News Digest: May 16 – May 18, 2022

Very good and funny article about “scary poppins” moving on from the “Ministry or Truth,” a.k.a. the Disinformation Governance Board. Read the whole article, it’s worth it, but here’s a taste:

some choices are too absurd even for the current orwellian motif.

the DHS’s disinfo board has gone down in flames taking its lead singer nina “scary poppins” jankowicz with it.

her choice to head this board was a hilarity i’m honestly a bit sad that roe v wade dumped from the headlines. she was truly so spectacularly, chronically, and charismatically wrong for the role and her prolific and extensive internet footprint was such an embarrassment of riches that we were about a week from some of the best memes of the decade.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) in the UK produce some excellent data which I have analysed before. Yesterday they released their updated data looking at deaths by vaccination status in England between 1 January 2021 and 31 March 2022. This includes age-standardised mortality rates for deaths involving COVID-19, non COVID-19 deaths and all deaths by vaccination status, broken down by age.

In this latest release they included a new table which looked at registered deaths grouped by how many weeks after vaccination the deaths occurred.

In this article I’ll look at COVID-19 deaths and non-COVID-19 deaths in the next article. If vaccines didn’t cause any COVID-19 deaths, I would expect that the number of deaths in each week after vaccination to be relatively similar. Why would there be more deaths, on average, in one week over another?

The single biggest issue is that ‘they’ are concentrating on hospitalizations, not on transmission.

The more you turn the virus into a highly-infectious pathogen (e.g.Delta, Omicron), the higher the likelihood you will start to see hospitalizations in children too.

As the vaccines still largely protect against severe disease and hospitalizations, ‘they’think it’s a good idea to get the kids jabbed too.

What these health authorities don’t seem to understand is that the C-19 vaccines, which do no longer induce neutralizing antibodies (Abs) because of Omicron, are in fact preventing severe disease by virtue of non-neutralizing Abs (see my manuscript). The non-neutralizing Abs prevent trans infection in distant organs (including the lungs) and thereby put high immune pressure on the virus’ virulence. Of course, they have no clue that together with the infection-enhancing effect of these Abs at the upper respiratory tract, this evolution is now only expediting the breeding of variants that are not only highly infectious but also more virulent. This is to say that the vaccines will soon no longer protect against severe disease. That’s where they can forget about keeping hospitalizations low.

Public Health authorities should, of course, always focus on keeping hospitalizations low and avoiding a crash of our health system.However, what these dummies need to learn is that you have to achieve this by curbing the chain of transmission! The vaccines can’t do this, but natural immunity can, and that’s the lesson they haven’t learned yet. Suppressing natural immunity (by vaccines) during a pandemic paralyzes the sterilizing immune capacity of the population, and therefore prevents herd immunity and promotes viral immune escape.

It will take time, and, unfortunately, many human lives, before they’ll understand. It’s only when hospitalizations in highly vaccinated countries will soon explode that they’ll at least understand that it’s time to hide…

In my opinion, this is pure arrogance, negligence, hubris, ignorance, recklessness, ineptness, and some level of malevolence. Why would you impose these on healthy children? Are our doctors that stupid? Are they? Is it money? Grants? Have they been bought out? These beasts will end up harming our children and killing children with these safety untested injections that were not tested for the proper duration to detect safety signals etc. They know this yet do not care. There is no need for these shots in healthy children. Children have no liability protection and thus you cannot sue. Based on a sample of 140 children you want to inject millions? Based on antibodies? Antibodies do not provide a measure of immunity. Another reports say 67 children? Then this is insane to approve this…

8 year olds should not have to wear Depends because of an injection that was meant to provide protective immunity against a virus

Story of Ryleigh Jones who on January 6th, 2022 received the Pfizer experimental gene-therapy shot. She’s not in wheelchair and wears depends. She’s 8 years old.

This is a very good article by Jessica Rose.

A good article that brings up many of the issues with the TOGETHER trial. If you’re not familiar with the trial, this study concluded that the benefit to using Ivermectin for COVID prevention was unclear.

Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19

The efficacy of ivermectin in preventing hospitalization or extended observation in an emergency setting among outpatients with acutely symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), the disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is unclear.

https://www.togethertrial.com/publications(opens new window)

But many, many people have expressed issues with the way the study was carried out. These ten questions from Marinos are very helpful.

Let me try to explain it. First, these scientists from the University of Colorado looked at face masks, worn by vaccinated health care workers. They found that those workers shed antibodies generated by vaccination, and some antibodies got trapped in the masks and could be detected. This means that vaccinated people are literally “shedding” vaccine-caused antibodies.

Interested in that, scientists looked further: they compared unvaccinated children living with unvaccinated parents, to similarly unvaccinated children, but living with vaccinated parents.

It turned out that vaxxed parents actively shed vaccine-produced particles onto their children so that the kids acquired “humoral immunity” following shedding from their parents! Not only was this finding evident in the data, it actually was STRONGLY statistically significant with p-value of 0.01! This means that this was not a chance finding.

The authors who did the study (not Igor) concluded:

Our results suggest that aerosol transmission of antibodies may also contribute to host protection and represent an entirely unrecognized mechanism by which passive immune protection may be communicated. Whether antibody transfer mediates host protection will be a function of exposure, but it seems reasonable to suggest, all things being equal, that any amount of antibody transfer would prove useful to the recipient host.

Essentially the authors are saying this is a good thing. Igor responds:

I am not sure if I can call it a good thing myself. Antibodies or mRNA nanoparticles from vaccines NOT approved by the FDA for children are being shed from parents to children, without consent or knowledge of either parents, or children. All of this is followed by denials by authorities.

While the United States government has not issued a federal digital vaccine pass, a national standard has nevertheless emerged. To date, 21 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico offer accessibility to the SMART Health Card, a verifiable digital proof of vaccination developed through the Vaccination Credential Initiative (VCI), a global coalition of public and private stakeholders including Microsoft, Salesforce, Oracle, the Mayo Clinic and other health and tech heavyweights.

The New England Journal of Medicine published the fraudulent TOGETHER trial, designed and conducted to launch anti-ivermectin headlines across every major media outlet across the world.

This article by Dr. Kory is in depth and informative. Here’s a portion:

The next issue, for me personally, betrays fraudulent intent like no other. That is the repeated, aggressive, and overt attempts to limit the dose and duration of ivermectin. The reason why this is as telling of fraud as the above, is that you have to recognize this tactic as Pharma’s main, time-honored tactics when trying to disprove generic treatments like Vitamin D or Vitamin C. They conduct a trial using either too low of a dose, for too short a duration, or at the wrong time-point in the disease. But here’s the deal. They do not have to be subtle. They just have to get it published in a high impact journal and the headlines are written. Since the NEJM was such a wide-open non-gate keeper for the above and below flaws, err, I mean frauds, they sailed through to publication. But check out their insanely obvious, patented, dosing shenanigans:

1. They started the trial with the ivermectin arm getting a single dose only, at a time when almost all treating clinicians around the world, including the FLCCC, were using multi-day regimens, and would treat up to 5 days or until recovered. One investigator tried to defend it by stating that they adopted the same dosing approach as with parasites. Yet, in their introduction, they report on the the ten years of anti-viral activity found among in-vitro studies as explored in our (and others) review paper.
2. They then increased the duration of treatment, after it started to dawn on them that they couldn’t “disprove” or “prove” anything using an incredulous single dose. But, get this, they then only extended the duration to 3 days. Again, no other anti-viral is used for 3 days – molnupiravir and paxlovid are 5 days (with the Boston Globe now reporting that patients are falling ill again after stopping paxlovid, with the CEO of Pfizer flippantly saying, “just take a second course.” Acyclovir (7-10 days), Tamiflu (minimum 5 days), ganciclovir (7-10 days). In thier ethics approval protocol change they actually cherry picked just the randomized trials with So why just 3 days against a deadly virus with one of the safest drugs known? Further, the senior author has given contradictory statements as to how they chose the dose. He wrote it was based on “feedback from advocacy groups.” I happen to know it was done due to pressure from one of the funding organizations of the trial who called foul on the one day dose gimmick. Calling them “an advocacy group” is an insult. If the “advocacy group” meant the FLCCC, we never talked to any investigator before they made that change. But in an email reply to someone who asked about the dosing, he wrote a bunch of lies about how proudly collaborated with me and the FLCCC to arrive at the dose. will go into this nonsense in more detail in Post 3 of this farce of a trial where I will compiled all the duplicitous, false, and sinister statements by these investigators.
3. The other most blatant dosing shenanigan is when they attached an unprecedented and inexplicable “weight limit” of 60kg to the initial 0.4mg/kg single dose protocol – meaning the more you weighed over 60kg (only 132 lbs!) you would get a smaller and smaller dose per body weight. It’s not like they knew the obese fare worse in COVID or anything, right? Also, where the hell is this weight limit from? Totally invented. When treating parasites, there is NO weight limit. None. Ivermectin distributes to fat tissues. You need to dose to actual body weight. The investigators even foolishly cited studies using single doses up to 800 mcg per kg as being safe in their ethics approval application.
4. They then apparently had second thoughts on this low, ridiculous, and arbitrary weight limit of 60 kg because when they changed the protocol to 3 days only, they reset this novel limiting of weight to a 90 kg limit (still only 198 pounds). Problem: 50% of people in the trial had a BMI over 30, thus the majority of these patients got an even lower dose per body weight. They did whatever they could to give as little as possible. Not subtle. Also, our Brazilian colleagues battling the extremely high viral loads of gamma were using 0.6-1.0mg/kg which is roughly DOUBLE their dose, for TEN days, which is roughly TRIPLE their dose. Further, the “real doctors” on the ground in Brazil during gamma, amidst the dying and deteriorating, were combining ivermectin with nitazoxanide (an equally effective repurposed anti-parasite drug) and other anti-inflammatory and/or anti-androgen therapies. Talk to Dr. Flavio Cadegiani, a doctor who actually figured out how to treat the gamma variant. Wait, I’m sorry, doctors don’t know what they are doing anymore, it is the big captured federal agencies, full of Gods of Science and Knowledge who we should be listening to. Sorry Flavio.
5. It gets worse folks. They also recommended that subjects take their dose on an empty stomach, knowing full well that concentrations would be higher if taken with a full stomach. What is even more disturbing about this recommendation is that one of the more Pfizer-conflicted investigators of the trial, Craig Rayner, published the first “anti-ivermectin” Letter to the Editor for COVID-19 in June of 2020. I repeat. In June of 2020. He was the world’s first published ivermectin naysayer. Again, before any clinical trials had even been done in COVID. I suspect Pfizer must have really wanted to get ahead of any enthusiasm for ivermectin. The letter attempted to mitigate the excited global response and media fanfare that erupted after the publication of the highly positive in-vitro ivermectin SARS-Co-V2 experiment by Caly and Wagstaff from Australia’s Monash University. Rayner knew higher concentrations could be achieved because in that letter he writes “Merck’s product information reports that administration of 30mg ivermectin following a highfat meal resulted in an approximate 2.5-fold increase in bioavailability relative to administration of 30mg ivermectin in the fasted state.” What is hilarious is that he did not know then that he would be part of a trial which stipulates that subjects take the drug.. on an empty stomach.

Check out the whole thing.