Working As Designed

Sarah Atcho victim of injections – Sports Infos – Ski – Biathlon

Fabienne Schlumpf suffers from myocarditis – Sports Infos – Ski – Biathlon

Official data suggests the Triple Vaccinated are developing Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome at an alarming rate – The Expose

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to Working As Designed

  1. Eli the Pit Bull says:

    Anyone that has studied how these vaccines work would have predicted this.
    And people still aren’t awake yet.

    • jon says:

      Can you illustrate your studies of how these vaccines work?

      Please share your evidence, qualifications and research so we can understand better.

      • GreyGeek says:

        Can’t you do your own research? The paper folks are referring to computed an 87% decline in immune function. I leave it as an exercise for you to find the paper.
        Hint: You won’t find it on the MNM, CDC, but you will find it on the NIH website.

        • jon says:

          Ahh yes, the usual bait, switch and hide.

          I’m not assessing my ability to investigate published data, I’m asking for data from those deviating a crisis.

          And your public-good science approach is this?

          Way to go in making the case.

        • Bonnie mou says:

          Jon is just another pharma shill crawling from under his stone for a brief foray.

          • jon says:

            How is that a useful response to a request for data?

            Without data, there’s only opinion and supposition.

            Nobody rewards me for engaging with you. Though I do seem to get a lot of nastiness for asking for facts.

          • Disillusioned says:

            +1

      • Luos says:

        Hi Jon

        Just keep taking your quarterly or monthly jabs and get on with tour life, nobody is asking you to stop taking them.

        Cheers

      • Scissor says:

        I’ve noticed that there is something off, something lazy about people who don’t bother to capitalize their names.

      • arn says:

        If someone gives you something stinky brown to eat and says to you it’s chocolate
        you’d keep eating the “chocolate” until official sources say something else.

        Crazy conspiracy theorists on the other hand do not need expert analysis to tell you that the stinky brown stuff is no chocolate but shit.
        It’s common sense and not communist sense.

        Bertrand Russell already said 100 years ago
        that states will turn their populations(with the use of psychology and chemicals) into such obidient serfs that they will believe that snow is black if told so by authorities.
        And Russell was no conspiracy theorist nor fortune teller to predict the existence of people like you
        but leader of the hardcore socialist Fabian society (according to Orwell,communists pretending to be socialists)
        who are part of the global agenda pushers.

        • jon says:

          Russell nicely summarized the mental distortions produced by intent, the repetition of lies and the absence of or prevention of reasoning.

          My seeking data is anathema to those already persuaded of the whiteness of snow.

          I see no colour in this ‘snow’ that I can trust, where only my senses inform me. My senses can be lied to, and distorted by lies.

          So impartial facts, free (as much as can be) of supposition and opinion will always be the better driver of reasoning.

          I know not the colour of this snow. Its source material seems black, but those unable to think beyond their senses assert whiteness and might be right.

          I’d like to cut to truth, so I must cut through opinion.

          Anaxgoras, in writing of the blackness of snow, spoke not of the clear and obvious sensory facts, but the underlying truth that can only be reached by reasoning.

          And for seeking reasoning here, to cut past the confusion and repetitious opinions, I’m insulted and dismissed.

          Which is normal and of no matter. I’m only interested in those who can reason through fact and change their view when facts dictate. Those who are past this and have their doctrine are of no interest.

          Give me the facts that dictate your view and I will alter my own view in accordance with those facts. Chant your doctrine and opinion and I’ll stay where I am.

  2. Anon says:

    This is really worth the read:

    The Truth About Vaccine-induced Myocarditis

    The following essay has been rigorously fact-checked by Stanford medicine professor and infectious disease expert Dr. Jay Bhattacharya. The scientific claims regarding post-vaccine myocarditis are fully in line with the current medical literature.

    https://ravarora.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-vaccine-induced-myocarditis

    • jon says:

      An article expressing strong opinions and apparently based on actual data.

      But it appears to have missed the main point, that the scale is minute.

      Taken from the actual paper behind the essay;

      “Of the 42,200,614 persons included in the study population, 2,539 (0.006%) were hospitalised or died from myocarditis during the study period; 552 (0.001%) of these events occurred during 1-28 days following any dose of vaccine”

      552 cases in 42 million.

