Search Results for: vaccine

COVID Origins: Our Gatekeepers Remain but the Gates Are Down

So the Ruling Class Was WRONG WRONG WRONG About Covid-19. What Else Are They Wrong About?

• MAY 27, 2021

Earlier by Ann Coulter: “I Will Not Be Scienced”—Experts Wrong, Covid Could Have Come From Wuhan Lab After All

The sudden dramatic collapse of the elite-enforced Narrative that Covid-19 could not possibly have originated in a Chinese laboratory is one of the most extraordinary developments in modern political history [That Didn’t Age Well: Wuhan Propaganda From MSM Laid Bare, by Tyler Durden, ZeroHedge, May 27, 2021]. Equally dramatic but much less well-known: the earlier collapse of the elite Narrative that, in the words of CNN Medical Talking Head Dr. Sanjay Gupta [Tweet him] Covid-19 “doesn’t discriminate based on race. We must learn three chilling lessons from this scandal: (1) The authorities cannot trusted; (2) The “Main Stream” media is only “mainstream” because of the extent to which it will limit its questioning of these authorities; (3) Only trusted members of the Ruling Class may question the authorities.

I have a personal stake in this. In February 2020, VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow killed a column I wrote about the evidence that Covid-19 originated in a laboratory and speculating that it might have been a bioweapon. Brimelow’s motive was frankly fear: Silicon Valley’s Tech Totalitarians were on the rampage against any deviationism, especially from the elite-enforced line that Covid-19 originated naturally. Twitter had just banned the huge ZeroHedge account for running a story about Covid’s possible lab origin [Twitter bans Zero Hedge after it posts coronavirus conspiracy theory, by Kate Gibson, CBS News, February 3, 2020].. (ZeroHedge was subsequently mysteriously restored). Facebook had just banned VDARE.com for obviously fallacious reasons, part of its campaign to defeat Donald Trump. Brimelow just didn’t want to take the risk, especially since the origins of the disease was not central to VDARE.com Immigration Disaster/ National Question focus.

But I was denied a scoop.

When Covid-19 began to become a major news issue in early 2020, nobody really knew what was going on. All that we could do was speculate intelligently, based on the available evidence (which of course did not include data about racial incidence, suppressed by our race-denying Ruling Class).

I must confess that I made the mistake at first of thinking that, as with previous outbreaks of similar diseases like SARS and MERS, Covid-19 would be unlikely to have much an impact outside East Asia. That was a reasonable hypothesis. But it was not correct.

And I, like everybody else who wrote about Covid, was under the impression that it was a “fact” that Covid had started in a Chinese market. It definitely hadn’t leaked from a Chinese lab that experiments with creating dangerous diseases. There was no way that could so, because the authorities told us that it was wild, absurd conspiracy theory.

Of course, that was apparently not correct either. It now seems that “authorities”—such as Dr Anthony Fauci and the entire Ruling Class—were wrong in asserting as indisputable fact that the virus came from a Chinese “wet market” and definitely did not leak from a Wuhan laboratory. And wrong again in the way they acted upon their certainty,

Remember, when the lab theory came to light, it had to be condemned by all right-thinking people. As Stephen L. Miller has written in The Spectator, it was a denounced as a “nut-job idea…first portrayed as a hare-brained wild and tacitly racist conspiracy theory driven by paranoid Republican senators and fever-dream right-wing media” [Don’t let the media get away with U-turning on the lab leak theory, May 24, 2021]. It was utterly condemned in the pages of the leading medical journal The Lancet, where a group of senior scientists proclaimed that they , “overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife” [Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19, by Charles Calisher et al., February 19, 2020]. The following month, in the journal Nature Medicine, another group of scientists claimed: “It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 [the latest name for Covid-19) emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus” [The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2, by Kristian Anderson et al., March 17, 2020].

In the panic of the time, with people confronted with the possibility of a serious plague, they craved certainty. And here they were being offered it by pillars of the Medical Establishment. Only “nut jobs” and “Far Right” types, were going to question this, obviously.

This is because, as is surely clear now that we are cancelling mathematics as “racist” [Reality check: mathematics is not racist, by Mark Ronan, The Critic, March 21, 2021], “Far Right” increasingly means anybody of genuinely questioning disposition…anybody who is prepared to put facts and logic over emotion.

