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

When You Lose Friends for Saying Out Loud the Things You Observe

Lost any friends for saying what you actually think? None of them have return even after the legacy news finally catches up with the truth.

Things like these:

Many more COVID lies here.

People addicted to legacy news insist that the above untruths were only mistakes, not lies.  My response: if a expert in the field claims that they know something that they don't know, and that they know they don't know it, it is a lie.

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."

And in the meantime, I have met and befriended numerous courageous thinkers, those who say what they think regardless of the fact that we are surrounded by fact-police, opinion-police and language police.

It's sometimes disorienting, disappointing and hurtful, but eventually you will be part of a much improved social network: people who think for themselves rather than huddling with sheep, people run in tribes. Steve Kirsch and Brett Weinstein independently described this turnover of friends here.

Continue ReadingWhen You Lose Friends for Saying Out Loud the Things You Observe

Jay Bhattacharya Distinguishes Two Types of Gain of Function Research

I did not appreciate this distinction. Until I saw Bari Weiss' interview of Jay Bhattacharya, I assumed that all gain of function research was dangerous.

I created this transcript of the above interview:

Bari Weiss: Should gain a function research be banned, okay?

Jay Bhattacharya: So you have to be careful here. There's some gain of function research which is entirely benign, has no chance of causing a pandemic and would advance a use that is vital tool for advancing human health, right? So, for instance you have some protein you want expressed so that you can use it as a treatment, like insulin, is a good example of this. You change the DNA of a of an E coli, use the E coli bacteria to produce the insulin cheaply. That's gain of function work. There's nothing wrong with that.

But there is gain of function work that has the potential to cause a pandemic. You take a virus you find in a bat cave in China, Coronavirus, you add a biochemical element. This Is not theoretical. You add an element to it that makes it more transmissible among human cells and then you do that in a setting where it might infect the lab technician who takes it home without knowing it infects their family and causes a pandemic that causes so much damage.

That kind of research, or any research that has any capacity of causing a pandemic through gain of function, work should be banned. I think it has no place among the toolkit of scientists. You have a few scientists taking risks on behalf of the entire human population, and they do it in an unregulated way that makes absolutely no sense to me. Even if you don't agree that that is what led to this past pandemic--I happen to think it does--But even if you don't agree going forward, why would you say yes, you should take that risk? There aren't enough benefits to that kind of research to warrant causing a pandemic that can kill 10 million, 20 million people, if you include the lockdown harms and caused trillions of dollars of damage and set society back for so long. What knowledge gain would be worth that?

Continue ReadingJay Bhattacharya Distinguishes Two Types of Gain of Function Research