No announcement yet.

The Mark of the Beast ?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts


    Gordon Chang was born in China and one parent was Chinese. He is married to a Chinese women. He is a very reliable source about China. Watch what he says about China in the video.

    News For You
    October 21, 2021

    Anyone paying attention to the mysterious progression of the destructive COVID pandemic should be suspicious of China. The Chinese Communist Party has lied to the world repeatedly. The CCP has been proven constantly to be a “bad actor” in peaceful global pursuits.

    The CCP wants to control the world. Trained experts caution that COVID may have been unleashed purposefully. China’s corrupt government has buried evidence or cast the blame on everything else, despite an increasingly obvious conclusion.

    The virus was either started on purpose, or was leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China according to most reports now. As frightening as a purposeful release of a deadly virus is, the intent of the Chinese government may be even more sinister.

    As the virus wrecked havoc across the globe, many experts speculated that there was more to China’s secretive cover-up. China is not a friend of virtually every country in the world. Their list of allies is restricted to authoritarian or communist nations such as North Korea and Iran.

    Other countries, not only China’s most intense adversary, the United States, are suspicious. Apparently, they should be. Undercover research has indicated that China has been secretively collecting the DNA data of citizens from adversarial nations.

    This collection of vital human genetic sequences especially targets particular ethnic groups. When you combine any notion that COVID may have been created on purpose, it opens up the possibility for a death virus targeting certain races and groups of people.

    China’s DNA profiling is being forced on poorer nations who must succumb to Chinese government demands to secure COVID vaccinations. Even testing procedures are providing critical DNA samples to the CCP. China has been working on a national DNA database since at least 2017.

    They insist they can use this data to profile criminals and improve their country. Most doubt this to be anything akin to a noble ambition. Many believe the unleashing of a global pandemic gave them the opportunity to expand this database on a global scale.

    Collecting this type of sensitive genetic data raised a few eyebrows. Inside such gain-of-function facilities such as the lab in Wuhan, Chinese military scientists could construct a virus that would devastate multiple ethnic groups.

    This country already practices ethnic genocide inside its own borders. China is growing increasingly more aggressive toward the independent nation of Taiwan, an American ally in the Pacific. The CCP is a bad actor. China is not a friend to the world.

    They want to do more than just overtake the United States economically and militarily. China wants to be the sole worldwide governing body. They are prepared to launch deadly viruses across the planet to kill and destroy whole populations to achieve this goal.

    Anyone who thinks China is our friend is dangerous. When we dig deeply into the family ties and personal relationships of Joe Biden, it becomes an even more alarming situation. China is trying to forcefully take over the world. Joe Biden is a friend to China. You can draw your own conclusions.
    Lou Newton
    Bond Servant of Jesus
    Last edited by Lou Newton; October 21, 2021, 09:42 AM.


    • Expert Floored by Bombshell NIH Letter: 'Fauci Lied to Congress...Knowingly, Willfully, and Brazenly'

      By Jack Davis October 24, 2021 at 9:58am
      An admission by the National Institutes of Health that it funded what amounted to gain-of-function research in China undercuts assertions from Dr. Anthony Fauci and others that the federally funded agency did no such thing, according to one expert.

      Such research is controversial because it allows virus that exists in nature to be manipulated in a lab to make it stronger — even more deadly. The research conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was funded by the NIH, has taken on new importance in the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic.

      “Collins and Fauci lied to Congress, lied to the press, and lied to the public. Knowingly, willfully and brazenly,” said Richard Ebright, a professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University, according to the Washington Examiner. The “Collins” referred to is NIH Director Francis Collins.

      Senator Rand Paul


      NIH Contradicts Fauci, Admits Funding Gain-of-Function Research at Wuhan Lab… via @BreitbartNews

      NIH Contradicts Fauci, Admits Funding Gain-of-Function Research at Wuhan Lab
      The NIH admitted that it did fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, contrary to what Fauci said.
      8:56 AM Oct 21, 2021

      After over a year of denials from the agency’s leadership, NIH Principal Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak admitted last week that the agency funded gain-of-function experiments on bat coronaviruses in China.

      Tabak said that its grantee, EcoHealth Alliance, notified the NIH in August that it conducted the gain-of-function experiments with the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China between June 2018 and May 2019. Tabak said EcoHealth failed to immediately notify the agency that they created lab-generated chimeric coronaviruses that exhibited a greater than one log, or ten times increase, in growth.

      NIH leaders have tried to say that just because the outcome took place does not mean the NIH funded gain-of-function research.

      Bur Ebright called the letter a “bombshell” because it “corrects the untruthful assertions” by Collins and Fauci, the Washington Examiner reported.

      Ebright said there is more to this than an unexpected outcome.

      “By failing to forward the proposal for the required HHS-level risk-benefit assessment, and then by funding the proposal without the required HHS-level risk-benefit assessment, officials at the NIH violated federal policies that were put in place to protect U.S. national security and U.S. public health … and put at risk U.S. national security and U.S. public health,” Ebright said.

      “The NIH spokesperson — or preferably the NIH officials who funded the proposal without the required HHS-level risk-benefit assessment — need to explain how this violation of federal policy occurred and what steps are being taken to ensure that similar violations of federal policy do not occur in the future,” he continued.

      Ebright said it was “incontrovertibly correct” that the work conducted by EcoHealth for NIH “show that EcoHealth and its Wuhan partner constructed novel chimeric SARS-related coronaviruses — artificial, lab-generated viruses that do not have counterparts circulating in nature — that exhibited 10,000 times enhanced viral load and two to four times enhanced pathogenicity in infection studies in mice engineered to display human receptors on their cells (‘humanized mice’).”

      That means renewing the grant funding for the research required reviews it was never given.

      Group of Bipartisan Lawmakers Demands Answers from Fauci After 'Reprehensible' NIAD Action
      “Therefore is correct that the proposal for the second 5-year grant term, which proposed to construct more such novel chimeric SARS-related coronaviruses — included research reasonably anticipated — indeed highly likely — to create, transfer or use potential pandemic pathogens resulting from the enhancement of a pathogen’s transmissibility and/or virulence in humans — and, therefore, it is correct that the proposal for the second 5-year grant term required HHS-level risk-benefit assessment under the HHS P3CO Framework,” he said.

      Ebright said efforts to downplay the research funded by NIH as only having infected animals are an exercise in misdirection.

      “They have no shame. In essence, they are claiming that, because the NIH did not fund infection studies with lab-generated viruses and human subjects — Uyghur detainees? Falun Gong dissidents? — the NIH did not fund gain of function research or potential pandemic pathogen enhancement subject to the federal policies,” he stated.
      Truth and Accuracy

      Submit a Correction →

      We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.



        A nurse draws a vaccine dose from a vial in Bowie, Md., on March 25, 2021. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)SOCIAL ISSUES

        Health Care Workers Speak Out on Why They Would Rather Lose Their Jobs Than Take a COVID-19 Vaccine


        October 25, 2021 Updated: October 26, 2021

        Despite the COVID-19 vaccines having been promoted as safe and effective by legacy media, many health care workers are refusing to take them, and those who openly speak out about their concerns get censored by Big Tech companies or kicked off their platforms.

        Some nurses and doctors are refusing vaccine mandates even if their refusal will cost them their jobs.

        The Epoch Times reached out to some of these health care professionals to see why.

        ‘Impossible to Give Fully Informed Consent’

        Emily Nixon is a registered nurse who has been working in the health industry for 18 years. When her employer, MaineHealth, announced that it would make the vaccine mandatory, she quickly organized a group called The Coalition for Healthcare Workers Against Medical Mandates and filed a lawsuit.

        “Thousands of health care workers have and will be losing their jobs. The already weak health care infrastructure of Maine will not withstand this devastating loss of staff. Life will be lost. Care is already being rationed. We have been experiencing a media blackout in this state,” Nixon said.

