Net-Zero Will Cripple British Households As Costs Get Slipped Into Energy Bills
BY DR. BENNY PEISER | CLIMATE CHANGE DISPATCH | JULY 29, 2021
In recent weeks, ministers and officials have announced that UK households and businesses will have to fund many of the government’s Net-Zero plans via their energy bills and cost of living.
Currently, UK consumers are funding renewable energy investors to the tune of £12 billion per year, taken from consumer bills as stealth taxes.
These subsidies are projected to grow over the coming years, reaching a total of about £13 billion a year in the mid-2020s.
But on top of this huge and rising cost, the government now plans to add a whole catalog of additional Net-Zero subsidies, as the recent news reports below reveal.
- The government plans to force consumers to subsidize the installation of charging stations for electric vehicles (EV) by raising electricity bills.
- Ministers are in the process of drawing up legislation that will force households to fund the construction of new nuclear power plants through the use of a surcharge on energy bills.
- Households face paying an extra £200 per year to fund greenhouse gas removal technology.
- The wind energy lobby has warned that consumers will have to subsidize offshore wind farms indefinitely, refuting the oft-repeated claim that renewables are close to becoming “subsidy-free”, and confirming analysis showing that wind power costs have not fallen.
- Energy bills face an additional rise in cost as the power grid operator is increasingly forced to pay wind farms to switch off turbines. ‘System balancing’ costs alone were £2 billion last year and could hit £2.5 billion per year over the next decade as renewable capacity continues to grow.
Industrial and commercial consumers with the option of relocating to countries with cheaper energy will obviously do so.
Households, on the other hand, will simply have to cut down on food and other expenditures in order to pay their energy bills and cut their standard of living.
The GWPF’s director Benny Peiser said:
“It is fairly certain that most households would be unable to keep their heads above water as this torrent of additional Net-Zero costs overwhelms their domestic budgets.”
“Neither Boris Johnson nor his government would survive this unwise and unjust imposition on the British people.”
Israel’s Pegasus spyware and its global consequences
By Sari Orabi | Palestinian Information Centre | August 4, 2021
Israel’s export of technology used by repressive regimes to establish their authority, not only over their political opponents, but also against large parts of civil society, is nothing new. News of this has been spreading since 2017 at least and the inauguration of the Arab-Israeli alliance under the auspices of the Trump administration.
There is no doubt that the relationships hidden before the alliance was made public included the use of Israeli technology. This is what mostly unites the repressive Arab regimes with Israel. In 2019, WhatsApp informed 1,400 of its users that they had been under surveillance since 2016. We can guess how much further spyware has been developed over the past five years.
The scandal is the recent revelation about Israel’s Pegasus spyware and the number of those targeted by such technology, as well as the number of the Israeli company’s clients. Even some of Israel’s allies have been spied upon, such as French President Emmanuel Macron.
Israel benefits from this in three ways. There is a direct security aspect, as the database that is created by its customers and their espionage activities will eventually flow into Israeli servers. This turns its customers into security agents for the occupation state. Ironically, they pay for this dubious privilege. Israel not only sells the technology but also gleans the information generated by customers’ espionage. It’s a very profitable deal for Tel Aviv.
This is just part of the economic aspect which benefits Israel enormously. It is worth pointing out that the technology being sold by Israel — whether this sort of spyware or advanced weapons systems — are all “field tested” on the Palestinians. This makes it very attractive to repressive regimes.
This is also ironic because Israeli technological and intelligence development stems, in part, from the state spying on Arab countries, some of which buy the same technology for their own use. Moreover, Israel has become the headquarters and partner of many Western technology companies, especially from America. Since this type of technology is only sold with government approval, it is more than likely that the US itself is involved at the highest level, not just Israel. There are many political indications that this is the case, including the alliance launched by the Trump administration.
There is also a huge political aspect to these developments. Israel has made itself and its technology indispensable to many governments around the world, including regimes in Arab states. It is a complex situation which encourages conflicts to be prolonged — or at least not brought to a peaceful conclusion — so that Israel has a market for its products, and buyers know where to go for what they need to defeat their opponents. Ensuring that conflicts remain ongoing not only guarantees Israel an important industrial sector, security and hegemony, but also guarantees Arab subordination at very little cost to the colonial-occupation state.
The Arab regimes are thus paying large sums to spy on friends and foes alike and, in doing so, are serving Israeli interests. US support for the high-tech sector in Israel is part of the project to help the state protect itself. This is done within a regional environment that is not conducive to Israel’s presence due to its lack of any historical, social or political legitimacy.
The Arab masses do not accept Israel’s presence in their midst. Benjamin Netanyahu said in 2017 that Israel’s problem lies with the Arab people, not the Arab governments. The Zionist state’s policies will, therefore, focus on maintaining the repressive Arab regimes and their alliance with Israel, as well as ensuring their subordination.
In the meantime, of course, Israel’s existence continues to depend on a fabricated historical narrative, the ethnic cleansing and oppression of the people of Palestine and unquestioning Western support. The state has no qualms about doing all it can — legitimate and illegal; good and bad — to promote depravity in human relations around the world because, in short, it needs conflict in order to survive.
The Pegasus spyware scandal illustrates clearly that “Israel the ally” is, simultaneously, “Israel the belligerent”, a state that recognises and respects alliances only as long as they benefit its own interests. Looked at objectively, the whole world is a potential victim of the evil that is Israel and its pernicious ideology, Zionism. The sale and use of Pegasus spyware has global consequences.
Translation by MEMO
Why People Don’t Trust the Mainstream Media
By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | August 4, 2021
An article in the Washington Post about the January 6 protests at the Capitol goes a long way toward explaining why people do not trust the mainstream media. The article, written by a Post reporter named Mike DeBonis, focuses on allegations that the FBI infiltrated the ranks of the protestors and actually helped to incite them to illegally enter the Capitol and engage in mayhem after doing so.
