Wednesday, 16 December 2020

Biden/Harris 'Person Of The Year'?!

If we had anything that remotely resembled journalism in this empire, it would be headline news that Biden, during Covid, just decided to appoint as head of agriculture, a man with a record of doing Monsanto’s bidding - given that Monsanto & co’s poisoning of the food system is HUGELY to blame for Americans being more susceptible than most, to new viruses!

Instead, he is TIME magazines’s 'person of the year'. Wtf.

Instead, he is praised for promising ‘100 days of masks’.

“Muzzle yourselves whilst I get my Monsanto pal to continue wrecking your immune systems!”.

And maybe it might also be worth informing people that he’s hired a bunch of known warmongers to most top positions in his transition team?

Bomb Muslims, get rewarded! Seems to be how 21st century liberalism works.

Also side note: Kamala Harris recieved literally no delegates in the Democrat primary, despite media backing. Yet now she’s VP and joint person the year? Yay democracy!

What a bunch of bollocks. Media’s desperate attempt to control the narrative is more transparent and laughable than ever.

Wednesday, 25 November 2020

Covid vaccine imperialism

Back in March, there were calls from some leaders in the global north to cancel Africa's debt, to help them during Covid. But instead, the global north helped screw Africa even more, with lockdowns disrupting the extremely delicate and unequal global economy, which has massively fueled poverty and hunger in these countries that remain virtually enslaved to the north.

And what are we doing now? Are we going ahead with debt cancellations, given that things are even more awful for them now than they were in March? It doesn't look like it. 

Instead we're going to encourage them all to get vaccinated with experimental vaccines that lack long term trials, and that the vast majority of people - particularly in much of Africa, where Covid has had little impact - do not need!!!

Isn't this all extremely disturbing? 


Thursday, 19 November 2020

Biden tracker

Biden's agency review transition team for the State Dept. includes three officials from the Albright Stonebridge Group, a firm with consultants like H.P. Goldfield who currently serves as a registered lobbying agent for Saudi Arabia's government.

-

Paula Garcia Tufro is listed on the NSC team. As a member of Obama's NSC, Tufro presided over listing Venezuela as a "national security threat."

-

One Third of Biden's Pentagon Transition Team Gets Money From the Weapons Industry.

-

BIDEN's Cabinet Looking WORSE Than Expected!

Heidi Heitkamp’s record:

Cross mark Siding with pesticide companies over consumers

Cross mark Sponsoring bills to shield factory farms from pollution reporting

Cross mark Blocking ag conservation measures

Cross mark Supporting fossil fuel pipelines

Cross mark Massive Big Oil campaign $

-

The head of the Joe Biden transition team for the US Agency for Global Media, Richard Stengel has branded himself  the “chief propagandist,” urged the government to use propaganda against its “own population,” and called to “rethink” the First Amendment.

-

BREAKING: Biden's first climate appointment is one of the Democratic Party’s top recipients of fossil fuel industry money, who has repeatedly voted with Republicans against Democratic environmental legislation and for bills to help oil and gas companies.

-

Erin Brockovich: “It should go without saying that someone who advised DuPont on how to avoid regulations is not someone we want advising this new administration.”

-

Return of the Council of Foreign Relations. Return of Empire, clouted in feminism and LGBT rights.

-

The Revolving Door: Biden's National Security Nominees Want Back In After Cashing Out Of Government Service

-

Biden’s budget director, Neera Tanden:

Emails show Tanden arguing that Libyans should be forced to turn over large portions of their oil revenues to repay the US for the costs incurred in bombing Libya.

And opposes M4A

-

Biden has picked Retired General Lloyd Austin as Secretary of Defense. He went straight from the military to the board of Raytheon. 

-

'Mr. Monsanto', is Biden's pick for Agriculture Secretary.

Thursday, 12 November 2020

COVID19 Vaccine Questions

How have 100% safe vaccines been developed in eight months, when previous vaccines have taken a minimum of four years, and most take over 10 years? Especially given that Covid vaccines will be the first ever mRNA vaccines. How can we know of any potential long term health impacts when there have been no long term trials? Isn't the long-term possibility of 'Antibody-Dependent Enhancement' a very serious concern? 

Why have the pharmaceutical companies sought (and been granted) exemption from vaccine liability claims? 

Is it true that, once their trial was over, Pfizer vaccinated all volunteers who received a placebo during the trial? If so, did they do this to prevent us from being able to analyze the long term impact? Also, their vaccine needs to be kept at an extremely cold temperature (colder than most freezers). What happens if freezers malfunction and they're not kept at this temperature?

Are the vaccines actually designed to stop infection, or just reduce symptoms? If the latter, isn't vaccinating people just going to lead to contagious asymptomatic carriers, (given that we're told asymptomatic people are contagious)? 

How long will partial immunity from symptoms, gained from these vaccines, last? Can't we enable and encourage people to do other things to reduce their chances of symptoms? Like addressing Vitamin D deficiency, for e.g.

How can we know how vulnerable groups will react to the vaccine, when it hasn't been tested on them? Many healthy trial volunteers have had quite bad side effects - if this was the reaction in the healthy, what might it be in the unhealthy? And aren't vaccines mostly ineffective on vulnerable groups anyway? (Given this, why has there been no effort to improve the overall health and immune systems of the vulnerable?!).

There have been two serious neurological events during the UK trial for the AstraZeneca vaccine, and one in India. What investigations have been done to prove that this was unrelated to the vaccine? 

Having been spreading around the world, for nearly a year, isn't the virus now mostly endemic, with a significant degree of population immunity already reached (and seemingly already present)? Why is mass vaccination needed? Especially in many countries (like much of Africa) where the virus has had barely any impact whatsoever? Why must we vaccinate billions of people because of a virus that has been less deadly, to under 70s, than the flu? Surely, if there is a safe, effective vaccine, it just needs to be given to vulnerable groups, (like the over 70s)? Though, as mentioned, I don't think it's been trialled on them? 

Will authorities be testing whether or not people have antibodies/T-cell immunity before they’re injected with a rushed, experimental vaccine? Do we know that it's safe to vaccinate those who've already had the virus and who now have natural immunity? 

