june 2021 (Covid1984)

Why Has “Ivermectin” Become a Dirty Word?

“On December 8, 2020…the Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing on the “Medical Response to Covid-19.” One of the witnesses, a pulmonologist named Dr. Pierre Kory, insisted he had great news. “We have a solution to this crisis,” he said unequivocally. …Kory was referring to an FDA-approved medicine called ivermectin. A genuine wonder drug in other realms, ivermectin has all but eliminated parasitic diseases like river blindness and elephantiasis, helping discoverer Satoshi Ōmura win the Nobel Prize in 2015. As far as its uses in the pandemic went, however, research was still scant. Could it really be a magic Covid-19 bullet? Kory had been trying to make such a case, but complained to the Senate that public efforts had been stifled, because “every time we mention ivermectin, we get put in Facebook jail.” A Catch-22 seemed to be ensnaring science. With the world desperate for news about an unprecedented disaster, Silicon Valley had essentially decided to disallow discussion of a potential solution — disallow calls for more research and more study — because not enough research and study had been done. Once, people weren’t allowed to take drugs before they got FDA approval. Now, they can’t talk about them.…”

Report by French senators proposes to remotely deactivate transport subscriptions, geolocate citizens and remove access to bank accounts in the event of a crisis

“…In France, three members of the Senate’s “Delegation for Forward Planning” submitted a report a few days ago with very surprising contents. The elected representatives suggest creating a real surveillance society in the event of a new major crisis, by closely monitoring the actions of citizens and significantly restricting their individual freedoms.

It is not a law, nor even a bill, just a report. This document was presented on 3 June. The rapporteurs, René-Paul Savary, Véronique Guillotin and Christine Lavarde (all from the right) suggest setting up a platform that can be activated in the event of a new crisis, such as a health crisis. The politicians say that “if necessary, more intrusive measures should be taken, but also more targeted and limited in time”.

Selected excerpts from the Crisis Data Hub imagined by the three suit-wearing prospectors:

Here are a few extracts of the kind of rejoicing proposed by these senators in the event of a “new health crisis”, but also – why deprive ourselves? – in the event of a natural or industrial disaster, or a terrorist attack”. This of course represents more the fantasy of managerial efficiency of these three soft heads than the current reality in Europe. But it also says a lot about some short/medium term state possibilities (including partially or in the name of any new “state of emergency” or disaster), since many individuals are already all-acquired to voluntary technological servitude and willing to sacrifice many of their formal freedoms to Daddy-State in the name of illusory security and comfort… and that all these electronic control devices already technically exist.

(page 59)

“Finally, in the most extreme crisis situations, digital tools could make it possible to exercise effective, exhaustive and real-time control of the population’s compliance with restrictions, with dissuasive sanctions if necessary, and based on an even more derogatory use of personal data.

These tools are the most effective, but also the most intrusive on freedoms – but once again, it would be irresponsible not to at least consider them, if only to convince oneself to do everything upstream not to reach this point.

There are many possible uses, including

– Movement control: electronic bracelets to monitor compliance with quarantine, deactivation of passes for public transport, automatic detection of number plates by speed cameras, gantries in shops, thermal cameras in restaurants etc;

– Health monitoring, via connected objects whose use would be compulsory this time, and whose data would be used for monitoring purposes;

– The control of social contacts, for example visiting a vulnerable member of the family when you are contagious;

– Transaction monitoring, e.g. to impose an automatic fine, to detect a medical purchase (which may suggest either contamination or smuggling in times of shortage), or the illegal pursuit of a professional activity (trade etc.) despite restrictions. ”

(page 132-133)

“The problem can be summarised as follows: if we want to save human lives in the future and avoid putting economic and social life under a bell at each new crisis, we will inevitably have to rely on massive and derogatory data crossings. It is impossible to know a priori what data might be useful in the face of a new crisis, since this depends on its nature (an epidemic, a natural or industrial disaster, etc.), its intensity, its geographical extension (local, national, international) and the political acceptability of the measures, on a case-by-case basis. Only the data relating to the identification of individuals and their geolocation seem to constitute a common denominator for all possible cases.

However, nothing would be worse than improvisation, which is both ineffective and potentially much more detrimental to individual freedoms, which are less easy to ‘protect’ in an emergency. In these circumstances, this report therefore proposes not to collect a multitude of sensitive data of hypothetical utility, but simply to put ourselves in a position to do so, so to speak, at the touch of a button, should circumstances require it. In concrete terms, this means setting up a specific secure platform, which would only be activated in times of crisis. ”

For those who would like to read this 148-page Information Report made on behalf of the Senate’s Forward Studies Delegation, published on 3 June 2021, which studies what is being done in China or Estonia, while developing the concrete measures to be taken in France with a view to this future Crisis Data Hub, it is here:

“Health crises and digital tools: responding effectively to regain our freedoms

https://www.senat.fr/fileadmin/Fichiers/Images/delegation/prospective/PRO_Rapport_numerique_pandemies.pdf

Covid-19: a Senate report recommends the collection of personal data to prevent health crises

Public Sénat, 3 June 2021 (extracts)

“One of the lessons to be learned from the health crisis is the complexity of developing tools without generating anxiety”. This was the observation made by Mathieu Darnaud, chairman of the Senate’s forward-looking delegation, when he presented his report on the use of digital tools in the prevention and management of pandemics. The work of the members of the High Assembly aims to anticipate the occurrence of new health crises by making more intensive use of digital tools, “assuming, if necessary, more intrusive measures, but also more targeted and limited in time”, explain the rapporteurs René-Paul Savary, Véronique Guillotin and Christine Lavarde.

This digital platform, named Crisis Data Hub, in reference to the Health Data Hub, would also allow for experimentation at the local level, for a more proportional and territorialised approach to the crisis, which was slow to be put in place at the time of the covid crisis. The rapporteurs imagine several scenarios depending on the scale of the epidemic: information and coordination tools for a “moderate” crisis, tools for calling people to order (such as sending an SMS) in the event of a more serious situation, and stronger measures for extreme cases, with, for example, the deactivation of the transport ticket or bank accounts of a person who violates the quarantine.

“We are not proposing to limit freedoms, we are looking for a way to regain them,” say the senators, who point to a “French taboo” related to the collection of personal data.

“We collect data all the time, just by using our smartphones,” said Christine Lavarde. “The idea, for citizens, is that this temporary abandonment of their personal data should allow them to recover, as soon as possible, their individual freedom. “We think that we need to be one step ahead of the crisis, to look further ahead and to be able to open this necessary debate. We need to talk about it, and once this system is organised in calm seas, we need to see how to press this or that button in order to recover this or that data”, explains Véronique Guillotin.

And René-Paul Savary concludes: “The French contradiction is that the GAFA have a certain amount of our data, we accept it, but we don’t want to entrust our data when the time comes to protect ourselves and others. Mentalities must change and this must be done in times of peace, not in times of crisis. ”

“Crisis Data Hub”: senators’ proposal for better use of digital technology in times of crisis

Le quotidien du médecin, 4 June 2021

The use of digital technologies in the management of a crisis such as the current pandemic is no longer an option for the senators of the Delegation for Forward Studies, who unveiled on 3 June the unique proposal resulting from their work: the creation of a “Crisis Data Hub” to ensure the collection of nominative data and their use.

This digital platform, which could be activated in times of crisis, would enable the centralisation of “useful data” and their redistribution to “actors who need them to fulfil their missions” (health establishments, civil security, forces of law and order, local authorities, public transport, service providers etc.). In order to “stop improvising” in an emergency, it would be necessary to have a “toolbox” that could be activated “when the time comes”, explained René-Paul Savary, member of the Delegation, during a press briefing…

The senators make a harsh assessment of the measures put in place during the health crisis in France. While they hail the “great creativity” that made it possible to create the SI-DEP, Contact-Covid and Vaccin-Covid files, they deplore the “somewhat chaotic” beginnings, but especially the lack of interconnection. “It is impossible to know, for example, whether a person’s “contact cases” have actually been contaminated, or whether they have been vaccinated,” they note, before asking: “Is it normal for a 24-year-old computer scientist, Guillaume Rozier, to do better than Santé publique France with his CovidTracker, and better than the Assurance-maladie with ViteMaDose? ”