      And then;

      “Following the first dose of the ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 vaccines an additional 1 (95%CI 0, 2) and 2 (95%CI 1, 2) myocarditis events per million persons exposed would be anticipated, respectively. Following the second dose of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 an additional 2 (95%CI 2, 3) and 36 (95%CI 34, 37) myocarditis events would be anticipated, respectively. Following a third dose of BNT162b2 an additional 2 (95%CI 1, 2) myocarditis events per million persons would be anticipated. These estimates compare to an additional 30 (95%CI 29, 31) myocarditis events per million in the 1-28 days following a SARS-CoV-2 positive test.”

      Happy to be shown I’m wrong, but I think I read this as the myo and pericarditis risk post vaccination (totalling the 1-3 jab risk, both mRNA types) is 42 per million doses as opposed to 30 per million within 28 days of a covid diagnosis (with covid infection status neglected in these cases).

      Thats not a lot of anything to draw crisis conclusions from.

      Even assuming all the counted cases can be ascribed to vaccination, meaning that other common virus triggers for the illness are ignored or assumed absent

      Is that it? All this noise is about an extra 12 cases (serious to mild) per MILLION shots, almost all related to the 1273 vaccine? Each case is a tragedy – and how many tragedies were averted by vaccination? A damned sight more than 12.

      Or am I misreading this data.

      • jon says:

        incidence of acute pericarditis in the general population pre-covid;

        “Acute pericarditis caused 4% of all cardiovascular admis-
        sions among adults aged 16 to 20 years, but the proportion
        decreased by an estimated 51% (relative risk, 0.49; 95% CI,
        0.48–0.51; P<0.0001) per 10-year increase in age to 0.02% in
        patients ≥85 years of age (Figure 2). Overall, 0.20% (95% CI,
        0.19%–0.22%) of cardiovascular admissions were caused by
        acute pericarditis."

        From here;

        https://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/circulationaha.114.010376&ved=2ahUKEwilxvG2jr31AhXFE4gKHZz3AQcQFnoECAMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0X_5kwTIHByhG52KW54uH-

      • jon says:

        and another large population study;

        “We estimated extra myocarditis events to be between 1 and 10 per million persons in the month following vaccination, which was substantially lower than the 40 extra events per million persons observed following SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

        from here;

        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0

        So again, where is the crisis in this data?

        • Bonnie mou says:

          A better question is: Where is the truth in these data? Climate science is not the only discipline to be corrupted, twisted and perverted.

          • jon says:

            Bonnie, while your other replies were thoughtless, doctrinal and poor in debate, this cuts towards some truth.

            Is the data false? You appear to believe so and I accept that it could be.

            So if you dismiss data that doesn’t support your opinion as false, where does your view come from? Selectively trusting data that confirms your view and dismissing anything that denies your doctrine seems wrong.

            I try – and often fail – to believe nothing, but conclude what I can from the data, ready to change my understanding when the data dictates.

            What if you’re wrong? What if the data is correct, or at least approximately so? Can you encompass the possibility you might be wrong in your current certainty?

  3. Steve Case says:

    It doesn’t affect just young males. I’m seventy-seven and I hope to see seventy-eight.

  4. jon says:

    Hey Tony

    Can you please explain the basis for publishing an extract from this Exposé article?

    It appears to serve only to undermine your status as a worthy scientific analyst and a reasoning and intelligent person, to platform such arrant and silly, baseless and harmful misinformation.

    Or have I missed some subtle purpose in your action here? One could interpret this as you surrendering to the desire to please an audience, without any thought to due diligence.

    • tonyheller says:

      Quite the opposite.

      • Timo, Not That One says:

        You’re doing a great job Tony. Keep it up.

      • jon says:

        Quite the opposite of audience pleasing? I’m glad but lost as to what the motivations might BE.

        If you published anothers opinion piece in climate science that was so utterly fact free, anonymous and contrarian without presenting any supporting arguments or data, I’d assume ironic intent.

        But you don’t do that, you fight hard for your reputation as a reasoning and thoughtful contributor and analyst. Which I greatly appreciate and generally respect.

        What’s driving the downgrade? I’m only asking in relation to this article, not across the whole philosophical spectrum of the pandemic you’re delving in, so I’d hope there’s a simple answer – even if I don’t like it.

        I get your generalized doubts, just not the specifics of this instance.

