occurred, so some people who believe this probably are included among those who said each scenario is likely.)

Republicans are more likely than Democrats to believe nearly all of the scenarios asked about are likely within the next 10 years. Two-thirds of Republicans (65%) believe that total economic collapse is at least somewhat likely, compared to only 38% of Democrats. Around half of Republicans (48%) say it’s likely that the government will confiscate citizens’ firearms; only 17% of Democrats say this. Republicans are also more likely than Democrats to believe there will be a total breakdown of law and order (49% vs. 31%) and that the U.S. will be invaded by a foreign country (41% vs. 24%).

[…]

Via https://nworeport.me/2022/09/14/poll-half-of-americans-think-u-s-will-no-longer-be-a-global-superpower-within-ten-years/



The Real Reason Health Officials Won’t Let Independent Scientists Examine mRNA Vaccine Vials

By Dr. Joseph Mercola

A data leak suggests the real reason health officials don’t want individual vaccine vials examined by independent scientists is that the vials are all different — and the mRNA in the shots is not intact.

Story at a glance:

The reason health officials don’t want individual vaccine vials examined by independent scientists is that the vials are all different — and the mRNA in the shots is not intact.For an effective mRNA product, the mRNA integrity needs to be 100%, meaning all the RNA must be intact. Considering how ineffective the jabs are, it seems fair to question whether lack of mRNA integrity might be to blame.Fragmented RNA could potentially also be hazardous to health by generating incomplete spike proteins. While we do not know if incomplete spike proteins are dangerous, it’s possible they might contribute to cellular stress.The “bad batch” phenomenon may also be indicative of quality problems. Independent investigations have revealed that some lots of the shots are associated with very severe side effects and death, whereas other lots have very few or no adverse events associated with their use.However, the fact that “hot” lots are being released in a coordinated fashion suggests vaccine makers may in fact be doing intentional lethal-dose testing on the public, and that these “bad batches” are not merely the result of intermittently poor manufacturing.

A 14-minute video (below) that has been overlooked for nearly two years has now resurfaced, exposing stunning information about the COVID-19 jabs and why health officials don’t want individual vaccine vials examined by independent scientists.

The reason, it turns out, is because the vials are all different — and the mRNA in the shots “is not intact.” Both of these pose potentially serious problems.

In an Aug. 31 Substack article, Steve Kirsch explains:

“Even if you are getting 100% intact mRNA which would be really rare, you’re still not getting anything that resembles the virus. So the efficacy as far as PROTECTING you will be next to nothing.

“However, what it will do very effectively, if you got reasonably intact mRNA, is to cause you significant harm. You are playing a game of chance with your immune system and what is in the bottle.”

The video notes that members of the European Parliament were only allowed to read the contracts with the drug makers after they’d been heavily redacted. Why the heavy-handed secrecy, even toward legislators?

https://www.brighteon.com/embed/f038068d-862b-41ae-81fe-96bcd52c4cb7

Leaked documents reveal serious quality issues

The finding that the mRNA in the shots was of questionable quality was revealed in a British Medical Journal feature investigation article published in March 2021.

As explained by the author, journalist Serena Tinari, cyber attackers retrieved more than 40 megabytes of Pfizer COVID-19 jab data from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in December 2020.

The hacked data was subsequently sent to journalists and academics worldwide. It was also published on the dark web. Some of the documents show European regulators had significant concerns over the lack of intact mRNA in the commercial batches sampled.

Compared to the clinical batches, i.e., the shots used in the clinical trial, 55% to 78% of the commercial shots had “a significant difference in % RNA integrity/truncated species.”

In one email, dated Nov. 23, 2020, a high-ranking EMA official noted that the commercial batches failed to meet expected specifications, and that the implications of this RNA integrity loss were unclear. In response to the findings, the EMA sent a list of questions and concerns to Pfizer.

While we do not know if and how the EMA’s concerns were actually addressed and corrected, the EMA authorized Pfizer’s COVID-19 jab Dec. 21, 2020.

According to its public assessment report, “the quality of this medicinal product, submitted in the emergency context of the current (COVID-19) pandemic, is considered to be sufficiently consistent and acceptable.”