The overall tone that DeBonis sets forth is one that is oftentimes found in the mainstream media when it comes to alleged wrongdoing by the federal government. The article has a mocking tone to it, suggesting that the people who are making this allegation are conspiracy theorists for actually believing that federal officials would do such a horrible thing.
There is a critical sentence in DeBonis’s article: “The FBI declined to comment.”
Why is that line important? Because there are two ways that a reporter can go when he is writing a story about this type of allegation.
On the one hand, he can mock and ridicule those who are making the allegation, pointing out that they haven’t produced any evidence to support their “unfounded claim.”
On the other hand, he can aggressively go after FBI officials and demand a definitive yes-or-no answer instead of simply settling for a “no comment” by the FBI and also engage in an aggressive investigative effort to determine whether there is evidence to support the allegation.
DeBonis chose the first route. But why? After all, a “no comment” answer by the FBI is about as incriminating as an answer can be, short of an outright admission of wrongdoing. That’s because if the FBI were not guilty of the wrongdoing, it would undoubtedly simply say, “The allegation is false.” The FBI clearly did not do that with its “no comment” answer. It’s “no comment” answer leaves open the possibility — perhaps even the likelihood — that the FBI was involved in wrongdoing,
DeBonis makes a big issue of out of the fact that the people who are making this allegation have not provided any evidence to support their allegation. But what people have pointed out is a similar course of conduct by the FBI in other cases, which would be enough to cause any reasonable person to assume that it might have engaged in the same course of conduct with respect to the January 6 protests.
For example, consider the case that involves the alleged kidnapping of Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. DeBonis is aware of that case because he links to an article from BuzzFeedNews.com about the case. That article alleges that the FBI played a major role in inducing the defendants in the case to commit the kidnapping. Even if what the FBI allegedly did wasn’t enough to support a defense of entrapment, its alleged actions are nonetheless enough to cause any reasonable citizen, including investigative journalists, concern.
But that’s not all. As journalist Glenn Greenwald has documented, the FBI has a long history of inciting people to commit acts of domestic terrorism. The idea is to incite people to commit crimes so that the FBI can then be praised and glorified for busting them up. See Greenwald’s July 24 article “FBI Using the Same Fear Tactic From the First War on Terror: Orchestrating its Own Terrorism Plots.” Also, see the July 31 article “Will More Media Bias Save Democracy?” by James Bovard.
Given the history of the FBI engaging in this type of misconduct, you would think that any journalist worth his salt would say, “I need to get to the bottom of this latest assertion. I need to know whether the FBI did the same thing here. Rather than mocking and ridiculing these people by pointing out that they have furnished no evidence to support their allegation, I need to do my job and go after the FBI to see if there is any evidence to support the allegation.”
Rather than do that, DeBonis goes off on the other track by implicitly assuming that the FBI would never do such a thing and implicitly assuming that those who are making the allegation are nothing more than “conspiracy theorists.”
That’s why so many people don’t trust the mainstream media.
This is not a recent phenomenon.
We can go all the way back to Operation Mockingbird, the CIA’s secret program in the 1960s and 1970s whose aim was to acquire CIA assets from within the mainstream press, whose secret job would be to come to the defense of the national-security establishment whenever necessary, including but calling people “conspiracy theorists” whenever they allege wrongdoing on the part of CIA officials.
According to the Wikipedia entry on “Operation Mockingbird,”
In a 1977 Rolling Stone magazine article, “The CIA and the Media,” reporter Carl Bernstein expanded upon the Church Committee’s report and said that around 400 press members were considered intelligence assets by the CIA, including New York Times publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger, columnist and political analyst Stewart Alsop and Time magazine. Berstein documented the way in which overseas branches of major US news agencies had for many years served as the “eyes and ears” of Operation Mockingbird, which functioned to disseminate CIA propaganda through domestic US media.[6]
The best example, of course, of the deference to the authority of the national-security establishment relates to the Kennedy assassination. Today, there are two separate worlds when it comes to that assassination: the world of the mainstream media and the world of Internet. They are two completely different worlds — actually, parallel universes.
On the Internet, it’s possible to find people analyzing, questioning, and challenging the official lone-nut theory of the case, pointing to the mountain of evidence, for example, that establishes that the national-security establishment conducted a fraudulent autopsy on President Kennedy’s body. (See my books The Kennedy Autopsy and The Kennedy Autopsy 2 as well as the recorded presentations at The Future of Freedom Foundation’s recent conference “The National Security State and the Kennedy Assassination.”
Not so in the mainstream press. It is considered verboten in the mainstream press for any reporter or commentator to challenge or question any aspect of the official lone-nut theory of the assassination. Woe to the reporter or commentator who does so. He will be looking for a new job post haste — somewhere on the Internet.
In the December 6, 1963, issue of Life magazine, a well-known Life magazine reporter named Paul Mandel wrote an article about the assassination in which he claimed that the famous Zapruder film showed that the president had turned around to face the Texas School Book Depository. The president’s action, Mandel said, explained how it was that the president was shot in the throat.
No one could verify Mandel’s statement because Life magazine had purchased the film from Abraham Zapruder for $150,000, which in today’s dollars amounted to around $1.2 million. Life locked the film away, saying that it wanted to protect the American people from ever having to see such violence.
In 1969, Jim Garrison, the district attorney in New Orleans, brought a criminal prosecution against a man named Clay Shaw in which Garrison alleged that the Kennedy assassination was actually a sophisticated regime-change operation on the part of the U.S. national-security establishment. Garrison subpoenaed the Zapruder film from Life magazine and showed it in court. The film showed that the president had never turned around and faced the school book depository. By this time, of course, the official story revolved around the magic bullet theory, which posited that the president had actually been shot in the rear of the neck (i.e., not through the throat), with the bullet supposedly having come out the front (and then supposedly striking Gov. John Connally in multiple places, with the bullet magically ending up in a pristine condition.)
