Back to Fort Fairfield Journal WFFJ-TV Contact Us
.
Maine Sunday Telegram Publishes
Embarrassingly Inept & Biased Hit-
Piece Against Southern Maine Doctor
Dr. Northrup Suffers a “Fall from Grace” After She Refused to tow line on the Left Wing Media’s Manufactured COVID-19 Fear and Hysteria Campaign
By: David Deschesne
Editor/Publisher,
Fort Fairfield Journal, May 19, 2021
When one side of a debate resorts to name-calling, defamation, disparaging remarks and ad-hominem attacks against their opponent, that is a sure sign that they are worried they’re losing the argument. In a May 2, 2021 front page hit-piece in the Maine Sunday Telegram, op-ed writer, Colin Woodard seems to have unwittingly betrayed the left’s realization that their COVID-19 fear and hysteria narrative is now caving in all around them, like a sand castle disintegrating into the waves at high tide, as the general public wakes up to the full immersion, 3D virtual reality COVID-19 TV show that the leftist media has covertly and deliberately inserted all of us into for now over a year.
Mr. Woodard’s op-ed, disguised as a news story, relied on left-wing activists, the left’s politically motivated COVID-19 narrative and personal character assassination of Dr. Northrup in rebutting her claims. He also tossed in the CIA-created phrase “conspiracy theory” for good measure. However, what was completely absent from Mr. Woodard’s article was any scientific reports, randomized controlled trials or other types of articles from any duly established medical journal to support his - or the left’s - position on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19.
This is my rebuttal to Mr. Woodard’s attack on Dr. Northrup where I will address some of his primary criticisms of her position and bring clarity to the issues. While this writing of mine is also styled an op-ed, it will contain footnotes for the reader to reference. For those casual, unsophisticated readers, the numbers that dangle above a sentence where an important point is made, or referenced, direct you to a list of notes at the end of the article where you can see where I’ve sourced that material. Simply match that number up with the number in the footnote section to follow the trail of bread crumbs I’ve left for you to see the medical journal reports and other news stories that I use to back up what I’m presenting. I do not use “conspiracy theory” websites or “Q-anon” type sites - I don’t have the time for them. I only reference established and reputable medical journals and media sources interviewing actual medical doctors, so forget trying to pin that criticism on me. It won’t stick.
Apparently, writers at the Maine Sunday Telegram are either no longer versed in the literary function of footnotes, or are not interested in using them to back up their position. Perhaps they believe their readers wouldn’t know what to do with them, anyway. Rather, they appear to be quite comfortable carefully choosing friendly, leftist activist doctors and others in academia who will support their side of the debate with opinions based on the establishment’s fear and hysteria narrative that has been weaponized into a shock-and-awe psychological warfare campaign being ruthlessly waged against the public for now over a year.
Meet Dr. Northrup
Dr. Christiane Northrup is a board certified ob-gyn physician in Yarmouth, Maine. She received her training at Dartmouth Medical School and did residency at Tufts New England Medical Center in Boston. She was a clinical assistant professor of ob-gyn for 25 years at the University of Vermont College of Medicine. She is the author of three New York Times best sellers such as the book, Women's Bodies, Women's Wisdom. For many years she was interviewed on the Opera Winfrey show and had also participated in eight highly successful public television specials which raised millions of dollars for public television. In 2013 she was one of the Reader's Digest hundred most trusted people in America. “Now, in 2021, I am one of the twelve 'disinformation dozen' along with Dr. Sheri [Tenpenny],” Dr. Northrup said in a recent online interview, “those of us accused of seventy percent of the disinformation about vaccines on the internet, which is an astounding fall from grace until you understand who is determining what grace is.”
The Fall from Grace
In his Maine Sunday Telegram op-ed hit piece, Mr. Woodard illustrated what that ‘fall from grace’ looks like when you lose favor with the biased left wing which has dominated the world of media for nearly a century (but is rapidly losing ground due to alternative sources of information.) He summarized in his article how during a speech at Rhema Bible Training College in Tulsa, Okalahoma, Dr. Northrup “rattled out a stream of falsehoods: that COVID-19 vaccines don’t prevent the disease but will make humankind sterile and might kill babies breastfed by their vaccinated mothers; that people shouldn’t wear masks but should fear being around vaccinated people, who could infect others with malignant vaccine particles and who are being secretly spied upon with components of the vaccine that covertly relay physiological information to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation via cellphone cameras and a patented mechanism involving cryptocurrency.”
