Aletho News


Official Data shows Deaths of male Children are up 54% since they were offered the Covid-19 Vaccine


An investigation of official ONS data has revealed that since the Covid-19 vaccine was offered and administered to kids in England and Wales there has been a 54% rise in deaths among male children compared to the same period in 2020.

The UK’s Medicine and Healthcare product Regulatory Agency (MHRA) have openly admitted that they suspect myocarditis and pericarditis are potential side effects of the Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 vaccines, especially among young males. A suspicion that has been strong enough for the UK Medicine Regulator to officially add warnings about myocarditis and pericarditis to the safety labels of the Covid-19 vaccines.

Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle, whereas pericarditis is inflammation of the protective sacs surrounding the heart. Both are extremely serious conditions due to the vital role the heart plays in keeping a person alive, and the fact that the heart muscle cannot regenerate. Serious myocarditis can lead to cardiac arrest and knock years off a persons life.

The UK Government have now also admitted in official documents that a high percentage of all hospitalised children are presenting to hospital with Myocarditis following Covid-19 vaccination.


This fact adds greater concern for data published by Public Health England on the number of 999 calls made requesting an ambulance due to cardiac arrest. The stats show that they have skyrocketed against the expected average since young adults and teens began receiving the Covid-19 vaccine.

Chris Whitty advised the UK Government to roll-out the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine to all children over the age of 12 in week 37 of 2021. Thanks to preparations already being made by the NHS to intrude on education in schools and administer the jab to children, the roll-out got underway the following week (week 38).

The 2020 edition of ‘Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, which can be downloaded here, and accessed on the ONS website here shows the number of deaths registered weekly by age group.


The ONS data shows that between September 18th and November 13th 2020 a total of 24 deaths occurred among male children aged between 10 and 14.

However, the 2021 edition of ‘Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, which can be downloaded here, and accessed on the ONS website here, shows a significantly higher number of deaths have occurred among male children in 2021 following Chris Whitty’s decision to offer them the Covid-19 vaccine.

The data shows that between week 38 (week beginning 18th September) and week 46 (week ending 19th November) of 2021, a total of 37 deaths occurred among male children aged between 10 and 14.

This shows that since the Covid-19 vaccines began being given to kids over the age of 12, deaths among male children have increased by 54% compared to the same period in 2020.

We compiled the following graph on ONS figures so that we were able to easily compare the number of deaths per week among male children in 2020 and 2021.

The data is there now for the authorities to see, a 54% increase in deaths of male children compared to 2020 since they started to be given the Covid-19 vaccine, they must investigate this and cease the roll-out of the jabs to kids immediately.

December 4, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

2,809 Dead Babies in VAERS Following COVID Shots as New Documents Prove Pfizer, the FDA, and the CDC Knew the Shots Were Not Safe for Pregnant Women

By Brian Shilhavy | Health Impact News | December 4, 2021

The latest data dump into the U.S. Government’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) happened yesterday (12/3/21) and covers data through 11/26/2021.

There are now 927,740 cases reported to VAERS following COVID-19 shots for the past 11 months, out of the total of 1,782,453 cases in the entire VAERS database filed for the past 30+ years.

Left image sourceRight image source.

That means that 52% off ALL vaccine adverse reaction cases in VAERS for the past 30+ years have been reported in the last 11 months following the COVID-19 shots.

In addition, 68% of all deaths following vaccines reported in VAERS for the past 30+ years have been reported in the last 11 months following the COVID-19 shots.

We are on pace to see 21,307 deaths reported in the first year following the experimental COVID-19 shots, while the average yearly deaths reported after FDA-approved vaccines for the past 30+ years is 305 deaths.

That is an astounding 86% increase in reported deaths following the COVID-19 shots, a 70X increase over the average reported deaths following vaccinations for the past 30+ years!

  • FDA-approved vaccines: 305 deaths per year
  • COVID-19 EUA shots: 21,307 deaths per year

And as Dr. Jessica Rose has previously reported, the under-reporting factor in VAERS for the COVID-19 shots is 41X, as a conservative number, which means that at least 800,812 people have now died following COVID-19 shots based on the VAERS data.

