Welcome to Sott.net
Mon, 05 Dec 2022
The World for People who Think

Health & Wellness


Suspend all COVID-19 mRNA vaccines until side-effects are fully investigated, says leading doctor who promoted them on TV

mrna vaccines
Leading doctors have joined a call to suspend all COVID-19 mRNA vaccines until serious side-effects are fully investigated and the raw trial data from Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine trial are released for independent analysis to help determine the true benefits and potential harms for different age groups.

Writing in the peer-reviewed Journal of Insulin Resistance, one of the U.K.'s most eminent Consultant Cardiologists Dr. Aseem Malhotra, who was one of the first to take two doses of the vaccine and promote it on Good Morning Britain on TV, says that since the rollout of the vaccine the evidence of its effectiveness and true rates of adverse events has changed.

In a two-part research paper entitled "Curing the pandemic of misinformation on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines through real evidence-based medicine", real-world data reveal that in the non-elderly population the number needed to vaccinate to prevent one death from COVID-19 runs into thousands and that re-analysis of randomised controlled trial data (that first led to approval of the vaccines for Pfizer and Moderna) suggests a greater risk of suffering a serious adverse event from the vaccine than being hospitalised with COVID-19.

Comment: It was disappointing, to say the least, when Dr. Aseem Malhotra jumped on the bandwagon and started promoting Covid vaccines, since he had been such a high profile voice of reason on subjects like statins, diet, sugar and fat. It's good to see that he's back on track, criticizing the right people again. Here's hoping it does some good.

From Robert Malone, MD.:
In a recent interview with GB news, Dr. Malhotra goes on to say:
"When the vaccines were first released we were told they were 95% effective against infection.

This is not true. This is based on relative risk reduction. In absolute terms, they provided 0.84 percent protection which means only one in 119 people would be protected from infection.

This statistic was the pretense under which vaccine mandates were implemented.

"The latest data reveals that once infected there is no significant difference in transmission rates between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, which makes any scientific case for mandates illegitimate.

As newer and thankfully, less lethal, mutated strains became dominant, any protection against infection at the very least became less effective and likely completely ineffective, even if there is some significant (as yet to be fully determined in absolute individual terms) protection against serious illness and death."
Precisely as was described in the video from the Canadian COVID care alliance which I cross posted resulting in my being deplatformed from Twitter.

The Canadian COVID care alliance has since developed additional videos which make this same point- the SARS-CoV-2 genetic vaccines are neither safe nor effective, and must be stopped. Please see the Canadian COVID care alliance webpage for links.

On a personal note... Dr. Malhotra's realization that his father had just been vaccinated just prior to his cardiac arrest and death led him down the path of discovery. Being a good scientist means looking past the propaganda and delving into the research. Sometimes, it takes a wake-up call but thank goodness, at least one great physician listened to the evidence.

In August, Dr Aseem Malhotra wrote an open letter to Prime Minister Boris Johnson and US President Joe Biden calling for the immediate release of the raw data from Pfizer's original Covid-19 vaccine trial.
dr aseem malhotra tweet
See also:


New study reveals trace amounts of COVID vaccine mRNAs found in breast milk

mother, baby, newborn, child, infant, breastfeeding
© Catherine Delahaye/Getty Images
A new study published Monday revealed trace amounts of COVID vaccine mRNAs were found in the breast milk of some lactating women.

The Journal of the American Medical Association, an international peer-reviewed general medical journal published since 1993, released the study to the public and has now issued a warning for women breastfeeding infants younger than six months.

"Caution is warranted regarding breastfeeding infants younger than six months in the first two days after maternal COVID-19 vaccination," the journal said in a tweet.

Comment: Some authors over on Substack have pointed out some of the obvious implications and asked some prudent questions:

mRNA from the Covid-19 Vaccination is Now Proven to Pass Through Breast Milk. The Impact on Breastfeeding Babies is Unknown! However, Vaccination of Breastfeeding Women is Safe!
  1. Vaccine mRNA is confirmed to be present in breastmilk, particularly in the first 48 hours post-dosing.
  2. We don't know if that mRNA is active.
  3. We do know that vaccine mRNA is distributed to all organ systems (from rat studies).
  4. We don't know the functional consequences, bioaccumulation, etc.