“Fact Checks” by Leftist news organs were unambiguous that the “lab theory” was complete nonsense; dangerous nonsense at that. Now, they’ve had a conversion to the new Party line, such that it is “suddenly credible” [Ted Cruz mocks Washington Post as ‘clowns’ after fact-check declares Wuhan lab leak theory ‘suddenly’ credible, by David Rutz, Fox News, May 25, 2021].

And of course Facebook and YouTube banned users from mentioning the theory—and, incredibly, were still doing so three days ago[Why does Facebook still ban users from saying Covid was man-made even as Dr Fauci casts doubt on virus origins? And Italian journalist is censored by YouTube for claiming it was created in Wuhan lab, by Chris Pleasance, Mail Online, May 24, 2021]. They reversed course as of May 26, 2021 at 3:30PM PT:, but you can still see their earlier ban on about.fb.com:

In many ways, how this change of mind took place is even more frightening.

It appears to me that there were two factors involved. Firstly, it gradually became clearer to people, especially scientists, that there was too much about the Narrative that didn’t make sense. And secondly, the science journalist Nicholas Wade went public, at the beginning of May, with a very detailed article in which he persuasively argued that a lab leak was the best theory and in which he highlighted the gaping holes in the earlier “fact checked facts” [The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan? by Nicholas Wade, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May 5, 2021].

Wade’s essay was so cogent, that it was very difficult for people to argue with it. However, the Regime Media is now asserting the “sudden” new facts based on the same kind of appeal to authority as they had previously.

Nicholas Wade has an important niche for himself as being just about part of the “Ruling Class,” having spent 30 years on the staff of the New York Times. His 2014 book on the ever-“controversial” issue of race, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History, managed to tread that all-important fine line between the science and accepting Multiculturalist dogmas. Thus, the book was, on the one hand, denounced by many ideologue scientists as “racist” but, on the other, positively reviewed in The Wall Street Journal [by Charles Murray, May 2, 2014 ] and other respectable journals.

And it appears that due to Wade being just about part of the Ruling Class, he has been able to get away with his “medical misinformation” because, as the Regime Media reason and even Left-wing scientists reason, he’s just about “on our side” so we are prepared to listen to him, in a way that we would not to a scientist who was more of an outsider.

Thus, the Overton Window has shifted and Main Stream Media as well as the mainstream scientific authorities are shown up as what they are: people who are obsessed with power, control and the spreading of Leftist ideology; because, after all, the lab theory was “racist.”

Now, what about the idea, still unacceptable, that Covid-19 was deliberately leaked, a kind of biological warfare? Or that, even if it leaked accidently, it was originally developed as part of a biological warfare program?

The Regime Media will still condemn this as absolutely wrong and unsayable.

They must not be allowed to get away with it again.

From UNZ Review, here.

‘He Travels the Fastest Who Travels Alone’

What’s been popular @ Hyehudi recently:

  1. הרב אברהם שמואל געשטעטנער Rabbi Avraham Shmuel Gestetner (5)
  2. כבשי דרחמנא – הקטע המצונזר בספר התודעה בענין גאולת א”י בימינו
  3. קול החינוך Kol Hachinuch (39)
  4. חנניה ווייסמאן Chananya Weissman (53)
  5. A day’s articles
  6. דע מה שתשיב – ספר ‘ויואל משה’ השלם להדפסה
  7. Neurobiologist Naomi Robinson, Ph.D. – Letter Regarding COVID-19 Vaccines
  8. ספר שדי תפוחים – שני חלקים: אוצר תיקוני עוונות
  9. תיקוני תשובת המשקל לפגם הברית ועוד – חלק שנ

That’s all.

 

Corona: The Doctors Hid the REAL Medicines…

Eminent doc: Media Censored COVID-19 Early Treatment Options That Could Have Reduced Fatalities by 85%

Dr. Peter McCullough also explained that given an 80% level of herd immunity, broad vaccination has ‘no scientific, clinical or safety rationale.’

By Patrick Delaney
Lifesite News

April 8, 2021

LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here. 

