Category: Health & Medicine

Insurance Companies Increase U.S. Mortality Expectations by 300,000 Due to Covid and “INDIRECT Covid,” aka The Jabs

Since the beginning of the plandemic, the powers-that-be have told us to “follow the science.” But perhaps a better indicator of what’s really happening would be to follow the money. And if you really want to get an accurate view, the money to follow is in life insurance. They know about death better than anyone. It’s what they do.

We reported in January about the insurance executive caught admitting there had been an inexplicable 40% increase in mortalities in 2022. They tried to walk that back, but the cat was out of the bag and it has been verified as being true. Now, a former Blackrock portfolio manager has taken the insurance cover-up and blown it wide open.

During an interview with Kristi Leigh, Edward Dowd gave us multiple bombshells. One that may have been missed came at around the 27-minute mark when he revealed plenty of evidence of mortality dramatically increasing.

“Bottom line is, they saw an acceleration in mortality in the second half of 2021, okay. Given the ‘miracle vaccines,’ that should not have occurred.”

He detailed how OneAmerica CEO Scott Davison revealed the facts during a Chamber of Commerce meeting. The information was not supposed to get out to the public, but it did and it blew up.

“In fact, he put some meat on the bones,” Dowd said. “He said a 10% increase would be a three-standard deviation event. 40% is a once-in-200-year flood. And what you need to understand about insurance companies is they make their money giving whole life policies because they can predict death rates, which are pretty steady.

“They can retract it all they want. That doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter what they say. Deaths are rising. Now, you can debate why. I know why. You know why.”

He then went over some details that his team had collected regarding the increase in mortalities reported in the 4th quarter of 2021 by the insurance agencies. Here’s a breakdown he posted to Twitter:

Continue reading “”

Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line

BLUF:
Whether the findings of the study will occur in living organisms or if the DNA converted from the vaccine’s mRNA will integrate with the cell’s genome is unknown. The authors said more investigations are needed, including in whole living organisms such as animals, to better understand the potential effects of the mRNA vaccine.

“At this stage, we do not know if DNA reverse transcribed from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome. Further studies are needed to demonstrate the effect of BNT162b2 on genomic integrity, including whole genome sequencing of cells exposed to BNT162b2, as well as tissues from human subjects who received BNT162b2 vaccination,” the authors said.

Pfizer Vaccine Goes Into Liver Cells and Is Converted to DNA

The messenger RNA (mRNA) from Pfizer’s COVID vaccine is able to enter human liver cells and is converted into DNA, according to Swedish researchers at Lund University.

The researchers found that when the mRNA vaccine enters the human liver cells, it triggers the cell’s DNA, which is inside the nucleus, to increase the production of the LINE-1 gene expression to make mRNA.

The mRNA then leaves the nucleus and enters the cell’s cytoplasm, where it translates into LINE-1 protein. A segment of the protein called the open reading frame-1, or ORF-1, then goes back into the nucleus, where it attaches to the vaccine’s mRNA and reverse transcribes into spike DNA.

Reverse transcription is when DNA is made from RNA, whereas the normal transcription process involves a portion of the DNA serving as a template to make an mRNA molecule inside the nucleus.

“In this study we present evidence that COVID mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 is able to enter the human liver cell line Huh7 in vitro,” the researchers wrote in the study, published in Current Issues of Molecular Biology. “BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed intracellularly into DNA as fast as 6 [hours] after BNT162b2 exposure.”

BNT162b2 is another name for the Pfizer vaccine that is marketed under the name Comirnaty.

The whole process occurred rapidly within six hours. The vaccine’s mRNA converting into DNA and being found inside the cell’s nucleus is something that the CDC said would not happen.

“The genetic material delivered by mRNA vaccines never enters the nucleus of your cells,” the CDC claimed falsely on its web page titled “Myths and Facts about COVID-19 Vaccines.”

This is the first time that researchers have shown in vitro or inside a petri dish how an mRNA vaccine is converted into DNA on a human liver cell line, and is what health experts and fact-checkers said for over a year could not occur.

