Zoeken in deze blog 🔎🔎

vrijdag 12 november 2021

9/11: The Unspeakable

 

The Unspeakable

Published:  11/11/2021

It is heartening when someone with a voice uses it for something bigger than themselves.

"Why did I wait so long, like so many others, to start digging? It astonishes me, until I look at the size of what happened and also at my inability to believe that my government could have betrayed the families of those killed that day by not giving them the first thing they were owed: the truth.  
 
It relieves me immensely to have given my name and my artistic advice as an executive producer of the new film The Unspeakable. I also deeply respect the definitive film SEVEN about the “other” building so few know of that also, somehow, fell neatly, “smack straight into its own socks” that day. An impossibility in any way but one.

The Unspeakable is about a horror that was committed upon innocent people and about their friends and loved ones struggling to heal while the truth is suppressed by those we are supposed to be able to trust. It’s also about the attempt to break the individual human heart and spirit — but how it cannot be broken in some.

The meaning of such evil acts can’t really be measured in numbers. The measure is taken one mother or father or sister or friend at a time. The question is not how could anyone do this to so many, but how could anyone do this to anyone.
 
The human heart has been the focus of my life’s study, so it is to the cause of these families and friends and this humbly heartfelt film that I add my name. I'm grateful and, again, very relieved to join with them in profound sorrow for their loss and to be a part of speaking their unspeakable truth.

I don’t suppose or pretend to know who or how or why this thing was done. But I feel it must begin with one step. NIST, our National Institute of Standards and Technology, must be brought to account for lying to all of us."

- Actor and Producer William Hurt
 

"Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Executive Producer William Hurt are proud to announce the release of The Unspeakable, a feature-length documentary by Dylan Avery.

The Unspeakable follows four families in their struggle to find the truth about the murder of their loved ones on September 11, 2001."

- Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

https://www.alpine7.org/blog/unspeakable?fbclid=IwAR0AsR8IIheJkpTRWvovTVuXDIggK1oU3Wlg87wN5xF6MZmVQV80dYahF_I




woensdag 10 november 2021

MH17 – NO REAL ANALYSIS OF PHONE TAPES

 MH17 - Enregistrements des conversations téléphoniques - Phone tapes

MH17 – NO REAL ANALYSIS OF PHONE TAPES WAS DONE FOR SEVEN YEARS

On 1 November 2021, at the MH17 court session, one of the investigating judges revealed that for seven years there had been no real audio analysis of the phone tapes provided by the SBU to the international investigation team. Worse still, when an analysis was finally requested by the investigating judges, and carried out, it was only done on copies, suggesting that they do not have the original files, thus casting doubt on the authenticity of this vital “evidence” for the prosecution.

When I wrote a year and a half ago that the trial of shame had begun in the Netherlands, many thought I had been a little strong in my words. But 18 months of proceedings have only confirmed my assessment of the MH17 trial.

To list only the major problems with the MH17 trial:
1) The trial has started while the investigation is still ongoing, which is totally illogical. It is abnormal for the investigation to continue during the trial.
2) Most of the witnesses are anonymous, so it is impossible to verify that they were where they said they were that day, and whether their testimony is reliable. These people could be SBU agents, Ukrainian nationalists willing to lie to smear Russia, or tortured prisoners who were forced to say and sign anything. The defence cannot even question them other than in writing, nor can it have access to the entirety of the testimony of these witnesses (only to certain parts chosen by the prosecutor and investigating judges).
3) Prosecutors are withholding information on an industrial scale, destroying the principle of a fair fight between the two parties. This is done by systematically refusing to allow defence lawyers and victims’ families to obtain additional information, to ask more questions, to have access to all documents (for example, the defence lawyers received a completely blacked-out diagram as “evidence” as part of the statement of one of these anonymous witnesses).
4) One of the lead prosecutors was involved in a huge legal scandal in Argentina (he has left the trial since this revelation)

With all this in mind, you already have a good idea of how this trial is unfolding. In addition, the probity of the SBU, which provided most of the ‘evidence’ in the MH17 case, has been proven to be zero, thanks to the audio analysis of several phone tapes released by the Ukrainian security service, and the publication of full versions of some of the tapes, which revealed the falsifications made.

