02-23-2022, 12:45 AM
A few recent articles from https://stevekirsch.substack.com
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/its-t...e-mandates
https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1...x1800.jpeg
I am not alone in calling for the end of the mandates.
First, most important of all, the virus itself is calling for an end to the mandates:
https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1...02x530.png
Here are some others calling for the end to the mandates:
Jan 24: Scott Gottleib
Jan 23: Risch et al.
Jan 25: Alex Berenson:
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/148...mp4?tag=12
Countries ending mandates:
Denmark recently announced that starting February 1, it will drop all mandates for vaccinations and face masks.
Boris Johnson recently declared an end to the COVID restrictions in the UK. He said, “We will trust the judgment of the English people.”
Why can’t we do that in the US? Isn’t it time to trust the judgment of the American people?
Whether you ask a red or blue pill person, it’s clear that both sides have compelling rationales to end the mandates and the State of Emergency.
Interestingly, the rationale for each side is completely different, but the conclusion is the same.
Here’s how they stack up.
Blue pill rationale
We don’t need mandates for the vaccine or masks because we know they work. No need to sell us! Mandate or not, we will comply.
We no longer fear those who are not compliant: we are all boosted up the wazoo using safe and effective vaccines with virtually no side effects AND we are wearing N95 or P100 masks at all times. And we always stay 6 feet from any other person. So there is basically no way to infect us.
We have nothing to fear. Virtually none of us will be hospitalized, and none of us risk death. And the prevalence of Omicron makes our risk even lower.
We think people who are not compliant are evil and deserve to die. Why force them to take life-saving medical interventions? We are better off as a society if these people are gone. Permanently.
We trust our doctors to deliver quality medical advice. Our doctors always follow the CDC guidance which has been uniformly excellent. We all should be treated the same, no matter what our medical histories are. If the doctors follow the CDC guidelines, almost nobody dies. All the hospitals are filled with unvaccinated people.
Just to be safe, we test ourselves every day using antigen tests for COVID. If we have a positive test result, we now have two new safe and effective drugs from the most trusted drug companies in the world so that in the rare chance that we get COVID, we can treat it with nearly 100% success.
Note: Many blue pill people still are unsafe after being triply vaxed and doubly masked. This is why it’s critically important to let them know about the P-100 respirator. This face covering gives them 150X protection over what they had before so that they have nothing at all to fear from anyone. Problem solved. Nobody can put them at risk. The burden is thus placed on those people who don’t believe in science.
However, they can still believe they are at risk. Anyone who feels at risk can simply quarantine at home and have no human contact. That would be safest for them.
We cannot build new quarantine facilities for those who fear being infected because even remote Antarctica stations where everyone is tested still develop COVID.
Red pill rationale
The vaccines are unsafe. They don’t work against Omicron. Mandating a vaccine which has just downsides for people is insane.
Mandates aren’t needed because we won’t comply with them anyway. They just create division and animosity in society. They divide us.
We don’t fear the vaccinated.
Cloth, surgical, and N95 masks don’t work so why should we wear them? P100 masks do work, but they are pretty cumbersome and not worth the trouble for a COVID variant that can’t hurt us.
Social distancing is useless and doesn’t work. The 6 foot rule is not based on any science. Why isn’t it 5.2 feet? Nobody has seen the science justifying 6 feet so we aren’t going to comply with silly non-scientific rules.
The current COVID vaccines are more likely to kill people than save them. In the Pfizer trial, 24% more people died in the group taking the vaccine! So it’s clear. If the vaccines don’t kill us, they will actually make the pandemic worse because they depress our immune system making us twice as likely to be infected with COVID as well as susceptible to other diseases (like reoccurrence of cancer). They also cause serious side effects. They are the most dangerous vaccines in human history. There is no way we will take them. Mandating them is just going to piss us off and hurt the economy. You will not get us to take them.
Why would we take a drug that could kill us to prevent a variant that cannot? You’d have to be nuts. We will not comply so the mandates won’t make us.
The primary variant is Omicron which if it happened today, we’d just ignore it since it is like getting a cold.
If we get sick, we have very effective early treatment protocols using existing safe repurposed drugs like ivermectin, HCQ, aspirin, vitamin D, NAC, and Prozac. These protocols are 100% successful in preventing death from COVID when given early. We would never use Molnupiravir or Paxlovid; those drugs are both super dangerous.
We use symptoms to determine if we have COVID. If we are unsure, we can use antigen tests. There is no need to test if we aren’t symptomatic because we know there is virtually zero asymptomatic spread and because the antigen tests almost never work reliably unless you are symptomatic so it’s a complete waste of money to test asymptomatic people. The testing companies don’t want anyone to know that, but we do.
If we do get sick with COVID symptoms, we stay home and rest.
Even if we had a truly safe vaccine, those of us who are recovered from COVID wouldn’t need it. A uniform mandate for everyone makes no sense.
We believe doctors should be allowed to be doctors and that medical care should always be delivered by our healthcare professional we trust to use his professional judgement on our individual case. The CDC guidance is just awful.
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/how-r...de-effects
How rare are vaccine side effects? Not very rare at all.
