The climate scaremongers: Extreme weather, 1961 style
By Paul Homewood | TCW Defending Freedom | January 7, 2022
FOR several years the public have been bombarded with threats of extreme weather to brainwash them about the dangers of climate change. Every bit of bad weather is relayed by the 24/7 media, which naturally has the effect of making the public believe ‘things are getting worse’. This is then backed up by repeated claims that global warming is to blame, making such events more frequent and more severe.
As part of this propaganda onslaught, the BBC has been broadcasting a monthly Climate Check video for the last couple of years, usually presented by weatherman Ben Rich, who they hope will give a flavour of authenticity. Last month’s edition was a summary of 2021. According to the introduction: ‘Fires, floods, heatwaves and drought – 2021 has been another year of remarkable extremes around the world.’
The video then goes on to cover a heatwave in Canada, floods in Canada, Germany, China, India and Australia, Hurricane Ida, wildfires in Greece and a drought in East Africa. None of these were unprecedented, yet there was the usual sloppy assertion that global warming is making all these types of events worse. No evidence or data is given to back up these absurd claims, which are purely derived from computer models sexed up by alarmist scientists.
Is our weather really any worse than in the past? Recently I looked back at the world’s weather 50 years ago, in 1971. The weather that year was every bit as bad as anything seen either this year or in the recent past.
Was 1971 exceptional? Let’s go back to 1961 for another viewpoint.
It’s ironic that Ben Rich began last month’s report by saying ‘If anywhere in the world sums up a year of extreme weather, it’s Canada’, because he could have said exactly the same if he had been doing his Climate Check 60 years ago.
The drought that summer on the Canadian prairies was reckoned at the time to be even worse than the dustbowl years of the 1930s. Many places had received no proper rainfall for a year and a half, and harvests were devastated, as this CBC video describes.
Wildfires burned millions of acres across much of Canada in what was called at the time ‘The Angriest Summer’.
To cap it off, flash floods killed a family of five in Timmins, Ontario in August, following six inches of rain in 12 hours.
Catastrophic floods hit many other parts of the world that year. New South Wales suffered some of the worst floods in its history in November 1961, probably only surpassed by the ones in 1900. The Nepean Times reported: ‘During a week of rain in which 474mm of rain were recorded at the post office, Penrith received half its annual rainfall on two days.’
In the very same week, the BBC was reporting on flood-stricken Somalia: ‘Unconfirmed reports put the number of homeless at 300,000 . . . The Prime Minister said nearly all Somalia’s food crops have been destroyed, and said food will have to be found for about 600,000 people for eight months, until the next harvest.’
The USA was also badly affected by flooding in 1961. ‘Widespread, prolonged and disastrous’ floods hit Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama in February and March, followed by the Midwest in May, and Idaho in June. The most tragic flood of the year was in July in Charleston, West Virginia when a small area cloudburst flood caused 22 deaths. Severe flooding also occurred in December in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama.
The worst floods that year in the USA were brought by Hurricane Carla in September, a Cat 4 storm with winds of 170mph, which left a trail of devastation from Texas to Illinois, including 34 dead, 1,900 homes destroyed and a record number of tornadoes.
The Atlantic hurricane season in 1961 saw two in the most powerful Category 5, Esther and Hattie, making it one of only seven Atlantic hurricane seasons to feature multiple Category 5 hurricanes in one season. Hattie devastated Belize City, damaging 70 per cent of the buildings. The damage was so severe that the government relocated inland to a new city, Belmopan.
1961 was certainly not an exceptional year and history is littered with weather disasters like these. The idea that today’s weather is any more ‘remarkable’ or ‘extreme’ is not only ridiculous, it has no basis in fact. But Ben Rich has no intention of presenting an objective account of the weather last year. His final statement gives the game away: ‘2021 has brought into sharp focus the impact that severe weather is having on peoples around the world. Limiting the rise in global temperatures to 1.5C was at the top of the agenda at COP26 in Glasgow, with scientists urging world leaders to commit to cutting greenhouse gases to stave off a climate catastrophe.’
There is just one purpose in all of this: to brainwash the public into accepting the UN’s climate agenda.
Making it up as you go along
You might have thought that when the head of the Environment Agency was giving a speech on climate change to the Royal Society he would check his facts first. Not Sir James Bevan.
The agency’s chief executive recently stood up to give a talk ludicrously titled ‘Drought risk in the Anthropocene: from the Jaws of Death to the Waters of Life’. In an attempt to show that climate change was making floods worse, he made the claim that ‘in England, three of the five wettest winters on record have happened in the last eight years’. However according to the Met Office only one of the five has occurred in that period, in 2013/14. The other four were 1876/77, 1914/15, 1989/90 and 1994/95.
Bevan also claimed that winters are wetter than in the past on average, but they were just as wet in the early 1900s.
UK Met Office
He went on to warn that climate change was making our summers drier, increasing the risk of drought. As you have probably guessed by now, summers in England are not becoming drier, or for that matter wetter. They are no different from summers in the past!
UK Met Office
Bevan worked as a diplomat all his career prior to joining the Environment Agency in 2015. His ignorant speech makes his lack of qualifications for his job glaringly obvious.
Landscapes will be altered for ever, warns National Trust!
Not to be outdone by the Environment Agency, the National Trust has just published its annual Weather and Wildlife Review. As you would expect from an organisation taken over by the far Left years ago, it carries apocalyptic warnings about the so-called climate crisis.
The report begins: ‘The climate crisis presented serious challenges for nature across the UK this year. A warm winter, low levels of rain and gale-force winds all contributed to various natural disasters, causing devastation across precious landscapes and affecting the wildlife they support.’
As usual they confuse ‘weather’ with ‘climate’.
According to the BBC, the report warns that some of the landscapes under the Trust’s control are being altered for ever as climate change makes some forms of extreme weather the new normal.
Yes, the same landscapes which have remained largely unaltered for thousands of years, other than by mankind: through the warmth of the Middle Ages and the cold of the Little Ice Age, and many other previous climate cycles, and through the huge differences which we see from year to year. Do the National Trust think we are all a bunch of idiots?
And their evidence for this absurd claim?
1) Moorland fires, due to dry springs caused by climate change.
Only one slight problem though. Our springs are not getting drier, or for that matter wetter:
2) Ash dieback – caused by ‘warmer/wetter winters’
Climate has nothing whatsoever to do with dieback, a disease caused by fungal infestation. It has been spreading rapidly across Europe since its introduction about 30 years ago from eastern Asia. It thrives in all climates – warm, cold, wet and dry.
3) Stormy weather
Storms have blown down trees since time immemorial. But just because the Met Office now give them silly names, the National Trust think they must be getting worse. In fact, the opposite is true, as Met Office data clearly proves:
Incredibly their report ends:
Isn’t it time they concentrated on their real job instead?
The Day Jake Tapper Sold His Soul to Pharma
Photo Credit: “Jake Tapper-Caricature” by DonkeyHotey — licensed under CC BY 2.0
By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. | The Defender | January 6, 2022
Apparently, appalled by robust sales of my bestseller, “The Real Anthony Fauci,” CNN anchor Jake Tapper — in lieu of critically reviewing the work — used his Twitter feed to unleash a barrage of ad hominem insults against me.
Breaking with the traditional restraints of journalistic neutrality, professional propriety and intellectual rigor, he branded me “dangerous,” a “menace,” a “liar,” a “grifter,” a fraud, “unhinged” and more.
But Tapper’s defamations hang in the atmosphere without substantiation or citation. If I’m a liar, then what was my lie? If I’m a grifter, then what is my personal profit or advantage? If I am a fraud, then where is my inaccurate statement?
I concede that I’m a dangerous menace, but only to the pharmaceutical industry, its captive technocrats and its media toadies.
When I responded to his slander with a respectful tweet inviting him to debate me, Tapper declined, explaining he would not debate a “conspiracy theorist.” Characteristically, he neglected to cite any conspiracy theory he believes I promoted.
And is it credible to dismiss me as a conspiracy theorist unworthy of debate? After all, I am founder and former president of the world’s largest water protection group, and founder and current chairman of one of the largest children’s health advocacy groups.
I’ve won hundreds of successful lawsuits, including milestone victories against Monsanto, DuPont, Exxon, Smithfield Foods and leading polluters from the chemical, carbon, pharmaceutical and agricultural industries. (Many of these also initially dismissed me as a “conspiracy theorist.”)
My current book, “The Real Anthony Fauci,” may be the most heavily footnoted volume to ever sit atop global best-seller lists for six consecutive weeks. With 500,000 copies sold, it has attracted a whopping 5,500+ five-star reviews (92%).
Despite extreme hostility toward this volume from mainstream media and the medical cartel, no one has yet identified a factual inaccuracy in its 250,000 words.
If my book is baseless conspiracy theories, then shouldn’t Mr. Tapper welcome an opportunity to correct me with facts or arguments that go beyond name-calling?
Allow me, then, to offer my own theory for Mr. Tapper’s apoplexy.
Many people make Faustian bargains during their lives, trading personal integrity for material advantage. Oftentimes the metamorphosis occurs as a gradual erosion of moral fiber. Occasionally it happens in an instant; a man stands at a moral crossroads and chooses the dark side.
I happened to have a front-row seat when Jake Tapper had his moment of moral crisis. I’m guessing his fierce vitriol toward me is a reaction to his embarrassment that I was witness to the instant when Mr. Tapper chose career over character.
In July 2005, Jake Tapper was ABC’s senior producer when the network ordered him to pull a lengthy exposé on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) secret 2000 Simpsonwood conference.
Here is the background:
In 1999, in response to exploding epidemics of autism and other neurological disorders, CDC decided to study its vast Vaccine Safety Datalink — the medical and vaccination record of millions of Americans, archived by the top HMOs — to learn whether the dramatic escalation of the vaccine schedule, beginning in 1989, was a culprit. CDC’s in-house epidemiologist, Thomas Verstraeten, led the effort.
Verstraeten’s initial data run suggested that mercury-containing hepatitis B vaccines — administered during the first month of life — were associated with a wide range of neurological injuries, including a dramatic 1,135% rise in autism risks among vaccinated children.
Verstraeten’s findings propelled CDC into DEFCON 1. The agency’s top vaccine officials summoned 52 pharmaceutical industry leaders, the foremost vaccinologists from academia and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and public health regulators from the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), CDC, World Health Organization (WHO) and European Medicines Agency to a secret two-day meeting at the remote Simpsonwood retreat center in Norcross, Georgia, to strategize about how to hide these awful revelations from the public.
In 2005, I obtained the explosive transcripts of this meeting and was about to publish excerpts in Rolling Stone (Deadly Immunity, July 18, 2005). Those recordings, ironically, portrayed these leading kingpins of the vaccine cartel poised at their own moral brink, and chronicled their collapse into corruption over two sickening days of debate.
Most of these individuals were physicians and regulatory officials who had committed their lives to public health out of idealism and deep concern for children. Verstraeten’s data confronted them with the fact that the cumulative mercury levels in all those new vaccines they had recommended had overdosed a generation of American children with mercury concentrations over a hundred times the exposures the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considered safe.
In recommending a vast battery of new vaccines for children, public health regulators had somehow neglected to calculate the cumulative mercury and aluminum loads in all the new jabs.
Dr. Peter Patriarca, the then-director of the FDA Office on Vaccine Research and Review, expressed the general feeling of horror when he asked why no one had calculated the cumulative mercury exposure to children as policymakers added this cascade of new vaccines to the childhood schedule: “Conversion of the percentage thimerosal to actual micrograms of mercury involves ninth-grade algebra. What took the FDA so long to do the calculations?”
In the tense days leading up to the Simpsonwood conclave, children’s health champion Dr. Ruth Etzel of the EPA pleaded with her fellow public health leaders to publicly admit they made a terrible mistake by inadvertently poisoning American children, and to repair the damage.
Dr. Etzel urged AAP and the government regulators to handle the crisis with the same honesty and public remorse that Johnson & Johnson had demonstrated on discovering toxic chemicals in its Tylenol formulations:
“We must follow three basic rules: (1) act quickly to inform pediatricians that the products have more mercury than we realized; (2) be open with consumers about why we didn’t catch this earlier; (3) show contrition. If the public loses faith in the Public Health Services recommendations, then the immunization battle will falter. To keep faith, we must be open and honest and move forward quickly to replace these products.”
Confronted with scientific proof of their role in the chronic disease calamity, the cabal did exactly the opposite. The shocking Simpsonwood transcripts show Dr. Patriarca and the other public health panjandrums warning each other of their reputational liabilities, their vulnerability to litigation by plaintiffs’ lawyers and potential damage to the vaccine program.
Dr. Patriarca cautioned that public disclosure of CDC’s explosive findings would make Americans feel that the FDA, CDC and vaccine policymakers had been “asleep at the switch” for decades in allowing Thimerosal to remain in childhood vaccines.
Over two days of intense discussion, these Big Pharma operatives and government technocrats persuaded each other to transform their disastrous error into villainy — by doubling down and hiding their mistake from the public.
Tapper saw an early draft of my Rolling Stone story and proposed that, in exchange for exclusivity, he would do a companion piece for ABC timed to air on the magazine’s publication day.
Tapper spent several weeks working on the story with me and a team of enthusiastic ABC reporters and technicians. During his frequent conversations with me over that period, he was on fire with indignation over the Simpsonwood revelations. He acted like a journalist hoping to win an Emmy.
The day before the piece was to air, an exasperated Tapper called me to say that ABC’s corporate officials ordered him to pull the story. The network’s pharmaceutical advertisers were threatening to cancel their advertising.
“Corporate told us to shut it down,” Tapper fumed. Tapper told me that it was the first time in his career that ABC officials had ordered him to kill a story.
ABC had advertised the Simpsonwood exposé, and its sudden cancellation disappointed an army of vaccine safety advocates and parents of injured children who deluged the network with a maelstrom of angry emails.
In response, ABC changed tack and publicly promised to air the piece. Instead, following a one-week delay, the network duplicitously aired a hastily assembled puff piece promoting vaccines and assuring listeners that mercury-laden vaccines were safe.