Continue reading “”

Long Story Short™:

Scientists have found that a section of the genetic material that makes up the COVID virus is the same as one that Moderna patented in February of 2016. The sequence is 19 base pairs long, meaning that there is only a one in three trillion chance that this happened naturally.

COVID is the only coronavirus of its type to carry 12 unique letters that allow its spike protein to be activated by a common enzyme called furin, which allows it to spread between human cells with ease.

If in fact the virus is engineered using genetic material that was patented by Moderna, this would explain how a vaccine was ready for market within months. They already knew how to vaccinate against it.
It was their property.

More evidence Covid was tinkered with in a lab? Now scientists find virus contains tiny chunk of DNA that matches sequence patented by Moderna THREE YEARS before pandemic began

  • Genetic match discovered in Covid’s unique furin cleavage site on spike protein
  • Matched genetic sequence patented by Moderna for cancer research purposes
  • Researchers say one in 3 trillion chance Covid developed the code naturally 
Fresh suspicion that Covid may have been tinkered with in a lab emerged today after scientists found genetic material owned by Moderna in the virus’s spike protein.
They identified a tiny snippet of code that is identical to part of a gene patented by the vaccine maker three years before the pandemic.
It was discovered in SARS-CoV-2’s unique furin cleavage site, the part that makes it so good at infecting people and separates it from other coronaviruses.
The structure has been one of the focal points of debate about the virus’s origin, with some scientists claiming it could not have been acquired naturally. 
The international team of researchers suggest the virus may have mutated to have a furin cleavage site during experiments on human cells in a lab.
They claim there is a one-in-three-trillion chance Moderna’s sequence randomly appeared through natural evolution.
But there is some debate about whether the match is as rare as the study claims, with other experts describing it as a ‘quirky’ coincidence rather than a ‘smoking gun’.

SARS-CoV-2, which causes Covid, carries all the information needed for it to spread in around 30,000 letters of genetic code, known as RNA. The virus shares a sequence of 19 specific letters with a genetic section owned by Moderna. Twelve of the shared letters make up the structure of Covid's furin cleavage site, with the rest being a match with nucleotides on a nearby part of the genome

+3
View gallery

SARS-CoV-2, which causes Covid, carries all the information needed for it to spread in around 30,000 letters of genetic code, known as RNA. The virus shares a sequence of 19 specific letters with a genetic section owned by Moderna. Twelve of the shared letters make up the structure of Covid’s furin cleavage site, with the rest being a match with nucleotides on a nearby part of the genome

Continue reading “”

Amazing how the pandemicpanic has so suddenly ended now that the ’22 election season is gearing up………..

The CDC Says Most Americans Can Take Their Masks Off
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky stressed that people could continue to wear masks if they wanted to.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are letting most Americans take their masks off for a little bit, as a treat.

On Friday, the public health agency released a new COVID Community Levels tool that measures the severity of the pandemic by COVID’s burden on the hospital system, rather than the number of cases. That change in measurement means the CDC is now classifying about 70 percent of counties in the country at low or medium threat of COVID. In those areas, the agency is no longer recommending people wear a mask indoors.

These new guidelines don’t change the requirements that people wear masks on well-ventilated airplanes or near-empty buses and subways. The agency is still also recommending that people, including school children in K-12 schools, wear masks indoors in the 30 percent of counties where the risk of COVID-19 is ranked as high.

The in-school masking recommendation is being lifted for school children in low- and medium-risk counties, however. That’s a change from CDC Director Rochelle Walensky’s comments from just last week. The director had said in a closed congressional hearing that she had no plans to change the agency’s recommendation that all school children continue to wear masks, according to reporting from Reason’s Robby Soave.

Walensky was careful to stress on a call with reporters today that people in low and medium-risk jurisdictions were still free to wear a mask if they wanted to.

“Anybody is certainly welcome to wear a mask at any time if they feel safer wearing a mask,” she said, as reported by the Associated Press.

That will certainly be comforting to those who weren’t sure if they could make a decision without the CDC’s explicit approval. For most people, however, the agency’s new guidance will do little more than ratify what they’ve already been doing.

