• Pro-Palestinian Hackers Claim Massive Data Breach of Israeli Ministry https://www.thehackerwire.com/pro-palestinian-hackers-claim-massive-data-breach-of-israeli-ministry/
    Pro-Palestinian Hackers Claim Massive Data Breach of Israeli Ministry https://www.thehackerwire.com/pro-palestinian-hackers-claim-massive-data-breach-of-israeli-ministry/
    WWW.THEHACKERWIRE.COM
    Pro-Palestinian Hackers Claim Massive Data Breach of Israeli Ministry
    A hacktivist group known as Anonymous For Justice claims to have carried out a massive cyberattack against the servers of Israel's Ministry of Justice. In multiple online posts, the group claim they have wiped all data from the ministry's servers during several hacking operations. The Attack and
    0 Comments 0 Shares 228 Views
  • #OpIsrael 7 April - by #Anonymous
    #FreePalestine 🇵🇸 ✌️🏽
    #OpIsrael is an annual coordinated CyberAttack where hacktivists attack Israeli government and even private websites. The inaugural campaign was launched in 2013 by Anonymous on the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day
    The campaign has since been held annually
    #Anonymous
    #OpIsrael 7 April - by #Anonymous #FreePalestine 🇵🇸 ✌️🏽 #OpIsrael is an annual coordinated CyberAttack where hacktivists attack Israeli government and even private websites. The inaugural campaign was launched in 2013 by Anonymous on the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day The campaign has since been held annually #Anonymous
    0 Comments 0 Shares 808 Views
  • ‘We are the masters of the house’: Israeli channels air snuff videos featuring systematic torture of Palestinians
    Israeli TV channels aired a number of reports showing the torture and humiliation of Palestinians in Israeli prisons. The videos are consumed by the Israeli public as entertainment, revealing the sadism of Israeli society.

    Jonathan OfirMarch 6, 2024
    Screenshot from Channel 13 report on Palestinian prisoners. (Photo: Jonathan Ofir Youtube Channel)
    Screenshot from Channel 13 report on Palestinian prisoners. (Photo: Jonathan Ofir Youtube Channel)
    Over the past month, mainstream Israeli television channels have aired what can only be described as snuff films. They depict the systematic torture of Palestinians from Gaza in Israeli jails. Such videos have aired on at least three occasions — twice on Channel 14, and once on the public broadcaster, Channel 13. While Channel 14 is considered right-wing, so is about two-thirds of the Israeli public, and the more “mainstream” Channel 13 has shown no qualms about airing similar footage.

    The broadcasts follow prison officials into detention centers to document the mistreatment of prisoners, which seems to be something that the officials — and apparently the viewers — find satisfying rather than revolting. The airing of these snuff films is a demonstration of societal sadism.

    As Yumna Patel has recently reported, several rights groups have sounded the alarm over the widespread and systemic abuse that Palestinian prisoners face at the hands of the Israeli authorities. These groups’ calls have been unintentionally buttressed by Israeli soldiers’ unapologetic videos of themselves torturing or demeaning Palestinian detainees, which they boastfully post on social media. Now, it seems that the phenomenon has expanded to mainstream Israeli television.

    The two aforementioned reports on Channel 14 (threads with subtitles can be found here and here) contained footage of actual interrogation sessions during which torture was used. The Channel 13 report did not, but it exposed some of the worst prison conditions to be broadcast to the public. These conditions include forcing prisoners to live in inhumane conditions and subjecting them to torture and harassment. Here’s the 11-minute video with translated subtitles.

    Israel Channel 13 prison tour 18.2.2024
    ‘The feeling is one of pride’

    “Here, we see the cells in which the Nukhba terrorists are held,” the narrator says.

    The “Nukhba” refers to elite Hamas-led fighters who carried out the October 7 attack. In the cell, viewers notice metal bunkbeds without mattresses, and instead of a toilet, there is just a hole in the floor. The room is almost completely dark throughout the day, and prisoners have their hands and legs chained together.

    We hear attack dogs barking constantly as prisoners are made to kneel while bound and blindfolded, their heads touching the floor.

    “This is how it should be,” a guard says. “This is how a Nukhba prisoner should be…what happened on October 7 will never return.”

    In another scene, a guard shouts at prisoners as dogs continue to bark incessantly. “Heads down! Heads on the floor!” he yells.

    “There are many prisoners here that I personally saw at the [October 7] events,” a prison official says, taking pride in humiliating them. “The difference is that this time, he is afraid, shaking, with his head on the floor…no Allahu Akbar, nothing. You won’t hear a squeak from him.”

    “They have no mattresses,” says a warden shift commander. “They have nothing…we control them 100% — their food, their shackling, their sleep…[we] show them we are the masters of the house.” Even without knowing the background to that phrase, to hear him say it is chilling.

    “Masters of the house” was the election slogan of Itamar Ben-Gvir, the Jewish Power leader and current Minister of National Security. Ben-Gvir declared war on Palestinian prisoners long before October 7, and this has included shutting down bakeries that supply bread to prisoners — described by Ben-Gvir as an “indulgence” — and drastically limiting prisoners’ water use. So now it’s become much worse.

    While one is tempted to believe that all prisoners here are “Nukhba” members, it turns out that many of them aren’t even suspected of that. Rather, they were rounded up in Gaza after October 7, during mass arrests in which hundreds of Gazan men were stripped and paraded in a most sadistic demonstration of power. The mass arrests also included hundreds of women, including pregnant women detained with their babies. Israeli security officials told Haaretz that by their own estimate, “only 10 to 15 percent of the hundreds of the semi-naked and bound Gazan men arrested in the Strip during the recent days are Hamas members or those who identified with the organization.”

    Back to the Channel 13 coverage, viewers can hear the nonstop blasting of the Zionist anthem, Am Israel Hai (“the people of Israel live”).

    “The prison authorities claim that it is meant to boost the morale of the staff,” the narrator declares. “But it is clear that this is another part of the psychological warfare against the prisoners.”

    Torture, in other words.

    It’s hard to imagine the depths to which Israeli society has sunk. The official tells the Channel 13 reporter that “the feeling is one of pride.”

    The reason such sadism has become formalized as a matter of policy is because this is what the Israeli public demands. The Israeli Democracy Institute released a survey last week showing that two-thirds of Jewish Israelis oppose “the transfer of humanitarian aid to Gaza residents at this time,” even if “via international bodies that are not linked to Hamas or to UNRWA.” For right-wing voters, the opposition to aid jumps from 68% to 80%.

    This is not Israel’s Abu Ghraib moment, because when Abu Ghraib was revealed, most Americans were revolted. Israeli society, on the other hand, is thirsting for genocide. No wonder they consume such videos as entertainment on mainstream TV.

    Thanks to Tali Shapiro, B.M.@ireallyhatyou, Hilel Biton-Rosen, and Dave Reed.


    ‘We are the masters of the house’: Israeli channels air snuff videos featuring systematic torture of Palestinians

    https://mondoweiss.net/2024/03/we-are-the-masters-of-the-house-israeli-channels-air-snuff-videos-featuring-systematic-torture-of-palestinians/?utm_content=buffer5ce81&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=buffer
    ‘We are the masters of the house’: Israeli channels air snuff videos featuring systematic torture of Palestinians Israeli TV channels aired a number of reports showing the torture and humiliation of Palestinians in Israeli prisons. The videos are consumed by the Israeli public as entertainment, revealing the sadism of Israeli society. Jonathan OfirMarch 6, 2024 Screenshot from Channel 13 report on Palestinian prisoners. (Photo: Jonathan Ofir Youtube Channel) Screenshot from Channel 13 report on Palestinian prisoners. (Photo: Jonathan Ofir Youtube Channel) Over the past month, mainstream Israeli television channels have aired what can only be described as snuff films. They depict the systematic torture of Palestinians from Gaza in Israeli jails. Such videos have aired on at least three occasions — twice on Channel 14, and once on the public broadcaster, Channel 13. While Channel 14 is considered right-wing, so is about two-thirds of the Israeli public, and the more “mainstream” Channel 13 has shown no qualms about airing similar footage. The broadcasts follow prison officials into detention centers to document the mistreatment of prisoners, which seems to be something that the officials — and apparently the viewers — find satisfying rather than revolting. The airing of these snuff films is a demonstration of societal sadism. As Yumna Patel has recently reported, several rights groups have sounded the alarm over the widespread and systemic abuse that Palestinian prisoners face at the hands of the Israeli authorities. These groups’ calls have been unintentionally buttressed by Israeli soldiers’ unapologetic videos of themselves torturing or demeaning Palestinian detainees, which they boastfully post on social media. Now, it seems that the phenomenon has expanded to mainstream Israeli television. The two aforementioned reports on Channel 14 (threads with subtitles can be found here and here) contained footage of actual interrogation sessions during which torture was used. The Channel 13 report did not, but it exposed some of the worst prison conditions to be broadcast to the public. These conditions include forcing prisoners to live in inhumane conditions and subjecting them to torture and harassment. Here’s the 11-minute video with translated subtitles. Israel Channel 13 prison tour 18.2.2024 ‘The feeling is one of pride’ “Here, we see the cells in which the Nukhba terrorists are held,” the narrator says. The “Nukhba” refers to elite Hamas-led fighters who carried out the October 7 attack. In the cell, viewers notice metal bunkbeds without mattresses, and instead of a toilet, there is just a hole in the floor. The room is almost completely dark throughout the day, and prisoners have their hands and legs chained together. We hear attack dogs barking constantly as prisoners are made to kneel while bound and blindfolded, their heads touching the floor. “This is how it should be,” a guard says. “This is how a Nukhba prisoner should be…what happened on October 7 will never return.” In another scene, a guard shouts at prisoners as dogs continue to bark incessantly. “Heads down! Heads on the floor!” he yells. “There are many prisoners here that I personally saw at the [October 7] events,” a prison official says, taking pride in humiliating them. “The difference is that this time, he is afraid, shaking, with his head on the floor…no Allahu Akbar, nothing. You won’t hear a squeak from him.” “They have no mattresses,” says a warden shift commander. “They have nothing…we control them 100% — their food, their shackling, their sleep…[we] show them we are the masters of the house.” Even without knowing the background to that phrase, to hear him say it is chilling. “Masters of the house” was the election slogan of Itamar Ben-Gvir, the Jewish Power leader and current Minister of National Security. Ben-Gvir declared war on Palestinian prisoners long before October 7, and this has included shutting down bakeries that supply bread to prisoners — described by Ben-Gvir as an “indulgence” — and drastically limiting prisoners’ water use. So now it’s become much worse. While one is tempted to believe that all prisoners here are “Nukhba” members, it turns out that many of them aren’t even suspected of that. Rather, they were rounded up in Gaza after October 7, during mass arrests in which hundreds of Gazan men were stripped and paraded in a most sadistic demonstration of power. The mass arrests also included hundreds of women, including pregnant women detained with their babies. Israeli security officials told Haaretz that by their own estimate, “only 10 to 15 percent of the hundreds of the semi-naked and bound Gazan men arrested in the Strip during the recent days are Hamas members or those who identified with the organization.” Back to the Channel 13 coverage, viewers can hear the nonstop blasting of the Zionist anthem, Am Israel Hai (“the people of Israel live”). “The prison authorities claim that it is meant to boost the morale of the staff,” the narrator declares. “But it is clear that this is another part of the psychological warfare against the prisoners.” Torture, in other words. It’s hard to imagine the depths to which Israeli society has sunk. The official tells the Channel 13 reporter that “the feeling is one of pride.” The reason such sadism has become formalized as a matter of policy is because this is what the Israeli public demands. The Israeli Democracy Institute released a survey last week showing that two-thirds of Jewish Israelis oppose “the transfer of humanitarian aid to Gaza residents at this time,” even if “via international bodies that are not linked to Hamas or to UNRWA.” For right-wing voters, the opposition to aid jumps from 68% to 80%. This is not Israel’s Abu Ghraib moment, because when Abu Ghraib was revealed, most Americans were revolted. Israeli society, on the other hand, is thirsting for genocide. No wonder they consume such videos as entertainment on mainstream TV. Thanks to Tali Shapiro, B.M.@ireallyhatyou, Hilel Biton-Rosen, and Dave Reed. ‘We are the masters of the house’: Israeli channels air snuff videos featuring systematic torture of Palestinians https://mondoweiss.net/2024/03/we-are-the-masters-of-the-house-israeli-channels-air-snuff-videos-featuring-systematic-torture-of-palestinians/?utm_content=buffer5ce81&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=buffer
    MONDOWEISS.NET
    ‘We are the masters of the house’: Israeli channels air snuff videos featuring systematic torture of Palestinians
    Israeli TV channels aired a number of reports showing the torture and humiliation of Palestinians in Israeli prisons. The videos are consumed by the Israeli public as entertainment, revealing the sadism of Israeli society.
    Love
    Angry
    2
    0 Comments 0 Shares 4637 Views
  • The WHO Wants to Rule the World
    Ramesh Thakur
    The World Health Organisation (WHO) will present two new texts for adoption by its governing body, the World Health Assembly comprising delegates from 194 member states, in Geneva on 27 May–1 June. The new pandemic treaty needs a two-thirds majority for approval and, if and once adopted, will come into effect after 40 ratifications.

    The amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) can be adopted by a simple majority and will be binding on all states unless they recorded reservations by the end of last year. Because they will be changes to an existing agreement that states have already signed, the amendments do not require any follow-up ratification. The WHO describes the IHR as ‘an instrument of international law that is legally-binding’ on its 196 states parties, including the 194 WHO member states, even if they voted against it. Therein lies its promise and its threat.

    The new regime will change the WHO from a technical advisory organisation into a supra-national public health authority exercising quasi-legislative and executive powers over states; change the nature of the relationship between citizens, business enterprises, and governments domestically, and also between governments and other governments and the WHO internationally; and shift the locus of medical practice from the doctor-patient consultation in the clinic to public health bureaucrats in capital cities and WHO headquarters in Geneva and its six regional offices.

    From net zero to mass immigration and identity politics, the ‘expertocracy’ elite is in alliance with the global technocratic elite against majority national sentiment. The Covid years gave the elites a valuable lesson in how to exercise effective social control and they mean to apply it across all contentious issues.

    The changes to global health governance architecture must be understood in this light. It represents the transformation of the national security, administrative, and surveillance state into a globalised biosecurity state. But they are encountering pushback in Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, and most recently Ireland. We can but hope that the resistance will spread to rejecting the WHO power grab.

    Addressing the World Governments Summit in Dubai on 12 February, WHO Director-General (DG) Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus attacked ‘the litany of lies and conspiracy theories’ about the agreement that ‘are utterly, completely, categorically false. The pandemic agreement will not give WHO any power over any state or any individual, for that matter.’ He insisted that critics are ‘either uninformed or lying.’ Could it be instead that, relying on aides, he himself has either not read or not understood the draft? The alternative explanation for his spray at the critics is that he is gaslighting us all.

    The Gostin, Klock, and Finch Paper

    In the Hastings Center Report “Making the World Safer and Fairer in Pandemics,” published on 23 December, Lawrence Gostin, Kevin Klock, and Alexandra Finch attempt to provide the justification to underpin the proposed new IHR and treaty instruments as ‘transformative normative and financial reforms that could reimagine pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response.’

    The three authors decry the voluntary compliance under the existing ‘amorphous and unenforceable’ IHR regulations as ‘a critical shortcoming.’ And they concede that ‘While advocates have pressed for health-related human rights to be included in the pandemic agreement, the current draft does not do so.’ Directly contradicting the DG’s denial as quoted above, they describe the new treaty as ‘legally binding’. This is repeated several pages later:

    …the best way to contain transnational outbreaks is through international cooperation, led multilaterally through the WHO. That may require all states to forgo some level of sovereignty in exchange for enhanced safety and fairness.

    What gives their analysis significance is that, as explained in the paper itself, Gostin is ‘actively involved in WHO processes for a pandemic agreement and IHR reform’ as the director of the WHO Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law and a member of the WHO Review Committee on IHR amendments.

    The WHO as the World’s Guidance and Coordinating Authority

    The IHR amendments will expand the situations that constitute a public health emergency, grant the WHO additional emergency powers, and extend state duties to build ‘core capacities’ of surveillance to detect, assess, notify, and report events that could constitute an emergency.

    Under the new accords, the WHO would function as the guidance and coordinating authority for the world. The DG will become more powerful than the UN Secretary-General. The existing language of ‘should’ is replaced in many places by the imperative ‘shall,’ of non-binding recommendations with countries will ‘undertake to follow’ the guidance. And ‘full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons’ will be changed to principles of ‘equity’ and ‘inclusivity’ with different requirements for rich and poor countries, bleeding financial resources and pharmaceutical products from industrialised to developing countries.

    The WHO is first of all an international bureaucracy and only secondly a collective body of medical and health experts. Its Covid performance was not among its finest. Its credibility was badly damaged by tardiness in raising the alarm; by its acceptance and then rejection of China’s claim that there was no risk of human-human transmission; by the failure to hold China accountable for destroying evidence of the pandemic’s origins; by the initial investigation that whitewashed the origins of the virus; by flip-flops on masks and lockdowns; by ignoring the counterexample of Sweden that rejected lockdowns with no worse health outcomes and far better economic, social, and educational outcomes; and by the failure to stand up for children’s developmental, educational, social, and mental health rights and welfare.

    With a funding model where 87 percent of the budget comes from voluntary contributions from the rich countries and private donors like the Gates Foundation, and 77 percent is for activities specified by them, the WHO has effectively ‘become a system of global public health patronage’, write Ben and Molly Kingsley of the UK children’s rights campaign group UsForThem. Human Rights Watch says the process has been ‘disproportionately guided by corporate demands and the policy positions of high-income governments seeking to protect the power of private actors in health including the pharmaceutical industry.’ The victims of this Catch-22 lack of accountability will be the peoples of the world.

    Much of the new surveillance network in a model divided into pre-, in, and post-pandemic periods will be provided by private and corporate interests that will profit from the mass testing and pharmaceutical interventions. According to Forbes, the net worth of Bill Gates jumped by one-third from $96.5 billion in 2019 to $129 billion in 2022: philanthropy can be profitable. Article 15.2 of the draft pandemic treaty requires states to set up ‘no fault vaccine-injury compensation schemes,’ conferring immunity on Big Pharma against liability, thereby codifying the privatisation of profits and the socialisation of risks.

    The changes would confer extraordinary new powers on the WHO’s DG and regional directors and mandate governments to implement their recommendations. This will result in a major expansion of the international health bureaucracy under the WHO, for example new implementation and compliance committees; shift the centre of gravity from the common deadliest diseases (discussed below) to relatively rare pandemic outbreaks (five including Covid in the last 120 years); and give the WHO authority to direct resources (money, pharmaceutical products, intellectual property rights) to itself and to other governments in breach of sovereign and copyright rights.

    Considering the impact of the amendments on national decision-making and mortgaging future generations to internationally determined spending obligations, this calls for an indefinite pause in the process until parliaments have done due diligence and debated the potentially far-reaching obligations.

    Yet disappointingly, relatively few countries have expressed reservations and few parliamentarians seem at all interested. We may pay a high price for the rise of careerist politicians whose primary interest is self-advancement, ministers who ask bureaucrats to draft replies to constituents expressing concern that they often sign without reading either the original letter or the reply in their name, and officials who disdain the constraints of democratic decision-making and accountability. Ministers relying on technical advice from staffers when officials are engaged in a silent coup against elected representatives give power without responsibility to bureaucrats while relegating ministers to being in office but not in power, with political accountability sans authority.

    US President Donald Trump and Australian and UK Prime Ministers Scott Morrison and Boris Johnson were representative of national leaders who had lacked the science literacy, intellectual heft, moral clarity, and courage of conviction to stand up to their technocrats. It was a period of Yes, Prime Minister on steroids, with Sir Humphrey Appleby winning most of the guerrilla campaign waged by the permanent civil service against the transient and clueless Prime Minister Jim Hacker.

    At least some Australian, American, British, and European politicians have recently expressed concern at the WHO-centred ‘command and control’ model of a public health system, and the public spending and redistributive implications of the two proposed international instruments. US Representatives Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) warned on 5 February that ‘far too little scrutiny has been given, far too few questions asked as to what this legally binding agreement or treaty means to health policy in the United States and elsewhere.’

    Like Smith and Wenstrup, the most common criticism levelled has been that this represents a power grab at the cost of national sovereignty. Speaking in parliament in November, Australia’s Liberal Senator Alex Antic dubbed the effort a ‘WHO d’etat’.

