Peter Myers: Vaccines Never Prevented the Transmission of COVID; persecution of “the unvaccinated”

(0) Who are the Globalists? Nazis? Jews? Freemasons of High Degree?
(1) Vaccines Never Prevented the Transmission of COVID; persecution of “the unvaccinated”
(2) Censorship of wrongthink by Big Tech at the behest of gov’t is government censorship, violates First Amendment
(3) Covid mRNA Vaccines likely played a Significant Role in All Unexplained Heart Attacks Since 2021 – Renowned Cardiologist
(4) Dr. Phillip Altman says if Australia’s adverse drug reaction reporting system is not fixed, the provisional approval system needs to be removed
(5) Uttar Pradesh, a north Indian state of 231 million people, eradicated COVID with an ivermectin treatment program
(6) Boston University creates ‘More Lethal’ Strain of COVID; experts say it’s Gain-of-function Research
(7) The Boston University research is a clear example of gain of function research – Dr Richard Ebright

(0) Who are the Globalists? Nazis? Jews? Freemasons of High Degree?
– by Peter Myers, October 20, 2022

Tablet magazine is a Jewish Zionist magazine, one of many I check occasionally. I was surprised to find these dissident articles (items 1 & 2); can we hope that the MSM will open up too? Perhaps in the wake of a Democrat thrashing next month?

It just happens that Steve Kirsch (item 3) and Phillip Altman (item 4) are Jewish too.

Of course, there are plenty of non-Jewish activists in the Covid / Vax dissident movement. RFK Jr’s film features many of them. But it also includes one “Holocaust survivor”, with the implication that the Globalists are Nazis. In item 7, relating to Boston University, Francis Boyle calls Gain of Function research “Nazi biowarfare death science dirty work”.

Yet, I thought that Globalism is heavily Jewish?And Masonic of high degree? Any thoughts?

One good thing: Boston University has had a lot of unfavourable publicity over its GoF research. This did not happen via Government action, but in a bottom-up way via the media, led, one might say, by dissident sites. – Peter M.

I myself had Covid about 2 months ago. My symptoms were:
– vomiting
– diarrhea
– cough
– aches & pains
– tiredness
– headache
but no fever

Had it bad for about 7 days.

I took:
Quinine Sulphate 300mg (2 on 1st day, then 1/day) (old tablets 30 years old)
Quercetin 1/day (herbal medicine, made from red/purple fruits/veg. The effect is like Quinine. If you don’t have Quinine, take 2 Quercetin/day)
Vitamin D3 5000u 1/day
Vitamin A 5000 1/day (not the Beta Carotene type of Vitamin A)
Zinc 50 mg – 2/day on first couple of days, then 1/day
Iodine (Deep Sea Kelp) 1/day
Panadol for pain relief

(1) Vaccines Never Prevented the Transmission of COVID; persecution of “the unvaccinated”

Vaccines Never Prevented the Transmission of COVID

Allowing zealots to censor news in the name of ‘science’ is a danger to public health


OCTOBER 19, 2022

In late 2021 and early 2022, it was commonplace for journalists and public intellectuals to demonize and shame “the unvaccinated,” a group that in the United States was disproportionately low income. The New York Times ran pieces like “I’m Furious at the Unvaccinated,” and “Unvaxxed, Unmasked and Putting Our Kids at Risk.” The Los Angeles Times published a column titled “Mocking anti-vaxxers’ COVID deaths is ghoulish, yes—but may be necessary.” An opinion piece called “The Unvaccinated Are a Risk to All of Us” appeared in Bloomberg, and The Washington Post printed a piece called “Macron is right: It’s time to make life a living hell for anti-vaxxers.”

CNN’s Don Lemon commented that people refusing the vaccines were being “idiotic and nonsensical.” He argued that it was time to “start shaming them” or “leave them behind.” Noam Chomsky, a self-described libertarian socialist, said unvaccinated people should remove themselves from society and be “isolated.” Asked how they would get food that way, he answered, “Well actually, that’s their problem.”

In Canada, columnists for the Toronto Star proclaimed, “Vaccine resisters are lazy and irresponsible—we need vaccine passports now to protect the rest of us” and “The unvaccinated cherish their freedom to harm others. How can we ever forgive them?” In the U.K., the Daily Mail contended, “It’s time to punish Britain’s 5 million vaccine refuseniks,” and Piers Morgan, a British presenter on TalkTV, suggested that unvaccinated people should not be allowed access to the country’s National Health Service.

Internationally, several politicians threatened to reimplement restrictions and told the public that “the unvaccinated” were at fault. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said unvaccinated people “are very often misogynistic and racist,” and asked, “Do we tolerate these people?” President Joe Biden said that his “patience [was] wearing thin” and that we needed to “protect vaccinated workers from unvaccinated coworkers.” Michael Gunner, chief minister of the Northern Territory in Australia, stated that even if you are vaccinated, “if you are anti-mandate, you are absolutely anti-vax.” French President Emmanuel Macron declared that 5 million French people who remained unvaccinated were “not citizens.”

Across parts of the United States, Canada, Australia, and Europe, unvaccinated people were fired from their jobs, excluded from higher education, banned from many sectors of public life, denied organ transplants, and even punished by judges in probation hearings and child custody cases. Meanwhile, COVID cases continued to rise in many highly vaccinated countries with vaccine passports and other restrictions in place.