    • Vegieman says:

      Subtle purpose? You speak so matter-of-factly of misery and death for a “minute” quantity of 552 people. Why would you be advocating subjecting the lives of your neighbor to a possible catastrophic outcome for which the original condition has been demonstrated to be effectively managed with a protocol of safe, inexpensive, and readily available over the counter alternatives that provide a person a reasonable recovery while gaining natural immunity. This was once a reasonable and desirable choice for a vast majority of humanity for past similar medical events. Findings shared here and through other reputable sources, that most here are evaluating with an open and curious mind, you readily oppose. Is it you that is actively participating in an attempt to cover for a harmful agenda of forcing a potentially harmful injection of unknown substances into your neighbor’s body? For what purpose? Why would you support this? Have you taken the injection(s)? What is your ulterior motive?

      • jon says:

        The data is matter of fact. Emotion has no part in driving public health.

        If, as I think I see in the data, the harm caused is balanced against a far larger good, then the situation is simple.

        The purity of clean hands is for pholosophers, not clinicians and public health systems.

        Medical science advances in painful, messy steps. The key is to try to do much, much more good than apparent harm.

        Your counter to the ‘acceptance’ of 552 persons suffering consequences (of various significance) is to assert that alternative treatments make the vaccine redundant.

        And here we diverge.

        You accept the data and that the 552 per million is approximately correct.

        So now it comes down to the data to validate that the ‘alternatives’ work as you say. That the ‘good’ can be achieved without the harm.

        I’d love to see that data. I’ve asked before, I’m asking now. You’re quite certain of this, so can you show me the origin of your certainty, that I too might be certain?

        • Vegieman says:

          What is the data you speak of that is so matter-of-fact? So far all I have seen from you is skewering of anyone questioning the pharma narrative as though there exists some foundational truth for the present state we are being held captive in. You strut and crow from a lofty place, but what are you standing on? I have a mental picture of a rooster perched on a pile of manure. You are heavy in critique and light on any substance of your own. Either bring something productive or move on.

          • jon says:

            “What is the data you speak of that is so matter-of-fact?”

            Simple. Who died, what from – measurables. Then opinions are based on something.

            “So far all I have seen from you is skewering of anyone questioning the pharma narrative as though there exists some foundational truth for the present state we are being held captive in.”

            By skewering I assume you mean questioning. Yeah, damned right. Questioning childish over confidence from people who draw fixed conclusions from meager, false or misunderstood data – and then seek to propagate those conclusions onto others.

            Understand, I don’t mind at all what you believe, your free to hold any truths you need to. But if others are reading your words, I’d like them to read that you don’t have facts to hang those beliefs on. Simple. That way, they might think about the process of facts => analysis => opinions

            “You strut and crow from a lofty place, but what are you standing on? I have a mental picture of a rooster perched on a pile of manure. You are heavy in critique and light on any substance of your own. Either bring something productive or move on.”

            Answering absence if substance by asking for substance is crowing? Don’t get that at all.

            I see a LOT of strong views here, expressed with varying degrees of vitriol and over confidence. Crowing.

            I’m asking for details of the hill you stand on.

            Politely, reasonably and mostly with humility.

        • Vegieman says:

          Oh, and on the matter of entertainment, is your performance here anything more than a form of self-gratification as you pontificate in a phony cordial way a cloaked ideology of medical meddling for the supposed greater good of humanity?

          The origin of my certainty? Jesus Christ, the author and finisher of my faith. Let God be true, but every man a liar.

          Here’s a link to a presentation of humble intellect that if you have a genuine regard for Truth, you will not want to miss. The substance of the lecture follows the initial 12 minutes of insignificant technical accomplishments.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H4ntRloGWU

          • jon says:

            “Oh, and on the matter of entertainment, is your performance here anything more than a form of self-gratification as you pontificate in a phony cordial way a cloaked ideology of medical meddling for the supposed greater good of humanity?”

            Phony cordial? Ah well, probably better than naive spiritual judgements and dismissals of reasoning. I was going for polite and determined, but cordial will do.

            Tell me, would you know real cordial humility when you see it? I mean, this is perhaps more personal than is useful here, but you’re REALLY big on knowing me…..

            “The origin of my certainty? Jesus Christ, the author and finisher of my faith. Let God be true, but every man a liar.”

            Great Joy to you. I don’t share your faith, but I respect it. Most Christians I know (and there’s a lot) are good people and I esteem them. But I won’t consult them on Healthcare matters, unless they are healthcare professionals as well.

            I’m just not sure that the gospels define a position on any of the intricacies of pandemic response, vaccination etc. Though they do guide you to civility, which you seem not so big on.

            “Here’s a link to a presentation of humble intellect that if you have a genuine regard for Truth, you will not want to miss. The substance of the lecture follows the initial 12 minutes of insignificant technical accomplishments.”

            Yes, I’ve heard him speak and he is a humble, decent and shiningly smart man. Just not sure his perspective is particularly relevant in analyzing the relative benefits of death from heart problems (maybe) caused by vaccine as opposed to those (likely) caused by covid.

            8 to 40 times more likely, depending on the data source.

            Or on death from covid as opposed to NOT death from covid.

            At least 10 and perhaps as much as 100 times more likely, again depending on the intricacies of the data analysed.

            By all means, argue my view is irrelevant (of course preferably with data) but it’d be much better for both of us if you didn’t try to use your faith as the mound from which you crow.

            Cordially.

          • Vegieman says:

            jon, I am sorry for how I have acted towards you. This form of relating (or more accurately un-relating) is evidently prone to misjudgments and subsequent inappropriate responses. I recognize I am guilty of both. Knowing my face-to-face interaction with my fellow man to not produce this kind of outcome, I apologize for having become an offense to you in this setting.

            I have found your recent participation here to be interesting. I have wondered what your genuine intent is, evidently along with a few others here. You hold to your guns as one seeking facts, so-be-it. I am not as driven by the have-to-know as I am by the desire for more discernment. I have just gained some more.

            The foundation of my confidence is knowing from 35 years of yielding to the one who created heaven and earth, after 23 years of otherwise, that my life is not my own. That may come across as trite to some, but I cannot deny the evidence of provision for all physical needs, with healing of all my diseases being no less (Psalm 103). Through trials and afflictions, I hold fast to that which I know to be good. Not to crow, but in response to your question, I can’t say otherwise. It is ultimately my hope for others to know.

            Knowing this, I can’t be silent as man-made afflictions, passing as remedy, are being administered to those who are whole and maiming or killing many. The frustration exhibited through your responses to the many well-founded concerns expressed by others here is evidence of the futility of the fact quest you declare. The big picture I see tells me that the prevailing purpose and intent of the virus, the remedy, and the climate change nonsense, is to create confusion and ultimately upend the last vestiges of the God-given liberty intended for mankind. A single dominating governance that will not allow for buying or selling without a “mark”, along with the many other pending declared intrusions into our existence tell me of some dark days ahead. Yet my redeemer lives! That is the higher ground of truth that I know, and it is free to know and possess by whosoever will (Revelation 22:17).

            Again, I am truly sorry for provoking you to wrath by my inconsiderate words. Sincerely, Dave.

          • jon says:

            Dave, no apology is necessary and I take no hurt.

            Your words are touching, in a number of ways and show intrinsic goodness, despite the mean and rather stupid place in which our discourse happens.

            Its clear we differ in one key regard – you see the medical responses to the pandemic as worse than the affliction and I do not.

            I’ve had this conversation so many times, I keep coming back like a dog to its bone.

            Its not for the joy of it, which, believe me, is absent. Learning and being slapped daily with the word “shill” leaves an open wound. I do it to try to better understand my fellows.

            And for the life of me, I don’t get it. I see nothing in the pandemic control efforts and the vaccines but good will and the strength of care in public health systems.

            And yes, over reach and learning.

            I see nothing in the flinching away from them but confusion, fear, pain and a reaching for hope in what I greatly fear is entirely the wrong direction.

            I’m a materials scientist and engineer. Everything in my job (and the scaffold of my mind) is about measurable data driving decisions – and I’m unable to find the data that drives yours, and it disturbs me and in truth it breaks my heart.

            Not because I feel I am, or am driven by the desire to be, right – or be seen to be right.

            But because I simply cannot fathom your mindset, however hard I try.

            And I’d like to, to make this pain go away, so I keep on keeping on.

    • Michael D Smith says:

      Well, what do you disagree with? Data? Methods? Conclusions? Or are you just another empty fact checker hired by the Medical Industrial Complex?

      • jon says:

        I’m a little lost.

        I reviewed the data and showed the apparent harm.

        552 cases of various degree from 1 million vaccinated.

        The question therefore is not ‘is there harm?’. There is, as there is with all medical practice.

        The question is, ‘is the benefit overwhelmingly greater than the harm?’

        Doubtless our views diverge – but a data based answer might help us understand each other better.

      • jon says:

        Ok, that wasn’t clear to me. Forgive my error.

        Data – public source, valid as far as I know

        Methods – nonsense and ascientific

        Conclusions – wild and bizarre, entirely unsupported by the data.

        Am I a paid fact-checker for the pharma industry? No

        Simply capable of reading and seeing lies and the bending of data to fit pre-made conclusions.

        If you could offer a shred of support in outcome data among sick and dying people, or any answers for the dismissal of this article by people the who likely DO understand, there might be something for us to discuss. But your persecuted and accusatory tone suggest you really don’t want that.

        The writer was so confident of his material he wouldn’t even provide a by-line. Which says it all.

        This seems a reasoned response to an article that reads, to me, as an hysterical outburst, or perhaps irony;

        https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/article-by-the-expose-failed-to-account-for-caveats-listed-in-u-k-vaccine-surveillance-reports-falsely-claims-fully-vaccinated-people-have-weakened-immunity/

    • Conrad Ziefle says:

      If it is a factual, then how is it harmful? It’s like saying publishing the actual thermometer data rather than accepting the NOAA NASA manipulated data is harmful. You have argued against myocarditis by vaccine data by presenting the fact that a greater number of people get myocarditis from COVID than from the vaccine.
      Great, that is the kind of stuff I want to see, i.e. both sides.
      However, one has to wonder about official line data because there is a clear attempt to shut down the discussion by labeling counter data as harmful, and Fauci has a long record of burying opposition and their data, while presenting a dishonest representation supporting his position. Read Booby Kennedy’s book. Fauci’s whole career is dishonest and tyrannical.

      • jon says:

        In the first part of your response, we agree fully it seems.

        In the latter you move away from data and into muddied water, where (I assert) you’re telling me that the snow is blue, because you’ve been informed it is, or concluded it is because the system asserts it to be whiter than your experience.

        I don’t see evidence to support your views in this. I do see the public health system reaching around in the dark, I do see them possibly sounding more certain than can be justified, at times. People do that.

        But overall, I see the harm reduced.

        I come from New Zealand, I currently live in China. Two areas where millions have NOT died, because of decisive and consistent actions taken with the best available (incomplete) knowledge.

        • Conrad Ziefle says:

          So maybe we can agree on this: That a full study of the data, and full discussion of it by qualified people, not just Fauci and associates, needs to happen. The government, through its health agencies, needs to allow alternative therapeutics and allow doctors to pursue those which have shown promise in other parts of the world. The current process is more like an inquisition than an open debate between informed, highly educated people. When Malone and McCullough are being silenced, you know something is wrong.
          You won’t agree with this, but it smells like Anthony Fauci MO.

          • jon says:

            Hey Conrad

            I’d like to respond thoroughly, so I’m including your post “” for clarity;

            “So maybe we can agree on this: That a full study of the data, and full discussion of it by qualified people, not just Fauci and associates, needs to happen.”

            Agreed, although your reference to Fauci and assoc is confusing for me, as he has no part in this discussion other than as a bogey man, which view we don’t share.

            “The government, through its health agencies, needs to allow alternative therapeutics and allow doctors to pursue those which have shown promise in other parts of the world.”

            And of course they already do. They just don’t support the “alternatives” that aren’t supported by good evidence. Do you feel they should support urine drinking? Or Hydrogen peroxide inhalation? Toxic mud drinks? I presume you’re referencing vitamin C, Zinc, HCQ and ivermectin – but since no good-science supports any of these, what would be the point?

            I’m guessing you disagree with that last – so put me right with good quality research that’s published and peer evaluated.

            Academic researchers choose their topics according to areas they think show promise.

            No study of HCQ or ivermectin (I’m aware of) has shown such promise, once peer review has clarified the bad data, bad methods or conditioning of the researchers – that is, to the extent of my knowledge. If you know of research that shows otherwise, I’d like to read it, please share.

            “The current process is more like an inquisition than an open debate between informed, highly educated people.”

            Not from where I stand. The discussion here, for example, is people making sweeping statements about the doctrine they’ve absorbed and getting angry or rude when I ask for meaningful data to support their stories.

            Or emotional judgements about the supposed harm to hearts, with no sense of scale about the good effects and with a concrete certainty that ALL deaths are now a result of vaccination.

            “When Malone and McCullough are being silenced, you know something is wrong.”

            I see no suppression of, for example, McCullogh, merely massive disagreement between his views and the data based facts:

            *That narrative, he said, included “false statements regarding asymptomatic spread, reliance on lockdown and masks – which obviously didn’t work – the suppression of early treatment, the mass promotion of vaccines that failed.”

            “And now here we are, almost in complete free fall,” McCullough said, referring to the record number of COVID-19 cases as officials acknowledge the vaccines don’t prevent infection or transmission.*

            Perhaps, by suppression, you mean a lack of blind support for his mixed bag of half right and just plain wrong.

            I see plenty wrong in the way the CDC has promoted certainty it didn’t have, and vaccilated about pandemic control and infection reduction. But mostly I see the US struggling to get its people to follow basic, simple hygiene measures that would have saved lives. Because of some ‘freedom’ principle that has no place in public health measures.

            I’m a New Zealander, living in China. 2 places where pandemic control measures work really well. Without impingement on my freedoms in any meaningful way.

            I see massive rise in cases in the US – but the deaths are among the unvaccinated, overwhelmingly. Sounds like vaccine success. Yes, it’d be great if the vaccines were like a space suit – but they never are. Not dead seems like a good outcome.

            “You won’t agree with this, but it smells like Anthony Fauci MO.”

            I’ve literally no idea what that means, so its impossible to agree or disagree. But I don’t accept that your bogey man has any influence on me, other than when he speaks he seems to make sense, mostly, and admit when he was wrong.

          • jon says:

            Hey Conrad

            Trouble posting this, might be duplicated.

            I’d like to respond thoroughly, so I’m including your post “” for clarity;

            “So maybe we can agree on this: That a full study of the data, and full discussion of it by qualified people, not just Fauci and associates, needs to happen.”

            Agreed, although your reference to Fauci and assoc is confusing for me, as he has no part in this discussion other than as a bogey man, which view we don’t share.

            “The government, through its health agencies, needs to allow alternative therapeutics and allow doctors to pursue those which have shown promise in other parts of the world.”

            And of course they already do. They just don’t support the “alternatives” that aren’t supported by good evidence. Do you feel they should support urine drinking? Or Hydrogen peroxide inhalation? Toxic mud drinks? I presume you’re referencing vitamin C, Zinc, HCQ and ivermectin – but since no good-science supports any of these, what would be the point?

            I’m guessing you disagree with that last – so put me right with good quality research that’s published and peer evaluated.

            Academic researchers choose their topics according to areas they think show promise.

            No study of HCQ or ivermectin (I’m aware of) has shown such promise, once peer review has clarified the bad data, bad methods or conditioning of the researchers – that is, to the extent of my knowledge. If you know of research that shows otherwise, I’d like to read it, please share.

            “The current process is more like an inquisition than an open debate between informed, highly educated people.”

            Not from where I stand. The discussion here, for example, is people making sweeping statements about the doctrine they’ve absorbed and getting angry or rude when I ask for meaningful data to support their stories.

            Or emotional judgements about the supposed harm to hearts, with no sense of scale about the good effects and with a concrete certainty that ALL deaths are now a result of vaccination.

            “When Malone and McCullough are being silenced, you know something is wrong.”

            I see no suppression of, for example, McCullogh, merely massive disagreement between his views and the data based facts:

            *That narrative, he said, included “false statements regarding asymptomatic spread, reliance on lockdown and masks – which obviously didn’t work – the suppression of early treatment, the mass promotion of vaccines that failed.”

            “And now here we are, almost in complete free fall,” McCullough said, referring to the record number of COVID-19 cases as officials acknowledge the vaccines don’t prevent infection or transmission.*

            Perhaps, by suppression, you mean a lack of blind support for his mixed bag of half right and just plain wrong.

            I see plenty wrong in the way the CDC has promoted certainty it didn’t have, and vaccilated about pandemic control and infection reduction. But mostly I see the US struggling to get its people to follow basic, simple hygiene measures that would have saved lives. Because of some ‘freedom’ principle that has no place in public health measures.

            I’m a New Zealander, living in China. 2 places where pandemic control measures work really well. Without impingement on my freedoms in any meaningful way.

            I see massive rise in cases in the US – but the deaths are among the unvaccinated, overwhelmingly. Sounds like vaccine success. Yes, it’d be great if the vaccines were like a space suit – but they never are. Not dead seems like a good outcome.

            “You won’t agree with this, but it smells like Anthony Fauci MO.”

            I’ve literally no idea what that means, so its impossible to agree or disagree. But I don’t accept that your bogey man has any influence on me, other than when he speaks he seems to make sense, mostly, and admit when he was wrong.

  5. Tel says:

    I’m finding it an incredible emotional drain reading stories like this over and over then having everyone carefully ignore the problem.

    Comedian Bob Saget, got boosted on December 11 2021 then died January 9, 2022 (aged 65) which is not so old. Died alone in a hotel room, up to that point in reasonable health … no drug addiction that anyone knew about.

  6. Scott K Jonas says:

    There are many medical professionals who believe that many of the side effects are due to medical personnel not aspirating the needle when administering a shot, and they are baffled that the WHO and CDC said it’s not necessary. Supposedly there is at least one study reporting that side effects are 4.5 times more likely when the needles aren’t aspirated. The shots are supposed to go into muscle tissue, but if they accidentally go into a vein the vaccine goes more quickly to the heart and other organs and causes problems. So when getting any kind of shot, it may be wise to ask if they are going to aspirate the needle (they pull the plunger out slightly to make sure no blood is visible, and if there is, they are supposed to pull out the needle and throw it away and start over).

    • arn says:

      You mean that a well known,safe,fasr,necessary,established and bullet proof method like aspiration
      is no longer necessary according to the high priests of health.

      War on mankind is real.

    • jon says:

      Interesting, I’ve not heard of this.

      Aspiration really doesn’t apply well to intramuscular sites – the blood supply is very limited, its often quite painful and the air bolus that its meant to avoid introducing isn’t significant in muscle or fat tissuescas it will not travel to the brain and cause stroke.

      You mention a paper on the subject, can you link to it? Very interested to read why aspiration (which is not practical in intra muscular injection) has a profound effect.

      The big deal seems to be that muscle tissue holds onto the vaccine for the ‘right’ amount of time to achieve immune ‘training’ – that intra venous allows the vaccine to be flushed out too fast, and intra fat injection provides too little effect before the vaccine breaks down.

    • jon says:

      No link to this paper then?

      Big claims do suggest big sources or big reasoning, but you don’t want to share either?

  7. Conrad Ziefle says:

    Dr. Anthony Mengele Fauci has finally found the cause of AIDS, and he is pushing it as hard as he can, so he can get more customers for his expensive and deadly anti-AIDS concoction.

  8. Conrad Ziefle says:

    One more thing. Are the vaccines actually working? That appears to be debatable. One has to wonder why they chose to use the spike protein, the most dangerous part of the virus, as the vaccine element? Why not use some other benign part of the virus but also key to its existence? Also, everyone knows that these vaccines came to market more quickly than traditionally. Everyone should be on the alert for adverse events. It’s only reasonable. No one should be angry with or condemning people who don’t want to take a vaccine that is not fully vetted and is also of an entirely new technology. Also, all the data needs to be on the table, and unlike the AIDS epidemic it needs to be debated and thrashed openly and freely by those who are not under Fauci’s reign of tyranny.

    • jon says:

      Hi Conrad

      A lot to unpack there.

      “One more thing. Are the vaccines actually working? That appears to be debatable.”

      I wonder if this helps your debate;

      https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination

      “One has to wonder why they chose to use the spike protein, the most dangerous part of the virus, as the vaccine element?”

      You write of the intrinsic danger of the spike protein. Can you explain the danger you see?

      The spike protein is the outside of the virus, the cell opening key and the first thing the immune system contacts in infection, so its the obvious identifier. That’s how vaccines work.

      And if the spike protein in dangerous in and of itself, there will be evidence of it. Do you have any?

      “Why not use some other benign part of the virus but also key to its existence?”

      Because, if there are such parts, they’re not the first encounter and therefore they’re less easily differentiated by the immune response.

      And if spike proteins are not harmful in the way you seem to suggest, then whats the issue in their ‘use’ in the process?

      “Also, everyone knows that these vaccines came to market more quickly than traditionally. Everyone should be on the alert for adverse events. It’s only reasonable.”

      And the immunology and public health communities are very alert, it seems to me.

      They were not untested – and billions of shots in, they’re more studied than any medical treatment ever.

      “No one should be angry with or condemning people who don’t want to take a vaccine that is not fully vetted and is also of an entirely new technology.”

      Angry or condemning I agree – but if the fears have been stoked and nurtured for political gain, then teaching the truth to the lied to is a duty of care.

      “Also, all the data needs to be on the table, and unlike the AIDS epidemic it needs to be debated and thrashed openly and freely”

      Agreed – and here we are.

      “by those who are not under Fauci’s reign of tyranny.”

      Huh? Reign of tyranny? I’m lost, don’t understand what that means.

      Well I’m not Faucci tyranised. I’m a New Zealander, living in China. No Fauci here.

      • Conrad Ziefle says:

        Sorry, but the world seems to follow the CDC, NIH, and other US health agencies. Have you read Bobby Kennedy’s book on Fauci? The spike, whether it was a logic choice, has been ID’d as the damage maker. It is suspect in the myocarditis issues. I don’t know enough about biology to make a comment about the spike being the first thing that the body sees. I know it attaches through the spike, but does that necessitate that the body sees only the spike and not other parts of it? Kennedy goes through, in detail, how the trials of the Pfizer vaccine were compromised. He addresses all the issues, including Fauci’s character, in great detail, and his view seems to match with what is going on in the real world.
        So since you live in China, what did they do? As far as New Zealand, they seem to only be setting themselves aside as a reserve for future infection.

        • jon says:

          Conrad, neither of us are virologists, vaccine developers or medical researchers, I think. So opinions as to the ‘selection’ of virus elements as vaccine tools is speculative irrelevance.

          Again I ask, what is the data that tells you that the spike protein was a dangerous, foolish or unwisely selected option? Why even ask a question you don’t understand of someone who has no more data than you?

          Likely because you’ve developed a view on this (which i have not) – so how about you describe what this view is and where this view comes from, rather than assuming i should agree with it?

          As for NZ and China protecting their populations until treatments and vaccines blunt the pandemic impact – are you suggesting the worst in the world raging infection and death rate in the US was a better choice? What price is worth paying for herd immunity, which the US still hasn’t reached?

          China has reached 80+% vaccination and boosters, with almost no deaths and with less economic impact than almost any country.

          NZ similar, though slower with vaccinations.

          And both without fuelling divisions and risking civil conflict.

          This seems like a good thing.

  9. Tony, I really appreciate what you are doing. Thank you for your efforts.

    I came into contact with Prof Dr Dolores Cahill in March of 2020 and would now regard her as a friend. I think she is a brilliant scientist and a lovely decent person. She told me about her extensive work in the field of mRNA vaccines and that it is possible anyone who has been subjected to Anti-COVID injections would likely sustain serious life-threatening injury to their vascular, neurological and immune systems. Although, at present, her predictions of doom have not been as bad as she foreshadowed, what is happening is very serious and concerning. It is definitely in accordance with her warnings. Prof Dr Peter McCullough, someone else that I have had dealings with and who impresses me greatly, also has similar concerns though not as dire as Prof Cahill’s. Likewise Dr Robert Malone, Dr Michael Yeadon, Dr Tess Lawrie and Prof Dr Geert Vanden Bossche. All are exemplary in their field of endeavor and all are sounding the alarm about what has happened and is happening.

    I therefore think there is a high probability of the Expose report having some substance.

    Once again Tony, thank you. I will write to you privately. Please keep up the excellent work you are doing.

    • jon says:

      Hi Kevin

      Setting aside the stuff we are unlikely to be able to discuss, I’d like to understand your assessment of the probability of there being some truth in the Exposé article.

      If this is just deferral to the list of academics you offer, surely there must also be data? People dying in large numbers from vaccine ‘induced’ immunity collapse would show up as an elevated sickness/death rate among the vaccinated. I see no such, but overlaps you do?

      Data would validate this – and lack of data woyld reinforce the dismissal of these conclusions.

      No opinions needed, then. Expert or otherwise.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.