- The Facts:
Dr. Anthony Fauci was one of three authors in a paper recently published in the New England Medical Journal claiming that "the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza."
- Reflect On:
Is it better to be safe than sorry? Or is there something else going on here? If we don't take the same shutdown measures for other viruses and diseases that may be just as or more dangerous, why are we doing it for COVID19?
As soon as the World Health Organization put out a case fatality rate of 3.4% for the new coronavirus, multiple academics jumped in and criticized the projection. Most notably, three medical professors from Stanford University. Dr. Eran Bendavid and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, two professors of medicine at Stanford University recently published an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled, “Is the coronavirus as deadly as they say?” In it, they provide reasons for why the fatality rate might be significantly lower than the projection given by the World Health Organization (WHO).
This is not to say they weren’t criticized, after these Stanford medical professors published their opinion, many took to YouTube in an attempt to explain why they were wrong. But if we stick to the experts, and scientific analysis, it’s safe to assume that the original case fatality rate put out by the WHO may be off by a significant margin.
-->Listened to our latest podcast episode yet? Joe speaks with journalist Derrick Broze about the need for journalistic standards, Qanon, and agorism. Click here to listen!
John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford, recently published an article entitled “A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data.“ In the article, he also argues that there is simply not enough data to make claims about reported case fatality rate.
He states that rates, “like the official 3.4% rate from the World Health Organization, cause horror — and are meaningless. Patients who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 are disproportionately those with severe symptoms and bad outcomes. As most health systems have limited testing capacity, selection bias may even worsen in the near future.”
He states that the real death rate of this virus could be five or more times lower, at 0.025 percent to 0.625 percent.
The main idea is that the number of people infected with the new coronavirus is most likely much higher than we know right now, which would drastically drop the case fatality rate.
According to an article recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine by Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Dr. H. Clifford Lane, and Dr. Robert R. Redfield, the case fatality rate may be less than one percent, and the clinical consequences of Covid-19 may be more similar to that of a severe seasonal influenza.
On the basis of a case definition requiring a diagnosis of pneumonia, the currently reported case fatality rate is approximately 2%. In another article in the Journal, Guan et al. report mortality of 1.4% among 1099 patients with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19; these patients had a wide spectrum of disease severity. If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.
I felt it was important to share this information because what we are seeing right now is a lot of hysteria, and a lot of fear from people. That’s not to say it’s not warranted, but we must remember that there’s a good chance that this is not going to turn out as bad as so many people believe when it comes to death rates, and perhaps there is something more behind this full economic shutdown.
With all of the models out there, it’s important to remember that modelling is quite controversial, and models that promote such deadly scenarios from this new coronavirus have been contested by other scientists. That being said, there are models that have been published that show a much less cause for concern.
A study, from the Nuffield Department of Medicine at the University of Oxford, used data on the number of deaths and reported cases in the early stages of the epidemic in Italy and the UK. The researchers used mathematical modelling to estimate infection rates by fitting a “susceptible—infected—recovered” model of epidemics to the number of deaths seen. The researchers showed outcomes generated from different assumptions, including a reproduction number of 2.25 and 2.75, and setting the proportion of the population at risk of death or severe disease at 1% or 0.1%. The study was led by Sunetra Gupta, professor of theoretical epidemiology at the University of Oxford. One of the models in the study suggests that that millions may have already been affected by the new virus with little or no symptoms, and that the virus is actually in the later stage. If this is true, like all of the information above in this article suggests, then the death rate is much lower.
Approximately 150,000 people die every day, worldwide. That’s 13 million people that have died so far this year. Coronavirus has killed 22,000 people worldwide so far this year. Perhaps this can offer a little perspective.
Deborah Leah Birx, an American physician and diplomat who serves as the response coordinator for the White House Coronavirus Task Force also seems to contradict some mainstream media narratives, as well as all of the models that have predicted such doom and gloom and dire situations compared to what they are seeing on the ground, in real time.
She makes some interesting points.
The predictions of the models don’t match the reality on the ground in either China, South Korea, or Italy. We are about five times the size of Italy, so, if we were Italy and you did all those divisions, Italy should have close to 400,000 deaths, we’re not close to achieving that. So these are things kinds of thins we’re trying to understand, models are models, we’re adapting now, there’s enough data now of the real experience with the coronavirus on the ground, to really to really make these predictions much more sound. So when people start talking about 20 percent of the population getting infected, it’s very scary, but we don’t have data that matches that based on the experience.