Most, if not all, of those deaths are being reported in the pharma-owned corporate media as “COVID” deaths, as there are now more recorded “COVID deaths” for the first 11 months of 2021 than there were for the entire year in 2020, when there were no COVID vaccines until December. (Source.)

Record Number of Fetal Deaths Following COVID-19 Shots

As of this most recent update in VAERS, we have now found 2,809 fetal deaths following COVID-19 shots injected into pregnant and child-bearing women for the past 11 months. (Source.)

By way of contrast, using the exact same search parameters in VAERS, but excluding the COVID-19 shots, we found 2,168 fetal deaths following all FDA-approved vaccines for the past 30+ years. (Source.)

That’s an average of 72 fetal deaths per year following all FDA-approved vaccines for the past 30+ years, compared to what is on pace to be 3064 fetal deaths in 1 year following COVID-19 shots.

  • FDA-approved vaccines: 72 fetal deaths per year
  • COVID-19 EUA shots: 3064 fetal deaths per year

That is an 80% increase in fetal deaths recorded in VAERS following the COVID-19 shots. And yet, the CDC and FDA continue to recommend these EUA shots for pregnant women and nursing mothers.

Not only do they recommend these shots for pregnant women, we now have ample evidence that they have known since earlier this year that these shots are dangerous to pregnant women, and causing fetal deaths.

In a March 4, 2021 Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines (ACCV) meeting, the CDC submitted a report that contained a section titled: Maternal vaccination safety summary (starting on p. 39).

They stated (emphasis mine – my comments in red):

Pregnant women were not specifically included in pre-authorization clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines
– Post-authorization safety monitoring and research are the primary ways to obtain safety data on COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy
Larger than expected numbers of self-reported pregnant women have registered in v-safe
* The reactogenicity profile and adverse events observed among pregnant women in v-safe did not indicate any safety problems (based on what criteria???)
* Most reports to VAERS among pregnant women (73%) involved non-pregnancy specific adverse events (e.g., local and systemic reactions)
Miscarriage was the most frequently reported pregnancy-specific adverse event to VAERS; numbers are within the known background rates based on presumed COVID-19 vaccine doses administered to pregnant women (no supporting evidence to backup these claims)

It is important to note through all of this reporting by the CDC that these are based on self-reporting data from pregnant women.

We know that it is politically incorrect to blame any health issue on a COVID-19 “vaccine,” and that doctors and nurses are pressured to NOT report these, so how many pregnant women had an adverse reaction, like a miscarriage, and never even thought to link it to their COVID-19 shot?

So back in March of this year (2021), there were already major concerns about the effects of the shots on pregnant women, as “larger than expected” pregnant women were reporting adverse reactions, and “the most frequently reported pregnancy-specific adverse event to VAERS” was “miscarriage.”

Then in August of this year (2021), the CDC presented a “new study” with “new data.”

Again, this “data” is dependent on pregnant women “self-reporting” adverse reactions, so we know these reports will be well below what was actually happening in the population, as it is politically incorrect to report any adverse reactions related to the experimental COVID-19 shots. To do so is to be branded an “anti-vaxxer” and shame you for life.

The August update admitted that 13% of the pregnant women who had received a COVID-19 shot reported a miscarriage. The CDC brushed this aside by stating “miscarriage typically occurs in about 11-16% of pregnancies.”

But of course ALL miscarriages are reported somewhere in the medical files, which is why they can even come up with a number range like this. So this figure is based on 100% of the reported data, while the COVID-19 related miscarriages are only based on what was self-reported, and we have no idea how many women never reported their miscarriages because they never related it to their COVID-19 shot.

One the main studies the CDC allegedly relied upon to declare that COVID-19 shots were safe for pregnant women, was a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine on June 17, 2021.

