maandag 30 augustus 2021

The Awareness Foundation Covid 19 Roundtable

 

https://inoneplace.com/thewatch/item/a7VKK4WS0hA1874?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=pmd_OGKG5Q9JlAnkPtcKI20PV6Xcl9zJtvRxtAqlLGkI7ZU-1630311206-0-gqNtZGzNAfujcnBszQi9 

 282887 views
 Posted on - July 30, 2021
 36 comments

Bovenkant formulier

3558 out of 3633 people like this.



Fourteen of the worlds highest-profile doctors, all specialists in their own fields, come together to discuss the dangers that we all face from the Covid 19 pandemic. They discuss in detail the merits and the dangers posed by the vaccines that are being rolled out and pushed onto society.

Hear their honest opinions and learn about the censorship that they have all faced from speaking out. Discussing together in one place for the first time, learn from the experts and heed their warnings.

Presented by Katherine Macbean of The Awareness Foundation

Featuring the following specialist:

Professor Dolores Cahill
Dr Ryan Cole
Dr Richard Fleming
Dr Dmitry Kats
Dr Tess Lawrie
Dr Li-Meng Yan
Dr Robert Malone
Dr Peter McCullough
Dr Joseph Mercola
Dr Lee Merritt
Dr Sherri Tenpenny
Dr Richard Urso
Dr Sam White
Dr Vladimir Zelenko
www.awareness.foundation

------

Awareness Foundation COVID-19 Roundtable

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact Checked

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

·         The Awareness Foundation COVID-19 Roundtable is a sign of wakefulness and hope during times of censorship and suppression

·         It includes honest opinions and expertise from 14 high-profile doctors, including myself, with a focus on the potential dangers being posed by the experimental mass COVID-19 vaccination campaign

·         Experts discuss how COVID-19 vaccines may cause a coming tsunami of hospitalization and deaths, along with debilitating chronic disease, early signs of which are already appearing

·         All agree that there’s enough evidence to halt the global COVID-19 vaccination campaign, either for everyone or — particularly — for those to whom the vaccines pose the greatest risks with little to no benefit, namely children and young people, pregnant women and those who have already recovered from COVID-19


In this time of extreme censorship and suppression of scientific debate, The Awareness Foundation COVID-19 Roundtable,1 hosted by Katherine Macbean of the Awareness Foundation, is a sign of wakefulness and hope. It includes honest opinions and expertise from 14 high-profile doctors, including myself, with a focus on the potential dangers being posed by the experimental mass COVID-19 vaccination campaign.

Each has faced censorship when speaking out, and though there are some differing viewpoints, all agree that there’s enough evidence to halt the global COVID-19 vaccination campaign, either for everyone or — particularly — for those to whom the vaccines pose the greatest risks with little to no benefit. This includes children and young people, pregnant women and those who have already recovered from COVID-19.

I highly recommend setting aside two hours to watch this roundtable discussion in full — it’s a rarity in the present day to hear such candor and open debate. However, I’ve also compiled some of the highlights below, which include warnings about the dangers these experimental vaccines may pose to society.

A Tsunami of Chronic Disease and Death

Will COVID-19 vaccines cause a coming tsunami of hospitalization and deaths, along with debilitating chronic disease? One expert on the panel, Dr. Peter McCullough, an internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist and full professor of medicine at Texas A&M College of Medicine in Dallas with a master's degree in public health, said he’s focused more on the short-term adverse effects from the shot. These nonfatal injuries fall into four major categories:

1.     Neurologic

2.     Immunologic

3.     Hematologic

4.     Cardiac

“What I'm seeing is just the late emergence of various neurologic syndromes. And it probably depends on where the seeding occurs of, uh, of, you know, the uptake of the genetic material in the brain or support cells in the brain, but there's a whole variety of cerebral, cerebellar, even peripheral nervous system abnormalities,” McCullough said, adding:2

“I've seen it in my clinic and they seem to be emerging three, four or five, six months later after vaccination … So I'm getting increasingly alarmed here that this is not just a simple one- or two-day problem. And so there's great concern, particularly in younger kids that over a course of three or six or nine months, they'll end up with heart failure or cardiac death.

