News Digest: August 4 – 6, 2022

The conclusion of the article:

PRRs are one of the oldest, most basic and most well-established tools of pharmacovigilance. The calculations are so straightforward that the CDC automated it several years ago, so it could have been done at the press of a button.

It simply beggars belief that the CDC failed to do this simple calculation. Even now, a paper published by CDC staff in March on the safety of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines remains purely descriptive with no PRR calculation.

Meanwhile, a study published by a researcher not affiliated with the CDC in February in “Frontiers in Public Health” analyzes VAERS and EudraVigilance data using a method similar to PRRs, revealing clear and concerning safety signals.

And while it is true that VAERS is not the only database the CDC can use to monitor COVID-19 vaccine safety, it is of critical importance because it can reveal signals much faster than any other method — if anybody cares to look for them.

It remains to be seen if the FDA was properly monitoring VAERS. That will be the subject of a future FOIA request.

But even if it was, it doesn’t change the fact that the CDC completely failed in its promise to monitor VAERS for safety signals.

Free speech is what was at stake in this trial. It doesn’t matter what you think of Alex Jones. He was not on trial, free speech was.

This short article from Meryl Nass is very good. This is the whole thing (all emphasis is mine):

Prevents the vaccinated from seeing the light as it is just too painful

1.  Multiple papers now suggest that COVID mRNA vaccines impair not just immunity to COVID, but immunity and immune surveillance overall.

The implication is that the vaxxed are more susceptible to a variety of infections, and perhaps also to cancer.  Immune surveillance is what identifies cancer cells and kills them before they can proliferate.

So, you are vaccinated.  The implications of this information are too frightening to be allowed into consciousness.  You don’t need the external censors to suppress this knowledge; you do it automatically with your built-in defense mechanisms.

2.  Data from multiple countries now shows that all cause mortality (deaths from everything) are higher in the vaccinated.

This is just as scary, if not more so, than an increased risk of serious infections and cancer.  You deny and/or suppress this information, because it simply cannot be allowed to be true.

3.  You vaccinated your child.  This may have impaired their fertility, increased the cancer risk, etc. etc. etc.

Of all pieces of information that absolutely cannot be allowed to enter your consciousness, let alone be openly discussed in polite company, this one tops all.  So you will simply refuse to allow mention of it.  Friends whose conversations veer off in this direction must be obliterated.  Requiring that all family members and friends be vaccinated protects you from facing those for whom this discussion does not trigger the existential and uncontrollable pain it does for the vaccinated.

And Voila–you have a controlled and cowed population who have become their own thought police.

As the title states, his comments are very good. He lists 7 points, here are the first two:

‘Removing data describing the gravest medical crisis in known history has some consequences:

1. It obliterates the so-called post-marketing surveillance, which was one of the pledges of warp-speed manufacturers (“we don’t know how it works, but we will watch and report the reactions IN FULL TRANSPARENCY”) – which effectively cancels the whole C program (notwithstanding penal consequences)
2. It deprives doctors of real-life, actual data on how the population reacts to the “pathogen” that was the “legitimate” reason to lock down the whole world for 2+ years (and going). Which means that we will not know what happens, how it happens, to whom it happens and – crucial – why it happens.

What We are Left With

What is left is: “scientists” (no contact with real life) + researchers (ditto) + authorities (ditto) + sponsors (ditto) + manufacturers (ditto) + victims of medical experiments without any supervision.

The adventure has just begun.

Because of my wife’s long illness we have been eating organic for probably the last 3 decades. This is some good information on organic foods and if you are not eating organic…..it is time to start.

Good article by Kirsch. Some of you may remember the guy who said 8 months after his wedding 33 of his vaccinated attendees were either dead or injured. No where did see the number who had died, but Krisch as it here. It was 7.

Among the vaxxed:

• 26 seriously injured
• 7 dead

Among the unvaxxed:

• 0 injured
• 0 dead

That’s pretty extreme, isn’t it?

So what are the chances of that happening by chance if the vaccines are as safe as Pfizer claimed in the clinical trials (they told the FDA it was perfectly safe and that there were fewer serious adverse events than placebo: See page 22)?

