Placard at Sydney anti-Lockdown Protest: IF THE VACCINE WORKS - WHY THE NO LIABILITY CLAUSE?

- Peter Myers

Date: August 15, 2019

My comments are shown {thus}; write to me at contact.html.

You are at

Copyright: Peter Myers asserts the right to be identified as the author of the material written by him on this website, being material that is not otherwise attributed to another author.

(1) Reuters Chairman is on Pfizer Board
(2) mRNA Vaccine Inventor warns of dangers; erased from Youtube & Wikipedia
(3) Results of Ivermectin Trials
(4) World Ivermectin Day
(5) The Who, How and Why of COVID-19 - Phillip M. Altman, a pharmacologist involved in drug development
(6) Spike proteins the vaccines force your cells to make, 'kill more people than the virus'
(7) India beats Delta, with only 3% vaccinated; Ivermectin helped
(8) Placard at Sydney anti-Lockdown Protest IF THE VACCINE WORKS - WHY THE NO LIABILITY CLAUSE?
(9) Sydney protestors faced mounted police (10) Why I Protested - Remy Chadwick
(11) Russians, South Africans & Chileans resist Vaccine Mandates - Israel Shamir
(12) Belarus & Sweden - no Lockdowns, no Masks
(13) The left used to love liberal Sweden. But pro-lockdown progressives shun it now
(14) Professor Sucharit Bhakdi's warning about the mRNA vaccines - what options if we get Covid?

(1) Reuters Chairman is on Pfizer Board

Thomson Reuters Foundation Chairman is also board member at Pfizer; also a "member of the International Business Council of the World Economic Forum."

Thomson Reuters Foundation Chairman is also board member at Pfizer

By: Greg Staley

Written On: 2021-06-28

Jim Smith, the Former President and CEO of Thomson Reuters and now the current Chairman of the organization also sits as a board member at Pfizer ­ except under the name James Smith. Robert Malone, the self proclaimed creator of mRNA vaccines was the first to post Mr. SmithÕs LinkedIn profile that showed the connections. The LinkedIn profile that Mr. Malone posted reads that "Jim is a non-executive director of Pfizer Inc."

regarding the "Trusted News Initiative" and censorship of information regarding COVID vaccine safety, please be aware of the link between Pfizer and Reuters. I would call that a journalistic conflict of interest. What do you think?

Ñ Robert W Malone, MD (@RWMaloneMD) June 28, 2021

Since that tweet, it appears that Mr. Smith has removed his picture off of his LinkedIn profile in an attempt to make the connection harder to make. However, the pictures are the same person and the "James Smith" that sits on the board at Pfizer admits to being the Chairman of Thomson Reuters foundation and the former president ­ verifying it is in fact the same Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith is also a "member of the International Business Council of the World Economic Forum."

People all over the world are hungry for unbiased information that they can trust. When the chairman of a media company like Reuters also sits on the board at Pfizer how can we believe that there isnÕt any form of bias occurring in their coverage of the vaccine rollout? Are we to really believe that there is no conflict here? Do people really believe someone can sit on the board of a major vaccine manufacturer and still provide unbiased coverage of that same vaccine? I donÕt think you can remain unbiased ­ but thatÕs just my take.

*We have reached out to the Thomson Reuters Foundation about the connection but did not receive a message back before the release of this article.*

(2) mRNA Vaccine Inventor warns of dangers; erased from Youtube & Wikipedia

mRNA Vaccine Inventor Erased From History Books

By Joseph Mercola

July 7, 2021

June 11, 2021, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology,1 Dr. Robert Malone, spoke out on the DarkHorse podcast about the potential dangers of COVID-19 gene therapy injections, hosted by Bret Weinstein, Ph.D. The podcast was quickly erased from YouTube and Weinstein was issued a warning.

To censor a scientific discussion with the actual inventor of the technology used to manufacture these COVID-19 shots is beyond shocking. But the censorship of Malone goes even further than that. As reported in the video above, MaloneÕs scientific accomplishments are also being scrubbed.

Wikipedia Scrubs MaloneÕs Scientific Contributions

As recently as June 14, 2021, Malone's contributions were extensively included in the historical section on RNA vaccines' Wikipedia page. He was listed as having co-developed a "high-efficiency in-vitro and in-vivo RNA transfection system using cationic liposomes" in 1989.

In 1990, he demonstrated that "in-vitro transcribed mRNA could deliver genetic information into the cell to produce proteins within living cell tissue." Malone was also part of the team that conducted the first mRNA vaccine experiments. In short, his scientific knowledge of mRNA vaccines is unquestionable.

Two days later, June 16, 2021, just five days after Malone's appearance on the DarkHorse podcast, his name was removed from the Wikipedia entry. Now, all of a sudden, the discovery of mRNA drug delivery is accredited to nameless researchers at the Salk Institute and the University of California, and his 1990 research confirming that injected mRNA can produce proteins in cell tissue is accredited to nameless scientists at the University of Wisconsin.

(3) Results of Ivermectin Trials









(4) World Ivermectin Day

Doctors Raise Awareness on Ivermectin Treatment for COVID-19

BY MEILING LEE July 24, 2021 Updated: July 24, 2021

In an effort to help end the pandemic, an international coalition of medical experts is holding worldwide events Saturday to raise awareness about the effectiveness of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

Organizers of the World Ivermectin Day say doctors and supporters of the inexpensive FDA-approved drug will host free online and public events in over a dozen countries.

Two nonprofitsÑFront Line COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) Alliance and the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) groupÑwho have been campaigning for the off-label use of ivermectin to prevent and treat COVID-19 say the event's focus is to let more people know that the antiparasitic drug can treat COVID-19, possibly end the pandemic, and help eliminate fear of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus.

