ABC News Rebuttal from 3rd Feb 2022
By Ludwig Van
So, the ABC wants you to know that the vaccine, or the experimental medical drug as we should really call it, may not look like it is working, but it is. In an article from February 2022, they compared hospitalisation rates for the unjabbed and jabbed and stated data shows you are 15 times more likely to end up in ICU if you have not been jabbed and contract Covid than if you have been.
Sounds compelling right?
But before you go and roll up your sleeves, for the first, second, third, or maybe even fourth time, there are a few things they forgot to tell you.
In this short article, we try to break it down for you. But please don’t take our word for it, you can look at the data yourself in the links provided below.
Out of 6.5 million people who have been double jabbed up until January 2022 in NSW, we have seen 267,000 cases of Covid from the 26th of November to the 8th of January. This works out to be a 4.11% infection rate of Covid in “Jabbed” individuals.
The 650,000 ‘unvaccinated’ people who had ‘No effective dose’ at all against Covid, had 3,552 cases at a 0.55% infection rate.
Big numbers, huh? to me it seems the rate in the unjabbed is much lower than in the ‘fully’ jabbed, no?.
But let's compare them further to the “Gold Standard” Pfizer trials done in 2020, which ‘proved’ these bad boys were “Safe & Effective” for use against Covid-19.
In the trials done on 83,448 brave souls across different parts of the world, there were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among 21,720 participants assigned to receive BNT162b2, and 162 cases among 21,728 assigned to the placebo.
That’s roughly twenty times more cases of Covid in the unjabbed than the double-jabbed, or a 0.04% case rate for the jabbed, and a 0.74% case rate for the unjabbed.
As such, we should have seen a 20 fold increase in cases for the unjabbed in NSW as well, right?
If we then apply those Pfizer % case rates to the NSW population figures, we should have seen 4,810 cases of Covid in the unjabbed population of 650,000 at a case rate of 0.74% and in the jabbed population, only 2,600 cases at a case rate 0.04%. The shocking reality is we ended up having a 100X increase on cases in the jabbed and on the contrary a number less than expected in the unjabbed.
Maybe it’s only me but something doesn’t stack up here.
Remember the stated ABC figures, where we have seen 267,000 cases of Covid in the jabbed instead of 2,600, as it should have been according to the 0.04% case rate from the Pfizer trial. These are truly shocking results.
To recap and use the actual % rates from NSW and not the Pfizer trial. If you didn't get the jab, you had a 0.55% chance of contracting Covid, and if you were jabbed, that went up to 4.11%. This means you were 7.5 times more likely to contract Covid if you were double jabbed than if you had no effective dose. Explain to me again how this so-called ‘vaccine’ is supposed to protect me from Covid, ABC?
So using the official NSW data, you were just as likely to be hospitalised if you took two doses of the still only conditionally approved ‘vaccine’ as if you didn't. Yes, the data says that you were more likely to be hospitalised if you contracted Covid as an ‘unvaccinated’ person, but because you were 7.5 times more likely to contract Covid in the first place if you had 2 doses, the odds of being hospitalised for Covid were exactly the same
Maybe more people who ended up in the hospital were admitted to ICU and ultimately died, but knowing the strict policies for medical exemptions for the Covid ‘vaccine’, only the very ill were given them. It’s likely that these very ill people were the ones who were either admitted to ICU, already in ICU, or in palliative care when they died from complications of Covid, explaining the 15 times higher ICU rate in the ‘unvaccinated’.
There’s really nothing to shout out from the rooftops here. The ‘vaccine’, if it works, should at least protect you from having to go to the hospital in the first place. It should not be increasing your chance of developing the disease.
Something seriously wrong is going on here. The peak of around 50,000 cases around New Years of 2021/22 correlates perfectly with the 7.5 fold increase in susceptibility that the vaccine makes you to developing Covid from Sars-Cov-2.
And to make matters even more confusing, given often the data gets screwed with, how do we know that the so called ‘unvaccinated’ have not been jabbed, given they don’t count as vaccinated if they die only shortly after they had the jab. But I suppose that’s a topic for another rebuttal (Please see definition of No Effective Dose in the references of this article)
So, whitewash it as much as you want ABC, but remember, if you put lipstick and a dress on a pig, it’s still a bloody pig and nothing is going to change that
Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine
Covid Weekly Surveillance report (Ending Jan 8 2022)
Why it's important to look at the 'bigger picture' behind COVID-19 intensive care numbers
Open Science Sessions: How flawed data has driven the narrative
No Effective dose meaning (taken from the footnotes of the NSW Covid Weekly Surveillance report)
Cases reported as no effective dose received their first dose of a two-dose vaccination course less than 21 days prior to known exposure to COVID-19, or have not received any vaccine dose.
Using the phrase “no effective dose” indicates that an insufficient period of time has elapsed to allow for maximal immune response provided by the vaccine. It does not indicate that vaccines are ineffective
Unmasked Queensland sees Covid cases rising again??
Better chuck on your face nappy and hope for the best as the mild flu which is the BA.2 variant of Omicron (the virus formally known as Sars-COV-2) is coming roaring back because the inconsiderate government has lifted restrictions too early…
What’s going on here?