Do we know how the vaccine will interact with all other vaccines, and medications? 

How can there be an effective vaccine for a virus that is constantly mutating? (It has mutated thousands of times).

How can we trust 'the science' from extremely criminal pharmaceutical corporations? Ditto the highly corrupted government agencies that will regulate them?

Why am I expected to get one of these rushed vaccines, to maybe lesson my chances of symptoms? Can't I just let my reasonably healthy body do what the human body has been doing for thousands of years?

As mentioned earlier, why are we putting all our hope into rushed and experimental vaccines, rather than on addressing the root causes that lead to susceptibility? Poor metabolic health, nutrient deficients, toxicity. There is so much evidence that Vitamin D deficiency is a significant contributor to susceptibility. Why is there talk of mandating vaccines, but no talk of mandating that we all ensure we have optimum levels of Vitamin D? This would be very cheap and easy!

All medical procedures involve risk. Where there is risk, there must be choice. I hope we can all agree on this?

Are we going to be told of the ingredients of the vaccines before they're administered? And will we be seeing peer-reviewed science about them all?

However small, don't we need to completely rule out the possibility that these vaccines will affect fertility? Pfizer vaccine info: 'It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility.'

Is our entire approach to viruses based on very outdated science?

Is it true that Pfizer's '90% effective' vaccine requires 256 people to get vaccinated to benefit 1 person?! Is it not very misleading to only report the relative risk reduction, and not the absolute risk reduction? And is the relative risk reduction actually 29%, not 90%? 

People with a history of severe allergic reactions were excluded from Pfizer's trials. Why were people not informed about this before the vaccine was rolled out?! There have been two bad reactions to the vaccine on one of the roll out. 

Are lots of people allergic to PEG?

“The mRNA vaccines do reduce mild to moderate cases of Covid.” - how were they able to determine this when 90%+ of infected only get mild, to moderate symptoms or are asymptomatic anyway?

What about the risk of 'immune escape'? 


Some Links

BMJ: Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us

Elation or caution over COVID-19 vaccines? The evidence so far.

Suspicions grow that nanoparticles in Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine trigger rare allergic reactions

The Moderna Vaccine’s Antibodies May Not Last As Long As We Hoped

Peter Doshi: Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—we need more details and the raw data

Covid News - Christmas Special Report

Implications for Possible Consequences of COVID-19 Vaccines

The Risks of Rushing a COVID-19 Vaccine

Dr. Simone Gold - The truth about the CV19 vaccine

Peter Doshi: Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—let’s be cautious and first see the full data

Covid-19 Vaccine Protocols Reveal That Trials Are Designed To Succeed

Antibody-Dependent Enhancement: Is a Coronavirus Vaccine a Ticking Time Bomb?

Could mRNA vaccines be dangerous in the long-term?

Alleging serious side-effects, vaccine trial participant seeks Rs 5 cr from Serum Institute

COVID‐19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralizing antibodies may sensitize vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated.

What the Covid Vaccine Hype Fails to Mention

Antibody-dependent enhancement and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and therapies

Everything You Don't Want to Know About Covid Vaccines 

Coronavirus vaccine trial participants report day-long exhaustion, fever and headaches

Covid-19 vaccines may have potentially unpleasant side effects

Michael Yeadon Twitter thread: All vaccines against the SARS-COV-2 virus are by definition novel

NIH ‘Very Concerned’ about Serious Side Effect in Coronavirus Vaccine Trial

Coronavirus vaccine trials need long-term follow up as vaccines can have a wider effect on the immune system than the disease they’re designed to prevent

Unanswered Questions as FDA Allows Pfizer Vaccine Rollout

Dr Malcolm Kendrick, Junk Science

Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon request a stop of all corona vaccination studies 

The vaccines ‘do not show that they prevent you from potentially carrying this virus . . . and infecting others.’

Researchers Warn Some Covid-19 Vaccines Could Increase Risk Of HIV Infection

Graham Hutchinson, ex-Senior Chief Biomedical Scientist, Public Health UK

These NHS Staff Were Told The Swine Flu Vaccine Was Safe, And Now They're Suffering The Consequences

5 Important Questions About Pfizer’s COVID Vaccine

Media Hypes Moderna’s COVID Vaccine, Downplays Risks

There are many reasons why such efficacy claims are premature and are likely to be proven incorrect in the long term

Prof.Dr.Stefan Hockertz

The AstraZeneca Covid Vaccine Data Isn't Up to Snuff

Moderna boss says COVID-19 vaccine not proven to stop spread of virus

Pfizer chairman: We're not sure if someone can transmit virus after vaccination

Covid-19 vaccine candidate is unimpressive: NNTV is around 256

AstraZeneca to be exempt from coronavirus vaccine liability claims in most countries

The FDA Is Covering Up Scientific Misconduct, an Investigation Has Found

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. | This Past Weekend w/ Theo Von

How Industrial Food Makes Us More Vulnerable to COVID-19

T-cell Covid immunity 'present in adults six months after first infection'

More people have protection than antibody surveys estimate, but also many probably have residual immunity to COVID-19 from other infections

The companies developing COVID-19 vaccines are corrupt as hell

Viruses revealed to be a major driver of human evolution

Healthy humans 'harbor an average of five viruses'

(Please read my previous post).


....


Update:

How is the vaccine rollout going? Some things to read:

What We've Learned from Israel's Covid Vaccine Program

Multiple SARS-CoV-2 variants escape neutralization by vaccine-induced humoral immunity


Tuesday, 3 November 2020

Covid update: UK Lockdown makes no sense, and vaccines won't save us

The strategy of 'lockdowns until we get a vaccine' makes little sense, and seems extremely short-sighted, to me.

Read: Early Vaccines Will Prevent Symptoms, Not Virus.

Couldn’t we prevent symptoms by addressing nutrient deficiencies and poor metabolic health; by enabling and encouraging everyone to eat reasonably healthily; by transforming the industrial food system that fuels disease and susceptibility whilst also destroying the environment; by healing people and planet?

