Thank you for these articles. I don't think any historian alive has been willing to discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict from the very language used by the Left.
Language used by the Left and by the globalist predators for whom the Left is working, creates a version of reality. Those who are indoctrinated in it, learn that version of reality but are never told, "This is just one version of reality." They are taught "This is reality." The indoctrinated ones then have a great deal of difficulty considering the arguments upon which the Left bases its conclusions. "How can I argue with reality?"
The reason I know this is that my parents were very involved in the Communist youth movement in Brooklyn, NY, called "American Youth for Democracy." (note that Communists always hide their totalitarian goals under the guise of "democracy."). They began in AYD when my mother was 13 and my father 15. THEY ARE STILL INDOCTRINATED TO THIS DAY, even though my dad since became very wealthy. But his political ideas HAVE NOT CHANGED AT ALL. As for my mother, when I recently described a book about the Ukrainian Holodomyr, she said it never happened and it is all anti-Russian propaganda. All my 5 sibs just have never questioned the Marxist line.
I know what it feels like to be brought up with this world view. I was taught that there is no other reasonable way to view the world,(other than the Marxist-Leninist worldview) but there are other more ignorant ways to view the world. It is mind boggling in retrospect, but thankfully, after a visit to Israel in 2006, I had a lot of questions, and began to do my own research (that was when I originally found your HIR website) and I have developed into a political conservative but not the corporatist type of conservative, one based upon understanding the macroeconomics of what policies lead to economic growth and more jobs vs. those policies that lead to stagnant economies and loss of jobs for the people. (I retain my parents' loyalty and concern for the working class from which they both came).
Since your ideas investigate in a very deep way the management of reality, I appreciate the tremendous amount of research that goes into each and every article you write. I can't express my appreciation for the amount I have learned from you.
This article in particular is brilliant because you don't challenge the lexicon directly, you don't reject their ideas outright (none of which gets anyone anywhere), but you take your time to reason with Leftists who are open to reason, using their own belief system. After all, that is what it amounts to: one giant belief system in victimhood as the prime mover. This belief system attempts to explain past, present and future, human relationships, economics, all of science, etc. with victimization as the primary cause of everything. And as you point out, Leftists are the heroes because they defend the oppressed, whereas anyone who disagrees with them is, by definition, a villain.
Another superb series of articles. One tiny criticism is comparing the misinformation about Israel with misinformation about those advocating the COVID-19 vaccine for children. This is a big stretch. While it is true that the cost benefit ratio of vaccination of children for COVID-19 is higher than for other approved vaccines, it is not obviously greater than 1. In other words it may be beneficial. Of course that does not justify promoting it as strongly as it was promoted. But it was not irresponsible to license it.
Many thanks for the compliment, and for your comment (and for your support).
It is my view that your knowledge on this needs to be updated. It has now been established that the mRNA ‘vaccines’ did not protect us from infection, they did not reduce transmission, and they did not reduce the severity of the illness, as was claimed. What these so-called 'vaccines'--in reality, genetic interventions--did do was produce all kinds of deleterious health effects, some of them quite serious.
Moreover, these so-called ‘vaccines’ were a response to a manufactured health crisis, in which a lab did ‘gain of function’ on wild viruses to engineer a new virus, the severity of which was wildly exaggerated via media and government manipulation, and so... many... lies... (and censorship), and all of that so they could make billions selling us that poison and also test whether --under a fright -- they could get us to acquiesce in the destruction of our most basic rights and liberties (most people did, and the bosses took notice…).
So, in disagreement with your view, I believe that the inoculation of so many millions of our children, when even the data of the governments bullying us clearly showed that children were hardly at risk for COVID, was quite simply a crime, one of the greatest ever to take place in the history of our human species. All those parents who chose to trust the authorities and took their children to be injected were complicit.
I am not interested in passing judgment. I am interested in a reckoning with history, so that we can all unite and defend the West. So long as many of us continue to defend the official COVID narrative of our psychopathic bosses, our minds are still in the hands of the enemy, yet to be freed.
