The censors at Facebook’s ministry of truth have sunk to a new low. Yesterday at 1:35 p.m. EST, TFTP journalist Don Via Jr received a 24-hour ban on the platform for posting a completely factually accurate meme acknowledging big pharma’s history of rampant corruption.
Unlike other instances of individuals being censored on the platform however, in which the social media company attempts to thinly veil their censorship behind openly biased fact-checkers. This time there was none. No “fact check” for “false information”. Simply a notification of the post being removed from Mr. Via’s Break The Matrix Facebook page, and a notice that all of his accounts were restricted for 24 hours.
Below is the meme in question.
What makes this act of censorship particularly egregious is the blatant nature with which Facebook is now suppressing 100% verifiable facts.
After disputing the decision, Facebook replied with an automated message stating “We don’t allow false information that could cause physical harm. In some cases this includes information that recognized health organizations say could mislead people about how to cure or prevent a disease or that could discourage people from seeking medical treatment.”
In this case though, none of the information stated was false.
For instance, the first tier of the graphic claims that since inception in 1848, Pfizer has racked up nearly 5 billion dollars in criminal charges. While the exact total may vary a bit, the facts regarding their history of rampant corruption and medical malfeasance is.
In 1991, the FDA charged Pfizer subsidiary Shiley with withholding information from safety regulators and deliberately falsifying manufacturing records with regards to faulty heart valves. Nearly 300 people died from Pfizer’s faulty products and ultimately the company spent 205 million dollars settling the tens of thousands of lawsuits filed against them.
Despite this, Pfizer resisted to comply with FDA orders to notify patients and ultimately paid an additional $10 million when the Department of Justice charged them with lying to regulators.
Furthermore, despite the company’s dubious past it was reported that Moderna was first tapped to lead U.S. vaccine development in what equated to a gamble. Simply because the company’s slick talking CEO was able to get the attention of former President Trump with bold promises during a meeting with biotech executives.
The third tier of the meme acknowledges the well-documented history of heinous crimes committed by Johnson & Johnson. Of which TFTP has also extensively covered in recent years.
But these only scratch the surface of the company’s flagrant human rights abuses. Among them, being one of the main financiers alongside, Dow Chemical and the United States Army, funding 20 years of unethical human experiments by Dr. Albert Kligman in Pennsylvania’s Holmesburg prison. Experiments which entailed prisoners being financially coerced to “volunteer” as research subjects to study mind-altering drugs, painful medical procedures, radiation, and chemical weapons such as Agent Orange.
As a matter of fact, in addition to Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson — It is thoroughly documented by the Corporate Research Project that nearly every major company involved in the development of Covid-19 vaccines has an abhorrent history of medical malfeasance, and criminal charges.
Finally, the last section of the meme asserts that AstraZeneca’s covid-19 vaccine has itself already been suspended in 24 countries due to health concerns. Yet again, a simple query in your preferred search engine can corroborate this as a fact.
As a March 16th report from Al Jazeera explains; the countries of Sweden, Latvia, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Portugal, Slovenia, Indonesia, the Netherlands, Ireland, Bulgaria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Thailand, Romania, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, and Austria have all suspended the Oxford / AstraZeneca jab in some capacity.
Since that report the Philippines and Australia have also suspended the shot for individuals under 60 years of age. Venezuela has also refused to authorize it.
What Facebook is doing by deleting this content, which by all accounts is completely accurate, is suppressing vital information that the people have a right to know. Informed consent matters, and it’s not something that can be so freely thrown to the wayside — certainly not as adverse events reported to the CDC are at an all-time high.
The company is now essentially working as a cover-up crew to protect those with which they have a vested financial or political interest. While their counterparts in the mainstream media ingloriously propagate the notion that those concerned with vaccine safety are domestic terrorists.
Bodily autonomy is paramount, and individuals have an inherent right to be given all the facts so that they are adequately informed to make proper decisions with regard to their health.
Just because the truth is unpleasant, does not make it misinformation. As a matter of fact, censoring unpleasant truths in favor of biased one-sided narratives is the greatest danger of all.