AUSTIN, Texas, April 8, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — An exceedingly well-qualified physician, who was censored by YouTube last year, addressed the Texas State Senate Health and Human Service Committee last month providing thorough information on successful treatments of COVID-19, the present high-level of herd immunity from the disease, the very limited potential of “vaccines,” and the data that shows early treatment could have saved up to 85 percent of the “over 500,000 deaths in the United States.”

Dr. Peter McCullough, MD is an internist and cardiologist, along with being a professor of medicine at Texas A&M University Health Sciences Center. He is distinguished as the most published person in history in his field and an editor of two major medical journals.

McCullough explained that from the beginning of the pandemic, he refused to let his patients “languish at home with no treatment and then be hospitalized when it was too late,” which was the typical treatment protocol being discussed, promoted and offered across the west.

He thus “put together a team of doctors” to study “appropriately prescribed off-label use of conventional medicine” to treat the illness and they published their findings in the American Journal of Medicine.

“The interesting thing was, (that while) there were 50,000 papers in the peer-reviewed literature on COVID, not a single one told the doctor how to treat it,” he said. “When does that happen? I was absolutely stunned! And when this paper was published … it became … the most cited paper in basically all of medicine at that time the world.”

With the help of his daughter, Dr. McCullough recorded a YouTube video incorporating four slides from the “peer-reviewed paper published in one of the best medical journals in the world” discussing early treatments for COVID-19. The video quickly “went absolutely viral. And within about a week YouTube said ‘you violated the terms of the community’” and they pulled it down.

Due to the “near total block on any information of treatment to patients,” Sen. Bob Johnson hosted a November hearing on this important topic where McCullough was the lead witness.

With such an aggressive suppression of information on early treatments, and the default policy in COVID-19 testing centers to not offer any such resources to those who test positive for the infection, McCullough said, “No wonder we have had 45,000 deaths in Texas. The average person in Texas thinks there’s no treatment!”

And the blackout of such vital information goes well beyond the blatant censorship of big tech companies. McCullough said, “What has gone on has been beyond belief! How many of you have turned on a local news station, or a national cable news station, and ever gotten an update on treatment at home? How many of you have ever gotten a single word about what to do when you get handed the diagnosis of COVID-19? That is a complete and total failure at every level!”

Continue reading…

From Lifesite News, here.

Corona ‘Science’ = Heavily Biased, Governmental, First-Order Thinking, Scientism

When “Follow the Science” During the Pandemic Meant Not Following the Science

Monday, April 12, 2021

During this pandemic, I can say that a few new pet peeves emerged. At the beginning, it was the phrase “stay home, stay safe.” There was another equally annoying mantra that became popular within the past year: “Follow the science.” Those who were advocating for lockdowns, mask mandates, and other closures and regulations used it to try to establish legitimacy.

“Follow the science” is a feel-good slogan. After all, who wouldn’t want to follow a seemingly objective, straightforward process of determining what is valid and what is not? At the very least, it works to delegitimize those who disagree with your viewpoint because “only an idiot wouldn’t believe in the science.” In practice, “follow the science” actually meant something entirely different from actually having scientific facts rationally inform policy decisions. Let’s take a look at a few major examples to see what I mean by this assertion, shall we?

Lockdowns. This ends up first on my list not only because of the onerous nature of the lockdowns, but also because there was no “following the science.” Prior to this pandemic, there was never a time in human history where we decided to isolate the healthy. That was the case for good reason. In September 2019, Johns Hopkins suggested that quarantine would be the least effective in controlling the spread (Johns Hopkins, p. 57). To make this point even stronger, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a report on non-pharmaceutical interventions in response to epidemics and pandemics. This report was written in October 2019, which was shortly before this pandemic began. Guess what their recommendation was for dealing with those who weren’t sick? Well, here it is:

“Home quarantine of exposed individuals to reduce transmission is not recommended because there is no obvious rationale for this measure, and there would be difficulties in implementing it (p. 16).” 

Putting healthy people in lockdown was not “following the science.” Quite the opposite! The WHO had a game plan in which it said that isolating the healthy was not recommended, and the world ignored it. Instead, we threw ourselves into what I would consider the largest social experiment in human history. There was no cost-benefit analysis done and no evidence base to support it. I expressed my concerns early on (see here and here), ranging from economic costs and non-COVID health costs to social unrest and global instability. We need to wait for the dust to settle because it will take years to find out the effects of what these lockdowns have had on society. Preliminarily, I could cite a study from Stanford University researchers showing that lockdowns were ineffective in slowing down the transmission of COVID (Bendavid et al., 2021). In any case, I’m willing to bet I will write on this topic multiple times in the future. I don’t know how that research will pan out (although I can take an educated guess), but I can safely state right now that the politicians implementing the lockdowns did anything but “follow the science.”

Travel and Immigration Restrictions. For months, multiple countries have either shut their borders completely to international travel or have been restrictive enough to significantly damage their economies. The theory is that because COVID is transmitted through people, anything that reduces the movement of people should help. How useful are such restrictions?

I covered Trump’s ineffective immigration ban executive order back in April 2020, but I want to keep this to travel restrictions generally. In April 2020, the Cato Institute released a policy brief on the topic of travel restrictions. At the beginning of the pandemic, influenza research would have been the most relevant for determining the efficacy of travel bans. As the Cato Institute shows, travel restrictions are only effective if they have not reached another country. At best, they only delay the spread of the disease for a few weeks, especially since stopping travel on a global level is unfeasible and unenforceable. The pre-COVID research showed that travel restrictions are unable to stop the spread of a given pandemic. This also seems to have been the case with COVID-19, as well (e.g., Chinazzi et al., 2020).

As University of Washington public health expert Nicole Errett points out, such targeted initiatives as domestic travel screening, patient monitoring, vaccine development, and general emergency readiness are more effective (and certainly more based in science) than travel bans. Essentially, any country that still has travel bans (which is almost all of them) are not following the science.

Cleaning Surfaces. I have seen countless people scrubbing and cleaning surfaces, whether at such places as the grocery store, the gym, or on an airplane, in the hopes that they won’t contract COVID-19 from touching a surface. According to the CDC’s primer on COVID and surface transmissions, the probability of getting COVID in response to touching a contaminated surface is less than 1 in 10,000. This, of course, assumes that the surface you are touching is indeed contaminated, which is to say that the odds of getting COVID from touching any given surface is even less likely.

Rutgers Professor Emanuel Goldman wrote an article in The Lancet about the exaggeration of fomites being a form of transmission of COVID. Professor Linsey Marr, who is an airborne viruses expert at Virginia Tech University, went as far as saying that “there’s really no evidence that anyone has ever gotten COVID-19 by touching a contaminated surface.”

Cleaning surfaces has its place, but it has been taken to an extreme, especially since COVID-19 transmission through surfaces is so rare. If I had to guess why so many people like doing in spite of the evidence showing its lack of effectiveness, it’s probably to appear socially conscientious or some other sense of self-gratification. I’m sure Lysol is happy to make money off of this irrational obsession, but it does add a cost for businesses, one that is unnecessary for stopping transmission of COVID. I wouldn’t be surprised if people in the future look at the obsession with cleaning surfaces the way we look at people back in the Middle Ages that tried to cure everything with leeches.

Social Distancing: How Much? This is one of the key questions in terms of preventing the transmission of a respiratory disease. For months, those in the United States have been told to keep six feet away, as if it were some proven or consistent rule.

Last month, the CDC had a press release outlining changes in operational procedure for primary and secondary schools. It changed its social distancing policy for schools from 6 feet to 3 feet because the CDC did not find any additional risk involved. You could argue that this could only apply to children, but it does bring some doubt as to the efficacy of more stringent social distancing rules.

Additionally, since the beginning of the pandemic, the WHO’s recommendation has been to keep 3 feet (1 meter) away from everyone, not 6 feet. If you want some nuance for the social distancing debate, look at the chart below from Massachussets Institute of Technology [MIT] researchers (Jones et al., 2020). In any case, what I can say is that there is no consistent and “determined rule” as to what is safe. Even asking the question of “what is safe” comes with some arbitrariness. If we all stayed isolated from one another, that would be safest. How much safer is six feet versus nine feet versus twenty feet? What is the marginal benefit from a few extra feet? With this much nuance, what does it really mean to “follow the science?”

Continue reading…

From Libertarian Jew, here.