    A more accurate reading may be that it represents collusion between the WHO and the richest countries, home to the biggest pharmaceutical companies, to dilute accountability for decisions, taken in the name of public health, that profit a narrow elite. The changes will lock in the seamless rule of the technocratic-managerial elite at both the national and the international levels. Yet the WHO edicts, although legally binding in theory, will be unenforceable against the most powerful countries in practice.

    Moreover, the new regime aims to eliminate transparency and critical scrutiny by criminalising any opinion that questions the official narrative from the WHO and governments, thereby elevating them to the status of dogma. The pandemic treaty calls for governments to tackle the ‘infodemics’ of false information, misinformation, disinformation, and even ‘too much information’ (Article 1c). This is censorship. Authorities have no right to be shielded from critical questioning of official information. Freedom of information is a cornerstone of an open and resilient society and a key means to hold authorities to public scrutiny and accountability.

    The changes are an effort to entrench and institutionalise the model of political, social, and messaging control trialled with great success during Covid. The foundational document of the international human rights regime is the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Pandemic management during Covid and in future emergencies threaten some of its core provisions regarding privacy, freedom of opinion and expression, and rights to work, education, peaceful assembly, and association.

    Worst of all, they will create a perverse incentive: the rise of an international bureaucracy whose defining purpose, existence, powers, and budgets will depend on more frequent declarations of actual or anticipated pandemic outbreaks.

    It is a basic axiom of politics that power that can be abused, will be abused – some day, somewhere, by someone. The corollary holds that power once seized is seldom surrendered back voluntarily to the people. Lockdowns, mask and vaccine mandates, travel restrictions, and all the other shenanigans and theatre of the Covid era will likely be repeated on whim. Professor Angus Dalgliesh of London’s St George’s Medical School warns that the WHO ‘wants to inflict this incompetence on us all over again but this time be in total control.’

    Covid in the Context of Africa’s Disease Burden

    In the Hastings Center report referred to earlier, Gostin, Klock, and Finch claim that ‘lower-income countries experienced larger losses and longer-lasting economic setbacks.’ This is a casual elision that shifts the blame for harmful downstream effects away from lockdowns in the futile quest to eradicate the virus, to the virus itself. The chief damage to developing countries was caused by the worldwide shutdown of social life and economic activities and the drastic reduction in international trade.

    The discreet elision aroused my curiosity on the authors’ affiliations. It came as no surprise to read that they lead the O’Neill Institute–Foundation for the National Institutes of Health project on an international instrument for pandemic prevention and preparedness.

    Gostin et al. grounded the urgency for the new accords in the claim that ‘Zoonotic pathogens…are occurring with increasing frequency, enhancing the risk of new pandemics’ and cite research to suggest a threefold increase in ‘extreme pandemics’ over the next decade. In a report entitled “Rational Policy Over Panic,” published by Leeds University in February, a team that included our own David Bell subjected claims of increasing pandemic frequency and disease burden behind the drive to adopt the new treaty and amend the existing IHR to critical scrutiny.

    Specifically, they examined and found wanting a number of assumptions and several references in eight G20, World Bank, and WHO policy documents. On the one hand, the reported increase in natural outbreaks is best explained by technologically more sophisticated diagnostic testing equipment, while the disease burden has been effectively reduced with improved surveillance, response mechanisms, and other public health interventions. Consequently there is no real urgency to rush into the new accords. Instead, governments should take all the time they need to situate pandemic risk in the wider healthcare context and formulate policy tailored to the more accurate risk and interventions matrix.


    The lockdowns were responsible for reversals of decades worth of gains in critical childhood immunisations. UNICEF and WHO estimate that 7.6 million African children under 5 missed out on vaccination in 2021 and another 11 million were under-immunised, ‘making up over 40 percent of the under-immunised and missed children globally.’ How many quality adjusted life years does that add up to, I wonder? But don’t hold your breath that anyone will be held accountable for crimes against African children.

    Earlier this month the Pan-African Epidemic and Pandemic Working Group argued that lockdowns were a ‘class-based and unscientific instrument.’ It accused the WHO of trying to reintroduce ‘classical Western colonialism through the backdoor’ in the form of the new pandemic treaty and the IHR amendments. Medical knowledge and innovations do not come solely from Western capitals and Geneva, but from people and groups who have captured the WHO agenda.

    Lockdowns had caused significant harm to low-income countries, the group said, yet the WHO wanted legal authority to compel member states to comply with its advice in future pandemics, including with respect to vaccine passports and border closures. Instead of bowing to ‘health imperialism,’ it would be preferable for African countries to set their own priorities in alleviating the disease burden of their major killer diseases like cholera, malaria, and yellow fever.

    Europe and the US, comprising a little under ten and over four percent of world population, account for nearly 18 and 17 percent, respectively, of all Covid-related deaths in the world. By contrast Asia, with nearly 60 percent of the world’s people, accounts for 23 percent of all Covid-related deaths. Meantime Africa, with more than 17 percent of global population, has recorded less than four percent of global Covid deaths (Table 1).

    According to a report on the continent’s disease burden published last year by the WHO Regional Office for Africa, Africa’s leading causes of death in 2021 were malaria (593,000 deaths), tuberculosis (501,000), and HIV/AIDS (420,000). The report does not provide the numbers for diarrhoeal deaths for Africa. There are 1.6 million such deaths globally per year, including 440,000 children under 5. And we know that most diarrhoeal deaths occur in Africa and South Asia.

    If we perform a linear extrapolation of 2021 deaths to estimate ballpark figures for the three years 2020–22 inclusive for numbers of Africans killed by these big three, approximately 1.78 million died from malaria, 1.5 million from TB, and 1.26 million from HIV/AIDS. (I exclude 2023 as Covid had faded by then, as can be seen in Table 1). By comparison, the total number of Covid-related deaths across Africa in the three years was 259,000.

    Whether or not the WHO is pursuing a policy of health colonialism, therefore, the Pan-African Epidemic and Pandemic Working Group has a point regarding the grossly exaggerated threat of Covid in the total picture of Africa’s disease burden.

    A shorter version of this was published in The Australian on 11 March

    Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
    For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.

    Author

    Ramesh Thakur, a Brownstone Institute Senior Scholar, is a former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General, and emeritus professor in the Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.

    View all posts
    Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work.

    https://brownstone.org/articles/the-who-wants-to-rule-the-world/
    The WHO Wants to Rule the World Ramesh Thakur The World Health Organisation (WHO) will present two new texts for adoption by its governing body, the World Health Assembly comprising delegates from 194 member states, in Geneva on 27 May–1 June. The new pandemic treaty needs a two-thirds majority for approval and, if and once adopted, will come into effect after 40 ratifications. The amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) can be adopted by a simple majority and will be binding on all states unless they recorded reservations by the end of last year. Because they will be changes to an existing agreement that states have already signed, the amendments do not require any follow-up ratification. The WHO describes the IHR as ‘an instrument of international law that is legally-binding’ on its 196 states parties, including the 194 WHO member states, even if they voted against it. Therein lies its promise and its threat. The new regime will change the WHO from a technical advisory organisation into a supra-national public health authority exercising quasi-legislative and executive powers over states; change the nature of the relationship between citizens, business enterprises, and governments domestically, and also between governments and other governments and the WHO internationally; and shift the locus of medical practice from the doctor-patient consultation in the clinic to public health bureaucrats in capital cities and WHO headquarters in Geneva and its six regional offices. From net zero to mass immigration and identity politics, the ‘expertocracy’ elite is in alliance with the global technocratic elite against majority national sentiment. The Covid years gave the elites a valuable lesson in how to exercise effective social control and they mean to apply it across all contentious issues. The changes to global health governance architecture must be understood in this light. It represents the transformation of the national security, administrative, and surveillance state into a globalised biosecurity state. But they are encountering pushback in Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, and most recently Ireland. We can but hope that the resistance will spread to rejecting the WHO power grab. Addressing the World Governments Summit in Dubai on 12 February, WHO Director-General (DG) Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus attacked ‘the litany of lies and conspiracy theories’ about the agreement that ‘are utterly, completely, categorically false. The pandemic agreement will not give WHO any power over any state or any individual, for that matter.’ He insisted that critics are ‘either uninformed or lying.’ Could it be instead that, relying on aides, he himself has either not read or not understood the draft? The alternative explanation for his spray at the critics is that he is gaslighting us all. The Gostin, Klock, and Finch Paper In the Hastings Center Report “Making the World Safer and Fairer in Pandemics,” published on 23 December, Lawrence Gostin, Kevin Klock, and Alexandra Finch attempt to provide the justification to underpin the proposed new IHR and treaty instruments as ‘transformative normative and financial reforms that could reimagine pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response.’ The three authors decry the voluntary compliance under the existing ‘amorphous and unenforceable’ IHR regulations as ‘a critical shortcoming.’ And they concede that ‘While advocates have pressed for health-related human rights to be included in the pandemic agreement, the current draft does not do so.’ Directly contradicting the DG’s denial as quoted above, they describe the new treaty as ‘legally binding’. This is repeated several pages later: …the best way to contain transnational outbreaks is through international cooperation, led multilaterally through the WHO. That may require all states to forgo some level of sovereignty in exchange for enhanced safety and fairness. What gives their analysis significance is that, as explained in the paper itself, Gostin is ‘actively involved in WHO processes for a pandemic agreement and IHR reform’ as the director of the WHO Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law and a member of the WHO Review Committee on IHR amendments. The WHO as the World’s Guidance and Coordinating Authority The IHR amendments will expand the situations that constitute a public health emergency, grant the WHO additional emergency powers, and extend state duties to build ‘core capacities’ of surveillance to detect, assess, notify, and report events that could constitute an emergency. Under the new accords, the WHO would function as the guidance and coordinating authority for the world. The DG will become more powerful than the UN Secretary-General. The existing language of ‘should’ is replaced in many places by the imperative ‘shall,’ of non-binding recommendations with countries will ‘undertake to follow’ the guidance. And ‘full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons’ will be changed to principles of ‘equity’ and ‘inclusivity’ with different requirements for rich and poor countries, bleeding financial resources and pharmaceutical products from industrialised to developing countries. The WHO is first of all an international bureaucracy and only secondly a collective body of medical and health experts. Its Covid performance was not among its finest. Its credibility was badly damaged by tardiness in raising the alarm; by its acceptance and then rejection of China’s claim that there was no risk of human-human transmission; by the failure to hold China accountable for destroying evidence of the pandemic’s origins; by the initial investigation that whitewashed the origins of the virus; by flip-flops on masks and lockdowns; by ignoring the counterexample of Sweden that rejected lockdowns with no worse health outcomes and far better economic, social, and educational outcomes; and by the failure to stand up for children’s developmental, educational, social, and mental health rights and welfare. With a funding model where 87 percent of the budget comes from voluntary contributions from the rich countries and private donors like the Gates Foundation, and 77 percent is for activities specified by them, the WHO has effectively ‘become a system of global public health patronage’, write Ben and Molly Kingsley of the UK children’s rights campaign group UsForThem. Human Rights Watch says the process has been ‘disproportionately guided by corporate demands and the policy positions of high-income governments seeking to protect the power of private actors in health including the pharmaceutical industry.’ The victims of this Catch-22 lack of accountability will be the peoples of the world. Much of the new surveillance network in a model divided into pre-, in, and post-pandemic periods will be provided by private and corporate interests that will profit from the mass testing and pharmaceutical interventions. According to Forbes, the net worth of Bill Gates jumped by one-third from $96.5 billion in 2019 to $129 billion in 2022: philanthropy can be profitable. Article 15.2 of the draft pandemic treaty requires states to set up ‘no fault vaccine-injury compensation schemes,’ conferring immunity on Big Pharma against liability, thereby codifying the privatisation of profits and the socialisation of risks. The changes would confer extraordinary new powers on the WHO’s DG and regional directors and mandate governments to implement their recommendations. This will result in a major expansion of the international health bureaucracy under the WHO, for example new implementation and compliance committees; shift the centre of gravity from the common deadliest diseases (discussed below) to relatively rare pandemic outbreaks (five including Covid in the last 120 years); and give the WHO authority to direct resources (money, pharmaceutical products, intellectual property rights) to itself and to other governments in breach of sovereign and copyright rights. Considering the impact of the amendments on national decision-making and mortgaging future generations to internationally determined spending obligations, this calls for an indefinite pause in the process until parliaments have done due diligence and debated the potentially far-reaching obligations. Yet disappointingly, relatively few countries have expressed reservations and few parliamentarians seem at all interested. We may pay a high price for the rise of careerist politicians whose primary interest is self-advancement, ministers who ask bureaucrats to draft replies to constituents expressing concern that they often sign without reading either the original letter or the reply in their name, and officials who disdain the constraints of democratic decision-making and accountability. Ministers relying on technical advice from staffers when officials are engaged in a silent coup against elected representatives give power without responsibility to bureaucrats while relegating ministers to being in office but not in power, with political accountability sans authority. US President Donald Trump and Australian and UK Prime Ministers Scott Morrison and Boris Johnson were representative of national leaders who had lacked the science literacy, intellectual heft, moral clarity, and courage of conviction to stand up to their technocrats. It was a period of Yes, Prime Minister on steroids, with Sir Humphrey Appleby winning most of the guerrilla campaign waged by the permanent civil service against the transient and clueless Prime Minister Jim Hacker. At least some Australian, American, British, and European politicians have recently expressed concern at the WHO-centred ‘command and control’ model of a public health system, and the public spending and redistributive implications of the two proposed international instruments. US Representatives Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) warned on 5 February that ‘far too little scrutiny has been given, far too few questions asked as to what this legally binding agreement or treaty means to health policy in the United States and elsewhere.’ Like Smith and Wenstrup, the most common criticism levelled has been that this represents a power grab at the cost of national sovereignty. Speaking in parliament in November, Australia’s Liberal Senator Alex Antic dubbed the effort a ‘WHO d’etat’. A more accurate reading may be that it represents collusion between the WHO and the richest countries, home to the biggest pharmaceutical companies, to dilute accountability for decisions, taken in the name of public health, that profit a narrow elite. The changes will lock in the seamless rule of the technocratic-managerial elite at both the national and the international levels. Yet the WHO edicts, although legally binding in theory, will be unenforceable against the most powerful countries in practice. Moreover, the new regime aims to eliminate transparency and critical scrutiny by criminalising any opinion that questions the official narrative from the WHO and governments, thereby elevating them to the status of dogma. The pandemic treaty calls for governments to tackle the ‘infodemics’ of false information, misinformation, disinformation, and even ‘too much information’ (Article 1c). This is censorship. Authorities have no right to be shielded from critical questioning of official information. Freedom of information is a cornerstone of an open and resilient society and a key means to hold authorities to public scrutiny and accountability. The changes are an effort to entrench and institutionalise the model of political, social, and messaging control trialled with great success during Covid. The foundational document of the international human rights regime is the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Pandemic management during Covid and in future emergencies threaten some of its core provisions regarding privacy, freedom of opinion and expression, and rights to work, education, peaceful assembly, and association. Worst of all, they will create a perverse incentive: the rise of an international bureaucracy whose defining purpose, existence, powers, and budgets will depend on more frequent declarations of actual or anticipated pandemic outbreaks. It is a basic axiom of politics that power that can be abused, will be abused – some day, somewhere, by someone. The corollary holds that power once seized is seldom surrendered back voluntarily to the people. Lockdowns, mask and vaccine mandates, travel restrictions, and all the other shenanigans and theatre of the Covid era will likely be repeated on whim. Professor Angus Dalgliesh of London’s St George’s Medical School warns that the WHO ‘wants to inflict this incompetence on us all over again but this time be in total control.’ Covid in the Context of Africa’s Disease Burden In the Hastings Center report referred to earlier, Gostin, Klock, and Finch claim that ‘lower-income countries experienced larger losses and longer-lasting economic setbacks.’ This is a casual elision that shifts the blame for harmful downstream effects away from lockdowns in the futile quest to eradicate the virus, to the virus itself. The chief damage to developing countries was caused by the worldwide shutdown of social life and economic activities and the drastic reduction in international trade. The discreet elision aroused my curiosity on the authors’ affiliations. It came as no surprise to read that they lead the O’Neill Institute–Foundation for the National Institutes of Health project on an international instrument for pandemic prevention and preparedness. Gostin et al. grounded the urgency for the new accords in the claim that ‘Zoonotic pathogens…are occurring with increasing frequency, enhancing the risk of new pandemics’ and cite research to suggest a threefold increase in ‘extreme pandemics’ over the next decade. In a report entitled “Rational Policy Over Panic,” published by Leeds University in February, a team that included our own David Bell subjected claims of increasing pandemic frequency and disease burden behind the drive to adopt the new treaty and amend the existing IHR to critical scrutiny. Specifically, they examined and found wanting a number of assumptions and several references in eight G20, World Bank, and WHO policy documents. On the one hand, the reported increase in natural outbreaks is best explained by technologically more sophisticated diagnostic testing equipment, while the disease burden has been effectively reduced with improved surveillance, response mechanisms, and other public health interventions. Consequently there is no real urgency to rush into the new accords. Instead, governments should take all the time they need to situate pandemic risk in the wider healthcare context and formulate policy tailored to the more accurate risk and interventions matrix. The lockdowns were responsible for reversals of decades worth of gains in critical childhood immunisations. UNICEF and WHO estimate that 7.6 million African children under 5 missed out on vaccination in 2021 and another 11 million were under-immunised, ‘making up over 40 percent of the under-immunised and missed children globally.’ How many quality adjusted life years does that add up to, I wonder? But don’t hold your breath that anyone will be held accountable for crimes against African children. Earlier this month the Pan-African Epidemic and Pandemic Working Group argued that lockdowns were a ‘class-based and unscientific instrument.’ It accused the WHO of trying to reintroduce ‘classical Western colonialism through the backdoor’ in the form of the new pandemic treaty and the IHR amendments. Medical knowledge and innovations do not come solely from Western capitals and Geneva, but from people and groups who have captured the WHO agenda. Lockdowns had caused significant harm to low-income countries, the group said, yet the WHO wanted legal authority to compel member states to comply with its advice in future pandemics, including with respect to vaccine passports and border closures. Instead of bowing to ‘health imperialism,’ it would be preferable for African countries to set their own priorities in alleviating the disease burden of their major killer diseases like cholera, malaria, and yellow fever. Europe and the US, comprising a little under ten and over four percent of world population, account for nearly 18 and 17 percent, respectively, of all Covid-related deaths in the world. By contrast Asia, with nearly 60 percent of the world’s people, accounts for 23 percent of all Covid-related deaths. Meantime Africa, with more than 17 percent of global population, has recorded less than four percent of global Covid deaths (Table 1). According to a report on the continent’s disease burden published last year by the WHO Regional Office for Africa, Africa’s leading causes of death in 2021 were malaria (593,000 deaths), tuberculosis (501,000), and HIV/AIDS (420,000). The report does not provide the numbers for diarrhoeal deaths for Africa. There are 1.6 million such deaths globally per year, including 440,000 children under 5. And we know that most diarrhoeal deaths occur in Africa and South Asia. If we perform a linear extrapolation of 2021 deaths to estimate ballpark figures for the three years 2020–22 inclusive for numbers of Africans killed by these big three, approximately 1.78 million died from malaria, 1.5 million from TB, and 1.26 million from HIV/AIDS. (I exclude 2023 as Covid had faded by then, as can be seen in Table 1). By comparison, the total number of Covid-related deaths across Africa in the three years was 259,000. Whether or not the WHO is pursuing a policy of health colonialism, therefore, the Pan-African Epidemic and Pandemic Working Group has a point regarding the grossly exaggerated threat of Covid in the total picture of Africa’s disease burden. A shorter version of this was published in The Australian on 11 March Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author. Author Ramesh Thakur, a Brownstone Institute Senior Scholar, is a former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General, and emeritus professor in the Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University. View all posts Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work. https://brownstone.org/articles/the-who-wants-to-rule-the-world/
    BROWNSTONE.ORG
    The WHO Wants to Rule the World ⋆ Brownstone Institute
    The World Health Organisation (WHO) will present two new texts for adoption by its governing body, the World Health Assembly comprising delegates from 194 member states, in Geneva on 27 May–1 June.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 8332 Views
  • TikTok Earning Hack Review | Ultimate Ticket to Extraordinary Income


    TikTok Earning Hack Review – This fantastic product includes Private Label Rights and offers incredible advantages…

    Access Premium Content for Your E-Books, Blogs, Articles, and Beyond. Brand it as Your Own and Retain 100% of the Profits. Complete Blown Ready-to-Market Sales Material for Reselling. Ready-made, High-Quality Promotional Material to Sell & Keep 100% Profit without Much Effort!

    Properly Researched & High-In-Demand, Hot Niche Aid in Revenue Generation Today. No Technical Expertise or Unique Skill is Required. Drive in Responsive Leads on Complete Auto-Pilot.

    TikTok Earning Hack Review – What can you do?

    👌 You can bundle it with other products.

    👌 You can offer it as a bonus to your existing product and make your customers happy.

    👌 You can use it for other video products or webinars.

    👌 You can distribute it to your affiliates for them to promote you.

    👌 You can also create eBooks and create multiple eBooks out of them.

    👌 You can retain paying members by adding this product to your paid membership site.

    👌 You can rename, rebrand, or customize it and claim full authorship. Everything is up to you.

    TikTok Earning Hack Review|Ultimate Ticket to Extraordinary Income
    TikTok Earning Hack Review - This fantastic product includes Private Label Rights and offers incredible advantages...
    https://dilip-review.com/tiktok-earning-hack-review/
    TikTok Earning Hack Review | Ultimate Ticket to Extraordinary Income TikTok Earning Hack Review – This fantastic product includes Private Label Rights and offers incredible advantages… Access Premium Content for Your E-Books, Blogs, Articles, and Beyond. Brand it as Your Own and Retain 100% of the Profits. Complete Blown Ready-to-Market Sales Material for Reselling. Ready-made, High-Quality Promotional Material to Sell & Keep 100% Profit without Much Effort! Properly Researched & High-In-Demand, Hot Niche Aid in Revenue Generation Today. No Technical Expertise or Unique Skill is Required. Drive in Responsive Leads on Complete Auto-Pilot. TikTok Earning Hack Review – What can you do? 👌 You can bundle it with other products. 👌 You can offer it as a bonus to your existing product and make your customers happy. 👌 You can use it for other video products or webinars. 👌 You can distribute it to your affiliates for them to promote you. 👌 You can also create eBooks and create multiple eBooks out of them. 👌 You can retain paying members by adding this product to your paid membership site. 👌 You can rename, rebrand, or customize it and claim full authorship. Everything is up to you. TikTok Earning Hack Review|Ultimate Ticket to Extraordinary Income TikTok Earning Hack Review - This fantastic product includes Private Label Rights and offers incredible advantages... https://dilip-review.com/tiktok-earning-hack-review/
    DILIP-REVIEW.COM
    TikTok Earning Hack Review|Ultimate Ticket to Extraordinary Income
    TikTok Earning Hack Review - This fantastic product includes Private Label Rights and offers incredible advantages...
    1 Comments 0 Shares 1459 Views
  • Destroying Super Immunity & Getting Rid of That Annoying Cough
    Dr. Syed Haider

    I made it through multiple upper respiratory illnesses affecting my wife and kids over the last year without getting sick myself.

    The biggest difference maker seemed to be spending a lot of time outdoors in sunny Puerto Rico.

    It’s not just about the vitamin D that you get in the afternoons, it’s also about the lack of blue light toxicity you get the rest of the day from glass filtered indoor sunlight (or artificial lights).

    Blue light in the visible spectrum needs to be balanced by the naturally present infrared and UV spectrum in natural sunlight. Unfortunately both are blocked by typical window glass.


    Anyway, my long run of seemingly bulletproof immunity came to an inglorious end when I finally succumbed to what had been plaguing my nuclear family for a couple weeks: it began with a tickle in my throat, then progressed to a mild sore throat, stuffy and runny nose, bad a cough, and fatigue. It was rough going for a day or two. Hard to sleep with all the coughing.

    My post mortem analysis of what went wrong: I visited family overseas, where they live in an apartment full of artificial light and not much direct sun. I did my best to get outside, but couldnt do it anywhere near as much as I used to at home. Then (perhaps more or less important?) I started including once a week “stress test days” (nee cheat days) on my carnivore diet. That turned into a general laxity during my regular carnivore diet days, including eating out and being exposed to ubiquitous seed oils.

    Then one day I was enjoying my meat dish at a local restaurant and decided spur of the moment (always a mistake) to try the side dish I would have normally skipped. Unfortunately it was probably the worst possible side I could have indulged in: a nightshade veggie bomb comprising tomatoes, potatoes, eggplant and various kinds of peppers.

    Nightshade vegetables are notoriously toxic (despite mainstream claims that the toxins are neutralized by cooking), especially for those with a history of autoimmune disease, or leaky gut. They are also problematic for anyone with a history of allergic disorders or MCAS. It doesn’t help that traditional methods of picking and preparation that minimized the toxicity for otherwise healthy people are no longer followed.

    Pin on Hold the tomato
    Almost immediately after consuming this side dish I started to feel that first tickle in my throat and it was a slow downhill roll from there. Took 2-3 days, during which I had enough of a chance to head it off with some high dose vitamin C, but I’m one of those people who usually prefers to let nature take its course (maybe don’t do this in our current environment of repeated COVID infections, with all the problems they can bring).

    Once the illness got started I began to notice very clearly that what I ate had an almost immediate impact on how I felt. I think it probably required the sensitization of having been strictly carnivore for weeks beforehand.

    Thank you for reading Dr. Syed Haider. This post is public so feel free to share it.

    Share

    I could tell when I ate high histamine fruits or vegetables that my symptoms would worsen significantly, I might get an instant headache, stuffy nose, worsening cough, fatigue, dizziness, and even occasional anger outbursts that had plagued me before the carnivore experiment.

    All these can be due to histamine intolerance. When you’re sick or already exposed to something that lowers your histamine tolerance, adding histamine-containing foods or those that tend to liberate histamine is just added fuel for the fire.

    Histamine Intolerance Doctor Gilbert AZ
    Anyway this has been going around (not surprising since it is winter). Some people get bad diarrhea, for others it’s the cough that’s the worst.

    If you treat this early in the first day or two you can usually cut it short within the first week. If not then many people end up being somewhat under the weather for a couple weeks and the unlucky ones have lingering symptoms for many weeks. It’s not necessarily anything new, it happened before COVID too. Now people are hyperaware of it, and for good reason, because the current iterations are often due to the COVID bioweapon which damages every organ system.

    Whether or not COVID was diagnosed you can usually treat a cough heavy post viral syndrome with key lifestyle changes like avoiding airway irritants (eg use an air filter) low or even no carb (but first try a good quality medicinal honey 1-3 teaspoons dissolved in warm water 1-3 times a day), avoiding trigger foods, plenty of direct sunlight, good sleep; supplements from mygotostack.com like vitamin C, D, zinc, quercetin, turmeric, nigella sativa; and prescription meds from mygotodoc.com like: ivermectin and LDN (we can’t prescribe codeine for cough online since its a controlled substance).

    Other effective treatments include IV vitamin C, IV ozone, HBOT, or what’s easier and nearly as effective: a home oxygen concentrator a couple hours a day,

    However one of the best and most underappreciated ways to get rid of a lingering non productive (dry) cough is simple breathwork.

    That’s because it’s not always just a persistent infection or inflammation that leads to a persistent cough, it may be that, but it is also often a disordered breathing pattern that can develop after just a couple days of illness. This pattern becomes imprinted on the nervous system and can be hard to shake. The longer you leave it unaddressed the longer it may continue. The more you cough the more likely you are to keep coughing, and the less you cough the more likely you are to stop coughing.

    Now, when most people think of breathwork they think of deep breathing exercises. But deep breathing is usually a trigger for a coughing fit rather than any kind of solution (during my long COVID illness I also found it can also worsen anxiety).

    The real fix for a persistent cough (and anxiety) due to a disordered nervous system is often in breathing less, while becoming aware of the impending urge to cough and trying to head it off and suppress it.

    Practitioners of the Buteyko breathing method have a great exercise for stopping a persistent dry cough.

    Share

    When you feel the urge to cough you press your hand over your mouth, swallow and hold your breath for 5 seconds while telling yourself you don’t need to cough. Then start breathing slow and shallow through the nose, keeping your hand over your mouth. Imagine the air going in one nostril and out the other in a circle (obviously this is not actually happening it just helps keep the breathing light and not irritating to the throat, partly a psychological phenomenon).

    Do this whenever you feel the urge to cough during the day, and you’ll see that it often works rather well and makes you more aware of what triggers the coughing. Unless there is something more serious going on (don’t nocebo yourself, just assume there is not) it usually only takes 1-3 days of this to retrain your nervous system and end the cough for good.

    You can also check out other Buteyko and pranayama yoga breathing methods (like alternate nostril breathing) for stopping a cough on YouTube:


    If there is residual inflammation, often manifested by a post nasal drip irritating the throat leading to coughing fits (easy to test if you have this, just lie down flat and see if you start coughing, or get worse, within a minute or so), it’s also important to avoid trigger foods that raise histamine or lead your own body to release histamine.

    Some common ones include: the nightshades I mentioned (tomatoes, potatoes, eggplant, all peppers), bananas, strawberries, mangoes, citrus fruits, avocado, chocolate, dairy, preserved or canned meats and fish, leftover meat and fish, lentils, beans, alcohol, tea, coffee and there may be some that are individual specific (think of any foods that in small or large quantities have caused you problems in the past).

    If you don’t go low or no carb, then also avoid grains until better as they tend to be pro inflammatory.

    Fish oil supplements have a short term anti-inflammatory effect that may lead to a longer term proinflammatory outcome. I’m not clear on all the science and implications here, but you can check out Chris Masterjohn’s work on the topic. Generally speaking it seems to be fine to eat fatty fish for the Omega 3s, but most people should probably avoid the high dose supplementation currently recommended by some groups.

    Another key lifestyle measure that works great for the post nasal drip is lifting your head at night using 2-3 pillows (or a wedge pillow - also helps with chronic reflux), and even propping yourself up against the headboard or wall behind your bed. Might be uncomfortable at first, but it’s better than a night of hacking up your lungs.

    Manage Acid Reflux & more: EZsleep Wedge| EQUANIMO
    I’ve also used pieces of chewed and softened licorice root to help cover up the irritating sensation of a post nasal drip while sleeping.

    Using a neti pot a few times a day may also help with this, and you can add things like turmeric, hydrogen peroxide, iodine, or just go with the usual salt water flush.

    If there is a persistent infection then more drastic measures will be needed including the IV methods mentioned above, and you can consider nebulization of peroxide.

    Promising studies have been done on more exotic methods of relieving a cough such as nebulizing honey, drinking a mixture of honey and coffee syrup dissolved in water, and inhaling a very dilute mixture of capsaicin (from cayenne peppers - which can help with both cough and post nasal drop, and other than snorting or otherwise breathing it in, you can also mix it with honey or water and take it orally as an antihistamine).

    Finally, the most powerful herb I know of for insomnia and anxiety is the sedative-hypnotic mulungu bark, and it is also effective in treating various kinds of coughs.

    Let me know below if you’ve gotten sick this winter, and what you swear by to get better, especially what works for a prolonged dry nagging cough.

    https://blog.mygotodoc.com/p/destroying-super-immunity-and-getting

    👉https://telegra.ph/Destroying-Super-Immunity--Getting-Rid-of-That-Annoying-Cough-03-20
    Destroying Super Immunity & Getting Rid of That Annoying Cough Dr. Syed Haider I made it through multiple upper respiratory illnesses affecting my wife and kids over the last year without getting sick myself. The biggest difference maker seemed to be spending a lot of time outdoors in sunny Puerto Rico. It’s not just about the vitamin D that you get in the afternoons, it’s also about the lack of blue light toxicity you get the rest of the day from glass filtered indoor sunlight (or artificial lights). Blue light in the visible spectrum needs to be balanced by the naturally present infrared and UV spectrum in natural sunlight. Unfortunately both are blocked by typical window glass. Anyway, my long run of seemingly bulletproof immunity came to an inglorious end when I finally succumbed to what had been plaguing my nuclear family for a couple weeks: it began with a tickle in my throat, then progressed to a mild sore throat, stuffy and runny nose, bad a cough, and fatigue. It was rough going for a day or two. Hard to sleep with all the coughing. My post mortem analysis of what went wrong: I visited family overseas, where they live in an apartment full of artificial light and not much direct sun. I did my best to get outside, but couldnt do it anywhere near as much as I used to at home. Then (perhaps more or less important?) I started including once a week “stress test days” (nee cheat days) on my carnivore diet. That turned into a general laxity during my regular carnivore diet days, including eating out and being exposed to ubiquitous seed oils. Then one day I was enjoying my meat dish at a local restaurant and decided spur of the moment (always a mistake) to try the side dish I would have normally skipped. Unfortunately it was probably the worst possible side I could have indulged in: a nightshade veggie bomb comprising tomatoes, potatoes, eggplant and various kinds of peppers. Nightshade vegetables are notoriously toxic (despite mainstream claims that the toxins are neutralized by cooking), especially for those with a history of autoimmune disease, or leaky gut. They are also problematic for anyone with a history of allergic disorders or MCAS. It doesn’t help that traditional methods of picking and preparation that minimized the toxicity for otherwise healthy people are no longer followed. Pin on Hold the tomato Almost immediately after consuming this side dish I started to feel that first tickle in my throat and it was a slow downhill roll from there. Took 2-3 days, during which I had enough of a chance to head it off with some high dose vitamin C, but I’m one of those people who usually prefers to let nature take its course (maybe don’t do this in our current environment of repeated COVID infections, with all the problems they can bring). Once the illness got started I began to notice very clearly that what I ate had an almost immediate impact on how I felt. I think it probably required the sensitization of having been strictly carnivore for weeks beforehand. Thank you for reading Dr. Syed Haider. This post is public so feel free to share it. Share I could tell when I ate high histamine fruits or vegetables that my symptoms would worsen significantly, I might get an instant headache, stuffy nose, worsening cough, fatigue, dizziness, and even occasional anger outbursts that had plagued me before the carnivore experiment. All these can be due to histamine intolerance. When you’re sick or already exposed to something that lowers your histamine tolerance, adding histamine-containing foods or those that tend to liberate histamine is just added fuel for the fire. Histamine Intolerance Doctor Gilbert AZ Anyway this has been going around (not surprising since it is winter). Some people get bad diarrhea, for others it’s the cough that’s the worst. If you treat this early in the first day or two you can usually cut it short within the first week. If not then many people end up being somewhat under the weather for a couple weeks and the unlucky ones have lingering symptoms for many weeks. It’s not necessarily anything new, it happened before COVID too. Now people are hyperaware of it, and for good reason, because the current iterations are often due to the COVID bioweapon which damages every organ system. Whether or not COVID was diagnosed you can usually treat a cough heavy post viral syndrome with key lifestyle changes like avoiding airway irritants (eg use an air filter) low or even no carb (but first try a good quality medicinal honey 1-3 teaspoons dissolved in warm water 1-3 times a day), avoiding trigger foods, plenty of direct sunlight, good sleep; supplements from mygotostack.com like vitamin C, D, zinc, quercetin, turmeric, nigella sativa; and prescription meds from mygotodoc.com like: ivermectin and LDN (we can’t prescribe codeine for cough online since its a controlled substance). Other effective treatments include IV vitamin C, IV ozone, HBOT, or what’s easier and nearly as effective: a home oxygen concentrator a couple hours a day, However one of the best and most underappreciated ways to get rid of a lingering non productive (dry) cough is simple breathwork. That’s because it’s not always just a persistent infection or inflammation that leads to a persistent cough, it may be that, but it is also often a disordered breathing pattern that can develop after just a couple days of illness. This pattern becomes imprinted on the nervous system and can be hard to shake. The longer you leave it unaddressed the longer it may continue. The more you cough the more likely you are to keep coughing, and the less you cough the more likely you are to stop coughing. Now, when most people think of breathwork they think of deep breathing exercises. But deep breathing is usually a trigger for a coughing fit rather than any kind of solution (during my long COVID illness I also found it can also worsen anxiety). The real fix for a persistent cough (and anxiety) due to a disordered nervous system is often in breathing less, while becoming aware of the impending urge to cough and trying to head it off and suppress it. Practitioners of the Buteyko breathing method have a great exercise for stopping a persistent dry cough. Share When you feel the urge to cough you press your hand over your mouth, swallow and hold your breath for 5 seconds while telling yourself you don’t need to cough. Then start breathing slow and shallow through the nose, keeping your hand over your mouth. Imagine the air going in one nostril and out the other in a circle (obviously this is not actually happening it just helps keep the breathing light and not irritating to the throat, partly a psychological phenomenon). Do this whenever you feel the urge to cough during the day, and you’ll see that it often works rather well and makes you more aware of what triggers the coughing. Unless there is something more serious going on (don’t nocebo yourself, just assume there is not) it usually only takes 1-3 days of this to retrain your nervous system and end the cough for good. You can also check out other Buteyko and pranayama yoga breathing methods (like alternate nostril breathing) for stopping a cough on YouTube: If there is residual inflammation, often manifested by a post nasal drip irritating the throat leading to coughing fits (easy to test if you have this, just lie down flat and see if you start coughing, or get worse, within a minute or so), it’s also important to avoid trigger foods that raise histamine or lead your own body to release histamine. Some common ones include: the nightshades I mentioned (tomatoes, potatoes, eggplant, all peppers), bananas, strawberries, mangoes, citrus fruits, avocado, chocolate, dairy, preserved or canned meats and fish, leftover meat and fish, lentils, beans, alcohol, tea, coffee and there may be some that are individual specific (think of any foods that in small or large quantities have caused you problems in the past). If you don’t go low or no carb, then also avoid grains until better as they tend to be pro inflammatory. Fish oil supplements have a short term anti-inflammatory effect that may lead to a longer term proinflammatory outcome. I’m not clear on all the science and implications here, but you can check out Chris Masterjohn’s work on the topic. Generally speaking it seems to be fine to eat fatty fish for the Omega 3s, but most people should probably avoid the high dose supplementation currently recommended by some groups. Another key lifestyle measure that works great for the post nasal drip is lifting your head at night using 2-3 pillows (or a wedge pillow - also helps with chronic reflux), and even propping yourself up against the headboard or wall behind your bed. Might be uncomfortable at first, but it’s better than a night of hacking up your lungs. Manage Acid Reflux & more: EZsleep Wedge| EQUANIMO I’ve also used pieces of chewed and softened licorice root to help cover up the irritating sensation of a post nasal drip while sleeping. Using a neti pot a few times a day may also help with this, and you can add things like turmeric, hydrogen peroxide, iodine, or just go with the usual salt water flush. If there is a persistent infection then more drastic measures will be needed including the IV methods mentioned above, and you can consider nebulization of peroxide. Promising studies have been done on more exotic methods of relieving a cough such as nebulizing honey, drinking a mixture of honey and coffee syrup dissolved in water, and inhaling a very dilute mixture of capsaicin (from cayenne peppers - which can help with both cough and post nasal drop, and other than snorting or otherwise breathing it in, you can also mix it with honey or water and take it orally as an antihistamine). Finally, the most powerful herb I know of for insomnia and anxiety is the sedative-hypnotic mulungu bark, and it is also effective in treating various kinds of coughs. Let me know below if you’ve gotten sick this winter, and what you swear by to get better, especially what works for a prolonged dry nagging cough. https://blog.mygotodoc.com/p/destroying-super-immunity-and-getting 👉https://telegra.ph/Destroying-Super-Immunity--Getting-Rid-of-That-Annoying-Cough-03-20
    BLOG.MYGOTODOC.COM
    Destroying Super Immunity & Getting Rid of That Annoying Cough
    I made it through multiple upper respiratory illnesses affecting my wife and kids over the last year without getting sick myself. The biggest difference maker seemed to be spending a lot of time outdoors in sunny Puerto Rico. It’s not just about the vitamin D that you get in the afternoons, it’s also about the lack of blue light toxicity you get the rest of the day from glass filtered indoor sunlight (or artificial lights).
    1 Comments 0 Shares 6333 Views
  • "WHACKED" BECAUSE THE VAX - THE 2021 MURDER OF HAITI'S PRESIDENT (SHARE)
    https://www.bitchute.com/video/xTIpcsntL3U2/
    "WHACKED" BECAUSE THE VAX - THE 2021 MURDER OF HAITI'S PRESIDENT (SHARE) https://www.bitchute.com/video/xTIpcsntL3U2/
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 313 Views
  • SATIRE – In an alternative universe Bill Gates has called for the withdrawal of all Covid-19 Vaccines
    The ExposéAugust 29, 2021
    A note from The Editor – when we first published this article we should have made it clear at the beginning that it was satire rather than at the end. We did not do this and we apologise…

    However, an investigation (which is entirely factual) into the shocking ties between Mr Bill Gates, Moderna, and the U.K. Medicine Regulator has now been published with explosive revelations into the real reason the Moderna injection has been given emergency authorisation for use in children. Please read it here and share it widely.

    INVESTIGATION – Bill Gates has an agreement with Moderna that grants him a license to their Covid-19 Vaccine; a vaccine that was produced weeks before the emergence of Covid-19
    Thank you

    Note – The following satire is fictional in that Mr. Gates has made no such speech and the Gates Foundation has not established any funds to compensate vaccine victims or to make available effective, inexpensive COVID-19 remedies. All the rest of the article is factual – W. Gelles

    In a shocking announcement, Bill Gates, billionaire Microsoft co-founder and the major force behind the COVID-19 vaccines, called for all the COVID-19 genetic-based vaccines to be taken off the market immediately.

    In an often anguished 19-minute televised speech, Gates said: “We made a terrible mistake. We wanted to protect people against a dangerous virus. But it turns out the virus is much less dangerous than we thought. And the vaccine is far more dangerous than anyone imagined.”

    “These vaccines—Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca—they’re killing people left and right—and they’re injuring some people very badly,” Gates continued, waving his hands in the air at times for dramatic effect.

    “The government’s own data shows us this is what’s happening. The CDC’s reporting system is showing, what?…around 13,000 deaths so far in the U.S. and over half a million adverse events. Well, we all know the reporting system is a sham.

    “We know that VAERS [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System] captures only around one percent of what’s going on. So we’re talking over a million deaths from these Covid vaccines, and more than 60 million people with bad side effects.”

    “This is not what we wanted. This is not acceptable,” Mr. Gates asserted.

    Wall Street shares of all the major Covid vaccine companies plummeted by 20% to 30% as Mr. Gates announced that he was joining the urgent Citizen Petition filed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense organization calling on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to immediately withdraw all the COVID vaccines from the market.

    Gates continued: “Too many people who take these vaccines drop dead…one day, two days, five days after getting the shot. Other people suffer paralysis, blindness, convulsions, heart attacks, immune system collapse, blood clots, brain inflammation, lung or kidney damage, miscarriages, autoimmune disease, multiple organ system failure, permanent profound fatigue, and many other horrible problems.

    “Of course, our Media Mouthpieces—I mean the mainstream news media, dismiss all these tragedies as ‘just a coincidence.'”

    “The reason they say that,” Gates explained, “is because of what I did at Event 201, a Coronavirus Pandemic Simulation held in New York in October 2019 just a few weeks before we announced the actual pandemic. I got all the major newspapers, TV channels, and radio stations to agree to stick with the Official Narrative—‘the vaccines are safe and effective’—and to censor anybody who questions this line of BS.

    “So the public never got to hear the evidence from hundreds of distinguished doctors and medical researchers who warned that the vaccines are dangerous and often lethal.”

    “That was a huge mistake on my part,” Gates maintained, looking weary and at times teary-eyed. “We never should have done that. People have every right to be well-informed, to get all the facts so they can make a rational decision.”

    Changing the topic as if to elicit sympathy, Mr. Gates confided: “I’ve been going through a rough time and doing a lot of soul-searching since Melinda dumped me. This divorce has caused me to take a good hard look at myself. I don’t want to be remembered as a monster who killed millions of people through deadly vaccines. I am not a monster. I am not a mass murderer. I don’t want to be remembered as a mass murderer by my family, my friends, and my company.

    “Some people have called me a sociopath or even a psychopath because of my visionary schemes to help humanity—like reducing global warming by spraying dust into the upper atmosphere, or releasing millions of genetically-modified mosquitoes to combat dengue and Zika virus.”

    “Melinda didn’t understand my dreams. She didn’t understand my relationship with Jeffrey Epstein… It was purely a casual friendship and had nothing to do with having sex with underage girls. Jeff ran a blackmail ring for Mossad, Israel’s spy agency, and I would never be so dumb as to risk putting myself in a compromising position.”

    “But getting back to these vaccines,” Mr. Gates shifted gears as he regained his composure, “These products quite frankly do not meet the legal or scientific definition of a vaccine. They’re highly experimental injections which genetically instruct a person’s body to manufacture zillions of spike proteins. The injected material travels everywhere through the bloodstream, and soon your whole body is making these damn spike proteins.

    “Now, the whistleblowers were telling us for over a year that the spike protein is a pathogen—it’s toxic and it also creates blood clots and damages multiple organs. Well, it turns out they were absolutely correct. And there’s other cutting-edge science in these vaccines that also turned out to be harmful, like a magnetic ingredient which turns people into human transmitters/receivers, but I am not at liberty to discuss these issues today, under the advice of legal counsel.”

    “We thought we were doing some really cool things with these Covid vaccines—‘actually hacking the software of life,’ as my good friend Tal Zaks, Moderna’s Chief Medical Officer, once boasted. But we went too far. We blew it,” Gates confessed in a rare admission of defeat.

    “Basically,” the Microsoft mogul conceded, “we tricked people into taking these vaccines. There was no need for them at all, since the COVID-19 respiratory virus is less deadly than the seasonal flu—and 99.9-plus percent of people recover spontaneously from infection with this virus within a few days.

    “I supported the German research group which convinced the World Health Organization to accept the PCR diagnostic test as the ‘gold standard’—when any college student knows you can’t use the PCR test to diagnose for any disease. But we ramped up the test to 35 or 40 cycles so that 95 percent of the people would get false-positives. I don’t know why I did that. Mea culpa,” Gates shrugged as he drank a glass of water.

    “To sum up,” Mr. Gates said, waving his fingers in the air, “The vaccines do NOT confer immunity, they do NOT prevent transmission of the virus. They only claim to reduce mild symptoms in infected people, and they don’t do a good job of that either, despite the inflated statistics. Countless people who get the shot are later diagnosed with COVID-19 infection. Plus, there are many inexpensive, effective remedies that are widely used around the world to defeat COVID-19. There was no need for lockdowns or masks.”

    “The whole thing is a farce, and I’m very, very, truly sorry,” Mr. Gates concluded as he dashed off the set without taking questions.

    Shortly after his speech, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation announced that it is setting up a special $50 billion fund in tandem with the vaccine manufacturers to provide fair and just compensation for Covid vaccine victims and their families. The Gates Foundation also announced it has set up a separate $50 billion fund to provide free ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, budesonide, Vitamins D, C, and B, zinc, pine needle tea, N-acetyl cysteine, and other remedies to anyone who requests these treatments.

    Hydroxychloroquine is known to be very effective in fighting COVID-19, but in order for the FDA to grant “Emergency Use Authorization” to the risky “vaccines” which failed all previous clinical trials, there had to be no other effective treatments available. So the prestigious Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine published bogus research papers to discredit hydroxychloroquine. The articles, which used fabricated data, were later retracted, but by then they had accomplished their purpose and the fake vaccines were rolled out by President Donald Trump on an unsuspecting, badly informed public.

    The Biden administration, which is relentlessly pushing for all Americans to get the dangerous injections, had no immediate reaction to Gates’s bombshell speech. President Biden was reportedly asleep in the basement of his private home.

    Note: The above satire is fictional in that Mr. Gates has made no such speech and the Gates Foundation has not established any funds to compensate vaccine victims or to make available effective, inexpensive COVID-19 remedies. All the rest of the article is factual – W. Gelles

    https://expose-news.com/2021/08/29/bill-gates-calls-for-the-withdrawal-of-all-covid-19-vaccines/


    https://telegra.ph/SATIRE--In-an-alternative-universe-Bill-Gates-has-called-for-the-withdrawal-of-all-Covid-19-Vaccines-03-11
    SATIRE – In an alternative universe Bill Gates has called for the withdrawal of all Covid-19 Vaccines The ExposéAugust 29, 2021 A note from The Editor – when we first published this article we should have made it clear at the beginning that it was satire rather than at the end. We did not do this and we apologise… However, an investigation (which is entirely factual) into the shocking ties between Mr Bill Gates, Moderna, and the U.K. Medicine Regulator has now been published with explosive revelations into the real reason the Moderna injection has been given emergency authorisation for use in children. Please read it here and share it widely. INVESTIGATION – Bill Gates has an agreement with Moderna that grants him a license to their Covid-19 Vaccine; a vaccine that was produced weeks before the emergence of Covid-19 Thank you Note – The following satire is fictional in that Mr. Gates has made no such speech and the Gates Foundation has not established any funds to compensate vaccine victims or to make available effective, inexpensive COVID-19 remedies. All the rest of the article is factual – W. Gelles In a shocking announcement, Bill Gates, billionaire Microsoft co-founder and the major force behind the COVID-19 vaccines, called for all the COVID-19 genetic-based vaccines to be taken off the market immediately. In an often anguished 19-minute televised speech, Gates said: “We made a terrible mistake. We wanted to protect people against a dangerous virus. But it turns out the virus is much less dangerous than we thought. And the vaccine is far more dangerous than anyone imagined.” “These vaccines—Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca—they’re killing people left and right—and they’re injuring some people very badly,” Gates continued, waving his hands in the air at times for dramatic effect. “The government’s own data shows us this is what’s happening. The CDC’s reporting system is showing, what?…around 13,000 deaths so far in the U.S. and over half a million adverse events. Well, we all know the reporting system is a sham. “We know that VAERS [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System] captures only around one percent of what’s going on. So we’re talking over a million deaths from these Covid vaccines, and more than 60 million people with bad side effects.” “This is not what we wanted. This is not acceptable,” Mr. Gates asserted. Wall Street shares of all the major Covid vaccine companies plummeted by 20% to 30% as Mr. Gates announced that he was joining the urgent Citizen Petition filed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense organization calling on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to immediately withdraw all the COVID vaccines from the market. Gates continued: “Too many people who take these vaccines drop dead…one day, two days, five days after getting the shot. Other people suffer paralysis, blindness, convulsions, heart attacks, immune system collapse, blood clots, brain inflammation, lung or kidney damage, miscarriages, autoimmune disease, multiple organ system failure, permanent profound fatigue, and many other horrible problems. “Of course, our Media Mouthpieces—I mean the mainstream news media, dismiss all these tragedies as ‘just a coincidence.'” “The reason they say that,” Gates explained, “is because of what I did at Event 201, a Coronavirus Pandemic Simulation held in New York in October 2019 just a few weeks before we announced the actual pandemic. I got all the major newspapers, TV channels, and radio stations to agree to stick with the Official Narrative—‘the vaccines are safe and effective’—and to censor anybody who questions this line of BS. “So the public never got to hear the evidence from hundreds of distinguished doctors and medical researchers who warned that the vaccines are dangerous and often lethal.” “That was a huge mistake on my part,” Gates maintained, looking weary and at times teary-eyed. “We never should have done that. People have every right to be well-informed, to get all the facts so they can make a rational decision.” Changing the topic as if to elicit sympathy, Mr. Gates confided: “I’ve been going through a rough time and doing a lot of soul-searching since Melinda dumped me. This divorce has caused me to take a good hard look at myself. I don’t want to be remembered as a monster who killed millions of people through deadly vaccines. I am not a monster. I am not a mass murderer. I don’t want to be remembered as a mass murderer by my family, my friends, and my company. “Some people have called me a sociopath or even a psychopath because of my visionary schemes to help humanity—like reducing global warming by spraying dust into the upper atmosphere, or releasing millions of genetically-modified mosquitoes to combat dengue and Zika virus.” “Melinda didn’t understand my dreams. She didn’t understand my relationship with Jeffrey Epstein… It was purely a casual friendship and had nothing to do with having sex with underage girls. Jeff ran a blackmail ring for Mossad, Israel’s spy agency, and I would never be so dumb as to risk putting myself in a compromising position.” “But getting back to these vaccines,” Mr. Gates shifted gears as he regained his composure, “These products quite frankly do not meet the legal or scientific definition of a vaccine. They’re highly experimental injections which genetically instruct a person’s body to manufacture zillions of spike proteins. The injected material travels everywhere through the bloodstream, and soon your whole body is making these damn spike proteins. “Now, the whistleblowers were telling us for over a year that the spike protein is a pathogen—it’s toxic and it also creates blood clots and damages multiple organs. Well, it turns out they were absolutely correct. And there’s other cutting-edge science in these vaccines that also turned out to be harmful, like a magnetic ingredient which turns people into human transmitters/receivers, but I am not at liberty to discuss these issues today, under the advice of legal counsel.” “We thought we were doing some really cool things with these Covid vaccines—‘actually hacking the software of life,’ as my good friend Tal Zaks, Moderna’s Chief Medical Officer, once boasted. But we went too far. We blew it,” Gates confessed in a rare admission of defeat. “Basically,” the Microsoft mogul conceded, “we tricked people into taking these vaccines. There was no need for them at all, since the COVID-19 respiratory virus is less deadly than the seasonal flu—and 99.9-plus percent of people recover spontaneously from infection with this virus within a few days. “I supported the German research group which convinced the World Health Organization to accept the PCR diagnostic test as the ‘gold standard’—when any college student knows you can’t use the PCR test to diagnose for any disease. But we ramped up the test to 35 or 40 cycles so that 95 percent of the people would get false-positives. I don’t know why I did that. Mea culpa,” Gates shrugged as he drank a glass of water. “To sum up,” Mr. Gates said, waving his fingers in the air, “The vaccines do NOT confer immunity, they do NOT prevent transmission of the virus. They only claim to reduce mild symptoms in infected people, and they don’t do a good job of that either, despite the inflated statistics. Countless people who get the shot are later diagnosed with COVID-19 infection. Plus, there are many inexpensive, effective remedies that are widely used around the world to defeat COVID-19. There was no need for lockdowns or masks.” “The whole thing is a farce, and I’m very, very, truly sorry,” Mr. Gates concluded as he dashed off the set without taking questions. Shortly after his speech, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation announced that it is setting up a special $50 billion fund in tandem with the vaccine manufacturers to provide fair and just compensation for Covid vaccine victims and their families. The Gates Foundation also announced it has set up a separate $50 billion fund to provide free ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, budesonide, Vitamins D, C, and B, zinc, pine needle tea, N-acetyl cysteine, and other remedies to anyone who requests these treatments. Hydroxychloroquine is known to be very effective in fighting COVID-19, but in order for the FDA to grant “Emergency Use Authorization” to the risky “vaccines” which failed all previous clinical trials, there had to be no other effective treatments available. So the prestigious Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine published bogus research papers to discredit hydroxychloroquine. The articles, which used fabricated data, were later retracted, but by then they had accomplished their purpose and the fake vaccines were rolled out by President Donald Trump on an unsuspecting, badly informed public. The Biden administration, which is relentlessly pushing for all Americans to get the dangerous injections, had no immediate reaction to Gates’s bombshell speech. President Biden was reportedly asleep in the basement of his private home. Note: The above satire is fictional in that Mr. Gates has made no such speech and the Gates Foundation has not established any funds to compensate vaccine victims or to make available effective, inexpensive COVID-19 remedies. All the rest of the article is factual – W. Gelles https://expose-news.com/2021/08/29/bill-gates-calls-for-the-withdrawal-of-all-covid-19-vaccines/ https://telegra.ph/SATIRE--In-an-alternative-universe-Bill-Gates-has-called-for-the-withdrawal-of-all-Covid-19-Vaccines-03-11
    EXPOSE-NEWS.COM
    SATIRE – In an alternative universe Bill Gates has called for the withdrawal of all Covid-19 Vaccines
    A note from The Editor – when we first published this article we should have made it clear at the beginning that it was satire rather than at the end. We did not do this and we apologise… How…
    Like
    1
    1 Comments 0 Shares 7193 Views
  • Free Amazon $100 Gift Card Codes[Real Working]

    CLICK HERE 👉 https://sites.google.com/view/get-750usd-giftcard-to-amazon/

    $100 free amazon gift card codes Free Amazon gift card codes free amazon gift card codes generator free $500 amazon gift card code amazon gift card code hack Amazon gift card generator


    #amazon
    #amazongiftcard #amazongiftcards #amazongiftcardgiveaway #amazongiveaway #freeamazongiftcard #canada #usa #usagiftcard
    Free Amazon $100 Gift Card Codes[Real Working] CLICK HERE 👉 https://sites.google.com/view/get-750usd-giftcard-to-amazon/ $100 free amazon gift card codes Free Amazon gift card codes free amazon gift card codes generator free $500 amazon gift card code amazon gift card code hack Amazon gift card generator #amazon #amazongiftcard #amazongiftcards #amazongiftcardgiveaway #amazongiveaway #freeamazongiftcard #canada #usa #usagiftcard
    0 Comments 0 Shares 2062 Views
  • CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for Covid-19 but Recommended Them Anyway
    Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness

    World Council for Health
    This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website.

    cdc masks ineffective covid feature
    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) own scientists conducted studies showing N95 respirators are no more effective at stopping viruses than surgical masks — yet the agency issued guidance contradicting those and other studies showing both types of masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, according to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker.

    The investigation, published this week in two parts on The Disinformation Chronicle, details how CDC leadership openly questioned the findings of CDC scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness.

    During the pandemic, mask advocates “shifted goalposts and demanded N95 respirators,” Thacker said, claiming they perform better than surgical masks at stopping the virus.

    If this content is important to you, share it!

    Share

    However, Thacker said CDC scientists found no difference between N95 and surgical masks in the ability to stop the spread of respiratory viruses. The findings of the CDC studies are consistent with other peer-reviewed studies on the efficacy of masks in preventing COVID-19, according to Thacker.

    “But the CDC responded by saying people can’t say that,” Thacker told The Defender.

    To shut down the controversy, the CDC, in its Jan. 23 post on preventing the transmission of pathogens in healthcare settings, warned researchers that to suggest facemasks and respirators are the same “is not scientifically correct,” Thacker wrote.

    CDC ignores own studies questioning N95, mask effectiveness

    According to Thacker, CDC guidance for controlling the spread of infections had not been updated since 2007. This prompted the CDC, in 2022, to select “a bunch of science experts,” and ask them “to update the agency’s scientific guidance to hospitals on how to control infections.”

    In November 2023, the experts produced an 80-page systematic review and meta-analysis, examining whether N95 respirators were more effective than surgical masks. The review found that while N95 respirators are better at filtering particles, the finding that they are more effective at stopping viruses “has been less conclusive.”

    The systematic review also examined the “effectiveness” of N95 respirators and surgical masks “under ‘real world’” conditions and found “no difference” between the two.

    The review also found numerous symptoms reported by N95 mask users, including: “difficulty breathing, headaches, and dizziness; skin barrier damage and itching; fatigue; and difficulty talking.”

    According to Thacker, the CDC is not pleased with these findings, suggesting in its recent update that its own scientists were wrong.

    “Although masks can provide some level of filtration, the level of filtration is not comparable to NIOSH Approved respirators,” the CDC said.

    The post also stated, “The COVID-19 pandemic has forever changed the approach we take in healthcare settings to protect healthcare personnel, patients, and others from transmission of respiratory infections.”

    More evidence contradicting the CDC’s public position came at a June 2023 CDC meeting in Atlanta, when Erin Stone, MPH, a public health analyst in the agency’s Office of Guidelines and Evidence Review, presented the findings of a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of N95 respirators and surgical masks.

    According to Stone, the data “suggests no difference” in their effectiveness.

    Yet, in November 2023 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Committee, CDC Director Mandy Cohen sidestepped questions regarding mask effectiveness and refused to deny she would reinstate mask mandates for children.

    According to Thacker, in December 2023, just six days after Cohen’s testimony, The BMJ’s Archives of Disease in Childhood journal published a study finding that “mask recommendations for children are not supported by scientific evidence.”

    “Recommending child masking does not meet the accepted practice of promulgating only medical interventions where benefits clearly outweigh harms,” the study authors noted.

    Thacker: CDC guidance based on politics, not science

    Thacker said the CDC contradicted its own findings on mask efficacy even in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    “Soon after the pandemic started, the CDC began promoting masks to stop the spread of COVID,” Thacker wrote. “And it did so despite CDC publishing a May 2020 policy study in their own journal, ‘Emerging Infectious Diseases,’ that did not find a ‘substantial effect’ for masks in stopping the transmission of respiratory viruses.”


    twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1378462317109731334
    That same month, the CDC began publicly promoting N95 respirators as a more effective means of controlling the spread of COVID-19.

    However, on its webpage promoting the superiority of N95 respirators, the CDC admitted “there’s not a whole lot of evidence that N95 respirators do in fact work better than masks at stopping viruses,” Thacker wrote.

    “Laboratory studies have demonstrated that FFRs [filtering facepiece respirators] provide greater protection against aerosols compared with surgical masks … however, the results of clinical studies have been inconclusive,” the CDC wrote, citing a 2019 study in JAMA comparing N95 respirators to masks.

    “Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza,” the JAMA study noted.


    twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1256655451195715585
    According to Thacker, the results of these studies confirm the widely accepted pre-COVID-19 scientific consensus on the ineffectiveness of masks of any kind in stopping the spread of viruses. Thacker cited statements the World Health Organization made in 2019 and the CDC’s guidance on virus control.

    In a 2020 appearance on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Dr. Anthony Fauci said that while a mask might “block a droplet” and “make people feel a little better,” it does not provide “the perfect protection that people think it is.”



    According to Thacker, “For some reason, a ‘masks work’ political movement began to grow,” despite Fauci’s statements and the findings of these studies.

    “I’m not really sure what happened or what we do next,” Thacker wrote. “But something weird took place in America where liberal elites began messaging among themselves ‘masks work.’ They then grew this into a crusade.”

    The movement was effective in getting the CDC on board with issuing mask guidance, Thacker said.

    Four years after the onset of the pandemic, the CDC now openly cheerleads for masks, despite research the agency published showing that masks don’t really protect people from catching viruses, he said.

    “And this is why the experts advising the CDC are getting all this pushback: they didn’t tell the CDC what the CDC wanted to hear,” Thacker wrote.

    Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., professor emeritus and senior research scientist in epidemiology (chronic diseases) at the Yale School of Public Health, told The Disinformation Chronicle the CDC “has succumbed to political influences.”

    Risch said:

    “It made policies for school closures in order to please the teachers’ union. Its charitable organization allows pharma to feed it hundreds of millions of dollars that would be illegal to go directly to the agency, and this gives pharma major influence on CDC policies.”

    According to Thacker, the CDC has continued to double down on guidance promoting mask efficacy. A Jan. 23 letter the agency sent to its own advisers appears to encourage them to add more mask guidance to the agency’s new guidelines for the spread of pathogens, based on the conclusion that N95 respirators are effective.

    “Too much science is forcing CDC to request a science do over,” Thacker wrote, referring to the CDC’s Jan. 23 post, which states that its new recommendations should not “be misread to suggest equivalency between facemasks and NIOSH Approved respirators, which is not scientifically correct nor the intent of the draft language.”

    Thacker said his investigation shows that “in their guidance to the CDC, experts do recommend masks as part of what they call ‘transmission-based guidance’ which the CDC defines as a second tier of infection control.” However, the CDC’s own guidance also finds that masks are effective only for “source control” — preventing an already infected person from infecting others.

    “But this isn’t what the CDC wants,” Thacker wrote. “They want the experts to write guidelines that recommend healthy people wear masks, even though research shows masks won’t really stop healthy people from getting sick.”

    “The CDC has caught the ‘masks work’ political wave and is now demanding that independent experts conform to their preferred mask dictates,” he added.

    In doing so, the CDC is rejecting science it doesn’t like, including several other non-CDC studies that have questioned mask effectiveness.

    A study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2022 found no difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in stopping the spread of COVID-19. These findings were mirrored in a January 2023 Cochrane meta-analysis on mask effectiveness.

    According to the Cochrane report, “The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection.”

    A May 2023 study published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety suggests N95 respirators may expose wearers to dangerous levels of toxic compounds linked to seizures and cancer.

    A September 2023 meta-analysis published in Clinical Research Study examined mask studies published since 2019 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).

    According to the findings of the meta-analysis:

    “MMWR publications pertaining to masks drew positive conclusions about mask effectiveness >75% of the time despite only 30% testing masks and <15% having statistically significant results. No studies were randomized, yet over half drew causal conclusions.

    “The level of evidence generated was low and the conclusions were most often unsupported by the data. Our findings raise concern about the reliability of the journal for informing health policy.”

    Real-world examples also call into question narratives regarding mask efficacy.

    Sweden, for instance, did not mandate or recommend masks for the general public during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and only did so in certain situations in the later stages of the pandemic, according to The Conversation. Yet, its total excess deaths during the first two years of the pandemic were among the lowest in Europe.”

    In 2020, Swedish state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell said, “We see no point in wearing a face mask in Sweden, not even on public transport,” adding there were “at least three heavyweight reports … which all state that the scientific evidence is weak.”

    A Swedish government commission noted low levels of excess mortality in 2020 and 2021 and said that, at most, masks should have been “recommended.”

    Soon after the report was released, a Feb. 25, 2022, Boston Herald op-ed stated that Sweden “got it right.”

    “I don’t understand what is driving the ‘masks work’ political movement,” Thacker told The Defender. “There were plenty of stories written pointing out that there isn’t much scientific evidence that masks stop respiratory virus spread.”

    “Maybe people were just scared and wanted to believe masks provide protection?” he said.

    Thacker also cited the historical precedent of the Spanish Flu epidemic in 1918, when the Red Cross campaigned for masks all across America.

    “California’s state board of health ran a study comparing towns that had mask mandates against those that did not. They found that there was no difference and published the study in the American Journal of Public Health in 1920,” Thacker said.

    “Maybe these mask campaigners need to read a little history,” he added.

    Thacker is now calling on whistleblowers inside the CDC to contact him “to discuss what is going on inside the agency.”

    “I’m talking to CDC people and hope to learn what is going on inside the agency. I plan to write more on this,” Thacker told The Defender.

    “CDC Director Mandy Cohen wants to restore trust in the agency, but that won’t happen if she keeps putting politics ahead of scientific evidence,” he said.

    If this content is important to you, share it with your network!

    Share

    This article was written by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. and originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.


    If you find value in this Substack and have the means, please consider making a contribution to support the World Council for Health. Thank you.

    Upgrade to Paid Subscription

    Refer a friend

    Donate Subscriptions

    Give Direct to WCH

    https://worldcouncilforhealth.substack.com/p/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks-ineffective

    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks_16.html
    CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for Covid-19 but Recommended Them Anyway Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness World Council for Health This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website. cdc masks ineffective covid feature The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) own scientists conducted studies showing N95 respirators are no more effective at stopping viruses than surgical masks — yet the agency issued guidance contradicting those and other studies showing both types of masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, according to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker. The investigation, published this week in two parts on The Disinformation Chronicle, details how CDC leadership openly questioned the findings of CDC scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness. During the pandemic, mask advocates “shifted goalposts and demanded N95 respirators,” Thacker said, claiming they perform better than surgical masks at stopping the virus. If this content is important to you, share it! Share However, Thacker said CDC scientists found no difference between N95 and surgical masks in the ability to stop the spread of respiratory viruses. The findings of the CDC studies are consistent with other peer-reviewed studies on the efficacy of masks in preventing COVID-19, according to Thacker. “But the CDC responded by saying people can’t say that,” Thacker told The Defender. To shut down the controversy, the CDC, in its Jan. 23 post on preventing the transmission of pathogens in healthcare settings, warned researchers that to suggest facemasks and respirators are the same “is not scientifically correct,” Thacker wrote. CDC ignores own studies questioning N95, mask effectiveness According to Thacker, CDC guidance for controlling the spread of infections had not been updated since 2007. This prompted the CDC, in 2022, to select “a bunch of science experts,” and ask them “to update the agency’s scientific guidance to hospitals on how to control infections.” In November 2023, the experts produced an 80-page systematic review and meta-analysis, examining whether N95 respirators were more effective than surgical masks. The review found that while N95 respirators are better at filtering particles, the finding that they are more effective at stopping viruses “has been less conclusive.” The systematic review also examined the “effectiveness” of N95 respirators and surgical masks “under ‘real world’” conditions and found “no difference” between the two. The review also found numerous symptoms reported by N95 mask users, including: “difficulty breathing, headaches, and dizziness; skin barrier damage and itching; fatigue; and difficulty talking.” According to Thacker, the CDC is not pleased with these findings, suggesting in its recent update that its own scientists were wrong. “Although masks can provide some level of filtration, the level of filtration is not comparable to NIOSH Approved respirators,” the CDC said. The post also stated, “The COVID-19 pandemic has forever changed the approach we take in healthcare settings to protect healthcare personnel, patients, and others from transmission of respiratory infections.” More evidence contradicting the CDC’s public position came at a June 2023 CDC meeting in Atlanta, when Erin Stone, MPH, a public health analyst in the agency’s Office of Guidelines and Evidence Review, presented the findings of a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of N95 respirators and surgical masks. According to Stone, the data “suggests no difference” in their effectiveness. Yet, in November 2023 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Committee, CDC Director Mandy Cohen sidestepped questions regarding mask effectiveness and refused to deny she would reinstate mask mandates for children. According to Thacker, in December 2023, just six days after Cohen’s testimony, The BMJ’s Archives of Disease in Childhood journal published a study finding that “mask recommendations for children are not supported by scientific evidence.” “Recommending child masking does not meet the accepted practice of promulgating only medical interventions where benefits clearly outweigh harms,” the study authors noted. Thacker: CDC guidance based on politics, not science Thacker said the CDC contradicted its own findings on mask efficacy even in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. “Soon after the pandemic started, the CDC began promoting masks to stop the spread of COVID,” Thacker wrote. “And it did so despite CDC publishing a May 2020 policy study in their own journal, ‘Emerging Infectious Diseases,’ that did not find a ‘substantial effect’ for masks in stopping the transmission of respiratory viruses.” twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1378462317109731334 That same month, the CDC began publicly promoting N95 respirators as a more effective means of controlling the spread of COVID-19. However, on its webpage promoting the superiority of N95 respirators, the CDC admitted “there’s not a whole lot of evidence that N95 respirators do in fact work better than masks at stopping viruses,” Thacker wrote. “Laboratory studies have demonstrated that FFRs [filtering facepiece respirators] provide greater protection against aerosols compared with surgical masks … however, the results of clinical studies have been inconclusive,” the CDC wrote, citing a 2019 study in JAMA comparing N95 respirators to masks. “Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza,” the JAMA study noted. twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1256655451195715585 According to Thacker, the results of these studies confirm the widely accepted pre-COVID-19 scientific consensus on the ineffectiveness of masks of any kind in stopping the spread of viruses. Thacker cited statements the World Health Organization made in 2019 and the CDC’s guidance on virus control. In a 2020 appearance on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Dr. Anthony Fauci said that while a mask might “block a droplet” and “make people feel a little better,” it does not provide “the perfect protection that people think it is.” According to Thacker, “For some reason, a ‘masks work’ political movement began to grow,” despite Fauci’s statements and the findings of these studies. “I’m not really sure what happened or what we do next,” Thacker wrote. “But something weird took place in America where liberal elites began messaging among themselves ‘masks work.’ They then grew this into a crusade.” The movement was effective in getting the CDC on board with issuing mask guidance, Thacker said. Four years after the onset of the pandemic, the CDC now openly cheerleads for masks, despite research the agency published showing that masks don’t really protect people from catching viruses, he said. “And this is why the experts advising the CDC are getting all this pushback: they didn’t tell the CDC what the CDC wanted to hear,” Thacker wrote. Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., professor emeritus and senior research scientist in epidemiology (chronic diseases) at the Yale School of Public Health, told The Disinformation Chronicle the CDC “has succumbed to political influences.” Risch said: “It made policies for school closures in order to please the teachers’ union. Its charitable organization allows pharma to feed it hundreds of millions of dollars that would be illegal to go directly to the agency, and this gives pharma major influence on CDC policies.” According to Thacker, the CDC has continued to double down on guidance promoting mask efficacy. A Jan. 23 letter the agency sent to its own advisers appears to encourage them to add more mask guidance to the agency’s new guidelines for the spread of pathogens, based on the conclusion that N95 respirators are effective. “Too much science is forcing CDC to request a science do over,” Thacker wrote, referring to the CDC’s Jan. 23 post, which states that its new recommendations should not “be misread to suggest equivalency between facemasks and NIOSH Approved respirators, which is not scientifically correct nor the intent of the draft language.” Thacker said his investigation shows that “in their guidance to the CDC, experts do recommend masks as part of what they call ‘transmission-based guidance’ which the CDC defines as a second tier of infection control.” However, the CDC’s own guidance also finds that masks are effective only for “source control” — preventing an already infected person from infecting others. “But this isn’t what the CDC wants,” Thacker wrote. “They want the experts to write guidelines that recommend healthy people wear masks, even though research shows masks won’t really stop healthy people from getting sick.” “The CDC has caught the ‘masks work’ political wave and is now demanding that independent experts conform to their preferred mask dictates,” he added. In doing so, the CDC is rejecting science it doesn’t like, including several other non-CDC studies that have questioned mask effectiveness. A study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2022 found no difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in stopping the spread of COVID-19. These findings were mirrored in a January 2023 Cochrane meta-analysis on mask effectiveness. According to the Cochrane report, “The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection.” A May 2023 study published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety suggests N95 respirators may expose wearers to dangerous levels of toxic compounds linked to seizures and cancer. A September 2023 meta-analysis published in Clinical Research Study examined mask studies published since 2019 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). According to the findings of the meta-analysis: “MMWR publications pertaining to masks drew positive conclusions about mask effectiveness >75% of the time despite only 30% testing masks and <15% having statistically significant results. No studies were randomized, yet over half drew causal conclusions. “The level of evidence generated was low and the conclusions were most often unsupported by the data. Our findings raise concern about the reliability of the journal for informing health policy.” Real-world examples also call into question narratives regarding mask efficacy. Sweden, for instance, did not mandate or recommend masks for the general public during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and only did so in certain situations in the later stages of the pandemic, according to The Conversation. Yet, its total excess deaths during the first two years of the pandemic were among the lowest in Europe.” In 2020, Swedish state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell said, “We see no point in wearing a face mask in Sweden, not even on public transport,” adding there were “at least three heavyweight reports … which all state that the scientific evidence is weak.” A Swedish government commission noted low levels of excess mortality in 2020 and 2021 and said that, at most, masks should have been “recommended.” Soon after the report was released, a Feb. 25, 2022, Boston Herald op-ed stated that Sweden “got it right.” “I don’t understand what is driving the ‘masks work’ political movement,” Thacker told The Defender. “There were plenty of stories written pointing out that there isn’t much scientific evidence that masks stop respiratory virus spread.” “Maybe people were just scared and wanted to believe masks provide protection?” he said. Thacker also cited the historical precedent of the Spanish Flu epidemic in 1918, when the Red Cross campaigned for masks all across America. “California’s state board of health ran a study comparing towns that had mask mandates against those that did not. They found that there was no difference and published the study in the American Journal of Public Health in 1920,” Thacker said. “Maybe these mask campaigners need to read a little history,” he added. Thacker is now calling on whistleblowers inside the CDC to contact him “to discuss what is going on inside the agency.” “I’m talking to CDC people and hope to learn what is going on inside the agency. I plan to write more on this,” Thacker told The Defender. “CDC Director Mandy Cohen wants to restore trust in the agency, but that won’t happen if she keeps putting politics ahead of scientific evidence,” he said. If this content is important to you, share it with your network! Share This article was written by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. and originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense. If you find value in this Substack and have the means, please consider making a contribution to support the World Council for Health. Thank you. Upgrade to Paid Subscription Refer a friend Donate Subscriptions Give Direct to WCH https://worldcouncilforhealth.substack.com/p/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks-ineffective https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks_16.html
    WORLDCOUNCILFORHEALTH.SUBSTACK.COM
    CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for Covid-19 but Recommended Them Anyway
    Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness
    0 Comments 0 Shares 17925 Views
  • How British ‘charities’ are aiding Israeli genocide in Gaza
    Thursday, 01 February 2024 7:54 AM [ Last Update: Thursday, 01 February 2024 8:33 AM ]
    By David Miller

    The genocide in Gaza is being perpetrated by the so-called ‘Israel Defense Forces’. The whole world is appalled. Yet, in the UK, there are organizations raising money to support the genocidal occupation forces.

    The Association for Israel’s Soldiers is based in occupied Palestine and claims to be the sole avenue through which donations can be made directly to IDF soldiers and IDF units. These donations come from Zionists in Palestine as well as from the US, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, France and the UK.

    The UK Friends of the Association for the Wellbeing of Israel Soldiers (AWIS) is a registered charity that is obliged by law to show public benefit. Its charitable objects include relief of need and suffering, advancement of education and provision of facilities for recreation of the occupation forces.

    It does this by providing Mobile Synagogues, recreational facilities for injured genocidaires, free holidays, free student scholarships, mobile Gym and rest and recreation facilities. Among the benefits are swimming pools including the one promoted in a video on Facebook in May last year. In the video, AWIS says they “created a swimming pool in the heart of the desert for the training base of the artillery corps.” Meanwhile, drinking water for Gaza has been cut off for more than three months.

    Each year, AWIS also puts on an “enlistment festival” for 30,000 recruits to the genocidal occupation forces.

    Guidance published by the Charity Commission states that it is a legal requirement that “any detriment or harm that results from [charitable purposes] must not outweigh the benefit.” Perhaps supporting genocide outweighs those purposes?

    Among the Trustees of the charity is Colonel Richard Kemp, a former British soldier said to have hateful views on Islam and Muslims. In December, the BBC was criticized for interviewing Kemp without reference to his role as a UK-AWIS trustee. In one recent interview with a pro-Israel blog, Kemp was quoted as describing the killing of civilians in Gaza as “necessary”.

    Another trustee is Josh Swidler, who is in the financial industry at a firm called Teamshares. Emphasizing the link between Zionists and Islamophobia, it turns out that Swidler was formerly one of the two directors of Henry Jackson Society Inc., the US fundraising arm of the Islamophobic British think tank.

    Research for Palestine Declassified, where I am the producer, has traced around twenty British charities that have donated to UK AWIS over the last twenty years. When we examined them we found that they tend to donate to a variety of Zionist causes. In particular, we looked to see which of the recipients directly supported the occupation forces, the so-called “Israel Defense Forces”, illegal settlements, Jewish supremacist sects, or Islamophobic think tanks. These four categories are a sort of Zionist funding bingo. Our research is presented in a table on our investigative Wiki database Powerbase under the title: “UK AWIS - supporters”. The data points there also link to profiles of each of the charities on the Powerbase website as well as the principal individuals involved and how they made their money. The list of charities is as follows:

    A. M. Charitable Trust
    C H (1980) Charitable Trust
    David and Ruth Lewis Family Charitable Trust
    Denise Cohen Charitable Trust
    G. R. P. Charitable Trust
    Gerald and Gail Ronson Family Foundation
    Jack Goldhill Charitable Trust
    Lawson Beckman Charitable Trust
    Loftus Charitable Trust
    Family Foundations Trust
    R and S Cohen Foundation
    Rosenblatt Family Charitable Trust
    Stanley and Zea Lewis Family Foundation
    The J E Joseph Charitable Trust
    The Locker Foundation
    The Maurice Hatter Foundation
    The Peltz Trust (Dissolved June 2023)
    The Phillips and Rubens Charitable Trust
    The Phillips Family Charitable Trust
    Wigoder Family Foundation
    Of the twenty charities we have named which donate to AWIS, five in total have a “full house” sending money to at least one of each of the four categories of funding. We discuss these here at greater length.

    Gerald and Gail Ronson Family Foundation which was created by Gerald Ronson, the convicted fraudster who runs Rontec, a company that operates over 250 BP and Esso service stations in the UK. These should be an urgent target for the BDS movement.
    Ronson also set up the Community Security Trust that runs point of the Zionist regime in the UK, spies on anti-Zionist Jews and deliberately confuses anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in line with the policies of the Zionist regime. Ronson has collaborated with Mossad for decades, through the CST (created in 1994) and before that its predecessor, the Group Relations Educational Trust. One of the charitable objects of the CST is that it will ‘promote research’ and ‘promote public education about’ extremism. In practice, however, Ronson promotes extremism via his family foundation. Among recipients of funding, in addition to AWIS, are:

    The extreme Chabad sect, which Ronson has been supporting for over 40 years.
    The Jewish National Fund and the Jerusalem Foundation, both of which are engaged in supporting ethnic cleansing and illegal settlement activity in Palestine.
    Islamophobic think tanks Civitas and Policy Exchange.
    These donations are further evidence that Ronson in practice supports extremism and genocide, rather than opposing them.

    Loftus Charitable Trust, set up by the Loftus family, which made its money from the watchmaking firm Accurist. The family sold the firm to Sekonda in 2014. As well as AWIS, it also funds the extremist Zionist sect Chabad Lubavitch and the Islamophobic think tank Henry Jackson Society. An interesting sign of the small and connected world of the Zionist business class is that the owner of Time Products, the parent of Sekonda to which the Loftus family sold Accurist, is one Marcus Margulies. His family foundation also funds illegal settlements via the Jerusalem Foundation, to which it gave £2.25 million in 2021. The Loftus Trust also gives to a long list of genocidal Zionist groups including the Community Security Trust, Jewish Leadership Council, Mitzvah Day, Stand With Us, UK Friends of IDC (the only private university in ‘Israel’), UKLFI Charitable Trust (which supports the lawfare group UK Lawyers for Israel), Union of Jewish Students, United Jewish Israel Appeal, Zionist Federation
    David and Ruth Lewis Family Charitable Trust, set up by the Lewis family which owns the River Island clothing chain. The charity also funds Islamophobic think tank, Policy Exchange and illegal settlements via the Jerusalem Foundation and the Jewish National Fund. In addition, the trust funds a range of extremist Zionist groups including Campaign Against Antisemitism, Community Security Trust, Jewish Leadership Council, Palestinian Media Watch, One Voice Europe, and United Jewish Israel Appeal.
    The Family Foundations Trust, set up by the UK property investor Richard Mintz. The charity has funded UK AWIS and another charity supporting the IDF – Beit Halochem, which we will discuss below. It has also funded the extremist sect Chabad-Lubavitch, the Islamophobic think tank Henry Jackson Society, and the Community Security Trust. Richard’s son and charity trustee Joshua co-founded the website Friend-a-Soldier, an online platform where soldiers can become ‘digital ambassadors’ for the occupation forces.
    Phillips & Rubens Charitable Trust, set up in 1969 by the accountant Michael Phillips and his wife Ruth. Phillips was at that time a partner in the accountancy firm Hacker, Rubens, Phillips & Young, which he ran with the late Stuart Young. Stuart Young would later be appointed chairman of the BBC by Margaret Thatcher, and was the brother of David (later Lord) Young who at one time chaired the board of trustees of The Peter Cruddas Foundation, which has funded the anti-Muslim think tank Policy Exchange. Lord Young and Michael Phillips were also both trustees of the Stuart Young Foundation along with the solicitor Martin Paisner, who is also a trustee of the Phillips & Rubens Charitable Trust and a large number of other Zionist and/or conservative foundations. The charity has donated to the occupation forces via AWIS from as early as 2009. It has also donated to British ORT, an “education” grouping that trains staff both in Israeli arms firms and in the occupation forces in “Israel”. It supports illegal settlements and ethnic cleansing in East al-Quds (Jerusalem) via the Jerusalem Foundation and Yad Sarah, and supports the Jewish supremacist Lubavitch Foundation and the following Islamophobic think tanks: Centre for Social Cohesion, Civitas, Henry Jackson Society. Naturally, it also supports a range of (Zionist) Synagogues (e.g. United Synagogue) and lobby groups including the United Jewish Israel Appeal and the Union of Jewish Students.
    UK AWIS is already under investigation by the UK charity regulator the Charity Commission. The investigation should widen to include the nexus of genocide-supporting charities revealed here. They should be shut down by the Charity Commission.

    In addition to AWIS, Zionist occupation forces are provided with millions in funding every year by other charities. These charities are almost wholly unknown.

    Palestine Declassified has unearthed new details on one of these charities called Beit Halochem. It is dedicated to raising money for what it calls ‘our’ heroes who have ‘fought’ to ‘protect the state of Israel’ – meaning members of the genocidal occupation forces currently engaged in mass killings in Gaza and throughout Palestine.

    Charitable objectives of the charity include the relief of ‘Adverse physical and mental effects suffered by individuals in Israel’. It doesn’t say so, explicitly, but it’s clear that the individuals noted do not include Palestinian civilians. As Beit Halochem says, its name ‘literally means “House of Warriors”.’

    This racism in the application of its ‘public benefit’ is one reason why this charity should be shut down by the UK Charity Commission.

    Another is that it violates the harm principle – the harm of supporting genocide clearly outweighs the benefit of rehabilitation of injured genocidaires.

    The Chairman of the charity is Andrew Wolfson, of the hugely wealthy Wolfson family. The family is best known for its ownership of the Next retail empire. Here is a picture of him with the genocidal president of ‘Israel’, Isaac Herzog, and the extremist advocate of the settler movement, the ambassador to London Tzipi Hotevely.

    The Charles Wolfson Charitable Trust is named after his grandfather who died in 1970. Other trustees include his brother (Lord) Simon Wolfson, the Chief Executive of Next plc, and (Lord) Jon Mendelsohn, a key Israel lobby actor. The charity has donated over £600,000 to Beit Halochem since 2018.

    The charity also helps to encourage racism against Muslims by funding Islamophobic think tanks such as Civitas and Policy Exchange. It also funds the Jerusalem Foundation which is directly engaged in settlement activity and ethnic cleansing in East Al-Quds.

    Research for Palestine Declassified reveals that Beit Halochem receives funds and support from a range of other Zionist family foundations including the aforementioned Denise Cohen Charitable Trust, Family Foundations Trust, Gerald and Gail Ronson Family Foundation, Loftus Charitable Trust, and The Locker Foundation, all of which also fund UK AWIS. Other charities involved include The Pears Family Charitable Foundation, Exilarch’s Foundation and Bluston Charitable Settlement. Here are some details on each of these three charities:

    The Pears Family Charitable Foundation is run by the Pears brothers once voted the worst landlord in the UK by viewers of a BBC consumer program. Their charity also funds Islamophobic think tank Civitas and Policy Exchange, the Zionist Council of Christians and Jews, the Jewish Leadership Council, the Union of Jewish Students, the United Jewish Israel Appeal, and normalizing charities including Mitzvah Day UK, Solutions Not Sides, The Abraham Fund Initiatives. It has also funded the extreme ultra-Zionist Chabad sect, recently in the news for the illegally dug tunnels underneath their global HQ in New York.
    The Exilarch’s Foundation is run by David Dangoor, the property magnate who runs property firm Monopro which registered £121.9m assets in 2017-18. His foundation also funds the Islamophobic think tank Henry Jackson Society and ethnic cleansing in East al-Quds, via the Jerusalem Foundation as well as the Community Security Trust, the Faith and Belief Forum, the Tony Blair Institute, the Union of Jewish Students, the pro-Israel Jewish Leadership Council and the United Jewish Israel Appeal, the largest Zionist charity in the country.
    Bluston Charitable Settlement is run by Anna Josse, who co-runs private equity firm Regent Capital having established and run the Zionist foundation the New Israel Fund UK in the 1990s. She also helps to run Prism the Gift Fund which is a charity that operates and acts for a range of Zionist and other charities. Josse is a Manchester University graduate (after a stunt at a seminary in Israel) and former JSoc chair. She also worked at the Social Market Foundation think-tank. In addition to funding genocide via Beit Halochem, Bluston funds ethnic cleansing via the Jerusalem Foundation in occupied al-Quds and the Jewish National Fund.
    Among the testimonials on the Beit Halochem UK website is one from Ian Austin, the extreme Zionist and former Labour MP who has displayed a profile picture on X referring to Gaza with the words “Let Israel finish the job”.

    There are also tributes from the Board of Deputies, the Chief Rabbi and even Israel’s settler-supporting genocidal ambassador to the UK Tzipi Hotevely.

    Overall, Beit Halochem is devoted to supporting the genocidal Israel occupation forces in Gaza in what appears to be breaches of UK charity law.

    We will pass the evidence we have unearthed to the UK Charity Commission.

    https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2024/02/01/719268/How-British-charities-aiding-Israeli-genocide-Gaza

    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/how-british-charities-are-aiding.html
    How British ‘charities’ are aiding Israeli genocide in Gaza Thursday, 01 February 2024 7:54 AM [ Last Update: Thursday, 01 February 2024 8:33 AM ] By David Miller The genocide in Gaza is being perpetrated by the so-called ‘Israel Defense Forces’. The whole world is appalled. Yet, in the UK, there are organizations raising money to support the genocidal occupation forces. The Association for Israel’s Soldiers is based in occupied Palestine and claims to be the sole avenue through which donations can be made directly to IDF soldiers and IDF units. These donations come from Zionists in Palestine as well as from the US, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, France and the UK. The UK Friends of the Association for the Wellbeing of Israel Soldiers (AWIS) is a registered charity that is obliged by law to show public benefit. Its charitable objects include relief of need and suffering, advancement of education and provision of facilities for recreation of the occupation forces. It does this by providing Mobile Synagogues, recreational facilities for injured genocidaires, free holidays, free student scholarships, mobile Gym and rest and recreation facilities. Among the benefits are swimming pools including the one promoted in a video on Facebook in May last year. In the video, AWIS says they “created a swimming pool in the heart of the desert for the training base of the artillery corps.” Meanwhile, drinking water for Gaza has been cut off for more than three months. Each year, AWIS also puts on an “enlistment festival” for 30,000 recruits to the genocidal occupation forces. Guidance published by the Charity Commission states that it is a legal requirement that “any detriment or harm that results from [charitable purposes] must not outweigh the benefit.” Perhaps supporting genocide outweighs those purposes? Among the Trustees of the charity is Colonel Richard Kemp, a former British soldier said to have hateful views on Islam and Muslims. In December, the BBC was criticized for interviewing Kemp without reference to his role as a UK-AWIS trustee. In one recent interview with a pro-Israel blog, Kemp was quoted as describing the killing of civilians in Gaza as “necessary”. Another trustee is Josh Swidler, who is in the financial industry at a firm called Teamshares. Emphasizing the link between Zionists and Islamophobia, it turns out that Swidler was formerly one of the two directors of Henry Jackson Society Inc., the US fundraising arm of the Islamophobic British think tank. Research for Palestine Declassified, where I am the producer, has traced around twenty British charities that have donated to UK AWIS over the last twenty years. When we examined them we found that they tend to donate to a variety of Zionist causes. In particular, we looked to see which of the recipients directly supported the occupation forces, the so-called “Israel Defense Forces”, illegal settlements, Jewish supremacist sects, or Islamophobic think tanks. These four categories are a sort of Zionist funding bingo. Our research is presented in a table on our investigative Wiki database Powerbase under the title: “UK AWIS - supporters”. The data points there also link to profiles of each of the charities on the Powerbase website as well as the principal individuals involved and how they made their money. The list of charities is as follows: A. M. Charitable Trust C H (1980) Charitable Trust David and Ruth Lewis Family Charitable Trust Denise Cohen Charitable Trust G. R. P. Charitable Trust Gerald and Gail Ronson Family Foundation Jack Goldhill Charitable Trust Lawson Beckman Charitable Trust Loftus Charitable Trust Family Foundations Trust R and S Cohen Foundation Rosenblatt Family Charitable Trust Stanley and Zea Lewis Family Foundation The J E Joseph Charitable Trust The Locker Foundation The Maurice Hatter Foundation The Peltz Trust (Dissolved June 2023) The Phillips and Rubens Charitable Trust The Phillips Family Charitable Trust Wigoder Family Foundation Of the twenty charities we have named which donate to AWIS, five in total have a “full house” sending money to at least one of each of the four categories of funding. We discuss these here at greater length. Gerald and Gail Ronson Family Foundation which was created by Gerald Ronson, the convicted fraudster who runs Rontec, a company that operates over 250 BP and Esso service stations in the UK. These should be an urgent target for the BDS movement. Ronson also set up the Community Security Trust that runs point of the Zionist regime in the UK, spies on anti-Zionist Jews and deliberately confuses anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in line with the policies of the Zionist regime. Ronson has collaborated with Mossad for decades, through the CST (created in 1994) and before that its predecessor, the Group Relations Educational Trust. One of the charitable objects of the CST is that it will ‘promote research’ and ‘promote public education about’ extremism. In practice, however, Ronson promotes extremism via his family foundation. Among recipients of funding, in addition to AWIS, are: The extreme Chabad sect, which Ronson has been supporting for over 40 years. The Jewish National Fund and the Jerusalem Foundation, both of which are engaged in supporting ethnic cleansing and illegal settlement activity in Palestine. Islamophobic think tanks Civitas and Policy Exchange. These donations are further evidence that Ronson in practice supports extremism and genocide, rather than opposing them. Loftus Charitable Trust, set up by the Loftus family, which made its money from the watchmaking firm Accurist. The family sold the firm to Sekonda in 2014. As well as AWIS, it also funds the extremist Zionist sect Chabad Lubavitch and the Islamophobic think tank Henry Jackson Society. An interesting sign of the small and connected world of the Zionist business class is that the owner of Time Products, the parent of Sekonda to which the Loftus family sold Accurist, is one Marcus Margulies. His family foundation also funds illegal settlements via the Jerusalem Foundation, to which it gave £2.25 million in 2021. The Loftus Trust also gives to a long list of genocidal Zionist groups including the Community Security Trust, Jewish Leadership Council, Mitzvah Day, Stand With Us, UK Friends of IDC (the only private university in ‘Israel’), UKLFI Charitable Trust (which supports the lawfare group UK Lawyers for Israel), Union of Jewish Students, United Jewish Israel Appeal, Zionist Federation David and Ruth Lewis Family Charitable Trust, set up by the Lewis family which owns the River Island clothing chain. The charity also funds Islamophobic think tank, Policy Exchange and illegal settlements via the Jerusalem Foundation and the Jewish National Fund. In addition, the trust funds a range of extremist Zionist groups including Campaign Against Antisemitism, Community Security Trust, Jewish Leadership Council, Palestinian Media Watch, One Voice Europe, and United Jewish Israel Appeal. The Family Foundations Trust, set up by the UK property investor Richard Mintz. The charity has funded UK AWIS and another charity supporting the IDF – Beit Halochem, which we will discuss below. It has also funded the extremist sect Chabad-Lubavitch, the Islamophobic think tank Henry Jackson Society, and the Community Security Trust. Richard’s son and charity trustee Joshua co-founded the website Friend-a-Soldier, an online platform where soldiers can become ‘digital ambassadors’ for the occupation forces. Phillips & Rubens Charitable Trust, set up in 1969 by the accountant Michael Phillips and his wife Ruth. Phillips was at that time a partner in the accountancy firm Hacker, Rubens, Phillips & Young, which he ran with the late Stuart Young. Stuart Young would later be appointed chairman of the BBC by Margaret Thatcher, and was the brother of David (later Lord) Young who at one time chaired the board of trustees of The Peter Cruddas Foundation, which has funded the anti-Muslim think tank Policy Exchange. Lord Young and Michael Phillips were also both trustees of the Stuart Young Foundation along with the solicitor Martin Paisner, who is also a trustee of the Phillips & Rubens Charitable Trust and a large number of other Zionist and/or conservative foundations. The charity has donated to the occupation forces via AWIS from as early as 2009. It has also donated to British ORT, an “education” grouping that trains staff both in Israeli arms firms and in the occupation forces in “Israel”. It supports illegal settlements and ethnic cleansing in East al-Quds (Jerusalem) via the Jerusalem Foundation and Yad Sarah, and supports the Jewish supremacist Lubavitch Foundation and the following Islamophobic think tanks: Centre for Social Cohesion, Civitas, Henry Jackson Society. Naturally, it also supports a range of (Zionist) Synagogues (e.g. United Synagogue) and lobby groups including the United Jewish Israel Appeal and the Union of Jewish Students. UK AWIS is already under investigation by the UK charity regulator the Charity Commission. The investigation should widen to include the nexus of genocide-supporting charities revealed here. They should be shut down by the Charity Commission. In addition to AWIS, Zionist occupation forces are provided with millions in funding every year by other charities. These charities are almost wholly unknown. Palestine Declassified has unearthed new details on one of these charities called Beit Halochem. It is dedicated to raising money for what it calls ‘our’ heroes who have ‘fought’ to ‘protect the state of Israel’ – meaning members of the genocidal occupation forces currently engaged in mass killings in Gaza and throughout Palestine. Charitable objectives of the charity include the relief of ‘Adverse physical and mental effects suffered by individuals in Israel’. It doesn’t say so, explicitly, but it’s clear that the individuals noted do not include Palestinian civilians. As Beit Halochem says, its name ‘literally means “House of Warriors”.’ This racism in the application of its ‘public benefit’ is one reason why this charity should be shut down by the UK Charity Commission. Another is that it violates the harm principle – the harm of supporting genocide clearly outweighs the benefit of rehabilitation of injured genocidaires. The Chairman of the charity is Andrew Wolfson, of the hugely wealthy Wolfson family. The family is best known for its ownership of the Next retail empire. Here is a picture of him with the genocidal president of ‘Israel’, Isaac Herzog, and the extremist advocate of the settler movement, the ambassador to London Tzipi Hotevely. The Charles Wolfson Charitable Trust is named after his grandfather who died in 1970. Other trustees include his brother (Lord) Simon Wolfson, the Chief Executive of Next plc, and (Lord) Jon Mendelsohn, a key Israel lobby actor. The charity has donated over £600,000 to Beit Halochem since 2018. The charity also helps to encourage racism against Muslims by funding Islamophobic think tanks such as Civitas and Policy Exchange. It also funds the Jerusalem Foundation which is directly engaged in settlement activity and ethnic cleansing in East Al-Quds. Research for Palestine Declassified reveals that Beit Halochem receives funds and support from a range of other Zionist family foundations including the aforementioned Denise Cohen Charitable Trust, Family Foundations Trust, Gerald and Gail Ronson Family Foundation, Loftus Charitable Trust, and The Locker Foundation, all of which also fund UK AWIS. Other charities involved include The Pears Family Charitable Foundation, Exilarch’s Foundation and Bluston Charitable Settlement. Here are some details on each of these three charities: The Pears Family Charitable Foundation is run by the Pears brothers once voted the worst landlord in the UK by viewers of a BBC consumer program. Their charity also funds Islamophobic think tank Civitas and Policy Exchange, the Zionist Council of Christians and Jews, the Jewish Leadership Council, the Union of Jewish Students, the United Jewish Israel Appeal, and normalizing charities including Mitzvah Day UK, Solutions Not Sides, The Abraham Fund Initiatives. It has also funded the extreme ultra-Zionist Chabad sect, recently in the news for the illegally dug tunnels underneath their global HQ in New York. The Exilarch’s Foundation is run by David Dangoor, the property magnate who runs property firm Monopro which registered £121.9m assets in 2017-18. His foundation also funds the Islamophobic think tank Henry Jackson Society and ethnic cleansing in East al-Quds, via the Jerusalem Foundation as well as the Community Security Trust, the Faith and Belief Forum, the Tony Blair Institute, the Union of Jewish Students, the pro-Israel Jewish Leadership Council and the United Jewish Israel Appeal, the largest Zionist charity in the country. Bluston Charitable Settlement is run by Anna Josse, who co-runs private equity firm Regent Capital having established and run the Zionist foundation the New Israel Fund UK in the 1990s. She also helps to run Prism the Gift Fund which is a charity that operates and acts for a range of Zionist and other charities. Josse is a Manchester University graduate (after a stunt at a seminary in Israel) and former JSoc chair. She also worked at the Social Market Foundation think-tank. In addition to funding genocide via Beit Halochem, Bluston funds ethnic cleansing via the Jerusalem Foundation in occupied al-Quds and the Jewish National Fund. Among the testimonials on the Beit Halochem UK website is one from Ian Austin, the extreme Zionist and former Labour MP who has displayed a profile picture on X referring to Gaza with the words “Let Israel finish the job”. There are also tributes from the Board of Deputies, the Chief Rabbi and even Israel’s settler-supporting genocidal ambassador to the UK Tzipi Hotevely. Overall, Beit Halochem is devoted to supporting the genocidal Israel occupation forces in Gaza in what appears to be breaches of UK charity law. We will pass the evidence we have unearthed to the UK Charity Commission. https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2024/02/01/719268/How-British-charities-aiding-Israeli-genocide-Gaza https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/how-british-charities-are-aiding.html
    WWW.PRESSTV.IR
    How British ‘charities’ are aiding Israeli genocide in Gaza
    The genocide in Gaza is being perpetrated by the so called ‘Israel Defense Forces’. The whole world is appalled. Yet, in the UK, there are organizations raising money to support the genocidal occupation forces.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 19907 Views
  • 🚨 Moderna is Planning Another COVID Campaign Starting April 2025

    💉The COVID-19 vaccine industry is in trouble, with Big Pharma players such as Pfizer and Moderna undergoing significant turbulence. The departure of key sales executives further exacerbates the challenges faced by these companies.

    Endpoints News reports: "[Moderna] reaffirmed its focus on driving Covid-19 and soon RSV vaccine sales, though the former’s sales have been challenged by waning demand. Moderna said last month that it expects Covid sales to “hit a low point” in 2024, while Pfizer recently slashed expectations for its Comirnaty shot by $2 billion."

    "Pfizer also announced an executive shake-up on Tuesday. Chief commercial officer and global biopharma president Angela Hwang will depart after 27 years at the pharma giant as the company creates two non-oncology commercial units.

    …the company prepares to launch its RSV vaccine in 2024 and promises to deliver “multiple products per year from 2025 forward.” The company stuck to its full-year 2023 sales guidance of $6 billion to $8 billion on its latest quarterly call, but said the low end is more realistic, also noting a $1.3 billion write-down for “excess and obsolete” Covid product. Executives expect 2024 revenue to be around $4 billion."

    "However, according to my secret sources, it appears that after an anticipated “low point” in 2024, Moderna expects that covid vaccine volume will steeply ramp up again starting in April 2025. According to an insider (don’t ask me how I got this): Moderna is preparing to launch 15 mRNA products in the next 5 years. Up to four of those could come by 2025," revealed Sasha Latypova, a former pharmaceutical industry executive with 25 years experience in various roles. Her clients included Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, AstraZeneca, GSK, and more.

    Full story: 👇
    https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/future-outlook-moderna-is-planning

    Join ➡️ @ShankaraChetty


    Moderna is planning another covid campaign starting April 2025.
    Employees are asked to donate blood for experiments in exchange for $75 gift cards.

    Sasha Latypova
    According to Endpoints News, covid vax business is in trouble - both Pfizer and Moderna are tanking, and heads of sales have departed:

    [Moderna] reaffirmed its focus on driving Covid-19 and soon RSV vaccine sales, though the former’s sales have been challenged by waning demand. Moderna said last month that it expects Covid sales to “hit a low point” in 2024, while Pfizer recently slashed expectations for its Comirnaty shot by $2 billion.

    Pfizer also announced an executive shake-up on Tuesday. Chief commercial officer and global biopharma president Angela Hwang will depart after 27 years at the pharma giant as the company creates two non-oncology commercial units.

    …the company prepares to launch its RSV vaccine in 2024 and promises to deliver “multiple products per year from 2025 forward.” The company stuck to its full-year 2023 sales guidance of $6 billion to $8 billion on its latest quarterly call, but said the low end is more realistic, also noting a $1.3 billion write-down for “excess and obsolete” Covid product. Executives expect 2024 revenue to be around $4 billion.

    However, according to my secret sources, it appears that after an anticipated “low point” in 2024, Moderna expects that covid vaccine volume will steeply ramp up again starting in April 2025.

    According to an insider (don’t ask me how I got this):

    Moderna is preparing to launch 15 mRNA products in the next 5 years. Up to four of those could come by 2025.

    Review of Moderna’s publicly available full of shit R&D pipeline indicates that indeed, there are 4-5 different mRNA vaxxes for flu in late stages of development, another one for RSV, then different combos of flu-Covid+RSV, etc.

    Also, looks like gene therapies have been renamed into “intracellular therapeutics”. Gosh, all that attention to gene hacking is not great for PR! They still sport old failures like the CMV and zika vaxxes, on their pipeline, including the gene therapy (ahem, intracellular therapeutic) for Crigler-Najar syndrome which conclusively failed around 2012, that’s eons ago! They are claiming they gave it away for free to something called The Institute for Life Changing Medicines. It’s life changing, for sure… the founder of this Institute, Tachi Yamada “passed away unexpectedly” in August 2021. I wonder what was the cause of death? He looked not old and quite healthy… Maybe he partook in the intracellular miracles?

    More from my secret Moderna source:

    There is an email today asking for employees to donate blood to develop assays that will be used to generate key data in their clinical trials. They are offering $75 gift cards.

    Starting April of 2025 the covid campaign [is expected to] kick off, [therefore] by April of 2024 they will be in full covid vax production.

    I find it odd this year [2023] there was no covid vax production, boosters etc were basically left over from the original product runs.

    I am going to speculate here about this interesting timing:

    2024 is an election year! Biden (or a suitable puppet substitute) needs to be installed/reinstalled, and therefore the government’s covid boot should be off our necks since it is associated too much with the current regime. The authorized “freedom” narrative goes like this: Mistakes were made, dolts botched shit, replace those dolts with some other dolts, do some listening sessions to pretend public pushback had some impact. Do some bombshell interviews on Tucker Carlson’s show, where literal truth bombs like “Pfizer lied!!” “FDA didn’t do its job!” and “WHO bad!” are allowed to be dropped. Blame Pfizer for everything! (don’t mention Moderna too often, best - not at all). Even allow somebody to sue Pfizer! Blame the corporate greed, the greedy capitalists, corporations and stuff. Note: the federal government is not at fault, they are saintly incompetent people prone to making many mistakes. They are sincerely stupid, and just can’t see the data! Ask them to look at the VAERS data one more time…

    There is non-zero probability that Pfizer production may be shut down at some point: maybe FDA will “find” manufacturing violations, or maybe AG Paxton will miraculously prevail in his lawsuit in TX for false advertising, maybe investigation by Ron DeSantis will miraculously turn out not to be a fake political stunt - there are several potential scenarios how this will unfold. Note, this post was written and scheduled several weeks ago. Late breaking news: Ron DeSantis’s grand jury is a political stunt and a total joke. In any case, Moderna might become the “exclusive” manufacturer of Poison-19, just like Emergent Biosolutions is exclusive for the anthrax poisoning-of-the-troops elixir. Hence, planning ramped up volumes in 2025.

    Since Moderna is a DOD/DARPA/CDC/CIA company, this should tell us that the government are planning another bunch of false flags, fear mongering and generation of “sentinel cases” (cruise ships, Navy ships, subways, large events, other crowded places) for some “new mutated covid variant” in 2025. Or they are simply expecting the VAIDS to ramp up by 2025. Or all/combinations of the above.

    It should be noted that Moderna doesn’t really make their product, it is made for them by the DOD/CIA’s baby Resilience - a biomanufacturing behemoth, funded and controlled by the federal government. Resilience goes by several names (aka Nanotherapeutics, Ology and a few others), and has many strong links to the CIA and Inqtel (CIA’s “venture fund”). Here is a well made 7 min analysis, click on the link:

    https://twitter.com/Cancelcloco/status/1735421884395860246


    Here is my prediction for the dominant narratives in regard to this for the elections year - R vs D affiliations do not matter. Only the candidates that are beholden to the Pandemic Preparedness Cult (here, here, here) will be allowed to proceed to the actual ticket. So that the DOD/CIA control them no matter what the outcome of the elections. It is crucial for the DOD/CIA to continue making poison, pumping poison and profit from it. Thus, be prepared for your favorite candidate to endorse the idea of pandemics and outbreaks of dangerous pathogens, the idea that the government must “protect” us from these dangers, the stories of dolts botching shit, pointing of fingers at their opponent who was “pro-lockdown and masking”, promises to replace dolts with some other better dolts, even promises to get Pfizer and their corporate greed “brought to justice”, sort of. But do not expect any of your favorite candidates to point at the root cause of the millions of dead and injured - the federal government and its goon agents who built the illegal-legal cage where genocide is completely legal, or at a minimum, impossible to prosecute. That’s because the goal of your favorite political candidate is to align with the interests of that awesome federal government power pyramid in order to be hired as its next sock puppet, not to upset or reform it.

    Art for today: Hydrangea and Sake Bottle, oil on panel, 14x18 in.

    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/moderna-is-planning-another-covid.html

    🚨 Moderna is Planning Another COVID Campaign Starting April 2025 💉The COVID-19 vaccine industry is in trouble, with Big Pharma players such as Pfizer and Moderna undergoing significant turbulence. The departure of key sales executives further exacerbates the challenges faced by these companies. Endpoints News reports: "[Moderna] reaffirmed its focus on driving Covid-19 and soon RSV vaccine sales, though the former’s sales have been challenged by waning demand. Moderna said last month that it expects Covid sales to “hit a low point” in 2024, while Pfizer recently slashed expectations for its Comirnaty shot by $2 billion." "Pfizer also announced an executive shake-up on Tuesday. Chief commercial officer and global biopharma president Angela Hwang will depart after 27 years at the pharma giant as the company creates two non-oncology commercial units. …the company prepares to launch its RSV vaccine in 2024 and promises to deliver “multiple products per year from 2025 forward.” The company stuck to its full-year 2023 sales guidance of $6 billion to $8 billion on its latest quarterly call, but said the low end is more realistic, also noting a $1.3 billion write-down for “excess and obsolete” Covid product. Executives expect 2024 revenue to be around $4 billion." "However, according to my secret sources, it appears that after an anticipated “low point” in 2024, Moderna expects that covid vaccine volume will steeply ramp up again starting in April 2025. According to an insider (don’t ask me how I got this): Moderna is preparing to launch 15 mRNA products in the next 5 years. Up to four of those could come by 2025," revealed Sasha Latypova, a former pharmaceutical industry executive with 25 years experience in various roles. Her clients included Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, AstraZeneca, GSK, and more. Full story: 👇 https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/future-outlook-moderna-is-planning Join ➡️ @ShankaraChetty Moderna is planning another covid campaign starting April 2025. Employees are asked to donate blood for experiments in exchange for $75 gift cards. Sasha Latypova According to Endpoints News, covid vax business is in trouble - both Pfizer and Moderna are tanking, and heads of sales have departed: [Moderna] reaffirmed its focus on driving Covid-19 and soon RSV vaccine sales, though the former’s sales have been challenged by waning demand. Moderna said last month that it expects Covid sales to “hit a low point” in 2024, while Pfizer recently slashed expectations for its Comirnaty shot by $2 billion. Pfizer also announced an executive shake-up on Tuesday. Chief commercial officer and global biopharma president Angela Hwang will depart after 27 years at the pharma giant as the company creates two non-oncology commercial units. …the company prepares to launch its RSV vaccine in 2024 and promises to deliver “multiple products per year from 2025 forward.” The company stuck to its full-year 2023 sales guidance of $6 billion to $8 billion on its latest quarterly call, but said the low end is more realistic, also noting a $1.3 billion write-down for “excess and obsolete” Covid product. Executives expect 2024 revenue to be around $4 billion. However, according to my secret sources, it appears that after an anticipated “low point” in 2024, Moderna expects that covid vaccine volume will steeply ramp up again starting in April 2025. According to an insider (don’t ask me how I got this): Moderna is preparing to launch 15 mRNA products in the next 5 years. Up to four of those could come by 2025. Review of Moderna’s publicly available full of shit R&D pipeline indicates that indeed, there are 4-5 different mRNA vaxxes for flu in late stages of development, another one for RSV, then different combos of flu-Covid+RSV, etc. Also, looks like gene therapies have been renamed into “intracellular therapeutics”. Gosh, all that attention to gene hacking is not great for PR! They still sport old failures like the CMV and zika vaxxes, on their pipeline, including the gene therapy (ahem, intracellular therapeutic) for Crigler-Najar syndrome which conclusively failed around 2012, that’s eons ago! They are claiming they gave it away for free to something called The Institute for Life Changing Medicines. It’s life changing, for sure… the founder of this Institute, Tachi Yamada “passed away unexpectedly” in August 2021. I wonder what was the cause of death? He looked not old and quite healthy… Maybe he partook in the intracellular miracles? More from my secret Moderna source: There is an email today asking for employees to donate blood to develop assays that will be used to generate key data in their clinical trials. They are offering $75 gift cards. Starting April of 2025 the covid campaign [is expected to] kick off, [therefore] by April of 2024 they will be in full covid vax production. I find it odd this year [2023] there was no covid vax production, boosters etc were basically left over from the original product runs. I am going to speculate here about this interesting timing: 2024 is an election year! Biden (or a suitable puppet substitute) needs to be installed/reinstalled, and therefore the government’s covid boot should be off our necks since it is associated too much with the current regime. The authorized “freedom” narrative goes like this: Mistakes were made, dolts botched shit, replace those dolts with some other dolts, do some listening sessions to pretend public pushback had some impact. Do some bombshell interviews on Tucker Carlson’s show, where literal truth bombs like “Pfizer lied!!” “FDA didn’t do its job!” and “WHO bad!” are allowed to be dropped. Blame Pfizer for everything! (don’t mention Moderna too often, best - not at all). Even allow somebody to sue Pfizer! Blame the corporate greed, the greedy capitalists, corporations and stuff. Note: the federal government is not at fault, they are saintly incompetent people prone to making many mistakes. They are sincerely stupid, and just can’t see the data! Ask them to look at the VAERS data one more time… There is non-zero probability that Pfizer production may be shut down at some point: maybe FDA will “find” manufacturing violations, or maybe AG Paxton will miraculously prevail in his lawsuit in TX for false advertising, maybe investigation by Ron DeSantis will miraculously turn out not to be a fake political stunt - there are several potential scenarios how this will unfold. Note, this post was written and scheduled several weeks ago. Late breaking news: Ron DeSantis’s grand jury is a political stunt and a total joke. In any case, Moderna might become the “exclusive” manufacturer of Poison-19, just like Emergent Biosolutions is exclusive for the anthrax poisoning-of-the-troops elixir. Hence, planning ramped up volumes in 2025. Since Moderna is a DOD/DARPA/CDC/CIA company, this should tell us that the government are planning another bunch of false flags, fear mongering and generation of “sentinel cases” (cruise ships, Navy ships, subways, large events, other crowded places) for some “new mutated covid variant” in 2025. Or they are simply expecting the VAIDS to ramp up by 2025. Or all/combinations of the above. It should be noted that Moderna doesn’t really make their product, it is made for them by the DOD/CIA’s baby Resilience - a biomanufacturing behemoth, funded and controlled by the federal government. Resilience goes by several names (aka Nanotherapeutics, Ology and a few others), and has many strong links to the CIA and Inqtel (CIA’s “venture fund”). Here is a well made 7 min analysis, click on the link: https://twitter.com/Cancelcloco/status/1735421884395860246 Here is my prediction for the dominant narratives in regard to this for the elections year - R vs D affiliations do not matter. Only the candidates that are beholden to the Pandemic Preparedness Cult (here, here, here) will be allowed to proceed to the actual ticket. So that the DOD/CIA control them no matter what the outcome of the elections. It is crucial for the DOD/CIA to continue making poison, pumping poison and profit from it. Thus, be prepared for your favorite candidate to endorse the idea of pandemics and outbreaks of dangerous pathogens, the idea that the government must “protect” us from these dangers, the stories of dolts botching shit, pointing of fingers at their opponent who was “pro-lockdown and masking”, promises to replace dolts with some other better dolts, even promises to get Pfizer and their corporate greed “brought to justice”, sort of. But do not expect any of your favorite candidates to point at the root cause of the millions of dead and injured - the federal government and its goon agents who built the illegal-legal cage where genocide is completely legal, or at a minimum, impossible to prosecute. That’s because the goal of your favorite political candidate is to align with the interests of that awesome federal government power pyramid in order to be hired as its next sock puppet, not to upset or reform it. Art for today: Hydrangea and Sake Bottle, oil on panel, 14x18 in. https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/moderna-is-planning-another-covid.html
    SASHALATYPOVA.SUBSTACK.COM
    Moderna is planning another covid campaign starting April 2025.
    Employees are asked to donate blood for experiments in exchange for $75 gift cards.
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 13558 Views
  • The dark web: a journey into the dark sides of the internet

    The internet represents a large and complex aspect of human daily life, where information is exchanged and social interaction takes place in an unprecedented way. However, there is a small and dark part of the internet known as the dark web, which intrigues some and terrifies others.

    The dark web is a part of the internet that remains hidden from traditional search engines and requires special technologies to access it, such as using the Tor private network (TOR). This dark side of the internet allows users to access sites and services for the exchange of information and goods in illegal or unethical ways.

    Activities on the dark web are very diverse, as individuals can find sites for drug trafficking, selling weapons, exchanging confidential information, and even ordering electronic hacking services. In addition, there are also platforms for illegal file sharing and circulation of extremist ideas.

    With such a wide variety, the dark web raises big questions about privacy and security on the internet. Can States and authorities effectively combat this dark side How can individuals protect themselves from potential dangers

    However, it is worth noting that the dark web is not necessarily a completely dangerous place, as there are also activities there aimed at maintaining privacy and moving in the dark without it being harmful. Bloggers and journalists can sometimes use the dark web to share information confidentially and securely.

    In the end, the dark web remains a controversial part of the internet, combining opportunities and challenges. Interaction with this dark world requires caution and awareness, as drifting into it can be dangerous and expose individuals to many dangers.
    The dark web: a journey into the dark sides of the internet The internet represents a large and complex aspect of human daily life, where information is exchanged and social interaction takes place in an unprecedented way. However, there is a small and dark part of the internet known as the dark web, which intrigues some and terrifies others. The dark web is a part of the internet that remains hidden from traditional search engines and requires special technologies to access it, such as using the Tor private network (TOR). This dark side of the internet allows users to access sites and services for the exchange of information and goods in illegal or unethical ways. Activities on the dark web are very diverse, as individuals can find sites for drug trafficking, selling weapons, exchanging confidential information, and even ordering electronic hacking services. In addition, there are also platforms for illegal file sharing and circulation of extremist ideas. With such a wide variety, the dark web raises big questions about privacy and security on the internet. Can States and authorities effectively combat this dark side How can individuals protect themselves from potential dangers However, it is worth noting that the dark web is not necessarily a completely dangerous place, as there are also activities there aimed at maintaining privacy and moving in the dark without it being harmful. Bloggers and journalists can sometimes use the dark web to share information confidentially and securely. In the end, the dark web remains a controversial part of the internet, combining opportunities and challenges. Interaction with this dark world requires caution and awareness, as drifting into it can be dangerous and expose individuals to many dangers.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 5386 Views
  • Digital wallets (Cryptocurrency Wallets): digital wallets are a crucial tool in the world of digital currencies, as they contribute to the safe and efficient storage and management of digital assets. Many investors and traders offer different types of digital wallets that meet their needs and preferences. In this article, we will review the main types of digital wallets and their features:

    Paper wallets (Paper Wallets):
    Paper wallets are one of the safest ways to store digital currencies.
    The private key and the public address are generated on a sheet of paper or document.
    They do not require an internet connection, which minimizes the risk of electronic hacking.

    Hot wallets (Hot Wallets):
    It works online and remains connected to the network.
    They include web wallets, mobile wallets, software.
    Suitable for daily transactions and efficient trading.

    Cold Wallets (Cold Wallets):
    It saves without an internet connection, which strengthens its security.
    Top wallets include external devices such as USB, and paper wallets.
    They are used to store digital currencies for long periods without the risk of hacking online.

    Hardware Wallets (Hardware Wallets):
    A small device that securely holds encryption keys.
    They are considered among the most secure wallets, as it is very difficult to hack them.
    They are usually used for long-term storage of digital currencies.

    Software Wallets (Software Wallets):
    They are considered easy to use and are available for various systems.
    They are installed on personal devices or mobile phones.
    It provides flexibility in accessing and controlling digital assets.

    Multi-Asset wallets (Multi-Asset Wallets):
    Supports storage and management of several types of digital currencies.
    It provides users with the ability to easily navigate between various assets.

    Ultimately, users choose the type of digital wallet according to their individual needs and the level of security they would like to achieve. Investors should also consider security updates and precautionary measures to ensure that their digital assets are protected from security threats.
    Digital wallets (Cryptocurrency Wallets): digital wallets are a crucial tool in the world of digital currencies, as they contribute to the safe and efficient storage and management of digital assets. Many investors and traders offer different types of digital wallets that meet their needs and preferences. In this article, we will review the main types of digital wallets and their features: Paper wallets (Paper Wallets): Paper wallets are one of the safest ways to store digital currencies. The private key and the public address are generated on a sheet of paper or document. They do not require an internet connection, which minimizes the risk of electronic hacking. Hot wallets (Hot Wallets): It works online and remains connected to the network. They include web wallets, mobile wallets, software. Suitable for daily transactions and efficient trading. Cold Wallets (Cold Wallets): It saves without an internet connection, which strengthens its security. Top wallets include external devices such as USB, and paper wallets. They are used to store digital currencies for long periods without the risk of hacking online. Hardware Wallets (Hardware Wallets): A small device that securely holds encryption keys. They are considered among the most secure wallets, as it is very difficult to hack them. They are usually used for long-term storage of digital currencies. Software Wallets (Software Wallets): They are considered easy to use and are available for various systems. They are installed on personal devices or mobile phones. It provides flexibility in accessing and controlling digital assets. Multi-Asset wallets (Multi-Asset Wallets): Supports storage and management of several types of digital currencies. It provides users with the ability to easily navigate between various assets. Ultimately, users choose the type of digital wallet according to their individual needs and the level of security they would like to achieve. Investors should also consider security updates and precautionary measures to ensure that their digital assets are protected from security threats.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 6122 Views
  • CDC'S own scientists conducted studies showing N95 respirators are no more effective at stopping viruses than surgical masks — yet the agency issued guidance contradicting those and other studies showing both types of masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, according to an investigation by Paul D. Thacker.


    CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for COVID — But Agency Recommended Them Anyway
    According to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker published this week in The Disinformation Chronicle, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness

    Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.
    cdc masks ineffective covid feature
    Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free.

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) own scientists conducted studies showing N95 respirators are no more effective at stopping viruses than surgical masks — yet the agency issued guidance contradicting those and other studies showing both types of masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, according to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker.

    The investigation, published this week in two parts on The Disinformation Chronicle, details how CDC leadership openly questioned the findings of CDC scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness.

    During the pandemic, mask advocates “shifted goalposts and demanded N95 respirators,” Thacker said, claiming they perform better than surgical masks at stopping the virus.

    However, Thacker said CDC scientists found no difference between N95 and surgical masks in the ability to stop the spread of respiratory viruses. The findings of the CDC studies are consistent with other peer-reviewed studies on the efficacy of masks in preventing COVID-19, according to Thacker.

    “But the CDC responded by saying people can’t say that,” Thacker told The Defender.

    To shut down the controversy, the CDC, in its Jan. 23 post on preventing the transmission of pathogens in healthcare settings, warned researchers that to suggest facemasks and respirators are the same “is not scientifically correct,” Thacker wrote.

    CDC ignores own studies questioning N95, mask effectiveness

    According to Thacker, CDC guidance for controlling the spread of infections had not been updated since 2007. This prompted the CDC, in 2022, to select “a bunch of science experts,” and ask them “to update the agency’s scientific guidance to hospitals on how to control infections.”

    In November 2023, the experts produced an 80-page systematic review and meta-analysis, examining whether N95 respirators were more effective than surgical masks. The review found that while N95 respirators are better at filtering particles, the finding that they are more effective at stopping viruses “has been less conclusive.”

    The systematic review also examined the “effectiveness” of N95 respirators and surgical masks “under ‘real world’” conditions and found “no difference” between the two.

    The review also found numerous symptoms reported by N95 mask users, including: “difficulty breathing, headaches, and dizziness; skin barrier damage and itching; fatigue; and difficulty talking.”

    According to Thacker, the CDC is not pleased with these findings, suggesting in its recent update that its own scientists were wrong.

    “Although masks can provide some level of filtration, the level of filtration is not comparable to NIOSH Approved respirators,” the CDC said.

    The post also stated, “The COVID-19 pandemic has forever changed the approach we take in healthcare settings to protect healthcare personnel, patients, and others from transmission of respiratory infections.”

    More evidence contradicting the CDC’s public position came at a June 2023 CDC meeting in Atlanta, when Erin Stone, MPH, a public health analyst in the agency’s Office of Guidelines and Evidence Review, presented the findings of a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of N95 respirators and surgical masks.

    RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax
    RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax”

    Order Now

    According to Stone, the data “suggests no difference” in their effectiveness.

    Yet, in November 2023 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Committee, CDC Director Mandy Cohen sidestepped questions regarding mask effectiveness and refused to deny she would reinstate mask mandates for children.

    According to Thacker, in December 2023, just six days after Cohen’s testimony, The BMJ’s Archives of Disease in Childhood journal published a study finding that “mask recommendations for children are not supported by scientific evidence.”

    “Recommending child masking does not meet the accepted practice of promulgating only medical interventions where benefits clearly outweigh harms,” the study authors noted.

    Thacker: CDC guidance based on politics, not science

    Thacker said the CDC contradicted its own findings on mask efficacy even in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    “Soon after the pandemic started, the CDC began promoting masks to stop the spread of COVID,” Thacker wrote. “And it did so despite CDC publishing a May 2020 policy study in their own journal, ‘Emerging Infectious Diseases,’ that did not find a ‘substantial effect’ for masks in stopping the transmission of respiratory viruses.”


    That same month, the CDC began publicly promoting N95 respirators as a more effective means of controlling the spread of COVID-19.

    However, on its webpage promoting the superiority of N95 respirators, the CDC admitted “there’s not a whole lot of evidence that N95 respirators do in fact work better than masks at stopping viruses,” Thacker wrote.

    “Laboratory studies have demonstrated that FFRs [filtering facepiece respirators] provide greater protection against aerosols compared with surgical masks … however, the results of clinical studies have been inconclusive,” the CDC wrote, citing a 2019 study in JAMA comparing N95 respirators to masks.

    “Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza,” the JAMA study noted.


    According to Thacker, the results of these studies confirm the widely accepted pre-COVID-19 scientific consensus on the ineffectiveness of masks of any kind in stopping the spread of viruses. Thacker cited statements the World Health Organization made in 2019 and the CDC’s guidance on virus control.

    In a 2020 appearance on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Dr. Anthony Fauci said that while a mask might “block a droplet” and “make people feel a little better,” it does not provide “the perfect protection that people think it is.”



    According to Thacker, “For some reason, a ‘masks work’ political movement began to grow,” despite Fauci’s statements and the findings of these studies.

    “I’m not really sure what happened or what we do next,” Thacker wrote. “But something weird took place in America where liberal elites began messaging among themselves ‘masks work.’ They then grew this into a crusade.”

    The movement was effective in getting the CDC on board with issuing mask guidance, Thacker said.

    Four years after the onset of the pandemic, the CDC now openly cheerleads for masks, despite research the agency published showing that masks don’t really protect people from catching viruses, he said.

    “And this is why the experts advising the CDC are getting all this pushback: they didn’t tell the CDC what the CDC wanted to hear,” Thacker wrote.

    Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., professor emeritus and senior research scientist in epidemiology (chronic diseases) at the Yale School of Public Health, told The Disinformation Chronicle the CDC “has succumbed to political influences.”

    Risch said:

    “It made policies for school closures in order to please the teachers’ union. Its charitable organization allows pharma to feed it hundreds of millions of dollars that would be illegal to go directly to the agency, and this gives pharma major influence on CDC policies.”

    According to Thacker, the CDC has continued to double down on guidance promoting mask efficacy. A Jan. 23 letter the agency sent to its own advisers appears to encourage them to add more mask guidance to the agency’s new guidelines for the spread of pathogens, based on the conclusion that N95 respirators are effective.

    “Too much science is forcing CDC to request a science do over,” Thacker wrote, referring to the CDC’s Jan. 23 post, which states that its new recommendations should not “be misread to suggest equivalency between facemasks and NIOSH Approved respirators, which is not scientifically correct nor the intent of the draft language.”

    Thacker said his investigation shows that “in their guidance to the CDC, experts do recommend masks as part of what they call ‘transmission-based guidance’ which the CDC defines as a second tier of infection control.” However, the CDC’s own guidance also finds that masks are effective only for “source control” — preventing an already infected person from infecting others.

    “But this isn’t what the CDC wants,” Thacker wrote. “They want the experts to write guidelines that recommend healthy people wear masks, even though research shows masks won’t really stop healthy people from getting sick.”

    “The CDC has caught the ‘masks work’ political wave and is now demanding that independent experts conform to their preferred mask dictates,” he added.

    In doing so, the CDC is rejecting science it doesn’t like, including several other non-CDC studies that have questioned mask effectiveness.

    A study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2022 found no difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in stopping the spread of COVID-19. These findings were mirrored in a January 2023 Cochrane meta-analysis on mask effectiveness.

    According to the Cochrane report, “The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection.”

    A May 2023 study published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety suggests N95 respirators may expose wearers to dangerous levels of toxic compounds linked to seizures and cancer.

    A September 2023 meta-analysis published in Clinical Research Study examined mask studies published since 2019 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).

    According to the findings of the meta-analysis:

    “MMWR publications pertaining to masks drew positive conclusions about mask effectiveness >75% of the time despite only 30% testing masks and <15% having statistically significant results. No studies were randomized, yet over half drew causal conclusions.

    “The level of evidence generated was low and the conclusions were most often unsupported by the data. Our findings raise concern about the reliability of the journal for informing health policy.”

    Real-world examples also call into question narratives regarding mask efficacy.

    Sweden, for instance, did not mandate or recommend masks for the general public during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and only did so in certain situations in the later stages of the pandemic, according to The Conversation. Yet, its total excess deaths during the first two years of the pandemic were among the lowest in Europe.”

    In 2020, Swedish state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell said, “We see no point in wearing a face mask in Sweden, not even on public transport,” adding there were “at least three heavyweight reports … which all state that the scientific evidence is weak.”

    A Swedish government commission noted low levels of excess mortality in 2020 and 2021 and said that, at most, masks should have been “recommended.”

    Soon after the report was released, a Feb. 25, 2022, Boston Herald op-ed stated that Sweden “got it right.”

    “I don’t understand what is driving the ‘masks work’ political movement,” Thacker told The Defender. “There were plenty of stories written pointing out that there isn’t much scientific evidence that masks stop respiratory virus spread.”

    “Maybe people were just scared and wanted to believe masks provide protection?” he said.

    Thacker also cited the historical precedent of the Spanish Flu epidemic in 1918, when the Red Cross campaigned for masks all across America.

    “California’s state board of health ran a study comparing towns that had mask mandates against those that did not. They found that there was no difference and published the study in the American Journal of Public Health in 1920,” Thacker said.

    “Maybe these mask campaigners need to read a little history,” he added.

    Thacker is now calling on whistleblowers inside the CDC to contact him “to discuss what is going on inside the agency.”

    “I’m talking to CDC people and hope to learn what is going on inside the agency. I plan to write more on this,” Thacker told The Defender.

    “CDC Director Mandy Cohen wants to restore trust in the agency, but that won’t happen if she keeps putting politics ahead of scientific evidence,” he said.

    DETAILS ⬇️
    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cdc-scientists-masks-ineffective-covid-agency-recommended/

    Join ➡️ @ShankaraChetty


    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks.html
    CDC'S own scientists conducted studies showing N95 respirators are no more effective at stopping viruses than surgical masks — yet the agency issued guidance contradicting those and other studies showing both types of masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, according to an investigation by Paul D. Thacker. CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for COVID — But Agency Recommended Them Anyway According to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker published this week in The Disinformation Chronicle, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. cdc masks ineffective covid feature Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) own scientists conducted studies showing N95 respirators are no more effective at stopping viruses than surgical masks — yet the agency issued guidance contradicting those and other studies showing both types of masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, according to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker. The investigation, published this week in two parts on The Disinformation Chronicle, details how CDC leadership openly questioned the findings of CDC scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness. During the pandemic, mask advocates “shifted goalposts and demanded N95 respirators,” Thacker said, claiming they perform better than surgical masks at stopping the virus. However, Thacker said CDC scientists found no difference between N95 and surgical masks in the ability to stop the spread of respiratory viruses. The findings of the CDC studies are consistent with other peer-reviewed studies on the efficacy of masks in preventing COVID-19, according to Thacker. “But the CDC responded by saying people can’t say that,” Thacker told The Defender. To shut down the controversy, the CDC, in its Jan. 23 post on preventing the transmission of pathogens in healthcare settings, warned researchers that to suggest facemasks and respirators are the same “is not scientifically correct,” Thacker wrote. CDC ignores own studies questioning N95, mask effectiveness According to Thacker, CDC guidance for controlling the spread of infections had not been updated since 2007. This prompted the CDC, in 2022, to select “a bunch of science experts,” and ask them “to update the agency’s scientific guidance to hospitals on how to control infections.” In November 2023, the experts produced an 80-page systematic review and meta-analysis, examining whether N95 respirators were more effective than surgical masks. The review found that while N95 respirators are better at filtering particles, the finding that they are more effective at stopping viruses “has been less conclusive.” The systematic review also examined the “effectiveness” of N95 respirators and surgical masks “under ‘real world’” conditions and found “no difference” between the two. The review also found numerous symptoms reported by N95 mask users, including: “difficulty breathing, headaches, and dizziness; skin barrier damage and itching; fatigue; and difficulty talking.” According to Thacker, the CDC is not pleased with these findings, suggesting in its recent update that its own scientists were wrong. “Although masks can provide some level of filtration, the level of filtration is not comparable to NIOSH Approved respirators,” the CDC said. The post also stated, “The COVID-19 pandemic has forever changed the approach we take in healthcare settings to protect healthcare personnel, patients, and others from transmission of respiratory infections.” More evidence contradicting the CDC’s public position came at a June 2023 CDC meeting in Atlanta, when Erin Stone, MPH, a public health analyst in the agency’s Office of Guidelines and Evidence Review, presented the findings of a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of N95 respirators and surgical masks. RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax” Order Now According to Stone, the data “suggests no difference” in their effectiveness. Yet, in November 2023 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Committee, CDC Director Mandy Cohen sidestepped questions regarding mask effectiveness and refused to deny she would reinstate mask mandates for children. According to Thacker, in December 2023, just six days after Cohen’s testimony, The BMJ’s Archives of Disease in Childhood journal published a study finding that “mask recommendations for children are not supported by scientific evidence.” “Recommending child masking does not meet the accepted practice of promulgating only medical interventions where benefits clearly outweigh harms,” the study authors noted. Thacker: CDC guidance based on politics, not science Thacker said the CDC contradicted its own findings on mask efficacy even in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. “Soon after the pandemic started, the CDC began promoting masks to stop the spread of COVID,” Thacker wrote. “And it did so despite CDC publishing a May 2020 policy study in their own journal, ‘Emerging Infectious Diseases,’ that did not find a ‘substantial effect’ for masks in stopping the transmission of respiratory viruses.” That same month, the CDC began publicly promoting N95 respirators as a more effective means of controlling the spread of COVID-19. However, on its webpage promoting the superiority of N95 respirators, the CDC admitted “there’s not a whole lot of evidence that N95 respirators do in fact work better than masks at stopping viruses,” Thacker wrote. “Laboratory studies have demonstrated that FFRs [filtering facepiece respirators] provide greater protection against aerosols compared with surgical masks … however, the results of clinical studies have been inconclusive,” the CDC wrote, citing a 2019 study in JAMA comparing N95 respirators to masks. “Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza,” the JAMA study noted. According to Thacker, the results of these studies confirm the widely accepted pre-COVID-19 scientific consensus on the ineffectiveness of masks of any kind in stopping the spread of viruses. Thacker cited statements the World Health Organization made in 2019 and the CDC’s guidance on virus control. In a 2020 appearance on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Dr. Anthony Fauci said that while a mask might “block a droplet” and “make people feel a little better,” it does not provide “the perfect protection that people think it is.” According to Thacker, “For some reason, a ‘masks work’ political movement began to grow,” despite Fauci’s statements and the findings of these studies. “I’m not really sure what happened or what we do next,” Thacker wrote. “But something weird took place in America where liberal elites began messaging among themselves ‘masks work.’ They then grew this into a crusade.” The movement was effective in getting the CDC on board with issuing mask guidance, Thacker said. Four years after the onset of the pandemic, the CDC now openly cheerleads for masks, despite research the agency published showing that masks don’t really protect people from catching viruses, he said. “And this is why the experts advising the CDC are getting all this pushback: they didn’t tell the CDC what the CDC wanted to hear,” Thacker wrote. Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., professor emeritus and senior research scientist in epidemiology (chronic diseases) at the Yale School of Public Health, told The Disinformation Chronicle the CDC “has succumbed to political influences.” Risch said: “It made policies for school closures in order to please the teachers’ union. Its charitable organization allows pharma to feed it hundreds of millions of dollars that would be illegal to go directly to the agency, and this gives pharma major influence on CDC policies.” According to Thacker, the CDC has continued to double down on guidance promoting mask efficacy. A Jan. 23 letter the agency sent to its own advisers appears to encourage them to add more mask guidance to the agency’s new guidelines for the spread of pathogens, based on the conclusion that N95 respirators are effective. “Too much science is forcing CDC to request a science do over,” Thacker wrote, referring to the CDC’s Jan. 23 post, which states that its new recommendations should not “be misread to suggest equivalency between facemasks and NIOSH Approved respirators, which is not scientifically correct nor the intent of the draft language.” Thacker said his investigation shows that “in their guidance to the CDC, experts do recommend masks as part of what they call ‘transmission-based guidance’ which the CDC defines as a second tier of infection control.” However, the CDC’s own guidance also finds that masks are effective only for “source control” — preventing an already infected person from infecting others. “But this isn’t what the CDC wants,” Thacker wrote. “They want the experts to write guidelines that recommend healthy people wear masks, even though research shows masks won’t really stop healthy people from getting sick.” “The CDC has caught the ‘masks work’ political wave and is now demanding that independent experts conform to their preferred mask dictates,” he added. In doing so, the CDC is rejecting science it doesn’t like, including several other non-CDC studies that have questioned mask effectiveness. A study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2022 found no difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in stopping the spread of COVID-19. These findings were mirrored in a January 2023 Cochrane meta-analysis on mask effectiveness. According to the Cochrane report, “The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection.” A May 2023 study published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety suggests N95 respirators may expose wearers to dangerous levels of toxic compounds linked to seizures and cancer. A September 2023 meta-analysis published in Clinical Research Study examined mask studies published since 2019 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). According to the findings of the meta-analysis: “MMWR publications pertaining to masks drew positive conclusions about mask effectiveness >75% of the time despite only 30% testing masks and <15% having statistically significant results. No studies were randomized, yet over half drew causal conclusions. “The level of evidence generated was low and the conclusions were most often unsupported by the data. Our findings raise concern about the reliability of the journal for informing health policy.” Real-world examples also call into question narratives regarding mask efficacy. Sweden, for instance, did not mandate or recommend masks for the general public during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and only did so in certain situations in the later stages of the pandemic, according to The Conversation. Yet, its total excess deaths during the first two years of the pandemic were among the lowest in Europe.” In 2020, Swedish state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell said, “We see no point in wearing a face mask in Sweden, not even on public transport,” adding there were “at least three heavyweight reports … which all state that the scientific evidence is weak.” A Swedish government commission noted low levels of excess mortality in 2020 and 2021 and said that, at most, masks should have been “recommended.” Soon after the report was released, a Feb. 25, 2022, Boston Herald op-ed stated that Sweden “got it right.” “I don’t understand what is driving the ‘masks work’ political movement,” Thacker told The Defender. “There were plenty of stories written pointing out that there isn’t much scientific evidence that masks stop respiratory virus spread.” “Maybe people were just scared and wanted to believe masks provide protection?” he said. Thacker also cited the historical precedent of the Spanish Flu epidemic in 1918, when the Red Cross campaigned for masks all across America. “California’s state board of health ran a study comparing towns that had mask mandates against those that did not. They found that there was no difference and published the study in the American Journal of Public Health in 1920,” Thacker said. “Maybe these mask campaigners need to read a little history,” he added. Thacker is now calling on whistleblowers inside the CDC to contact him “to discuss what is going on inside the agency.” “I’m talking to CDC people and hope to learn what is going on inside the agency. I plan to write more on this,” Thacker told The Defender. “CDC Director Mandy Cohen wants to restore trust in the agency, but that won’t happen if she keeps putting politics ahead of scientific evidence,” he said. DETAILS ⬇️ https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cdc-scientists-masks-ineffective-covid-agency-recommended/ Join ➡️ @ShankaraChetty https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks.html
    CHILDRENSHEALTHDEFENSE.ORG
    CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for COVID — But Agency Recommended Them Anyway
    According to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker published this week in The Disinformation Chronicle, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 14332 Views
More Results