Rejecting Rockefeller Germ Theory once and for all
by Jon Rappoport March 25, 2021
Note: In a number of articles, I’ve offered compelling evidence that the deaths attributed to COVID-19 can be explained without reference to a virus. Furthermore, whatever merits “alternative treatments” may have, I see no convincing evidence their action has anything to do with “neutralizing a virus.”
The entire tragic, criminal, murderous, stupid, farcical COVID fraud is based on a hundred years of Rockefeller medicine—a pharmaceutical tyranny in which the enduring headline is:
ONE DISEASE, ONE GERM.
That’s the motto engraved on the gate of the medical cartel.
—Thousands of so-called separate diseases, each caused by an individual germ.
“Kill each germ with a toxic drug, prevent each germ with a toxic vaccine.”
In the absence of those hundred years of false science and propaganda, COVID-19 promotion would have gone over like a bad joke. A few sour laughs, and then nothing, except people going on with their lives.
The overall health of an individual human being has to do with factors entirely unrelated to “one disease, one germ.”
As I quoted, for example, at the end of a recent article—
“The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 percent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization. In part, this recession may be attributed to improved housing and to a decrease in the virulence of micro-organisms, but by far the most important factor was a higher host-resistance due to better nutrition.” Ivan Illich, Medical Nemesis, Bantam Books, 1977
And Robert F Kennedy, Jr.: “After extensively studying a century of recorded data, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Johns Hopkins researchers concluded: ‘Thus vaccinations does not account for the impressive declines in mortality from infectious diseases seen in the first half of the twentieth century’.”
“Similarly, in 1977, Boston University epidemiologists (and husband and wife) John and Sonja McKinlay published their seminal work in the Millbank Memorial Fund Quarterly on the role that vaccines (and other medical interventions) played in the massive 74% decline in mortality seen in the twentieth century: ‘The Questionable Contribution of Medical Measures to the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the Twentieth Century’.”
“In this article, which was formerly required reading in U.S. medical schools, the McKinlays pointed out that 92.3% of the mortality rate decline happened between 1900 and 1950, before most vaccines existed, and that all medical measures, including antibiotics and surgeries, ‘appear to have contributed little to the overall decline in mortality in the United States since about 1900 — having in many instances been introduced several decades after a marked decline had already set in and having no detectable influence in most instances’.”
How the immune system (if it is a system) actually operates is beyond current medical hypotheses.
“T-cells, B-cells, neutrophils, monocytes, natural killer cells, proteins,” are welded into a breathless story about a military machine that attacks germ invaders. Push-pull. Search and destroy.
The notion that THIS is what creates health is fatuous.
Positive vitality is what keeps us healthy.
A few factors of positive vitality are on the tyrannical COVID list of what-should-be-squashed: financial survival; open mingling of friends and family; people looking (unmasked) at people; open communication without fear of censorship.
Nutrition and basic sanitation are key vitality factors, of course.
And then we have Purpose in Life: where are people pouring their creative energies?
Obviously, freedom from harmful medical treatment is necessary for vitality to flourish.
Suppression of LIFE, in order to stop a purported germ, is institutionalized death.
Modern medicine is sensationally exposed in a review I’ve mentioned dozens of time over the past 10 years: Authored by the late famous public health doctor at Johns Hopkins, Barbara Starfield, it is titled, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?” It was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on July 26, 2000.
It found that, every year in the US, the medical system kills 225,000 people.
Per decade, the death toll would come to 2.25 million people.
You won’t find that in CDC reports.
In 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield. I asked her whether the federal government had undertaken a major effort to remedy medically caused death in America, and whether she had been sought to consult with the government in such an effort.
—Cowan analyzes yet another key document posted by the CDC, in their journal, Emerging Infectious Diseases: “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States”—
The hits keep coming. The CDC used an arbitrary computer “tinker-toy” process to invent a description of the virus. The virus that no one has proven exists. This is the basic conclusion of Dr. Tom Cowan.
Dr. Cowan: “[The CDC journal article] was published in June 2020 [original publication, March 2020]. The purpose of the article was for a group of about 20 virologists to describe the state of the science of the isolation, purification and biological characteristics of the new SARS-CoV-2 virus, and to share this information with other scientists for their own research. A thorough and careful reading of this important paper reveals some shocking findings.”