The new “bait and switch” segment precisely followed Pharma’s talking points. “I’m putting my faith in the Institute of Medicine,” ABC’s obsequious medical editor, Dr. Tim Johnson, declared in closing. Two pharmaceutical advertisements bracketed the story.
After that piece aired, I called Jake to complain. He neither answered nor returned my calls.
During the 16 intervening years, Pharma has returned Mr. Tapper’s favor by aggressively promoting his career. Pfizer shamelessly sponsors Tapper’s CNN news show, announcing its ownership of the space — and Mr. Tapper’s indentured servitude — before each episode with the loaded phrase: “Brought to you by Pfizer.”
Under the apparent terms of that sponsorship, CNN and Tapper provide Pfizer a platform to market its products and allow the drug company — a serial felon — to dictate content on CNN.
This arrangement has transformed CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper into a propaganda vehicle for Pharma and effectively reduced Mr. Tapper to the role of a drug rep — shamelessly promoting fear porn, confusion, and germophobia, and ushering his audience toward high-yield patent pharmaceuticals.
Tapper’s main thrust during the pandemic has been to promote levels of public terror sufficient to indemnify all the official lies against critical thinking.
All that Pharma money naturally requires that Mr. Tapper kowtow to Dr. Fauci, and the CNN host’s slavishness has helped make Tapper’s show the go-to pulpit for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director.
It’s a safe place for Dr. Fauci to hit all Jake’s reliable softballs out of the park.
“The bootlicking competition at CNN is pretty nauseating,” observed investigative journalist Celia Farber who has chronicled Dr. Fauci’s mismanagement at NIAID for more than 25 years. “It’s ruinous for both democracy and for public health.”
Another journalist has compared Tapper’s mortifying on-air servility toward Dr. Fauci to the adulation of a loyal and obedient canine. “It’s like a dog watching a chess match,” says former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson. “So much intensity and so little understanding.”
Tapper has gone two years without asking Dr. Fauci a single tough question. He has covered up Fauci’s involvement with Wuhan, suppressed news of vaccine injuries, gaslighted the injured, and defended every official orthodoxy on masks, lockdowns, social distancing, vaccines, remdesivir, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.
He has never asked about the public health, mental health, and economic costs of lockdown, about the disproportionate burdens of Dr. Fauci’s policies on minorities, the working class and the global poor.
He has never asked Dr. Fauci to explain why countries and states that refused Dr. Fauci’s prescription have consistently experienced dramatically better health outcomes. For example, why are U.S. death rates 1,000x the death rates of African countries like Nigeria and Indian states that widely use hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin? Mr. Tapper simply never allows contrary views on his show.
He continues to extol COVID vaccines as a miracle technology that individuals can take four times and still both get and spread the illness.
“He never calls Dr. Fauci on his vacillating science-free pronouncements,” said Farber. “Dr. Fauci seems to be able to paralyze the curiosity features of Tapper’s brain.”
Tapper has to ask Dr. Fauci why, under his direction, America suffered the world’s highest body count. With 4.2% of the global population, our nation suffered 15% of COVID deaths.
Instead, he functions as high priest of every official orthodoxy, working to deify Dr. Fauci and anoint all his absurd, vacillating and contradictory pronouncements with papal infallibility. The sure way to earn Tapper’s indignation is to criticize Dr. Fauci.
Here are just a few examples of Mr. Tapper’s brazen deceptions:
On Feb. 2, 2021, Tapper “debunked” claims that baseball great Hank Aaron may have died from a COVID shot. The home run king submitted to a CDC-staged press conference 17 days earlier. Tapper assured his audience that the Fulton County coroner had determined Aaron to have died from “natural causes.”
When the Fulton County coroner subsequently denied ever having seen Aaron’s body, much less performed an autopsy, Tapper refused to correct his story.
In August 2021, Tapper gave Dr. Fauci a platform to spread the rumor that deluded Americans were poisoning themselves with a “horse medicine” called ivermectin.
In an Aug. 29, 2021 interview, Dr. Fauci told Tapper, “There’s no evidence whatsoever that that works, and it could potentially have toxicity… with people who have gone to poison control centers because they’ve taken the drug at a ridiculous dose and wind up getting sick. There’s no clinical evidence that indicates that this works.”
Tapper never corrected Dr. Fauci. He never pointed out that there were by then 70 peer-reviewed studies demonstrating ivermectin’s miraculous efficacy against COVID.
He didn’t dispute Dr. Fauci’s characterization of ivermectin as a horse medicine by noting that the drug had won both a Nobel Prize and WHO’s listing as an “essential medicine” for its miraculous efficacy against human illnesses, and that people have consumed billions of doses with no significant safety signals.
Mr. Tapper never thought to ask Dr. Fauci if he was trying to discourage use of a cheap, effective drug that might compete with his experimental vaccines.
Instead, Tapper abjectly parroted Dr. Fauci’s talking points: “Poison control centers are reporting that their calls are spiking in places like Mississippi and Oklahoma, because some Americans are trying to use an anti-parasite horse drug called ivermectin to treat coronavirus, to prevent contracting coronavirus.”
It mattered not to Tapper that both Mississippi and Oklahoma officials quickly denied that anyone in their state had been hospitalized for ivermectin poisoning. Tapper never corrected his false story.
On Sept. 14, 2021, Tapper obligingly gave Dr. Fauci a platform to dispute rapper Nicki Minaj’s worry that COVID vaccines may affect fertility. Dr. Fauci simply declared, “The answer to that, Jake, is a resounding no.”
As usual, Tapper did not ask Dr. Fauci to cite a study to support this assertion. He never pointed out to Dr. Fauci that all of the COVID vaccine manufacturers acknowledge that their products are not tested for effects on fertility, or that recent data has shown dramatic upticks in miscarriages and pre-eclampsia in vaccinated women.
Nevertheless, based upon Dr. Fauci’s word alone, CNN rushed on to defame and discredit the rapper and to assure the public that Minaj was wrong. Dr. Fauci, after all, had spoken!
It’s easy to see how two years of such obsequious deference emboldened Dr. Fauci in November 2021 to declare that “I represent science.”
There are too many other examples of Tapper’s uncritical promotion of government and pharma falsehoods to even summarize. These are not harmless lies. Each of them has potentially disastrous consequences for public health.
The term “psychological projection” describes the uncanny precision with which a certain sort of person applies the very pejoratives to others that most accurately depict their own shortcomings.
When Mr. Tapper calls me “unhinged,” a “menace to public health,” a “fraud,” a “liar,” is he falling victim to projection?
The critical functions of journalism in a democracy are to speak truth to power, relentlessly expose official corruption, and to forever maintain a posture of skepticism toward government and corporate power centers.
What Jake Tapper does is the opposite of journalism. Tapper, instead, aligns himself with power, and makes himself a propagandist for official narratives and a servile publicist for powerful elites and government technocrats.
No wonder his fury at those who challenge their narratives.
© 2022 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
Colorado’s Marshall Fire: Has Funding Needs Corrupted Climate Science?
By Jim Steele | Watts Up With That? | January 2, 2022
I was totally shocked to hear the claims by a fire scientist I had once admired and often quoted in my blog posts about wildfire. In a National Public Radio interview Jennifer Balch said, “Climate change has lengthened the state’s fire season”. Then she said “”Climate change is essentially keeping our fuels drier longer. These grasses that were burning, they’ve been baked all fall and all winter.”
Having studied fire ecology for 30 years and knowing her published science, I could only believe she had been corrupted by the need to attract large amounts of funding, and these days that comes to those who blame the climate crisis. And here’s why I now hold that opinion so strongly.
Colorado’s Marshall Fire was a grassfire that happened with temperatures hovering around freezing. All fire experts and fire managers know grasses are 1-hour lag fuels. That means in dry conditions grasses can become flammable within hours. Attempting to link CO2 global warming, she and other alarmists were now blaming the Boulder area’s grass flammability on the warm dry conditions from July through November. But dry conditions in the past months are totally irrelevant. Those months could have also been cold and wet, but just one day of dry conditions is all that is needed for grasses to burn.
To minimize recklessly set fire that often occurs as people burn away unwanted dead vegetation, the Nova Scotia government felt the need to counter the Myth that “It’s safe to burn grass as long as there is still some snow on the ground.”
The Fact is: “Within hours of snow melting, dead grass becomes flammable, especially if there have been drying winds. Grass fires burn hot and fast and spread quickly around, and even over, patches of snow.” That’s a fact that Balch and every other fire expert should know!
Apparently, Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at the University of California Los Angeles and the Nature Conservancy and acolyte of climate alarmist Michael Mann and Noah Diffenbaugh, also failed to understand grasses are 1-hour fuel. He stated in an interview for NBC’s article How climate change primed Colorado for a rare December wildfire that “Climate change is clearly making the pre-conditions for wildfires worse across most fire-prone regions of the world,”
But dry grasses are not the pre-condition to be worried about. The pre-conditions that neither Swain nor Balch shared with the public is well known: Boulder County’s invasive grasses increase fire danger. The “main offender is cheatgrass, which was likely introduced to the area alongside agriculture and ranching” and “is increasing fire danger by 29%”
In fact, in 2013 Balch published, Introduced annual grass increases regional fire activity across the arid western USA (1980–2009), writing “Cheatgrass was disproportionately represented in the largest fires, comprising 24% of the land area of the 50 largest fires” and that “multi-date fires that burned across multiple vegetation types were significantly more likely to have started in cheatgrass.”
It was also very disingenuous for Balch to say “Climate change has lengthened the state’s fire season”. It is the very same meme that every climate alarmist regurgitates that climate change has made “a year-long fire season the new normal”. But in 2017 Balch published in Human-started wildfires expand the fire niche across the United States that human ignitions “have vastly expanded the spatial and seasonal ‘fire niche’ in the coterminous United States, accounting for 84% of all wildfires”. Balch’s published graph clearly shows that human ignitions have extended fire season all year long. Based on her own research, a more relevant comment would have mentioned that Louisville, Colorado’s population had jumped 10-fold; from 2,000 in 1950 to about 20,000 today. Does a 10-fold increase in population create a 10-fold increase in fire probability. The Marshall Fire was not naturally started by Lightning.
In 2015, Balch created the Earth Lab program at Colorado University. In 2017 it became part of CIRES, a partnership of NOAA and CU Boulder. Earth Lab, got increasing attention from mass media that’s always seeking click-bait. As Earth Lab’s team began blaming more fires on climate change, it got more attention and Balch got more interviews.
Earth Lab hired Natasha Stavros as Earth Lab’s Analytics Hub Director. In videos posted by the Washington Post, she claimed climate change causes “longer, hotter, and drier fire seasons” reflecting Balch’s conversion to a climate crisis narrative. To get around Balch’s earlier scientific research Stavros deflected, “We are not talking about the ignition source” or the “availability of fuels”, “what we are talking about are the conditions of those fuels”. But in the case of the Marshall Fire, 1-hour grass fuels have nothing to do with climate change. It only takes a few hours to be in highly flammable conditions. That’s weather, not climate!
Although lacking in scientific integrity, pivoting to a climate crisis narrative worked in Balch’s favor. The U.S. Geological Survey has selected the University of Colorado Boulder to host the North Central Climate Adaptation Science Center (NCCASC) for the next five years. Balch, as director of CIRES’ Earth Lab, and now NCCASC Director had attracted $4.5 million in funding. Universities around the country similarly create such centers to attract such major funding. Certainly, blaming fires on a climate crisis attracts more funding than if its director sounded like a “denier” blaming invasive grasses and human ignitions.
The politics of funding research requires a major level of group think. Daniel Shechtman won the Nobel Prize for discovering quasi-crystals that are now used in surgical instruments. But when he first announced his observations, he was kicked out of his lab by his colleagues. They saw him as a threat to the lab’s prestige and funding because observing quasi-crystals contradicted the consensus that was enforced by Linus Pauling that quasi-crystal did NOT exist.
Similarly, esteemed atmospheric scientist Dr Cliff Mass was criticized by Washington University administrator’s for detailing how an episode of problematic acidic waters that had been pumped into the state’s oyster’s hatcheries, was due to natural upwelling events, not climate change. But contradicting the climate crisis angle threatened funding to WU’s Ocean Acidification Center. Up until then Mass had been the Seattle Times go-to person for all weather events, but that stopped when his one analysis didn’t support climate crisis groupthink. Dr Peter Ridd was fired for presenting evidence showing his colleague’s claims of coral reef destruction were exaggerated. So, all savvy university professors know you can’t contradict the meme if you want funding, or worse, keep your job.
Climate crisis groupthink, also ignores natural climate change, as did Balch and Swain. But one meteorologist confidently blamed the lack of snow and dryness on a natural La Nina. The science is well established that depending on how colder Pacific surface waters set up during a La Nina, atmospheric currents can carry higher or lower amounts of moisture to different regions. California had record snowfall this December while Colorado snowfall was very low. And if the Marshall Fire had been ignited just 2 days later, there would have been a snowfall to suppress the fire.
However too often, alarmist scientists cherry-pick one-year events. They weaponized this year’s low snowfall while ignoring that last year’s Colorado snowfall was far above normal. In November last year, Fort Collins received more than 15 inches of snow on its way to 80 inches, which is 25 inches more than normal. Again, such variations in snowfall are weather, not climate.
Alarmists also weaponized the dry conditions as solely due to global warming drought. They ignored the drying and warming effects of the Chinook winds that are very common in Colorado. Chinooks are known as “snow eaters” because as the winds pass over the mountains of the western USA they are forced upward and precipitate all their moisture. When those winds descend from the Rockies down to Boulder, temperatures rise adiabatically (due to pressure not added heat) and the warm dry air quickly removes moisture or snow from the surface. Southern California’s Santa Anna winds are similar and drive large fires.
Sometimes Boulder’s winds reach speeds of 100+ mile per hour. NOAA reported The Chinook Wind Events Winter of 1982 during which peak wind gusts more than 100 mph damaged areas around Boulder. Weatherwise journal reported 100+MPH winds over Boulder on January 7, 1969, which snapped power poles and toppled planes as seen in the photographs below. In November 2021 the weather service gave a red flag warming due to the high winds from a Chinook event. But without a coinciding human ignition, there was no rapidly spreading fire.