In other words, Mandel had lied, either intentionally or because someone at Life magazine had falsely told him that that’s what the film showed. There is no other conclusion that can be reached. There is no way that Mandel’s allegation could be construed to be an innocent mistake, because Life magazine had the film.
There is another interesting aspect to the saga. According to Wikipedia:
General Charles Douglas (C. D.) Jackson (March 16, 1902 – September 18, 1964) was a United States government propagandist and senior executive of Time Inc. As an expert on psychological warfare he served in the Office of Strategic Services in World War II and later as Special Assistant to the President in the Eisenhower administration…. After Abraham Zapruder took the famous film in Dallas on November 22, 1963, Jackson purchased it on behalf of Time/Life to “protect the integrity of the film.” Upon viewing it on Sunday morning, he ordered it locked in a vault at the Time/Life building in Manhattan.
In 1972 — three years after the Zapruder film was shown in the Shaw trial — Life magazine, which had been one of the most popular weekly magazines in history, cease publication as a weekly. Some people said that it was because of the rising popularity of television. Another possibility is that people no longer trusted Life magazine.
For the past 25 years, the mainstream media has been losing readership and money. Some people blame it on the rising popularity of the Internet. Another possibility is that people no longer trust the mainstream media.
French firefighters’ & hospital unions declare strikes against ‘unconstitutional’ vaccine mandate
RT | August 4, 2021
Two French unions have called for strikes against the compulsory vaccination of firefighters, healthcare workers, and caregivers. They say the measure violates fundamental rights.
One of the leading French firefighters’ unions, FA/SPP-PATS, which boasts 7,000 members, said it will go on strike starting Monday unless changes are made to the recent law on compulsory vaccination of certain employees.
“The obligatory vaccination of firefighters under [the threat] of penalty violates the constitution,” the union said in a statement.
“Our union does not oppose vaccination,” the organization’s spokesperson, Andre Goretti, told BFM TV. “But the conditions, under which it is being imposed on the professional level, with [the threat of] financial and other sanctions – that’s where we disagree.”
The hospital and caregivers’ union, SUD Sante Sociaux, also called for a strike and protests against the measure which it labelled “a new attack on labor law.”
According to the legislation, which was approved by parliament late last month, firefighters, medical workers, caregivers, and certain soldiers have until September 15 to get vaccinated or face sanctions. The controversial provision containing the vaccination mandate will be examined by the country’s Constitutional Council on Thursday.
The government has been pushing the population to get vaccinated in greater numbers amid the spread of the more contagious Delta variant of the virus.
Starting from August 9, people will be barred from restaurants, cafes, and long-distance transportation unless they have a health pass. The pass is already required for museums, cinemas, and other cultural venues with a capacity of more than 50 people.
These restrictions, along with the vaccination mandate, sparked protests across the country. More than 200,000 people participated in demonstrations across France on Saturday.
A group of uniformed firefighters was seen marching in a protest column in the southern city of Nice on Saturday, where around 6,500 people rallied against the government’s restrictive Covid-19 response.
Charles-Ange Ginesy, the head of the Alpes-Maritimes region and president of the regional firefighters’ board of directors, told BFM TV that he was “very disappointed” after seeing uniformed firefighters participating in a protest.
“The right to protest is a right that belongs to each of us. On the other hand, they wore their uniforms, which surprised me a lot,” the official said, expressing hope that “the controller-general will be able to make them understand that such attitude should not be repeated.”
The procedure is underway, during which we look at how these firefighters, who had probably acted out of clumsiness, will be able to return to reason.
Only a group of 20 to 30 marched with the protesters, compared to the 3,800 firefighters in the region, Ginesy said.
French civil servants are typically bound by the ‘duty of reserve’, meaning they must show restraint and moderation when expressing personal opinions.
The firefighters’ union spokesperson, Andre Goretti, meanwhile, defended his colleagues. “There are individual choices that are not put to question by our union,” he said. “It is an expression of a citizen. A firefighter – before being a professional firefighter – is a citizen.”
Authorities have made several concessions following the outrage, such as lowering the fines for businesses that do not check for health passes.
Editor-in-Chief of Germany’s Top Newspaper Apologizes For Fear-Driven COVID Coverage
By Paul Joseph Watson | Summit News | August 3, 2021
The editor-in-chief of Germany’s top newspaper Bild has apologized for the news outlet’s fear-driven coverage of COVID, specifically to children who were told “that they were going to murder their grandma.”
In a speech delivered to camera, Julian Reichelt said sorry for Bild’s coverage which was “like poison” and “made you feel like you were a mortal danger to society.”
Reichelt directed his main sentiment towards children who have been terrorized by fearmongering media coverage which has caused child depression and suicides to soar across the world.
“To the millions of children in this country for whom our society is responsible, I want to express here what neither our government nor our Chancellor dares to tell you. We ask you to forgive us,” he said.
“Forgive us for this policy which, for a year and a half, has made you victims of violence, neglect, isolation, and loneliness.”
“We persuaded our children that they were going to murder their grandma if they dared to be what they are, children. Or if they met their friends. None of this has been scientifically proven.”
“When a state steals the rights of a child, it must prove that by doing so it protects him against concrete and imminent danger. This proof has never been provided. It has been replaced by propaganda presenting the child as a vector of the pandemic.”
Reichelt noted how moderate voices who attempted to offer calmer perspectives on the pandemic “were never invited to the expert table” and urged viewers “don’t believe this lie,” when encountering alarmist proclamations from the government.
The journalist called on authorities to open schools and sports halls instead of polling stations, warning that those who imposed brutal lockdown measures, “will have on their conscience and will leave in the history books, a multitude of innocent souls.”
Bild has a daily circulation of 1.24 million copies and is the best-selling newspaper in Europe, adding even more weight to this story.
As we highlighted yesterday, Germans protesting against plans to impose domestic vaccine passports were brutalized by police during demonstrations that took place in Berlin.