… What I see is, potentially from these signals, not mass death, but just a large number of Americans and people around the world with a new chronic disease of some sort of neurodegenerative disease or cardiac disease. The patients that I'm aware of, these problems seem to be quite disabling.”

Another panel member, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, who has treated thousands of COVID-19 patients using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), azithromycin and zinc sulfate,3 with great success, has a different take. He believes there is a very distinct possibility that everyone who receives the COVID jab may die from complications in the next two to three years:4

“I'm just going to give you the perspective of a clinician who deals with people that are dying … 4 million dead people can testify to the unique clinical syndrome to put them there. Basically, a natural animal virus was changed to infect humans, and then its lethality was augmented to cause blood clots and lung damage.

And in concept here, we're dealing with a Hitler/Stalin type of mentality with weapons of mass destruction and the way to win this war — and it's very winnable — is in the following manner. It's a narrative war. So we need to spread the following two ideas … Don't give into the fear and choose to destroy yourself, No. 1. No. 2, treat your problem early. If these two ideas could penetrate the fixed calls of humanity, then it's really the end of this crisis.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie, whose company The Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy has worked with the World Health Organization, agreed that the vaccines are unsafe for children and adults alike:5

“They're actually not safe for anybody, and it's clear. The databases are screaming. The databases are early warning systems, and the databases around the world are screaming that we are facing a tsunami of chronic disease.”

Inflammatory Disorders, Cancer Markers on the Rise

Dr. Richard Urso, an ophthalmologist in Houston, Texas, is also concerned:6

“Early on, we were seeing things, mostly thrombotic, but later, as we get into two and three months [after vaccination], we’re seeing a lot of inflammatory issues. I’ve had a host of people with inflammatory ocular disorders, as well as having orbital inflammatory diseases.

I typically don’t see this rash number of people. For people who don’t know, my clinical practice is probably one of the largest in the United States, if not the largest, and we get a tremendous number, in volume, of patients who come through our office. And I’m seeing late inflammatory disease, and it responds quite well to inflammatory medicines.”

Some have brushed off the notion that the virus could be a bioweapon because it didn’t cause sudden, mass deaths. But this is a misconception. A successful bioweapon can be something that causes long-term, progressive, chronic-type diseases, noted Dr. Richard Fleming, a physicist, nuclear cardiologist and attorney.

In 1994, Fleming introduced the theory of inflammation and vascular disease, which explains why these inflammable thrombotic diseases, and the causes, including viruses like SARS-CoV-2, produce disease states like COVID-19.

“As I laid out in the theory in 1994,” Fleming said, “you're going to see an inflammable thrombotic response. That’s the primary thing that people are noticing, be that heart disease or retinol disease.” The other factor is a prion component of this virus, “which is also a chronic smoldering disease.” Fleming noted:7

“If you're going to actually develop something that's going to have a massive effect on your ‘enemy,’ your goal isn't to kill the enemy any more than it was the goal of the United States in Vietnam to kill the enemy.

The goal was to maim the enemy so that more of the enemy would be taken off the field. What we've seen is something that's been implemented that is an ideal by a weapon designed to demoralize and to feed people the enemy, and to cause a slow smoldering process.”

Fleming cited data from Pfizer that showed in the 12 to 14 days following the second injection of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine, elderly individuals had a 2.6-fold increase in symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease. “This is an inflammable thrombotic process affecting every organ system and prion diseases that not only affect the brain, but also affect the heart and other vital organs of the body.”8

Dr. Ryan Cole, a Mayo Clinic-trained, triple-boarded pathologist, also said that he’s seeing potential cancer-causing changes, including decreases in receptors that keep cancer in check, and other adverse events post-vaccine:9

“I’m seeing countless adverse reactions … it's really post-vaccine immunodeficiency syndrome … I'm seeing a marked increase in herpetic family viruses, human papilloma viruses in the post-vaccinated. I'm seeing a marked uptick in a laboratory setting from what I see year over year of an increase of usually quiescent diseases.