Beyond the technical problems, the senators point out that in France there is a “deep mistrust of digital technology as soon as it involves the State or public authorities”. They deplore a paradox where “the slightest cross-referencing of files gives rise to endless controversy”, while citizens hand over their data to private actors on a daily basis. They also criticise the National Commission for Information Technology and Civil Liberties (CNIL) and its interpretation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which is “much more conservative than that of our European neighbours”.

The aim of their proposal is therefore to prepare a system capable of carrying out “massive and derogatory data crossings”. According to them, “the countries that have made the most use of these tools are also those that have, by far, had the fewest deaths”. It is therefore necessary to “resort to more intrusive technologies, but very targeted and limited in time, in exchange for a faster return to freedom”….

The creation of a “Crisis Data Hub” should thus make it possible to mobilise data useful for crisis management. In particular, it would be possible to cross-reference medical data with geolocation data, but also to mobilise data produced by private companies (telephone operators, transport companies, financial institutions, etc.).

The activation of the system will have to comply with a principle of “proportionality”, depending on the seriousness of the threat. Several cases of use are envisaged. In the case of a “moderate” crisis, where “braking” measures would be necessary to avoid overloading hospitals, the use of digital technology could be “limited to a few well thought-out information and coordination tools”. In the event of a greater threat, the system could allow “an automatic text message to be sent to any individual who wanders away from home during the curfew”. In extreme cases, “any violation of the quarantine could lead to real-time notification of the police, deactivation of the offender’s transport ticket or means of payment, or even a fine deducted automatically from the offender’s bank account, as is the case with speed cameras”.

Outside the context of an epidemic, activation could be envisaged “in the event of a natural or industrial disaster”, “in the event of a terrorist or bioterrorist attack”, for alerts inviting people to take iodine tablets or in the event of falling space debris.

In order to ensure the trust of citizens, the senators set two conditions as a guarantee of transparency: open source development of the platform and open data publication of aggregated data. They also invite a “cold” debate on this issue, allowing the CNIL “to establish a prior authorisation doctrine for each device” and the ANSSI (National Agency for Information Systems Security) to guarantee the security of the device.”

UK, London: clashes on anti-lockdown rally

17/6/21:

France: mask wearing outside now legalised, except for specific circumstances…curfew to end on Sunday 20th June

Already this report in May about masks worn outside said “scientists now agree that the possibility of contamination by SARS-CoV-2 is very limited outdoors, while enclosed spaces are more threatening. Epidemiologist Antoine Flahault even describes this risk as “extremely marginal”. “In the outdoor environment, aerosols [micro-droplets potentially containing the virus, editor’s note] exist but they dilute in the atmosphere very quickly. I don’t think there is any risk, except in the theoretical case of someone spitting on you nearby,” says the director of the Institute of Global Health at the University of Geneva. A staunch “ayatollah of the indoor mask”, he considers that imposing it outdoors is “nonsense”. In Ireland, for example, only 0.1% of positive cases originate from outdoor activities (building sites, sports, etc.), according to the Health Protection Surveillance Centre (HPSC), reports the Irish Times.”” So this legalisation effectively is an admission of the whole pointlessness of masks worn outside (mandatory since August 2020 in France), which various bits of research back in autumn 2020 were also saying. As for the end of curfew – this may well be because of the tourist season coming up. Of course, curfew was so obviously a means of social control (as if Covid was more dangerous after dark), that now withdrawing it is an implicit admission of its inherent function. At the same time, both outdoor mask-wearing and curfew have been increasingly flouted and the cops have been less and less interested in trying to enforce them, so these too are factors in this legalisation: a general disrespect for one law can lead to a general questioning of the function of laws, and that would never do.

