BNW Brave New World
Samenzwering, verborgen agenda's en geheime geschiedenis. De zoektocht naar de wereld die achter de faade van alledag ligt.
Geen arts of onderzoeker maar een politicus met kritiek:
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Sky News host Alan Jones says he has warned time and time again the political leaders who are the architects of this coronavirus response will not be able to escape the criticism that is now finding its way into the public place.
It comes as an economist in the Victorian Department of Finance and Treasury, Sanjeev Sabhlok, on Wednesday penned an article in the Australian Financial Review announcing his resignation from his position.
Mr Sabhlok wrote he resigned "so that I would be able to speak out against the state's management of the COVID-19 infection".
"I made a number of criticisms of the state government on social media. The head of human relations at Treasury asked me to remove them.
"I resigned on the same day, the only honourable course for a free citizen of Australia," Mr Sabhlok wrote.
Mr Sabhlok continued to note a number of his other criticisms over the response to the virus.
"One question remains, how many others have been silenced across all arms of government, including in Canberra," Mr Jones said.
Mr Jones also reiterated his call for a national advertising campaign to "tell the public the truth about the fact this virus is not a pandemic".
It comes as an economist in the Victorian Department of Finance and Treasury, Sanjeev Sabhlok, on Wednesday penned an article in the Australian Financial Review announcing his resignation from his position.
Mr Sabhlok wrote he resigned "so that I would be able to speak out against the state's management of the COVID-19 infection".
"I made a number of criticisms of the state government on social media. The head of human relations at Treasury asked me to remove them.
"I resigned on the same day, the only honourable course for a free citizen of Australia," Mr Sabhlok wrote.
Mr Sabhlok continued to note a number of his other criticisms over the response to the virus.
"One question remains, how many others have been silenced across all arms of government, including in Canberra," Mr Jones said.
Mr Jones also reiterated his call for a national advertising campaign to "tell the public the truth about the fact this virus is not a pandemic".
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Exclusive: Former Pfizer VP to AFLDS: ‘Entirely possible this will be used for massive-scale depopulation’
America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) spoke to former Pfizer Vice President and Chief Science Officer Dr. Mike Yeadon about his views on the COVID-19 vaccine, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, the regulatory authorities, and more.
At the outset, Dr. Yeadon said “I’m well aware of the global crimes against humanity being perpetrated against a large proportion of the worlds population.
Artikel gaat verder:
https://www.americasfront(...)-scale-depopulation/
Meer info over Yeadon:
An Education in Viruses and Public Health, from Michael Yeadon, Former VP of Pfizer
This video provides one of the most erudite and informative looks at Covid-19 and the consequences of lockdowns. It was remarkable this week to watch as it appeared on YouTube and was forcibly taken down only 2 hours after posting. The copy below is hosted on LBRY, a blockchain video application. In a year of fantastic educational content, this is one of the best we've seen.
Consider the presenter's bio:
Dr. Michael Yeadon is an Allergy & Respiratory Therapeutic Area expert with 23 years in the pharmaceutical industry. He trained as a biochemist and pharmacologist, obtaining his PhD from the University of Surrey (UK) in 1988.
Dr. Yeadon then worked at the Wellcome Research Labs with Salvador Moncada with a research focus on airway hyper-responsiveness and effects of pollutants including ozone and working in drug discovery of 5-LO, COX, PAF, NO and lung inflammation. With colleagues, he was the first to detect exhaled NO in animals and later to induce NOS in lung via allergic triggers.
Joining Pfizer in 1995, he was responsible for the growth and portfolio delivery of the Allergy & Respiratory pipeline within the company. He was responsible for target selection and the progress into humans of new molecules, leading teams of up to 200 staff across all disciplines and won an Achievement Award for productivity in 2008.
Under his leadership the research unit invented oral and inhaled NCEs which delivered multiple positive clinical proofs of concept in asthma, allergic rhinitis and COPD. He led productive collaborations such as with Rigel Pharmaceuticals (SYK inhibitors) and was involved in the licensing of Spiriva and acquisition of the Meridica (inhaler device) company.
Dr. Yeadon has published over 40 original research articles and now consults and partners with a number of biotechnology companies. Before working with Apellis, Dr. Yeadon was VP and Chief Scientific Officer (Allergy & Respiratory Research) with Pfizer.
Artikel gaat verder en de volledige video van 30 minuten is hier te zien:
https://www.aier.org/arti(...)former-vp-of-pfizer/
America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) spoke to former Pfizer Vice President and Chief Science Officer Dr. Mike Yeadon about his views on the COVID-19 vaccine, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, the regulatory authorities, and more.
At the outset, Dr. Yeadon said “I’m well aware of the global crimes against humanity being perpetrated against a large proportion of the worlds population.
Artikel gaat verder:
https://www.americasfront(...)-scale-depopulation/
Meer info over Yeadon:
An Education in Viruses and Public Health, from Michael Yeadon, Former VP of Pfizer
This video provides one of the most erudite and informative looks at Covid-19 and the consequences of lockdowns. It was remarkable this week to watch as it appeared on YouTube and was forcibly taken down only 2 hours after posting. The copy below is hosted on LBRY, a blockchain video application. In a year of fantastic educational content, this is one of the best we've seen.
Consider the presenter's bio:
Dr. Michael Yeadon is an Allergy & Respiratory Therapeutic Area expert with 23 years in the pharmaceutical industry. He trained as a biochemist and pharmacologist, obtaining his PhD from the University of Surrey (UK) in 1988.
Dr. Yeadon then worked at the Wellcome Research Labs with Salvador Moncada with a research focus on airway hyper-responsiveness and effects of pollutants including ozone and working in drug discovery of 5-LO, COX, PAF, NO and lung inflammation. With colleagues, he was the first to detect exhaled NO in animals and later to induce NOS in lung via allergic triggers.
Joining Pfizer in 1995, he was responsible for the growth and portfolio delivery of the Allergy & Respiratory pipeline within the company. He was responsible for target selection and the progress into humans of new molecules, leading teams of up to 200 staff across all disciplines and won an Achievement Award for productivity in 2008.
Under his leadership the research unit invented oral and inhaled NCEs which delivered multiple positive clinical proofs of concept in asthma, allergic rhinitis and COPD. He led productive collaborations such as with Rigel Pharmaceuticals (SYK inhibitors) and was involved in the licensing of Spiriva and acquisition of the Meridica (inhaler device) company.
Dr. Yeadon has published over 40 original research articles and now consults and partners with a number of biotechnology companies. Before working with Apellis, Dr. Yeadon was VP and Chief Scientific Officer (Allergy & Respiratory Research) with Pfizer.
Artikel gaat verder en de volledige video van 30 minuten is hier te zien:
https://www.aier.org/arti(...)former-vp-of-pfizer/
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Toch wel bijzonder hoe deze Yeadon zich uitlaat over Covid en vaccinaties. Vooral als je kijkt naar zijn voormalige positie binnen Pfizer.
EXCLUSIVE - Former Pfizer VP: ‘Your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death.’
Dr. Michael Yeadon, Pfizer's former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory who spent 32 years in the industry leading new medicines research and retired from the pharmaceutical giant with “the most senior research position” in his field, spoke with LifeSiteNews.
He addressed the “demonstrably false” propaganda from governments in response to COVID-19, including the “lie” of dangerous variants, the totalitarian potential for “vaccine passports,” and the strong possibility we are dealing with a “conspiracy” which could lead to something far beyond the carnage experienced in the wars and massacres of the 20th century.
His main points included:
There is “no possibility” current variants of COVID-19 will escape immunity. It is “just a lie.”
Yet, governments around the world are repeating this lie, indicating that we are witnessing not just “convergent opportunism,” but a “conspiracy.” Meanwhile media outlets and Big Tech platforms are committed to the same propaganda and the censorship of the truth.
Pharmaceutical companies have already begun to develop unneeded “top-up” (“booster”) vaccines for the “variants.” The companies are planning to manufacture billions of vials, in addition to the current experimental COVID-19 “vaccine” campaign.
Regulatory agencies like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, have announced that since these “top-up” vaccines will be so similar to the prior injections which were approved for emergency use authorization, drug companies will not be required to “perform any clinical safety studies.”
Thus, this virtually means that design and implementation of repeated and coerced mRNA vaccines “go from the computer screen of a pharmaceutical company into the arms of hundreds of millions of people, [injecting] some superfluous genetic sequence for which there is absolutely no need or justification.”
Why are they doing this? Since no benign reason is apparent, the use of vaccine passports along with a “banking reset” could issue in a totalitarianism unlike the world has ever seen. Recalling the evil of Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, “mass depopulation” remains a logical outcome.
The fact that this at least could be true means everyone must “fight like crazy to make sure that system never forms.”
Gaat verder:
https://www.lifesitenews.(...)tm_campaign=standard
EXCLUSIVE - Former Pfizer VP: ‘Your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death.’
Dr. Michael Yeadon, Pfizer's former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory who spent 32 years in the industry leading new medicines research and retired from the pharmaceutical giant with “the most senior research position” in his field, spoke with LifeSiteNews.
He addressed the “demonstrably false” propaganda from governments in response to COVID-19, including the “lie” of dangerous variants, the totalitarian potential for “vaccine passports,” and the strong possibility we are dealing with a “conspiracy” which could lead to something far beyond the carnage experienced in the wars and massacres of the 20th century.
His main points included:
There is “no possibility” current variants of COVID-19 will escape immunity. It is “just a lie.”
Yet, governments around the world are repeating this lie, indicating that we are witnessing not just “convergent opportunism,” but a “conspiracy.” Meanwhile media outlets and Big Tech platforms are committed to the same propaganda and the censorship of the truth.
Pharmaceutical companies have already begun to develop unneeded “top-up” (“booster”) vaccines for the “variants.” The companies are planning to manufacture billions of vials, in addition to the current experimental COVID-19 “vaccine” campaign.
Regulatory agencies like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, have announced that since these “top-up” vaccines will be so similar to the prior injections which were approved for emergency use authorization, drug companies will not be required to “perform any clinical safety studies.”
Thus, this virtually means that design and implementation of repeated and coerced mRNA vaccines “go from the computer screen of a pharmaceutical company into the arms of hundreds of millions of people, [injecting] some superfluous genetic sequence for which there is absolutely no need or justification.”
Why are they doing this? Since no benign reason is apparent, the use of vaccine passports along with a “banking reset” could issue in a totalitarianism unlike the world has ever seen. Recalling the evil of Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, “mass depopulation” remains a logical outcome.
The fact that this at least could be true means everyone must “fight like crazy to make sure that system never forms.”
Gaat verder:
https://www.lifesitenews.(...)tm_campaign=standard
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Moderna’s Top Scientist On MRNA Technology In COVID Shots: ‘We Are Actually Hacking The Software Of Life’
Veteran investigative reporter Leo Hohmann has discovered a 2017 Ted Talk presentation by Dr. Tal Zaks, the chief medical officer at Moderna Inc., where he clearly explains in layperson’s language just what the mRNA technology does in vaccines.
As Dr. Zaks clearly states, they are “hacking the software of life,” by injecting their own genetic code into humans.
Moderna boss: mRNA jabs are "rewriting the Genetic Code" we call it "information therapy" (Ted 2017)
Volledig artikel:
https://humansarefree.com(...)oftware-of-life.html
Veteran investigative reporter Leo Hohmann has discovered a 2017 Ted Talk presentation by Dr. Tal Zaks, the chief medical officer at Moderna Inc., where he clearly explains in layperson’s language just what the mRNA technology does in vaccines.
As Dr. Zaks clearly states, they are “hacking the software of life,” by injecting their own genetic code into humans.
Moderna boss: mRNA jabs are "rewriting the Genetic Code" we call it "information therapy" (Ted 2017)
Volledig artikel:
https://humansarefree.com(...)oftware-of-life.html
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
"maar de sleutel is niet gegeven !"
TTT [img]http://symboldictionary.net/library/graphics/symbols/tripletau.jpg[/img]
Δημοσθένης
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18FgnFVm5k0&fmt=37&hd=1&autoplay=1
Δημοσθένης
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18FgnFVm5k0&fmt=37&hd=1&autoplay=1
Volgens deze redenatie ben je dus ook je lichaam aan het injecteren met water als je dat drinktquote:Op zondag 11 april 2021 01:37 schreef Probably_on_pcp het volgende:
Moderna’s Top Scientist On MRNA Technology In COVID Shots: ‘We Are Actually Hacking The Software Of Life’
Veteran investigative reporter Leo Hohmann has discovered a 2017 Ted Talk presentation by Dr. Tal Zaks, the chief medical officer at Moderna Inc., where he clearly explains in layperson’s language just what the mRNA technology does in vaccines.
As Dr. Zaks clearly states, they are “hacking the software of life,” by injecting their own genetic code into humans.
[ afbeelding ]
Moderna boss: mRNA jabs are "rewriting the Genetic Code" we call it "information therapy" (Ted 2017)
Volledig artikel:
https://humansarefree.com(...)oftware-of-life.html
🕰️₿🕰️₿🕰️₿🕰️₿🕰️₿🕰️ TikTok next Block
Could mRNA Vaccines Permanently Alter DNA? Recent Science Suggests They Might.
Research on SARS-CoV-2 RNA by scientists at Harvard and MIT has implications for how mRNA vaccines could permanently alter genomic DNA, according to Doug Corrigan, Ph.D., a biochemist-molecular biologist who says more research is needed.
Over the past year, it would be all but impossible for Americans not to notice the media’s decision to make vaccines the dominant COVID narrative, rushing to do so even before any coronavirus-attributed deaths occurred.
The media’s slanted coverage has provided a particularly fruitful public relations boost for messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines — decades in the making but never approved for human use — helping to usher the experimental technology closer to the regulatory finish line.
Under ordinary circumstances, the body makes (“transcribes”) mRNA from the DNA in a cell’s nucleus. The mRNA then travels out of the nucleus into the cytoplasm, where it provides instructions about which proteins to make.
By comparison, mRNA vaccines send their chemically synthesized mRNA payload (bundled with spike protein-manufacturing instructions) directly into the cytoplasm.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and most mRNA vaccine scientists, the buck then stops there — mRNA vaccines “do not affect or interact with our DNA in any way,” the CDC says. The CDC asserts first, that the mRNA cannot enter the cell’s nucleus (where DNA resides), and second, that the cell — Mission-Impossible-style — “gets rid of the mRNA soon after it is finished using the instructions.”
A December preprint about SARS-CoV-2, by scientists at Harvard and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), produced findings about wild coronavirus that raise questions about how viral RNA operates.
The scientists conducted the analysis because they were “puzzled by the fact that there is a respectable number of people who are testing positive for COVID-19 by PCR long after the infection was gone.”
Their key findings were as follows: SARS-CoV-2 RNAs “can be reverse transcribed in human cells,” “these DNA sequences can be integrated into the cell genome and subsequently be transcribed” (a phenomenon called “retro-integration”) — and there are viable cellular pathways to explain how this happens.
According to Ph.D. biochemist and molecular biologist Dr. Doug Corrigan, these important findings (which run contrary to “current biological dogma”) belong to the category of “Things We Were Absolutely and Unequivocally Certain Couldn’t Happen Which Actually Happened.”
The findings of the Harvard and MIT researchers also put the CDC’s assumptions about mRNA vaccines on shakier ground, according to Corrigan. In fact, a month before the Harvard-MIT preprint appeared, Corrigan had already written a blog outlining possible mechanisms and pathways whereby mRNA vaccines could produce the identical phenomenon.
In a second blog post, written after the preprint came out, Corrigan emphasized that the Harvard-MIT findings about coronavirus RNA have major implications for mRNA vaccines — a fact he describes as “the big elephant in the room.” While not claiming that vaccine RNA will necessarily behave in the same way as coronavirus RNA — that is, permanently altering genomic DNA — Corrigan believes that the possibility exists and deserves close scrutiny.
In Corrigan’s view, the preprint’s contribution is that it “validates that this is at least plausible, and most likely probable.”
Gaat verder:
https://childrenshealthde(...)-vaccines-alter-dna/
Research on SARS-CoV-2 RNA by scientists at Harvard and MIT has implications for how mRNA vaccines could permanently alter genomic DNA, according to Doug Corrigan, Ph.D., a biochemist-molecular biologist who says more research is needed.
Over the past year, it would be all but impossible for Americans not to notice the media’s decision to make vaccines the dominant COVID narrative, rushing to do so even before any coronavirus-attributed deaths occurred.
The media’s slanted coverage has provided a particularly fruitful public relations boost for messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines — decades in the making but never approved for human use — helping to usher the experimental technology closer to the regulatory finish line.
Under ordinary circumstances, the body makes (“transcribes”) mRNA from the DNA in a cell’s nucleus. The mRNA then travels out of the nucleus into the cytoplasm, where it provides instructions about which proteins to make.
By comparison, mRNA vaccines send their chemically synthesized mRNA payload (bundled with spike protein-manufacturing instructions) directly into the cytoplasm.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and most mRNA vaccine scientists, the buck then stops there — mRNA vaccines “do not affect or interact with our DNA in any way,” the CDC says. The CDC asserts first, that the mRNA cannot enter the cell’s nucleus (where DNA resides), and second, that the cell — Mission-Impossible-style — “gets rid of the mRNA soon after it is finished using the instructions.”
A December preprint about SARS-CoV-2, by scientists at Harvard and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), produced findings about wild coronavirus that raise questions about how viral RNA operates.
The scientists conducted the analysis because they were “puzzled by the fact that there is a respectable number of people who are testing positive for COVID-19 by PCR long after the infection was gone.”
Their key findings were as follows: SARS-CoV-2 RNAs “can be reverse transcribed in human cells,” “these DNA sequences can be integrated into the cell genome and subsequently be transcribed” (a phenomenon called “retro-integration”) — and there are viable cellular pathways to explain how this happens.
According to Ph.D. biochemist and molecular biologist Dr. Doug Corrigan, these important findings (which run contrary to “current biological dogma”) belong to the category of “Things We Were Absolutely and Unequivocally Certain Couldn’t Happen Which Actually Happened.”
The findings of the Harvard and MIT researchers also put the CDC’s assumptions about mRNA vaccines on shakier ground, according to Corrigan. In fact, a month before the Harvard-MIT preprint appeared, Corrigan had already written a blog outlining possible mechanisms and pathways whereby mRNA vaccines could produce the identical phenomenon.
In a second blog post, written after the preprint came out, Corrigan emphasized that the Harvard-MIT findings about coronavirus RNA have major implications for mRNA vaccines — a fact he describes as “the big elephant in the room.” While not claiming that vaccine RNA will necessarily behave in the same way as coronavirus RNA — that is, permanently altering genomic DNA — Corrigan believes that the possibility exists and deserves close scrutiny.
In Corrigan’s view, the preprint’s contribution is that it “validates that this is at least plausible, and most likely probable.”
Gaat verder:
https://childrenshealthde(...)-vaccines-alter-dna/
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Vooraanstaande wetenschapper over mondkapjes:
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
https://en.wikipedia.org/(...)ng_COVID-19_pandemicquote:
Vooraanstaande wetenschapper over mondkapjes:
[ twitter ]
Dan inhoudelijk:quote:Responses to Bhakdi's criticisms
The German non-profit Correctiv fact-checked one of Bhakdi's YouTube videos, and found a number of problematic claims, including the claim that any COVID-19 vaccine would be "pointless", and that the virus posed no more threat than influenza. Writing for Foreign Policy, Tyson Barker (Head of DGAP's Technology & Global Affairs Program) described Bhakdi as a prominent example from a "crop of debunked but credentialed so-called experts minting conspiracy theories and undermining fact-based information".
In October 2020 the University of Mainz issued a statement to the effect that it does not support Bhakdi's views.
Hij praat over schrikbarend hoge concentraties CO2 achter het masker, met schade voor kinderen.
https://uihc.org/health-t(...)etain-carbon-dioxide
quote:Face masks do not decrease your oxygen intake
They also do not make you retain more carbon dioxide than usual
Oxygen and CO2 are very small, so they can easily pass through a face mask
Droplets are much larger in comparison, and they cannot pass easily through a face mask
Wearing face masks now helps us get back to normal sooner
Leuk man een wikipedia link en een oud artikel over CO2 en mondkapjes, terwijl Bhakdi in de video zegt dat een collega van hem net onderzoek heeft gedaan naar CO2 en mondkapjes.quote:
[..]
https://en.wikipedia.org/(...)ng_COVID-19_pandemic
[..]
Dan inhoudelijk:
Hij praat over schrikbarend hoge concentraties CO2 achter het masker, met schade voor kinderen.
https://uihc.org/health-t(...)etain-carbon-dioxide
[..]
Misschien moet je dat onderzoek er even bijpakken ipv weer voor de zoveelste keer een post te "debunken" door wat linkjes neer te pleuren.
En ga alsjeblieft weg met je "fact-checker organisatie" onzin. Iedereen die niet zn kop in het zand heeft ziet tegenwoordig dat dit soort organisaties helemaal niet objectief "fact checken".
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Als hij de naam van zijn collega noemt wil ik ook die naam wel even door de zoekmachine halen.quote:
Leuk man een wikipedia link en een oud artikel over CO2 en mondkapjes, terwijl Bhakdi in de video zegt dat een collega van hem net onderzoek heeft gedaan naar CO2 en mondkapjes.
Daarnaast verwacht ik niet dat de natuurwetten sinds juli 2020 radicaal anders zijn gaan werken.
Ow heb jij dat onderzoek gevonden? Dan wil ik het wel even lezen hoor.quote:Misschien moet je dat onderzoek er even bijpakken ipv weer voor de zoveelste keer een post te "debunken" door wat linkjes neer te pleuren.
Zijn er organisaties die wel objectief fact-checken waar ik nog niks van weet?quote:En ga alsjeblieft weg met je "fact-checker organisatie" onzin. Iedereen die niet zn kop in het zand heeft ziet tegenwoordig dat dit soort organisaties helemaal niet objectief "fact checken".
Canadian Doctor Defies Gag Order and Tells the Public How the Moderna COVID Injections Killed and Permanently Disabled Indigenous People in His Community
Charles Hoffe has been a medical doctor for 28 years in the small, rural town of Lytton in British Columbia, Canada. The town is comprised of many indigenous groups and the “First Nations.”
When Dr. Hoffe was given 900 doses of the Moderna experimental COVID-19 injections, he administered the doses through the Lytton Medical Clinic to those who wanted them.
He chose not to inject himself.
Dr. Hoffe reports that the result of injecting 900 people among the indigenous First Nations community was that 2 people went into anaphylactic shock, one person died, and several others have suffered what appear to be permanent disabilities. He relates how one of his patients is in so much pain now, that she prefers death to life.
By contrast, no one in the community died or became permanently disabled due to the COVID-19 virus for the past year.
Dr. Hoffe reported these adverse reactions by email to the medical personnel in his community who were responsible for the roll-out of the Moderna shots, which included pharmacists, nurses, and doctors in his area, a total of about 18 people he says.
His email expressed grave concern over the side effects he was seeing, and he asked if perhaps they should pause the injections for a while.
He reports that within 48 hours he received a very stern rebuke from his superiors at the Interior Health Authority accusing him of causing “vaccine hesitancy” and that they were going to report him to BC College of Physicians and Surgeons.
They forbade him from saying anything negative about the Moderna shots by issuing a gag order against him.
Dr. Hoffe explains that this is a method of intimidation that is being used against other doctors who have become too afraid to speak out, because the College of Physicians and Surgeons has great authority to shut down doctors’ careers, or heavily fine them.
As he continued to see more injuries the following week, he became very angry about his gag order. He was told that if he had any concerns about the injections that he had to contact the medical health officer in charge of the Moderna roll out.
He did, but when he did not receive a reply, he decided to write an open letter directly to Dr. Bonnie Henry, British Columbia Provincial Health Officer, in direct defiance of his gag order since he made it public.
Artikel gaat verder:
https://vaccineimpact.com(...)le-in-his-community/
Charles Hoffe has been a medical doctor for 28 years in the small, rural town of Lytton in British Columbia, Canada. The town is comprised of many indigenous groups and the “First Nations.”
When Dr. Hoffe was given 900 doses of the Moderna experimental COVID-19 injections, he administered the doses through the Lytton Medical Clinic to those who wanted them.
He chose not to inject himself.
Dr. Hoffe reports that the result of injecting 900 people among the indigenous First Nations community was that 2 people went into anaphylactic shock, one person died, and several others have suffered what appear to be permanent disabilities. He relates how one of his patients is in so much pain now, that she prefers death to life.
By contrast, no one in the community died or became permanently disabled due to the COVID-19 virus for the past year.
Dr. Hoffe reported these adverse reactions by email to the medical personnel in his community who were responsible for the roll-out of the Moderna shots, which included pharmacists, nurses, and doctors in his area, a total of about 18 people he says.
His email expressed grave concern over the side effects he was seeing, and he asked if perhaps they should pause the injections for a while.
He reports that within 48 hours he received a very stern rebuke from his superiors at the Interior Health Authority accusing him of causing “vaccine hesitancy” and that they were going to report him to BC College of Physicians and Surgeons.
They forbade him from saying anything negative about the Moderna shots by issuing a gag order against him.
Dr. Hoffe explains that this is a method of intimidation that is being used against other doctors who have become too afraid to speak out, because the College of Physicians and Surgeons has great authority to shut down doctors’ careers, or heavily fine them.
As he continued to see more injuries the following week, he became very angry about his gag order. He was told that if he had any concerns about the injections that he had to contact the medical health officer in charge of the Moderna roll out.
He did, but when he did not receive a reply, he decided to write an open letter directly to Dr. Bonnie Henry, British Columbia Provincial Health Officer, in direct defiance of his gag order since he made it public.
Artikel gaat verder:
https://vaccineimpact.com(...)le-in-his-community/
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
CDC director agrees hospitals have monetary incentive to inflate COVID-19 data
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield acknowledged during a House hearing Friday that COVID-19 data could be inflated because hospitals receive a monetary gain by reporting COVID-19 cases.
Republican Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri questioned Redfield during a House Oversight and Reform subcommittee hearing on coronavirus containment. He asked about the “perverse incentive” for hospitals to classify deaths as being coronavirus related when the virus didn’t cause the death.
Luetkemeyer voiced concern about how an automobile accident-related death could be recorded as a COVID-related death. In this scenario, the death was recorded as COVID-related because the virus was in the victim’s system, even if the car accident was the major factor.
Gaat verder:
https://www.christianpost(...)e-covid-19-data.html
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield acknowledged during a House hearing Friday that COVID-19 data could be inflated because hospitals receive a monetary gain by reporting COVID-19 cases.
Republican Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri questioned Redfield during a House Oversight and Reform subcommittee hearing on coronavirus containment. He asked about the “perverse incentive” for hospitals to classify deaths as being coronavirus related when the virus didn’t cause the death.
Luetkemeyer voiced concern about how an automobile accident-related death could be recorded as a COVID-related death. In this scenario, the death was recorded as COVID-related because the virus was in the victim’s system, even if the car accident was the major factor.
Gaat verder:
https://www.christianpost(...)e-covid-19-data.html
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Ik plaats deze ook even hier:
Niet alle politie-agenten in Canada staan achter het beleid van de overheid.
Group of Ontario police officers launches charter challenge of pandemic restrictions
Civil action seeks court declaration that COVID-19 laws 'are not rational'
A group of 19 Ontario police officers has launched a constitutional challenge against the provincial and federal governments and several police chiefs, claiming that enforcing sweeping pandemic health restrictions puts them at odds with their oath to uphold the charter.
Fifteen active and four retired members of law enforcement agencies — including the Toronto Police Service, York Regional Police Service, Ottawa Police Service, Niagara Regional Police Service, Hamilton Police Service and the RCMP — are behind the civil action.
It was filed in the Superior Court of Justice against the premier, the attorneys general of Canada and Ontario, as well as five police chiefs.
The challenge has yet to be tested in court.
It seeks these declarations:
Canada's pandemic laws "are not rational" and have "no force or effect."
Lockdowns, stay-at-home orders and curfews are "forms of martial law."
Wearing masks, social distancing and lockdowns are "ineffective" and "not scientifically or medically based" because they're based on coronavirus cases the legal documents claim "are 96.5 per cent false."
The group also wants the court to declare that religious gatherings and protests are exempt from pandemic restrictions in Ontario.
The lawyer for the officers is Rocco Galati, executive director of the Toronto-based Constitutional Rights Centre. He didn't respond to a request for comment on Monday, but the legal challenge was detailed in a virtual news conference posted April 30 to YouTube.
Officers describe rank-and-file 'divide'
"My clients are concerned to the point that they're stepping forward at their personal and reputational risk because of unwarranted, and hostile and irrational reprisals," said Galati, flanked by Toronto police Sgt. Julie Evans and York Regional Police Const. Christopher Vandenbos, who are both plaintiffs.
"Anyone who dares speak out is ostracized and attacked, even if they do so in civil and appropriate ways," said the lawyer.
Artikel gaat verder:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/c(...)-challenge-1.6012099
Niet alle politie-agenten in Canada staan achter het beleid van de overheid.
Group of Ontario police officers launches charter challenge of pandemic restrictions
Civil action seeks court declaration that COVID-19 laws 'are not rational'
A group of 19 Ontario police officers has launched a constitutional challenge against the provincial and federal governments and several police chiefs, claiming that enforcing sweeping pandemic health restrictions puts them at odds with their oath to uphold the charter.
Fifteen active and four retired members of law enforcement agencies — including the Toronto Police Service, York Regional Police Service, Ottawa Police Service, Niagara Regional Police Service, Hamilton Police Service and the RCMP — are behind the civil action.
It was filed in the Superior Court of Justice against the premier, the attorneys general of Canada and Ontario, as well as five police chiefs.
The challenge has yet to be tested in court.
It seeks these declarations:
Canada's pandemic laws "are not rational" and have "no force or effect."
Lockdowns, stay-at-home orders and curfews are "forms of martial law."
Wearing masks, social distancing and lockdowns are "ineffective" and "not scientifically or medically based" because they're based on coronavirus cases the legal documents claim "are 96.5 per cent false."
The group also wants the court to declare that religious gatherings and protests are exempt from pandemic restrictions in Ontario.
The lawyer for the officers is Rocco Galati, executive director of the Toronto-based Constitutional Rights Centre. He didn't respond to a request for comment on Monday, but the legal challenge was detailed in a virtual news conference posted April 30 to YouTube.
Officers describe rank-and-file 'divide'
"My clients are concerned to the point that they're stepping forward at their personal and reputational risk because of unwarranted, and hostile and irrational reprisals," said Galati, flanked by Toronto police Sgt. Julie Evans and York Regional Police Const. Christopher Vandenbos, who are both plaintiffs.
"Anyone who dares speak out is ostracized and attacked, even if they do so in civil and appropriate ways," said the lawyer.
Artikel gaat verder:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/c(...)-challenge-1.6012099
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Van Off-Guardian:
John Goss
May 4, 2021 2:10 PM
My comment at 12.10 contained the following.
“I cannot get to see my doctor. But I can go there for an untested experimental vaccine. I cannot get through to the surgery (you are number 21 in the queue) yet I get weekly bombardments telling me my vaccine is available – this is even though I’ve informed them that it should be on my record that I do not want any vaccine of any kind unless I ask for it.
Meanwhile these are some more personal stories of vaccine woe from a social-networking group that has, like so many, been removed.
'On 21 January this year I put together a blog-post revealing deaths and damaging reactions from vaccines which were garnered from a Facebook group called “Covid-19 Vaccinations, Reactions and Feedback.”. For no explicable reason this group was removed. Another Facebook group, Covid19 vaccine victims and families, despite begging pleas from a moderator, was similarly removed. I managed to grab a few screenshots suspecting this group would meet with the same fate as the former.'
https://johnplatinumgoss.(...)-well-as-mainstream/
John Goss
May 4, 2021 2:10 PM
My comment at 12.10 contained the following.
“I cannot get to see my doctor. But I can go there for an untested experimental vaccine. I cannot get through to the surgery (you are number 21 in the queue) yet I get weekly bombardments telling me my vaccine is available – this is even though I’ve informed them that it should be on my record that I do not want any vaccine of any kind unless I ask for it.
Meanwhile these are some more personal stories of vaccine woe from a social-networking group that has, like so many, been removed.
'On 21 January this year I put together a blog-post revealing deaths and damaging reactions from vaccines which were garnered from a Facebook group called “Covid-19 Vaccinations, Reactions and Feedback.”. For no explicable reason this group was removed. Another Facebook group, Covid19 vaccine victims and families, despite begging pleas from a moderator, was similarly removed. I managed to grab a few screenshots suspecting this group would meet with the same fate as the former.'
https://johnplatinumgoss.(...)-well-as-mainstream/
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
STUDY: Lockdowns Take 282 Years Of Life For Every Year They Save
The time grows neigh for liberty lovers on both sides of the political spectrum to regain control and send the clear message that nothing like 2020 will ever happen again by calling for mass resignations and stripping perpetual perpetrators of all power, property, and influence, not as a first strike, of course, but as a form of “equitable restitution” for the colossally bad policies foisted on a bewildered and overly trusting people.
It’s slowly dawning on Americans that 2020 need not have gone down as it did. A virus didn’t lay waste to the global economy, as so many media reports blared. Lockdowns were the big problem and those restrictions on human rights were not simply unnecessary, they were harmful, and obviously so. AIER began warning about them very early, when they were still a gleam in the eye of fanatical reporters at the New York Times, but people educated by government schools refused to believe until the reports of rampant business closures, high unemployment, crime, and drug use, spikes in suicides and other non-Covid deaths, increased child abuse and sexual molestation, and other serious lockdown costs began to sneak by concerted efforts to censor it.
What about all those who died with, if not from, Covid? Tragic indeed but what about all of those who died with, if not from, lockdowns? AIER has discovered not a handful but 35 major studies from leading scientists and economists that show that lockdowns didn’t just hurt the economy, they killed more people than they saved! Unlike Covid, which took mainly the elderly, lockdowns killed indiscriminately across the age spectrum.
Renowned economist Doug Allen of Simon Fraser University in British Columbia penned the latest such study to come to AIER’s attention (Douglas W. Allen, “Covid Lockdowns Cost/Benefits: A Critical Assessment of the Literature” [April 2021]). Instead of quoting from it extensively, I’ll encourage you to read it and simply summarize it here. Basically, Allen found that lockdowns (which should not be confused with the isolation policies of certain islands) were unnecessary because individuals voluntarily engaged in sufficient mitigation efforts to achieve the same level of disease spread and death as top-down, cookie-cutter government mandates did. The latter either did not bind (e.g., socially distanced sexual activity, as if!) or target the wrong behaviors. Turns out, once again, that individuals and their doctors know more about what is best for them than bureaucrats half a world away do!
Gaat verder:
https://www.thewashington(...)campaign=socialshare
The time grows neigh for liberty lovers on both sides of the political spectrum to regain control and send the clear message that nothing like 2020 will ever happen again by calling for mass resignations and stripping perpetual perpetrators of all power, property, and influence, not as a first strike, of course, but as a form of “equitable restitution” for the colossally bad policies foisted on a bewildered and overly trusting people.
It’s slowly dawning on Americans that 2020 need not have gone down as it did. A virus didn’t lay waste to the global economy, as so many media reports blared. Lockdowns were the big problem and those restrictions on human rights were not simply unnecessary, they were harmful, and obviously so. AIER began warning about them very early, when they were still a gleam in the eye of fanatical reporters at the New York Times, but people educated by government schools refused to believe until the reports of rampant business closures, high unemployment, crime, and drug use, spikes in suicides and other non-Covid deaths, increased child abuse and sexual molestation, and other serious lockdown costs began to sneak by concerted efforts to censor it.
What about all those who died with, if not from, Covid? Tragic indeed but what about all of those who died with, if not from, lockdowns? AIER has discovered not a handful but 35 major studies from leading scientists and economists that show that lockdowns didn’t just hurt the economy, they killed more people than they saved! Unlike Covid, which took mainly the elderly, lockdowns killed indiscriminately across the age spectrum.
Renowned economist Doug Allen of Simon Fraser University in British Columbia penned the latest such study to come to AIER’s attention (Douglas W. Allen, “Covid Lockdowns Cost/Benefits: A Critical Assessment of the Literature” [April 2021]). Instead of quoting from it extensively, I’ll encourage you to read it and simply summarize it here. Basically, Allen found that lockdowns (which should not be confused with the isolation policies of certain islands) were unnecessary because individuals voluntarily engaged in sufficient mitigation efforts to achieve the same level of disease spread and death as top-down, cookie-cutter government mandates did. The latter either did not bind (e.g., socially distanced sexual activity, as if!) or target the wrong behaviors. Turns out, once again, that individuals and their doctors know more about what is best for them than bureaucrats half a world away do!
Gaat verder:
https://www.thewashington(...)campaign=socialshare
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
CDC Punishes ‘Superstar’ Scientist For COVID Vaccine Recommendation The CDC Followed 4 Days Later
Harvard Medical School's Dr. Martin Kulldorff invented key parts of the U.S. vaccine safety system. But the CDC doesn't want his expertise on COVID vaccines. Why? Looks like politics.
The Centers for Disease Control pulled a world-renowned expert off a vaccine safety advisory committee after he publicly disagreed with the agency’s pause of the Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccine.
In an email, the CDC’s Dr. Amanda Cohn said Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard Medical School was being removed for communicating to the public his expert opinion, which differed from what the CDC was saying publicly at the time. Four days later, however, the CDC reinstated the use of the vaccine, effectively adopting Kulldorff’s recommendation after punishing him for publicly communicating it.
“It has been brought to CDC and ACIPs attention recent public statements you’ve made regarding policy opinions that appear to be pre-determined prior to complete review of data,” Cohn wrote Kulldorff in an April 19 email. “We understand and appreciate that VaST members have personal opinions and we do not object to the expression of those opinions. However, we expect members to be objective and devoid of any appearance of bias… Therefore, CDC is respectfully ending your membership on VaST effective today.”
Gaat verder:
https://thefederalist.com(...)llowed-4-days-later/
Harvard Medical School's Dr. Martin Kulldorff invented key parts of the U.S. vaccine safety system. But the CDC doesn't want his expertise on COVID vaccines. Why? Looks like politics.
The Centers for Disease Control pulled a world-renowned expert off a vaccine safety advisory committee after he publicly disagreed with the agency’s pause of the Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccine.
In an email, the CDC’s Dr. Amanda Cohn said Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard Medical School was being removed for communicating to the public his expert opinion, which differed from what the CDC was saying publicly at the time. Four days later, however, the CDC reinstated the use of the vaccine, effectively adopting Kulldorff’s recommendation after punishing him for publicly communicating it.
“It has been brought to CDC and ACIPs attention recent public statements you’ve made regarding policy opinions that appear to be pre-determined prior to complete review of data,” Cohn wrote Kulldorff in an April 19 email. “We understand and appreciate that VaST members have personal opinions and we do not object to the expression of those opinions. However, we expect members to be objective and devoid of any appearance of bias… Therefore, CDC is respectfully ending your membership on VaST effective today.”
Gaat verder:
https://thefederalist.com(...)llowed-4-days-later/
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Geschreven door Martin Kulldorff:
Martin Kulldorff is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a biostatistician and epidemiologist at the Brigham and Women's Hospital.
COVID-19 Counter Measures Should be Age Specific
Among COVID-19 exposed individuals, people in their 70s have roughly twice the mortality of those in their 60s, 10 times the mortality of those in their 50s, 40 times that of those in their 40s, 100 times that of those in their 30s, 300 times that of those in their 20s, and a mortality that is more than 3000 times higher than for children. Since COVID-19 operates in a highly age specific manner, mandated counter measures must also be age specific. If not, lives will be unnecessarily lost.
To determine effective public health counter measures against COVID-19, it is important to know the population characteristics of the epidemic [1]. It has been widely reported that mortality rates among those diagnosed and hospitalized are higher in older age groups [2, 3], but to determine public health action, it is the mortality among those exposed or infected that is of primary importance. Absolute risk estimates are uncertain at this stage of the epidemic, due to asymptomatic infected individuals [4] and limited population based testing [1], but with reasonable assumptions about exposure, it is possible to obtain rough estimates of the relative risks in different age groups, as well as upper bounds for the absolute risks.
Gaat verder:
https://www.linkedin.com/(...)ic-martin-kulldorff/
Martin Kulldorff is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a biostatistician and epidemiologist at the Brigham and Women's Hospital.
COVID-19 Counter Measures Should be Age Specific
Among COVID-19 exposed individuals, people in their 70s have roughly twice the mortality of those in their 60s, 10 times the mortality of those in their 50s, 40 times that of those in their 40s, 100 times that of those in their 30s, 300 times that of those in their 20s, and a mortality that is more than 3000 times higher than for children. Since COVID-19 operates in a highly age specific manner, mandated counter measures must also be age specific. If not, lives will be unnecessarily lost.
To determine effective public health counter measures against COVID-19, it is important to know the population characteristics of the epidemic [1]. It has been widely reported that mortality rates among those diagnosed and hospitalized are higher in older age groups [2, 3], but to determine public health action, it is the mortality among those exposed or infected that is of primary importance. Absolute risk estimates are uncertain at this stage of the epidemic, due to asymptomatic infected individuals [4] and limited population based testing [1], but with reasonable assumptions about exposure, it is possible to obtain rough estimates of the relative risks in different age groups, as well as upper bounds for the absolute risks.
Gaat verder:
https://www.linkedin.com/(...)ic-martin-kulldorff/
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Academic debate was shut down during the Covid crisis. We must not let that happen again
Academics must urgently counter the very real danger of groupthink across a range of issues, starting with lockdown
There is little room for ambivalence or nuance in modern debate. Any comment or piece of analysis will be taken as support for either of the polarised views on a particular issue. If you do not come down clearly on one side, then too many people are quick to conclude that you must support the other extreme. This makes it very difficult for us to steer an effective path through complex issues. In fact, it’s worse than that because one side of the debate will usually represent the prevailing narrative in society, and so any concerns about that perspective are greeted with much greater hostility than the other way around.
Consider the case of the pandemic. The prevailing narrative, especially among academics like me, is that lockdowns are both required and effective. So, if I am not fervently supporting lockdowns, then I am assumed to be opposed to any form of restrictions. This has been the reaction from across the academy when I have variously suggested: that the stay at home messaging was so effective that it might have resulted in more life years being lost from missed cancer treatments; that middle-aged decision-makers might have been unduly influenced by their own fear of dying; that the life experiences of younger people have been seen as a luxury good whilst we focus on the life expectancies of older people; and that it unethical to scare people into believing that their own risks from the virus are higher than they really are.
At no point have I ever endorsed a no-restrictions policy. At no point have other “lockdown sceptics” more prominent than me ever suggested that we simply let the virus rip. When Sunetra Gupta and colleagues argued for the focussed protection of older people (which is a long way from doing nothing), they were rounded on by many in the academy, and subjected to considerable personal abuse. Given all the uncertainties surrounding COVID, none of us can know with any degree of confidence what the right approach to the virus is, and I remain deeply sceptical of anyone who is so confident that strict lockdowns are best for social welfare in the UK.
One of the main reasons I became an academic was to help to shed light on difficult questions, and to be respectful of evidence that might lead to different answers. In the final analysis, I am pretty sure that many more people will conclude that younger people have been required to pay too high a price, but I am open to weighing up any evidence that speaks to this issue. What I am not open to are attempts to shut down academic debate and empirical investigation into these issues on the grounds that the right response has already been established, and that any dissent represents denial of the seriousness of the virus.
The academy must therefore urgently counter the very real danger of groupthink across a range of issues. Inter-group contact, where members of different groups are brought together to reduce prejudice, has been suggested as a method for tackling polarisation. While some research has shown that exposure to the ideas of the opposing group can increase polarisation, other research shows that inter-group contact works better in reducing prejudice if certain conditions are satisfied, such as prolonged exposure to more than one member of the other group.
I therefore urge academics to embrace adversarial collaboration, which explicitly brings together people with different prior beliefs to work on a research question. I have started doing this more in my own academic work, such as when we sought to value the intangible benefits of the 2012 Olympic Games. I absolutely loved the Games and thought they were worth every penny, but most of my dull economist collaborators thought they were a waste of money. For those that are interested, it was the basically the opening ceremony wot won it.
None of us - not even academics - can avoid bringing our own biases and beliefs to an issue and the evidence surrounding it. At least politicians are explicit about their disagreements. There is an honesty in that which is currently lacking in the academy. The world is a crazy place when an academic is extolling the honesty of politicians. But it does feel like the world has got a little crazier – and more polarised – over the past year. So, let us all use COVID and other potentially divisive contemporary issues as an opportunity to accept different perspectives, and to reduce polarisation rather than to increase it.
https://archive.is/1eHTa#selection-1219.0-1243.624
https://www.telegraph.co.(...)must-not-let-happen/
Academics must urgently counter the very real danger of groupthink across a range of issues, starting with lockdown
There is little room for ambivalence or nuance in modern debate. Any comment or piece of analysis will be taken as support for either of the polarised views on a particular issue. If you do not come down clearly on one side, then too many people are quick to conclude that you must support the other extreme. This makes it very difficult for us to steer an effective path through complex issues. In fact, it’s worse than that because one side of the debate will usually represent the prevailing narrative in society, and so any concerns about that perspective are greeted with much greater hostility than the other way around.
Consider the case of the pandemic. The prevailing narrative, especially among academics like me, is that lockdowns are both required and effective. So, if I am not fervently supporting lockdowns, then I am assumed to be opposed to any form of restrictions. This has been the reaction from across the academy when I have variously suggested: that the stay at home messaging was so effective that it might have resulted in more life years being lost from missed cancer treatments; that middle-aged decision-makers might have been unduly influenced by their own fear of dying; that the life experiences of younger people have been seen as a luxury good whilst we focus on the life expectancies of older people; and that it unethical to scare people into believing that their own risks from the virus are higher than they really are.
At no point have I ever endorsed a no-restrictions policy. At no point have other “lockdown sceptics” more prominent than me ever suggested that we simply let the virus rip. When Sunetra Gupta and colleagues argued for the focussed protection of older people (which is a long way from doing nothing), they were rounded on by many in the academy, and subjected to considerable personal abuse. Given all the uncertainties surrounding COVID, none of us can know with any degree of confidence what the right approach to the virus is, and I remain deeply sceptical of anyone who is so confident that strict lockdowns are best for social welfare in the UK.
One of the main reasons I became an academic was to help to shed light on difficult questions, and to be respectful of evidence that might lead to different answers. In the final analysis, I am pretty sure that many more people will conclude that younger people have been required to pay too high a price, but I am open to weighing up any evidence that speaks to this issue. What I am not open to are attempts to shut down academic debate and empirical investigation into these issues on the grounds that the right response has already been established, and that any dissent represents denial of the seriousness of the virus.
The academy must therefore urgently counter the very real danger of groupthink across a range of issues. Inter-group contact, where members of different groups are brought together to reduce prejudice, has been suggested as a method for tackling polarisation. While some research has shown that exposure to the ideas of the opposing group can increase polarisation, other research shows that inter-group contact works better in reducing prejudice if certain conditions are satisfied, such as prolonged exposure to more than one member of the other group.
I therefore urge academics to embrace adversarial collaboration, which explicitly brings together people with different prior beliefs to work on a research question. I have started doing this more in my own academic work, such as when we sought to value the intangible benefits of the 2012 Olympic Games. I absolutely loved the Games and thought they were worth every penny, but most of my dull economist collaborators thought they were a waste of money. For those that are interested, it was the basically the opening ceremony wot won it.
None of us - not even academics - can avoid bringing our own biases and beliefs to an issue and the evidence surrounding it. At least politicians are explicit about their disagreements. There is an honesty in that which is currently lacking in the academy. The world is a crazy place when an academic is extolling the honesty of politicians. But it does feel like the world has got a little crazier – and more polarised – over the past year. So, let us all use COVID and other potentially divisive contemporary issues as an opportunity to accept different perspectives, and to reduce polarisation rather than to increase it.
https://archive.is/1eHTa#selection-1219.0-1243.624
https://www.telegraph.co.(...)must-not-let-happen/
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Door Geert Vanden Bossche
Mass infection prevention and mass vaccination with leaky Covid-19 vaccines in the midst of the pandemic can only breed highly infectious variants.
Key document on mass vaccination and immune escape. Response to critics. Why do mass vaccination campaigns promote dominance of selective immune escape variants? I repeat with utmost urgency my call for a public scientific debate with the WHO, qualified experts and authorities worldwide.
https://www.geertvandenbossche.org/
Mass infection prevention and mass vaccination with leaky Covid-19 vaccines in the midst of the pandemic can only breed highly infectious variants.
Key document on mass vaccination and immune escape. Response to critics. Why do mass vaccination campaigns promote dominance of selective immune escape variants? I repeat with utmost urgency my call for a public scientific debate with the WHO, qualified experts and authorities worldwide.
https://www.geertvandenbossche.org/
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
MIT researchers 'infiltrated' a Covid skeptics community a few months ago and found that skeptics place a high premium on data analysis and empiricism.
"Most fundamentally, the groups we studied believe that science is a process, and not an institution."
"Indeed, anti-maskers often reveal themselves to be more sophisticated in their understanding of how scientific knowledge is socially constructed than their ideological adversaries, who espouse nave realism about the “objective” truth of public health data."
"In other words, anti-maskers value unmediated access to information and privilege personal research and direct reading over “expert” interpretations."
"Its members value individual initiative and ingenuity, trusting scientific analysis only insofar as they can replicate it themselves by accessing and manipulating the data firsthand."
"They are highly reflexive about the inherently biased nature of any analysis, and resent what they view as the arrogant self-righteousness of scientific elites."
"Many of the users believe that the most important metrics are missing from government-released data."
"One user wrote: 'Coding data is a big deal—and those definitions should be offered transparently by every state. Without a national guideline—we are left with this mess'."
"The lack of transparency within these data collection systems—which many of these users infer as a lack of honesty—erodes these users’ trust within both government institutions and the datasets they release."
"In fact, there are multiple threads every week where users debate how representative the data are of the population given the increased rate of testing across many states."
"These groups argue that the conflation of asymptomatic and symptomatic cases therefore makes it difficult for anyone to actually determine the severity of the pandemic."
"For these anti-mask users, their approach to the pandemic is grounded in more scientific rigor, not less."
"These individuals as a whole are extremely willing to help others who have trouble interpreting graphs with multiple forms of clarification: by helping people find the original sources so that they can replicate the analysis themselves, by referencing other reputable studies...
that come to the same conclusions, by reminding others to remain vigilant about the limitations of the data, and by answering questions about the implications of a specific graph."
"While these groups highly value scientific expertise, they also see collective analysis of data as a way to bring communities together within a time of crisis, and being able to transparently and dispassionately analyze the data is crucial for democratic governance."
"In fact, the explicit motivation for many of these followers is to find information so that they can make the best decisions for their families—and by extension, for the communities around them."
"The message that runs through these threads is unequivocal: that data is the only way to set fear-bound politicians straight, and using better data is a surefire way towards creating a safer community."
"Data literacy is a quintessential criterion for membership within the community they have created."
"Arguing anti-maskers need more scientific literacy is to characterize their approach as uninformed & inexplicably extreme. This study shows the opposite: they are deeply invested in forms of critique & knowledge production they recognize as markers of scientific expertise"
"We argue that anti-maskers’ deep story draws from similar wells of resentment, but adds a particular emphasis on the usurpation of scientific knowledge by a paternalistic, condescending elite that expects intellectual subservience rather than critical thinking from the public."
And yet in the conclusion they lament "the skeptical impulse that the 'science simply isn’t settled,' prompting people to simply 'think for themselves” to horrifying ends."
They then compare it to the January 6 Capitol riot.
Bizarre and fascinating document.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1391754136031477760.html
"Most fundamentally, the groups we studied believe that science is a process, and not an institution."
"Indeed, anti-maskers often reveal themselves to be more sophisticated in their understanding of how scientific knowledge is socially constructed than their ideological adversaries, who espouse nave realism about the “objective” truth of public health data."
"In other words, anti-maskers value unmediated access to information and privilege personal research and direct reading over “expert” interpretations."
"Its members value individual initiative and ingenuity, trusting scientific analysis only insofar as they can replicate it themselves by accessing and manipulating the data firsthand."
"They are highly reflexive about the inherently biased nature of any analysis, and resent what they view as the arrogant self-righteousness of scientific elites."
"Many of the users believe that the most important metrics are missing from government-released data."
"One user wrote: 'Coding data is a big deal—and those definitions should be offered transparently by every state. Without a national guideline—we are left with this mess'."
"The lack of transparency within these data collection systems—which many of these users infer as a lack of honesty—erodes these users’ trust within both government institutions and the datasets they release."
"In fact, there are multiple threads every week where users debate how representative the data are of the population given the increased rate of testing across many states."
"These groups argue that the conflation of asymptomatic and symptomatic cases therefore makes it difficult for anyone to actually determine the severity of the pandemic."
"For these anti-mask users, their approach to the pandemic is grounded in more scientific rigor, not less."
"These individuals as a whole are extremely willing to help others who have trouble interpreting graphs with multiple forms of clarification: by helping people find the original sources so that they can replicate the analysis themselves, by referencing other reputable studies...
that come to the same conclusions, by reminding others to remain vigilant about the limitations of the data, and by answering questions about the implications of a specific graph."
"While these groups highly value scientific expertise, they also see collective analysis of data as a way to bring communities together within a time of crisis, and being able to transparently and dispassionately analyze the data is crucial for democratic governance."
"In fact, the explicit motivation for many of these followers is to find information so that they can make the best decisions for their families—and by extension, for the communities around them."
"The message that runs through these threads is unequivocal: that data is the only way to set fear-bound politicians straight, and using better data is a surefire way towards creating a safer community."
"Data literacy is a quintessential criterion for membership within the community they have created."
"Arguing anti-maskers need more scientific literacy is to characterize their approach as uninformed & inexplicably extreme. This study shows the opposite: they are deeply invested in forms of critique & knowledge production they recognize as markers of scientific expertise"
"We argue that anti-maskers’ deep story draws from similar wells of resentment, but adds a particular emphasis on the usurpation of scientific knowledge by a paternalistic, condescending elite that expects intellectual subservience rather than critical thinking from the public."
And yet in the conclusion they lament "the skeptical impulse that the 'science simply isn’t settled,' prompting people to simply 'think for themselves” to horrifying ends."
They then compare it to the January 6 Capitol riot.
Bizarre and fascinating document.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1391754136031477760.html
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Dit lijkt mij waarom er conspiracy theories bestaan.quote:
Toch wel bijzonder hoe deze Yeadon zich uitlaat over Covid en vaccinaties. Vooral als je kijkt naar zijn voormalige positie binnen Pfizer.
EXCLUSIVE - Former Pfizer VP: ‘Your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death.’
Dr. Michael Yeadon, Pfizer's former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory who spent 32 years in the industry leading new medicines research and retired from the pharmaceutical giant with “the most senior research position” in his field, spoke with LifeSiteNews.
He addressed the “demonstrably false” propaganda from governments in response to COVID-19, including the “lie” of dangerous variants, the totalitarian potential for “vaccine passports,” and the strong possibility we are dealing with a “conspiracy” which could lead to something far beyond the carnage experienced in the wars and massacres of the 20th century.
His main points included:
There is “no possibility” current variants of COVID-19 will escape immunity. It is “just a lie.”
Yet, governments around the world are repeating this lie, indicating that we are witnessing not just “convergent opportunism,” but a “conspiracy.” Meanwhile media outlets and Big Tech platforms are committed to the same propaganda and the censorship of the truth.
Pharmaceutical companies have already begun to develop unneeded “top-up” (“booster”) vaccines for the “variants.” The companies are planning to manufacture billions of vials, in addition to the current experimental COVID-19 “vaccine” campaign.
Regulatory agencies like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, have announced that since these “top-up” vaccines will be so similar to the prior injections which were approved for emergency use authorization, drug companies will not be required to “perform any clinical safety studies.”
Thus, this virtually means that design and implementation of repeated and coerced mRNA vaccines “go from the computer screen of a pharmaceutical company into the arms of hundreds of millions of people, [injecting] some superfluous genetic sequence for which there is absolutely no need or justification.”
Why are they doing this? Since no benign reason is apparent, the use of vaccine passports along with a “banking reset” could issue in a totalitarianism unlike the world has ever seen. Recalling the evil of Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, “mass depopulation” remains a logical outcome.
The fact that this at least could be true means everyone must “fight like crazy to make sure that system never forms.”
Gaat verder:
https://www.lifesitenews.(...)tm_campaign=standard
Mensen hebben teveel vertrouwen in de rationaliteit van overheden. Dat komt tot uiting in conspiracy denkers "wappies" en blind volgende angst "schapen".
Doodsangsten doen rare dingen met de emoties van mensen. En ze vallen er allemaal ten prooi aan incl wetenschappers op hoge plekken.
"Het enkele feit dat de gewasbeschermingsmiddelen zijn toegelaten, geeft in ieder geval geen garantie op het ontbreken van met name een uitgesteld schadelijk effect op de gezondheid van mensen."
Covid has emboldened our modern censors
The past year has accelerated all kinds of trends that were already moving through our societies. Social atomisation, the decline of the high street and communities, the rise of the nanny state — Covid and lockdown have brought all of these to the fore. Among the most concerning is the rise of Big Tech censorship, and the way in which a handful of Silicon Valley oligarchs have come to set the terms of debate and even rule on what is true.
This week representatives from Facebook and Twitter were brought before parliament to discuss their firms’ censorship of discussion around Covid. Two particularly pertinent cases were raised — though there are many more. The first was a statement by Martin Kulldorff, a professor at the Harvard Medical School and one of the key authors of the anti-lockdown Great Barrington Declaration. His tweet last month, suggesting that not everyone needed to be vaccinated, particularly those who had previously been infected, was labelled ‘misleading’ by Twitter.
Tweeters were rendered unable to interact with it and were instructed that 'health officials recommend a vaccine for most people'. Similarly, in November, Facebook labelled a Spectator article on the efficacy of masks, penned by Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson of Oxford University’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, as ‘false information’.
Here we have two social-media giants effectively intervening in scientific debate. Kulldorff, Heneghan and Jefferson are not snarling conspiracy theorists or bluffers wading into things they don’t understand. They are dissenting scientists and medics who hold positions at esteemed institutions. On what basis could Facebook or Twitter simply declare their arguments null and void? The answers provided to parliamentarians were chilling. Katy Minshall, head of UK public policy at Twitter, essentially said anything that contradicts official guidance from public health authorities is deemed misleading by the platform. She told the committee:
What we want to do is when people see [Kulldorff's] tweet to really quickly direct them to authoritative sources of information like the CDC, the NHS or the Department of Health so they can see what the official guidance is and make up their own mind.
Ms Minshall's comment is, ironically, misleading — Twitter isn't inviting people to 'make up their own minds', it is labelling statements as incorrect and banning users from interacting with it. Given that public health authorities across the world have got a lot wrong during this pandemic — this time last year UK health authorities were advising against masks and until last summer Public Health England wasn’t even counting the deaths properly — this seems a dodgy standard. Later on, Facebook’s representative told the Lords that an army of fact-checkers, most of whom will not have had any medical or scientific training, essentially have the final say on what is or isn’t deemed ‘false’ on the world’s biggest social network.
Social media censorship is nothing new of course. For years now Twitter, Facebook and YouTube have been gradually tightening their policies around hate speech and misinformation in response to various moral panics about bigotry, bile and bunkum on their platforms. But the Covid pandemic has pushed them well beyond what even they would have previously been comfortable with. There was an elitist assumption at the beginning of the pandemic that people are idiots and so shouldn’t be left to navigate the Covid debate for themselves. This led to incredible pressure being piled on social media giants to filter, fact-check and censor. As recently as 2018, Mark Zuckerberg insisted that Facebook would not censor conspiracy theories, even Holocaust denial, because it was not Facebook’s business to rule on what is true. Now Facebook, Twitter and the rest are censoring not only Covid-denying loons but also eminent scientists who just so happen to dissent from official orthodoxy.
This is a disaster for freedom of speech. These corporate giants essentially own the modern-day public square. What’s more, at a time when citizens are being asked to put up with unprecedented restrictions on all their other liberties, freedom of speech must not be compromised. Even where there is a strong consensus on a specific course of action — like lockdown — dissent is still vital. If nothing else, it forces the powers that be to present their evidence and refine their arguments. In times of crisis, free speech matters more not less. And yet Big Tech took the precise opposite message from the pandemic. Covid became a pretext on which it has further tightened its grip.
https://www.spectator.co.(...)d-our-modern-censors
https://archive.is/nOH3F#selection-649.0-673.682
The past year has accelerated all kinds of trends that were already moving through our societies. Social atomisation, the decline of the high street and communities, the rise of the nanny state — Covid and lockdown have brought all of these to the fore. Among the most concerning is the rise of Big Tech censorship, and the way in which a handful of Silicon Valley oligarchs have come to set the terms of debate and even rule on what is true.
This week representatives from Facebook and Twitter were brought before parliament to discuss their firms’ censorship of discussion around Covid. Two particularly pertinent cases were raised — though there are many more. The first was a statement by Martin Kulldorff, a professor at the Harvard Medical School and one of the key authors of the anti-lockdown Great Barrington Declaration. His tweet last month, suggesting that not everyone needed to be vaccinated, particularly those who had previously been infected, was labelled ‘misleading’ by Twitter.
Tweeters were rendered unable to interact with it and were instructed that 'health officials recommend a vaccine for most people'. Similarly, in November, Facebook labelled a Spectator article on the efficacy of masks, penned by Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson of Oxford University’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, as ‘false information’.
Here we have two social-media giants effectively intervening in scientific debate. Kulldorff, Heneghan and Jefferson are not snarling conspiracy theorists or bluffers wading into things they don’t understand. They are dissenting scientists and medics who hold positions at esteemed institutions. On what basis could Facebook or Twitter simply declare their arguments null and void? The answers provided to parliamentarians were chilling. Katy Minshall, head of UK public policy at Twitter, essentially said anything that contradicts official guidance from public health authorities is deemed misleading by the platform. She told the committee:
What we want to do is when people see [Kulldorff's] tweet to really quickly direct them to authoritative sources of information like the CDC, the NHS or the Department of Health so they can see what the official guidance is and make up their own mind.
Ms Minshall's comment is, ironically, misleading — Twitter isn't inviting people to 'make up their own minds', it is labelling statements as incorrect and banning users from interacting with it. Given that public health authorities across the world have got a lot wrong during this pandemic — this time last year UK health authorities were advising against masks and until last summer Public Health England wasn’t even counting the deaths properly — this seems a dodgy standard. Later on, Facebook’s representative told the Lords that an army of fact-checkers, most of whom will not have had any medical or scientific training, essentially have the final say on what is or isn’t deemed ‘false’ on the world’s biggest social network.
Social media censorship is nothing new of course. For years now Twitter, Facebook and YouTube have been gradually tightening their policies around hate speech and misinformation in response to various moral panics about bigotry, bile and bunkum on their platforms. But the Covid pandemic has pushed them well beyond what even they would have previously been comfortable with. There was an elitist assumption at the beginning of the pandemic that people are idiots and so shouldn’t be left to navigate the Covid debate for themselves. This led to incredible pressure being piled on social media giants to filter, fact-check and censor. As recently as 2018, Mark Zuckerberg insisted that Facebook would not censor conspiracy theories, even Holocaust denial, because it was not Facebook’s business to rule on what is true. Now Facebook, Twitter and the rest are censoring not only Covid-denying loons but also eminent scientists who just so happen to dissent from official orthodoxy.
This is a disaster for freedom of speech. These corporate giants essentially own the modern-day public square. What’s more, at a time when citizens are being asked to put up with unprecedented restrictions on all their other liberties, freedom of speech must not be compromised. Even where there is a strong consensus on a specific course of action — like lockdown — dissent is still vital. If nothing else, it forces the powers that be to present their evidence and refine their arguments. In times of crisis, free speech matters more not less. And yet Big Tech took the precise opposite message from the pandemic. Covid became a pretext on which it has further tightened its grip.
https://www.spectator.co.(...)d-our-modern-censors
https://archive.is/nOH3F#selection-649.0-673.682
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
|
|