The CDC and Wall St. Journal both say serious side effects from the COVID vaccines are extremely rare. They are lying. But now we have unassailable proof from the Israeli government!
https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-va...1645266603
This article, by Wall Street Journal staff writer Jenny Strasburg (see Covid-19 Vaccines Were Deadly in Rare Cases. Governments Are Now Weighing Compensation) says:
Serious side effects so far have been very rare—estimated at roughly one to 11 per 100,000 doses for some of the more serious harmful reactions identified by regulators in the most-affected age groups, according to U.S. and European government officials and researchers. They include blood clotting, nervous-system disorders and heart problems, all of which also can be caused by Covid itself.
Similarly, a story in The Epoch Times entitled “US Agencies Quietly Studying Reports of Post-Vaccination Neurological Issues” also revealed that there are some side-effects and they are really rare, but the CDC is studying them. That article says this:
The CDC lists only one adverse event as likely having "a causal relationship" with a vaccine. That’s TTS and the Johnson & Johnson shot.
The CDC and Wall St. Journal are both lying to you. Big time.
The truth is the vaccines are an unmitigated disaster. The most dangerous vaccines in human history. They should be immediately halted.
But the mainstream media is completely silent and totally ignored this study because it goes against the narrative.
Here’s the proof… right from the Israeli Ministry of Health
The latest proof of that comes from the Israeli Ministry of Health who did something that no government agency has ever done before: did a proactive survey of people who got the booster (instead of using a passive surveillance system like everyone else does). This is the only way to get true rate data since you know the denominator.
The reason no government ever did this before is because they knew it would show the vaccines were a disaster. So if they never looked, they can plausibly say, “we had no idea.”
Obviously, something went wrong and the government of Israel did a proactive survey, something all governments in the world should have done at the very start of the vaccination program.
For passive surveillance, you are always estimating underreporting factors.
For active surveillance, no estimates are required. You see the real data. The only thing you don’t get is death data because dead people don’t answer their phone.
In this case, 2,068 people provided answers. Could it be biased? Yup. The results at worst could be over stated by a factor of two. And even with that fudge factor it doesn’t matter because the rates are off the charts.
Here is the original report which you can download from the MOH Telegram channel. Here’s the screenshot in case they remove it:
https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1...0x1995.png
https://galileoisback.substack.com/p/tra...source=url
To get the translated report, just go to this article and click the Read Now button and it will download the PDF. It’s a quick read.
For the info behind the study, read this excellent article by Josh Guetzkow.
https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/the-is...tually-db7
Highlights of the Israeli report
0.3% of people reported hospitalization as a result of the adverse event they experienced.
4.5% of respondents reported neurological problems
Nearly 10% of women under age of 54 had disruptions to their menstrual cycle
About 25% of people with pre-existing auto-immune disorders, depression or anxiety reported a worsening of their symptoms following the booster.
I have a great first-hand data point on neuro issues. I know a neurologist group with 20,000 patients. About 1,000 have new or worsened neurological issues after vaccination. So this is a 5% rate vs. the 4.5% in the study.
So that’s a quick sanity check.
More evidence of side effect rates that are off the charts
See:
68,000% Increase in Strokes as FDA and NIH Secretly Study Reports of Neurological Injuries After COVID-19 Vaccines
https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1...4x760.jpeg
vermectin is the better treatment option
We have a better option. A recent paper on Ivermectin shows that Ivermectin was far more effective than the vaccine in preventing death. The effect was so strong that the vaccine was rounding error. I’ll be writing more about that tomorrow.
In general, early treatment protocols are the way to go. They always have been. But the CDC is never going to endorse them. Fareed and Tyson have treated 10,000 COVID cases with no deaths as long as the patients promptly showed up for treatment and took the drugs they were given. ZERO deaths. That’s why the CDC ignores it. The pandemic would be over.
Jamal Edwards is dead at 31
Have you noticed? There sure are a lot of young people dropping dead lately.
The causes of death are always murky. The vaccination status is never mentioned.
The autopsies are rarely done, and when they are done, they are typically not done by anyone who knows how to assess a vaccine death. We never hear from the embalmers either.
We just let people die and not ask any questions. Result: more people die and we simply do not want to know the cause of death.
Summary: The vaccines should be stopped now
The Israeli MOH study is just another nail in the coffin for the vaccine. It shows the vaccines are not safe and should be stopped immediately.
The Israeli MOH study confirms numerous other data points (doctor event reporting rates, VAERS, DMED, life insurance company data, telltale blood clots, huge vaccine victim Facebook groups, the Peter Schirmacher study, and a military doctor who is seeing a 1 in 100 rate of myocarditis post vaccine).
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/bangl...masks-dont
Highly acclaimed peer-reviewed Bangladesh study shows that masks don't work at all
But we had to download the original data from github to see that because they didn't mention it in the paper. The bottom line: mask are a complete joke with no science to back it up. Pure politics.
The Bangladesh mask study written by scientists from Stanford and Yale is now published in Science!!! So now nobody in mainstream medicine can attack the study.
The nice thing is the study showed that masks don’t work, but you’d never know it from reading the paper. You’d only know it if you saw the actual data. And they don’t show you the actual data. They only want you to see the data that supports the “masks work” narrative. They do NOT want you to see the data that doesn’t.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9069
https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1...30x600.png
When you actually look at the data, the study showed masks make NO difference.
We asked the authors for the original data and we plotted the results for purple masks vs. placebo.
Guess what? Yup. NO DIFFERENCE!
https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1...92x370.png
Purple cloth masks (shown above) made no difference. Red cloth masks worked really well, better than the surgical masks (see text). The entire Bangladesh study was statistical noise; there was no measurable effect.