In addition to that — and correlation is not causation — but in the last six months I have seen — you know, I read a fair amount of women's health biopsies — about a 10- to 20-fold increase of uterine cancer compared to what I see on an annual basis. Now we know that the CD8 cells are one of our T-cells to keep our cancers in check.

I am seeing early signals … what I'm seeing is an early signal in the laboratory setting that post-vaccinated patients are having diseases that we normally don't see at rates that are already early considerably alarming.”

Do the Vaccinated Pose a Risk to the Unvaccinated?

Sherri Tenpenny has heard thousands of anecdotal reports that something is being transmitted from the vaccinated to the unvaccinated:10

“We're injecting a synthetically made messenger RNA and strips of synthetically made double-stranded DNA by different mechanisms, and if that transmission goes to the other person, they don't get COVID, they don't get COVID symptoms that we typically recognize as COVID. They get bleeding, they get blood clots, they get headaches, they get heart disease, they get all of these different things.”

Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology,11 doesn’t agree that anything is being “passed” from vaccinated people to others, adding that while it may be possible for mRNA to be shed through breast milk to nursing infants, possibly causing gastrointestinal symptoms, anything else is just speculation.

Others suggest it could be more of a hormonal or pheromonal issue than some type of “shedding,” which may help explain why women are also reporting abnormalities with their menstrual cycles following vaccination. Dr. Lee Merritt, an orthopedic and spinal surgeon, brought up a 2015 report by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which looked at “shedding” in mRNA vaccines, which they call gene therapies.12 She explained:13

“They talk about, they're very concerned about the shedding — and they do call it shedding, whether that's technically correct … And they tell you in this thing who to protect, they tell you to protect neonates, immunocompromised people and elderly with bad immune systems.

They also say, we don't know what's being shed. They say it could be genetic material. It could be activated viruses and it could be a recombinant product. This is what's in the FDA data.”

Immediately Halt the Vaccine Program

All of the experts agreed that evidence suggests the mass COVID-19 vaccination program should be halted. “There is enough evidence now just from the European Medicines Agency alone, 1.7 million in reported adverse events and 17,000 deaths that the four clinical trials should be stopped,” said Dolores Cahill, a professor at the school of medicine at the University College Dublin.

“They are detailed in the classifications, cardiac related immune, uh neuropathological and fertility associated.

So I think we all have duties as doctors and scientists to say, if something is causing more harm than good, which this clearly is, we should, I think, unify and called for a stop to the clinical trials worldwide, and also that any individual prime ministers and regulators that continue the trial would have to be liable for any adverse events.”

Malone believes that the vaccines have merit for certain populations, namely the elderly, but is advocating for prohibition on vaccination for infants and newborns, through young adults up to ages 30 to 35. “And specifically,” he said, “I'm trying to stop this crazy effort to force universities and schools to have universal vaccination.” In addition, he added:

“We can argue about risk-benefit for elderly, but the risk-benefit ratio for newborns through young adults is explicitly clear. It is upside down. It's not subtle there. You're going to kill more. And, and personally, I also feel that we can dig in really hard on the reproductive health in pregnancy, in women, that there just aren't data to support the use of this product because of the potential female reproductive health consequences.”

Dr. Urso added the other significant population that has far more to risk than gain from vaccination: the COVID-recovered. “The immune status should be more important than the vaccination status,” he said.

“So I think there's three groups that are easily winnable arguments [to avoid vaccination]: pregnant women, the young and … the COVID recovered … I mean, that's a, that's a lousy thing to do to get all these people that are COVID recovered, good immune status and give them a vaccination for something they don't need.”

How to End Fear and Optimize Your Immune System

The roundtable participants are planning to continue their discussion offline to formally request an end to mass COVID-19 vaccination for the mentioned groups as well as create a statement to end government interference with the practice of medicine. Many physicians have had their hands tied when it comes to prescribing early treatments for COVID-19, like ivermectin. As Fleming noted:

“… The reason why people die with COVID is because they're not receiving treatment, so I would argue that we need to make certain that people, the physicians, are allowed to treat without government interference and that we put a hold on the dissemination of the vaccines at this point in time, until we can further investigate them safely.”