Similarly, Health Canada told the Britsh Medical Journal that “changes were made in their processes to ensure that the integrity was improved and brought in line with what was seen for clinical trial batches.” The EMA further tried to deflect concern by claiming some of the leaked documents had been doctored.

As reported by the British Medical Journal:

“EMA says the leaked information was partially doctored, explaining in a statement that ‘whilst individual emails are authentic, data from different users were selected and aggregated, screenshots from multiple folders and mailboxes have been created, and additional titles were added by the perpetrators.’”

[…]

Intact mRNA is essential to its effectiveness

Curiously, when the Britsh Medical Journal asked Pfizer, Moderna, CureVac and several regulators to specify the percentage of mRNA integrity considered acceptable, none replied with specifics.

According to the British Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, the FDA and Health Canada, the specification limit on RNA integrity is “commercially confidential.” What we do know — and the EMA has acknowledged — is that intact mRNA is essential for efficacy.

As noted by the Britsh Medical Journal:

“The documents offer the broader medical community a chance to reflect on the complexities of quality assurance for novel mRNA vaccines, which include everything from the quantification and integrity of mRNA and carrier lipids to measuring the distribution of particle sizes and encapsulation efficiency.

“Of particular concern is RNA instability, one of the most important variables relevant to all mRNA vaccines that has thus far received scant attention in the clinical community.

[…]

“RNA instability is one of the biggest hurdles for researchers developing nucleic acid based vaccines. It is the primary reason for the technology’s stringent cold chain requirements and has been addressed by encapsulating the mRNA in lipid nanoparticles.

“‘The complete, intact mRNA molecule is essential to its potency as a vaccine,’ professor of biopharmaceutics Daan J.A. Crommelin and colleagues wrote in a review article in The Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences late last year.

“‘Even a minor degradation reaction, anywhere along a mRNA strand, can severely slow or stop proper translation performance of that strand and thus result in the incomplete expression of the target antigen.’”

For an effective product, mRNA integrity needs to be 100%. Considering how ineffective the jabs are, it seems fair to question whether lack of mRNA integrity might be to blame. We also do not know whether nonintact mRNA might be harmful.

As noted by Kirsch, “Unstable mRNA means the spike protein … could collapse, making the whole process useless to support immunity, but still dangerous in terms of damage to cells. So, you get all the risk and no benefit.”

While our public health agencies claim fragmented RNA poses no health risk, just how do they know that? The leaked documents revealed they specifically did not have an answer to that question, and no research into the matter has been published, that I’m aware of.

Fragmented RNA may produce incomplete spike proteins

In May 2021, Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., a senior research scientist at MIT for over five decades, published an excellent paper in which she highlighted several potential dangers of the COVID-19 jabs, including the unknown hazard of injecting fragmented RNA.

[…]

Kirsch points out that the EMA also expressed concern over visible particles in the vials, which the Britsh Medical Journal did not follow up on. “Is it still a problem?” Kirsch asks. That’s a good question, and the answer is probably yes.

But even worse is that we have absolutely no idea what these incomplete spike proteins are doing, none, zero, nada. It has never been directly examined. For that matter efforts to evaluate, and complications of the jab, have been consciously suppressed as have following simple metrics such as increases in all-cause mortality.

[…]

What’s the cause behind the ‘bad batch’ phenomenon?

The “bad batch” phenomenon may also be indicative of quality problems. Independent investigations have revealed that some lots of the shots are associated with very severe side effects and death, whereas other lots have very few or no adverse events associated with their use.

According to howbadismybatch.com, a site that matches up vaccine lot codes with reports in the VAERS system, approximately 5% of the lots are responsible for 90% of all adverse reactions. Some of these batches have 50 times the number of deaths and disabilities associated with them, compared to other lots.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/mrna-covid-vaccine-vials-data-leak-cola/

Rockefeller Foundation, Nonprofits Spending Millions on Behavioral Psychology Research to ‘Nudge’ More People to Get COVID Vaccines

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D

The Rockefeller Foundation, the National Science Foundation (an “independent” agency of the U.S. government) and other nonprofits are pouring millions of dollars into a research initiative “to increase uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and other recommended public health measures by countering mis- and disinformation.”