        “Speaking from my point of view, an intelligent, healthy, and empowered health care professional that takes excellent care of herself, it is an insult to expect that I would accept an injection of unknown substance and efficacy and provide an example to the great people that I serve that they too should submit their power over to pharmaceutical companies—convicted felons—in an effort to put a band-aid on the gaping wound of reality.

        “It is unconscionable to mandate injections without exemption, especially when the injection is a brand new medical product still undergoing its first year of study. Breakthrough cases are not properly reported on. We know this vaccine is ‘leaky.’ The safety and effectiveness of this vaccine has not been proven. There are other safe and alternative treatments. It is impossible to give fully informed consent without long-term, unbiased data. Threatening our jobs is blatant coercion. Our God-given right to bodily integrity and personal autonomy has been stripped with these mandates and we will not stand for it,” Nixon said.

        ‘The Side Effects Are Real’

        Jaclyn Zubiate, who was working for Southern Maine Health Care, loved her job as a nurse practitioner.

        “I did not take the vaccine, even though I will be terminated … Now with the data that we have, we know that the survival rate is quite high. Over the last 18 months, I have only sent one patient to the ER in respiratory distress. COVID has no distinguishing features among other viruses like other diseases that we have vaccines for. Why would I need a vaccine for something with a 99 percent survival rate that does not have any distinguishable features?” said Zubiate.

        “Health care workers are not taking it because they know that the side effects are real. In urgent care, I have seen myocarditis, cellulitis, [and] unusual neurological symptoms, among a variety of other side effects. I have seen people very ill post-vaccine, and then go on to test positive. The positivity rate for contracting COVID on the vaccinated is very high per the recent studies and what I am seeing in my clinic. A vaccine should work, and it is not working. It should be tested for years on something other than humans before we call it ‘safe and effective.’ There have been over 15,000 deaths from the vaccine that the media is not talking about. I will never take that risk on myself,” Zubiate said.

        ‘The Data Speaks for Itself’

        Jessica Mosher has been a registered nurse for more than a decade. She is a mother of four and a veteran of the United States Navy who lost her job for refusing the shots.

        She was a nursing supervisor, patient observer manager, and nurse program director at Redington-Fairview General Hospital.

        “Protecting my health and staying true to my religious convictions will always be my choice over a job. The scriptures promise that ‘as long as the earth remains, there will be seedtime and harvest’; this side of heaven, we have an abundance of employment options, but only one life,” Mosher said.

        “I have a master’s degree in nursing and am employed as a professor of nursing research and evidence-based practice. I am skilled in collecting and analyzing data and in drawing conclusions. I did not rely on the media, government, or Big Tech for any of my health care decisions prior to COVID-19 and I have no plans to change course. The data speaks for itself related to the harm these experimental vaccines have caused and the lack of studies that have been conducted.

        “What I have seen as a nurse and what others have shared post-vaccination seals the deal. The virus, like the cold and flu, does not have a cure. However, it has an almost 100 percent survival rate. Those pushing the vaccine are following the money. I am following the science. Health care workers do not walk away from their passion or stable salary to be difficult. The amount of people willing to be fired should be cause for alarm in and of itself,” she said.

        ‘Health Care Workers Have Natural Immunity

        John Lewis worked for a large hospital in southern Maine.

        He is pro-life and believes that all life is precious.

        “Knowing all three available vaccines were either tested, developed, or produced using fetal cell lines from elective abortions, I could not in good conscience violate my deeply held beliefs. Anticipating I would be able to file a religious exemption, it is hard to accept [that] I’m not being afforded an exemption based on my duties after considering I am a remote worker and do not interact with patients,” Lewis said.

        “Outside of medical or religious exemptions, many health care workers consider the risk-benefits of getting the vaccine. It is the same approach to providing patient care, where the patient is allowed informed consent. Many of the health care workers have natural immunity. Others do not feel there is enough long-term research into adverse effects. Also, these health care workers see with their own eyes what is happening in hospitals, which isn’t necessarily in line with the narrative,” Lewis said.

        ‘None of Us Are Seeing’ Surges

        Heather Sadler, a registered nurse, also loves to be a nurse, but she said that her and her family’s health are much more important than her paycheck.

        “This is new vaccine (if you want to call it that) technology that has NEVER been deployed successfully, and has no data regarding long-term effects, not to be confused with ‘side effects’ as the general public seems to be hung up on. I have always been someone who analyzes my health care choices through the lens of risk-benefit ratio. Knowing what I know about COVID (and I’ve done a lot of research), I do not fall into any of the high-risk for severe illness/death categories: age over 65, obese, heart disease, diabetes, chronic lung conditions, and immunocompromised. For me and my immediate family, there is greater risk of having a side effect, or long-term effect from injecting a virtually unknown substance into ourselves,” Sadler said.

        “I am a nurse in Oncology/Hematology, and I’m seeing that we are experiencing an increase in hospitalizations/referrals for clotting and bleeding disorders. For one example, in one week, we had two patients in the hospital who were diagnosed with a rare clotting disorder that is normally only seen in 4 percent of the general population. And this happened twice in one week in rural central Maine. The only common factor, a COVID shot three days prior in each case. Was this reported to the CDC? I do not know.

        “Only 4 of the roughly 20 to 25 people I’ve known personally who have tested positive for COVID recently have been unvaccinated. Yes, unvaccinated. The majority of the people around me who have tested positive in the past three months have been fully vaccinated. Why would I want to risk side effects or long-term effects of the shot if I can still contract and spread this virus? It’s just not logical. Those two examples clearly blow their theory that ‘it’s safe and effective’ out of the water,” Sadler said.

        “I am in constant communication with other health care workers in the state of Maine and none of us are seeing the ‘surges’ that the general public is told is happening.”

        “This is America! I have every right to make an educated decision regarding my health care. No matter what you are told, what I do has no direct effect on you,” Sadler said.

        ‘Freedom Is the Most Important Thing’

        Sherri Thornton was a Maine SAFE Advisory Board member and chair and has been a nurse for 45 years.

        She was planning to retire but wanted to work until the end of the year; however, when she saw the mandate coming, she decided to retire earlier.

        “I believe that freedom is the most important thing in life outside of salvation. No one has the right to tell me what I can or can not do with my body except the Lord. The vaccines have been produced with fetal tissue, and I am staunchly opposed to abortion,” Thornton said.

        “The components of the vaccines are not safe. There are many side effects that cause more harm than the coronavirus. It doesn’t protect against the variants. … Vaccinating everyone will not gain herd immunity and will only cause more variants to which those without natural immunity will succumb,” Thornton said.

        Three other health care workers that are against the vaccine mandates reached out to The Epoch Times but didn’t want to have their names or employers disclosed.

        Enrico Trigoso
        Enrico Trigoso is an Epoch Times reporter focusing on the NYC area.


        • Buried 6 Hours Into FDA Video: Doctor Makes Chilling Admission on Child COVID Vax

          By Abby Liebing October 26, 2021 at 5:25pm
          The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee approved the Pfizer vaccine for children ages 5 to 11 today after about eight hours of discussion.

          Six hours into the conversation, one doctor made a comment about how widespread the rollout of the vaccine should be.

          He said it is a legitimate question to consider and though this advisory committee was planning to punt the question on to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, it was worth talking about.

          “We’re never going to learn about how safe the vaccine is unless we start giving it, and that’s just the way it goes. That’s how we found out about rare complications of other vaccines,” Dr. Eric Rubin said in the meeting.

          The one abstention came from Dr. Michael Kurilla, who said he “would have preferred a more nuanced approach,” and not a blanket authorization for the age group, according to Stat.

          Another committee member, Dr. Cody Meissner, a pediatrician at Tufts Medical Center, did voice his concern over the possibility of a vaccine mandate for children.

          “I am just worried that if we say yes, then the states are going to mandate administration of this vaccine for children to go to school, and I do not agree with that. I think that would be an error at this time,” he said, according to CNN.

