Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

CDC Has Withheld COVID Data From Americans To ‘Prevent Vaccine Hesitency’: Report

By Steve Watson | Summit News | February 21, 2022

The New York Times reported this past weekend that the CDC has chosen not to publish huge amounts of COVID data, instead keeping it secret, because it fears that the information would cause ‘vaccine hesitancy’ among the American public.

The report notes that the withheld data includes information on boosters, hospitalizations, wastewater analyses, as well as critical information on COVID infections and deaths broken down by age, race, and vaccination status.

The justification for holding the information back? Fears that the data would be “misinterpreted” and lead to “vaccine hesitancy,” according to the report.

In other words, it didn’t fit into the narrative that everyone must get vaccinated and boosted no matter who they are and what their situation is.

The report notes:

“Kristen Nordlund, a spokeswoman for the C.D.C., said the agency has been slow to release the different streams of data “because basically, at the end of the day, it’s not yet ready for prime time.” She said the agency’s “priority when gathering any data is to ensure that it’s accurate and actionable.”

Ahhh, the plebs are not ready to know the truth.

Another reason is fear that the information might be misinterpreted, Ms. Nordlund said.”

The data has been withheld for more than a year, the report notes:

… the C.D.C. has been routinely collecting information since the Covid vaccines were first rolled out last year, according to a federal official familiar with the effort. The agency has been reluctant to make those figures public, the official said, because they might be misinterpreted as the vaccines being ineffective.

As we have previously reported, CDC director Rochelle Walensky admits that the agency’s guidance on COVID has been based on what the government perceived people would accept.

“It really had a lot to do with what we thought people would be able to tolerate,” Walensky starkly admitted during an interview in December.

Walensky also acknowledged for only the first time last month that over 75% of COVID deaths were people “who had at least four comorbidities” and were “unwell to begin with.”

The comments were later edited by the media to make it seem like there have been fewer deaths related to comorbidities.

The CDC also for more than two years based its guidance on PCR tests, which it recently admitted are producing massive amounts of false positives.

February 21, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Jabbed and unjabbed must unite against the common foe – biotech

By Guy Hatchard | TCW Defending Freedom | February 21, 2022

UNLESS rampant genetic experimentation is regulated, the whole population of the world will continue on a risky journey towards an unknown destination somewhere in a biotechnology future.

Today I want to reach out across a divide and back in time. At the beginning of the pandemic, the origin of Covid-19 was of concern to everyone – the question was ‘who was ultimately to blame?’ The dialogue was between those who thought its origin was zoonotic (jumped from an animal) and those thinking it was made in a laboratory. We never received a definitive answer to this debate, but nevertheless the New Zealand government decided in mid-2020 that the idea that Covid-19 came from a laboratory was a conspiracy theory. 

The immediate value to Jacinda Ardern’s government should be obvious: if Covid-19 came from an animal it was a natural virus requiring the time-honoured solution of a vaccine. If it came from a biotechnology laboratory, there would be an issue of trust – could the same people who created Covid-19 be trusted to cure it?

Moving to the present day, genomists have made real progress in resolving the debate around the origins of Covid-19. Some genetic sequences in Covid-19 have been found in mutated strains of HIV which appear to have no place in any animal viruses and some genetic constructs of Covid-19 are not natural at all, but are identical to genetic sequences patented before the pandemic by Moderna – a company who created a Covid-19 mRNA vaccine. The details are technical but the process of researching the connections has been rendered accessible to a lay person.

In general, the debate about Covid-19 origins has swung strongly back towards a laboratory origin, especially considering that it is now clear that the early insistence on a zoonotic origin was mainly from scientists involved in the experiments at the Wuhan lab.

This gives us all a completely different perspective about that other crucial debate between the pro-vaxx and anti-vaxx camps (let’s leave aside for a moment the supporters from both camps who are anti-mandate). Both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated are facing a common foe – risky biotechnology experimentation leading either to a virulent illness or a novel vaccine with a high rate of adverse reactions. Whatever political end game emerges, both camps are left with a common problem: how to control biotechnology experimentation that threatens the stability of life itself (see my YouTube video The Pandemic of Biotechnology).

We are up against formidable obstacles:

  • Military interest in biotechnology continues for reasons of both offence and defence. More accidents are inevitable. No weapon ever invented remains unused.
  • Commercial investment in biotechnology is huge: there are fortunes to be made and lost depending on the outcomes of experimentation and regulation. Inevitably this means political lobbying and donations with strings attached.
  • There is a massive academic class of trained biotechnology researchers looking for employment and professional kudos who are dominating research perspectives and calling for more biotech funding in universities.
  • There are popular myths carefully curated through media support that biotech will ultimately cure all diseases and feed the world. As a result, biotechnology is seen by the public and medical professionals as the new frontier of medical and social miracles, but without any understanding of the huge risks and historical accidents. This has led to political myopia concerning biotech risk.

It is time to recognise that both the vaccinated and unvaccinated have been relying on the same pandemic exit strategy. The unvaccinated are trusting their natural immune system to protect them. The vaccinated are trusting their natural immune system to react appropriately to a vaccine and thereby protect them. So both groups are trusting their natural immune system. Perhaps what neither group fully realised was that biotech manipulation is a common foe which is busy offering novel products, some of which are capable of overwhelming our natural immune system whether we are vaccinated or not.

No exit strategy from the divisive horrors of the pandemic will be complete without instituting limitations on biotechnology experimentation. For that, the political myopia concerning biotech dangers needs to be overcome. This will require a massive educational effort and inviolable constitutional safeguards.

February 21, 2022 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

The Ugly Face of Trudeau Regime Tyranny in Canada’s Capital

By Stephen Lendman | February 21, 2022

According to local media reports, Trudeau regime storm troopers arrested 191 nonviolent freedom-fighting truckers and supporters through Sunday.

Towing removed 57 vehicles.

The Ottawa police tweeted that operations continue “to remove all vehicles parked” near parliament Hill.

According to interim police chief Steve Bell:

“We will continue to work through the night, through the coming day and/or days until” streets are cleared.

As of Sunday, 103 peaceful protesters, threatening no one, face phony charges, including mischief and obstructing police.

According to Ottawa mayor Jim Watson, (illegally) seized vehicles may be sold instead of returning them to their rightful owners.

Defying the rule of law, Watson falsely claimed the right to “confiscate…vehicles and sell them (sic),” adding:

“I want to see them sold. I don’t want (them) return(ed).”

So-called investigations of police state violence against peaceful protesters assure coverup and denial whitewashing ahead.

Bell signaled what’s coming by claiming that police on horseback didn’t trample anyone.

Two protesters “collided” with horses, he said, falsely blaming the injured for police state violence.

Saying “no one (was) seriously injured (by) police actions. Safety is our priority” ignored trampling, beating, pepper-spraying and other violence against peaceful protesters by Trudeau regime goon squads.

Draconian actions flagrantly breached Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedom.

Trudeau regime tyranny abolished it.

The Ottawa Police Service (OPS) also tweeted:

“If you are involved in this protest, we will actively look to identify you and follow up with financial sanctions and criminal charges.”

A Freedom Convoy 2022 statement said:

“The use of more force will only be used to punish people, and not preserve or establish order.”

Commenting on Trudeau regime police state tactics, GOP Senator Rand Paul said the following:

“The Emergency edict that Trudeau has done in Canada allows him to do some horrendous things.”