“First, in the section titled ‘Whole Genome Sequencing,’ we find that rather than having isolated the virus and sequencing the genome from end to end, they found 37 base pairs from unpurified samples using PCR probes. This means they actually looked at 37 out of the approximately 30,000 of the base pairs that are claimed to be the genome of the intact virus. They then took these 37 segments and put them into a computer program, which filled in the rest of the base pairs.”
In other words, the sequencing of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was done by assumption and arbitrary inference. If this is science, a penguin is a spaceship.
Cowan: “To me, this computer-generation step constitutes scientific fraud. Here is an equivalency: A group of researchers claim to have found a unicorn because they found a piece of a hoof, a hair from a tail, and a snippet of a horn. They then add that information into a computer and program it to re-create the unicorn, and they then claim this computer re-creation is the real unicorn. Of course, they had never actually seen a unicorn so could not possibly have examined its genetic makeup to compare their samples with the actual unicorn’s hair, hooves and horn.”
“The researchers claim they decided which is the real genome of SARS-CoV-2 by ‘consensus,’ sort of like a vote. Again, different computer programs will come up with different versions of the imaginary ‘unicorn,’ so they come together as a group and decide which is the real imaginary unicorn.”
As I’ve been stating, the “discovery” of the “new virus” was actually the foisting of a PRE-DETERMINED STORY ABOUT A VIRUS. Nothing real or believable about it.
But once the official pattern is laid down, others follow it dutifully.
Dr. Cowan uncovers more insanity in the CDC journal article. Using the ASSUMED new virus, in an UN-ISOLATED STATE, the researchers try to prove it is harmful by injecting it on to several different types of cells in the lab:
Cowan: “The real blockbuster finding in this study comes later, a finding so shocking that I had to read it many times before I could believe what I was reading. Let me quote the passage intact:”
“’Therefore, we examined the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to infect and replicate in several common primate and human cell lines, including human adenocarcinoma cells (A549), human liver cells (HUH 7.0), and human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T). In addition to Vero E6 and Vero CCL81 cells [monkey cells]. … Each cell line was inoculated at high multiplicity of infection and examined 24h post-infection. No CPE was observed in any of the cell lines except in Vero [monkey] cells, which grew to greater than 10 to the 7th power at 24 h post-infection. In contrast, HUH 7.0 and 293T showed only modest viral replication, and A549 cells [human cells] were incompatible with SARS CoV-2 infection’.”
“What does this language actually mean, and why is it the most shocking statement of all from the virology community? When virologists attempt to prove infection, they have three possible ‘hosts’ or models on which they can test…”
“The third method virologists use to prove infection and pathogenicity — the method they most rely on — is inoculation of solutions they say contain the virus onto a variety of tissue cultures. As I have pointed out many times, such inoculation has never been shown to kill (lyse) the tissue, unless the tissue is first starved and poisoned.”
“The shocking thing about the above [CDC journal] quote is that using their own methods, the virologists found that solutions containing SARS-CoV-2 — even in high amounts — were NOT, I repeat NOT, infective to any of the three human tissue cultures they tested. In plain English, this means they proved, on their terms, that this ‘new coronavirus’ is not infectious to human beings. It is ONLY infective to monkey kidney cells, and only then when you add two potent drugs (gentamicin and amphotericin), known to be toxic to kidneys, to the mix.”
“My friends, read this again and again. These virologists, published by the CDC, performed a clear proof, on their terms, showing that the SARS-CoV- 2 virus is harmless to human beings. That is the only possible conclusion, but, unfortunately, this result is not even mentioned in their conclusion. They simply say they can provide virus stocks cultured only on monkey Vero cells, thanks for coming.”
So first…use a process of genetic sequencing that involves concocting, out of an arbitrary computer program…
The existence and structure of the “new virus”…
And then, taking a soup that the researchers claim contains the virus, in an un-isolated state, inject the soup into several types of cells in the lab…
And discover the prime target—human cells—are not infected by the imaginary virus.
And after this good day’s work, walk away and pretend nothing odd or self-incriminating happened.
And oh yes, lock down the planet based on this “science.”
Naturally, we MUST take a toxic vaccine that prevents non-infection by the non-virus.