I would like to believe that Balch’s Earth Lab scientists have been campaigning for the housing developments in Boulder’s suburbs of Louisville and Superior to create a system of firebreaks and defensible space. Those suburbs had built into easily ignited grassland in a region where fires are rapidly spread by the dry Chinooks descending from the Rockies. Such natural fire danger is not always obvious to the public looking for affordable housing. But it is not obvious that was ever done, at least not as obvious as faulty climate change narratives.
Fire experts should have pushed for building codes, requiring adequate spacing between new houses. As a story in Wildfire Today reported today, one common feature of the surviving homes was they were more distant from neighboring homes. Many houses in the devastated subdivisions were only 10 to 20 feet apart. Without adequate fire breaks or defensible space, if just one house allowed the fire to reach it, the heat of that burning house is enough to ignite any house next to it. Similar dynamics were seen in California’s Tubbs and Camp Fires that demolished neighborhoods.
But perhaps local governments were greedy. Eager to build a tax base a growing Louisville population was most important. Politicians had worked hard to present Louisville as one of the top 10 most livable little cities. Putting natural fire danger front and center, might put a damper on the city’s attractiveness. And not surprisingly the Denver Democrats didn’t waste time to capitalize on the Marshall Fire devastation. The released a statement claiming “This fire has also punctuated our climate crisis and made abundantly clear the need for bold action. The science is clear, and the impacts are very real. We will continue to work with our community and legislators to ensure climate change is treated with the urgency and attention it deserves.”
But the science does not show a connection between the Marshall Fire and Climate Change. And due to the greed of the media, politicians, and selfish scientists, only scientific integrity is facing a real crisis.
Finally, it is worth noting that some scientists are acutely aware of the increasing fire danger presented by the build-up of dead vegetation. To remove that hazard prescribed burns are being performed. But sometimes prescribed burns get away and burn down people’s homes. So prescribed burns are carefully planned for times when fires are most easily controlled. So, one must wonder just how unusually dangerous local conditions were if the City of Boulder planned a prescribed burn on Monday, December 13, 2021, just 2 weeks before the Marshall Fire. Had climate change really made conditions so dangerous?
Jim Steele is Director emeritus of San Francisco State University’s Sierra Nevada Field Campus, authored Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism, and proud member of the CO2 Coalition.
No, 500 Children were NOT admitted to hospital with Covid this week
OffGuardian | December 30, 2021
Two days ago Sky News reported that, in the week from December 20th to Boxing Day (December 26th, for our non-UK readers), over 500 British children had been admitted to hospital with Covid19.
The story has been picked up by other outlets too, with the Metro headlining:
More than 500 children admitted to hospital with Covid in Christmas week
The Mirror went with:
More than 500 children admitted to hospital with Covid in week leading up to Boxing Day
Going on to say [our emphasis]:
A record number of new Covid infections were reported today with the easily transmissible Omicron strain being named as the driving force for the surge – now the variant is having an unprecedented impact on Britain’s younger population
Other publications cited “concerning data” that 50 babies had been admitted to hospital with Covid on Christmas day alone.
But is any of this true?
In short, no. It is a meaningless number created by deliberately misleading statistical definitions.
This is actually the easiest fact-check we’ve ever done, because Sky literally fact-checked themselves in their own subheading:
Let’s repeat that with some added emphasis:
The definition used to identify a hospital admission with coronavirus is that someone either tested positive for the virus in the 14 days before their admission, or during their stay in hospital. It could mean someone goes into hospital for a non-COVID reason and later tests positive.
So no, 512 children were not admitted to hospital for Covid infection, 512 children were admitted to hospital for potentially “non-COVID reasons”, and either tested positive while they were in hospital or had tested positive sometime in the previous two weeks.
We’ve gone over this many times before.
The official definition of a “Covid death” is death by any cause, in someone who tested positive in the month preceding their death.
The official definition of a “covid hospitalisation” is anyone who is admitted to hospital for any reason after testing positive, or tests positive while they are already in hospital for something else.
We don’t need to explain, yet again, how meaningless the resultant statistics will be if you use these definitions.
But if they keep lying about the figures, we will keep correcting them.
State Climatologist Falsely Claims Climate Change Causing More Severe Weather
By H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. | ClimateRealism | December 21, 2021
Near the top of the results of Google new search of the phrase climate change today is a post from KPTM Fox 42 in Omaha, Nebraska claiming climate change is contributing to an increase in extreme weather events. This is false. Real-world data and the most recent report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicate the incidences of extreme weather events are not increasing, nor are the duration or severity of such events worsening.
For the article, titled “State Climatologist says climate change is contributing to severe weather,” KPTM Omaha interviews Martha Shulski, Nebraska’s state climatologist concerning recent severe weather events which hit the state.
Shulski linked these events to climate change.
“‘Climate change is something that it is real and here now,’” Shulski told KPTM, continuing, “‘It really impacts everything, the question is not did climate change cause it, the question is more how much worse was it made with climate change. There is a climate change signature on all of these events we experience, its really just a matter of how strong of a signature.’”
Nobody disputes climate change is occurring. Climate has changed on local, regional, continental, and global scales across the course of history. However, available data does not show ongoing climate change is making instances of extreme weather more common or more severe.
The KPTM article discusses a recent spate of tornadoes which struck Iowa and Nebraska in mid-December. Concerning tornadoes, the IPCC states, “There is low confidence in observed trends in small spatial-scale phenomena such as tornadoes.”
As discussed in Climate at a Glance: Tornadoes, data conclusively shows the number of tornadoes has been declining for the past 50 years, and, as shown in the figure below, the number of strong tornadoes, F3 or higher, has been dramatically declining for the past 50 years.
From 2017 through 2018, the U.S. set a record for the longest period in history without a tornado death. Also in 2017 and 2018, the U.S. set a record for the longest period in history without an F3 or stronger tornado. The two record-low years for number of tornadoes both occurred this past decade, in 2014 and 2018, a decade which climate alarmists have regularly described as the warmest on record. Even counting the recent December tornadoes, the number of tornados recorded in 2021 has been below average.
Concerning flooding, another extreme weather event Shulski links to climate change in the KPTM story, there has been no increase flooding frequency or severity as the climate modestly warms. The IPCC admits having “low confidence” in any climate change impact regarding the frequency or severity of floods. Although the IPCC states in its recent 6th Assessment Report, “the frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation have likely increased at the global scale over a majority of land regions with good observational coverage,” it explicitly states “heavier rainfall does not always lead to greater flooding.”
In addition, the IPCC writes, “Confidence about peak flow trends over past decades on the global scale is low, … [and] there is low confidence in the human influence on the changes in high river flows on the global scale.”
The best available evidence shows extreme weather is neither more frequent, nor more severe than it has been historically. Shulski was wrong to say otherwise, and KPTM was wrong to report her claims without checking the facts.
COVID Jabs: Ineffective, Oppressive and Dangerous
By Iain Davis | OffGuardian | December 23, 2021
There is no moral, legal or logical argument for mandatory vaccination. The only logical argument, from a public health perspective, would be either to reduce the spread of infection or reduce the impact on health services via some other mechanism.
We will explore the evidence which shows that the COVID-19 supposed “vaccines” are incapable of achieving either.
That didn’t stop the UK parliament voting to allow the government to mandate vaccination for NHS staff. In doing so, they laid the path clear for a wider, national mandate.
Prior to the vote, the British Medical Journal published the protestation of concerned medical professionals who highlighted that there is insufficient evidence to support a mandate.
UK MPs apparently decided that the doctors and nurses didn’t know what they were talking about and were not interested in the scientific evidence they cited. While this illustrates that decision making is not led by science, perhaps this is not the primary concern.
Whatever the political or popular opinion may be, to insist that an individual must submit to injection against their will is to deny them their inalienable right of bodily integrity.
This right was described by Professor David Feldman in Civil Liberties and Human Rights In England and Wales:
A right to be free from physical interference. [This] covers negative liberties: freedom from physical assaults, torture, medical or other experimentation, immunization and compelled eugenic or social sterilization, and cruel or degrading treatment or punishment. It also encompasses some positive duties on the state to protect people against inference by others.”
Both the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 3) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Articles 1 & 3) allegedly guarantee the integrity of the person.
However, these are “Human Rights” written on pieces of paper by politicians and lawyers. As such, they can be overruled by governments and other politicians and lawyers. Human Rights are not rights, they are government permits and permits can be rescinded.
More importantly, in the UK, there is a clear legal precedent for the concept of bodily integrity. In Montgomery vs Lanarkshire Health Board the Supreme Court ruled:
An adult person of sound mind is entitled to decide which, if any, of the available forms of treatment to undergo, and her consent must be obtained before treatment interfering with her bodily integrity is undertaken.”
If society decrees that the population no longer has a right to bodily integrity then the people become the slaves of that society. A society that advocates mandatory vaccinations equally advocates slavery. Those who advocate mandatory vaccination support slavery in principle. None of the justifications they offer negate this fact.
The legal definition of ownership is the “exclusive legal right to possession.” A vaccination mandate decrees that the individual no longer has legal possession of their own body. It removes the individual’s legal right to ownership of their physical being and hands it over to the state. This constitutes slavery.
Slavery is defined as:
The condition of being legally owned by someone else and forced to work for or obey them”
There are those who suggest that the “common good” warrants slavery. They state, based upon assumption and ignorance, that when a person refuses COVID-19 vaccination they are putting others at risk and behaving in a way that jeopardises the common good.
They maintain that society should have the right to violate the bodily integrity of its slaves.
As pointed out by many, a mandate differs from law. However, a government mandate is something the state uses to claim the non-existent right to force people to obey. Individuals can be punished–fined or even imprisoned–for failing to abide with a state mandate. The right to bodily integrity is denied by mandate and all citizens are made slaves by virtue of it.
Some anti-rationalists have argued that a mandate does not constitute “force.” This is a ridiculous contention.
Threatening to fine people is coercion and warning of potential imprisonment is the threat of violence. This is the literal definition of the use of force:
Coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence.”
Where violence is defined as:
Extremely forceful actions that are intended to hurt people or are likely to cause damage”
Those who believe in the concept of the common good, debating the point at which it overrides individual sovereignty, accept that some group they choose to empower has the right to force others to obey.
Regardless of whatever rationale they claim, by ultimately insisting that no citizen has the right to bodily integrity, they promote slavery, including their own.
Some people are a bit squeamish about admitting their support for slavery and prefer to pretend that forcing compliance through other means is not slavery.
The head of Ryan Air, Michael O’Leary, apparently thinks that denying people access to society, employment, food and medical treatment is not a “mandate” and therefore forcing them to take the vaccine through this mechanism doesn’t amount to slavery.
O’Leary’s suggestion is that those who decline the vaccine should be punished for their disobedience. He thinks that threatening people with poverty, starvation and a shorter life expectancy is perfectly acceptable in order to force them do as he wishes. He believes that, if this isn’t officially mandated, doing so will somehow protect their rights:
[A mandate] is an infringement of your civil liberties. But you simply make life so difficult. Or [make it that] there are lots of things that you can’t do unless you get vaccinated”
Proponents of the “common good,” who insist that getting vaccinated is the “right thing” and therefore not complying is wrong, cannot both proclaim society’s alleged authority to ignore the inalienable right of bodily integrity and simultaneously pretend they oppose slavery.
If, as a society, we allow the government to mandate or if, like O’Leary, we choose to enforce vaccination by other means, then we have collectively consented to live in a slave state where we are all slaves.
If we go down this path we condemn future generations to slavery. Yet somehow those who decline the offer of slavery, who oppose it in principle, are considered to be selfish by wider society.
The supporters of slavery justify this to themselves because they believe the extremely limited public health impact of a low mortality respiratory disease is more important than human freedom.
This opinion is informed by the flawed and irrelevant assumption that the jabs protect others. The efficacy and safety of the vaccines is immaterial. To deny an individual’s right to bodily integrity is slavery. It does not matter what the claimed justification is.
There are already many slaves being traded, exploited and abused in the UK. While the experience of those who suffer the daily hell of modern slavery is in no way comparable to merely being forcibly injected with a drug once or twice a year, the principle of slavery is the same. It seems odd that the suggested “common good” doesn’t demand freedom for those currently living as slaves. Perhaps society no longer cares.
Putting aside the lack of moral and legal legitimacy, there are other reasons why we should reject any notion of a vaccine mandate. Primarily that the so-called vaccines don’t work and are dangerous.
THE JAB BASICS
The word “infection” is defined as:
“The state produced by the establishment of one or more pathogenic agents (such as a bacteria, protozoans, or viruses).”
If you had looked at the medical definition of “vaccine” in 2019 you would have understood a vaccine to be:
A preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease”
Where immunity was defined as:
The quality or state of being immune; especially: a condition of being able to resist a particular disease especially through preventing development of a pathogenic microorganism or by counteracting the effects of its products.”
A vaccine was a drug that “especially” reduced infection. It could theoretically stop a pathogenic agent, such as a bacteria, protozoans, or virus from establishing itself in a biological system. Thus reducing the incidents of disease and subsequent transmission of the pathogen.
However, in the wake of the pseudopandemic, that is not what the changed definition of “vaccine” has come to mean today. The only thing an alleged, so-called vaccine is required to demonstrate is immunogenicity:
A preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body’s immune response against a specific infectious agent or disease”
Purely by changing the definition, a “vaccine” is now a drug that stimulates an immune response. It says nothing about how effective or safe that immune response is. Inflammation is an immune response and it is potentially lethal.
Absent the ability to protect against infection, most people would consider a drug which only reduces the severity of disease to be a treatment, not a vaccine.
While it is true that language constantly evolves and definitions change all the time, where that change fundamentally redefines the commonly accepted meaning of a word, everyone needs to be aware of the new interpretation. If not, they could accept an implied meaning that no longer exists.
For example, people could easily be fooled into believing a COVID-19 “vaccine” stops infection. To draw a distinction between what most people imagine “vaccine” to mean and what it now means, we will refer to the alleged COVID-19 “vaccines” as jabs.