But on October 14, 2021, they issued a statement stating that some of their data was wrong in the June 17th study. (Source.) It dealt specifically with pregnancies in their 20th week or earlier.

“No denominator was available to calculate a risk estimate for spontaneous abortions, because at the time of this report, follow-up through 20 weeks was not yet available for 905 of the 1224 participants vaccinated within 30 days before the first day of the last menstrual period or in the first trimester. Furthermore, any risk estimate would need to account for gestational week–specific risk of spontaneous abortion.” (Source.)

Full article

December 4, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , , , | 2 Comments

Vitamin D: Government Should Have Promoted to Combat Pandemic

Medical evidence strongly justifies a proactive approach for using vitamin D

By Joel S Hirschhorn | December 4, 2021

There seems to be an endless refusal by the public health establishment to fight the pandemic with the best science-based tools. Instead, they keep pushing vaccines.

Great German research provides unequivocal medical evidence that the government should be strongly advocating two actions: 1. Take vitamin D supplements and 2. Have your blood tested for vitamin D.

The title for this October 2021 journal article says it all: “COVID-19 Mortality Risk Correlates Inversely with Vitamin D3 Status, and a Mortality Rate Close to Zero Could Theoretically Be Achieved at 50 ng/mL 25(OH)D3: Results of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” [25(OH)D3 refers to metabolite of the vitamin in blood]

In other words, there is clear evidence that the lower your vitamin D level the greater your risk of dying from COVID infection. Moreover, the data clearly show that you need a blood level of at least 50 ng/mL.

Odds are, however, that very, very few people have been tested for their vitamin D level. This is a situation where waiting for testing is not the prudent approach. Vitamin D pills are pretty cheap and it is perfectly safe to take a healthy daily dose to maintain a good immune system. I take 4,000 IUs twice daily.

Here are a number of highlights from this research and other sources; the discussion is aimed at informing people with information not provided by Big Media, Big Government and Big Pharma.

Vitamin D is an accurate predictor of COVID infection. Its deficiency is just as significant, and perhaps more so, than more commonly discussed underlying medical conditions, including obesity.

To be clear, there is a level of vitamin D for an effective strategy at the personal and population level to prevent or mitigate new surges and outbreaks of COVID that are related to reduced vaccine effectiveness and new variants.

In the German study, fifteen other studies were cited that showed low vitamin D levels were related to cases of severe COVID infection, and seven studies that found positive results from treating ill patients with the vitamin.

The German study noted: “The finding that most SARS-CoV-2 patients admitted to hospitals have vitamin D3 blood levels that are too low is unquestioned even by opponents of vitamin D supplementation.” The German study “followed 1,601 hospitalized patients, 784 who had their vitamin D levels measured within a day after admission and 817 whose vitamin D levels were known before infection. And the researchers also analyzed the long-term average vitamin D3 levels documented for 19 countries. The observed median vitamin D value over all collected study cohorts was 23.2 ng/mL, which is clearly too low to work effectively against COVID.”

Why does this vitamin work so well? The German study explained: A main cause of a severe reaction from COVID results from a “cytokine storm.” This refers to the body’s immune system releasing too many toxic cytokines as part of the inflammatory response to the virus. Vitamin D is a main regulator of those cells. A low level of the vitamin means a greater risk for a cytokine storm. This is especially pertinent for lung problems from COVID.

Other studies

On a par with the German study was an important US medical article from May 2021: Vitamin D and Its Potential Benefit for the COVID-19 Pandemic. It noted: “Experimental studies have shown that vitamin D exerts several actions that are thought to be protective against coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infectivity and severity.  … There are a growing number of data connecting COVID-19 infectivity and severity with vitamin D status, suggesting a potential benefit of vitamin D supplementation for primary prevention or as an adjunctive treatment of COVID-19. … there is no downside to increasing vitamin D intake and having sensible sunlight exposure to maintain serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D at a level of least 30 ng/mL and preferably 40 to 60 ng/mL to minimize the risk of COVID-19 infection and its severity.” This confirms the German study and its finding of a critical vitamin level of 50 ng/mL.