I refer readers to Bonanza Media’s documentary “MH17 – Call for justice”, which demonstrated through an audio analysis of several phone tapes published on YouTube by the SBU, by a forensic expert, Akash Rosen, that these had been tampered with.

An analysis that a Dutch prosecutor dismissed out of hand, arguing that Rosen had not analysed the originals, but versions on YouTube, and that therefore nothing could be concluded about the authenticity of the audio files, as they had been edited and the audio re-encoded to make a video. The second argument was that one of the protagonists had allegedly confirmed that he had made these statements.

Here are the arguments I put forward at the time to show that these justifications were bogus:
1) There is a difference between just cutting out bits and pieces to keep only the interesting for the public, and completely falsifying an audio file. Akash Rosen’s report clearly shows that there is not just editing to reduce the length of the file. Pieces of sentences from different conversations have been cut and pasted together to make a new “discussion”. This is called falsifying a file.
2) The second argument is that one of the protagonists, Kozitsin, would have admitted that the conversation took place during an interview. But in fact he did not. It is the journalist’s interpretation, when Kozitsin “repeats” something he said in the conversation from which the audio recording is taken. But at no point does Kozitsin admit or say that he actually said what was broadcast.

These arguments were supported by a statement from the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI), which said that such an expertise should be conducted on the original file and that one should have hypotheses of manipulation to check before embarking on the analysis to confirm or not. This comment and that of the prosecutor showed a total disregard for Akash Rosen, who is a renowned forensic expert in Malaysia.

However, at the court session on 1 November, I was shocked to discover that for seven years the investigative team had not done a proper audio analysis of the phone tapes used as evidence in the MH17 case. Contrary to what was stated by the JIT at a press conference, the NFI has not done any analysis to authenticate the phone tapes provided by the SBU in the MH17 case.

See the English translation of the session of 1 November 2021 :

From 4:29 onwards, one of the investigating judges is heard explaining that in seven years, no one had done a comparative voice analysis of the 14 telephone conversations attributed to Pulatov to verify that it was indeed him! The NFI justified this by saying that they did not have a suitable reference conversation to do this voice comparison. It was apparently only this year that the NFI finally compared 12 of the 14 conversations with each other (the other two were deemed too short to be relevant), and concluded that there was a good chance that it was always the same person talking on the phone. Seven years to do this basic check!

And it is at 4:32 that we get to the most shocking part. The court asked the NFI to check whether the audio files could have been edited, i.e. tampered with. We learn that the NFI said that they could not check this because the discussions are not in English or Dutch, but in Russian, and that they do not have the experts for such an analysis!

This institute, which spat in Akash Rosen’s face, admitted to the investigating judges that it was unable to carry out the audio analysis that the Malaysian expert had carried out, on the pretext that they did not speak the language! A crazy argument when one sees that Rosen does not speak Russian either, but that the analysis of the audio streams without understanding what is being said has already provided him with elements indicating a manipulation of the files (pieces of sentences cut and then put together to create a new discussion)!

Faced with this “problem”, the investigating judges asked the forensic expertise centre in Lithuania to do the analysis. But apart from the fact that the latter merely listened to the discussions to see if they were logical and to see if the background noise was consistent (i.e. a much less technically advanced analysis than Rosen’s), we also learn that their report was delivered on 22 October 2021! That is to say, for seven years, no one had actually analysed these phone tapes to check their authenticity!

And the icing on the cake, we learn at the end of the investigating judge’s tirade that the files analysed by the Lithuanian forensic centre were copies (and not the originals) with a different format (mono for one, stereo for the other, different encoding codexes) from one file to the other! But the Lithuanian expertise centre said that the fact that the codexes changed from one file to another did not hinder the analysis. Oops.

Following the logic of this statement, the fact that Rosen analysed the YouTube versions of the phone tapes is therefore not troublesome, since no matter which codex is used, the analysis remains relevant. Rosen 1 – Prosecutor 0.

Furthermore, if Rosen’s analysis was good to go in the bin because he did not have access to the originals then the report from this Lithuanian centre of expertise must end up in the same place, and not be taken into account by the prosecution as “proof” that the files appear to be authentic (authenticity just based on listening to conversations and background noise which is limited), since this violates the principles laid down by the NFI itself! Rosen 2 – Prosecutor 0.

There are questions to be asked about the level of expertise of this centre in the field of digital audio files, when we see that it says it is not able to detect whether these conversations could have been created by voice cloning (there is now software capable of cloning a voice on the basis of a sample of barely a few seconds), whereas there are methods and software based on artificial intelligence capable of detecting a cloned voice.

The questions that arise are:
1) Why did it take seven years and the start of the trial for the ‘evidence’ of Pulatov’s involvement in the MH17 crash (the phone tapes) to be finally analysed and authenticated? Isn’t it worrying to see a man being accused and dragged before a court without the evidence of his link to the crime being seriously established and verified?
2) Why did this forensic centre not receive the original files of the phone tapes to carry out its analysis when this is an important point to be sure of the authenticity according to the Dutch prosecutor who spoke in 2020?
3) Why were the files encoded with different codexes?

If the prosecutor’s office or the investigating judges had decided not to provide the originals for security reasons and had made a copy of the 14 conversations in a specific format, the encoding following this mass processing should be the same for all files. However, this is not what we see.

The nagging impression from the investigating judge’s statement is that her team provided the Lithuanian forensic centre with what they had, i.e. copies provided by the SBU and not the original files!

If, as I suspect, the SBU provided re-encoded copies of the audio files in another format (not the originals) to the investigation team in a staggered manner, this would explain how different codexes could be used. It only takes that at time T, it is SBU agent A who produces a copy of a certain number of conversations, then at time T+N, it is agent B who produces a new batch of copies, then at time T+X, it is agent C who provides the last files, and that each one has its preferred audio file format, or different codexes depending on the computers, and you already have three different codexes in the final batch of files!

I think it would be good if the lawyers for Pulatov were to ask the investigating judges for clarification whether they have the original recordings, and if so, why they have only provided copies to the experts charged with analysing them. They should also demand access to the original files of these phone tapes so that they can conduct their counter-expertise with real audio experts. Because a sinister farce cannot be allowed to serve as a court in a case as serious as that of MH17.

Christelle Néant

https://www.donbass-insider.com/2021/11/03/mh17-no-real-analysis-of-phone-tapes-was-done-for-seven-years/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork&fbclid=IwAR0fVDGe1pDbRN4kYNf_QAy4DnWq_N7aeYcveAzcFpUTb34dxE3qn1CInhQ



People who have been double jabbed are dying at a rate six times higher than the unvaccinated.

 

Why Millions Will Regret Getting the Jab


Story Summary:

  • Recent data from the U.K. Office of National Statistics reveals people who have been double jabbed against COVID-19 are dying from all causes at a rate six times higher than the unvaccinated.
  • In the U.S., meanwhile, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is propping up the official narrative with two manipulated studies — one suggesting the jab reduces all-cause mortality, and another claiming the shot is five times more protective than natural immunity.
  • Both studies are of questionable quality and have several problems, including selection of time and date ranges that allow them to pretend that the COVID shots are safer and more effective than they really are.
  • According to all-cause mortality statistics, the number of Americans who died between January 2021 and August 2021 is 16% higher than 2018 (the pre-COVID year with the highest all-cause mortality) and 18% higher than the average death rate between 2015 and 2019. Did COVID-19 raise the death toll despite mass vaccination, or are people dying at increased rates because of the COVID jabs?
  • CDC data reveal that while the number of hospitalized patients with natural immunity fell sharply over the summer, when the delta variant took over, the number of vaccinated people being hospitalized soared, from three per month on average during the spring to more than 100 a month in late summer. Since these vaccinated patients were less than six months from their second dose, they should have been at or near maximum immunity.


Analysis by Dr Joseph Mercola

CDC Hits New Lows With Two Manipulated Studies

While recent data from the U.K. Office of National Statistics (ONS) reveal people who have been double jabbed against COVID-19 are dying from all causes at a rate six times higher than the unvaccinated,1 the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is propping up the official narrative with a “study”2 that came to the remarkable conclusion that the COVID shot unbelievably reduces your risk of dying from all causes, which includes accidents (but excluding COVID-19-related deaths). As reported by CNN Health, October 22, 2021:3

“The research team was trying to demonstrate that the three authorized Covid-19 vaccines are safe and they say their findings clearly demonstrate that. ‘Recipients of the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, or Janssen vaccines had lower non-COVID-19 mortality risk than did the unvaccinated comparison groups,’ the researchers wrote in the weekly report4 of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The team studied 6.4 million people who had been vaccinated against Covid-19 and compared them to 4.6 million people who had received flu shots in recent years but who had not been vaccinated against coronavirus.

They filtered out anyone who had died from Covid-19 or after a recent positive coronavirus test … People who got two doses of Pfizer vaccines were 34% as likely to die of non-coronavirus causes in the following months as unvaccinated people, the study found.

People who got two doses of Moderna vaccine were 31% as likely to die as unvaccinated people, and those who got Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen vaccine were 54% as likely to die …”

Two key takeaways from those paragraphs are 1) the researchers admit they intended to demonstrate that the shots are safe and effective, and stats can be manipulated to find what you want to find, and 2) people who got the Janssen shot did in fact have a higher death rate than the unvaccinated (54% likelihood, compared to the unvaxxed).

Are the Shots Reducing All-Cause Mortality?

The researchers hypothesize that people who get the COVID jab may be healthier overall than those who abstain, and have healthier lifestyles. In my view, this is classic Orwellian doublespeak, as most of the brainwashed don’t understand the fundamentals of healthy behavior.

I suspect their new propaganda has more to do with the fact that they only looked at data through May 31, 2021. By mid-April, an estimated 31% of American adults had received one or more shots.5 As of June 15, 48.7% were fully “vaccinated.”6 So, we can assume that by the end of May, somewhere in the neighborhood of 45% of eligible Americans were double jabbed, give or take a couple of percentage points.

The reason I suspect statistical tomfoolery is because this is precisely how the CDC invented the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” myth, where they claimed 99% of COVID-19 deaths and 95% of COVID-related hospitalizations were occurring among the unvaccinated.7

To achieve those statistics, the CDC included hospitalization and mortality data from January through June 2021, a timeframe during which the vaccinated were still in a minority.

Here, we again see them use a seven-month span of time when vaccination rates were low. More importantly, however, is that the chosen cutoff date also obscures a rapid rise in vaccine-related deaths reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).

Look at the graph below, obtained from OpenVAERS mortality reports page.8 As you can see, reports of deaths following the COVID jab peaked right at the beginning of April 2021, then dropped down again during the month of April. Interestingly enough, the study notes that the daily vaccination rate has declined by 78% since April 13, 2021.

However, while the daily vaccination rate has plummeted since April, reported deaths have remained high and relatively steady. Could this be a hint that people are dying from shots they received earlier in the year?

As of January 1, 2021, only 0.5% of the U.S. population had received a COVID shot, so comparing death rates of the vaxxed and unvaxxed in December 2020 and January 2021 may not be all that fruitful. Why not include July, August and September in the analysis instead?

As you can see, reported deaths were significantly elevated during these months, compared to December and January. And, while not shown in that graph, between September 3, 2021, and October 22, 2021, the total cumulative reported death toll shot up from 7,6629,10 to 17,619.11 In other words, it more than doubled in about seven weeks — a timeframe that was not included in the CDC’s analysis.

What’s more, while the study was large and socio demographically diverse, the authors admit that “the findings might not be applicable to the general population.”

Also, recall they changed the definition of “vaccinated” to include someone who is two weeks past their second dose (for two dose regimens). This would obfuscate the truth as there were tens of millions that received one jab or more but were not considered “vaccinated.”

Why Is All-Cause Mortality Higher in 2021?

According to all-cause mortality statistics,12 the number of Americans who died between January 2021 and August 2021 is 16% higher than 2018, the pre-COVID year with the highest all-cause mortality, and 18% higher than the average death rate between 2015 and 2019. Adjusted for population growth of about 0.6% annually, the mortality rate in 2021 is 16% above the average and 14% above the 2018 rate.

The obvious question is, why did more people die in 2021 (January through August) despite the rollout of COVID shots in December 2020? Did COVID-19 raise the death toll despite mass vaccination, or are people dying at increased rates because of the COVID jabs?

In a two-part series,13 Matthew Crawford of the Rounding the Earth Newsletter examined mortality statistics before and after the rollout of the COVID shots. In Part 1,14 he revealed the shots killed an estimated 1,018 people per million doses administered (note, this is doses, not the number of individuals vaccinated) during the first 30 days of the European vaccination campaign.

After adjusting for deaths categorized as COVID-19 deaths, he came up with an estimate of 200 to 500 deaths per million doses administered. With 4 billion doses having been administered around the world, that means 800,000 to 2 million so-called “COVID-19 deaths” may in fact be vaccine-induced deaths. As explained by Crawford:15

“This does not even include vaccine-induced deaths that have not been recorded as COVID cases, though I suspect that latter number is smaller since the only good way to hide the vaccine mortality signal is to smuggle deaths through the already-established COVID death toll.”

Corroborating Crawford’s calculations are data from Norway, where 23 deaths were reported following the COVID jab at a time when only 40,000 Norwegians had received the shot. That gives us a mortality rate of 575 deaths per million doses administered. What’s more, after conducting autopsies on 13 of those deaths, all 13 were determined to be linked to the COVID jab.16

Is the COVID Jab Responsible for Excess Deaths?

Crawford goes on to look at data from countries that have substantial vaccine uptake while simultaneously having very low rates of COVID-19. This way, you can get a better idea as to whether the COVID jabs might be responsible for the excess deaths, as opposed to the infection itself.

He identified 23 countries that fit these criteria, accounting for 1.88 billion individuals, roughly one-quarter of the global population. Before the COVID jabs rolled out, these nations reported a total of 103.2 COVID-related deaths per million residents. Five nations had more than 200 COVID deaths per million while seven had fewer than 10 deaths per million.

As of August 1, 2021, 25.35% of inhabitants in these 23 nations had received a COVID jab and 10.36% were considered fully vaccinated. In all, 673 million doses had been administered. Based on these data, Crawford estimates the excess death rate per million vaccine doses is 411, well within the window of the 200 to 500 range he calculated in Part 1.

Another interesting data dive was performed by Steve Kirsch, executive director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund. In the video “Vaccine Secrets: COVID Crisis,”17 he argues that VAERS can be used to determine causality, and shows how the VAERS data indicate more than 300,000 Americans have likely been killed by the COVID shots.18 Anywhere from 2 million to 5 million have also been injured by them in some way.

What Do the VAERS Data Tell Us?

In a September 18, 2021, interview with The Covexit podcast, Jessica Rose, Ph.D., who holds degrees in applied mathematics, immunology, computational biology, molecular biology and biochemistry, also discussed what the VAERS data tell us about the safety of the COVID shots.

Rose covers issues such as the magnitude of the side effects compared to other vaccination programs, the problem of under-reporting, and how causality can be assessed using the Bradford Hill Criteria. You can find a PDF of the slide show that Rose presents here.19 Here’s a summary of some of the key points made in this interview:

  • Between 2011 and 2020, the number of VAERS reports ranged between 25,408 and 49,412 for all vaccines. In 2021, with the rollout of the COVID shots, the number of VAERS reports shot up to 521,667, as of September 3, 2021, for the COVID shots alone. (Fast-forward to October 22, 2021, and the report tally for COVID-related adverse events has ballooned to 837,593.20)
  • Between 2011 and 2020, the total number of deaths reported to VAERS ranged between 120 and 183. In 2021, as of September 3, the reported death toll had shot up to 7,662. As of October 22, 2021, the death toll was 17,619.21
  • Cardiovascular, neurological and immunological adverse events are all being reported at rates never even remotely seen before.
  • The estimated under-reporting factor (URF) is 31. Using this URF, the death toll from COVID shots is calculated to be 205,809 as of August 27, 2021; Bell’s palsy 81,747; herpes zoster infection 149,017; paresthesia 305,660; breakthrough COVID 365,955; myalgia 528,457; life threatening events 230,113; permanent disabilities 212,691; birth defects 7,998.
  • The Bradford Hill Criteria for causation are all satisfied. This includes but is not limited to strength of effect size, reproducibility, specificity, temporality, dose-response relationship, plausibility, coherence and reversibility.

CDC Claims COVID Jab Beats Natural Immunity

If you think the CDC’s claim that the COVID jab lowers all-cause mortality is a low point in its irrational vaccine push, prepare to let your expectations sink even lower, with even more egregious Orwellian doublespeak implementation. October 29, 2021, the CDC released yet another study, this one claiming the COVID jab actually offers five times better protection against COVID-19 than natural immunity. As reported by Alex Berenson in an October 30, 2021, Substack article:22

“Yesterday the Centers for Disease Control, America’s not-at-all-politicized public health agency, released a new study purporting to show that vaccination protects against COVID infection better than natural immunity. Of course, a wave of stories about the benefits of mRNA vaccination followed.

To do this, the CDC used some magic statistical analysis to turn inside raw data that actually showed almost four times as many fully vaccinated people being hospitalized with Covid as those with natural immunity — and FIFTEEN TIMES as many over the summer. I kid you not.

Further, the study runs contrary to a much larger paper from Israeli researchers in August. As my 2-year-old likes to say, How dey do dat? Well, the Israeli study drew on a meaningful dataset in a meaningful way to reach meaningful conclusions.

It counted infections (and hospitalizations) in a large group of previously infected people against an equally large and balanced group of vaccinated people, then made moderate adjustments for clearly defined risk factors.

It found that vaccinated people were 13 times as likely to be infected — and 7 times as likely to be hospitalized — as unvaccinated people with natural immunity. In contrast — how do I put this politely? — the CDC study is meaningless gibberish that would never have been published if the agency did not face huge political pressure to get people vaccinated.”

Data Manipulation Is Apparently a CDC Specialty

Berenson goes on to dissect the study in question, starting with its design, which he calls “bizarre.” The CDC analysts looked at data from 200,000 Americans hospitalized with “COVID-like” illness between January and August 2021 in nine states. Two groups were then compared:

  1. Those who had confirmed COVID at least 90 days before and received another COVID test at the time of their hospitalization
  2. Those who had been fully vaccinated for at least 90 days, but not more than 180 days, before their admittance and received another COVID test at the time of their hospitalization

Berenson points out what I stressed earlier, which is that choosing certain time or date ranges will allow you to make the shots appear a whole lot better than they actually are. Here, by choosing a 90- to 180-day inclusion range, they’re looking at a best-case scenario, as we now know the shots quit working after a handful of months. So, they’re only looking at that short window during which the COVID shots are at maximum effectiveness.

The 90-day criterion also ends up excluding the vast majority of patients hospitalized with COVID-like illness, both vaccinated and unvaccinated. While Berenson doesn’t address the vaccinated, few if any could have been fully vaccinated for at least 90 days prior to March, so why include January and February? Just about everyone was by definition unvaccinated at that time.

As for those with natural immunity, only 1,020 of the 200,000 patients hospitalized between January and August had a previously documented COVID infection. As noted by Berenson:23

“Given the fact that at least 20% of Americans, and probably more like 40%, had had COVID by the spring of 2021, this is a strikingly small percentage — and certainly doesn’t suggest long COVID is much of a threat.”

Of the 1,020 with natural immunity, only 89 tested positive for COVID, while 324 of the 6,328 vaccinated patients who met the study criteria tested positive. Of note here is two things:

  1. There were more vaccinated patients hospitalized for COVID-like illness than those with natural immunity; this despite including months when vaccination rates were in the fractional and single digits, and
  2. A greater number of vaccinated patients tested positive for breakthrough infection than patients with natural immunity

Hospitalization Rate Among Vaccinated Is Soaring

Berenson continues:24

“And the CDC didn’t have, or didn’t publish, figures on how many people were actually in the two groups … Instead it compared the PERCENTAGE OF POSITIVE TESTS in the two groups. But why would the percentage of positive tests matter, when we don’t know how many people were actually at risk? …

[A]mazingly, the statistical manipulation then got even worse. The natural immunity group had an 8.7% positive test rate. The fully vaccinated group had a 5.1% positive test rate. So the natural immunity group was about 1.7 times as likely to test positive. (1.7x 5.1 = about 8.7.)

With such a small number of people in the natural immunity group, that raw ‘rate ratio’ may well have failed to reach statistical significance. (We don’t know, because the CDC didn’t provide an unadjusted odds ratio with 95% boundaries — something I have never seen before in any paper.)

Instead, the CDC provided only a risk ratio that it had adjusted with a variety of factors, including ‘facility characteristics [and] sociodemographic characteristics.’

And finally, the CDC’s researchers got a number that they could publish — hospitalized people who had previously been infected were five times as likely to have a positive COVID test as people who were fully vaccinated. Never mind that there were actually four times as many people in the second group. Science!

By the way, buried at the bottom of report is some actual data. And it’s bad. The CDC divided the hospitalizations into pre- and post-Delta — January through June and June through August.

Interestingly, the number of hospitalized people with natural immunity actually fell sharply over the summer, as Delta took off. About 14 people per month were hospitalized in the winter and spring, compared to six per month from June through August. (Remember, this is a large sample, with hospitals in nine states.)

But the number of VACCINATED people being hospitalized soared — from about three a month during the spring to more than 100 a month during the Delta period. These vaccinated people still were less than 180 days from their second dose, so they should have been at or near maximum immunity — suggesting that Delta, and not the time effect, played an important role in the loss of protection the vaccine offered.”

Perhaps Rep. Thomas Massie said it best when he tweeted:25

“What do ‘road kill’ and a CDC sponsored COVID paper have in common? By the third day, they’re so picked apart they’re unrecognizable. This CDC Director is shameless for fabricating junk science with findings that stand in stark contrast to every credible academic study.”

Massie goes on to point out some obvious flaws and questions raised by the study, including the following:

  • The authors failed to verify recovery among those with previous infection, so any number of these “reinfections” may actually have been long-COVID.
  • The fact that more than 6,000 hospitalized for COVID symptoms were vaccinated, compared to just 1,000 with previous infection, counters the claim that 99% of COVID hospitalizations are unvaccinated.
  • The number of vaccinated people hospitalized for COVID symptoms correlate negatively with the time since vaccination; 3,625 were hospitalized within 90 to 119 days of vaccination, 2,101 within 120 to 149 days, and 902 within 150 to 179 days of vaccination. “Could initial hospitalizations be due to vaccine adverse effects or due to a temporarily weakened immune system from the vaccine?” Massey asks.26
  • The study only considered those with natural immunity who ended up in the hospital, and not the ones who didn’t get sick. “Natural immunity helps prevent hospitalization!” Massey says.27

Massie also notes that this paper, which is only six pages long, has an astounding 50 authors, and at least half a dozen of them disclose Big Pharma conflicts of interest. What’s more, seeing how Congress gave the CDC a cool $1 billion to promote the COVID jab, isn’t working for the CDC a conflict of interest as well?

Martin Kulldorff, Ph.D., professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a biostatistician and epidemiologist in the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, also critiqued the study in a tweet, saying:28

“This CDC study has a major statistical flaw, and the 5x conclusion is wrong, it implicitly assumes that hospitalized respiratory patients are representative of the population, which they are not. Trying to connect with authors.”

Natural Immunity Is the Best Answer

Try as the CDC might to twist the data, there’s really no question that natural immunity is superior and longer lasting than vaccine-induced immunity. This is also a long-held medical fact that has been tossed aside as too inconvenient to matter in COVID-19.

For some undisclosed reason, the government wants everyone to get the COVID injection, whether medically warranted or not. The sheer lunacy of that is cause enough to be leery and hold off on getting the risky jab.

I can tell you one thing, this policy has nothing to do with safeguarding public health, because it’s driving public health in the wrong direction.

It’s quite clear that the way out of this pandemic is through natural herd immunity, and at this point, we know there’s no reason to fear COVID-19. Overall, its lethality is on par with the common flu.29,30,31,32,33 Provided you’re not in a nursing home or have multiple comorbidities, your chances of surviving a bout of COVID-19 is 99.74%, on average.34

Additionally, we also know there are several early treatment protocols that are very effective, such as the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance I-MASK+35 protocol, the Zelenko protocol,36 and nebulized peroxide, detailed in Dr. David Brownstein’s case paper37 and Dr. Thomas Levy’s free e-book, “Rapid Virus Recovery.” Whichever treatment protocol you use, make sure you begin treatment as soon as possible, ideally at first onset of symptoms.

The reported rate of death from COVID-19 shots in VAERS, on the other hand, exceeds the reported death rate of more than 70 vaccines combined over the past 30 years, and if you are injured by a COVID shot and live in the U.S., your only recourse is to apply for compensation from the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Act (CICP).38

Compensation from CICP is very limited and hard to get. You only qualify if your injury requires hospitalization and results in significant disability and/or death, and even if you meet the eligibility criteria, it requires you to use up your private health insurance before it kicks in to pay the difference.

There’s no reimbursement for pain and suffering, only lost wages and unpaid medical bills. Salary compensation is of limited duration, and capped at $50,000 a year, and the CICP’s decision cannot be appealed.

For a taste of what life is like for those injured by these shots, review some of the cases reported to nomoresilence.world. You can also learn more about the potential mechanisms of harm in Stephanie Seneff’s paper,39 “Worse Than The Disease: Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19,” published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research in collaboration with Dr. Greg Nigh.

***
This article was originally published at Mercola.com.

Author Dr. Joseph Mercola is the founder of Mercola.com. An osteopathic physician, best-selling author and recipient of multiple awards in the field of natural health, his primary vision is to change the modern health paradigm by providing people with a valuable resource to help them take control of their health. Among his qualifications, he is a licensed physician and surgeon in State of Illinois.

READ MORE VACCINE NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Vaccines Files

PLEASE HELP SUPPORT OUR INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM HERE

  


De NOS is Witter dan Wit

Even ter zake: De NOS stelt:

Onze mensen

De NOS is één van de grootste nieuwsorganisaties van Nederland en staat voor veel mensen symbool voor betrouwbaarheid. Dit vertrouwen willen we elke dag weer waarmaken en daar werken ruim 600 mensen keihard aan. Een flink aantal van hen kent u van gezicht of alleen van stem. Nieuwsgierig naar de persoon achter dat gezicht of die stem? Hier stellen zij zich aan u voor.

https://over.nos.nl/onze-mensen/

Als ik goed heb geteld dan is er slechts één man die niet kaaskoppen-wit is onder de in totaal 20 commentatoren van de NOS, en van de 29 correspondenten hebben slechts twee een donkerdere huidskleur, de rest is witter dan wit, terwijl van de 41 verslaggevers er slechts twee zogeheten allochtonen zijn. Van de 36 presentatoren is er één van allochtoonse afkomst en heeft slechts één van 'onze mensen' een donkere huidskleur. Met andere woorden: in het 'multiculturele' Nederland is kaaskoppen-wit op de televisie ruimschoots vertegenwoordigd bij de staatsomroep de NOS. Hoe is dit te verklaren? Immers, 14,3 procent bezit een niet-westerse migratieachtergrond, ongeveer 7 procent van de Nederlandse bevolking, dat zou betekenen dat de NOS meer medewerkers met een donkere huid op de televisie moeten toelaten, vooral ook omdat televisie allereerst en vooral een beeldmedium is.





Abby Martin Confronts Nancy Pelosi

 Abby Martin heeft geretweet

. confronts Nancy Pelosi at #COP26 for overseeing massive increases in the Pentagon budget—a bigger polluter than 140 countries combined—while touting "historic" leadership on climate change

Abby Martin heeft geretweet

Nick Estes
@nickwestes
·
15 u
Amazing question by 
@AbbyMartin
: Why fund the US military, which pollutes more than 140 countries combined?

Pelosi’s dark answer: The US military via Fortress America is necessary to manage the climate chaos and mass migration it has an outsized role in creating.
Citeer Tweet

The Empire Files
@EmpireFiles
 · 17 u
.@AbbyMartin confronts Nancy Pelosi at #COP26 for overseeing massive increases in the Pentagon budget—a bigger polluter than 140 countries combined—while touting "historic" leadership on climate change


De Groene NAVO-Propagandist Maarten Muns

  Op zoek naar een modus vivendi met Rusland Containment of detente? Welke ideologie er ook regeert, Rusland blijft een expansieve macht. ‘H...