He then mentions one of her Facebook posts where he states she advised her followers they should “avoid vaccinated people, including spouses, because they could expose them to harmful vaccine materials extruding from their bodies.”
Now, drug manufacturer, Pfizer has nearly admitted as much in their New England Journal of Medicine report (see story, page one of this issue of FFJ), but more on that later.
Mr. Woodard also noted how in November and December, Dr. Northrup “spread false reports” on conservative websites claiming that scientists had discovered that people not exhibiting symptoms of COVID-19 don’t spread the disease.” He then added parenthetically the phrase, “they do” with no scientific report or data to back up his assertion. I will prove how he’s wrong and Dr. Northrup is right later in this writing.
Mr. Woodard then went on to a claim Dr. Northrup made in October 2020, “in which she claimed COVID-19 vaccines would change people’s DNA and infiltrate their bodies with tiny ‘nanoparticle’ robots with two-way 5G antennas. ‘They have the ability to take your biometric data - not only your vaccine record, but your breathing, your heart rate, your activity, sexual activity, these drugs that you’re taking, where you travel - all of that and then take that data and store it in the cloud,’ she said.”
I have found the medical reports and source story on where those beliefs likely came from, too, and will address them shortly.
Mr. Woodard finally wrapped everything up in a bow with a quote from Jonathan Jarry MSc, from the McGill University Office for Science and Society, who is quoted in the article as saying of Dr. Northrup, “She’s spread a bunch of lies about the safety of these vaccines, so obviously this can lead to more and more people catching the virus and more and more people getting sick and dying from it.”
Now, Mr. Woodard has given us a potato barrel full of words to sift through, taken completely out of context with no background research or data - which can take hours of study to absorb and understand. This is how the left operates; by spoon-feeding their readers and listeners a constant drivel of milk-toast sound bites and catch phrases while leaving out key contextual background information in order to steer perceptions in a predetermined direction.
I will now address some of these points of Mr. Woodard’s to provide that background information to you.
The “Safety” of the Vaccines
Mr. Woodard’s quote from Jonathan Jarry - who is not a medical doctor - comes across as threatening and fearful. If people don’t take the COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ they are going to get sick and die from the disease. However, that’s not entirely true on a couple of fronts.
First, Stanford researcher, John Ioannidis published research in September, 2020 that was ultimately accepted by the World Health Organization which showed of the 61 different studies he looked at around the world, the fatality rate for COVID-19 was estimated to be a median of just 0.2%1
There is a greater than 99.98% survival rate for most reasonably healthy people who come down with COVID-19 to begin with - a fact the left wing media has worked tirelessly to conceal.
Secondly, the vaccines are killing people, too, in alarming numbers. According to the U.S. FDA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), there are more than 4,000 people listed as having died from the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ in the U.S. alone so far this year.2 Since only around 1 to 10 percent of deaths actually end up getting logged into that voluntary reporting system, the number of vaccine-related deaths could be many times higher.
As of March 29, the VAERS reported ten times the number of vaccine related deaths for the first three months of 2021 than the total previous ten years, combined. But, the left wing news media remains silent.
One of the gene therapy creators for the COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ is Pfizer, who admits in a April, 2020 report they published in the New England Journal of Medicine3 that their vaccine safety tests do not evaluate Pharmacokinetic parameters [what the body does to the drug]; Pharmacodynamics parameters [what the drug does to the body]; Genetics; Biomarkers; or health economies/medical resource utilization and health economics (see sections 8.5 - 8.10). All they really did was see if their gene therapy would generate antibodies for the spike protein allegedly found on the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus and wouldn’t kill too many people in the process. The antibodies were allegedly produced for the spike protein, but it’s too soon to tell if they will either create immunity from the whole virus or, like what happened with coronavirus vaccines in 2004, will create a Vaccine Associated Disease Enhancement of the illness, making the symptoms worse and potentially more deadly than the virus would have alone.
Furthermore, an article at the American Heart Association discusses the blood clotting dangers with the spike protein (that the vaccine causes the body to grow inside of it)4
There’s no long term safety data yet available. The Pfizer report admitted as much in section 2.2.1 when they stated their BNT162 vaccines “have not been administered in humans before and thus there are no previous clinical data with these specific vaccines.”