“It allows him to stop travel, allows him to detain people without trial.”

Separately, Paul tweeted:

“Canada became Egypt…ruled by emergency edict that allows prohibition of public assembly, travel, and the commandeering of private companies without your day in court.”

Last week, Canadian Law Professor Ryan Alford condemned Trudeau’s “power grab.”

At a time when no national emergency exists, an invented one alone, Alford stressed that “not a single violent incident” justified Trudeau’s abuse of power.

He “failed to meet the requirements for invoking the Emergencies Act.”

“His doing so is clearly unconstitutional.”

Over the weekend, US Rep. Yvette Herrell said she’ll “introduc(e) legislation (to) temporarily grant asylum to innocent Canadian protesters who are being persecuted by their own government.”

“We cannot be silent as our neighbors to the north are treated so badly.”

At this time, constitutional law in Canada is null and void.

Trudeau regime tyranny replaced it.

A Final Comment

On February 23, US truckers comprising the People’s Convoy will depart from Adelanto Stadium in southern California for Washington, DC.

They’ll be joined by “frontline doctors, lawyers, first-responders, former military servicemen and women, students, retirees, mothers, fathers and children – on this peaceful and law-abiding transcontinental journey toward the east coast.”

Their mission is all about “freedom and unity…restor(ing) accountability…lifting (draconian) mandates and ending a state of emergency when none exists.

Organizations involved in the freedom-fighting mission include:

The Unity Project

The America Project

Advocates for Citizens’ Rights

US Freedom Flyers

The American Foundation for Civil Liberties & Freedom

Faith groups from every spectrum

Independent journalists are accompanying the truckers to report accurately on their peaceful, law-abiding mission.

It’s being assisted by retired military personnel and security experts.

At this time, arrival in Washington is expected on March 5.

ThePeople’sConvoy.org is the official website of the mission for accurate information.

The Truckers’ Declaration states the following:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to restore our once perfect Union, re-establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense of all, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty, do ordain and establish the restoration movement of The People’s Convoy for the United States of America.”

“WE DEMAND THE DECLARATION OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY CONCERNING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC BE LIFTED IMMEDIATELY AND OUR CHERISHED CONSTITUTION REIGN SUPREME.”

“WE ARE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND WE STAND TOGETHER UNDER THE BANNER OF FREEDOM – FREEDOM IS THE ONE THING THAT UNITES US ALL.”

“LIBERTY FLOWS THROUGH ALL OF OUR VEINS.”

Trudeau regime tyranny suggests what likely awaits the People’s Convoy in Washington on arrival or in the days that follow.

The choice of freedom-loving people everywhere is unambiguous.

Eliminate draconian health and freedom-destroying mandates or they’ll eliminate us.

February 21, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Solidarity and Activism, Subjugation - Torture, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Bill Gates is Ready to Capitalize on ‘The Next Pandemic’

21st Century Wire | February 20, 2022

As the old says goes: “there’s no rest for the wicked.”

That’s certainly the case with vaccine mogul Bill Gates.

As the world finally gets an opportunity to take a breath easy – after being suffocated by two years of pandemic theatre and 24/7 government and corporate pharmaceutical propaganda, the notorious architect the global COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ roll-out, billionaire tech monopolist turned pharmaceutical scion, Bill Gates, is still determined to realize his life’s ambition of achieve 100% global vaccine compliance.

To keep the game going, Gates has reemerged from the shadows this week to prepare the public for “the next pandemic.”

CNBC reports…

Bill Gates said Friday that the risks of severe disease from Covid-19 have “dramatically reduced” but another pandemic is all but certain.

Speaking to CNBC’s Hadley Gamble at Germany’s annual Munich Security Conference, Gates, co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, said that a potential new pandemic would likely stem from a different pathogen to that of the coronavirus family.

But he added that advances in medical technology should help the world do a better job of fighting it — if investments are made now.

“We’ll have another pandemic. It will be a different pathogen next time,” Gates said.

Initially, Gates had been actively promoting each and every ‘variant’ – constantly talking-up the crisis in order to help maintain the perception of a constant demand for the highly controversial experimental COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ gene-jabs. This includes the most recent media creation known as the “Omicron” variant. But as the public began shunning the booster shots en masse, the media gradually began the abandon the Omicron narrative. Gates has clearly read the propaganda tea leaves, and has since started backtracking from some of his previous positions – and is even admitting that natural immunity is more effective than the dubious pharmaceutical-based synthetic immunity he’s been pushing for the last two years through the media and his proxy organizations the World Health Organization (WHO) and the GAVI vaccine alliance.

Two years into the coronavirus pandemic, Gates said the worst effects have faded as huge swathes of the global population have gained some level of immunity. Its severity has also waned with the latest omicron variant.

However, Gates said that in many places that was due to virus itself, which creates a level of immunity, and has “done a better job of getting out to the world population than we have with vaccines.”

In order to further shield him from an increasing public backlash for his role in shamelessly promoting the ‘global pandemic’ and vaccine narratives, Gates has also carefully admitted the existence of comorbidities among the alleged COVID deaths.

“The chance of severe disease, which is mainly associated with being elderly and having obesity or diabetes, those risks are now dramatically reduced because of that infection exposure,” he said.

However, the vaccine kingpin is still lamenting his failure to reach 70% ‘penetration’ of the experimental mRNA toxic injections into the arms of the global population.

Gates said it was already “too late” to reach the World Health Organization’s goal to vaccinate 70% of the global population by mid-2022. Currently, 61.9% of the world population has received at least one dose of a Covid-19 vaccine.

He added that the world should move faster in the future to develop and distribute vaccines, calling on governments to invest now.

“Next time we should try and make it, instead of two years, we should make it more like six months,” Gates said, adding that standardized platforms, including messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, would make that possible.

It’s important for people to realize that Gates and his network are not finished in their plan to establish a global conveyor belt for experimental gene-based pharmaceutical injections – and he is already eyeing ‘the next pandemic’ in order to roll out the next phase of this globalist agenda. There is no shortage of funds either:

“The cost of being ready for the next pandemic is not that large. It’s not like climate change. If we’re rational, yes, the next time we’ll catch it early.”

Gates, through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, has partnered with the U.K.’s Wellcome Trust to donate $300 million to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, which helped form the Covax program to deliver vaccines to low- and middle-income countries.

The CEPI is aiming to raise $3.5 billion in an effort cut the time required to develop a new vaccine to just 100 days.

It’s no coincidence either that Gates has just begun marketing his latest manifesto entitled, How to Prevent the Next Pandemic.

“I’ve been following COVID since the early days of the outbreak, working with experts from inside and out of the Gates Foundation who are championing a more equitable response and have been fighting infectious diseases for decades. I’ve learned a lot in the process—both about this pandemic and how we stop the next one—and I want to share what I’ve heard with people. So, I started writing a book about how we can make sure that no one suffers through a pandemic ever again.”

To mark the occasion, Gates released this disturbing propaganda video – littered with many of the staged images and government tropes used to reinforce the COVID ‘global pandemic’ crisis narrative since the winter of 2020. Watch:

February 21, 2022 Posted by | Book Review, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

The Chinese Defeated the US Army in 1950

Tales of the American Empire | February 18, 2022

Korea is often called the “Forgotten War” mostly because American Generals want it forgotten. In late 1950, the Chinese Army intervened and routed the US Army. Most blame falls upon the overall commander, General Douglas MacArthur. He was certain that American air power could destroy Chinese armies. However, the Chinese had years of experience fighting the Japanese and developed tactics to evade aerial attacks. As a result, American units were outmaneuvered and defeated in several large battles by Chinese forces of similar size.