In conjunction with the Social Science Research Council (SSRC), the Rockefeller Foundation last month announced $7.2 million in funding for the Mercury Project,  initially launched in November 2021, under the slogan, “Together, we can build a healthier information environment.”

The funds will the Rockefeller Foundation, the National Science Foundation (an “independent” agency of the U.S. government) and other nonprofits are pouring millions of dollars into a research initiative “to increase uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and other recommended public health measures by countering mis- and disinformation.”upport 12 teams of researchers in 17 countries who will conduct studies on “ambitious, applied social and behavioral science to combat the growing global threat posed by low COVID-19 vaccination rates and public health mis- and disinformation,” the Rockefeller Foundation said.

The Rockefeller Foundation and the SSRC claim the aim of the Mercury Project, whose name is derived from the ancient Roman god of messages and communication, is to bolster public health and safety.

However, some critics described the project as one based on “propaganda” aimed at “nudging” the unvaccinated to get vaccinated.

Creating ‘behavioral change’ by targeting schoolchildren and specific socio-economic groups

Behavioral change lies at the heart of the Mercury Project, which will issue three-year research grants to estimate “the causal impacts of mis- and disinformation on online and offline outcomes in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic,” including “differential impacts across socio-demographic groups.”

The research will include “interventions that target the producers or the consumers of mis- and disinformation, or that increase confidence in reliable information.”

Some of the “interventions” proffered by the Rockefeller Foundation include “literacy training for secondary school students” to “help students identify COVID-19 vaccine misinformation,” “equipping trusted messengers with communication strategies to increase COVID-19 vaccination demand” and “using social networks to share tailored, community-developed messaging to increase COVID-19 vaccination demand.”

This information will, according to the Rockefeller Foundation, “provide evidence about what works — and doesn’t — in specific places and for specific groups to increase COVID-19 vaccination take-up.”

But according to ZeroHedge, the research groups funded by the Mercury Project “are operating with the intent to tailor vaccination narratives to fit different ethnic and political backgrounds, looking for the key to the gates of each cultural kingdom and convincing them to take the jab.”

The project uses “ambiguous language and mission statements” to at least partially conceal the project’s main purpose of “using behavioral psychology and mass psychology elements to understand the global resistance to the recent COVID compliance efforts,” ZeroHedge reported.

‘Fabricating effective COVID propaganda’ a ‘money train’ for behavioral researchers and psychologists

In November 2021, the Mercury Project received an initial $7.5 million in seed funding from entities including the Rockefeller Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Craig Newmark Philanthropies and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to apply “the principles of large-scale, team-based science to the problem of vaccination demand” over a three-year period.

As of August 2022, these entities have funded the Mercury Project to the tune of $10.25 million.

In June, the project received $20 million from the National Science Foundation to study “interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccination demand and other positive health behaviors.”

The SSRC’s latest call for proposals, under the aegis of the Mercury Project, received nearly 200 submissions.

The accepted proposals come from researchers in countries including the U.S., Canada, Côte d’Ivoire, England, France, Ghana, Haiti, Kenya, India, Malawi, Mexico, Sierra Leone, Spain, Rwanda and Tanzania.

U.S.-based researchers represent institutions including Carnegie Mellon, Columbia, Duke, Harvard, MIT, New York University, Rutgers, St. Augustine University, Stanford, UC Berkeley, University of Southern California, the University of Chicago, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Michigan, Vanderbilt and Yale.

The titles of some of the projects most recently funded by the Mercury Project include:

“A tough call: Impacts of mobile technology on Covid-19 (mis)information and protective behavior decision-making.”“Boosting boosters at scale: A megastudy to increase vaccination at scale.”“Building a better toolkit (for fighting misinformation): Large collaborative project to compare misinformation interventions.”“Harnessing influencers to counter misinformation: Scalable solutions in the Global South.”“Targeting health misinformation networks: Network-transforming interventions for reducing the spread of health misinformation online.”

Arguing in favor of the importance of the project’s research, Anna Harvey, president of the SSRC, stated:

“With COVID-19 prevalent and rapidly evolving everywhere, there is a pressing need to identify interventions with the potential to increase vaccination take-up.