There have been reports of breastfed babies dying after their mother's were vaccinated! Now we have a confirmed mechanism! Active vaccine components pass through breast milk!

Discussed by Igor Chudov! Thank you Igor for bringing this letter to my attention!

If vaccine mRNA components pass through breastmilk, do the spike proteins subsequently generated from those vaccine components also pass through breastmilk? With what consequences?
JAMA: mRNA Vaccine Shedding in Breast Milk Proven!
Remember how we said that vaccine shedding is a real thing and breastfeeding after vaccination is dangerous? Our warnings were dismissed as "misinformation" and we were cast as ignorant, science-denying cranks.

Well, now the Journal of American Medical Association published a letter (archive link) that proved conclusively that mRNA vaccine shedding is real! The vaccine mRNA is indeed shed in breast milk and is affecting babies that receive said milk.

This letter provides lab results proving that concerns of the so-called "antivaxxers" were fully justified!

The JAMA letter is quite simple. Scientists picked 11 lactating women, who received Pfizer (6 women) or Moderna (5 women) vaccines during lactation.

After vaccination, breast milk was analyzed for the presence of mRNA nanoparticles. Not surprisingly, 7 samples were POSITIVE for the presence of mRNA.

The authors also point out that the promises of mRNA vaccines that "vaccine stays in the shoulder" were lies. The vaccine traveled to the breasts and was transferred into breast milk.
These data demonstrate for the first time to our knowledge the biodistribution of COVID-19 vaccine mRNA to mammary cells and the potential ability of tissue EVs to package the vaccine mRNA that can be transported to distant cells.

Little has been reported on lipid nanoparticle biodistribution and localization in human tissues after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.
Despite that, the authors say the following, possibly to get their letter past the JAMA censors:
The sporadic presence and trace quantities of COVID-19 vaccine mRNA detected in EBM suggest that breastfeeding after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is safe, particularly beyond 48 hours after vaccination.
Your first reading of the above sentence might suggest that the authors said "COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is safe". But it is ominously qualified with "particularly beyond 48 hours after vaccination", plainly meaning that breastfeeding within 48 hours after vaccination is NOT safe.

It is sad that researchers have to say things (it is safe and effective) that contradict the plain meaning of this article (women shed mRNA nanoparticles on their infants). Our friend Modern Discontent recently posted a great guide to reading scientific papers, where he also lamented how article conclusions often contradict article data. This article is a perfect example of that, and there is plenty more of such examples in the Covid world.

This is why paying attention to what the article says, beyond platitudes, is paramount.

Wildly Differing Concentrations of mRNA make it MORE Dangerous

Look at this chart showing concentrations of mRNA in milk. The worst concentration was EIGHT TIMES the lowest concentration. This means that likely, in a larger sample of women, the disparity between highest and lowest values would be even greater.

What is the deadly concentration of mRNA that could cause the death of an infant in the Pfizer trial (see below)? Nobody knows and the FDA does not care.

The detection limit (per supplement) was 1 pg/mL. What if levels just below 1 pg/mL could be harmful? We have no idea.

Dead Infant

Confidential Pfizer documents, which the FDA wanted to hide from us for 75 years, show a case of an infant, possibly killed by mRNA nanoparticles shed by a recently vaccinated mother.

The "neonatal death" and numerous other neonatal problems in infants exposed to vaccinated mothers' breast milk are discussed in my article here.

Astute reader ChrisCoonsToupee located the VAERS entry for this dead infant.

They Lied to Us

Remember how we were assured that "vaccines are safe for mothers"?

Turned out that not only they were NOT safe, but also that the fact-checkers and authorities outright lied about safety, since they studiously avoided collecting any data that would confirm it! They also IGNORED Pfizer's own reports of 17 neonatal problems and wanted to hide that for 75 years.

