Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated: Where are the Studies?

Aaron Siri's Testimony before the New Hampshire House Committee.

The University of Jackson department of epidemiology did a study small based on surveys, retrospective...it showed that vaccinated kids at 30 times the rate of rhinitis is unvaccinated, 3.9 times the rate of allergy, ADHD four times, autism, asthma, learning disability, neurodevelopmental disorder.

So this is actually one of the only few Vax versus un-Vax studies I'm aware of, and the findings on it are startling. And if the health department can certainly take shots, I mean, you can take shots at any epidemiological, so you can say, well, you know, it's based on parental recall, it's based on surveys, is your health, you know, how random is your sampling? Sure, you could do that, but you could take shots at it, but a lot of credit goes to these scientists who stick their neck out to do this study without NIH funding and knowing they're going to get creamed for doing it. That's incredible they actually did it, frankly. More incredible it exists in any public literature. Long story short, there's no studies that rebut this. In terms of the scope of the harm.

So we've looked at what harms might be caused by vaccines, schools of pharma companies. We've looked at the fact that they failed to study them. And we've looked at what some of the evidence that might show what the health outcomes, what the impact might be of this increasing vaccine schedule. How many people are harmed potentially? What's, you know, to get an indication of that, a signal, we could look at theirs and I'm going to 2019 pre-pandemic.

And this is the number of reports of to VAERS of serious issues, death, permanent disability, hospitalizations, emergency office visits. And I will point out that back then, there was a federal government study conducted by Harvard, it found that fewer than 1% of adverse events were reported to VAERS. I think it's probably increased since COVID because people are more aware of VAERS now. But if you, you know, this is terrible science, by the way, what I just did. Terrible science. I just say that right now. But if it's 1%, okay, so let's multiply that by 100. I'm not saying these numbers are right. I'm making clear. This is terrible science. But this is kind of the best approximation I have. Somebody's got a better study, I'll take it. I'm happy to look at that data.

Continue ReadingVaccinated vs. Unvaccinated: Where are the Studies?

How to Detoxify the U.S. Health System

Bret Weinstein: "The COVID story reveals the corruption of science, it reveals the corruption of journalism, it reveals the corruption of the university structure. And the consequences are tangible, right? We know people who were injured. It's amazing that we can identify people in our own lives who are actually injured by this, right? This is a an amazing level of harm. So in any case, either one of those is good enough to realize that the entire system has been corrupted and it needs a reboot.. An absolute reboot. And it's not stopping. It doesn't learn. It has no, it's lost stability to learn. It refuses to learn. Refuses to learn. It has educated us. Right. The number of us, you know, the number of doctors I know who were vaccine advocates five years ago and have now become skeptics because they've looked into adjuvants, they've looked into the mRNA platform and they know that the world that they thought they lived in isn't a real place is shocking."

The biggest question of all is how to fix this deeply intransigent thoroughly corrupt system: a cozy monied alliance of industry/government/media that vilifies and financially ruins knowledgable insiders who want to speak up to warn us?

Continue ReadingHow to Detoxify the U.S. Health System

U.S. Funded Censors Hide in the Shadows

If our government were proud of how it is spewing propaganda and muzzling Americans, why is it going to great lengths to hide what it is doing from concerned citizens and their representatives. Matt Taibbi did a deep dive in his most recent article, titled FOIA Files: "Arizona State UniversityOur latest FOIA disclosures reveal that the Department of State was issuing grants to "anti-disinformation" researchers at ASU."

Our latest Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) results show that the university has done significant work on “disinformation” for the State Department. But of what sort? Back in January, Gabe Kaminsky of The Washington Examiner reported that the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC) had given three direct awards to ASU. But the redacted documents uncovered by Kaminsky don’t explain the purpose of the awards.

Last month, the House Committee on Small Business released a report that details the lengths to which the GEC has gone to evade congressional oversight. The committee sent the GEC a subpoena in June, only to be told that it would take the State Department another twenty-one months to produce the requested documents.

