SPOOKS, RUSSIA, AND DISINFORMATION
By Paul Robinson | IRRUSIANALITY | January 20, 2022
Jeremy Morris has an interesting post on his Postsocialism blog about the malicious role played by Western intelligence services in shaping narratives of Russia. I’m somewhat sceptical about his thesis – or at least the extent of the phenomenon he describes – but as if by chance, today I also came across a story that kind of backs him up.
Morris complains of two “elephants in the room,” who together distort our understanding of Russia. The first is the “clear leveraging of latent public sympathy abroad for the Russian regime by our friends at the English-language offices of RT.” I guess that would be me.
The second is “academic and think-tank contacts with the security services in the West.” Given my former involvement in the intelligence world, and the fact that I’ve taught courses at the University of Ottawa with members of the Canadian security and intelligence services, I guess that would be me too.
Double elephant!
I imagine that Morris thinks that elephant number one distorts things in favour of Russia, and elephant number two distorts them against. That must make me some sort of push-me-pull-you doing both at once. Perhaps that explains why I always end up occupying the middle ground!
Anyway, I digress, because this isn’t meant to be about me. Back to the point.
“If you underestimate the hidden motives of those that comment on Russia – from both elephants, then you are guilty of the ‘fallacy of insufficient cynicism’,” writes Morris. I must confess myself guilty as charged. I can be pretty cynical, but I don’t think that everybody has “hidden motives.” People who write what one might call “pro-Russian” articles for RT aren’t doing it for the money or because the FSB has got some dirt on them any more than people writing Russophobic stuff for think tanks are doing it because they’re taking orders from the FBI, MI5, or CSIS. People tend to believe what they’re doing.
In any case, I worry less about spooks and more about the military industrial complex and its funding of think tanks and the like, all of which work together to inflate threats, keep us in a state of fear, and justify increased defence spending and aggressive foreign policies. But even there, the think tankers etc believe in what they’re doing. The problem is that believers get funded whereas non-believers don’t. I don’t think “hidden motives” are the issue.
That said, Morris has a point, in that security and intelligence services do maintain contacts with chosen favourites and feed them information that they hope will further their chosen narrative. The story I came across today illustrates how this works quite well.
A while back, I mentioned a law case in the UK involving Guardian journalist Carol Cadwalladr and British businessman Arron Banks. Banks is suing Cadwalladr for libel for having claimed that the Russian government offered him money for use in the Brexit referendum campaign, and that he lied about his relationship with the Russians. The case is now before the court, and Cadwalladr’s defence is becoming clear.
The Guardian journalist isn’t claiming that what she said about Banks was true, merely that given the evidence she had at the time she had good reason to believe that it was in the public interest for her to report it. So what was this evidence, and where did she get it from? This is where it becomes interesting. For as the Guardian reports,
In her written evidence statement, she [Cadwalladr] said she had obtained two intelligence files from an organisation contracted to undertake work countering Russian disinformation in Europe on behalf of a government agency, one file of which raised concerns about Banks’s Russian wife.
In other words, British intelligence fed the information to her via another source.
The accusation that Banks took Russian money to fund Brexit received widespread coverage. It was even repeated in a parliamentary report. Yet no evidence to support the claim has ever been produced, and as we have seen, Cadwalladr isn’t trying to say that it was true. In short, it was disinformation. And yet, what prompted it was in part documents leaked by British intelligence to a third party “contracted to undertake work countering Russian disinformation” and then in turn given by that organization to Ms Cadwalladr.
Doesn’t that strike you as a bit iffy?
In the first place, the story reinforces what I have said several times before, namely that the “disinformation industry” set up to “counter Russian disinformation” is itself a major source of disinformation. And second, it reveals an excessively cosy relationship between the media – supposedly an independent guardian of the truth that holds the state to account – and state organizations, including secret intelligence.
Personally, I find it more than a little disturbing.
Maybe Mr Morris is right after all!
Forget the headlines, these are the vaccine facts
By Geoff Moore | TCW Defending Freedom | January 20, 2022
WE were told before the Covid vaccine rollout that it wouldn’t block transmission, but that it would reduce symptoms and therefore hospitalisation. Throughout 2021 we saw many warning headlines like ‘Pandemic of the unvaccinated’, becoming ever more alarmist like this one in the Guardian towards the end of November when Professor Sir Andrew Pollard opined that ‘Getting jabs to the unvaccinated has never been more critical’. The article said that the horrors of Covid are now restricted to those who won’t or can’t have a jab, and further claimed that Covid patients in ICUs are ‘now almost all unvaccinated’. The BBC too was not backwards in coming forwards, in December reporting a spokesman for Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, saying that ’80 per cent of patients we’ve seen over the last few months in general wards and critical care have been unvaccinated’.
In his statement to Parliament yesterday the Prime Minister continued with this narrative: ‘When there are still over 16,000 people in hospital in England alone, the pandemic is not over. And, Mr Speaker, make no mistake, Omicron is not a mild disease for everyone – and especially if you’re not vaccinated.’
So, let’s report what Mr Johnson so blatantly ignored – the latest government data on Covid-positive hospitalisations: the facts, not his opinions. It makes for interesting reading.
Public Health Scotland’s Winter Statistical Report states that 541 vaccinated people were hospitalised versus 168 unvaccinated, see page 36 table 12 (I used December 25-31 as it’s not provisional) which by my count is over three times as many vaccinated.
NHS Wales Surveillance of Vaccine Status states that 433 vaccinated people were hospitalised versus 90 unvaccinated, see page 4 table 4. That’s nearly five times as many.
Northern Ireland’s Vaccination Status of Deaths and Hospitalisations states that 395 vaccinated people were hospitalised versus 289 unvaccinated (page 8 table 1). That’s 108 more vaccinated than unvaccinated.
UK Health Security Agency Covid-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report states that 8,566 vaccinated people were hospitalised in England versus 4,738 unvaccinated (Page 40 table 10).That’s nearly twice as many.
All confirmed in the report of the 95th Sage meeting on Covid-19 which states: ‘For patients admitted after 16 June 2021 the majority of patients had received two doses’ (Page 3 item 3).
I don’t know what Sir Andrew Pollard, director of the Oxford Vaccine Group, University of Oxford and the media were basing their headlines on but it certainly wasn’t this data.
Meanwhile Johnson did his best with something that’s come to be understood with the phrase, ‘lies,damn lies and statistics’, telling us that from ‘our NHS data, we know that around 90 per cent of people in intensive care are not boosted’. Never mind that the totally unvaccinated are the minority in intensive care.
Sir Andrew Pollard might buy that one. Others won’t.
Fallen Icon: Sir David Attenborough and the Walrus Deception
By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | January 19, 2022
In 2019 Netflix in conjunction with WWF broadcast Frozen Worlds, an episode in the Our Planet series and narrated by David Attenborough. The scenes it showed shocked and horrified viewers around the world.
After a brief introduction about the recent loss of Arctic summer sea ice and the ‘inevitable’ devastation this will cause for Arctic animals, it shifts to a series of amazing shots of tens of thousands of walrus, crowded cheek-by-jowl on a beach in Siberia.
The camera pans out to a rocky cliff, which several walrus are attempting to climb. Then suddenly, one after another, the walrus are shown falling off the cliff to their deaths on the rocky shore below.The scenes are shown in slow motion and repeated in order to maximise the shock effect.
As the scenes unfold, Attenborough coolly informs viewers that the walrus would not normally be there, but out on the sea ice instead. But because of man-made global warming, the poor walrus have been forced onto land in crowded conditions, where they will inevitably suffer and die.
But was it all as simple as Attenborough portrayed?
A number of suspicions were immediately evident. Far from these beach haulouts being unusual, walrus in fact regularly use these beaches every year, in order to rest and feed while waiting for the sea ice to move south in autumn.
Walrus also invariably crowd together in these situations, both for warmth and protection from polar bears. Indeed, far from walrus being threatened by climate change, their populations have been growing in recent years, explaining why so many were hauled out that day.
And what made those walrus try to climb the cliff?
Dr Susan Crockford is a professional zoologist, who has specialised in Arctic mammals for many years, particularly polar bears and walrus. She immediately smelled a rat.
Her newly released book, Fallen Icon, tells the story of how she uncovered exactly what went on that day on the Siberian beach. Her detective work reveals how it was polar bears stalking them that forced the walrus up that cliff; how this is a common hunting tactic and how the bears then fed off the carcasses down below.
She uncovers evidence that WWF already knew about this hunting tactic at that particular location, and that was precisely why this beach was chosen for the film.
She goes on to describe how retreating sea ice actually increases the food supply for walrus and how their populations are both healthy and increasing.
And how Attenborough used this horrifying imagery to jump-start a three year campaign against human-caused global warming that included ten documentaries laden with groundless climate emergency messaging, much of it aimed at the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world. Attenborough’s relentless climate activism included a utopian vision of global changes for society eerily similar to the one proposed by the World Economic Forum.
It is hard to disagree with Crockford’s conclusions:
The public’s trust in science and medicine now appears to be at an all-time low. People who had been blind to the abuse of science rampant in the climate change narrative have had their eyes opened by the pandemic response. These things cannot be unseen.
In a worrying trend, traditional scientists struggle to be heard or have their concerns and criticisms published, both for climate change and Covid-19 related issues. Research that features testable hypotheses and reproducible studies seem to be rare birds while predictive modelling projects gobble up grant funds as well as the media attention.
Is science as we used to know it already dead? If so, how much of a role has Attenborough played in this progression? Over the last three years, he has used weaponized science presented to a trusting public in a most egregious manner.
My ultimate goal in writing this book is not to denigrate Sir David but to correct the misinformation he has deliberately or unwittingly promoted in his documentaries and public statements.
I am a traditional scientist standing up for science as it is meant to be – without activism and without politicization – because its loss to society will be incalculable.
Over the years but especially since 2018, Attenborough has shown that he lets others do his serious thinking for him and has often placed his trust where it was ill-advised, as he has done with the WWF. By that I mean he has relied on others to present information to him in an easily digestible manner rather than delving into the literature himself.
And having spent a lifetime taking this easy way out, when he decided he wanted his legacy to be something more substantial than ‘a good storyteller’, he seemed to take on the role of spokesman for others with ideological political agendas.
It appears to me that when he agreed to present the gruesome falling walrus film footage in Our Planet as evidence of climate change, Attenborough compromised his principles to achieve a specific end result. Such noble cause corruption is common in the conservation world but it was new for Attenborough.
I am convinced that what Attenborough has done with the falling walrus episode will be remembered long after he’s dead but not for the reasons he intended. It will go down as another ‘own goal’ for the climate change movement and judged as the moment Attenborough fell from grace as a trusted British icon.
Susan Crockford’s book is now available on Amazon here:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0991796691
Susan Crockford adds:
As I point out in my new book, Fallen Icon, David Attenborough devised a three year campaign on the falsehood that hundreds of Russian walrus died falling off a cliff due to climate change because he also desired what the World Economic Forum (WEF), meeting online this week, say they want: immediate and drastic changes, supposedly to mitigate an invisible ‘climate emergency’ and other societal ills.
Despite the fact that walrus and polar bears are thriving in the Arctic, this fabricated ’emergency’ seems to be the reason that its new chairman plans to make the G7 into a ‘climate club’.
Do face masks make you more attractive?
By James Townsend | January 18, 2022
Cardiff University published a news story on their website about a new scientific study suggesting “protective face masks make wearers look more attractive”. It was framed around experts finding a “surprising new reason to mask up”.
At the time of writing this, the study had been covered in media in six different countries, spanning print, online, broadcast, & radio — the whole spectrum of earned media. Sky News framed their coverage most positively and put forward that people previously reluctant to wear one “may change their minds” thanks to this academic discovery.
The headlines all scream in unison: face masks make you look more attractive – ‘The Science’ says so. A resounding success for the Cardiff Uni team!
Knowing that many who wear masks do so under duress, and then accounting for the significant proportion of the population who hate the very concept of them, I immediately smelt a rat. Besides which, even if you agree with their usage from a public health point-of-view, it is surely a stretch of anyone’s imagination to claim that most people find a germ-ridden mouth blanket more attractive than being exposed to a naked face? Nonetheless, that’s what the scientists were claiming.
In this weird, post-Covid world where fiction is often pushed as fact, I decided to do what any journalist worth their salt would do, and explore the veracity of such claims.
Various articles only quoted Dr Lewis directly from the press release, and it was obvious they hadn’t spoken to him. As a journalist, this immediately set alarm bells ringing for me. If they didn’t speak to the lead scientist, did they even read the study? If they didn’t read the study, how can they be sure what they are reporting is correct? What if they missed some crucial context?
Call me old fashioned but I then did what the journalists should have done, and I read the actual study.
Before even clicking onto the study, I already knew from the initial press release that only 43 participants had taken part. Had the group of 43 included women from all walks of life and parts of society, perhaps the small number would have stood up to scrutiny more robustly. So, it was genuinely bemusing to then read that every single participant was a psychology student from the same course being run by the report authors. On top of that, they were 93% white and all aged 18 to 24. No diversity in a small sample to start with, is bad news.
Beautiful Cardiff is the capital city of Mark Drakeford’s Labour-run Wales – a country which has seen and, in many cases, embraced some of the most draconian reactions to this pandemic we have seen; including wearing masks with pride, introducing scientifically illiterate vaccine passports, and even banning people from buying books from supermarkets during the 2020 lockdowns. With this in mind, it’s not beyond the realms of sensible possibility to think that psychology students logging onto their laptops – who, by the way, received “course credits as compensation” for their participation – already knew what the ‘right’ answer was before rating their first masked and unmasked face.
This feeling was confirmed pretty swiftly when I stumbled across what I would describe as the key nugget of information:
It’s little wonder they hid this line at the end of the paper, given it confirms the vast majority of the participants were essentially pro-maskers talking favourably about men in masks.
It is an indictment of the sad state of journalism today that the enthusiastic coverage of this woeful study has not excavated this nugget. One of the reasons I left the newsroom, was the slow transition from journalist to churnalist – churning out other organisations’ press releases rather than discovering your own stories. So, in many respects, I haven’t been surprised to witness what I have since March 2020.
Of course, declining journalistic standards are nothing new and have been apparent for some years. The pandemic has merely shone a light on how dangerously out of control it is, and what a devastating impact it can have on the relationship of trust that should exist between citizens and the people who are employed to disseminate news and information to serve the public interest.
The uncomfortable truth is that agenda-driven scientists sometimes try to prove a pre-determined outcome. Misinformation based on flawed data create headlines around the world. And another ugly truth? Masks don’t make you more attractive.
More humiliation for Anthony Fauci and MSM vaccine advocates
By Alex Berenson | Unreported Truths | January 12, 2022
They promised a booster would work – despite obvious evidence it wouldn’t. Not years ago. Months ago. Sometimes WEEKS ago. Don’t let them gaslight you. Don’t let them forget.
In August, when Israel became the first country to push Covid vaccine boosters, I warned that the evidence for them verged on nonexistent and they were unlikely to last more than a few months.
This was, to say the least, not the consensus view in the elite media or the public health establishment.
Lots of vaccines required boosters, they said! A third dose several months out simply fixed the rushed scheduling of the second dose, they said!
And no one pushed this view more aggressively than Dr. Anthony Fauci – who went so far as to promise that the third dose would do what the first two had not and confer long-lasting immunity:
….
Those stories are from early September.
And America’s Doctor (TM) got his way. Within weeks regulators had approved boosters – and as the fall went on they opened the spigots ever-wider.
Needless to say the media asked its usual critical questions. (Have a barf bag handy as you scroll.)
The NY Times :
The Global Disinformation Campaign Against Ivermectin in COVID-19 (Part I)
By Pierre Kory | January 6, 2022
Ivermectin, a decades-old, off-patent drug costing pennies to make, with an unparalleled safety profile and numerous manufacturers across the world, actually sits atop one of the largest and strongest clinical trials evidence base in history. The existing, massive amount of clinical trials data shows immense efficacy against COVID-19 in all its phases; prevention, early and late treatment, and long-haul syndrome (no actual trials in long-haul but rather extensive positive clinical experiences). Despite this inarguable (yes, inarguable) supportive evidence, no major Western or international health agency has recommended its use in COVID-19. Conversely, ivermectin has been officially adopted for early treatment in all or part of 23 “less developed” countries (39 if you include non-government medical organizations), and which include about 25% of the world’s population.
Now, before we delve deeper into the workings of the most heinous disinformation campaign ever waged by the pharmaceutical industry in history (and also it’s most successful so far as 75% of the earth’s inhabitants still have not been recommended to use it to treat COVID), I will ask you not to just “take my word for it” but instead take you on a brief, guided tour of the insanely positive evidence base supporting the use of ivermectin in COVID-19.
Let’s go. First, the below “Forest Plot” was compiled by the anonymous expert research group at c19early.com (not enough can be said of the impact their meticulous work has had on COVID clinicians and scientists across the globe). Please visit their site, it is mind-blowingly impressive. The compounds listed in the rows represent the medicines with the most clinical trials evidence as of today, either by size or by number and are listed in order of potency against COVID.
Here is how to read and understand a Forest Plot: there is a thin grey line in the center, on either side of which are plotted squares which represent an estimate of the true size of the “treatment effect,” derived from an average of the treatment effects measured from all the trials performed of that medicine. If the box is squarely on the vertical line it means it is a treatment whose benefits have been found equal to its harms. In the above list, (with the exception of one) medicines with “positive” treatment effects are listed, meaning the benefits of treatment with these agents outweigh any potential or actual harms. No medicine on the list above, besides convalescent plasma (CP), indicates it is inferior to placebo (note that CP was the initial favored therapy of every single academic medical center in the U.S despite the fact CP has only ever been shown to be effective in hematogenous infections). In cases, such as with CP, due to the fact it’s harms outweigh it’s benefits, the box is plotted on the right side of the line and shaded in red. Conversely, the farther to the left of the vertical line that a box is plotted, the larger the measured impact on the clinical outcome tested. Green boxes indicate the effect estimate is based on at least 4 trials. Grey boxes and greyed out medicine names mean the estimate for that medicine is based on fewer than 4 trials. The thin horizontal line through each little box indicates the degree of precision, i.e. how confident we can be in the estimate of the treatment effect – narrow horizontal lines through the boxes mean the data in support is large and consistently positive and is “statistically significant” in favor of the medicine. The wider the line, the less consistent, or less amount of data can be relied upon to make the estimate. When the horizontal line through a box extends across the vertical gray line, this indicates that it is statistically possible that the true estimate may actually be in favor of placebo!
With ivermectin, what sets it apart from all the other compounds tested, is the sheer number of randomized and observational controlled trials that have been performed to date. It is #1 among the “green box” compounds given it has been tested in 73 controlled trials which include an unheard-of 56,804 patients. Why unheard of? Because never in history has a medicine been so thoroughly tested, with such consistent positive results, yet led to a situation where governmental agencies in highly developed countries call for even more placebo-controlled trials to be done… and then slow walk to doing them. The ethics of giving a covid patient a placebo given this amount of supportive data are too miserable to contemplate this early in the article (fun fact – I was personally asked to try to help recruit patients for the ongoing University of Minnesota placebo controlled RCT. I got off the phone as fast as I could). Another not-so-fun fact: penicillin was mass deployed to great effect to all our troops for their battlefield injuries in World War II… based on a case series of 157 patients where their bacterial infections overtly resolved without signs of toxicity during treatment. Not one RCT was done before this decision was made by military and medical leaders.
The only other medicine with a larger supportive evidence base is hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), especially when only the early treatment trials of HCQ are considered as that collection of trials results in an equally impressive position on the Forest plot (not shown). A tired topic I will explore later is the much parroted (and highly favored by Pharma) notion that “retrospective, observational controlled trials (OCT)” cannot be trusted as they are inferior to “proper, large, double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled trials (RCT).” This notion is not evidence based. Even the captured (I know, sorry) Cochrane Library knows this. They themselves have shown that, on average, over thousands of clinical trials, over decades of research, OCT’s and RCT’s reach the same conclusions. So stop with the false dichotomy. Pharma wants you to only trust in “large RCT’s”… because they are the only ones with the cash to do them. That way, they can control the only medicines that get “proven” and thus adopted into guidelines.
Two absurdities (crimes) must be highlighted in the above diagram – one is the sheer number of medicines with demonstrated efficacy, most costing under $5 a dose (and almost all with unparalleled safety profiles and/or “over the counter” status) that are still not recommended by any U.S or “western” health agency (with the exception of the state of Florida since the hire of Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo who has put together a terrific public health campaign supporting the use of a combination early treatment protocol which includes another FLCCC adopted drug, fluvoxamine).
Meanwhile our federal governmental health agencies, which I have argued repeatedly (and will for years until it stops) are so completely captured by the pharmaceutical industry that they have not advocated for any one of these “repurposed” compounds, even as a “precautionary principle” (meaning that even if the purported benefits may not be realized to the extent estimated, the risks are so small it is more likely best for all we employ them now in early treatment given the world is cratering). Their most unforgivable and absurd inaction is the deliberate ignoring of the critical role of Vitamin D in protecting against the worst outcomes of COVID, despite knowing full well significant portions of the U.S population is Vitamin D deficient. Even Anthony Fauci recommends to himself that he take Vitamin D… regularly. The data below was given to me by a Dr. Henele and is from work he published in 2016. Note the percent of the U.S population that is critically deficient in Vitamin D.
The second absurdity is found when looking at the plot with only the medicines recommended in the NIH’s COVID protocol circled. Note that the NIH protocol is adhered to by almost the entirety of the country’s hospitals (largely due to large add-on bonuses paid to hospitals when the protocol elements are used – I am not making this up). A “theme” should begin to emerge as you look at the circled, “recommended” medicines vs the non-circled, “non-recommended” medicines – every single one is massively expensive. Every single one. Note not one inexpensive drug is circled. How much more evidence do you need to prove that our agencies have been completely captured by the pharmaceutical industry?
Fun fact now that you are en expert in reading Forest Plot’s: Merck’s mutagenic new drug molnupiravir, after the highly positive results from their study’s “interim analysis,” published in a press release, instead found that, in the 2nd half of its one study, the data favored… placebo. Thus if the 2nd half was a stand-alone study (which it arguably could have been) it’s box would be firmly on the right side of the line. FDA still approved… while feigning concern. Unsurprising really.
Now, beyond the above 73 controlled trials supporting ivermectin, there are, in addition, numerous health ministries from around the world that deployed ivermectin in either the prevention or early treatment of COVID, among often very large populations. Each program’s report found that ivermectin use led to massive reductions in the need for hospitalization and/or death (Mexico City, Uttar Pradesh, Brazil, Misiones, La Pampas, Peru, Phillipines, and Japan – I will do a deeper dive on these in a later post). The program in the city of Itajai, Brazil is both the largest study of ivermectin in the world (data from nearly 200,000 patients was carefully collected over a 6 month period) and most impressive. They found that, despite the fact that the 120,000 patients who agreed to take ivermectin every 15 days were older, fatter, and sicker than the approximately 37,000 that did not… they went to hospital 67% less frequently, and died 70% less frequently… from all causes, not just COVID. The issue with ivermectin as a therapeutic in COVID… has NOTHING to do with the science.
The issue with ivermectin is simply it’s price – it costs less than a $1 and represents the biggest threat to the immense and future profits of the pharmaceutical industry’s novel oral anti-viral drugs… as well as their vaccines.
The previous title holder of the largest threat to Pharma profits in COVID was the highly effective (and also anti-viral) drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). However, it lost that title after the 2020 war on HCQ was essentially won by Pharma (for now?), using tactics so sinister as to be unimaginable, and which I will not review here as that macabre war has already been expertly reviewed in incredible and highly referenced detail in the book “The Real Anthony Fauci” by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. His book, in my opinion, is a must read for all the globe’s citizens, as without it, no coherent understanding of the innumerable non-scientific actions and policies across the entirety of the developed (and majority of the undeveloped) world can be gained.
I must emphasize that ivermectin is just the latest drug under attack during Pharma’s long-standing (and highly successful) war on off-patent, “no-longer-obscenely-profitable” medicines. Books have been written about the numerous, and often criminal actions that Big Pharma has employed to replace older off-patent medicines with newer, highly profitable, and often poorly tested drugs with either prospectively known dangers or quickly discovered dangers which they then criminally suppress or distort to preserve profits. When science supporting older, off-patent, often “repurposed” medicines (particularly in the lucrative environment of a global pandemic) becomes “inconvenient” to the financial promise of newer agents, the industry employs what are called “Disinformation” tactics, first invented and perfected by the Tobacco Industry, and now used to great effect by the Pharmaceutical (and many other) industries. These tactics are brilliantly and succinctly summarized in an article called The Disinformation Playbook written by The Union for Concerned Scientists. I encourage all to read. The 5 main “plays” from the playbook are listed below. If you are at all versed in the ivermectin in COVID saga (many FLCCC followers are), it should be easy to quickly come up with numerous examples of each nefarious tactic. I give some hints below…
1) The “Fake”: Conduct counterfeit science and try to pass it off as legitimate research (Dr. Andrew Hill)
2) The “Blitz”: Harass scientists who speak out with results or views inconvenient for industry (attacks on FLCCC founders)
3) The “Diversion”: Manufacture uncertainty about science where little or none exists (Dr. Andrew Hill/captured high-impact journals)
4) The “Screen”: Buy credibility through alliances with academia or professional societies (i.e. high impact medical journal influences)
5) The “Fix”: Manipulate government officials or processes to inappropriately influence policy (i.e. capture the health agencies by creating “revolving doors” between Pharma and government to ensure total synchrony in objectives amongst their leaders)
Given the Disinformation Playbook was last updated in 2018, it does not include newer, more nefarious tactics that industries have been able to deploy since the historic consolidation of financial power by just 3 multi-trillion dollar investment funds (Black Rock, State Street, and Vanguard). These three corporations have now acquired influential or outright controlling investment stakes in nearly every major corporation in nearly every industry. These investment managers power, particularly the power held synchronously over media companies, social media companies, and the near entirety of the pharmaceutical industry, has allowed even more fearsome tactics to be used in the near-global suppression of the efficacy of ivermectin (and HCQ) as they now:
1) CENSOR any mentions of supportive evidence in corporate, (a.k.a. “legacy”) media. Note that, besides the influence of these investment manager overlords, the global censoring ability of media was greatly helped by the “Trusted News Initiative (TNI),” an obscene (and either naively misguided or completely corrupt) effort by the most powerful journalism organizations in the world to band together to try to control the spread of “mis-information”. Yes, professional journalists decided they needed to control information in a pandemic. I am not making this up. Would an appropriate analogy be that a bunch of physician leaders decided they needed to spread disease in a pandemic?
2) CENSOR any mentions or discussions of efficacy on almost all social media – see explicit youtube “community” policy below as the most unsubtle example:
YOUTUBE COMMUNITY GUIDELINES
3) RETRACT positive papers from impactful medical journals (3 fully peer-reviewed and highly supportive scientific reviews of ivermectin have been retracted, either immediately prior to or post-publication (I was the lead author on the first one with my FLCCC colleagues)
4) BLOCK review and publication of positive trials of ivermectin in major medical journals (in my now global network of ivermectin-expert and/or ivermectin study investigator colleagues, all lament how their positive clinical trials or papers were rejected for review from all the high-impact (captured) journals, with Dr. Eli Schwartz’s highly sophisticated, expertly conducted, and immensely positive study from Israel being one of the most illustrative examples
5) PUBLISH numerous “hit pieces” within high profile print media outlets discrediting the science and/or the scientists who support the medicine. This is actually an example of the already described “Blitz” tactic, but in 2021, during COVID, using total media control, it was deployed by a division of Howitzers. A more recent and relatable example of “the Diversion” tactic was when the NFL used media hit pieces to go after the scientists (and their inconvenient science) after they began publishing and disseminating data about the high rates and disastrous impacts of chronic traumatic encephalopathy in retired NFL players.
What I have found fascinating, is that for every planted hit piece article discrediting the mountain of evidence supporting ivermectin as a therapeutic, the FLCCC is actually rarely mentioned. But why? I think it is because the FLCCC is a sizeable group of highly published physicians and researchers (Professor Paul Marik is actually the most published practicing ICU physician in the history of the specialty). Thus, it’s hard (but not impossible) to call us “fringe.” The last thing they want to do is call attention to our high degree of credibility. Instead they seem to be trying to destroy it using separate hit pieces (among other tactics) which has led to the recent loss of employment for three founding FLCCC members (Drs. Marik, Meduri, and yours truly have been forced to leave jobs or had their exemplary clinical and research careers ended (Drs. Marik and Meduri). An article on ivermectin that does not mention our organization does so purposefully so as not to give attention to credible support for its use given we are considered the foremost clinical experts on the clinical use of ivermectin in COVID in the world.
6) employ a coordinated media-government agency PROPAGANDA campaign;
August 26th, 2021: Pharma used their CDC to send out a “health advisory” to all 50 state Departments of Health, which they then sent to all the physicians licensed in their respective states (a terrifying example of the immense destructive power of a federal agency captured by pharmaceutical industry interests). The bulletin both;
1) depicted ivermectin as a dangerous drug by deliberately exaggerating reports of calls to poison control centers
2) cited the meaningless fact that it “is not FDA approved for COVID” as a reason it should not be used, hoping doctors may not realize that “off-label” prescribing is both legal and encouraged… by the FDA.
Next, a quickly debunked (not quickly enough) planted media article in Rolling Stone appeared with an impressively click-bait-able headline describing emergency rooms so overflowing with ivermectin overdoses that our nation’s gunshot victims couldn’t get (obviously) needed care (even I clicked on it). The article then went viral across the world (thousands of media mentions) before the hospital could put out a statement saying it was 100% false. Gee, do you think Pharma hired a professional PR firm to pull that one off or did they just benefit from a serendipitous and lamentably lazy journalist’s error?
Then, in another terrifying example of the control of major corporate media… for week after week every news broadcaster, pundit, and late-night talk show host prefaced the word ivermectin with the descriptor “horse de-wormer.” Over and over and over again (totally pissing off Joe Rogan who recovered from COVID with ivermectin as part of his combination protocol- hah!)
Then finally, in a coup de grace, in comes Pharma’s FDA proudly using twitter to associate ivermectin with, you guessed it, horses. Janet Woodcock, the acting Commissioner of the FDA, even sent out a congratulatory email to her team about the success of the tweet.
Was this a coordinated attack led by an expert team of brazen PR professionals who have a fondness for horses… or did it arise organically via a series of disconnected events?
If you are still not convinced of the former, I need to point out that this “series of disconnected events” had an uncanny sense of when to “roll-out.” The CDC’s Health Advisory was issued on August 26th. Look at the below chart and see if you can find any reason why it would start then? Recall that the advisory was ostensibly in reaction to false “reports of calls to poison control centers”. The below chart shows instead what was really going on at the time – hundreds, if not thousands of licensed medical professionals across the country were prescribing ivermectin like mad during the terrible, and deadly summer surge of the Delta variant. Was someone getting nervous that a “dirty little secret” was being rapidly discovered by American citizens and physicians? The answer is a definitive yes – thus triggering Pharma to nefariously try to “stuff the genie back in the bottle” by unleashing their terrifying disinformation propaganda campaign.
NUMBER OF IVERMECTIN PRESCRIPTIONS DISPENSED IN THE U.S OVER TIME
But check this out… the good ole’ FLCCC, my little band of brothers and sisters, is somehow making a opening in the wall of information suppression and distortion as shown in the chart below (compiled by our data analyst and ivermectin expert, Juan Chamie). I say this makes us “the Bad News Bears” in the repurposed drug war.
I am going to stop here… and call it PART I. Please subscribe below so you can be sure to get Part II where I will continue to detail the numerous and wide-ranging corrupt actions taken to suppress the knowledge of efficacy and restrict the use of ivermectin… across the world. There is way way more to this story.
Also, please be aware of the following events:
World-wide Rally for Freedom Day
Join us for a march in DC on defeating the mandate and to march in support of our international colleagues- who are also rallying on this day: Sunday January 23rd.
United we stand, in peace we watch. Bring friends and jackets.
Go to https://defeatthemandatesdc.com/ for details
Finally, I am honored to have been invited by Dr. Chris Martenson and Peak Prosperity to their Annual Seminar as part of a speaker panel including some powerhouse thought leaders. Don’t miss it folks. Register using this link: http://peak22.events/kory
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.
Featured Video
Douglas Macgregor: No Peace – U.S. Prepares for ‘Total War’ Against Iran
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
The Voters’ Self-Induced Matrix
By Jeb Smith | The Libertarian Institute | April 20, 2026
In Collective Illusions: Conformity, Complicity, and the Science of Why We Make Bad Decisions, Professor Todd Rose explains that to belong to a group, people “keep twisting [themselves] into pretzels, trying to conform to what we falsely believe everyone else expects of us.” Seeking acceptance from the group, we conform in language, behavior, beliefs, and practices. As a result, we lose our individuality and aggregate into herds. Within our group we create an alternate reality to fit whichever collective mindset we attach ourselves to, and interpret the world through those lenses—our innate desire to belong overrides reality.
Rose says these illusions “have become a defining feature of our modern society.” In other words, the collectivist mindset is a great conduit for spreading illusions; thus, it is the politician’s favored form of governance.
Rose points to studies in psychology and neuroscience showing we delude ourselves into believing what the majority does, even if it is not what we desire or know to be accurate. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- IRGC seizes Israeli ship, second vessel for violations in Strait of Hormuz
- US Embargo on Iran Undermined as 34 Tankers Slip Through, Vortexa Says
- Trump’s erratic behavior signals US deadlock: Ansarullah
- US nuclear official accused of leaking data on Iran, nerve agents
- The Voters’ Self-Induced Matrix
- Douglas Macgregor: No Peace – U.S. Prepares for ‘Total War’ Against Iran
- How A Fake Iranian Terror Group Was Invented To Proscribe IRGC in Europe
- Iran’s judiciary rejects Trump’s claim on ‘planned execution’ of 8 women
- Israeli army blows up school in southern Lebanon in violation of ceasefire
- The desalination front: Water as Israel’s Achilles heel
- If Americans Knew
- Eyes on Gaza, as trends reveal increased Israeli violence – Daily Update
- Israeli soldiers using sexual assault to force Palestinians out of West Bank, report says
- Top Biden Official Supports Trump Iran Attack, Says Biden May Have Done The Same
- A history of Israel’s invasions of Lebanon
- How the powerful pro-Israel lobby keeps controlling Democrats in the US
- Replay: Israel’s slow ethnic cleansing of Christians from the Holy Land
- 5 times Israelis desecrated Christian sites in the past two years
- US running out of weaponry for Israel’s war; Iran has plenty – Daily Update
- Israel is (still) killing aid workers in Gaza
- Catholics finally splitting with Trump over Iran war and Israel
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
- New Study: No Linear Warming Or Glacier Retreat Along Northern Antarctic Peninsula Since 1980s
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
Aletho News 