Dr. Sam White, whose reputation has been under attack since he released a video on social media detailing his concerns about the suppression of the science around therapeutics in the U.K., added:

“We could end the fear overnight by allowing access to therapeutics and changing the mainstream media narrative that there's no need for masks. There's no need for lock downs. This is more treatable than flu, as far as I'm concerned, we're just not allowed to do any treatment. If the public knew that it changes the narrative overnight.”

While we work on changing the narrative, or at least opening up discussions of science outside of the narrative, it’s always a good idea to optimize your immune system.

Toward this end, I recommend optimizing your vitamin D levels to 60 to 80 nanograms per milliliter and improving your metabolic flexibility so your body can seamlessly transition between burning fats and glucose as your primary fuel. One way to do this is to condense your eating window to about six to eight hours a day.

Even without changing your calories, this can make a profound difference, but from a perspective of choosing the right foods, one of the most important strategies that I’ve learned over my four decades of studying this is to avoid processed foods, nearly all of which are loaded with vegetable, or seed, oils.

These oils have a high content of linoleic acid, which contributes to mitochondrial instability and increases susceptibility to oxidative stress. This, in turn, increases immune dysfunction and mitochondrial dysfunction. These are simple strategies I recommend, as they're useful to improve your overall health and resiliency to fight any infection.

As mentioned, I highly recommend listening to the discussion in full to get all of the details that weren’t included here. At the next meeting, the group plans to discuss how to move forward to challenge the narrative in greater detail, including fighting back against the organizations, such as the Wellcome Trust and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, that are heavily investing in this.

Sources and References

·         1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 The Awareness Foundation COVID-19 Roundtable July 30, 2021

·         3 matzav.com March 24, 2020

·         11 Trial Site News May 30, 2021

·         12 FDA, Design and Analysis of Shedding Studies for Virus or Bacteria-Based Gene Therapy and Oncolytic Products August 2015

 


 

COVID-19: an overview of the evidence

March 18, 2021

The data is in: lockdowns serve no useful purpose and cause catastrophic societal and economic harms. They must never be repeated in this country.


The ‘sunk cost fallacy’ is a well known one. World War 1 is the classic example. By Christmas 1914 it was obvious to all that the war was a catastrophe, but to admit this was to admit that all the lives lost had been lost pointlessly. And no country would confess that.


However, after a year of pain, suffering and enormous loss, the UK must reach for new solutions to the COVID-19 problem and any future respiratory disease outbreaks. We must learn from errors, acknowledge the harms of the measures we have taken and account for them moving forward. We now need a more holistic, measured approach.

Many international studies bear out that lockdowns have proven to be a complete failure as a public health measure to contain a respiratory virus. They did not succeed in their primary objective of containing spread yet have caused great harm.

Lockdowns were explicitly not recommended even for severe respiratory viral outbreaks in all pandemic planning prior to 2020, including those endorsed by the WHO and the Department of Health. The reasons for ignoring existing policies and adopting unprecedented measures appear to have been (i) panic whipped up by the media (especially scenes from China), (ii) a reluctance to do things differently to neighbouring countries and (iii) the unfaltering belief in one single mathematical model, which latterly turned out to be wildly inaccurate (
Imperial College, Neil Ferguson).

We must find the courage to do things differently and to admit mistakes. The USA is leading the charge here, with more and more states turning their backs on lockdowns and mask mandates.

Moving forward, we would recommend the following steps:

1.     Reinstate the existing pandemic planning policies from 2019, pending a detailed review of the policies adopted in 2020. Look to countries and states which did things differently. There should be a clear commitment from the Government that we will never again lockdown.

2.     Stop mass testing healthy people. Return to the principles of respiratory disease diagnosis (the requirement of symptoms) that were well researched and accepted before 2020. Manufacturers’ guidelines state that these tests are designed to assist the diagnosis of symptomatic patients, not to ‘find’ disease in otherwise healthy people.