THE JABS HAVE NOT COMPLETED & DO NOT NEED TO COMPLETE ANY CLINICAL TRIALS
Unlike every vaccine that preceded them, the jabs have not completed clinical trials prior to being given to more people than any other vaccine in history.
At the time of writing there are no results posted for the NCT04614948 trial of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA jab; none for the NCT04516746 Astrazeneca jab; there are no results from Moderna’s NCT04470427 trial nor any from J&J’s NCT04368728 trial of their Jansen jab.
When the UK medicines regulators, the MHRA, said that they “carried out a rigorous scientific assessment of all the available evidence of quality, safety and effectiveness,” prior to allowing the jabs’ Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA,) they did not mean they had studied the results of any clinical trials. They couldn’t, because there aren’t any.
What they meant is that they had received interim reports from the manufacturers and their sponsors (UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation etc.) The MHRA, as other regulators around the world, based their decision to grant the EUAs on these interim reports, not upon the results of any clinical trials.
This enables the mainstream media to report news agency statements which mislead the public:
Massive coronavirus vaccine trials involving tens of thousands of participants have so far surfaced no signs of serious side effects.”
The continual impression given is that the jabs are clinically proven to be safe and effective. In reality, few adverse reactions have been reported in the trials because no trial results have been posted.
The trials were designed to be blind Randomised Control Trials (RCTs.) As they were trialling the first proposed vaccines for a novel disease, the standard RCT approach to determine the safety and efficacy of the jabs was to compare the long term health outcomes of jab recipients to those of a placebo group. These would be “blinded,” meaning that the trial participants were not told if they had been jabbed or received a placebo.
The secondary outcomes for the trials were designed to assess the effects of the vaccines. This including assessment of any adverse drug reactions (ADRs) for up to 2 or more years after the final dose. So far, none of the secondary outcomes have been measured because we are more than a year away from the end of the minimum trial periods.
There is now no chance that these clinical trials will ever reveal any meaningful results. As reported in the British Medical Journal both J&J and Moderna have “unblinded” their trials by giving their jab to their placebo groups. They have abandoned the secondary outcomes, years before the trials are complete. When asked, neither Astrazeneca nor Pfizer-BioNTech denied doing the same.
In any event, it appears their trials were poorly designed and lacked scientific credibility. It is strongly alleged that Pfizer-BioNTech, at least, falsified data, unblinded their study, failed to adequately train staff and were reluctant to follow up on reported adverse events.
When independent researchers used a Freedom of Information request (FoIR) to ask UK regulator, The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), why the Pfizer-BioNTech NCT04614948 clinical trial hadn’t assessed the vaccine’s impact upon pregnant women, the MHRA stated:
The above trial was not conducted in the UK, the MHRA did not assess its content and are therefore not in a position to answer specific questions relating to it.”
Not bothering to consider the primary clinical trial doesn’t appear to be a very “rigorous scientific assessment.” Rather, it seems the MHRA are among a group of regulators who unquestioningly accepted whatever the manufacturers claim without genuinely scrutinising anything.
The MHRA have now formally adopted this laissez-faire approach to future jab regulation. Having aligned themselves with the Access Consortium of regulators (Australia, Canada, Singapore and Switzerland), the MHRA are among those who see no reason for any further regulatory scrutiny prior to the approval of new jabs.
The Consortium believe new iterations, responding to allegedly new variants of COVID-19, can effectively be waved through automatically. This is based upon the impossible.
The MHRA assert that their initial EUA reflected their appraisal of the “pivotal clinical trials,” for which there are no posted results. Having authorised the jab roll-outs without any substantiating evidence, the MHRA now claim that, for all tweaked future versions:
Clinical efficacy studies prior to approval are not required. Regulatory Authorities request bridging data on immunogenicity from a sufficient number of individuals”
This speeds up the process of getting jabs straight out of the corporate labs and into the arms of a broadly misinformed public. Whatever tweaks the manufacturers choose to make will just be rubber stamped by the Consortium as long as the pharmaceutical corporations submit the appropriate immunogenicity claims.
The issuance of an EUA is not the same as regulatory approval of a medicine. As explained by the U.S. regulator, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA,) an EUA is a temporary authorisation of an investigational medication:
An EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine may allow for rapid and widespread deployment for administration of the investigational vaccine to millions of individuals”
The FDA also state that an investigational drug, still in trials, is an experimental drug:
An investigational drug can also be called an experimental drug.”
The current COVID-19 jabs are still in trials and are “experimental drugs.” So-called fact checkers have been dispatched to mislead the public into believing this is not the case.
For example Full Fact, the UK based political activists who work with policy makers to market their own business, claimed:
The three Covid vaccines currently approved for use in the UK have already been shown to be safe and effective in clinical trials.”
This was a factually inaccurate statement. In terms of issuing EUAs, all that was known from the phase 3 trials was the interim results.
These reported what little data was available from the first two months of phase 1. This was merely a claim that the jabs were relatively safe for a small cohort of fit and healthy, predominantly younger people. We will shortly discuss why even this assertion is false.
All we can say at this juncture is that there is no perceptible regulation of the jabs. They are effectively unregulated.
The trials have yet to demonstrate that the jabs are either safe or effective. The exclusion criteria for all the trials ruled out trialling the jabs on those most vulnerable to COVID-19. The interim reports from phase 1 only claim efficacy and safety among those least susceptible to apparent COVID-19 risks. Now those trials will never be completed.
The interim trial reports claimed efficacy in terms or relative instead of absolute risk reduction. This enabled the manufacturers to claim a 95%+ reduction in mortality (efficacy.) This was then reported to the public who were swayed by this reporting bias.
The claimed absolute risk reduction (efficacy) was typically less than 1%. Had this been reported to the public the people would have been less enthusiastic and perhaps more sceptical about the jabs, which is why it wasn’t.
The EUAs, on both sides of the Atlantic, also came with immunity from prosecution for the manufacturers. In the UK, the Human Medicines (Coronavirus and Influenza) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 extended the liability protection offered to administering medical practitioners to the pharmaceutical corporations.
Immunity from prosecution is an apparent deal breaker for the drug companies. In early 2021 the managing director of the World Bank, David Malpass, reported that some jab manufacturers would not distribute their jabs to countries that did not fully indemnify them against prosecution:
The immediate problem is indemnification. Pfizer has been hesitant to go into some of the countries because of the liability problems, they don’t have a liability shield. So we work with the countries to try to do that.”
There is no doubt that the jabs are experimental drugs that have not completed any clinical trials. As such the population who have received them are part of a global medical experiment. In partnership with government, that experiment is being conducted by global pharmaceutical corporations which have no liability for any harm they may cause.
This fact is then covered up by the global media corporations and appointed fact checkers, who also work in partnership with government.
Statements from the NHS such as “The COVID-19 vaccines are the best way to protect yourself and others” or “any side effects are usually mild and should not last longer than a week” are not based upon any clinical trial evidence. They are speculative, misleading and potentially dangerous proclamations.
Unless, before being jabbed, recipients were explicitly made aware of these facts they cannot possibly have given informed consent.
In each and every instance, despite the fact free denials of the comically misnamed fact checkers, this constitutes a breech of the Nuremberg Code.
BLAMING THE UNJABBED
Following the comments of the health secretary, Sajid Javid, the MSM dutifully reported that there are around 5M “unvaccinated” people in the UK. This figure appears to be only partially accurate.
According to figures released by the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), by mid December 2021, with the booster roll-out well underway, of the approximate 44.6M adults in England, around 38.6M had received at least two doses and were therefore temporarily deemed to be “fully vaccinated.”
This means that currently about 6M adults in England alone are officially “unvaccinated.” England represents approximately 84% of the UK population. Assuming similar vaccine distribution figures for the whole of the UK, this suggests that at least 6.9M adults are officially unvaccinated. This represents nearly than 13% of the adult UK population.
The size of the unvaccinated population is set to grow. The UK government have already said that a booster will be needed for the NHS COVID Pass (certificate) for international travel.
Initially the UK government said that they didn’t intend to extend this to the domestic vaccine passport but they also repeatedly denied that they would introduce vaccine passports.
Subsequent comments from the Health Secretary clarified the government’s intention to continually shift their definition of “fully vaccinated.” To be fully vaccinated the slave must always agree to the next jab.
With the jab sales force insisting that boosters will be needed for years to come, it seems “fully vaccinated” status will last for about 6 month.
The MSM, on behalf of the government who fund them, have propagandised the nation into believing that it is the unvaccinated who are “overwhelming” health services. With headlines like ICU is Full Of The Unvaccinated – My Patience With Them Is Wearing Thin, it is no wonder that the jabbed majority are turning their hate towards the people who don’t want the jabs. It is extremely common to read social media comments such as:
Unvaccinated people are taking beds from other sick people, some of whom become sicker as a result. Not being vaccinated during a pandemic is an act of selfishness hiding behind the facade of individual liberty.”
The “ICU is Full” Guardian article was from an anonymous source. No one was willing to put their name to it. It was primarily an appeal to emotion and offered no evidence to back up any of its claims. This is because the evidence does not support any aspect of the published story. The only apparent reason for the article was to incite hatred.
Real journalists, like Kit Knightly from the OffGuardian, which is censored by the social media platforms, have been willing to put their name to the reporting of the facts.
As he shows, ICUs are not overwhelmed at all. They are quite busy, as usual, but they are certainly not overrun with COVID-19 “cases,” as the Guardian and others have deceptively claimed.
Currently there are 4330 critical care beds in England. On December 14th 2021, 925 were occupied by so-called COVID-19 patients, a COVID-19 ICU bed occupancy rate of 21.4%. There were 775 (17.9%) unoccupied ICU beds with 2657 beds (61.4%) taken by patients who had not tested positive for the selected COVID-19 nucleotide sequences.
In their Week 50 Vaccine Surveillance Report UKHSA state that, for the preceding 4 week period, 2965 alleged COVID-19 adult hospital patients had not received a jab and 4557 had received at least one. Therefore UKHSA claim that the un-jabbed represent 39.4% of total COVID-19 hospital admissions.
For the same 4 week period, UKHSA also reported that 715 of the 3083 total adult deaths, within 28 days of a positive test, were people who were not jabbed. This represents 23.2% of alleged COVID-19 deaths. With 28 deaths attributed to those with an unknown jab status, the remaining 2340 were jabbed. The jabbed represent 76% of all alleged COVID-19 deaths.
Similar data for Wales also belies the false claim that it is the unjabbed who are “overwhelming” health services. In November 2021 12.8% of hospital inpatients were “unvaccinated.” The “vaccinated” accounted for 84.5% of hospital inpatients with 2.7% of unknown jab status.
The anonymous claims reported in the Guardian weren’t even remotely accurate. The tale was a propagandist disinformation. It was “fake news.”
Yet the politicians are desperate to peddle the same lie, with the assistance of their compliant MSM. Once again, the Guardian reported the comments of the Health Secretary as if they were realistic. Speaking about the people who have considered the evidence and have decided not to take the jab, Javid said:
They must really think about the damage they are doing to society. They take up hospital beds that could have been used for someone with maybe a heart problem, or maybe someone who is waiting for elective surgery.”
At no point did the fearless journalists at the Guardian inform the public that what he was saying was total nonsense. Instead, they doubled-down on the lies with added disinformation of their own, claiming that “nine out of 10 of those needing the most care in hospital are unvaccinated.” Yet another example of absolute fake news, intended to deceive the public.
As we will discuss shortly, it is the seeming clamour to “get boosted,” incessantly pushed by the MSM and the politicians, effectively shutting down primary healthcare, that presents a far greater risk to public health. The mendacity of Javid’s disinformation was breathtaking.
The people who are queuing for their jabs aren’t selfish, just misinformed. However, the 13% of adult the population who don’t want one aren’t selfish either.
The MSM and the politicians persistently try to drive a wedge between the jabbed and the unjabbed. They seek to cause divisions based upon disinformation, lies and propaganda.
The reason for this is clear. Just like all tyrannical regimes throughout history, the current UK dictatorship wish to scapegoat a minority in order to avoid wider public attention turning on them. They do this to reduce the chance of the people questioning the tyrants who are enslaving them. It is nothing more complex than divide and rule.
THE JABS DON’T WORK
Speaking in October, the current UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, effectively admitted that the jabs are not “vaccines.” They do not function like any vaccines we are familiar with. Apparently, they are much more like a treatment:
Double vaccination provides a lot of protection against serious illness and death but it doesn’t protect you against catching the disease, and it doesn’t protect you against passing it on.”
Johnson’s observation was partially accurate. Recent research from the US found that there was no difference in viral load between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. These findings appear to be corroborated by a study from Singapore, which strongly advocated the jabs for their claimed ability to reduce mortality, but also noted:
PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values were similar between both vaccinated and unvaccinated groups at diagnosis, but viral loads decreased faster in vaccinated individuals […] viral load indicated by PCR Ct values was similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients.”
For the jabs to function as a vaccine, in the traditional sense, the higher the jab rate the lower disease prevalence should be. This is an obvious point, but seemingly one that needs to be stressed as the wider public appear to be largely unaware of this.
There is no statistical correlation between population jab rates, infection rates and disease prevalence. A joint U.S. and Canadian study, which assessed statistical reports from 68 countries and 2947 US counties found:
At the country-level, there appears to be no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases in the last 7 days. In fact, the trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people.”
Yet, somewhat contrary to their own findings, the researchers still promoted the jabs as part of broader approach to disease mitigation using non pharmaceutical interventions, including wearing face-masks, lockdowns and social distancing. As we will discuss shortly, promoting the official narrative is now a prerequisite for peer review and publication.
Presumably, to stay within the permitted boundaries of the official scientific consensus, the researchers maintained the new definition of “vaccine,” describing a drug incapable of reducing infection rates that acts like a treatment:
Vaccinations offers protection to individuals against severe hospitalization and death.”
The peninsula of Gibraltar, with a population of around 34,000, was delighted to declare that it had achieved a 100% jab rate. Thereafter it suffered a surge in reported cases.
In the Republic of Ireland, the city of Waterford has a 99.7% jab rate and the highest case rate in Ireland.
