Yet More COVID Lies Exposed

Yet more COVID lies exposed. The "Science" kept telling us to take the "vaccine."

Sharyl Attkisson reports:

"A new peer-reviewed study published in Scientific Reports found that nearly half of the deaths labeled as “COVID-19” in seven hospitals in Athens, Greece, were not caused by the virus. The study reviewed 530 deaths from January to August 2022 and found that only 25.1% were directly due to COVID-19.

In another 29.6% of cases, COVID-19 contributed to the outcome—but a full 45.3% of patients died from unrelated causes while simply testing positive at the time of death.

A clinical review revealed major inconsistencies between official death certificates and patient case histories:

Of 204 certificates listing COVID-19 as the direct cause of death, only 64.7% were confirmed.

Of 324 cases listing COVID-19 as a contributing factor, only 26.5% were confirmed after review.

The study also found:

-More than half of patients who died from COVID-19, where vaccine status was known, were vaccinated.

-Of those, 65.8% had received a booster, according to CHD’s Karl Jablonowski. -Inaccuracies on death certificates contributed to significant overcounts."

Continue ReadingYet More COVID Lies Exposed

Our Disastrous Response to COVID in a Nutshell: Dr. Peter Hotez

Dr. Peter Hotez is a proxy for many other public health "experts" who got almost everything wrong. This is also an indictment of the many legacy news outlets that failed to do basic journalism and, instead, served as stenographers for US public health officials and Pharma. I'm patiently waiting for the numbers to actually come out, but I repeatedly wonder how many people died because this "vax," which was actually gene therapy, was pushed and coerced upon us.

In the following video, new director of the NIH, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya explains the dangers of ALL mRNA products. Follow that link to learn of the many ways that Dr. Bhattacharya was mistreated by the US public health establishment during COVID. He was the voice of reason throughout COVID. Despite his courageous stands during COVID, he was called a "fringe epidemiologist" by Anthony Fauci.

Here are the ways he was punished [from GROK]:

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford professor and co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, faced significant pushback from the U.S. public health establishment during the COVID-19 pandemic due to his criticism of lockdown policies and advocacy for "focused protection." Here are the key ways he was mistreated, based on available information:

Censorship and Blacklisting: Bhattacharya was reportedly placed on a Twitter "Trends blacklist" in August 2021, limiting the visibility of his posts, as revealed by the Twitter Files in 2022. He also faced censorship on other platforms, with Facebook removing a video of him discussing COVID policies in Florida and Google "deboosting" searches for the Great Barrington Declaration to prioritize critical content over the declaration itself.

Targeting by Public Health Officials: Former NIH Director Francis Collins and Dr. Anthony Fauci, then head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, actively sought to discredit Bhattacharya. Collins emailed Fauci in October 2020, calling Bhattacharya a "fringe epidemiologist" and urging a "quick and devastating published takedown" of the Great Barrington Declaration. This set a tone for dismissing his views without engaging in substantive debate.

Academic Suppression: At Stanford, Bhattacharya's department chairman blocked his attempt to hold a seminar on the Great Barrington Declaration, and the dean of epidemiology circulated a petition to censor his speech on COVID. These actions stifled his ability to discuss his ideas within his academic community.

Personal Attacks and Misrepresentation: Bhattacharya received death threats and racist attacks following his public stance against lockdowns, particularly after the Wall Street Journal op-ed and the Santa Clara serology study in 2020. He was misrepresented as advocating to "let the virus rip," despite his proposal focusing on protecting vulnerable populations while allowing others to resume normal life.

Legal Battles Over Free Speech: Bhattacharya was a plaintiff in a 2024 Supreme Court case alleging that the Biden administration pressured social media platforms to suppress his views on COVID policies. Although the court ruled he hadn’t demonstrated direct harm, the case highlighted the broader chilling effect on dissenting voices.

Professional Marginalization: The public health establishment, including the CDC and WHO, dismissed Bhattacharya’s ideas as dangerous or unscientific. For example, the WHO Director-General in October 2020 called herd immunity strategies "unethical," indirectly targeting the Great Barrington Declaration. This marginalization extended to legal settings, where courts, like one in Manitoba in 2021, noted that most experts did not support his views, undermining his credibility.

Despite this, Bhattacharya’s supporters argue he was vindicated, as lockdowns caused significant social and economic harm, and some critics, like Francis Collins, later admitted to a overly narrow focus in 2020. His nomination by President-elect Trump in 2024 to lead the NIH reflects a shift in recognition, though critics still question his fitness for the role, citing his contrarian stance.

The establishment’s response—prioritizing narrative control over open debate—likely amplified the mistreatment Bhattacharya experienced, reflecting a broader intolerance for dissent during the pandemic.

Bhattacharya's criticisms of public health extend to the the mRNA platform itself, a criticism that is increasingly being shared among those who are not financially captured by Pharma

Continue ReadingOur Disastrous Response to COVID in a Nutshell: Dr. Peter Hotez

About Cleaning House at the FDA

From "A Midwestern Doctor," who I follow. The article is mostly a sharp edged exposé of the gross incompetence and corruption of FDA Director Peter Marks, who was reportedly ejected from the FDA last week. But there is also this:

[C]onsider this quote from Peter Rost, a former executive at Pfizer and one of the few pharmaceutical leaders to speak out against the industry:

It is scary how many similarities there are between this industry and the mob. The mob makes obscene amounts of money, as does this industry. The side effects of organized crime are killings and deaths, and the side effects are the same in this industry. The mob bribes politicians and others, and so does the drug industry … The difference is, all these people in the drug industry look upon themselves – well, I’d say 99 percent, anyway – look upon themselves as law-abiding citizens, not as citizens who would ever rob a bank … However, when they get together as a group and manage these corporations, something seems to happen … to otherwise good citizens when they are part of a corporation. It’s almost like when you have war atrocities; people do things they don’t think they’re capable of. When you’re in a group, people can do things they otherwise wouldn’t, because the group can validate what you’re doing as okay
.

One couldn't conjure up a better real life example of Hannah Arendt's Banality of Evil. Oh, and as independent researchers (and all the rest of us) are denied access to comprehensive vaccine injury data, consider this quote by Arendt:

The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism…

Here are a few excerpts about the "work" of Marks:

•He asserted VAERS overreports vaccine injuries when in reality less than 1% of injuries make it into VAERS (as the government never wanted a publicly available injury database and once a law forced its creation, the government has worked for decades to undermine VAERS).

•He “compassionately” claimed the Federal vaccine injury compensation program existed to help individuals injured by vaccines and that they could sue a vaccine manufacturer if they were unsatisfied with the verdict—when in reality it is nearly impossible to have most injuries be acknowledged by that program and even harder to be able to sue a manufacturer outside of it).

•He argued that “vaccine immunity is superior to natural immunity” (which is false as vaccine immunity often creates a very narrow immunity pathogens rapidly evolve a resistance to). Then as people started to point that out, he pivoted to stating “vaccines do not put you at risk of infection like an actual infection so they are superior due to the lower risk entailed in become immune” and was not called out for moving the goalpost from efficacy to safety.

Note: there is also strong evidence vaccine side effects are often much greater than those from a natural infection (best demonstrated by how many more people have permanent complications from the vaccines than a COVID infection.

Continue ReadingAbout Cleaning House at the FDA