By Rick Welsh
DJHFMedia.com

On Tuesday, President Joe Biden made a comment that he was going to send workers into neighborhoods going door-to-door to see if they have been vaccinated yet.

And probably rat you out if you answer no. The only proper response to that is “get the hell off my property.”

As such, Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, host of “Tucker Carlson Tonight” in response to Biden’s words gave his viewing audience some compelling information about COVID-19.

“The data shows that the median age of death for COVID is often older than life expectancy,” the Fox host said. “For real. If you want to get a sense at just how completely they have hyped this virus, turning it into something that the numbers show it is not, take a look, for example, at Ohio.”

Carlson then put up on the screen the median age of death due to COVID-19 in the state of Ohio being 80-years-old when the average life expectancy there is 73. This means that about half of the people who died from COVID lived longer than they were expected to live without catching the pandemic virus. They lived 7 years longer than the average life expectancy.

He went on to provide the numbers from other parts of the US as well as the numbers found in the United Kingdom (UK). In the UK, the median age of COVID deaths is 83 and the life expectancy is 81-years-old.

Stew Peters talks with Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, an extremely experienced medical expert. Topics include COVID-19, Delta Variant, Inoculations, Magnetism, Transmission, Shedding, Purpose and Plan.

By Daniel Horowitz
TheBlaze.com

We've spent over a year debating nonexistent evidence that masks effectively protect against the spread of viruses. However, there has been little debate and few published studies on potential harms of mask-wearing, a reality that has allowed zealous maskers to aggressively push their mandate as harmless, with no downside. Well, now we have a randomized controlled trial published in JAMA that raises serious concerns about this practice.

Researchers from Germany conducted a blinded randomized controlled trial of 45 children wearing masks and measured the baseline carbon dioxide levels during inhalation and exhalation behind various masks as compared to the levels of unmasked children. The results are very concerning:

We measured means (SDs) between 13 120 (384) and 13 910 (374) ppm of carbon dioxide in inhaled air under surgical and filtering facepiece 2 (FFP2) masks, which is higher than what is already deemed unacceptable by the German Federal Environmental Office by a factor of 6. This was a value reached after 3 minutes of measurement. Children under normal conditions in schools wear such masks for a mean of 270 (interquartile range, 120-390) minutes. The Figure shows that the value of the child with the lowest carbon dioxide level was 3-fold greater than the limit of 0.2 % by volume. The youngest children had the highest values, with one 7-year-old child's carbon dioxide level measured at 25 000 ppm. (Emphasis added.)

Why has nobody in our government bothered to study this before experimenting on children for a virus that doesn't affect them?

By Dr. Joseph Mercola
 

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

• While Pfizer claims its vaccine is 95% effective, this is the relative risk reduction. The absolute risk reduction — which is far more relevant for public health measures — is actually less than 1%
• While benefits from COVID “vaccination” in children between the ages of 12 and 15 are rare and short-lived, side effects are common and long-term effects are completely unknown
• In the 12-to-15 age group, 75.5% experienced headache, along with a long list of other transient side effects. Serious systemic adverse events occurred in 2.4% of the trial subjects receiving Pfizer’s mRNA shot
• While Pfizer boasted a 100% efficacy rate in 12- to 15-year-olds, this conclusion is a statistical trick. Fewer than 2% of fully vaccinated children avoided COVID-19; 98% of them would not have gotten COVID anyway. So, the benefit is small
• Even if vaccinating children were found to reduce infection among adults, it would be unethical and against regulations to do so, because the FDA can only authorize the use of a medical product in a given population if the benefit outweighs the risk in that same population, and in children the benefits do not outweigh the risks

Many scientists and medical experts have warned that vaccinating children against COVID-19 is both unnecessary and risky in the extreme. The video below features comments by Peter Doshi, Ph.D., made during a June 10, 2021, public hearing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.

Doshi is an associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy and the senior editor of The BMJ. He has previously pointed out that while Pfizer claims its vaccine is 95% effective, this is the relative risk reduction. The absolute risk reduction — which is far more relevant for public health measures — is actually less than 1%.¹ As such, the COVID-19 vaccine is of dubious benefit, to say the least.

If you choose to watch the video below I must warn you to stop after Doshi finishes and not view the presentation by Dr. Jacqueline Miller. She’s a paid shill pediatrician and the head of development for infectious diseases at Moderna. The reason I advise this caution is because if you understand reality, you will be shocked at how easily a physician can sell out and sacrifice even her own children in the delusional belief that Moderna’s shot provides any benefit to children.

Meanwhile, largely because of irresponsible beliefs and comments like Miller’s, harms are rapidly mounting, which skews the risk-benefit ratio even further. Considering the potential for harm, children should not get the COVID-19 vaccine, Doshi says, citing trial evidence from Pfizer — the very same evidence used to support its emergency use authorization application for 12- to 15-year-olds. In this trial, harms clearly outweighed the benefits.

UKColumn.org

The below paper is republished here after having been banned from medium.com, a platform that prides itself on its supposed openness.

COVID Vaccines: Necessity, Efficacy and Safety

Doctors for Covid Ethics

Abstract: COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers have been exempted from legal liability for vaccine-induced harm. It is therefore in the interests of all those authorising, enforcing and administering COVID-19 vaccinations to understand the evidence regarding the risks and benefits of these vaccines, since liability for harm will fall on them.

In short, the available evidence and science indicate that COVID-19 vaccines are unnecessary, ineffective and unsafe.

• Necessity: immunocompetent individuals are protected against SARS-CoV-2 by cellular immunity. Vaccinating low-risk groups is therefore unnecessary. For immunocompromised individuals who do fall ill with COVID-19 there is a range of medical treatments that have been proven safe and effective. Vaccinating the vulnerable is therefore equally unnecessary. Both immunocompetent and vulnerable groups are better protected against variants of SARS-CoV-2 by naturally acquired immunity and by medication than by vaccination.1 
• Efficacy: Covid-19 vaccines lack a viable mechanism of action against SARS-CoV-2 infection of the airways. Induction of antibodies cannot prevent infection by an agent such as SARS-CoV-2 that invades through the respiratory tract. Moreover, none of the vaccine trials have provided any evidence that vaccination prevents transmission of the infection by vaccinated individuals; urging vaccination to “protect others” therefore has no basis in fact.
• Safety: The vaccines are dangerous to both healthy individuals and those with pre-existing chronic disease, for reasons such as the following: risk of lethal and non-lethal disruptions of blood clotting including bleeding disorders, thrombosis in the brain, stroke and heart attack; autoimmune and allergic reactions; antibody-dependent enhancement of disease; and vaccine impurities due to rushed manufacturing and unregulated production standards.

The risk-benefit calculus is therefore clear: the experimental vaccines are needless, ineffective and dangerous. Actors authorising, coercing or administering experimental COVID-19 vaccination are exposing populations and patients to serious, unnecessary, and unjustified medical risks.

By Scott Morefield
TownHall.com

We've been told for well over a year that widespread forced public masking should be implemented because, even if only moderately to slightly to negligibly effective at curbing the spread of COVID-19, there are ZERO drawbacks.

"What's the harm?" they ask.

"It's only a minor inconvenience," they bleat.

"If it saves ONE LIFE, it's worth it!" they implore.

Meanwhile, we on Team Reality have not only continued to point to real-world data that shows masking to be entirely ineffective, we've also maintained that forced public masking, especially long-term, has negative societal and even health ramifications that the powers-that-be are all-too-happy to ignore in subservience to their newfound face mask god. 

It only stands to reason that one of those health ramifications would be the fact that millions of people, particularly children, have been forced to wear and carry around pieces of cloth they've continually breathed through for hours on end. What lurking pathogens might be found on these disgusting contraptions being incessantly handled, stuck in pockets, and mindlessly tossed on books, tables, and desks? Well, one group of Florida parents sent a batch of masks worn by their children to a lab to find out. And yeah, you'll probably need to make sure you aren't eating dinner anytime soon before you digest THESE results. 

By Victoria Taft
PJMedia.com

COVID shutdowns championed by U.S. governors and D.C. bureaucrats are responsible for destroying nearly 40% of small businesses since the virus was unleashed on the world—and we know now that it was for little to no damned good reason. A study by the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences revealed recently that shutdown orders made little to no difference in COVID’s impact. From the abstract of the study:

“Previous studies have claimed that shelter-in-place orders saved thousands of lives, but we reassess these analyses and show that they are not reliable. We find that shelter-in-place orders had no detectable health benefits, only modest effects on behavior, and small but adverse effects on the economy. To be clear, our study should not be interpreted as evidence that social distancing behaviors are not effective. Many people had already changed their behaviors before the introduction of shelter-in-place orders, and shelter-in-place orders appear to have been ineffective precisely because they did not meaningfully alter social distancing behavior.” [Emphasis added]

And it should have been evident for those caring to look.

While bureaucrats gave Walmart, Costco, Lowe’s, and other big-box stores “essential” status, allowing them to stay open during the COVID pandemic, 38.9% of America’s small businesses, the providers of most of the country’s jobs, were forced to close based on fear, hackneyed social-distancing rules, early ignorance about transmission, and an insatiable desire by governors to micromanage the affairs of men.

By Larry Johnson
TheGatewayPundit.com

My business partner was on an American Airlines flight recently and fell asleep during the trip. When he woke up the passenger in the adjacent seat was glaring at him and upbraided my friend because his mask had fallen below his nose during his slumber.

My friend and workmate said nothing. He stood up. Grabbed his briefcase from the overhead and took out a small spray bottle. It contained a raspberry-scented liquid. He sprayed it and asked the mask Nazi, “Can you smell that?”

The man replied, “yes, I smell raspberries.” My friend then pointed out to his clueless seatmate that the droplets in the spray were much larger than a Covid-19 virus. My clever buddy said the following:

If you are smelling raspberries then the mask is not preventing air particles with those molecules from penetrating your mask and entering your respiratory system. In other words, the mask is a joke and you are delusional. Mind your own business.

As I thought about this I suddenly realized that underwear and trousers are comparable to a conventional cloth face mask. Have you ever been near someone who committed the act of flatulence? Most times those incidents are most unpleasant and the noxious aroma stings your nose, pollutes your palate, and makes your eyes water.

If a derriere mask cannot block methane gas, why do so many educated people embrace the unscientific religion that masks stop airborne viruses?