In section 4.1.3 the Pfizer report states that the “participants are expected to participate for up to a maximum of approximately 26 months.” This was in April, 2020 - only 13 months ago, so those safety tests are still ongoing - which means an unwitting general public is being coaxed/cajoled into participating in the largest Phase III vaccine trial in the history of the world with a vaccine that is still in the experimental and testing phase and which can thus not be honestly deemed “safe and effective” at this point in time.
COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ relating to Pregnancy, Breast Feeding and “Shedding”
In that same Pfizer report, the researchers appeared to be concerned that there could be adverse effects not only in the test subjects who may become pregnant, but also anyone they might come into contact with.
At section 8.3.5.1 the Pfizer report noted an Exposure During Pregnancy (EDP) occurs not only if a female participant (identified as a “study intervention”) becomes pregnant during the study, but also, if “a female family member or healthcare provider reports that she is pregnant after having been exposed to the study intervention [test subject] by inhalation or skin contact;” or “a male family member or healthcare provider who has been exposed to the study intervention [test subject] by inhalation or skin contact then exposes his female partner prior to or around the time of conception.”
These are people Pfizer is interested in monitoring who are not participants in their vaccine study, but have simply been exposed to study participants where they state, “The investigator must report EDP to Pfizer Safety within 24 hours of the investigator’s awareness, irrespective of whether a [Serious Adverse Event] has occurred.” They also issue the same warnings for women who are breastfeeding and exposed to the vaccine test subjects (sec. 8.3.5.2) and “Occupational Exposure” for anyone who “receives unplanned direct contact with the study intervention.” (sec. 8.3.5.3)
So, yes, it appears that at least the Pfizer researchers believe there is a cause for concern in people who have not received the COVID-19 shot becoming contaminated in some way by the shedding of the synthetically created RNA particles that the test subjects’ bodies are now programmed to produce indefinitely.
Mr. Woodard can perhaps be forgiven for not reading that report since the online pdf is 314 pages long and filled with complex medical jargon. But, the information is there and Pfizer is not hiding it.
Nanoparticles & Nano Tech
Mr. Woodard insinuates it’s crazy conspiracy theory that the COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ is loaded with nanoparticles that can be activated by radio frequency and ultimately be used to report back to government, or medical institutions. However, with about 45 minutes of research, I was able to find medical documents that support, in spirit, Dr. Northrup’s assertions.
The aforementioned Pfizer report states of their experimental vaccines, “all candidates are formulated in the same lipid nanoparticle (LNP) composition.” (sec. 1.1)
A lipid nanoparticle is relatively new technology that was developed to help encapsulate and shield a drug or, in this case, a RNA snippet after injection and assist it into becoming integrated with the target cells or tissues before the body’s natural processes can destroy or alter it.
A 2015 research article published by the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists5 described a process for treating osteoporosis and other bone lesions “in conjunction with a radio frequency-induced, hydrophobic magnetic nanoparticle-dependent triggering mechanism for drug release.” They reported, “A high-frequency alternating current (AC) magnetic field has been reported to trigger drug release from liposomes and polymersomes...and radio frequency magnetic fields to trigger the release of drugs.”
In the journal, Cell Reports6, a process called magnetogenetics “uses radiofrequency (RF) waves to activate transient receptor potential channels (TRPV1 and TRPV4) that are coupled to cellular ferritins.” They also mention “Magnetic control of ion channels promises remote and cell-specific stimulation or inhibition of neurons or other cells without limitation on tissue depth or requirements of invasive surgery.”
A University of Rhode Island report7 states lipid nanoparticles “have the potential to be stimuli responsive, delivering drugs on command by external (ultrasound, RF heating, etc.)...stimuli.”
When combined with compounds called “hydrogels” lipid nanoparticles can have their efficiency increased. A September, 2018 report published in MDPI journal Pharamcueticals states, “Stimulus-responsive hydrogels have gained much attention in the last ten years. They can be useful in many pharmaceutical applications: targeted and controlled drug delivery systems, tissue engineering, wound dressings, and smart diagnostic assays. Their sol-gel transition can be triggered by several kinds of stimulus: change in pH and temperature, application of UV light, and electric or magnetic field.”7a
So, the idea that lipid nanoparticles can be activated and manipulated by radio frequency waves isn’t really as far-fetched as Mr. Woodard would like his readers to believe.