3.     Stop all mask mandates. They are psychologically and potentially physically harmful whilst being clinically unproven to stop disease spread in the community and may themselves be a transmission risk.

4.     Vaccination. Abandon the notion that vaccine certification is desirable and that children should be vaccinated. There is no logical or ethical argument for either.

5.     Devise a public education programme to help redress the severe distortions in beliefs around disease transmission, likelihood of dying and possible treatment options. A messaging style based on a calm presentation of facts is urgently needed.

6.     A full public enquiry into the extent to which severe/fatal COVID-19 is spread in hospitals and care homes. There is stark recent evidence on this from Public Health Scotland and if true for the rest of the UK, there needs to be better segregation of COVID-19 patients and staff within these settings.

7.     More funding and investigation of treatments for COVID-19, instead of only focusing on vaccination as a strategy. Given the high rates of hospital transmission, encourage a drive for more early treatment-at-home using some of the protocols discussed herein.

8.     Divert funds. The not inconsiderable money saved from ceasing testing programmes can be diverted to much needed areas, such as mental health, treatment research and an increase in hospital capacity and staffing. The vast debts accrued during 2020 will also need to be paid off, a fact that seems to be worryingly absent from economic recovery plans.


https://www.hartgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/240321-Updated-HART-review.pdf

Our group of scientists, medics and public health experts have put together this rigorously and widely researched document. Topics included are:

 

 

Asymptomatic spread: who can really spread COVID-19?

https://www.hartgroup.org/asymptomatic-spread/

March 27, 2021



By Dr John Lee
retired Professor of Pathology


A respiratory virus needs associated symptoms in order to be clinically relevant.

One year ago, this belief would have been universally accepted by the wider medical community.

Download the briefing PDF

The Health Secretary, addressing the nation on television on 20 December 2020 stated that ‘If you act like you have the virus, then that will stop it from spreading to others.’ This messaging is clear in the many adverts and public health announcements currently circulating.

The response to COVID-19 has been predicated on the assumption that asymptomatic PCR positive individuals can spread disease. This assumption was simply accepted as fact and, thus far, has never been adequately demonstrated in the available scientific evidence.

This single assumption is driving most of the restrictions. It is being repeated on radio and other advertisements and is causing the populace great fear and distress. It cannot be left unscrutinised any longer. If there are flaws in PCR testing regimes that have perpetuated this idea, we must now bring them to light.

The proportion of people who test positive but have no symptoms ranges from 4%
1 to 76%.2 This is, in large part, a function of how testing has been carried out. If ‘asymptomatic COVID-19’ was a type of presentation of a disease, like a cough, then you would expect it to occur in the same percentage of the patients no matter where or when you measured it. The large range here demonstrates that it is not measuring a phenomenon related to the disease itself.

These are the three situations where someone can be ‘PCR positive’ but asymptomatic:

1.     Pre-symptomatic – people who are in the incubation period of real disease and who go on shortly to develop symptomatic illness. For one to two days these people can transmit the virus to others and account for a maximum of 7% of spread.3

2.     False Positive test results – people who test positive but are not really infected, the rate of which is unknown, but is estimated to be between 0.8% and 4% of all tests carried out.4 The number increases as Ct cycles are increased. Anything above 25 Ct is now considered ‘uninfectious’. When carrying out hundreds of thousands of tests, and including results up to Ct 30 as is the case in the Government surveys, we are going to inevitably have an enormous amount of false positives. A respiratory virus needs associated symptoms in order to be clinically relevant. One year ago, this belief would have been universally accepted by the wider medical community.

3.     Immunity – people who have the virus ‘on board’ (detectable) but never develop symptoms. This category used to be referred to as “immunity” or “healthy people”. This occurs where, even if a virus is inhaled and present in the respiratory tract, the person is oblivious and remains completely well, as their immune system deals with the infection and they never develop symptoms. The evidence these individuals are a transmission risk is minimal.

