They are making an example of Novak Djokovic. Here’s why.
By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | January 17, 2022
Tennis star Novak Djokovic is being deported from Australia, after losing his final appeal the WTA’s top-ranked player will not be allowed to defend his Australian Open title.
It was reported this morning that an Australian court had refused Djokovic’s appeal against the cancellation of his visa, and as such he’s being put on a plane and flown out of the country.
To be clear: This is all because he’s not “vaccinated” against Covid19, and vocally speaks out against the practice. The government have clearly and publicly admitted as much…but we’ll get to that.
The rejection of Djokovic’s medical exemption and subsequent deportation has been accompanied by a wave of vitriol in the press the likes of which we have rarely seen.
One Australian sports presenter was “accidentally” recorded calling him a “lying, sneaky arsehole” in a video that was later “leaked” to the press.
The Spectator has one piece which is nothing more than a slew of ad hominem and mockery, against not just Djokovic but all “anti-vaxxers” and “conspiracy theorists”, calling the Serbian a “conspiracy super-spreader”. They have another blaming his “arrogance for his downfall”.
The Daily Mail ran a story headlined: “Welcome to the Wacky World of Novak Djokovic… and meet his equally wacky wife!”, and two more opinion pieces claiming his arrogance has “trashed his reputation” and calling him “a loser”.
The Guardian‘s Australian Political Correspondent Sarah Martin defends the decision and jokingly refers to it as a “no dickheads” immigration policy, attacking Djokovic’s “anti-science god complex” and calling him an “all-round jerk”.
The childish name-calling just doesn’t end. Even his fellow players are sticking the boot in.
Stefanos Tsitsipas attacked Djokovic for attempting to “play by his own rules”, adding “A very small minority chose to follow their own way. It makes the majority look like they are all fools”, which is at least true, but not in the way he means it.
Spanish star Rafael Nadal said Djokovic should just follow the rules like everyone else, perhaps flashing the kind of attitude which allowed a fascist dictator to stay in power in his country for 40 years.
Some players, at least, have come to Djokovic’s defense, including Australia’s own Nick Kyrgios, who has said he is “ashamed” of the way Australia has handled the situation and chastised other players for not showing solidarity with Djokovic.
But why is this happening? Why are they trying to punish such a public figure, and why now?
Well, firstly, I’m not sure it is about punishing Djokovic, and not just because getting to leave Australia is an odd thing to be considered any kind of punishment these days.
Rather, it’s about the performance of punishing him. It’s about making an example of him. Not so much preventing him from playing, as much as denying him a platform.
The Australian government basically admits that in their legal justification for cancelling the visa.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison said Djokovic had been barred from entry for “breaching the rules…it’s as simple as that.” But he is either mistaken or lying, as he directly contradicts the case presented to the appeal court by the government.
Yes, the visa was first cancelled on a technicality about incorrect information but, a judge overruled that decision, allowing Djokovic to enter the country.
That’s when Immigration Minister Alex Hawke stepped in to personally revoke the visa under section 133 of the Immigration Act 1958.
Under this (worryingly vague) legislation, the Immigration Minister is granted the power to cancel any visa at all, if:
the Minister is satisfied that it would be in the public interest to cancel the visa.
This was the argument put to the appeals court, that the minister can expel anyone, for anything, if he believes it to be in the best interests of the public.
That’s public interest, NOT public health.
Hawke admits in his written statement that Djokovic presents a “negligible risk of Covid19 infection” to those around him. So it’s nothing to do with protecting people from infection or stopping the spread of the virus.
Public statements from officials suggest that they consider any “anti-vaxxer” to be a threat to the public interest by undermining the vaccination programme. Thus they can justify barring entry to Djokovic (or, it should be said, any other “anti-vaxxer”) under the guise of “public interest”.
It’s about control, it almost always is.
In short, the government are scared that Djokovic’s very presence in the country is a threat to their neo-fascist lockdown.
If you look closely at the media messaging, there’s more than a little fear behind the wall of abuse and mockery.
Article after article is at pains to point out that “the majority of normal Australians want the Joker gone”, or some variation on that sentiment. Somewhat desperately selling the line that nobody agrees with, or supports, Djokovic’s position.
A statement which is given the lie by the regular huge protests taking place all across Australia’s major cities (like this one, just this weekend, in Sydney).
The Australian government are worried they’ve turned their country into a powder keg of public resentment, and that the slightest social spark could set it off. Increasing the size of the (already huge) protests against the lockdowns and vaccine mandates, maybe even tipping the country into full-blown chaos.
One of the Spectator articles mentions that Australians have been living in a “police state” for two years, and then vaguely references the subsequent public anger, even whilst attempting to downplay it, misrepresent its cause, and turn it against the unvaccinated.
Australia has fallen. Peace, prosperity and freedom have been sacrificed on the altar of “safety”, and Covid “vaccination” has become a quasi-religious rite in their country, even more so than the rest of the world.
As such, the unvaccinated are slandered, punished, threatened and othered at every turn. Locked down, locked up and locked out.
Can you only imagine what could happen if people found out it was all for nothing? Or that the heaven-sent vaccines aren’t the magical solution to all that ails us?
In this kind of political climate they simply can’t afford to have an “anti-vaxxer” on national television, healthy and athletic and winning championships against a field of vaccinated rivals.
Especially when three vaccinated players have already dropped out with “breathing difficulties”
Before anyone accuses me of a surfeit of cynicism, let’s review the actual words of Alex Hawke from the appeal procedure [our emphasis]:
I consider that Mr Djokovic’s ongoing presence in Australia may lead to an increase in anti-vaccination sentiment generated in the Australian community, potentially leading to an increase in civil unrest of the kind previously experienced in Australia
Elsewhere Djokovic is described as a “talisman of a community of anti-vaccine sentiment”.
This kind of brutal treatment of publicly unvaccinated famous faces will likely only intensify. It’s already spreading from country to country, with France announcing Djokovic will not be allowed to defend his French Open title unless he gets vaccinated.
It seems pretty clear that the public shaming of Djokovic is a power-play to secure what they perceive as their own tenuous grip on the narrative, one that could have far-reaching consequences moving forward.
Consider, Djokovic is not barred from entry just for being unvaccinated, but also because he has publicly spoken out against vaccination.
Australia is now not only requiring you be “fully vaccinated” to enter the country, but has barred someone for even expressing anti-vaccine sentiment.
It’s no longer enough to conform by action, you must now conform by speech.
Next is thought, but even they would never try to legislate against that… right?
Vaccine judge whose mind ‘was already made up’
By Sally Beck | TCW Defending Freedom | January 17, 2022
PARENTS of children in the 12-17 age group want government officials to release real-time safety data for Covid vaccines. One mother is so concerned about the possibility that her three children could suffer serious adverse events that she asked the High Court on their behalf to force full public disclosure.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) admit they hold the figures but have not revealed them publicly, so last Thursday parent EF, who cannot be named for legal reasons, put her concerns to Mr Justice Jonathan Swift and asked him to direct the ONS to release the data. Her request was denied.
She said: ‘I’m not surprised. I feel as though the judge had already made up his mind.’
To those of us in court, it certainly felt as though he had and that no one dared question Health Secretary Sajid Javid’s decisions.
Television and radio presenter Beverley Turner, who helped raise over £100,000 to fund the action and who has been vilified for asking questions about the vaccine’s safety, was also there. She said: ‘It felt that the judge had already decided the outcome. He was hostile to the plaintiffs and convivial to the defendants.
‘All we’re doing is fighting for transparency and for that, we got a hostile response.’
It is known that Pfizer and Moderna’s mRNA Covid vaccines can cause the inflammatory heart conditions myocarditis and pericarditis, mostly in young males, while the Oxford/AstraZeneca can cause blood clots and strokes. We do not know to what extent, and whether children have died or been permanently disabled as the result of a Covid vaccination.
EF’s children AB and CD applied to the courts last September to halt the vaccine rollout for 12-17-year-olds and asked for a judicial review. They say they need the ONS figures to support an appeal as the application was denied.
Their mother, who is their ‘litigation friend’ EF said: ‘The court was told that only two children without diagnosed underlying conditions have died of Covid so far. Clearly Covid is not a problem for young people but the vaccine may be. All we want is honest disclosure of the figures so that parents can make an informed decision. None of us are anti-vaccine but we are concerned by the lack of safety data for Covid jabs.
‘We know the mRNA vaccines are experimental and that they are being offered under emergency use. We also know that the trials do not officially finish until 2023.
‘Many parents do not want their children to be guinea pigs.’
After reviewing the evidence, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) recommended against vaccinating 12-15-year-olds, but were overridden by the UK’s four chief medical officers.
Up to December 22, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), who assess the safety of new drugs, had received 2,546 reports of adverse events, likely to be 10 per cent of the true total, for under 18s via their Yellow Card self-reporting scheme, but give details only about heart inflammation.
A statement said: ‘As of November 17, 2021, there have been 432 reports of myocarditis and 332 reports of pericarditis following the use of the Pfizer vaccine. There have been 101 reports of myocarditis and 57 reports of pericarditis following the use of the Moderna vaccine. This is a recognised potential risk with the Covid-19 Pfizer/BioNTech Vaccine and Covid-19 Vaccine Moderna and the MHRA is closely monitoring these events.’
We know that 2.9million children have received first doses of Pfizer and 20,550 have had first doses of Moderna, while 11,600 children have received first doses of Oxford/AstraZeneca’s vaccine (though it is no longer recommended for the under 40s because that age group is more susceptible to potentially fatal blood clots). Nearly a million under 18s have received second shots.
The action was brought by solicitor Stephen Jackson of the firm Jackson Osborne and argued by barrister Francis Hoar, who endured constant interruption from Mr Justic Swift. He presented evidence to the court from consultant pathologist Dr Clare Craig.
Dr Craig said that available ONS figures relating to the number of deaths in the 15-19-year-old age group showed ‘a trend of excess non-Covid deaths in boys of that age which exceeded deaths for previous years.’
From May 1 2021 to December 30 2021, 402 male deaths were recorded, 34.6 per cent above the five-year average between 2015 and 2019. The number for females for the same period was 163, a decrease compared with the five-year average of 175.
Barrister Heather Emmerson, representing the ONS, who did not incur the wrath of Mr Justice Swift, said: ‘We do not accept a significant increase in deaths of boys compared with previous years. This is because it is statistically difficult to calculate a mean mortality rate.’
She did however accept ‘that there is a marginal increase in mortality for that period, but the figures should be treated with caution. The differences are sufficiently small that they could be caused by a delay in the registration of the death.’
Health statistician for the ONS Dr Vahé Nafilyan said in a statement that they had only 62 per cent of the data requested as 38 per cent of deaths had yet to be registered. Potentially, the mortality margin could increase by as much as 38 per cent or decrease by the same amount or somewhere in between.
An inquest is required when a coroner believes a death was due to something other than natural causes. The death cannot be registered until the coroner has reviewed the post-mortem and other evidence and has decided the cause. There is a 12-month delay for inquests currently.
Ms Emmerson said she was not confident that if the ONS released the available data the recipients would interpret it correctly – a statement the plaintiffs found patronising. ‘We have to be extremely careful about this data and the conclusions that may be drawn,’ she told the court.
She was also concerned that although data would be anonymous with no names, dates of birth or regions released, the children’s identities could be discovered, citing newspaper reports of sudden child deaths which could be linked to the data.
Mr Justice Swift said: ‘Correlation does not equal causation and the ONS information is not necessary to decide that claim.’
None of this helps parents who are also concerned that by asking reasonable questions they are being labelled as antivax. Mother of three Bev Turner said: ‘I’d never heard the term before 2021.
‘All parents want is the latest safety data that is simply not available so we do not know if the vaccines could cause neurological problems, fertility issues or other physiological problems.’
Parent EF, who has two girls aged 13 and 16 eligible for vaccination, and a son aged seven, currently too young to receive the jab, says that because of this uncertainty her children are anxious about receiving it.
‘None of them want to take the vaccine,’ she said, ‘and one of them has a friend who fainted immediately after receiving the vaccine and was then off school for two weeks. We don’t know any details other than that, but she was clearly unwell otherwise she would have been at school.
‘We have no information. They can’t tell us if the jabs cause cancer or blindness and until we know, how can we make a properly informed decision?’
Israel finds 4 Pfizer jabs ‘not good enough’ against Omicron
RT | January 18, 2022
A fourth dose of Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine showed dwindling effectiveness against the Omicron variant, according to a trial conducted in Israel, with one of its lead researchers saying the immunization is simply “not good enough.”
A study involving 154 medical staffers at Sheba Medical Center near Tel Aviv found that a fourth shot gave only marginal protection against the Omicron strain compared to previous mutations.
“We see an increase in antibodies, higher than after the third dose. However, we see many infected with Omicron who received the fourth dose,” said Gili Regev-Yochay, one of the head researchers on the trial, adding that while “the vaccine is excellent against the Alpha and Delta [variants],” for Omicron “it’s not good enough.”
Despite the new findings, Israeli health officials already moved ahead with fourth doses for the elderly, the immunocompromised and medical workers beginning earlier this month, with some 500,000 receiving a second booster on top of an initial two-dose regimen as of Sunday.
Though the trial is still in an early phase and the hospital did not offer specific figures, Regev-Yochay said she made its preliminary conclusions public as boosters are a matter of “high public interest,” according to the Times of Israel. She noted that giving fourth doses to high-risk residents is “probably” still the best approach, but suggested the booster campaign should be limited to an even older age group than the current over-60 guideline.
Both the World Health Organization and the EU’s drug regulator, the European Medicines Agency, have cautioned against the over-use of boosters, though for different reasons. The WHO has called for a more even distribution of vaccine doses around the world, observing that some nations are moving ahead with third and fourth shots before many in poorer countries receive their first. The EMA, meanwhile, pointed to potential adverse effects of booster shots last week, warning that repeated vaccinations in a short period of time could result in “problems with immune response.”
One of the most vaccinated countries in the world, Israel was the first to roll out fourth vaccine doses as it saw a significant spike in coronavirus infections linked to the Omicron strain. Deaths and hospitalizations have only seen a slight uptick in recent months, however, in line with findings suggesting the latest ‘variant of concern’ produces milder symptoms than previous mutations. Despite the misgivings of world health bodies, Chile, Denmark and Hungary have since followed suit in administering fourth shots, while officials in Austria have recommended them on an “off-label” basis for healthcare personnel.
Facebook blocks page of Russian diplomats taking part in security talks
RT | Janauary 17, 2022
The Facebook page belonging to Russia’s delegation to the security and arms control talks in Vienna was blocked for days without explanation. The diplomats have blasted it as an act of censorship specifically targeting Moscow.
The act of censorship took place last Friday, Konstantin Gavrilov, head of the continent told RT. The diplomats were so surprised by the development that they initially believed it had been some sort of technical error on the US tech giant’s part. “We waited for two days” before reaching out to Facebook and to the Russian Foreign Ministry in a bid to resolve the issue, he said.
The social media service, however, did not clarify the reasons for the ban.
“There was no explanation; nothing from them,” Gavrilov said, adding that he was still wondering what exactly might have triggered the move.
The delegation posted “nothing [that could be considered] prohibited” on its account, where the content included official statements on subjects like security guarantees, the situation in Ukraine, and some other strictly “practical political issues.” It was “very strange” to find out the page had been shut down, he added.
The account was used by the Russian diplomatic delegation to the Negotiations on Military Security and Arms Control in Vienna, held under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Its role was to publish official statements and press briefings by the Russian Foreign Ministry’s officials and Moscow’s mission to the OSCE.
Gavrilov believes it was all part of a targeted anti-Russian campaign waged by western social media giants. These companies have a “policy” of erasing any content that “does not correspond to their views” and they “can do anything they want,” the diplomat said, admitting that his own personal Facebook page had been blocked three times.
“They all follow our accounts very closely and when they think it is too much, they block them without explanation,” Gavrilov said. “This is ridiculous. No proof, nothing. It is an unprecedented policy of the western media against us,” he said, adding that, according to his estimations, Russian officials are targeted much more often than any of their foreign counterparts.
Eventually, the diplomats were forced to request assistance from the Russian media watchdog Roskomnadzor. The agency issued a statement on Sunday, accusing Facebook of an “act of censorship” and warning it that such actions are forbidden under Russia’s constitution. It also demanded the account be restored “immediately” and urged Facebook to provide an explanation for its removal.
The US social media giant has not yet made any public statements about the incident. The delegation’s page was restored on Monday.
Facebook has been repeatedly fined in Russia over non-compliance with national legislation. The list of violations range from breaching privacy laws by storing the personal data of Russians outside of the country’s territory to repeatedly failing to delete content banned in Russia.
Facebook also cracked down on media outlets it has deemed linked to Russia, such as the RT-affiliated Redfish. The ban of the service’s account drew criticism from the International Federation of Journalists.
Gavrilov believes that the enormous power wielded by social media companies should be counterbalanced. “It is necessary to do something to regulate this,” the diplomat said, adding that the Russian government is currently “working hard” on drafting legislation that would create a legal framework for their operation on Russian territory.
Washington’s Bi-Partisan Russia-Bashers Are Determined to Start a War
By Ron Paul | January 17, 2022
Russia-bashing is a bi-partisan activity in Washington. Both parties think it makes them look “tough” and “pro-America.” But while Republican and Democrat politicians continue to one-up each other on “risk-free” threats to Russia, they are increasingly risking a devastating nuclear war.
It’s all fun and games until the missiles start flying. And in this case we are risking total destruction over who governs eastern Ukraine! Has so much ever been risked for so little?
The problem with all this tough talk is that politicians start to believe their own rhetoric and propaganda. As a result they don’t make sound decisions based on objective facts, but instead make rash decisions based on faulty misinformation.
When US politicians talk about Russia massing troops on the Ukrainian border, for example, they leave out the fact that these troops are actually inside Russia. With US troops in some 150 countries overseas, you’d think Washington might pause before criticizing the “aggression” of troops inside a country’s own borders.
They also leave out the reasons why Russia might be concerned over its neighbor Ukraine. CNN reported recently that the Biden Administration approved another $200 million in military aid to Ukraine last month, making nearly half a billion dollars in weapons over the past year.
Imagine if China was sending half a billion dollars in weapons to Mexico to strengthen and embolden a hyper-aggressive anti-US regime. Would the US not be “massing troops near the Mexican border”?
Also there is that issue about the US-backed overthrow of the democratically-elected Ukrainian government in 2014, which is the starting point of all these recent problems. And this week Yahoo News reported that the CIA is training Ukrainian paramilitaries on US soil!
Recent talks between the US and Russia failed before they even began, with the US side refusing to even consider ending useless and provocative NATO expansion eastward. NATO is a Cold War relic that should have been disbanded along with the Warsaw Pact. It serves no purpose and its constant saber-rattling puts us at risk in conflicts that have nothing to do with US national security.
How embarrassing it was to hear Blinken ridiculing Russia for coming to the aid of ally Kazakhstan as a color revolution (with likely US backing) was brewing. “I think one lesson in recent history is that once Russians are in your house, it’s sometimes very difficult to get them to leave,” Blinken told reporters. He said this with a straight face even as the US continues to illegally occupy a large part of Syria, continues to occupy part of Iraq against the will of that country’s parliament, and occupied a good part of Afghanistan for 20 years!
Incidentally, as soon as the regime change attempt was put down in Kazakhstan, Russian and allied troops began leaving the country. But, of course, the reflexively pro-war US media doesn’t report anything outside the narrative.
What to do about Russia? Stop backing regime change along Russia’s borders, including Belarus, Kazakhstan, and elsewhere. Stop meddling in foreign elections. Look at how we wasted four years on false claims that the Russians meddled in ours. End weapons shipments and all aid to Ukraine. End sanctions. Re-imagine the US defense budget as a budget to actually defend the US. It’s really not that complicated: stop trying to rule the world.
Copyright © 2022 by RonPaul Institute.
Only a third of the signatures of the Joe Rogan censorship demand letter were doctors
By Jordan Schachtel | The Dossier | January 16, 2022
Are you seeing all of those blaring corporate press headlines targeting Joe Rogan this weekend, reporting on a letter from “270 doctors,” which described the famous podcaster as a “menace to public health”? Well, it turns out that the real arbiters of misinformation are the individuals behind the letter itself, and they are being helped along by a corrupt corporate media that is misreporting the credentials of its signatories.
It was first reported by Rolling Stone, with a story titled, “Doctors Demand Spotify Puts an End to Covid Lies on ‘Joe Rogan Experience’”
Yes, the media and Big Tech want to create the image of a hundreds-strong coalition of medical doctors who are genuinely concerned about Joe Rogan’s conversations on his massive platform.
Twitter even got in on the propaganda campaign against Rogan, adding this “medical experts” letter to their curated headlines section.
Well, I reviewed this open letter, and it turns out that only around 100 of the 270+ signatories to the letter are people with qualified medical degrees. And a large chunk of that 100 or so medical doctors are MDs employed at universities who are not in fact practitioners of medicine.
Yet part of the letter reads:
“As physicians, we bear the arduous weight of a pandemic that has stretched our medical systems to their limits and only stands to be exacerbated by the anti-vaccination sentiment woven into this and other episodes of Rogan’s podcast.”
Paradoxically, the disseminators of this petition are guilty of the very misinformation label that they’ve attached to Rogan. In fact, neither of the two reported co authors of the letter — Jessica Rivera and Ben Rein — possess medical degrees. Rivera holds a master’s degree and Rein is a PhD academic who researches psychiatry.
The letter denouncing Joe Rogan and pressuring Spotify to censor his speech has all kinds of random signatories. By my count, the letter is signed by over 50 PhD academics, around 60 college professors, 29 nurses, 10 students, 4 medical residents, and even a handful of… science podcasters.
The letter, which uses the word misinformation nine times in five paragraphs, concludes with a call for Spotify to censor Rogan as part of a policy to “moderate misinformation on the platform.”
Notably, there is no information on who or what group is behind the creation and circulation of the open letter. Rivera, the reported lead author of the letter, is associated with the far-left Rockefeller Foundation and The Atlantic, and she is a CNN contributor.
‘Ministry of Truth’ vs Nutritional Medicine
By Damien Downing, MBBS, MRSB | Orthomolecular Medicine News Service | January 6, 2022
Just outside the local primary school here in north London, somebody has sprayed these words on a phone or cable junction box, highly visible to the mums and tots:
COVID 1984
I often cycle past there, and have always thought “Mmm, a bit extreme”, but now I’m starting to wonder.
In George Orwell’s novel “1984,” Winston Smith works at the Ministry of Truth, which administers Newspeak, deciding what the “truth” is, propagating it, and rewriting history when necessary. Newspeak is “characterized by a continually diminishing vocabulary; complete thoughts are reduced to simple terms of simplistic meaning” according to our old friends Wikipedia. The purpose is thought control; you know the saying “The French have a word for it”? If you don’t have a word for it you struggle to think it. So words like “anti-vaxxer” polarize opinions and prevent any subtlety of thinking about viruses and vaccinations.
For two years, we at the OMNS have been stating one simple message: Nutritional therapy works on Covid, as it does on all viruses.
On January 26, 2020 the OMNS Editor in Chief, Andrew W. Saul, wrote a news release: “Vitamin C Protects Against Coronavirus.” [1] It also made recommendations for vitamin D3, magnesium, zinc and selenium, which strengthen the immune system. We have continued to repeat and expand the message again and again. And have been suspended by Facebook again and again.
Others, including highly respected front-line physicians such as Paul Marik, have also figured out the importance of these nutrients. [2] In fact we have known about the anti-infective potential of vitamin C for over 50 years, since it was reported by Frederick Klenner. [3,4] He described traditional sources such as acerola cherries, which are very rich sources of C. That puts the knowledge back way before we named it “vitamin C.”
And it makes nonsense of the narrative that there is only one solution to Covid: vaccinate, again and again.
Two years ago I failed to persuade mainstream colleagues of the utility of this. “It’s not evidence-based,” they said. Now two review papers have shown the evidence, and it’s pretty solid.
The first, in the journal Life, is called “Vitamin C Intervention for Critical COVID-19: A Pragmatic Review of the Current Level of Evidence.” [5,6] It shows clearly that “this simple vitamin saves lives when given in the right dose.” In fact, vitamin C saves about 80% of the lives of critically ill Covid patients.
With a roll-call of experts saying vitamin C can save lives, what has been the response of the authorities, the powers-that-be?
The UK’s National Health service responded back in 2020 by promising a trial of intravenous vitamin C. Until that evidence becomes available, they have continued to say that there is no good evidence that vitamin C works. Scientists including the authors of the above paper sent them studies and they still said that. Finally a freedom of information (FOI) request established that the NHS had received the papers and had ignored them, for at least a year.
But the promised international multi-center trial would fix this, right? The only problem is, apparently, that the NHS had already signed an exclusive contract with a single company to supply the vitamin C, and that company was and still is unable to provide any. So the trial still has not started. Even for a piece of fiction, you couldn’t make it up! I could lend them some tomorrow.
The second review is by my colleague, independent researcher Rachel Nicoll: “COVID-19: Presenting the case for vitamin D: A cheap, effective measure overlooked by most governments.” [7]
As always with Rachel’s writings this is very information-rich. Here’s just one sentence;
A meta-analysis of 23 studies containing 11,901 participants found that in patients with vitamin D deficiency, the risk of being infected with COVID was 3.3 times higher and the risk of developing severe COVID was around 5 times higher compared to those with more healthy vitamin D levels.
Our knowledge of vitamin D and its importance for immunity has progressed by leaps and bounds in this pandemic, but a lot of this too we have known for ages. I wrote a book about it back in 1988; there’s a team in San Diego that has been studying sunlight and health for decades. [8]
Just as modern agriculture has been depriving us of many essential nutrients, [9] modern lifestyles have been depriving us of sunlight and therefore vitamin D. Lucky you if you live somewhere sunny like San Diego, because here in London nearly everybody is vitamin D deficient. Not that things are perfect in San Diego; we all shun the sun these days, often due to scare tactics about skin cancer.
That’s a story for another time, but here’s a take-home thought about vitamin D levels. It has been shown that a population needs a vitamin D blood level above about 75 nmol/L (30 ng/ml) to stop deaths from Covid, [10] but precious few of us manage it. So what should our blood level be? Where’s the benchmark when nearly everybody is deficient? If you take our nearest evolutionary relatives, non-human primates, they have around twice that level, 125 to 200 nmol/L (50-80 ng/ml). [11,12] We’re not just falling behind them, we’re missing it by a mile. You need at least 10,000 IU per day long-term to achieve that.
Guess what comes next? When the “experts,” at least in the UK, are asked about the safety and toxicity of vitamin D, they say we should not take more than 2000 IU per day. But this is based on the UK’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) 2016 report. SACN cited a 2006 paper by Vieth as showing toxic effects above this level. However, the Vieth paper actually states that toxicity may occur at 25(OH)D concentrations beyond 500 nmol/L (200 ng/ml), levels which could not be achieved unless an individual was taking extremely high doses for a prolonged period of time (such as 30,000 IU/day for three months). [13] This warning has been misunderstood and misquoted and has given rise to a lot of pointless restriction of vitamin D intake. So even though the error about vitamin D safety was pointed out 15 years ago, and repeatedly since then, it is still being perpetuated by supposed experts.
Two years down the line, then, we at the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service are still saying the same simple message that nutrition works. And the bureaucrats at the ‘Ministry of Truth’ are still deleting it.
References
1. Saul AW (2020) Vitamin C Protects Against Coronavirus. Orthomolecular Medicine News Service. http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v16n04.shtml
2. Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance: Prevention & Treatment Protocols for COVID-19. (2022) https://covid19criticalcare.com
3. Klenner FR. (1949) The treatment of poliomyelitis and other virus diseases with vitamin C. South Med J, 111:209-214. https://www.seanet.com/~alexs/ascorbate/194x/klenner-fr-southern_med_surg-1949-v111-n7-p209.htm
4. Klenner FR. (1951) Massive Doses of Vitamin C and the Virus Diseases. Presented in the Fifty-second Annual Meeting of the Tri-State Medical Association of the Carolinas and Virginia, held at Columbia, February 19th and 20th, 1951. https://www.seanet.com/~alexs/ascorbate/195x/klenner-fr-southern_med_surg-1951-v103-n4-p101.htm
5. Holford P, Carr AC, Zawari M, Vizcaychipi MP (2021) Vitamin C Intervention for Critical COVID-19: A Pragmatic Review of the Current Level of Evidence. Life, 11:1166. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/11/11/1166
6. Holford P (2021) Twelve intervention trials conclude that vitamin C works for Covid. So why are hospitals being prohibited from using it? Orthomolecular Medicine News Service. http://www.orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v17n27.shtml
7. Health Advisory and Recovery Team (2021) COVID-19: the case for supporting the human immune system with vitamin D: Why is this simple vitamin not promoted more? https://www.hartgroup.org/briefing-covid-19-the-case-for-supporting-the-human-immune-system-with-vitamin-d
8. Mohr SB, Gorham ED, Garland CF, et al. (2021) San Diego group studying positive effects of sunlight. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Mohr+SB+Gorham+ED+Garland+CF
9. Lowther M (2020) Why are there fewer nutrients in our food? Orthomolecular Medicine News Service. http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v16n54.shtml
10. Downing D (2020) How we can fix this pandemic in a month. Orthomolecular Medicine News Service. http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v16n49.shtml
11. Power ML, Oftedal OT, Savage A, et al. (1997) Assessing vitamin D status of callitrichids: Baseline data from wild cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus) in Colombia. Zoo Biol 16:39-46. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2361(1997)16:1<39::AID-ZOO6>3.0.CO;2-C
12. Power ML, Dittus, WPJ (2017) Vitamin D status in wild toque macaques (Macaca sinica) in Sri Lanka. Am J Primatol. 79:e22655. http://www.primates.lk/health-vitamin-d-in-wild-monkeys-and-you
13. Vieth R (2006) Critique of the considerations for establishing the tolerable upper intake level for vitamin D: critical need for revision upwards. J Nutr, 136:1117-1122. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16549491
Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine
Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information: http://www.orthomolecular.org
Information about the first 3 matters taken up by the Board of Medical Licensure in Dr. Meryl Nass case
By Meryl Nass, MD | January 16, 2022
The Maine Board of Medical Licensure has 5 matters before it in my case. Here are the first 3:
The first 2 are complaints from private citizens, who claimed that I spread misinformation on the internet. Neither complainant knows me or is a patient. Neither complaint has anything to do with medical care. Each says the complaint was initiated after they watched me in a video. One said the information I was disseminatiog was a “danger to the public.”
The third complaint is from a midwife who complained that I gave a pregnant patient hydroxychloroquine for acute COVID without asking her, when she could have given the patient monoclonal antibodies instead.
My response is that hydroxychloroquine is approved in pregnancy and is a safe, licensed drug. Monoclonal antibodies are an experimental biologic product that have not been approved in pregnancy ; in fact, the pregnancy risks have not even been studied. The midwife apparently did not know this about the product she is prescribing in pregnancy.
Unapproved drugs have no label. For a legal description of what is known about them, one must read a fact sheet. For example, here is what the FDA-approved Fact Sheet for sotrovimab, the only commonly used monoclonal said to be effective against omicron, says about its risk in pregnancy:
“11.1 Pregnancy Risk Summary
There are insufficient data to evaluate a drug-associated risk of major birth defects, miscarriage, or adverse maternal or fetal outcome. Sotrovimab should be used during pregnancy only if the potential benefit justifies the potential risk for the mother and the fetus. Nonclinical reproductive toxicity studies have not been conducted with sotrovimab. In a crossreactive binding assay using a protein array enriched for human embryofetal proteins, no offtarget binding was detected for sotrovimab. Since sotrovimab is a recombinant human immunoglobulin G (IgG) containing the LS modification in the Fc domain, it has the potential for placental transfer from the mother to the developing fetus. The potential treatment benefit or risk of placental transfer of sotrovimab to the developing fetus is not known. The estimated background risk of major birth defects and miscarriage for the indicated population is unknown.“
On the other hand, the label for hydroxychloroquine says the following about use in pregnancy:
“Pregnancy
Teratogenic Effects: Human pregnancies resulting in live births have been reported in the literature and no increase in the rate of birth defects has been demonstrated. Embryonic deaths and malformations of anophthalmia and microphthalmia in the offspring have been reported when pregnant rats received large doses of chloroquine.”
What does CDC say about hydroxychloroquine in pregnancy?
“Hydroxychloroquine can be prescribed to adults and children of all ages. It can also be safely taken by pregnant women and nursing mothers.”
Do you think perhaps the Medical Board and the complaining midwife bothered to check this information? I think not.
Featured Video
MRNA VACCINES POSE ONGOING CONCERNS IN CHILDREN
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Excerpt
The Case for Dismantling the Rules-Based International Order
By Professor Glenn Diesen | December 23, 2024
The so-called “rules-based international order” aims to facilitate a hegemonic world, which entails displacing international law. While international law is based on equal sovereignty for all states, the rules-based international order upholds hegemony on the principle of sovereign inequality.
The rules-based international order is commonly presented as international law plus international human rights law, which appears benign and progressive. However, this entails introducing contradictory principles and rules. The consequence is a system devoid of uniform rules, in which “might makes right”. International human rights law introduces a set of rules to elevate the rights of the individual, yet human-centric security often contradicts state-centric security as the foundation of international law.
The US as the hegemonic state can then choose between human-centric security and state-centric security, while adversaries must abide strictly by state-centric security due to their alleged lack of liberal democratic credentials. For example, state-centric security as the foundation of international law insists on the territorial integrity of states, while human-centric security allows for secession under the principle of self-determination. The US will thus insist on territorial integrity in allied countries such as Ukraine, Georgia or Spain, while supporting self-determination within adversarial states such as Serbia, China, Russia and Syria. The US can interfere in the domestic affairs of adversaries to promote liberal democratic values, yet the US adversaries do not have the right to interfere in the domestic affairs of the US. To facilitate a hegemonic international order, there cannot be equal sovereignty for all states. … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
phyllis costa on “Greater Israel” Metastasizes papasha408 on Hungary to Maintain Energy Tie… roberthstiver on Panama responds to Trump’s thr… loongtip on EU risks losing gas supplies f… Dan Kelly on Who wants the next pandemic an… Dan Kelly on Why Did Trump Buckle with CIA… Unome on Documents Show CISA Monitored… tonytran2015 on Let’s Retire Overused Words. F… papasha408 on The Weakling Wunderwaffe porch20892e3f47 on The Weakling Wunderwaffe papasha408 on The Weakling Wunderwaffe John Edward Kendrick on US Report Reveals Push to Weap…
Aletho News- The Case for Dismantling the Rules-Based International Order
- MRNA VACCINES POSE ONGOING CONCERNS IN CHILDREN
- Elon Musk’s AfD Endorsement Triggers EU Push for Stricter Censorship Under Digital Services Act
- American Tax Dollars: $4.8M for Ukrainian Influencers
- Fact-checking Fortune: Has Polio Vaccine Saved 20 Million Children From Paralysis?
- Business as Usual: US Pursues Research Linked to Weapons of Mass Destruction
- The West Bank’s CIA men: Why is the PA killing Palestinians in Jenin?
- “Greater Israel” Metastasizes
- Moldovan President Sandu Plans to Seize Transnistria Power Station – Russian Intel Service
- Hungary to Maintain Energy Ties With Russia As No ‘Better Offer’ Exists
- If Americans Knew
- Finding hope and resilience in Gaza amid war and devastation – Day 442
- US diplomat resigns from State Department over Gaza genocide
- In Gaza, Israel attacks school, hospital, displacement camp, killing at least 50 – Day 442
- Israel has denied 97% of aid deliveries to northern Gaza – Day 441
- The BBC can’t be trusted to report on the war in Gaza
- Defense for Children Int’l: Palestinian children face unrelenting genocide – Day 440
- “Gaza: Life in a Death Trap” – Day 439
- We now have the proof that Meta is censoring Palestinian content
- WATCH: The Israeli Hit List – Iran Remains
- “We kill civilians and count them as terrorists,” Israeli reservists admit – Day 438
- No Tricks Zone
- Merry Christmas! And Though We’ve Seen Some Brutal Years, Things Are Really Looking Up For 2025
- New Study: The Warming Trend Since 2013 Explained By Increases In Absorbed Solar Radiation, Not CO2
- As Germany’s Energy Crisis Heightens, Two Brief Windless Periods Pushes Grid To The Limit!
- Another Climate Sensitivity Study Finds Doubling CO2 Leads To 0.5°C Warming At Most
- 8 Taiwanese Engineers Determine The Climate Sensitivity To A 300 ppm CO2 Increase Is ‘Negligibly Small’
- The Fairy Tale Of The CO2 Paradise Before 1850…A Look At The Real Science
- New Study: Achieving A ‘Net Zero’ Emissions Policy Would Have A ‘Negligible’ 0.28°C Climate Effect
- Fake Climate Doom…Recent Research Shows “Vast Majority” Of Pacific Atoll Islands Have Grown In Size
- New Study: Over The Last 8000 Years Centennial-Scale Megadrought Periods Were Driven By Cooling
- Hundreds Of Millions In Subsidies For German Gigafactory In Jeopardy As Northvolt Files Chapter 11
Aletho News 