US Army X Corps Commander Lt. General Almond told officers of one regiment: “We’re still attacking and we’re going all the way to the Yalu. Don’t let a bunch of Chinese laundrymen stop you.” That regiment was overrun a few days later, by Chinese laundrymen. A US Army historian noted: “General Willoughby [MacArthur’s Chief of Staff] asserted that a Chinese intervention was highly unlikely but that if it occurred the Chinese would suffer massive casualties to UN air power. This optimism colored the plans and ideas of all subordinate commands. At the start of the massive Chinese intervention, the X Corps staff at first tried to ignore it or downplay its effect on the corps’ offensive plans. In response to the new guidance and in an attempt to react to the rapidly changing situation for which they had no contingency plans.”

___________________________________

“United States Army in the Korean War”; James F. Schnabel; U.S. Army Center of Military History; 1992; https://history.army.mil/books/P&D.HTM

“The Chinese Intervention”; The Korean war; US Army Center of Military History; https://history.army.mil/brochures/kw…

“MacArthur’s Grand Delusion”; David Halberstam; Vanity Fair; September 24, 2007; https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/…

“Staff Operations: The X Corps in Korea, December 1950”; Richard Stewart; U.S. Army Command and General Staff College; 1951; https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA244…

Related Tale: “MacArthur’s Plot for War with China”; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzF8G…

Related Tale: “The American Empire’s Disastrous Defeat in 1942”; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG1yL…

February 21, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

American Truckers are launching The People’s Convoy, a peaceful and unified transcontinental movement

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

For media inquiries contact:
Email: thepeoplesconvoy@protonmail.com

American Truckers are launching The People’s Convoy, a peaceful and unified transcontinental movement, on February 23 from Adelanto Stadium in Southern California

ADELANTO, Calif., (Feb. 20, 2022) American truckers are launching The People’s Convoy, a peaceful and unified transcontinental movement, on Wednesday, February 23, 2022, from the Adelanto Stadium in Southern California. Starting at 10:00 a.m., hundreds of truckers will hear words of encouragement and blessings from a group of speakers including FLCCC President Dr. Pierre Kory and Godspeak Church Pastor Rob McCoy. The truckers and blue-collar workers of the United States will be joined by freedom-loving supporters from all walks of life – frontline doctors, lawyers, first- responders, former military servicemen and women, students, retirees, mothers, fathers and children – on this peaceful and law-abiding transcontinental journey toward the east coast. The truckers encourage one and all to come out to the stadium in the heart of Adelanto, California to wish them well, see them off and join in the journey.

This convoy is about freedom and unity: the truckers are riding unified across party and state lines and with people of all colors and creeds – Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Mormons, Agnostics, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, Republican, Democrats. All individuals are welcome to participate by either attending the launch gathering – at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday February 23, at Adelanto Stadium – or by getting in their own vehicles and following the big rigs from Adelanto toward the east coast!

The message of The People’s Convoy is simple. The last 23 months of the COVID-19 pandemic have been a rough road for all Americans to travel: spiritually, emotionally, physically, and – not least – financially. With the advent of the vaccine and workable therapeutic agents, along with the hard work of so many sectors that contributed to declining COVID-19 cases and severity of illness, it is now time to re-open the country. The average American worker needs to be able to end-run the economic hardships of the last two years, and get back to the business of making bread – so they can pay their rents and mortgages and help jumpstart this economy. To that end, it’s time for elected officials to work with the blue collar and white-collar workers of America and restore accountability and liberty – by lifting all mandates and ending the state of emergency – as COVID is well-in-hand now, and Americans need to get back to work in a free and unrestricted manner.

The People’s Convoy is a non-partisan, trucker-led effort supported by a cross-cultural and multi-faith contingent of supporters including

  • Dr. Pierre Kory and the doctors of the Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC)
  • Liberty-minded lawyers such as Tom Renz and Joey Gilbert (Gubernatorial candidate – Nevada)
  • Pastors like Rob McCoy and Rick Brown of Godspeak Church
  • Transportation workers including rail workers and pilotsA broad consortium of organizations including
  • The Unity Project
  • The America Project
  • Advocates for Citizens’ Rights
  • U.S. Freedom Flyers
  • The American Foundation for Civil Liberties & Freedom
  • Faith groups from every spectrum

Newsmax and Eric Bolling have indicated they will do a ride along and live daily updates from the convoy with Maureen Steele. The Epoch Times and a variety of other journalists, media outlets and podcasters will also be embedding. Children’s Health Defense’s CHD.TV will be covering the convoy – and the activists on the ground and across the country – with live updates every day at 10 am EST at https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/.

The convoy is being assisted by retired military personnel and security experts, who are spearheading logistics in order to ensure a 100% safe, lawful, and peaceful journey.

The People’s Convoy Route*

*Route subject to change

Day 1: Wednesday, February 23

Morning – Depart Adelanto Stadium, CA
Evening – Arrive in Kingman, AZ for overnight stay

Day 2: Thursday, February 24

Morning – Depart Kingman, AZ head east on I-40, toward Lupton, AZ Evening – Arrive in Lupton, AZ for overnight stay

Day 3: Friday, February 25

Morning – Depart Lupton, AZ on I-40 eastbound thru New Mexico Evening – Arrive in Glenrio, TX for overnight stay

Day 4: Saturday, February 26

Morning – Depart Glenrio, TX
Evening – Arrive in Elk City, OK area for overnight stay

Day 5: Sunday, February 27

Morning – Depart Elk City, OK area
Evening – Arrive in Vinita, OK area for overnight stay

Day 6: Monday, February 28

Morning – Depart Vinita, OK area
Evening – Arrive in Sullivan, MO area for overnight stay

Day 7: Tuesday, March 1

Morning – Depart Sullivan, MO area
Evening – Arrive in Indianapolis, IN area for overnight stay

Day 8: Wednesday, March 2

Morning – Depart Indianapolis, IN area
Evening – Pause for rest in Indianapolis, IN area for overnight stay

Day 9: Thursday, March 3

Morning – Depart Indianapolis, IN area
Evening – Arrive in Cambridge, OH area for overnight stay

Day 10: Friday, March 4

Morning – Depart Cambridge, OH area
Evening – Arrive in Hagerstown, MD area for overnight stay

Day 11: Saturday, March 5

Morning – Depart Hagerstown, MD area Evening – Arrive in the DC Beltway area

The People’s Convoy will abide by agreements with local authorities, and terminate in the vicinity of the DC area, but will NOT be going into DC proper.

Stay tuned for opportunities for elected officials and regular folks to go “Ridin’ Shotgun” with an actual trucker for a day – as well as an opportunity to bid on one seat that will be sold on our Operations Vehicle – for a similar ride-along opportunity. Details will be posted to the website soon.

To support the truckers, see the routes, or find out more, please visit: http://www.ThePeoplesConvoy.org This website and the official social media handles are the ONLY source of accurate data about this

peaceful, law-abiding convoy – we hope to see America there!