          Should the FDA approve COVID vaccines for young children?Yes No

          Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
          Dr. James Hildreth, a temporary committee member, also had concerns due to the number of children who have already had COVID-19, NBC reported. He pointed out some estimated that almost 40 percent of children already had some form of immunity to COVID-19.

          “It just seemed to me that in some ways we’re vaccinating children to protect the adults when it should be the other way around. If 30 million children already have some form of immunity, they’ve made their contribution to herd immunity already and our focus should be to get the adults vaccinated to protect the children,” Hildreth said.

          Last month, when Pfizer announced that the vaccine was safe for this age demographic, outside experts did say the clinical study did not produce copious amounts of data.

          Liberty Inquirer
          “It’s not a lot to go on, but what we do have to go on looks great,” Kathleen Neuzil of the University of Maryland School of Medicine told Stat last month.

          With the passing vote of this advisory committee, though, the process for getting vaccines to 5- to 11-year-olds is underway. If the FDA leaders give their approval, then the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s independent advisory will meet on Nov. 2 and 3 to decide whether to recommend the vaccine for this age group.

          FDA Panel Approves COVID-19 Vaccine for Kids, Authorization Process Begins
          The final step will be for CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky to sign off on the decision.

          Then, the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine will be available for 5- to 11-year-olds.
          Truth and Accuracy

          Submit a Correction →

          We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
          Lou Newton
          Bond Servant of Jesus
          Last edited by Lou Newton; October 27, 2021, 11:37 AM.


          • Former VP of Pfizer Wants to Stop Women from Taking the Vaccine, Here is Why

            Anastasia Boushee
            October 30, 2021

            Dr. Michael Yeadon, former vice president and chief scientist for allergy and respiratory at Pfizer, has revealed his reasons for telling women to reject the vaccine.

            With no long-term studies about the COVID vaccine’s side effects, it is truly a wonder how so many people are willing get vaccinated. It is even more concerning that so many women, especially of child-bearing age, are getting this experimental vaccine without knowing its effects on fertility.

            Further, even the CDC has come out and said that the vaccine doesn’t prevent the transmission of the virus, so why is there such a strong push for everyone to get vaccinated?

            Dr. Michael Yeadon addressed some of these concerns during the “Stop the Shot” Conference on August 4th.

            Dr. Yeadon’s Credentials

            Yeadon has degrees in biochemistry and toxicology, as well as a PhD in respiratory pharmacology, and has worked for 32 years in the pharmaceutical industry. He retired from his position at Pfizer in 2011, and went on to found his own biotech company, Ziarco, which was later sold to Novartis, the world’s largest drug company, in 2017

            His Concerns

            “You’re being lied to, I’m being lied to,” Yeadon said. “The authorities are not giving us full information about the risks of these products.”

            National Family Assurance
            Calling his first point “so obvious,” the former Pfizer VP stated: “We never, ever, give experimental medicines to pregnant women. Why do we not do that?”

            Yeadon went on to detail the horrific consequences of experimental drugs for women, describing how, 60 years ago, they were “exposed to a new product for morning sickness called thalidomide and it led to at least 10,000 birth malformations.”

            Studies that were conducted on the morning sickness drug prior to releasing it were not capable of identifying “thalidomide as a toxin in the womb,” he said, adding that the tragedy taught scientists that “babies are not safe and protected inside the uterus, which is what we used to think. But, in fact, they’re a miracle of minute development. Critical stages, especially in the early stages, where if interfered with biochemicals or something else, can change the course of development of that child irreparably.”

            “You never ever give inadequately tested medicines, medicinal products, to a pregnant woman,” Yeadon emphasized. “And that is exactly what is happening. Our government is urging pregnant women, and women of childbearing age, to get vaccinated. And they’re telling them they’re safe. And that’s a lie because those studies have simply not been done.”

            “Reproductive toxicology has not been undertaken with any of these products, certainly not a full battery of tests that you would want,” he added.

            “So, here we are. There’s been potentially hundreds of millions of women of child-bearing potential [injected] with products which are untested in terms of impacts on fertilization and development of the baby,” Yeadon continued.

            “That’s bad enough because what that tells me is that there’s recklessness. No one cares. The authorities do not care what happens,” the former Pfizer VP said.

            Further, Yeadon revealed that two other studies show that the situation is “much worse,” as evidence of actual damaging effects on fertility was found.

            One study conducted on rats revealed concerning results.

            “What we find is the vaccine doesn’t just distribute around the body and then wash out again, which is what you’d hope. It concentrates in ovaries of rats, and it concentrates at least 20-fold over the concentration in other background tissues like muscles,” Yeadon stated.

            “You don’t want this product in your ovaries. It’s simply not necessary to induce immunity to have a vaccine in your ovaries. And, as it’s concentrating in the ovaries, getting higher concentrations over time, they have not even defined what the maximum levels are or when that occurs,” the former Pfizer VP emphasized.

            “So, now we have a second problem, that the vaccine, at least in a rat, distributes into the ovaries. And I will tell you, a general rule of thumb in toxicology is if you don’t have any data to contradict what you’ve learned, that’s the assumption you make for humans. So, my assumption at the moment is that is what is happening to every female who’s been given these vaccines. These vaccines are concentrating in her ovaries,” Yeadon added.

            “It is very worrying. So, we don’t know what that will do, but it cannot be benign, and it could be seriously harmful because the vaccines will then express the coronavirus spike protein, and we know that there are unwanted [results] from that spike protein,” he continued.

            In his final point, which Yeadon described as “even worse” because the experiments were done on humans, he discussed a petition he sent to the European Medicines Agency alongside another physician from Germany in December of 2020.

            One of the concerns from the petition was that “the spike protein is faintly similar, not very strongly, but faintly similar to an essential protein in your placenta, something that’s absolutely required for both fertilization and formation, and maintenance of the placenta. So, you can’t get pregnant and have a successful pregnancy if this protein is damaged in any way.”

            Noting that the coronavirus spike protein was “similar enough,” Yeadon added: “I wanted them to do some experiments, hopefully to rule out the possibility that when you vaccinate the person, who then makes spike proteins, and they develop immune response against this spike protein,” that it would not issue “a faint signal that would potentially bind this similar protein in the placenta.”

            Of course, his petition was ignored. But, Yeadon said that “a study has just come out a few weeks ago, and it says exactly what I was worried about.”

            “Fifteen women were given the Pfizer vaccine. They drew blood samples every few days. When they measured antibodies against spike protein, which took several weeks to appear, they also measured antibodies against the placenta and they found that within the first one to four days an increase of two and a half to three times. That’s a 300% increase in the antibodies against their own placenta in the first four days,” the former Pfizer VP explained.

            “So, I’m sorry to say this, but that is a vaccine-induced autoimmune attack on their own placenta. And I think you can only expect that that is happening in every woman of childbearing potential. It’s generating antibodies against this critical protein required for fertilization and successful pregnancy,” Yeadon continued.

            “Now, what the effect will be, we can’t be certain. Again, it can’t be benign. I don’t know whether it is enough to cause first trimester losses, but I would think it would, because I’ve looked at the literature. Women who are unfortunate enough to have what are called autoimmune diseases seem to have a higher rate of first trimester losses and what this vaccine has done is induced an auto-immune response,” the former Pfizer VP added.

            “So, I’m here to warn you that if you are of childbearing potential, or younger, not at menopause, I would strongly recommend you do not accept these vaccines,” Yeadon concluded.


            • New Lancet Study From Sweden Shows Vaccine Effectiveness Against Infection Dropping to Zero and Sharp Decline Against Severe Disease As Well

              To judge from recent scientific and media output, there appear to be two parallel realities currently existing side-by-side in Covid world. In one, the vaccines are highly effective at preventing infection and transmission, and any data that suggests otherwise is being misrepresented or is biased or contains some kind of basic error. In the other – the one that bears a much closer resemblance to the one we actually live in – vaccine effectiveness against infection has been declining significantly and after six months is basically zero. At some point, one of these realities is going to have to give way because they can’t both be true. I know which one my money’s on.

              An example of the first appeared in New Scientist this week, headlined: “How much less likely are you to spread COVID-19 if you’re vaccinated?” The answer: at least 63%, according to a new population-based pre-print study from the Netherlands.
              A recent study found that vaccinated people infected with the Delta variant are 63% less likely to infect people who are unvaccinated.

              This is only slightly lower than with the Alpha variant, says Brechje de Gier at the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in the Netherlands, who led the study. Her team had previously found that vaccinated people infected with Alpha were 73% less likely to infect unvaccinated people.

              What is important to realise, de Gier says, is that the full effect of vaccines on reducing transmission is even higher than 63%, because most vaccinated people don’t become infected in the first place.

              De Gier and her team used data from the Netherlands’ contact tracing system to work out the so-called secondary attack rate – the proportion of contacts infected by positive cases. They then worked out how much this was reduced by vaccination, adjusting for factors such as age.

              The data comes from August and September 2021, when Delta was dominant in the Netherlands. The key table, breaking the figures down by whether the index case and contacts were vaccinated, is below.

              When you see this table you realise why the headline claim focuses on how easy it is to infect people who are unvaccinated. There the SAR drops from 22% to 13% when the index case is vaccinated (a 41% drop; the rest of the 63% vaccine effectiveness comes from adjustments). However, look at the results for infecting vaccinated contacts (bottom half). There the SAR rises from 11% to 12% when the index case is vaccinated.

              The authors say this is due to confounding by age and that the adjusted vaccine effectiveness against transmission works out at 40% (though with a wide confidence interval of 20-54%). Be that as it may, note that for those aged 50-74 the SAR still rises from 18% to 21% when the index case is vaccinated, and that isn’t confounded by age (though the sample size for the 18% figure is small). Since one of the main claims in the paper is that the lower SAR for vaccinated index cases is a result of them being less infectious, it’s hard to explain why vaccinated people aged 50-74 appear to infect more of their vaccinated contacts, not fewer.

              There are other problems with the study. One is that on July 8th, the Netherlands changed its rules to allow vaccinated contacts not to self-isolate while unvaccinated contacts were still required to do so: “On July 8th, 2021, a policy change was implemented, and fully vaccinated household contacts of confirmed cases no longer had to quarantine.”

              This means the unvaccinated contacts were confined to the home with their infected housemate while the vaccinated were permitted to get out of there and breathe God’s clean air. Without seeing data from before this change it’s hard to know how much of a difference it made, but it may be significant.

              Another problem is the authors didn’t exclude infections being counted as secondary even if they were discovered the following day, meaning the study will likely include many co-primary cases which are normally excluded. This may explain why the SAR values are much higher than those reported by Public Health England (typically around 10%). What difference this would make to the difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated figures is uncertain, however.

              A bigger problem is that it appears the unvaccinated cohort includes those within 14 days of their first jab, a period shown in numerous studies to be one of heightened infection risk. This will inflate the infection rate in the ‘unvaccinated’ so it would be good to see the analysis with these infections excluded.

              The New Scientist article goes on to cite the Oxford/ONS study from August claiming it supports these findings, but that study also had numerous flaws that I have discussed previously.

              In any case, whatever the reason this study found a significant impact on transmission, a new study from Sweden has appeared that brings tidings from the other reality – the one where high observed levels of spread among the vaccinated translate to a decline to zero vaccine efficacy within months.

              The study (a Lancet pre-print) finds that Pfizer vaccine effectiveness wanes from 92% at day 15-30 to 47% at day 121-180, and from day 211 (seven months) and onwards “no effectiveness could be detected”. For AstraZeneca, vaccine effectiveness “was generally lower and waned faster, with no effectiveness detected from day 121 [four months] and onwards”. (The figure they found was actually negative, minus-19%.)

              While effectiveness against severe outcomes held up for many groups over nine months, it was found to wane significantly among men, older frail people, and people with comorbidities, contributing to an overall fall from 89% at day 15-30 to 42% from day 181 (six months) and onwards, with a number of subgroups even showing negative efficacy against severe outcomes.

              The graphs included in the paper are reproduced below. Note the negative effectiveness against infection at nine months (top chart) and the effectiveness against severe outcomes down to around 20% at eight months (bottom chart).

              The confirmation here of vaccine effectiveness against infection declining to zero will not come as a surprise to readers of the Daily Sceptic, though it may baffle readers of the New Scientist and others living in the parallel reality of highly effective vaccines. The sharp waning against severe disease is more of a surprise given recent data from PHE/UKHSA, and is worth watching closely.

              By Will Jones / 28 October 2021 • 07.00
              Netherlands New Scientist Sweden The Lancet Vaccine efficacy Vaccines


              • nurse sounds alarm on heinous medical malpractice: Immediate intubation, remdesivir killed covid patients

                11 comments / health / by steven ahle0
                neither myself nor this site is able to confirm anything that helen smith, a veteran nurse who has worked in the icu section of hospitals for years has related of her experiences working with covid-19 patients and the procedures used by the hospital that she has witnessed. She does not blame the doctors whom she says have to follow the higher-ups at the hospital. She related these experiences in an interview with the gateway pundit.

                Smith said:

                “i have been a nurse for almost 25 years. Most of my career has been in icu. I have never seen anything like this in my whole career. They are not allowing doctors to do what they want to do to help the patients. Everything is being regulated by higher-ups in the hospitals.”

                smith related the many practices that would normally be laid at the feet of the hospital’s patients. She says those practices were unorthodox, unhygienic and dangerous practices that were implemented within medical facilities during the pandemic.

                Smith continued:

                “they were dying because doctors were immediately intubating patients and providing them with remdesivir, an expensive drug that does nothing to treat covid or respiratory illness, but shuts down the organs.”

                “at the beginning, they weren’t even allowing them oxygen; they were just intubating them right away. At the time, they said they didn’t want to spread the covid so they wouldn’t do high flow, or bipap or any other therapeutics, they just automatically got intubated, intubated with a breathing tube, a ventilator.”

                doctors began withholding hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, medications under guidance from the american medical association, center for disease control, and food and drug administration. Both hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin have been proven as effective in other countries. Many third-world countries have a better record against the virus than the united states has. In africa, only 6% of the population is vaccinated, but their infection rates are below ours.

                “a major part of why people were dying from covid is because they were putting people on remdesivir and intubating them. The only drug they were giving people is remdesivir – and we still are. Remdesivir costs $5,000 a bag and it doesn’t do anything, it can shut your organs down. A lot of the covid patients treated with remdesivir end up on dialysis. Intubating patients is basically a death sentence, especially with the delta variant, we save very few.

                “at one point we had a doctor giving patients ivermectin because he was having such success in his outpatient clinic and they came through and the management of the cleveland clinic, the higher-ups, threatened to fire him if he continued to do so. He’s not confrontational, he just kind of goes along to get along. I will say, in his defense, that he will give it to the nurses if we get it.”

                “when the vaccines were first administered, you would not believe the number of strokes we got. The cleveland clinic is a stroke center and i had never seen anything like it. I had two patients with drains in their brain to relieve the pressure, which is rare, you don’t see that often. A lot of strokes – one who got ms – we had a bunch of different critically ill patients, and if you look at their medical records, they don’t attribute their death to the vaccine they just got – they don’t say it’s from the vaccine.”

                i do not believe we should take everything she says without question, but neither should we trust the government or the hospitals. We need an independent and unbiased study into the various treatments for the virus to see if what we are doing is indeed the best treatment. And if not, we need to use the most effective treatment prescribed by the researchers based on results and not on mandates.
                note from lou - this not only does not report deaths from vaccines; but also increases the death from covid
                Lou Newton
                Bond Servant of Jesus
                Last edited by Lou Newton; November 23, 2021, 06:25 PM.