You may be wondering, why is lack of a mask mandate at fault now that cases have risen slightly while nobody said the inverse when we were having tens of thousands of cases a day while everyone was wearing these face decorations?
This was never something that was blamed on the masks that everyone was wearing as positive tests to the ‘deadly’ virus skyrocketed at the end of 2021 in every state bar WA.
On 17th December 2021, Queensland registered 20 positive PCR tests for Sars-COV-2 and a mask mandate was bought in. By New Years Day 2022, we had 5844 cases and only 2 weeks later on the 15th of January, we had seen our peak of 37,148. All while having every woman, man and child over the age of 12 masked up. This fell to a low of 265 cases on the 5th of March, the day after the Mask mandate was dropped in most settings.
At this same time, Victoria also saw their cases rise for the first time after being stable at around 6k cases a day (all while having a mask mandate in place since 2020) to a high of 9700 on the 16th of March. The mandate was lifted on the 21st of February but the virus waited till late March to come after those maskless people, exactly the same time it has in Queensland? Give me a break.
The more likely answer is we are coming into Autumn while a more infectious strain of the virus has started to circulate.
The BA. 2 variant of Omicron which has been said to be 30% more infectious than the original variant is now becoming the dominant strain of the virus. While more infectious, it is also less likely to cause serious disease and In the last couple of weeks, this variant now makes up over half the cases across Australia. The same couple of weeks since masks have been taken off.
This is akin to saying that increased Icecream sales in summer is the cause of an uptick in shark attacks. To use their own words against them, Correlation does not equal causation.
So I ask you. Is this about masks? or is this about more and more vaccinated people crowding in pubs, clubs and other venues where they couldn’t before, all while there is a more infectious strain of the virus circulating?
Queensland premier Annastacia Palaszcuk says at the end of this article “I’m very concerned about the impact that unvaccinated people could have especially coming into contact with elderly people, that’s why mandates have been put in place at places like hospitals and our aged care homes to ensure the most vulnerable in our community are kept safe.”
All this while basically admitting that the vaccinated are the ones spreading the virus in the crowded venues. How is this supposed to stop the spread of Covid again Anastasia?
The blatantly ridiculous fact is that the QLD state government seem to be admitting that masks are more effective (They’re not) than preventing transmission than the magical vaccine we were forced to wait for until we got even a little of our “freedom” back. even with 91% of Queenslanders vaccinated against covid.
Wake up Australia. It’s not the masks. And if you won’t take my word for it, take the only randomised controlled study done on the topic in the Annals of Internal Medicine
By Ludwig Van
Brisbane Times - March 17th
By : Robyn Chuter
Back in the years BC (Before COVID) I wrote about a huge range of health topics. If you haven’t already done so, you can browse my voluminous Article Library on topics from aging and longevity to cardiovascular disease, diabetes to the psychology of lifestyle change, and women’s health to weight loss.
My aim in writing these articles has always been to unearth the “buried treasure” in medical journals – the fascinating and sometimes even potentially life-changing findings that are bound up in near-impenetrable jargon and frequently behind a paywall – and present it to people who don’t have a background in science, so they can actually make use of this (mostly) publicly-funded research.
I still keep a file of articles that I come across when reading medical journals, that I’d like to write about when the manufactured COVID crisis is over. Look, I know what you’re thinking – This is never going to be over; didn’t the world’s leading doctor, Bill Gates, tell us there would be another one that would “get attention”?
Yes, I know. But I need to maintain some hope, so just indulge me, OK?
Here are a few medical journal articles I’d been saving up for a sunny, manufactured-COVID-crisis-free day. I’m going to briefly summarise the findings of each study, and then I’m going to ask you a question about them (so don’t tune out and skip this bit). Ready? Let’s go.
1. ‘Association Between Childhood Body Size and Premenstrual Disorders in Young Adulthood’This prospective cohort study (i.e. a study in which participants are followed by researchers over a long period of time) included 6524 US female participants from the Growing Up Today Study, which recruited the children of participants in the famous, ongoing Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) II.
Participants who had been overweight in early adolescence were more likely to suffer from premenstrual disorders in their mid-20s, with those who had been obese around the time of puberty having a higher likelihood of suffering from severe premenstrual symptoms that emerged before the age of 20:
Participants who had an earlier menarche (age at first menstrual period) were more likely to have a premenstrual disorder; having more body fat is known to be associated with earlier menarche.
Participants who had been overweight in early adolescence, but subsequently became lean, did not have an increased risk of premenstrual disorders in their mid-20s, indicating the benefits of effective weight loss programs for prevention of this common female malady.
2. ‘Higher adiposity and mental health: causal inference using Mendelian randomization’In this study, researchers used data gathered from over 145 000 participants in the UK Biobank, a large and ongoing study investigating the respective contributions of genetic predisposition and environmental factors (including nutrition, lifestyle, sleep habits and medication use) to the development of a wide variety of health conditions.
Specifically, researchers examined the association between higher body fatness (adiposity) and depression risk, teasing out the contribution made by the metabolic dysfunction associated with obesity – high triglycerides, low HDL-cholesterol and increased diabetes risk – which is known to be associated with heightened risk of depression.
You see, some people have genes that make them more prone to accumulating excess body fat, and some have genes that make them resistant to metabolic dysfunction even when they are carrying excess fat, while others have genes that make them highly susceptible to metabolic dysfunction.
The researchers found that even in people with metabolically favourable genetic variants, carrying excess body fat was associated with a 50% higher risk of currently being depressed, along with a lower sense of well-being.
In a nutshell, being overfat is bad for your mental well-being even if you’re blessed with “good genes” that insulate you against developing metabolic dysfunction.
3. ‘Evaluation of Adiposity and Cognitive Function in Adults’This was a cross-sectional analysis (i.e. data gathered at a single time-point) of the relationship between body fatness, visceral adipose tissue (deep abdominal fat), cognitive function and evidence of vascular brain injury, in 9189 Canadian and Polish adults aged 30-75 years. Participants were all free of cardiovascular disease, which can impair cognitive ability and is associated with increased fat mass.
Both increased general body fatness and higher visceral adiposity were associated with a greater risk of vascular brain injury – that is, damage to the blood vessels in the brain which causes “silent brain infarction”, an area of dead brain tissue that hasn’t yet become clinically apparent because it is too small to cause stroke symptoms, but can still erode cognitive capacity.
Likewise, participants with either higher body fat or higher visceral fat (or both) scored lower on tests of cognitive function. In fact, carrying around too much fat contributed more to the risk of having significantly poorer cognitive function than average, than not completing high school or having cardiovascular risk factors (signified by IHRS [INTERHEART Risk Score]) such as high blood pressure, both of which are known to reduce cognitive ability):
4. ‘Association of Body Mass Index in Midlife With Morbidity Burden in Older Adulthood and Longevity’This was a prospective cohort study in which nearly 30 000 participants were followed up for over 40 years, starting in 1967, to assess the impact that overweight and obesity in midlife (around age 40) have on health status and health care expenditure in later life (65 and older), and lifespan.
Compared to seniors who were at a healthy weight in their 40s, by later life, those who had been overweight or obese in their 40s were far more likely to be living with a quality-of-life-impairing illness, including cardiovascular disease.
And the fatter participants had been in their 40s, the sicker they were by their mid-60s and beyond (although the class III obesity curves are likely impacted by the so-called “healthy survival bias”, in which only the small minority of people with bullet-proof genes – the types who can smoke a pack of Camels a day, eat greasy food, do no exercise and still kick on to 95 – survive past a certain age):
Median cumulative health care costs after age 65 in people who had been overweight in their 40s were $12 390 higher than for people who had been normal-weight in their 40s. And those who had classes I and II obesity in midlife cost the US Medicare system an additional $23 396 compared to their slim counterparts.
Of the original cohort who had died by the time of this analysis, those who had classes I or II obesity in midlife lived on average 1.5 years less than people who were normal-weight in their 40s, while those with class III obesity in their 40s lost a full 4.6 years of their potential lifespan. Not only that, but fewer years of their lives were lived in good health, unimpaired by any illness:
To summarise, if you’re carrying excess body fat in your 40s, you will be sicker for a greater part of your senior years, and more costly to the taxpayer-funded health care system even though you’ll live a shorter life than healthy-weight peers.
Quiz questionWhat is the common thread that connects these four articles?
Congratulations, you win the prize:
Carrying too much fat on your body is bad for you, at every stage of life, and is highly likely to make you more miserable, less smart, sicker and prematurely dead.
And this is not news; just ask an actuary whose job is to calculate life insurance premiums.
Yet, despite the clear evidence that obesity is harmful, the postmodernism-informed field of Fat Studies is thriving. Papers such as this one in the sociological press, and this one which was published in a medical journal, argue that we should stop thinking of obesity as a health issue, and instead frame “fat acceptance” as a social justice issue:
“Fatphobia in the United States has always been intimately connected to other systems of oppression like sexism, racism, and classism.”
Fat Is a Social Justice Issue, Too
“Scholars of fat studies understand fatness as a way of thinking about bodily diversity. This literature maintains that fatness should be uncoupled from pathology, as such framings attach fatness to a sense of moral weakness and failed citizenship, and can fuel stigma in various settings, even health care. Such an uncoupling is increasingly supported by medical and population health research, which suggests that people who are labelled obese are not necessarily unhealthy.”
Fat acceptance as social justice
(N.B. I’ve written two previous article about the fat acceptance and Health At Every Size movements; see Is the ‘Health At Every Size’ movement helping or hurting? and Larger body, shorter life.)
Obesity and COVID-19In this Age of COVID, there is overwhelming evidence that obesity is second only to age as a risk factor for developing severe disease from SARS-CoV-2 infection, requiring admission to hospital, being admitted to an intensive care unit, requiring mechanical ventilation, and dying of COVID-19. I’ve discussed this in my prior articles, When Two Pandemics Collide: How obesity affects COVID-19, How to slash COVID-19 hospitalisation rates by two thirds and The personal and public health threat of obesity in the age of COVID.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses collectively involving millions of patients (see here, here, here, here, here, here and here) have found up to a 3+ times greater risk of being hospitalised and up to a 60% greater risk of dying in obese individuals compared to those with a healthy weight, and three and a half times greater risk of dying in over 65s.
Furthermore, there’s a dose-response relationship between excess body fat and COVID deaths: analysis of data from a large managed health care system in the US, Kaiser Permanente, found that
“Compared with patients with a BMI of 18.5 to 24 kg/m2 [normal-weight], those with BMIs of 40 to 44 kg/m2 [severe obesity] and greater than 45 kg/m2 [morbid obesity] had relative risks of 2.68 (95% CI, 1.43 to 5.04) and 4.18 (CI, 2.12 to 8.26), respectively.”
Obesity and Mortality Among Patients Diagnosed With COVID-19: Results From an Integrated Health Care Organization
How do advocates for fat acceptance deal with this mountain of incriminating data? They tendentiously claim that we can’t blame the increased risk of poor outcomes on obesity itself, because “body weight may not be an independent predictor of poor health outcomes”.
This is patently absurd. Not only does increased body weight (or more to the point, increased body fatness) raise the risk of a host of health conditions that are themselves risk factors for poor health outcomes, but the Kaiser Permanente study cited above found that the association between excessive body fat and risk of dying of COVID-19 was “independent of obesity-related comorbidities and other potential confounders”.
Thank you for reading Empowered!. This post is public so feel free to share it.
What are we to make of such stubborn denial of easily-verified reality? Is the fat acceptance movement a spontaneously-arising, organic movement that is flourishing because it offers a more accurate understanding of fatness, or a superior way to interpret and respond to the personal and social challenges it presents, than the medical framing of it as “obesity”?
Clearly not. Not only is it entirely unmoored from biological reality, it (along with all the other flavours of postmodernism-inspired identity politics such as critical race theory, intersectionality, fourth-wave feminism and ableism1) fosters a grievance culture that sanctifies victimhood and disavows personal agency. Does anyone truly believe that telling obese people patent falsehoods about the negative impact of excess body fat on their health and well-being, while persuading them that their real problem is that they’re victims of an oppressive system which marginalises and stigmatises them, is helpful to them?
So here’s a subversive thought. What if the fat acceptance movement has been intentionally nurtured and promoted by forces that profit from the increased prevalence of obesity? Big Food, Big Pharma and Big Healthcare immediately spring to mind as obvious beneficiaries. All enjoy cosy relationships with the state and its ideological handmaidens, including the academic institutions that groom the Mandarin class to occupy their assigned roles in the corporate-state apparatus.
And beyond financial profit, powerful institutions benefit from the confusion, extreme polarisation, intolerance of dissent and denunciation of the liberal ideals of free speech and openness to discussion and debate, that fat activism and other flavours of identity politics foment.
Radical ideologies demand enforcement of their precepts, and enforcement requires centralisation of power. The slide toward the northern pole of the political compass’ authoritarian-libertarian axis has been greatly accelerated by the rise of identity politics.
The purveyors of woke ideologies clamour for the outlawing of anything they judge as “hate speech” – unlike the old left which championed free speech even if it involved ideas distasteful to most – and the excommunication from society of anyone “holding unacceptable views”.
And the political class couldn’t be happier with the censorious climate generated by the woke mob: It provides cover for the ratcheting up of their own control over the speech, actions and even thoughts of the populace, and greases the skids for their projects of marginalisation, exclusion and punishment of dissenters (like denying “unvaccinated” people the “free” medical treatment for COVID-19 that their taxes have already paid for). Once the agitariat has been whipped up into a frenzy, it’s not hard to turn their rage onto other objects, as Orwell so trenchantly described:
“The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but, on the contrary, that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge-hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp. Thus, at one moment Winston’s hatred was not turned against Goldstein at all, but, on the contrary, against Big Brother, the Party, and the Thought Police; and at such moments his heart went out to the lonely, derided heretic on the screen, sole guardian of truth and sanity in a world of lies. And yet the very next instant he was at one with the people about him, and all that was said of Goldstein seemed to him to be true.”
There are many possible reasons for the near-total lack of public discussion about the serious impact that obesity has on individuals’ risks of bad outcomes of COVID-19, let alone on the healthcare system.
But the outrage culture fostered by identity politics plays, at the very least, a facilitating role. Even if politicians, health bureaucrats or journalists were aware that obesity is the leading controllable risk factor for severe COVID-19, most would reflexively self-censor for fear of the backlash they would cop if they called for open discussion of this sensitive topic.
In a world where morality has become deformed by cancel culture, merely imagining being accused of fat-shaming and victim-blaming is enough to stop all but the most hardy souls from pointing to the metaphorical elephant in the room.
And for politicians, health bureaucrats and captured agencies like TGA and ATAGI, who had already decided at the very beginning of the manufactured COVID crisis that vaccination was “our only way out of the pandemic”, the tacit embargo on open discussion of Australia’s obesity problem and how to address it, is most convenient. Formulating whole-of-government policies to comprehensively reengineer our obesigenic environment would necessitate dropping agricultural subsidies that artificially lower the cost of obesity-promoting foods, which would throttle the political donations flowing from Big Oil, Big Ag and Big Food, as well as opportunities for lucrative post-political-life employment or board membership in these industries. And that’s just one mote of the fallout from effective anti-obesity policies.
No wonder the Commonwealth Department of Health downplays the major role played by obesity in the severity of COVID-19, relegating it to second-last on its list of risk factors, and falsely claims that only severe obesity (BMI>40 kg/m²) increases risk.
And so, while I doubt that even a handful of the people wielding power and influence in this country could coherently explain any of the concepts discussed in Fat Studies to the non-cognoscenti, the undeniable fact is that the radical ideologies spawned by post-modernism (all of which are obsessed with power dynamics between social and cultural groups) are not threatening the centralising, totalising power of the state; they are reinforcing it. The state always seeks to expand its power and control over the governed, and is adept at both crafting and inserting narratives that reinforce its authority, and manipulating narratives that spontaneously arise to serve its own ends.
To distil this rather discursive post:
I have many more thoughts on this which I’ll be sharing in subsequent posts. Please join the conversation in the comments section below.
By : Robyn Chuter
If you’ve tried to question your doctor about any aspect of the COVID-19 biosecurity theatre to which we’ve all been subjected for the past two years, chances are that he or she repeated the officially-accepted catechism (masks work, “social distancing” stops the spread, COVID-19 “vaccines” are safe and effective for everyone) and then changed the subject as quickly as possible.
And woe betide you if you asked for a medical exemption from COVID-19 injections. I have had dozens of clients recount to me their experiences, but the following five were particularly surreal:
The last two cases were in many ways the most illuminating, in that the doctors admitted – either obliquely or quite candidly – that they were in fear of punishment by AHPRA if they wrote exemptions, regardless of whether they considered them medically justified.
In other words, they were willing to subject their patients to medical treatment that could be harmful to them and had not been tested in people with their health conditions, in order to avoid the AHPRA Eye of Sauron falling upon them.
In case you haven’t twigged yet, your doctor is not “your” doctor. He or she no longer serves your interests, but those of the state.
We’ve all been bombarded with “public health” messaging over the last two years, but few people – including doctors – have ever stopped to think about what public health is, and how it relates to the practise of medicine.
As I discussed in my two part series, ‘COVID-19 and philanthrocapitalism’s War on Public Health’ (Part 1; Part 2), public health is a very distinct field from the practise of medicine, or for that matter complementary and alternative health care.1
The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which describes itself as “the nation’s leading public health agency”, explains (emphasis mine),
“Public health is concerned with protecting the health of entire populations. These populations can be as small as a local neighborhood, or as big as an entire country or region of the world… Public health professionals try to prevent problems from happening or recurring through implementing educational programs, recommending policies, administering services and conducting research--in contrast to clinical professionals like doctors and nurses, who focus primarily on treating individuals after they become sick or injured.”
What is Public Health?
Got that? Public health professionals focus on the collective, while doctors, nurses, naturopaths, chiropractors, clinical psychologists, acupuncturists and speech therapists focus on the individual sitting in front of them.
And there’s the rub. Individuals exist in reality. They have names, faces, bodies, partners, children, jobs – and personal and family health histories. As a practitioner, I can take a case history from an individual, and tailor my treatment plan to his or her specific situation, taking into account both medical and personal factors that are unique to that individual.
Clinical practice is not, and should not be, “one size fits all” because it is applied to individuals, but public health policies are by definition “one size fits all” because they are applied to (arbitrarily defined) collectives.
But collectives do not exist in reality. They are abstract notions that we assign nouns to for the sake of convenience – like “neighbourhood” or “community” or “nation” – but when we try to pin down their definitions, we quickly realise how slippery they are.
What exactly is my “neighbourhood” or my “community”? Does it comprise all the people who live within a certain radius of me, or within a certain travelling time, or just the people whom I see, or interact with? Who sets these criteria – do I define what my community is, or does someone else (for example, a public health professional) do it on my behalf?
And when the CDC waxes lyrical about “protecting the health of entire populations”, what does “protecting” mean in actual practice, and do the people who comprise these “entire populations” get a say in how, and by whom, and against what, they are to be “protected”?
Furthermore, how do we define what “health” means for a “community”, let alone formulate policies to improve it? Perhaps even more importantly, who defines what health means to any given (but functionally non-existent) “community”? Do the people who supposedly comprise this community get a say, or does some external committee of “experts” decide for them and then impose a set of “public health measures” on them?
As I wrote in COVID-19 and philanthrocapitalism’s War on Public Health: Part 2 – Technological solutions to public health problems, attendees of the 1986 First International Conference on Health Promotion in Ottawa pledged to
“accept the community as the essential voice in matters of its health, living conditions and well-being… and to share power with other sectors, other disciplines and, most importantly, with people themselves.”
Commitment to Health Promotion
Setting aside the definitional problems with “community” and exactly how it is that this nebulous non-entity is supposed to have a “voice”, let alone the issue of who or what is supposed to be listening to that voice and who appointed them to listen in the first place, at least this pledge placed the locus of control with the people who were the subjects of all this public health activity.
However, the version of “public health” that we’ve all been subjected to for the past two years is not remotely interested in hearing our voices or sharing power with us. Instead it is a blunt instrument of state control – a throwback to the pre-1830s paradigm of public health in which “ruling elites” promulgated “religious and cultural rules” intended to prevent diseases “by enforced regulation of human behavior”.
Hopefully by now you can see the problem: doctors and other health professionals have been co-opted into becoming functionaries of this elite-generated public health apparatus, despite the mismatch between the aims of clinical practitioners and the aims of public health professionals.
Vaccination campaigns provide the perfect illustration of this mismatch. Public health professionals advocate for universal or near-universal vaccination because they claim it helps to achieve herd immunity (a questionable assumption, but that’s a topic for another day). They acknowledge that a small percentage of people will have adverse reactions to vaccines, and some of them will die, but the maiming and untimely passing of a few healthy people is considered an acceptable price to pay for achieving “the greater good”.
But a doctor or other health practitioner’s duty of care is for the patient in their consulting room. If the practitioner judges that a particular patient has a higher chance of being harmed by a particular vaccine than of being benefited by it, then it is incumbent on the practitioner to prioritise the health of the individual patient – who actually exists, and is sitting in front of them, over that of the collective – which is merely a theoretical construct to whom they cannot possibly owe a duty of care.
In 2006, the Australian Medical Association adopted the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Geneva “as a contemporary companion to the 2,500-year-old Hippocratic Oath for doctors to declare their commitment to their profession, their patients, and humanity”.
Then-AMA president Dr Mukesh Haikerwal acknowledged that there were “great challenges to the integrity and independence of the medical profession” and heralded the Declaration as a reaffirmation of the traditional role of doctors as independent professionals dedicated to the service of their patients, not servants of the state:
“The Declaration is a short, sharp summary of all that is good about being a doctor in the 21st Century… It reinforces the independence of the medical profession and it spells out clearly our duty and dedication to our patients and our respect for all human life.”
AMA Adopts WMA Declaration of Geneva
The Declaration of Geneva has undergone several revisions over its history; here is the latest (2017) version, re-endorsed by then-national president of the AMA, Dr Michael Gannon:
The Physician’s Pledge
AS A MEMBER OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION:
I SOLEMNLY PLEDGE to dedicate my life to the service of humanity;
THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF MY PATIENT will be my first consideration;
I WILL RESPECT the autonomy and dignity of my patient;
I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life;
I WILL NOT PERMIT considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;
I WILL RESPECT the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died;
I WILL PRACTISE my profession with conscience and dignity and in accordance with good medical practice;
I WILL FOSTER the honour and noble traditions of the medical profession;
I WILL GIVE to my teachers, colleagues, and students the respect and gratitude that is their due;
I WILL SHARE my medical knowledge for the benefit of the patient and the advancement of healthcare;
I WILL ATTEND TO my own health, well-being, and abilities in order to provide care of the highest standard;
I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;
I MAKE THESE PROMISES solemnly, freely, and upon my honour.
Thank you for reading Empowered!. This post is public so feel free to share it.
Compare these solemn undertakings with the way the vast majority of doctors are now behaving:
“Be very careful when using social media (even on your personal pages), when authoring papers or when appearing in interviews. Health practitioners are obliged to ensure their views are consistent with public health messaging. This is particularly relevant in current times. Views expressed which may be consistent with evidence-based material may not necessarily be consistent with public health messaging.”
Let that sink in for a moment. MIPS is basically telling its members, “Evidence be damned – if the state says that black is white and down is up, just nod your head and go along with it. And if you write an article that contradicts the state’s assertions, you’re on your own as far as we’re concerned, regardless of how solid your argument is.”
The line between public health and the practise of medicine – a line that has become increasingly blurry over the past decades, as Dr Mukesh Haikerwal tacitly acknowledged when endorsing the Declaration of Geneva as a reaffirmation of the role of doctors as independent professionals who owed a duty of care to their patients – has now been completely erased, and the manufactured COVID-19 crisis was the implement used to erase it.
Now, when you go to see the person whom you think of as “your doctor”, there’s an extra party in the consultation room: the state, which has inserted itself into the doctor-patient relationship without your consent.
In fact, it’s fair to say that the forced incorporation of health practitioners into the apparatus of public health has for all intents and purposes destroyed the doctor-patient relationship.
We’ve seen this merger of state and medical profession before, and it did not end well. Medical historians have noted that
“During the Weimar Republic in the mid-twentieth century, more than half of all German physicians became early joiners of the Nazi Party, surpassing the party enrollments of all other professions. From early on, the German Medical Society played the most instrumental role in the Nazi medical program, beginning with the marginalization of Jewish physicians, proceeding to coerced ‘experimentation,’ ‘euthanization,’ and sterilization, and culminating in genocide via the medicalization of mass murder of Jews and others caricatured and demonized by Nazi ideology.”
Why did so many German doctors join the Nazi Party early?
The psychiatric profession willingly cooperated with Soviet dictators from Stalin on, by diagnosing political dissidents with bogus psychotic disorders, confining them involuntarily in mental hospitals and subjecting them to “treatments” that were clearly not in the so-called patients’ interest:
“Dissidents were treated with massive doses of psychoactive drugs, which produced agonising side effects.”
Soviet Union admits to abuses of psychiatry
Health practitioners have a critical choice to make. You cannot serve both your patient/client and the state, because their interests are widely divergent.
And members of the public also face a choice: Will you continue to entrust your health care to someone whose allegiance is to the state, rather than you? If you do, don’t be surprised when “your” doctor throws your interests under the bus. As Jesus tells his disciples in Matthew 6:24, “No one can serve two masters”.
To end on a more positive note, if you’re an Australian healthcare practitioner or student who wants to restore medical ethics and patient-centred healthcare, or a member of the public who believes in medical freedom for yourself as well as your healthcare providers, I encourage you to join Queensland Health Practitioners Alliance.
QHPA (which will be opening branches in other States very soon) is an inclusive organisation of medical, complementary and allied health professionals, along with interested members of the public, working to create a truly integrative health and wellness model to present a viable alternative to our broken sick care system – one that prioritises the interests of patients, not the state.
By : Robyn Chuter
As the experimental COVID-19 injection body count piles up, the need to develop effective therapies for the ever-growing laundry list of injuries is becoming increasingly urgent.
Yet people who have suffered such injuries face almost insurmountable barriers to receiving treatment within our existing “sick care” system:
TGA Workload Explodes 1,000% in Just One Year
That’s the bad news. The good news is that outside the noxious echo chamber of the pharmaceutical-medical-industrial complex, the old-fashioned practice of patient-centred health care has been revived by the manufactured COVID crisis.
Independently-minded practitioners of both orthodox medicine and ‘alternative’ health care have realised that since they can no longer believe a word that comes out of the mouths of bought-and-paid-for public health officials and heads of regulatory and licensing bodies, nor a word printed in medical journals, they are going to have to revert to time-tested practices of caring for sick people:
N.B. None of the following constitutes medical advice, and you should always consult a knowledgeable practitioner to develop a treatment plan tailored to your personal situation.
How do COVID-19 injections cause harm?1. Microvascular thrombosesThe fact that, in a substantial proportion of people who receive them, COVID-19 injections cause microscopic blood clots in the tiny blood vessels that supply the brain, lungs, heart, kidneys, liver and other vital organs with blood, was first publicly discussed by Canadian doctor Charles Hoffe in July 2021.
Dr Hoffe used the d-dimer blood test to identify recently-formed blood clots in 62% of patients whom he tested within 4-7 days after they’d taken a COVID-19 injection.
Depending on the location/s where these microscopic clots form, individuals might experience persistent headache, confusion, stroke, personality changes and cognitive decline; pain, numbness or tingling in the extremities, progressing in more severe cases to the need for amputation; liver, kidney or heart failure; fatigue and reduced exercise tolerance; pulmonary arterial hypertension; miscarriage or stillbirth; or blurred vision or hearing loss.
The fact that 38% of Dr Hoffe’s recently-jabbed patients did not have elevated d-dimer levels speaks to individual differences in propensity to form clots, and some of these differences are subject to influence through lifestyle choices and therapeutic interventions.
Reducing the risk of microvascular thromboses:
1.11. Aspirin and related compoundsThe traditional mainstay of antithrombotic therapy, aspirin, is recommended in some protocols intended to prevent or reduce jab side effects (e.g. see here and here).
However, aspirin carries its own risks, and may not be suitable for everyone. Fortunately, there are many plant foods that are rich in salicylic acid – the principal metabolite of aspirin – and research has demonstrated that the range of blood levels of salicylic acid found in people taking low-dose aspirin overlaps with the range found in people on vegetarian diets.
Spices (especially cardamom, cumin, paprika and black cumin), herbs (especially rosemary, oregano and thyme), fruits (especially nectarines and berries) and tea all contain substantial amounts of salicylic acid and when consumed as part of daily meals, can help to maintain blood levels of this metabolite that may reduce clotting risk.
1.2. NattokinaseA potent blood-clot dissolving enzyme which has been used for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases, nattokinase is produced by the bacterium Bacillus subtilis during the fermentation of soybeans to produce the traditional Japanese food natto.
While natto is characterised as – ahem – an acquired taste, variously described as like old cheese, slime and snot, nattokinase is available in supplement form.
1.3. SerratiopeptidaseLike nattokinase, serratiopeptidase is a proteolytic (protein-degrading) enzyme. As well as helping to break down fibrin – a crucial protein involved in the formation of blood clots – serratiopeptidase also has anti-inflammatory, analgaesic (pain-relieving) and anti-oedemic effects which may be useful for some types of COVID-19 injection injuries.
Serratiopeptidase’s ability to break down dead or damaged tissue may also prove useful in clearing necrosis from areas affected by microthromboses.
Researchers have proposed using serratiopeptidase to treat COVID-19, and many of the mechanisms they identified – especially its anti-inflammatory, fibrin-degrading, antioxidant and mast cell-stabilising properties – are also relevant to injection injuries.
Originally derived from bacteria that inhabit the intestines of silkworms, it is now produced synthetically and marketed as serrapeptase.
1.4 QuercetinQuercetin, a flavonoid molecule found in many vegetables and fruits, especially berries, lovage, capers, coriander/cilantro, dill, apples, and onions, and also available as a supplement, prevents platelet aggregation which is a critical step in clot formation.
2. Damaging effects of spike proteinBoth the viral vector COVID-19 injections (AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson) and the mRNA injections (Moderna and Pfizer) insert instructions into your body’s cells for making the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2.
As mentioned in my previous post, Let’s talk about sin, baby (the original antigenic variety), spike protein is found in the bloodstream of people 1-2 days after receiving the Pfizer injection, at essentially the same levels as in people severely ill with COVID-19. Injection-induced spike protein is still detectable in 63% of injected people, one week after the first dose. Similar findings have been reported in people who received the Moderna injection.
Recall that the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 is the part of the virus that enables it to sneak into our cells, by binding with ACE2 receptors on the cell membrane. Once inside, other parts of the virus’ genetic code hijack our cellular machinery, forcing our own cells to become virus factories which churn out new copies of the virus that eventually erupt out of the cell and seek other cells to infect.
Researchers at the Salk Institute conducted a series of experiments to find out if spike protein alone, without any other part of the virus that can actually replicate inside cells, could cause damage both in living animals, and in isolated human cells. And indeed it does.
The binding of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to ACE2 results in damage to the mitochondria – the tiny ‘power plants’ inside cells that turn molecules derived from food into usable energy – resulting in impaired cell function and inflammation.
Many cell types express ACE2, including types of cells found in the lungs, heart, kidneys, intestine and the delicate lining of the blood vessels themselves (endothelial cells). Whilst circulating in the bloodstream, spike protein can and will be taken up by any of these cell types.
The cell type used in the Salk Institute studies was endothelial cells, and the researchers clearly demonstrated that the spike protein alone causes oxidative stress and inflammation (endothelitis).
And when endothelial cells become so damaged by this inflammation that they rupture, the spike protein inside them spills out and can enter the cells of the organ that the blood vessel was supplying, if they too express ACE2, and repeat the whole process of mitochondrial impairment, inflammation and cell rupture over again. In this way, injection-induced spike protein could work its way deeper and deeper into the body’s vital organs.
Furthermore, any cell which expresses the spike protein will be attacked by T cells, the immune system cells that defend against viral infections.
In most people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2, the infection – and therefore expression of spike protein by their own cells, and destruction of these cells by T lymphocytes – remains localised to the respiratory tract.
But COVID-19 injections are delivered into muscles, and from there enter the bloodstream and carry the instructions for making spike protein into cells throughout our bodies. That means that cells in many different organs begin displaying an abnormal, foreign protein, drawing T lymphocytes to attack and destroy them.
Do we see evidence of this spike protein-induced cell damage and T cell attack in people who have taken COVID-19 injections? Yes. Autopsies of people who died after receiving either viral vector or mRNA injections show
“1. inflammatory events in small blood vessels (endothelitis), characterized by an abundance of T-lymphocytes and sequestered, dead endothelial cells within the vessel lumen;
2. the extensive perivascular accumulation of T-lymphocytes;
3. a massive lymphocytic infiltration of surrounding non-lymphatic organs or tissue with T-lymphocytes.”
On COVID vaccines: why they cannot work, and irrefutable evidence of their causative role in deaths after vaccination
Spike protein binders and neutralisers:In vitro (laboratory) studies have demonstrated the ability of a wide variety of substances to inhibit the ability of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to bind to ACE2, thus preventing it from entering cells.
2.1 Prunella vulgarisThe herb Prunella vulgaris, a member of the mint family known variously as self-heal, heal-all, woundwort, heart-of-the-earth, carpenter’s herb, brownwort or blue curls, directly interrupts the binding of the spike protein to ACE2.
2.2 SuraminSuramin, an antiparasitic and antiviral compound which is on the World Health Organisation’s Model List of Essential Medicines, also directly interrupts the binding of the spike protein to ACE2. Suramin is not absorbed through the gastrointestinal tract and therefore must be administered via intravenous injection. Whilst suramin was originally synthesised from a distilled extract of pine needles, it is not at all clear – and in fact mechanistically unlikely – that pine needle tea has any binding effects on spike protein.
2.3 N-acetyl cysteine (NAC)The sulphur-containing compound NAC alters the 3-dimensional shape of the spike protein, preventing it from binding to ACE2. NAC also inhibits replication of SARS-CoV-2.
2.4 QuercetinA flavonoid compound found in many common plant foods and herbs, quercetin strongly binds to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which prevents it from binding to ACE2. It also inhibits replication of SARS-CoV-2 and has anti-inflammatory and thrombin-inhibitory actions.
2.5 Artemisinin, thymol, carvacrol and emodinAll compounds found in many plants used in traditional Chinese and Western herbal medicine, artemisinin, thymol, carvacrol and emodin prevent the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein from binding to ACE2 on host cells at doses that are non-toxic and non-carcinogenic.
2.6 Neem bark extractAzadirachta indica (neem) bark extract binds to the spike protein, and also inhibits replication of SARS-CoV-2.
2.7 IvermectinA compound derived from the bacterium Streptomyces avermitilis, ivermectin docks with SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor binding domain preventing it from binding to ACE2. Ivermectin is also on WHO’s Model List of Essential Medicines and has broad-spectrum antiparasitic, anti-allergic, antimicrobial, antiviral, and anti-cancer effects.
Our articles and rebuttal pieces are written by our writers on our volunteer team