They never even mentioned purple cloth masks made no difference whatsoever. It had ZERO effect. ZERO.
Was this graph noted in the paper? Nope. It was NOWHERE TO BE FOUND IN THE PAPER!
This isn’t science folks. This is politics driving the narrative and it couldn’t be any more clear than this paper. It is Exhibit A on how to fool other scientists and the public by hiding the data.
Challenge your blue pill friends to explain the graph above
Go ask you blue pill friends to explain how, if masks work, you could get the results above. There’s no way.
They are welcome to download the data themselves at github if they don’t believe you. The authors clearly wanted to make it difficult for people to look at the underlying data. You have to download some expensive programs to look at the data. So that’s what we did to do our analysis.
The only explanation I’ve heard from a blue piller is “See, this proves that people who choose purple cloth masks over red cloth masks are simply much more likely to be infected than the general public. So when they put on the purple masks, it reduced their rate of infection to normal. That is why there is no difference.”
They have absolutely no data whatsoever to support that contention. It’s a hand waving argument that they pulled out of their <you know what>. Nobody has ever suggested anywhere that the color of mask you choose determines how likely you are to get COVID. If it did, the study is invalid because they failed to normalize for that. But the study was peer reviewed so it must be right (I don’t believe that, but most mainstream scientists do).
That is how bad the blue pill effect is.
No matter how bad the data looks for them, they’ll find a reason to ignore it.
UC Berkeley Computer Science Professor Ben Recht exposed the fraud in November, 2021
For more on the nonsense behind this paper, pay attention to all of Ben Recht’s blog posts. He’s a UC Berkeley professor in EECS. My statisticians say he knows what he is talking about. Here’s the key excerpt from one of his blog posts:
https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1...09x182.png
My stats people independently verified he was right (and you can see the graphs yourself in their writeup; these are the graphs the study authors didn’t want anyone to see).
For all of Professor Recht’s posts (well worth reading) and our confirmation paper, see:
Steve Kirsch's newsletter
Masks don't work.
We all know masks don’t work for respiratory viruses as I’ve pointed out in my earlier article which had lots of references. If masks started working all of a sudden against respiratory viruses on command of the CDC, it would be proof that CDC pronouncements can change the laws of physics. That would be big news…
Read more
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/masks...medium=web
Use common sense
Common sense says if you can breathe easily through it, it isn’t filtering.
Common filters used in homes and commercial businesses are rated in, for example MERV units. At about a fifteen MERV rating, a filter will remove all bacterial and even most, if not all, viruses.
Most household motors cannot push air through filters with a high MERV rating. Especially when they start loading with debris, making the motors work even harder to push air through them. Though it would be possible, if you increased the surface area SIGNIFICANTLY. Otherwise, you'd burn up the motor.
The recent flawed CDC study
Vinay Prasad debunked the recent CDC study on mask efficacy.
Here is what it concluded:
https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1...5x357.jpeg
See the flaw in this? Cloth and surgical masks both have zero effectiveness in the Bangladesh study. So if N95 masks are 2X better (since 34/17=2), then it’s still zero.
Watch Vinay’s video for more on how bad this study was.
Still not convinced? Watch this video of two Marines testing masks.
For more info
My articles on masks with detailed references:
Do Masks work?
Masks don’t work
P100 respirators (and above) are the only face coverings that have a chance to protect you from COVID
Joe Biden’s ridiculous free N95 mask offer
Vinay Prasad shows deep flaws in CDC mask study that claims masks can reduce infection rates by 86%
Experts on masks
People like Stephen Petty and Tyson Gabriel are experts on masks. If you want to protect yourself from a virus using a mask, the minimum is a P-100 filter on a respirator. The ultimate is P-3 filters on a PAPR which costs from $800 (for all the gear at MiraSafety) to $1,300 for the respirators used in hospitals (like the Imperial College in London) when they operate on COVID patients.
Note that nobody AFAIK has done a study showing that P-3 filters on a PAPR will prevent people from getting infected. This is most easily done with a challenge study using a “placebo” P-3 filter as the comparator.
DHS needs to start arresting doctors, mainstream medical academics, and the mainstream media. All of them.
The data makes it clear that virtually the entire mainstream medical community and mainstream media are spreading COVID misinformation and they need to be arrested by the DHS as domestic terrorists per their new guidelines.
These people are deluding the public into believing masks work, endangering lives.
DHS needs to be making these arrests NOW, before these people can do more damage. Where is DHS when you need them?
Forward this article to your blue pill friends
Challenge them to show that Professor Recht and our stats team are both wrong. After all, we don’t want to be spreading misinformation.
Myke Jeffasserson
Myke Jeffasserson
4 hr ago
Yep, typical blue masks / surgical masks / home-made masks don't work. Even N95 masks don't work. To be truly protected a person would need to put on a full blown respirator. But that will not matter to the "true believers" who will say you need an n95 mask and a face shield - while contributing to the destruction of mother earth with how long such biohazard waste takes to decompose. They will loftily claim that anyone potentially saying anything different doesn't follow the science, clearly a heretic (even if that data was manipulated) until "the science changed". Just give it a couple months.
klorentzen
klorentzen
klorentzen
2 hr ago
While those stats may be correct as far as particle size efficiency, they do not apply to COVID containment on the whole. First, those statistics apply to the contaminated media that passes through the filter material (we're gonna call it "air" with the understanding that "air" includes water/mucus droplets, water vapor, etc.). a "properly worn" N95 mask (there are several versions) may force a larger percentage of air under pressure (exhaled) through the filter element if it has no check valve. The one with the check valve is purely to protect the wearer. The valve opens for exhales and no significant amount of exhaled air passes through the filter. These are better than the non-vented N95 masks for personal protection because the pressure doesn't "break the seal" between the mask and the wearers face. I can't find a study on the average amount of exhaled gasses that pass through the filter substrate on a standard (non-vented) N95 mask , probably because that would be difficult to qualify/quantify. But people's non-clinical tests (wearing a mask in cold, dry air and watching where the "steam" goes) gives us a pretty good idea. One thing that's clearly evident in these presentations is that the denser the filter, the more air bypasses the filter. It creates a negated, or even a negative coefficient, making filters of smaller particulates no less likely to stop viral exodus. They would still stop "forward-launched" media (spittle) from passing directly to a person in close proximity and more or less directly in front of another person, but so would a cloth mask or face shield. The vented N95 directs exhausted gases downward, so also may help in this regard, but only incidentally.
As far as inhales, more air passes through the filter material because low pressure has a positive effect on the edge seal. This should be obvious, anyone wearing a mask can actually feel it tighten against their face when inhaling, and move away when exhaling. If everyone wore their N95 masks properly, were clean shaven, and had face shapes that perfectly conformed to the one-size-fits-all masks, efficacy would be greater for sure. But they don't have perfect-fits, they don't adjust the mask every time they put it on, they don't use it once and replace it. Even if N95s are 80% more effective at stopping viral material from being ejected or inhaled than a cloth or paper mask, the percentage is only relative to the effectiveness of the mask being compared. A paper mask at 5% efficacy become 9% effective with an 80% increase. And I suspect that 5% number (issued by the CDC) is also referring to masks that are properly worn and perfectly fitted. I go along with the idea that an N95 mask may add a small layer of self-protection to the wearer, but I see only a miniscule possibility that masks provide any significant deterrent to transmission in the real world of mask-wearers.
Reid G Sheftall
Writes Dr. Reid’s Newsletter ·12 hr ago
https://substack.com/profile/56519022-reid-g-sheftall
Obscurantism is the philosophical movement that is causing all of these "scientists" to fail to show data from a trial yet want you to believe their incorrect conclusions. The Bangladesh study is a perfect example.As for proving that masks don't work, I did this way back at the beginning- on March 15, 2020- Dr. Jay Battacharya and I will be discussing masks in Part 2 of our discussion. Here is Part 1. It's a real discussion between two medical doctors. Pleasse like and share far and wide. Thanks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM-ROTLK...VdR4AaABAg
DG
DG
Feb 21
Maybe masks DO work - to spread graphene. That is part of what Ricardo Delgado Martine has been saying. He says that graphe is in the vaccine, PCR tests and some masks, and as it accumulates in people it is more andmore likely that they will suffer from acute radiation syndrome when near telephone antenna. Here is an interview with him:https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/shows/the-jerusalem-report/kHIT9ASDVM
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/cdc-a...-data-from
CDC admits it withheld data from the public because they didn't want to create vaccine hesitancy
This is from the NY Times. The truth is the data didn't support their narrative so they hid it. Do you think they would hide the data if it showed the vaccines worked? Of course not!
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/02...hesitancy/
Here’s the story on the CDC withholding data in the Gateway Pundit.
But blue pill people only read The New York Times.
OK, fine.
CDC admits it withheld unfavorable data
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/20/healt...-data.html
Here’s the story in the NY Times which says:
Kristen Nordlund, a spokeswoman for the C.D.C., said the agency has been slow to release the different streams of data “because basically, at the end of the day, it’s not yet ready for prime time.” She said the agency’s “priority when gathering any data is to ensure that it’s accurate and actionable.”
…
But the C.D.C. has been routinely collecting information since the Covid vaccines were first rolled out last year, according to a federal official familiar with the effort. The agency has been reluctant to make those figures public, the official said, because they might be misinterpreted as the vaccines being ineffective.
Here’s a tweet about it
Twitter avatar for @NBSaphierMDNicole Saphier, MD @NBSaphierMD
The CDC’s response when questioned about their withholding of Covid data and lack of transparency is essentially “we don’t trust you to be able to understand the truth.”
The condescension is palpable. The wheels are finally coming off.
https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_6...0x550.jpeg
The C.D.C. Isn’t Publishing Large Portions of the Covid Data It CollectsThe agency has withheld critical data on boosters, hospitalizations and, until recently, wastewater analyses.
Let’s be clear. The only way the vaccine data could be interpreted as ineffective by us “misinformation spreaders” is if the data shows the vaccines don’t work.
This is like the authors of the Bangladesh study not revealing that purple cloth masks showed no signal at all. Those authors deliberately hid that data from view to prevent mask hesitancy. They didn’t even mention it at all. Not a single sentence. Why? Because it destroys their study.
Similarly, the CDC long-standing policy is that no information can be released that may threaten the national vaccination initiative. This isn’t about public safety. This is about not letting the public know the vaccines are killing them.
Summary
Let’s be clear. The CDC hid the data because the data proves they were lying to us. That’s the real reason.
If the data was favorable, I guarantee you, they would be releasing it.