The ugly scenes prompted the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer to put in a request for eyewitnesses ahead of a potential investigation.
Germans were protesting against plans to ban unvaccinated people from a plethora of different venues, including restaurants, cinemas and stadiums.
As we previously highlighted, Germany’s domestic spy agency is monitoring anti-lockdown protesters, claiming they are potentially involved in a plot to subvert the country.
Covid-19 natural immunity compared to vaccine-induced immunity: The definitive summary
BY SHARYL ATTKISSON | AUGUST 3, 2021
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) became one of the latest high-profile figures to get sick with Covid-19, even though he’s fully vaccinated. In a statement Monday, Graham said it feels like he has “the flu,” but is “certain” he would be worse if he hadn’t been vaccinated.
While it’s impossible to know whether that’s the case, public health officials are grappling with the reality of an increasing number of fully-vaccinated Americans coming down with Covid-19 infections, getting hospitalized, and even dying of Covid. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) insists vaccination is still the best course for every eligible American. But many are asking if they have better immunity after they’re infected with the virus and recover, than if they’re vaccinated.
Increasingly, the answer within the data appears to be ”yes.”
Why does CDC seem to be “ignoring” natural immunity?
In fact, some medical experts have said they’re confounded by public health officials’ failure to factor natural and virus-acquired immunity into the Covid equation. Public and media narratives often press the necessity of “vaccination for all,” chiding states where vaccination rates are lowest. And they use vaccination rates and Covid case counts as inverse indicators of how safe it is in a particular state: high vaccination rate = high safety; high case counts = low safety (they claim).
However, vaccination rates alone tell little about a population’s true immune-status. And where high Covid case counts occur, it ultimately means a larger segment of that community ends up better-protected, vaccines aside. That’s according to virologists who point out that fighting off Covid, even without developing any symptoms, leaves people with what’s thought to be more robust and longer-lasting immunity than the vaccines confer.
The vaccine immunity problem
Hard data counters widespread public misinformation that claimed “virtually all” patients hospitalized and dying of Covid-19 are unvaccinated. Pfizer and Moderna had claimed their vaccines were “100% effective” at preventing serious illness. Many in the media even popularized a propaganda phrase designed to push more people to get vaccinated: “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”
Not so, says CDC and other data.
Recent CDC data found that 74% of those who tested positive for Covid-19 in a Massachusetts analysis had been fully-vaccinated. Equally as troubling for those advocating vaccination-for-all: four out of five people hospitalized with Covid were fully-vaccinated. And CDC said “viral load” — indicating how able the human host is to spread Covid-19 — is about the same among the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Contrary to the infamous misinformation by CDC Director Rochelle Walensky last May, vaccinated people can— and are— spreading Covid. (CDC officials later corrected Walensky’s false claim.)
CDC’s newest findings on so-called “breakthrough” infections in vaccinated people are mirrored by other data releases.
Illinois health officials recently announced more than 160 fully-vaccinated people have died of Covid-19, and at least 644 been hospitalized; ten deaths and 51 hospitalizations counted in the prior week. Israel’s Health Ministry recently said effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine has fallen to 40 percent. Last month, 100 vaccinated British sailors isolated on a ship at sea reportedly came down with Covid seven weeks into their deployment. In July, New Jersey reported 49 fully vaccinated residents had died of Covid; 27 in Louisiana; 80 in Massachusetts.
Nationally, as of July 12, CDC said it was aware of more than 4,400 people who got Covid-19 after being fully vaccinated and had to be hospitalized; and 1,063 fully vaccinated people who died of Covid. But health officials still argue that vaccinated people make up only a small fraction of the seriously ill. Critics counter that CDC’s recent Massachusetts data calls that into question.
The bright side of recovering from Covid-19
But there’s promising news to be found within natural and acquired immunity statistics, according to virologists. As of May 29, CDC estimated more than 120 million Americans— more than one in three— had already battled Covid. While an estimated six-tenths of one-percent died, the other 99.4% of those infected survived with a presumed immune status that appears to be superior to that which comes with vaccination.
If doctors could routinely test to confirm who has fought off and become immune to Covid-19, it would eliminate the practical need or rationale for those protected millions to get vaccinated. It would also allow them to avoid even the slight risk of serious vaccine side effects.
Unfortunately, virologists say no commonly-used test can detect with certainty whether a person is immune. A common misconception is that antibody tests can make that determination. But experts say immunity after infection or exposure often comes without a person producing or maintaining measurable antibodies.
Because of that reality, people who have had asymptomatic infections — infections where they suffered no symptoms — have no easy way to know that they’re immune. However, a growing body of evidence indicates that the millions who know they got Covid can be assured they’re unlikely to suffer reinfection, for at least as long of a time period that scientists have been able to measure. Possibly far beyond.
The immunity-after-Covid-infection studies
The following are some of the data and studies regarding immunity acquired after Covid infection.
This study followed 254 Covid-19 patients for up to 8 months and concluded they had “durable broad-based immune responses.” In fact, even very mild Covid-19 infection also protected the patients from an earlier version of “SARS” coronavirus that first emerged around 2003, and against Covid-19 variants. “Taken together, these results suggest that broad and effective immunity may persist long-term in recovered COVID-19 patients,” concludes the study scientists.
This study of airline passengers in Qatar found that both vaccination and prior infection were “imperfect” when it comes to preventing positive Covid-19 test results, but that the incidence of reinfection is similarly low in both groups.
Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals, June 1, 2021
This study followed 52,238 employees of the Cleveland Clinic Health System in Ohio.
For previously-infected people, the cumulative incidence of re-infection “remained almost zero.” According to the study, “Not one of the 1,359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a [Covid-19] infection over the duration of the study” and vaccination did not reduce the risk. “Individuals who have had [Covid-19] infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination,” concludes the study scientists.
SARS-CoV-2 specific memory B-cells from individuals with diverse disease severities recognize SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, May 29, 2021
This study found strong immune signs in people who had previously been infected with Covid-19, including “those [who] experienced asymptomatic or mild disease.” The study concludes there is “reason for optimism” regarding the capacity of prior infection “to limit disease severity and transmission of variants of concern as they continue to arise and circulate.”
A population-based analysis of the longevity of SARS-CoV-2 antibody seropositivity in the United States, May 24, 2021
This study of real world data extended the timeframe of available data indicating that patients have strong immune indicators for “almost a year post-natural infection of COVID-19.” The study concludes the immune response after natural infection “may persist for longer than previously thought, thereby providing evidence of sustainability that may influence post-pandemic planning.”
SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans, May 24, 2021
This study examined bone marrow of previously-infected patients and found that even mild infection with Covid-19 “induces robust antigen-specific, long-lived humoral immune memory in humans.” The study indicates “People who have had mild illness develop antibody-producing cells that can last lifetime.”
People who have had mild illness develop antibody-producing cells that can last lifetime.
World Health Organization (WHO) scientific brief, May 10, 2021
This scientific brief issued by WHO states that after natural infection with Covid-19, “available scientific data suggests that in most people immune responses remain robust and protective against reinfection for at least 6-8 months.”
Detection of SARS-CoV-2-Specific Humoral and Cellular Immunity in COVID-19 Convalescent Individuals, May 3, 2020
This study looked found humoral and cellular immunity in recovered Covid patients. “Production of S-RBD-specific antibodies were readily detected in recovered patients. Moreover, we observed virus-neutralization activities in these recovered patients,” wrote the study authors.
The adaptive immune system consists of three major lymphocyte types: B cells (antibody producing cells), CD4+ T cells (helper T cells), and CD8+ T cells (cytotoxic, or killer, T cells
Protection of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection is similar to that of BNT162b2 vaccine protection: A three-month nationwide experience from Israel, April 24, 2021
This study from Israel found a slight advantage to natural infection over vaccination when it comes to preventing a reinfection and severe illness from Covid-19.
The study authors concluded, “Our results question the need to vaccinate previously-infected individuals.”
A 1 to 1000 SARS-CoV-2 reinfection proportion in members of a large healthcare provider in Israel: a preliminary report, March 6, 2021
This study found a rare Covid-19 positive test “reinfection” rate of 1 per 1,000 recoveries.
Lasting immunity found after recovery from COVID-19, Jan. 26, 2021
Research funded by the National Institutes of Health and published in Science early in the Covid-19 vaccine effort found the “immune systems of more than 95% of people who recovered from COVID-19 had durable memories of the virus up to eight months after infection,” and hoped the vaccines would produce similar immunity. (However, experts say they do not appear to be doing so.)
SARS-CoV-2 reinfection in a cohort of 43,000 antibody-positive individuals followed for up to 35 weeks, Jan. 15, 2021
This study found Covid-19 natural infection “appears to elicit strong protection against reinfection” for at least seven months. “Reinfection is “rare,” concludes the scientists.
Immunological memory to SARS-CoV-2 assessed for up to eight months after infection, Nov. 1, 2020
This study confirmed and examined “immune memory” in previously-infected Covid-19 patients.
Negligible impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants on CD4+ and CD8+ T cell reactivity in COVID-19 exposed donors and vaccinees, Nov. 1, 2020
This study concluded “T cell” immune response in former Covid-19 patients likely continues to protect amid Covid-19 variants.
Orthogonal SARS-CoV-2 Serological Assays Enable Surveillance of Low-Prevalence Communities and Reveal Durable Humoral Immunity, Oct. 13, 2020
This study found that “neutralizing antibodies are stably produced for at least 5–7 months” after a patient is infected with Covid-19.
SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls, July 25, 2020
This study found that all patients who recently recovered from Covid-19 produced immunity-strong T cells that recognize multiple parts of Covid-19.
They also looked at blood samples from 23 people who’d survived a 2003 outbreak of a coronavirus: SARS (Cov-1). These people still had lasting memory T cells 17 years after the outbreak. Those memory T cells, acquired in response to SARS-CoV-1, also recognized parts of Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2).
Much of the study on the immune response to SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19, has focused on the production of antibodies. But, in fact, immune cells known as memory T cells also play an important role in the ability of our immune systems to protect us against many viral infections, including—it now appears—COVID-19.
“Immune T Cells May Offer Lasting Protection Against COVID-19”
Read: scientific commentary by Jay Bhattacharya, Sunetra Gupta, and Martin Kulldorff.
My own country of Canada expelled me because my Covid immunity was acquired naturally and not from a vaccine

Public Health Agency of Canada staff stand at their positions at Vancouver International Airport © Reuters
By Rachel Marsden | RT | August 3, 2021
I went home to visit my mother. Canada tried to force me into a Covid detention facility threatening fines and police action as they don’t recognize my natural immunity. I had no choice but to immediately fly back to Europe.
At the time of writing, I’m at an altitude of exactly 11,277m, 5,230km away from Vancouver, Canada, and 3,159km from my stopover in Munich, Germany, en route back to Paris, France. Where I really should be is relaxing on the backyard patio or in the jacuzzi at my home near Vancouver with a cold drink on a hot summer day. Instead, I’m on a Lufthansa flight heading back to Paris – just a few hours after arriving across the ocean on a 10-hour flight – because my own country’s officials kicked me out. All because I committed the apparent violation of trying to re-enter my own country with proof of naturally acquired Covid-19 antibodies made by my own immune system post-recovery rather than those generated by the manmade Covid-19 vaccine about which much is still to be learned.
Daily life for a Covid-19 survivor with natural immunity from the disease is not for the faint of heart. As someone with a high level of laboratory tested antibodies whose levels have yet to drop even after several months post-illness, my doctor has advised against vaccination. Much is obviously still to be learned about the Covid jabs, still in stage 3 of clinical trials and considered experimental by health authorities – particularly with reports abounding of breakthrough cases of vaccinated people catching and spreading Covid.