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thepeoplesconvoyusa/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/peoplesconvoyus

February 20, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Solidarity and Activism | , , | Leave a comment

An Open Letter to the Professional Bodies of Counsellors and Psychological Therapists in the UK

Therapists for Medical Freedom | February 17, 2022

We write as a group of registered counsellors, psychotherapists and psychologists in clinical practice in the United Kingdom.

We are contacting you to express our grave concerns around Vaccines as a Condition of Deployment (VCOD) mandates for health and social care professionals, and the implications that these could have for our profession.

Whilst we welcome the recent suspension of the NHS vaccine mandate [1] to allow space for further public consultation, we are also aware that Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, has made it clear that the debate on mandatory vaccination is far from over. He was quoted in The Times on 7th February as demanding that medical regulators send the “clear message” that healthcare workers must be vaccinated against coronavirus. [2]

The implication here is that the onus of enforcing and policing the vaccination status of healthcare workers could be shifted from employers to professional/regulatory bodies. We are concerned about the silence of our professional bodies on this matter and now seek urgent clarification on their positions.

We call upon our professional bodies to publicly reject any policy of mandating COVID-19 vaccines as a condition of registration and/or deployment amongst their membership – either now or at a future point. Furthermore, we urge them to commit to protecting the right to informed consent and bodily autonomy, both for their professional membership and the clients we serve.

In particular, we would like the professional bodies to consider and respond to our professional concerns on the following points:

1. Mandatory vaccination policies conflict with our professional ethics as counsellors and psychological therapists.

One of the core principles common to the Ethical Frameworks of all our professional bodies is that of upholding client autonomy and their right to informed consent to treatment.

As health practitioners, we rightly understand that no medical or clinical intervention can be considered universally safe. We know from our own practice that even authorised, regulated and ethically sound medical treatments can still pose significant risks and have the potential to cause harm at an individual level.

As such, suitability for any medical treatment needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis and can only be authorised with informed consent from the client (so long as they have the capacity to do so), after they have been given full and accurate information around any potential risks.

This principle of informed consent is not only vital to our ethical practice, it is upheld as a central principle within wider medical ethics and international human rights law. For example, in the UK all medical interventions in the NHS must be fully voluntary and in line with this principle of informed consent:

The decision to either consent or not to consent to treatment must be made by the person, and must not be influenced by pressure from medical staff, friends or family… If an adult has the capacity to make a voluntary and informed decision to consent to or refuse a particular treatment, their decision must be respected. [3]

In March 2015, a significant judgement about the nature of informed medical consent was made in the UK Supreme Court. [4] The court clarified that doctors must: “take reasonable care to ensure that the patient is aware of any material risks involved in any treatment,” in which, “a reasonable person in the patient’s position would be likely to attach significance to the risk, or the doctor is aware that the particular patient would be likely to attach significance to it”. 

The court ruled that UK doctors can no longer rely on simply sharing the consensus of a body of medical opinion (‘the Bolam test’) as a basis for a patient’s informed consent, but a personalised risk assessment must be given. In the case of COVID-19 mandates, this means that generic claims that ‘the science is settled’ or ‘vaccines are safe and effective’ – cannot be used to justify their safety for an individual. [5]

The public and professional discourse on COVID-19 vaccination mandates are an example of how social pressure can be exerted on individuals to have a particular health intervention, even without a full individual risk assessment or any long-term safety data. As such, mandates can be considered medically coercive and in direct violation of the legal principle of informed consent.

We call on our professional bodies to recognise that coercion does not equal informed consent.

2. COVID-19 vaccines are far from universally ‘safe and effective’.

COVID-19 vaccinations use novel technologies which have been in widespread use for little more than a year, are still in clinical trials and for which by definition no long-term safety data is available.

Since the start of the vaccine rollout, we have already seen a significant shift from the COVID-19 jabs being promoted as being ‘safe and 100% effective’ [6][7][8][9] – to a recognition that there can be serious, even fatal side effects for a small minority of people. Their overall efficacy, especially in reducing transmission and preventing the spread of Coronavirus, is also far from what was originally hoped for.

Furthermore, since their general release, some COVID-19 injections have now been discontinued for use within certain demographics due to safety concerns. For example, the AZ and Moderna vaccines have been discontinued for young people in several countries after safety concerns arose around the risks of blood clots, following several high-profile deaths. In more recent months there have been emerging scientific studies showing the risks, particularly to younger males, of serious side effects such as myocarditis and pericarditis following vaccination, as well as ongoing concerns about the impact of vaccines on the female menstrual cycle. Both concerns have led to the commissioning of major safety investigations through additional clinical trials.

Whatever the outcome of these investigations, the fact remains that our understanding of these novel COVID-19 vaccines and the risks they pose to human health is far from comprehensive or complete.

Whenever there is risk of significant harm from a medical intervention, especially when the treatment is newly developed and those harms could be life-threatening, it is imperative that there is free choice for the individual to refuse that treatment without fear of negative consequences.

For professional bodies to require mandatory vaccination as a condition of professional registration, for acceptance on professional training courses, or as a condition of employment, would amount to unethical coercion of its professional members. To do so would place the professional bodies in direct violation of the principle of informed consent.

We ask that the professional bodies join us in speaking out against the unethical nature of mandatory vaccination policies, and publicly affirm their commitment to the ethical principle of informed medical consent.

As counsellors and therapists, we recognise that assessing the safety profile of a specific intervention is only one aspect of the complex decision-making process that informs our consent to medical treatment.

An individual’s moral, spiritual and political beliefs, as well as their cultural practices, life experiences and approach to managing their health, will also have an impact on their willingness to give, or withhold, informed medical consent.

Many of us take a holistic, person-centred approach to working with our clients. As such, we believe in the validity, authority and importance of these broader factors that can be drawn upon to inform medical consent. We see these wider factors as valuable, essential and equal; individuals have a right to refuse a medical treatment on wider grounds than its official safety profile or potential side effects. We are particularly concerned about the impact of mandates on those who have complex health conditions, those who have prior experiences of being harmed by medical treatments, those who favour their natural immunity, and those with religious or ethical concerns about the development process of the vaccines.

Current government guidelines for vaccine mandates only grant ‘medical exemption’ to staff with a tiny number of officially permitted medical conditions [10], with no allowance for many broader concerns that could be central to someone deciding not to consent to a COVID-19 injection. We believe that the government has no lawful right or moral authority to draw up a set of very limited medical criteria and then insist that these are the only permitted circumstances in which someone can be officially ‘exempted’ from vaccine mandates without facing redeployment or job loss.

As counsellors and psychological therapists, we uphold the right of every individual to make an informed choice about whether to take a COVID-19 vaccination, or indeed any other medical intervention, based on their own personal circumstances and medical history. We call on our professional bodies to uphold that right for practitioners and the clients we serve.

4. Professional bodies are failing in their duty of care to members who are affected by NHS vaccination mandates.

It would be incongruent for professional bodies to enshrine the principle of informed consent within their ethical codes of conduct for working with clients, whilst their professional members are not permitted to make autonomous decisions about their own medical treatment.

Mandatory vaccination policies, and the loss of the right to informed medical consent, is causing significant psychological distress to many UK counsellors and therapists, especially those working in the NHS. Many of these affected practitioners have been loyal, paying members of their respective professional bodies for decades. The silence and seeming lack of engagement from our professional bodies around this issue is both disturbing and disappointing given how severe the consequences are for members who face job loss.

The exact number of counsellors and psychological therapists who stand to be affected by NHS vaccine mandates is uncertain, as to our knowledge, there has been no formal consultation process around this issue by any of the professional bodies.