Please consider sharing this article with all your friends.
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/its-t...e-mandates
https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1...x1800.jpeg
I am not alone in calling for the end of the mandates.
First, most important of all, the virus itself is calling for an end to the mandates:
https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1...02x530.png
Here are some others calling for the end to the mandates:
Jan 24: Scott Gottleib
Jan 23: Risch et al.
Jan 25: Alex Berenson:
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/148...mp4?tag=12
Countries ending mandates:
Denmark recently announced that starting February 1, it will drop all mandates for vaccinations and face masks.
Boris Johnson recently declared an end to the COVID restrictions in the UK. He said, “We will trust the judgment of the English people.”
Why can’t we do that in the US? Isn’t it time to trust the judgment of the American people?
Whether you ask a red or blue pill person, it’s clear that both sides have compelling rationales to end the mandates and the State of Emergency.
Interestingly, the rationale for each side is completely different, but the conclusion is the same.
Here’s how they stack up.
Blue pill rationale
We don’t need mandates for the vaccine or masks because we know they work. No need to sell us! Mandate or not, we will comply.
We no longer fear those who are not compliant: we are all boosted up the wazoo using safe and effective vaccines with virtually no side effects AND we are wearing N95 or P100 masks at all times. And we always stay 6 feet from any other person. So there is basically no way to infect us.
We have nothing to fear. Virtually none of us will be hospitalized, and none of us risk death. And the prevalence of Omicron makes our risk even lower.
We think people who are not compliant are evil and deserve to die. Why force them to take life-saving medical interventions? We are better off as a society if these people are gone. Permanently.
We trust our doctors to deliver quality medical advice. Our doctors always follow the CDC guidance which has been uniformly excellent. We all should be treated the same, no matter what our medical histories are. If the doctors follow the CDC guidelines, almost nobody dies. All the hospitals are filled with unvaccinated people.
Just to be safe, we test ourselves every day using antigen tests for COVID. If we have a positive test result, we now have two new safe and effective drugs from the most trusted drug companies in the world so that in the rare chance that we get COVID, we can treat it with nearly 100% success.
Note: Many blue pill people still are unsafe after being triply vaxed and doubly masked. This is why it’s critically important to let them know about the P-100 respirator. This face covering gives them 150X protection over what they had before so that they have nothing at all to fear from anyone. Problem solved. Nobody can put them at risk. The burden is thus placed on those people who don’t believe in science.
However, they can still believe they are at risk. Anyone who feels at risk can simply quarantine at home and have no human contact. That would be safest for them.
We cannot build new quarantine facilities for those who fear being infected because even remote Antarctica stations where everyone is tested still develop COVID.
Red pill rationale
The vaccines are unsafe. They don’t work against Omicron. Mandating a vaccine which has just downsides for people is insane.
Mandates aren’t needed because we won’t comply with them anyway. They just create division and animosity in society. They divide us.
We don’t fear the vaccinated.
Cloth, surgical, and N95 masks don’t work so why should we wear them? P100 masks do work, but they are pretty cumbersome and not worth the trouble for a COVID variant that can’t hurt us.
Social distancing is useless and doesn’t work. The 6 foot rule is not based on any science. Why isn’t it 5.2 feet? Nobody has seen the science justifying 6 feet so we aren’t going to comply with silly non-scientific rules.
The current COVID vaccines are more likely to kill people than save them. In the Pfizer trial, 24% more people died in the group taking the vaccine! So it’s clear. If the vaccines don’t kill us, they will actually make the pandemic worse because they depress our immune system making us twice as likely to be infected with COVID as well as susceptible to other diseases (like reoccurrence of cancer). They also cause serious side effects. They are the most dangerous vaccines in human history. There is no way we will take them. Mandating them is just going to piss us off and hurt the economy. You will not get us to take them.
Why would we take a drug that could kill us to prevent a variant that cannot? You’d have to be nuts. We will not comply so the mandates won’t make us.
The primary variant is Omicron which if it happened today, we’d just ignore it since it is like getting a cold.
If we get sick, we have very effective early treatment protocols using existing safe repurposed drugs like ivermectin, HCQ, aspirin, vitamin D, NAC, and Prozac. These protocols are 100% successful in preventing death from COVID when given early. We would never use Molnupiravir or Paxlovid; those drugs are both super dangerous.
We use symptoms to determine if we have COVID. If we are unsure, we can use antigen tests. There is no need to test if we aren’t symptomatic because we know there is virtually zero asymptomatic spread and because the antigen tests almost never work reliably unless you are symptomatic so it’s a complete waste of money to test asymptomatic people. The testing companies don’t want anyone to know that, but we do.
If we do get sick with COVID symptoms, we stay home and rest.
Even if we had a truly safe vaccine, those of us who are recovered from COVID wouldn’t need it. A uniform mandate for everyone makes no sense.
We believe doctors should be allowed to be doctors and that medical care should always be delivered by our healthcare professional we trust to use his professional judgement on our individual case. The CDC guidance is just awful.
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/how-r...de-effects
How rare are vaccine side effects? Not very rare at all.
The CDC and Wall St. Journal both say serious side effects from the COVID vaccines are extremely rare. They are lying. But now we have unassailable proof from the Israeli government!
https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-va...1645266603
This article, by Wall Street Journal staff writer Jenny Strasburg (see Covid-19 Vaccines Were Deadly in Rare Cases. Governments Are Now Weighing Compensation) says:
Serious side effects so far have been very rare—estimated at roughly one to 11 per 100,000 doses for some of the more serious harmful reactions identified by regulators in the most-affected age groups, according to U.S. and European government officials and researchers. They include blood clotting, nervous-system disorders and heart problems, all of which also can be caused by Covid itself.
Similarly, a story in The Epoch Times entitled “US Agencies Quietly Studying Reports of Post-Vaccination Neurological Issues” also revealed that there are some side-effects and they are really rare, but the CDC is studying them. That article says this:
The CDC lists only one adverse event as likely having "a causal relationship" with a vaccine. That’s TTS and the Johnson & Johnson shot.
The CDC and Wall St. Journal are both lying to you. Big time.
The truth is the vaccines are an unmitigated disaster. The most dangerous vaccines in human history. They should be immediately halted.
But the mainstream media is completely silent and totally ignored this study because it goes against the narrative.
Here’s the proof… right from the Israeli Ministry of Health
The latest proof of that comes from the Israeli Ministry of Health who did something that no government agency has ever done before: did a proactive survey of people who got the booster (instead of using a passive surveillance system like everyone else does). This is the only way to get true rate data since you know the denominator.
The reason no government ever did this before is because they knew it would show the vaccines were a disaster. So if they never looked, they can plausibly say, “we had no idea.”
Obviously, something went wrong and the government of Israel did a proactive survey, something all governments in the world should have done at the very start of the vaccination program.
For passive surveillance, you are always estimating underreporting factors.
For active surveillance, no estimates are required. You see the real data. The only thing you don’t get is death data because dead people don’t answer their phone.
In this case, 2,068 people provided answers. Could it be biased? Yup. The results at worst could be over stated by a factor of two. And even with that fudge factor it doesn’t matter because the rates are off the charts.
Here is the original report which you can download from the MOH Telegram channel. Here’s the screenshot in case they remove it:
https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1...0x1995.png
https://galileoisback.substack.com/p/tra...source=url
To get the translated report, just go to this article and click the Read Now button and it will download the PDF. It’s a quick read.
For the info behind the study, read this excellent article by Josh Guetzkow.
https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/the-is...tually-db7
Highlights of the Israeli report
0.3% of people reported hospitalization as a result of the adverse event they experienced.
4.5% of respondents reported neurological problems
Nearly 10% of women under age of 54 had disruptions to their menstrual cycle
About 25% of people with pre-existing auto-immune disorders, depression or anxiety reported a worsening of their symptoms following the booster.
I have a great first-hand data point on neuro issues. I know a neurologist group with 20,000 patients. About 1,000 have new or worsened neurological issues after vaccination. So this is a 5% rate vs. the 4.5% in the study.
So that’s a quick sanity check.
More evidence of side effect rates that are off the charts
See:
68,000% Increase in Strokes as FDA and NIH Secretly Study Reports of Neurological Injuries After COVID-19 Vaccines
https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1...4x760.jpeg
vermectin is the better treatment option
We have a better option. A recent paper on Ivermectin shows that Ivermectin was far more effective than the vaccine in preventing death. The effect was so strong that the vaccine was rounding error. I’ll be writing more about that tomorrow.
In general, early treatment protocols are the way to go. They always have been. But the CDC is never going to endorse them. Fareed and Tyson have treated 10,000 COVID cases with no deaths as long as the patients promptly showed up for treatment and took the drugs they were given. ZERO deaths. That’s why the CDC ignores it. The pandemic would be over.
Jamal Edwards is dead at 31
Have you noticed? There sure are a lot of young people dropping dead lately.
The causes of death are always murky. The vaccination status is never mentioned.
The autopsies are rarely done, and when they are done, they are typically not done by anyone who knows how to assess a vaccine death. We never hear from the embalmers either.
We just let people die and not ask any questions. Result: more people die and we simply do not want to know the cause of death.
Summary: The vaccines should be stopped now
The Israeli MOH study is just another nail in the coffin for the vaccine. It shows the vaccines are not safe and should be stopped immediately.
The Israeli MOH study confirms numerous other data points (doctor event reporting rates, VAERS, DMED, life insurance company data, telltale blood clots, huge vaccine victim Facebook groups, the Peter Schirmacher study, and a military doctor who is seeing a 1 in 100 rate of myocarditis post vaccine).
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/bangl...masks-dont
Highly acclaimed peer-reviewed Bangladesh study shows that masks don't work at all
But we had to download the original data from github to see that because they didn't mention it in the paper. The bottom line: mask are a complete joke with no science to back it up. Pure politics.
The Bangladesh mask study written by scientists from Stanford and Yale is now published in Science!!! So now nobody in mainstream medicine can attack the study.
The nice thing is the study showed that masks don’t work, but you’d never know it from reading the paper. You’d only know it if you saw the actual data. And they don’t show you the actual data. They only want you to see the data that supports the “masks work” narrative. They do NOT want you to see the data that doesn’t.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9069
https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1...30x600.png
When you actually look at the data, the study showed masks make NO difference.
We asked the authors for the original data and we plotted the results for purple masks vs. placebo.
Guess what? Yup. NO DIFFERENCE!
https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1...92x370.png
Purple cloth masks (shown above) made no difference. Red cloth masks worked really well, better than the surgical masks (see text). The entire Bangladesh study was statistical noise; there was no measurable effect.
They never even mentioned purple cloth masks made no difference whatsoever. It had ZERO effect. ZERO.
Was this graph noted in the paper? Nope. It was NOWHERE TO BE FOUND IN THE PAPER!
This isn’t science folks. This is politics driving the narrative and it couldn’t be any more clear than this paper. It is Exhibit A on how to fool other scientists and the public by hiding the data.
Challenge your blue pill friends to explain the graph above
Go ask you blue pill friends to explain how, if masks work, you could get the results above. There’s no way.
They are welcome to download the data themselves at github if they don’t believe you. The authors clearly wanted to make it difficult for people to look at the underlying data. You have to download some expensive programs to look at the data. So that’s what we did to do our analysis.
The only explanation I’ve heard from a blue piller is “See, this proves that people who choose purple cloth masks over red cloth masks are simply much more likely to be infected than the general public. So when they put on the purple masks, it reduced their rate of infection to normal. That is why there is no difference.”
They have absolutely no data whatsoever to support that contention. It’s a hand waving argument that they pulled out of their <you know what>. Nobody has ever suggested anywhere that the color of mask you choose determines how likely you are to get COVID. If it did, the study is invalid because they failed to normalize for that. But the study was peer reviewed so it must be right (I don’t believe that, but most mainstream scientists do).
That is how bad the blue pill effect is.
No matter how bad the data looks for them, they’ll find a reason to ignore it.
UC Berkeley Computer Science Professor Ben Recht exposed the fraud in November, 2021
For more on the nonsense behind this paper, pay attention to all of Ben Recht’s blog posts. He’s a UC Berkeley professor in EECS. My statisticians say he knows what he is talking about. Here’s the key excerpt from one of his blog posts:
https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1...09x182.png
My stats people independently verified he was right (and you can see the graphs yourself in their writeup; these are the graphs the study authors didn’t want anyone to see).
For all of Professor Recht’s posts (well worth reading) and our confirmation paper, see:
Steve Kirsch's newsletter
Masks don't work.
We all know masks don’t work for respiratory viruses as I’ve pointed out in my earlier article which had lots of references. If masks started working all of a sudden against respiratory viruses on command of the CDC, it would be proof that CDC pronouncements can change the laws of physics. That would be big news…
Read more
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/masks...medium=web
Use common sense
Common sense says if you can breathe easily through it, it isn’t filtering.
Common filters used in homes and commercial businesses are rated in, for example MERV units. At about a fifteen MERV rating, a filter will remove all bacterial and even most, if not all, viruses.
Most household motors cannot push air through filters with a high MERV rating. Especially when they start loading with debris, making the motors work even harder to push air through them. Though it would be possible, if you increased the surface area SIGNIFICANTLY. Otherwise, you'd burn up the motor.
The recent flawed CDC study
Vinay Prasad debunked the recent CDC study on mask efficacy.
Here is what it concluded:
https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1...5x357.jpeg
See the flaw in this? Cloth and surgical masks both have zero effectiveness in the Bangladesh study. So if N95 masks are 2X better (since 34/17=2), then it’s still zero.
Watch Vinay’s video for more on how bad this study was.
Still not convinced? Watch this video of two Marines testing masks.
For more info
My articles on masks with detailed references:
Do Masks work?
Masks don’t work
P100 respirators (and above) are the only face coverings that have a chance to protect you from COVID
Joe Biden’s ridiculous free N95 mask offer
Vinay Prasad shows deep flaws in CDC mask study that claims masks can reduce infection rates by 86%
Experts on masks
People like Stephen Petty and Tyson Gabriel are experts on masks. If you want to protect yourself from a virus using a mask, the minimum is a P-100 filter on a respirator. The ultimate is P-3 filters on a PAPR which costs from $800 (for all the gear at MiraSafety) to $1,300 for the respirators used in hospitals (like the Imperial College in London) when they operate on COVID patients.
Note that nobody AFAIK has done a study showing that P-3 filters on a PAPR will prevent people from getting infected. This is most easily done with a challenge study using a “placebo” P-3 filter as the comparator.
DHS needs to start arresting doctors, mainstream medical academics, and the mainstream media. All of them.
The data makes it clear that virtually the entire mainstream medical community and mainstream media are spreading COVID misinformation and they need to be arrested by the DHS as domestic terrorists per their new guidelines.
These people are deluding the public into believing masks work, endangering lives.
DHS needs to be making these arrests NOW, before these people can do more damage. Where is DHS when you need them?
Forward this article to your blue pill friends
Challenge them to show that Professor Recht and our stats team are both wrong. After all, we don’t want to be spreading misinformation.
