This is a chronology not based on the date the information was published but based on the date I decided to publish it.
Those who accuse this site of hyperbole would have thought that even suggesting the possibility of half of what’s happening today just over a year ago was hyperbolic and paranoid. The sleep of subversive reason is spawning an epidemic of monsters.
It should be clear that I am not in accord with the ideological aspects of the content of many of the articles I link to. And, as with all information about Covid, articles have to be filtered through a critical vigilance that I personally have sometimes not invariably exercised in relation to various articles, at least at the time of putting them up. I put them up because they seem to offer alternative sober perspectives on what’s happening.
I should also add that there may well be some inconsistency and contradictory information here. That’s because it’s extremely difficult to sift what is valid, what is speculation and what is manipulation. However, it seems more worthwhile trying to put forward some of what appears to be the more pertinent criticisms of what’s going on than remain silent before the overwhelming propaganda machine and wait a few years in order to be “correct” but too late. “The path toward simplicity is the most complex of all, and here in particular it seemed best not to tear away from the commonplace the tangle of roots which enable us to transplant it into another region, where we can cultivate it to our own profit. ” – here
More here, with reports in English and videos (includes mention of demos 22/9/21)
“…We, the cultural, hospitality, nightlife, art and performance venues, independent or not, refuse to have our lives and our audiences recorded, and want to maintain the accessibility of our venues to all. We will therefore close the doors of our spaces on Friday 1st October. We are only striking for one day because we can’t afford more, and prolonging the strike would not correspond to our economic realities after these long months of pandemic. Of course, we want to reopen our venues and welcome our audiences; but the situation is such that we have to mark, by at least one day of strike, our opposition to the application of the covid certificate. However, going on strike does not mean stopping our activities! We will move them into the public space for the occasion; because a strike means stopping work, but it is also an opportunity to meet up, to eat and to imagine the possible together. It seems essential to us, at a time when the right to demonstrate is weakening in Switzerland, to take back possession of the space outside, without asking for authorization. On October 1st we will occupy public space to do what we do best: discussions, shows, concerts, meals… So that we can gather without having to justify our health situation or declare our identity. In the current context of moblisation against sanitary measures, we want to clearly distance ourselves from the postures adopted by the extreme right. We are aware of the extent of the health situation and its repercussions on our lives, but we would like to remind you of the distinction that must be made between the reality of the pandemic that affects us and the security policies that are being tightened and to which we are firmly opposed.”
Noteworthy is not just the New York politician’s relating God to the vaccines but also the way American leftists ignore the large presence of black working class people among the vaccine-skeptics.
Includes the virologist and immunologist who first developed mRNA vaccines. Haven’t yet seen all of this, but it seems that the vaccinated are between 30% and 50% more protected than the unvaccinated (in France I saw the figure elsewhere of 42% protected) but the vaccinated are a higher risk of becoming super-spreaders. A leading Belgian virologist (and vaccine developer for many Pharma companies, involved with the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, who, surprisingly, is calling for the immediate cessation of the Covid vaccine programme) predicts a massive future wave of contagion due to the suppression of natural immunity, and thus the diminishing of the infectious pressure, caused by the vaccination programme. He says the non-vaccinated, having a more diversive immune response, serve as a dampening function in the distribution of the virus mutants and will be more equipped to deal, more selective, with all the variants, rather than specific variants or the unmutated virus.
This seems to be confirmed by this comment about a different article here:
“X attacks your body. Your body doesn’t know what’s attacking so it sends out the ordinary everyday antibodies, O, to defend itself. Eventually O defeats the virus and you recover. Your T cells now have knowledge or the virus X and next time the virus or a virus within as much as a 25% variation attacks, your T Cells recognise it and send out exactly the right antibodies immediately to see off the threat. So say the virus mutates a percent or so and becomes the Delta variant D. Unvaccinated, your body recognises D immediately and sees it off easily.
But when you are vaccinated against the X variant, your defences against the X variant are so strong, that completely overrides your O antibodies so when D attacks, your body sends out X antibodies which can only deal with X. Your X antibodies are so strong they completely override your O antibodies . And D gets the better of your body and you get seriously poorly.
Basically when vaxxed your body will deal with X next time but will not deal with anything else including flu, because your immune system has been compromised and overridden.”
“…over the next month, children who under UK law are too young to make the decision to smoke, drink alcohol, consent to sex, rent or buy age-rated films, get a tattoo or piercing, work full-time, drive a car, change their name, open a bank account, serve on a jury or vote in an election, who have been subjected to 18 months of coronavirus-justified restrictions in school and at home, to campaigns of guilt and blame in the media about them ‘killing granny’, to lies from the Government about the level of threat of COVID-19 to themselves and others, to indoctrination by their teachers into the cultic practices of biosecurity, to peer pressure from their fellow schoolchildren to comply with the New Normal, and with totally inadequate and misleading information about the risks and possible consequences for them of being injected with these experimental ‘vaccines’ for a disease to which they are statistically immune — will nonetheless be classified as Gillick competent to overrule their parents. Presumably, this represents the less than ‘ideal’ circumstances under which their parents cannot override their decision.”