Vaccine mandates were mainly rationalized through the belief that the higher the rate of vaccination, the less the virus would spread. For example, during oral arguments for Biden’s health care worker mandate, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Elena Kagan claimed that health care workers had to get vaccinated “so that you’re not transmitting the disease.” But recently, on Oct. 10, 2022, a Pfizer spokesperson told the European Parliament that the vaccines had never actually been tested for preventing transmission. While this was presented on social media as “breaking news,” the fact that the vaccines were not tested for this purpose has been documented extensively ever since Pfizer and Moderna received their original Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).

During the Dec. 10, 2020, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) meeting when the first mRNA vaccines were authorized, FDA adviser Dr. Patrick Moore stated, “Pfizer has presented no evidence in its data today that the vaccine has any effect on virus carriage or shedding, which is the fundamental basis for herd immunity.” Despite the data presented for individual efficacy, he continued, “we really, as of right now, do not have any evidence that it will have an impact, social-wide, on the epidemic.” The FDA EUA press release from December 2020 also confirms that there was no “evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission of SARS-COV-2 from person to person.”

Simply put, the reason many people believed the vaccines stopped transmission was because government officials and media outlets across the Western world were either careless with their words or did not tell the truth. In 2021, for instance, Director of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Rochelle Walensky claimed that vaccinated people “do not carry the virus,” and Dr. Anthony Fauci said they would become “dead ends” for the virus. Any speculation that the vaccines significantly reduced transmission was based on limited results from independent studies and the false assumption that the vaccine would prevent infection. Without adequate evidence, vaccination campaigns called on people to get vaccinated not just for their own protection, but to help “protect others” and “save lives.”

Meanwhile, social media companies coordinated with the Biden administration to censor dissent. Many people who asked questions about efficacy or safety risked banishment from Twitter, Facebook, or YouTube. Now, however, as more and more studies come out, it is increasingly clear that some of the information these companies censored was true.

For anyone content with their vaccination status, this might not be a big deal. Yes, the vaccine information that was provided in 2021 wasn’t entirely accurate, but you might still feel that getting vaccinated was the right decision. However, being misinformed about potential benefits and risks is an enormous deal for, say, a male college athlete who got vaccinated because he wanted to protect his elderly family members, but who then developed myocarditis. Telling him that this is fine because “there was so much unknown” is probably not much of a consolation, especially since his decision to get vaccinated was never going to protect his family members in the first place, and the vaccine manufacturers were given blanket immunity from liability.

It is one thing for the pharmaceutical companies, the Biden administration, the CDC, and the media to intentionally or unintentionally mislead the public; but it is another thing entirely for them to do this while government agencies actively coordinated to suppress alternative views or inconvenient data. While executives and bureaucrats may excuse their errors by claiming that “the science changed,” the public has every right to demand better. Science is the process of discovery through observation and experimentation; of course it changes. That’s why “settled science” is obviously a political, not a scientific term, and why anyone should be able to publicly question scientific consensus at any time. Instead of allowing for debate, political and bureaucratic officials conducted a campaign of mass censorship and coercion. This effectively undermined the principle of informed consent and has resulted in a scandal affecting millions of people.

It was not until August 2022 that the CDC issued guidance that called for vaccinated and unvaccinated people to no longer be subjected to different testing or quarantine protocols. To justify this change in guidance, the CDC cited the protection provided by previous infection as well as breakthrough infections. Yet studies had already shown by the fall of 2021 that the vaccines did not prevent infection, that natural immunity was at least as protective, that vaccinated people had similar viral loads to unvaccinated people, and that vaccinated people had a role in transmission.

All this was true before the arrival of the omicron variant, and all of this was true before the majority of U.S. vaccine mandates were issued. Nevertheless, YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook all had policies that made questioning the CDC, the WHO, and government authorities potential grounds for censorship, prohibiting discussion of alternative treatments or suggestions that vaccination has varying levels of benefits for different people. Documents from the Missouri v. Biden case have revealed that the CDC proposed a monthly “debunking” meeting with Facebook and that Facebook and Twitter sought input from the CDC in deciding what to censor. For the Biden administration, it was a foregone conclusion that everyone should get vaccinated, so the goal of censorship was simply to increase vaccine uptake.

This was an anti-science stance that stripped people of their right to make informed choices or to even access verified data. On Facebook, for instance, a thorough investigation by the British Medical Journal into data integrity problems with the Pfizer trial was flagged as “missing context,” and Facebook directed readers to an inaccurate “fact check” of the investigation. On Twitter, as a result of censorship policies, accounts have been suspended temporarily or permanently for displaying Pfizer’s own trial data and sharing information from peer-reviewed papers. Why? Because the official vaccine message was so rigid that basic reality was considered “misleading.”

By now, many studies have shown that some of the once-censored concerns of “vaccine hesitant” people actually had validity. Facebook explicitly prohibited the claim that breast milk from vaccinated women could be harmful, but now a recent study has found that mRNA was present in breast milk, and the study urged caution when breastfeeding shortly after vaccination. The CDC previously told breastfeeding mothers that getting vaccinated was likely to benefit their babies, and many pregnant women were mandated to get vaccinated even though this population had been excluded from the vaccine trials.

A claim on Facebook or Twitter like “children who have had COVID should not get vaccinated” could also be subject to censorship, but new data suggests that young children who were previously infected might not see long-term benefits from vaccination. A study in the New England Journal of Medicine now shows that children ages 5-11 who had a prior infection but were not vaccinated had a lower risk of being reinfected than children who had a prior infection and did get vaccinated. After five months, protection against reinfection for the vaccinated children was negative.

Concealing important data and censoring the debate helped create an illusion of consensus and, as people were removed from social media platforms, erased the record of disagreement and skepticism. Open discussion of conditions like myocarditis and pericarditis or cardiac deaths was also penalized despite 2021 data from Israel that confirmed elevated rates of myocarditis linked to vaccination. A later Israeli study from May 2022 found that cardiac arrest among people under 40 increased by 25% during the vaccine rollout. In the United States, the CDC was supposed to make its “v-safe” safety data public by Sept. 30. The CDC failed to do so but was forced to reveal this data through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Of 10 million people in the “v-safe” program, 25% had a vaccine side effect that caused them to miss school or work and 7.7% had to seek medical care. Should Americans only be hearing about this kind of safety data now, or should it have been available before vaccine mandates were put in place?

Censorship of medical dissent is now being expanded in California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed Assembly Bill 2098 into law, officially granting the California Medical Board the authority to penalize and suspend the licenses of doctors who intentionally spread “misinformation or disinformation” about COVID risks and prevention, as well as the safety and efficacy of COVID vaccines. In the U.K. and Sweden, by contrast, COVID vaccines are no longer offered to healthy children under 12, and in Denmark boosters are not available for anyone under 50. Clearly there is no international consensus on COVID vaccines for young people. Should California doctors really lose their medical licenses if they favor guidance from Sweden and Denmark over guidance from the CDC?

Apart from being a potential first amendment violation and intrusion on the doctor-patient relationship, this new misinformation bill raises the question of whether, after everything we have just witnessed, a single medical authority should really be presumed to be all-knowing or infallible. Time and again, the “medical consensus” has proved to be incorrect. In the 19th century, doctors believed it was safe to deliver babies without washing their hands, resulting in the deaths of countless women from puerperal fever. In the 20th century, compulsory sterilization of disabled people was considered to be a legitimate and ethical medical practice, and in 1949, the developer of the lobotomy won the Nobel Prize for medicine. As recently as this year, scientists discovered that the entire basis for over a decade of Alzheimer’s research was fraudulent.

In the case of COVID, while claiming that it was the dissenters who caused harm, it was in fact the censors and enforcers of speech restrictions who caused immense damage to the social fabric and to the lives of individuals. The excuse that medical segregation was once necessary but is no longer necessary because “the facts changed” or “the science changed” is demonstrably false. The facts didn’t change. They were just banned.

Alex Gutentag (@galexybrane) is a writer and Tablet columnist based in California.

(2) Censorship of wrongthink by Big Tech at the behest of gov’t is government censorship, violates First Amendment[sectionSlug]/articles/government-privatized-censorship-regime

The U.S. Government’s Vast New Privatized Censorship Regime

Censorship of wrongthink by Big Tech at the behest of the government is government censorship, which violates the First Amendment


SEPTEMBER 21, 2022

One warm weekend in October of 2020, three impeccably credentialed epidemiologists—Jayanta Bhattacharya, Sunetra Gupta, and Martin Kulldorff, of Stanford, Oxford, and Harvard Universities respectively—gathered with a few journalists, writers, and economists at an estate in the Berkshires where the American Institute for Economic Research had brought together critics of lockdowns and other COVID-related government restrictions. On Sunday morning shortly before the guests departed, the scientists encapsulated their views—that lockdowns do more harm than good, and that resources should be devoted to protecting the vulnerable rather than shutting society down—in a joint communique dubbed the “Great Barrington Declaration,” after the town in which it was written.

The declaration began circulating on social media and rapidly garnered signatures, including from other highly credentialed scientists. Most mainstream news outlets and the scientists they chose to quote denounced the declaration in no uncertain terms. When contacted by reporters, Drs. Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins of the NIH publicly and vociferously repudiated the “dangerous” declaration, smearing the scientists—all generally considered to be at the top of their fields—as “fringe epidemiologists.” Over the next several months, the three scientists faced a barrage of condemnation: They were called eugenicists and anti-vaxxers; it was falsely asserted that they were “Koch-funded” and that they had written the declaration for financial gain. Attacks on the Great Barrington signatories proliferated throughout social media and in the pages of The New York Times and Guardian.

Yet emails obtained pursuant to a FOIA request later revealed that these attacks were not the products of an independent objective news-gathering process of the type that publications like the Times and the Guardian still like to advertise. Rather, they were the fruits of an aggressive attempt to shape the news by the same government officials whose policies the epidemiologists had criticized. Emails between Fauci and Collins revealed that the two officials had worked together and with media outlets as various as Wired and The Nation to orchestrate a “takedown” of the declaration.

Nor did the targeting of the scientists stop with the bureaucrats they had implicitly criticized. Bhattacharya, Gupta, and Kulldorff soon learned that their declaration was being heavily censored on social media to prevent their scientific opinions from reaching the public. Kulldorff—then the most active of the three online—soon began to experience censorship of his own social media posts. For example, Twitter censored one of Kulldorff’s tweets asserting that: “Thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should. COVID vaccines are important for older, higher-risk people and their caretakers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it. Not children.” Posts on Kulldorff’s Twitter and LinkedIn criticizing mask and vaccine mandates were labeled misleading or removed entirely. In March of 2021, YouTube took down a video depicting a roundtable discussion that Bhattacharya, Gupta, Kulldorff, and Dr. Scott Atlas had with Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, in which the participants critiqued mask and vaccine mandates.

Because of this censorship, Bhattacharya and Kulldorff are now plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden, a case brought by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, as well as the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), which is representing them and two other individuals, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty and Jill Hines. The plaintiffs allege that the Biden administration and a number of federal agencies coerced social media platforms into censoring them and others for criticizing the government’s COVID policies. In doing so, the Biden administration and relevant agencies had turned any ostensible private action by the social media companies into state action, in violation of the First Amendment. As the Supreme Court has long recognized and Justice Thomas explained in a concurring opinion just last year, “[t]he government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.”

Federal district courts have recently dismissed similar cases on the grounds that the plaintiffs could not prove state action. According to those judges, public admissions by then-White House press secretary Jennifer Psaki that the Biden administration was ordering social media companies to censor certain posts, as well as statements from Psaki, President Biden, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas threatening them with regulatory or other legal action if they declined to do so, still did not suffice to establish that the plaintiffs were censored on social media due to government action. Put another way, the judges declined to take the government at its word. But the Missouri judge reached a different conclusion, determining there was enough evidence in the record to infer that the government was involved in social media censorship, granting the plaintiffs’ request for discovery at the preliminary injunction stage.

The Missouri documents, along with some obtained through discovery in Berenson v. Twitter and a FOIA request by America First Legal, expose the extent of the administration’s appropriation of big tech to effect a vast and unprecedented regime of viewpoint-based censorship on the information that most Americans see, hear and otherwise consume. At least 11 federal agencies, and around 80 government officials, have been explicitly directing social media companies to take down posts and remove certain accounts that violate the government’s own preferences and guidelines for coverage on topics ranging from COVID restrictions, to the 2020 election, to the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.

Correspondence publicized in Missouri further corroborates the theory that the companies dramatically increased censorship under duress from the government, strengthening the First Amendment claim. For example, shortly after President Biden asserted in July of 2021 that Facebook (Meta) was “killing people” by permitting “misinformation” about COVID vaccines to percolate, an executive from the company contacted the surgeon general to appease the White House. In a text message to Murthy, the executive acknowledged that the “FB team” was “feeling a little aggrieved” as “it’s not great to be accused of killing people,” while he sought to “de-escalate and work together collaboratively.” These are not the words of a person who is acting freely; to the contrary, they denote the mindset of someone who considers himself subordinate to, and subject to punishment by, a superior. Another text, exchanged between Jen Easterly, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and another CISA employee who now works at Microsoft, reads: “Platforms have got to get more comfortable with gov’t. It’s really interesting how hesitant they remain.” This is another incontrovertible piece of evidence that social media companies are censoring content under duress from the government, and not due to their directors’ own ideas of the corporate or common good.

Further, emails expressly establish that the social media companies intensified censorship efforts and removed particular individuals from their platforms in response to the government’s demands. Just a week after President Biden accused social media companies of “killing people,” the Meta executive mentioned above wrote the surgeon general an email telling him, “I wanted to make sure you saw the steps we took just this past week to adjust policies on what we are removing with respect to misinformation, as well as steps taken further to address the ‘disinfo dozen’: we removed 17 additional Pages, Groups, and Instagram accounts tied to [them].” About a month later, the same executive informed Murthy that Meta intended to expand its COVID policies to “further reduce the spread of potentially harmful content” and that the company was “increasing the strength of our demotions for COVID and vaccine-related content.”

Alex Berenson, a former New York Times reporter and a prominent critic of government-imposed COVID restrictions, has publicized internal Twitter communications he obtained through discovery in his own lawsuit showing that high-ranking members of the Biden administration, including White House Senior COVID-19 Advisor Andrew Slavitt, had pushed Twitter to permanently suspend him from the platform. In messages from April 2021, a Twitter employee noted that a meeting with the White House had gone relatively well, though the company’s representatives had fielded “one really tough question about why Alex Berenson hasn’t been kicked off from the platform,” to which “mercifully we had answers” (emphasis added).

About two months later, days after Dr. Fauci publicly deemed Berenson a danger, and immediately following the president’s statement that social media companies were “killing people,” and despite assurances from high-ups at the company that his account was in no danger, Twitter permanently suspended Berenson’s account. If this does not qualify as government censorship of an individual based on official disapproval of his viewpoints, it would be difficult to say what might. Berenson was reinstated on Twitter in July 2022 as part of the settlement in his lawsuit.

In 1963, the Supreme Court, deciding Bantam Books v. Sullivan, held that “public officers’ thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings against” booksellers who carried materials containing obscenity could constitute a First Amendment violation. The same reasoning should apply to the Biden administration campaign to pressure tech companies into enforcing its preferred viewpoints.

The question of how the Biden administration has succeeded in jawboning big tech into observing its strictures is not particularly difficult to answer. Tech companies, many of which hold monopoly positions in their markets, have long feared and resisted government regulation. Unquestionably—and as explicitly revealed by the text message exchanged between Murthy and the Twitter executive—the prospect of being held liable for COVID deaths is an alarming one. Just like the booksellers in Bantam, social media platforms undoubtedly “do not lightly disregard” such possible consequences, as Twitter’s use of the term “mercifully” indicates.

