Side effects include a multitude of things the shot should NOT be doing.
That means that over 40 million women in the United States have had their menstrual cycles affected by the C19 jab.
Project Veritas released another breaking story last night (Feb. 2) featuring Pfizer executive Jordan Trishton Walker. This time, he was caught on camera openly admitting concern about women’s cycles and their fertility. As a result, #Pfertility is trending on Twitter.
BREAKING: @Pfizer Director Concerned Over Women's Reproductive Heath After COVID-19 Vaccinations
"There is something irregular about their menstrual cycles...concerning...The vaccine shouldn't be interfering with that...It has to be affecting something hormonal..."#Pfertilitypic.twitter.com/XAuMPJNShD
In light of Project Veritas’ latest bombshell, we have compiled an array of respected voices speaking out about menstrual and fertility concerns. Doctors, scientists, thought leaders, and women across the globe have been screaming from the rooftops on this subject for years now.
(In the interest of brevity, I’ll just post the videos from Vigalent Fox [there are quite a few]. The full article, with Twitter comments, can be found HERE , Some may be out of order —TPR)
Basically, Pfizer knew that there would be problems, they knew that lipid nanoparticles such as in the clot shot accumulated in the ovaries, and Bill Gates (bless his heart) was studying ways to interfere with reproduction.
BY Steve Kirsch Founder, Vaccine Safety Research Foundation (vacsafety.org) Updated 1/31/23
If the CDC was honest, this is what their new ads should look like!
If the CDC was honest, this is what their new ads should look like!
Using a novel analysis technique, anyone can now prove that there is no longer any doubt that the vaccines are SHORTENING the lifespans of EVERYONE who takes them. They should be immediately stopped.
Update at 12pm PST 1/31/23
This critique is convincing, but wrong. If everyone was last vaccinated just 10 days before the end of 2022, it would still be a .5 ratio if the vaccines were perfectly safe because the death rate in the final 10 days would be spread evenly over time.
I realized I made an error in some of the formulas so I’m re-doing the numbers.
Also, because the unvaxxed transition to the vaccinated, there are fewer unvaccinated to die in later months so there will be fewer unvaccinated deaths which will skew the ratio for the vaccinated to be lower than .5.
I’m currently using the date of last vaccination as the starting point and I believe it may be more correct to use the date of first vaccination. Still mulling that over.
Executive summary
This is the most important article I have ever written in my life.
It shows a novel method that anyone can use to prove that the COVID vaccines are leading to premature death in anyone who takes them, no matter what age. So you don’t have to believe me. You can collect the data yourself and do the same analysis I did. It’s very easy. It took me about an hour to collect the data and analyze it.
The methodology is both technically sound and objective. Anyone can collect their own data including any state in the US and many foreign governments. I predict no one will look. That tells you everything you need to know.
I asked UK Professor Norman Fenton to critique the method I used here. More about him in the text below. Bottom line: he loved the method I used (which he hadn’t seen before), he validated the calculations in the figure below, and he wasn’t aware of any way the conclusion could be legitimately challenged. There are always all sorts of hand-waving arguments such as “your study wasn’t IRB approved” or “your study is unethical because you are looking at deaths from the COVID vaccine” but they are just that: hand-waving.
To further prove my article cannot be challenged, I am pioneering a unique approach to that as well that is fair, thorough, and transparent. I’m publicly offering 10X your wager to anyone who believes that the data actually shows the opposite of what I claimed. See details of the offer in the text below. If you think I got it wrong, you can turn $25K into $250K in days!
This article describes how a simple objective analysis of objective death data (age, date died, date of last COVID vaccination) can be used to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the COVID vaccines are shortening lifespans and should be immediately halted.
This explains why all the world’s health authorities are keeping their data secret; their data would reveal that all world governments have been killing millions of people worldwide. No government wants that disclosed. They won’t debate me on this. They will try to censor this article because they can’t hide from the truth. Or they will try to create FUD by arguing the survey is biased without describing the bias.
I predict that this article will be ignored by the mainstream press and the medical community. The longer they ignore me, the worse it will look for them. The first rule of holes is that when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
Unless there is a serious error in my methodology or someone can explain precisely how surveying “my followers” creates a biased sample that shifts the numbers for the vaccinated or shows us a more comprehensive, trustable data set, the game is now over.
If the vaccines are safe, the CDC should have produced this analysis using statewide data long ago. It is trivial to do. Why didn’t they? The answer is simple: because they know it would blow the narrative and prove to the world that they are incompetent fools.
If you want to prove me wrong, let’s get the statewide data from all states and make it public. All we need is Age, date of death, date of last COVID vaccine. That does not violate HIPAA or a dead person’s privacy because there is no PII.
But states will refuse to release that data because they know if they did, they are finished.
So in the meantime, they will say, “Your survey is biased.” But nobody can explain the “bias” that explains the result because my readers DO NOT CONTROL THE DATE THAT THEIR FRIENDS WERE VACCINATED, their age, or the DATE they died.
My readers may be more affluent than the average American so that’s a bias. But if the vaccine is killing affluent people, we have a problem. My readers might be more intelligent than the average American, so that’s a bias. They may have more intelligent friends. So this survey, it could be argued, just shows that intelligent people are being killed by the vaccine. That SHOULD be a stopping condition.
Or you could argue that my readers are less intelligent than the average person. And once again, unless you are trying to cull a society, that should be a stopping condition as unethical.
ANYONE CAN REPLICATE MY SURVEY if you think it is “biased.” The New York Times could replicate my survey and prove I’m wrong.
But they won’t.
And that tells you everything you need to know, doesn’t it?
If they want to argue with this article, THEY need to show us THEIR data and not engage in hand-waving arguments to create FUD that have no evidentiary basis.
The game is over. We have won. You cannot hide from the truth any longer.
We’ll see if anyone wants to challenge this article and get paid 10X their wager if they are right. Bring it on!
In this article, I show a clever new method for analyzing the death/vax records that is simple and objective; it relies on just a simple division of two time measurements.
The survey
A month ago, on December 25, 2022, I announced the survey below.
The survey asked people if they knew anyone who died in 2020, 2021, or 2022.
If they did know someone, simply report objective facts about the death: age, date died, and if vaccinated, the date most recently vaccinated.
If people knew >1 person who died in the period, just report the person whose details you are most familiar with (e.g., family member vs. friend).
As of January 29, 2023, I received 1,634 responses. The analysis here looks at the responses.
We only consider OBJECTIVE data and our analysis is OBJECTIVE. It’s all math.
If the vaccines are causing death, the analysis will pick it up.
Methodology
The analysis is done by looking at “days in category before death” divided by “days possible in category if you had lived to the end of the observation period.”
We do this for both vaxxed and unvaxxed people… across all ages, and also in various age ranges which I arbitrarily chose. You can choose your own if you don’t like the age categories I chose. It won’t change the result.
Here’s how the method works (credit to Clare Craig who suggested this wording):
Imagine a timeline for 2021 and 2022. For the unvaccinated we would expect an even distribution of deaths over time except for seasonal differences. For each person, we can compare how long they did live in that period with how long they could have lived. A few who died early would have lived for only a tiny fraction of their potential and a few that died late for a large fraction. However, most will be in between and the mean will be 0.5.
For the vaccinated, we start the clock on their date of their last vaccine. The timeline will therefore vary for each person but with a harmless vaccine we would still expect exactly the same distribution – a few early, a few late and most in the middle with a mean of 0.5.
If the vaccine killed people we would end up with more deaths early on. The mean ratio of life lived compared with life that could have been lived will fall below .5.
Given ratio=((time in category)/(time possible in category)) and knowing that the person died sometime in Jan 2021-Dec 2022, we have:
If the intervention (i.e., the vax) does nothing, ratio = .5
If the invention shortens life, ratio <.5
If the intervention increases lifespan, ratio > .5
It’s that simple. The important thing is that the ratio tells us if the intervention is helpful, neutral, or harmful.
The analysis is independent of the rates people die. The fact that older people die faster than younger people is immaterial. Pre-existing conditions, etc. do not matter.
There is an argument to be made that people who got vaccinated first were more vulnerable and were more likely to die, and thus the rate in a category changes over time, but that effect isn’t very large. I’ve run the numbers for those who died and were last vaccinated in 2022 and the numbers are all less than .5. You are welcome to prove me wrong, but you’ll need to do it with evidence, i.e., actual queries and not hand-waving arguments. Numbers talk.
To date, everyone who thinks they can debunk this has produced only handwaving arguments and no analysis.
Sorry, but that’s not very convincing.
Limitations
My survey includes reporters from all over the world, but all the readers speak English and 70% are in the US. The data can be analyzed just for the US and for specific vaccines as well, but below I include all the records to show that I’m not cherry picking and also to get more stability in the numbers (fewer data points creates more noise).
The people who answered are my followers and are most unvaccinated themselves. They are reporting deaths of the person they know the best, whether vaxxed or unvaxxed. I invite fact checkers to validate that people were true to the direction they were given. There are more vaccinated deaths reported simply because 75% of the US population is vaccinated.
The percentage of unvaccinated to total deaths was 29% (222/(222+542)).
So you might think “Ah ha! That proves that the unvaxxed are dying at a higher rate than the vaxxed because it should be only 25% of the deaths that should be vaccinated so this PROVES the vaccines are saving lives!”
No, it just proves that unvaccinated people hang around other unvaxxed people and are slightly more likely to report their deaths.
This is very helpful for our survey for two big reasons:
It gives us enough data in both the vaxxed and unvaxxed buckets so we can do meaningful comparisons between the two buckets
I can’t be accused of bias, e.g., you anti-vaxxers are just reporting vaccinated deaths to make the vax look bad. Clearly this isn’t the case… they are reporting disproportionately more unvaccinated deaths. So it looks very credible because it’s consistent with what you expect to see.
Note that the mix of vaxxed/unvaxxed deaths is immaterial to this analysis. Each cohort is examined independently. If I had 50% vaxxed and 50% unvaxxed deaths, the results would be exactly the same.
It’s important to note that my followers cannot determine the date of death of unvaccinated or vaccinated individuals (unless they have God-like powers). And I have contact info for all the records so they can be “spot checked” to validate that people followed my instructions to report the person they are most familiar with.
There is a recall bias in that people are more likely to report deaths that happened more recently. This shifts the average death time to the right. This is why unvaxxed are > .5 (more about that later).
For vaccinated people, there is also a healthy patient bias. If you are going to die in days due to a fatal cancer, most people would not get vaccinated.
There is some amount of seasonality in deaths that might skew things somewhat. It’s minimal for those <60, and small for the elderly. But we’re looking at a 2 year period so it shouldn’t be much different between vaxxed and unvaxxed.
Gaming
It wasn’t possible to game the survey because nobody, including myself, knew how I was going to analyze the data until after the data was collected.
There was one person who put in a bogus entry (record #260) but that was easily spotted and removed.
The analysis cut off time was before this article was written so anyone trying to pollute the data will be unsuccessful since any new records aren’t included in the analysis.
Transparency
The database has been in public view the entire time that the data has been gathered. When a record is submitted, it appears in the public view.
Verifications
No submissions were deleted (other than record 260 which was clearly gamed) or modified which can be verified by the changelog of the data. The database is hosted by a third party firm.
There is an “integrity check” field indicating which records passed simply sanity check such as date vaccinated < date died. Only those records were processed.
I have the contact information for each reporter. I am looking forward to being contacted by any mainstream “fact check” organization who is willing to be recorded on video as we discuss the article. I’m happy to supply contact info for any line(s) in the survey so the fact checker can verify every record is legitimate.
Expectations
People who die within 2021 to 2022 should be expected to die evenly throughout the period (there is some seasonality so it isn’t flat over the calendar months). Therefore, with no biases, we’d expect that the average days of life is 1 year in any 2 year observation period. So a ratio of .5. The seasonality cancels out.
But due to recall bias (since we are asking people to recall deaths rather than using government records), we’d expect the number to be skewed to dying more recently so maybe we’d see a ratio of .55 for the unvaccinated.
The vaccinated benefit from both recall bias and the healthy patient bias, so it might be .58 or more.
If the vaccines are safe and effective, the ratio of the vaccinated > ratio of the unvaccinated due to the healthy patient bias.
If the vaccines are killing people, the ratio of the vaccinated <= ratio of the unvaccinated (since the healthy patient bias would give the vaccinated an advantage).
If the vaccines are killing people, the ratio will be <0.5.
The ratio for the vaccinated is .31 or less for every age range with > 5 records.
For the unvaccinated, the ratios are .52 or better for every age range with >5 records
The data is remarkably consistent when there are enough records for the range (generally 10 or more records per the uV# or V # columns).
The values in red are unreliable due to a lack of sufficient data points.
Values in red have too few records to compute an accurate ratio. Ratios >.5 are expected for a safe intervention. Ratios <.5 mean something is killing these people prematurely.
For the unvaccinated, my Airtable filter looked like this and I used the unVaxxed days alive/days possible columns:
For the vaccinated, my Airtable filter looked like this and I used the Vaxxed days died/days available columns.
NOTE: The “Integrity check” is NOT complete. But when coupled with the restrictions of the two filtering conditions, invalid records are all filtered out of the final result.
inal result.
Is my analysis wrong?
This is an Occam’s razor analysis. You could get fancier but it wouldn’t change the result. The signal is very very strong that the vaccines should be immediately stopped.
If I have made a mistake, I’d be grateful to see the correct analysis of the data using the same methodology. So if you object, show us the proper analysis.
The data is remarkably consistent for each age range. But there is a huge difference between the vaxxed (.3) and the unvaxxed (.58). This is exactly what I expected to see; no surprises. But it’s IMPOSSIBLE for the blue-pilled medical community to explain how this could possibly happen if the vaccine is so safe since it was supposed to be the other way around.
A simple look at the Notes field confirms the role of the vaccine in these deaths. That’s subjective proof. It shows that the vaccines are not as safe as claimed.
As far as confidence intervals, the numbers are remarkably consistent so the confidence intervals appear to be small. I’ve asked Professor Fenton for the correct way to ascertain these. He’s thinking about it. I’ll update this when I hear back.
But there’s more confirmation…
Failure anecdotes » success anecdotes
Is this analysis consistent with reliable evidence? Yes.
As it turns out, it’s easy to find failure anecdotes for the COVID vaccines. The anecdotes we generally find show STRONG failures.
By contrast, it is nearly impossible to find a “success anecdote,” even a weak success. I always ask doctors who will talk to me and they’ve never mentioned a single success story. I do this constantly on Twitter Spaces in full public view and NONE of the DOCTORS will EVER be able to cite an example. In fact, I have not found any medical doctor who has ever been able to cite a single geriatric practice or nursing home where deaths dropped after the vaccines rolled out.
If the vaccines were saving lives, there should be THOUSANDS of “poster elderly” success stories, yet there are none. All the anecdotes are strongly negative. That’s simply impossible if the vaccines are saving “tens of millions of lives” as Neil deGrasse Tyson said on YouTube. When I called Neil to ask him for a success anecdote, he hung up the phone on me.
So we have a pretty good sense just from the failure to find a success that the vaccines are an utter disaster. We didn’t even need to do any numerical calculations!
Lots of things confirm our hypothesis:
Lack of success anecdotes, but failure anecdotes easy to find
People switch from pro- to anti- but not the reverse.
Nobody can explain the 15,000 excess deaths in VAERS for the COVID vaccines. It’s not there for other vaccines, the deaths are all consistent with vaccine deaths. What killed all these people if it wasn’t the vaccine?
Ed Dowd’s book “Cause Unknown” contains tons of data. Where is the document debunking everything in that book and showing the cause of all these deaths, especially the increase in child deaths happening right after the vaccines rolled out for kids.
What about the 770 safety signals in VAERS. Why didn’t the CDC tell anyone about any of those signals? They notified the public about the VSD signal for stroke and didn’t even mention that it also triggered in VAERS.
Geriatric practice: I finally found a large geriatric practice of 1,000 patients, 75% are over 65. Their normal death rate is 11 per year (the mean). In 2022, they had 39 deaths for the entire year. They attribute the 28 excess deaths to the vaccine. If it wasn’t the vaccine, someone needs to explain to us what is killing these people because whatever it is, it needs to be IMMEDIATELY stopped. They can’t go public for fear of retribution.
Savo Island Cooperative (Berkeley, CA): Roughly 150 people. No deaths for 5 years before COVID; 0 in 2020; 1 in 2021; 3 in 2022 and they were all vaccinated and boosted (plus 3 strokes and 4 heart attacks). Reported to me by Jane Stillwater last night at an event I spoke at. Nobody at the event could recall any success anecdotes.
Ed Dowd mentioned the vaccines have killed 800K Americans and disabled 4X as many as killed, 3.2M since the vaccine program began.
The peer-reviewed scientific literature published a paper by Mark Skidmore showing over 217,000 deaths in 2021 alone due to the COVID vaccine. But they are looking at retracting the paper because Mark didn’t include a full bio on one of the funders of the study. Also, he asked a question about deaths from the COVID vaccine and that’s unethical (COVID virus questions are OK and ethical).