If we go with the populations being the same in terms of health, using a Poisson distribution we find that the injuries (26 vs 0) are a 6 sigma event (you’ll only hear a story like this twice in the entire history of human beings) and the deaths (7 vs 0) are a 2.6 sigma event (less than 1% of the stories).

In short, Wayne’s anecdote was very unlikely to be just bad luck.

So if you trust the source of the anecdote (which I do after talking at length with Wayne), it’s virtually certain the vaccines are very unsafe using just this one anecdote alone.

This is a good article written by the Poll Challenger. It reminds me of so many of the affidavits I read after the 2020 November election. You know, those affidavits that the MSM never bothered to read or even acknowledge.

Throughout the night, I was routinely told to step away from the table and that I was only allowed to stand next to the monitor near station one at the corner of the tables. I was also told that the law doesn’t matter in this room, only their rules. This is all untrue and illegal. It is deceptive, restrictive, and obstructive to the process, which violates Michigan Election Law Act 116 of 1954, 168.730, 168.731, 168.733(3,4), and 168.734.

The most disturbing thing in this article is the quote by Trey Gowdy, a guy I used to like. Kind of like how I used to like Nikki Haley, but that some ago. Here’s what Gowdy said about the new gun law.

Due process is different depending on what government is trying to do. The question then becomes what should due process look like if a family member or law enforcement officer credibly believes someone is a threat to themselves or others? Would we rather due process come before the shooting in front of a judge, or would we rather due process come after a mass shooting in a death penalty trial for the murder of schoolchildren?[emphasis mine]

Here is gato malo commenting on it:

he then poses a question that basically boils down to “if people say you might be dangerous, should we take away your rights based on suspicion and not action?” as the purportedly reasonable notion of “preventing bad outcomes.”

note that this rhetorical framing tacitly renders a right to gun ownership a privilege and not a right at all. that’s quite a serious inclusion by presumption. the question of “would we have any just or legal right to do so if we did?” goes begging.

and this matters greatly as we’re not talking about questioning here or investigation but rather conviction and sentencing for crimes not committed. functionally, this is like jailing someone over suspicion as to what they might do.

Where does this end?

and why stop at killers? what of possible rapists or robbers or “insurrectionists”?

and that last one is always the endgame and so a question must be asked:

just who is going to decide precisely what “dangerous” is? the state? the same state that got caught trying to inflate domestic terrorism reports by ascribing “anything we don’t like” up to and including “disagreeing with school boards over masking” to “terrorists?”

note that they include “law enforcement officers” in the list of folks who get to report you.

The graphs in this article are really worth looking at.

Look at the timing, seems boosting emerged in early 2022 & with each rounds of bosting, deaths increase but not Africa…Africa said no to the vaccine and seems to have WON! & no boosting, no deaths!

There are more articles for this time period on his website that chronicle these “sudden deaths” from around the the world.

Three rockers in the USA; two more Canadian doctors (that’s six dead in 10 days); two 13-year-old girls in Zambia; strange drownings in France, Greece, Spain and—especially—Italy; and many more

This kind of news is almost getting boring. The vaccines are bad. We could just leave it at that and move on.

A study out of the United Kingdom has shown that health care workers who received multiple COVID-19 vaccine boosters after initially being infected with the original virus strain from Wuhan are more prone to chronic reinfection from the Omicron variant.

Not the Unvaccinated

“All over the world, we are seeing these datasets that show that, unfortunately, the people that are dying and being hospitalized are overwhelmingly the highly vaccinated,” he said. “It is not those that have natural immunity.”

Immune Imprinting

The COVID-19 vaccines are based on the spike protein of the original virus identified in Wuhan. That strain of the virus no longer exists and is not circulating in the population anymore, Malone said.

If a vaccine based on a now-defunct viral strain is repeatedly administered, it trains the immune system to focus more and more on the antigen delivered through the vaccine and to disregard anything else that’s slightly different, Malone explained, calling this phenomenon immune imprinting.