Buried deep in the document, on page 39, in a section titled, “Performance Characteristics,” we have this: “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays [diagnostic tests] designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA…”
The key phrase there is: “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available…”
Every object that exists can be quantified, which is to say, measured. The use of the term “quantified” in that phrase means: the CDC has no measurable amount of the virus, because it is unavailable. THE CDC HAS NO VIRUS.
A further tip-off is the use of the word ‘isolates.” This means NO ISOLATED VIRUS IS AVAILABLE.
Another way to put it: NO ONE HAS AN ISOLATED SPECIMEN OF THE COVID-19 VIRUS.
NO ONE HAS ISOLATED THE COVID-19 VIRUS.
THEREFORE, NO ONE HAS PROVED THAT IT EXISTS.
As if this were not enough of a revelation to shock the world, the CDC goes on to say they are presenting a diagnostic PCR test to detect the virus-that-hasn’t-been-isolated…and the test is looking for RNA which is PRESUMED to come from the virus that hasn’t been proved to exist.
And using this test, the CDC and every other public health agency in the world are counting COVID cases and deaths…and governments have instituted lockdowns and economic devastation using those case and death numbers as justification.
If people believe “you have the virus but it is not available,” and you have the virus except it is buried within other material and hasn’t been extracted and purified and isolated, these people believe the moon is made of green cheese.
This is like saying. “We have the 20 trillion dollars, they are contained somewhere in our myriad accounts, we just don’t know where.” If you don’t know where, you don’t know you have the money.
“The car keys are somewhere in the house. We just don’t where.” Really? If you don’t know where, you don’t know the keys are in the house.
“The missing cruise missile is somewhere in the arsenal, we just don’t where.” No. If you don’t know where, you don’t know the missile is in the arsenal.
“The COVID-19 virus is somewhere in the material we have—we just haven’t removed it from that material. But we know what it is and we’ve identified it and we know its structure.” NO YOU DON’T. YOU ASSUME THAT.
Science is not assumptions.
“But…but…there is a study which says a few researchers in a lab isolated the virus…”
They say they did. But in July, the CDC is saying no virus is available. I guess that means trucks were not available to bring the virus from that lab to the CDC. The trucks were out of gas. It was raining. The bridge was washed out. The trucks were in the shop. Joe, the driver, couldn’t find his mask, and he didn’t want to leave home without it…
Science is not assumptions.
The pandemic is a fraud, down to the root of the poisonous tree.
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) this week released a report that shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
In the latest update, the CDC pointed out that only 6% of deaths related to COVID-19 listed COVID-19 as the only cause of death. The vast majority of patients that were listed as COVID-19 related deaths also suffered from serious comorbidities.
The CDC is reporting 167,558 COVID-19 related deaths in the United State as of August 28, 2020. Out of the 167,558 COVID-19 related deaths, only 10,053 (6%) mentioned COVID-19 as the only cause according to the CDC’s new numbers. The other 94% of the COVID-19 related deaths had comorbidities associated with those deaths.
I’ve been getting tons of emails on this one, and, granted, it’s about that story we’re all sick of hearing about, it is nonetheless intriguing. So thanks to you all who passed it along and shared it. I had so many people sending it to me that it vaulted to the top of the finals box. The CDC appears to have released an interesting set of numbers which, if true, raise lots (and lots[and lots]) of questions:
Now, here’s the clincher, the whopper doozie squating in the middle of all of this:
Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death. The number of deaths with each condition or cause is shown for all deaths and by age groups.
Wait a minute, of all the deaths being reported, only 6% are due to the virus itself without other factors (co-morbidities)? (Emphasis added)
Now, if you’ve been following this whole story carefully, very early on many in alternative media were raising serious questions about the numbers of reported deaths, and many were claiming that people who were dying with covid were being reported as having died of covid, and here we appear to have a back-handed admission that this was so.
A further ramification of these new numbers is that if the percentage of deaths from the virus alone as a percentage of deaths with complicating factors is so small, the percentage of deaths relative to the whole population is even smaller.