Positive PCR is not evidence of infectiousness. Finding people who test positive but show no symptoms during an outbreak is often evidence of immunity, not evidence of transmission. Unfortunately, this has been largely overlooked in the current set of assumptions driving policy.

Evidence of transmission requires that an individual can be shown to be the source of infection for another person who then developed symptoms of a disease/illness.

Infectiousness or transmission of a virus requires active infection resulting in high levels of viral replication and shedding. Symptoms, such as coughing, are the real drivers of spread.

When the viral replication process is blocked by a healthy immune system, the virus is neutralised, preventing significant viral replication and shedding. This happens in approximately half the people exposed to the virus. Their immune system’s defences effectively ward off COVID-19 before it can take hold and cause symptomatic disease. It stops it dead in its tracks.

A review of all the published meta-analyses on asymptomatic transmission reveals that the same few studies have been recycled repeatedly by respectable institutions.
5 On deeper inspection of the published studies we find that the evidence is of very poor quality. Robust evidence of asymptomatic spread is lacking and runs counter to all previous understanding of how respiratory viruses transmit.

The case studies cited as evidence of asymptomatic transmission amount to just 6 individuals who were alleged to have spread COVID-19 to 7 other people. The studies outlined below are the totality of the worldwide evidence for asymptomatic spread.

● Two of these case studies, originating from China, may well have been one patient,6 with the story repeated in separate publications.7 This was a situation where neither person involved in transmission had any symptoms. It therefore fails as evidence of disease spread, which requires the presence of symptoms.

● Two further cases of possible asymptomatic transmission were from Vo in Italy,
8 where the whole town was tested. 1% of the tests were positive in the absence of symptoms. The Government’s own estimates for the percentage of tests that give a false positive result is between 0.8-4.0%9 and as this was a new test, a rate of 1% would have been very respectable. The alleged result of transmission was again claimed to cause ‘cases’ with no symptoms. These were likely false positive PCR test results, and assuming chains of transmission based on the degree of positivity of a test result is bad science.

● The final two examples were both from studies in Brunei.
10 The evidence is weakened by a poor case definition (any symptom of any severity was considered real symptomatic COVID-19) and a high probability of false positive results. The first case was a father who remained asymptomatic but whose wife briefly had a runny nose and whose baby had a mild cough for one day. In the second case, a 13 yr old girl with no symptoms was alleged to have spread COVID-19 to a middle aged woman who had “a mild cough on one day”.11

It is therefore arguable that the asymptomatic diagnoses last spring were all due to false positive test results. No testing system is perfect.

Failure to acknowledge this and misinterpretation of positive results in patients with no symptoms has been hugely damaging.

It would not be unreasonable to state that the current extreme interventions are entirely based on the assumption of asymptomatic spread of disease, because otherwise simply requiring the symptomatic and their contacts to isolate would be sufficient.

Given that asymptomatic spread assumptions drive all of the other non-clinical interventions (mass-testing of healthy people, mandatory wearing of masks, social distancing and lockdowns), the evidence here must urgently be re-evaluated by policymakers.

Endnotes

1.     Follow-up of asymptomatic patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection

2.     Three Quarters of People with SARS-CoV-2 Infection are Asymptomatic: Analysis of English Household
Survey Data

3.     Presymptomatic Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 — Singapore, January 23–March 16, 2020

4.     Impact of false-positives and false-negative s in the UK’s COVID-19 RT-PCR testing programme

5.     Covid: The woeful case for asymptomatic transmission

6.     Secondary Transmission of Coronavirus Disease from Presymptomatic Persons, China

7.     Modes of contact and risk of transmission in COVID-19 among close contacts

8.     Suppression of a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in the Italian municipality of Vo

9.     Impact of false-positives and false-negative s in the UK’s COVID-19 RT-PCR testing programme

10. Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Transmission in Different Settings, Brunei

11. Asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and implications for mass gatherings

 

Lokaal personeel: Duitse overheid wil 157.500 Afghanen invliegen

  20/12/2024 De federale regering blijft duizenden Afghanen naar Duitsland halen. Het aantal explodeert omdat lokale werknemers bijna vier f...