FDA Approves First RSV Vaccine, But Some Experts Say Weak Safety, Efficacy Data Suggest Benefits Don’t Outweigh Risks
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | May 4, 2023
Describing it as a “long-sought scientific achievement,” the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Wednesday approved Arexvy, the first vaccine for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals (GSK) developed Arexvy under the FDA’s Priority Review designation. The FDA approved it for people ages 60 and older.
According to CNBC, the U.S. “suffered an unusually severe RSV season” this past winter. The New York Times reported on a “tripledemic” involving RSV, flu and COVID-19, “that swamped children’s hospitals and some I.C.U. wards.”
One U.S. county — Orange County, California — declared a local health emergency and issued a proclamation of local emergency in November 2022, citing rising RSV cases among children in the region.
GSK described results from clinical trials for Arexvy as “positive,” and the company said the U.S. launch of the vaccine is planned before the 2023-24 RSV season.
Other RSV vaccines, including one produced by Pfizer, are in the pipeline and expectations are that the FDA will approve them.
During clinical trials for both the GSK and Pfizer vaccines, several participants were diagnosed with rare conditions such as Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM). One of the individuals who developed ADEM later died, according to the FDA.
Aside from concerns over potential serious adverse events related to RSV vaccines, some experts have questioned the need for such a vaccine in the first place.
According to the journal Science, “RSV is a common respiratory infection” with symptoms “similar to a cold,” adding that “The majority of individuals recover within a few days from an uncomplicated RSV infection, although occasionally the virus can cause lower respiratory infections requiring medical attention.”
Dr. Peter McCullough, a cardiologist, told The Defender:
“Respiratory syncytial virus is a negligible threat to even the most frail elderly adults. The effort of widespread vaccination is simply not worth it. Even rare side effects will outweigh any theoretical benefit.”
And in a November 2022 episode of “RFK Jr. The Defender” podcast, several medical and public health experts expressed concerns about RSV vaccines.
“We have to stop these shots,” said Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist and biological warfare epidemiologist. “It’s just extraordinary that we’re still vaccinating people … we have a lot of work to do.”
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., then-chairman and chief litigation counsel for Children’s Health Defense (now chairman on leave), described RSV as “a vehicle for re-implementing the COVID-19 playbook all over the country and responding with vaccines.”
And according to the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), “Cost analysis data presented to the ACIP [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] did not show the RSV vaccines to be cost-effective at reducing the burden of costs associated with RSV illness.”
Nevertheless, more RSV vaccines are expected to receive FDA approval this year — including a Pfizer RSV vaccine for pregnant women that led to a high incidence of adverse events for both the women and their infants during clinical trials, as well as several deaths and stillbirths.
Arexvy approval ushers in new ‘highly competitive and lucrative vaccine market’
The RSV vaccine market is estimated to be worth up to $10 billion by 2030.
According to Endpoints News, the FDA’s approval of Arexvy ends “half a century of failed efforts against the elusive, shape-shifting virus” and “officially start[s] what analysts expect will be a highly competitive and lucrative new vaccine market.”
In getting Arexvy approved, “GSK beat a crowded field of competitors to cross the finish line first.”
Arexvy “showed strong efficacy in stopping lower-respiratory tract infections as well as more severe disease” and will be administered as a single dose, according to Endpoints News.
STAT reported that a “vaccine that was developed by Pfizer and aimed at the same demographic [adults 60 and over] is expected to be approved by the end of the month,” while other RSV vaccines and therapeutics, including some intended for children and pregnant women, are in the pipeline and also are close to receiving FDA approval.
The FDA’s approval of Arexvy came after an FDA advisory panel reviewed data from GSK’s and Pfizer’s clinical trials on March 1. The panel unanimously agreed that GSK’s vaccine is effective and, in a 10-2 vote, deemed it “safe,” according to The Washington Post.
The same panel also approved Pfizer’s candidate vaccine, Abrysvo, but with a 7-4 vote.
On June 21 or 22, ACIP, which advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), will convene to “make recommendations on the appropriate use of the vaccine in the U.S.,” according to GSK’s announcement. The ACIP must recommend the vaccines before they are marketed.
According to STAT, there is a likelihood that ACIP may not approve Arexvy for its intended age group, stating:
“Though Arexvy’s approval is for adults 60 and older, it remains to be seen if the CDC will recommend it for that entire group.
“At an advisory committee meeting in February, members of a work group studying the adult vaccines that will soon come before ACIP indicated that at present, they don’t believe the vaccine would be cost-effective in people aged 60 to 64 and they would not recommend to the wider committee that it include people 60 to 64 in its recommendation for the use of the vaccine. (The group held the same position for the Pfizer RSV vaccine.)”
In April, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) issued its own recommendation for Arexvy, for adults 60 and over, according to the Times. However, a final EMA regulatory decision is anticipated later this year. GSK is also awaiting licensure for Arexvy in Australia, China, Japan and other countries, STAT reported.
In an earnings presentation April 26, GSK said it has “millions of doses” of Arexvy “ready to be shipped.”
“GSK’s RSV vaccine works by using a small piece of the virus: a protein that sticks out on its surface called the fusion, or F, protein, which helps the virus glom onto and infect cells in the body’s upper airways. The protein pieces in the vaccine are made in a lab, using cells specially programmed to manufacture them.”
CNN noted that the vaccine “builds on a pivotal discovery made a decade ago” by National Institutes of Health researchers, “including some of the same scientists who helped make the COVID-19 vaccines.” Specifically, the researchers figured out how to freeze the otherwise “wiggly” F protein, “in the shape it takes before it fuses onto a cell.”
STAT, quoting Phil Dormitzer, GSK senior vice president and global head of vaccines research and development, reported that although Arexvy “contains only one of the two RSV subtypes, RSV A,” studies showed that it is “virtually equally protective against both RSV A and RSV B” as the F protein on both subtypes is similar.
Dormitzer acknowledged natural immunity, telling STAT, “because older adults have all had RSV probably multiple times by the time they get [the vaccine], they’re primed against both A and B. So you’re able to get very solid boosting against both subtypes with a single adjuvanted F antigen.”
According to GSK, the Arexvy vaccine does not use mRNA technology, but “contains a recombinant subunit prefusion RSV F glycoprotein antigen (RSVPreF3) combined with GSK’s proprietary AS01E adjuvant.”
GSK, FDA claim Arexvy clinical trial data show vaccine is ‘safe and effective’ but annual shot may be needed
The FDA announcement stated:
“The safety and effectiveness of Arexvy is based on the FDA’s analysis of data from an ongoing, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical study conducted in the U.S. and internationally in individuals 60 years of age and older.”
According to the FDA, “approximately 12,500 participants … received Arexvy and 12,500 participants … received a placebo. Among the participants who have received Arexvy and the participants who have received a placebo, the vaccine significantly reduced the risk of developing RSV-associated LRTD [lower respiratory tract disease] by 82.6% and reduced the risk of developing severe RSV-associated LRTD by 94.1%.”
LRTD was “defined as two or more symptoms including shortness of breath, wheezing, cough, increased mucus production, crackles, low oxygen saturation, or need for oxygen supplementation,” according to CNBC, while according to CNN, “People were considered to have severe disease if they needed supplemental oxygen or needed mechanical help to breathe, like a ventilator.”
According to the FDA, half of the 25,000 participants received Arexvy, while the other half received a placebo.
The results of GSK’s clinical trials for Arexvy were published in the New England Journal of Medicine on Feb. 16.
FDA and GSK officials provided glowing reviews of the new vaccine. Peter Marks, M.D., Ph.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement:
“Older adults, in particular those with underlying health conditions, such as heart or lung disease or weakened immune systems, are at high risk for severe disease caused by RSV.
“Today’s approval of the first RSV vaccine is an important public health achievement to prevent a disease which can be life-threatening and reflects the FDA’s continued commitment to facilitating the development of safe and effective vaccines for use in the United States.”
Tony Wood, GSK’s chief scientific officer, described Arexvy’s approval as “a turning point in our effort to reduce the significant burden of RSV,” adding that “Our focus now is to ensure eligible older adults in the U.S. can access the vaccine as quickly as possible and to progress regulatory review in other countries.”
In turn, Dormitzer said, “There’s just the broad excitement of finally, after all these years, having good options emerging for RSV,” describing this as a “triumph of the basic science.”
While GSK is first out of the gate in the RSV vaccine race with Arexvy, Pfizer’s candidate vaccine has also completed clinical trials, which found it to be “nearly 67 percent effective in preventing R.S.V. – related illness,” according to the Times.
The FDA and GSK announcements did not mention the vaccines’ waning effectiveness. An analysis by the NVIC found that the effectiveness of the GSK vaccine peaked after two months and offered no protection after one year. This may result in recommendations for adults to receive annual doses of the vaccine.
Trial participant died from a rare inflammatory condition, others developed GBS
Despite positive comments from FDA and GSK officials, clinical trial data for Arexvy revealed instances of GBS and other rare conditions.
In its announcement Wednesday, GSK claimed:
“The vaccine was generally well tolerated with an acceptable safety profile. The most frequently observed solicited adverse events were injection site pain, fatigue, myalgia, headache, and arthralgia. These were generally mild to moderate and transient.”
The announcement did not mention GBS.
According to the FDA announcement Wednesday:
“The most commonly reported side effects by individuals who received Arexvy were injection site pain, fatigue, muscle pain, headache and joint stiffness/pain.
“Among all clinical trial participants, atrial fibrillation within 30 days of vaccination was reported in 10 participants who received Arexvy and 4 participants who received placebo.”
However, the FDA noted that in two other Arexvy studies involving approximately 2,500 participants 60 and over, “two participants developed acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM), a rare type of inflammation that affects the brain and spinal cord, seven and 22 days, respectively, after receiving Arexvy and the influenza vaccine.”
“One of the participants who developed ADEM died,” according to the FDA.
In another Arexvy study conducted by GSK, “one participant developed Guillain-Barré syndrome (a rare disorder in which the body’s immune system damages nerve cells, causing muscle weakness and sometimes paralysis) nine days after receiving Arexvy,” the FDA stated.
According to an FDA briefing document cited by CNBC:
“A 78-year-old woman in Japan was diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome nine days after receiving GSK’s vaccine … She was hospitalized for six months before being released.”
CNBC reported that GSK claimed in February “There is insufficient evidence to confirm the woman got Guillain-Barre as a result of GSK’s shot.” However, the FDA “considers the case to be related to GSK’s vaccine.”
According to the FDA’s announcement:
“The FDA is requiring the company to conduct a postmarketing study to assess the signals of serious risks for Guillain-Barré syndrome and ADEM. In addition, although not an FDA requirement, the company has committed to assess atrial fibrillation in the postmarketing study.”
According to the Times, “Once the shots become available to the public, the agency said it would require GSK to monitor the incidence of Guillain-Barré and another rare condition that was possibly related to the shot.”
The FDA similarly flagged GSK “as a potential safety issue with Pfizer’s RSV vaccine for older adults,” CNBC reported after two clinical trial participants developed GBS. According to the Post, both participants — one man and one woman — were 66 years old.
CNBC in February reported that Pfizer “will conduct a safety study to further address Guillain-Barré syndrome if the FDA approves its vaccine.”
GSK’s chief commercial officer, Luke Miels, said the vaccine would cost upwards of $120 a dose, according to the Post, which also reported that private insurers may cover “many costs” associated with the vaccine, while Medicare patients with Part D coverage “won’t pay anything out of pocket” for the vaccine.
“Shares of GSK rose nearly 2% Wednesday following the approval,” CNBC reported.
GSK is also pressing forward with “A clinical trial that aims to expand the population who may benefit from RSV vaccination into adults aged 50-59, including participants with underlying comorbidities,” according to the company’s Wednesday announcement, with results “expected in 2023.”
Is there a need for an RSV vaccine?
According to the FDA:
“RSV is a highly contagious virus that causes infections of the lungs and breathing passages in individuals of all age groups. RSV circulation is seasonal, typically starting during the fall and peaking in the winter.
“In older adults, RSV is a common cause of lower respiratory tract disease (LRTD), which affects the lungs and can cause life-threatening pneumonia and bronchiolitis (swelling of the small airway passages in the lungs).”
The FDA cited CDC figures claiming each year in the U.S., RSV leads to approximately 60,000-120,000 hospitalizations and 6,000-10,000 deaths among adults 65 years of age and older.”
STAT reported that “RSV season has been unpredictable in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, though some experts believe RSV activity is moving back toward the seasonality seen in the pre-COVID days,” noting that “there was little transmission in 2020, when people were wearing masks and social distancing.”
But RSV “returned abnormally early in 2021,” STAT reported, but without an explanation for why this occurred, despite widespread masking and social distancing that year, too.
In the U.S., pediatric deaths from RSV are not common but the infection is the No. 1 cause of hospitalizations for children under the age of 1, STAT reported. Globally, however, it is the second leading cause of death in children under 1, after malaria.
According to STAT, “All but the youngest of children have had RSV multiple times, but few of us would know with any certainty that this bad cold was caused by that bad virus.”
Nevertheless, Pfizer is proceeding with the development of an RSV for infants as young as 6 months — “the age group at highest risk of being hospitalized with RSV,” STAT reported, noting that the vaccine for this age group is expected to gain FDA approval later this year and will be administered to pregnant women “to generate antibodies that protect both the pregnant person and their newborn.”
Data reported by Pfizer to the CDC indicated that 14% of pregnant women who participated in Pfizer’s trial sustained an adverse event, with 4.2% sustaining a “serious” adverse event, 1.7% experiencing a “severe” adverse event and 0.5% suffering a “life-threatening” adverse event.
Similarly, the same data showed that 37.1% of infants whose mothers received the experimental Pfizer vaccine experienced adverse events within one month of birth — with 15.5% classified as “serious,” 4.5% as “severe” and 1% as “life-threatening,” while efficacy waned within months of vaccination.
According to the NVIC, “The RSV clinical trial data also included the death of one pregnant woman, 18 still births (10 in vaccinated pregnant women and 8 in unvaccinated pregnant women), and 17 infant deaths (five from the vaccinated pregnancy group and 12 in unvaccinated pregnancy group).”
In its report to the CDC, Pfizer claimed the deaths were unrelated to the vaccine.
The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will meet virtually on May 18 to discuss approval of this vaccine. The meeting is open to the public, and a public comment period is open until May 17. A final FDA decision is expected in August.
According to the Times, “Moderna is also developing an RSV vaccine for adults 60 and over, with authorization expected in the first half of this year. The Times referenced clinical trial data released by Moderna claiming 82% efficacy, with “no safety concerns identified.”
Bavarian Nordic, known for its development of a vaccine in response to last year’s monkeypox outbreak, is also developing an RSV vaccine for adults 60 and over,” expecting to release Phase 3 clinical trial data by midyear, according to the Post and CNN.
AstraZeneca and Sanofi also are seeking FDA approval, but for nirsevimab, a monoclonal antibody treatment for RSV that would be administered to infants and toddlers up to age 2, according to the Times, which referenced clinical trial results claiming a reduction of illness of up to 75%.
According to the Post, nirsevimab “is already approved in Europe, the United Kingdom and Canada.”
However, the NVIC reported that the effectiveness of nirsevimab “is not known beyond 150 days” and it is unclear if the drug prevents ICU stays or deaths. It is being reviewed by ACIP, which according to the NVIC, is “a federal advisory committee charged with making vaccine use recommendations.”
“It is unclear why the ACIP … has chosen to go beyond its charge of making vaccine use recommendations,” NVIC states.
Safety concerns related to RSV vaccines nevertheless linger. According to CNN, an RSV vaccine developed in the 1960s for children initially delivered promising results during trials in children and animals.
However, once administered to children in the general population, “many of the children who were vaccinated required hospitalization and got more severe RSV disease than what would have normally occurred” — and two of the initial trial participants died.
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
After years of mandates, German Health Ministry admit they have no idea whether or to what degree masks work at all
Pandemic mythology continues its slow decay
eugyppius: a plague chronicle | May 3, 2023
As on several prior occasions, liberal Bundestag vice-president Wolfgang Kubicki has used his parliamentary prerogatives to put a question to the German Health Ministry, and compel an answer. He asked what study results the Ministry could cite to demonstrate the efficacy of face masks. Lauterbach’s crack team of virus understanders responded that, uh, it is a very complicated problem, and, in truth, well, actually, nobody really knows what effect masks really have. This is because “the effectiveness of individual measures … cannot be examined in isolation, but only in conjunction with the other measures in place at any given time.”
In other words: they got nothing. After years of making kids mask for hours on end in school, and imposing arbitrary but quite obnoxious mandates on airplanes and public transit and clinics, they have no idea whether it did anything, and no plans even to find out whether it did anything. Suddenly all that manic masking enthusiasm has just evaporated.
The response comes several weeks after Anthony Fauci’s statement to the New York Times that “at the population level, masks work at the margins, maybe 10 percent.” This is itself a baseless claim, but it’s another important walk-back of the insane doctrines that medical bureaucrats have been spinning about masks since 2020.
You have to think of propaganda like a big machine. Somebody has to plug it in and it draws a lot of electricity, but with the right inputs it can dazzle a lot of people. The problem is that sooner or later the deception isn’t worth anybody’s time or energy anymore, and so somebody must also shut it off. It looks like nobody bothered with any kind of messaging exit strategy, and so we’ve entered a very weird period, wherein the public health leviathan has ceased rehearsing its crazy pandemic myths, leaving the ever-shrinking minority of deranged Covidians to their own devices.
Now and again the fact-checkers still throw them a bone, so there’s that.
Ireland wanted public input on proposed censorship bill… Until the majority said they actually prefer free speech
Pushing ahead with censorship
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | May 4, 2023
The Irish government has decided to move forward with the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offenses) Bill 2022, despite the fact that a majority of public consultation responses were against the proposal. The bill, which was initiated in October 2022, aims to address “hate speech” in the country.
The public consultation, held in 2019, offered individuals the chance to express their views on the matter through either letter submissions or survey responses. Gript, a news outlet, conducted an analysis of the 3,597 submissions received during the consultation process. The results indicated that 73% of the respondents opposed the implementation of a hate speech law in Ireland.
Many respondents felt that free speech should only be restricted in cases involving incitement to violence or credible threats. One individual commented, “I’m offended by the government quite often – but they are entitled to their opinion like I am.” Another stressed the importance of free expression over safeguarding the feelings of sensitive individuals.
Despite the clear opposition, the Irish government chose to proceed with the bill, citing the sheer number of responses as justification for moving forward. The Justice Department stated, “Hate Speech can lead to hate crime,” and announced the development of new hate crime laws in Ireland, following the release of the consultation findings.
This week, the bill received a significant majority of support in the lower house, with 110 votes in favor and only 14 against. The decision to move forward with the legislation, despite widespread public disapproval, raises questions about the effectiveness of public consultation and the government’s commitment to addressing the concerns of its citizens.
Chomsky’s Ties to Jeffrey Epstein — and Suspected 9/11 Mastermind Ehud Barak—Exposed
In early summer 1992 I caught the documentary film Manufacturing Consent when it opened in San Francisco’s Castro Theater. That film changed my life. It showcased Noam Chomsky, an accomplished linguistics professor, and his analysis of corporate media propaganda. Manufacturing Consent convinced me that the American academy could tolerate, and indeed celebrate, serious social criticism. If Chomsky, a radical opponent of America’s most powerful institutions, could not only survive but thrive in academia, speaking truth to power and building a huge audience along the way, why couldn’t others do the same?
Before that screening, I had been a profoundly alienated bohemian haunting the margins of academia, so disgusted by all of America’s institutions that I could scarcely have imagined working for them. (Learning the facts about the JFK assassination at age 16 can do that to a person.) But Chomsky’s example inspired me. It made me want to join him and the other academic critics of US empire, convince our colleagues of the truth of our arguments using logic and evidence, and help the USA return to its anti-imperial roots and then some.
So it was largely thanks to Chomsky that I entered a Ph.D. program in 1995. But by then I had noticed two glaring anomalies in his political thought. The first, and most important, was that his analysis of the JFK assassination seemed insane. Chomsky argued that the assassination was obviously a conspiracy, and not the work of a lone nut as the official story has it—but that it didn’t matter who killed JFK, because the assassination didn’t change any policies! Since he felt it was so utterly unimportant that the president was murdered by conspirators powerful enough to force their ludicrous cover story on the world, Chomsky evinced no interest whatsoever in identifying the perpetrators, and discouraged his followers from further interest in the topic.
“Take for example all this frenzy about the JFK assassination. I mean I don’t know who assassinated him and I don’t care, but what difference does it make?” – Noam Chomsky
The other anomaly involved the question of Palestine. Though Chomsky has verbally sympathized with Palestinian suffering, and admitted the justice of the Palestinian cause, he has vociferously obstructed the two most promising strategic efforts that could help Palestine defeat Zionism: The boycott-divestment-sanctions (BDS) movement, and the campaign to expose Zionist control over US Mideast policy.
Alison Weir once asked Chomsky why he opposed BDS and why he had falsely claimed that it was bad for Palestinians (who almost unanimously support it). “The reason is very simple. It’s so utterly hypocritical that it’s basically a gift to the hardliners. They can say, ‘Look, you’re calling for a boycott of Israel, but you’re not calling for a boycott of the United States which has a much worse record…’”
Would Israeli hardliners ever actually say such a thing? And would it matter even if they did? Of course not. Here again, Chomsky is spouting sheer nonsense, prefaced by the obligatory disclaimer “it’s very simple.” When someone as seemingly intelligent as Chomsky says such things, there are really only two possible interpretations: Either he is suffering from some bizarre mental dysfunction, or he is lying and gaslighting us.
Chomsky’s occasional habit of emitting streams of discombobulated blather repeatedly surfaces when he is asked about Israel’s control of US Mideast policy. As James Petras writes, “Noam Chomsky has long been one of the great obfuscators of AIPAC and the existence of Zionist power over US Middle East policy.” The nonsensical gnome ludicrously argues that US policymakers’ enslavement to Israel actually serves US national and imperial interests. For him, Israel is basically a powerless appendage of US empire. Chomsky’s implicit subtext is that anyone who notices Israel’s death grip on US foreign policy, including Walt and Mearsheimer, Alan Hart, James Petras, J. William Fulbright, James Abourezk, Paul Findley, and indeed every honest and informed analyst who has considered the question, must be “anti-Semitic.”