Myke Jeffasserson
Myke Jeffasserson
4 hr ago
Yep, typical blue masks / surgical masks / home-made masks don't work. Even N95 masks don't work. To be truly protected a person would need to put on a full blown respirator. But that will not matter to the "true believers" who will say you need an n95 mask and a face shield - while contributing to the destruction of mother earth with how long such biohazard waste takes to decompose. They will loftily claim that anyone potentially saying anything different doesn't follow the science, clearly a heretic (even if that data was manipulated) until "the science changed". Just give it a couple months.
klorentzen
klorentzen
klorentzen
2 hr ago
While those stats may be correct as far as particle size efficiency, they do not apply to COVID containment on the whole. First, those statistics apply to the contaminated media that passes through the filter material (we're gonna call it "air" with the understanding that "air" includes water/mucus droplets, water vapor, etc.). a "properly worn" N95 mask (there are several versions) may force a larger percentage of air under pressure (exhaled) through the filter element if it has no check valve. The one with the check valve is purely to protect the wearer. The valve opens for exhales and no significant amount of exhaled air passes through the filter. These are better than the non-vented N95 masks for personal protection because the pressure doesn't "break the seal" between the mask and the wearers face. I can't find a study on the average amount of exhaled gasses that pass through the filter substrate on a standard (non-vented) N95 mask , probably because that would be difficult to qualify/quantify. But people's non-clinical tests (wearing a mask in cold, dry air and watching where the "steam" goes) gives us a pretty good idea. One thing that's clearly evident in these presentations is that the denser the filter, the more air bypasses the filter. It creates a negated, or even a negative coefficient, making filters of smaller particulates no less likely to stop viral exodus. They would still stop "forward-launched" media (spittle) from passing directly to a person in close proximity and more or less directly in front of another person, but so would a cloth mask or face shield. The vented N95 directs exhausted gases downward, so also may help in this regard, but only incidentally.
As far as inhales, more air passes through the filter material because low pressure has a positive effect on the edge seal. This should be obvious, anyone wearing a mask can actually feel it tighten against their face when inhaling, and move away when exhaling. If everyone wore their N95 masks properly, were clean shaven, and had face shapes that perfectly conformed to the one-size-fits-all masks, efficacy would be greater for sure. But they don't have perfect-fits, they don't adjust the mask every time they put it on, they don't use it once and replace it. Even if N95s are 80% more effective at stopping viral material from being ejected or inhaled than a cloth or paper mask, the percentage is only relative to the effectiveness of the mask being compared. A paper mask at 5% efficacy become 9% effective with an 80% increase. And I suspect that 5% number (issued by the CDC) is also referring to masks that are properly worn and perfectly fitted. I go along with the idea that an N95 mask may add a small layer of self-protection to the wearer, but I see only a miniscule possibility that masks provide any significant deterrent to transmission in the real world of mask-wearers.
Reid G Sheftall
Writes Dr. Reid’s Newsletter ·12 hr ago
https://substack.com/profile/56519022-reid-g-sheftall
Obscurantism is the philosophical movement that is causing all of these "scientists" to fail to show data from a trial yet want you to believe their incorrect conclusions. The Bangladesh study is a perfect example.As for proving that masks don't work, I did this way back at the beginning- on March 15, 2020- Dr. Jay Battacharya and I will be discussing masks in Part 2 of our discussion. Here is Part 1. It's a real discussion between two medical doctors. Pleasse like and share far and wide. Thanks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM-ROTLK...VdR4AaABAg
DG
DG
Feb 21
Maybe masks DO work - to spread graphene. That is part of what Ricardo Delgado Martine has been saying. He says that graphe is in the vaccine, PCR tests and some masks, and as it accumulates in people it is more andmore likely that they will suffer from acute radiation syndrome when near telephone antenna. Here is an interview with him:https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/shows/the-jerusalem-report/kHIT9ASDVM
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/cdc-a...-data-from
CDC admits it withheld data from the public because they didn't want to create vaccine hesitancy
This is from the NY Times. The truth is the data didn't support their narrative so they hid it. Do you think they would hide the data if it showed the vaccines worked? Of course not!
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/02...hesitancy/
Here’s the story on the CDC withholding data in the Gateway Pundit.
But blue pill people only read The New York Times.
OK, fine.
CDC admits it withheld unfavorable data
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/20/healt...-data.html
Here’s the story in the NY Times which says:
Kristen Nordlund, a spokeswoman for the C.D.C., said the agency has been slow to release the different streams of data “because basically, at the end of the day, it’s not yet ready for prime time.” She said the agency’s “priority when gathering any data is to ensure that it’s accurate and actionable.”
…
But the C.D.C. has been routinely collecting information since the Covid vaccines were first rolled out last year, according to a federal official familiar with the effort. The agency has been reluctant to make those figures public, the official said, because they might be misinterpreted as the vaccines being ineffective.
Here’s a tweet about it
Twitter avatar for @NBSaphierMDNicole Saphier, MD @NBSaphierMD
The CDC’s response when questioned about their withholding of Covid data and lack of transparency is essentially “we don’t trust you to be able to understand the truth.”
The condescension is palpable. The wheels are finally coming off.
https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_6...0x550.jpeg
The C.D.C. Isn’t Publishing Large Portions of the Covid Data It CollectsThe agency has withheld critical data on boosters, hospitalizations and, until recently, wastewater analyses.
Let’s be clear. The only way the vaccine data could be interpreted as ineffective by us “misinformation spreaders” is if the data shows the vaccines don’t work.
This is like the authors of the Bangladesh study not revealing that purple cloth masks showed no signal at all. Those authors deliberately hid that data from view to prevent mask hesitancy. They didn’t even mention it at all. Not a single sentence. Why? Because it destroys their study.
Similarly, the CDC long-standing policy is that no information can be released that may threaten the national vaccination initiative. This isn’t about public safety. This is about not letting the public know the vaccines are killing them.
Summary
Let’s be clear. The CDC hid the data because the data proves they were lying to us. That’s the real reason.
If the data was favorable, I guarantee you, they would be releasing it.
Please consider sharing this article with all your friends.
![[-]](https://hyperspacecafe.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)