To protect and preserve my acquired immunity by opting out of vaccination that risks interfering with it or causing a risk to my health, France now requires me to succumb to nasal swab antigen tests every 48 hours if I wish to continue accessing everyday venues like public transit, gyms, restaurants, some shopping malls, and bars. But it’s a price that I’m willing to pay for my health.
And now I’m paying another price for choosing to protect my own health. I’ve found myself threatened with internment by the Canadian government – something that not even terror suspects or illegal immigrants are subjected to without at least a hearing.
When I attempted to return home from Paris to Vancouver to visit my elderly mother for the first time in a year, I was treated worse than a criminal. I arrived at the airport with a negative PCR test, two positive Covid antibody tests from March and July proving that I still had significant Covid antibodies post-recovery, and a ‘covid immunity certificate’ written and signed by my French doctor to confirm this fact.
The Canadian border officer refused to accept the antibody laboratory test results as proof that I had recovered and was immune from Covid. He wanted a PCR test less than three months ago, after which everyone is expected to take the vaccine. (I didn’t even know that I had Covid until I took a serology antibody test weeks later.) Nor did the officer show any consideration for the negative PCR test taken hours at departure, or for the various other antigen tests – all negative – taken every 48 hours for the prior 10 days. Instead, he ordered me to sign up for a 3-day stay at a government internment facility (to then be followed by a mandatory and monitored 14-day home isolation).
I was then referred to a federal health officer who asked if I had signed up and paid (up to $2,000) for the 3-day government internment. I said no. She said that I had no choice except with respect to which government-contracted facility I’d like to be detained in at my own expense. I asked, “What if I just walk out?” She gestured to the RCMP officer behind her and said that leaving would result in a fine of nearly $6,000. I asked, “Then what if I just stay here in the airport and book a flight back to Paris and cancel my entire visit back home to Canada?” She replied that it would be fine. So, I booked a flight back on my phone at a cost of just over $1,500 – still cheaper than the government internment. She took down my return flight number, wrote me up a federal ‘health order’ that I had to sign, acknowledging that I was to leave Canada on that flight or face criminal penalties up to and including imprisonment. She helpfully added that I could still be fined for my ignorance, but they’d graciously let me off with a warning this time. What a benevolent budding authoritarian regime.
Let’s be clear: The Canadian government, by behaving in this manner, is routinely criminalizing those with Covid antibodies that are not derived from a manufactured experimental vaccine.
Just a few hours later, I am now on that flight back to Paris. My mother broke down in tears waiting for me on the other side of the arrivals hall as her daughter was expelled from her own country – something that Canada doesn’t even do with terror suspects without some kind of due process.
The next step for myself and others subjected to this discrimination should be a court challenge to the federal government’s actions. Government-ordered internment facilities for immune Covid survivors under threat of incarceration have no place in any democracy.
Rachel Marsden is a columnist, political strategist and host of an independently produced French-language program that airs on Sputnik France. Her website can be found at rachelmarsden.com
American Tax Dollars Financing Israeli Tourist Park Atop Historic Palestinian Neighborhood
Illegal colonist throws eggs
By Jessica Buxbaum | MintPress News | July 12, 2021
Roughly 2.5 miles from Sheikh Jarrah — the Palestinian neighborhood that grabbed the world’s attention in May — lies Silwan. This neighborhood in Occupied East Jerusalem is perched atop the steep slopes just outside the Old City. Houses are tightly compacted and stacked on top of each other as they dip into the valley below. And here, Palestinian residents face the same fate as their brethren in Sheikh Jarrah.
Israeli forces raided the al-Bustan neighborhood in Silwan with bulldozers on June 29 — razing a butcher shop and dispersing Palestinian protesters defending their homes with tear gas, stun grenades, batons and rubber-coated steel bullets. At least 13 people were injured and six arrested including the owner of the butcher shop, Nidal al-Rajabi, and his sons and brothers.
In regard to the recent demolition, Norwegian Refugee Council’s Palestine country director, Caroline Ort, said in a press release, “Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel has an obligation to protect civilians under its occupation and to refrain from destroying private property.”
Al-Rajabi’s store was destroyed on the pretext of lacking a building permit. Various human rights organizations involved in the issue state conflicting numbers, but according to Fakhri Abu Diab, spokesman for Silwan, 16 buildings in al-Bustan are also at immediate risk of being torn down. About 1,500 Palestinians live in more than a hundred houses in al-Bustan.
On June 7, two structures — including the butcher shop — received notices from the Municipality of Jerusalem to self-demolish their homes within 21 days or municipality authorities would do so and charge the residents the demolition fees, calculated at about $6,000.
Amy Cohen, director of International Relations and Advocacy at Ir Amim, a Jerusalem nonprofit, told MintPress News the second structure, a residential unit, has yet to receive a visit from municipality inspectors. Government officials typically come to a building with a pending demolition order to check whether it has already been demolished by the owners. If not, the inspectors then notify the residents that Israeli authorities will carry out the demolition within days, or even within 24 hours.
Discriminatory housing policies
According to Ir Amim, 68 homes in al-Bustan have pending demolition orders so as to execute the Jerusalem Municipality’s “King’s Garden” plan. The municipality outlined the initiative in 2010, stating:
The King’s Garden area [al-Bustan in Arabic] will be developed into a tourist and residential district. Commercial sections, restaurants, and art galleries will be built, turning it into a bustling tourist zone. For the first time, the local residents will have the legitimate right to live in this neighborhood.
The development plan has not moved forward since 2010, but the municipality’s recent objection to extending the demolition freeze suggests the plan could be reactivated.