And if that’s the case, then there seems to me to be a further implication, especially for those calling for mandatory vaccines against the virus: why is a vaccine needed for a virus that now appears, by these latest numbers, not to be nearly the dreaded pandemic we were led to believe? Or is there some other agenda behind that? Or conversely, why is there a call for a expensive vaccine research and mandates, when the dreaded (and inexpensive) hydroxychloriquine seems to have, by some sources’ lights, an effective therapeutic and in some cases curative effect?
At the minimum, these new numbers raise some disturbing questions, and appear to corroborate at least to some degree those early skeptics’ views of the basis of the numbers being reported. Time will tell, of course, what other new numbers from the CDC might indicate, or, as the case may be, backpedal, on these latest statistics.
In the meantime, Kamaula Harris is calling for nationwide mask mandates, while others push the meme that it will “never go away,” raising the prospects that “they” want to keep everyone masked… forever. The question is why. Why – with previous planscamdemics (think SARS from a few years ago) – were no such draconian measures instituted? And why institute them now?
Bottom line: the CDC’s numbers raise disturbing questions and implications. This is a case of “you tell me”…
ONE OF THE MOST FRUSTRATING ASPECTS of how academic science conducts itself in the US is high reliance to SELECTIVE ATTENTION to information that suits one’s particular viewpoint in science. Graduate students writing theses or dissertations are expected to provide a reasonable approximation of a background of the foundations upon which their thesis is built. Somewhere along the way, some scientists have forgotten the ethics of the moral responsibility of providing an unbiased representation of the state of knowledge upon which they base their positions. To seek only confirming instances that match one’s own viewpoint is positivistic – and it is the essential driver of confirmation bias. CDC and Fauci’s reliance of the Selective Attention Bias is monumental is size and historically destructive in scope.
Here I outline a few rather important facts that CDC and Fauci (and thus the rest of public health and most of the US medical system) have forgotten. The result is a public health policy response in the US that is full of … holes, at immense cost to the well-being of society.
When I read headlines like “Scientists discover” X, Y or Z about Coronavirus”, I almost always groan. “We ALREADY KNOW that about coronviruses” is my response, and so off to Pubmed I go.
Here are some things we already know that are being forgotten, or ignored, in public health policy in the US (and elsewhere) on the COVID-19 response.
(1) Coronavirus antibodies don’t last. Based on a non-peer-reviewed study preprint of a King’s College Study that monitored SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels for three months, the media represents this as new because the researchers who have presented the data failed to provide a thorough representation of past studies – and the media failed to pick up on the reality of what we already know. We’ve known that the antibody response to coronaviruses in humans is shorter than that, say, for human rhinoviruses (the common cold) since 1990.
Here’s the study on coronviruses (1990):
“After preliminary trials, the detailed changes in the concentration of specific circulating and local antibodies were followed in 15 volunteers inoculated with coronavirus 229E. Ten of them, who had significantly lower concentrations of preexisting antibody than the rest, became infected and eight of these developed colds. A limited investigation of circulating lymphocyte populations showed some lymphocytopenia in infected volunteers. In this group, antibody concentrations started to increase 1 week after inoculation and reached a maximum about 1 week later. Thereafter antibody titres slowly declined. Although concentrations were still slightly raised 1 year later, this did not always prevent reinfection when volunteers were then challenged with the homologous virus. However, the period of virus shedding was shorter than before and none developed a cold. All of the uninfected group were infected on re-challenge although they also appeared to show some resistance to disease and in the extent of infection. These results are discussed with reference to natural infections with coronavirus and with other infections, such as rhinovirus infections.“
And here’s the study on rhinoviruses (1989):
“The specific humoral immune response of 17 volunteers to infection with human rhinovirus type 2 (HRV-2) has been measured both by neutralization and by ELISA. Six volunteers who had HRV-2-specific antibodies in either serum or nasal secretions before HRV-2 inoculation were resistant to infection and illness. Of the remaining 11 volunteers who had little pre-existing HRV-2-specific antibody, one was immune but 10 became infected and displayed increases in HRV-2-specific antibodies. These antibodies first increased 1-2 weeks after infection and reached a maximum at 5 weeks. All six resistant volunteers who had high pre-existing antibody and eight of the volunteers who became infected maintained their HRV-2-specific antibody for at least 1 year. At this time they were protected against reinfection. Two volunteers showed decreases in HRV-2-specific antibodies from either serum or nasal secretions. They became infected but not ill after HRV-2 inoculation 1 year later.“
So, people infected with coronaviruses have short-lived active antibodies compared to rhinovirus, but have a mild infection a year later if re-exposed. To be fair to the authors of the study, they referenced the coronavirus study from 1990, as well as length of antibody responses in SARS and MERS. But it’s still a fair question to ask:
Why then are we reading headlines such as
The high profile emphasis is followed by proclamations that natural immunity from infections might not prove to be”enough”, begging the question of definition of “enough” – Fauci and others (like Paul Offit) have already presaged that an untested vaccine might only make the infection less severe, and not prevent infection or transmission. So this high emphasis and follow-on claim that natural herd immunity might not be enough is a type of distortion used to convince the public that they may have to wait for a vaccine to save society. Of course.
2. Masks Don’t Really Work Outside of Healthcare Systems.
A meta-analysis on masks concluded that masks should work in the healthcare setting, but the three studies that focused on the utility of masks to protect the wearer outside of the healthcare system? Two of three studies say “no effect” – and the one that is significant is only marginally significant, and oh, also (like all of the other studies) only focused on the ability of masks to protect the wearer.
And, for good measure, N95 does NOT mean they stop 95% of droplets, as incorrectly reported by “Ask Ethan” on Forbes – it means they can block viruses no smaller than 5 microns. SARS-CoV-2 is 30 times smaller than N95.
In a BSL3 laboratory, workers must wear much more effective equipment that an N95 mask, or a handkerchief, or a shirt collar, to block viruses the size of coronaviruses. Clearly we are being socially conditioned to submit to pressure to conform to an agenda to accept the spate of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines as the living Savior of society. Oh, if only that could even be theoretically true. Unfortuantely, CDC, Fauci and apparently FDA also forgot that
“Objective The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between medical masks and cloth masks.
Setting 14 secondary-level/tertiary-level hospitals in Hanoi, Vietnam.
Participants 1607 hospital HCWs aged ≥18 years working full-time in selected high-risk wards.
Intervention Hospital wards were randomised to: medical masks, cloth masks or a control group (usual practice, which included mask wearing). Participants used the mask on every shift for 4 consecutive weeks.
Main outcome measure Clinical respiratory illness (CRI), influenza-like illness (ILI) and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection.
Results The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.
Conclusions This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.
Trial registration number Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12610000887077.”
From Ref #2
Respiratory infection is much higher among healthcare workers wearing cloth masks compared to medical masks, research shows. Cloth masks should not be used by workers in any healthcare setting, authors of the new study say.”
C. R. MacIntyre, H. Seale, T. C. Dung, N. T. Hien, P. T. Nga, A. A. Chughtai, B. Rahman, D. E. Dwyer, Q. Wang. A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ Open, 2015; 5 (4): e006577 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006577
3. Coronavirus Vaccines Cause Pathogenic Priming… and Therefore Require Phase 1 Animal Studies to Detect Disease Enhancement
This has been covered in my blog before as suggested reading, but I’ll put those findings again right here for those expecting more from our regulatory agencies. In March 2020, FDA allowed Fauci, I mean, Moderna, to skip the critical Phase 1 animal studies that led to a halth to human studies for SARS and MERS vaccines. That was a LONG time ago now (5 months). How many times over could Moderna (I mean, Fauci) have conducted the animal studies to detect pathogenic priming by now? Maybe they have! Certainly we would have head of the results if they showed no disease enhancement. Come on, we may be – collectively- stupid, but we’re not dead. Yet.
Immunization with inactivated Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus vaccine leads to lung immunopathology on challenge with live virus.“Lung mononuclear infiltrates occurred in all groups after virus challenge but with increased infiltrates that contained eosinophils and increases in the eosinophil promoting IL-5 and IL-13 cytokines only in the vaccine groups. Inactivated MERS-CoV vaccine appears to carry a hypersensitive-type lung pathology risk from MERS-CoV infection that is similar to that found with inactivated SARS-CoV vaccines from SARS-CoV infection.”https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27269431
Vaccine efficacy in senescent mice challenged with recombinant SARS-CoV bearing epidemic and zoonotic spike variants.“VRP-N vaccines not only failed to protect from homologous or heterologous challenge, but resulted in enhanced immunopathology with eosinophilic infiltrates within the lungs of SARS-CoV-challenged mice. VRP-N-induced pathology presented at day 4, peaked around day 7, and persisted through day 14, and was likely mediated by cellular immune responses.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17194199
Immunization with Modified Vaccinia Virus Ankara-Based Recombinant Vaccine against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Is Associated with Enhanced Hepatitis in Ferrets“Immunized ferrets developed a more rapid and vigorous neutralizing antibody response than control animals after challenge with SARS-CoV; however, they also exhibited strong inflammatory responses in liver tissue.”
Animal Models for SARS and MERS coronaviruses. “The concern that is extrapolated from the FIPV vaccine experience to human SARS-CoV vaccines is whether vaccine recipients will develop more severe disease if they are exposed to or infected with SARS-CoV after neutralizing antibody titers decline. The second concern is whether recipients of a SARSCoV vaccine would be at risk of developing pulmonary immunopathology following infection with an unrelated human coronavirus e.g. 229E, OC43, HKU1 or NL63 that usually causes mild, self limited disease. Although findings from preclinical evaluation have revealed these concerns, studies in animal models may not be able to provide data to confirm or allay these concerns.”https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4550498
Lab-Made Coronavirus Triggers Debate“…a study on his team’s efforts to engineer a virus with the surface protein of the SHC014 coronavirus, found in horseshoe bats in China, and the backbone of one that causes human-like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in mice. The hybrid virus could infect human airway cells and caused disease in mice…”
There are many other bits of Science that CDC, Fauci, and the FDA have forgotten – such as how to accurately count deaths, how to design an accurate PCR test. And there will no doubt be some science they would like to forget . They seem hell bent on holding society hostage with lock-downs, and mask mandates, and destruction of small businesses, depletion of retirement accounts.
We won’t forget that the disaster is largely man-made, stemming first from CDC’s flawed PCR test, fumbled attempts to contain by early contact tracing, and made much worse by a lock-down that was supposed to last two weeks. We have not forgotten that we never signed up for lock-downs of long duration that destroy our means of making a living, feeding and housing ourselves and our children. But there is a bright light coming out of the tunnel BEFORE the untested vaccines.
A Bit of Science CDC and Fauci Would Like To Ignore
Here’s a bit of Science I want YOU to help make certain NO ONE forgets. Please share Dr. Brownstein’s case series study on his protocol used on 107 COVID-19 patients with zero deaths – and only 1 hospitalization on the core protocol – with every ND, DO, DC, nurse, geriatric specialist, nursing home employee, public health official, friend, neigbor, and family member you know. Share my editorial, too.
If this virus can be so easily treated, why are we destroying America?
Pam Barker | Director of TLB Europe Reloaded Project
It seems you can’t fix stupid. Nor puppet governments.
Here, we present 3 graphs and their sources to show, as clearly as anything can, that, yes, viruses are still seasonal – they still die off or lose potency in high humidity. And whatever else might be going on out there (pockets of flare-ups? sudden mass testing that picks up meaningless trace amounts of some coronavirus or other?), the danger has well and truly passed.
Your daily reminder that the virus has dwindled away to almost nothing. This graph shows daily triage calls for 19-69 year-olds. Note no uptick during the Hyde Park BLM protests or during the “major incident” on Bournemouth Beach. (Hat tip Alistair Haimes.)
Last month, it was discovered that the COVID-19 death counts in nursing homes were greatly over-counted after the Center for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) required 15,000 nursing homes to report COVID-19 detailed data retroactively and the data became scrambled. For example, the Dellridge Health & Rehabilitation Center in New Jersey, a 96-bed facility, had 753 COVID-19 deaths, the most in the US, but the nursing home itself only reported 16 COVID-19 deaths.
When the administrator of the Saugus Rehab and Nursing Center in Saugus, Massachusetts, heard that a new Medicare website reported her facility had 794 confirmed cases of COVID-19 — the second highest in the country — and 281 cases among staff, she gasped.
“Oh my God. Where are they getting those numbers from?” said Josephine Ajayi. “That doesn’t make any sense.”
Those weren’t the numbers that her facility reported to the CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network, under new rules from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), she said.
Ajayi said her 80-bed facility actually reported 45 residents have tested positive and five residents died, although the CMS website showed no Saugus deaths. About 19 staff members tested positive for the virus, and most have returned to work, she said.
Officials at skilled nursing facilities around the country said Monday they were shocked to see their data reported inaccurately — wildly so in some cases, as at the Saugus home — on the new CMS public website launched Thursday. The numbers are scaring families, harming their reputations, and in some cases are physically impossible, given the number of beds or staff in their facilities, they said.
CMS approved an interim final rule May 1 requiring more than 15,000 nursing homes receiving Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement to report COVID data by May 31, and weekly going forward.
The data fill 56 columns detailing COVID-19 infected residents, staff, testing, and equipment, going back to at least May 1. As of Thursday, CMS said 88% of the nursing homes in the country had reported. Going forward after a grace period ended June 7, they risk fines of $1,000 and up for every week they fail to update their data.
But in many cases, nursing home officials said their data were somehow scrambled, either because nursing home personnel reported in the wrong columns, or the numbers were loaded incorrectly somewhere between the CDC and CMS.
For example, Southern Pointe Living Center in Colbert, Oklahoma, with 95 beds, was reported to have had 339 residents die of COVID-19, yet no confirmed or suspected cases.
“We have not lost anyone nor have we had a [COVID-19] case in the building,” said a woman identifying herself as an assistant at Southern Pointe but who declined to give her full name. The day after CMS released the data, on Friday, she said someone from the CDC called the facility to ask if their numbers were correct as reported, “and we told them no.”
She added, “I don’t know how that happened but that is an error on their end.” As of Tuesday morning, the posted data had not been corrected.
MedPage Today first learned of the inaccuracies shortly after publishing an article Friday on the new public database. In that article was a list (since removed) of “outliers” — those with the highest numbers of cases and deaths among residents and staff — that included Dellridge Health and Rehabilitation Center in Paramus, New Jersey. The CMS data indicated it had the most COVID-19 deaths of any nursing home in the country at 753.
That number is “insanely wrong,” Jonathan Mechaly, Dellridge’s marketing director, wrote in a frantic email. “We are a 90-bed center and have had less than 20 deaths!! How do you report such inaccurate numbers?”
After a download of the data, a quick sort of the columns easily reveals extreme totals in various categories. But no one called those nursing homes before the data were released to doublecheck, for example, when 100-bed Smith Village in Chicago was shown to have 1,105 confirmed COVID-19 cases among residents and 955 confirmed COVID-19 cases among staff, the most in the country.
“We apparently misread the instructions, which were not very clear,” Yahaira Ramirez, Smith Village’s director of clinical operations told MedPage Today. The facility has had only 38 positive cases among residents and 14 deaths, and among staff, 37 positive or suspected cases but no deaths, she said. But instead of showing up as a total, those numbers somehow appeared as if there were additional cases every day in May. No one caught the error.
It would have been helpful if someone from either agency had at least checked on the highest outliers before publishing, Ramirez said. “We’ve been trying to abide by a lot of the guidelines (from) CMS and CDC, but it’s been challenging. You talk to different people and you get a different answer. Unfortunately, I’m not surprised that they haven’t reached out.”
Asked why there appeared to be so many errors in the data, a CMS spokesman emailed this response:
“As with any new reporting program, there can be data submission errors in the beginning. In an effort to be transparent, CMS made the data collected by the CDC public as quickly as possible balancing transparency and speed against the potential of initial data errors.”
“CMS is advising nursing homes when their submitted data has not passed certain quality checks so they can review the CDC submission instructions and their data submission for accuracy. As CMS continues to analyze the data going forward we expect fewer errors as nursing home staff get used to these requirements and CMS has more time to quality check the data.”
Asked why CMS, at the very least, did not contact the highest outliers, for whom such large numbers of COVID-19 cases or deaths were highly unlikely because of their size, the spokesman did not respond.
It’s also true that CMS Administrator Seema Verma, in announcing the database’s launch, told reporters on a phone call that it would probably include inaccurate data.
The full article is here: https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/86967