Perhaps you will find some of our articles on the COVID crisis interesting. I can recommend the following, as an appetizer:
I am a clinically qualified immunologist doing research at the University of Oxford. I understands the science and have read many of the relevant vaccine studies. I am appalled by the many mistakes and the extreme dishonesty displayed by my profession with respect the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, the disgraceful suppression of any investigation of the possibility that the COVID-19 pandemic was the result of a research-related accident. This now seems overwhelmingly likely. Despite this, little has been done to stop the irresponsible experiments that risk another pandemic. This is criminally irresponsible, in my view. I was also opposed to there extreme lockdowns, which were not evidence based and did far more harm than good, especially to children. While vaccination of children was unnecessary, I am not aware of evidence showing that this did more harm than good. I would be interested in reading any study showing this.
Incidentally, the first mRNA vaccine trials showed very clearly that they prevent infection by the original Wuhan strain of SARS-CoV-2 using for the vaccine. What became clear subsequently was that (1) it did not protect against infection newer strains and (2) protection against infection wains quickly.
Anton please see the following links with regard to safety-benefit profile of COVID vaccines for children and in general. The RCTs are a mixed bag while observational studies are severely hampered by healthy user and surveillance. (Actually the RCTs are also subject to surveillance bias because investigators were given discretion to test for COVID within first week of receiving each dose.)
Thank you for this. I am familiar with most of these studies. It is a simple and inevitable vaccines produce rare side effects. They induce an immune response and the immune system is not 100% specific, risking autoimmune side effects.
These studies all confirm that mRNA vaccine are no exception. The key question is whether the risk benefit ratio of mRNA justifies vaccination. The key parameter is what risk is considered acceptable relative to the benefit. For mRNA vaccines serious adverse effect are in the region of 1 in 1000, fatal effects around 1 in 100,000. In the case of COVID-19, the infection fatality rate is EXTREMELY age dependent. It was 1:10 in uninfected, unvaccinated patients over 80. This dropped 10 fold every 20 years and so was below 1:100,000 in otherwise well infants.
We general require that vaccine risk:benefit ratio is well below 0.1 before licensing it, implicit valuing a life lost to the vaccine at least 10 fold higher than a life lost to infection.
It is obvious from this that mRNA vaccines were only a marginal benefit for infants. They should not have been licensed in for immunocompetent very young children, They are, however, clearly beneficial for anyone over 40, in whom they have a risk benefit ratio below 1:100. There is a sex difference with males having a higher risk of adverse effects.
This discussion has focused on mortality. Non-fatal side effects are far more common. With infection these tend to be worse and longer term than with vaccines, even in younger people. The most obvious example is long-COVID-19, which affects ~1% of patients of all ages, and is higher in women. Vaccination decrease the likelihood of long-COVID-19 by around ~50%.
It seems we broadly agree, then. My point about the children is this. First, there is now overwhelming evidence that the "vaccines" didn't do much of anything in terms of protecting us (infection, transmission, severity) from COVID, and this evidence was actually quite clear very quickly, if you looked past the propaganda. There is plenty of evidence that the "vaccines" do harm. And, finally, it is clear that children were at almost zero risk from COVID harm. Since natural immunity is a good thing, it was obviously better for children to develop that via exposure than to inject them with experimental "vaccines" with an entirely new genetic intervention to a disease that was quite obviously not killing them or doing any significant harm. The decision to vaccinate the children was immoral, and especially so for this being the most vulnerable category of person, almost entirely unable to defend themselves from the decisions of adults.
Yes we mostly agree, but I want to emphasise two points.
(1) There is overwhelming evidence from the most rigorous type of clinical trials (randomised double-blind prospective clinical trials) that COVID-19 vaccines protected from infection by the same viral strain. Unfortunately protection wanes and the virus mutates rapidly.
(2) There is also overwhelming evidence that vaccination provided protection from death, from multiple viral strains, especially in older people. This protection is longer lasting.
Now that almost everyone has been infected by COVID-19, and we are reinfected regularly, these vaccines have become less important.
mRNA vaccines are not a genetic intervention. They are also totally incapable of modifying genes. They are in fact safer than most vaccines, which are typically attenuated or killed infectious organisms. Unlike these vaccines mRNA vaccines are totally incapable or causing infection.
Like all vaccines (and all infections) they provoke an immune response. With all infections and vaccines there is a small risk of an auto-immune response targeting normal cells. COVID-19 vaccines can induce a response to heart cells (myocarditis). Myocarditis is actually more common and more severe in response to COVID-19 infection itself. Fortunately vaccine induced myocarditis is almost never fatal.
1) On your first point, Pfizer and Moderna indeed reported that their trials had documented protection from the virus with the mRNA vaccine, but the claims were always suspect because:
a) Early unblinding of the participants. In both Pfizer and Moderna trials, those in the placebo group were offered the vaccine shortly after the EUA (emergency-use authorization) was granted. This compromised the ability to conduct long-term, placebo-controlled studies, which are vital for assessing long-term efficacy and safety.
b) Inadequate Duration for Assessing Long-Term Safety. Trials were primarily focused on short-term outcomes (e.g., infection within a few months), with median follow-up periods of only 2 months prior to EUA. Long-term adverse effects or durability of protection could not be assessed with this limited time frame.
c) Underpowered to Detect Rare Adverse Events. Sample sizes were too small to detect rare side effects, such as myocarditis or neurological events. Important safety signals were missed in the trial phase and only emerged during mass vaccination.
d) Lack of Testing for Asymptomatic Transmission or Infection. The primary endpoint was prevention of symptomatic COVID-19, not infection per se or transmission. So the trials did not directly assess whether vaccines reduced spread of the virus.
e) Selective Reporting and Endpoint Switching. There were changes to protocols and endpoints mid-trial (e.g., redefinition of a “case” or delay in data cutoff). Such changes introduce bias and amount to data manipulation.
f) Poor Representation of Certain Demographics. The trials underrepresented some key groups, including the elderly, the immunocompromised, and those with prior COVID infection. This limited generalizability and left questions about vaccine safety and efficacy in these populations.
g) Speed of Development and Regulatory Pressure. The trials were conducted under intense time pressure with overlapping trial phases. Due diligence and adverse-event monitoring were compromised.
All of the above are problems. But the most important problem is this:
h) Pfizer’s own 6-month trial report showed a higher number of deaths in the vaccinated group than the placebo group (21 vs. 17). I mean, wow. Also, Serious Adverse Events were more frequent in the vaccine group, and trial participants with previous COVID infections were excluded. Again, wow. The Pfizer trial, even with all the help they tried to give to their "vaccines", showed no benefit.
If all-cause mortality is higher in the vaccinated group in a randomized controlled trial, then the burden of proof is squarely on the manufacturer and public health authorities to explain why this does not indicate net harm from the alleged "vaccine." There is no good evidence the vaccine helped, and real concern that it caused harm.
As for your claim that this was not a genetic intervention, you seem to be interpreting that I claimed this was an intervention to rewrite our genetic code. I was not claiming that. But it was a genetic intervention because the
"vaccine" recruits the our DNA to make the spike protein. It does *mess* with your DNA even if it doesn't rewrite it. And it is certainly experimental.
Thomas, S. J., et al. (2021). Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine through 6 Months. New England Journal of Medicine, 385(19), 1761–1773.
Thank you. You are not only helping to save our lives, you are saving me from hatred. That is, from hating the world. Thank you.
Well that is a huge return for me. Thank you for sharing that. And thank you for your support.
Thank you for these articles. I don't think any historian alive has been willing to discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict from the very language used by the Left.
Language used by the Left and by the globalist predators for whom the Left is working, creates a version of reality. Those who are indoctrinated in it, learn that version of reality but are never told, "This is just one version of reality." They are taught "This is reality." The indoctrinated ones then have a great deal of difficulty considering the arguments upon which the Left bases its conclusions. "How can I argue with reality?"
The reason I know this is that my parents were very involved in the Communist youth movement in Brooklyn, NY, called "American Youth for Democracy." (note that Communists always hide their totalitarian goals under the guise of "democracy."). They began in AYD when my mother was 13 and my father 15. THEY ARE STILL INDOCTRINATED TO THIS DAY, even though my dad since became very wealthy. But his political ideas HAVE NOT CHANGED AT ALL. As for my mother, when I recently described a book about the Ukrainian Holodomyr, she said it never happened and it is all anti-Russian propaganda. All my 5 sibs just have never questioned the Marxist line.
I know what it feels like to be brought up with this world view. I was taught that there is no other reasonable way to view the world,(other than the Marxist-Leninist worldview) but there are other more ignorant ways to view the world. It is mind boggling in retrospect, but thankfully, after a visit to Israel in 2006, I had a lot of questions, and began to do my own research (that was when I originally found your HIR website) and I have developed into a political conservative but not the corporatist type of conservative, one based upon understanding the macroeconomics of what policies lead to economic growth and more jobs vs. those policies that lead to stagnant economies and loss of jobs for the people. (I retain my parents' loyalty and concern for the working class from which they both came).
Since your ideas investigate in a very deep way the management of reality, I appreciate the tremendous amount of research that goes into each and every article you write. I can't express my appreciation for the amount I have learned from you.
This article in particular is brilliant because you don't challenge the lexicon directly, you don't reject their ideas outright (none of which gets anyone anywhere), but you take your time to reason with Leftists who are open to reason, using their own belief system. After all, that is what it amounts to: one giant belief system in victimhood as the prime mover. This belief system attempts to explain past, present and future, human relationships, economics, all of science, etc. with victimization as the primary cause of everything. And as you point out, Leftists are the heroes because they defend the oppressed, whereas anyone who disagrees with them is, by definition, a villain.
Wow. Thank you.
You are most welcome. I am glad you find the approach useful!!
Another superb series of articles. One tiny criticism is comparing the misinformation about Israel with misinformation about those advocating the COVID-19 vaccine for children. This is a big stretch. While it is true that the cost benefit ratio of vaccination of children for COVID-19 is higher than for other approved vaccines, it is not obviously greater than 1. In other words it may be beneficial. Of course that does not justify promoting it as strongly as it was promoted. But it was not irresponsible to license it.
Many thanks for the compliment, and for your comment (and for your support).
It is my view that your knowledge on this needs to be updated. It has now been established that the mRNA ‘vaccines’ did not protect us from infection, they did not reduce transmission, and they did not reduce the severity of the illness, as was claimed. What these so-called 'vaccines'--in reality, genetic interventions--did do was produce all kinds of deleterious health effects, some of them quite serious.
Moreover, these so-called ‘vaccines’ were a response to a manufactured health crisis, in which a lab did ‘gain of function’ on wild viruses to engineer a new virus, the severity of which was wildly exaggerated via media and government manipulation, and so... many... lies... (and censorship), and all of that so they could make billions selling us that poison and also test whether --under a fright -- they could get us to acquiesce in the destruction of our most basic rights and liberties (most people did, and the bosses took notice…).
So, in disagreement with your view, I believe that the inoculation of so many millions of our children, when even the data of the governments bullying us clearly showed that children were hardly at risk for COVID, was quite simply a crime, one of the greatest ever to take place in the history of our human species. All those parents who chose to trust the authorities and took their children to be injected were complicit.
I am not interested in passing judgment. I am interested in a reckoning with history, so that we can all unite and defend the West. So long as many of us continue to defend the official COVID narrative of our psychopathic bosses, our minds are still in the hands of the enemy, yet to be freed.
Perhaps you will find some of our articles on the COVID crisis interesting. I can recommend the following, as an appetizer:
https://franciscogilwhite.substack.com/p/covid-controversy-undisputed-historical-facts
https://franciscogilwhite.substack.com/p/official-covid-statistics-inflated
https://franciscogilwhite.substack.com/p/did-bill-gates-order-the-lockdowns
https://franciscogilwhite.substack.com/p/lab-leak-plausible-hypothesis-says-evidence
I am a clinically qualified immunologist doing research at the University of Oxford. I understands the science and have read many of the relevant vaccine studies. I am appalled by the many mistakes and the extreme dishonesty displayed by my profession with respect the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, the disgraceful suppression of any investigation of the possibility that the COVID-19 pandemic was the result of a research-related accident. This now seems overwhelmingly likely. Despite this, little has been done to stop the irresponsible experiments that risk another pandemic. This is criminally irresponsible, in my view. I was also opposed to there extreme lockdowns, which were not evidence based and did far more harm than good, especially to children. While vaccination of children was unnecessary, I am not aware of evidence showing that this did more harm than good. I would be interested in reading any study showing this.
Incidentally, the first mRNA vaccine trials showed very clearly that they prevent infection by the original Wuhan strain of SARS-CoV-2 using for the vaccine. What became clear subsequently was that (1) it did not protect against infection newer strains and (2) protection against infection wains quickly.
Anton please see the following links with regard to safety-benefit profile of COVID vaccines for children and in general. The RCTs are a mixed bag while observational studies are severely hampered by healthy user and surveillance. (Actually the RCTs are also subject to surveillance bias because investigators were given discretion to test for COVID within first week of receiving each dose.)
https://europepmc.org/article/med/38361448
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.12.07.23298573v3
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39078156/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1521661623005259?via%3Dihub
https://www.cell.com/iscience/pdf/S2589-0042(23)00810-6.pdf
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36055877/
And here are over 3700 mostly published studies on AEs following COVID vaccination: https://www.react19.org/science
In my opinion the entire story with Maddie DeGaray should have been enough to completely discredit the RCT's tracking of safety concerns and doom the mRNA COVID vaccines in young people: https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/fda-buries-data-on-seriously-injured
Here is a serious book by British academics questioning much of the evidence (primarily in UK) that was used to support draconian pandemic policies, including compulsory vaccination: https://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Goliath-Exposing-statistics-COVID-19/dp/1068749822
Thank you for this. I am familiar with most of these studies. It is a simple and inevitable vaccines produce rare side effects. They induce an immune response and the immune system is not 100% specific, risking autoimmune side effects.
These studies all confirm that mRNA vaccine are no exception. The key question is whether the risk benefit ratio of mRNA justifies vaccination. The key parameter is what risk is considered acceptable relative to the benefit. For mRNA vaccines serious adverse effect are in the region of 1 in 1000, fatal effects around 1 in 100,000. In the case of COVID-19, the infection fatality rate is EXTREMELY age dependent. It was 1:10 in uninfected, unvaccinated patients over 80. This dropped 10 fold every 20 years and so was below 1:100,000 in otherwise well infants.
We general require that vaccine risk:benefit ratio is well below 0.1 before licensing it, implicit valuing a life lost to the vaccine at least 10 fold higher than a life lost to infection.
It is obvious from this that mRNA vaccines were only a marginal benefit for infants. They should not have been licensed in for immunocompetent very young children, They are, however, clearly beneficial for anyone over 40, in whom they have a risk benefit ratio below 1:100. There is a sex difference with males having a higher risk of adverse effects.
This discussion has focused on mortality. Non-fatal side effects are far more common. With infection these tend to be worse and longer term than with vaccines, even in younger people. The most obvious example is long-COVID-19, which affects ~1% of patients of all ages, and is higher in women. Vaccination decrease the likelihood of long-COVID-19 by around ~50%.
I think you are considerably underestimating the risks. The science of COVID vaccine safety makes Tobacco science look Nobel prize worthy.
It seems we broadly agree, then. My point about the children is this. First, there is now overwhelming evidence that the "vaccines" didn't do much of anything in terms of protecting us (infection, transmission, severity) from COVID, and this evidence was actually quite clear very quickly, if you looked past the propaganda. There is plenty of evidence that the "vaccines" do harm. And, finally, it is clear that children were at almost zero risk from COVID harm. Since natural immunity is a good thing, it was obviously better for children to develop that via exposure than to inject them with experimental "vaccines" with an entirely new genetic intervention to a disease that was quite obviously not killing them or doing any significant harm. The decision to vaccinate the children was immoral, and especially so for this being the most vulnerable category of person, almost entirely unable to defend themselves from the decisions of adults.
Yes we mostly agree, but I want to emphasise two points.
(1) There is overwhelming evidence from the most rigorous type of clinical trials (randomised double-blind prospective clinical trials) that COVID-19 vaccines protected from infection by the same viral strain. Unfortunately protection wanes and the virus mutates rapidly.
(2) There is also overwhelming evidence that vaccination provided protection from death, from multiple viral strains, especially in older people. This protection is longer lasting.
Now that almost everyone has been infected by COVID-19, and we are reinfected regularly, these vaccines have become less important.
mRNA vaccines are not a genetic intervention. They are also totally incapable of modifying genes. They are in fact safer than most vaccines, which are typically attenuated or killed infectious organisms. Unlike these vaccines mRNA vaccines are totally incapable or causing infection.
Like all vaccines (and all infections) they provoke an immune response. With all infections and vaccines there is a small risk of an auto-immune response targeting normal cells. COVID-19 vaccines can induce a response to heart cells (myocarditis). Myocarditis is actually more common and more severe in response to COVID-19 infection itself. Fortunately vaccine induced myocarditis is almost never fatal.
1) On your first point, Pfizer and Moderna indeed reported that their trials had documented protection from the virus with the mRNA vaccine, but the claims were always suspect because:
a) Early unblinding of the participants. In both Pfizer and Moderna trials, those in the placebo group were offered the vaccine shortly after the EUA (emergency-use authorization) was granted. This compromised the ability to conduct long-term, placebo-controlled studies, which are vital for assessing long-term efficacy and safety.
b) Inadequate Duration for Assessing Long-Term Safety. Trials were primarily focused on short-term outcomes (e.g., infection within a few months), with median follow-up periods of only 2 months prior to EUA. Long-term adverse effects or durability of protection could not be assessed with this limited time frame.
c) Underpowered to Detect Rare Adverse Events. Sample sizes were too small to detect rare side effects, such as myocarditis or neurological events. Important safety signals were missed in the trial phase and only emerged during mass vaccination.
d) Lack of Testing for Asymptomatic Transmission or Infection. The primary endpoint was prevention of symptomatic COVID-19, not infection per se or transmission. So the trials did not directly assess whether vaccines reduced spread of the virus.
e) Selective Reporting and Endpoint Switching. There were changes to protocols and endpoints mid-trial (e.g., redefinition of a “case” or delay in data cutoff). Such changes introduce bias and amount to data manipulation.
f) Poor Representation of Certain Demographics. The trials underrepresented some key groups, including the elderly, the immunocompromised, and those with prior COVID infection. This limited generalizability and left questions about vaccine safety and efficacy in these populations.
g) Speed of Development and Regulatory Pressure. The trials were conducted under intense time pressure with overlapping trial phases. Due diligence and adverse-event monitoring were compromised.
All of the above are problems. But the most important problem is this:
h) Pfizer’s own 6-month trial report showed a higher number of deaths in the vaccinated group than the placebo group (21 vs. 17). I mean, wow. Also, Serious Adverse Events were more frequent in the vaccine group, and trial participants with previous COVID infections were excluded. Again, wow. The Pfizer trial, even with all the help they tried to give to their "vaccines", showed no benefit.
If all-cause mortality is higher in the vaccinated group in a randomized controlled trial, then the burden of proof is squarely on the manufacturer and public health authorities to explain why this does not indicate net harm from the alleged "vaccine." There is no good evidence the vaccine helped, and real concern that it caused harm.
As for your claim that this was not a genetic intervention, you seem to be interpreting that I claimed this was an intervention to rewrite our genetic code. I was not claiming that. But it was a genetic intervention because the
"vaccine" recruits the our DNA to make the spike protein. It does *mess* with your DNA even if it doesn't rewrite it. And it is certainly experimental.
Thomas, S. J., et al. (2021). Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine through 6 Months. New England Journal of Medicine, 385(19), 1761–1773.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345
https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/media/the-pfizer-inoculations-for-covid-19-more-harm-than-good-2/