CNN President Jeff Zucker can be heard instructing the network’s personnel not to cover the bombshell Hunter Biden laptop story in leaked conference calls in October, ensuring that the network’s audience wouldn’t hear of the evidence documenting the corrupt foreign business dealings of Joe Biden’s son in Ukraine.
Wednesday’s release is the latest of Project Veritas’s #CNNTapes. James O’Keefe of the whistleblower organization confronted Zucker on CNN’s daily conference call on Tuesday, revealing to the corporate media operative that the medium had been compromised.
Zucker explains that the Hunter Biden laptop story belonged exclusively to the “rabbit hole” of Fox News, Breitbart, and the New York Post in leaked conference call audio from October 23rd….
Vaccination is a medical intervention that comes with a risk for some people. In the expression of infectious diseases, it is known that the pathogen alone does not cause disease: it is a combination of the pathogen, environment, and genetic factors that determines expression and severity of the disease in individuals. In 1960 Macfarlane Burnet, Nobel Prize laureate for immunology, stated that genetics, nutrition, psychological and environmental factors may play a more important role in resistance to disease than the assumed benefits of artificial immunity induced by vaccination. He considered that genetic deterioration of the population may be a consequence of universal mass vaccination and he postulated that in the long-term vaccination may be against the best interests of the state. The current belief that much of the burden of infectious diseases can be alleviated if every child, in every geographical location, has access to multiple vaccines, does not consider the influence of genetics and environment on the health of populations.
The historical record shows that deaths and illnesses to infectious diseases fell due to public health reforms – and prior to the introduction of most vaccines.
Since 1990 there has been a 5-fold increase in chronic illness in children in developed countries and an exponential increase in autism that correlates directly with the expansion of government vaccination programs.
Many individuals are genetically predisposed to the chronic illnesses that are increasing in the population and since 1995 governments have not used mortality or morbidity to assess outcomes of vaccination programs. Human health can be protected in government policies if the precautionary principle is used in the correct format that puts the onus of proof of harmlessness on the government and pharmaceutical industry, and not the general public. This has not been done in current vaccination programs and we cannot rule out the possibility that the increased use of vaccines is destroying the genetic fabric of society as MacFarlane Burnet postulated. …
Judy Wilyman*, Principia Scientific International
Science, Public Health Policy, and The Law Volume 2:23-33 November 28, 2020
Evidence from observational studies is accumulating, suggesting that the majority of deaths due to SARS-CoV-2 infections are statistically attributable to vitamin D insufficiency and could potentially be prevented by vitamin D supplementation. Given the dynamics of the COVID-19 pandemic, rational vitamin D supplementation whose safety has been proven in an extensive body of research should be promoted and initiated to limit the toll of the pandemic even before the final proof of efficacy in preventing COVID-19 deaths by randomized trials….
Summary: Researchers have identified an association between antibiotics administered to children aged two and under, and an increased risk of ongoing conditions ranging from ADHD to allergies to obesity. Children exposed to numerous courses of antibiotics as toddlers were more likely to be diagnosed with continuous conditions later in childhood. The study speculates that while antibiotics may only have a transient effect on the developing microbiome, this may have an impact on long-term illness…
Transient effect? There is no data that I know of to support this assumption. That’s why people resort to fecal transplants to improve conditions like autism and obesity.
… Despite controlling for several major infant and maternal confounders, we did not account for breastfeeding…
How is this possible? Antibiotics are often prescribed for problems that BF reduces or prevents!
Un fcking believable.
American medicine is either an insult or an embarrassment, depending on whether you’re a doctor.
A peer review of the paper on which most Covid testing is based has comprehensively debunked the science behind it, finding major flaws. They conclude it’s utterly unsuitable as a means for diagnosis – and the fall-out is immense.
Last week, I reported on a landmark ruling from Portugal, where a court had ruled against a governmental health authority that had illegally confined four people to a hotel this summer. They had done so because one of the people had tested positive for Covid in a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test – but the court had found the test fundamentally flawed and basically inadmissible.
Now the PCR testing supremacy under which we all now live has received another crushing blow. A peer review from a group of 22 international experts has found 10 “major flaws” in the main protocol for such tests. The report systematically dismantles the original study, called the Corman-Drosten paper, which described a protocol for applying the PCR technique to detecting Covid.
The Corman-Drosten paper was published on January, 23, 2020, just a day after being submitted, which would make any peer review process that took place possibly the shortest in history. What is important about it is that the protocol it describes is used in around 70 percent of Covid kits worldwide. It’s cheap, fast – and absolutely useless.
The 10 deadly sins
Among the fatal flaws that totally invalidate the PCR testing protocol are that the test:
- is non-specific, due to erroneous primer design
- is enormously variable
- cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments
- has no positive or negative controls
- has no standard operating procedure
- does not seem to have been properly peer reviewed
Oh dear. One wonders whether anything at all was correct in the paper. But wait – it gets worse. As has been noted previously, no threshold for positivity was ever identified. This is why labs have been running 40 cycles, almost guaranteeing a large number of false positives – up to 97 percent, according to some studies.
The cherry on top, though, is that among the authors of the original paper themselves, at least four have severe conflicts of interest. Two of them are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance, the sinisterly named journal that published the paper. And at least three of them are on the payroll of the first companies to perform PCR testing!…
The world’s largest multidisciplinary survey on research integrity is in danger of falling short of its goals after two-thirds of invited institutions declined to collaborate, citing the sensitivity of the subject and fearing negative publicity. That left researchers leading the Dutch National Survey on Research Integrity on their own to scrape many email addresses and solicit responses. The survey will close on 7 December, but the team has gathered responses from less than 15% of 40,000 targeted participants.
“It was supposed to be a collaborative effort, but it ended up as a satellite on its own in the Solar System, trying to send out signals,” says Gowri Gopalakrishna, a postdoctoral researcher at the Amsterdam University Medical Center (AUMC) who is coordinating the €800,000 survey.
Lex Bouter, who studies research methods and integrity at the Free University of Amsterdam (VU), began to plan the survey in 2016 to address a lack of data about questionable research practices and scientific misconduct. He wanted to ask all working academics in the Netherlands not just about how they conduct their research, but also about work habits, pressures, and other aspects of academic life. Bouter, a former VU president himself, assured the heads of other universities that the survey would not generate an institutional ranking of misbehavior….
Seems like the survey has already occurred, and it’s not looking good.
(Reuters) – Former U.S. Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton said they were willing to be vaccinated against the novel coronavirus on television in order to ease any public skepticism over the safety of new vaccines.
“I may end up taking it on TV or having it filmed, just so that people know that I trust this science,” Obama, a Democrat who left the White House in 2017, said in an interview with Sirius XM radio that aired on Wednesday.
Bush, a Republican and Obama’s predecessor, is willing to get a vaccine on camera once the U.S. Food and Drug Administration grants emergency approval, according to Freddy Ford, Bush’s chief of staff.
Clinton, a Democrat, will “definitely take a vaccine as soon as available to him, based on the priorities determined by public health officials,” his spokesman, Angel Urena, wrote in an email. “And he will do it in a public setting if it will help urge all Americans to do the same.”….
They’re going to have to do better than that. In any case, who would trust any of these creatures? They probably hit up adrenochrome when they’re off camera.
As should be clear to regular readers, we at TCR don’t subscribe to the conspiracy theory that media executives, pharmaceutical companies, medical authorities, regulatory and scientific bodies spontaneously converge their often absurd and self-contradictory narratives into cohesive, superficially plausible and unquestionable “science” based on benevolence and love for their fellow man. The first rule of institutional behavior is self-preservation, and in this world, that means trans-institutional social behavior. The more unified the front across the different interest groups, the more likely it is to reflect the interest that they are all beholden to, the money power. This is why bipartisan legislation is often the worst of all.
The world is controlled by conspiracies. Some of them are legal and called governments or corporations, but the more potent and toxic ones pull strings from behind the scenes. Naturally the media is their primary focus.
If you want to see corruption at the street level, check out the internal politics of a typical university administration. JHU must be a whole ecosystem.
UPDATED: Johns Hopkins Retracts Article Saying COVID-19 Has ‘Relatively No Effect on Deaths’ in U.S.
… So, if COVID-19 has actually had no significant impact on U.S. deaths, why does it not appear that way?
To answer that question, Briand shifted her focus to the deaths per causes ranging from 2014 to 2020. There is a sudden increase in deaths in 2020 due to COVID-19. This is no surprise because COVID-19 emerged in the U.S. in early 2020, and thus COVID-19-related deaths increased drastically afterward.
Analysis of deaths per cause in 2018 revealed that the pattern of seasonal increase in the total number of deaths is a result of the rise in deaths by all causes, with the top three being heart disease, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia.
“This is true every year,” explained Briand. “Every year in the U.S. when we observe the seasonal ups and downs, we have an increase of deaths due to all causes.”
Here’s where things get interesting.
When Briand looked at the 2020 data during that seasonal period, COVID-19-related deaths exceeded deaths from heart diseases. This was highly unusual since heart disease has always prevailed as the leading cause of deaths. However, when taking a closer look at the death numbers, she noted something strange. As Briand compared the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to 2018, she noticed that instead of the expected drastic increase across all causes, there was a significant decrease in deaths due to heart disease. Even more surprising, as seen in the graph below, this sudden decline in deaths is observed for all other causes.
The article claimed that “This trend is completely contrary to the pattern observed in all previous years.” In fact, “the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19.”
Briand concludes that the COVID-19 death toll in the United States is misleading and that deaths from other diseases are being categorized as COVID-19 deaths.
There have been reports of inflated COVID-19 deaths numbers for months. Patients who never tested positive for the disease had COVID-19 as their cause of death on their death certificates. In May, Jared Polis, the Democrat governor of Colorado, disputed official coronavirus death counts, saying even those of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) were inflated as the result of including people who tested positive for the coronavirus but died of other causes. In July, a fatal motorcycle accident victim was listed as a COVID-19 death.
On Thursday, Johns Hopkins University explained that they deleted the article because it “was being used to support false and dangerous inaccuracies about the impact of the pandemic.”…
Marvis Gutierrez and Ariella Shua, the managing editors of the JHU newsletter, assured Lead Stories that the article/study was not censored. “The article in question was retracted last night, as it was being used to spread misinformation about the pandemic. We have preserved the article as a PDF and posted an Editor’s Note: with full clarification about our decision, highlighting the inaccuracies of the study…We were not censored, but decided to retract the article based on the reasons outlined in the Editor’s Note.”
The author of the article on Briand’s claims, Yanni Gu, responding to the article being pulled, posted the following on LinkedIn:
Today, on November 27th, The News-Letter officially posted their reason for retracting the article, stating inaccuracies in the analysis. I am frustrated at the explanation, and I think it is disrespectful to Dr. Briand’s hard work putting data together and doing an honest analysis. If her analysis was to be contradicted, then at least an equal-level analysis should be done to provide more data and thus a new conclusion. Dr. Briand and her work deserve such respect.
I have received many messages asking the reason for taking the article down, and so I would like to officially express my opinions here. I even got emails saying that thanks to me, people now will not be wearing masks or practicing social distancing. They called me “a COVID denier and a minimizer” and that I have no idea the damage and the lives cost in me writing such an article. I was devastated to receive such accusations, but I stand my ground. The goal is never to undermine the effects of COVID-19 but to suggest a possible over-exaggeration in death numbers due to the pandemic.
Professor Briand also responded to the pulling of the article, saying “Their decision to retract the article was their own. Yanni Gu did an excellent at reporting the content of the presentation. The full presentation is available at: Covid-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data – YouTube. I explain during the presentation where I found and downloaded the data from, so anyone can easily replicate my analysis.”…
Many excellent points are covered in this article. Worth reading.
In Pennsylvania 1.8 million ballots were mailed out to voters, but 2.5 million mail-in ballots were counted.