Of course, the limitation of this and so many other criticisms of the current epoch is that it abstracts from other miseries and ends up with a legalistic democratic discourse. It’s as if the last 18 months has produced yet another thick layer of alienation, like a new armour-plated Russian doll, whose latest Covid-epoch-impregnated largest external doll hides so many other alienations and miseries, which nevertheless are inter-connected, and yet which hardly anybody mentions.
Some are saying this is fake news, demanding evidence for what it says is fake, though without providing evidence themselves of it being fake . Who knows? Clearly what he says about attributing deaths to Covid when many weren’t caused by it has been confirmed all over the place. As for the rest – judge for yourself (I haven’t seen all of it).
“It seems that the doctors and ”experts” who appear on tv and who drive public policy have completely forgotten how evolution works. Let’s take bacteria as an analogy. Bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics when we use antibiotics too generously. Indiscriminate use of antibiotics puts evolutionary pressure on bacteria to develop resistance, since that’s the only way they can survive in the antibiotic saturated environment. Yet, now, we are supposed to believe that the opposite is true for viruses – they apparently develop resistance when we underuse vaccines! We’re suddenly supposed to believe that up is down and down is up. Just like with bacteria and antibiotics, vaccine resistance will develop in a situation where the vaccines are being overused – if you vaccinate large numbers of healthy young people who don’t really need to be vaccinated then you put strong evolutionary pressure on the virus to become vaccine resistant….In recent weeks, I’ve personally seen multiple cases of myocarditis that occurred days after vaccination. When I’ve suggested to colleagues that we should report them to the authorities as possible vaccine side effects, the response I’ve been met with has been roughly this: “oh, yeah, maybe that’s a good idea… I don’t know how to do that”. I’ve reported the cases I’ve handled personally, but my guess, based on this reaction, is that most other cases have not been reported. Obviously, if you believe that what actually gets reported is an accurate estimate of the reality, then you will grossly underestimate the case rate.”
This is contested here, replied to here and given a further nuance here.
Full of bullshit (eg the standard Newspeak that categorises/stereotypes those skeptical of mRNA vaccines as “anti-vaxxers” – see this for a critique of this unthinking mentality) but also some facts. Indicative of the miserable muddled idiocy of both the Right and the Left and of this intensely depressing epoch.
“The Testimonies Project was created to provide a platform for all those who were affected after getting the covid-19 vaccines, and to make sure their voices are heard, since they are not heard in the Israeli media. We hope this project will encourage more and more people to tell their story.”
“You know that thing about wars that are never meant to be won, but to be a continuous source of profits for weapons makers? Do we think, in our United States, that the Pentagon-arms manufacturer dance just CAN’T be what’s going on with the medical bureaucracy and Pharma? Or do we think
that just CAN’T be what’s going on with this one type of weapon they produce — vaccines? Something leftists might think about how they think about.
It’s a very dangerous situation because the medical bureaucracy has not, and never will, look for an alternative. They are completely invested, financially AND ideologically, in vaccines as the solution. It’s always been about vaccines, and getting a permanent regime of mandatory adult vaccination—and those continuous profits. The longer they cling to that paradigm—and it’s going to be very hard, virtually impossible, for the
generals medical bureaucrats to admit they were wrong—the bigger the disaster to come if it doesn’t work. And it isn’t.
Of course, it’s not ALL about profit. In fact, the most difficult thing to overcome is the ideological commitment of the agents of the apparatus (and all those they have convinced) to the rightness of the
‘missionary-imperialist pharmaceutical/vaccine paradigm.
The Gates-Fauci paradigm—which is now the dominant one—sees the human body as defective and infective, a plague-carrier, until and unless it
is properly pharmaceuticalized. The natural human immune system just doesn’t work well enough. It has to be effectively REPLACED with a pharmaceutical construct, built with the latest, constantly-upgraded, patented and profitable vaccines and genetic coding packages that EVERYBODY is forced to take.
Speaking of Bill Gates, if you’ve ever used something from, uh, Microsoft, you may recognize the
“science” grift business plan. Moderna literally says it’s creating an “mRNA *technology platform* that functions very much like an *operating system*… designed so that it can *plug and play* interchangeably with different programs…the ‘program’ or ‘app’ is our mRNA drug,” which Moderna calls the “Software of Life.” [I cannot make this up.]
In other words, they will be selling what amounts to immunity-software-as-a-service, where you subscribe to constant updates of the “software of life” via proprietary, plug-and-play “unique mRNA sequence[s]”and coding packages that fix all the new variants—yes, perfectly, bugs—that may emerge. And also JUST HAPPEN to create a constant a stream of income.
The purpose is not to win the war against the virus, but to keep it going as a continuous source of profits.
The model of “public health” in this paradigm is a society divided between quarantined bubble-people and continuously- and fully-vaccinated people, made “free” by the pharmaceutical fix. The unfortunately stubborn and the blissfully compliant. (And we’ll make life too difficult for the stubborn to resist.)
