Harvard vaccinexpert legt uit waarom COVID-vaccin NIET nodig is voor veel mensen, en “daagt” andere deskundigen uit om het tegendeel te bewijzen – Frontnieuws

08-04-21 10:46:00, Professor Martin Kulldorff Harvard medisch professor en vaccin veiligheidsexpert legt uit waarom hij gelooft dat het Covid-19 vaccin niet nodig is voor de meeste mensen en kinderen.

Martin Kulldorff is een “pro-vaccin” medisch professor en wetenschapper aan Harvard die iets heeft meegemaakt wat veel van zijn collega’s ook hebben meegemaakt tijdens deze pandemie, censuur en hoon. Het is iets wat hij voorheen nog nooit heeft meegemaakt, vooral omdat hij een erkend deskundige op zijn gebied is, maar Covid heeft een grootscheepse aanval ontketend op wetenschappers, artsen en journalisten die informatie, gegevens, wetenschap of zelfs maar een mening naar voren brengen die vraagtekens zet bij de beweringen van regeringen en de maatregelen die zij nemen en hebben genomen in een poging om, wat zij zeggen, “de verspreiding van Covid een halt toe te roepen”. Er zijn veel wetenschappelijke gegevens waaruit blijkt dat lockdowns, bijvoorbeeld, niets doen om de verspreiding van Covid tegen te gaan en uiteindelijk meer mensen doden dan het virus zelf, en vele andere problemen veroorzaken die zelfs verder gaan dan de gezondheid. Er zijn reeds tientallen van dergelijke studies gepubliceerd.

Kulldorff tweette onlangs het volgende:

Denken dat iedereen gevaccineerd moet worden is net zo wetenschappelijk onjuist als denken dat niemand dat moet. Covid-19 vaccins zijn belangrijk voor senioren met een hoog risico en hun verzorgers. Degenen met een eerdere natuurlijke infectie hebben het niet nodig. Kinderen ook niet.

Hij tweette onlangs ook:

Nadat ze beschermd waren terwijl de arbeidersklasse aan het virus werd blootgesteld, willen gevaccineerde #Zoomers nu vaccinpaspoorten waarbij immuniteit van eerdere besmetting niet meetelt, ondanks sterker bewijs van bescherming. Nog een aanval op werknemers.

Kulldorff is zeer uitgesproken geweest in zijn overtuiging dat degenen die het idee van vaccinpaspoorten promoten niets dan kwaad doen en dat censuur van discussies over vaccins het echte probleem is.

Nogmaals, Kulldorff is niet tegen vaccins, in feite steunt hij ze. Maar wat Covid betreft, gelooft hij dat de mensen die geïnfecteerd zijn, wat waarschijnlijk meer dan een miljard mensen wereldwijd zijn, reeds immuniteit tegen het virus hebben ontwikkeld. Wat de doeltreffendheid van het vaccin betreft, weten we nog steeds niet hoe doeltreffend het is om de verspreiding te stoppen.

Er zijn verschillende studies die laten doorschemeren wat de professor bedoelt, namelijk dat degenen die met Covid besmet zijn geweest jarenlang,

 » Lees verder

Duke, Harvard, and Johns Hopkins Experts: COVID Lockdowns Will Cause ONE MILLION Excess Deaths

19-01-21 03:52:00,

Academics from Duke, Harvard, and Johns Hopkins have concluded that there could be around a million excess deaths over the next two decades as a result of lockdowns.

A NBER working paper titled The Long-Term Impact Of The Covid-19 Unemployment Shock On life Expectancy And Mortality Rates suggests that “For the overall population, the increase in the death rate following the COVID-19 pandemic implies a staggering 0.89 and 1.37 million excess deaths over the next 15 and 20 years, respectively.”

The paper was written by Francesco Bianchi, an economist at Duke University, Giada Bianchi, an MD in the Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Harvard Medical School, and Dongho Song, an economist at the Johns Hopkins University’s Carey Business School.

The study into how unemployment affects mortality and life expectancy was centred around 67 years of data about unemployment, life expectancy, and death rates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The paper suggests that deaths caused by the economic and societal decline as a result of lockdowns may “far exceed those immediately related to the acute COVID-19 critical illness.”

“The recession caused by the pandemic can jeopardize population health for the next two decades,” they add.

The paper explains:

These numbers correspond to 0.24% and 0.37% of the projected US population at the 15- and 20-year horizons, respectively. For African- Americans, we estimate 180 thousand and 270 thousand excess deaths over the next 15 and 20 years, respectively. These numbers correspond to 0.34% and 0.49% of the projected African- American population at the 15- and 20-year horizons, respectively. For Whites, we estimate 0.82 and 1.21 million excess deaths over the next 15 and 20 years, respectively. These numbers correspond to 0.30% and 0.44% of the projected White population at the 15- and 20-year horizons, respectively. These numbers are roughly equally split between men and women.

The authors also note that “Based on emerging data, it is likely that the limited access to health care during the lockdown, temporary discontinuation of preventive care interventions, massive loss of employer-provided health insurance coverage, and the lingering concern of the population about seeking medical care out of fear of contracting COVID-19 will impact mortality rate and life expectancy even more severely.”

They add “We interpret these results as a strong indication that policymakers should take into consideration the severe,

 » Lees verder

Harvard Medical School Professors Uncover A Hard To Swallow Truth About Vaccines | Light On Conspiracies – Revealing the Agenda

12-10-19 11:51:00,

A 2010 HHS pilot study by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research (AHCR) found that 1 in every 39 vaccines causes injury, a shocking comparison to the claims from the CDC of 1 in every million.

Reflect On:

Are vaccines really as safe as they’re marketed to be?

We are constantly told that vaccines are safe and effective and that there’s nothing to worry about. This simply isn’t the case, and it’s a hard-to-swallow truth that many people refuse to acknowledge. Mass marketing campaigns portray vaccines in a ‘God-like’ light, and the science is being ignored. The truth is that vaccines are actually exempt from double blind placebo controlled studies and they have not been put through appropriate safety testing. Furthermore, a number of concerns have been raised about vaccine safety by a number of scientists arounds the world. I like to use aluminum as an example. A study published in 2011 makes the issue quite clear, stating, “Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor.” Fast forward nearly a decade later and scientists have now shown that injected aluminum does not exit the body, it actually sticks around and gets carried by specific cells into distant organs and into the brain where it can be detected after injection (source)(source). Multiple studies have emphasized these findings, and the studies do nothing but trigger silence from big pharma as well as our federal health regulatory agencies.

Federal health regulatory agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have a long history of traceable corruption and not responding to inquiries made by scientists. One example comes from a  pilot study by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research (AHCR) to test the efficiency of a state-of-the-art machine counting (AI) system on data records from the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institution.

The main doctors involved with the study were Michael Klompas, M.D. and Lazarus, Ross, MBBS, MPH, MMed, GDCompSci.

Klompas is a Professor of Population Medicine at Harvard Medical School, and Lazarus was a Harvard Medical School professor for 11 years,

 » Lees verder

Harvard Scientists, Funded By Bill Gates, To Begin Spraying Particles Into The Sky To Dim The Sun

04-08-19 06:58:00,

Authored by Matt Agorist via TheFreeThoughtProject.com,

Harvard has formed an advisory board to begin moving forward with their plan to spray particles into the stratosphere to test the geoengineering method of dimming the sun…

No, we are not a satire site. We are not a conspiracy theory site. The information you are about to read is factually accurate and 100% real despite the ostensible ‘skeptics’ who claim otherwise. The controversial subject of geoengineering or weather modification – which was popularized, and oversimplified with the term “chemtrails” – is once again stepping from the shadows and into the light of public scrutiny. And it may soon be a reality as Harvard scientists plan first ever experiment to spray particles in the sky to dim the sun.

What was once a conspiracy theory is now the subject of congressional debate, peer-reviewed studies, and now a Harvard experiment. Harvard scientists will attempt to replicate the climate-cooling effect of volcanic eruptions with a world-first solar geoengineering experiment. The university announced this month that it has created an external advisory panel to examine the potential ethical, environmental and geopolitical impacts of this geoengineering project, which has been developed by the university’s researchers.

According to Nature Magazine, Louise Bedsworth, executive director of the California Strategic Growth Council, a state agency that promotes sustainability and economic prosperity, will lead the Harvard advisory panel, the university said on 29 July. The other seven members include Earth-science researchers and specialists in environmental and climate law and policy.

What was once a conspiracy theory will soon be a reality—any day now.

Known as the Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx), the experiment will spray calcium carbonate particles high above the earth to mimic the effects of volcanic ash blocking out the sun to produce a cooling effect.

The experiment was announced in Nature magazine last year, who was one of few outlets to look into this unprecedented step toward geoengineering the planet.

If all goes as planned, the Harvard team will be the first in the world to move solar geoengineering out of the lab and into the stratosphere,

 » Lees verder

Harvard Professors Expose ‘The Real Problem With Stock Buybacks’

09-07-18 07:35:00,

First published in The Wall Street Journal,

Many critics say buybacks crimp investment. But the real problem is that – unlike dividends – buybacks can be used to systematically transfer wealth from shareholders to executives..

There is a problem with share buybacks – but it isn’t the one many critics and legislators are obsessed with.

Some critics claim that repurchases starve firms of capital they could invest for the long term, harming workers to enrich shareholders. Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin agree and have introduced legislation to “rein in” corporate stock buybacks. The bill would give the Securities and Exchange Commission authority to reject buybacks that, in its judgment, hurt workers. It also would require boards to “certify” that a repurchase is in the “best long-term financial interest of the company.” Sen. Baldwin has introduced another bill, co-sponsored by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), that goes even further: It bans all open-market repurchases.

This criticism of buybacks is flawed; there is simply no evidence that the overall volume of dividends and repurchases is excessive. The real problem with buybacks is that they tend to enrich executives at the expense of shareholders. Fortunately, there is a simple remedy.

Flawed argument

Buyback critics say S&P 500 firms don’t have enough investment capital because dividends and repurchases routinely exceed 90% of their net income. Between 2007 and 2016, for example, these companies distributed $7 trillion to shareholders, mostly via repurchases. That was 96% of total net income. But our research shows that public firms recover from shareholders – directly or indirectly – about 80% of the capital distributed via repurchases. Shareholders return this capital by buying newly issued shares, mostly from employees paid with stock, but also directly from firms. Taking into account all types of equity issuances, net shareholder payouts in S&P 500 firms during the decade 2007-2016 were only about $3.7 trillion, or 50% of total net income.

At this level, net shareholder payouts don’t appear to impair investment capacity. Indeed, our research shows that total R&D expenditures by public firms are at the highest level ever. A broader measure of investment intensity at public firms,

 » Lees verder