At the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves why certain narratives and opinions are being ridiculed. Dr. Ron Paul, for example, Dr. Ron Paul has received multiple “Fake News” strikes for sharing his opinions about the coronavirus. According to him, “people should ask themselves whether this coronavirus “pandemic” could be a big hoax, with the actual danger of the disease massively exaggerated by those who seek to profit – financially or politically – from the ensuing panic.”
What’s interesting is how some are allowed to share opinions, while others are not. I’d also like to add in, again, when the final numbers come out they will most likely not account for all those infected or who have been infected.
Furthermore, why is mainstream media not mentioning what’s been happening with vitamin C? Why are they ridiculing it instead of exploring it? Where does government allegiance lie, with pharmaceutical companies or with the people?
Trump Says COVID-19 Vaccine Won’t Be Mandatory, Biden Says It Should Be
- The Facts:
It doesn't seem likely that a COVID vaccine will be mandatory under the Trump administration, but Joe Biden recently shared that he believes it should be.
- Reflect On:
If the vaccine did become mandatory, would you take it? Will there be too much of a backlash if the vaccine is made mandatory, or mandatory to travel for example?
What Happened: US President Donald Trump told Stuart Varney on Fox Business Network’s ‘Varney &Co’ that he doesn’t plan to make the coronavirus vaccine mandatory for American citizens, because “there are some people who feel strongly about the whole situation,’ alluding to the idea that people should still have freedom of choice when it comes to what they choose to do with their own body.
On the other hand, presidential candidate Joe Biden said he would urge all state representatives, governors, mayors and council members to make the vaccine mandatory, just like some have done with masks. He acknowledged that such a mandate would be difficult to enforce, but stated that “we should be thinking about making it mandatory.”
Trump has long been promoting alternative therapies for COVID, many have come under scrutiny by mainstream media. The scientific and medical community have both promoted these therapies as well as criticized them, the only difference seems to be that those who support them don’t seem to receive much media attention, while simultaneously become subjected to a censorship campaign by media and social media outlets.
Scientists who share opinions that contradict the World Health Organization (WHO) have also been heavily censored. Michael Levitt, a Biophysicist and a professor of structural biology at Stanford University is one of many who have criticized the WHO as well as Facebook for censoring different information and informed perspectives regarding the Coronavirus.
The Great Barrington Declaration is experiencing the same thing for questioning lockdown measures, it’s now been signed by nearly 40,000 doctors and scientists.
A paper recently published in Global Advances in Health and Medicine titled Ascorbate as Prophylaxis and Therapy for COVID-19—Update From Shanghai and U.S. Medical Institutions points out:
A recent consensus statement from a group of renowned infectious disease clinicians observed that vaccine programs have proven ill-suited to the fast-changing viruses underlying these illnesses, with efficacy ranging from 19% to 54% in the past few years.
The paper also promotes the use of alternate therapies like intravenous vitamin C and provides evidence showing its success in COVID patients. It’s one of multiple studies to do so, but vitamin C has been heavily ridiculed and censored by mainstream media and social media for being able to provide any help when it comes to healing from COVID, or to help prevent it.
We are being made to believe that a vaccine is the only answer. No other suggestions seem to be acceptable. Why?
Why This Is Important
Why is there an authoritarian ‘fact-checker’ patrolling the internet and censoring information? Sure, a lot of stories may be completely false and irresponsibly written, especially ones that don’t provide any sources for their claims, but a lot of legitimate information is also being censored. Should people not have the right to examine information and opinions that go against the grain and decide for themselves what is, and what isn’t? Are we not capable of this? Can the mainstream media make the minority feel like the majority and the majority feel like the minority?
I’ve emphasized in many of my articles how vaccine hesitancy continues to grow. That’s no big secret. This is occurring not only with much of the general population, but doctors and scientists as well.
Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project stated at a World Health Organization (WHO) conference that:
The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers, we have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen… still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider…
Many people are asking why doesn’t mainstream media or Bill Gates actually addresses the concerns that are being raised by scientists and doctors? Why is ridicule and terms like “conspiracy theory” always used instead?
What are the concerns? Vaccine injury is one of them. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act has paid more than $4 billion to families of vaccine injured children. A 2010 HHS pilot study by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research (AHCR) found that 1 in every 39 vaccines causes injury, a shocking comparison to the claims from the CDC of 1 in every million.
There are several concers.
If you’d like to access more of articles that are properly sourced regarding vaccine concerns, there is a link to a few at the bottom of this article I recently published.
Big Politics: Every single year big politics, in my opinion, continues to be exposed as a system that’s no longer capable of dealing with and appropriately handling big issues our planet faces today. I often ask myself, does voting simply uphold a system that’s no longer capable of creating any meaningful change? Big politics is filled with an enormous amount of corruption, and many would say that corporations now dictate policy, not government.
When it comes to health policy, there are many conflicts of interests to be concerned about, scientists from within federal health regulatory agencies have been bringing awareness to this fact for many years. For example, few years ago more than a dozen scientists from within the CDC put out public statement detailing the influence corporations have within the CDC, how corrupt things are, how it happens in all departments how many high ranking people within the CDC condone this behaviour. They were referred to as the Spider Papers.
Award winning medical investigator Jeanne Lenzer also made this quite clear in a 2015 paper published in the British Medical Journal.
The CDC’s image as an independent watchdog over the public health has given it enormous prestige, and its recommendations are occasionally enforced by law. Despite the agency’s disclaimer, the CDC does receive millions of dollars in industry gifts and funding, both directly and indirectly, and several recent CDC actions and recommendations have raised questions about the science it cites, the clinical guidelines it promotes, and the money it is taking.
This is a huge problem, and it’s one that seems to plague all industries, not just the medical industry.
We are pitted against each other like never before these days, and it doesn’t seem that politics helps us find common ground. It’s about belittling and ridiculing every move an opponent makes, and does not in any way shape or for represent a system of people who are willing to pool their resources and work together for meaningful change. So why do we continue to be captured by it? Why do we even pay attention? How can we change things and take matters into our own hands? Why do we live the way we do?
Power has corrupted our political process, and decisions today are made for politicians, corporations and those who seem to control these entities in order to gain more power from and profit off of.
Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today – Theodore Roosevelt
Honesty, morality, empathy, and an overall unawareness regarding the interconnectedness of life is severely lacking, and I do believe human beings are capable of creating a human experience where all life can thrive. We have the solutions, but many of them never see the light of day or receive any attention, so ask yourself, if we have the solutions, what’s preventing them from being implemented?
Trump Scorned For Saying “I Don’t Know” If A Satanic Pedohphile Ring Exists
- The Facts:
Donald Trump was recently featured on Thursday night NBC News in a discussion where he was asked a number of questions, including one about a "satanic pedophile ring."
- Reflect On:
Why are controversial topics that are hard to belief never really investigated or properly looked into? Why are they simply ridiculed and deemed a "conspiracy?"
Mainstream media has been used as a political weapon for quite some time now. With Operation Mockingbird becoming public, a decades old CIA campaign to infiltrate media in order to shape the perception of the masses, the idea that mainstream media was and is largely a brainwashing tool has become valid. Today, in my opinion, it’s become even more evident thanks to multiple award winning mainstream media journalists blowing the whistle, as well as documents that have been released via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) showing just how much influence not only big corporations have, but also the intelligence community has with mainstream media and shaping perception.
This is exactly what big politics is about, shaping people’s perception. Voting seems to uphold a system that’s no longer capable of making the best decisions for the people and our planet, but that’s just my opinion. Instead of seriously discussing and investigating important issues, big politics has become a disaster.
As we move through another presidential election, we see the same thing. The latest example comes from President Donald Trump’ recent interview on NBC news. The ‘questioner’ Savannah Guthrie brought up “Q Anon” and ridiculed Trump for simply stating that he knows nothing about it. He was also ridiculed when refusing to denounce a Democratic “satanic pedophile ring.” He didn’t say he believes it’s real, he simply stated that he knows nothing on the subject, that he is obviously against pedophilia and again, that he just doesn’t know about the subject.
Here we have mainstream media, again, completely ridiculing the idea of some sort of elite level pedophile cult, deeming it a “conspiracy theory” over and over again, using nothing but ridicule and also ridiculing anybody who may think that it’s actually a possibility.
We don’t need “Q anon” to see this, there is actually legitimate evidence behind this activity and credible sources can be used to relay that to the public. By using “Q anon” as a source one is almost doing a disservice to the movement of transparency, because it makes it very easy for another to simply label this claim as a conspiracy theory when no evidence is provided.