‘Trust the Doctors!’ (Unless They Disagree with You, Of Course…)

Nearly 100 Israeli Doctors Issue Letter Demanding That State Not Vaccinate Children Against COVID-19

Nearly 100 Doctors and medical professors signed their names to a letter requesting that the Israeli health system refrains from vaccinating children under any scenario unless the disease were to become dangerous to them.

According to a report by Channel 12 News, the doctors explained that “there is no room to vaccinate children at this time.” The doctors added that based on agreed-upon medical values, including “caution, humility, and do no harm” that there is not enough evidence or threat to vaccinate children against the disease. The doctors explained further that not enough is known about the disease and the various vaccines that have been produced to combat it.

Among the signatories of the letter are such well-renown Doctors as Dr. Amir Shachar, director of the emergency room at Laniado Hospital, Dr. Yoav Yehezkeli, an expert in internal medicine and a lecturer at Tel Aviv University, and Dr. Avi Mizrahi, director of the intensive care unit at Kaplan Hospital.

In the letter that was addressed to “the chiefs of the Israeli Ministry of Health, to our fellow doctors around the country, and to the entire public.”

They noted that “the increasingly prevalent opinion within the scientific community is that the vaccine cannot lead to herd immunity, therefore there is currently no ‘altruistic’ justification for vaccinating children to protect at-risk populations.”

They added that even today it is unclear whether the vaccine prevents the spread of the virus and for how long it confers protection and noted that new variants “that may be more resistant to vaccination are popping up all the time.”

The letter continues, “We believe that not even a handful of children should be endangered through mass vaccination against a disease that is not dangerous to them. Furthermore, it cannot be ruled out that the vaccine will have long-term adverse effects that have not yet been discovered at this time, including on growth, reproductive system, or fertility. Children should be allowed a quick return to routine; the many tests and broad isolation cycles should be stopped, and no separation between the vaccinated and unvaccinated should be created in the public sphere. Vaccination of at-risk populations should be allowed, and under the almost complete vaccination of this population – it is possible to return to full routine (with periodic adjustments) even in the presence of COVID-19 virus.”

“Therefore, we fear that at this point in time, there is under-reporting of side effects. Moreover, a causal link between events – if any – will only emerge in due course, as more and more events of a certain type accumulate. For example, if there is a serious health event that happens to 12 young people a year in Israel (ie – an average of 1 per month), while the vaccine also causes this serious event infrequently, it will take many months until it is clear that there is an increase in the incidence of the event, and that there is a connection between the vaccine and its appearance.”

“Do not rush to vaccinate children as long as the full picture is not clear. Coronavirus disease does not endanger children, and the first rule in medicine is, do no harm. The full picture is expected in many months, and possibly years. Moreover, one must wait for such documentation not only from Israeli data but from global data. In this context, it is worthy to add that black box warnings – about severe or life-threatening side effects – accumulate months and years after drug approval, due to the fact that severe but rare toxins appear, naturally, only over time.”

“We believe it is not appropriate to impose the inconvenience of vaccination on the pediatric population, where coronavirus is not dangerous, especially at this stage when the efficiency, in the long run, is not at all clear. Pediatrics in Israel is one of the best in the world, and pediatric intensive care – above all. It is extremely rare for a child to die of a viral disease, and this can happen, unfortunately, as a result of various types of viruses. We do not think it is right to manage private life and public health policy as a result of an ongoing fear of a viral illness that is very rarely liable to harm our children’s lives. ”

“In view of the fact that the vaccination of the vulnerable population reduces hospitalizations and mortality from Covid – we believe that the negative effects of the virus will be much smaller when the majority of the at-risk population is vaccinated, as begins to appear to be the case in the country, and this without the need to vaccinate children,” they explained.

“We believe that our children should be allowed to return to the routine of their blessed lives immediately, and should not be vaccinated against Covid-19. Asymptomatic children’s tests, which have no clinical significance but cause widespread indirect damage, and the mass isolation cycles in education frameworks, should be stopped immediately. It should be emphasized to the public that even vaccinated people can be infected and infect others, and that the same rules of conduct apply to everyone without connection to vaccination status. We must stop pointing the finger of blame at the unvaccinated, and we must stop violating the rights of the individual. We must immediately stop all forms of exclusion and separation between people in the public sphere.”

(YWN Israel Desk – Jerusalem)

From Yeshiva World, here.