“Vaccines are only effective if they become vaccinations; vaccines are a scientific marvel but their potential is unfulfilled if they are left on the shelf.”

Describing the Mercury Project’s grantees, Dr. Bruce Gellin, the Rockefeller Foundation’s chief of global public health strategy, said:

“This initial cohort’s ideas exemplify the creativity and vision behind the Mercury Project. They go far beyond quick fixes, with the goal of identifying robust, cost-effective, and meaningful solutions that can be widely adopted and scaled.

“We hope that more, better, and science-based knowledge about what we need to do will lead to increased uptake of reliable information — and serve as a powerful counter to the effects of misinformation and disinformation on vaccine demand.”

Heather Lanthorn, the Mercury Project’s program director, highlighted the importance of leveraging communication toward achieving public health objectives:

“The viral, vaccine, and information environments are all rapidly evolving–but that doesn’t mean it is impossible to make progress towards more effective and equitable responses.

“By funding projects on the ground around the world, this work will help us understand what works where, and why, and identify new ways to harness the power of connection and communication to advance public health goals.”

ZeroHedge, however, countered that behind all the rhetoric, the focus of the Mercury Project, is “propaganda, propaganda and propaganda,” and “the very basis of the existence of the Mercury Project presupposes that individuals cannot be trusted to make up their own minds about the information they are exposed to.”

The expectation is that individuals “must be molded to accept the mainstream narrative,” ZeroHedge said, while presupposing that “mainstream or establishment information is always trustworthy and unbiased.”

“Fabricating effective COVID propaganda is becoming a money train for the small groups of behavioral researchers and psychologists that jump onboard,” ZeroHedge added.

GAVI: 200 global ‘nudge units’ specialize in applying behavioral science to everyday life

The field of behavioral science — and a concept known as “nudging” — figured prominently during the years of the COVID-19 pandemic and were heavily utilized by governments and public health officials throughout the world to justify often stringent restrictions and countermeasures.

Nudging was defined in a bestselling 2008 book by economist Richard H. Thaler and legal scholar Cass R. Sunstein — “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness” — as something that “alters people’s behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives.”

Thaler and Sunstein presented nudging as a technocratic solution for tricky policy issues involving a perceived need to encourage, in a “voluntary manner,” policies or measures that would otherwise be unpopular.

Their work drew from a 1974 paper by two Israeli psychologists, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, which, as explained by an article published by GAVI-The Vaccine Alliance, “pioneered the study of mental shortcuts that humans rely on to make decisions, known as heuristics.”

As previously reported by The Defender, the Rockefeller Foundation is also a partner and board member and donor to GAVI, alongside the WEF, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, which hosted Event 201, which simulated the spread of a coronavirus just prior to the actual COVID-19 pandemic.

In 2010, the U.K. government established the Behavioural Insights Team, initially within the government’s Cabinet Office, before it was spun off as a private company in 2014. A year later, U.S. President Barack Obama issued an executive order to promote the utilization of behavioral science in federal policymaking.

According to GAVI, “globally, there are now more than 200 teams, or nudge units, that specialize in applying behavioral science to everyday life.”

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/rockefeller-foundation-nonprofits-behavioral-psychology-covid-vaccines/

New England Journal of Medicine: Covid Vaccine Destroys Natural Immunity

by Will Jones

A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) shows not only that the effectiveness of the Pfizer Covid vaccine becomes negative (meaning the vaccinated are more likely to be infected than the unvaccinated) within five months but that the vaccine destroys any protection a person has from natural immunity.

The study is a large observational study that looks at 887,193 children aged 5 to 11 years in North Carolina, of whom 273,157 (30.8%) received at least one dose of Pfizer vaccine between November 1st 2021 and June 3rd 2022. The study includes 193,346 SARS-CoV-2 infections reported between March 11th 2020 and June 3rd 2022.

The researchers used a form of statistical modelling with adjustments for confounding factors (such as underlying conditions) to calculate estimates of vaccine effectiveness over time and against the different Covid variants.