Now we know WHAT they wanted to hide.

They could have done this simple study two years ago. But they did not even bother to conduct such a trivial check! Why?

Chart Bar

No, Bolsonaro's handling of the pandemic was not "disastrous"

Jair Bolsonaro

Jair Bolsonaro, President of Brazil
The latest edition of the Spectator carries a piece by Oliver Basciano entitled "Brace yourself for a coup in Brazil". Basciano speculates that due to President Bolsonaro's myriad failings, prominent among them his alleged failure to protect the Brazilian population from Covid (he was sceptical about lockdowns and the need for vaccines for those with natural immunity and about their safety), he will launch a coup rather than await the verdict of the online voting machines - which look set to deliver a victory to convicted fraudster, ex-President and darling of the Left, Lula Da Silva.

To back up his claim about Bolsonaro's "disastrous handling of the pandemic" Basciano states that "some 685,000 Brazilians died".

Brazil's a big country with a population of about 220 million. I'm always worried when someone puts in a big number with no context. Is 685,000 deaths a lot? It sounds a lot. But how does Brazil's pandemic performance compare with some of the poster boys and girls of the Covid A team?


Saturated Fat

Saturated Fat
© Healthline.com
Once again, saturated fat is found not guilty [yes, once again]

I suppose that what I am about to tell you is pretty much old hat. Many people, including me, have been saying - for many years - that saturated fat has no impact on cardiovascular disease. Never has, never will. The scientific support for it has always been non-existent, and the hypothesis has always been complete fact-free, evidence-free, thought-free, nonsense.

Indeed, it is more likely that saturated fat may have beneficial effects. It certainly does if you replace fat in the diet with carbs, carbs, carbs ... and more carbs. Which is what most people have done. Happily following the idiotic advice of nutritional experts around the world.

Anyway, mainly so that I can sit back and say, 'I told you so' once again, here is the abstract from a paper that was published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology a couple of weeks ago 'Saturated fat: villain and bogeyman in the development of cardiovascular disease?'1

Key comment - to be found at the end.
'...there is no scientific ground to demonize SFA as a cause of CVD. SFA naturally occurring in nutrient-dense foods can be safely included in the diet.'


Kidney transplants rejected within weeks of receiving Covid injections

kidney transplant
Fourteen days after being injected with an AstraZeneca "vaccine" a 25-year-old woman suffered a transplant rejection. Almost four and a half years earlier she had a successful kidney transplant and she did not report any difficulties until after "vaccination."

A case report published in Nature on 2 March 2022 details this patient's transplant rejection:
In this paper, we present a newly developed acute humoral and cellular rejection with acute allograft [transplant] failure and need of haemodialysis 14 days after administration of the adenovirus vectored SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (AstraZeneca; CHADOx1, AZD1222). This occurred in a patient who previously had an asymptomatic Covid-19 infection. Case reports of acute allograft rejection after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 can help stratify risk groups of patients who develop hyperimmune reactions.


US reports 'out of control' STD situation, highest syphilis cases in 4 decades

© Skip Van Orden / CDC via AP file
A tissue sample with the presence of numerous corkscrew-shaped, darkly stained Treponema pallidum spirochetes, the bacterium responsible for causing syphilis.
Sharply rising cases of some sexually transmitted diseases — including a 26% rise in new syphilis infections reported last year — are prompting U.S. health officials to call for new prevention and treatment efforts.

"It is imperative that we ... work to rebuild, innovate, and expand (STD) prevention in the U.S.," said Dr. Leandro Mena of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in a speech Monday at a medical conference on sexually transmitted diseases.

Infections rates for some STDs, including gonorrhea and syphilis, have been rising for years. Last year the rate of syphilis cases reached its highest since 1991 and the total number of cases hit its highest since 1948. HIV cases are also on the rise, up 16% last year.

Comment: It's likely that, now, with vast numbers of people's bodies suffering the impact of the experimental covid jabs, the situation will only worsen, and, as we've seen with monkeypox, give life to otherwise rare illnesses, and possibly even birth new variants or new diseases entirely: See also: Lethal Sex -The Rise of Sexually Transmitted Diseases in the Age of Postmodernist Liberalism


Neurofeedback study finds evidence that triathletes are better at self-regulating their brain activity

brain connections
New research suggests that athletes are not only better at self-regulating their physical activity, but also at self-regulating their brain activity. The study, published in the journal Biological Psychology, also uncovered differences in brain structure among athletes and nonathletes.

Among many other benefits, regular exercise has been found to improve cognitive control. These enhanced cognitive processes, such as inhibition, attention, and concentration, are believed to help regular exercisers self-regulate their physical activity. For example, studies among high-performing athletes suggest that high levels of executive control offer a competitive advantage.

Since athletes appear to be better at self-regulating their physical activity, study author Silvia Erika Kober and team wondered whether they might also be better at self-regulating their brain activity. The authors explain that regulating one's own biological signals requires two skills that athletes may be likely to have. For one, athletes may be skilled at discriminating their inner biological signals, since they tend to be in tune with their physiological signals. Secondly, athletes may be skilled at altering these signals in a desired direction, since exercise is associated with high executive function and self-regulation.

Comment: See also:


Fauci fears 'anti-vaxxer attitude' could cause outbreaks of non-COVID diseases

anthony fauci
© Peter Afriyie
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and chief medical adviser to the president, is seen during a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing entitled, “Stopping the Spread of Monkeypox: Examining the Federal Response” on Wednesday, September 14, 2022.
Anthony Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert, said in a new interview that the "anti-vaxxer attitude" of some Americans risks causing non-COVID virus outbreaks in the U.S.

"I'm concerned the acceleration of an anti-vaxxer attitude in certain segments of the population . . . might spill over into that kind of a negative attitude towards childhood vaccinations," Fauci told The Financial Times in an interview published Sunday.

"If you fall back on vaccines against common vaccine-preventable childhood diseases, that's where you wind up getting avoidable and unnecessary outbreaks," Fauci added.

Comment: Fauci is likely more afraid of the detrimental effect 'vaccine hesitancy' has on Pharma profits than the actual risk of spreading disease. With more and more coming to light about the horrific effects the recent mass vaccination campaign has had on people's health, can you blame anyone for being skeptical, if not opposed outright to vaccines? You quite simply cannot trust these people or their dirty shots.

See also:


ICAN obtains court order demanding CDC release secret COVID vaccine adverse events data obtained in 'V-Safe' program

v safe del bigtree
After months of litigation, a U.S. court has ordered that, by the end of this month, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC") must produce the first batch of over 19 months' worth of data collected from tens of millions of v-safe participants during the Covid-19 vaccination program.

The V-safe program includes over 137 million entries that have been made following Covid vaccination.

Informed Consent Action Network ("ICAN") was founded by Del Bigtree to investigate the safety of medical procedures, pharmaceutical drugs, and vaccines while educating the public about their right to informed consent:


A moderate dose of alcohol impairs the ability to imagine a possible future situation

beers with the boys
Alcohol is an widely used substance known for contributing to bad decision making, but have you ever wondered why it can have that effect? A study published in Psychopharmacology explores how drinking alcohol may impair consumer's ability to think about the future, which can cause an inability to understand the consequences of questionable choices made while intoxicated.

Alcohol has a plethora of well-documented side effects, including impairments in memory and changes in executive functioning. Missing from current literature is alcohol's effect on episodic future thinking, or the ability to imagine a possible future situation. Episodic future thinking is significant when making decisions and deficits in it can cause risky or irresponsible behavior with unwanted or unforeseen outcomes.

Alcohol overconsumption is often related to impulsive decision making, which makes this gap in literature especially important. This study seeks to understand the relationship between alcohol consumption and episodic future thinking.

Comment: See also: