Friday, February 25, 2022
Visage à trois #76
La petite mort bonus video:
- Usually Short.
- Usually Timely.
- Usually Scraped, Gleaned And Pilfered From Social Media.
Visage à trois #75
La petite mort bonus video:
- Usually Short.
- Usually Timely.
- Usually Scraped, Gleaned And Pilfered From Social Media.
German Health Insurer Reveals 'Alarming' Underreporting Of Vaccine Side-Effects
A large German health insurance provider revealed on Wednesday that Covid-19 vaccine side-effects are vastly underreported, according to Welt.
After analyzing data from over 10 million individuals, BKK ProVita board member Andreas Schöfbeck, over a 7.5 month period beginning in early 2021, 216,695 policyholders out of 10.9 million were treated for vaccine side-effects. This compares to 244,576 reports out of 61.4 million reported by the Paul Ehrlich Institute - a German federal agency.
Germany has a population of around 83 million people.
Schöfbeck called the data an "alarm signal," adding "The numbers determined are significant and urgently need to be checked for plausibility."
"The data available to our company gives us reason to believe that there is a very considerable under-recording of suspected cases of vaccination side-effects after they received the [COVID-19] vaccine."
“If these figures are applied to the year as a whole and to” the entire population of Germany, Schöfbeck estimated, then “probably 2.5-3 million people in Germany been under medical treatment because of vaccination side effects after [COVID-19] vaccination.”
As Jack Phillips of The Epoch Times notes:
Schöfbeck concluded that based on their data, “there is a significant underreporting of vaccination side-effects” in Germany.
Another letter that was sent out by BKK (pdf) suggested that vaccination side effects reported across Germany are at least 10 times more common than what was reported by the Paul-Ehrlich Institute, reported the Nordkurier newspaper on Wednesday.
Schöfbeck’s letters were also sent to Germany’s Standing Vaccination Commission and the German Medical Association.
The letters did not elaborate on the severity of the side effects, nor did they provide a breakdown of the symptoms, or which vaccines caused the side effects. Germany’s drug regulator has approved COVID-19 vaccines manufactured by Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, NovaVax, and Moderna.
Federal health officials in the United States and Germany have stressed that COVID-19 vaccines’ benefits outweigh the potential risks.
And the Paul Ehrlich Institute, the German federal health agency that regulates vaccines and medicines, asserts on its website that COVID-19 vaccine side effects are very rare. They list myocarditis, the inflammation of the heart muscle; and pericarditis, the inflammation of the pericardium, as rare side effects associated with COVID-19 vaccines.
Visage à trois #74
La petite mort bonus video:
- Usually Short.
- Usually Timely.
- Usually Scraped, Gleaned And Pilfered From Social Media.
On the Eve of the Show Trials
The first trial of a January 6 defendant is set to begin next week. But jury trials should expose the government’s weak case against most of them.
Guy Reffitt has been in jail since he was arrested by the FBI nearly 14 months ago.
Reffitt, like dozens of Americans who protested the unlawful election of Joe Biden, isn’t in jail because he was convicted of a crime. Neither is Reffitt in jail because he has a criminal record—he does not—or a history of threatening his Bonham, Texas neighbors or community.
Instead, Reffitt has languished behind bars for more than a year because Joe Biden’s Justice Department asked a federal judge to keep him detained awaiting trial for his participation in the Capitol protest on January 6, 2021. Since then, more than 100 Americans, including several accused of no violent crimes, have been incarcerated under pre-trial detention orders sought by Attorney General Merrick Garland.
Constitutional rights such as the presumption of innocence, due process, the right to a speedy trial, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment have been stripped from January 6 defendants based on the Biden regime’s false premise that they are all “domestic terrorists” and “insurrectionists.” (None of the January 6 defendants has been charged with terrorism or insurrection.)
Now that the first trials are finally getting underway, the public can assess whether the government prosecutors and federal judges who created America’s first class of political prisoners were justified in doing so, or were shamefully complicit in Joe Biden’s vengeful prosecution of Donald Trump supporters.
Guy Reffitt is one of hundreds of protesters not charged with committing a violent crime on January 6. According to his initial indictment, Reffitt did not assault police officers—to the contrary, he was attacked by law enforcement with rubber bullets and mace—or vandalize any public property. In fact, he never even entered the Capitol building.
But based on the government’s mostly hearsay evidence, a D.C. federal magistrate last year denied Reffitt’s release—and it had little to do with his alleged criminal behavior on January 6.
“[The] gravity of the offense is not captured by the offenses because it was an attack upon the democracy and the lawful administration of that democracy as there was a transition of power,” Judge Zia Faruqui said during an April detention hearing. “My concern is that he still harbors the belief even after the election results were certified, the Electoral College was processed, that he continued to harbor the belief, the false belief that something untoward was happening with the democratic process.”
Judge Dabny Friedrich, a judge appointed to the D.C. District Court by President Trump in 2017, upheld Faruqui’s ruling last May; Reffitt has remained in a fetid D.C. jail specifically set aside for January 6 defendants ever since.
In January, amid new COVID-related lockdowns that forced Reffitt and at least 35 other January 6 defendants to remain in their D.C. cells for 22 hours a day, his defense lawyer once again asked Friedrich to release his client under strict supervision, particularly since the court continued to delay trial dates and close the courthouse needed for jury trials. To keep Reffitt incarcerated, his lawyer argued, violated his...
Visage à trois #73
La petite mort bonus video:
- Usually Short.
- Usually Timely.
- Usually Scraped, Gleaned And Pilfered From Social Media.
Blinken: We’re Not Halting Gas and Oil Purchases from Russia Because We’re Trying to Minimize ‘Pain to Us’
Host Norah O’Donnell asked, “Russia’s economy’s fueled by gas, and the U.S. is a consumer. So, would the U.S. consider cutting off oil and gas purchases from Russia?”
Blinken responded, “Well, what we’re doing, Norah, across the board, is making sure that we inflict maximum pain on Russia for what President Putin has done, while minimizing any of the pain to us.”
He also stated, “We’re in full coordination with other countries, both consumers and producers alike, to minimize any impact that this may have on energy prices and...
Visage à trois #72
La petite mort bonus video:
- Usually Short.
- Usually Timely.
- Usually Scraped, Gleaned And Pilfered From Social Media.
Visage à trois #71
An In-Depth Look at Islam's Achilles Heel
This long-held perspective has been radically twisted in recent times. According to the dominant narrative — as upheld by mainstream media and Hollywood, pundits and politicians, academics, and "experts" of all stripes — Islam was historically progressive and peaceful, whereas premodern Europe was fanatical and predatory. Or, to quote the BBC, "[t]hroughout the Middle Ages, the Muslim world was more advanced and more civilised than Christian Western Europe, which learned a huge amount from its neighbour."
The reason for these topsy-turvy claims is that "who controls the past controls the future," as George Orwell observed in his 1984 (a dystopian novel that has become increasingly applicable to our times). It is, therefore, unsurprising to discover that the greatest apologia for politically active Islamists and their leftist allies — and the first premise for all subsequent apologias for Islam — is purely historical in nature.
Recall, for instance, the most popular and oft-asked question to arise after the September 11, 2001 terror strikes: "Why do they hate us?" Unbeknownst to most, this question presupposed — indeed, was heavily laden with — a historical point of view that had been forged over decades and largely remains unquestioned, even by critics of modern Islam: because Islam was tolerant and advanced in the past, this entrenched perspective holds, its current problems in the present — authoritarianism, intolerance, violence, radicalization, terrorism, etc. — must be aberrations, products of unfavorable circumstances, politics, economics, "grievances" — anything and everything but Islam itself. Simply put, if they did not "hate us" before — but were rather progressive and tolerant — surely something other than Islam has since "gone wrong."
From here one can see the importance of safeguarding the current narrative of a historically "advanced" and "tolerant" Islam vis-à-vis a historically "backward" and "intolerant" Europe.
I myself experienced firsthand just how important controlling this narrative is for political Islamists. After the U.S. Army War College invited me to lecture on my last history book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its leftist allies launched an "unprecedented" attack on me and the War College. They issued — on two separate occasions — press releases and hysterical petitions (presenting the War College — even me, an ethnic Egyptian — as "white supremacists") and made several direct calls to and met with the heads of the War College — all in an effort to get my talk canceled.
In the end, they failed, in part because the National Association of Scholars sent a petition letter to then-president Donald Trump signed by over five thousand people, mostly university-affiliated academics. Ten congressmen also came to my support. More to the point, and as retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel and former member of the U.S. House of Representatives Allen West, who also came to my support, explained, "not one sentence of his recent literary project [Sword and Scimitar] was mentioned by these Islamo-fascists [as being wrong]."
When CAIR and "woke" allies realized that their attempts at academic censorship had failed and that I would speak anyway, they urged the War College, and it agreed, to allow another historian to present a "counterview" in response to my lecture. This was John Voll, professor emeritus of Islamic history at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. (See here for how this renowned apologist misrepresented and whitewashed Islam's history of terror vis-à-vis the West.) Unfortunately, and despite the fact that the War College videotaped my talk (objectively summarized by a reporter here) and informed me that it would be, like all of their talks, posted online, it never was published.
At any rate, why did CAIR and its allies launch such an attack on me in the first place, especially considering that they did not respond similarly to my other books, which I also lectured about in other prestigious venues — books that dealt with current and hot topics (e.g., Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christians and The Al Qaeda Reader)? Why instead did they go after a book that revolved around, of all things, "ancient history" — and with such vehemence, at one point desperately insisting that if I am allowed to lecture on it at the War College, American servicemen would get so riled as to start massacring Muslims on sight?
Because they too know what is at stake; they too know that "who controls the past" — which they are determined to continue doing — "controls the future." So long as the people of the West accept as a first premise that Islam was historically and for centuries an advanced, enlightened, and tolerant force — especially in comparison to...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)