Let me ask you this, what if it were true that there was an elite level pedophile cult, or multiple similar type of cults that are in operation throughout the world? Imagine how the children being used would feel to learn that what they go through, or are possibly going through is perceived as completely fake by the masses? How can mainstream media ridicule and denounce something without really doing any proper investigation into the topic? How can they label something a conspiracy theory so easily simply based on the idea that it sounds ridiculous?
It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not true, but “condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.” Big media today is lacking big time, in my opinion, in their ability to explore subjects and conduct investigations as well as ask the right questions.
Is There Any Evidence? Obviously, there is plenty of evidence for pedophilia and child trafficking, nobody can really deny that and I doubt anybody ever would. There are countless examples to choose from, for example, the Pentagon. Not long ago, it was disclosed that the Pentagon’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service subsequently identified hundreds of DOD-affiliated individuals as suspects involved in accessing child pornography, several of whom used government devices to use and share the images.
Recently, Retired Army Maj. Gen. James Grazioplene has been given 20 years for continually sexually abusing his daughter from a young age. Grazioplene retired in 2005 after a career that included stints as a commander within the 82nd Airborne Division and senior staff positions at the Pentagon. He also became a vice president at the contractor DynCorp International but is no longer with the company.
DynCorp has also been implicated in trafficking children abroad. DynCorp receives nearly all of its income from doing work for the U.S. military and has been implicated in multiple sex trafficking scandals.
Another great example comes Cardinal George Pell, who a couple of years ago became the highest-ranking Vatican official to ever be convicted of child sexual abuse. Of course, he has now been freed from jail after Australia’s highest court overturned his conviction, but did you know that he himself established The Diocesan Commission Into Sexual Abuse? This is a common theme. The ones who we go to combat these problems may themselves involved.
A paper published in European Psychiatry titled “The cremation of care ritual: Burning of effigies or human sacrifice murder? The importance of differentiating complex trauma from schizophrenia in extreme abuse settings” by Dr. Rainer Kurz, explains, a chartered occupational psychologist (Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) at The University of Manchester. Master of Science (MSc) Industrial Psychology at The University of Hull) explains:
In the wake of institutional abuse enquiries and the ‘unbelievable’ child abuse perpetrated by celebrities like Jimmy Saville and Ian Watkins, a ‘new reality’ is setting in that child abuse is pervasive and knows no limits. Reports of elaborate rituals with ‘mock’ human sacrifices at the highly secretive annual ‘Bohemian Grove’ summer festival point towards a pervasive interest in the occult in high society. Mental health professionals have a ‘duty of care’ towards their service users. Unless clear and irrefutable counter-evidence is available it is inappropriate to claim that disclosures of extreme abuse and/or human sacrifice rituals are ‘delusions’ and indicative of Schizophrenia.
It goes on to provide another example of this type of activity, this time among high ranking “establishment” members:
Research eventually led to the Franklin scandal that broke in 1989 when hundreds of children were apparently flown around the US to be abused by high ranking ‘Establishment’ members. Former state senator John W DeCamp, cited as one of the most effective legislators in Nebraska history, is today attorney for two of the abuse victims. A 15 year old girl disclosed that she had been abused since the age of 9 and was exposed since the age of 9 and was exposed to ‘ritual murder’ of a new born girl, a small boy (who was subsequently fried and eaten) and three others.
The point I am making is that the examples above are not even the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this type of activity within places of high power. There was more awareness created about this and about the sex trafficking and abuse of children for those who were inspired to dig deep into the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell saga.
Multiple sources claim Maxwell and Epstein had a blackmail operation, and they they had/have evidence of politicians sexually abusing children.
To read more examples, you can refer to THIS article I wrote that dives in a bit deeper and provides more examples.
Then there are multiple examples, as the paper above indicates, of potential victims who have come forth. We’ve interviewed one. Her name is Anneke Lucas, who is now an author, speaker, advocate for child sex trafficking victims, founder of the non-profit organization Liberation Prison Yoga, and creator of the Unconditional Model.Her work is based off her 30-year journey to restore her mental and physical wellbeing after surviving some of the worst atrocities known to humankind before the age of 12.
You can access the full interview and start your free trial HERE on CETV, a platform we created to help combat internet censorship and allow us to continue to do our work and get the word out about various issues and topics.
All systems on our planet seem to be plagued with corruption. The consciousness of our whole system seems to be based on greed, ego, fear, and competition instead of cooperation. Is it possible, and are human beings capable of creating an experience where everybody can thrive?
Johnson & Johnson To Pay Over 100 Million To Settle 1000 Baby Powder Cancer Suits
- The Facts:
Johnson & Johnson has agreed to pay more than $100 million to resolve over 1,000 lawsuits blaming its baby powder for causing cancer. There are still approximately 20,000 lawsuits that will remain ongoing.
- Reflect On:
How safe are our everyday off the shelf health products? What kins of process of approval do they go through? How much influence do these companies have on our federal health regulatory agencies?
What Happened: Johnson & Johnson, the world’s largest maker of health care products, will pay more than $100 million to settle more than 1,000 lawsuits that blame the company’s baby powder for causing cancer. These lawsuits have been happening for a few years now, and according to Bloomberg, the company has 20,000 similar lawsuits still pending.
The deals come seven months since J&J last faced a jury reviewing evidence about the cancer risk of its signature talc product, which it maintains is safe, although it has replaced it with a cornstarch version in the U.S. and Canada. The company used the lull, due to the pandemic, to hold settlement talks, according to the people, who asked not to be identified because the matter is private.
Kim Montagnino, a J&J spokeswoman said that, “In certain circumstances, we do choose to settle lawsuits, which is done without an admission of liability and in no way changes our position regarding the safety of our products. According to her, the “scientific evidence” supports that position.
If this is the case, it begs the question, why so many many lawsuits and settlements over the years if the “scientific evidence” does actually support that position, and not the other?
According to a statement from SOKOLOVE Law,
Companies that mine talc are required to take extra steps to ensure the absence of asbestos in their talc. Instead, J&J allegedly went to great lengths to fake it.
Not only did the company know about the asbestos contamination, evidence suggests, but J&J also failed to warn its customers about the link between Baby Powder and cancer or replace its talc with a safer alternative. As a result, J&J guaranteed its customers’ exposure to asbestos.
And regardless of their size or numbers, asbestos fibers are lethal at any capacity. As the World Health Organization (WHO) has stressed repeatedly, there is no safe level of exposure.
Talc in their baby powder hasn’t been the only issue, not long ago, the company had to recall approximately 33,000 bottles on baby powder after asbestos was detected in one of its bottles by the FDA.
Why This Is Important: When it comes to products that deal with our health we have to ask ourselves if the process they go through in order to get approved is corrupt. Are there products that are marketed as wonderful, but may be harmful to consumers on the shelves of our favourite stores? Can we really trust our federal health regulatory agencies? In my opinion we can’t, and it’s important for people to do their own research before using a product that goes on our or our child’s skin/body.
I feel this way due to the conflicts of interests that exist between federal health regulatory agencies and pharmaceutical companies, employees always seem to hold high level positions and jock back and forth from company to agency. Julie Gerberding is one of many examples, holding high level positions within the FDA and big pharmaceutical companies, like Merck.
I also feel this way because we hear it directly from those within these agencies. There are several other great examples that illustrate this point, in fact there are decades of examples. One of the best would be the SPIDER papers. A group called the CDC Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research, or CDC SPIDER, put a list of complaints in a letter to the CDC Chief of Staff and provided a copy of the letter to the public watchdog organization U.S. Right to Know (USRTK).
Here’s another great quote from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that I’ve used multiple times to illustrate why I have great concerns.
Even the pharmaceutical companies have been able to purchase congress. They’re the largest lobbying entity in Washington D.C.. They have more lobbyists in Washington D.C. than there are congressman and senators combined. They give twice to congress what the next largest lobbying entity is, which is oil and gas… Imagine the power they exercise over both republicans and democrats. They’ve captured them (our regulatory agencies) and turned them into sock puppets. They’ve compromised the press… and they destroy the publications that publish real science. (source)
Again, there are many examples of foul play. Glyphosate, an active ingredient within Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, was recently re-licensed and approved by the European Parliament. However, MEPs found the science given to them was plagiarized, full of industry science written by Monsanto.
The Takeaway: In my opinion, it’s quite clear that government policy is heavily dictated by powerful corporations, and as a result the approval of some products and substances that perhaps should not be approved may be commonplace. This begs the question, can we continue to rely, listen to and follow our government heath regulatory agencies when there is so much information put out by independent bodies and scientists that contradict their claims? Is it time to take our health into our own hands and look into things instead of simply believing what we’ve been told?