Does it actually exist?
People with COVID-19 have had a wide range of symptoms reported – ranging from mild symptoms to severe illness. Symptoms may appear 2-14 days after exposure to the virus. Anyone can have mild to severe symptoms. People with these symptoms may have COVID-19:
- Fever or chills
- Cough
- Shortness of breath or difficulty breathing
- Fatigue
- Muscle or body aches
- Headache
- New loss of taste or smell
- Sore throat
- Congestion or runny nose
- Nausea or vomiting
- Diarrhea
Personally I have had those symptoms on and off for at least the last 20 years.
According to the official numbers from all over the world ( Worldometer) the yearly number of deaths by covid is about 14 per million people.
Seems to me to be like a normal new cold virus
Is it actually possible to make a vaccine??
It is of course possible to make a traditional vaccine – based on weakened virus- it will trigger our own immune system to create a defence against this new virus.
just be aware that the virus mutates – so the virus used to make the vaccine is another variant. – variants does not matter much for our own immune system – it is an all-round system.
BUT for mRNA -‘vaccines it is another matter. Those vaccines are made to be variant specific. They target a specific virus-variant. As the virus mutates ( like all cold viruses) the variant that the vaccine is made for does not exist when the vaccine is ready ( due to time elapsed). So the efficiency of the vaccine is most likely due to your own immune system and not the vaccine.
Another problem with the mRNA vaccines is that it is an additional immune system. Just like giving a cow a fifth leg and expect it to run better.
Adding an artificial immune system to our own ( a perfect all-round system) will create havoc in people – like it does everywhere else in nature where the humans have tried to artificially change things. We call it side-effects, with millions of damaged and dead people.
https://brandnewtube.com/embed/qak9GvjBsn3RrJ4
Can mRNA vaccines alter intelligence?
IT IS genuinely shocking how apparently sane health professionals ignore research findings, and how politicians refuse to meet and discuss concerns with constituents. I am asking myself if is there any valid reason to suppose that receiving an mRNA vaccine degrades decision-making, ethical or empathetic capacity? I fully realise I am going to be heavily criticised, but I believe this is a valid scientific question to ask.
Many of you will be aware of recently published research from Sweden which found that genetic sequences from mRNA vaccines can integrate into liver cells in vitro.
This study builds upon earlier research and indicates pathways for genetic interference to be caused by Covid vaccines. For example, it presents a possible mechanism to explain the cases of autoimmune liver disease observed after Covid-19 vaccination. I don’t have sufficient technical genetic and microbiological knowledge to explain the full import of this study, but various experts have tackled it, for example see this YouTube video.https://www.youtube.com/embed/g8vY0tyVmjY?feature=oembed
You will gain from this video an insight into just how little we understand about the possible side effects of mRNA vaccines and how the risks are being casually dismissed.
Importantly, no one understands the relationship between higher human functions and genetics. The known integrative role consciousness plays in physics, biology and all phases of life has been ignored for over a century in favour of a generally mechanistic or reductionist view of life and the universe. It is no longer plausible or realistic to overlook the key role of consciousness. It is time to re-interpret experimental results and theoretical models.
It is inconceivable that the DNA molecule is not connected with consciousness. DNA lies at the centre of the cell. Without losing its structure or integrity it succeeds in producing and directing the frantic activity of millions of proteins and other cellular components rushing about within the cell membrane. The system the DNA has set up and controls is capable of ensuring that damage to itself is more or less instantly repaired after the countless collisions and oxidative damage it endures. It also directs the specialisation of individual cells to undertake billions of individual tasks within the human body. Liver cells, nerve cells, brain cells, kidney cells, reproductive cells, lung cells, heart cells, and so on. It is without doubt that the DNA must do so in constant communication with trillions of other DNA molecules in other cells. DNA is at the heart of a network or field of intelligence that has the hallmark of consciousness—intelligent, self-referral functioning.
It is now well known that cells have memory. Transplant recipients, especially heart recipients, can acquire the memories and behaviours of their donors. (Joshi, S. Memory transference in organ transplant recipients, Namah Journal 19(1) 2011). These changes can extend in some cases to deeper personality changes. It is also well known that cells make intelligent decisions independently of commands from the brain. Decisions that are not just automatically programmed, but are apparently novel responses to unusual threats. These responses point to a net of consciousness at work with individual cells as communication nodes of the network.
New nodes inserted into the cell network integrate with the total functioning of the organism and change the behaviour of the network.
Yet this is more than a network of individual elements in communication. The human individual—physiology, biology, neurology, psychology—is an integrated entity in its own right functioning as a whole. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. The hallmark of this holistic entity is functioning intelligent consciousness. There is a reciprocal relationship of mutual interaction between the consciousness of the cell and the consciousness of the individual. Every cell influences the holistic value of the individual, and is in turn influenced by the holistic value of consciousness. Every cell instantly responds to the consciousness of the individual and feeds back information and responses to the holistic consciousness of the individual. We instantly register even the smallest pin prick.
It is not beyond rational thought to propose that if genetic sequences integrate into many cellular components of the physiology, they may influence mental states. A wide scale disruption of DNA could be a result of mRNA vaccination, and has already been proposed by some as a possibility. No one really understands how higher human functions like assessments of fairness emerge, nor how they might be altered.
We understand that animals do not have the same refined reflective, nuanced, moral judgement that we have, they are largely instinctual. Animals share a great deal of DNA with ourselves, but somehow humans have free will and no one knows how this miracle is achieved by our genetics. We already know that gene therapy experiments on animals often go horribly wrong. Is the highly developed and prized capacity of humans for creativity, morality and empathy something that can be put at risk by genetic manipulation? No one is asking this question, because the complexity of genetic function is beyond current science. Yet some scientists feel confident to interfere with millions of years of evolution. This weird bravado is completely at odds with past experimentation which has had disastrous results. Now it is being forced upon the whole population without a moral qualm.
Some propose that this is a form of mass hypnosis or others that our fear of illness is being cleverly exploited.
Many have close friends or relatives who have become suddenly angry and ready to cut off all ties. Researchers at Aarhus University in Denmark surveyed attitudes in 21 countries and found that vaccinated people despise those who refuse to get the jab – but the opposite is not true. The researchers found that vaccinated people made ‘stereotypic inferences that unvaccinated individuals are untrustworthy and unintelligent, making the antipathy resemble prejudice towards other deviant groups’.
Have these extreme attitudes been curated by governments and mainstream media, or are they driven by a loss of cognitive perspective? President Macron says he wants to ‘piss off the unvaccinated’, Justin Trudeau refers to protesters as ‘taking some space’ and adds ’do we tolerate these people?’, and Jacinda Ardern says ‘the unvaccinated don’t deserve everyday activities’. Are they expressing carefully considered political sentiments or has their judgement been impaired and their emotions inflamed? Is their refusal to openly debate scientific issues, a mark of immature thinking? Have they reverted to a more primitive and fearful outlook than that they professed two years ago, and why would they do so?
It is certainly the case that evolutionary biologists argue that increased genetic sophistication led to higher human abilities. So can we lose them through genetic experimentation?
We are witnessing a world hazarding a war whose worst consequences are almost unthinkable—nuclear annihilation. In this, the whole world has gone beyond brinkmanship to impetuous conflict. Perhaps the judgement of some politicians has been degraded to the point that frustration, anger, and irrational imaginings of power are sufficient to override any consideration of human extinction.
We may never find out until until we have passed the point of no return, but the question of the day is: If our intelligence is intimately linked to our DNA, can it be degraded by gene-based vaccines?
Pro-Vaxxer Left Speechless as Dr. McCullough Drops the Disturbing Truth About the COVID Shots:
2. • “In countries that actually did have the vaccine status, like the UK, they found far more vaccinated in the hospital on ventilators and dying than the unvaccinated.”
• “With every single injection, one is more and more likely to get COVID-19.”
• “Our safety system for vaccines records, on average, 150 deaths in a year on average. The COVID-19 vaccines roll out… 18,655 Americans dying after the vaccine. 1150 die on the same day they take the shot! Some die in the vaccine center. 1200 die the next day.”
Is the Public Ready for the Truth About COVID Vaccines?
RealClear Health this month published an op-ed by Dr. Pierre Kory, president and chief medical officer of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, and journalist Mary Beth Pfeiffer that raised questions about COVID-19 vaccines and rising cancer rates. Is it a sign that mainstream media is finally ready to allow debate on the vaccines?
By
Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender’s Top News of the Day. It’s free.
Are mainstream media and the public becoming more open to news and perspectives contradicting the establishment narrative on COVID-19, the vaccines and the prevailing public health policies of the past four years?
If so, can such incremental change eventually lead to a transformation in public attitudes?
At least one medical expert thinks so. Writing on Substack, Dr. Pierre Kory, president and chief medical officer of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, cited the April 25 publication of a RealClear Health op-ed he co-wrote with journalist Mary Beth Pfeiffer as an example of how the public narrative may be changing.
The op-ed analyzed evidence finding that mRNA vaccines are the cause of a significant spike in cancer among young people.
Kory wrote that this is the fifth op-ed he and Pfeiffer have published in mainstream, widely read news outlets since August 2023 on related topics.
“It appears the public’s appetite for objective, independent analysis of vaccine harm is increasing,” Kory wrote on Substak
Widening the ‘Overton Window’
Kory suggested the willingness of media outlets like RealClear Health to publish articles critical of COVID-19 policies and vaccines suggests a widening of the “Overton Window,” a concept that “refers specifically to the kind of policies politicians can ‘legitimately’ support over time without risking electoral support.”
Writing for the Brownstone Institute on April 17, Jeffrey Tucker said the Overton Window concept — named for researcher Joseph Overton, who worked at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy — “grows out of think tank culture, which puts a premium on effectiveness and metrics as a means of institutional funding.”
According to Tucker, Overton “found that it was useless in his work to advocate for positions that he could not recruit politicians to say from the legislative floor or on the campaign trail.” Instead, Overton found greater success when “crafting policy ideas that fit within the prevailing media and political culture.”
Other scholars later further developed Overton’s concept. Today, the Overton Window includes five stages that ideas pass through before becoming policy, moving from “unthinkable” to “radical” to “acceptable” to “sensible” to “popular.”
According to the Mackinac Center, Kory wrote, the range of acceptable ideas within the Overton Window can change over time, as it “can both shift and expand, either increasing or shrinking the number of ideas politicians can support without unduly risking their electoral support.”
Speaking to The Defender, Kory applied the concept to COVID-19 narratives. “We are seeing an acceptance to raise questions and discuss the unusual rise in death and disability rates among populations that include some of the healthiest and most productive people,” Kory said, citing the August 2023 op-ed he co-wrote for USA Today.
Kory said the USA Today op-ed, which presented insurance company data showing a dramatic increase in excess deaths in the fall of 2021 — deaths that cannot be fully attributed to COVID-19 infections — represented “the first time [that] someone from our ‘side’ crossed over into the mainstream media to raise these types of questions.”
“The acceptance to have a conversation like this in USA Today would have seemed impossible in 2022,” Kory said. The subsequent publication of his latest op-ed, in RealClear Health, “shows just how far we have come,” he said.
“If you keep your eye on the Window … you might succeed in expanding it a bit here and there and thereby achieve your goals eventually,” Tucker wrote.
But, he added:
“We live in times in which most of what we thought we knew about the strategies for social and political change have been blown up. … Everything is broken, including whatever imaginings we had about the existence of this Overton window.”
In his article for the Brownstone Institute, Tucker said that while “the theory of the Overton window presumes a smooth connection between public opinion and political outcomes,” this assumption is “gravely in question” today.
“Politicians do things daily and hourly that are opposed by their constituents — fund foreign aid and wars for example — but they do it anyway due to well-organized pressure groups that operate outside public awareness,” Tucker wrote.
Instead, Tucker called for bolder truth-telling. “Many people knew the truth — that everyone would get this bug, most would shake it off just fine, and then it would become endemic — but were simply afraid to say it. Cite the Overton window all you want but what is really at issue is one’s willingness to exercise moral courage.”
Tucker didn’t entirely dismiss the existence of the Overton Window. “I do think the Overton Window exists, but it is largely constructed. Breaking down the constructs is our task, whether incrementally or all at once,” he told The Defender.
Kory said the “truth-telling” is taking place — and is becoming more difficult for the mainstream media to ignore.
He said:
“The evidence on excess deaths, injuries from vaccines, and the reality of long COVID is becoming undeniable to most, regardless of where they might have stood on these issues a few months ago.
“Anecdotally, and unfortunately, there is a growing number of people from all sides of these issues who know someone close to them who has been diagnosed with a chronic condition they have no family history of or is usually associated with someone many years older.
“As this unfortunately continues, more people appear to be opening up to at least raising questions and exploring what was once thought of as ‘contrarian evidence’ to find answers.”
Incremental broadening of COVID narratives accepted by the mainstream media
The RealClear Health op-ed, “As Cancers in the Young Rise, the Pandemic Response Must Be Probed,” openly questioned recent U.S. government claims that the risk of seizures and pulmonary embolisms caused by the COVID-19 vaccines was worth the benefit for children and adults:
“We question this, with more than one million reports of potential vaccine injuries and 18,000 deaths on the government’s own, long-trusted and likely undercounted, early warning system. These, the government takes pains to dismiss.
“As evidence mounts and a movement of injured people grows, the Biden administration must recognize this growing public health problem. It must cease to stifle debate that has limited what journals print and what the public knows about vaccine consequences.”
Later in the op-ed, Kory reviewed data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which he said are “the tip of an emerging iceberg” of “vaccine-abetted cancer.”
Kory noted that mainstream sources are now acknowledging an unusual rise in “turbo cancer” cases — “a phenomenon that vaccine ‘fact-checkers’ have dismissed.”
“Even the Cancer Society has said publicly that, beyond more of them, these cancers are different. Colorectal tumors are larger, more aggressive, and more difficult to treat,” Kory wrote.
He referred to studies showing repeated vaccinations may “undermine mechanisms of immunity — disabling antibodies that fight cancer and even COVID — and perhaps facilitate cancer growth.”
Kory also referred to recent findings that the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines contain foreign DNA fragments. “The consequences of COVID vaccines should be scrutinized,” including “reported deaths, under-diagnosed myocarditis in young males, and many published case reports and studies.
‘It’s a time for truth’
Noting that reactions to his five op-eds “have been mostly positive,” Kory said they “have allowed us to expose millions of people, mostly outside of our movement, to the idea that there remain a lot of unanswered questions about the safety of the vaccine and the potential causes of the sharp increases in chronic diseases and deaths.”
He added:
“The establishment’s narrative is the loudest and most often heard. This is why we must try to cross over as much as possible into the mainstream in a way that invites those following the establishment without question to begin to ask questions.”
Kory also noted the importance of avoiding hyperbole. “If we approach our conversations with those who might not agree with a barrage of reasons why they are wrong, we won’t get far,” he said. “Jeffrey Tucker is correct when he says we must communicate truthfully and honestly, without malice or intent to manipulate the other side.”
Still, the broadening range of acceptable narratives may “do something to limit the ability of our leaders to launch a dangerous and ultimately destructive global health experiment the next time there is a ‘public health emergency,’” Kory wrote on Substack.
“There are many challenges ahead. We are still fighting the headwinds of captured federal agencies that protect the interests of drug companies over public health. We will not see real change until that happens,” Kory told The Defender.
Tucker suggested we “forget” the Overton Window model. Instead, he wrote “It’s a time for truth, which earns trust. Only that will blow the window wide open and finally demolish it forever.”
“I’m not dismissing the old virtue of prudence and discernment,” Tucker told The Defender. “We must be wise and not stupid. There is much we can do while being bold.
One and two doses of the COVID-19 vaccines were linked to an increase in all-cause mortality in a new peer-reviewed study that analyzed data from the Italian National Healthcare System.
Based on their analysis, a team of Italian researchers verified what they called “the real impact of the vaccination campaign” by comparing the risk of all-cause death among vaccinated and unvaccinated residents of the Italian province of Pescara.
In their multivariate analysis, the researchers found the risk of all-cause death to be higher for those vaccinated with one or two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine compared to the unvaccinated.
Those who received three or four doses had roughly the same risk of all-cause death as the unvaccinated, they said, in contrast with prior research done in the same region suggesting those with three or four doses had a lower risk of all-cause death.
“We also found a slight but statistically significant loss of life expectancy for those vaccinated with 2 or 3/4 doses,” they said in the report, which they published June 30 in Microorganisms.
Dr. Peter McCullough told The Defender, “These findings call for an immediate halt of COVID-19 vaccination across the globe and a thorough investigation of what went wrong during the COVID-19 vaccine campaign.”
McCullough wrote on Substack that the paper’s main point is that “COVID-19 vaccination did not ‘save lives’ as so many in Washington have proclaimed without evidence.”
Alberto Donzelli, one of the Italian study’s authors, told The Defender the study is “an important advance” because it looks at all-cause mortality broken down by vaccination status, and accounts for confounding variables that may have affected earlier reports on COVID-19 vaccination and all-cause mortality.
Very few studies in the world have successfully done that, he said.
McCullough also told The Defender the study’s findings are “cohesive” with those of a recent German study — currently available as a preprint — which found COVID-19 vaccination was linked to increased all-cause death in 16 German states.
Researchers undertake study to correct for bias
For their study, Donzelli and his co-authors used the same data analyzed by other researchers in an earlier Italian study on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness.
The earlier study — which followed up with people two years after the start of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign — found that those who received one or two doses had a significantly higher risk of all-cause death, while those who received three or more vaccine doses had a lower risk of death.
However, these results were likely distorted due to “immortal time bias,” Donzelli and his co-authors said.
Immortal time bias is a common study design flaw that can throw off statistical estimations between an exposure (such as a COVID-19 shot) and an outcome (such as an increased risk of death), according to the University of Oxford’s Catalogue of Bias.
Donzelli said the bias “afflicts most observational studies on mortality from COVID-19.” So he and his co-authors took the necessary steps to correct for the bias and reanalyzed the same data.
They looked at vaccination records from Jan. 1, 2021, through Dec. 31, 2022, for people ages 10 and up.
They also looked at follow-up data collected from Jan. 1, 2021, through Feb. 15, 2023, for these people, as long as they hadn’t tested positive for COVID-19 on the date of the follow-up.
They also looked at other variables, such as pathologies other than COVID-19, that may have affected people’s health.
“The results are startling,” wrote McCullough. “COVID-19 specific deaths were not reduced with vaccination, however there was a U-shaped trend of note when COVID-19 deaths were adjusted per 1000 population: unvaccinated 1.98/1000, one dose 0.27/1000, two doses 1.08/1000, and 3/4 doses 3.5/1000.”
Additionally, Donzelli and his co-authors in their multivariate analysis found that those who received one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine had a hazard risk ratio — which is a statistical estimate of risk — of 2.4 for all-cause mortality, meaning they were much more likely to die compared to the unvaccinated.
“Those vaccinated with two doses showed an almost double hazard ratio of death: 1.98,” Donzelli pointed out.
These numbers are significantly worse than what was reported in the original study that hadn’t corrected for the immortal time bias, he said. Correcting for that bias changed the results for those who were vaccinated with three or more doses, too.
The original study authors had claimed that being vaccinated three or more times reduced the risk of mortality more than four-fold. Based on his and his co-authors corrected analysis, Donzelli called the claim “implausible.”
He said, “Those vaccinated with three or more doses turned out to die at the same rate as the unvaccinated.”
CDC: COVID shots ‘save lives’
The Defender asked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) if it planned to modify its statement that “COVID-19 vaccines save lives” in light of the study’s findings.
A CDC spokesperson told The Defender that the CDC “does not comment on findings or claims by individuals or organizations outside of CDC.” The spokesperson declined to provide studies or data supporting the agency’s claim that the vaccines save lives.
“CDC research has continuously found that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective,” the spokesperson said.