The findings are depicted in the charts below. In chart A, notice that the green and blue lines, representing children vaccinated in November and December respectively, go through zero into negative territory at a sharp gradient within five months of the first injection. It’s unclear why the green line is not continued past April, as the researchers presumably had the data, but from what is shown it looks very much like the vaccine effectiveness will continue declining deep into negative territory.

In chart B, we see both the red and blue lines – which represent children who are vaccinated and have been previously infected and not previously infected respectively – again going through zero at a steep gradient within five months of vaccination. The fact that the vaccinated who have natural immunity from previous infection also see negative effectiveness is a surprise as one would not expect those with natural immunity to be more susceptible to infection than those without it.

Charts C and D suggest that it is the vaccine that is causing this worrying erasure of natural immunity. Chart D shows the effectiveness of natural immunity from previous infection among the vaccinated. Notice that the blue line, which is protection against the Delta variant among the vaccinated-and-previously-infected, hits zero at a steep gradient within seven months. Now look at the blue line in chart C, which is protection against Delta in the previously infected and unvaccinated. It, too, is waning, but much more slowly, and after eight months it is still very much in positive territory at over 50%. The same can be said for natural immunity against earlier variants (green line), which wanes slowly and remains positive after 16 months. Why is natural immunity remaining protective for the unvaccinated, whereas in the vaccinated their ‘protection’ goes negative even if they have natural immunity?

This is very disturbing because it suggests not only that the vaccines give negative ‘protection’ after a few months but also that they destroy the protection that should have been provided by natural immunity. The unvaccinated keep their protection from previous infection but the vaccinated end up with negative efficacy even if they’ve been previously infected. This means the vaccines appear to demolish a person’s natural immunity and leave him or her more vulnerable to infection than he or she was before.

The new findings add to growing concerns among scientists about the effect of the Covid vaccines on the immune system. A recent study in mice found that mRNA vaccines like Pfizer’s inhibit the immune system response to other pathogens. In that study (which is not yet peer-reviewed), the culprit appeared to be the lipid nano-particles (LNPs) which carry the mRNA in the vaccine: “We found that pre-exposure to mRNA-LNPs or LNP alone led to long-term inhibition of the adaptive immune responses.”

[…]

Via https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/12/covid-vaccine-destroys-natural-immunity-nejm-study-shows/

50-Page Study Shows Why COVID Vaccine Mandates for College Students Are Unethical, 98 Times Worse Than Virus

By Jennifer Margulis and Joe Wang

Epoch Times

A team of nine experts from Harvard, Johns Hopkins and other top universities has published paradigm-shifting research about the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines and why mandating vaccines for college students is unethical.

This 50-page study, which was published on The Social Science Research Network at the end of August, analyzed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and industry-sponsored data on vaccine adverse events and concluded that mandates for COVID-19 boosters for young people may cause 18 to 98 actual serious adverse events for each COVID-19 infection-related hospitalization theoretically prevented.

The paper is co-authored by Dr. Stefan Baral, an epidemiology professor at Johns Hopkins University; surgeon Dr. Martin Adel Makary, a professor at Johns Hopkins known for his books exposing medical malfeasance, including “Unaccountable: What Hospitals Won’t Tell You and How Transparency Can Revolutionize Health Care;” and Dr. Vinayak Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist, who is a professor in the University of California, San Francisco Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics as well as the author of over 350 academic and peer-reviewed articles.

But among this team of high-profile international experts who authored this paper, perhaps the most notable is Salmaan Keshavjee, M.D., Ph.D., current director of the Harvard Medical School Center for Global Health Delivery and professor of Global Health and Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School.

Keshavjee has also worked extensively with Partners In Health, a Boston-based non-profit co-founded by the late Dr. Paul Farmer, on treating drug-resistant tuberculosis, according to his online biography.

Risking disenrollment

As the study pointed out, students at universities in America, Canada and Mexico are being told they must have a third dose of the vaccines against COVID-19 or be disenrolled.

Unvaccinated high school students who are just starting college are also being told the COVID-19 vaccines are “mandatory” for attendance.

These mandates are widespread. There are currently 15 states which continue to honor philosophical (personal belief) exemptions, and 44 states and Washington, D.C. allow religious exemptions to vaccines.