Some 65 percent of the country has already had two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, enough to be “vaxxed and relaxed.” And those who haven’t been vaccinated were not likely to be the most fanatic followers of the CDC’s masking advice.

The practical upshot of the new guidelines is that they’ll give local government officials and school superintendents the permission and courage they need to stick to their planned repeal of mandatory masking or a much-needed nudge to get rid of those mandates that are still in place.

Today’s blacklisted American: 9-year-old boy denied kidney transplant because donor hasn’t gotten COVID jab.

They’re coming for you next: A nine-year-old boy has been denied a kidney transplant by his hospital because his donor, who also happens to be his father, has not gotten any COVID shots.

Nine-year-old Tanner Donaldson suffers from stage 5 chronic kidney disease and urgently needs a kidney transplant. Miraculously, his father, Dane, is a perfect match to donate one of his kidneys. In early 2018, Cleveland Children’s Hospital approved the transplant. Shockingly, however, the hospital is now denying Tanner’s transplant following the execution of a “cruel, illogical, and unscientific” policy that demands the donor—but not Tanner—to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

Both the father and the child have gotten and recovered from the Wuhan flu, and thus have natural immunity, which is one reason the father doesn’t want to get the jab. Furthermore, he considers the risks of the shot far outweigh its benefits. As the family’s lawyer noted in a letter to Jane Jankowski, Interim Director of the Cleveland Clinic Center for Bioethics that made the decision blocking the transplant operation:

CDC’s Director, Dr. Walensky, has acknowledged that the COVID-19 vaccines do not “prevent transmission.” In contrast to this failure of the vaccines, as conceded by the CDC on Nov. 5, 2021, there has yet to be one documented case of a person who “(1) never received a COVID-19 vaccine; (2) was infected with COVID-19 once, recovered, and then later became infected again; and (3) transmitted SARS-CoV-2 to another person when reinfected.” In fact, several independent studies confirm that reinfections for COVID-19 are exceedingly rare and reaffirm the durability of natural immunity.

Moreover, there is ample evidence that getting a COVID shot carries real risk. In weighing these options, the father has chosen what he considers the safest option for himself, and his son.

Yet, the hospital would rather let the boy die from a failed kidney then permit him to get a new one from his father, just because the father didn’t get the jab and thus his kidney might somehow expose the boy indirectly to COVID.

This insane policy is of course standard operating procedure in the past two years. Too many so-called intellectuals, scientists, and medical officials have apparently become so wedded to government policy that they no longer can use their brains, in any way at all. The rules trump ever fact, every time, so much so that little children must be condemned to death if they or their parents do not obey.

The parents options apparently are limited. The hospital approved the transplant in 2017, and to get another hospital to take this case quickly is likely difficult, if not impossible.

Thus, a little boy will die because his doctors demand that everyone follow an irrational and somewhat harmful rule.

Very quietly, 2 federal agencies are studying post-vaccination neurological issues

With no public announcements, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) both are studying neurological problems that have appeared in people after receiving the COVID vaccines.  In a scoop, Zachary Stieber of the Epoch Times has confirmed via emails that the studies are underway.  You can read the report un-paywalled (by special arrangement with the Epoch Times) here:

Two U.S. agencies have been quietly studying neurological problems that have appeared in people who have had COVID-19 vaccines, The Epoch Times has found.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) have been conducting separate research projects into post- vaccination neurological issues, which have manifested with symptoms like facial paralysis and brain fog and have been linked in some cases with the vaccines, according to emails reviewed by The Epoch Times.

One attempt to gain understanding of a problem that experts around the world are struggling to understand is being carried out by Dr. Janet Woodcock, who was acting commissioner of the FDA until Feb. 17.

Woodcock, now the FDA’s principal deputy director, has been personally evaluating neurologic side effects from the COVID-19 vaccines since at least Sept. 13, 2021, according to the emails, many of which have not been reported on previously. FDA epidemiologists are also gathering data to look into the issues, according to messages from Dr. Peter Marks, another top FDA official.

A team at the NIH’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), meanwhile, started seeing patients reporting vaccine injuries for a study in early 2021 after receiving complaints shortly after the vaccines were made available. A portion of the patients was examined in person at the Bethesda, Maryland, facility.

None of the reviews or studies appear to have been announced, and health officials have said little about them publicly, despite a growing recognition among experts that at least some issues are likely linked to the vaccines.

For further details on the study, read the whole thing.

Or, maybe 4 cups…just to be on the safe side?

This Is the Exact Amount of Coffee You Should Drink, According to a Harvard Brain Expert.

Scientists agree: Drinking coffee is good for you. That’s good news if, like most Americans, you enjoy coffee and perhaps rely on it to help you wake up in the morning or stay alert during the day.

In the last couple of years, more detailed research on coffee has sought to zero in on just how much coffee you should drink every day for maximum health and brain benefits. They’ve found the answer–you should drink three cups………….

CDC quietly lowers the bar for early childhood speech development.

This is a story that first surfaced earlier in the week but hasn’t gained a lot of traction yet. (This is perhaps understandable given the situation in Ukraine, but also likely by intention.) For the first time in decades, the CDC has changed many of the recognized milestones for childhood development in terms of speech and cognitive functions.

These markers are considered important in terms of recognizing when children aren’t progressing quickly enough, suggesting the potential need to determine if some sort of impairment is being observed and if the child may require greater medical attention. The curious thing about the changes instituted by the CDC is that in a majority of the cases, they have lowered the standards rather than raising them. I first noticed this news on Twitter, as so often happens these days.

You can read the new guidelines here. One of the big changes that many critics are focusing on is the former guideline saying that children should normally know approximately fifty words by 24 months or two years of age. That benchmark has now been stealthily raised to 30 months. That’s not insignificant at all. It’s a 25% increase from the previous standard.

The Postmillennial examines the context in which these changes are taking place. It’s hard to ignore the growing body of reports showing that childhood development has been suffering as a result of various COVID protocols, raging from “virtual learning” environments to forcing children to wear face masks.

Continue reading “”

The New York Times Makes A Stunning Admission About CDC Data On Vaccines

The New York Times made an eye-popping admission on Sunday regarding data collected by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on Covid-19 vaccines.

In an article titled, “The C.D.C. Isn’t Publishing Large Portions of the Covid Data It Collects,” reporter Apoorva Mandavilli writes: “For more than a year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has collected data on hospitalizations for Covid-19 in the United States and broken it down by age, race and vaccination status. But it has not made most of the information public.”

Mandavilli, who covers science and global health for the Times, reported that the agency has published “only a tiny fraction of the data it has collected” since the pandemic began, including data on booster efficacy for 18 – 49 year-olds, a tremendous chunk of the U.S. population.

Reasons listed include bureaucracy, sample size, and not being “ready for prime time,” but one that’s definitely set to raise lots of eyebrows is the claim that the data could be “misinterpreted” by Covid vaccine skeptics.

From the report:

Last year, the agency repeatedly came under fire for not tracking so-called breakthrough infections in vaccinated Americans, and focusing only on individuals who became ill enough to be hospitalized or die. The agency presented that information as risk comparisons with unvaccinated adults, rather than provide timely snapshots of hospitalized patients stratified by age, sex, race and vaccination status.

But the C.D.C. has been routinely collecting information since the Covid vaccines were first rolled out last year, according to a federal official familiar with the effort. The agency has been reluctant to make those figures public, the official said, because they might be misinterpreted as the vaccines being ineffective.

Instead, health experts have been forced to rely on data from Israel and elsewhere to make decisions, the Times reported.

Boston abruptly lifts vaccine mandate.

Boston’s new mayor, Michelle Wu, took the city by surprise yesterday when she announced that Beantown’s requirement for proof of vaccination to enter most indoor businesses was being lifted “immediately.” This was particularly good news for bars and restaurants in the city which have struggled to enforce the mandate and seen their customer traffic (and profits) tanking over the course of the pandemic. The reason she gave was yet another “following the science” speech, noting that the city’s positivity, hospitalization, and ICU occupancy rates had all fallen below the previously defined limits. Since that means that even the unvaccinated will now be able to go about their lives a bit more normally, Wu really should answer one pressing question. What about all of the people who wound up getting vaccinated against their will? (CBS Boston)

Boston Mayor Michelle Wu has lifted the proof of vaccine requirement for indoor businesses effective immediately. The announcement was made Friday evening.

The city just fell below the third metric it needed to hit in order to loosen the restrictions.

Public health data reported on Friday shows Boston has a 4.0% community positivity rate; 90.7% occupancy rate of adult ICU beds, and a 7-day average of adult COVID-19 hospitalizations at 195.9 per day.

At the Boston restaurant Sonsie, the manager went out front and took down the mandate poster that had been in the window for more than a year. She also informed her staff to stop asking to see immunity passports “immediately.”

The one thing that didn’t change on Friday night was the city’s face mask mandate. Officials said they will be reviewing that policy “in the coming days.” Of course, as we’ve discussed here previously, a mask mandate in a bar or restaurant is nothing more than idiotic posturing and virtue signaling. Customers take off their masks as soon as their beverages and food arrive at the table, so the only people being punished are the employees.

Returning to the question I posed at the top of the article, this ending of vaccination mandates is taking place all over the country now. Those who refused to accept the vaccines will now finally be allowed to mix with the rest of the public like normal human beings. But what of all of the people who didn’t want to be vaccinated but gave in and took the shots just to gain some measure of freedom of movement or keep their jobs? They can’t turn around now and be “de-vaccinated.”

The latest numbers from the CDC tell us that 64.4% of the people in the United States are now “fully vaccinated.” (That means three shots at this point for all but the hangers-on who waited until the last possible moment.) So more than a third of the country – including a majority of young children – are only partially done with getting their shots or are entirely unvaccinated. They will get to return to whatever passes for “normal” these days while those who took the shots against their will carry their lingering resentment of the government mandates with them.

If you weren’t paying attention to the politics involved, you might be surprised at how quickly we went from “the mandates are the only thing that will save us” to “never mind.” But that’s because all of these politicians are able to read their own polling numbers and those numbers look like a dumpster fire at the moment when it comes to COVID mandates. These are political decisions far more than medical decisions. And at least some of these officials are going to be held accountable later this year.

The pandemic is over, except for Fauci and his lackies

Fauci Says the Quiet Part Out Loud About Ending the Pandemic.

White House Chief Medical Adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci was interviewed by ABC News’ Linsey Davis on Wednesday and was asked how we’ll know when the pandemic is over.

Unsurprisingly, Fauci refused to define a threshold.

“In those months ahead, our country, right now, at least, is still seeing about 147,000 new cases of COVID per day,” Davis said. “But what would that threshold be in the future for you to say, okay, the pandemic has passed?”

“You know, there’s no magic number,” Fauci replied. “But you want is to make sure the trajectory keeps going down and down and down. And I think the important issue, and that relates to one of the questions you asked before about the CDC considering giving more precise metrics for decisionmaking, that concentrating more on what the rate of severe disease and hospitalization is will determine that. We don’t know what that number is yet. But that will be much more of a determinant than the rate of infection.”

Why wouldn’t (or couldn’t) Fauci say that once cases remain below a specific number for a period of time, we could confidently consider ourselves past the pandemic?

Fauci could have come up with a really low number, like 25,000 new cases daily, or said the pandemic would be past when COVID-19 cases approach numbers comparable to the seasonal flu. Literally, anything would have been better than his ambiguous response. So, why didn’t he offer a threshold? There have been pandemics in the past and they all ended at some point. So surely there must be some method for determining the end of a pandemic other than “it’s over when we say it’s over.”

It seems like the only reason not to offer a clear endpoint is that Fauci doesn’t want a specific point at which the pandemic would be considered over. As long as it’s ambiguous, the government can continue to justify COVID restrictions. By refusing to commit to anything now, he not only avoids putting the government in a position where people will expect all restrictions to be loosened or lifted, but he also gives Democrats cover by not admitting that there won’t be an end.

The people want the pandemic to be over with, but the Biden administration does not. That much is clear.

You can watch the entire interview below:

The latest from the candid cameras of Project Veritas…Corrupt Goobermint.
Look at this man. Look into his face.
This is the “banality of evil”, the reality “that evil does not have the Satan-like, villainous appearance we might typically associate it with. Rather, evil is perpetuated when immoral principles become normalized over time by unthinking people. Evil becomes commonplace; it becomes the everyday.”
But just because it becomes ‘the everyday’ does not excuse the ‘unthinking people’ who do such evil.

FDA Executive Officer on Hidden Camera Reveals Future COVID Policy: ‘Biden Wants To Inoculate As Many People As Possible. . . Have to Get an Annual Shot.’

  • FDA Executive Officer, Christopher Cole: “You’ll have to get an annual shot [COVID vaccine].  I mean, it hasn’t been formally announced yet ‘cause they don’t want to, like, rile everyone up.”
  • Cole on President Joe Biden: “Biden wants to inoculate as many people as possible.”
  • Cole on plans to approve vaccine for toddlers: “They’re not going to not approve [emergency use authorization for children five years old or less].”
  • Cole on pharmaceutical companies: “There’s a money incentive for Pfizer and the drug companies to promote additional vaccinations.”
  • Cole on the financial incentive for pharmaceutical companies: “It’ll be recurring fountain of revenue. It might not be that much initially, but it’ll be recurring — if they can — if they can get every person required at an annual vaccine, that is a recurring return of money going into their company.”
  • FDA Official Statement: “The person purportedly in the video does not work on vaccine matters and does not represent the views of the FDA.”

    That FDA statement doesn’t actually refute the claim now, does it?

[WASHINGTON, D.C. – Feb. 15, 2022] Food and Drug Administration [FDA] Executive Officer, Christopher Cole, inadvertently revealed that his agency will eventually announce that annual COVID-19 vaccinations will become policy.

Cole is an Executive Officer heading up the agency’s Countermeasures Initiatives, which plays a critical role in ensuring that drugs, vaccines, and other measures to counter infectious diseases and viruses are safe. He made the revelations on a hidden camera to an undercover Project Veritas reporter.

Cole indicates that annual COVID-19 shots isn’t probable — but certain. When pushed on how he knows an annual shot will become policy, Cole states, “Just from everything I’ve heard, they [FDA] are not going to not approve it.”

The footage, which is part one of a two-part series on the FDA, also contains soundbites from Cole about the financial incentives pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer have to get the vaccine approved for annual usage.

“It’ll be recurring fountain of revenue,” Cole said in the hidden camera footage. “It might not be that much initially, but it’ll recurring — if they can — if they can get every person required at an annual vaccine, that is a recurring return of money going into their company.”

Perhaps the most explosive part of the footage is the moment where Cole brazenly talks about the impact that an Emergency Use Authorization has on overcoming the regulatory concerns of mandating vaccines on children.

“They’re all approved under an emergency just because it’s not as impactful as some of the other approvals,” Cole said when asked if he thought there was “really an emergency for kids.”

Cole, who claims his role with the FDA is to ensure the agency uses a framework of safety, security, and effectiveness as a part of its preparedness and response protocol, specifically cited concerns over “long term effects, especially with someone younger.”

Will the ‘Unvaxxed’ Have the Last Laugh?

For over a year now, the messaging from our “health experts” and government leaders has been as dreary as it has been monotonal: Take the covid “vaccine” or die.

That talking point was reiterated by President Biden* just a few weeks ago when he warned the “unvaxxed” would face “a winter of severe disease and death.” And that was before New Jersey’s resident rodent meteorologist, Milltown Mel, shuffled off this mortal coil just prior to Groundhog Day. So I guess that means, in New Jersey at least, another six weeks of severe disease and death.

Originally, of course, we were told the mRNA injections would prevent people from contracting the disease. “If you get vaccinated, you won’t get covid” was the mantra recited for months, in various forms and multiple forums, by Drs. Fauci, Walensky, and Murthy, President Biden*, and many others. We were also assured that sufficiently jabbed people don’t spread the virus, with Fauci claiming the injections constitute a “dead end for covid.”

It’s important not to forget those statements, as the same people now insist they never promised any such thing. Perhaps that’s because, in the face of overwhelming evidence, they’ve been forced to admit jabbed people can and do get covid and can and do give it to others. Said Walensky just a few weeks ago, “what [the vaccines] can’t do anymore is prevent transmission.” Even Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla was forced to acknowledge that his products now offer “limited, in any, protection.”

But what about the vaunted “death benefit” from the mRNA injections? They still protect against serious illness and death, right? Well, yes, that does seem to be the case—but the effect is waning fast. Moreover, the claim itself comes with several asterisks.

There have always been questions about how we count “covid deaths,” as both the CDC and the UK’s National Health Service have recently acknowledged. But if anything, those problems have been amplified in the way we differentiate between “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated” deaths.

For one thing, the most commonly cited number to prove “vaccine efficacy”—“90 percent of covid deaths are among the unvaccinated”—is fundamentally flawed because it goes back to the earliest days of the injections when almost no one had gotten them. Obviously, nearly all who died of (or with) covid in January and February of 2021 were “unvaccinated.”

Moreover, our health officials have been engaged for over a year in a kind of statistical sleight of hand, categorizing people who have taken the injections as “unvaccinated” up until 14 days after their second shot, which means at least five or six weeks have passed since their first shot. In doing so, they ignore evidence that the shots actually make people more susceptible to the virus in the short term. So if you contract covid after getting both shots, but prior to the closing of the 14-day window, and then die, you are considered an “unvaccinated” death. (They’re playing this same trick with the booster shots, too.)

This method also does not account for those who die as a result of immediate adverse reactions to the shots. Such deaths are generally numbered among the “unvaccinated,” even though it was the “vaccine” that killed them. But that’s a topic for another day.

Continue reading “”

Sorry about the sparce posting folks.
Ich Bin got a ride in the AmberLamps™ this morning and spent a few hours hooked up for sound in the ER to figure out whether I was having a heart attack, or ‘merely’ a spectacular reaction to something I ate last night.
It appears it was the latter.
AK was kind enough to come by and drive me back home, saving cab fare, and he needed to pick up some NFA paperwork I had printed off for him, so it worked out well for the both of us.

We now return you to our regular programming………………

Hypocrisy O’ The Day

From The Atlantic ,which is a laugh, as the staff there were rabid pro-mask/pro lockdown……up until the politics changed.

Open Everything. The time to end pandemic restrictions is now.

Quip O’ The Day

“Polling must be really bad for Ted Lieu, of all people, to call for the recognition of natural immunity and an end to restrictions.”–Ian Cheong

Lieu’s chart ends in October, even before Omicron hit.
He must be so desperate to end restrictions that he’ll post anything, and he’s just the moron to do it.

US Defense Database DMED Tracked Exploding Number of Vaccine-Related Injuries

When US Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) held a hearing on vaccine safety in January this year, a number of DOD whistleblowers stepped forward with alarming data. They shared data from the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) which tracks every illness of military members.

The purpose of gathering such data is expressly to spot adverse health trends that could affect combat readiness. It is therefore accurate, complete and designed for early detection.

Lawyer Thomas Renz reported on five years of data during the hearing which showed an alarming rise in medical problems related to Covid vaccines. The whistleblowers stepped forward because their superiors had ignored the problem. Renz plans to pursue the matter in a US federal court.

Arguably, the DMED is the best epidemiological database in the world and since neither Pfizer nor Moderna is able to provide better data, this upward trend related to vaccine injury must be cause for great concern.

In a declaration under penalty of perjury, the three military physicians Samuel Sigoloff, Peter Chambers, and Theresa Long, exposed the 300 percent increase in DMED codes registered for miscarriages in the military in 2021 over the five-year average. The five-year average has been 1499 codes for miscarriages per year, but during the first 10 months of 2021, it shot up to 4 182.

The same trend was seen in spiking cancer cases, from a five-year average of 38 700 per year to 114 645 in the first 11 months of 2021, coinciding with the vaccine. And reported neurological disorders increased by an incredible 1000 percent.

Continue reading “”

The number I’ve seen is that it is estimated that the lockdowns prevented on average  0.2%  – that’s “Maybe Two (2) out of a Thousand” – deaths in comparison with just trusting people to do the right thing.
Sorry, that small of a number is statistical noise, which means that there is no evidence the lockdowns did anything but disrupt our entire economy and empower the tyrant authoritarians. Which, to be frank is the silver lining because they’re now exposed to the world for future action.

Johns Hopkins Analysis: ‘Lockdowns Should be Rejected Out of Hand.’

The aura of “expert” has lost its luster during Covid, as our supposedly bigger brains have been proved wrong repeatedly.

Two of these have been Ezekiel Emanuel and Anthony Fauci. Both were enthusiastic proponents of societal lockdowns as a means of preventing deaths and the spread of Covid. We now know from a Johns Hopkins blockbuster meta-analysis that “shutting it down,” in Donald Trump’s awkward phrase, did very little to prevent deaths.

It’s a long, arcane, and detailed analysis, and I can’t present every nuance or statistic here. But I think these are the primary takeaways. From the study:

Overall, we conclude that lockdowns are not an effective way of reducing mortality rates during a pandemic, at least not during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our results are in line with the World Health Organization Writing Group (2006), who state, “Reports from the 1918 influenza pandemic indicate that social-distancing measures did not stop or appear to dramatically reduce transmission […]

In Edmonton, Canada, isolation and quarantine were instituted; public meetings were banned; schools, churches, colleges, theaters, and other public gathering places were closed; and business hours were restricted without obvious impact on the epidemic.” Our findings are also in line with Allen’s (2021) conclusion: “The most recent research has shown that lockdowns have had, at best, a marginal effect on the number of Covid 19 deaths.”

Why might that be?

Mandates only regulate a fraction of our potential contagious contacts and can hardly regulate nor enforce handwashing, coughing etiquette, distancing in supermarkets, etc. Countries like Denmark, Finland, and Norway that realized success in keeping COVID-19 mortality rates relatively low allowed people to go to work, use public transport, and meet privately at home during the first lockdown. In these countries, there were ample opportunities to legally meet with others.

Worse, the lockdowns caused tremendous harm:

Unintended consequences may play a larger role than recognized. We already pointed to the possible unintended consequence of SIPOs, which may isolate an infected person at home with his/her family where he/she risks infecting family members with a higher viral load, causing more severe illness. But often, lockdowns have limited peoples’ access to safe (outdoor) places such as beaches, parks, and zoos, or included outdoor mask mandates or strict outdoor gathering restrictions, pushing people to meet at less safe (indoor) places. Indeed, we do find some evidence that limiting gatherings was counterproductive and increased COVID-19 mortality

What lessons should be learned (my emphasis)?

The use of lockdowns is a unique feature of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lockdowns have not been used to such a large extent during any of the pandemics of the past century. However, lockdowns during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic have had devastating effects. They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy. These costs to society must be compared to the benefits of lockdowns, which our meta-analysis has shown are marginal at best. Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument.

To which I would add another: We can never squelch free discourse and debate on public-health issues again.

People who argued against the “scientific consensus” about the lockdowns were stifled, censored by Big Tech, denigrated by the media, and mocked by establishment scientists. That was essentially “anti-science.” The scientific method needs heterodox voices to speak freely if it is to function properly.

This subsequent look-back shows why. To a large degree, those with the officially disfavored views–such as the signers of the Great Barrington Declaration—were correct on this matter.

Will we learn the lesson? Yes, if our goal is to ably discern and apply the best policy options, which can be a messy process. No, if the point is to allow those in charge of institutional science to exert societal control.