Instead of imposing devastating lockdowns, and spending $billions/trillions on rushed, crap vaccines, put out with no long term trials, that haven't been tested on vulnerable people, from some of the most criminal corporations, that require a genocide of sharks and crabs and the destruction of ecosystems? All because of a virus (which is mutating!) that has had an approx 0.05% fatality rate for under 70s?! (The fact that we've poisoned our bodies and the environment so much, yet Covid is only leading to a tiny % of deaths, really shows how amazing our bodies are!). 

What is happening in the UK?! The government has announced another nationwide lockdown. Here are some reasons why this seems to me like an absurd decision:

  • Cases are leveling off, apart from in a few places. 
  • Arn't hospitalizations/deaths from viral infections at their norm at this time of year, but higher only in certain areas? (Beware media fear-mongering). 
  • PCR tests are crap; a positive test is not a 'case'. The inventor of the test advised against its use. (Is anyone who tested positive who then dies of something else, being registered as a Covid death?).
  • Is the pandemic actually mostly over and now endemic? Is it really possibly to know, given unprecedented mass testing for one virus, and given that much increase in death could be due to unprecedented shutdowns of society?

The strategy of protecting and healing the vulnerable, whilst letting everyone else go back to some kind of normal as we reach 'herd immunity', sure makes more sense to me than the current strategy of harming everyone with lockdowns until we get potentially unsafe vaccines that don't stop infection. Population immunity seems to be happening, just as it has done with new viruses for thousands of years! But is this being ignored because Big Pharma is so invested in vaccines? Are Big Pharma, and Big Food, running the show?



As expected, terrorism returns

Europe and the US just spent years supporting sectarian extremists as they rampaged through Syria; ethnically cleansing, enslaving women, decapitating children. Once again, the west sided with Saudi Arabia, barbarism, and chaos, for the benefit of a few corporations and an economic system in need of perpetual growth.

Chickens are now coming home to roost and we should expect quite a bit of terrorism in the coming years. (Though the threat will be exaggerated). 

Great for racists, and great for those corporations/oligarchs/politicians in need of justification for taking away more freedoms, so that the system and profiteering can continue. (Not that there’s many more freedoms to take away right now!).

US support for the Mujahideen in the 1980s, including for Osama Bin Laden, resulted in 9/11. Now, history repeats. Will the cycle of violence ever end?

We now have the double whammy threat of terrorism AND evil viruses, to justify keeping us under strict control. Any chance we could start getting to the root of all these issues? The economic system... centralisation/concentration of power... oligarchy... separation... disconnection from nature...



Thursday, 29 October 2020

COVID-19: Why I feel the way I do, and some questions...

Given that there’s never been a safe, effective coronavirus vaccine; given that no vaccine has been developed in less than four years; given that the evidence points to upcoming rushed, experimental vaccines being... not very ineffective and potentially unsafe... (and who would trust these companies on safety anyway?!); given that the virus is mutating; given some major issues with certain vaccines in the past; given that historically vaccines do not work so well on those most vulnerable; given the catastrophic collateral damage of lockdowns; given that most lockdown policies may have been largely ineffective anyway; given the potential for permanent totalitarianism in waging wars on respiratory viruses; given that ‘Terrain Theory’ makes more sense to me; given that the virus has already spread widely and may have done its worst; and given that the virus has been nowhere near as deadly as some predicted, I came to the conclusion months ago that we don't have much choice but to accept the spread of COVID-19, (having initially been of the view that we must attempt to contain and eradicate it). 

Having come to this conclusion, I have felt that we should instead - as supported by many eminent epidemiologists - let non-vulnerable people continue life mostly as normal, whilst focussing our resources on protecting (and healing) the vulnerable; enabling early retirement, doing whatever we can to address nutrient deficiencies/poor diet etc; reducing pollution and all environmental toxicity that affects the immune system; and reaching population immunity asap, rather than waiting and getting it with rushed vaccines, which seems to be Bill Gates' and the World Health Organisation's plan. (Are we actually already well on our way to it, particularly because we had significant prior immunity? Has the virus done its worst?). 

Even if you think all the horrific collateral damage is worth it and that vaccines really will save the vulnerable, and are worth the risk, why would we not at least put some effort into healing vulnerable people, especially given that so many studies have shown that things like Vitamin D deficiency hugely impacts Covid susceptibility? Watch this. And we know that the vast majority of those dying with Covid have diet-related commorbidities. Watch this.   

I feel we should use Covid as an opportunity to reclaim our bodies, and the planet, from the industries that have been poisoning us and the environment; the industries that fuel disease and leave us susceptible. Instead, we’re doing the opposite; we’re just hiding in fear and waiting for a savior from Big Pharma. Linking Covid susceptibility with the industrial food system and a healthcare system corrupted by Big Pharma, is essential, in my view. If we become more aware of what these destructive, ecocidal industries and systems are doing to our bodies, it will encourage us to seek big change and begin healing both the planet and ourselves.

Here's a list of questions that have been running through my head:

  • Why are we barely acknowledging the research that suggests the virus is nowhere near as bad as some expected? Less bad than the flu for under 70s? Why were alarmists elevated at the beginning of the epidemic, (and still today)? Were models based on the entire population being susceptible? Wasn't this a bit insane, given that the virus had been present for many months with no mass death, and given that it is very similar to previous coronaviruses? And given the fatality rate on the Diamond Princess cruise ship? Is it true that 40-60% of carriers for ~80+ days will not develop Covid disease? Why are we told that we are all at risk, when this is not the case?
  • Why has the UK locked down twice, both times seemingly after the point where cases had started flattening? The virus was present in Europe for months before lockdowns, during the middle of winter. Why did it take so long for an epidemic to occur, given that few restrictions were in place during that time? Was it just gradually building up and making it's way to the most susceptible, and was the impact of the virus already 'locked in' before lockdowns were implemented?
  • Is it really necessary to be forcing asymptomatic carriers to isolate? Is there conclusive evidence of significant asymptomatic spread? This study suggests they are not contagious.  
  • Why didn’t we consider the dire implications of lockdowns, especially in an extremely unequal, globalised world? And the impact on other illnesses? And the potential impact of normalizing social distancing and separation? And sterilization? Good health is dependent on interaction with each other and nature. Why are authorities referring to this as a 'new normal', rather than making clear that it is only temporary? Why has Fauci said we should never shake hands again?! This demonization of human interaction is incredibly harmful and anti-science. At schools, are we conditioning children to fear life and to see their peers as threats? What will be the long term consequences of this? Is their development being negatively impacted by mask wearing and not being able to see each other's facial expressions? Why haven't we weighed up the costs of these measures with potential benefits? This study concludes that there will be millions of life years lost due to school closures. 
  • Why has there been no focus on addressing nutrient deficiencies and metabolic health? The former would be a very cheap and easy thing to do, via supplementation, to quickly and significantly reduce the susceptibility of the population. And even metabolic health can be improved rapidly. This study suggests that it is a key factor in susceptibility. 
  • Why was a treatment - Hydroxychloroquine - that was effective in certain circumstances, withdrawn, based on trials in which excessive doses were given? Similarly, another cheap drug - Ivermectin - has been shown to be effective in some studies. Why is this being ignored?
  • Why are we pinning all our hopes on (multi-$billion) rushed, experimental vaccines, when there’s never been a safe or effective coronavirus vaccine, when they’re probably only going to reduce symptoms rather than prevent infection, and when they may not even be very effective at doing that, (particularly on the vulnerable)? The flu shot has never been very effective. And when they may be harmful, especially given the lack of long term trials, the lack of testing on the vulnerable, and the issue of 'Antibody Dependent Enhancement'? And when the virus has mutated, potentially thousands of times? How many vaccinations we will 'need' exactly?! Wouldn't at least some of this money be better spent on a major public health campaign to ban junk food, and improve nutritional and metabolic health? (And end poverty!). 
  • I have noted down all the questions I have about Covid vaccines here. Unless you’re in a high risk group and confident that it's worth the risk, I don’t understand why anyone would get an experimental vaccine with no long term trials. Antibody-dependent enhancement is a big worry. Natural infection seems far less of a risk. Shouldn't we just let the body do as it’s done for thousands of years? And reduce chance of symptoms and spread by focusing on nutritional and metabolic health? Why is media making out that the vaccines are far more effective than they actually are? The relative risk reduction may be approx 90%, but why aren’t we being told about absolute risk reduction, which seems to be less than 1%? How is it that a vaccine which lacks long-term safety data, and that offers an absolute risk reduction of approx 1%, is being seen as our ‘light at the end of the tunnel’? ‪If Covid really is a severe threat, surely this is an extremely dangerous deception? As it will just give people a false sense of security? ‘No need to worry about social distancing, or about looking after my immune system... I’ve got my (temporary?) 1% protection!’.‬
  • What kind of unbelievably stupid society would roll out a new medical procedure to billions of people without conclusive proof that it won't cause serious damage, including infertility, for a virus with a 99.5% survival rate that's already done its worst, and for which their are already effective and safe treatments?
  • Why are we OK with destroying more ecosystems in order to get these vaccines, at a time when we all know that the planet is dying? And are we all OK with animal testing
  • Fear, isolation, separation, lack of sunlight, lack of exercise... all of this is dreadful for the immune system. Why hasn’t this been considered? Haven't we just made lots more people susceptible to disease? Is our approach far too reductionist? Why weren't people encouraged to get lots of sun (Vitamin D) during the Summer, when there were hardly any Covid deaths? 
  • Why has there been no effort to get people to heal their immune systems?! Surely lockdowns are completely pointless without an effort to do this? At best, all they do is delay the inevitable?
  • Why are stats presented to us, in media, without context? (Eg a report might say something like, 'ICUs approaching capacity', without mention of the fact that with our underfunded health services, this is normal for winter, and that many are actually designed to be at 80-90% capacity permanently). Why is it frequently ignored that number of cases found very much depend on number of tests being done? Why is it not highlights that a country/regions impact will depend hugely on how deadly the previous flu season was? This is insensitiely known as the 'dry tinder' effect!
  • Why are we ignoring Sweden, and all the other countries (much of Africa, Japan, Myanmar, Belarus, Nicaragua, etc), that responded to the virus in a more lax manner, yet have had barely any/far less deaths than many countries that responded robustly? 
  • Are we registering those who're dying 'with' the virus as dying 'of' the virus, even though they may have had a commorbitity which was the actual cause of death? 
  • Why are we using the PCR test, when its inventor advised against this? Why are we calling all positive tests results 'cases', when the 'cycle threshold' of the test is at a level that it will pick up anything, not just Covid, and benign remnants of virus? It looks like the NHS in the UK is using a threshold of 45 cycles; Dr Anthony Fauci has said that anything above 35 cycles is meaningless. If we’d mass tested with a PCR test during the SARS outbreak in 2003, would we have also found millions of ‘cases’? Is is possible, as Dr Michael Yeadon and Ivor Cummins argue, that the pandemic is actually mostly over, but that these tests are making it appear as though it is ongoing everywhere? Why are we not using Rapid Antigen tests instead? The World Health Organization has now finally issued a statement about some of the issues with PCR testing.
  • We're likely going to have increasing numbers of excess deaths caused by lockdowns. If mass testing continues, will many of these deaths be falsely labelled as Covid deaths? This seems like a recipe for perpetual hell. Especially given that authorities are not going to want to acknowledge the damage caused by lockdowns. And given that they're drunk on power? And given that this 'new normal' is fantastic for much of the 0.1% - biggest upwards transfer of wealth ever, this year?
  • Is the virus now endemic in most places? Has it followed a 'Gompertz curve' wherever its hit, with most population control measures making little difference? How can we still be in the midst of a pandemic, if excess deaths in Europe are at average levels for this time of year? See here, that all cause mortality is below the 5 year average in London, and has been since May. Is it true that the 'second wave' is largely just areas that weren't hit badly in Spring? ie. is it an extension of the first wave, that was interrupted by Summer/herd immunity reached in many areas? 
  • In the stats, shouldn't we be separating symptomatics from asymptomatics? Is it really correct or helpful to refer to the latter as 'cases'? Aren't they just very healthy people, their bodies doing as the human body has done for thousands of years without any problems?
  • Why are we being encouraged to get the flu shot, despite the fact it seems to have disappeared, and despite this, this, and this? How has the flu disappeared around the world?! We're told it's thanks to the social distancing and lockdowns, but why would that almost completely eradicate the flu, but do nothing to stop 10% of the global population (according to the WHO) from getting Covid?! Is there some misdiagnosis going on?
  • Why were hospitals and resources not prepared for a continued pandemic/new endemic virus, this winter?
  • Why aren't we having a philosophical discussion about what actually constitutes 'living'? Is it really reasonable or ethical to be forcing millions of elderly people to live in isolation for the last period of their lives, because of a virus that, even for their age group, is very survivable (especially if they are metabolically healthy)? Is it really reasonable to force many of them to die alone? Should it not be their choice as to whether or not they want to take the risk with Covid? Isn't a month spent with family, before dying, better than a year in isolation, before dying? Isn't there more to life than just existing? Watch this
  • Why are some eminent epidemiologists, who oppose the current strategy, being smeared and ignored? Why are Facebook, YouTube, censoring them and others?
  • Why are we reacting so robustly and fearfully to a new virus that seems to have been less deadly than new viruses we experienced in the past, like the Hong Kong Flu in 1968, to which we barely reacted? What's changed, and is it definitely for the better? More awareness (and panic) thanks to connection via social media? More global centralisation of power? More monopolised and influential industry (big pharma) able to take advantage of the situation? More atheism and fear of death?! Is it a continuation of a trajectory we've been on for hundreds, thousands, of years, towards greater fear and control?
  • Are we one hundred percent certain that widespread use of cloth masks is appropriate? Why were mask mandates introduced in the middle of the Summer when almost no one was dying and it was quite clear that this is a seasonal virus? If anything, shouldn't Covid spread have been encouraged during the Summer, in order to reach herd immunity before winter? 
  • Why is it being ignored that surgical masks may contain PFAS, especially now that we know exposure to PFAS is likely to increase risk of severe Covid infection?!
  • Why is the contribution of pollution being ignored?
  • How come essential workers in supermarkets, without masks, constantly interacting with the public, and working throughout the epidemic, didn't die in big numbers? Why haven't homeless people  suffered more from the virus?
  • Why are we ignoring conflicts of interest? Like the fact that the World Health Organization is now largely funded by Bill Gates, who not only is a proponent of the industrial agriculture that has fueled disease and susceptibility, but is also a massive proponent of an approach to healthcare that relies on vaccines rather than improving the overall health of people and planet? (He has doubled his wealth in recent years). Read this. And is it not worth noting that his foundation funded Imperial College, from which much of the alarmist Covid modeling came? Also, read this, about SAGE. And here's what Kary Mullis (inventor of the PCR test) had to say bout Dr. Fauci. 
  • Why did the WHO change its guidelines? Why have they changed the definition of 'herd immunity'?!
  • Is our understanding of viruses incorrect? Haven't they been key to our evolution? Don't we need to start focussing on healing 'the terrain'? Is there much hope for our species, and millions of others, if we don't start addressing the crisis in human/planetary health at its root
  • Is our response to Covid demonstrating why centralization of power, including a centralized healthcare system (particularly an allopathic one), is so dangerous? Has the very existence of a 'World Health Organisation' helped lead to the imposition of a one-size-fits all approach to the virus across the world, with little thought given to whether or not certain countries have the resources to cope with a lockdown? Has it enabled powerful, for-profit interests to more easily exploit public health crises for profit? Watch this. And this
  • Has the virus been around for longer than we first thought?
  • Why is Africa CDC seeking to vaccinate 60% of Africans, when Africans have barely been affected by Covid? See here and here for studies in Malawi and Kenya, showing high virus spread with little impact. A list of CDC partners might provide some explanations. 
  • Why are we ignoring the studies showing that asymptomatic transmission is very minimal? Why are we ignoring the studies showing that spread in schools is minimal?
  • Was there a rush to judgement as to the viruses origins? Might it have come from the laboratory that just happens to be in Wuhan? The nature of the virus points to this possibility. 
  • Does the media narrative around new variants make much sense? As of February 2020, there had been 65,000 variants detected, according to a WHO study
  • Have many of the Covid swab tests been sterilized in cancerous chemical?
  • Hasn't all-cause mortality been increasing in recent decades, with an unexpected dip in 2019, and is that context being considered when analyzing the number of excess deaths in 2020?
More questions here.

It's hard not to come to the conclusion that in response to Covid, we've done a lot of mostly pointless and incredibly destructive things, whilst completely ignoring effective strategies for saving lives. 

It's probably important to note that there's a small number of very powerful and very destructive companies, in need of business, for which Covid is a massive opportunity. This is surely a massive factor in a lot of the above. Read this. I would also recommend reading this, which I mentioned in a previous post

Also very much recommend listening to thisthisthis, this, this

And look up Zach Bush MD!!! He is the one person I've come across who clearly knows his stuff, and who just talks total sense. Here's one interview with him, but there's loads of others. 







Tuesday, 27 October 2020

Healthcare Imperialism?

It seems quite clear to me that the direction we're headed has long been for the reductionist, big pharma-corrupted, western approach to healthcare - allopathic medicine - to take over the world.

And it seems likely that COVID-19 will be used to accelerate this. Read this: 'former UK health secretary Jeremy Hunt said the only way forward was for nations to support a new global health system'.

The corporatocracy and economic system need us to have a global 'healthcare' system focussed on drugging people up, rather than addressing poor nutrition etc; so that the for-profit exploitation, poisoning, and malnourishing of people and planet can continue. (And obviously so that big pharma can keep making a buck!).

I recommend reading the book mentioned in this post

None of this really requires a grand conspiracy. It is just capitalism!



Monday, 26 October 2020

Another 'poor country' relatively unaffected by COVID

‘The risks are even higher in poorer countries’, says this Reuters article, which is literally about a 100-year-old woman, in a ‘poorer country’, who has been completely unaffected by Covid infection! 

This supposedly vulnerable country - Myanmar - of 53 million people, has had around 1000 Covid deaths. Is it not us who should be learning something from them right now? Rather than the other way around?

Ah no, Big Pharma and Big Food need to invade the world for $. So reality must be turned on its head! Those who're currently naturally immune to new viruses must be poisoned by McDonalds and AstraZeneca asap!


Sunday, 25 October 2020

Herd Immunity in Japan, with few deaths?

This study suggests COVID might have spread very quickly in Tokyo, and that they may have reached herd immunity, with very few deaths.  

...and with mass mask-wearing, perhaps suggesting that they're not particularly effective?

What might've caused the virus to have such a minor impact in Japan, compared to some other countries? 

They eat a lot of fermented food; could be a factor at least! Others have suggested this. The Japanese diet in general is known to be very healthy - they have one of the lowest obesity rates in the world. 

Friday, 23 October 2020

No Lockdown Tanzania has less deaths than locked-down New Zealand?

Read this

New Zealand COVID deaths: 25

Tanzania COVID deaths: 21

How come there's been so much praise for Jacinda Ardern, but not for John Magufuli? Because he didn't do as told by a Big Pharma/Bill Gates-corrupted World Health Organization?

When will we consider why some people/countries are affected by a new virus, but others aren’t? Clearly it can’t all be explained by these measures we’re taking, which at best are surely only delaying the inevitable?

Why do we just focus on a war against an evil virus, and do nothing about addressing the issues that cause that virus to do harm? Could it be that nature isn’t actually out to get us, but it’s the various toxins we’ve put into our bodies/environment, that are the problem? But it would be a massive threat to capitalism to address all of that?

Seems like a road to totalitarianism and extinction if we don’t start considering this... Did we get it all wrong with Germ Theory?

Thursday, 22 October 2020

Covid: a response...

I shared this interview with Ivor Cummins on Facebook, and had a response from a friend on Facebook - criticizing me for not following 'the science'. Thought I'd just keep a note here of my response.

-

Did you watch the interview? Ivor seems to do a good job of running through the stats. Check out his YouTube channel and let me know what you think.

Isn’t ‘the science’ that we have a new (seasonal?) virus that has thankfully been nowhere near as bad as some forecast? Isn’t ‘the science’ that the measures we’ve taken in response to it have caused catastrophe; and were quite possibly mostly futile, given that the number of deaths seems to be quite random, whatever measures a country puts in place? Many countries which didn’t lock down, have had better/similar fatality rates than those that did, right?

Seems to me like there must be other factors that determine outcome. Environmental factors? 

Unless perhaps you do what NZ and Oz did. Though, given that countries like Belarus, Nicaragua and much of Africa did sod all in response to the virus and, like NZ and Oz, have had barely any deaths, it might be a bit presumptuous to say as fact that the lockdowns is what caused a lack of deaths in those countries. (Maybe the virus spread a lot pre-lockdown, with little impact? Probably not, but just a thought). In any case, their approach seems like a recipe for perpetual lockdowns, surveillance, loss of civil rights... totalitarian society. (Popular though, by the looks of it!). 

My main concern is about how damaging it has been to just focus on a - possibly mostly futile - war against one virus, (whilst doing nothing to wage war on the things that cause new viruses to do harm). I've also been looking into the possibility that our entire understanding of, and approach to, viruses, and human/environmental health in general, is based on out of date science - I've been listening a lot to a guy called Zach Bush, who is super interesting: 

Famines now loom in the global south. Cancer etc treatment/diagnosis delayed. Depression and suicides on the rise. Economies/small businesses destroyed. Massive concentration of wealth. Etc. Lockdowns kill, especially in an extremely unequal and globalised world. God knows what the long term impact of all this is going to be. Also any potential normalisation of fear, separation, sterilisation is pretty suicidal for our species. 

Almost no effort has been made to address the issues that cause viruses to do harm; to protect and heal people by enabling and encouraging them to improve their general health; ie to detoxify, to address nutrient deficiencies (which would be so easy and cheap to do!!) and poor diet etc. Despite this clearly being heavily correlated with Covid susceptibility - the vast majority of those dying have diet-related comorbidities, right? And there's so many studies linking Vitamin D deficiency to increased mortality. (And like, what is there to lose? Ah yeah, profit for big pharma/food companies!). Instead, we're just forced to stay home, out of the sun; do less exercise, be anxious, get depressed, get bombarded with junk food advertising on tele, comfort eat. Hasn't all of this actually made people more susceptible to viral infections, and other diseases?

And what's more: the rushed vaccines are likely to be crap, particularly on the vulnerable, (and at best only likely to reduce symptoms a bit, not stop infection?). And we will not know the long term side effects. And researchers have warned they might increase risk of HIV. And I think they will only have been tested on healthy people? So we won't know how vulnerable people will react?

Oh and they’re being developed by massively corrupt, criminal corporations, so many people will understandably reject them, however effective and safe they are deemed! So to be pinning all hope on a vaccine, makes no sense to me. I think it’s a really nonsensical and irresponsible strategy to promote. It does nothing to address poor health and susceptibility, and it's led to all those catastrophic consequences I mentioned. And if this continues to be our strategy, I worry we will remain living like this forever. (Authorities will like it that way). We have no choice but to take a root-cause approach, if we want to avoid a totalitarian future.

It all seems very irrational, reductionistic, destructive, anti-human and anti-science to me, (and to many, many other, actually-qualified, people!). 

I supported the lockdowns in March, but looking back now, I'm unconvinced they did much, and my view is that as soon as we knew the curve was flattening, we should've opened back up, but enabled all under 60s to retire early (if they wanted to), prepared the NHS with more beds/PPE etc, in case of any more waves, and embarked on a massive campaign to address nutrient deficiencies, poor diet, the mental health crisis, poverty, etc. (Ultimately, we need to begin changing the food system to organic/regenerative, so that we stop fueling new viruses and disease, but the further concentration of wealth and power that the Covid response has led to, probably makes this even more unlikely now).

Anyway, I just shared an interview that I think is interesting (I don't agree with Ivor on everything). Hope this is still permitted... seems things have already become increasingly totalitarian of late. Those calling for a different approach, or just to have a debate and do a cost/benefit of all these measures, have been marginalised/censored by media and big tech - which are now under the thumb of a WHO that is in turn significantly under the thumb of big pharma and the ideology of Bill Gates. Highly disturbing. Read this Der Spiegel article to get an idea of how powerful and influential big pharma is.

Who’re you getting modelling from btw? I think Michael Levitt’s predictions back at the beginning of the year were more accurate than most. So might be worth following him. 

This is worth watching too.

-

Some other points:

What about the tests? Have we ever done mass testing like this for any other virus? Is it correct that we refer to a positive test result as a 'case'? It seems the inventor of the PCR test would've disagreed with this.

Where has the flu gone? According to the stats, it's almost vanished in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Would everyone dying with Covid have otherwise died with flu? Are all viral deaths automatically being registered as Covid, when it might've been flu? 


Tuesday, 20 October 2020

The importance of a balanced, nutritious diet

 As Dr Aseem Malhotra says, ‘this is NOT fat shaming. This is something we’re all in together.’

We're all victims. Big Food and Big Pharma corporations have corrupted the government, the media, the science. 

And we have a medical system that is mostly clueless when it comes to nutrition - doctors learn almost nothing about it at medical school. Crazy right? (But it’s not the doctor’s fault! System problem).

As a result of all this, we now have an epidemic of chronic disease, cancer, nutrient deficiencies...

Ultimately, we need big policy/system change, but in the meantime, let’s do whatever we can to liberate ourselves from the grip of these industries, and heal!

Sunday, 18 October 2020

New Zealand

‘New Zealand has had few deaths because they locked down and had decent leadership that took Covid seriously’.‬

‪Ok, but Belarus, Nicaragua, much of Africa, Sweden, didn’t lock down. They had leadership that didn’t respond much to Covid. Yet they also had few deaths - or at least, in the case of Sweden, less deaths than many of those countries that did respond robustly.

‪I’m not saying I understand what’s going on. It just seems correlation only equals causation when it suits? It seems like there’s other factors that determine what impact Covid will have - like the general health of the populace? Exposure to pollution and certain chemicals? Who knows.

‪Is it not possible that Covid may have already run through New Zealand and Australia before the lockdowns, with little impact?

Assuming that New Zealand’s stringent response really is the reason for their lack of deaths, then at best, Jacinda Arden may have slightly prolonged a few thousand lives‬. But at what cost?‬ Ruining everyone’s life on and off for perpetuity? Helping to screw the global economy, fueling famines? Normalizing health surveillance and criminalization of protest? Making millions of people take a rushed vaccine?

Given that the vaccine may only be 50% effective, and only designed to reduce symptoms, rather than prevent infection, I really don’t understand the long term plan? Stay on edge, with intermittent lockdowns, until there’s an ineffective vaccine? I don't get it. 

Saturday, 17 October 2020

Regenerative Agriculture

I have come to the conclusion that probably THE key solution to most of our problems lies in Regenerative Agriculture. It has the potential to heal the planet; reversing desertification; restoring soil, biodiversity and life; whilst providing healthy food, for all humanity. 

I'll keep a list of things to read and watch below. 

TED Talk: How regenerative farming can help heal the planet and human health

Greenpeace: The Regenerators

Are Cows The Cause Or Cure For Climate Change?

On Netflix: Kiss The Ground

How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change | Allan Savory

We Need Regenerative Farming, Not Geoengineering

Full length interview with Nicolette Hahn Niman from the filming of Sacred Cow

Thursday, 15 October 2020

Vitamin D, COVID-19 and Allopathic Medicine

There is a Vitamin D deficiency epidemic throughout the world. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many people have been linking this deficiency with increased mortality from the virus - see here for some studies. Watch this. I have been perplexed by the almost total lack of interest in nutrition and general wellbeing during COVID-19 despite it being very clear that it is those with comorbidities and deficiencies who're most at risk - and despite it being known that many of these health issues can be reversed, often very quickly, with a change in diet, and/or cheap supplements. (If anything, it seems like we've been encouraged to harm our wellbeing, with the constant fear, isolation etc!).

I have since discovered that doctors, (in the western world at least), learn almost nothing about nutrition at medical school, which I find shocking! 

I've been trying to figure out how the medical system ended up like this, and was recommended this book, which I'm currently half way through reading. It's a fascinating book, detailing how the system was set up primarily in the interests of corporate capitalism. The billionaires and elites of the late 19th and early 20th century favored allopathic (science-based) medicine, largely because it enabled them to further centralize and control society. Its reductionist approach to the human body enabled poor social and environmental conditions, brought on by capitalist exploitation, to be ignored, as root causes of illness. Non-allopathic practitioners, some of whom focussed more on things like diet and lifestyle, and who saw healthcare as more of an art form, and not something that a one-size-fits-all, departmentalized approach, could effectively address, opposed this monopolization of medicine by the 'science-based' approach. They were subsequently smeared as 'quacks', and put out of business. 

Of course, many of those non-allopathic practitioners were indeed 'quacks', and there have also been plenty of achievements with allopathic medicine, but unfortunately it seems that its reductionist approach is a major issue, and it appears that corruption and bias in favor of the interests of the subsequently enlarged and empowered pharmaceutical companies, is extreme. Read herehere, herehere

The reductionist approach to the human body, the influence of big pharma, and the almost total lack of understanding regarding nutrition, makes it very difficult for allopathic practitioners to heal chronic disease (of which there is now an epidemic), and mental health issues. Patients are given drugs, just to manage the disease (many of which are poorly tested/will negatively impact other parts of the body), when so often, a holistic approach and a change in diet is the medicine required, (...and a change in social/environmental conditions). It mostly seems to be a system of sickcare, rather than one of healing and wellbeing. And it all seems very anti-science to me!

Anyway, I thought I'd keep a list of things to read and watch below, about Vitamin D, as it seems to be one of the nutrients that people are most in need of. Though what people are really most in need of is a different approach to healthcare, (and a change in social conditions). I've been looking into Functional Medicine, which is a holistic, science-based approach, with a focus on food as medicine. Look it up on Wikipedia, and you'll see it described as 'quackery' and 'pseudoscience'. But surely it is allopathic medicine that should now be described as that, given what I've stated above, and given that it is, according to some, the third leading cause of death in the US! My allopathic doctor's surgery in California is now offering Functional Medicine, which hopefully indicates that it is becoming more accepted and popular.

-

I have now finished the book mentioned above. I thought I'd copy a few extracts from the last few pages here...


Scientific Medicine: Beliefs and Reality

Nearly all of us turn to medicine when we are sick. Whether the healer is called a shaman, a witch doctor, a priest, a feldsher, or a physician, we all seek someone in whom to place our confidence, someone we believe will make us well. Early in the 19th century, most Americans relied on lay healers. By the middle or latter part of the century, most Americans turned to physicians, who were being prodigiously produced in mushrooming medical schools throughout the land. At the time, one could choose the particular medical theory one wanted in a physician – from homeopathy to orthodox or “allopathic” medicine – or the particular type of healer – from herbal traditions to Christian science. Not until the last two decades of the last century were there any significant number of physicians who practised what they called “scientific” medicine, meaning a medical practice based on principles continuously being developed and refined by the analytical biological and physical sciences.

Today most of us look to doctors and hospitals and surgery and drugs to cure us of every ill. We want solace, and, therefore, we expect it. The medical profession has, of course, encouraged such beliefs through its campaign to increase the confidence of the populous. Other medical interest groups, like the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute have joined in the campaign for public confidence, frequently hosting briefing sessions for newspapers’ science and medical writers to learn about the “latest advances” in cancer treatment. We have come to credit scientific, technological medicine with having reduced the enormously high death rates of past centuries and with being effective against most disease and suffering in our time. Yet such past successes and current progress are greatly exaggerated.

Life, Death, and Medicine. The Historical Record.

Historical epidemiological evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that medical science has played a relatively small role in reducing mobility and mortality. Thomas McEwan argues very convincingly that improved health and the great decline in Western Europe’s total death rate from the 18th century to the present were due to four factors. First, nutrition improved because food supplies increased from the early 18th century, due initially to the reorganisation of agriculture rather than improved chemical or mechanical technology. Second, environmental sanitation measures – cleaning up the accumulated filth of the cities, assuring uncontaminated water supplies, and so forth – instituted by the late 19th century, added to improved nutrition and further reduced mortality particularly of children. These measures were well underway by the middle of the century, before either the concept of specific causes of disease or the germ theory was widely accepted. Third, these improvements in the standard of living caused a substantial increase in population, which would have overrun the gains in health if birthrates and family size had not soon sharply declined. Finally, specific preventative and therapeutic medical measures gradually introduced in the 20th century slightly accelerated the already substantial decline in mortality and also improved physical health. While science greatly extended the original non-technological advances in agriculture, hygiene, and birth control, the contribution of medical science to the overall reduction in death rates and improved health was relatively quite small.

In the great majority of cases the toll of the major killing diseases of the 19th century declined dramatically before the discovery of medical cures and even immunisation. Tuberculosis, the Great White Plague, was one of the dread diseases of the 19th century, killing 500 people per 100,000 population at mid century and 200 people per 100,000 in 1900. By 1967 the United States rate had dropped to 3 deaths per 100,000. This tremendous decline was only slightly affected by the introduction of collapse therapy in the 1930s and chemotherapy in the 1950s. Similarly, for England and Wales, John Powles shows that overall mortality declined over the last hundred years well in advance of specific immunisations and therapies.

RenĂ© Dubos, the microbiologist formally with the Rockefeller Institute, succinctly summed up the historical record: “The tide of infectious and nutritional diseases was rapidly receding when the laboratory scientist moved into action at the end of the past century”, Dubos wrote in Mirage of Healthy. “In reality“, he observed, “the monstrous spectre of infection had become but an enfeebled shadow of its former self by the time serums, vaccines, and drugs became available to combat microbes”.

Improvements in general living and working conditions as well as sanitation, all brought about by labour struggles and social reform movements, are most responsible for improved health status. Improved housing, working conditions, and nutrition – not medical science – reduced TB‘s fearsome death toll. Responding to riots and insurrections as well as the pitiable living conditions of the poor and working classes in Western Europe and North America, nineteenth-century reformers brought dramatic declines in mortality without the benefit of even the germ theory.

Children have benefited the most from these changes. The average baby born in 1900 could have expected to live only forty-seven years. A baby born in 1973 can expect to live more than seventy-one years. Most of this increased life expectancy at birth has been due to a sharp decline in infant’ and young children’s deaths from infectious diseases. At the turn of the century, young children succumbed to influenza, pneumonia, diarrhoea, scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough, and measles. By 1975 the infant death rate had fallen to sixteen per 1000 live births - less than one ninth the rate in 1900. And the death rates of young children have similarly declined. Improved housing, nutrition, water supplies, and waste disposal, pasteurisation of milk, and the virtual elimination of child labor (except for migrant farm workers) drastically cut the spread of infectious diseases and enabled children’s bodies to resist them.


-

Members of the corporate class embraced scientific medicine because it supported their political and economic struggles. Technological medicine provides the corporate class with a compatible world view, an effective technique, a supportive cultural tool, and a focus on the disease process within the body that provides a convenient diversion from the health-damaging conditions in which people live and work...

...Their policies reflect a general corporate class concern that any excess sickness and death not be attributed to the admitted inequalities of capitalist society or to the organization of production that places profits before environmental protection and worker's health. In addition to this broad class interest, a growing interest group within the corporate class has a direct financial stake in the dominance of technological medicine.

Also read this.