Daniel Horowitz has made this correct observation about vitamin D supplementation: “An endless stream of academic research demonstrates that not only would such an approach have worked much better than the vaccines, but rather than coming with sundry known and unknown negative side effects.“

There are now 142 studies vouching for the near-perfect correlation between higher vitamin D levels and better outcomes in COVID patients.

From Israel came work that showed 25% of hospitalized COVID patients with vitamin D deficiency died compared to just 3% among those without a deficiency. And those with a deficiency were 14 times more likely to end up with a severe or critical condition.

Also from Israel, data on 1,176 patients with COVID infection admitted to the Galilee Medical Center, 253 had vitamin D levels on record and half were vitamin D-deficient. This was the conclusion: “Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, pre-infection deficiency of vitamin D was associated with increased disease severity and mortality.”

Several studies have come from the University of Chicago. One found that a vitamin D deficiency (less than 20 ng/ml) may raise the risk of testing positive for COVID-19, actually a 7.2% chance of testing positive for the virus. And that more than 80% of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 were vitamin D deficient. And Black individuals who had levels of 30 to 40 ng/ml had a 2.64 times higher risk of testing positive for COVID-19 than people with levels of 40 ng/ml or greater.

On the good news side is a new study from Turkish researchers. They focused on getting people’s levels over 30 ng/mL with supplements. At that level there was success compared to people without supplementation. This was true even if they had comorbidities. They were able to achieve that blood level within two weeks. Those with no comorbidities and no vitamin D treatment had 1.9-fold increased risk of having hospitalization longer than 8 days compared with cases with both comorbidities and vitamin D treatment.

Another option

Some people may have absorption problems.  The solution is to use the active form of D – either calcifediol or calcitriol – to raise their levels more quickly. This bypasses the liver’s metabolic process very effectively. Studies have shown that people hospitalized with low levels but given the active form of D did not progress to the ICU. Places that sell vitamin D often sell the concentrated active form.

I have a supply of cholecalciferol pills that provide 50,000 IUs, compared to ordinary D pills typically with 2,000 IUs. A reasonable use of the high concentration pills is in the event of coming down with a serious COVID infection. This may be a sensible strategy for those who do not know what their level is or have not taken the normal pills for some period.  It can take months to raise a very low level to above the critical level the German study found necessary for the best protection.


Aside from dealing with COVID, two pertinent questions are: Is there an optimal level of vitamin D and are Americans deficient in it? For the first, this has been said: “While blood levels of 30 ng/mL or higher are considered normal, the optimal blood level of vitamin D has not yet been established.” From the Cleveland Clinic is this: “Normal vitamin D levels are usually between 20-80 NG/ML. If supplementation is recommended, remember to take it with a meal and on a full stomach to help absorption. Unfortunately, about 42% of the US population is vitamin D deficient with some populations having even higher levels of deficiency.”

A Mayo Clinic study said this: “Vitamin D deficiency is more common than previously thought. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported that the percentage of adults achieving vitamin D sufficiency as defined by 25(OH)D of at least 30 ng/mL has declined from about 60% in 1988-1994 to approximately 30% in 2001-2004 in whites and from about 10% to approximately 5% in African Americans during this same time. Furthermore, more people have been found to be severely deficient in vitamin D [ <10 ng/mL]. Even when using a conservative definition of vitamin D deficiency, many patients routinely encountered in clinical practice will be deficient in vitamin D.”

Clearly, personal deficiency can only be determined by a blood test that prudent people will request their doctors to order for a lab test.


Seeing vitamin D as crucial to surviving COVID is supported by solid medical research. There is good data to support a desired level of 50 ng/mL. Whether a person has this level requires a blood test for the vitamin, not something that most physicians normally call for when ordering blood tests for other reasons.

As the US approaches 800,000 COVID related deaths it is reasonable to believe that perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved if the government had strongly supported vitamin D blood testing and supplementation if needed. But in the absence of such a COVID policy, people have good reasons to use D supplements if they are not routinely exposed to sunlight without using sunscreen products.