In February, the Jerusalem Municipality filed an objection in the Local Affairs Court against al-Bustan residents’ request to extend the demolition freeze, arguing the proposed zoning plan for the area doesn’t follow proper guidelines and isn’t advancing quick enough. In March, the court ruled to extend the demolition freeze until August 15.
Negotiations have been ongoing between the municipality and the residents to develop a suitable zoning plan for al-Bustan since 2005. In 2009, the residents’ plan was rejected by the municipality in favor of the King’s Garden Plan.
According to Murad Abu Shafee, an al-Bustan resident who received a demolition order, the municipality told the residents, “This structure plan can’t happen in Israel. This might happen in Europe or any Arab country, but not here.”
“Our plan was very modern and it doesn’t fit with the Israeli government’s standards for East Jerusalem,” Abu Shafee explained. “[Israel] doesn’t want us to have a modern neighborhood. They want us always to be below the line.”
Despite the local court’s ruled extension, 20 demolition cases (including the butcher shop’s order) were excluded from the freeze due to the Israeli Kaminitiz Law — known as Amendment 116 to Israel’s Planning and Building Law — which was fully enacted in 2019. This legislation intensifies enforcement against unauthorized construction and allows for little legal intervention in preventing demolitions of structures built after 2017. The amendment has been partially frozen since 2020 amid ongoing discussions with Palestinian parliamentary members in the Israeli government.
In a statement to MintPress, the Jerusalem Municipality said:
There is no intention to build a ‘biblical garden’ in the area. This is a false claim. The area is designated for gardens and parks for the benefit of the local residents of Silwan.
The vast majority of demolition orders in Al-Bustan are suspended. There are a very few demolition orders that the court has recently decided to unfreeze. It should be emphasized that these orders are old. No new orders [were] issued whatsoever.
As to the execution [of] these orders, the municipality is obliged to act in accordance with the law and with the court rulings. We are still studying the latest ruling profoundly, and will decide on our next steps according to the situation on the ground.
The municipality noted that al-Bustan is designated as a green area because of its location near the Kidron River. Jeff Halper, director of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, explained that when Israel annexed East Jerusalem in 1967 following the Six-Day War, it declared the entirety of East Jerusalem as open, green space, meaning the area is frozen for future building.
Halper pointed out the hypocrisy of this development policy in how Israel treats settlement building versus Palestinian building, explaining:
Today, more than a hundred thousand Israelis live in East Jerusalem in these big settlements. But if East Jerusalem was frozen 100 percent for building, then how did you get all that building for Israelis? The answer is Israel rezones for Jewish settlements. But when a Palestinian wants to build, [the government] says, ‘Sorry, this area isn’t zoned for residential development but for open, green space. So, it’s really the use of bureaucracy and law and planning as tools of control.”
Construction in al-Bustan was done primarily by Palestinian residents themselves on their own land, but often without the necessary building permits. Ir Amim’s Cohen explained this is mostly owing to a lack of viable zoning plans rather than the municipality’s flat-out rejection of building permits:
With the absence of an outline plan, residents are precluded from acquiring the permits. You either have a lack of a zoning plan or you have such outdated zoning plans, which are from say 30 to 40 years ago, that it’s impossible to then receive building permits. And this is a very acute way that the Israeli authorities have neglected their municipal responsibility to provide this service.”
“Since 1967, this has been a means to suppress Palestinian building and planning within Palestinian areas,” Cohen concluded.
American tax dollars financing settler activity
Silwan is located in the Holy Basin—an area coveted by religious settlers for its proximity to the Old City and alleged connections to King David. Ir David or Elad settler organization runs the City of David National Park in the al-Bustan area. Since the 1990s, Elad has sought to transform Silwan into a symbol of Jewish biblical past. Al-Bustan is specifically targeted because it stands as an obstacle to achieving Ir David’s vision of a biblical paradise.
Elad’s actions aren’t focused solely on building settlements but also on promoting archaeological excavations, tourist attractions and parks. According to the Foundation for Middle East Peace’s report on al-Bustan, the settlers’ goals became the official policy of the Israeli government in 2005 when then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s government approved plans to develop the Holy Basin area.
“In essence, the DNA of Elad’s biblical ideology became the DNA of the Government of Israel in and around the Old City, with [the] Government outsourcing many of its authorities to Elad in order to pursue these objectives,” FMEP wrote in its report. “The lines between government and the settlers became so blurred that they almost disappeared.”
Quteibah Odeh — whose family faces displacement in al-Bustan and in Batan al-Hawa, another neighborhood in Silwan and settler target — described the deep interconnections between settlers and the Israeli government, citing as an example that Arieh King is Jerusalem’s deputy mayor but is also a notorious settler leader responsible for displacing Sheikh Jarrah residents. “These settler organizations are the people running the government,” Odeh said. “They receive full support from the military and any ministry and municipality.”
Ir David isn’t just supported by the Israeli government but also backed by American money. Ir David’s sister nonprofit in the U.S., Friends of Ir David, secures tax-exempt donations for the organization.
According to a January investigation by MintPress News, the Hertog Foundation, Irving I. Moskowitz Foundation, Adelson Family Foundation, Mindel Foundation, Samueli Foundation, Jay and Jeanie Schottenstein Foundation, and the Jewish Communal Fund have all donated to Friends of Ir David. The organization’s biggest contributors are the Irving I Moskowitz and Adelson Family Foundations. In 2018, the Irving I. Moskowitz Foundation gave Friends of Ir David $1.5 million and the Adelson Family Foundation contributed about $3 million.
The Ir David Foundation did not respond to a request for comment.
U.S. Congress members speak out
Israel’s forcible displacement of East Jerusalem Palestinians has caught the attention of the international community, including the U.S. government. On July 1, Illinois Representative Marie Newman delivered a speech on the House floor, urging President Joe Biden’s administration to intervene and stop the ongoing demolitions.
“Today I rise on behalf of the thousands of Palestinian families in the West Bank that face the prospect of eviction, demolition and displacement from their homes by the Israeli government,” the Democratic congresswoman said. “We have received word that demolition orders have already begun for homes in the al-Bustan neighborhood of Silwan in East Jerusalem.”
In the face of international condemnations, Silwan spokesman Abu Diab said the recent demolition in al-Bustan demonstrates Israel’s willingness to go against these objections. He elaborated in a statement:
People know members of Congress are speaking out about these issues, yet [the demolition of the butcher shop] proved to the community that Israel is prepared to defy the international community, including members of the U.S. Congress. They assert, yet again, that demolitions and forcible displacement, including Israeli court-ordered evictions, are against international law, are codified as war crimes, and that the occupying power, Israel, has a duty to protect those under its occupation.
The residents of Silwan therefore call on the international community to uphold their third state responsibility, to call on Israel to cease forthwith such illegal policies, with real accountability being the price for any further demolitions or evictions.
As in Sheikh Jarrah, Palestinians remain steadfast against Israel’s ongoing ethnic cleansing efforts. Demonstrations against the demolitions occur daily, Silwan resident Odeh said, adding:
These are our houses. Our parents, our grandparents and our great grandparents have lived here. We have memories, we have history and the people are the past, the present and the future.”
No indication of Iran’s involvement in Israeli tanker attack: Russia
Press TV – August 2, 2021
A senior Russian foreign ministry official strictly rejects existence of any indications pointing to Iran’s likely involvement in a recent attack on an Israeli oil tanker off the Omani coast.
“We have not the slightest reason to believe [that Iran was involved in the attack],” the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Second Asian Department Director, Zamir Kabulov told Russia’s Sputnik news agency on Monday.
In a statement on Friday, Zodiac Maritime, the Israeli-owned firm managing the tanker, said that two crewmen, a Briton and a Romanian, had been killed in the assault.
The Israeli regime and its sworn allies, the United States and the UK, rushed to accuse Iran of having a role in the incident, without providing any evidence. The Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has also alleged that the attack was deliberate and coordinated by Tehran.
Kabulov, however, reiterated Russia’s stance, saying Moscow’s refusal to corroborate such accusations was because “we have no facts.”
“When there are facts, then we will work out our position,” he added.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry has summoned Britain’s chargé d’affaires and Romania’s ambassador to convey Tehran’s strong protest, reminding the envoys that the source of instability in the Persian Gulf was not the Islamic Republic, but actually extra-regional presence.
Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh has also refuted such accusations as “absolutely groundless,” saying they feature “contradictory,” “hollow,” and “provocative” claims.
The official also sounded a strong warning against any act of adventurism targeting the Islamic Republic’s interests based on the unfounded claims.
Have 1,200 Experts Ever Been Proved Wrong So Quickly?
By Toby Young • The daily Sceptic • August 3, 2021
Guido Fawkes reminds us today that over 1,200 so-called experts signed ‘the Declaration’ – cooked up by the same people behind the John Snow Memorandum – warning of the terrible effect easing coronavirus restrictions on July 19th would have. The Declaration originally took the form of a letter in the Lancet, published on July 7th, in which 120 self-described ‘scientists’, many of them members of Independent SAGE, described ‘Freedom Day’ as “dangerous and premature”. They cited the SAGE modelling showing there would be 100,000 new Covid cases a day if the Government went ahead its plans and set out the dire consequences for Britain and the rest of the world. “We believe the Government is embarking on a dangerous and unethical experiment, and we call on it to pause plans to abandon mitigations on July 19th, 2021,” they wrote.
Two weeks on from ‘Freedom Day’, their predictions aren’t holding up terribly well.
According to Public Health England, the number of new daily cases fell to 21,691 today, another five-week low. So the 1,200 signatories of the Declaration exaggerated the number of daily cases that would follow ‘Freedom Day’ by 500%.
The Lancet letter also predicted that hospital admissions would soar as a result of Boris’s recklessness:
The link between cases and hospital admissions has not been broken, and rising case numbers will inevitably lead to increased hospital admissions, applying further pressure at a time when millions of people are waiting for medical procedures and routine care.
Perhaps they should have thought twice before inserting that word “inevitably” because the latest data shows hospital admissions falling. “Another 731 admissions were recorded by officials on July 30th, the latest date available – down 15% on the week before,” reports MailOnline.
And it wasn’t just these 1,200 ‘experts’ who were sounding the alarm. Let’s not forget that Keir Starmer also described Boris’s plan to ease restrictions as “reckless”.
And, of course, our old friend Neil Ferguson said on July 18th that it was “almost inevitable” that daily cases would climb to 100,000 a day if Boris went ahead with the unlocking the following day and added that “the real question” was whether they would reach 200,000 a day or more and warned of a “significant burden on the healthcare system”. Out by 1000% – which is actually pretty modest by Ferguson’s standards.
As Guido Fawkes says: “Guido can’t remember a time 1,200 so-called experts were proven so wrong in one fell swoop…”
Boris’s decision to go ahead with ‘Freedom Day’ is the first time I can think of in the past 16 months when he’s stuck to his guns in the face of wildly apocalyptic claims from various ‘experts’ about the consequences of “letting it rip” (their phrase for giving us our freedoms back). On every previous occasion, because he’s done exactly as these gloomsters have asked, they haven’t been proved wrong. Admittedly, locking down three times hasn’t stopped the U.K. from having one of the worst Covid death tolls in Europe, and Sweden’s excess deaths in 2020 were lower than ours in spite of not locking down. But the crystal ball gazers have always been able to argue that things would have been so much worse if we hadn’t locked down. Yet this time – finally – Boris ignored their doom-mongering and, as a result, they have been proved spectacularly – and humiliatingly – wrong.
Will this experience stiffen Boris’s backbone the next time he’s prevailed upon by the Government’s scientific advisers, sundry public health experts and the chin-wobblers in the Cabinet to lock down again, which really is inevitable? We can but hope.