Continue ReadingU.S. Funded Censors Hide in the Shadows

Some of the Reasons Why Public Health Officials Have Completely Lost my Trust

I never used to think about vaccines. I trusted public health officials and I willingly let them put 3 COVID shots into my arms. But now I regret that. In fact I'm furious that we were all lied to and misled by an artificially concocted false consensus that the COVID vax was "safe and effective." Now it is clear that our public health officials lied about almost everything and are still withholding the data about all-cause mortality. Lied about EVERYTHING? That sounds like hyperbole, but here's a starter list.

To me the most concerning issue is a lot of what was considered misinformation was and is true:

    • vaccines don't halt transmission

    • the virus came from a lab

    • cloth masks don't work

    • closing schools is a bad idea

    • toddlers shouldn't masks

    • natural immunity exists

We could add many other items to this already-disturbing list.

And then I learned about this shocking insurance industry data:

The man giving this Congressional testimony isn't some random person. As you can see from the chyron, Edward Dowd was formerly a senior investment advisor at Blackrock.

My mistrust is made even worse thanks to revelations like this on by John Leake, in an article he titles: "The Greatest Coverup in History: NIH Director Francis Collins on EcoHealth Alliance/WIV partnership: "There's a lot more to this story than we have been able to talk about." Here's an excerpt: [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingSome of the Reasons Why Public Health Officials Have Completely Lost my Trust

About Fires in Crowded Theaters and Empty-Headed Candidates for National Office

"VANCE: You yourself have said there’s no First Amendment right to misinformation. Kamala Harris wants to use…

WALZ: Or threatening. Or hate speech.

VANCE: …the power of the government to use Big Tech to silence people from speaking their minds. That is a threat to democracy that will long outlive this political moment… Let’s persuade one another. Let’s argue about ideas and come together afterwards.

WALZ: You can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. That’s the test. That’s the Supreme Court test!"

Walz is almost completely wrong. He has no working knowledge of one of our nation's most important principles. His wanna-be boss Harris is equally ignorant. Despite his recent rhetoric, Trump falls far short too. The fact that the two major political parties are floating candidates of this caliber is proof of a failed legal system.

Matt Taibbi explains the First Amendment test here:

The “You can’t yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” saw is not only wrong, it’s the most overused anti-speech argument of our era, surpassing even the Karl Popper “Paradox of Tolerance” cartoon that was once meme legend. In 2012, the ACLU’s Gabe Rothman wrote that the “Fire!” bit was “worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech.” Lawyers and civil liberties activists are in danger of self-harm every time it’s mentioned. “My head hits my desk every time the ‘shouting fire’ canard is trotted out. I think I have a permanent bruise on my forehead because of it,” says Nico Perrino of the Foundation of Individual Rights and Expression, who adds the damage might prevent him from knowing how many times it’s happened.

The “Fire” saw is one of those unkillable nuggets of received wisdom blurted out by people with at least three drinks in them, repeated as fact by a Vice Presidential candidate. Why? It feels like Democrats are intentionally fumbling the issue:

“‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” was never law, nor was it ever a “Supreme Court test,” as Walz insisted. The quote is from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who in a 1919 case called Schenck v. United States argued, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” ...

“‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” not only isn’t law, it’s a symbol of one of the darkest chapters in our history, when we passed the aforementioned Espionage Act of 1917 and the similarly heinous Sedition Act of 1918, punishing utterance of “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States.” This was when Attorney General Mitchell Palmer terrorized Americans with deportations, mass arrests, even torture. “Clear and present danger” cast a shadow over expression for decades. Not until the 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio, which established the current standard barring incitement to “imminent lawless action,” was America free of the stain of the case.

The fact that Walz thinks that abomination is still law and also hasn’t corrected his belief that “hate speech” isn’t protected is odd. He first coughed up the latter hairball in a December 2022 interview with MSNBC’s Maria Teresa Kumar . . .

Continue ReadingAbout Fires in Crowded Theaters and Empty-Headed Candidates for National Office