This paradigm JUST HAPPENS to be profitable; they sincerely think. (As does everyone who has been sincerely convinced by them.)
This paradigm is also the surest way to LOSE humanity’s war against viruses. As every scientist before the year 2020 would have said.
Think about this for a minute, scientifically and logically, as you’d think about any such paradigm for chemically or genetically re-engineering any other complex natural eco-system. No one—certainly no one from the left—would or should accept such techno-dystopian nonsense: ‘The earth will kill us with hunger, floods, and plagues unless we sufficiently herbicide all the crops, dam the rivers, fill in the wetlands, and kill all the insects. Do you question that? You’re killing people!’ Says the agro-chemical industry. Oops, I mean “science.” ….”
This brings together in one place and with a fairly radical perspective things that have been said elsewhere…A good implicit riposte to the kind of support for totalitarianism from pseudo-anarchists (like this nauseatingly misinformed rubbish). Over 100 years ago Kropotkin, anarchists in the French CGT as well as “marxist” social democrats in Germany, supported one side or another in WWI. History repeats itself….
“One of the industries where Wikipedia’s bias is most noticeable is healthcare. In an article for the Orthomolecular News Service, Howard Strauss, Grandson of Max Gerson, MD (the creator of the Gerson cancer therapy) states that:
“This writer and many others in the field of alternative medicine and natural healing have experienced Wikipedia bias personally when contributing well-documented, carefully researched articles to the site, only to have them be radically altered and deleted, by anonymous “editors,” then being banned from further editing or contributions. This is impossible to reconcile with a free flow of information.”
And this can be verified as Wikipedia keeps a public record of all edits made to an article over time. He goes on to comment on the history of Wikipedia and states that:
“At first, it was interesting to see uncensored information flow through the site, and even contribute to it. Then corporate America realized that Wikipedia, and similar sites, were distributing information they had carefully and thoroughly suppressed in the media, and set about correcting that omission. Soon, Wikipedia entries about natural healing, holistic medicine, and other subjects began to resemble publicity blurbs from Monsanto, or Merck, or the NIH. Contributors are supposed to be anonymous, “volunteer” editors were supposed to be both anonymous and neutral. But it was clear that for certain sensitive subjects, this was far from the case.”
If you want to see Wikipedia’s bias for yourself, just search for any medical discipline that isn’t drug-based. And if you want to make things really fun, take a shot of whiskey every time you see the word ‘pseudoscience’.
Here are real snippets from Wikipedia entries on alternative forms of medicine and natural healing, taken from the first few sentences of the entry…
Chiropractic: “Chiropractic is a pseudoscientific alternative medicine…”
Chinese medicine: “Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is a branch of traditional medicine in China. It has been described as “fraught with pseudoscience.“
Homeopathy: “Homeopathy or homoeopathy is a pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine.”
Ayurveda: “The theory and practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific.” Acupuncture: “Acupuncture is a pseudoscience.”
German New Medicine: “Germanic New Medicine (GNM), also formerly known as German New Medicine and New Medicine, a system of pseudo-medicine.“
Functional Medicine: “Functional medicine is a form of alternative medicine that encompasses a number of unproven and disproven methods and treatments.“
The editors display a shocking level of bias by cherry-picking references, many of which are not peer-reviewed or scientific, and make hollow claims which they portray as facts.”
Homeopathy-sceptics think that the degree of dilution of homeopathic remedies is too absurd to be efficacious (at every stage of dilution the medical property is shaken in water 100 times, and diluted to up to 100,000,000 times, sometimes more). It should be pointed out that sharks can smell one drop of blood in 100 million times the amount of water. A radioactive substance can likewise be detected in at least 10 million times the amount of water than of that substance. Whilst homeopathy is no cure-all and sometimes you need allopathic medicine (one shouldn’t be dogmatic about such things one way or the other), it gives a far greater degree of autonomy, of non-dependence on experts, than allopathy.
In the US, the first homeopaths came from Germany, spreading quickly their form of treatment throughout the 1830s and 1840s. From 1847 (the creation of the American Medical Association – AMA) onwards they were increasingly opposed by urban allopaths (who often advocated bleeding or mercury “cures” that made patients worse) whose elite cosmopolitan position enabled them to wage a constant war against homeopaths whom they labelled as “quacks”. The first code of practice of the AMA stated clearly that the patient’s view was not to be entertained: “The obedience of a patient to the prescriptions of his doctor should be prompt and implicit”, warning that patients should not permit their “own crude opinions” to influence attention to treatments given them by doctors. In its early years it ordered all local medical societies to expel homeopaths. With the turn of the century the AMA sought and secured the backing of major industrial foundations, in particular that of Rockefeller and later Carnegie, which bit by bit managed to stop the funding of all medical schools teaching homeopathy (also cutting the funding of almost all schools giving places to poorer whites, blacks or women). From the beginning, the support of scientific medical research by industry meant that the responsibility for disease was placed with the internal biological structure of the individual organism. In terms of illness, the individual became separated from their environment and the industrial process, both of which were inevitably seen by the large industrial foundations as benign. This was in sharp contrast to the older holistic view of medicine, which always tried to see the person with the context of their immediate environment.
If you believe the statistics of this article, 2000 cops were deployed against 700 demonstrators, 10 cops were injured by them, of whom at least 235 were arrested. Video here.
“…Here is the curve of covid cases in Israel, since the beginning of the epidemic. It is clear that vaccination or no vaccination, there is no effect, if not worse, the more people are vaccinated, the stronger the waves are:
Was it a total failure in Israel to obtain this famous collective immunity and to contain the epidemic, whereas the Indians obtained it at 67.6% with the disease and early treatment?
What are the possible biases in reading this curve?
We explained here that the case curve may not be the best index to compare, because it depends on the tests: the more you test, the more cases you have. So here is the test curve. It’s more or less superimposable, so some would say it’s not worse, but the last 3 waves are more or less the same because of the more tests.
If these last 3 waves are more or less identical, let’s point out that the first was without vaccines or treatments, the second half vaccinated, the last very vaccinated. This clearly confirms the low efficiency of vaccines, even in a country that is doing everything possible. The same is true in Iceland, which is more vaccinated than Israel: the results of vaccination are not obvious…These findings are not exclusive to Israel or Iceland. Three papers (from the CDC, Oxford University and the UK Department of Health) also find this. Why doesn’t it work? The first reason is that we vaccinate for the delta variant, with a vaccine made for the Wuhan strain. The second reason is that immunity wears off quickly over time, as with seasonal flu.”
There were about 300 people there. For a mid-week demo at 10am, not called by any union or political organisation, this was quite a good amount of people. Possibly a majority were health workers, many being threatened with suspension because they refuse to be vaccinated. There were no French flags, which is a nice change. A local politician tried to speak through his megaphone for the cameras but was deliberately drowned out by drumming and the singing of the yellow vest song, with some people saying they didn’t want any spokesmen.
“…since 1 February… of the 1,091 people who died after two injections, 1,054 were 50 years of age or older (97 per cent), while of the 536 who died without being ‘vaccinated’, 437 were 50 or over (81.5 per cent).”
This text should be read with a fine eye for how far it is not being entirely clear. For one thing, the above shows, if I’ve understood correctly, that of those who died after 2 injections, 37 were under 50 and amongst the unvaccinated 99 were under 50. So, though it shows that the vaccine is not particularly effective (surprise surprise), it doesn’t seem to show it’s completely ineffective.
However, this seems valid: “…as of 30 June, 2021, the most recent date for which figures were available before the article was published, there were 1,037,376 adverse drug reactions to COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ reported to the MHRA, including 1,440 deaths. This was, already, 17.25 times the 60,137 adverse drug reactions reported to the MHRA for all other vaccines approved in the UK since 2010.
Unfortunately, the MHRA didn’t provide the figures on how many doses of these other vaccines were administered since 2010, compared with the more than 90 million doses of COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ administered so far. But if both PHE and PHS can dismiss the deaths following injection with COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ as ‘natural’ deaths of people they expected to die anyway because of their age or pre-existing health conditions, how can they account for this enormous increase in the merely reported adverse drug reactions over such a short time when compared to earlier vaccines, no doubt each administered in smaller quantities but over a far longer period of time and for multiple infections and diseases? Is this, too, just a ‘coincidence’?”
And this quote from here is interesting: ‘The COVID-19 vaccines have comparatively high rates of side effects and fatalities. The current figure is around four fatalities per 100,000 vaccinations, as documented by the most thorough European documentation system. Currently, our estimates show that we have to accept four fatal and 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations in order to save the lives of 2–11 individuals per 100,000 vaccinations, placing risks and benefits on the same order of magnitude. For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination. This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.’
This is from someone who is possibly cherry-picking data as much as those who use official data to prove the efficacy of the mRNA vaccine. Given so much confusion and contradictory information coming from all sides, one suspects that people, just to give themselves an air of knowing what’s what, plump for one side or the other without trying to wade through the fog.
“In Copenhagen, the Health Pass creates a monster
10 September 2021
The Copenhagen police are going to ban people with criminal records from nightlife venues…. How will the cops or bar managers distinguish between a person with and without a criminal record? Is this the introduction of a permanent control, a pass for everyone, all the time? Will the good citizens of Copenhagen have to sign in every time they go for a drink? Or will everyone be asked to report to the police if they have any doubts about a person? A hint already from Anne Tønnes, head of the Copenhagen police: “The law allows the exchange of information about people banned from nightlife with bar owners. In short, after the announcement of the abandonment of the health pass in Denmark, the control society continues. If today some people still don’t see that the issue of the health pass is far outdated by a matrix of control society that existed long before this pass… the future they hoped would be sweet will in fact be bitter. Four central areas of the city close to bars and restaurants will be considered ‘nightlife zones’. People with previous convictions for types of offences such as certain ‘crimes against the person’ or ‘weapons offences’ will be banned from these areas. Of course the image of the aggressor is frightening. But should we allow freewheeling police societies to develop, which, becoming increasingly ill, are making a dizzying flight towards dystopian solutions whose ideology is to generalise prison conditions to the whole of society? How can someone who has served his or her sentence still be considered legally guilty? This is a reversal of justice in favour of the police. Beyond that, this decision is an admission of total failure of the prison system and the judicial system. After a sentence, here is another sentence, and without justice. It is a regime of permanent guilt. And in the end, what we see is that in the face of this failure of a society that has never tried an egalitarian model to get out of problems, the spare wheel it proposes is the advent of police states where everyone is likely to be controlled and invited to be a snitch. Recently a new job has been created: police auxiliary bartender. This law is expected to come into force on 14 September for a period of two years, i.e. until 13 September 2023, the Copenhagen police said in a statement. It can be predicted that in the near future, if nothing is done to change the global model of our societies, here or there, other forms of exclusion will affect other categories of people considered as enemies of society. Will you be one of these next categories?”