“The literature on immune imprinting is bombproof,” Malone said. “Paper after paper after paper now, in the top peer-reviewed journals from the top laboratories all across the world, are documenting it.”

We know WTF is going on. It’s called cheating. It’s called bought and paid for Republicans trying to steal an election from the voters of Arizona.

The Gateway Pundit reported that Kari Lake is the clear winner for Republican Governor after a huge comeback based on the statewide results. However, the State and luthier media refuse to call the race for Kari Lake.

What are they waiting for?

The German health ministry officially admitted last Wednesday that 1 in every 5,000 injections given causes “serious side effects,” either hospitalization, permanent disability, or death. Someone who gets four shots has a 1:1250 chance of these devastating outcomes.

LONDON, Aug 3 (Reuters) – The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is recommending Novavax’s COVID-19 vaccine carry a warning of the possibility of two types of heart inflammation, an added burden for a shot that has so far failed to win wide uptake.

The heart conditions – myocarditis and pericarditis – should be listed as new side effects in the product information for the vaccine, Nuvaxovid, based on a small number of reported cases, the EMA said on Wednesday.

Small number? Right…….

There are some disturbing ramifications in the Alex Jones trial.

Revolver News founder Darrin J. Beattie, constitutional lawyer Robert Barnes, lawyer Mike Cernovich, Human Events editor Jack Posobiec, and others all warned that the Texas defamation trial against Jones is the first legal salvo against free speech and dissenting views.

“Regime is thirsting for a precedent in Alex Jones case so no one can question official narratives on the internet again,” Beattie tweeted Wednesday.

Free Speech? Only for some…

“Alex Jones precedent means if you don’t accept the Vegas shooting explanation, then FBI agents can sue you because you’re calling them liars by implication,” Cernovich noted. “Conservative media doesn’t seem to care. They aren’t saying a word on the due process violations in Jones case.”

Just a preview

“The Alex Jones show trial is a preview of what the regime intends to do to anyone and everyone who doesn’t conform with The Narratives,” journalist Jordan Schachtel said.

What about those pesky election deniers?

“Alex Jones case is to use it as precedent to go after those who contest 2020 election & any other government disfavored ‘conspiracy minded’ folks, like everyone who challenged lockdowns, mandates, Covid origins, lies to get us into war,” Barnes pointed out after noting a juror asked the court if the lawsuit against Jones can “stop election deniers” in future cases.

It’s only a conspiracy, if we say it’s a conspiracy

In fact, the New York Times this week confirmed the alarming hypothesis, admitting that the establishment’s goal is to “send a signal to other conspiracy purveyors about the cost of online lies” using the legal system.

Keep in mind, the NYT didn’t consider the Russia collusion hoax, Jussie Smollett’s hate crime hoax, the Nick Sandmann incident, the Kyle Rittenhouse case, or Hunter Biden’s laptop as “Russian disinformation” to be media-driven lies at all — though all of them demonstrably were at the time.

And who gets to define the “conspiracy theories”?

“Most defamation cases really focus on an individual plaintiff,” he said. “So, in some ways, these lawsuits against Alex Jones and Infowars are kind of a novel way to rein in this new genre of conspiracy theory-related information.”

But any defamation case is a double-edged sword, he cautioned, opening the door for potential action against many types of media, not just explicit disinformation peddlers.

“We’re always afraid of a slippery slope,” said Gutterman. “Who’s to say that today’s Infowars won’t be tomorrow’s mainstream media that somebody has a problem with?”

Not the First Time

This is not the first time in recent memory that defamation laws have been leveraged in a disinformation case. The voting companies Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic are engaged in defamation suits against right-wing media outlets and individuals, including Fox News, OANN, and allies and lawyers to former president Donald Trump, for baseless claims that their machines had contributed to election fraud.

And right here is the problem. This “journalist” without batting an eye says almost matter of factly “for baseless claims that their machines had contributed to election fraud.” They’re not baseless. Do we sue this journalist, a “Misinformation Reporter,” now?

I believe true free speech, allowing everyone to say what they think, is the most healthy route to go. The public will work it out. But if one side tries to shut down the other as is happening now, that is a real problem.