It remains to be seen whether Bhattacharya and Kulldorff will be able to show that Fauci and Collins explicitly ordered tech companies to censor them and their Great Barrington Declaration. More discovery lies ahead, from top White House officials including Dr. Fauci, that may yield evidence of even more direct involvement by the government in preventing Americans from hearing their views. But Bhattacharya, Kulldorff, and countless social media users have had their First Amendment rights violated nonetheless.

The government’s involvement in censorship of specific perspectives, and direct role in escalating such censorship, has what is known in First Amendment law as a chilling effect: Fearing the repercussions of articulating certain views, people self-censor by avoiding controversial topics. Countless Americans, including the Missouri plaintiffs, have attested that they do exactly that for fear of losing influential and sometimes lucrative social media accounts, which can contain and convey significant social and intellectual capital.

Moreover, the Supreme Court recognizes that a corollary of the First Amendment right to speak is the right to receive information because “the right to receive ideas follows ineluctably from the sender’s First Amendment right to send them.” All Americans have been deprived—by the United States government—of their First Amendment rights to hear the views of Alex Berenson, as well as Drs. Bhattacharya and Kulldorff, and myriad additional people, like the reporters who broke the Hunter Biden laptop story for the New York Post and found themselves denounced as agents of Russian disinformation, who have been censored by social media platforms at the urging of the U.S. government. That deprivation strangled public debate on multiple issues of undeniably public importance. It allowed Fauci, Collins, and various other government actors and agencies, to mislead the public into believing there was ever a scientific consensus on lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine mandates. It also arguably influenced the 2020 election.

The administration has achieved public acquiescence to its censorship activities by convincing many Americans that the dissemination of “misinformation” and “disinformation” on social media presents a grave threat to public safety and even national security. Over half a century ago, in his notorious concurrence in New York Times v. United States (in which the Nixon administration sought to prevent the newspaper from printing the Pentagon Papers) Justice Hugo Black rejected the view that the government may invoke such concepts to override the First Amendment: “[t]he word ‘security’ is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment,” he wrote. Justice Black cited a 1937 opinion by Justice Charles Hughes explaining that this approach was woefully misguided: “The greater the importance of safeguarding the community from incitements to the overthrow of our institutions by force and violence, the more imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press, and free assembly … that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the security of the Republic, the very foundation of constitutional government.”

The Founders of our country understood that line-drawing becomes virtually impossible once censorship begins and that the personal views and biases of those doing the censoring will inevitably come into play. Moreover, they recognized that sunlight is the best disinfectant: The cure for bad speech is good speech. The cure for lies, truth. Silencing people does not mean problematic ideas disappear; it only drives their adherents into echo chambers. People who are booted off Twitter, for example, often turn to Gab and Gettr, where they are less likely to encounter challenges to patently false posts claiming, for example, that COVID vaccines are toxic.

Indeed, this case could not illustrate more clearly the First Amendment’s chief purpose, and why the framers of the Constitution did not create an exception for “misinformation.” Government actors are just as prone to bias, hubris, and error as the rest of us. Drs. Fauci and Collins, enamored of newfound fame and basking in self-righteousness, took it upon themselves to suppress debate about the most important subject of the day. Had Americans learned of the Great Barrington Declaration and been given the opportunity to contemplate its ideas, and had scientists like Bhattacharya, Gupta, and Kulldorff been permitted to speak freely, the history of the pandemic era may have unfolded with far less tragedy—and with far less damage to the institutions that are supposed to protect public health.

Jenin Younes is litigation counsel at the New Civil Liberties Alliance.

(3) Covid mRNA Vaccines likely played a Significant Role in All Unexplained Heart Attacks Since 2021 – Renowned Cardiologist

Two top cardiologists implicate COVID vax in all unexplained heart attacks since 2021
All these unexplained heart attacks in vaccinated people since 2021? Odds are that the vaccines played a significant role in the death.

Steve Kirsch

c. Oct 20, 2022

Fact checkers aren’t checking facts in these unexplained cardiac deaths. Their job is to promote the “safe and effective” false narrative.

Fact checkers (such as Ciara O’Rourke of PolitiFact) who claim that the vaccine didn’t cause the death of a person (in this case, Ray Liotta) can only make that claim if either:

The autopsy actually did the proper stains to look for vaccine involvement and found nothing. But only one pathologist in the US is doing these stains and in 100% of the cases he’s looked at so far, the vaccine was implicated in the death.

The family says that the deceased was never vaccinated with the COVID vaccine

Have you ever seen a sudden cardiac death since 2021 where either of the two conditions above were satisfied? I haven’t.

O’Rourke basically relies on the statement of Jennifer Allen, Ray Liotta’s publicist to determine the cause of his untimely death:

“The family has not released the cause of death yet, but I do know the cause, and (it) has nothing to do with COVID or the vaccine,” she told us in an email.

O’Rourke never describes Allen’s medical credentials. Why not?

Based on Allen’s statement, PolitiFact rates the claim that the vaccine caused Ray Liotta’s death as “Pants on fire” which is the worst possible PolitiFact rating.

That’s right. A publicist with no medical training is rated as the definitive source of truth of a cause of death and top cardiologists are deemed not credible at all. I’m serious. You can’t make this stuff up.

I’d love to interview Jennifer Allen about her statement.

PolitiFact won’t talk to me after I released a video showing how corrupt their fact checkers are
I’d also love to interview O’Rourke about her “fact check,” but all the fact checkers I know are camera shy, especially those from PolitiFact.

The “fact checkers” from PolitiFact all refuse to talk to me after I released this video showing how corrupt their fact checkers are. That video has over 150,000 views and is one of the most popular videos I’ve ever done. If you haven’t seen it already, check it out. It’s just 30 minutes long and has over 1,000 Rumbles.

You can also view the email correspondence with the head honcho at PolitiFact here. It’s a riot.

There are hundreds of thousands of unexplained deaths since the vaccines rolled out
The Died Suddenly group on Facebook reached over 300,000 members and was growing at over 20,000 members a day with no advertising until Facebook shut down the group.

Facebook as a company wants to make sure that those who are injured or died from the vaccine will not be able to communicate with each other as this would enable people to figure out that the US government has killed over 500,000 Americans with these vaccines.

Have you ever asked yourself why, if the vaccines are so safe, were so many people joining the Died Suddenly Facebook group after the vaccines rolled out? This has never happened before in the entire history of Facebook. Why now?

Why isn’t the mainstream press asking Facebook to explain that?

I’d love to know how Facebook would explain that and why the mainstream press isn’t asking that question.

See also this article which contains a list of more unexplained deaths (see the references included in the article as only a few unexplained deaths are highlighted in the article itself).

The tragic death of a hero. He died from the vaccine, but they made sure nobody will ever find out.
This vaccine-related death of Mick Crawford, an 18-year-old hero, is particularly tragic. No autopsy was performed because of his organ donor status.

Two top cardiologists are saying the exact same thing. Unexplained cardiac arrest in a vaccinated person? We should assume it’s the vaccine until proven otherwise.
The article on Mick Crawford’s death quotes Peter McCullough from this video (please watch at 4:20 for just 60 seconds):

If a healthy person suddenly dies, and there’s no antecedent disease, it’s the vaccine until proven otherwise.”

Does what Dr. McCullough said sound similar to what Dr. Malhotra concluded? It’s basically identical. Two of the world’s top cardiologists independently came to the exact same conclusion. […]

(5) Uttar Pradesh, a north Indian state of 231 million people, eradicated COVID with an ivermectin treatment program

Pierre Kory’s Medical Musings

The Miracle Not-Heard Around The World: The Success of Uttar Pradesh – Part 1

The north Indian state of 231 million people eradicated COVID with an ivermectin treatment program, representing one of the greatest public health achievements in history. It was kept a global secret.

Pierre Kory, MD, MPA

Aug 12

Uttar Pradesh (UP) is a state in the north of India with a population of 231 million people. It’s the home of the Taj Mahal. If it were a country, it would be the sixth largest in the world.

In my view, the foundation of UP’s historic achievement rests on the integrity of its Chief Minister (CM) Yogi Adityanath. He is a Hindu monk and known for his policy of zero tolerance against corruption. The importance of this quality cannot be overstated, especially given the last 2 years of unceasing corruptions of medical science and public health policy that continuously emerge each day.

More about the Yogi: first off, at 26 he became the youngest member of Parliament in India’s history. And although he has clashed at times with his political party leaders (BJP), they leave him alone because he is considered a “star campaigner” (plus he has, at times, successfully helped candidates they did not want to gain office).

Since taking office as CM over three and half years ago, he took action against 775 corrupt officials in UP from the Indian Administrative Service and the Indian Police Service. His leadership during COVID should serve as a historically inspiring example to politicians. They should take note of how honest, forthright policies designed with the singular goal of serving and protecting the public good can succeed in politics. To wit, in the early 2022 elections in Uttar Pradesh, Yogi Adityanath was re-elected with his party securing 255 of the 403 seats. Compare this to the next most successful opposition party (INC), which only obtained 5 seats.

Further, Yogi Adityanath is the only CM of the state with a full five years in office to win the subsequent election and retain it. Even the Union Minister of Home Affairs and Cooperation lauded him, saying that Yogi Adityanath brought Uttar Pradesh out of the path of corruption and onto a path of development. This reminds me of the three Brazilian city mayors who won landslide elections after creating city-wide early treatment initiatives with “ineffective” drugs like HCQ, IVM etc. (as you can learn from this hit job of an article on all three mayors).

I believe Yogi Adityanath’s emphasis on deterring corruption was the key ingredient to one of the most successful public health campaigns in history. Yogi Adityanath’s achievement in combatting COVID resulted from the massive amount of human and institutional resources he mobilized, along with his selection of extremely talented and committed public health officials. His oversight of these officials ensured they could carry out their tasks without big Pharma’s influence. It is clear from the record below that his primary purpose was doing what he thought best for the citizens of UP.

One remarkable example of Yogi Adityanath’s early efforts as CM was his launch of a call center for UP citizens to address grievances to problems in their daily lives or with failures of government services. The call center received an average of 37,000 calls a day, and resolved 95% of a total of the 2.1 million calls in the program’s first year.

Now, imagine this. In COVID, the government itself made 10,000 calls a day to follow up on citizens ill with COVID. Even hospitalized citizens were getting calls to make sure they were OK and getting the care they needed. An absolutely inspiring example of what I used to think was still possible in this country, i.e “good government.”

Now, let’s break down what happened in Uttar Pradesh.

The First COVID Wave
In March of 2020, Yogi Adityanath convened (and chaired throughout) a committee of 11 senior government officials tasked with managing different aspects like surveillance and contact tracing, testing and treatment, sanitization, containment, enforcement, doorstep delivery, issues of migrants, communication strategy etc. The committee was widely known as “Team 11.” The complexity and comprehensiveness of UP’s “Test, Track, and Treat” (TTT) program was superbly well detailed in this 132 page report from October 2021, compiled by a professor from one of the top universities in India (the Indian Institute of Technology – Kanpur).

In a bit of foreshadowing to the central focus of this post, one of the most notable aspects of this dense report is that it was issued a month after the near complete eradication of COVID that occurred in UP during September of 2021. The word ivermectin appears only once in the report, at the end of a list of drugs “they monitor the supply of,” despite the fact that almost the entire success of the TTT program relied on the massive distribution of IVM to 97,000 villages using 400,000 health care workers working in teams that performed the most testing in all of India (UP was also in the top 5 testing countries in the world). Shocking, I know.

But note that UP started out strong right from the beginning. Early on in the pandemic, in March 2020, taking the lead from India’s national protocol, UP immediately adopted hydroxychloroquine for use in prevention of COVID for all its Health Care Workers as well as household contacts of all laboratory confirmed cases (to get to their 2020 protocol, you need to set your VPN to India).

Recall that HCQ’s promise in treatment had been known since the original SARS pandemic, a fact long ago highlighted by Anthony Fauci. Yet in COVID, when its threat to Pharma as an effective treatment became reality, Fauci essentially led the first Disinformation campaign against a repurposed drug in the pandemic. His campaign is described in RFK Jr’s book, The Real Anthony Fauci in the deeply referenced first section of Chapter 1, called “Killing Hydroxychloroquine.”

Then, in August 2020, UP broke from the Feds and switched their protocol to ivermectin after an “experiment” in UP’s Agra, a city of 1.6 million inhabitants. The head of the state’s Rapid Response Team units, Dr. Anshul Pareek, had decided to conduct a study of ivermectin as a preventive agent based on a report from a veterinarian (to be fair, it was also based on other promising clinical reports in humans).

“I came to know that this virus is also found in cow-buffalo and other animals. Then a vet friend of mine told that in such a situation, animals are cured with large doses of ivermectin. First we started with one pill every 15 days. There were 10 members in my team. Everyone used to eat it on 15-15 days; the experiment was successful. The team members did not get infected even after coming in contact with the infected. Viral load was found to be very low in those who were infected. Then it was used on health and other frontline workers.

Uttar Pradesh State Surveillance Officer Vikssendu Agrawal went on the record later telling TrialSite News:

“Uttar Pradesh was the primary state within the nation to introduce large-scale prophylactic and therapeutic use of ivermectin.” Agrawal recounted that early on, Dr. Pareek administered ivermectin to local health staff members, finding that “none of them developed COVID-19 regardless of being in day-by-day contact with sufferers who had examined optimistic for the virus. This gave them positive results. We took note at the state headquarters, and asked a technical team to look into it. It recommended that it can be tried across the state as a prophylactic. Recognizing the sense of urgency, we decided to go ahead.

So, UP immediately started administering ivermectin to close contacts of positive cases in the district and noticed profoundly positive results. Based on these observations, the state health authorities gave the green light to use off-label ivermectin not only in prevention… but in treatment. This was their protocol for use of ivermectin:

1) Close contacts of COVID-19 patients

2) Health care workers

3) General care of COVID-19 patients

The Indian Express announced the big switch from HCQ to IVM in this article from early August 2020:

Notice that UP’s government did what my colleagues and I had been imploring since the pandemic began. Employ a risk/benefit decision-making analysis in an emergency. Like you do in war. Even if the view was that the clinical trials evidence for HCQ or IVM was “insufficient,” the evidence for harm was near nil, while the evidence for harm of widespread untreated COVID was obviously catastrophic. Just ask Australia right now in the summer of 2022 after years of lockdowns and mass vaccination campaigns and outlawing of ivermectin:

Now, let’s compare UP’s response with the response of some other states in India. Keep in mind, choosing Indian states to compare to is hard, because many Indian states started using ivermectin broadly once India’s Federal Ministry of Health put it on their national protocol during the Delta Wave in April 2021 (I will detail that war in Part 3 of this post). Despite this bold move by the Indian Feds, the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu did not follow their lead. What is interesting is that at the time of the launch of UP’s “Test, Track, and Treat” (with ivermectin) program in August 2020, UP and Kerala had identical, low rates of death from COVID as below compared to 28 other Indian States. […]

(6) Boston University creates ‘More Lethal’ Strain of COVID; experts say it’s Gain-of-function Research

‘Insane’: Boston Researchers Create ‘More Lethal’ Strain of COVID, Prompting Calls to Shut Down Risky Gain-of-Function Research


‘Insane’: Boston Researchers Create ‘More Lethal’ Strain of COVID, Prompting Calls to Shut Down Risky Gain-of-function Research

A team of 14 scientists at a Boston University lab developed a new strain of COVID-19 that killed 80% of the mice infected with the virus in a laboratory setting, setting off a storm of criticism from experts who said the research was “akin to madness.”

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.

A team of 14 scientists at Boston University’s National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories (NEIDL) developed a new strain of COVID-19 that killed 80% of the mice infected with the virus in a laboratory setting, according to a preprint study published Oct. 14.

Following the announcement, numerous news stories about the study’s results focused on the fatality rate observed in the laboratory mice used in the study.

However, behind the headlines, some scientists and others raised concerns about the nature of the research and the fact that it was partially funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci.

The research was conducted using what some scientists called “gain-of-function” research, raising concerns that this type of research — which some theorize led to the creation and escape of the original Wuhan strain of COVID-19 — is still being done, despite concerns that it could lead to more lab escapes and more pandemics.

Gain of function refers to the “manipulation of pathogens to make them more dangerous,” in the hope of “getting ahead of a future outbreak.”

Commenting on the researchers’ announcement, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Children’s Health Defense chairman of the board and chief legal counsel, remarked on the potential danger of such research — and its federal funding:

“What could be more insane than Anthony Fauci funding more of his GOF [gain of function] experiments to soup up coronavirus lethality in the middle of a pandemic caused by a juiced-up coronavirus that has killed millions?

“All of horrified humanity is watching Lord Of The Flies play out at NIH [National Institutes of Health] and praying for the adults to appear.”

Rachel Lapal Cavallario, Boston University’s associate vice president for public relations and social media, told the media the research conducted was not gain-of-function research and that, “In fact, this research made the virus [replication] less dangerous.”

However, others disputed that claim.

Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), a doctor, said the research involved “lethal gain of function virus research” that creates the “potential to kill more people than any singular nuclear weapon.”

“Viruses have managed to escape even the most secure labs,” Marshall said, adding that this type of “research must stop immediately while the risks and benefits can be investigated.”

Jessica Rose, Ph.D., commenting on the NEIDL research on Substack, wrote:

“What they have done in this work, as described by their own methods and results, is akin to madness.

“It is akin to madness because … they basically created and published a recipe for a deadly pathogen (80% mortality rate in the subjects of their experiments) of their own construction in their lab.

“By the way, this is precisely gain-of-function research. It couldn’t be more descriptive.”

Boston University today issued the following statement, downplaying the risks of the research:

“The research was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC), which consists of scientists as well as local community members. The Boston Public Health Commission also approved the research.

“Furthermore, this research mirrors and reinforces the findings of other, similar research performed by other organizations, including the FDA. Ultimately, this research will provide a public benefit by leading to better, targeted therapeutic interventions to help fight against future pandemics.”

NEIDL describes itself as “a Boston University Center dedicated to research on emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases and the pathogens that cause them,” and “a major step forward in advancing public health” that “provide[s] the necessary information and understanding to develop diagnostic tests, treatments, and vaccines.”

NEIDL also claims that it “will not conduct any secret or classified research” and that “the public will have access through several channels to information about any and all research before it even begins” — making NIAID’s claims that it was unaware of the spike protein research project all the more perplexing. […]

University of Illinois international law professor Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., said the dangers of BSL-4 facilities have long been known, which is why he participated in efforts to stop the construction of the NEIDL facility. […]

Boyle said the federal government “doesn’t rein in or prosecute” scientists working on such projects, “because the federal government is paying for this type of Nazi biowarfare death science dirty work.”

[…] “The only remedy here is to shut down all BSL-3s and BSL4-s in the U.S.A., immediately and effectively,” Boyle said. “Otherwise, there is going to be another leak.”

(7) The Boston University research is a clear example of gain of function research – Dr Richard Ebright

Surprise! EcoHealth Landed $1 Million Grant To Work With ‘80% Mouse Death’ Boston University On ‘Future Pandemic Prevention’

By Tyler Durden

WEDNESDAY, OCT 19, 2022 – 11:20 AM

Monday’s report in the Daily Mail that the University of Boston has engineered a chimeric COVID that has an 80% kill rate in humanized mice has caused quite the stir.

To review, in an effort to research what makes Omicron so transmissible – and funded in part by grants from the NIH and Anthony Fauci’s NIAID – a team of researchers cobbled the Omicron spike protein to the original strain of Covid-19. The resulting virus was five times more infectious than Omicron.

“The Omicron spike (S) protein, with an unusually large number of mutations, is considered the major driver of these phenotypes. We generated chimeric recombinant SARS-CoV-2 encoding the S gene of Omicron in the backbone of an ancestral SARS-CoV-2 isolate and compared this virus with the naturally circulating Omicron variant,” reads the pre-print.

The authors speculate that their chimeric strain is unlikely to be as deadly in humans as it was in the mice because the specific breed used in testing are more susceptible to severe Covid.

Gain of Function?

“The research is a clear example of gain of function research of concern and enhanced potential pandemic pathogen (ePPP) research,” said Dr Richard Ebright, a chemist at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey, adding “‘It is especially concerning that this new US-government ePPP research – like the previous US-government ePPP research on chimeric SARS-related coronaviruses at Wuhan Institute of Virology that may have caused the pandemic – appears not to have undergone the prior risk-benefit review mandated under US-government policies.”