16/6/21:

Serious violations and manipulations of trial protocol: How Pfizer obtained FDA emergency authorization for children

Same article also published on the America’s Frontline Doctors website:
https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/frontlinenews/serious-violations-and-manipulations-of-trial-protocol-how-pfizer-obtained-fda-emergency-authorization-for-children/

“Analysis and comparison of the review document submitted by Pfizer to the US Food and Drug Administration, on the basis of which the FDA gave the green light to expand the emergency permit for vaccination also for children aged 12-15, as opposed to the study protocol in children, reveal concerning findings, including violations of the protocol established by Pfizer itself, and no less serious, designing the trial protocol in a way that will allow the company to present as positive findings as possible in terms of vaccine safety in children….According to the review document submitted by Pfizer to the FDA, four of the 1,131 children in the study arm who received Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine suffered from serious adverse events (“SAEs”) – that is, events in which at least one criterion was met: caused death, is life-threatening, requires hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, results in persistent disability/incapacity, or congenital anomaly/birth defect. Of these four children, three had such severe depression that they were hospitalized shortly after vaccination (in the first 7 days after the first dose, in the second only one day after the second dose, and in the third 15 days after the first dose, respectively)….if Pfizer were so negligent that they included subjects with a psychiatric background in the experiment – contrary to the protocol they themselves established – it means that the subjects’ well-being is not their main concern. As Pfizer itself notes in the protocol: such a background may increase the risk of study participation. And if they do not adhere to ethics in recruiting subjects, who can assure us that they adhere to ethics in other sections of the study – for example, analysis of results?”

Re. Fauci’s emails:

Apparently amongst Fauci’s emails now in the public domain, some US scientists said that HCQ was effective against Covid, but Fauci didn’t respond at all; also of interest is the fact that Delfraissy, France’s equivalent of Fauci, talks of his resistance from various doctors, who found HCQ + azythromycine effective, to allow HCQ to be used against Covid in France. This is not particularly of interest in itself but is of interest when you discover that Delfraissy pushed for the purchase and use of the truly useless and dangerous remdesivir (condemned by the W.H.O back in November 2020), which had already been held suspect during the Ebola epidemic years previously, when it caused severe heart problems, including heart attacks.

The politics of large numbers

Translation of anarchist article about the reduction of individuals to statistics and numbers during this Covid epoch.

15/6/21:

Lancet article from September 2020 says this is not a pandemic but… a syndemic

“Two categories of disease are interacting within specific populations—infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and an array of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). These conditions are clustering within social groups according to patterns of inequality deeply embedded in our societies. The aggregation of these diseases on a background of social and economic disparity exacerbates the adverse effects of each separate disease. COVID-19 is not a pandemic. It is a syndemic. The syndemic nature of the threat we face means that a more nuanced approach is needed if we are to protect the health of our communities….A syndemic is not merely a comorbidity. Syndemics are characterised by biological and social interactions between conditions and states, interactions that increase a person’s susceptibility to harm or worsen their health outcomes. In the case of COVID-19, attacking NCDs will be a prerequisite for successful containment. As our recently published NCD Countdown 2030 showed, although premature mortality from NCDs is falling, the pace of change is too slow. The total number of people living with chronic diseases is growing. Addressing COVID-19 means addressing hypertension, obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases, and cancer.”

UK, London: anti-Covid restrictions camp torn down by state after 2 weeks

Undoubtedly a lot of these people are confused &/or right-wing, but then revolutionaries don’t feel they shouldn’t go on demos where they’re equally idiotic (but Leftist) ideologies being pushed. In fact, in the past I’ve been on at least one demo in which Piers Corbyn participated when he was a Left-wing shithead; I’d feel no different about participating on one in which he participates now he’s a Right-wing shithead. Generally speaking, the Left (including many so-called “libertarians”) has been the most servile and acquiescent in this suffocating Covid-epoch, so its ability to recuperate discontent has been handed over to the Right. Both, as ever, are part of the enemy we must confront, which is not to make an equivalence of them – they both have very different histories. But neither are – in terms of practical effect – better than the other, and amongst those who find the lies and ideologies of the dominant discourse repulsively manipulative, there are some, despite holding superficial reactive conspiracy theory ideologies, who are open to radical critique, of which there is extremely little.

11/6/21:

UK: recent statistics of deaths of those vaccinated

This is from an email from a friend who copied this from a “breaking news” clip which has not been repeated. It seems that weekly figures are given out officially but precise daily figures, which connect to who’s been vaccinated and who hasn’t amongst cases and those who died don’t exist in any precise form on a daily basis. She writes:

“There have been 42 deaths from Covid in England since 7th June. About half the people were unvaccinated BUT nearly a third had had both vaccinations and yet the government is insisting that having both doses protects against the Delta variant. The remaining deaths were people who had had one dose so basically 50% died despite the vaccination. If you then take into account that 43% of the population are vaccinated, it’s not much of a stretch to come to the conclusion that it makes little or no difference.”

France, Toulouse: clashes between cops and those wanting to just enjoy drinking outside after beginning of Covid-imposed 11pm curfew

The curfew has bit by bit been moved back from 6pm to 11pm because the virus only attacks early in the evening outside the tourist season.

…Paris: partygoers in post-curfew clashes with cops

“Police used tear gas to disperse hundreds of people – mostly minors – who gathered on Friday night for a giant party on the Esplanade des Invalides, in central Paris. Meanwhile, 10 km to the west, tennis fans were granted a curfew reprieve to watch the end of the French Open semi-final. Images published on social media showed crowds of teenagers singing, dancing and drinking without wearing face masks – as required by French law. The revellers had been responding to call put out on social media to hold an impromptu “Project X” party, named after the American film in which teenagers throw a party that spirals out of control. “We danced, and did pogos (jumping in all directions)… There were hundreds and hundreds of people. We must have been at least 1,000 or 1,500.”Another partygoer, Emma, added: “The lawns were full. It had been a long time since we had a party because of the Covid and we really needed it.” Police intervened when the party went beyond 11pm, in violation of a nationwide curfew to stem the spread of Covid-19. Meanwhile a few kilometres west of Les Invalides, at the French Open tennis tournament, the curfew was waived for fans watching Friday night’s semi-final between Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal. Around 20 minutes before the 11pm deadline, Roland Garros authorities announced that spectators would be allowed to remain throughout the duration of the fiercely contested match, which was eventually won by Novak Djokovic 3-6, 6-3, 7-6 (4), 6-2. Tournament organisers said the decision was made as a result of the “completely exceptional circumstances”.

One law for the proles, another for the costly ticket-paying tennis spectators.

10/6/21:

Indian Minister of Health and Chairman of the WHO Executive Board, has decided on a total blackout on news about vaccines in India from today

“ It is forbidden to know what is going on with the vaccine: vaccination information “is the property of the central ministry and should not be shared with any other organization, partner agency, press agency, public online forums and offline ”.“

This article in French is mainly about ivermectin, and says this about India:

“Another miracle is the day after day confirmation of what happened in India, in the states which used Ivermectin, with very rapid resolution of a wave announced by all the media as a disaster that was going to wreak havoc, the media which has since been silent on what is happening. Total blackout. Uttar Pradesh has fallen to less than 1000 cases / day, population 3 times the size of France, which would make 300 cases here, at a time when we are happy to go below 5,000 cases / day! Ditto in states like Delhi and Goa. These 3 states have reduced the cases by 98% compared to the peak at the end of April (37,000 cases for Uttar Pradesh, 28,000 for Delhi).

Since then there has been war in this country between the various national medical authorities under pressure from the WHO and Merck, with press releases authorizing or banning ivermectin. They have gone mad to see these results, but the responsible states do not budge and maintain their position. The Ministry of Health, after authorizing in a protocol, wants to now ban all early treatment. It should be noted in passing that the Minister of Health has been President of the WHO Executive Boardsince May 2020, and that the WHO immediately issued statements to advise against Ivermectin from the start of treatment, a complaint has also been made. filed on this subject, non-assistance to a person in danger is characterized. We then received a statement from the WHO congratulating itself on having intervened in this state to reduce the epidemic, by supervising 2,000 teams and distributing treatment kits, being careful not to say what was in them. Ivermectin, of course, but this product does not exist for the WHO. And more recently, we were treated to another victory press releaseafter the supposed ban (not yet very clear). The WHO, which congratulates itself when we do not give treatment, welcomes the ban on the treatments it has distributed. Incredible !

Finally, a quick comparison between a country that uses ivermectin, and a country that refuses it so as not to interfere with its vaccination campaign.

The figures are from Johns Hopkins University, they are the daily figures averaged over 7 days to avoid weekend breaks. These figures are reported per million inhabitants, to compare 2 countries with unequal populations. We can also see that the Indian wave, as I said since the first day, is much lower in intensity than what France was experiencing. We also see that ivermectin worked well on the Indian variant. Finally, some will tell you that the Indian figures are understated; if this is the case, it is of no importance here to follow an evolution over several months, the collection conditions being the same over the entire period. “

Apparently ivermectin costs the state 10 euros for 15 kilos of the medicine. The daily dose per person depends on their weight – 0.2 milligrams per kilo. Which would, for someone weighing 80 kilos, cost the state (admittedly before packaging etc.) just 1.6 euros for 10,000 days’ supply (or, more rationally, less than half a cent for 30 days’ supply or, even more logically since the disease can be cured in considerably less than 30 days, 0.16 cents for 10 days) . Ivermectin was discovered and developed by Satoshi Omurai who received a Nobel prize for it in 2015.

PCR tests useless if you’re asymptomatic

9/6/21:

May 11th video of Raoult reveals various significant cases of bribery and corruption amongst pharmaceutical companies

Gilead, the creator of the toxic and useless drug remdesivir (which the EU paid a billion euros for trying to cure 500,000 Covid-infected patients at 2000 euros per person) was fined $97million in September 2020 for paying kickbacks (though not for remdesivir). Pfizer was fined $60m. by US regulators for bribing doctors and government officials in eastern Europe, Asia and in the Middle East in the decade up until 2006. AstraZeneca paid out $5.52m in August 2016 in a foreign bribery case involving improper payments by its sales and marketing staff to state employed health officials in China and Russia. In September 2014 officials of the Chinese branch of GlaxoSmithKline pleaded guilty to paying bribes to doctors and hospitals to promote the company’s products in China; fined 1.14 billion euros. Regardless of what you think of Raoult, he presents papers proving this.

8/6/21:

Article showing how healthy user bias produces confusing results in vaccine safety research (a pre-Covid article from October 2015, which is sometimes difficult to grasp for a layman like me)

7/6/21:

Article by doctor looking at various studies comes to conclusion that questions the validity of cloth facemasks inside

“…let’s get to the twelve studies looking at how effective masks are in a community setting. … Seven of these studies, with a total of 5,535 participants, were looking at families in which one person had a respiratory infection. In some of them the sick person wore a mask, in some of them the other family members wore a mask, and in some of them, everybody wore masks. Unfortunately, it didn’t seem to matter who was wearing the mask, none of these studies found any difference in rate of infection between those households in which people were wearing a face mask and the households in which noone was wearing a mask. One explanation could be the low rate of adherence. Only 30-50% of participants were wearing the masks as directed, which I guess is understandable. People want to be able to relax when they’re in their own homes, and they want to be intimate with sick loved ones. …these seven studies don’t tell us that much, but they suggest that there isn’t any point in anyone wearing a mask at home when a member of the household is sick. ..Of all the studies in the review, there were two that looked at healthy university students in dorm rooms during influenza season. The two studies both lasted for six weeks and included 1,683 people. 765 were directed to wear surgical masks as much as possible, and the other 918 were a control group that didn’t wear masks at all. In practice, “as much as possible” meant four hours per day in one study, and five hours per day in the other study. This isn’t great, but I guess it’s hard to get people to wear masks more than that. The reason I think these studies are “best” is because they are the ones most relevant to the covid pandemic, where healthy people in a non-hospital setting are being told to wear masks as much as possible. … so what conclusions can we draw from all these studies? First of all, when it comes to preventing the spread of respiratory infections, N-95 masks might be better than surgical face masks, and surgical face masks are probably better than cloth masks. In fact, cloth masks may not provide any protection at all! So if you’re going to wear a mask, wear a surgical mask or an N-95. Secondly, if you or someone in your household is sick, you probably don’t need to bother wearing a mask at home. The infection will spread at the same rate within the household regardless. If there is a member of a high risk group living in the household, i.e. someone over the age of 70 with serious co-morbidities (and that individual isn’t the one who is sick), then it might make sense for either that person to spend the next week somewhere else, or for the sick individual to do so. Thirdly, face masks do seem to slightly decrease the risk of spreading respiratory infections outside the household setting. However, it is questionable whether an intervention that only impacts one in 24 people, and that only decreases the relative risk of infection by 17%, is having a big enough effect to noticeably slow the speed at which a highly infectious disease like covid-19 spreads through a population. Rather than require that everyone wear a mask at all times when out in public, it might make more sense to restrict mask use to specific situations, for example when interacting with high risk groups in nursing homes (and in those situations to combine the masks with face shields to create a maximally impervious barrier), especially considering that for people below the age of 70 who are otherwise healthy, the risks connected with covid are tiny.”

The comments section of this article has this interesting post: “About 2 months ago there was a publication from an Italian M.D who worked at one of the emergency rooms in the Milano area, where he stated that the ”lesson learned” was that unfortunately there had died a lot of elderly and weak patients, due to the mask policy. The reason was that wearing a mask increases the CO2 level substantially inside the mask, thereby decreasing the O2 level, you also increase the breathing resistance by having a mask in front of your mouth, which if you’re old, weak and have preexisting conditions will be very hard on your body, potentially creating a cytokine storm, besides the Coronavirus is much smaller than the fibermask in the mask, making it like trying to keep a mosquito outside with a fence.”

Article on Vitamin D

“Vitamin D isn’t going to magically make you immune to respiratory infections, but it will likely decrease the frequency with which you get them by a bit if you are not deficient, and by a lot if you are deficient. “

Review of a book called ”Vaccines: truth, lies, and controversy” written by Peter Gotsche which is neither pro- nor anti-vaccine

Sample quote from one of the comments boxes:

“I am a nurse in the US. I am part of the medical establishment. I can’t begin to describe the profound sense of betrayal I feel. Medical professionals engaging in peer pressure. Suddenly if you express the slightest doubt on an issue, you are ostracized. At my hospital, people aren’t really talking about the vaccine much. It has gone silent. This of us who have concerns about the Covid vaccines text each other or only whisper in vacant rooms or supply closets. Seriously. It sounds ludicrous – it wasn’t like this two years ago. People could have different opinions. Not now”

South Africa: Abahlali baseMjondolo press statement

“During the lockdown more than a third of people went hungry. Yet in that national crisis R14 billion was stolen from funds allocated to the Covid-19 emergency. At the same time the poor and the working class were severely abused by the police and the army, and sometimes killed. Our movement suffered relentless violent and illegal attacks state attacks. We got plenty of rubber bullets and some live ammunition fired at us by the state but, like freedom, the tiny R350 Covid grant didn’t reach the shacks.”

6/6/21:

Israel: vaccine may cause myocarditis in some young men

Interesting discussion between American evolutionary biologist and American doctor about current situation, ivermectin (and its history) and the vaccines

This video stayed up for a few days until Youtube decided it violated their Big Brother “community guidelines”. But there’s a podcast downloadable podcast version here

Sample quote:

Doctor: “There were four patients. We knew they were clotting to degrees that we hadn’t seen and there was so much controversy around putting someone on a blood thinner…people are put on blood thinners in hospitals for far less resons than we were promoting with this and so it was just evidence-based maniacism…bizarre…You can’t observe, you can’t make clinical reasoning, you can’t deduce, you need a trial before you do anything”

Biologist: “This is exactly the same in my field. People who are really good at evolutionary biology or ecologists…have intuition, they know how to follow a hunch, they know how to figure out when their hunches are wrong…The point is it’s an art more than a science actually and in the case of a brand-new pandemic that is spreading like wildfire this is of course exactly the mindset that you want. You want people who are capable of figuring out if there is some pattern and then deduce whether they were fooled by some sort of noise-pattern or whether it was actually something, testing a hypothesis but there is a point at which you know and you know better than a study because you’ve acted on that hunch and you’ve seen patients get better and it happens enough times that it can’t be random…Anyway, there’s something about the mindset of the moment – it’s all about peer review…and it’s all about the official guidance from the W.H.O. and the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and it’s basically a kind of intellectual authoritarianism that is so bizarre in the context of a complex system like medicine especially in the context of a brand-new disease that we’re all not experts in. There are no experts that we can simply default to. Everybody’s anomalous.”

Doctor: “I like that term ‘intellectual authoritarianism’. I don’t know if it was occurring to that degree or remotely to that degree pre-Covid…I started to see all the institutions coming out with their treatment protocols – you weren’t allowed to stray from the protocol…suddenly I felt like I was being handcuffed…it was bizarre – I’ve never seen that in my life before.”

Biologist: “I have the sense that doctors have been demoted – forcibly demoted – from the position of scientific clinician to technician and the point is you’re really delivering a pre-packaged good more than you are coming to understand your patient and what they therefore need – and it’s a travesty.”

Doctor: “I’ve never been asked to do that before. I’ve always been asked to use to the best extent my experience, my judgement and insight to best help the patient. That’s the oath I took. The oath wasn’t “Do what the Gods of Science and Knowledge say.”. We’ just little mortals and we have to listen to the Gods. I’ve never been asked that before…Many of them are just desk jockeys – I mean they’re not on the frontlines. They’re reading some papers, they think they know what the disease is, they don’t know what the disease is, they’re not sweating it out, seeing day-to-day the manifestations, the responses to therapy, the lack of responses, they don’t understand this disease and yet they’re telling everyone how to treat it. We want a seat the table, expert clinicians – where’s the expert clinician committee?”

This is illustrative of the developing proletarianisation of the medical middle class , with all the contradictions of its middle class complaints and angst, which are very valid whilst at the same time also failing to recognise how this proletarianisation is, and has long been, replicated amongst those who are lower in the hierarchy, even if often very different ways. Of course, one must add that this is not proletarianisation in any financial sense, at least as yet, nor probably in the forseeable future.

3/6/21:

Professor of immunology interview reveals scary aspects of messenger RNA

He says that a large majority of mRNA spike proteins, which have now been shown to be toxic, get into the bloodstream and can infect various parts of the body (brain, heart, etc) but also can be passed onto others through blood transfusions, and even through breastfeeding, potentially causing bleeding in babies, and, through infection in the ovaries, possibly causing infertility.

2/6/21:

Holland: anarchist reflection on anti-curfew riots of January

1/6/21:

Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is likely responsible for deaths of at least 10% of elderly patients of those who died following vaccination

“The expert group was established at the end of February 2021 to look into the cause of the first 100 reported deaths of nursing home residents who had received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. …Although the mortality rate in nursing homes is generally very high and the deaths of some nursing home residents after vaccination was anticipated, the Norwegian Medicines Agency wanted to determine whether the vaccine had possibly hastened any deaths and to gain a clearer understanding of the risks and benefits of its use in frail elderly people. The review reported on 19 May and concluded that a causal link between the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and death was considered “likely” in 10 of the 100 cases, “possible” in 26 cases, and “unlikely” in 59 cases. The remaining five were deemed “unclassifiable.””

In other words, probably at least 10% and possibly as many as 36% of elderly people who died after having been vaccinated were killed (or had their deaths “hastened”) by the Pfizer vaccine. This report is already almost 2 weeks old and yet has been given virtually NO publicity in the media. Imagine how this might be replicated on a global scale. And yet any critique of this by the holocaust deniers is put down as being “anti-vaxxer”.