In Israel, where the definition of “fully vaccinated” means someone received two initial jabs and a booster (3 jabs,) there have been 67 recorded cases of the Omicron variant. Of these 54 (nearly 81%) were fully jabbed. Of the remaining 13 cases we don’t know if any of them were genuinely unjabbed. They could have received one or two jabs and still be categorised as not “fully vaccinated.”
If we look at a recent map of vaccine coverage provided by CNN we can identify some interesting comparisons.
Brazil, with jab coverage of 150 jabs per 100 people, has more than 103,000 COVID cases per million people (CPM). Neighbouring Bolivia, with 77 jabs per 100, has a case rate of just under 47,000 CPM. Paraguay has a slightly higher jab rate of 88 and a slightly higher case rate of 64,000 CPM. Argentina, with the highest jab rate of all, at 220 per 100, also has the highest CPM of all, at just over 117,000.
The most striking feature of the CNN map is the very low vaccinations rates in Africa. Nigeria, Tanzania and Zambia, for example, have less than 10 jabs per 100. They are among the countries with the lowest case rates in the world. Zambia has just over 11,000 CPM and Nigeria and Tanzania much less. By contrast Botswana, with a relatively high African vaccination rate of 62 per 100 people, has a CPM of nearly 82,000.
Some scientists are apparently mystified by the low rates of COVID-19 in Africa as a whole. They offer a range of possible explanations. They point towards a younger population or early border closures, some suggest lower urban density or perhaps more outdoor activity to account for the obvious anomaly.
Calling it a “mystery” Prof. Wafaa El-Sadr, global health lead at Columbia University, said:
Africa doesn’t have the vaccines and the resources to fight COVID-19 that they have in Europe and the US, but somehow they seem to be doing better.”
African nations are certainly doing better than the U.S. With approximately 4% of the World’s population and a vaccine rate of 147 per 100 people, the U.S. account for more than 36% of the current 27,586,743 active global cases.
In fact, the list of the top 20 nations with the highest case rates around the world is predominantly composed of the countries with the highest vaccination rates.
Scientists are looking at all the variables to try and figure out what could possibly explain the African mystery. The only factor they aren’t considering is the most obvious one.
Despite most African nations having no first wave, the global scientific and medical authorities are hell-bent on preventing the second with the jabs. Prof. Salim Abdool Karim from the South Africa’s University of KwaZulu-Natal said:
We need to be vaccinating all out to prepare for the next wave.”
Professor Karim was invited to join the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) science council in April 2020. The WHO have made jabbing African populations its next priority.
There are multiple studies which demonstrate that natural immunity derived from infection is considerably better than any imparted by the jabs. A recent Israeli investigation suggests that natural immunity, following infection, is up to 27 times more robust than any conferred by the jabs.
Regardless of scientific debates about antigens, T-cells and immunogenicity etc., which all relate to how the jabs supposedly function, very basic statistical analysis is sufficient to clearly demonstrate that they do not work as vaccines.
The only remaining claim for the jabs efficacy is that they reduce hospitalisation and death. Unfortunately, there is a lot of evidence which casts doubt upon this claim too.
Anthony Fauci (left) & Salim Abdool Karim (right)
If the jabs are incapable of stopping infection and transmission and serve only to reduce natural immunity, there is no possible public health rationale for a jab mandate. An uninfected individual is no more likely to catch COVID-19 from an unjabbed person than they are from a jabbed citizen. According to the official definition of a COVID-19 case, the statistics show that the jabs don’t make any difference whatsoever to the spread of disease.
In his more recent address to the nation, pushing the unregulated booster jabs, Boris Johnson said:
Over the past year we have shown that vaccination is the key to beating Covid and that it works […] It is now clear that two doses of vaccine are simply not enough to give the level of protection we all need […] we must urgently reinforce our wall of vaccine protection to keep our friends and loved ones safe […] As we focus on boosters […] it will mean some other appointments will need to be postponed until the New Year […] If we don’t do this now, the wave of Omicron could be so big that cancellations and disruptions, like the loss of cancer appointments, would be even greater next year”
Johnson’s speech was utterly incoherent. On the one hand the vaccines work but on the other they don’t and a booster is required. To fend off a wave of cases, defined by a test that can’t identify cases, apparently trivial health interventions, like cancer screening appointments, need to be cancelled for the benefit of the nation’s health and the common good.
Shortly following Johnson’s plea to “get boosted now” the UK government clarified that GP surgeries across the land would focus upon jabs and emergency appointments only.
By declaring a “national mission” to jab as many people as possible, primary care has practically been suspended in the UK. This has been done in the winter, in the middle of an alleged respiratory disease pandemic. The Health impact from this will be disastrous.
The British Medical Association has already warned that the reconfiguration of the NHS, first into a COVID-19 only service and now a jab only service, has terrible public health consequences.
Just in the 3 month period following the first lockdown there were up to 1.5M fewer elective admissions to hospital; first time patient attendance, for all conditions, dropped by 2.6M; urgent cancer referrals were down by an alarming 280,000, with up to 26,000 fewer patients starting treatment, of which 15,000 would normally have first come to light via a GP referral.
Yet, knowing all this, the government would have you believe that their intention is to save life. This claim is not credible.
THE JABS ARE DANGEROUS
Further evidence from Israel suggests that the the period between the first and second jab, and shortly thereafter, increases the COVID-19 mortality risk. Vulnerability to disease is significantly greater during this 3 to 5 week period.
Prof. Dr. Seligmann (Ph.D) and his research partner calculated the base rate likelihood of COVID-19 mortality for different age groups prior to being jabbed. For example, for those over 60, it was 0.00022631% per day. He then contrasted this with the official Israeli data for mortality immediately post jab.
During the 13 day period after the first dose of the Pfizer jab, the COVID-19 daily mortality risk for the over 60’s was 14.5 times higher at 0.003303% per day. After 13 days this risk increased to 0.005484% per day, more than 24.2 times greater. This rose further, up to 6 days after the second dose, to 0.006076% per day, representing a 26.85-fold increased risk of COVID-19 mortality for the jabbed.
Prof. Seligmann found similarly huge increases in the COVID-19 mortality risk for all the jabs during what he called the “period of vaccination.” Once the recipients were “fully vaccinated” Seligmann found some benefit for the jabbed, as they afforded a marginal reduction in COVID-19 mortality risks when compared to those of the unjabbed.
He calculated that, for this benefit to outweigh the massive increase in risk during the “period of vaccination,” the jabs would have to provide near 100% protection for more than two years just to offset the initial health cost of being jabbed. This benefit is not seen in the data.
A recent Swedish study is one among many to show that any possible COVID-19 benefit, once fully jabbed, wanes quickly. Unable to protect those most vulnerable to COVID-19 after 6 months, Dr Seligmann’s research indicates that there is no COVID-19 health benefit associated with the jabs.
Official risk/benefit analysis suggests that being fully jabbed provides some marginal protection against hospitalisation. There is also a barely discernible statistical signal suggesting that they also reduce mortality, to a very limited degree.
Prof. Seligmann found the same. However, this only related to the COVID-19 statistics and they are based upon non-diagnostic RT-PCR test results. Official claims take no account for the additional “period of vaccination” risk identified by Seligmann.
Prof. Selligman and Dr. Spiro P. Pantazatos, assistant Professor of Clinical Neurobiology at Columbia University, subsequently undertook further evaluation of the all cause mortality risk following the jabs.
Their research showed an estimated U.S. Vaccine Fatality Rate (VFR) of 0.04%, suggesting that the CDC declared VFR of 0.002% underestimates mortality caused by the jabs by a factor of 20. The scientists found that the data indicated U.S. jab related deaths of between 146,000 and 187,000 for the period between February to August 2021.
Pantazatos and Seligmann also identified a significant increase in the all-cause mortality risk in the first 5-6 weeks following the first jab. Again, demonstrating that the initial risk of being jabbed is not offset by the short-lived benefit once “fully vaccinated.”
There is little reason to accept the officially reported statistics.
The attribution of COVID-19 to mortality is spurious. Death within 28 or 60 days of a positive RT-PCR test is used, depending on whose statistics you look at. This is not “proof” that COVID-19 was the cause of death.
Attribution of COVID-19 to hospital admissions is equally weak. Research by independent auditors shows that people with a range of non-COVID related presentations, such as limb or head injuries, are often admitted to hospital as supposed COVID-19 patents.
The researchers found that, in more than 90% of alleged COVID-19 admissions, there was no clinical reason to describe them as such.
All alleged benefits of the jabs are based upon these woolly definitions and questionable statistical assertions. Consequently, if we truly want to understand the possible benefits of the jabs, we need to look at all cause mortality.
This can be considered more reliable because it is simply an anaylisis of all registered deaths, irrespective of the cause.
If the jabs work and are safe, then a difference in all cause mortality between the the jabbed and the unjabbed should be observed. While the jabbed aren’t protected against other causes of death, they are supposedly protected against COVID-19 and this should be detectable in the data.
A team of statisticians from Queen Mary University London conducted a study of all cause mortality data in England. They examined the vaccine surveillance monitoring reports issued by the Office of National Statistics (ONS).
They noted that initially, as we’ve discussed, these official reports seem to show a benefit from the jabs. However, they identified a series of anomalies in the data.
They found that non-COVID-19 mortality patterns, for the supposedly unjabbed, had peaks that correlated with the jab rollouts. After the “period of vaccination” the Non COVID-19 mortality for both the jabbed and allegedly unjabbed cohorts remained similar and relatively stable. Further, in general, the unjabbed appeared to have unusually high non-COVID-19 mortality while the jabbed seemingly had unusually low non-COVID-19 mortality.
They also looked at the different categories of jabbed people. These were “within 21 days of first dose,” “at least 21 days after first dose,” and “second dose.”
They found a consistent but large variation in the mortality figures between these groups. “Second dose” non-COVID-19 mortality was persistently below baseline mortality, while “within 21 days” mortality was always far above baseline.
Most striking was the different patterns in mortality between the three studied age groups. Historical data shows that for those in the 60-69, 70-79 and 80+ age groups, while all cause mortality increases with age, the three groups always shared the same mortality distribution pattern, typically with a peak in the winter months. This is often referred to as “excess winter mortality.”
Yet in 2021, not only did the three groups have separate periods of peak mortality, dispersed unseasonably throughout the year, for the unjabbed that mortality corresponded directly with the jab rollouts in each age group. Nor did these peaks in unjabbed mortality corrolate to supposed waves of COVID-19. They followed the jab rollouts.
The researchers concluded:
Whatever the explanations for the observed data, it is clear that it is both unreliable and misleading […] we believe the most likely explanations are systematic miscategorisation of deaths between the different groups of unvaccinated and vaccinated; delayed or non-reporting of vaccinations; systematic underestimation of the proportion of unvaccinated [and] incorrect population selection for Covid deaths. With these considerations in mind we applied adjustments to the ONS data and showed that they lead to the conclusion that the vaccines do not reduce all-cause mortality, but rather produce genuine spikes in all-cause mortality shortly after vaccination.”
The head of the research team, Prof. Dr. Norman Fenton, gave a radio interview where he explained why his paper had not been peer reviewed or submitted to a journal for publication:
The unvaccinated seem to be dying after not getting the first dose and the single dose are dying after not getting the second dose […] the vaccinated are dying within 14 days of vaccination and are simply being categorised as unvaccinated […] There is no evidence for their efficacy when it is measured by the only sensible way to measure it, which is all cause mortality […] When we first started doing research on this we had no problem getting our work into peer reviewed papers, because we weren’t challenging the narrative […] As soon as it became clear, you know, with the sort of mass testing of asymptomatic people, that the potential for false positives for asymptomatics was inflating case numbers and COVID so-called hospitalisations and deaths, as soon as we started raising those concerns in our work, as soon as we submitted it for publication, it was being rejected without review. Something I have never had before.”
Rejecting science, because it doesn’t abide by the official narrative, is not a new problem but it is “anti-science” and suggests a coordinated effort to deceive. The work of Prof. Seligmann and others, looking at both COVID-19 and all cause mortality, appears to independently corroborate the finding of Queen Mary team.
There is no doubt that the jabs can kill. There have been a number of inquests that have found that death was caused by complications following the jabs.
Causes of death have included venous infarction thrombosis, intracerebral haemorrhage, anaphylaxis, vaccine-induced thrombosis & thrombocytopenia and “unrecognised consequences of elective COVID-19 vaccines,” to name a few. The only question is the scale of the mortality caused by the jabs.
US researchers found a 19 fold increase in myocarditis (heart inflammation) among the 12 – 15 year olds which directly correlated with the jab roll-out. The study was peer reviewed and then published, before being withdrawn by journal editors without explanation.
Myocarditis is extremely serious for young people and often requires a heart transplant in later life, significantly reducing their life expectancy.
Just as some in the scientific community are mystified by the almost perfect correlation between jab and COVID-19 “case” rates, so the medical profession are similarly bewildered by the marked rise in cardiac emergencies in Scotland. These too followed the jab rollout for the impacted age groups.
Apparently doctors haven’t got the faintest idea what the cause could possibly be. They are not investigating if it could be the jabs.
Why they aren’t could be seen as yet another mystery, because the statistical evidence indicates that the jabs are lethal. If we look at statistics from the ONS it is evident that, between January and October 2021, the jabbed under 60’s in England were dying at approximatly double the rate of the unjabbed.
This is not an insignificant fact but comes with important caveats. Prof. Fenton and his team did not analyse this age group because it is too broad. Depending on the progress with the jab rollouts, with older people jabbed first, the jabbed cohort is likely have a higher baseline mortality risk than the jabbed.
Taken in isolation this statistic doesn’t reveal much. It is more telling in context with a German study which also found a clear correlation between the jabs and mortality.
Together these add further corroboration the other statistical findings we’ve discussed. The German scientists, Prof. Dr. Rolf Steyer and Dr. Gregor Kappler, concluded:
The higher the vaccination rate, the higher the excess mortality. In view of the forthcoming policy measures aimed at reducing the virus, this figure is worrying and needs to be explained if further policy measures are to be taken with the aim of increasing the vaccination rate.”
The only rationale that can explain how the ONS, MHRA, EMA, FDA and other official bodies around the world are maintaining the lie that the jabs save lives is that they have chosen, or have been ordered, to release disinformation that knowingly endangers public health. There is yet more evidence from the clinical trials that this is the case.
The FDA, MHRA, EMA and other supposed regulators granted EUA’s for the Pfizer/BioNTech jab based upon 2 months of extremely limited, interim trial data. Research by the Canadian COVID Care Alliance has exposed this wholly untrustworthy process. There was no mention in the original, interim trial data, submitted by Pfizer, of the scale of the ADRs caused by their product.
Using relative risk they claimed their jabs were amazing and nearly everyone, including the regulators, simply took their word for it. Those who didn’t were vilified as “covid deniers” or “anti-vaxxers.”
Six months into the jab rollout Pfizer released more data with another interim study. They made more claims about the efficacy and safety of their BNT162b2 jabs:
BNT162b2 continued to be safe and have an acceptable adverse-event profile. Few participants had adverse events leading to withdrawal from the trial.”
However, this wasn’t true at all. In their released report, published by “respected journals” like the Lancet, they forgot to analyse the supplementary evidence concerning ADRs, also contained within their findings.
This revealed a consistent elevated risk of Adverse Events (AEs) for the jabbed. For example, “related events” are adverse health events that are deemed to be caused by the jab. For the jabbed the related risk ratio was 23.9, for the unjabbed it was 6. This is nearly a 300% increase in the risk of health harm if you take the Pfizer jab.
Serious adverse events are likely to put you in hospital. For the jabbed the risk was 0.6, for the unjabbed it was 0.5. In other words the jab increases your risk of being hospitalised by 10%.
A drug that increases illness in the population is not an “effective vaccine.” Reducing “case numbers” for one ailment is an utterly pointless exercise if population levels of illness and hospitalisation increase as a result. It gets worse.
Prior to unblinding their own trials, thereby ending the supposed RCTs years before completion, jabbed and unjabbed cohorts were equal in size. 15 people died in the jabbed cohort and 14 died in the unjabbed cohort. Following unblinding a further 5 jabbed people died, including 2 who were previously unjabbed.
The jab increases the mortality risk. This is precisely as observed by Seligmann, Fenton, Steyer, Kappler, Pantazatos and many other scientists and statisticians.
Pfizer were eager to report the 100% reduction in COVID-19 mortality in the main body of their study. Of the 21,926 people in the jabbed cohort only 1 died with a positive RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 “case.” Whereas 2 of the 21,921 placebo group died. Hence Pfizer’s 100% improvement claim of efficacy.
They failed to mention that their product doubled the chance of you suffering a cardiovascular event and they definitely shied away from the most unpallatable reality of all. There were 4 heart attack deaths among the jabbed compared to 1 in the placebo group. A 300% increased risk of fatal heart failure following the jab.
If the objective of the jabs is to “save life” then it is impossible to understand how they ever received EUAs.
Fully indemnified against prosecution and with carte blanche from the regulators to do whatever they like, the pharmaceutical corporations are fully committed to jabbing all our children, including infants.
This is something our governments and the majority of the population wholeheartedly approve of. If you question it you are selfish.
THE REGULATORS SEEMING EFFORTS TO HIDE THE TRUTH ABOUT THE JABS
It is common to read claims from the regulators, and everyone else who advocates the jabs, that the benefits of the vaccines outweigh the risks.
This is based on the alleged risk of COVID-19, which is practically impossible to assess due to the massive corruption of the data, and an apparent blank refusal to consider any risks from the vaccines.
At first glance, the safety profiles for the jabs look appalling. So far, in the UK alone, there are 1,822 possible jab related deaths recorded via the MHRA yellow card scheme.
In response to a Freedom of Information Request (FOIR,) the MHRA revealed that they had received:
“[…] a total of 404 UK spontaneous suspected ADR reports for any vaccine between 01/01/2001 – 25/08/2021 associated with a fatal outcome.”
With more than 1,800 suspected fatalities reported for the COVID jabs already, currently they potentially account for three and half times more fatalities than all other vaccines combined over the last two decades. This is a statistical pattern repeated in every nation that has rolled them out.
We also know that the vast majority of possible ADRs remain unreported. A 2018 survey study of paediatric healthcare professionals found that 64% had not reported known ADRs. Of the total surveyed 16% didn’t even know the Yellow Card system existed and 26% didn’t know how to use it, with only 18% having undertaken any relevant training.
So it is not at all surprising that the MHRA state:
“It is estimated that only 10% of serious reactions and between 2 and 4% of non-serious reactions are reported.”
There is no evidence that the MHRA have done anything to improve yellow card reporting. Apparently they have promoted the Yellow Card Scheme, it is just that no one noticed. With nearly 400,000 COVID jab ADR reports on the system already, it is likely that the true figure is in excess of 10 million and possible UK deaths caused by the jabs could certainly exceed 18,000.
This is necessarily speculative to a degree, because the MHRA have not investigated any of the recorded ADRs. They have no idea how many people have been killed by the jabs and have shown no interest in finding out.
While they claim their role is to investigate potential ADRs, to provide an “early warning system” for possible vaccine harm, they also say:
The suspected ADRs described in this report are not interpreted as being proven side effects of COVID-19 vaccines.”
This is reasonable if those reports are then investigated. That is not what the MHRA do. Their position and their statements are wholly unreasonable.
To date, they have provided nothing that proves these reports are not evidence of ADRs. Their given interpretation, that these reports provide no proof, is meaningless. Nothing can ever be proven if you don’t bother to examine the evidence.
There is no commitment from the MHRA that they will ever investigate any Yellow Card reports for the jabs. All they will do is highlight possible safety issues, note the reports, and maybe discuss these with other national regulators. There is no expressed intention to question the manufacturer’s claims for the jabs at all.
The UK’s MHRA claim that a dedicated team look for “signals” in the data and where a signal is found they will discuss this with some selected experts.
Given that they acknowledge both the under-reporting and that current monitoring suggests the jabs have a mortality rate orders of magnitude worse than any vaccine, you would imagine that the MHRA would have identified a very concerning “signal.” Indeed they admit:
Yellow Cards in isolation are sufficient to allow signal detection.”
Yet they choose not to use the Yellow Cards as an “early warning.” There is no record of them following up on any Yellow Card reports. Instead they first apply a number of relative risk calculations to see if the signal is worthy of further discussion.
In particular, they use the MaxSPRT (Sequential Probability Ratio Test). This compares reported ADRs to the general population, or background, risk of the same adverse event. If the likelihood ratio test (LRT) indicates that the risk is higher following a jab, then a signal has been identified. However, dishonesty lurks within this approach.
MaxSPRT is based upon a series of assumptions about the data. Specifically that it is constantly monitored in real time and that there is a matched exposure between the jabbed and the unjabbed to contrast incident rates.
When we are talking about 40M jabbed compared to 7M injabbed adults, the disparity between and the size of the jabbed and the unjabbed cohorts invalidates this methodology.
Many biostatiticians have pointed out the limitations of using MaxSPRT for large volume database analysis:
This particular LRT, which conditions on the total number of events, is designed for the rare event case in which only one event is expected to be observed per exposure […] However, when events are not extremely rare, or when the probability within a stratum of more than one event occurring is not small, the assumptions of this LRT are violated.”
In other words the MHRA appraisal is highly sensitive to extremely rare ADRs but is likely to hide, rather than reveal, the more common side effects that are killing people. The MHRA are using a system that will obscure serious problems with the jabs. The only signals their dedicated team might discuss with experts will be “extremely rare.”
They won’t see any signals for more common adverse events and can therefore overlook the obvious and ignore the danger.
MHRA – Dedicated Team
Presumably this is why the MHRA have chosen not to use the “Yellow Cards in isolation.” The raw data clearly indicates huge reason for concern. It has to be reworked and remodelled in order to ignore the glaringly evident. Again, this is a common feature of all jab safety monitoring (pharmacovigilance) systems, which scientists have described as “utterly inadequate.”
Correlation does not prove causation, yet where correlation is persistent and pronounced the chance of it not demonstrating causation diminishes rapidly. Wherever we look, the jabs appear to be causing severe ADRs on an alarming scale.
COVID JABS: INEFFECTIVE, OPPRESSIVE AND DANGEROUS
There is no evidence to substantiate any official or MSM claims about COVID-19 jab efficacy or safety. They are experimental drugs with unknown risk profiles that are being forced upon people without offering them any opportunity to give their informed consent. The jab roll-outs breech numerous international conventions including the Nuremberg Code.
What data does exist is alarming, to say the least, and all the indications are that the jabs are extremely dangerous. There is no doubt that they can kill. Those who support a jab mandate are advocating that people should be forced to take a potentially lethal injection. Those who are aware of this, understandably, do not wish to take them.
For this they are being demonised by government, the MSM and a large percentage of those who have elected to be jabbed. If they try to raise any concerns they are dismissed by the same as anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, covid-deniers or dangerous refuseniks and are accused of being selfish. Despite that fact that it is the jab obsession that is destroying public health and medical services.
There is clear evidence of obfuscation and denial to hide the dangers of the jabs from the public. This seems to cross the threshold of criminality in nearly every nation state where the jabs are deployed. National populations are clearly under attack by their own governments and their partners.
However, perhaps the most insidious aspect of the jabs is their central role within a new system of governmental authority that is enslaving humanity. Our jab status is the required license to participate in a technocratic, behavioural control and surveillance grid. Not only will our vaccine passport (app) monitor and report where we go, who we meet and what we are allowed to do, it will also determine what services we can access.
Those who think the jabs are essential to protect themselves and others, against a low mortality respiratory virus, have either not been given, or choose to ignore, the information required to make this judgement. They believe that they are free because they can now register to use the services that hitherto were freely available to all. They have accepted that they need permission from the government simply to conduct normal, everyday activities.
They are committed to take whatever drugs are given to them for the rest of their lives. If they wish to retain their societal permits, this is not negotiable. Their imaginary freedom is conditional upon their continued compliance.
They do not own their own body and are no longer, in any sense, free. They are elective slaves and are seemingly content to condemn future generations, including their own children, to the same fate.
You can read more of Iain’s work at his blog In This Together or on UK Column. His new book Pseudopandemic, is now available, in both in kindle and paperback, from Amazon and other sellers. Or you can claim a free copy by subscribing to his newsletter.
Shameless BBC hosts Big Pharma’s drive to get Africa hooked on Covid vaccine
By Rusere Shoniwa | TCW Defending Freedom | December 23, 2021
AT the end of November, a piece of BBC agitprop to stoke up fervour for vaccinating Africa went viral. As a British citizen of African descent living in London, I was disgusted by it.
I am concerned that people in Africa may ‘get it’ even less than the average Westerner and I really want to try to reach a few Africans who might be wondering what Covid could mean for them.
So let’s start by imagining if Big Pharma were to run a modestly honest advertisement to recruit dealers for pushing Covid ‘vaccines’ in Africa.
It might read something like this: ‘International drug cartel requires Western-educated Black face to front our public campaign to push experimental and unnecessary Covid vaccines on the impoverished African continent.
‘This is a tough market, highly suspicious of the product and not without good reason. Smile and dial merchants need not apply, as you must bypass the consumer to target the decision-maker.
‘Successful applicants must display the ability to rail melodramatically at the “racist vaccine-hoarding” injustices perpetrated by the West against Africa, appealing to the woke sensibilities of those in positions of power within key Western institutions. African leaders will then be expected to do as they’re told.’
I must confess that I reverse-engineered that ad after watching the successful applicant going through the motions like a performing seal on a BBC World News slot set aside for just such agitprop.
Following the latest Covid variant hype, the co-chair of the African Union’s Vaccine Delivery Alliance, Dr Ayoade Alakija, announced on the UK’s flagship propaganda organ: ‘What is going on right now (the emergence of the Omicron Variant) is inevitable.
‘It’s a result of the world’s failure to vaccinate in an equitable, urgent and speedy manner. It is a result of hoarding by high-income countries of the world and quite frankly it is unacceptable. These travel bans are based in politics and not science. It is wrong.’
Abandoning any pretence at journalism, the BBC presenter, Philippa Thomas, played the role of therapist by responding: ‘I hear your anger about the immediate reaction and the lack of action beforehand.’
The stage direction becomes even more obvious and cringeworthy as Thomas then pauses, providing a cue for the good doctor to glance at her script and resume the televised amateur dramatics: ‘So this is hopefully a dress rehearsal because until everyone is vaccinated no-one is safe … why are the Africans unvaccinated? It’s an outrage because we knew we were going to get here.
‘We knew this is where the hoarding, the lack of IP (intellectual property rights) waivers, the lack of co-operation on sharing tech and sharing know-how, we knew this was the crossroads it was going to bring us to. To a more dangerous variant.’
The only valid question she raises concerns the swift travel bans placed on Southern African countries: ‘Why are we locking away Africa when this virus is already on three continents? Nobody is locking away Belgium, nobody is locking away Israel.’
This is an emotional ploy to gain the trust of the small handful of privileged Africans watching this drivel. She is saying to them: ‘I am right-on, woke, one of you.’ She quickly jumps back on board the Covid cult train with a policy ‘nudge’ that must have African leaders reaching for their sickbags.
‘Something needs to be done to everywhere. My recommendation is to have a co-ordinated global shutdown of travel, for the next month if you want, but don’t single out Africa.’
And then back to the greedy, vaccine-hoarding West: ‘The Botswana government ordered 500,000 doses of vaccines at 29 dollars per dose, much higher than the rest of the world paid. They did not get those vaccines because other people jumped ahead in the queue. Moderna supplied to other countries … and so now we have a variant.’
Not a single grain of this guerrilla marketing campaign was challenged by the BBC journalist.
The obvious starting point for a presenter with half an ounce of journalistic integrity would be to explore whether the ‘vaccines’ are working and whether they would indeed have prevented a variant. After all, the fact that they do not halt transmission and infection is no longer controversial.
No sales pitch involving an illness would be complete without recourse to fear-based marketing tactics. Enter the Omicron narrative.