However, Therapists for Medical Freedom have now facilitated numerous free, volunteer-run support workshops for affected therapists, which have often been full to capacity. We have also had hundreds of communications from distressed members who are under significant stress from the vaccine mandate process. Many have complained to us about experiencing an utter lack of clarity, guidance or support from their professional body.

Professional bodies have a duty to represent the interests of their paying members, especially at times where their human and employment rights are under threat in a professional context.

Therapists affected by vaccine mandates deserve better treatment and representation than they are currently getting from professional bodies. This situation must change, and we appeal to professional bodies to address this with the utmost urgency.

5. Vaccine mandates will have negative consequences for clients accessing therapeutic services.

NHS England estimated that had the vaccine mandate policy been implemented in April as planned, this would have left the NHS down by at least 80,000 staff, as many planned to leave the profession rather than comply with the policy. [11]. This number would increase exponentially if vaccines were mandated as part of the professional registration process, thereby affecting health professionals working outside of NHS services, which applies to most therapists and counsellors in the UK.

To lose a significant number of counsellors and therapists at a time of national crisis could pose significant harm to clients. COVID-19 and the wide-ranging impact of restrictions on the population has left a legacy of new and worsening existing mental health problems. The Centre for Mental Health estimates that 8 million adults and 1.5 million children will need mental health support in the years following the pandemic. [12]

Those of us who have worked to provide psychological therapies throughout this challenging time are now seeing an unprecedented rise in demand for NHS and voluntary sector counselling and therapy services, to the point where people in need now face dangerously long waiting times. [13] Across the UK, even private therapy services and individual practitioners are in short supply, with many having to make difficult decisions to turn away people in need because they simply do not have the resources to treat them. At a time of increased mental health need, vaccine mandates would therefore be detrimental for current and future clients.

We call upon the professional bodies to provide reassurance that clients’ access to therapeutic support will not be restricted based on vaccination status, either now or in the future. We also call on them to reject policies that will risk the loss of experienced practitioners, put further strain on existing services and staff, and potentially dissuade others from training to enter the field.

6. It is essential to consider the wider context to mandatory vaccination policies and to remember the lessons of history.

As counsellors and psychological therapists, when faced with an ethical dilemma, we are encouraged to look beyond the issue itself and consider the wider field and context – including any relevant historical, sociological and political factors. Therefore, when considering the ethics of vaccine mandates, we must consider more than just the risk posed by COVID-19 vs the benefits and risks of vaccination.

When we step back and consider the wider socio-political context, we can clearly see that:

  • Governments do not always act in the best interests of the public they are appointed to serve, whatever their political rhetoric might be. We are seeing numerous examples of this emerging now, for example the conflicts of interests in the awarding of PPE contracts and the flouting of COVID-19 rules by senior government figures. [14]
  • There have been numerous instances in human history, especially at times of ‘national emergency’, where government bodies have actively lied to the population, exploited the situation to further their own aims, or have sought to conceal important information, especially when it could harm their wider political agenda. [15][16][17]
  • The health care system has a long history of being vulnerable to exploitation by political lobbyists, corporate donors or becoming compromised by internal pressures from within government or from regulatory bodies. Consider examples from our recent history – public health advice given to reassure the public of the safety of tobacco, pesticides, GMOs – which have later been proven to be manifestly unsafe, despite the proclamations of the government-sanctioned public health experts of the time. [18][19][20]
  • Many authorised medical treatments have later been discovered to be causing significant harm to human health and have been withdrawn from public use, despite having passed required safety checks and being widely embraced by the medical orthodoxy of the time. [21][22][23]
  • We are being exhorted to “trust the science” when there is no such thing as ‘the’ science. Rather, science has always comprised a breadth of opinions, conclusions, methods and ethical standpoints. History has shown us that public trust has not always been as safe as we would hope for in the hands of scientists and medical professionals, especially when there are financial interests at stake. [24][25]
  • Politicians, pharmaceutical companies, peer-reviewed medical research, clinical trials, regulatory bodies and individual expert opinion – all of these are vulnerable to human error, corruption and conflicts of interest which are not always declared or formalised. [26][27][28]

In the context of our collective history, as ethical health practitioners, we have a responsibility to ask difficult questions if we see draconian policies such as vaccination mandates being introduced in our society. We must continue to think critically about who would profit and benefit most from such policies. Might there also be vested interests, whether in government, science and medicine or the pharmaceutical industry, that could stand in the way of open and transparent discussion? [29][30]

It is not the terrain of ‘conspiracy theory’ for therapists and other health professionals to demand that government and medical experts are scrutinised and held to account for the policies they impose upon the public. As a profession, we must make room for alternative perspectives and difficult questions without these legitimate concerns being dismissed or slandered as ‘anti vax’, ‘dangerous disinformation’ or even more alarmingly, as ‘far-right extremism’.

It is not acceptable for our Professional Bodies to simply dismiss or silence any dissenting voices within their membership, or to ignore these difficult questions. Nor is it acceptable for heavy-handed policies such as COVID-19 vaccine mandates to be supported and justified by our professional bodies on the sole basis that they are acting in line with ‘official legislation or government guidance’ without any independent analysis of the actual effectiveness, ethics, or impact of the guidelines – or any acknowledgement that governments do not always act solely in the public interest.

Our professional bodies have a duty to carefully scrutinise any mandated public health measures that compromise our medical autonomy. They must not be accepted on face value as being in the public interest simply based on the assurances of government and its approved health advisors, or pharmaceutical companies with vested interests.

It is time for the professional bodies who represent counsellors and psychological therapists in the UK to show courage and break their collective silence on the issue of mandatory vaccination in our profession.

In light of all the above, we call on our professional bodies to:

  1. Uphold the values that are written and protected within their own ethical codes by publicly affirming their commitment to protecting the right of therapists and clients to freely give or withhold their consent to medical treatment without fear of coercion or punishment.
  2. Affirm that their commitment to upholding the right to informed consent will stand regardless of the emergence of new future variants, waves of disease or novel medical treatments.
  3. Engage with Therapists for Medical Freedom and other groups of concerned professionals in a process of dialogue around the ethics and legality of vaccine mandates in our profession.
  4. Pledge to protect the rights of therapists and clients who have exercised their lawful right to informed consent to refuse COVID-19 vaccinations.
  5. Use their authority as professional membership bodies to prohibit the implementation of discriminatory policies around COVID-19 vaccinations within their organisational membership and associated training institutes – and to publicly speak out against such discriminatory practices in the wider field.
  6. Remind their members that we each have an ethical responsibility to think critically for ourselves when assessing any government health advice, especially when it is mandated. Professional bodies should help facilitate this broader risk assessment process within their membership, especially the potentially negative impact that any existing or future public health advice might have on practitioners and clients.
  7. Take into account the broader historical, social and political context when assessing the ethics of mandatory health interventions. We cannot forget the harm that has been caused to human health and civil liberties when the right to refuse medical treatment has been denied to populations at other times in history.

We await to hear your considered responses on these important matters of professional ethics, legislation and human rights, and look forward to beginning a process of dialogue with you.

Yours sincerely,

Therapists for Medical Freedom

Principal Signatories:

Jennifer Ayling, Psychotherapeutic Counsellor, UKCP

Clare Beatson, Counsellor, BACP

Elizabeth Bentley, Psychotherapist, BACP

Johann Burton, Counsellor, NCS

Paula Charnley, Counsellor, BACP

Ben Harris, Psychotherapist, MBACP

Julie Horsley, Counsellor, NCS

Frances Kandler-Singer, Psychotherapist, BACP

Naintara Land, Psychotherapist, UKCP

Rachel Maisey, Counsellor, BACP

Kate Morrissey, Psychotherapist, BACP

Melanie Pickles, Counsellor, BACP

Dr. Bruce Scott, Psychoanalyst, UKCP & CP-UK

Dr. Gary Sidley, Clinical Psychologist (Retired)

Deborah Short, Psychotherapist, UKCP

Elizabeth Smith, Psychotherapist, Pre-Accred

Leanne Ward, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC

Sarah Waters, Psychotherapist, MBACP

Supporting Signatories:

Marc Allen, Trainee Therapist, Pre-Accred

John Bates, Psychotherapist, UKCP

Antoine Bowes, Counsellor, BACP

Dr. Faye Bellanca, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC

Caroline Brett, Psychotherapist, BACP

Jacqueline O’Brien, Psychotherapist, (retired)

Sheila Burchell, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC

Dr. Erika Filova, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC

Dr. June Golding, Psychotherapist, UKCP

Andrew Harry, Counsellor, UKPTA

Susan Hayes, Psychotherapist

Jessica Horton, Counsellor, BACP & BPS

Isla Hunter, Psychotherapist, BABCP

Gabrielle Lake Mitchell, Trainee Therapist, BACP

Maggie Leathley, Psychotherapist, BACP

Jane Margerison, Psychotherapist, BACP

Jonathan Martin, Psychotherapist, UKCP

Gary McKeever, Counsellor, BACP

Caroline Montanaro, Psychotherapist, UKCP

Dr. Naomi Murphy, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC & A-CP

Dr. Rachel Newton, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC & BPS

Sue Parker Hall, Psychotherapist, UKCP

Kay Parkinson, Psychotherapist, UKCP

Dr. Helen Payne, Psychotherapist, UKCP & ADMP UK

Carolyn Polunin, Psychotherapist, UKCP

Dr. Kate Porter, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC

Tracy Rees, Trainee Therapist, Pre-Accred

Dr. Helen Ross, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC

David Scott, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC

Patricia Taddei, Psychotherapist, UKCP

Dr. Lucie Turner, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC

Dr. Alice Welham, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC

Tracy Williams, Counsellor, BACP

Dominique Wynn, Psychotherapist, (Retired)

Sign the Open Letter

Are you a Counsellor, Psychotherapist or Clinical Psychologist based in the UK who is concerned about the impact of vaccine mandates on the profession? (whether you are personally vaccinated or not).

If so, please sign the letter.

February 20, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Solidarity and Activism | , , | Leave a comment

Following the Money on Climate Change Media Coverage

By Chris Morrison | The Daily Sceptic | February 20, 2022

The Associated Press (AP) is assigning another two dozen journalists across the world to cover ‘climate issues’. AP Senior Vice President Julie Pace described the move as a “far reaching initiative that will transform the way we cover the climate story”. Over 20 of the journalists will be new hires and they will be funded by an $8m gift from five billionaire philanthropic organisations, including the Left-wing Rockefeller Foundation. The money is just the latest in a series of such gifts and AP reports that 50 writing jobs are funded from these sources.

AP is not the only large media company to collect such hand-outs. The BBC and the Guardian regularly receive multi-million dollar contributions from the trusts of wealthy philanthropists. It is estimated that Bill Gates has given over $300 million over the last decade to a wide variety of media outlets. Faced with plummeting paid readers and advertisers, mainstream legacy media seems eager to tap a new revenue stream.

The money is spread wide across such media. This month, the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting received $1.5 million from Rockefeller to “expand coverage of under-reported and/or inaccurately reported critical public health information”. The Quadrivium Foundation, run by Democrat power couple James and Kathryn Murdoch, is also paying climate wages at AP. On its website, the Foundation notes that it also invests in Climate Central, using meteorologists as “trusted messengers” of the links between extreme weather and climate change. Since it is not possible to link individual weather events to long term climate change with any scientific certainty, this aim looks to be a waste of money, or perhaps not.

‘Trusted messengers’ seems to be a phrase much in vogue around philanthropic operations. Last October, Rockefeller gave $4.5 million to Purpose Global, a non-profit company that aims to help corporate clients with their “cultural intelligence”. The money was given in support of facilitating a “communication network of trusted messengers”. This would “amplify accurate information and combat mis- and dis- information on COVID-19 vaccines”. In September 2020, the Gates Foundation gave the Guardian $3.5 million to “support” its regular reporting on global health. Likewise, the Global Health Security Team at the Telegraph is Gates-funded.

Old school journalists might be a little happier to see less of the ‘trusted messenger’ stuff and more of the requirement to investigate. But critical inquiry of climate change science has been more or less banned from many mainstream outlets. This is despite the fact that the hypothesis that humans cause all or most global warming is unproven, and many scientists look more to natural causes for long term change. Predictions – often termed evidence – of future warming, are based on climate models that have never provided an accurate forecast in the last 40 years. Global warming started to run out of steam two decades ago, and it has been at a standstill for the last seven. When Google Adsense banned the main climate web page tracking accurate satellite data showing the standstill, the interest was confined to just a few outlets, including the Daily Sceptic.

One of the largest suppliers of cash for climate change is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the BBC and the Guardian are two of its favourite giftees. The Guardian has received upwards of $20 million over recent years starting with £6m in 2011 to establish a “millennium Development Goals” feed that provides “compelling evidence-based content”. During the last decade, Gates has given at least $20 million to help fund the BBC World Service and $5.5 million for the Corporation’s Media Action charity.

In that time, the software tycoon, once treated with great suspicion for early monopolistic tendencies, has become a prized ‘talking head’ across the BBC for epidemics, vaccines and anti-meat diets. His recent scary tales of climate change, “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster”, was recently given five airings on prime time Radio 4.

Elsewhere, there are prizes for the best behaved – sorry – most distinguished climate journalist. Every year, the foundation of BBVA, a Spanish bank heavily involved in financing Net Zero projects, hands out €100,000 to the lucky recipient. Last year it went to Marlow Hood of Agence France-Presse, who describes himself as the “Herald of the Anthropocene”, the latter being a political renaming of the current Holocene era. In 2019, Matt McGrath of the BBC pocketed the cash, while in 2020 the award went to – no great surprise – the Guardian.

Much of the BBC money appears to support advocacy in the developing world, although the terms of specific grants are sometimes hard to understand. A letter from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in August 2019 describing the purpose of a $2.03 million grant to the BBC reads as follows: “To help us learn deepen our underpinning of processes and user journeys for different sets of women’s empowerment collectives, develop use cases for where digital can help amplify effects bring efficiencies, and close gender gaps for women”.

No doubt when this non-sensical gibberish was translated into understandable English, the money was spent wisely.

February 20, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Fake News, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , | Leave a comment

Canadian MP CENSORED For Pointing Out WEF’s Corrupt Influence Over Trudeau Regime

By Jamie White | Infowars | February 19, 2022

A Canadian MP was shut down in Parliament Saturday after bringing up the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) influence over Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet.

Conservative MP Colin Carrie pointed out how WEF founder Klaus Schwab once bragged that his Young Global Leaders group had “penetrated” Trudeau’s government before he was abruptly cut off by the speaker of the House of Commons.

“I had a constituent who wanted me to ask a qustion about outside interference to our democracy. Klaus Schwab is the head of the World economic Forum and he bragged how his subservice WEF has ‘infiltrated governments around the world’, he said that his organization had penetrated more than half of Canada’s cabinet,” Carrie stated.

“In the interest of transparency, could the member please name which Cabinet ministers are on board with the WEF’s agenda? My concern is -” Carrie continued before the Speaker abruptly cut him off, calling the “audio” of his remarks “really, really bad.”

At that point, New Democratic Party (NDP) MP Charlie Angus accused Carrie of spreading “disinformation” for simply asking about this disturbing relationship between Trudeau and the WEF.

The fact is, Carrie’s remarks are 100% accurate.

WEF founder Klaus Schwab is on video bragging that his organization “penetrated” Prime Minister Trudeau’s government:

Trudeau himself has met with the WEF founder numerous times over the years as Prime Minister, with Schwab even once bragging that Trudeau was more loyal to the WEF than to Canada.

https://twitter.com/TheNo1Waffler/status/1493702862471323661

Additionally, several members of Trudeau’s Cabinet are openly associated with the WEF, such as Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, who serves as a governing member of the globalist body’s board.

Rather than openly discuss the clear conflicts of interest related to Trudeau’s relationship with the World Economic Forum, the liberal wing of Parliament instead resorted to their typical authoritarian method of censorship and gaslighting.

Remember, the WEF is the organization that claimed “you will own nothing, and you’ll be happy” as part of its Great Reset “Fourth Industrial Revolution” initiative.

February 20, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

Iran discloses conditions for nuclear deal revival

RT | February 20, 2022

Iran’s parliament has laid out six conditions for the country to return to the landmark 2015 nuclear deal in an open letter to President Ebrahim Raisi, published in Iranian media on Sunday. An overwhelming majority of MPs supported the statement, with 250 out of 290 parliamentarians signing the letter.

The US, as well as the European signatories of the deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), must provide guarantees that they will not abandon the agreement again should it be revived, the MPs said. They must also guarantee that no “snapback mechanisms,” which can re-enable sanctions immediately, will be activated.

“We have to learn a lesson from past experiences and put a red line on the national interest by not committing to any agreement without obtaining necessary guarantees first,” the parliamentarians said.

Other conditions include the lifting of all sanctions on Iran in full, including restrictions related to the JCPOA directly, as well as what the letter described as those imposed under “false pretexts” of terrorism, human rights abuses, and in relation to the country’s missile program. Tehran itself should also make sure it receives the economic benefits it is promised under the deal, and actually begins to receive profits from exports before returning to compliance with the restrictions outlined in the agreement, the lawmakers added.

The statement comes as the multinational talks, which have been underway in the Austrian capital, Vienna since April last year, seem to be coming to fruition. The painstaking negotiations have been interrupted multiple times by long pauses, with participants repeatedly expressing frustration over the lack of progress. Earlier this week, Tehran’s top negotiator, Ali Bagheri, said the deal was “closer than ever” – warning, however, against celebrating too soon, since “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”

The JCPOA, under which Tehran agreed to drastically curb its nuclear program (while it maintains that it never sought to obtain atomic weaponry) in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions, has been in limbo since 2018, when then-US President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States from the deal. Describing the agreement as the “the worst deal ever,” Trump accused Tehran of violating “the spirit” of the JCPOA, while international observers had repeatedly confirmed Iran’s compliance.

Following the withdrawal, Washington revived old sanctions and imposed new restrictions on Tehran. In retaliation, Iran has gradually suspended its JCPOA commitments, installing new uranium-enriching equipment and ramping up its nuclear program. Earlier this month, the US lifted some of its sanctions against Tehran, enabling foreign companies to partake in certain civilian projects at Iran’s Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant and other facilities. The move was widely perceived as an attempt to show goodwill and revitalize the stalled Vienna talks.

February 20, 2022 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , | Leave a comment

Before you save the planet, save the people who live on it

By Vijay Jayaraj – bizpacreview – February 12, 2022  

Climate change frequently dominates media coverage and political discourse. Why wouldn’t it when those advancing the apocalyptic agenda speak in terms of saving the planet? The state of the climate is nothing if not an “existential threat,” or so it is said.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that the motives of climate alarmists are as pure as the environment they envision. That they really do see their roles as saviors. Even so, there is a very large elephant in the room, which is that they seek to save the planet by killing its inhabitants — unwittingly or not.

Not only do climate enthusiasts refuse to acknowledge the issue of ongoing energy poverty for billions of people across the world, but they promote policies that exacerbate lack of access to affordable, reliable electricity. The socio-economic conditions of energy poverty, which can only be worsened by the forced replacement of fossil fuels with wind and solar, contribute to higher rates of both morbidity and mortality.

Lack of gas for cooking and heating is the major cause of death from indoor air pollution in the world. The World Health Organization (WHO) states, “Around 2.6 billion people cook using polluting open fires or simple stoves fueled by kerosene, biomass (wood, animal dung and crop waste).” Around 4 million people among them die annually and many more millions suffer long-lasting illnesses.

Community-level energy poverty affects larger populations. Some regions that are home to hundreds of millions of people in Africa and Asia have no access to electricity. Among those who do have electricity, the supply is highly unreliable. From inadequate supplies of drinking water to intermittent power in health care centers, energy poverty poses an imminent threat to the lives of these people.

Death due to blackouts in hospitals has become a common event. A 2020 scientific study suggests that there is a possibility of between 3 to 105 additional deaths per 1,000 patients in grids with frequent blackouts. Problems “can range from postponing surgery, postponing accurate diagnoses for a needed surgery, permanent disabilities, and even to fatalities during surgery, due to failure of various medical equipment,” according to the study.

Climate alarmists are seemingly unaware of the billions of people who wouldn’t live to see the future if their basic energy necessities of today were not met by affordable and available fossil fuels. For people in extreme energy poverty, dreams of climbing the socio-economic ladder are impossible to achieve without coal, oil and natural gas. Rhetoric about “green” energy meeting these needs ignores the hard, physical reality that wind and solar can produce but a tiny fraction of the output of traditional generating sources..

Even if third-world governments — backed with foreign aid — install expensive micro-scale, off-grid renewable technologies, such systems are of a temporary nature incapable of meeting high baseload energy demand for either domestic or commercial use. They are of little or no use when there is no sun or wind.

The choice of energy source in the poorest areas is a matter of life and death in many cases. Regardless of where one stands on the issue of climate change and the supposed ability of government policy to avoid global warming, it is necessary that all agree on the immediate need for affordable and reliable energy for those who don’t have it.

Saving the planet must not mean rejecting fossil fuels to meet such needs. Otherwise, the clarion call of environmental activists is the death knell for the billions they would condemn to energy poverty.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Contributing Writer to the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Va., and holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, England. He resides in Bengaluru, India.

February 20, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Most Published Studies Exaggerated the Effects of Ocean Acidification – and Covid, Etc.

By Jennifer Marohasy | February 20, 2022

The concept of ocean acidification, and human-caused global warming more generally, could be described as containing a grain of truth embedded in a mountain of nonsense. Indeed, the projected large increase in atmospheric CO2 will at most cause a small reduction in pH – it will not turn the ocean acidic. Yet this is what is implied by the term ocean acidification. True acidification would require average pH to be reduced below 7.0, at which point seashells would indeed begin to dissolve. This is an impossible scenario, however, because of the ocean’s effectively limitless buffering capacity.

There is a newly published study by Jeff Clements and team that concludes many of the published studies on ocean acidification, especially those studies published in high impact journals and accompanied by sensational media reporting, have turned-out to be wrong, or at least exaggerated.

My colleague Peter Ridd describes the situation:

This problem with exaggeration of threats applies to many areas of science and has a name: The Decline Effect.

The Decline Effect goes like this: an early report, usually attracting huge media interest, predicts some sort of catastrophe. But when follow up work is done, usually with far better experimental procedure and far greater numbers of samples, the original report turns out to be wrong.

Jeff Clements’ team included Timothy Clark, Josefin Sundin and Frederik Jutfelt who were involved in a study last year proving that numerous reports by James Cook University’s coral reef centres on reef fish was totally wrong.

I co-authored a book chapter with John Abbot some years ago that explained:

Initial concerns about ocean acidification focused on organisms that construct their shells or skeletons from calcium carbonate. Such organisms are referred to as marine calcifiers and include not only corals, but also crabs, clams and conchs (sea snails).

Theoretically, and according to popular science magazines, all corals are already severely and negatively affected by ocean acidification. But this is not evident from methodologically sound studies undertaken at the Great Barrier Reef. A review of the growth rates of six, hard coral species at Lord Howe Island (Anderson et al. 2015) found marked variation in the growth rates of branching coral, while growth rates of the massive Porites coral were unchanged. The researchers suggested that a decline in the growth rates of the branching species could be attributable to a reduction in the calcium carbonate saturation state as a consequence of higher summer temperatures. A study measuring calcification rates for 41 long-lived Porites corals from seven reefs from the central Great Barrier Reef (D’Olivio et al. 2009), showed good recovery from the major 1998 bleaching event, with no significant trend in calcification rates for the inner reefs. Corals from the mid-shelf central Great Barrier Reef, however, did show a decline of 3.3%.

While most ocean acidification research has been focused on physiological processes, in particular calcification, there have also been studies on three common hard corals to look at their fertilisation, embryonic development, larval survivorship, and metamorphosis (Chua et al. 2013a; Chua et al. 2013b). These studies have found the early life-history stages were unaffected by reduced pH; there was no consistent effect of elevated CO2 alone, nor in combination with temperature.

Studies of the effect of very high CO2 levels (up to 2,850 ppm) on molluscs – including oysters, clams, scallops and conchs – have shown that these species will generally build their shells more slowly as CO2 levels increase (Ries et al. 2009). This same study showed that crabs and lobsters respond quite differently to the same elevated CO2 levels, showing a general increase in calcification rates.

This chart shows how quickly scientists could meet the demand for commentary in the new area of ocean acidification, including to support the theory of human-caused global warming.

The varied responses among different organisms reflect their differing abilities to regulate pH at the site of calcification, and:

  • the extent to which their outer shell layer is protected by an organic covering
  • the solubility of their shell, or skeletal mineral
  • the extent to which they use photosynthesis (Ries et al. 2009).

Of course, many marine organisms are not calcifiers, and some of these organisms have also been tested for a response to ocean acidification.

When seagrasses collected from three locations in the Great Barrier Reef region – Cockle Bay, Magnetic Island, and Green Island – were exposed to four different CO2 concentration levels for two weeks – with water temperature and salinity in the experimental tanks near-constant throughout – all three seagrass species exhibited enhanced photosynthetic responses (Ow et al. 2015). That is growth rates, observed after two weeks of exposure to an enriched CO2 environment in an indoor aquarium, were higher. This suggests that ocean acidification could mean more seagrass, which would be good for large marine mammals like dugongs (dugongs are vulnerable to extinction because of issues unrelated to changing ocean chemistry).

Also, contrary to expectations, laboratory investigations into the effects of three different CO2 treatments on anemonefish (commonly known as the clownfish) found that higher CO2 levels stimulated breeding activity (Miller et al. 2013). The breeding pairs from the fringing reefs of Orpheus Island on the Great Barrier Reef, where they are exposed to the highest CO2 levels, produced double the number of clutches per breeding pair, and 67% more eggs per clutch than the control. However, young anemonefish that were bred in high CO2 levels and high temperatures showed decreases in their length, weight, condition, and survival (Miller et al. 2012). Though these effects were absent or reversed when their parents also experienced the higher concentrations (Miller et al. 2013).

We concluded:

Most studies have been on single species in contrived laboratory conditions. They have been of short duration, and they have not considered the potential for adaptation. In the few instances where adaptation has been considered, it has been shown to significantly modify the impact of varying pH as a consequence of elevated levels of CO2.

All of this needs to be assessed against the reality that along the length and breadth of the Great Barrier Reef there are naturally occurring large daily fluctuations in pH, and that it is unclear as to what extent the current trends of apparent pH decline are part of existing natural cycles.

Most of the articles describe the effects of changes of pH on biological organisms; many of the claims are based exclusively on laboratory experiments (Riebesell & Gattuso 2015). However, a problem with laboratory experiments is that they cannot capture the complexities of the real world, not even the tremendous natural variability in ocean pH – which is a measure of ocean acidification.

Statistician John P.A. Ioannidis published a review of medical research back in 2005 entitled ‘Why most published research findings are false’ (Plos Medicine ). It included a comment that:

The majority of modern biomedical research is operating in areas with very low pre- and post-study probability for true findings.

The review by John Ioannidis is a devastating critic of the sad state of biomedical research. It is this same profession, biomedical research, that concluded we should fear Covid-19 and get vaccinated – with the results from the Pfizer trials withheld while emergency approvals were granted for the mass vaccination of citizens across the world against Covid-19.

We will no doubt have better insights, when studies like those by Jeff Clements into ocean acidification, are undertaken into the recent Covid-19 vaccine research. We may then be in a position to judge whether the apparent ineffectiveness of these particular Covid-19 vaccines, despite all the promises, can be best explained by corporate greed and mendacity, or simply flaws in the scientific method. Certainly there was pressure on medical researchers to find a quick cure, that could be administered as part of a global public health response, to what appeared in the beginning to be a deadly new virus much worse than the seasonal flu.

The British Medical Journal in an editorial dated 19thJanuary includes commentary that we don’t know enough about Covid-19 vaccines.

‘Today, despite the global rollout of Covid-19 vaccines and treatments, the anonymised participant-level data underlying the trials for these new products remain inaccessible to doctors, researchers, and the public—and are likely to remain that way for years to come,’ the editorial states. ‘This is morally indefensible for all trials, but especially for those involving major public health interventions.’

The editorial also accuses pharmaceutical companies of ‘reaping vast profits without adequate independent scrutiny of their scientific claims,’ pointing to Pfizer, whose Covid vaccine trial was ‘funded by the company and designed, run, analysed, and authored by Pfizer employees’.

Of course, Peter Ridd lost his job at James Cook University for speaking truth to power. Those who continue to publish studies on ocean acidification, especially those studies published in high impact journals and accompanied by sensational media reporting, have most recently been rewarded by the Australian government with an additional $1billion in funding.  Some of this money will end-up funding more nonsense ocean acidification projects at James Cook University. It is unlikely that any of this grant money will be used to ensure that there is some quality assurance of the same research.

February 20, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »