by Eva Bartlett

Eva Bartlett is a Canadian independent journalist and activist. She has spent years on the ground covering conflict zones in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Palestine (where she lived for nearly four years). Follow her on Twitter @EvaKBartlett

Like many people around the world, as of mid-2021, I have had to come to terms with the sordid likelihood that the only way I will ever see my family again is online.

My country, Canada, has chosen to implement increasingly draconian and frankly unscientific policies in the name of ‘protecting’ people. What Canadian authorities are really doing is ensuring an uptake of the experimental jabs. Don’t want to take them? No worries, but you’re not welcome in Canada.

Recently, my RT colleague, Rachel Marsden, described her anguish at being forced to turn away from her country and family because Canada has decided it is the ‘science police’ and has decided which ‘science’ matters.

She wrote, “I committed the apparent violation of trying to re-enter my own country with proof of naturally acquired Covid-19 antibodies made by my own immune system post-recovery rather than those generated by the manmade Covid-19 vaccine about which much is still to be learned.” She noted that even her doctor had advised her against vaccination. But, for Canada, that is apparently irrelevant.

In an email, she explained that Canadian customs demand a positive PCR test taken more than two weeks ago and less than three months ago as proof of having had Covid, thus having immunity.

In her case, she didn’t have that positive PCR test because she didn’t notice symptoms at the time.

“Instead, my immunity was confirmed post-recovery via two laboratory tests for Covid antibodies taken nearly 5 months apart and proving that my Covid antibody levels are significant and also haven’t budged at all between the two tests. My doctor certified this result last month in a note with the heading, ‘Covid immunity certificate’.”

Marsden was ordered to comply with a three-day stay at one of Canada’s Covid internment hotels, costing roughly Can$2,000, plus two weeks’ quarantine. The other two options were to pay a roughly $6,000 fine if she simply walked out of the airport, or to book a flight back out of Canada – the cheapest option.

The anti-science aspect of Canada’s policies in refusing her natural immunity indicates that Canada is more interested in pushing vaccinations than public health.

And, as she wrote, “The Canadian government, by behaving in this manner, is routinely criminalizing those with Covid antibodies that are not derived from a manufactured experimental vaccine.”

Why I might never be able to return to Canada

When all of this started early last year, I had just left Canada for what I thought would be a maximum two-month absence. That has turned into over a year and a half. Perhaps at Christmas I could have tried to return for a visit. But with Ontario (winner of the longest lockdown) so unpredictable, I was dissuaded by the thought of getting stuck there.

Six months prior, I had given up my apartment and had my belongings put into storage. Being stuck in Ontario would have meant a whole slew of logistical problems. So, I opted to wait, hoping the lockdowns and quarantines would be lifted for a future visit.

That was my decision and I’ll have to live with it, and the realization that maybe I could have visited and seen my mother once more, but now I don’t see how that is going to be possible, the way Canada is heading.

Recently, travellers coming to Canada have been required, by law, to be vaccinated, which I have no intention of doing. My immune system is excellent. I spent half of last year walking around Damascus, including in extremely crowded marketplaces where there was no physical distancing and few masks. I did not get sick, and as such I am completely confident my own body could fight off Covid.

On the other hand, let’s assume I was exposed to Covid but did not suffer symptoms. According to Canada’s logic, and Rachel’s experience, my natural immunity would be void, because I did not obsessively get PCR tests every week in case I was positive (never mind that the test can give false positives).

Were I to be vaccinated, it would be with Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine. And although Sputnik V has been approved for use in 69 states and territories, Canada does not accept it, instead pushing Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson. I have no intention of taking any of those anytime soon, for good reason. My choice is not about being anti-vaccines, it is about being properly informed on the potentially serious risks the rushed experimental jabs being pushed on Canadians could pose.

Even the CBC reported on Canadians who are concerned about safety and side effects of vaccines, particularly the long term effects of the mRNA Covid shots, as they haven’t been put through years-long clinical trials. Pfizer, for example, hasn’t even been fully okayed by the US Food and Drug Administration. A point not emphasized enough, but which CBC inadvertently shed light on with its inclusion of a particular photo in its article, is the exemption vaccine makers have from liability.

We also learned in early August, according to the CDC, “Covid-19 vaccines no longer prevent transmission.” In Iceland, four out of five in intensive care for Covid-19 are fully injected. And around the world, there are examples of adverse reactions, injuries, and deaths post-jab that could at the very least give pause to many people, were these reactions covered in media in the same hysterical way everything else to do with Covid has been.

As reported (via data released by the CDC), “411,931 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID vaccines, including 6,985 deaths and 34,065 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020 and June 25, 2021.” This doesn’t mean that everyone who gets the jab will experience side-effects, but some will, and wishing to avoid that risk is a choice I should be free to make.

Furthermore, we have incessantly been told to “trust the science,” but one doesn’t need to be an ‘anti-vaxxer’ to see the way government scientists have been elevated to the status of secular bishops, and those who disagree with them are spurned like heretics, and be a tad suspicious that their convictions might not be as indisputable as they claim. There are numerous experts speaking out against the experimental jabs, including epidemiologists, immunologists, virologists, vaccine researchers, and even the former vice president of Pfizer.

Those are enough reasons and concerns for me to make the decision to not take the jabs but, in a sane world, my refusal to take a vaccine for a disease with a 99% survival rate should not bar me from the country in which I was born and raised. None of this is to say that anyone who wants to take the vaccine shouldn’t do so, but whatever happened to “my body, my choice?”

via Daily Expose UK

Covid-19 has disproportionately affected the elderly and vulnerable with other underlying conditions, and data shows that the risk of death due to Covid-19 ranges from miniscule to negligible for the under 50’s prior to the availability of a Covid-19 injection. This makes the latest Public Health England data on Covid-19 extremely concerning, because it shows the risk of death for people under the age of 50 due to Covid-19 increases if they have been fully vaccinated.

Public Health England have been periodically releasing a report on Covid-19 variants of concern in the United Kingdom, and their latest report was released on the 6th August covering data on cases, hospitalisations, and deaths due to the Delta Covid-19 variant from the 1st February up to the 2nd August 2021.

Table 5 of the report shows that within this time frame there have been 147,612 alleged confirmed cases of the Delta Covid-19 variant in the unvaccinated group of under 50’s, and 25,536 confirmed cases of the Delta variant in the fully vaccinated group of under 50’s.

The report also shows that in the same time frame 2,290 unvaccinated people under the age of 50 have presented to emergency care resulting in overnight inpatient admission, whilst 224 fully vaccinated people under the age of 50 have presented to emergency care resulting in overnight patient admission. However this data includes people who had a Covid-19 positive sample taken upon admission to hospital.

PHE’s report also shows that 48 unvaccinated people under the age of 50 have allegedly died due to Covid-19 since the 1st February up to the 2nd August 2021, whilst 13 fully vaccinated people under the age of 50 have allegedly died due to Covid-19 in the same time frame.

At first glance these numbers may make you believe that the Covid-19 injections are working, but when you analyse the number of deaths against the number of hospitalisations and cases in each group they tell a completely different story.

Out of 147,612 alleged confirmed cases of the Delta Covid-19 variant in the unvaccinated group of under 50’s there have been 48 deaths. This equates to 0.03% of all cases in the unvaccinated under 50’s resulting in death.

However, out of 25,536 confirmed cases of the Delta variant in the fully vaccinated group of under 50’s there have been 13 deaths. This equates to 0.05% of all cases in the fully vaccinated under 50’s resulting in death.

That means the relative risk of death due to Covid-19, if under the age of 50, fully vaccinated, and then infected with Covid-19, increases by 66.66%. Not the 95% claimed by the Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers, the Government, and the scientisists it employs. But the risk of death is actually even worse for those unlucky enough to end up in hospital.

Out of 2,290 unvaccinated people under the age of 50 who have presented to emergency care resulting in overnight inpatient admission, there have been 48 deaths. This equates to 2.09% of all hospitalisations in the unvaccinated under 50’s resulting in death.

However, out of 224 fully vaccinated people under the age of 50 who have presented to emergency care resulting in overnight patient admission, their have been 13 deaths. This equated to 5.8% of all hospitalisations in the fully vaccinated under 50’s resulting in death.

This means the relative risk of death due to Covid-19, if under the age of 50, fully vaccinated, and then hospitalised with Covid-19 increases by 177.5%.

Some of you may argue that the fact the hospitalisations include those who have a positive sample taken after being admitted to hospital, makes the data unreliable. Luckily, Public Health England also provide us with the data on hospital admissions that excludes those who had not tested positive prior to admission to hospital.

Out of 1,443 unvaccinated people under the age of 50 who have presented to emergency care resulting in overnight inpatient admission, there have been 48 deaths. This equates to 3.3% of all hospitalisations in the unvaccinated under 50’s resulting in death.

However, out of 153 fully vaccinated people under the age of 50 who have presented to emergency care resulting in overnight patient admission, their have been 13 deaths. This equated to 8.5% of all hospitalisations in the fully vaccinated under 50’s resulting in death.

This means the relative risk of death due to Covid-19, if under the age of 50, fully vaccinated, and then hospitalised with Covid-19 increases by 157.5%.

Whichever way you look at it the data shows that the Covid-19 injections are increasing the risk of death due to Covid-19 in people under 50 by a significant amount.

via ZeroHedge

In one of the most appalling examples of Big Tech silencing scientists who refuse to withhold their criticisms of the mRNA technology behind the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccines, Dr. Robert Malone, a pioneer who helped develop mRNA vaccine technology, saw the credit for his contribution to medicine effectively erased from the Internet by Wikipedia after he raised concerns about potential long-term autoimmune issues and other complications potentially arising from mRNA jabs.

He has also shared other medical heresies, including the possibility that ‘imperfect’ vaccines might actually help foster more virulent COVID variants due to a phenomenon called ‘ADE’ – antibody-dependent enhancement. Essentially, what doesn’t kill the virus makes it stronger. In retaliation for sharing these views, Dr. Malone was ridiculed by colleagues as a conspiracist and an “anti-vaxxer”.

Dr. Malone

But earlier this week, Dr. Malone saw his views subtly vindicated by an unexpected source: a British scientist and academic named Professor Sir Andrew Pollard, who is the director of the Oxford Vaccine Group. During a briefing, Sir Pollard warned Parliament that the UK likely won’t ever achieve herd immunity, thanks to the delta variant.

In remarks that risked undermining the government’s vaccination campaign, Sir Pollard, a professor of pediatric infection and immunity, warned Parliament on Tuesday that achieving herd immunity is likely “not a possibility” thanks to variants like delta. Recently, a group of scientists estimated that the threshold for herd immunity might now be as high as 90% due to the delta variant. According to Pollard, we’re learning for the first time that herd immunity is magical thinking – and has always been magical thinking.

Since those who are vaccinated can still be infected by variants, “there is virtually nothing the UK can do” to eradicate COVID completely.

“We know very clearly with coronavirus that this current variant, the Delta variant, will still infect people who have been vaccinated, and that does mean that anyone who’s still unvaccinated, at some point, will meet the virus,” Pollard said.

He said it was unlikely that herd immunity will ever be reached, saying the next variant of the novel coronavirus will be “perhaps even better at transmitting in vaccinated populations.”

Pollard also shared what sounded like a subtle criticism of masks by saying that “We don’t have anything which will stop that transmission to other people.” As an example, he pointed to Israel, which saw new cases and hospitalizations nearly disappear before the new variant took hold, causing cases and hospitalizations to surge once again. Now, there have even been a handful of patients who have tested positive even after receiving their third dose of the Pfizer jab (which the US has only just approved for a third dose as well).

Dr. Malone, meanwhile, celebrated Sir Pollard’s comments as vindication.

As I have been saying. The “Noble Lie” is being revealed step by step. https://t.co/xDv8nvsm0A

— Robert W Malone, MD (@RWMaloneMD) August 10, 2021

This is what external validation looks and sounds like.
Now, watch carefully for how long it takes until Dr. Fauci and the USG/CDC get on board the bus.

— Robert W Malone, MD (@RWMaloneMD) August 10, 2021

For context, Dr. Malone tweeted back in June that herd immunity targets were effectively useless.

U.S. Federal Government Doesn’t Possess the Data to Calculate Transmissibility & Thus No Vaccination Target Can Foretell ‘Herd Immunity’https://t.co/ZktdsXx1hF

— Robert W Malone, MD (@RWMaloneMD) June 25, 2021

Even the White House is finally acknowledging that vaccines aren’t nearly as effective as they once believed, which is why the FDA has decided to approve the third dose. “I think everybody believes this wanes over time, the question is to what extent,” a senior Biden official told Axios. “Nobody wants to be behind the eight-ball here. We want to catch it before there’s an issue, and that’s why there is very intense scrutiny.”

Remember, not only can the vaccinated be sickened by “breakthrough” infections, but they can also pass the virus on to others (including others who are vaccinated). And the more the virus spreads, the more likely a vaccine-resistant variant is to emerge.

A new preprint study has shown that both the Pfizer and Moderna coronavirus vaccines are much less effective against the fast-spreading Delta variant, a fact a White House official has said is a wake-up call.

The Mayo Clinic study showed that the Pfizer vaccine was only 42% effective against Covid-19 in July, a month when health officials repeatedly warned the public that the Delta variant was more transmittable and leading to rapid rises in cases.

The Moderna vaccine, on the other hand, was found to be 76% effective in protecting from the virus that same month.

Those numbers are fairly significant drop-offs from the rest of the year. Comparing the effectiveness of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines from January to July, their overall efficacy was 86% and 76%, respectively.

In terms of hospitalizations, both were more reliable, with Moderna being 92% effective at preventing severe cases requiring hospitalization from coronavirus, while Pfizer was 85% effective.

effective.

Comparing numbers from multiple states, including Florida and Minnesota, the data consistently showed that Moderna likely presents less of a risk of a breakthrough infection.

Venky Soundararajan, a lead author of the study, said that the results show that both the stronger Delta variant and a reduction in long-term effectiveness are “both factors” behind the lower numbers.

“The Moderna vaccine is likely – very likely – more effective than the Pfizer vaccine in areas where Delta is the dominant strain, and the Pfizer vaccine appears to have a lower durability of effectiveness,” Soundararajan said, according to Axios.

The new study has yet to be peer reviewed, but the team behind the research is already reportedly working on a followup study that will more specifically look at the durability of the vaccines against the Delta variant.

The surprising study trended on social media on Thursday, with many people expressing shock, using the results to question the effectiveness of the vaccines and suggesting acquiring “natural immunity” was a better option.

Even officials in President Joe Biden’s administration are reportedly worried about the study. One unidentified “senior Biden official” told Axios the results are a wake-up call.

“If that’s not a wakeup call, I don’t know what is,” they said.

Concerns about the long-term effectiveness of coronavirus vaccines have mounted in recent weeks as health officials have repeatedly warned about a potential surge of cases in the fall.

White House medical advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci has said booster shots will likely be required for the already vaccinated soon enough.

“It’s likely that that will happen at some time in the future,” Fauci told ‘CBS This Morning’ on Thursday. “We’re already starting to see indications in some sectors about a diminution over time, that’s durability.”

He added that booster shots will likely only be needed in the short-term future for the “immune compromised.”

by Gary D. Barnett via Lew Rockwell

“It is incredible that this must be said, but the obvious seems to escape politicized academics, so we must state the obvious: Genocide is deliberate; it is premeditated. There is no genocide without premeditation. The murders are not unfortunate coincidences. This is why it is called “mass MURDER” and not “mass MANSLAUGHTER.” ~ A.E. Samaan

R.J. Rummel, a researcher and political scientist, defined the term “democide” as “the murder of any person or people by their government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder.” According to Rummel, democide passed war as the leading cause of non-natural death in the 20th Century, and moving into the 21st Century, it not only shows no signs of stopping, it seems to be the desired and planned manner of death of hundreds of millions or even billions of innocent people around the world. In the U.S today, democide has only just begun, as this ‘Covid’ plot orchestrated by the ruling master class and this government continues in its efforts to cull the American population so as to advance the agendas of disease, eugenics, and death. This is being done simply to achieve total control over the masses.

This would seem to be no easy task, but so far, there has been almost no resistance to the government’s efforts to propagandize, threaten, and then subdue the bulk of people that make up what should now be referred to as the American herd. Because of this apathetic response to tyranny by the people of this country, this economy has been devastated, jobs and the ability to provide sustenance have been greatly reduced, restrictions of life and freedom have massively increased, price inflation is rampant, the controlling political and medical protocols have already proven to be deadly beyond the scope of the imagination of any sane person, and this is only a preview of what is to come.

Although many people have been sick and have died, some with unique but unexplained symptoms, the total numbers of deaths throughout 2020 remained normal. There are many factors involved of course, although logic was disappeared long ago, but no such thing described as SARS-CoV-2 or ‘Covid-19’ has ever once been properly isolated or shown to actually exist. This should be very troubling to all, and reason enough to immediately put down this fake pandemic and expose the staged government coup that was intentionally launched early last year.

This staged ‘pandemic’ has been planned for at least two decades or more. It has been simulated and acted out, almost exactly as has happened, on multiple occasions over this timeframe, and previous attempts with very similar plots have taken place for decades with flu, SARS, Swine Flu, Ebola, MERS, and other falsely claimed viral scares. But this time is different in that the people are ripe for control and takeover, and modern technology can now spread propaganda to every household in seconds, giving the government and mainstream media the tools to create instant fear, panic, and mass obedience to illegal draconian mandates.

But let us in this conversation discuss the aspect of the existing and coming premeditated murder of innocents by this governing system; the possible planned democide of millions of citizens, especially those that are considered to be a drain on the system such as the old and infirmed, those with limited mental capacity, those with disabilities, those of certain ethnic backgrounds, and all those that question, dissent, disobey, and expose the truth about what is really happening in this plotted takeover. In addition, efforts to destroy fertility, to depopulate the earth, and to inject every single child from infancy to adult with deadly poison is underway as well. Make no mistake, this is war against the people by government.

Consider the fact that remdesivir, an experimental drug, was fast-tracked as the “standard of care” for ‘Covid’ early on by Anthony Fauci, and was originally the only approved ‘Covid” treatment for American hospitals, even though this drug does not work against anything, and causes many adverse reactions, body organ failure, and a high incidence of death. “Remdesivir was one of four drugs in a clinical trial for Ebola in 2018, and was dropped from the study before it was over, after a safety review revealed that it had the highest death rate of the drugs being tested.” One of only two studies cited by Fauci for the recommended use of this toxic drug was the Ebola Trial in 2018, and in that trial, the manufacturer, Gilead Sciences, only tested 53 patients for just 28 days. Gilead had close ties, monetary interests, and partnership with the CDC and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), headed up by Fauci.

In Gilead’s cohort study, they reported “that of 61 patients treated with the drug, eight were excluded for missing information, 32 (60%) of 53 remaining patients reported adverse events including increased liver enzymes, diarrhea, rash, and kidney function impairment. Twelve patients (23%) had “serious” adverse events including multiple-organ-dysfunction syndrome, septic shock, acute kidney injury, and hypotension (low blood pressure).”

In the second Ebola study, after results from the first 499 participants had been reviewed, the trial’s safety monitors recommended that two drugs—ZMapp and remdesivir—be dropped from the remainder of the trial. These two drugs were much less effective at preventing death.

Overall, about 50% of people who received either Zmapp or remdesivir died during the trial. In contrast, only about 35% of people who received either Mab114 or REGN-EB3 died. Three participants died of side effects thought to be related to treatment—two in the ZMapp group and one in the remdesivir group.

Fauci knew of the deadly nature of the poisonous remdesivir at least as early as 2018, but chose to use this dangerous drug with fast-track FDA approval in October of 2020 as the “standard of care,” and the primary treatment in all U.S. hospitals for all “Covid” patients. That means that American patients across this country were not treated, but murdered.

The secondary drug being used as a stand-alone and in combination with remdesivir is another deadly experimental corticosteroid called dexamethasone. According to eHealthMe, “Death is found among people who take Dexamethasone, especially for people who are male, 60+ old, have been taking the drug for < 1 month.”

According to the National Institute of Health (NIH), “in recovery, treatment with dexamethasone conferred a “survival benefit” among participants who required supplemental oxygen at enrollment. In the dexamethasone group, 23.3% of participants died within 28 days of enrollment.”

In addition, I have written about another toxin called graphene oxide, that has been said to be in some masks, PCR testing, and shown to be in heavy concentrations in certain injections falsely called “Covid vaccines.’ This is a deadly substance purposely being used in order to harm those that have been subject to its exposure from any of these methods. Again, this is the purposeful use of a poison that has the ability to greatly harm the public, and also cause death.

Then of course there are these very poisonous ‘Covid vaccines’ that are not vaccines at all, but simply bioweapons being used by the state and the pharmaceutical monsters to cause extreme sickness, to inject toxic material into the masses, to cause body and immune system harm and destruction, and death to many. It is also a way for the state thugs to gain control over much of the population through processes of gene-altering RNA/DNA manipulation, nano-particle insertion, and to gain bio-technological mastery over the minds and bodies of much of the American public.

Sickness, mayhem, medical martial law, economic destruction, censorship, extreme wealth transfer to the richest among us, and death have been the result of all the state’s orders, mandates, restrictions, regulations, and ‘Covid’ rules. This is no pandemic, it is a long-planned coup meant as war against all of society. It is the plot of eugenicists and murderers whose intent is to depopulate the earth, while building a society made up of slaves controlled by a technocratic master class.

This absurd phenomenon is only possible because of the collective madness of the masses, and their inability to grasp the truth and then act accordingly to stop this onslaught of murder by the state. In other words, the people are their own worst enemy.

The truth is much more powerful and compelling than fiction, so find and accept truth, ridicule the rulers, accept no assault on freedom, disobey every state mandate, and avoid all dangerous attempts of division and isolation sought by the totalitarians bent on gaining total control of society.

“Isolation and the patient repetition of stimuli are required to tame wild animals … The totalitarians have followed this rule. They know that they can condition their political victims most quickly if they are kept in isolation.” Joost A. M. Meerloo—“The Rape of the Mind” (1956)

Additional source links:

The CDC and FDA confess: They had no virus

Death by remdesivir

Depopulation by any means

NIH Covid-19 treatment guidelines

Efficacy Evaluation of Early, Low-Dose, Short-Term Corticosteroids in Adults Hospitalized with Non-Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Remdesivir, a ‘Covid’ Drug that doesn’t work

Propaganda fabrications

Did Fauci knowingly fast-track approval of drug with deadly COVID-like side effects?

by Vasko Kohlmayer via Lew Rockwell

“Pfizer and BioNTech’s Covid-19 vaccine is just 39% effective in Israel where the delta variant is the dominant strain according to a new report from the country’s Health Ministry” we read in a CNBC report. Astonishment is one’s first reaction when coming across this piece of information, since it was not so long ago the vaccine manufacturers claimed their products were 92 to 98 percent effective.

The manufacturers’ initial claims, however, have been steadily revised down as real-world data has been coming in. In March of this year news came from South Africa that “AstraZeneca vaccine doesn’t prevent B1351 Covid.” A couple of months later, the Hill ran a piece by a Baylor School of Medicine virologist who observed:

“A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine provides only 51 percent protection against B.1.351 of South Africa.”

Just a couple of weeks ago, we learned that recipients of the Sinovac Biotech’s vaccine have no antibodies after six months. This effectually means that merely half a year after being injected into people’s bodies the vaccine has zero percent efficacy in protecting against Covid-19.

Even factoring for the variants, the hard data makes it quite clear that the initial claims of vaccine effectiveness were greatly exaggerated. This, of course, comes as no surprise to anyone familiar with the dynamic of the pharma industry. Drug manufacturers tend to wildly overstate the efficacy of their products, while doing their very best to understate their side effects. It is for this purpose they conduct trials that are manipulated to obtain the results they wish for. Sadly, they too often get away with it because of the corruption of the system by what is called regulatory capture. This is why the outcomes of manufacturers’ trials are almost never replicated by independent trials or real-world data.

This is what has apparently happened with the Covid vaccines. The manufacturers used the sense of emergency brought on by the pandemic to conduct rushed and incomplete trials which were designed to yield the results they wanted to see. There is every reason to believe that the effectiveness of their injections was nowhere close to the 92-98% range they initially claimed even for the variants that were in circulation at that time.

Needless to say, one has a strong suspicion that even the meagre 39 percent figure is still overstated. This would only be natural, since everyone involved in the vaccination enterprise – the manufacturers, politicians, regulators, the medical establishment and corporate scientists – is trying their best to save face and reputation in the face of this fiasco. Bad though the data is, we can be quite sure that it has been massaged to soften the blow.

You can clearly observe this tendency at work in the CNBC piece which claims that even though Pfizer is only 39 percent effective, it still protects against serious disease. But this is simply not true, which you can easily see if you take the trouble to look into the data put out by the Israeli government. At roughly the same time that CNBC filed its report, the Israeli Ministry of Health published a bulletin which reported on Covid cases in the country. According to their data, there were 137 serious cases in Israel of which 95 were fully vaccinated and 42 unvaccinated or partially vaccinated (see here and here). In other words, the bulk of the serious cases was comprised of those who had received their shots. If the vaccine was as effective in protecting against heavy illness as the article claims, the numbers would look completely different. The figures published by the Israeli Ministry of Health shows that the claims of Pfizer’s efficacy of protecting against serious Covid are simply untrue.

This has been confirmed by the testimony of Dr Kobi Haviv, Director of Herzog Hospital in Jerusalem. In a recent TV interview, Dr Haviv stated that the fully vaccinated people account for about 90 percent of hospitalizations. Given that less than 90 percent of the Israeli population is fully vaccinated, it would appear that the vaccination not only does not prevent you from contracting the disease, but actually increases one’s chances of becoming a serious Covid case. Observes Dr Haviv: “yes, unfortunately, the vaccine… as they say, its effectiveness is waning.” And so it is, indeed. Dr Haviv’s interview is on YouTube so you can hear the truth straight from his mouth. It will be interesting to see how long it will take for the Establishment Censors to take it down.

by Robert Bridge

Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist. He is the author of ‘Midnight in the American Empire,’ How Corporations and Their Political Servants are Destroying the American Dream. @Robert_Bridge

A general view of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) headquarters in Atlanta © Reuters

As a number of politicians push for ‘vaccine passports’ amid fears that a new brand of medical apartheid is coming, a re-surfaced CDC publication advocating internment camps for the ‘high-risk’ has some people fearing the worst.

Last year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a paper that floated the totally not suspicious idea of relocating “high-risk” individuals into green zone “camps.” While the proposal didn’t attract much attention at the time, as draconian anti-Covid measures are beginning to ramp up, and basic human rights and liberties are coming under attack, the document has attracted newfound attention. And not without reason, it seems.

The very first line of the document discusses the implementation of a “shielding approach in humanitarian settings… focused on camps, displaced populations and low-resource settings.” Essentially, and this will be important later on, ‘humanitarian settings’ is just another way of saying ‘camps’. Many people are quick to associate the idea of camps with the containment of refugees, for example, or illegal aliens who have breached the border. Yet the only time the word ‘refugee’ is mentioned in the paper is in reference to a camp in Kenya. At the same time, ‘camp’ and ‘camps’ are referred to about 20 times.

There is another ambiguous thing about this document, and that involves its description of “high-risk” individuals and the “general population.”

The paper reads: “In most humanitarian settings [i.e. camps], older population groups make up a small percentage of the total population. For this reason, the shielding approach suggests physically separating high-risk individuals from the general population to prioritize the use of the limited available resources and avoid implementing long-term containment measures among the general population.”

In other words, the CDC is saying that older people being held in camps (humanitarian settings), because they are in the ‘high-risk’ category, should be separated from the ‘general population’ in these facilities so as to reduce the ‘containment measures’. OK, fine. But the document never explains who makes up the general population inside the camps, and why these ‘low-risk’ individuals are being held in these humanitarian ‘green zones’ in the first place.

Either due to a careless lack of clarity or deliberate deceptiveness on the part of the CDC, it is not difficult to see how some people could interpret the inclusion of high-risk groups into these ‘humanitarian settings’ to mean the unvaccinated. But even if there is no evil intent to intern the anti-vax crowd in camps, the conditions set down for these humanitarian settings leave much to be desired. Indeed, to be avoided at all costs.

In one passage, it is stated that “monitoring includes both adherence to protocols and potential adverse effects or outcomes due to isolation and stigma. It may be necessary to assign someone within the green zone, if feasible, to minimize movement in/out of green zones.”

Would that ‘someone’ by any chance be the local police or even the US military? The document offers no clues. However, several lines later, the CDC advises that “isolation/separation from family members, loss of freedom and personal interactions may require additional psychosocial support structures/systems.”

Admitting that confinement in these settings would entail “the loss of freedom and personal interactions” strongly suggests that these individuals are being held in these facilities against their will. In fact, reading through the document, one might get the impression the CDC is talking about a maximum-security prison for the criminally insane.

Anyone who thinks being detained in one of these facilities for the ‘high-risk’ would be all fun and games may wish to take particular heed from this line, which warns: “this shielding approach may have an important psychological impact and may lead to significant emotional distress, exacerbate existing mental illness or contribute to anxiety, depression, helplessness, grief, substance abuse, or thoughts of suicide among those who are separated or have been left behind.”

Left behind? Left behind from what, exactly? The Rapture?

Finally, the authors of this document seem fully aware that their warm and cuddly humanitarian setting, which seems to more resemble a gulag than a health retreat, will not be welcomed by all members of the general population. Gee, I wonder why.

“While the shielding approach is not meant to be coercive, it may appear forced or be misunderstood in humanitarian settings,” advises the CDC, which appears overly concerned about public perceptions. “As with many community interventions meant to decrease COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, compliance and behavior change… are difficult in developed, stable settings; thus, they may be particularly challenging in humanitarian settings which bring their own set of multi-faceted challenges that need to be taken into account.”

The CDC paper references heavily from a March 2020 study authored by one Caroline Favas, entitled ‘Guidance for the Prevention of COVID-19 Infections among High-Risk Individuals in Camps and Camp-like Settings.’ Once again, any hope for clarity is dashed, as this paper, which mentions the words ‘camp’ and ‘camps’ 73 times, is written for “the displaced community itself, humanitarian actors and camp coordination/management authorities.” Few details are given as to who the ‘displaced community’ may be.

(Note: The Favas study provides a broad definition of ‘camp’ or ‘camp-like settings’ as “forcibly displaced population, including refugees and internally displaced living in high density formal or unformal settlements, under collective or individual shelters”).

What follows in the Favas study, which was published by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, occasionally comes off as one of those jargon-riddled medical tracts that are almost as painful to read as a doctor’s handwritten medical prescription. Yet, just as with the CDC paper, the Favas study is crystal clear when it acknowledges that these camps will be viewed negatively by many members of the population.

“Conversely, it is likely that the approach will not be successful if it is perceived as coercive, misunderstood or used by authorities as a pretext for forms of oppression.”

So, who will get to determine who is at high risk of Covid infection and who is not? On this tricky point, Favas, as well as the CDC, wash their hands of the process, leaving it up to ‘community members’ to decide who should be detained in these ‘humanitarian settings’.

“Identification of high-risk community members should be a community-led process, which supports and promotes community ownership of the approach,” Favas avers. “The purpose of the shielding approach and the inclusion criteria should be clearly communicated and explained to the community, so that each household can identify who among them is at risk and should be shielded, on a voluntary basis.”

Favas provides some options for how the detainees could be isolated from their families and communities, none of them terribly comforting. The first involves providing a green zone at the household level. While it may not seem so bad keeping grandma confined to a back room, the author describes the “household shelter” as either a “single shelter” or a “multi-shelter compound.”

The next type of facility is a group of shelters (with maximum 5-10 households), within a small camp area.

Finally, there are the full blown “sector” camps that would accommodate 15,000 or more people. It would be difficult to imagine a camp of such scale that would not require a high police presence, as well as virtually all of the rules and regulations of a prison.

Many people would probably scoff at the thought of Covid camps, dismissing them as the fever dream of a ‘conspiracy theorist’. And perhaps they would be right. After all, just last month, the Associated Press debunked the claim floated in a satirical publication that Joe Biden was planning to send the unvaccinated to quarantine camps until they agreed to take the shot. Yet the increasingly befuddled US leader has made false claims in the past, like promising that Americans would be free from their mask bondage if they agreed to be vaccinated. That promise evaporated last month as the CDC backtracked, mandating mask wearing in places experiencing spikes in Covid levels, even among the vaccinated.

While some may find it irrelevant to discuss a paper that was released by the CDC last year, they may want to ask why the CDC and Caroline Favas were already discussing the possibility of ‘humanitarian settings’, i.e. camps for high-risk individuals, in early 2020, when the outbreak was still in its early stages. Some might say that was jumping the gun.

In any case, now that the CDC document has made a splash one year after its release, it would be a good time for an explanation regarding some of its more ambiguous and even outrageous suggestions. At a time when a feeling of general distrust and even paranoia of Covid measures is sweeping the globe, people need assurances that their real enemy is not the very people they elected to protect them.

by Chris Sweeney

Chris Sweeney is an author and columnist who has written for newspapers such as The Times, Daily Express, The Sun and Daily Record, along with several international-selling magazines. Follow him on Twitter @Writes_Sweeney

The organisation claims its numbers are growing as current and retired journalists join. Their ethos is that only one side of the Covid-19 story is reported and the government isn’t being questioned enough by the mainstream media.

A counterinsurgency is underway in the British media. Holding The Line is a group who bill themselves as ‘Journalists Against Covid Censorship’. They are not anti-vaxxers or Covid-deniers but do feel the mainstream media is only allowing certain themes and tropes to be reported. Most importantly, they are adamant that UK citizens have been manipulated and gaslighted by the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE).

One of HTL’s spokespeople, Sonia Elijah, said to RT.com: “Unfortunately, I feel the UK public have been part of a mass behavioural science experiment because these behavioural scientists know full well the power of fear. You can really control someone’s behaviour through fear.”

I feel fearmongering has really gone on in the media like the government’s Project Fear advertising campaign about if you leave your house people can die, and they did a Look Me In The Eyes campaign. If you look at the early meetings that SAGE did last year in the minutes, they did look to use the media to increase the sense of personal threat, so the media were used as a tool for fearmongering, that’s a fact.”

This fear and control is what Holding The Line wants to rally against.

Elijah said: “We feel there’s only been one official Covid narrative that has been pushed onto the public through the mainstream media. As journalists, our role is to present all the facts, not just select a few.”

Some members of the group are anonymous, for fear of losing their jobs but they are from a cross-section of the industry. The plan is to expand and begin to release their own content online to beat the censors. Elijah, an independent investigative reporter, witnessed the censorship first hand when YouTube removed a video of her interviewing Dr Robert Malone.

She explained: “I think I’m the only UK journalist to have done so as yet, he is a vaccine expert and the inventor of mRNA technology. He’s undergone systematic attacks; his whole profile is being erased online. I posted the interview on YouTube and within three hours it got taken down for violating their policy, there was nothing on it that was to do with any kind of conspiracy theory.

It was very fact driven, he was measured in his responses but because he mentioned people having adverse events from taking the vaccines, that was probably one of the reasons it got taken down. People working in the mainstream media have found a lot of their stories being blocked or censored, or just not getting published, it’s a problem.”

Holding The Line is particularly concerned with mixed messaging. Some attribute this to the changing demands of a global pandemic, but they feel there is also a more sinister reason.

Taking aim at England’s Deputy Chief Medical Officer Professor Jonathan Van-Tam, Elijah added: “When the pandemic first broke, he was saying over his 50 years, there has been no evidence of masks presenting any transmission of a virus and then they did a U-turn weeks later and mandated masks, so you’re getting this sort of flip-flopping happening. Journalists need to ask, why is this happening?

I covered the anti-lockdown protests that were hardly covered in the mainstream media in the early days and if they were covered by the BBC, they were covered as anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and they were a small group of a few thousand. When, in fact, I attended one of these protests and there were hundreds of thousands of people there from all different backgrounds.”

Virtually everyone concedes Britain has reacted ineptly to the pandemic, with over 130,000 dead but, according to Elijah, issues around testing go beyond naivety.

She took a look herself at the lateral flow tests that are being used by millions of Britons and made a startling discovery.

“These tests are produced in China by Xiamen Biotime Biotechnology, their original manufacturer,” she explained, “but they have been rebranded by Innova which is a US start-up company that has no background in any medical field and they were started up just around the time the pandemic started. They are wholly owned by Pasaca Capital which is a venture capital group funded by a US/Chinese billionaire.

The UK government has spent £3.2 billion in procurement and buying these tests. The Innova lateral test was then rebranded by the NHS, school children were given these kits and they were branded as NHS but this is the history behind it. They were proven to be highly inaccurate and very unreliable, they actually have false positive and false negative results.”

Due to issues around the tests, in June the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) urged Americans to stop using them. They advised the population to place “them in the trash” or return them to Innova. Elijah added: “Our equivalent in the UK, the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) ignored what had happened in the US and have continued to extend their emergency authorisation use for these tests. They are saying they have done their assessment and are satisfied, but they’re not publishing their findings, so they’re not being forthcoming. There are so many scandals and the people who have benefitted from these contracts have made billions.”

Pertinently that’s what Elijah thinks is behind a lot of the perceived Covid censorship: money. With many media companies struggling financially, they are clinging even harder to the backers. For example, Rupert Murdoch’s successful tabloid The Sun (once the biggest selling British newspaper) was recently given a value of zero, after Covid-19 contributed to a £200 million loss.

Elijah explained: “You have to look at who funds the mainstream media, the amount of advertising revenue they make, their sponsors, and a lot of them don’t want to bite the hand that feeds them. The independent platforms have the freedom to tell the whole story, they are not being restrained whereas in the mainstream media, you have to follow the money.

There is sort of a war on information going on right now, it’s a shame for journalists to be gagged in a way. We need to level the playing field. We are promoting best journalistic practice as a group and we feel there needs to be more room for a balanced debate, that’s what has been sorely missing in this whole Covid world.”

Other themes that Holding The Line say have been omitted from mainstream platforms are the Great Barrington Declaration and the drug Ivermectin as a way to fight Covid-19, which the FDA strongly advises against. It is true many issues haven’t received widespread coverage, but some journalists attribute this to research or facts that don’t merit the spotlight. Different platforms will choose what to run, it’s not feasible to report every possible story but professional balance is essential.

Elijah added: “It’s the way people are being coerced that I think is a bit troubling and there hasn’t been enough questioning behind that. Even the lab leak theory which has been discussed in the mainstream media, six months ago that would never have been discussed. The public are hungry to know what’s really going on.”