My issues with Chomsky’s repeated bouts of apparent insanity came to a head after 9/11. In November 2001, Chomsky published a “surprise” bestseller. Entitled 9/11 and republished ten years later as 9/11: Was There an Alternative?, the book basically repeats Chomsky’s vacuous diatribes about the JFK coup d’état—“it doesn’t matter who did it, do NOT look behind the curtain”—and applies them to 9/11.
“If if it were true [9/11 conspiracy theories], which is extremely unlikely, what difference does it make? I mean, it doesn’t have any significance.” –Noam Chomsky, interview with David Barsamian
While I was participating in the rise of the 9/11 truth movement from 2004 onwards, I noticed that Chomsky was growing ever-more-strident in attacking truth-seekers and insisting that it didn’t matter who did 9/11. In 2008 I invited him on my radio show, which led to an exchange of emails culminating in his last-minute refusal to appear. I was flabbergasted by Chomsky’s seemingly insane statements and positions. When he finally started lying outright, I concluded that he must be acting in bad faith. I published the private emails in their entirety because I thought the world needed to know the truth about the evident gross immorality (or, charitably, insanity) of America’s most celebrated (fake) dissident.
Then in 2016 I gave a talk at the Left Forum on “Why Chomsky Is Wrong About 9/11.” Though my criticisms of Chomsky were quite restrained in tone, given his appalling betrayals, I was banned from the Left Forum the following year. Apparently going to the Left Forum to criticize Chomsky is like going to the Vatican to criticize the Pope.
Read the full text of “Why Chomsky Is Wrong About 9/11”
Over the years, it dawned on me that if Chomsky were deliberately leading people astray, there would have to be some sort of method in his apparent madness. Why would he herd the critical thinkers and idealists of the left away from the truth about the JFK assassination, 9/11, Zionist control of US policy, and the best strategy for saving Palestine? Whose interests would be served by those four acts of deception?
The question, of course, answers itself. As Michael Collins Piper, Laurent Guyénot, Ron Unz, Alan Hart, and so many others have suggested, the leading suspect in both the JFK and 9/11 coups is the state of Israel and its “American” acolytes. Chomsky has been consistently, systematically gaslighting his followers on the four issues most crucial to the preservation and expansion of Zionist power. As Jeffrey Blankfort writes:
“At the end of the day, it is evident that Chomsky’s affection for Israel, his sojourn on a kibbutz, his Jewish identity, and his early experiences with anti-Semitism to which he occasionally refers have colored his approach to every aspect of Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians and explain his defense of Israel. That is his right, of course, but not to pretend at the same that he is an advocate for justice in Palestine.”
Since our ill-starred 2008 email exchange I have leaned towards acknowledging the likelihood that Chomsky is a lying, gaslighting Zionist scumbag. But I wasn’t sure until a few days ago, when the news broke that Chomsky had repeatedly hobnobbed with then-convicted-sex-criminal Jeffrey Epstein, including meeting Epstein together with pervert and 9/11 suspect Ehud Barak, apparently even flying on Jeffrey Epstein’s Lolita Express. Characteristically, Chomsky dissembled: “If there was a flight (with Epstein), which I doubt…” If Chomsky hadn’t flown with Epstein, of course, he would just say so. His mealymouthed evasions of the truth, whether of JFK, 9/11, Israeli occupation of America, or his relations with Epstein and Barak, have a vacuously passive-aggressive tone that is inimitably Chomsky-esque, but jarringly incommensurate with his reputation as one of the world’s greatest linguists.
Chomsky’s response to journalists’ questions about his relationship with Epstein began: “First response is that it is none of your business. Or anyone’s.” That is, of course, exactly what many people would say when questioned about their sexual activities with consenting adults. So why is Chomsky proffering a stock “don’t ask me about my sex life” response when questioned about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and his stable of underage prostitutes?
Methinks the gnome doth protest too much.
More troubling than whether Chomsky (statutorily) raped young girls is the question of why he was meeting with Israel’s top blackmailer of American leaders, Jeffrey Epstein, alongside the likely mastermind of 9/11, Ehud Barak. Barak resigned as Prime Minister of Israel in May of 2001 and disappeared from public view, presumably spending June through early September working on plans to demolish the World Trade Center, attack the Pentagon, and blame the carnage on Israel’s enemies. Barak’s work on the lead-up to 9/11 recalls Ben Gurion’s resignation as Israeli Prime Minister and disappearance from public view in June, 1963, after which he went underground and presumably orchestrated the assassination of John F. Kennedy in November. The moral: When Israeli PMs resign in the spring, get ready for something big come fall.
Ehud Barak was conveniently pre-placed in BBC’s London studios so he could go live an hour after 9/11, where he recited what would become the official story:
Barak’s coercion was aimed at the masses, who were traumatized by the horrific images they had just seen on TV and open to hypnotic suggestion—which Barak obligingly provided, implanting the pre-scripted official version deep in their subconscious minds. Chomsky, by contrast, was deployed a few months later against leftists and intellectuals, who were understandably suspicious and predisposed to mistrust the Bush Administration and its rush to war against Israel’s enemies. (That Chomsky’s coverup-propaganda broadside 9/11 shot up the bestseller lists in November 2001 was hardly surprising, given the realities of power in America’s media, book publishing and distribution industries.)
Many languages have one or more proverbs that roughly translate as “A man is known by the company he keeps.” By simultaneously meeting Epstein and Barak, Noam Chomsky has unmasked himself as a top-level Zionist sheepdog tasked with keeping the dumb American goyim cattle blind, ignorant, and cooped up in their pens, bleating out the platitudes they are taught by their Zionist betters. To say that the scandal will tarnish Chomsky’s legacy is inaccurate, because there is no legacy to tarnish. Chomsky is a charlatan and a fraud. He stands revealed as an agent of the world’s most genocidal and most systematically terrorist state—a state that has attacked the United States of America repeatedly since 1954, assassinating its best leaders, murdering its sailors and civilians, looting its nuclear arsenal and its treasury, and generally assuming much of the responsibility for its impending destruction.
So what did Chomsky talk about with Israel’s top blackmailer Epstein and 9/11 perp Barak? Did the conversation sound like Netanyahu’s talk with his cronies at Fink’s Bar in Jerusalem in 1990?
At the head of the table was Netanyahu. The group at the table had just stolen 5 American KG 84 cryptographic devices with the help of Canadians serving with the UNTSO on the Golan Heights, giving this Israeli-led cabal real-time access to all US State Department, Naval and NATO communications. This is a transcribed quote taken from an audio recording of Netanyahu at that meeting:
“If we get caught they will just replace us with persons of the same cloth. So it does not matter what you do, America is a golden calf and we will suck it dry, chop it up, and sell it off piece by piece until there is nothing left but the world’s biggest welfare state that we will create and control. Why? Because it is the will of God, and America is big enough to take the hit so we can do it again and again and again. This is what we do to countries that we hate. We destroy them very slowly and make them suffer for refusing to be our slaves.”
Chomsky’s contempt for Americans, and for the intelligence of his American audience, is every bit as palpable as Netanyahu’s. And Epstein’s. And Barak’s.
Maybe it’s time for him to make aliyah… and thank Yahweh that Israel won’t sign extradition treaties.
Thoughts on Tucker
By Kevin MacDonald | Occidental Observor | May 4, 2023
I think Tucker was cancelled because of what he was emphasizing on his show (see also TOO writer Karl Haemer’s Substack piece). To wit:
- condemning the Ukraine war as not in U.S. interests; Ukraine is not a democracy, etc.;
- how the war feeds into the emerging alliance among Russia and China, along with Brazil, India, Iran, Arab countries and likely Africa—and what that will mean for the dollar as the world’s reserve currency as well as U.S. prosperity and power;
- making what are considered White nationalist talking points by the rest of the media and never mentioned by vast majority of conservatives (the Great Replacement, immigration diluting White votes, Democrats’ desire to have a permanent government of the left by importing a dependent, low-IQ, easily controllable non-White population that requires government financial assistance and affirmative action, and can easily see the benefits of blaming all their problems on White racism, whereas mainstream conservatives emphasize migrant suffering and death trying to get to the U.S.; his sympathetic interview with Hungarian nationalist Viktor Orban);
- talking about George Soros’s influence, particularly in electing far-left activist prosecutors, despite the ADL pushing the idea that any mention of him is anti-Semitic;
- condemning the World Economic Forum and globalism generally—likely related to his opposition to the Ukraine war;
- opposing the woke ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) agenda of corporate giants like Blackrock able to use shareholder muscle to force companies to conform to their woke policy preferences; Blackrock is a major investor in Fox;
- angering the ADL and the powers-that-be in general with all of the above; and he often condemns globalist, pro-immigration Republicans like Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell who support those same issues;
- opposing climate extremism, like cutbacks in Netherlands’ agricultural sector and his recent “Let Them Eat Bugs” special on Fox Nation;
- being a vaccine skeptic and having people like Alex Berenson on to criticize the vaccines, lockdowns, effects on schoolchildren, etc.;
- repeatedly dissenting on the J6 narrative—showing the video indicating that it was far less violent than depicted and that Merrick Garland’s DOJ is hellbent on outrageous prosecutions, infringing on free speech and civil rights (locking citizens for long periods without trial;
- condemning social media censorship (as revealed in the Twitter files) and the outrageous Garland DOJ, FBI, etc.;
- going off on transgenderism (sterilizing children is civilizational suicide and “evil”)—and wokeness generally
- talking about big media bias in the 2020 election, including Google searches and Twitter shadow banning.
The Ukraine War Is a Globalist Crusade
Tucker also presented standard conservative talking points, like illegal immigration, guns, crime in the cities, Biden’s corruption and senility, etc. But my impression is that he was all alone on many of the above issues among Fox personalities, or he phrased his comments on them in an edgier way. And in general, his commentary was much more incisive and intellectually appealing. All of this terrified the globalist, multicultural establishment throughout the West.
The ADL was thrilled that Fox cancelled his show:
To the Anti-Defamation League, the firing was long overdue. The group’s leader called for Fox to fire Carlson in 2021, after the host first promoted the white-supremacist Great Replacement theory on air.
“It’s about time,” tweeted the group’s CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, on Monday. “For far too long, Tucker Carlson has used his primetime show to spew antisemitic, racist, xenophobic & anti-LGBTQ hate to millions.”
At the time, Fox rebuffed the ADL’s petition weeks later. The network said that Carlson had actually been talking about voting rights when he outlined the Great Replacement theory, a far-right belief that attributes a diversifying electorate to a shadowy conspiracy, typically engineered by Jews, to replace white voters with immigrants and minority groups.
“A full review of the guest interview indicates that Mr. Carlson decried and rejected replacement theory,” Lachlan Murdoch, CEO of the Fox Corporation, said at the time.
The ADL’s public stance on Carlson’s employment led to criticism from the right, with Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz calling the group “racist.” Carlson also went after them on his program by parroting other white supremacist-adjacent beliefs about Israel. Last year, he gave an extended interview to Kanye West after the rapper donned a “White Lives Matter” shirt at Paris Fashion Week, but before West’s many public antisemitic rants; producers reportedly edited out antisemitic comments West had made during the interview.
The reference to “parroting other white supremacist-adjacent beliefs about Israel” refers to Tucker’s publicizing the ADL’s stance on immigration to Israel in an item that was soon expunged from their website.
The ADL recently condemned Tucker Carlson, an American media personality, because he mentioned that American voters were being replaced by immigrants, terming it “a White supremacist tenet that the White race is in danger by a rising tide of non-Whites. It is antisemitic, racist and toxic.” In response, Carlson highlighted the different attitudes of the ADL regarding demographic displacement of the native European-derived population of the U.S. with their attitudes on a one-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Regarding Israel, the ADL has quite reasonably stated that a one-state solution is unworkable given current realities and historic animosities. With historically high birth rates among the Palestinians, and a possible influx of Palestinian refugees and their descendants now living around the world, Jews would quickly be a minority within a binational state, thus likely ending any semblance of equal representation and protections. In this situation, the Jewish population would be increasingly politically – and potentially physically – vulnerable. It is unrealistic and unacceptable to expect the State of Israel to voluntarily subvert its own sovereign existence and nationalist identity and become a vulnerable minority within what was once its own territory.
Regarding the ADL statement that concern with demographic changes in the U.S. is “antisemitic, racist and toxic,” given the long history of racial conflict in America, the recent upsurge in race-based violence, and the contemporary prominence of movements, such as Critical Race Theory that essentially pathologize White Americans in the media and educational system, it is reasonable to suppose that the White population would also be increasingly vulnerable if they become a minority.
This New York Times article indicates Fox’s concerns about his ideas, starting with a text in which he claimed that “It’s Not How White Men Fight,” which was part of his reaction to a group of White men ganging up on an antifa protester, which of course the Times interpreted as yet another indication that Tucker was a “White supremacist.”
Though Mr. Carlson’s show, “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” was only a small factor in the Dominion suit, his personal texts were drawing outsize scrutiny.
The text about the fight came on top of a damaging chain of messages that had been revealed publicly ahead of trial, and that were shocking in their own right. Writing to one of his producers after the assault on the Capitol, Mr. Carlson describes the president he championed on his show as a “demonic force” and a “destroyer.”
A recurring theme of his show during the six years that it ran in prime time on Fox News was the displacement of white Americans by people of color. Mr. Carlson often framed topics in the news as part of a larger struggle between “us” and “them,” with immigrants and other marginalized groups steadily and surely taking from whites what had long been theirs: political and cultural power in the United States.
He attacked Black social justice activists and portrayed immigrants from Central America as a blight on the nation. He said in 2018 that immigrants make the country “dirtier.”
In the aftermath of a mass shooting in El Paso at the hands of a gunman who cited white supremacist beliefs in his manifesto, Mr. Carlson declared on his show that white supremacy was “not a real problem,” likening it to a conspiracy theory.
So there was plenty of reason to get rid of him. Recently, Megyn Kelly has claimed that Fox is leaking videos of Tucker that would produce negative impressions in many views in order to render him so toxic that he wouldn’t be employable. (The above-cited article from the NYTimes was apparently leaked by people connected to Fox.) Kelly also claims that Carlson’s exit is still to be negotiated and he can’t start another show because he is still under contract. Breitbart claims that Fox will prevent him from getting a new show until the 2024 elections are safely in the rear view mirror. Looks like it’s devolved into an all-out war.
The other plausible thing mentioned by some is that getting rid of Carlson and generally moving toward a blander, more traditional type of conservatism like that of Paul Ryan (who is on the Fox Board of Directors) would attract the big-name advertisers back to Fox’s prime time lineup. The boycotts initiated by the left in recent years have left his show with direct marketing advertisers like Mike Lindell, the Pillow Guy. And as mentioned above, Tucker has vigorously opposed the ESG agenda of major Fox investors such as the left-activist Blackrock headed by Larry Fink.
So there’s likely a number of factors that influenced the decision.
What can we expect if Tucker reincarnates somewhere in the media universe? It’s quite possible that he will become even edgier if he is not tied to a corporate giant mainly concerned about the bottom line and eager to stay within the currently allowable boundaries of public debate. As someone who is intimately acquainted with how politics works in Washington, he is undoubtedly aware of Jewish influence, but I rather doubt that he will say anything to suggest Jews are responsible in any way for any of the issues he is concerned about. He will often mention Jewish villains like Victoria Nuland, Alejandro Mayorkas, Merrick Garland, or George Soros without saying they are Jewish. And he will likely continue to invite Jews on his show—Jews such as Michael Shellenberger on the left’s destruction of San Francisco, Darren Beattie of Revolver News on J6, or vaccine skeptic Alex Berenson. And if the ADL calls him out again, I’m sure he will respond as he has previously.
It’s interesting that unlike so many conservatives, he is not slavishly pro-Israel (as is, e.g., Sean Hannity). Anyone with the faintest knowledge of how things work in Washington understands the power of the Israel Lobby, but he just ignores the issue. I can’t recall him even discussing Israel or the Israel Lobby. Haaretz mentions his “lack of enthusiasm for the Jewish state” — likely another reason why ADL hates him.
Tucker’s approach to Jewish issues is not what people on this site would like, but I think he has woke up a lot of people and will continue to do so if and when he reemerges. That’s why he has a huge audience. And it’s entirely plausible that he understands Jewish involvement but believes (reasonably) that it cannot be a good strategy to win political power any time soon. That’s for writers at TOO and like-minded venues playing the long game—putting ideas out there so that intelligent observers who are now in the mainstream understand what is going on, even if they don’t say anything publicly.
Our current orthodoxies won’t last. They’re brain-dead. Nobody actually believes them. Hardly anyone’s life is improved by them. This moment is too inherently ridiculous to continue, and so it won’t.
The people in charge know this, that’s why they’re hysterical and aggressive. They’re afraid. They’ve given up persuasion – they’re resorting to force. But it won’t work. When honest people say what’s true, calmly and without embarrassment, they become powerful. At the same time, the liars who’ve been trying to silence them shrink – and they become weaker. That’s the iron-law of the universe; true things prevail.”
“Where can you still find Americans saying true things? There aren’t many places left, but there are some – and that’s enough. As long as you can hear the words, there is hope. See you soon.
Russia’s coming revenge attack on Ukraine for the attempted assassination of Putin
By Gilbert Doctorow | May 4, 2023
Yesterday The New York Times only published a tiny article on the Kremlin’s assertion that Ukraine had targeted Putin in a drone attack on the Kremlin. On the contrary, The Financial Times considered the issue to be of prime importance and gave it lead position in their online edition. And what about the Russians, how did they deal with this?
The hourly news programs were very restrained, giving the story top place but only a minute or two of attention. However, the talk shows gave it extensive attention. Sixty Minutes focused on the U.S. official reaction to the Kremlin charges, with an excerpt from the interview that Antony Blinken gave. In his remarks, Blinken first put in question the whole incident, saying dismissively that you cannot believe anything the Kremlin says. Then he went on to say that Kiev can do anything it deems necessary to repel the aggressor and recover its sovereign territory, for which it has American support. The hosts left it to the audience to interpret Blinken’s words, though none but blithering idiots would fail to understand from Blinken that the USA was in cahoots with Kiev on such an attack. Those who are politically informed about Washington would understand that Blinken is now wholly controlled by his nominal subordinate, Victoria Nuland, since what he said was exactly what she would say, meaning hawkish, anti-Russian in the extreme.
Beyond that, Sixty Minutes directed attention to Zelensky’s convenient departure for Finland shortly after the attack on the Kremlin. They also noted that his stay in Finland has been extended by a day, that he is now headed for Germany, where there was no expectation of his visit, and that he is being transported by a U.S. military plane. Here again, without saying it, the program hosts allow the audience to reach the logical conclusion that Zelensky was directly involved in the plot to assassinate Putin and that the United States was at his side all the way.
The talk show Evening with Vladimir Solovyov was less subtle. The host opened by reminding his audience of what Dmitry Medvedev, former President and head of the Russian Security Council said earlier in the day: that Ukraine is now a terrorist state, that there is no longer any justification for negotiating with Zelensky and that the Kiev regime must be destroyed.
For those who think that Solovyov and Medvedev were just sounding off and have no credibility, I point out that the Volodin, Speaker of the State Duma, yesterday also called for the destruction of the decision-making bodies in Ukraine, which means, of course, the presidential administration first of all.
While American and European newscasters opine over whether all this spells an escalation of the war, I will say with almost certainty that it does. It is hard to imagine that Vladimir Putin will be able or will even want to remain calm and restrained in the face of the latest U.S.-Kiev provocations. If his position is at risk in this war, it is from Russia’s super patriots.
The Russians have the ability to strike anywhere in Ukraine and to destroy any safe-places of the Kiev leadership including the deepest of bunkers. The question now is will they do so before Zelensky returns home, if he ever does? Will they do so during or immediately after the 9 May military parade in Moscow?
We are once again at a turning point in this war which has been provoked by Washington acting through the puppet regime in Kiev.
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2023
Top Polish general says ‘situation does not look good’ for Kiev
By Drago Bosnic | May 4, 2023
For well over a year, the mainstream propaganda machine has been trying to convince everyone that the Kiev regime forces are “massively overperforming” against Russia. However, behind all the Western disinformation clutter, NATO military commanders are extremely concerned with the fact that what would be the second most powerful military in NATO (if it were a member) is being quite literally wiped out, with the casualty ratio going as high as 10:1 or even 11:1, and not in its favor. Worse yet, the Neo-Nazi junta forces include tens of thousands of NATO mercenaries and radicalized volunteers, whose casualties are estimated to be well into five figures counting. General Rajmund Andrzejczak, Chief of General Staff of the Polish Armed Forces, recently warned about this.
“War always was, is, and there is nothing to indicate otherwise – a matter of politics, and in its determinants has a substantial number of economic factors: finance, infrastructure issues, social issues, technology, food production and a whole set of problems that must be put into this box to understand this conflict… When I look at the conflict in Ukraine, I mainly see it through these political lenses, and unfortunately it does not look good,” Andrzejczak stated in the closing days of April, during a strategic debate at the National Security Bureau, adding: “I think that there is nothing that indicates Russia would be unable to sustain its war effort, and that Western economic warfare efforts had failed to prevent this.”
“Those financial instruments which it had before the conflict, the dynamics of spending, the effectiveness of sanctions, and the whole complex economic situation speak to the fact that Russia will have the money for this conflict,” Andrzejczak said and then warned that Kiev doesn’t have remotely similar capabilities: “We know how much the country needs per month. We know what American assistance amounts to, that of the entire collective West amounts to. We also know what Polish assistance is in this area, because we are the second-largest donor and should probably be a major inspiration for others. The speed of attrition in the financial area is, in my opinion, unfavorable, unfortunately.”
The Polish Chief of General Staff further added: “There was little indication that millions of Ukrainians who had left the country would be ready or willing to return home to rebuild. Many Western leaders failed to realize how far Ukraine is from winning the war. The Western Bloc just doesn’t have the ammunition, industry is not ready not only to send equipment to Ukraine, but to replenish our own stocks, which are melting [away]. This awareness is not the same there as it is here on the Vistula River, and it must be communicated firmly, without an aesthetic, to everyone and in all forums, wherever possible, which is what I’m doing.”
The top Polish general’s concerns are hardly misplaced, especially considering the fact that he’s getting actual, unbiased military reports from Polish and other NATO services. Expectedly, such reports are extremely unlikely to ever be published by the mainstream propaganda machine, but General Andrzejczak’s words alone should be enough to indicate the actual state of the Kiev regime forces. Indeed, in recent days, the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) announced that its forces have been able to neutralize nearly 600 enemy combatants and dozens of pieces of hardware in the Donetsk area alone, along with over 200 tons of various types of NATO-supplied munitions.
Battlefield reports for May 1 indicate that the Russian military used long-range weapons to destroy at least two air defense divisions composed of S-300 SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems in a strike on depots in Pavlograd, a city in the Dnepropetrovsk oblast (region). Apparently, these systems were defending a depot in which the Neo-Nazi junta’s “Grom-2” tactical ballistic missiles were housed, which were also destroyed in one of the subsequent strikes. A third strike destroyed an ammunition depot of the 127th Mechanized Brigade based in the Kharkov oblast. Only a day prior, an entire network of munitions manufacturing facilities was also destroyed.
Perhaps the most disappointing (for both Kiev and the political West) aspect of the grossly overhyped performance of the Kiev regime forces is the recent admission that the much-touted HIMARS is nowhere near its declared capabilities. While the mainstream propaganda machine extensively reported on the alleged successes of this system, in reality, it has shown less than limited performance, as Russian air defenses have been able to intercept most HIMARS rockets, while the Russian Aerospace Forces “took care” of most launchers sent by NATO. Modernized versions of the “Buk” SAM system, particularly the M3 “Viking” variant, have proven to be extremely effective in virtually nullifying this threat.
HIMARS was portrayed as one of the Neo-Nazi junta’s “wunderwaffen”, a supposedly “decisive weapon” that could “turn the tide” against Russia. However, just like many of the actual “wunderwaffen” deployed by Nazi Germany in the closing months of the Second World War, this is proving to be futile. Poland’s top general essentially confirms this by pointing out what virtually all military commanders in NATO are perfectly aware of, but can’t disclose publicly.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
My MP and an exercise in vaccine damage denial
By Nicholas Britton | TCW Defending Freedom | May 4, 2023
A few weeks ago I wrote to my MP to ask if he attended Andrew Bridgen’s debate in the House of Commons about the safety and effectiveness of the Covid vaccines. Of course, I knew he wasn’t among the handful of people who stayed in the chamber for the debate, but I wanted to convey my deep disappointment at the lack of interest by those elected by us and paid by us to represent us on such important issues.
I finally got a reply about a month later. He said he was in his constituency that day but was aware of Mr Bridgen’s speech. Below are some extracts from his letter. I have not identified him because this is not a name-and-shame exercise, but an illustration of how politicians are still in complete denial about this issue and are quite happy giving us misinformation in the form of the usual unsubstantiated slogans and tropes. I don’t know whether this MP believes any of what he wrote or whether he is just saying what he’s been told to say. I know he is a party loyalist who always falls in line with the leadership; he is not an independent thinker. Either way, I don’t like being lied to or hoodwinked.
It’s interesting that at no point does the MP refute anything Andrew Bridgen said, nor does he provide any evidence or argument to contradict his statements. That would be a tricky one, I guess, since Mr Bridgen was quoting from official figures. It’s also troubling to see such blatant denial of what is now being revealed around the world about the vaccines and which is even starting to creep into the MSM – I’ve recently noticed a few reports concerning vaccine injuries. Still, it remains an uphill struggle to convince some people that they are being lied to by the authorities. We are not trying to prove the existence of aliens or anything equally intangible, we are just trying to get those in authority to acknowledge what is screaming at them from their own official statistics. The result, as this letter shows, is for them to behave like recalcitrant children told to tidy their bedrooms, and to stick their fingers in their ears while loudly shouting ‘conspiracy theorist’, ‘misinformation’, or ‘anti-vaxxer’.
Here are the extracts (in bold) from the letter. I’ve added my thoughts below each.
‘I would point out that extensive independent research shows that COVID-19 vaccines are extremely successful at preventing deaths. They remain our best line of defence and the most effective way to enable us to live with the virus.’
‘Extremely successful’? Where is the independent evidence for that? I’d have thought he would be able to provide one or two examples of that ‘extensive independent research’ if he believes in it so fervently.
‘All vaccines must go through a rigorous testing and development process before authorisation to ensure that they meet the strict standards of safety, quality and effectiveness set by the independent medicines regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).’
The Pfizer documents which the company wanted to keep under wraps for 75 years suggest more a rigorous cover-up than rigorous testing. As to quality, why have there been different rates of adverse events amongst different vaccine batches? In Japan, two men died after receiving shots from a batch contaminated with particles of stainless steel.
‘The independent Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) provides the latest clinical and scientific evidence on vaccine safety and efficacy. Unfortunately, misinformation about Covid-19 vaccines has spread rapidly through social media and other platforms. It is crucial that we all rely on credible sources of information when it comes to vaccines. Misinformation causes harm and costs lives, and it does an incredible disservice to frontline workers who have been at the heart of the fight against coronavirus, working day and night to protect the NHS and save lives.’
He implies that the government and its ‘experts’ are the only credible sources of information and we should be trusting them alone. When were these people anointed the high priests of truth? Who in their right mind would trust Neil Ferguson and his dodgy computer models? There is indeed a vast amount of misinformation out there, most of it coming from those with connections to a certain wealthy sociopath with financial interests in the vaccine industry.
‘I reject baseless claims, including those which suggest vaccines are harming and killing many people, and that the damage is being covered up.’
As do many of us reject the government’s baseless, unevidenced, and politically-motivated claims that they are ‘safe and effective’ and that the damage is not being covered up.
‘The MHRA operates the Yellow Card reporting scheme, which allows individuals and health professionals to report any suspected reactions or side effects, even if the reporter is not sure they were caused by the vaccine. The nature of yellow card reporting means that reported events are not always proven side effects; some events may have happened anyway, regardless of vaccination.’
Ah yes, the Medical Homicide Racketeering Agency. That body which was once a gatekeeper ensuring the safety of medical products but which now calls itself an ‘enabler’. He is correct in saying that correlation is not proof of causation. However, the government deemed that a positive PCR test within 28 days of death was proof of death caused by Covid, even if you’d actually been flattened by a bus, so it seems that correlation can mean causation when it’s politically useful. The purpose of the Yellow Card system has historically been to flag up possible problems with medicines which need to be investigated. In the case of the Covid vaccines, there have been more red flags than at a Soviet Mayday parade, yet they have been ignored.
‘Where vaccine damage does tragically occur, it is right that individuals and their families can access payments via the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS). The VDPS is intended to support individuals and their families who have suffered severe disablement or bereavement as a result of having a vaccine. Covid-19 was added to this scheme in December 2020 and compensation payments under the scheme began last year.’
So why have the vaccine-injured been confronted with so many bureaucratic obstacles in their pursuit not just of the miserly £120,000 compensation but also recognition of their injuries, and of their need for practical help?
‘It is important to stress just how rare adverse reactions are. As with all vaccines and medicines, however, it is right that the safety of Covid-19 vaccines is continuously monitored.’
So why has the AstraZeneca vaccine, that triumph of British biotechnology, been quietly withdrawn in the UK and most other European countries? It has just been banned in Australia too. Switzerland has just removed recommendation for all Covid vaccinations for anybody, including the vulnerable. Surely it’s nothing to do with adverse reactions? The number of recorded adverse reactions for all Covid vaccines has vastly exceeded the total number for all other vaccine injuries over the past 30 years. Other vaccines and medicines have been withdrawn after far fewer recorded (suspected) adverse reactions.
***
I wonder how long politicians will keep up this pretence? I suspect they have dug themselves into such a deep hole they would have great trouble climbing out of it even if they eventually accept they have been complicit in the worst medical scam in history. My guess is they will keep digging because honesty and humility do not come easily to them.
Ivermectin ban lifted: Australia
The ban on off-label prescribing of the anti-viral drug has been in place for over 18 months
By Rebekah Barnett | Dystopian Down Under | May 3, 2023
Doctors will be free to prescribe ivermectin ‘off-label’ from 01 June 2023, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) announced today.
This is a reversal of a national ban on off-label prescribing of ivermectin, which the TGA enacted on 10 September 2021, in an attempt to prevent doctors from prescribing the drug to treat Covid.
At the time, the TGA stated that the restriction was necessary because:
- People would be at risk if they took ivermectin instead of getting vaccinated
- People who took ivermectin may choose not to get tested or to seek medical care if they had symptoms
- Social media posts were promoting higher doses of ivermectin than what is normally recommended for approved uses
- There had been a 3-4 fold uptake in ivermectin and the TGA was worried about a shortage disadvantaging vulnerable people who really needed the drug
So, instead of launching a nationwide education campaign and recommending that the Australian Government throw a few million dollars at bolstering the national stockpile of ivermectin, the TGA effectively banned the drug for all but a narrow set of uses.
The TGA has now relaxed the ban because, “there is sufficient evidence that the safety risks to individuals and public health is low when prescribed by a general practitioner in the current health climate.”
It would seem, though, that there was sufficient evidence of ivermectin’s safety all along. In July 2021, Rebecca Weisser wrote in Ivermectin. It’s as Aussie as Vegemite, for Spectator Australia:
As for safety, 3.7 billion doses of ivermectin have been used since 1987 and in 30 years, only 20 deaths following its use have been reported to the UN’s Vigi-Access database. Compare that to remdesivir, which has been given emergency use authorisation to treat Covid in Australian hospitals. In 12 months, there have been 551 deaths reported. Indeed, a study published in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association this week found remdesivir did not increase survival, just time spent in hospital.
The TGA’s stated concerns over ivermectin’s safety back in September 2021 seem incoherent when taken alongside its authorisation of remdesivir.
An Australian doctor, who prefers to remain anonymous, was suspended by industry regulator AHPRA for prescribing ivermectin off-label during the pandemic. He says,
“I think the restriction on prescribing ivermectin off-label was disingenuous from the start. It was always about coaching people toward the option of vaccination by removing a legitimate off-label therapeutic option. The decision effectively punished Australians for being self-educated and aware of the scientific evidence supporting ivermectin.
The reversal of the ban is a good step and it appears that doctors may be restored their full rights to off-label prescribing.
But, there remains the question of whether lives have in fact been lost due to the limitation of ivermectin through this policy.”
This is the question posed by Kara Thomas, Secretary of the Australian Medical Professionals’ Society, and Andrew McIntyre, Gastroenterologist and Coordinator of the Doctors Against Mandates legal action, in an op-ed from March this year, also for Spectator Australia. The article raises more questions than answers, but serves to highlight the disparity between the safety profiles of ivermectin (better) and Covid vaccines (worse), as well as a summary of the scientific evidence for ivermectin’s effectiveness.
The effectiveness of ivermectin in treating Covid is hotly argued in all corners of the internet, but it is worth noting that internationally renowned ICU doctor Paul Marik wept when his hospital enforced a policy preventing him from using it in combination with other therapeutics. There are numerous other frontline doctors who similarly expressed dismay at being prevented from administering the drug, after seeing lives saved under their care.
Though prescribing restrictions on ivermectin are to be lifted, the TGA does not endorse off-label prescribing of ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of Covid.
”A large number of clinical studies have demonstrated ivermectin does not improve outcomes in patients with COVID-19. The National Covid Evidence Taskforce (NCET) and many similar bodies around the world, including the World Health Organization, strongly advises against the use of ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19.”
It will now be at the discretion of Australian doctors to make their best clinical judgement on a case by case basis.
Monash University, Melbourne, is running a blinded and randomised clinical trial to test ivermectin’s efficacy for Covid prevention. The trial is led by Dr Kylie Wagstaff, whose preliminary in vitro study in collaboration with the Doherty Institute (April 2020) found that ivermectin stopped the replication of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in cell culture within 48 hours.
Featured Video
Covid-19 Vaccines White Clots Results – 2024
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Newly Available Documents
National Security Archive Publishes Key Records on Infamous MKULTRA Program
Agency Sought Drugs and Behavior Control Techniques to Use in “Special Interrogations”
Edited by Michael Evans | National Security Archive | December 23, 2024
Washington, D.C. – Today, the National Security Archive and ProQuest (part of Clarivate) celebrate the publication of a new scholarly document collection many years in the making on the shocking secret history of the CIA’s mind control research programs. The new collection, CIA and the Behavioral Sciences: Mind Control, Drug Experiments and MKULTRA, brings together more than 1,200 essential records on one of the most infamous and abusive programs in CIA history.
Under code names that included MKULTRA, BLUEBIRD and ARTICHOKE, the CIA conducted terrifying experiments using drugs, hypnosis, isolation, sensory deprivation, and other extreme techniques on human subjects, often U.S. citizens, who frequently had no idea what was being done to them or that they were part of a CIA test.
Today’s announcement comes 50 years after a New York Times investigation by Seymour Hersh touched off probes that would bring MKULTRA abuses to light. The new collection also comes 70 years since U.S. pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly & Company first developed a process to streamline the manufacture of LSD in late 1954, becoming the CIA’s chief supplier of the newly discovered psychoactive chemical central to many of the Agency’s behavior control efforts.
Highlights of the new MKULTRA collection include… continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
Balthasar Gerards on Elon Musk’s AfD Endorsement Tr… loongtip on The strange case of Didier Rey… 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
Aletho News- Mauritian Prime Minister Rejects Blinken’s Call to Sign Deal With UK on Chagos – Reports
- National Security Archive Publishes Key Records on Infamous MKULTRA Program
- Covid-19 Vaccines White Clots Results – 2024
- Pentagon’s African Biolabs: Russia Warns of Global Pathogen Threat
- Israel seeks to occupy south Lebanon past 60-day truce period
- Frustrated by Incessant Missile Attacks, Israel Threatens to Start Assassinating Houthi Leaders
- Sednaya: Investigating Syria’s most notorious prison
- The strange case of Didier Reynders and Ursula von der Leyen
- Violence at recruitment centers in Ukraine escalating
- The Case for Dismantling the Rules-Based International Order
- If Americans Knew
- On Christmas day, meet some of Gaza’s Christians – Day 443
- 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
- 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 