But even in these states, private universities are telling parents they will not accept state-recognized vaccine exemptions.

Based on personal interviews with some half a dozen families, The Epoch Times has learned that administrators at some colleges and universities are informing students that they have their own university-employed medical teams to scrutinize the medical exemptions submitted by students and signed by private doctors.

These doctors, families are being told, will decide whether the health reasons given are medically valid.

5 ethical arguments against mandated boosters

Though rarely reported on in the mainstream media, COVID-19 vaccine boosters have been generating a lot of controversy.

While some countries are quietly compensating people for devastating vaccine injuries, and other countries are limiting COVID-19 vaccine recommendations, the United States is now recommending children 12 and older get Pfizer-BioNTech’s Omicron-specific booster, and young adults over the age of 18 get Moderna’s updated shot.

At the same time, public health authorities in Canada are suggesting Canadians will need COVID-19 vaccines every 90 days.

Against a backdrop of confusing and often changing public health recommendations and booster fatigue, the authors of this new paper argue that university booster mandates are unethical.

They give five specific reasons for this bold claim:

Lack of policymaking transparency. The scientists pointed out that no formal and scientifically rigorous risk-benefit analysis of whether boosters are helpful in preventing severe infections and hospitalizations exists for young adults.Expected harm. A look at the currently available data shows that mandates will result in what the authors call a “net expected harm” to young people. This expected harm will exceed the potential benefit from the boosters.Lack of efficacy. The vaccines have not effectively prevented the transmission of COVID-19. Given how poorly they work — the authors call this “modest and transient effectiveness” — the expected harms caused by the boosters likely outweigh any benefits to public health.No recourse for vaccine-injured young adults. Forcing vaccination as a prerequisite to attend college is especially problematic because young people injured by these vaccines will likely not be able to receive compensation for these injuries.Harm to society. Mandates, the authors insisted, ostracize unvaccinated young adults, excluding them from education and university employment opportunities. Coerced vaccination entails “major infringements to free choice of occupation and freedom of association,” the scientists wrote, especially when “mandates are not supported by compelling public health justification.”

The consequences of non-compliance include being unenrolled, losing internet privileges, losing access to the gym and other athletic facilities and being kicked out of campus housing, among other things.

These punitive approaches, according to the authors, have resulted in unnecessary psychosocial stress, reputation damage, loss of income and fear of being deported, to name just a few.

Download for Free: Robert F. Kennedy’s New Book — ‘A Letter to Liberals’

22,000 to 30,000 previously unaffected young adults must be vaccinated to prevent just 1 hospitalization

The lack of effectiveness of the vaccines is a major concern to these researchers. Based on their analysis of the public data provided to the CDC, they estimated that between 22,000 and 30,000 previously uninfected young adults would need to be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent just a single hospitalization.

However, this estimate does not take into account the protection conferred by a previous infection. So, the authors insisted, “this should be considered a conservative and optimistic assessment of benefit.”

In other words, the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 are essentially useless.

Mandated booster shots cause more harm than good

But the documented lack of efficacy is only part of the problem. The researchers further found that per every one COVID-19 hospitalization prevented in young adults who had not previously been infected with COVID-19, the data show that 18 to 98 “serious adverse events” will be caused by the vaccinations themselves.

These events include up to three times as many booster-associated myocarditis in young men than hospitalizations prevented, and as many as 3,234 cases of other side effects so serious that they interfere with normal daily activities.

At a regional hospital in South Carolina, the desk clerk sported a button that read: “I’m Vaccinated Against COVID-19” with a big black check mark on it.

“What about the boosters?” a hospital visitor asked. “It’s starting to seem like we need too many shots.”

“It does seem like a lot,” the clerk agreed. “It’s hard to know what to do.” But she did have some advice for the visitor: “Just keep reading and educating yourself, so you can make an informed decision.”

This new paper is essential reading for anyone trying to decide if they need more vaccines. The authors concluded their study with a call to action. Policymakers must stop mandates for young adults immediately, be sure that those who have already been injured by these vaccines are compensated for the suffering caused by mandates, and openly conduct and share the results of risk-benefit analyses of the vaccines for various age groups.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-vaccine-mandate-college-students-unethical-et/