Many physicians have issued protocols for preventing and treating COVID that include vitamin D supplements. For example, the esteemed Dr. Zelenko uses the following: 5,000 IU 1 time a day for 7 days for low risk patients, and for high risk patients: 10,000 IU once a day for 7 days or 50,000 IU once a day for 1-2 days.

However, continuing its stupidity, NIH maintains that “There is insufficient evidence to recommend either for or against the use of vitamin D for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19.” This too was said: “Vitamin D deficiency (defined as vitamin D ≤20 ng/mL) is common in the United States, particularly among persons of Hispanic ethnicity and Black race.  These groups are also overrepresented among cases of COVID-19 in the United States. Vitamin D deficiency is also more common in older patients and patients with obesity and hypertension; these factors have been associated with worse outcomes in patients with COVID-19.” Sounds smart to fight deficiency for avoiding COVID health impacts.

Sadly, we cannot count on the public health establishment to take a science-based, aggressive policy on using vitamin D supplements as an alternative to COVID vaccines or expensive medicines. Its up to individuals to protect their own lives by being well informed and proactive.

December 4, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | 1 Comment

Why hide what happens in the first two weeks after vaccination?

Hiding part of the data leads to wrong conclusions

Health Advisory and Recovery Team | December 1, 2021

There have been numerous papers published showing how well the vaccines protect people after the second dose. Some of this effect is an illusion. The effect happens as a result of inaccurate measuring and a phenomenon called survivorship bias.

Survivorship bias happens when a group is compared at two time points, but the members of the group change between the time points. It would be like assessing the quality of a swimming school which favours the technique of throwing people into the middle of the ocean, leaving them for a couple of hours and claiming credit for how well the remaining students can swim. After two hours, the only people left would be the ones who could already swim and possibly a few who learnt to swim the hard way! The poor souls who drowned in the interim don’t even make the count. Attributing the remaining people’s swimming ability to the coach who turned up 2 hours later would obviously give a very misleading picture. Pointing out that no-one drowned in later lessons would be equally misleading in determining the success of the ‘teaching technique’.

With covid vaccination there is a two week period after vaccination that is not included in the data. The rationale given for this is that vaccines take a while to induce antibodies and therefore the first two weeks’ data are not relevant. Obviously this is flawed. What if the vaccines have deleterious effects that are visible straightaway, that have nothing to do with antibody production? An example is the high rate of shingles seen after covid vaccination, suggesting there is a problem with viral reactivation. This may explain why Sars-CoV-2 infection rates are actually higher in the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated in the first two weeks after vaccination.

The effect of eliminating the first two weeks is a misleading data bias. If people become infected and are dying during that period, this needs to be included. The possibility that the vaccine itself may exert an effect on infection rate cannot be overlooked and the entire dataset needs to be included in order to accurately assess effectiveness. By only measuring the period after the higher risk of infection (0-14 days) it is possible to be deceived. Any signal would be missed.

Aside from it being nonsensical in terms of individual risk to remove this period of time, there will also be an impact on the wider community. If the vaccine in fact causes a spike in infections during the first two weeks, this will inevitably increase spread and will lead to an increased number of infections in that community during that time. Therefore, the assessment of the impact of the vaccination programme must include not only the effect on the individual, but the impact on the wider community.

This point is of particular relevance for close-knit communities where many are being vaccinated at the same time, such as schools and in particular communities with a high number of vulnerable people such as care homes and hospitals. What we are effectively doing is ‘speeding up’ the wave of infections (and deaths). Ultimately at the end of the viral season, the same number of people died. Because of excluding the earlier deaths (1-14 days), we are misled into thinking that the vaccines were more effective than they actually were. By only looking at the later period and seeing fewer deaths during that time, the illusion was created that lives were saved. This is evident in data from many countries following vaccine roll-out. The graph below showing the UK versus Europe illustrates this point, as the UK was the fastest to roll out the vaccine. The total number of deaths, represented by the area under the curve, was similar to other countries, but is just compressed into a shorter time period.

Figure 1: Covid Deaths in winter in UK and the European Union

Let’s now examine some specific examples, e.g. this study of nursing home residents in the United States. The results show that over the course of the study 6.8% of the vaccinated population were infected and 6.8% of the unvaccinated population were infected. However, by deciding that the first 14 days after vaccination should be excluded, the grey area for the vaccinated group is compared to the black and grey area combined for the unvaccinated. Doing so could lead to the claim of 66% vaccine efficacy against infection. The authors of this study were honest enough to share the raw data and did not claim 66% efficacy.

Figure 2: Data from US paper showing the percentage of the nursing home population to be infected by time after the clinic came to their home and by vaccination status

However, numerous studies have relied on this trick to make claims of vaccine efficacy. The most obvious examples of this are the original Pfizer trial study and the AstraZeneca trial.

Figure 3: Graph from AstraZeneca trial showing censorship of early period (‘Exclusion Period’)

To take a second example, a Danish paper measured infection numbers in healthcare workers and care home residents. Prior to the beginning of the vaccination programme 4.8% of the healthcare workers had been infected and 3.8% of the care home residents had been. The study ended at the end of the Danish winter wave after 95% of the care home residents had been vaccinated and 28% of the healthcare workers had been. Given the worse position at the start and the lower vaccination rate in healthcare workers you might expect that they were worse off overall. However, the percentage infected by the end of the wave was 7.0% among healthcare workers but 7.7% among care home residents.

Figure 4: Data from Danish paper showing percentage of population infected among care home residents and healthcare workers

How much of the vaccine efficacy reported in covid research is really a measure of survivorship bias coupled with naturally acquired immunity? This is a critical question. No claim of vaccine efficacy should be made without first addressing this.

December 4, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | 1 Comment

UK surgeon remains suspended a year after saying governments are using Covid to control people

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | December 4, 2021

Last year, the UK medical register suspended a consultant surgeon for 12 months pending an investigation by the General Medical Council (GMC) for posting on social media that Covid-19 was being used by elites to control the world.

Colleagues wrote to the organization arguing he should not have been suspended for his personal opinion.

Mohammad Iqbal Adil, a Pakistan-born British doctor, has worked in the NHS for almost three decades. An interim orders tribunal suspended him for a year because of videos he posted on social media.

The doctor expressed “his point of view on the Covid-19 pandemic and the far-reaching effects of the lockdown on the economy, public health and wellbeing,” his campaign page states.

A spokesperson for the GMC at the time said: “The interim orders tribunal imposed an interim suspension on Dr Adil’s registration, following our referral, to protect patients and public confidence. This interim suspension remains in place while we consider concerns about Dr Adil’s fitness to practice.”

Some of his colleagues launched a petition on calling on the GMC to reinstate Dr. Adil. The petition argues that the GMC should have given him a chance to reflect on the videos “when the entire world is confused about the novel virus.”

The petition also noted that he had a family to support, adding, “UK needs doctors to work. It would not be in the best interest of the public and health system to lose [an] experienced and highly qualified surgeon like him.

“We, the doctors community within [the] UK and across the world, feel that it’s injustice to suspend Mr Adil on his personal point of view on the covid-19 without giving him [a] chance to reflect upon his video before enforcing suspension.

“We request to the GMC to revoke his unfair 12 months suspension . . . and allow him fair chance to work in this country [for the benefit of] the health system, communities, and medical graduates.”

“Dr Adil has been making a stand for freedom of speech for all doctors and nurses to speak their truth without fear of recrimination or persecution,” his campaign page states.

December 4, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | 1 Comment

Researchers Acknowledge SARS-CoV-2 Is Gaining Vaccine Resistance

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | December 3, 2021

Looking at the viral evolution of SARS-CoV-2, researchers from the prestigious universities Harvard and MIT have found that the virus not only will continue to mutate and create new variants in the future, but will become resistant to the vaccines as it adapts to humans.

Their study, published December 2, 2021, in the journal Science, shows that the mutations serve as bridges to conferring resistance to neutralizing antibodies. “The severity of the phenotypes we observed in vitro suggest that further evolved variants will more adeptly escape therapeutic antibody neutralization than currently circulating variants of concern, with potential resistance to two-component antibody cocktails,” the study authors wrote.

The scientists urged that “proactively examining the consequences of further viral evolution before the next highly antibody resistant strain emerges is of utmost importance.”

December 4, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 1 Comment

Scientist Under Investigation by the Royal Society of New Zealand for Defending Science

By Toby Young • The Daily Sceptic • December 2, 2021

In my column in the Spectator this week I’ve highlighted an egregious assault on free speech in New Zealand that was brought to my attention by the NZ Free Speech Union, which has issued a statement about it. A distinguished biochemist, Professor Garth Cooper, is being subjected to a disciplinary investigation by the Royal Society of New Zealand that could result in his expulsion. Here’s an extract:

Why is this distinguished scientist at risk of being expelled from New Zealand’s most prestigious academic society? Several months ago he was one of seven signatories to a letter in the New Zealand Listener that took issue with a proposal by a government working group that schools should give the same weight to Maori mythology as they do to science in the classroom. That is, the Maori understanding of the world — that all living things originated with Rangi and Papa, the sky mother and sky god, for instance — should be presented as just as valid as the theories of Galileo, Newton and Darwin.

The authors of the letter, “In Defence of Science“, were careful to say that indigenous knowledge was “critical for the preservation and perpetuation of culture and local practices, and plays key roles in management and policy” and should be taught in New Zealand’s schools. But they drew the line at treating it as on a par with physics, chemistry and biology: “In the discovery of empirical, universal truths, it falls far short of what we can define as science itself.”

In a rational world, this letter would have been regarded as uncontroversial. Surely the argument about whether to teach schoolchildren scientific or religious explanations for the origins of the universe and the ascent of man was settled by the Scopes trial in 1925? Apart from the obvious difficulty of prioritising one religious viewpoint in an ethnically diverse society like New Zealand (what about Christianity, Islam and Hinduism?), there is the problem that Maori schoolchildren, already among the least privileged in the country, will be at an even greater disadvantage if their teachers patronise them by saying there’s no need to learn the rudiments of scientific knowledge. Knowing about Rangi and Papa won’t get you into medical school.

But the moment this letter was published all hell broke loose. The views of the authors, who were all professors at Auckland, were denounced by the Royal Society, the New Zealand Association of Scientists, and the Tertiary Education Union, as well as by their own vice-chancellor, Dawn Freshwater. In a hand-wringing, cry-bullying email to all staff at the university, she said the letter had “caused considerable hurt and dismay among our staff, students and alumni” and said it pointed to ‘major problems with some of our colleagues’.

Two of Professor Cooper’s academic colleagues, Dr Siouxsie Wiles and Dr Shaun Hendy, issued an ‘open letter’ condemning the heretics for causing “untold harm and hurt”. They invited anyone who agreed with them to add their names to the ‘open letter’, and more than 2,000 academics duly obliged. Before long, five members of the Royal Society had complained and a panel was set up to investigate.

Worth reading in full.

If you’re a scholar in the sciences or the humanities and want to defend Professor Cooper you should write to Roger Ridley, the Chief Executive of the Royal Society of New Zealand, at He could use your help.

Stop Press: You can read more about this scandal here.

“Science is helping us battle worldwide crises such as Covid, global warming, carbon pollution, biodiversity loss and environmental degradation” … “Putting science on a pedestal gets us no further in the solution of these crises.”

December 4, 2021 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

A brief reminder: Health agencies were not always deranged

a trip down memory lane

el gato malo – bad cattitude – december 4, 2021

it was february of 2020, a kinder time. a gentler time.

and the WHO was putting out guidelines to avoid stigmatizing people who got covid

never forget this.

they knew before 2020 than none of these interventions worked, that their prices were insanely high, and that they should never be undertaken.

they knew the dangers of vilification and polarization.

standing pandemic guidelines vehemently warned against any of this and especially against making pariahs of the infected and cultivating exaggerated fear to drive compliance.

this has NOT been “following the science” is has been the abrogation of a century of evidence based epidemiology and social mores in order to take a devastating and self-serving joy ride with the world’s populace like it was some sort of video game.

and all the health agencies were aware of that.

these were choices.

this was done to you, not for you.

and it was done by people who damn well knew better.

if you learn one thing from this, learn that, because these malefactors and agencies are still around and they are not done with you…

December 4, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

“Post Pandemic Stress Disorder”… seriously?

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | December 3, 2021

There’s a reason heart attacks and blood clots are about to become a LOT more common… but the vaccine has nothing to do with it. Apparently.

Doctors are warning that hundreds of thousands of people in the UK could be at increased risk of heart disease or cardiac events.

Speaking to the Evening Standard, psychological therapist Mark Rayner and vascular surgeon Tahir Hussein said that the UK could see “300,000 new patients with heart issues” in the near future.

What’s to blame? Well, that would be “Post Pandemic Stress Disorder”. A new condition “yet to be recognised”, even though “many experts believe it should be”.

It’s a totally real thing. They didn’t just completely make it up. Don’t be cynical.

You see, all the “pandemic” related anxiety and stress has taken such a toll on the public that doctors are predicting a 5% increase in heart disease, nationwide, and not just in the elderly or infirm.

According to Dr Hussein, he is already seeing…

a big increase in thrombotic-related vascular conditions in my practice. Far younger patients are being admitted and requiring surgical and medical intervention than prior to the pandemic.

Now, some of you demented anti-vaxxers out there might be asking crazy questions like “could this increase in blood clots and heart disease be linked to injecting millions of people with an untested vaccine?”

But that’s absurd. And I told you to stop being cynical.

Yes, fine, in the interests of fairness, we should mention it was recently reported that the Astra Zeneca jab can cause blood clots.

It turns out all the people saying that back in March weren’t just conspiracy theorists spreading misinformation after all. They were totally right. But the clots are only rare, so don’t worry. And they sort of know what causes it now, so future batches might be fine.

And yes, also in the interests of fairness, it’s true that both the Pfizer and Moderna shots can cause heart issues too. Both, according to the CDC, can cause pericarditis and myocarditis, the complications of which include heart attacks, heart failure and strokes.

The UK government has even produced special guidelines for dealing with myocardits, “following Covid19 vaccination”.

But, just like the blood clots, this is very rare. Obviously not so rare you don’t need a special guiding document on how to deal with it, but still very very rare.

… the point is, yes, all the major Covid vaccines are known to have cardiac-related side effects, and yes, some doctors are now predicting a major spike in heart-related health problems, but these are totally unrelated.

Frankly, the very idea this could be a media psy-op designed to do pre-emptive damage control is ridiculous.

Stop. Being. Cynical.

Any connection between heart problems and vaccines is just bad luck or a coincidence. It’s really just the stress.

Don’t ask questions about the vaccine. Don’t decide to not get the vaccine. And certainly don’t worry about what’s in the vaccine. Worrying causes stress which, unlike vaccines, causes heart problems.

Just get the shot. And the second dose. And the booster, every three months. And the updated doses, for the variants.

Just to be safe, get four shots a year, every year, for the rest of your natural life, and/or until you drop dead of a heart attack.

… due to stress.

Don’t be cynical.

December 4, 2021 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | | 1 Comment


The Highwire with Del Bigtree | December 3, 2021

Baby formula or breastfeeding? New legal actions have uncovered hidden dangers of certain baby formulas. Meanwhile, the overall health and wellness benefits of breastfeeding for not only the baby, but the mother as well, continues to stack up.

December 4, 2021 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Video | Leave a comment