"We have an incredibly positive and uplifting message to share: ivermectin treats and prevents COVID and it is the key to unlocking the never-ending cycle of pandemic peaks and personal restrictions and will help restart economies," Dr. Tess Lawrie, cofounder of the BIRD group said in a press release.

Lawrie is also a co-author of a peer-reviewed meta-analysis study published in the American Journal of Therapeutics that found ivermectin to be effective against COVID-19, the disease caused by the CCP virus. Lawrie and her team concluded with a moderate level of confidence that ivermectin reduced the risk of death by an average of 62 percent, at a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.19-0.73, especially when prescribed early.

Despite evidence showing ivermectin may treat all stages of COVID-19 and reduce death and hospitalization as a result of its anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties, the FDA has not approved its use, saying that the drug isn't an anti-viral. The federal regulator issued a warning that people should not take ivermectin intended for horses as the larger doses may be harmful to humans. ...

Unprecedented Censorship Online discussions of ivermectin have faced an unprecedented level of suppression with doctors claiming that their videos are being taken down or their LinkedIn accounts closed.

Lawrie said she has experienced censorship with her work on ivermectin, claiming that her videos about the drug have been removed and posts censored on social media.

"I have experienced a lot of censorship ever since I started doing work on ivermectin (never before)," Lawrie told The Epoch Times via email. "I have had my post of my published peer-reviewed scientific manuscript removed from LinkedIn."

(5) The Who, How and Why of COVID-19 - Phillip M. Altman, a pharmacologist involved in drug development

The Who, How and Why of COVID-19

25th July 2021

Phillip M. Altman

There is a considerable amount of misinformation, including bias by omission, in the mainstream media regarding COVID-19. As a pharmacologist involved in drug development, clinical trials and drug registration for 40 years ­ here are a few facts you need to know.

From where did Covid-19 come?

Coronaviruses can cause the common cold but there is little doubt that the coronavirus COVID-19 is a genetically engineered virus designed to be highly contagious. According to viral evolutionists, unique nucleic sequences have been inserted in this coronavirus, sequences which could not spontaneously arise by chance in nature. Since the beginning of this pandemic some leading infectious disease researchers and physicians and the World Health Organisation (WHO) have tried to claim COVID-19 came from the Wuhan wet market despite the absence of a single piece of evidence to support this proposition. Despite an intense search, no animal has been found to contain the virus.

There are many international patents which paved the way for the construction of COVID-19 based on work in association with the US National Institute of Health (NIH) and the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) using dangerous "gain-of-function" research.

Social media has de-platformed and censored anybody claiming the virus probably arose from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Experts and the media are finally walking back the natural origin bat/wet market theory and admitting it is probable COVID-19 leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China. The implications of this are enormous as many people involved directly or indirectly in creating the virus (such as Drs. Anthony Fauci, Ralph Baric and Peter Daszak) now are involved in vaccine development and/or helping to set US government policy and shape public opinion while standing to gain financial benefit. More importantly, they count among some of the loudest critics of therapeutic measures other than vaccines to counter COVID-19.

These simple facts are the foundation for much of the misinformation and poor public health policy we are now experiencing. Until we clearly understand how this disaster happened we will be doomed to repeat the catastrophe.

The new vaccine technology

The new genetic vaccine technology used in the mRNA-based vaccine of Pfizer (and Moderna) and the DNA- based adenovirus AstraZeneca and J&J vaccines have never been previously approved for use as any new pharmaceutical. These vaccines could be called 'genetic vaccines' because they deliver genetic material for your cells to use as a template in manufacturing the identical spike protein which is found on the surface of COVID-19 virus. It is this manufactured spike protein, released into the blood from your cells following vaccination, which triggers your body to produce antibodies to protect you from a COVID-19 infection.

Have the COVID-19 vaccines been fully approved?


Due to the urgency of the pandemic, vaccines have been provisionally approved in the US and Australia pending the generation of further safety and efficacy information. The following COVID-19 vaccines (listed below) have been released in Australia under "provisional approval" which includes strict conditions such as the requirement to provide further long-term efficacy and safety information from ongoing clinical trials and post-marketing assessment from the reporting of adverse reactions.

Unresolved questions about the new vaccines

What is the duration of protection from infection following vaccination? What is the chance of transmitting infection if one is fully vaccinated? What is the risk/benefit of vaccinating individuals who have had COVID-19 and have developed natural immunity on their own? Which vaccine is best for older people or young people? Should all children, babies or pregnant mothers be vaccinated? Are there circumstances where specific vaccines should not be used (contraindications)? How effective are the new vaccines against emerging strains of Covid-19 such as the Delta variant? How effective are the new vaccines?

The new mRNA vaccines were provisionally approved on the basis of a single randomised, controlled clinical trial involving about 40,000 volunteers. Regulatory bodies, such as the US Food and Drug Administration in the US and the Therapeutic Goods Administration in Australia, usually require many clinical trials for approval. However, this was an exceptional set of circumstances. Gaining approval after only a single clinical trial means that it becomes extremely important to gain additional post-market safety and efficacy data.

Now that millions of doses have been used, experience to date strongly suggests the genetic vaccines can prevent, to a large degree, more serious COVID-19 symptoms, hospitalisation and death, especially in those individuals with co-morbidities (age, diabetes, compromised lung and cardiovascular function).

It has been widely reported that the mRNA vaccines were about 95 per cent effective, but the question is: "effective at doing what"? In fact, the trials of the genetic vaccines did not find any difference in the death rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated groups (there were too few COVID-19 cases) and, furthermore, the primary criteria for being "effective" was a positive COVID-19 test and a symptom(s), including even mild ones like a cough or fever. While this clinical trial result is one metric to indicate the level of immune efficacy, the selected criteria did not permit any reliable estimate of the level of protection against progressing to serious clinical conditions, being admitted to hospital or dying from COVID-19. This was because the numbers in these categories were too small to be statistically meaningful.

What does the daily reporting of "cases" tell us?

COVID-19 tests use long-established Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology. This test is so sensitive it can be set to detect even a single molecule of the target substance.

PCR tests measure a short nucleic acid sequence which is present in COVID-19 whether or not this is in the form of an intact COVID-19 virus or a fragment of a dead virus from a previously infected person. The test cannot tell if there is the presence of a live virus, nor can it determine the viral load (the amount of virus) in a positive test. Then why is the number of positive PCR tests the key metric driving public health policy in this pandemic, which is causing such massive economic and social damage? It makes no sense.

Given more than 99 per cent of people who are infected by COVID-19 experience either no symptoms or mild symptoms, shouldn't our health policy be driven by the number of seriously ill subjects, patients admitted to hospital, or the number of deaths due to COVID-19 (not "with" COVID-19)?

Let's keep a sense of perspective. There are normally more deaths expected due to ordinary pneumonia/influenza each year than have died with COVID-19 since the pandemic began.

How safe are the new mRNA and DNA vaccines?

Safety is a relative term in pharmacology. Anti-cancer drugs are highly toxic but they can also save your life. There is always, with any drug, an assessment of risk vs benefit. The benefit side of the equation is becoming clearer with widespread vaccine usage, but the risk side of the equation is far from clear because there has been no detailed, publicly available overall analysis of the incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) that are likely or, probably, related to the vaccines.

The evaluation of ADRs includes a detailed analysis of the subject's medical history, the circumstances surrounding the ADR, the temporal relationship to the drug and co-administered drugs, and consideration of the mechanism of action of the suspect drug. There are various guidelines and definitions used to estimate whether or not there is a causal relationship. It takes experts considerable time to assess with any precision which serious adverse effects observed are actually due to a drug's administration.

In the past, safety concerns have led to the withdrawal of certain vaccines following widespread usage, and regulatory agencies routinely monitor the safety of vaccines via various ADR systems. There is a specific ADR system used by the US Centres for Disease Control (CDC), the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

As a general rule, as few as ten per cent of ADRs are reported. This observation, coupled with the government's perceived need to overcome vaccine hesitancy in the population, work to minimise ADR reporting and underestimate the true incidence of any particular ADR. This frustrates an accurate assessment of risk.

For mRNA vaccines, it has been reported that nearly one-third of those deaths reported in the ADR system occurred within two days of vaccination. These reports and thousands of hospitalisations following vaccination need full investigation to determine if there is any causal association. To date the public has not been appraised of any comprehensive, reliable and detailed analysis of the type and incidence of adverse reactions likely to be associated with genetic vaccines given the worldwide experience.

Claims that the vaccines are "completely safe" should be considered premature until further safety data becomes available. Until that time, the risk-benefit proposition in healthy young people, those previously infected with COVID-19, infants, children and the pregnant remain unresolved.

Every vaccine is different. The use of more traditional vaccines, like Novavax in the near future, may present a relatively more attractive risk-benefit position, but only time will tell.


There is much misinformation about face masks.

First, there is no credible evidence in the literature that cloth models or the ubiqitous blue-paper surgical masks prevent to any significant degree the spread of airborne viruses. N95 masks can be effective, but they need to be fitted so there are no air gaps. If you do use a paper surgical mask of the common blue type, do not reuse it, do not place it on hard surfaces, do not put it on and off repeatedly Ñ it is designed for aseptic single use. Surgeons use masks to prevent the infection of open surgical sites. They are not used to prevent the surgeon from getting an infection. There has been a dramatic increase in bacterial pneumonia worldwide associated with the use of masks mandated by governments. As to wearing masks outdoors, most authorities consider outdoor transmission of COVID-19 as improbable.

Recommending that very young children wear paper or cloth masks, given the incredibly low relative risk, has been the subject of experts' criticism due to the deleterious effects on their physical and mental health. Apart from anything else, small children tend not to wear masks correctly and are most unlikely to follow aseptic procedures.

Delta variant

Various medical bureaucrats and politicians have exaggerated the threat posed by the Delta variant now sweeping the world. Multiple sources report the Delta variant to be more infectious but less deadly. Claims that the Delta variant is a "beast" that will kill thousands are not supported by current knowledge and contribute without justification to the creation of unnecessary fear.

Challenges of a vaccine-centric strategy

There are several problems in relying almost exclusively on vaccines to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. Theoretically, putting all one's eggs in a single basket seems to be a risky strategy when there is so much yet to be learned about the safety and efficacy of these vaccines, and because so much depends on a successful outcome.

At this point in time we should be spending more effort in considering preventative and/or drug treatment strategies for ambulatory patients through to seriously ill COVID-19 subjects. The advice to those who have been determined as COVID-19-positive is to isolate. No treatment is actively recommended ­ just wait until you feel better or become so ill you need to be hospitalised.

Alternative therapeutic strategies ­ hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin

Given the sweeping global impact of COVID-19, it would seem prudent to hedge our bets and pursue alternative therapeutic strategies in parallel with mass vaccination. Some conventional drugs, including corticosteroids to counter the inflammatory effects of COVID-19, as well as newer approaches, such as antibody infusions and remdesivir (an expensive and provisionally approved antiviral drug) have been shown to have limited efficacy but they fall short of a complete solution.

Certain other candidate therapies, including hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, have been studied in many clinical trials and used in national programs in India, Mexico and South America with reported success. But there exists broad censorship across social media, mainstream media and the professional literature which is preventing the sharing of clinical trial results and the academic exchange of views. Up until recently this censorship has been further entangled in the stifling of debate regarding the origin of the COVID-19 virus.

On March 24, 2020, our TGA restricted the prescribing of hydroxychloroquine, citing concerns about media reports of increased "off-label use" (prescribing for other than officially approved uses) which might confront patients for whom it is essential in the treatment of malaria and certain chronic autoimmune diseases (including rheumatoid arthritis and lupus erythematosus). This ruling denied Australian doctors the option to prescribe hydroxychloroquine for their patients in relation to COVID-19. A surprising and unprecedented move, the TGA edict came with a warning about the "well-known serious risks to patients, including cardiac toxicity (potentially leading to sudden heart attacks)É." Even though this old drug has been widely used for decades, continues to be used by millions of people around the world, and is on the World Health Organisation (WHO) List of Essential Drugs there has been no prior enforcement of any such restrictive prescribing.

The TGA's ban also raised concerns about interference in the sacred doctor-patient relationship. It is not uncommon for medications to be used "off label", with doctors employing their discretion in prescribing a drug which they deem most suitable. In Queensland, early in the pandemic, prescribing hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 was criminalised , with heavy fines and up to six months' imprisonment available to be imposed. This, too, is a step without precedent.

The TGA has issued a detailed statement regarding the basis for its action (August 26, 2020) and the clinical evidence upon which the policy decision was based, including a review by the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce and reference to the previous and disappointing interim results of international trials of hydroxychoroquine. Also cited were regulatory actions in relation to hydroxychloroquine by the US FDA and the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). However, since that time considerable additional clinical evidence has been generated in regard to hydroxychloroquine. (Note: the sister drug to hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, is not marketed in Australia.)

More recently, another drug, ivermectin, used to treat parasitic infections such as scabies, has been studied in clinical trials against COVID-19 and received attention as a possible useful therapeutic. Some published clinical trial data suggests ivermectin might be preferred to hydroxychloroquine because it may have an additional role in the late treatment of COVID-19.

Ivermectin is a compound with known antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties which appears to act by interfering with entrance into cells and their replication of mRNA viruses such as COVID-19. It was originally derived from unique natural compounds found in a bacterial culture near a Japanese golf course in 1975. Since its approval more than 40 years ago it has had a dramatic impact on human health worldwide, first being used in treating river blindness. Its effective, broad spectrum, safe, well tolerated and easily administered characteristics were employed to treat a variety of parasitic worm infections which blighted the lives of billions of poor and disadvantaged peoples in the tropics. Its discovers, Prof. Satoshi Omura and Irish biologist William Campbell, were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2015, reflecting the magnitude of their achievement.

A comprehensive meta-analysis of 18 randomised and controlled clinical trials regarding the efficacy of ivermectin in the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 has been published in a prestigious medical journal, The American Journal of Therapeutics 28 (e299-e318, 2021), which announced statistically significant reductions in mortality, progression to serious disease and time to clinical recovery as well as preventing COVID-19 infections (prophylaxis). Another comprehensive meta-analysis of 24 randomized controlled trials involving 3406 participants reached similar conclusions (American Journal of Therapeutics 28, e434-e460). Randomised (where subjects are randomly allocated to a treatment group) and controlled (a comparison treatment group) clinical trials are considered the most reliable and least-biased clinical trials, while meta-analyses can be a powerful tool with which to analyse clinical trial data as it does not depend on the individual results of any one study but, rather, the sweep of results from a much larger group of patients under a defined set of rules, even though under somewhat diverse, but well defined, conditions.

A discussion of the safety and efficacy assessments of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, important as it is, is beyond the scope of this essay. However, it should suffice to say that there exists considerable international expert support, particularly for ivermectin, for the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 based on the results of published randomised, controlled clinical trials.

Widespread social and professional media censorship of the debate and data concerning therapeutic management using hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin has not assisted an informed position regarding these drugs. According to the TGA's latest advice (July 5, 2021):

There is currently insufficient evidence to support the safe and effective use of ivermectin, doxycycline and zinc (either separately, or in combination) for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. More robust, well-designed clinical trials are needed before they could be considered an appropriate treatment option. The National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce, consisting of a large group of clinical experts, is continuously updating treatment recommendations based on the best available evidence. They have not made any recommendations for the use of ivermectin, doxycycline or zinc outside of properly conducted clinical trials with appropriate ethical approval.

The use of ivermectin for COVID-19 in Australia is prevented by effectively blocking its supply and dispensing. The public trusts expert bureaucrat medical and public health opinion (which involves the TGA and expert committees), so opposing voices challenging current official advice on COVID-19 treatment struggle to have an impact in our current environment of information suppression, a gag never before seen.

I refer specifically to the Australian voices of Prof. Robert Clancy (Emeritus Professor of Immunology, Univ. of Newcastle) and Nobel Prize winner Prof. Thomas Borody, also echoed by Craig Kelly MP (Member for Hughes, NSW), who have argued to broaden the treatment strategy for COVID-19, expanding it from an approach dependent almost exclusively on mass vaccination to one involving the treatment, especially the early treatment, of ambulatory symptomatic subjects with repurposed drugs such as ivermectin.

On the one hand, it seems the TGA can lower the data bar for the interim approval of the new vaccines but it appears not to be so compromising in relation to the level of data required for a drug like ivermectin. This seems to be somewhat out of character because there have been circumstances in which the TGA has demonstrated considerable flexibility where it was important to do so.

I specifically refer to a case with which I was involved ­ botulinum toxin (now marketed as Botox). Botulinum toxin is one of the most deadly neurotoxins known to man but was approved without a single randomised controlled clinical trial for the rare condition termed blepharospasm (uncontrolled eye blinking). That was a good, but surprising, decision by the TGA. By comparison, there is an enormous amount of randomised, controlled clinical safety and efficacy data to support ivermectin.


As the vaccine rollout continues in the fight against COVID-19 we are gathering important new information with which to assess and define the safety and efficacy of the new vaccines and the risk-versus-benefit in various subgroups of the population. But until we can accurately define many unresolved questions regarding vaccine safety and efficacy, it would seem unwise to pursue a one-size-fits-all strategy. It would appear prudent to cover our bets by exploring the usefulness of drugs such as ivermectin which have shown encouraging results, are cheap, have been used safety for decades and are readily available. We should not waste any more time.

Disclaimer: The information contained above does not represent health advice

a pharmacologist

(6) Spike proteins the vaccines force your cells to make, 'kill more people than the virus'

Rage Against the Vaccine

July 24, 2021 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 4:44 pm

I have the feeling that the story about Covid and the vaccines is about to change dramatically, but that it will take some time for us to realize it, because so much on the topic is not reported. The change will have to be undeniable before it is acknowledged.

That is, we will be moving from "the vaccines will save you" to "the vaccines may kill you". And I don't mean through unintentional and unfortunate adverse effects, though those are bad enough, and much more common than we are "allowed" to know. I mean that the spike proteins the vaccines force your cells to make, kill more people than the virus they purportedly protect against.

Maybe I'm a bit early, not just because this would go against the overwhelming narrative grain, but also because the process itself that will lead to this, is not yet advanced enough. But perhaps that would merely mean an early warning.

I'm not a fan of what is called "the vaccines" as we presently know them. They have been too poorly researched and too poorly tested, and therefore too risky to inoculate 100s of millions of people with. Which is why they were never approved, at least that part of the process had not been politicized yet.

Well, not fully. They did get emergency authorizations, for which other substances, that could have saved countless lives, needed to be banned and ostracized. But in the end it all comes down to what the "vaccines" accomplish over the medium- to long term, and that is exactly the part that was never tested.

(7) India beats Delta, with only 3% vaccinated; Ivermectin helped

Data From India Continues To Blow Up The 'Delta' Fear Narrative

Ilargi Meijer Raoult

also at


The prevailing narrative from Fauci, Walensky, and company is that Delta is more serious than anything before, and even though vaccines are even less effective against it, its spread proves the need to vaccinate even more people. Unless we do that, we must return to the very effective lockdowns and masks. In reality, India's experience proves the opposite true; namely:

o Delta is largely an attenuated version, with a much lower fatality rate, that for most people is akin to a cold.

o Masks failed to stop the spread there.

o The country has come close to the herd immunity threshold with just 3% vaccinated.

o Most people are now getting cold-like symptoms from Delta, but to the extent countries hit by Delta suffered some deaths and serious illness, they could have been avoided not with vaccines and masks, but with early and preventive treatment like ivermectin.

In other words, our government is learning all the wrong lessons from India, and now Israel and the U.K. Let's unpack what we know occurred in India and now in some of the other countries experiencing a surge in cases of the Indian "Delta" variant. The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) recently conducted a fourth nationwide serological test and found that 67.6% of those over 6 years old in June and July had antibodies, including 85% of health care workers.

This is a sharp increase from the 24.1% level detected during the December-January study. What we can conclude definitively is that strict mask-wearing (especially among health care workers) failed to stop the spread one bit. Yet now they have achieved herd immunity and burned out the virus with just 3% vaccination (now up to 6%) with roughly one-sixth the death rate of the U.S. and the U.K. and less than one-half that of Israel.

Here are the graphs. Remember, Delta is supposed to have come from India. Perhaps that explains the spike in May, but it burned out pretty quickly. Without vaccines, or almost. What is the lesson we can draw from that? Well, certainly not that it will kill us all unless we get vaccinated. ...

Case exhibit number two: Israel. Lots of vaccinations, but also many infections. A 30x rise in infections over the past month while vaccinations were at full speed. ...

Israel Finds Pfizer Jab Only 39% Effective At Stopping Delta Variant

Over the past month, Israel, the world's most heavily vaccinated country (with leading mRNA jabs, no less) has seen the number of positive COVID tests has risen by more than 30x as the number of active infections in the country has surpassed 10K. Meanwhile, the Israeli Health Ministry, which has previously estimated the true efficacy of the Pfizer jab against the delta variant at only 64% (while still more than 90% effective at preventing serious illness and death), just released new data purporting to show that while the Pfizer jab is still 88% effective at preventing serious illness, it's only 39% effective at preventing infection with delta.

Alex Berenson, a former NYT journalist who has often reported on scientific findings that don't support the official narrative on masks and vaccines, shared the findings in a tweet, and speculated that the true efficacy in offering protection against the Delta variant might be even lower ­ perhaps as low as 30%. [...]

(8) Placard at Sydney anti-Lockdown Protest IF THE VACCINE WORKS - WHY THE NO LIABILITY CLAUSE?








(9) Sydney protestors faced mounted police

Thousands Join Anti-Lockdown Protests In Australia Amid New Restrictions


SATURDAY, JUL 24, 2021 - 12:00 PM

{visit the link to see mounted police vs protestors}

Thousands of anti-lockdown demonstrators took to the streets of Sydney and other Australian towns on Saturday to protest new lockdown measures amid a surge of COVID-19 cases in the country.

Dozens were arrested and charged after crowds broke through barriers and clashed with officers, hurling bottles and anything they could get their hands on.

The unmasked protesters marched from Sydney's Victoria Park to Town Hall. estimates 15,000 people took part in the march. Many chanted anti-lockdown slogans and held signs calling for "freedom" and "the truth."

Footage on social media shows thousands of demonstrators marching through Sydney's downtown area.

There was a significant police presence, including mounted police and riot control officers in response to what authorities said was an "unauthorized protest."

The demonstrators defied restrictions on non-essential travel and mass public gatherings that could be extended through October.

The Greater Sydney area has been locked down for a month as infections rise.

Protesters were also seen in Melbourne and Adelaide.

There's discontent with Australians being forced into lockdowns again as an outbreak of the delta variant began last month.

Protests are not limited to Australia. New COVID rules have been implemented across Europe as Delta infections flare-up, which demonstrators in France and Greece recently took to the streets. The UK has even triggered widespread panic through a new app that notified tens of thousands of people they must quarantine for ten days because of possible exposure.

Multiple US cities are now requiring people to wear masks indoors amid surging cases.

(10) Why I Protested - Remy Chadwick

Why I Protested Yesterday ­ and Will Again

25th July 2021

Remy Chadwick

I'm a 27-year-old artist, teacher and cyber security student. I'm married to an occupational therapist who looked after COVID-19-infected patients in aged care at the height of Melbourne's second lockdown. We are three-quarters vaccinated with Pfizer (I'm waiting on my second dose).

I experienced hope and even joy that so many people were prepared to risk fines and arrest to protest the lockdowns that have been crippling Australia since March last year. I decided to join them. Not in the city ­ that's a too easy target, and too easily misrepresented, by the media or the Twitter brigade. Instead I walked up my local shopping strip with a sign, wearing a mask, encouraging people to 'stay safe' wherever they are (as the Victorian Government's propaganda never fails to remind us). My sign read:

'COVID can't be eliminated. Put a ring of steel around our Premiers.'

I meant every word.

For my sin of questioning a doomed and destructive policy, I have the privilege of sharing the status of the "selfish boofheads"' and "ratbags" who congregated, some with their children, in our two major CBDs. A panoply of dictocrats predictably pronounced their verdict on us that evening. In an exasperated tweet His Highness, Chief Medical Officer Brett Sutton, tried to argue that we don't care about freedom if we oppose his elimination strategy. Mr Foley went further, effectively saying that we are "not on the side of humanity" for daring to challenge their edicts.

Well, I'm not convinced. You see, Brett Sutton could, under Victoria's State of Emergency powers, 'proportionately' confiscate my possessions and require me to vacate my house. If I owned my house, he could order its demolition. These powers allowed him to cross the NSW-VIC border recently for a conference whose highlight appears to have been some dinner where awards were handed out. The reality is, Australia's health officials and their lapdog premiers (or is it the other way around?) enjoy freedoms that our population does not. Why should we be lectured by them on freedom?

Here's a thought: COVID can crush your body, but it cannot crush your spirit. And another thought: our premiers cannot eliminate COVID-19, but they can eliminate society in the trying. They might even succeed in doing just that before the next election. This is why I feel a great urgency to use whatever few means left to us as citizens to oppose their vision for life under COVID. They , not me and the thousands of others who took to the streets yesterday in state capitals, are the true enemies of the state, enemies of the community, enemies of individuals. They want to protect us from a disease that is out of their control, peddling lies and doling out shame while refusing point blank to release the "expert advice" that tells them their strategy is "working". They have not sought the consent of the people whose rights they have been entrusted with.

For over a year I have tried to oppose this regime within the restrictions imposed on me with precious little success. The social contract is now rigged against common people. I look ahead and see a horizon of lockdowns, impositions and risk-avoidance that no vaccination level can cure. This horizon is bleakness incarnate. As if five lockdowns totalling some six months of domestic incarceration haven't been bleak enough! If our premiers trash democratic norms to get their way and impose their will, they should expect fierce resistance. What they got on Saturday was only a taste.

By protesting it is said I am putting others 'at risk'. By being alive I am putting others at risk. Life is risk ­ the risk of joy in the face of pain, hope in the face of death, love in the face of rejection. I will fight for life, and maybe we'll all find more safety in that than in hiding from COVID.

(11) Russians, South Africans & Chileans resist Vaccine Mandates - Israel Shamir

Covid Riots

Israel Shamir o July 25, 2021

The Russian people have successfully managed to foil the latest attempt by the Global Covid Party to enforce its most current list of restrictions and vaccinations. The covid restrictions were unleashed June 16, while Putin was away at the Geneva summit. Moscow Mayor Sobyanin announced that QR codes would be required to enter all cafés and restaurants, and followed this up with demands for mandatory vaccination. But Russians continue to refuse to comply; by now they have found many ways to beat the system, the simplest solution being to avoid (and thus bankrupt) collaborating restaurants. The Mandatory Vaxx Regime brings new conspirators (like Alexei Navalny, the Russian Guaido presently in jail for swindling) and old school Kremlin propagandists into a rare (and suspicious) agreement. Now they all excrete New York mainstream media.

Many loyal Putinists were disappointed and aggrieved by the actions of Moscow's Mayor; they spoke of treason and of abject surrender to US Dems. The people began to grumble that they would be voting Communist in the upcoming (September 19, 2021) Parliamentary elections. President Putin tried his best to stay above the fray, but recognizing that the Covid Party is actively arranging his political demise, he took steps to rescue his loyalists. Putin publicly called for the mayor to drop the restrictions, and then behind the scenes he had them removed. The QR codes have dried up, and peace has returned to Russian society only one month after the restrictions were announced. The vaccination effort goes on, but it is voluntary. Barring unexpected developments, Russia has passed through the pandemic trial with flying colours, in typically Russian style ("Give a candle to God and a poker to Satan"). People fell ill and died, as always, but there were no disturbances, no riots, and Putin continues to outperform his challengers, in word and in deed.

Not every leader manages to escape intact from these orchestrated confrontations with global Covidians. President of Haiti Jovenel Moïse was reluctant to push for the vaxx in his poor country; he didn't drop everything and immediately reorganise his state's government around the new vaccination regime. He then flatly refused AstraZeneca, saying the stuff is dangerous for your health. Little did he know that refusing Big Pharma is perilous to the health of even the elected leader of a sovereign state. Sadly, he has been assassinated by a gang of Colombian mercenaries claiming to be DEA (the US Drug Enforcement Administration) and some of them actually serving with the DEA. The killing was organised by a Florida-based security firm. The killers were trained by the US Army. As soon as the President of Haiti was murdered, the US called in the Marines and half a million doses of vaccine. Thus, this small rebellion against the Covid empire has been squashed.

There is also a Covid component in the recent jailing of former South African President Jacob Zuma. While we are aware of tribal differences in South Africa, and even of Zuma crossing the 'red line' by attacking Oppenheimer of de Biers, his record on Covid was not widely publicized. A little research by Paul Bennett reveals the following vignette:

On 05 July 2021, former president Jacob Zuma on Sunday dismissed questions about his supporters gathered outside his home in KwaZulu-Natal without observing Covid-19 regulations. Zumaâ who has not received a Covid-19 vaccinationâ addressed media personnel at his KwaDakwadunuse home in Nkandla on Sunday night and said he was not responsible for what his supporters did even if their actions were against lockdown regulations. According to Zumaâ lockdown regulations were no different to the rules imposed on people during the mid-1980s state of emergency enforced by the apartheid regime. "We have a level 4 lockdown with all the hallmarks of a state of emergency and the curfews of the 1980sâ" said Zuma. "The only difference is that we use different levelsâ like contempt of court instead of detention without trialâ but the substance is exactly the same. Being jailed without trial is no different from detention without trial." Zuma revealed he had not been vaccinated against Covid-19 despite his age group qualifying for jabs. In what could be viewed as his first sign of disregarding lockdown regulationsâ the former president went out with Amabutho (Zulu regiments) on Saturday to greet supporters while not wearing a mask.

Bear in mind extremely strict anti-covid measures in South Africa, and you will understand their riots as a natural response to lockdown oppression, just like BLM in the US. You are free to reach your own conclusions about the coincidences in the case of Zuma, as with all the other recent regime changes connected to Covid activism.

The mask is a 'masonic' sign of support for the Covid Masters. Good guys like Biden wear the mask even when alone, while bad guys like Trump are usually maskless. Lukashenko and Putin are maskless, while the Belarus opposition and Navalny supporters wear masks. In Chile recently, the Left held primaries to pick a united candidate for presidency. The favourite was Daniel Jadua, a grandchild of Palestinian immigrants known for his fierce opposition to Israel. Worse, he fought for affordable medicines and pioneered people's pharmacies'. In his photos, he does not wear the mask. He was vociferously attacked by Chilean Jews who condemned his (yes!) anti-Semitism. Jadua was defeated, and the happy victors immediately presented their masked faces to the media so that we all might know who is good and who is bad. On some occasions, politicians do both, to err on the safe side. Russian and Iranian foreign ministers obliged mask fans by posing for pictures fully masked with elbows touching, then re-posed themselves for photos that will please ordinary folk, without masks and with a healthy handshake. The mask has evolved into a public declaration that we accept the Covid narrative, in the same way Christians cross their hearts. [...]

(12) Belarus & Sweden - no Lockdowns, no Masks

Sweden, Covid and lockdown ­ a look at the data

Fraser Nelson

18 May 2021, 2:20am

Over the last year, the debate about lockdown has been driven to extremes ­ everyone has, by now, made up their mind. Sweden has been used as an example of either a liberal heaven or Covid hell. To the outside world, Sweden is a country that defied lockdown, carried on regardless and ended up with what is (now) the highest case-rate in Europe. In reality, Sweden shows that you don't need lockdown to significantly reduce mobility: it forced down two waves. It failed to protect care homes, leading to a scandal of thousands of avoidable deaths. But the question is whether, by avoiding lockdown, it managed Covid while minimising damage to the economy, society, healthcare and schools. I looked at this in my Daily Telegraph <> column a few weeks ago. Seeing as this is such a contentious (and misrepresented) issue, I thought I'd include some of the data and sources here for those interested.

Sweden's story is more complicated than the UK narrative allows. We tend to see the problem only in terms of Covid cases, deaths, vaccinations etc. The BBC reads out these figures every day on the news - but we seldom hear about the aspects of the pandemic. The effect on society, schools (Swedens were kept open for the under-17s), unemployment, the public finances and the likely long-term implications of wider economic damage. The fall in Sweden's urgent cancer referrals, for example, was far less than that of the UK - meaning fewer avoidable deaths. Sweden also argues that lockdown brings isolation which can be fatal to the elderly.

Lockdown-related damage has (controversially) always been excluded from calculations used inside UK government. Seen through only one dimension - the spread of Covid - Sweden looks like a flop. But add other factors (as Swedes have always done) and the picture changes.

Let's start with a table where Sweden looks bad: Covid infections. Since the pandemic started, its per-capita infections have been amongst the highest in Europe - and remain so today.

But when you switch to looking at Covid deaths, Sweden about average. How can that be, given that it has tolerated such high Covid cases for so long? Tegnell <> says that at present, the link between high cases and deaths has been broken by vaccinations: Sweden's targeted vaccination programme means 'we should not have to experience these high death rates again'. So a new wave of cases need not mean a new wave of hospitalisations ­ ergo, no need to inflict more harm on society and the economy. Here's how the picture looks for Covid deaths, to date.

In rejecting lockdown, Sweden deliberately tolerated higher Covid levels than locked-down countries in the hope of minimising other damage and protecting more lives in the round. Last year, Sweden's economy (which relies heavily on exports) fell 3 per cent vs 10 per cent for Britain. This isn't just about money: years of experience of recession <> shows a clear link between economic downturns and public health damage: the effects are longer term. Most health economists would agree that a lower economic hit now means a lower excess death hit later.

In spite of three UK lockdowns, Sweden has ended up with fewer Covid deaths. On a per capita basis, the UK and Sweden had almost identical Covid death levels by the end of the first wave. Both amongst the worst in Europe, but locking down didn't give Britain much of an advantage - a point Tegnell makes now and again. But locked-down Britain was hit harder in a second wave (still ongoing in Sweden). ...

Norway and Finland have very low population density, Sweden is in line with the European average (higher than Germany). On top of that we have Sweden's exposure to globalisation, high foreign-born population etc. Sweden falls down in comparison to Denmark, which has higher population density but suffered less excess death and comparable economic damage. [...]

(13) The left used to love liberal Sweden. But pro-lockdown progressives shun it now

The left used to love liberal Sweden: Now for pro-mask, pro-lockdown UK progressives, it doesn't exist

Neil Clark

16 Jul, 2021 06:57

Many UK leftists seem to believe that opposing draconian Covid restrictions makes one right- wing. But what about Sweden ­ a country most would have admired until March 2020 ­ which neither locked down nor mandated masks? [...]

Sweden not only didn't impose a national lockdown, it didn't mandate face masks either. Yes, there was 'advice' to wear masks on public transport during rush hour if carriages were crowded, but that was it. And even that advice ended recently.

Throughout all this, Sweden, lest we forget, was not governed by nasty, right-wing Donald Trump-type people, but by a coalition of Social Democrats and Greens. Exactly the same sort of people hardcore 'progressive' maskists would be voting for ­ and campaigning for ­ in Britain. [...]

Unlike Britain, Sweden didn't reposition its health service to become a National Covid Service, to the neglect of diseases which kill a lot more people. Only this week, a new parliamentary report, 'Catch Up with Cancer ­ The Way Forward', showed there were 350,000 fewer urgent cancer referrals in the UK in 2020, and 40,000 fewer cancer diagnoses.

Leading cancer surgeon Professor Gordon Wishart compared the UK example with Sweden. There, the number of patients undergoing prostatectomies fell by only 3%. Over the same period, they plunged by 43% in Britain. How many will die because of this cancer 'time bomb'?

Remember progressives supported lockdowns and masks on the basis of 'if they only save one life, they're worth it'.

Sweden provides the perfect 'control' to what life without lockdowns and mandatory masks would have been like in Britain. And you can forget the 'oh, it's silly to make comparisons because Sweden is just pine forests and lakes and much more sparsely populated' line: in 2019, 87.7% percent of the population lived in urban areas compared to 83.65% in the UK.

Rather than doing what China, and then Italy, did, Sweden was the north European example that north European Britain could ­ and should ­ have followed.

Instead of urging Boris Johnson's government ­ which Britain's leftists actually told us was 'far-right' and even 'fascist' prior to March 2020 ­ to become even more authoritarian with its restrictions, they should have been extolling sensible, social-democratic Sweden. The trouble was, though, that from quite early on, they were conditioned to believe that opposing lockdowns was not only a 'right-wing' thing, but a 'far-right' thing. Remember the social media furore when a flag of the 'British Union of Fascists' was very briefly unfurled ­ and quickly photographed ­ at Trafalgar Square at an anti-lockdown rally last summer?

(14) Professor Sucharit Bhakdi's warning about the mRNA vaccines - what options if we get Covid?

by Peter Myers, July 19, 2021

Professor Sucharit Bhakdi's more recent and longer video (17 min) is at

His earlier video (7 Min) is at

I am not opposed to vaccines per se, but I do oppose those protected by a "No Liability" clause.

Given Sucharit Bhakdi's warning about the mRNA vaccines, and adverse events following other vaccines, the government ban on Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine leaves us with few options should we be infected.

Prof Bhakdi says, in the 17 min video, that, if you catch the virus, it stays in your throat for the first few days; after that it can get into your lungs. It can only kill you if it gets into your lungs; so if you can kill it before it gets to your lungs, you are safe.

Everyone needs a contingency plan in case they get Covid-19.

Make up your own mind, but here's what I plan to do: (1) At the first sign of symptoms, gargle several times a day with Betadine Sore Throat Gargle. This is a mouthwash containg povidine iodine; it is reported to kill the virus in your throat. (2) Nebulise with 3% Hydrogen Peroxide (this kills the virus in your lungs & sinus); ordinary H2O2 will do, but you can also use the food-grade kind. I dilute it 1:3 with rainwater.


Copyright: Peter Myers asserts the right to be identified as the author of the material written by him on this website, being material that is not otherwise attributed to another author.


Write to me at contact.html.