But, what about the “smart” nanoparticles that can monitor your health and report back? Well, on March 3, 2020 the online publication, Defense One published an article entitled, “A Military-Funded Biosensor Could be the Future of Pandemic Detection”8
The article, by Patrick Tucker reports on the U.S. Defense Department funding a study to determine whether an under-the-skin biosensor can help trackers keep up with pandemics by “detecting flu-like infections even before their symptoms begin to show.” He cited the maker of the technology is Profusa, who says the sensor is on track to try for FDA approval in early 2021.
Tucker explains the technology, “The sensor has two parts. One is a 3mm string of hydrogel, a material whose network of polymer chains is used in some contact lenses and other implants. Inserted under the skin with a syringe, the string includes a specially engineered molecule that sends a fluorescent signal outside the body when the body begins to fight an infection. The other part is an electronic component attached to the skin. It sends light through the skin, detects the fluorescent signal and generates another signal that the wearer can send to a doctor, website, etc. It’s like a blood lab on the skin that can pick up the body’s response to illness before the presence of other symptoms, like coughing.”
While this technology requires an external monitoring device to interface with the hydrogel strip in the person, which the COVID-19 shot doesn’t seem to employ at this point*, DARPA - the research arm of the U.S. Military - is looking into ways to develop this technology to work in real time.9 (*as of this printing, I have received multiple anecdotal reports of magnets sticking to the injection site on recipients’ arms and a ‘metallic taste’ in their mouths as a side effect. More research on this to follow in FFJ)
The lipid nanoparticles in the COVID-19 shot could certainly be equipped to provide this level of disease surveillance, or reprogrammed with an “update” via a future vaccine or digital code impressed upon them via radio frequency emitting devices. How would any of us simpletons know otherwise? We’re not all biomechanical engineers. What is certain is the government is telling us, and admitting, far less about the technologies they are developing to use against the population than they are currently letting on.
Can Asymptomatic COVID-19 patients spread the virus?
Mr. Woodard says, “Yes.” But, a medical report published by the U.S. CDC says...
Mr. Woodard insinuated in his op-ed that people who test positive for COVID-19, but show no symptoms of the disease, do spread the disease. However, not only did he fail to cite any medical sources as references to support that position, there are several sources that indicate otherwise, and even a New York Times article.
First of all, a positive PCR test for COVID-19 is potentially riddled with errors. Most tests are set to be too sensitive and thus key on leftover, non-infectious viral fragments. Research conducted by the New York Times last August indicated that as many as 90% of those who tested “positive” with a PCR test for COVID-19 should have been listed as “negative” because they were merely carrying leftover, non-infectious viral fragments.10
Furthermore, researchers at Harvard found that the SARS-CoV-2 virus can leave its RNA behind in human cells after it’s gone and the cells continue to replicate those non-infectious strands in perpetuity.11 These may also key a PCR test positive even if the person doesn’t have the virus, is not sick and thus cannot transmit them.
As for spreading the virus in exhaled breath, a study published in the journal Nature12 found that there wasn’t that much to worry about. The report stated, “Among the samples collected without a face mask, we found that the majority of participants with influenza virus and coronavirus infection did not shed detectable virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols...For those who did shed virus in respiratory droplets and aerosols, viral load in both tended to be low.”
Dr. Michael Yeadon Ph. D., former VP and Chief Science Officer at Pfizer - the same company making a vaccine for COVID-19 - said the idea of asymptomatic spread is completely false. In a video interview Dr. Yeadon said, “The concept of asymptomatic transmission, where someone who is perfectly well can represent a health threat to another person who is perfectly well is simply not true. The total weight of evidence actually that was used to form this idea were, I think, six or seven case studies. A case study is usually an observation of one person. So, that’s the total data. Out of seven or eight billion people, six or seven case histories where someone asserted that person who was positive by PCR, but according to the report had no symptoms, managed to infect someone else nearby.”13
Dr. Yeadon further elaborated, “In order to be a good source of infectious virus, say it’s me, I have to have a lot of virus in my airway. I can’t infect you at a distance if I’ve got a tiny amount. That’s because the world’s full of pathogens all the time and you’re able to fight them off routinely minute by minute throughout your whole life. You have to have an amount over an amount such that it becomes an infective dose and that only happens if you’re in close contact with someone who’s emitting lots of virus and in order for you to be emitting lots of virus, you have to have a lot of them in your body. If you have a lot of viruses in your body you will have symptoms. It’s simply not possible for you to have high viral load and for that virus to be attacking you and you have no symptoms and for your immune system to be fighting back and protecting you and for you to have no symptoms. It’s simply not possible.”
Just last month, the U.S. CDC published a report in their journal, Emerging Infectious Diseases where the report authors stated they found no evidence for asymptomatic spread in any of the COVID-19 patients they studied. None, as in zero patients.14
Mr. Woodard offered no supporting documents for his assertion that asymptomatic people can transmit SARS-CoV-2 in his hit-piece against Dr. Northrup. Likely because there aren’t any said documents to begin with.
So, it seems an “asymptomatic” person who merely has a positive COVID-19 test may in fact not even have the virus at all. There are just too many variables that can either trick the test, or key it positive if it’s adjusted to be too sensitive. The reason some people are “asymptomatic” for COVID-19 might simply be due to the fact they don’t have the disease or the virus to begin with. Ergo, they can’t transmit that which they do not have.
Face Masks
Mr. Woodard appears to be initiated into the cult that worships face masks as some sort of magical, mystical device that can stop respiratory viruses in their tracks. I have belabored this point ad infinitum in past issues of Fort Fairfield Journal, so I will only cite three reports here for the benefit of Mr. Woodard and his readers - if they’ve made it this far into my rebuttal.
In May, 2020, the U.S. CDC published a meta-analysis of face masks in its journal, Emerging Infectious Diseases which stated essentially that there is no evidence that cloth or surgical masks slow or stop the spread of respiratory viruses.15 The aforementioned Nature article also found the same.12
In April to June, 2020, medical researchers in Denmark conducted a face mask test in public with around 6,000 participants with half wearing a face mask while in public and the other half, who never wore face masks while in public. The researchers found “no statistical significance” in the rate each group caught COVID-19.16
Conclusion
Comedian, Bill Maher noted how the left wing news media chose to adopt a “scared straight” approach to COVID-19, tossing all objective science and rational thought out the window. Perhaps they adopted this strategy for ratings, ad revenues, clicks on their website, or political reasons. Regardless of the intent, the establishment, dinosaur media has done a disservice to the public over the past year with hyperbolic rhetoric and fear-mongering as they were fixated on the worst aspects of a disease that has essentially the same fatality rate as seasonal flu.
The Fort Fairfield Journal, on the other hand, has taken a more rational, introspective and thoughtful approach - citing the medical journals and duly qualified doctors for their findings and ideas about the virus.
But, the leftists in social media and the ‘mainstream’ have chosen to censor out those doctors who don’t agree with the left’s narrative and unfairly turn them into social pariahs, thus skewing the discussion in favor of one particular outcome or narrative.
At the end of the day, medical doctors on both sides of the debate have all gone to medical school, graduated, did their residency, became board certified and licensed. They all had access to the same information and training. Some will tend toward a more pessimistic view of COVID-19, as favored by the left wing media, while the others take a more reasoned and rational approach. This isn’t to say that either side is wrong, but the left tends to only promote and amplify those doctors who agree with their fear-based position and arbitrarily label anyone not in their camp as “doctors of disinformation.” That is neither fair, nor accurate and certainly is not useful at a time when we are all trying to get the most accurate information so we can do the right thing without causing more damage to our health, society and economy with unnecessary overreaction, hype and hyperbole.
That is where news organizations should be focused - to educate and inform, then let the people make up their own minds; not have their minds arbitrarily made up for them.
In the aforementioned video interview with Dr. Yeadon13 he stated of the COVID-19 story and response to it, “This whole thing is terrifying people and it’s all a lie. I don’t think a single, fundamental driving factor about this epidemic has been represented correctly. And it’s obvious to experienced scientists like me and when I’ve spoken to lots of my peers, they agree. So, it’s not like I’m an unusual person in thinking like I do, what’s unusual is that I have come out and said so.”
notes:
(Some inconsistencies with the order of the footnotes in the printed paper version of Fort Fairfield Journal have been identified and are corrected here in this list)
1. https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf
2. https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?TABLE=ON&GROUP1=AGE&EVENTS=ON&VAX=COVID19&DIED=Yes
3. https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2027906/suppl_file/nejmoa2027906_protocol.pdf
4. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.318902
5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4666254/
6. https://www.cell.com/cell-reports/pdf/S2211-1247(20)30238-2.pdf
7. https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/oa_diss/459/
7a. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6315535/
10. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html
11. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.12.422516v1.full.pdf
12. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2.pdf
13. https://www.bitchute.com/video/dbNjNS3Lfcl0/ comments start at 16:35
14. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/4/20-4576_article
15. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
16. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817