Translation of significant extracts:
“As we can see, the opportunities opened up by the use of digital technologies are immense, and the Covid-19 crisis has only served to give a foretaste of the many possible uses in the short, medium and long term. While the Covid-19 pandemic is not over, and is likely to be neither the last nor the strongest, it would be irresponsible not to take advantage of such opportunities. The widespread restrictions on ‘physical’ freedoms in recent months are increasingly untenable. They are neither sustainable nor even very effective, compared to what would be possible with a more systematic use of digital technology. The use of digital technology would allow precise control of compliance with health measures, at an individual level and in real time: restrictions could be targeted at a small number of people, and be more limited in time, while having maximum effectiveness. Perhaps tomorrow, thanks to digital technology, we will be able to regain our ‘physical’ freedoms more quickly, or even never give them up, and
have pandemics without lockdown….
There are many possible tools but, in the short and medium term at least, using the most obvious cases concerns monitoring compliance with rules aimed at limiting the transmission of the virus (health pass, curfews, lockdowns, quarantines, etc.), which implies connecting types of data: identification data, medical data, and location data (from the most intrusive, with GPS tracking, to the lightest and most conditional access to certain places, and relative location data with contact tracing)….
For example, in the case of a rapidly spreading epidemic or one with a very high mortality rate, medial teams could go immediately to the homes of vulnerable people (or wherever they are), to vaccinate them, treat them or
make them safe. This is not a question of intervening with “all over-65s” or “all the inhabitants of a given town”: the cross-referencing of data and the use of artificial intelligence make it possible to target extremely fine targeting. For example: – by using genetic data, it could be possible to immediately identify people who are receptive to a very rare variant of a virus by exploiting genetic data, it could be possible to immediately identify people who are receptive to a very rare variant of a virus, or to a particular vaccine or treatment, and thus to mobilise medical resources in a much more efficient way. Without going that far, the simple automated exploitation of the medical file of each individual of the targeted population could already permit a great deal:
– by exploiting data from connected objects, which could also be accessible from the digital health space, it could be possible to intervene upstream of the onset or deterioration of symptoms: data from ECGs, connected scales, connected thermometers, thermal cameras detecting feverish symptoms, etc.;
– by exploiting mobility data, it could be possible to position teams (for information, testing, vaccination, etc.) at the right places and times to reach as many people as possible (a transport hub, a public gathering, etc.), who may have been warned in advance…
Finally, in the most extreme crisis situations, digital tools could enable effective, exhaustive control in real time of the population’s compliance with restrictions, with dissuasive sanctions, if necessary, and based on an even more exceptional use of personal data.
These tools are the most effective, but also the most restrictive
freedoms – but once again, it would be irresponsible not to at least consider them, if only to convince ourselves of doing everything possible to prevent this from happening. Many cases of use are possible, and in particular : –
control of movement: electronic bracelet to monitor quarantine, deactivation of the pass for public transport, detection of number plates by speed cameras, electronic gates 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 control purposes;
– monitoring of social contacts, for example visiting a vulnerable family member when you are contagious;
– monitoring of transactions, for example imposing an automatic fine, detecting a medical purchase (which may suggest either infection or smuggling in times of shortage), or the illegal pursuit of a business activity (trade, etc.) in spite of the restrictions.
…The greater the threat, the more societies will be prepared to accept
intrusive technologies, and greater restrictions on their individual freedoms – and this is logical.”
For further aspects of this see entry for 21/6/21 on this site-
The official figure for demonstrators throughout France is 12`1,000. Taking the official figure (3,500) for Montpellier into account, I’d say even if you doubled the figures it’d be less than the amount of those that actually participated. The usual distortion.
Not seen it all, but…
“… the two-dimensional code on the passes, which is scanned at the entrance to various places, banalises a permanent and useless identity check…. the health pass … allows any person scanning the two-dimensional codes to consult the health data (in addition to the surname, first names, date of birth) of the persons holding the documents: date, place and type of RT-PCR test, result of the screening; name and manufacturer of the vaccine, number of doses received and number of doses needed, date of the last injection. ..the health pass data can be misused by any person scanning a health pass (including, of course, the people in charge of checking these passes at the entrance of a festival or a concert)….the impact assessment produced by the government itself considered that this risk of misapplication of the scan to divert data was serious and likely. This does not prevent the Council of State from judging that this risk “seems low”….the paper version of the health passes endangers in the same way the personal data contained in the two-dimensional code…”
Wonder if this applies also to the deceased.
Criticism of study that says Covid is 4 times more dangerous than the vaccine (translated from a Hebrew Facebook page)
Translation of a Facebook post by Yafa Shir-Raz, 3/9/2021:
What lies behind the explosive headlines that “the largest study in the world has found that the risk of corona is four times higher than the risk of a vaccine”?
Do you know the story about Herschel’s telegram? One day Herschel learned that his brother, who lives in a remote town, was about to get married. He asked to send him a congratulatory telegram, in which he wrote: “My dear brother, congratulations on your marriage. I wish you and your bride all the best and that we will build an exemplary family and a good life.” But every word on the telegram costs a lot of money. And so Herschel found himself shortening the telegram more and more, until he was finally left with “my dear brother.” But then he thought that this too could be shortened, because, well, it is clear that his brother knows that he is dear to him, and no doubt he also knows that he is his brother, so why exaggerate? He decided to give up the telegram.
Why did I recall this story?
Because last Saturday, Dr. Yaakov Ophir and I asked to write a review article on the new study published in the journal NEJM, by researchers from Clalit Health Fund headed by Prof. Ran Belitzer, that found, at least according to media headlines, “that the risk is high 4 times the risk of the vaccine.”
Beyond the incredible timing – sheer coincidence of course – just after it was revealed that the FDA’s approval for Pfizer’s vaccine was actually accompanied by a warning against meningitis and myocarditis especially for teens and young men, the question arises is this really what the study found? Did the researchers prove that the risk of coronary heart disease is four times higher than the risk of the vaccine?
The disturbing feeling, that these bombastic headlines are manipulation of the media, was not the only concern in relation to the study, and Jacob and I were not the only ones who felt concerned. Independent researchers around the world have engaged in the last week and a half since the publication of the article examining the study, its methodology and findings, and many of them have posted on Twitter and Facebook serious reviews of various roblems in it.
We decided, like other researchers, to send a review article to the journal itself. To our surprise, it became clear to us that, as in Herschel’s telegram story, we were forced, literally, to consider words, since the word budget that the NEJM allows for responses to articles published in it is, believe it or not, 175 words. Barely a paragraph.
In other words, the message is – forget about it, don’t send us a review.
Still we decided to try to meet the challenge and send one. What will happen to our review paragraph we do not know yet. We’ll live and see, but since who knows if and when it will be published, and in any case due to the suffocating brace, our article covers only three of the problems that undermine the validity of the study, I have added here additional criticisms, some of which have also been raised by other researchers:
1. Exclusion (or exclusion from the study) of populations that could have “destroyed” the results:
a. People who have a previous diagnosis of corona infection
b. Elderly people in nursing homes and people in institutions
c. People confined to their homes for medical reasons
d. People who have had a side effect that has been documented in the past in their medical file
Great, right? Precisely the most sensitive populations, which are the most interesting to know what their risk is, were excluded from the study. Also, disqualifying people with previous diagnoses may result in missing out and losing important data on the aggravation of existing conditions and diseases, a condition that has indeed been reported in the medical literature.
2. Discontinuation of follow-up after the first side effects
People who were diagnosed with corona – in the vaccinated group or the unvaccinated group – they simply stopped following them. What’s the problem with that? The problem is that this too can lead to missing out and losing important data on side effects.
3. Follow-up time is too short – only 21 days after the second dose:
a. It is not possible to compare follow-up for 21 days after the second dose, and follow-up for 42 days after infection with corona.
b. 21 days can by no means be long enough to identify medium-term risks such as myocarditis / pericarditis, whose diagnosis, as the research literature suggests, and also the findings in the field since the start of the vaccination campaign, is considered challenging, and often involves a lengthy process.
4. The argument that the vaccine is safer than getting Corona is problematic and defective:
a. No stratification is done according to age / sex – very problematic: how can one ignore age and sex, when it is explicitly known that there is a different expression of risk factors at different ages / sexes? For example, the risk of myocarditis is particularly high in adolescent boys and young men.
b. What about the booster? Each dose of vaccine involves a risk in itself, and even if we assume that the risk does not increase with each dose further, the renewed risk cannot be ignored each time.
c. It is now clear and well known that the vaccine does not protect against infection – vaccinated people become infected, and in high percentages. As I wrote this week, the evidence for this fact, which by the way Fauchi admitted as early as January, is being exposed in more and more studies, not to mention the reality on the ground in Israel.
The simple implication of this finding is that a person can suffer from both the side effects of the vaccine and the side effects of the disease.
5. The study did not include subjects aged 12-15.
This is despite the fact that it is now known that the risk of serious side effects in adolescents is the greatest, and the FDA in the accompanying warning approving the vaccine even admitted that the risk of myocarditis is highest at young ages.
6. Death is not included as a side effect!
Dr. Josh Guetzkow puts this critique: “If people who died after the vaccine were at higher risk of dying from one of the serious side effects the study addressed (such as heart attacks, strokes, myocardial infarction or pulmonary embolism) compared to those without vaccines, then the counting of side effects is skewed downwards for the vaccinated group.”
A quite possible speculation that he raises: perhaps the reason why we see more myocarditis in young people is simply that when this phenomenon occurs in the elderly, they are at high risk of dying.
The finding that vaccinated people had a lower risk of acute kidney damage, anemia, cerebral hemorrhage and lymphopenia (decreased lymphocyte count) and ‘other thrombi’ should serve as a bright red light for researchers and reviewers that there is a source of massive bias here, and not that they have discovered of some kind of fairy dust that cures these diseases”, says Dr. Getzko. “The irony is that the authorities dismiss the claims of a link between the vaccine and many different side effects as impossible, because there is no mechanistic explanation. But when it is claimed that the vaccine can work wonders simply ‘because’, no one doubts it.”
And back to the question – what is behind the headlines in the media, and whether the study really found a four times higher risk of myocarditis in the unvaccinated compared to the vaccinated – the answer is that this comparison is also problematic to say the least, as the study actually included two independent comparisons between two different follow-up groups – one sample in which a comparison was made between vaccinated and unvaccinated, and a second sample in which PCR verified and unverified were compared. Trying to compare the two samples and draw a conclusion from it, and one so decisive and resonant, is problematic, as the authors themselves write in the article. Who formulated this cheap manipulation and made sure that it was distributed in this way in all the media, and was it only due to the superficiality and lack of knowledge of the journalists? I’ll leave you to think about it.
Link to the research:
Israel: ivermectin v. ivermectin
Translation of a Facebook post from 3/9/22:
Well, such a thing I’ve really never seen before, neither in the context of the corona nor at all. It’s insanely delusional.
Two news reports on the same drug two days apart, the same presenter (Dany Kushmero), the same reporter (Yoav Even) and the same experts interviewed in the report(Prof. Amit Asa from Asuta hospital and Prof. Eli Schwartz from Sheba Hospital), in the same positions and even wearing the exact same clothes.
So what has changed in two days?
On 31.8.21 Ivermectin was introduced as “a favorite of anti-vaxxers”, with an FDA warning that it is intended for animals, reporter Yoav Even noted that ‘anti-vaxxers’ spread *false* rumors about it’s forbidden use even though it has been proven effective, and adds that the drug is not intended to treat corona. Prof. Eli Schwartz says that there’s no substitute for vaccine, that using Ivermectine means taking a drug over time, that it’s not possible to take a drug for years. He adds that even if the drug helps, he’s sure it will not be as helpful as the vaccine.
Two whole days have passed, 2.9.21, the same channel, the same major evening edition, the same players, the same medicine – the complete opposite message: This time they speak about how 9 months earlier, the same Prof. Eli Schwartz, a world-renowned expert on tropical diseases, did research on the same medicine (which already exists 40 Year) in 100 corona patients in a mild condition, and after 3 days (!!!) 95% of them stopped being contagious, compared to 50% in the placebo group. The same Eli Schwartz who two days earlier said that the drug should be taken for years, and who would even want to take it – now says that the drug is taken for only 3 days, and that’s according to a study he did 9 months ago! He adds that the drug can get people out of quarantine on the fourth day, which is a tremendous social, and economic change.
That study also appears in this article published exactly a year ago, on 8.9.20 [in Hebrew]: https://www.ynet.co.il/health/article/SkIRr5V4D
The reporter Yoav Even, who two days ago ridiculed ‘anti-vaxxers’ for jumping on a drug for animals and being hospitalized because of it, suddenly makes a U-turn and notes that according to studies done in Sheba hospital and around the world, not only does the drug prevent infection but can also prevent deterioration in corona patients.
Eli Schwartz appears again and says we have a treasure in hand that can prevent the congestion in the hospitals, but neither the Ministry of Health nor the HMOs were willing to help with that. Yoav Even concludes by saying that the professor is frustrated, because he really believes that the drug can help prevent infection and prevent the disease from deteriorating, and only lacks a large and comprehensive study to support the other studies that have already been done, only that “there is no funding for it”…
The irony is that the company producing this drug, “Merck”, is the biggest opponent of using the drug itself, because it is very cheap ($4 per pill abroad) and it is working on a new drug that has been promised a billion dollars by the health authorities in the US if it’s eventually approved.
“Global capitalism has no fundamental values — other than exchange value, of course — and thus it is free to manufacture any kind of “reality” it wants, and replace one “reality” with a new “reality” any time that serves its purposes, like stagehands changing a theatrical set.”
This comment seems pertinent (not that some of the others aren’t).
This is Bill de Blasio, Mayor of New York City – speaking at 0.23 seconds in.
This is from December 2019 and the above notion is a hypothetical extrapolation not said explicitly in the article.
“Châtelet les Halles, Paris. Hundreds of anti-sanitary pass protesters invaded the Forum des Halles, forcing their way into the shopping centre. A “flashmob demonstration from Bastille” is said to be the cause of the outburst. The police intervened to repel them. Gare Saint-Charles, Marseille. The procession started at the Vieux-Port and then moved towards the Gare Saint-Charles. The demonstrators forced their way through, pushing police officers aside, to invade the departures and arrivals hall.”
Slogans shouted in Montpellier (some of which rhyme in French but not in translation):
Prétexte sanitaire, état autoritaire ! ( Health pretext, authoritarian state!)
Macron, Le Pen, c’est du pareil au même ! ( Macron, Le Pen, it’s all the same!)
Le pass sanitaire, on n’en veut pas !
Le contrôle social, on n’en veut pas !
Reconnaissance faciale, on n’en veut pas !
Sécurité globale, on n’en veut pas !
Le fichage, on n’en veut pas !
Ségrégation sociale, on n’en veut pas !
( The health pass – we don’t want it!
Social control – – we don’t want it!
Facial recognition, we don’t want it!
Global security, we don’t want it!
Reducing us to bureaucratic files, we don’t want it!
Social segregation, we don’t want it! )
On est là, on est là !
Même si l’État le veut pas, nous on est là !
Contre le pass sanitaire et lois sécuritaires !
Même si l’État le veut pas, nous on est là !
(To the tune of a Yellow Vest song:
We are here, we are here!
Even if the state doesn’t want it, we are here!
Against the health pass and security laws!
Even if the state doesn’t want it, we are there! )
Pass sanitaire, mesure totalitaire ! Ségrégation sociale, outil du capital !
(The Health Pass, a totalitarian measure! Social segregation, a tool of capital! )
Non aux boucs émissaires, Soyons tous solidaires ! ( No to scapegoats, let’s all show solidarity!)
Le pass il sert à quoi ? Travaille, consomme et ferme ta gueule
(What is the purpose of the pass? Work, consume and shut up!)
The choice between Statistdee and Statistdum.
Not a radical text by any means (ahistorical belief in some pre-Covid “good” journalism, often psychologistic, not searching for fundamental social reasons for the manipulations of the media, etc.) but it brings together some pertinent criticisms of how “fact checking” functions:
Frugal fact-checking: inconsistency in citing sources; Emotional fact-checking: announcing reason and brandishing emotion; One-sided fact-checking: the end of the dialectic; Defamatory fact-checking: the death knell of the medicine man; Self-contradictory fact-checking: the truth, when it suits us; No-questions-asked fact-checking: the case is closed!; Dramatic fact-checking: welcome to the Karpman triangle!
“…According to the CDC, the cumulative data from February 2020 to May 2021 are as follows: for young people aged 0 to 17, out of 100 people, the risk of hospitalisation is 0.29 and the risk of death is 0.00. Where is the objectivity in claiming that a risk is low when it is close to 0 and on the other hand, in concealing a much higher risk linked to vaccination?
The above does not necessarily include long-term effects which may only become apparent after many months or even years. The experience with Sanofi-Pasteur’s dengue vaccine Dengvaxia illustrates the importance of being cautious. A mechanism identified in 1977(3) called ‘antibody-facilitated infection’, in which antibodies help the virus instead of inactivating it, led to the death of 600 out of 800,000 children vaccinated…(Carol Isoux : « Autopsie d’un vaccin. La course entre labos au risque du scandale sanitaire », revue XXI, numéro 52, automne 2020). This antibody-facilitated mechanism of infection is known in coronaviruses. It is what prevented the production of vaccines against the 2002 SARS-Cov-1 (J.L.Bourdineaud, CRIIGEN, www.criigen.org, juillet 2021). It is inconceivable to ignore this well-documented precedent!”
“Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred.”
– Joseph Goebbels
Contrary to the association of the unvaccinated with public danger, some experts contend that it is the vaccinated that are more likely to drive mutant variants through selection pressure. Just as antibiotics result in higher mutation rates and adaptive evolution in bacteria, leading to antibiotic resistance, so may vaccines push viruses to mutate. (Hence the prospect of endless “boosters” against endless new variants.) This phenomenon has been studied for decades, as this article in my favorite math & science website, Quanta, describes. The mutated variants evade the vaccine-induced antibodies, in contrast to the robust immunity that, according to some scientists, those who have already been sick with Covid have to all variants (See this and this, more analysis here, compare to Dr. Fauci’s viewpoint.)…
The science on the issue is so clouded by financial incentives and systemic bias that it is impossible to rely on it to light a way through the murk…The unreliability of the science…suggests that we take a hard look at the deadly social impulses that the science cloaks.
My point is that those in the scientific and medical community who dissent from the demonization of the unvaxxed contend not only with opposing scientific views, but with ancient, powerful psycho-social forces. They can debate the science all they want, but they are up against something much bigger.
Then as now, science was a cloak for something more primal. If the mainstream view on Covid vaccines is wrong, it will not be overthrown by science alone…It is important to recognize… what we are dealing with, so that we can creatively expand our resistance beyond futile debate over the issues.”
Note added 29/9/21: There are some aspects of this that should be doubted, which I’ll do at a later stage