The Totally Civil Covid Thread. (Closing 31/05)
- Mark U
- Closed
-
-
FDA vaccine advisers 'disappointed' and 'angry' that early data about new Covid-19 booster shot wasn't presented for review last year
FDA vaccine advisers 'disappointed' and 'angry' that early data about new Covid-19 booster shot wasn't presented for review last yearSome vaccine advisers to the federal government say they're "disappointed" and "angry" that government scientists and the pharmaceutical company Moderna didn't…amp.cnn.com(CNN)Some vaccine advisers to the federal government say they're "disappointed" and "angry" that government scientists and the pharmaceutical company Moderna didn't present a set of infection data on the company's new Covid-19 booster during meetings last year when the advisers discussed whether the shot should be authorized and made available to the public.
That data suggested the possibility that the updated booster might not be any more effective at preventing Covid-19 infections than the original shots.
The data was early and had many limitations, but several advisers told CNN that they were concerned about a lack of transparency.
US taxpayers spent nearly $5 billion on the new booster, which has been given to more than 48.2 million people in the US.
-
New Study Uncovers Potential Target for Stopping 90% of Cancer Deaths
New Study Uncovers Potential Target for Stopping 90% of Cancer DeathsAn international research team has discovered a potential new target for a drug that could prevent the deadly metastases responsible for 90% of cancer deaths.…scitechdaily.comAccording to a study published in Nature, an international team of researchers has identified a mechanism that allows cancer cells to spread throughout the body. They found that cancer cells move faster when they are surrounded by thicker fluids, a change that occurs when lymph drainage is disrupted by a primary tumor.
Extracellular fluid viscosity enhances cell migration and cancer dissemination - NatureElevated viscosity counterintuitively increases the motility of various cell types in vitro and imprints mechanical memory to tumour cells, which enables them…www.nature.comVitamin D deficiency in head and neck cancer patients – prevalence, prognostic value and impact on immune function
Vitamin D deficiency in head and neck cancer patients – prevalence, prognostic value and impact on immune functionVitamin D deficiency is frequently observed in human cancer patients and a prognostic relevance could be shown for some entities. Additionally, it is known…www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov -
Nearly 1 in 4 U.S. hospitalized patients experience harmful events, study finds
Experts say U.S. hospitals still have a long way to go to improve patient safety.
Nearly 1 in 4 U.S. hospitalized patients experience harmful events, study findsExperts say U.S. hospitals still have a long way to go to improve patient safety.www.nbcnews.comNearly 1 in 4 patients who are admitted to hospitals in the U.S. will experience harm, according to a study published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The stark findings underscore that, despite decades of effort, U.S. hospitals still have a long way to go to improve patient safety, experts say.
Corporate medicine at it finest! Helps explains why the United States healthcare system is ranked 37 in the industrialized world lagging behind most African nations!!!
-
Data Doesn’t Support New COVID-19 Booster Shots for Most, Says Vaccine Expert
Data Doesn’t Support New COVID-19 Booster Shots for Most, Says ExpertIt’s time to rethink the blanket recommendation for giving the new Omicron booster to everyonetime.comn a perspective published Jan. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine, vaccine expert Dr. Paul Offit says it’s time to rethink booster recommendations.
In the third year of the pandemic, the population’s immune situation is vastly different from what it was in 2019 when SARS-CoV-2 emerged. Now, most people have been vaccinated against the virus, been infected with it (once or multiple times), or both. And the latest data show that the newest booster shot, which targets the Omicron BA.4/5 strain and original virus variants in a bivalent formulation, isn’t that much more effective in generating virus-fighting antibodies than the original vaccine when used as a booster
-
The effects of 105 biological, socioeconomic, behavioral, and environmental factors on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a severe course of COVID-19: a prospective, explorative cohort study
effects of 105 biological, socioeconomic, behavioral, and environmental factors on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a severe course of COVID-19: a prospective, explorative cohort studyAbstract . The confirmed number of SARS-CoV-2 infections up to 18 October 2022 is 626 million worldwide, but information about factors affecting the probabilityacademic.oup.comAbstract
The confirmed number of SARS-CoV-2 infections up to 18 October 2022 is 626 million worldwide, but information about factors affecting the probability of infection or a severe course of COVID-19 remains insufficient and often speculative. Only a small number of factors have been rigorously examined, mostly by retrospective or cross-sectional studies.
We ran a preregistered study on 5164 Internet users who shared information with us about their exposure to 105 risk factors and reported being COVID-19 negative before the beginning of the fourth wave of COVID-19 in the Czech Republic. After the fourth wave, in which 709 (13.7%) of participants were infected, we used a partial Kendall test controlled for sex, age, and urbanization to compare the risk of infection and a severe course of the disease in subjects who initially did and did not report exposure to particular risk factors.
After the correction for multiple tests, we identified 13 factors – including male sex, lower age, blood group B, and larger household size – that increased the risk of infection and 16 factors – including mask-wearing, borreliosis in the past, use of vitamin D supplements, or rooibos drinking – that decreased it. We also identified 23 factors that increased the risk of a severe course of COVID-19 and 12 factors that decreased the risk.
This preregistered longitudinal study is of explorative nature. Therefore, although the observed effects were strong and remained highly significant even after correction for multiple tests, it will be necessary to confirm their existence in future independent studies.
-
Vitamin D does not help to prevent statin muscle damage : https://jamanetwork.com/journa…70-4dcb-a599-924f24c670ad
Damage rate is 31%... similar to RNA vaxxination.
Statines are no help for 99% of all person who take it. Statines did help to introduce the now widespread damage culture of big pharma by the same playbook Pfizer used for its damaging RNA gene therapy (CoV-19 vaxxine).
Pfizer faked the phase III study by illegal unblinding and preventing PCR tests among vaxxinated with CoV-19 symptoms.
The trick with statines was to kick out all studies from ethnos that have genetically low LDL or more exact take only the ones with genetically high LDL...
Big pharma = Dr. Mengle industries.
-
Display More
Vitamin D does not help to prevent statin muscle damage : https://jamanetwork.com/journa…70-4dcb-a599-924f24c670ad
Damage rate is 31%... similar to RNA vaxxination.
Statines are no help for 99% of all person who take it. Statines did help to introduce the now widespread damage culture of big pharma by the same playbook Pfizer used for its damaging RNA gene therapy (CoV-19 vaxxine).
Pfizer faked the phase III study by illegal unblinding and preventing PCR tests among vaxxinated with CoV-19 symptoms.
The trick with statines was to kick out all studies from ethnos that have genetically low LDL or more exact take only the ones with genetically high LDL...
Big pharma = Dr. Mengle industries.
Add l arginine to that vitamin d study and you'll see results. The study was designed to fail.
-
HOW CAN WE EVER TRUST THE INSTITUTIONS THAT CRIED WOLF?
HOW CAN WE EVER TRUST THE INSTITUTIONS THAT CRIED WOLF?HOW CAN WE EVER TRUST THE INSTITUTIONS THAT CRIED WOLF?www.trialsitenews.comHOW CAN WE EVER TRUST THE INSTITUTIONS THAT CRIED WOLF?
Trust the Authorities, trust the Experts, and trust the Science, we were told. Public health messaging during the Covid-19 pandemic was only credible if it originated from government health authorities, the World Health Organization, and pharmaceutical companies, as well as scientists who parroted their lines with little critical thinking. In the name of ‘protecting’ the public, the authorities have gone to great lengths, as described in the recently released Twitter files (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) that document collusion between the FBI and social media platforms, to create an illusion of consensus about the appropriate response to Covid-19. They suppressed ‘the truth’, even when emanating from highly credible scientists, undermining scientific debate and preventing the correction of scientific errors. In fact, an entire bureaucracy of censorship has been created, ostensibly to deal with so-called MDM— misinformation (false information resulting from human error with no intention of harm); disinformation (information intended to mislead and manipulate); malinformation (accurate information intended to harm). From fact checkers like NewsGuard, to the European Commission’s Digital Services Act, the UK Online Safety Bill and the BBC Trusted News Initiative, as well as Big Tech and social media, all eyes are on the public to curtail their ‘mis-/dis-information’.
“Whether it’s a threat to our health or a threat to our democracy, there is a human cost to disinformation.” — Tim Davie, Director-General of the BBC
But is it possible that ‘trusted’ institutions could pose a far bigger threat to society by disseminating false information?
UNTRUSTING ‘TRUSTED’ SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Although the problem of spreading false information is usually conceived of as emanating from the public, during the Covid-19 pandemic, governments, corporations, supranational organisations and even scientific journals and academic institutions have contributed to a false narrative. Falsehoods such as ‘lockdowns save lives’ and ‘no one is safe until everyone is safe’ have far reaching costs in livelihoods and lives. Institutional false information during the pandemic was rampant. Below is just a sample by way of illustration.
HEALTH AUTHORITIES & REGULATORS
The health authorities falsely convinced the public that the Covid-19 vaccines stop infection and transmission when the manufacturers never even tested these outcomes. The CDC changed its definition of vaccination to be more ‘inclusive’ of the novel mRNA technology vaccines. Instead of the vaccines being expected to produce immunity, now it was good enough to produce protection. The authorities also repeated the mantra (at 16:55) of ‘safe and effective’ throughout the pandemic despite emerging evidence of vaccine harm. The FDA refused the full release of documents they had reviewed in 108 days when granting the vaccines emergency use authorisation. Then in response to a freedom of information act request, it attempted to delay their release for up to 75 years. These documents presented evidence of vaccine adverse events. It’s important to note that between 50% and 96% of the funding of drug regulatory agencies around the world comes from Big Pharma in the form of grants or user fees. Can we disregard that it’s difficult to bite the hand that feeds you?
CORPORATIONS
The vaccine manufacturers claimed high levels of vaccine efficacy in terms of relative risk reduction (between 67% and 95%). They failed, however, to share with the public the more reliable measure of absolute risk reduction that was only around 1%, thereby exaggerating the expected benefit of these vaccines. They also claimed “no serious safety concerns observed” despite their own post-authorisation safety report revealing multiple serious adverse events, some lethal. The manufacturers also failed to publicly address the immune suppression during the two weeks post-vaccination and the rapidly waning vaccine effectiveness that turns negative at 6 months or the increased risk of infection with each additional booster. Lack of transparency about this vital information denied people their right to informed consent.
They also claimed that natural immunity is not protective enough and that hybrid immunity (a combination of natural immunity and vaccination) is required. This false information was necessary to sell remaining stocks of their products in the face of mounting breakthrough cases (infection despite vaccination). In reality, although natural immunity may not completely prevent future infection with SARS-CoV-2, it is however effective in preventing severe symptoms and deaths. Thus vaccination post natural infection is not needed.
SUPRANATIONAL ORGANISATIONS
The WHO also participated in falsely informing the public. It disregarded its own pre-pandemic plans, and denied that lockdowns and masks are ineffective at saving lives and have a net harm on public health. It also promoted mass vaccination in contradiction to the public health principle of ‘interventions based on individual needs’. It also went as far as excluding natural immunity from its definition of herd immunity and claimed that only vaccines can help reach this end point. This was later reversed under pressure from the scientific community. Again, at least 20% of the WHO’s funding comes from Big Pharma and philanthropists invested in pharmaceuticals. Is this a case of he who pays the piper calls the tune?
SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS
The Lancet, a respectable medical journal, published a paper claiming that HydroxyChloroquine (HQC) — a repurposed drug used for the treatment of Covid-19 — was associated with a slight increased risk of death. This led the FDA to ban the use of HQC to treat Covid-19 patients and the NIH to halt the clinical trials on HCQ as a potential covid-19 treatment. These were drastic measures taken on the basis of a study that was later retracted due to the emergence of evidence showing that the data used was false.
In another instance, the medical journal, Current Problems in Cardiology, retracted —without any justification— a paper showing an increased risk of myocarditis in young people following the covid-19 vaccines, after it was peer reviewed and published. The authors advocated for the precautionary principle in the vaccination of young people and called for more pharmacovigilance studies to assess the safety of the vaccines. Erasing such findings from the medical literature, not only prevents science from taking its natural course, but it also gatekeeps important information from the public.
ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS
A similar story took place with Ivermectin, another drug used for the treatment of Covid-19, this time potentially implicating academia. Andrew Hill stated (at 5:15) that the conclusion of his paper on Ivermectin was influenced by Unitaid which is, coincidentally, the main funder of a new research centre at Hill’s workplace —the University of Liverpool. His meta-analysis showed that Ivermectin reduced mortality with Covid-19 by 75%. Instead of supporting Ivermectin use as a Covid-19 treatment, he concluded that further studies were needed.