Josh Stirling looked at how cities in the US did in 2022 vs. 2021. So it’s a longitudinal study where you compare the city with itself one year ago. This is the best way to see what is going on… did your mortality increase or decrease. Check this out: cities with higher vaccination had larger all-cause mortality increases than cities with lower vaccination rates. In other words, the line goes the “wrong way.” This is devastating for the narrative, but of course consistent with what the death reports are saying. The R2 doesn’t need to be .9 for this to be convincing. They are correlated and it’s the slope of the line that is significant. The slope is the wrong way. That’s the point.
US cities; all ages; compare 2022 vs. 2021 in the same city The line slopes up. In other words, the experts were completely wrong: the vaccines are deadly. This is very compelling proof of harm that is impossible for anyone to explain away with a straight face. When combined with this analysis, it’s not credible to keep claiming the vaccines are safe and effective.
NOTE: The summary and challenge to prove Steve Kirsh’s analysis wrong is at least as long as what is above. As of the 1/31 update, an error had been discovered and he is re-working against the same data. But he is still challenging Big Pharma and their deep state partners to prove his conclusions wrong and show how they got THEIR numbers.
Although the pandemic is behind us, Big Tech is still censoring health information from the public.
The video hosting company Vimeo recently deleted the channel of The Wellness Company.
The Wellness Company is a startup with a “Freedom From Pharma” program that provides access to doctors and pharmacies that aren’t afraid to provide treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine (plus, Gateway Pundit benefits when you subscribe through this link or the links below).
In fact, it was a video on ivermectin that caused the deletion, according to The Wellness Company.
Chris Alexander of The Wellness Company said:
“Vimeo banned our account on the basis of an interview with Jen VanDeWater, a licensed pharmacist who runs our Freedom from Pharma program, about the safety and utility of Ivermectin.
“Vimeo has allowed pro-vaccination voices to post video after video that have been riddled with misinformation, disinformation and outright lies. Vimeo isn’t holding any of these people accountable and none of these accounts are being suspended or permanently banned.
“The actions of Vimeo are a reminder of why it is so important for conservatives and freedom loving Americans to build parallel systems. We can no longer rely on the compromised systems of the establishment – and that is exactly why we founded The Wellness Company.
“Nothing is more critical than healthcare and no system has been more exposed over the last three years than our healthcare system. Every American who cares about the truth and who cares about their health should join us!”
A major new autopsy report has found that three people who died unexpectedly at home with no pre-existing disease shortly after COVID vaccination were likely killed by the vaccine.
A further two deaths were found to be possibly due to the vaccine.
The report, published in Clinical Research in Cardiology, the official journal of the German Cardiac Society, detailed autopsies carried out at Heidelberg University Hospital in 2021. Led by Thomas Longerich and Peter Schirmacher, it found that in five deaths that occurred within a week of the first or second dose of vaccination with Pfizer or Moderna, inflammation of the heart tissue due to an autoimmune response triggered by the vaccine had likely or possibly caused the death.
Case characteristic of five deaths likely or possibly caused by the COVID vaccines.Lymphocyte immune cells (white blood cells) are shown in blue and brown among the heart tissue, causing localised inflammation that proved fatal.
In total the report looked at 35 autopsies carried out at the University of Heidelberg in people who died within 20 days of COVID vaccination, of which 10 were deemed on examination to be due to a pre-existing illness and not the vaccine. For the remaining 20, the report did not rule out the vaccine as a cause of death, which Dr. Schirmacher has confirmed to me is intentional as the autopsy results were inconclusive. Almost all of the remaining cases were of a cardiovascular cause, as indicated in the table below from the supplementary materials, where 21 of the 30 deaths are attributed to a cardiovascular cause. One of these is attributed to blood clots (VITT) from AstraZeneca vaccination (the report was looking specifically at post-vaccine myocarditis deaths), leaving 20 from other cardiovascular causes.
For the five deaths in the main report attributed as likely or possibly due to the vaccines, the authors state:
“All cases lacked significant coronary heart disease, acute or chronic manifestations of ischaemic heart disease, manifestations of cardiomyopathy or other signs of a pre-existing, clinically relevant heart disease.”
This indicates that the authors limited themselves to deaths where there was no “pre-existing, clinically relevant heart disease,” making the report very conservative in which deaths it was willing to pin on the vaccines.
Dr. Schirmacher told me:
“We included only cases, in which the constellation was unequivocally clear and no other cause of death was demonstrable despite all efforts. We cannot rule out vaccine effects in the other cases, but here we had an alternative potential cause of death (e.g., myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism). If there is severe ischemic cardiomyopathy it is almost impossible to rule out myocarditis effects or definitively rule in inflammatory alterations as due to vaccination. These cases were not included.
“We did not aim to include or find every case but the characteristics of definitive, unequivocal cases beyond any doubt. Only by this way you can establish the typical characteristics; otherwise less strict criteria may lead to ‘contamination’ of the collective; it is absolutely plausible that by these criteria we may have missed further cases but the intention of our study was never quantitative or extrapolation and there are numerous positive and negative bias. But we wanted to establish the fact not the size.”
It is of course very possible that the vaccines also cause death where there is an underlying cardiovascular condition, and indeed, that it is more likely to do so. Thus these five deaths are the minimum from these autopsy cases in which the vaccines are involved—those in which there is no other plausible explanation.
It is worth noting here that initially in 2021, when the autopsies were first carried out, Dr. Schirmacher stated that his team had concluded 30–40 percent of the deaths were due to the vaccines. These earlier estimates may give us a better indication of how many of the deaths the authors really think are attributable to the vaccines, when they are unconstrained by highly conservative assumptions (and looking at causes besides myocarditis). Note that these percentages are based on a selection of deaths that occurred shortly after vaccination, not a random sample of all deaths, so the authors rightly warn that no estimation of individual risk can be made from them.
Did the autopsies find spike protein from the vaccines present in the heart tissue? The samples from the five vaccine-attributed deaths were tested for infectious agents including SARS-CoV-2 (in one instance revealing “low viral copy numbers” of a herpes virus, which the authors deemed insufficient to explain the inflammation). However, no tests were done specifically for the virus spike protein or nucleocapsid protein, such as have been used successfully in otherautopsies to aid attribution to the vaccine, so unfortunately this evidence was unavailable for these autopsies.
The autopsies in the report also only cover doses 1 and 2, not any booster doses, and only deaths within 20 days of vaccination, so the report doesn’t address directly the question of what’s been causing the elevated heart deaths since the booster rollouts from autumn 2021 or whether the vaccines can trigger cardiovascular death weeks or months later. (Otherautopsieshave confirmed that the spike protein can persist in the body for weeks or months after vaccination and trigger a fatal autoimmune attack on the heart.)
What the report does do, however, is establish that people who die suddenly in the days immediately following vaccination may well have died from a vaccine-related autoimmune attack on the heart. It also confirms how deadly even mild vaccine-induced myocarditis can be—and thus why studies like the one from Thailand, found cardiovascular adverse effects in around a third of teenagers (29.2 percent) following Pfizer vaccination and subclinical heart inflammation in one in 43 (2.3 percent), and the study from Switzerland finding at least 2.8 percent with subclinical myocarditis and elevated troponin levels (indicating heart injury) across all vaccinated people, are so worrying.
The authors of the new study diplomatically write that the “reported incidence” of myocarditis after vaccination is “low” and the risks of hospitalization and death associated with COVID-19 are “stated to be greater than the recorded risk associated with COVID-19 vaccination”—notably declining to commit themselves to the official propositions that they dutifully repeat.
The fact that those who die suddenly after vaccination may have died from the hidden effects of the COVID vaccine on their heart is thus now firmly established in the medical literature. The big remaining question is how often it occurs.
Stop Press: Dr. John Campbell has produced a helpful overview of the report’s findings in his latest video.
U.S. government scientists at a California laboratory have reportedly made a monumental breakthrough in harnessing the power of fusion energy.
The scientists, working at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, recently achieved a net energy gain in a fusion reaction, the Financial Times reported, citing three people with knowledge of the experiment.
An X2.0-class solar flare bursting off the lower right side of the Sun. (NASA / Fox News)
Scientists have been struggling since the 1950s to harness the fusion reaction that powers the sun. But no group has been able to produce more energy from the reaction than it consumes.
Though developing fusion power stations at scale is still decades away, the breakthrough has significant implications as the world seeks to ween itself off of fossil fuels. Fusion reactions emit zero carbon and do not produce any long-lasting radioactive waste. Per The Times, a small cup of hydrogen fuel could potentially power a house for hundreds of years.
“If this is confirmed, we are witnessing a moment of history,” said Dr Arthur Turrell, a plasma physicist, told the paper. “Scientists have struggled to show that fusion can release more energy than is put in since the 1950s, and the researchers at Lawrence Livermore seem to have finally and absolutely smashed this decades-old goal.”
U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm and under-secretary for nuclear security Jill Hruby are expected to formally announce “a major scientific breakthrough” at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on Tuesday.
Researcher Toy Reid sits before a timeline chronicling the lead-up to the pandemic at the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington. Credit: Mark Peterson/Redux for Vanity Fair
ProPublica and Vanity Fair are left wing, but this ProPublica article states something that most folks didn’t even know existed. the origins of COVID-19 released by the Republican oversight staff of a Senate committee. Here’s another shocker. Our examination affirms that the story, and the totality of reporting it marshals, is sound. So please read the complete article.I’ll give my assessment in the comments section.
On Oct. 28, ProPublica and Vanity Fair published a story about an interim report on the origins of COVID-19 released by the Republican oversight staff of a Senate committee. The interim report was the product of a far-reaching investigation into the question of how the pandemic began, and we wanted to give readers an inside view of the team’s work and share independent experts’ views of its findings.
The debate over COVID-19’s origins has been contentious from the start, and the report’s conclusion that the pandemic was “more likely than not, the result of a research-related incident” triggered criticism. Scientists, China observers and others questioned the Senate team’s findings and our reporting about them.
Over the past several weeks, reporters and editors at both publications have taken a hard look at those criticisms.
Our examination affirms that the story, and the totality of reporting it marshals, is sound.
We re-interviewed some of our original sources and reached out to other specialists to address questions that were raised about the work we did to put in context the evidence cited by the interim report. In particular, we took a close look at how Toy Reid, a State Department political officer on loan to the committee, translated a Chinese Communist Party branch dispatch that was cited in both the interim report and in our story as evidence that staff at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) may have been responding to a biosafety hazard or breach.
We commissioned three Chinese language experts with impeccable credentials who were not involved in the original story to review Reid’s translation. They all agreed that his version was a plausible way to represent the passage, though two also said they would have translated the words to refer to the dangers of day-to-day lab operations. The third produced a translation that was in line with Reid’s. All agreed the passage was ambiguous. We have updated the story to underscore the complexity of interpreting that dispatch.
We have added additional context to the story. We have also identified two factual errors inconsequential to the premise of the story. They have been corrected.
It remains clear that in 2019, the WIV was addressing serious safety issues while scientists there faced pressure to perform. Risky coronavirus research took place in laboratories that lacked the maximum biocontainment safeguards, according to the interim report.
A series of WIV patents and procurement notices “suggest that the WIV experienced persistent biosafety problems relevant to the containment of an aerosolized respiratory virus like SARS-CoV-2,” the interim report says. On Nov. 19, 2019, the same day a senior government safety official arrived at the WIV to discuss what a meeting summary described as a “complex and grave situation currently facing [bio]security work,” the WIV sought to procure a costly air incinerator. One expert told us such equipment could be used as a “quick fix” if the HEPA air filtration system had failed in some way. A few weeks after that procurement notice, the WIV filed a patent application for an improved device to contain hazardous gases inside a biological chamber, like ones used to transport infected animals.
The interim report described the WIV’s struggles to find disinfectants that were effective enough to kill dangerous pathogens without corroding metal. In November 2020, with the pandemic well under way, the WIV filed a patent application for a new disinfectant. The patent said existing disinfectants corrode metals in ways that could allow pathogens to escape, “resulting in loss of life and property and serious social problems.”
The director of the WIV’s highest-level biosecurity lab acknowledged in September 2019 that some Chinese facilities researching dangerous viruses had “insufficient operational funds for routine yet vital processes.” Dr. Gerald Parker, a biosecurity health expert and adviser to the interim report, said he found such revelations “a recipe for disaster.” He added: “You further couple that with an authoritarian regime where you could be penalized for reporting safety issues. You are in a doom loop of pressure to produce, and if something goes wrong you may not be incentivized to report.”
We continue to see our story as a measured exploration of the array of questions raised about the WIV’s laboratories. The possibility that a biosecurity breach at the WIV occurred, and sparked the pandemic, remains plausible.
We plan to keep reporting on this issue and expect new evidence to emerge. It is our view that both the natural-spillover and laboratory-accident hypotheses for the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic merit continued investigation. Given the human toll, which continues to mount, it is imperative that we continue this work.
For those who want to know more details about our exploration of issues raised, our reporting methodologies and conclusions, we are providing more information below on:
After the Vanity Fair-ProPublica story appeared online, questions began to emerge on social media about Reid’s translation of a key passage of a Chinese Communist Party branch dispatch dated Nov. 12, 2019, on the WIV website. According to Reid’s translation, it begins by pointing out that the lab works with dangerous pathogens and that once the test tubes are opened, “it is just as if having opened Pandora’s Box.” While the lab had “various preventive and protective measures,” it was nonetheless important to “avoid operational errors that give rise to dangers.”
The next phrase was the focus of the criticism. It appeared in bold letters in the interim report:
“Every time this has happened, the members of the Zhengdian Lab [BSL4] Party Branch have always run to the frontline, and they have taken real action to mobilize and motivate other research personnel.”
Our story shared Reid’s thought process. We wrote:
“Reid studied the words intently. Was this a reference to past accidents? An admission of an ongoing crisis? A general recognition of hazardous practices? Or all of the above?”
Reid recognized that there was an ambiguity in the phrase he translated as “Every time this has happened.” Did the word “this” refer to the daily dangers of doing experiments in a lab that handles deadly pathogens? Or did it point to the “operational errors that give rise to dangers”?
Before we published our story, Reid told us he found the passage to have a defensive tone. In the story, we quote Reid as concluding, “They are almost saying they know Beijing is about to come down and scream at them.”
Seven days later, on Nov. 19, a senior Chinese official arrived from Beijing to the WIV for a small, high-level safety training. A meeting summary said that the official had come bearing important oral remarks and written instructions from China’s senior leaders, including General Secretary Xi Jinping, related to “the complex and grave situation currently facing [bio]security work.”
To Reid, the mention of instructions from party leaders and reference to a “complex and grave situation” reinforced that the Nov. 12 dispatch was an attempt by the party branch to deflect criticism for something that had gone awry, as he explained.
We interviewed three experts on Chinese Communist Party communications before publication and shared with them the dispatches as they appeared in Chinese on the WIV website. We conducted the interviews on background to get their candid input. They expressed concerns regarding personal safety, given the sensitivity of the subject matter. All agreed with Reid’s interpretation that the safety training on Nov. 19, 2019, as described in the meeting summary, appeared to be urgent, nonroutine and related to some sort of biosafety emergency.
To assess the criticisms of Reid’s work that were raised after the story was published, we commissioned three Chinese translators, each with more than a decade of experience. One has translated for officials at the highest levels of the American and Chinese governments. We wanted their objective view of what the passage said, so we asked them to translate it and did not mention the interim report. After they had done that, we went back and asked them to review Reid’s translation from the report.
All three of their translations were different from one another’s and different from Reid’s. Yet, each agreed that Reid’s translation was one plausible way to translate the passage into English. Our translators looked at the Chinese characters that Reid had translated to read “Every time this has happened” and instead said they read them to mean “on such occasions” or “at every such an occasion.”
Before one of the translators was told what Reid had written, she said she thought the word “occasions” referred to when lab workers make mistakes that lead to hazards — an interpretation that mirrored Reid’s. The two others said they thought “occasions” referred to something more routine: opening test tubes for experiments. The language in Chinese, all three agreed, was ambiguous and could be read either way.
Some readers noted that the Nov. 12, 2019, passage actually appeared in August 2019 in a party publication. The existence of the earlier reference, they argued, proved that its repetition in November meant that it could not refer to a biosecurity emergency at that time.
We took a close look at the August 2019 post and asked our translators and the experts we consulted to do so as well. While the posts were very similar, the version uploaded on the WIV website in November 2019 was slightly different. It included additional language after the sentence that compared opening test tubes of viruses in the lab to opening Pandora’s box. The translator we commissioned who had the most experience rendered the additional language as follows: “These viruses are untraceable both coming and going, and although there are various protective measures, it is still necessary for lab workers to operate very carefully in order to avoid creating dangers through mishandling.” The translator was puzzled by the August post because without the language added in November, “it sounds as if they are leading the charge to open Pandora’s box,” she said. “If I were reading it, I’d be scratching my head.” That additional sentence, she said, “means that they go to the front lines to show everybody to be careful and not to cause errors that would be dangerous.”
One of the experts we consulted before and after publication, a former senior U.S. intelligence official, said the language added in November 2019 gave the post a defensive posture and was consistent with Reid’s analysis that party members were responding to some type of incident. The Chinese idiom that Reid translated as “come without a shadow and leave without a trace,” he said, “is a nice phrase to describe something that sneaked up on you and there was no way to defend against it. They’re basically saying to whoever this is being delivered to: ‘We didn’t see it coming. We did the best that we could to deal with the problem.’”
More on the Corrections and Added Context
There are two sentences in the story that have been corrected.
We reported that a Chinese military vaccinologist who had in the past collaborated with the WIV, Zhou Yusen, was the first to apply for a patent for a vaccine against COVID-19. The interim report stated that Zhou “was the first to patent a COVID-19 vaccine on February 24, 2020.” In fact, other researchers around the world sought patents before Zhou’s Feb. 24, 2020, filing.
However, it was the timing and nature of Zhou’s patent application and subsequent research papers that raised questions for interim report researchers.
In our review of early SARS-CoV-2 vaccine patent filings, the U.S. patent applications we found that predated Zhou’s were provisional applications, a number of which forecast experiments they planned to do in the future. Many of these applications were for vaccine candidates proposing to use a technology like mRNA. Such applications could be filed with the SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence in hand and minimal experiment data.
By contrast, Zhou filed a full patent application for a different kind of vaccine that required more upfront work before its submission. Our story says, “In his patent application and in subsequently published papers, Zhou documented a robust research and development process that included both adapting the virus to wild-type mice and infecting genetically modified ones with humanized lungs.” We have updated the story to make clear why Zhou’s work stood out to the interim report researchers.
In our article, we quoted two independent experts and one adviser to the interim report about when they thought Zhou’s research was likely to have begun. After reviewing the patent and the papers, two said that they thought Zhou would have had to have started this work no later than November 2019. Jesse Bloom, a virologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, said he believed Zhou’s timetable was feasible since his team had substantial expertise and ongoing work developing similar SARS-related coronavirus vaccines, but only if “everything went right.”
We have also corrected the sentence stating that Gabriel Gras was the last French expert at the WIV. We have learned that at least one other French scientist came to the WIV after Gras left.
Elsewhere, we’ve clarified language. Our story said that party officials at the WIV’s top biosafety lab “repeatedly lamented” the problem of “the three ‘nos’: no equipment and technology standards, no design and construction teams, and no experience operating or maintaining [a lab of this caliber].” We found two references to this concept in party branch dispatches on the WIV website in 2019. These Chinese Communist Party dispatches, we reported, “are often couched in a narrative of heroism — a focus on problems overcome and challenges met, against daunting odds.” We have updated the story to clarify that authors of those posts referred to the “three ‘nos’” as a recounting of problems from early in the lab’s construction that they said had been overcome, rather than a reference to ongoing struggles.
However, one of the experts on party communications we consulted saw the inclusion of the “three ‘nos’” in WIV dispatches as a telling sign that these serious problems from the beginning were “part of the DNA of this lab.”
On Whether the Lab Leak Is a Question Worthy of Exploration
Our story and the interim report pointed to a pair of oft-cited scientific analyses of COVID-19’s origins, one of which concludes that the pandemic was likely the result of multiple zoonotic events in which “two distinct viral lineages” of SARS-CoV-2 that had been circulating among animals at a Wuhan market infected people there.
Michael Worobey, an author on both papers, undoubtedly speaks for many when he says that natural spillover is “the only plausible scenario for the origin of the pandemic.” We repeatedly heard the perspective that the scientific case on the origins of COVID-19 is closed and that exploring the possibility that the coronavirus could have leaked from a Chinese laboratory is something no news organization or government official should take seriously.
We believe the opposite, that it remains an essential avenue for exploration to prevent future pandemics. And as interviews with other scientists before and after publication have made clear, the question is far from resolved. In their view, there is not enough evidence to establish how the virus first reached the now-infamous Wuhan market or to assert that zoonotic spillover is the sole possible explanation for the pandemic’s origin.
Bloom, the virologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, is among those scientists. “I’ve never seen anything as controversial as this in my field,” he said. “The amount of toxicity is out of control. Each side feels uniquely wronged. To me, it remains an open question.”
The story noted that the interim report also left this question open: “The authors of the interim report do not claim to have definitively solved the mystery of COVID-19’s origin.” And the story also said the interim report is “no likelier” than studies of a zoonotic origin to “close the book on the origins debate, nor does it attempt to.”
Bloom believes the findings of the interim report and the story reinforce a need to continue to explore all possible causes of the pandemic. At the same time, he recognizes that the reactions to these investigations underscore the difficulty of having a dispassionate conversation about these questions. “Right now, this whole topic is so politically fraught, it’s hard for people to give objective assessments,” he said. “We may need an independent commission to get to the bottom of this.”
Grand Prismatic Spring In Yellowstone National Park, which would likely disappear or be massively damaged byeven a mild eruption,
Yellowstone eruption, illustration. Yellowstone National Park is sitting above an underground magma chamber.
The supervolcano at Yellowstone National Park has a substantially larger magma reservoir under the caldera than scientists previously thought, according to new research.
In addition, the newly found lava is flowing at shallow depths that fueled prior eruptions, according to a paper published Thursday in Science.
Researchers mapped the seismic wave speed below the Yellowstone volcano using a technique called seismic tomography. This 3D modeling of seismic waveforms measures the volume of the melt and makes assumptions of the distribution of how the melt is spread in the subsurface in Yellowstone’s magma reservoir, Ross Maguire, an assistant professor at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign’s department of geology and author of the study, told ABC News. [*”Melt” means liquid magma.]
“We found that it’s likely that Yellowstone’s crustal magma reservoir holds more melt than previously was thought,” Maguire said, adding that there is up to 20% melt at shallow depths.
Previous studies have suggested the partial melt fraction was between 5% and 15%, Maguire said.
The Yellowstone magma reservoir is not so much “a big tank of magma,” with accumulation all in one body, Maguire said, but rather, more like a “snow cone,” in which there is a solid component and a liquid component, Kari M. Cooper, professor and chair at the University of California Davis’s department of earth and planetary sciences, told ABC News.
The findings show it’s possible there are some relatively small to moderate-size bodies of magma that are below Yellowstone that could be mobilized and expelled, Cooper said. Yellowstone tends to garner a lot of attention because of the potential for “catastrophic, explosive eruptions,” Maguire said, but that’s not the most common type of eruption in the park.
“They would be of a similar size to what’s happened in the very recent Yellowstone history that’s produced a series of lava flows that filled the most recent caldera after the most recent really large eruption,” she said.
Despite the new discovery, the research does not indicate that an eruption will happen any time soon, the scientists said. There are no signs of “increased volcanic unrest” at Yellowstone, Maguire said.
“This really does not change the hazard assessment at all, because we already knew that. We already knew this was the recent activity,” Cooper said. “We already knew that was the most likely sort of activity to happen next.”
However, a key issue for assessing the hazards of volcanic eruption is to ascertain how much magma is below the surface and where, and continued monitoring of the subsurface is important to provide a clear picture if the situation begins to change dramatically, the researchers said.
In addition, Yellowstone is thoroughly monitored by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory, Cooper said.
The UK’s Home Office will use a key fob-like device to track people who are subject to deportation orders 24 hours a day, meaning at any point they could be required to scan their fingerprints and confirm their location.
People who are subject to deportation orders in the UK will soon be required to carry a GPS-enabled fingerprint scanner at all times, so that the Home Office can verify their location and identity, New Scientist has learned. Privacy campaigners say the devices are a form of unnecessary biometric surveillance that could exacerbate people’s mental health problems.
The UK began using GPS-enabled ankle tags to track adult foreign-national offenders who are subject to deportation orders in August 2021. People in this position, also known as immigration bail, aren’t UK citizens and have committed a crime that resulted in a custodial sentence of more than 12 months or are considered to be “persistent offenders”. According to the most recent data, as of 30 September, 2146 people were being monitored in this way.
The new devices, which resemble a large key fob and are produced by Buddi, will be given to people on immigration bail soon, the Home Office has confirmed. They will track an individual’s location 24 hours a day. Lucie Audibert at Privacy International says the charity understands that the devices will be rolled out this autumn.
Users of the device will have to scan their fingers when prompted, to confirm their identity and proximity to the device. The Home Office wouldn’t say how often this will be required and hasn’t said explicitly why the fingerprint scanners will be better than ankle tags.
Recently the Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo MD, PhD. released an analysis on the COVID- 19 mRNA vaccines. Right away he and his scientists and medical experts were attacked. Going on Fake News his Tweet was removed. But I have to believe that with a great outcry from the medical community his tweet and the medical proof was put back up.
Recently a link was sent to me from a obscure far left website that attacked his credentials. Granted they all play as medical experts on the internet, but how do their medical credentials compare?
Crickets.
Here’s Dr. Ladapo’s Credentials.
He attended college at Wake Forest University, and earned an MD and a PhD in Health Policy from Harvard University.[ He completed a residency and fellowship in internal medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, a teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School. He was a professor of medicine at New York University and UCLA. He became acting Florida surgeon general in September 2021,
Today, we released an analysis on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines the public needs to be aware of. This analysis showed an increased risk of cardiac-related death among men 18-39. FL will not be silent on the truth.
From January 2021 to April 2022, at least 673 athletes are said to have died from sudden death in only a 16 month period since COVID vaccines have been introduced.
From January 2021 to April 2022, at least 673 athletes are said to have died from sudden death. This number is only 428 deaths less than the 1100 known to have died as outlined by a study on sudden death in athletes from 1966 through 2004. Those 1101 athlete deaths occurred over almost 40 years and yet 673 died over an only 16 month period since COVID vaccines have been introduced. Good Sciencing has that number closer to 1323 and includes a comprehensive list of each athlete death.
Results: SCD occurred in 1101 (1966-2004) reported cases in athletes under 35 years, 50% had congenital anatomical heart disease and cardiomyopathies and 10% had early-onset atherosclerotic heart disease. Forty percent occurred in athletes under 18 years, 33% under 16 years; the female/male ratio was 1/9. SCD was reported in almost all sports; most frequently involved were soccer (30%), basketball (25%) and running (15%). The PPSP were of varying quality and content. The IOC consensus meeting accepted the proposed Lausanne Recommendations based on this research and expert opinions (http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_886.pdf).
Conclusion: SCD occurs more frequently in young athletes, even those under the age of 18 years, than expected and is predominantly caused by pre-existing congenital cardiac abnormalities. Premature atherosclerotic disease forms another important cause in these young adults. A generally acceptable PPSP has been achieved by the IOC’s acceptance of the Lausanne Recommendations.
Since 2021, athlete deaths have risen dramatically.
“It is definitely not normal for so many mainly young athletes to suffer from cardiac arrests or to die while playing their sport, but this year it is happening.”
Good Sciencing reports, “It is definitely not normal for so many mainly young athletes to suffer from cardiac arrests or to die while playing their sport, but this year it is happening. Many of these heart issues and deaths come shortly after they got a COVID vaccine. While it is possible this can happen to people who did not get a COVID vaccine, the sheer numbers clearly point to the only obvious cause.”
See full article 