Despite Dr Alakija’s claim that we now have ‘a more dangerous variant’, there was no evidence that this variant would make any difference to disease severity at the time she was invited by the BBC to make her vaccine sales pitch for Africa. (Nor is there proof that vaccination prevents variants from arising in the first place).
Since then, the evidence emerging is that Omicron is less severe than previous variants and more contagious – the ideal combination for hastening herd immunity with minimal population health impact.
Telling medium-sized lies and half-truths with a straight face has always been the minimum qualification for political office, but Covid has raised the bar to a new height – the ability to swim in a pool of one’s own metaphorical vomit without flinching.
The BBC ‘discussion’ might have turned to safety, to tease out how much personal risk Africans will be expected to bear in submitting to a vaccine that doesn’t perform the primary function of a vaccine.
The word ‘safety’, however, was not permitted to impinge in any way on the protestations of the injustice of depriving Africans of the wondrous medical treatments emanating from the hallowed laboratories of Western science.
The reticence about safety is understandable from a marketing perspective since, by any objective measure, these ‘vaccines’ are the most dangerous mass medications rolled out in modern history.
Perhaps Dr Alakija should have been quizzed about how Africans might react to the drug manufacturers’ lack of confidence in the safety of their own products in light of their refusal to distribute it to countries who refuse to provide blanket immunity from liability for injury.
Not a single word of safety information was explored, even in the vaguest terms, in the BBC report. Nothing. Juxtapose studies highlighting the risk of dangerous heart inflammation for young males following Covid vaccination against Africa’s far younger population, with a median age of around 20.
You’d think this safety risk might get a passing mention. Yet neither of the two stooges saw fit to broach the prospect that many young Africans – whose risk of dying from Covid is so small that it is hard to measure – may die following vaccination.
The callousness of this omission is standard operating procedure in Western liberal discourse, a key function of which is to drape a ‘humanitarian’ cloak over policies that enrich corporate interests in the West while harming and exploiting the poor.
Unveiling the farce of the BBC plug for Africa’s vaccination allows us to consider a game in which we imagine what other doctors might say if the BBC were to air credible dissenting voices – a practice that was once regarded as the bread and butter of journalism, but which would now be a radical act of rebellion.
It’s not a difficult game to play. In fact, no imagination is required, because the actual statements of credible dissenting doctors are available on other independent media news channels, as reported in TCW Defending Freedom on December 8.
A new channel based in Austria, AUF1, gives a platform to those medical professionals who refuse to go along with the official narrative.
Typical is Dr Heiko Schöning, who says: ‘The corona panic is a stage-managed production. It’s a confidence trick. It is now urgent that we understand we are now in the grip of a worldwide Mafioso-style criminal enterprise. We can see we are dealing here with organised crime. So what do we do? We don’t play along any longer. Here and now we have to draw the red line.’
Had Dr Schöning just finished watching the two stooges on BBC World News when he described ‘the corona panic’ as ‘a stage-managed production’?
Whether these doctors are right or wrong is irrelevant to the journalistic duty to present credible dissenting voices to the public. The failure to do so goes a long way to meeting the criteria for propaganda.
The question in relation to Dr Alakija’s BBC guerrilla marketing campaign is: Do enough Africans know that there are alternative credible narratives to challenge the mainstream BBC vaccine narrative and how would they respond if these competing narratives were presented?
Does Africa, or anywhere else for that matter, need mass vaccination? Almost two years into this global nightmare, with evidence showing that up to 80% of South Africans (how similar for other African nations?) may have already been exposed to the virus, less than 6% of Africa vaccinated, and a death toll a fraction of that in the ageing populations of the West (Africa’s Covid deaths are 3% of the global total), it is clear that Africa has already learnt to live with the virus.
Had Africans succeeded in applying the same level of rigorous lockdown stupidity that was achieved in the West, it would not have made the slightest difference, as real science is conclusively demonstrating not just the futility of lockdowns but their positive destructiveness.
Despite looser lockdowns (perhaps partly because of this) Africa fared much better than the illiberal West in health outcomes.
No doubt there are other variables at play, but cheap, effective early treatments in some parts of Africa were used to good effect and should continue to be the focus of attention.
Africa and the entire planet would get far more bang for their buck from policies addressing human health holistically rather than with expensive experimental ‘vaccines’ which will continue for as long as human beings are prepared to, or more likely forced to, surrender their bodies to Big Pharma and authoritarian governments.
It must be patently obvious to African leaders that the Covid crisis is a manufactured one, but that does not make it any less of a crisis.
Western liberal democracy is being dismantled at breakneck speed under the cover of Covid containment policies.
The criminality, coercion, censorship, propaganda and blatant negligence all signal the logical conclusion to a brutal colonial mindset – the attempted colonisation of the entire globe to serve the interests of a global elite which has successfully captured Western governments and supranational organisations.
The psychopaths whose aim is to introduce a technocratic global system of human control understand only too well that shutting off travel for economies that rely on tourism is a far bigger killer of economies, and therefore lives, than this virus has ever been.
The message being sent by the sadistic controllers to Africa’s leaders is a simple one: Get serious about imposing vaccines and the technocratic population control measures for which which vaccines are the delivery system … or else.
Covid containment policies represent a desperate authoritarian response to permanent decline. This cannot end well for the West and if the West is a sinking ship, then Africa must not blindly tether itself to this Titanic disaster.
Sen. Johnson Requests Records From Top Medical Journals on Retracted Studies, Including Flawed HCQ Study
The Defender | December 21, 2021
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) has written to The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine seeking records on two retracted studies from mid-2020. Johnson particularly called out The Lancet study, which suggested hydroxychloroquine could boost the risk of death in COVID patients.
“Although this fraudulent study was ultimately retracted, it is concerning and shameful that, in the midst of a pandemic, The Lancet published such a misleading paper on a potential early treatment for COVID-19,” said Johnson, the ranking member on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, in a letter dated Dec. 14.
Johnson seeks all records of the journals’ communication on the two studies, including communication with the papers’ authors; U.S. government employees; individuals who encouraged the studies’ publication; and the supplier of the two studies’ datasets, Surgisphere, a healthcare analytics company.
Despite The Lancet paper’s retraction, its initial publication halted trials on hydroxychloroquine’s use and sullied its reputation more broadly. The Washington Post and other major media headlined the increased risk of death, and health authorities took action globally within days of the paper’s publication.
The World Health Organization and the UK’s drug regulator halted trials of the drug in COVID settings. France reversed an earlier decision to allow hydroxychloroquine’s use in COVID patients.
Readers of The Lancet quickly noted the study cited implausibly high numbers of COVID cases in 2020, and journalists failed to find any hospitals that had contributed data, despite the study’s claim that more than 96,000 hospital patients participated.
The Lancet retracted the study two weeks after publication.
Sen. Johnson also requested information from The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on another study retracted in June 2020.
Johnson explained in his letter, the NEJM paper reportedly found that “taking certain blood pressure drugs, including angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, didn’t appear to increase the risk of death among COVID-19 patients, as some researchers had suggested.”
However, the study’s authors wrote to the NEJM a few weeks after the study was published, acknowledging they could not validate the primary data supporting the study and apologized “to the editors and to readers of the Journal for the difficulties that this has caused.”
Johnson has requested all records by Jan. 4, 2022.
© 2021 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
Fear mongering and stupidity from The New York Times
By Joel S Hirschhorn | December 21, 2021
This was said today:
“But Omicron may cause such a large increase in cases that it will nonetheless overwhelm hospitals, many of which are already near capacity.”
Every part of this statement is an intentional lie designed to instill fear and make the public accepting of increasing authoritarian, intrusive government actions that have no basis in medical science. It is all about controlling lives, not saving lives.
Here are my critical views:
1. Every bit of real-world evidence shows that omicron variant does NOT pose a serious health threat. Some of the smartest pandemic experts correctly see omicron more as a sign of the end of the pandemic than a worsening of it.
2. Looking at case data is sheer stupidity. The fear mongering already has compelled more people to get tested even though they have no symptoms of concern. Then they get PCR testing, most of which is run at too high a number of cycles and, therefore, produces false positives.
3. There are no good data showing hospitals being overwhelmed; they should not be because omicron does not produce really serious health impacts requiring hospitalization. That is another scare tactic.
4. Meanwhile, the government has totally failed to get large and free supplies of fast, home antigen test kits out to the public. This is the best way to quell fears and control need to go to hospitals because they will show that the vast majority of people have enough innate or natural immunity to keep them infection free.
5. Of course the government still does not tell the public about early home treatments that could quickly fix infection, and also that can be used as a prophylactic to prevent infection. Latest research showed that ivermectin is very effective.
6. Most importantly, all available, enormous information from all over the planet shows that COVID vaccines do not stop people from getting infected, even after booster shots. [Have you noticed all the top politicians fully vaccinated and with booster shots getting breakthrough infections?] So, real world evidence shows vaccine ineffectiveness, but the government keeps pushing vaccine shots and ignoring the great many harmful health vaccine impacts, including deaths. Even worse, governments increasingly PUNISH those who intelligently chose not to get vaccine shots or boosters. Treat them as second-class citizens, ignore the two-thirds of the population with natural immunity from prior infection; do not credit them with better immunity than vaccine immunity. What a corrupt, stupid government and public health system we have!
I now see President Biden as the new near-dead and utterly stupid captain of the Titantic circling around the toilet water, working successfully to flush our society down into the sewer system operated by an army of incompetent and corrupt idiots.
I am still waiting for the much-needed revolution. For that we need more people with working critical thinking skills.
Whilst you were distracted by a Christmas Party the UK Gov. released a report confirming the Fully Vaccinated account for 4 in every 5 Covid-19 Deaths in England since August
THE EXPOSÉ | DECEMBER 11, 2021
Serious questions need to be answered as to why Boris Johnson’s Government have decided to restrict the freedoms of the unvaccinated population through the introduction of Vaccine Passports, when the latest official data shows that the vaccinated population have accounted for 3 in every 5 Covid-19 cases, 3 in every 5 Covid-19 hospitalisations, and 4 in every 5 Covid-19 deaths, in England since August 16th 2021.
During a national Covid-19 briefing that took place on Tuesday December 8th, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom announced that ‘Plan B’ would be implemented in England from Wednesday December 15th, which would entail ‘working from home’ (if you can) orders, and the introduction of Vaccine Passports.
The reason given for the commencement of ‘Plan B’ is that it has to be done to protect the public from the alleged new Omicron variant of the Covid-19 virus. A variant which as of December 11th, has failed to cause a single fatality in the UK, with just several hundred cases allegedly being confirmed.
A new law will come into effect from Wednesday December 15th, which will state that Vaccine Passports will become mandatory for entry to nightclubs and other large venues, including Premier League football matches and concerts. We’re told they will be required for indoor settings of 500 people or more, outdoor settings of 4,000 people or more, and any setting with 10,000 attendees or more.
There will be many in England who believe Vaccine Passports are the answer to their prayers. Two years of misinformation, and disinformation mixed with propaganda published by the mainstream media can do that to people. But unfortunately the official data published by the UK Government proves that they are far from it, and suggests Vaccine Passports have absolutely nothing to do with protecting public health, and instead everything to do with controlling the nation.
The UK Health Security Agency (PHE) is an executive agency of the Department of Health and Social Care and recently replaced Public Health England. The Chief Executive of the agency is Dr Jenny Harries OBE, who you may recognise from the television as she has served as Deputy Chief Medical Officer for England throughout the pandemic.
The UKHSA publish a weekly ‘Vaccine Surveillance’ report which contains data on Covid-19 cases, hospitalisations, and deaths by vaccination status over a period of four weeks, and unfortunately for the vaccinated population, the official data shows that they have accounted for the majority of Covid-19 cases, hospitalisations, and deaths for at least the past four months.
We have used the following official reports for our analysis –
- COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report – Week 37 (Covers Week 33-36)
- COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report – Week 41 (Covers Week 37-40)
- COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report – Week 45 (Covers Week 41-44)
- COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report – Week 49 (Covers Week 45-48)
Covid-19 Cases
Table 8 of the latest report shows the number of Covid-19 cases by vaccination status in England. The table may have been attributed a different number in previous reports published by the UKHSA, but the following chart shows cases by vaccination status over a period of 16 weeks from 16 Aug 21 to 05 Dec 21.
The chart shows that between August and early September, the vaccinated population accounted for the majority of Covid-19 cases. However, between the middle of September and early October this switched to the not-vaccinated population accounting for the majority of cases. This is most likely due to children returning to school in September and being “encouraged” to test on a regular basis.
But between October 11th and December 5th the roles reversed again, and it is the fully vaccinated population that have accounted for the majority of Covid-19 cases in England.
This data alone puts an end to the myth that it is selfish to not be vaccinated, because it’s quite clear the jabs do not prevent infection or transmission. Which begs the question as to why Boris Johnson has decided to implement Vaccine Passports in England?
The above chart shows the cumulative number of cases by vaccination status between 16 Aug 21 and 05 Dec 21, and illustrates quite clearly that the fully vaccinated have accounted for the majority of cases since August.
What we can see from the above is that the unvaccinated had accounted for the majority of cases up to October 10th, however since this date there has been a switch with the fully vaccinated taking the lead, hitting a cumulative total of 1.5 million confirmed cases by Dec 5th.
When including the 258,387 confirmed cases among the partly vaccinated during this period, the total cases among the vaccinated population rises to 1,757,444. Whilst the number of cases among the unvaccinated population during this period of 16 weeks has amounted to 1,403,100.
Covid-19 Hospitalisations
Table 9 of the latest report shows the number of Covid-19 hospitalisations by vaccination status in England. The table may have been attributed a different number in previous reports published by the UKHSA, but the following chart shows cases by vaccination status over a period of 16 weeks from 16 Aug 21 to 05 Dec 21.
You may have heard several times this week on national television from people such as Dr Hilary, Lorraine Kelly, and Martin Kemp that “90% of the people currently in hospital with Covid-19 have not been vaccinated”.
Well it looks like they have been lying to you because the official UK Government data the fully vaccinated population have accounted for the majority of Covid-19 hospitalisation every month since at least August.
The above chart shows the cumulative number of hospitalisations by vaccination status between 16 Aug 21 and 05Dec 21, and shows just how bad things have actually been for the vaccinated population compared to the unvaccinated.
Between Aug 16 and Dec 05, the unvaccinated population accounted for 11,767 Covid-19 hospitalisations. But the vaccinated population have accounted for nearly double the amount, recording 19,730 hospitalisations, with 18,406 of those being among the 2/3 dose vaccinated population. This means the vaccinated population have accounted for 63% of Covid-19 hospitalisations since August 2021.
Covid-19 Deaths
Table 10 (b) of the latest report shows the number of Covid-19 hospitalisations by vaccination status in England. The table may have been attributed a different number in previous reports published by the UKHSA, but the following chart shows cases by vaccination status over a period of 16 weeks from 16 Aug 21 to 05 Dec 21.
The above chart proves that the fully vaccinated population have accounted for the majority of Covid-19 deaths every single month since August 2021, with things really taking a turn for the worse in October.
The highest number of Covid-19 deaths in single four week period among the fully vaccinated population has been 3,284, whereas the highest number of Covid-19 deaths among the unvaccinated population in a four week period has been just 850. That’s a 286% difference.
The above chart shows the cumulative number of deaths by vaccination status between 16 Aug 21 and 05 Dec 21, and illustrates quite clearly that this is very much a pandemic of the fully vaccinated.
Between 16 Aug 21 and 05 Dec 21 there were 3,070 Covid-19 deaths among the unvaccinated population in England, compared to 12,058 deaths among the vaccinated population during the same time frame. That is a 293% difference.
Covid-19 Fatality Rates by Vaccination Status
The official data shows the the vaccinated population have accounted for 56% of Covid-19 cases, 63% of hospitalisations, and 80% of deaths over the past 16 weeks in England.
It’s quite clear that the jabs do not prevent infection or transmission, but they are alleged to reduce the risk of hospitalisation and death. However, if this were the case then should we not be seeing a graph that looks more like this?
So why aren’t we?
It could have something to do witht he fact that the data suggests the Covid-19 injections are actually increasing the risk of death due to Covid-19 rather than reducing it by the claimed 95%.
The following graph shows the case-fatality rate among the not-vaccinated population, and the case-fatality rate among the 2/3 dose vaccinated population over the past 16 weeks.
The case-fatality rate is calculated by dividing the number of known deaths by the number of known cases among the population. As we can see from the above the case-fatality rate among the not-vaccinated population is just 0.2%, which is what is in line with the average case-fatality rate in 2020 before a Covid-19 injection was introduced to the masses.
However, the case-fatality rate among the fully vaccinated population is much higher, equating to 0.8%. Therefore the fully vaccinated are 4 times / 300% more likely to die if exposed to the Covid-19 virus based on official UK Government figures.
The following graph shows the hospitalisation-fatality rate among the not-vaccinated population, and the hospitalisation-fatality rate among the 2/3 dose vaccinated population over the past 16 weeks.
The hospitalisation-fatality rate is calculated by dividing the number of known deaths by the number of known hospitalisations among the population. As we can see from the above the hospitalsiation-fatality rate among the not-vaccinated population is 26%.
But the hospitalisation-fatality rate among the fully vaccinated population is frighteningly higher equating to a shocking 63%. This means the fully vaccinated population are 2.4 / 142% more likely to die once hospitalised with Covid-19.
So now that you know that the double / triple jabbed population have accounted for 3 in every 5 cases, 3 in every 5 hospitalisations, and 4 in every 5 Deaths over the past 4 months in England, and that the UK Government has been laughing at you since at least Christmas 2020 through their alleged Christmas parties, are you going to allow them to take away your freedom yet again in response to an alleged variant that has so far caused zero fatalities, or are you going to stand up, carry on living, and say “no” this time around?
Because this will not end until we all say it does.
Latest Modelling on Omicron Ignores All Evidence of Lower Severity, Among Numerous Other Problems
By Mike Hearn | The Daily Sceptic | December 11, 2021
Today the Telegraph reported that:
Experts from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) predict that a wave of infection caused by Omicron – if no additional restrictions are introduced – could lead to hospital admissions being around twice as high as the previous peak seen in January 2021.
Dr Rosanna Barnard, from LSHTM’s Centre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, who co-led the research, said the modellers’ most pessimistic scenario suggests that “we may have to endure more stringent restrictions to ensure the NHS is not overwhelmed”.
As we’ve come to expect from LSHTM and epidemiology in general, the model forming the basis for this ‘expert’ claim is unscientific and contains severe problems, making its predictions worthless. Equally expected, the press ignores these issues and indeed gives the impression that they haven’t actually read the underlying paper at all.
The ‘paper’ was uploaded an hour ago as of writing, but I put the word paper in quotes because not only is this document not peer reviewed in any way, it’s not even a single document. Instead, it’s a file that claims it will be continually updated, yet which has no version numbers. This might make it tricky to talk about, as by the time you read this it’s possible the document will have changed. Fortunately, they’re uploading files via GitHub, meaning we can follow any future revisions that are uploaded here.
Errors
The first shortcoming of the ‘paper’ becomes apparent on page 1:
Due to a lack of data, we assume Omicron has the same severity as Delta.
In reality, there is data and so far it indicates that Omicron is much milder than Delta:
Early data from the Steve Biko and Tshwane District Hospital Complex in South Africa’s capital Pretoria, which is at the centre of the outbreak, showed that on December 2nd only nine of the 42 patients on the Covid ward, all of whom were unvaccinated, were being treated for the virus and were in need of oxygen. The remainder of the patients had tested positive but were asymptomatic and being treated for other conditions.
The pattern of milder disease in Pretoria is corroborated by data for the whole of Gauteng province. Eight per cent of Covid-positive hospital patients are being treated in intensive care units, down from 23% throughout the Delta wave, and just 2% are on ventilators, down from 11%.
Financial Times, December 7th
The LSHTM document claims to be accurate as of today, but just ignores the data available so far and replaces it with an assumption; one that lets them argue for more restrictions.
What kind of restrictions? The LSHTM modellers are big fans of mask wearing:
All scenarios considered assume a 7.5% reduction in transmission following the introduction of limited mask-wearing measures by the U.K. Government on November 30th 2021, which we assume lasts until April 30th 2022. This is in keeping with our previous estimates for the impact of increased mask-wearing on transmission.
I was curious how they arrived at this number given the abundant evidence that mask mandates have no impact at all (example one, example two). But no such luck – a reference at the end of the above paragraph points to this document, which doesn’t contain the word “mask” anywhere and “7.5%” likewise cannot be found. I wondered if maybe this was a typo but the claim that the relevant reference supports mask wearing appears several times and the word “mask” isn’t mentioned in references before or after either.
There are many other assumptions of dubious validity in this paper. I don’t have time today to try and list all of them, although maybe someone else wants to have a go. A few that jumped out on a quick read through are:
- An assumption that S gene drop-outs, i.e. cases where a PCR test doesn’t detect the spike protein gene at all, are always Omicron. That doesn’t follow logically given the very high number of mutations and given that theoretically PCR testing is very precise, meaning a missing S gene should be interpreted as “not Covid”. Of course, in reality – as is by now well known – PCR results are routinely presented in a have-cake-and-eat-it way, in which they’re claimed to be both highly precise but also capable of detecting viruses with near arbitrary levels of mutation, depending on what argument the user wishes to support.
- “We use the relationship between mean neutralisation titre and protective efficacy from Khoury et al. (7) to arrive at assumptions for vaccine efficacy against infection with Omicron” – The cited paper was published in May and has nothing to say on the topic of vaccine effectiveness against Omicron, which is advertised as being heavily mutated. Despite not citing any actual measured data on real-world vaccine effectiveness, the modelling team proceeds to make arguments for widespread boosting with a vaccine targeted at the original 2019 Wuhan version of SARS-CoV-2.
- They make scenarios that vary based on unmeasurable variables like “rate of introduction of Omicron”, making their predictions effectively unfalsifiable. Regardless of what happens, they can claim that they projected a scenario that anticipated it, and because such a rate is unknowable, nobody can prove otherwise. Predictions have to be falsifiable to be scientific, but these are not.
- Their conclusion says “These results suggest that the introduction of the Omicron B.1.1.529 variant in England will lead to a substantial increase in SARS-CoV-2 transmission” even though earlier in the ‘paper’ they say they assume anywhere between a 5%-10% lower transmissibility than Delta to 30%-50% higher (page 7), or in other words, they have no idea what the underlying difference in transmissibility is – and that’s assuming this is actually something that can be summed up in a single number to begin with.
Analysis
If you’re new to adversarial reviews of epidemiology papers some of the above points may seem nit-picky, or even made in bad faith. Take the problem of the citation error – does it really matter? Surely, it’s just some sort of obscure copy/paste error or typo? Unfortunately, we cannot simply overlook such failures. The phenomenon of apparently random or outright deceptive citations is one I’ve written about previously. This problem is astoundingly widespread in academia. Most people will assume that a numerical claim by researchers that has a citation must have at least some level of truth to it, but in fact, meta-scientific study has indicated the error rate in citations is as high as 25%. A full quarter of scientific claims pointing to ‘evidence’ turn out when checked to be citing something that doesn’t support their point! This error rate feels roughly in line with my own experiences and that’s why it’s always worth verifying citations for dubious claims.
The reality is that academic output, especially in anything that involves statistical modelling, frequently turns out to not merely be unreliable but leaves the reader with the impression that the authors must have started with a desired conclusion and then worked backwards to try and find sciencey-sounding points to support it. Inconvenient data is claimed not to exist, convenient data is cherry picked, and where no convenient data can be found it’s just conjured into existence. Claims are made and cited but the citations don’t contain supporting evidence, or turn out to be just more assumptions. Every possible outcome is modelled and all but the most alarming are discarded. The scientific method is inconsistently used, at best, and instead scientism rules the day; meanwhile, universities applaud and defend this behaviour to the bitter end. Academia is in serious trouble: huge numbers of researchers just have no standards whatsoever and there are no institutional incentives to care.
Some readers will undoubtably wonder why we’re still bothering to do this kind of analysis given that there’s nothing really new here. On the Daily Sceptic alone we’ve covered these sorts of errors here, here, here, here, here and here – and that’s not even a comprehensive list. So why bother? I think it’s worth continuing to do this kind of work for a couple of reasons:
- Many people who didn’t doubt the science last year have developed newfound doubts this year, but won’t search through the archives to read old articles.
- The continued publication of these sorts of ‘papers’ is itself useful information. It shows that academia doesn’t seem to be capable of self-improvement and despite a long run of prediction failures, nobody within the institutions cares about the collective reputation of professors. The appearance of being scientific is what matters. Actually being scientific, not so much.
Featured Video
Guy Mettan: Russophobia Made War Inevitable
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
A Look Back At Israel’s Role In Selling The Iraq War
The Dissident | December 28, 2025
… As Netanyahu meets with Trump to push new lies to justify a new war in Iran, it is well worth remembering Israel’s previous role in pushing lies and pushing for the war in Iraq. – Read full article
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
Bill Francis on NSW Premier Admits New “Securi… Richard Ong on Israeli forces arrest writer a… Bill Francis on How reporting facts can now la… Gemma on Israel’s diamond industr… Bill Francis on Victoria Moves to Force Online… papasha408 on The Empire of Lies: How the BB… loongtip on US Weighs Port Restrictions on… Bill Francis on Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate… Sheree Sheree on I was canceled by three newspa… Richard Ong on Czech–Slovak alignment signals… John Edward Kendrick on Colonel Jacques Baud & Nat… eddieb on Villains of Judea: Ronald Laud…
Aletho News- Hamas says disarmament linked to Palestinian State, end of occupation
- Guy Mettan: Russophobia Made War Inevitable
- Somali president rejects displacement of Palestinians from Gaza
- Arms, silence, and alignment: The moral and geopolitical cost of India-Israel military ties
- WHO Instructs Governments to Track Online Anti-Vaccine Messaging in Real Time with AI: Journal ‘Vaccines’
- Ireland’s Simon Harris to Push EU-Wide Ban on Social Media Anonymity
- Drone Attack on Putin’s Residence Planned by Forces Trying to Torpedo Ukraine Peace Push: Expert
- Ukraine launched 91 kamikaze drones at Putin’s state residence – Lavrov
- Ukraine Takes Part in NATO War Games, Further Integrating Into Collective Defense Architecture
- Hungary vows to defy immigrant scheme
- If Americans Knew
- Netanyahu is coming to town, likely with war on his mind – Not a ceasefire Day 80
- Gaza hit with another winter storm – Not a ceasefire Day 79
- When will Israel’s crimes (and US complicity) end? – Not a ceasefire Day 78
- Christmas in the grip of genocide, occupation – Not a Ceasefire Day 77
- Palestinian Christians offer “Kairos,” an alternative Christmas Day sermon – Not a Ceasefire Day 76
- The Faces of AIPAC: the largest pro-Israel lobbying org in the US
- Gazan Christians mark 3rd Christmas under genocide – Not a Ceasefire Day 75
- Israeli scams children with cancer out of millions fundraised for their treatment, BBC finds
- Casey Kennedy Fired from AG Scientific Amid Zionist Troll Campaign Over Track AIPAC Work
- The Hasmoneans: The Jewish Dynasty That Gave Us Hanukkah Is a Symbol of Murder, Not Heroism and Hope
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study Finds A Higher Rate Of Global Warming From 1899-1940 Than From 1983-2024
- Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue Warns “Germany Won’t Make It” If Winter Turns Severe
- Merry Christmas Everybody!
- Two More New Studies Show The Southern Ocean And Antarctica Were Warmer In The 1970s
- Der Spiegel Caught Making Up Reports About Conservative America (Again)
- New Study: 8000 Years Ago Relative Sea Level Was 30 Meters Higher Than Today Across East Antarctica
- The Wind Energy Paradox: “Why More Wind Turbines Don’t Always Mean More Power”
- New Study Reopens Questions About Our Ability To Meaningfully Assess Global Mean Temperature
- Dialing Back The Panic: German Physics Prof Sees No Evidence Of Climate Tipping Points!
- Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon Challenges The Climate Consensus … It’s The Sun, Not CO2
Aletho News 