The suppression of potentially life-saving treatments was instrumental for the emergency use authorization of the Covid-19 vaccines as the absence of a treatment for the disease is a condition for EUA (p.3).
THE MEDIA
Many media outlets are also guilty of sharing false information. This was in the form of biased reporting, or by accepting to be a platform for public relations (PR) campaigns. PR is an innocuous word for propaganda or the art of sharing information to influence public opinion in the service of special interests groups. The danger of PR is that it passes for independent journalistic opinion to the untrained eye. PR campaigns aim to sensationalise scientific findings, possibly to increase consumer uptake of a given therapeutic, increase funding for similar research, or to increase stock prices. The pharmaceutical companies spent USD 6.88 billion on TV advertisements in 2021 in the US alone. Is it possible that this funding influenced media reporting during the Covid-19 pandemic?
Lack of integrity and conflict of interests have led to an unprecedented institutional false information pandemic. It is up to the public to determine whether the above are instances of mis- or dis-information.
Public trust in the Media has seen its biggest drop over the last five years. Many are also waking up to the widespread institutional false information. The public can no longer trust ‘authoritative’ institutions that were expected to look after their interests. This lesson was learned at great costs. Many lives were lost due to the suppression of early treatment and an unsound vaccination policy; businesses ruined; jobs destroyed; educational achievement regressed; poverty aggravated; and both physical and mental health outcomes worsened. A preventable mass disaster.
We have a choice: either we continue to passively accept institutional false information or we resist. What are the checks and balances that we must put in place to reduce conflict of interests in public health and research institutions? How can we decentralise the media and academic journals in order to reduce the influence of pharmaceutical advertising on their editorial policy? As individuals, how can we improve our media literacy to become more critical consumers of information? There is nothing that dispels false narratives better than personal inquiry and critical thinking. So the next time conflicted institutions cry woeful wolf or vicious variant or catastrophic climate, we need to think twice.
Many thanks to Jonathan Engler, Domini Gordon and Chris Gordon for their valuable review and feedback.
About the author
Abir Ballan is the co-founder of THiNKTWICE.GLOBAL — Rethink. Reconnect. Reimagine. She has a Masters in Public Health, a graduate degree in special needs education and a BA in psychology. She is a children’s author with 27 published books.
Twitter, LinkedIn (suspended), Substack, Telegram
-
The testimonies project - the movie
The testimonies project | Testimonies after Covid-19 vaccinationThe Testimonies Project was created to provide a platform for all those who were affected after getting the covid-19 vaccines, and to make sure their voices…www.vaxtestimonies.orgThe Testimonies Project was created to provide a platform for all those who were affected after getting the covid-19 vaccines, and to make sure their voices are heard, since they are not heard in the Israeli media.
We hope this project will encourage more and more people to tell their story.
-
The manufacturers also failed to publicly address the immune suppression during the two weeks post-vaccination and the rapidly waning vaccine effectiveness that turns negative at 6 months or the increased risk of infection with each additional booster. Lack of transparency about this vital information denied people their right to informed consent.
We said this about 1.5 years ago already.... So much about the courage of TS...
-
We said this about 1.5 years ago already.... So much about the courage of TS...
Yes we did but the liers and deniers called us a death cult and is still supported by main stream. TS is one of the first maybe late but they have the balls now to try and correct the narrative. Don't judge the bandwagon jumpers, to change the narrative medical platform news is key.
-
-
Happy dying in UK : https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplep…/weekending30december2022
Total excess mortality > 20% what means much more for age > 64.
-
Happy dying in UK : https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplep…/weekending30december2022
Total excess mortality > 20% what means much more for age > 64.
Not just the UK, and the narrative is starting to change. The clowns of the FDA and the CDC see a signal that most of the world saw 18months ago. Mainstream started asking questions. Time to circle the wagons and cover their ass! Oh yes, they still recommend the poison!
CDC, FDA see possible link between Pfizer’s bivalent shot and strokes
CDC, FDA see possible link between Pfizer’s bivalent shot and strokesThe agencies said the surveillance signal “is very unlikely” to represent a “true clinical risk” and said they continued to recommend the vaccine.www.politico.comThe CDC and FDA announced on Friday that their surveillance system flagged a possible link between the new Pfizer-BioNTech bivalent Covid-19 vaccine and strokes in people aged 65 and over, but said they were continuing to recommend the shots.
The surveillance “raised a question of whether” stroke risk was elevated in the 21-day period post-vaccination versus 22 to 44 days post-vaccination, according to a statement on the CDC website.
-
Moderna mRNA Performance Against Omicron Variants—Not a Great Look
Moderna mRNA Performance Against Omicron Variants—Not a Great LookFew studies looked into the effectiveness of mRNA vaccination against emerging Omicron variants, which is of critical importance in contributing to a better…www.trialsitenews.comFew studies looked into the effectiveness of mRNA vaccination against emerging Omicron variants, which is of critical importance in contributing to a better understanding of the necessity for variant-specific boosters offering broader protection against Omicron subvariants. An important target of research, given studies have evidenced reduced effectiveness of the mRNA vaccines against what were the predominant Omicron subvariants of BA.4 and BA.5. Thus, the driving impetus for a test-negative case-control study tapping into the Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) healthcare system patient data evaluating the effectiveness of monovalent mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine (Moderna) against infection with and hospitalization for omicron subvariants including BA.4 and BA.5. involving 30,809 SARS-CoV-2 positive and 92,427 SARS-CoV-2 negative persons aged 18 and up tested during January 1, 2020, to June 30, 2022. The study authors report that a 3-dose vaccine effectiveness against BA.1 infection is high and wanes slowly; effectiveness against BA.2, BA.2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5 infection starts out moderately high (61.0%-90.6% 14-30 days post third dose) but wanes rapidly, meaning protection dissipates, indicating insufficient vaccine durability. Even with four doses (2 boosters), vaccine effectiveness against BA.2, BA.2.12.1, and BA.4 ranged between 64.3% to 75.7% while performance against BA.5, the predominant subvariant for much of the latter half of 2022 absolutely tanked at just 30.8% 14 -30 days out, disappearing beyond three months for all subvariants. Because these vaccines don’t protect well against infection, the risk of not only continuous reinfection but also long COVID further persists. Use of the monovalent mRNA vaccines did help reduce hospitalization at higher levels than infection (72.4% for BA.4/BA.5) but again, effectiveness wanes. The overall look isn’t great and should not be touted as a success story. Such messaging leans more toward propaganda than appropriate medical communications.
The contributing Kaiser Permanente authors report numerous disclosures involving payment from industry, but those don’t necessarily associate with the vaccine or relevant topics.
Epidemiologist Hung Fu Tseng, Ph.D., MPH, served as the corresponding author for this study that found that the three-dose vaccine effectiveness of mRNA-1273 against infection with BA.1 was robust and waned slowly. However, the Moderna vaccine product robustness markedly declined against more predominant circulating variants of concern, including BA.2, BA.2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5.
These results are comparable to the sizable multicenter study cited in the journal Nature entry. And with four doses of the Moderna vaccine, effectiveness against infection with BA.2, BA.2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5 was moderate; only 35% against BA.5. Problematically, the effectiveness that was reported didn’t last long, and all effectiveness disappeared after three months after the administration of the fourth dose.
Of course, this is troublesome. A vaccine should stop a good amount of infectious transmission. Ones that do not do so do not help control the spread of infectious diseases. A so-called vaccine that works to reduce infection for just a short window of time is considered not a robust vaccine product.
What about hospitalization prevention?
The Kaiser Permanente-led study cites other research (Link-Gilles et al.) finding four doses of Moderna leads to vaccine effectiveness against infection in the emergency department, and urgent care setting was slightly greater (66%, 95%CI 60%, 71%) at ≥7 days than three-dose mRNA VE (58%, 95% CI 51%, 64%) at 7–119 days among adults ≥50 years.
Overall, data associated with recent studies taken together indicate a primary benefit of booster vaccines is to augment the neutralizing antibodies but without a strong impact on cellular immunity above and beyond what was already induced by the primary vaccination series. It’s clear that the Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 had marked neutralization resistance. Overall, the Kaiser Permanente team report:
“…data suggest that both SARS-CoV-2 variant evolution and waning neutralizing antibody titers may reduce booster-induced immune protection.”
How did the Omicron subvariant mutation affect the COVID-19 vaccine strategy?
The COVID-19 vaccines have not been able to keep pace with the mutating RNA virus as some experts would predict earlier on. Hung Fu Tseng and team in Southern California report that since the onset of subvariants post the BA.1 period across America, overall vaccine effectiveness continues to diminish.
For example, they report that while the three-dose vaccine effectiveness of Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine against hospitalization was much higher than that against infection for all omicron subvariants assessed, the three-dose vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization for BA.2 and especially against hospitalization for BA.4/BA.5 markedly declined. The declining vaccine performance was even more pronounced for immunocompromised persons.
The team reports that the data indicate that the three-dose or four-dose effectiveness of mRNA-1273 against infection with omicron subvariants is “moderate and short-lived.” Still, protection against severe COVID-19 disease remains “robust,” but as a whole, TrialSite reminds us that accumulating data suggests the more the number of mRNA doses, for example, the greater the number of COVID-19 infections. Also, by August 2022, more fully vaccinated persons died from COVID-19 than the unvaccinated.
The Kaiser Permanente team emphasizes the criticality of ongoing evaluation of the bivalent booster vaccine against BA.4 and BA.5, for example.
Limitations
The study authors report on multiple limitations, including the following:
The results of our test-negative case-control study may not be generalizable to people who are not tested for SARS-CoV-2, including those with milder symptoms who may not seek testing in healthcare settings
There are several risk factors for infections or severe outcomes that may be associated with both testing and vaccination that could introduce bias, for example, mask use, social distancing, and hygiene practices (they try to mitigate by adjustments to the model)
Changing subvariants may be accompanied by changes in other factors over time (e.g., non-pharmacologic interventions, antiviral medication availability, etc. which can impact the comparison of vaccine effectiveness across the subvariants.
Missing data in the form of at-home positive rapid antigen test results not reported
Possible misclassification of test-positive cases and test-negative controls can introduce bias
Statistical power might be insufficient for testing vaccine effectiveness against some subvariants that have lower numbers of cases which leads o wide confidence intervals for some vaccine effectiveness estimates
About Kaiser Permanente Southern California
The Department of Research & Evaluation at Kaiser Permanente Southern California represents an embedded research unit within the large health system. Focusing on innovative translational research with a goal of positively impacting the health of their members and the general population. They represent a sophisticated research operation with access to rich real-world data
-
Bivalent Covid-19 Vaccines — A Cautionary Tale
List of authors.
Paul A. Offit, M.D.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2215780
On October 24, 2022, David Ho and colleagues released the results of a study examining levels of neutralizing antibodies against BA.4 and BA.5 after receipt of a monovalent or bivalent booster dose. They found “no significant difference in neutralization of any SARS-CoV-2 variant,” including BA.4 and BA.5, between the two groups.3 One day later, Dan Barouch and colleagues released the results of a similar study, finding that “BA.5 [neutralizing-antibody] titers were comparable following monovalent and bivalent mRNA boosters.” Barouch and colleagues also noted no appreciable differences in CD4+ or CD8+ T-cell responses between participants in the monovalent-booster group and those in the bivalent-booster group.4 Neither research group found the bivalent boosters to elicit superior immune responses. The results are now published in the Journal.
-
yesterday both the CDC and the FDA rexported a signal in the data pointing towards stroke associated with the jab. Today they have begun circling the wagons. Pure propoganda from the New York Times!!!
No Increased Stroke Risk Linked to Pfizer’s Covid Boosters, Federal Officials Say
An uptick hinted at in surveillance data was a mirage, the officials said
No Increased Stroke Risk Linked to Pfizer’s Covid Boosters, Federal Officials SayAn uptick hinted at in surveillance data was a mirage, the officials said.www.nytimes.com -
New York Times!!!
The FM/JF mafia flagship. You should simple ignore this crappy opinion paper... Unluckily they just do what all other (99% of all existing ones) mafia controlled big newspapers do: Help to generate money = fighting dumb people as since ancient times.
-
Interview to Japanese Medical Doctor Masanori Fukushima after hid videos questioning a Government official about the Japanese Covid-19 policy went viral on the web.
“Unprecedented Vaccine Disaster”: An Interview with Professor Masanori Fukushima – The Daily ScepticProfessor Masanori Fukushima, a Japanese infectious diseases expert, describes the mRNA Covid vaccines as an “unprecedented disaster” in an exclusive interview…dailysceptic.org
