Studies, trials by Pfizer Biontech were “seriously flawed” and fraught with “many irregularities” German journalist finds. It’s all beginning to dawn on the media…
Emergency approval based on sloppy and deceptive trials and studies?
Until recently, Germany’s mainstream media had refused to report on the glaring number of side effects of the COVID 19 mRNA vaccines, dismissing them has disinformation spread by rightwing crackpots. But now there’s no denying something has gone terribly awry, and that the “crackpots” had been right all along.
Cover-up?
In her article, Bodderas concedes that the Biontech/Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine appears to have been “based on incorrect documentation”, that there is “growing doubt about the data from the pivotal Phase 3 trial” and that “Pfizer is dodging the accusations and refusing to be scrutinized.”
The metropolis Buenos Aires was a key area for test phase with almost 6000 of the 43,548 test subjects worldwide, and things there, according to Die Welt’s Bodderas, “did not go as they should have”.
The “significant, consequential irregularities” that arose during the trials “cast the entire study of the efficacy and side effects of the Biontech/Pfizer vaccine in a different light.”
No one believes “safe and effective”, not even the media
In Germany, the days of believing the new mRNA vaccines by Biontech and Pfizer are “safe and effective” are finally disappearing as a reluctant mainstream media begins to report on the glaring adverse effects and the now well-known inadequately conducted trials.
In other parts of the world, it’s been long known that these new experimental vaccines not only did not work like they once had been claimed to do, but that they also never prevented the transmission of the virus and had numerous, dangerous side effects. Only now, months later, are these now well-known facts beginning to dawn on Germany’s mainstream media.
Shoddily conducted trials
Die Welt reports on how Argentine test candidate Augusto Roux, a 36-year old lawyer, felt unwell after having received his second dose in the trials, then “experienced shortness of breath, burning chest pain, nausea, and fever” and that “his urine turned black like cola” before passing out. After having been admitted to a hospital, physician Gisela di Stilio suspected an “adverse reaction to coronavirus vaccine (high probability).” But Roux was simply dropped from the December 2020 study, and never appeared in subsequent evaluations. Instead he was counted as having suffered from COVID-19.
Suppression of unwelcome results?
In total, “In one fell swoop, the test administration [in Buenos Aires] had said goodbye to 53 subjects on August 31, 2020. The test candidates had been ‘unblinded.’” reports Die Welt’s Bodderas.
Die Welt adds: “A total of 302 subjects of the vaccine group were deleted from the study after the second vaccination and thus not included in the evaluation. 200 of them came from Buenos Aires. Have unwelcome results been suppressed here?”
According to Bodderas, “Deaths were concealed, serious side effects were not registered, and the study protocol was violated several times.”
“The case casts a bad light on Pfizer, a company that has often been plagued by scandal in the past, but also on the regulatory agencies EMA and FDA.”
In an interview with CNBC News in September 2020, Dr. Albert Bourla, the veterinarian Chief Executive Officer of Pfizer — the second largest pharmaceutical company in the world by revenue — said that anyone refusing to take the BioNTech vaccine will become “the weak link that will allow the virus to replicate”, and assured the public that “we will develop our product, develop our vaccine using the highest ethical standards”.
It was a dangerous claim to make, even for a CEO and investor making billions out of the experimental mRNA gene therapy product. Pfizer has a long history of paying out vast sums in out-of-court settlements to avoid not only claims in civil cases but also prosecution on criminal charges resulting from the fraudulent promotion, unapproved prescription and injury, including death, from use of its products. It has also offered millions in payments to doctors and scientists to prescribe, test, approve and recommend them to the public. So let’s have a look at what Dr. Albert Bourla means by Pfizer’s ‘ethical standards’.
In 1992, Pfizer agreed to pay between $165 million and $215 million to settle lawsuits arising from the fracturing of the Bjork-Shiley Convexo-Concave heart valve, which by 2012 has resulted in 663 deaths.
In 1996, Pfizer conducted an unapproved clinical trial on 200 Nigerian children with its experimental anti-meningitis drug, Trovafloxacin, without the consent of their parents and which led to the death of 11 children from kidney failure and left dozens more disabled. In 2011, Pfizer paid just $700,000 to four families who had lost a child and set up a $35 million fund for the disabled. This cover-up was the basis of the John Le Carré book and film The Constant Gardener.
In 2004, Pfizer’s subsidiary Warner-Lambert was fined $430 million to resolve criminal charges and civil liabilities for the fraudulent promotion of its epilepsy drug, Neurontin, paying doctors to prescribe it for uses not approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
In 2009, Pfizer spent $25.8 million lobbying Congressional lawmakers and federal agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services. Its expenditure on federal lobbying between 2006 and 2014 came to $89.89 million. In 2019 it spent $11 million lobbying the federal Government.
In 2009, Pfizer set a record for the largest health care fraud settlement and the largest criminal fine of any kind, paying $2.3 billion to avoid criminal and civil liability for fraudulently marketing its anti-inflammatory drug, Bextra, which had been refused approval by the FDA due to safety concerns.
In 2009, Pfizer paid $750 million to settle 35,000 claims that its diabetes drug, Rezulin, was responsible for 63 deaths and dozens of liver failures. In 1999, a senior epidemiologist at the Food and Drug Administration warned that Rezulin was “one of the most dangerous drugs on the market”.
In 2010, Pfizer was ordered to pay $142.1 million in damages for violating a federal anti-racketeering law by its fraudulent sale and marketing of Neurontin for uses not approved by the FDA, including for migraines and bi-polar disorder.
In 2010, Pfizer admitted that, in the last six months of 2009 alone, it had paid $20 million to 4,500 doctors in the U.S. for consulting and speaking on its behalf, and $15.3 million to 250 academic medical centres for clinical trials.
In 2012, Pfizer paid $45 million to settle charges of bribing doctors and other health-care professionals employed by foreign Governments in order to win business. The Chief of the Securities and Exchange Commission Enforcement Division’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Unit said: “Pfizer subsidiaries in several countries had bribery so entwined in their sales culture that they offered points and bonus programs to improperly reward foreign officials who proved to be their best customers.”
By 2012, Pfizer had paid $1.226 billion to settle claims by nearly 10,000 women that its hormone replacement therapy drug, Prempro, caused breast cancer.
In 2013, Pfizer agreed to pay $55 million to settle criminal charges of failing to warn patients and doctors about the risks of kidney disease, kidney injury, kidney failure and acute interstitial nephritis caused by its proton pump inhibitor, Protonix.
In 2013, Pfizer set aside $288 million to settle claims by 2,700 people that its smoking cessation drug, Chantix, caused suicidal thoughts and severe psychological disorders. The Food and Drug Administration subsequently determined that Chantix is probably associated with a higher risk of heart attack.
In 2013, Pfizer absolved itself of claims that its antidepressant, Effexor, caused congenital heart defects in the children of pregnant woman by arguing that the prescribing obstetrician was responsible for advising the patient about the medication’s use.
In 2014, Pfizer paid a further $325 million to settle a lawsuit brought by health-care benefit providers who claimed the company marketed its epilepsy drug, Neurontin, for purposes unapproved by the FDA.
In 2014, Pfizer paid $35 million to settle a law suit accusing its subsidiary of promoting the kidney transplant drug, Rapamune, for unapproved uses, including bribing doctors to prescribe it to patients.
In 2016, Pfizer was fined a record £84.2 million for overcharging the NHS for its rebranded and deregulated anti-epilepsy drug Phenytoin by 2,600% (from £2.83 to £67.50 a capsule), increasing the cost to U.K. taxpayers from £2 million in 2012 to about £50 million in 2013.
In May 2018, Pfizer still had 6,000 lawsuits pending against claims that its testosterone replacement therapy products cause strokes, heart attacks, pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis, and were fraudulently marketed at healthy men for uses not approved by the FDA.
In June-August 2020, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice said they were looking at Pfizer’s activities in China and Russia under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which forbids U.S. firms from bribing foreign officials.
In November 2021, the British Medical Journal revealed that the Ventavia Research Group had falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in the phase 3 trial for Pfizer’s ‘vaccine’.
Since 2000, Pfizer has incurred $10.268 billion in penalties, including $5.637 billion for safety-related offences; $3.373 billion for unapproved promotion of medical products; $1.148 billion for government contract-related offences; $60 million under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; and $34.7 million for ‘kickbacks and bribery’.
Given this record of ongoing corruption and malpractice from, which only its enormous profits have saved it from criminal prosecution by means of out-of-court settlements, it seems extraordinary that Pfizer Inc. is still permitted to manufacture and sell any health-care products. Yet this is the pharmaceutical company we were asked by the U.K. Government, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, the U.K. Health Security Agency and the National Health Service to trust with the mass vaccination of 68 million people with a product that was rushed through clinical trials in seven months, employing experimental mRNA biotechnology whose clinical trials are not due to be completed until March 2023, for a disease with the infection fatality rate not much above seasonal influenza, which statistically is no threat to those under 50 years old, and for which there is no evidence that it prevents infection by the virus.
That was three years ago, during which the British people have paid with their freedoms, their health and their lives for believing the lies of their Government, their National Health Service and international pharmaceutical companies. Subsequent retractions by Pfizer, however, are an opportunity to revisit its claims in more detail.
On December 10th 2020, the U.S. Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee met to evaluate the trial data on the efficacy and safety of Pfizer/BioNTech’s mRNA COVID-19 vaccine contained in the briefing document produced by Pfizer itself titled ‘Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine (BNT162, PF-07302048) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Briefing Document‘. It was on the basis of this evaluation that, on December 11th, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted Emergency Use Authorisation to its mRNA gene therapy product. And given the subsequent debate about what Pfizer claimed its ‘vaccine’ would do, it might be useful to review the contents of this document.
The FDA’s Emergency Use Authorisation, which requires less data than standard approvals and is based on a lower standard of proof, was issued for a vaccine “intended to prevent Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2”. It was issued for prevention, therefore, not for reduction of the severity of symptoms, as was claimed when it became clear the gene therapy product did not prevent infection. Pfizer’s claim was that its product had a ‘vaccine efficacy’ of 95% protection against COVID-19 occurring after second days from injection with the second dose. In its clinical trials, a ‘case’ of COVID-19 was defined as a positive RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 and the presence of at least one of the following symptoms: fever, cough, shortness of breath, chills, muscle pain, loss of taste or smell, sore throat, diarrhoea or vomiting. Nothing was said about asymptomatic ‘cases’ of COVID-19, or claimed about the ability of the gene therapy product to stop ‘asymptomatic transmission’ of the virus.
Pfizer’s benefit assessment was that its mRNA vaccine may be able to induce “herd immunity”, induces strong “immune responses”, and “confers strong protection against COVID-19”. This clearly indicates protection against both infection with the virus and the disease. Since transmission of a virus from person to person requires prior infection, Pfizer’s claim that its vaccine protects against infection, and the suggestion that sufficient injections will induce ‘herd immunity’, is also, by extension, a claim that it stops transmission from the injected.
The subsequent claim by Janine Small, Pfizer’s President of International Developed Markets, during her testimony before the European Union Parliament in October 2022, that Pfizer never tested whether its ‘vaccine’ stopped transmission appears, therefore, to rest on the myth of ‘asymptomatic transmission’. The implication of her statement was that Pfizer’s product only stops infection with SARS-CoV-2 and symptoms of COVID-19. However, the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorisation for Pfizer’s vaccine was based on prevention of both infection and disease. Pfizer’s claim is not evidence, as many afterwards claimed, for the lack of justification for making injection a condition of lifting lockdown or imposing vaccine passports, but rather an attempt to deny responsibility for the failure of its product (from which it has made $69 billion) to meet either of its claims.
An indication of just how unscientific was the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorisation of Pfizer’s vaccine is that it was granted on the basis of protection from infection and disease, while conceding there is no evidence that the vaccine “prevents transmission from person to person“. This is the way the ‘Science’ we mustn’t question or deny but blindly follow is conducted in what I call the global biosecurity state. Indeed, three years after it announced the pandemic in March 2020, the World Health Organisation can still only offer the following justifications for the four vaccines authorised for use in the U.K.
Pfizer/BioNTech: “There is modest vaccine impact on transmission.”
AstraZeneca/Oxford: “No substantive data are available related to impact of the vaccine on transmission or viral shedding.”
Moderna: “There is only modest impact on preventing mild infections and transmission.”
Novavax: “There is not currently sufficient evidence to date to evaluate the impact of the vaccine on transmission.” (See World Health Organisation, ‘COVID-19 advice for the public: Getting vaccinated’.)
Failure to offer protection against infection or transmission, however, are the least of the failings of Pfizer’s ‘vaccine’. As the evidence of the harms and deaths caused by this experimental gene therapy product injected into the U.K. public becomes too overwhelming for all but the Covid-faithful, the British press, the U.K. Parliament and our Government to ignore, there have been no end of doctors, nurses and medical professionals protesting they thought Pfizer’s biotechnology was ‘safe and effective’. But aren’t they trained to spot when something is going medically very wrong?
As of January 25th 2023, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, responsible for authorising the injection of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine into U.K. citizens, has received 180,005 reports of 517,779 adverse reactions to the injections, over 70% of which reports (127,405) have been classified as ‘serious’, including 884 deaths following injection. Including AstraZeneca’s viral-vector gene therapy product and Moderna’s mRNA gene therapy, the MHRA has received a total of 477,553 reports of 1,555,433 adverse reactions to the COVID-19 gene therapies, 74 per cent of which (355,052 reports) are categorised as ‘serious’, including 2,436 deaths following injection.
By the MHRA’s own estimation, only 10% of serious adverse reactions and 2-4% of non-serious reactions are reported, so the actual tally of injuries, autoimmune disease, reproductive and breast disorders, miscarriages and premature births, facial paralysis, blood clotting, amputations, myocarditis, pericarditis, heart attacks and deaths — all of which were recorded in Pfizer’s own analysis of post-authorisation adverse events as early as February 2021 — is far higher, undoubtedly many times higher. Indeed, this — and not the risible excuses with which the U.K. public has been fobbed off by the U.K. media — is likely a major cause of the huge increase in mortality in the U.K. since the ‘vaccine’ programme was implemented, contributing to the more than 60,000 excess deaths in 2022.
Given which, it is my contention that any medical professional that authorised or administered the injection of U.K. citizens with the Pfizer/BioNTech gene therapy product is at risk of being found guilty in a court of law for failure to give sufficient warning of adverse effects and obtain informed consent.
Simon Elmer is the author of two new volumes of articles on the U.K. biosecurity state, Virtue and Terror and The New Normal, which are available in hardback, paperback and as an ebook. This article is an extract from an article in Volume 2, ‘Bowling for Pfizer’. Please click on these links for the contents page and purchase options. On March 11th, to mark the third anniversary since the declaration of the pandemic by the World Health Organisation, he will be holding a book launch at the Star & Garter, 62 Poland Street, W1F 7NX, upstairs in the William Blake room from 6-8pm. Entry is free, with book signings, a reading and open-mic discussion.
For almost three years I’ve been researching Covid topics. Based on this deep dive, I feel qualified to offer opinions on the question of how all the events of the last three years actually materialized.
Stated differently, how did all of this madness actually happen?
I quickly identified several big themes or pivotal events that help explain how so many nonsensical and harmful policies became a reality.
Readers can identify other features that that were important in getting us to where we are today. As always, feedback is appreciated and welcome.
Note: “They” = public health officials, establishment authority figures and leaders, myriad vested interests who were all “on the same page” when it comes to Covid policies and narratives.
My partial list:
They sold fear … hard, incessantly, shamelessly, brazenly, unapologetically.
In short, hyper fear of a novel (and “deadly”) virus was THE prerequisite for everything that followed. So how was this mass fear/panic actually produced?
The groundwork must have begun many months and years before the “Wuhan outbreak.”
Multiple “table top” exercises (like Event 201) were conducted to lay the groundwork for what would follow.
All the key “stakeholders” were recruited to participate in these events, often organized by groups like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Politicians, bureaucrats, key media members, physicians, scientists, and representatives of all they key agencies and key organizations were recruited and then participated in these exercises.
Main-Takeaway: Advance “buy in” had already been achieved regarding the key premises of these table-top planning exercises. An event like Covid-19 had already been predicted and this was the blueprint for dealing with this … if you were going to be a part of the enlightened group that was going to help save the world.
Significantly, no participants ever questioned any of the assumptions built-in to these exercises and when Covid was announced nobody wanted to challenge any of the responses.
Appeals to authority, groupthink, wanting to support the “current thing” (to protect your status and career advancement opportunities) helped ensure that no significant dissenting voices would come forward to thwart or block the agreed-upon course of action.
Logistical and legislative actions had already been implemented to ensure nothing or no one could block the response. “Emergency orders” of bureaucrats trumped the need for legislative votes, which were not even required to implement policies that turned the world upside down.
It now seems that the Department of Defense played a larger role (than most realized) in making the key decisions.
Still, Fauci, Birx (a former military doctor), and Collins played a large role in orchestrating policy and getting the president to go along with their recommendations.
At some point, China’s response – locking down parts of their country – was endorsed as the bold and effective solution that should be used everywhere. The outbreak in northern Italy helped create more fear.
“There’s still time to stop the spread”
I’ve written many articles about “early spread.” However, one of the key planks explaining how what happened in America actually happened was the wide-spread belief that “late spread” of this virus was occurring.
That is, the virus had not yet spread through America (and other countries) and thus it was wise and proactive to implement draconian lockdowns and non-pharmaceutical interventions to slow or stop the spread of the virus. The public was told that that they could “flatten the curve” with just two weeks of inconvenience.
Significantly, nobody in official capacity or the mainstream press ever questioned whether the virus may have already spread throughout much of the country or the world (even though case of Influenza like Illness were rampant in many sections of the country/world).
Getting physicians groups on board was key …
Organizers of the response, per their table top exercises and research, knew that physicians were among the “most trusted” people in the world. Officials quickly got all the leading medical associations to sign off on the grave threat.
Once the physicians groups were on board, the guidance or marketing became “listen to your physicians.”
The vast majority of leading scientists also quickly came on board … perhaps because they knew going against Anthony Fauci would jeopardize their future research grants.
No one in the mainstream press ever questioned the doomsday scenarios and indeed actively promoted the “this-must-be-done” narrative.
Censorship and cancellation of dissenting voices slowly and then rapidly became a priority. All social media, Big Tech companies and legacy media companies implemented “misinformation” guidelines that had rarely if ever been utilized.
Seeding, funding and establishing “misinformation” experts had actually begun months or years earlier. Almost all at once, these disinformation gurus sprung into action, further muzzling any significant “push back” against the authorized narrative.
The Ivy League (of course) led the way …
I think a key event, rarely mentioned or remembered, was the decision of the Ivy League to cancel its conference basketball tournament in early March. The Ivy League is supposedly a repository of the brightest minds in the world. Once the Ivy League did this, the NBA and other organizations (The PGA cancelled a big golf tournament after one round) quickly followed. The dominoes started to fall and the momentum was set in motion.
Lesson: Be wary of the actions of the Ivy League or elite colleges.
The federal government actually could not compel any citizen, state or city to comply with its “guidance” but this didn’t matter as governors and mayors almost all at once implemented their own, more specific, lockdown orders. Or: They simply followed the federal “guidance.”
In retrospect, it’s quite fascinating that almost 100 percent of state and local officials “signed off” on such draconian mandates. It’s also worth noting that Gov. Ron DeSantis, the one prominent politician who did challenge the narrative, became a political superstar almost overnight.
Spreading the money …
To make it more likely that hospitals and medical clinics signed off on the various treatment guidelines and protocols, the federal government came up with numerous financial incentives (payouts) to get the hospitals and doctors to go along with their program. So hospitals received extra money for treating a Covid patients or if someone was placed on a ventilator.
Congress enacted emergency funding to mollify many groups that might otherwise have suffered economic damages. New money was printed out of thin air. State governments were compensated for implementing the federal program.
Media organizations began to receive advertising funding for promoting Covid safety and, later promoting the vaccines.
Mandatory masking was ordered, which further promoted the requisite fear of the virus.
All big companies signed off on the proposals even while many of their smaller competitors were put out of business, which was fine with the big guys.
Somehow the churches put up no resistance. No meaningful organization put up any resistance.
Psychology truisms were important ….
How did the organizers get virtually 100-percent compliance from all key stakeholders? The answer is found in psychological and sociological reasons: Nobody in a “leadership” role wanted to be a contrarian as this would be dangerous to their careers.
“We are all in this together” was the implied or explicit message. This was a great event in history (like fighting WWII) and the only way to defeat the “enemy” (the virus) was for all citizens to act together … and do what the experts said must be done. In other words, comply.
The fear was ramped up to a new level thanks to 40 to 45-cycle PCR tests suddenly flooding the market (as well as mandatory testing).
The media daily reported “new cases” and “new deaths,” most of which probably weren’t caused by this novel coronavirus.
It was rarely if ever mentioned that the average age of death of a Covid victim was around 82 – which is at or beyond the average life expectancy.
Anyone who questioned the narrative was met with a rejoinder that “XXX,000” people have already died. Unspoken was the fact very few people personally knew one person under the age of 60 who had died, and these official deaths “from” Covid were massively inflated.
In late March 2020 through April 2020 massive spikes of deaths in certain cities like New York City, New Orleans and Detroit received massive media coverage.
Receiving virtually no media attention was the hundreds of other hospitals that were almost ghost towns.
The lockdowns lasted many months (even years) in some states … not “two weeks.”
Nobody questioned why the check-out girls at the “essential” super markets were not becoming casualties of Covid even though they came in close contact with hundreds of customers every day and touched every item the customer had put in their buggies.
Setting everyone up for ‘the most important thing’ – the vaccines
At some point, the narrative (pushed by the experts) became that the only thing that would stop or end this pandemic was mass vaccination … so people just had to hold on until Pfizer and Moderna saved the world and ended the pandemic.
The vaccines arrived in “warp speed” and the world got a non-stop dose of this is a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” stories.
People were fired for not getting vaccinated or pressured into getting vaccinated (although after the non-stop fear campaign, 75 percent of the country was rushing to their pharmacy to get their shots). Plus, all the medical experts recommended this and everyone trusted their doctors.
At some point, officials no longer needed to pressure the public into “fighting Covid.” Citizens took up the charge themselves. America became an “us against them” society – and the skeptics were the mangy dog “thems.”
When people continued to get sick or infected after vaccination, the narrative became the shots lowered the likelihood you’d have a “severe case.”
The fact the vaccines did not work as advertised actually didn’t damper enthusiasm for the vaccines at all. The Covid vaccines became the only product in world history that was a colossal bust – but still generated record sales and demand.
A spike in “all-cause” deaths began days, weeks or months after the roll-out of the vaccines, but these spikes in deaths were either not reported or were blamed on Covid. Never mentioned was that the vaccines were supposed to make Covid deaths an impossibility.
The “narrative” that the vaccines were “safe and effective” – probably repeated a billion times – was never challenged by anyone in official capacity. In many states and cities, the lockdowns and restrictions were never challenged.
In Conclusion …
In a nutshell, Project Massive Fear worked.
All the key stakeholders “bought in.” Even if some people eventually realized some of the narratives may have been dubious or false, they’d already risked their reputations and careers by zealously pushing or endorsing these narratives … so they weren’t going to suddenly admit they might have been wrong.
In retrospect, how “they” made all the madness happen was surprisingly easy.
Gilead’s Remdesivir is a drug that has received a lot of criticism, and rightly so.
Prior to the pandemic, the World Health Organisation rejected its use due to poor trial studies abroad. NIAID-sponsored trials had likewise documented troubling issues. Reported adverse events were significant:
In short, a plethora of studies indicated it had potentially bizarre and fatal effects depending on the patient’s health. Patients who had a multi-organ impairment, for example, exhibited detrimental impacts on their renal function after the drug was administered. The FDA, nonetheless, granted its use under Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) when a study showed it reduced COVID hospitalisation duration by 4 days.
From that point on, Remdesivir became part of every COVID-19 protocol across the country. Reports from 2020 have since revealed that if a vulnerable patient (aged 65 and over) came into a medical centre and tested positive, Remdesivir was the treatment most likely to be offered. That patient would then be placed or declared in the ICU as an inpatient.
Here is where the story turns very sinister.
According to local sources in California, hospitals that took on inpatient complex cases could charge up to 144x more than an outpatient case. As soon as they treated these patients within their facilities, they could apply for reimbursement from Medicare. In other words, there was a clear financial incentive for hospitals to “over-treat” patients to maximise profits.
With these reports now circulating, 14 Californian residents living in the Fresno area have filed lawsuits against various medical centres. These include Community Regional Medical Center, Clovis Community Medical Center, and St. Agnes Medical Center.
One plaintiff’s claim about a medical centre’s covid protocol is particularly reprehensible:
“A patient comes to the hospital often for problem unrelated to COVID-19. They are told they have COVID-19 or ‘COVID pneumonia’. They are immediately separated from their loved ones, and usually declared to be in ICU, even though they are often just placed in room. They are told that the deadly Remdesivir is the only available and safe treatment. They are usually told that if they leave the Hospital against ‘medical advice’ they will void their insurance. They are placed on BiPap machine at high rate, making it difficult for them to breathe. Their hands are often tied down so they can‘t take the BiPap machine off their face. After their hands are tied down, and sometimes before, [a] psychiatrist comes to the room and determines that they are ‘agitated.’ This results in the protocol patient being placed on morphine or something similar. Sedating the patient makes it more difficult for them to communicate and more difficult for them to fight the effects of Remdesivir especially as it relates to their ability to breathe….”
All the lawsuits are being funded by the Arizona-based medical advocacy nonprofit Truth For Health Foundation. The organisation is run by Elizabeth Lee Vliet MD. Currently, the three aforementioned lawsuits will return to court for case management in January.
Note: These claims do not concern ‘End-Of-Life Care Protocols’. They concern COVID care protocols in general. We’ve seen similar claims made in the UK regarding Midazolam but again this concerned ‘End-Of-Life’ care. These lawsuits could well lift the thickly-blackened veil (for the wider masses) on the medical industry’s capacity to treat patients like cattle.
Newly released NZ Government figures demonstrate that mRNA boosters have had a deadly impact, increasing all-cause mortality.
The information concerning mortality in 2021, 2022 and 2023 correlated with vaccination status was released by Health New Zealand following a Freedom of Information request. The figures are signed off by Astrid Koornneef, Interim Director of Prevention, National Public Health Service. You can see them here.
The released figures include all NZ registered deaths by month. The figures show that for the last six months of 2022, 80 per cent of all people dying in New Zealand had received Pfizer mRNA booster shots. According to official government figures updated February 14 2023, 73.2 per cent of those eligible (18+ years) have received a booster. Of those dying, 1.8 per cent were under 18, and so had not received a booster. Adjusting for this, recipients of booster shots have at least an 11 per cent increased chance of dying in 2022 compared with all other groups, including the double vaccinated, partially vaccinated and unvaccinated. This equates to 3,040 additional 2022 deaths among the boosted when compared with other groups.
According to the figures, 39,313 persons died in 2022. This number may be subject to increase as the process of compiling 2022 death totals continues. The total number of deaths in 2019 (before the pandemic) was 34,260. The 2022 interim total is an increase of 15 per cent or 5,053 deaths on 2019.
An article in the NZ Heralderroneously claims that this spike in deaths is due to the effect of Covid 19 on an ageing population. This is not supported by data. According to the Government Covid portal a total of only 1,599 people have died with Covid described as the official cause of death, most of which occurred in 2022. This is insufficient to account for 5,053 extra deaths in 2022. Moreover the article fails to take account of the fact that the extra deaths are disproportionately occurring among people of all ages who have received booster shots. This would not be happening if increased deaths were a result of a knock-on effect of Covid or an effect due to ageing. In either case, death rates would be equally shared among the various vaccination status groups, but they are not. From a statistical point of view nothing could be clearer – booster shots increase your chance of death from any cause.
Corroborating data is available from the UK which we covered in our February 13 release. An analysis of 300 UK administrative districts shows that those with boosters have a progressively increasing risk of death in the months following their shot. Further UK information indicates elevated incidence of heart disease and liver disease are factors.
The latest Freedom of Information figures show that the continued insistence in mainstream media that NZ has benefited from a net reduced death rate due to Government pandemic policy is untenable. The policy of encouraging booster shots should cease immediately. Further investigation into figures of hospital admissions and deaths by category should be undertaken urgently. This will shed light on the mechanisms whereby Covid boosters are causing excess deaths.
Perhaps before he makes a fool of himself next time, he might like to check what the UN’s Food & Agriculture Organisation have to say on the matter:
ABOUT 60 PERCENT of the world’s pasture land (about 2.2 million km2), just less than half the world’s usable surface is covered by grazing systems. Distributed between arid, semi arid and sub humid, humid, temperate and tropical highlands zones, this supports about 360 million cattle (half of which are in the humid savannas), and over 600 million sheep and goats, mostly in the arid rangelands. The distribution of livestock over the different ecological zones is provided in Annex Table 2.
Grazing systems supply about 9 percent of the world’s production of beef and about 30 percent of the world’s production of sheep and goat meat. For an estimated 100 million people in arid areas, and probably a similar number in other zones, grazing livestock is the only possible source of livelihood.
Environmental challenges
Grazing can be visualized as beautiful cows in lush pastures in north-western Europe or New Zealand-livestock in harmony with nature. Indeed, livestock can improve soil and vegetation cover and plant and animal biodiversity, as described in this chapter’s case studies of widely different conditions in Kenya, the western United States and Guinea. By removing biomass, which otherwise might provide the fuel for bush fires, by controlling shrub growth and by dispersing seeds through their hoofs and manure, grazing animals can improve plant species composition. In addition, trampling can stimulate grass tillering, improve seed germination and break-up hard soil crusts.
However, many people associate grazing animals with overgrazing, soil degradation and deforestation. To them livestock keeping in arid regions of the tropics provokes images of clouds of dust, bleached cow skeletons and an advancing desert. The two most quoted sources are the Global Assessment of Soil Degradation (Oldeman et al., 1991), which estimates that 680 million hectares of rangeland have become degraded since 1945, and Dregne et al., (1991) who argue that 73 percent of the world’s 4.5 billion hectares of rangeland is moderately or severely degraded. In humid areas, livestock are associated with ranch encroachment and deforestation of tropical rainforests and competition with wildlife.
Prolonged heavy grazing undoubtedly contributes to the disappearance of palatable species and the subsequent dominance by other, less palatable, herbaceous plants or bushes. Such loss of plant and, in consequence, animal biodiversity can require a long regenerative cycle (30 years in savannas, 100 years in rainforests). Excessive livestock grazing also causes soil compaction and erosion, decreased soil fertility and water infiltration, and a loss in organic matter content and water storage capacity. On the other hand, total absence of grazing also reduces biodiversity because a thick canopy of shrubs and trees develops which intercepts light and moisture and results in overprotected plant communities which are susceptible to natural disasters.
The environmental challenge is thus to identify the policies, institutions and technologies which will enhance the positive and mitigate the negative effects of grazing. Environmental challenges, issues and options differ significantly according to climate and land capabilities. Livestock-environment interactions are therefore described separately for the arid, semi-arid and sub-humid, humid rainforest, and temperate and tropical highlands grazing systems respectively. As will be seen, that differentiation is particularly important for the arid eco-systems. As aridity increases, so does variability of rainfall, to the extent that the periodicity of rain becomes the single most important factor affecting the state of the natural resource base. Classical concepts of vegetation succession and climax vegetation do not apply in such environments and new concepts are required.
Forget climate change and all the other things that Monbiot rambles on about. His only real concern, as he makes clear at the end of his rant, is that farming takes up too much land, which he thinks should be rewilded.
And he is evidently happy to condemn billions to starvation to do it.
What most people have heard about deaths and illnesses caused by COVID vaccines is just the tip of the iceberg. Medical research articles keep rolling out on a host of health impacts from the vaccines. Here a number of new articles are cited to better reveal how unsafe the vaccines are.
An important part of the message for the general population should be this. All the new research on vaccine impacts comes from just two years of vaccine use. Thus we still do not have good information on the long-term health impacts. There is a reasonable probability that the negative health impacts will become even worse as more time for impacts on bodies and for research increases.
Another point is that even though the percent of people impacted may seem quite low, it is important to remember that there are huge numbers of people vaccinated. This means that very large numbers of people may be impacted by a host of diseases that at first seem minor.
Lastly, it is possible that some people may become victims of several vaccine-caused health problems. Just another factor to consider when high excess death rates continue to be observed nearly everywhere.
Cancer
There has been limited analysis and data on cancers being caused by the COVID mRNA vaccines. Now comes a creative new analysis by Ronald Kostoff. The article title is: Are COVID-19 Vaccine-Induced Cancer Rare Events?
Here is one statement that caught my attention: “Applying the URF [unreported fraction] of ~100 from the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care study, and the 1/3 fraction from the autopsy results to the post-COVID-19 vaccine VAERS cancer-related numbers yields a total of about 83,000 cancer-related events post-COVID-19 vaccination (so far).”
Here are a few excerpts:
COVID-19 vaccine-induced cancer has been judged a “rare” event by the major promoters of these vaccines (caveat: these injections prevent neither infection nor viral transmission). To ascertain the frequency of COVID-19 vaccine-induced cancers, we have examined the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database for reports of cancers. Since cancers tend to have a long latency period, we have also addressed the issue of Early Warning Indicators that could identify COVID-19 vaccine-induced cancers on or over the horizon. Finally, we have compared cancers reported following COVID-19 vaccines with those reported following influenza vaccines for similar numbers of vaccine doses delivered.
While imperfect, VAERS is a reasonable system for identifying safety signals related to vaccines. One major VAERS deficiency is that only a small fraction of vaccine-related adverse events is reported to VAERS. A study by Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, using electronic tracking, showed that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.” This is an average value over all adverse events; it may be far worse for cancer.
Before presenting the numbers, we need to define what is a cancer-related event reported in VAERS. Is it 1) a biomarker associated with the eventual emergence of cancer, 2) a group of biomarkers reflecting pre-clinical cancer, 3) a newly-diagnosed cancer, 4) a cancer that has been exacerbated, or 5) a cancer death? While all five are valid candidates, the present study concentrates on items 3) and 4).
This restriction to items 3) and 4) substantially under-reports the COVID-19 vaccine adverse events that may eventually result in cancer, because it excludes abnormalities in cancer risk biomarkers.
There were ~330 different cancer-related adverse events reported in VAERS for the COVID-19 vaccines, with ~2500 total number of events. Converting these VAERS entries to real-world numbers of COVID-19 vaccine-induced cancers requires three major assumptions, and some minor ones. The major assumptions are 1) the cancers reported in VAERS following the administration of COVID-19 vaccines is, in fact, caused in part or in whole by the COVID-19 vaccines, 2) the under-reporting factor (URF) to be used for cancer scale-up to real-world numbers can be approximated for very conservative estimation purposes by the Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare URFs, and 3) the fraction of the VAERS entries to which the URF should be applied can be approximated by autopsy results for fraction of post-COVID-19 vaccine deaths that can be attributed to the COVID-19 vaccine.
Assumption 1) is based on mechanistic studies that show the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines (those distributed most widely in the USA) destroy the innate immune system, including those components that surveille and control the growth of cancers. One of the specific mechanisms demonstrated in very recent mechanistic studies (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.ade2798 and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36713457/) is that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines increase the fraction of IgG4 antibodies and decrease the fraction of IgG3 antibodies, and the effect increases as the number of vaccine doses increase. This IgG3/IgG4 ratio shift is favorable for increasing tolerance to allergens but can also support increased malignancy. Based on the above and many other recent study results, the question we should ask about the COVID-19 vaccines should not be i) why would we expect that these vaccines contribute to cancer development, but rather ii) why would we expect they would not contribute to cancer development, given their demonstrated destruction of those components of the innate immune system responsible for controlling the development of cancer!
Assumption 3) is based on the observation that autopsy results for COVID-19 vaccine-induced deaths showed about 1/3 of all the VAERS entries for deaths could be attributed to the vaccine. Whether this fraction is applicable to vaccine-induced cancer is unknown.
All the major cancers are represented, with breast, lung, prostate, brain, and colon cancers being the most frequent. Placing these results in context is a separate study in itself. We do a simple comparison of the highest frequency cancers reported here with their counterparts for the influenza vaccines reported in VAERS. We selected influenza, since it is a respiratory viral disease and has a number of features in common with COVID-19.
New Estimate of Vaccine Deaths
A very innovative analysis is presented in the new article: Age-stratified COVID-19 vaccine-dose fatality rate for Israel and Australia. What is noteworthy is that the detailed analysis for Israel and Australia leads to a generalization applicable to the United States. The paper points out that “it is not unreasonable to assume an all-population global value of vDFR = 0.1 % [vaccine dose fatality rate]” This is for vaccine doses. For the US, 670M doses have been given, so the estimate is 670,000 people have been killed by the COVID vaccines in the US.
Here are a few excerpts:
It is well established that the COVID-19 vaccines can cause death, as seen from detailed autopsy studies (Choi et al., 2021; Schneider et al., 2021; Sessa et al., 2021; Gill et al., 2022; Mörz, 2022; Schwab et al., 2022; Suzuki et al., 2022; Tan et al., 2022; Yoshimura et al., 2022; Onishi et al., 2023), adverse effect monitoring (Hickey and Rancourt, 2022), a recent survey study (Skidmore, 2023), studies of vaccine-induced pathologies (e.g., Goldman et al., 2021; Kuvandik et al., 2021; Turni and Lefringhausen, 2022; Edmonds et al., 2023; Wong et al., 2023), and more than 1,250 peer-reviewed publications about COVID-19 vaccine adverse effects (React 19, 2022).
In particular, a study of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data for the USA showed that the COVID-19 injections can be understood as individual challenges to the body, and that “toxicity by dose” is a good first-order model of the phenomenon for the adverse effect of death (Hickey and Rancourt, 2022). An exponential increase of lethality with median age of those dying following injection was observed (Hickey and Rancourt, 2022).
Our all-population value of vDFR of approximately 0.05 % (Figure 3, Tables 1 and 2) implies that in the USA, following the administration of approximately 670 million COVID-19 vaccine doses to date (669.60 million doses, up to January 31, 2023, Our World in Data),2 approximately 330,000 USA residents would have died from the COVID-19 vaccines (1 in 1,000 on a population basis), assuming that elderly and vulnerable individuals are not more abundant or more aggressively targeted than in Australia or Israel. This number is comparable to the 278,000 fatalities found by Skidmore (2023) in his survey study for the USA. Our number of 330,000 is probably an underestimate, in light of the exponential dependence of vDFR with age that we have demonstrated and the known exceptionally large pools of highly vulnerable residents in the USA (Rancourt et al., 2022b).
… it is not unreasonable to assume an all-population global value of vDFR = 0.1 %. Based on the global number of COVID-19 vaccine doses administered to date (13.25 billion doses, up to January 24, 2023, Our World in Data),3 this would correspond to 13 million deaths from the COVID-19 vaccines worldwide.
Psychosis
Two medical research articles presented evidence for vaccine-caused psychosis.
A 31-year-old, single Hispanic male without past medical or psychiatric history, was brought to the emergency room by police because of erratic and bizarre behavior. He was found to be anxious, guarded, superficial and grandiose. He reported becoming ‘clairvoyant,’ being able to talk with dead people, hearing ‘people drumming outside his house’ and the constant voice of a co-worker whom he believed to be a paramour – it was later confirmed that there was no romantic relationship. All these symptoms began one month ago, after receiving the first dose of an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine, and markedly worsened three weeks later after receiving the second dose. Previously, he was asymptomatic, working full-time as an office manager. Although functional in adolescence and adulthood, he described himself as a loner, with an inclination to overly spiritual ideas, and able to communicate directly with God. He had a few close friends and romantic relationships.
His-vital signs, blood chemistry, urine toxicology, urinalysis, and chest radiograph were within normal limits, except for moderate leukocytosis with left shift, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 48 mm/h. His-COVID-19 PCR was negative. Non-contrast head computerized tomography with- and without-contrast showed hyperintensities throughout the subcortical and periventricular white matter. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) also revealed focus of FLAIR hyperintensity in the left peritrigonal white matter, with multiple nonspecific punctate hyperintensities throughout the subcortical and periventricular white matter and focus of susceptibility in the right lateral thalamus. The patient was admitted to the neurology service, where a video electroencephalogram (EEG) was negative. He refused a lumbar puncture. The following day he was wandering the unit talking to himself, stating that the ‘EEG machine was communicating with him.’ The patient demonstrated poor insight into his symptoms. He was started on risperidone 0.5 mg po qhs and placed on one-to-one observation. The next day, risperidone was increased to 0.5 mg qam and 1 mg qhs, and the patient was transferred to the psychiatric ward. He engaged in milieu treatment, and the hallucinations and delusions resolved after two days. He was discharged on the same medication regime five days later, with good insight about his symptoms. One week after discharge he was taking medication, asymptomatic and back to work.
This is the first report of psychotic symptoms after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. SAR-CoV- 2 is known to trigger a powerful immune response, which includes the release of large amounts of proinflammatory cytokines. As of January 2021, 42 cases of psychosis associated with COVID-19 infection have been reported. It has been hypothesized that a COVID-19-triggered cytokine storm may increase the risk of psychosis. Coincidentally, schizophrenia has been linked to a pro-inflammatory status (Goldsmith et al., 2016).
We report the case series of three patients who developed psychotic symptoms after the COVID-19 vaccination. Considering the evidence in the literature of an association between altered immune function and psychosis, the negative family and personal psychiatric history of our patients, the clinical presentation, and the close temporal relationship between the COVID-19 vaccination and the presenting symptoms, we hypothesize that the COVID-19 vaccine may play a role in the etiology of their symptoms. Since the COVID-19 vaccine has been shown to be safe and effective (Sultana et al. 2022), and the development of psychosis after vaccination is very rare (Reinfeld et al. 2021), we firmly believe that this case series should not discourage the use of the COVID-19 vaccine. Rather, future systematic studies should be conducted with adequate control of confounding variables to establish coincidence, association, or causality between reported psychotic symptoms and the COVID-19 vaccine.
Introduction: Varicella zoster virus (VZV) reactivation has been reported following vaccination for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but the real extent remains unknown. Methods: We conducted a systematic review to summarize evidence of VZV reactivation or infection following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Episodes after coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) were also identified. Related articles were identified in PubMed and EMBASE databases till December 31, 2021, using the terms “varicella zoster” and “COVID-19′′.
Results: The search revealed 314 articles, of which 55 met the inclusion criteria. VZV manifestations were documented in 179 (82.1%) subjects following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and in 39 (17.9%) patients with COVID-19. Among the vaccinated, median (IQR) age was 56.5 (42–70) years, and 56.8% were female. Twenty-one (16.8%) were immunosuppressed. The median (IQR) latency time after vaccination was 6 (3–10) days, and 84.4% received mRNA vaccines. VZV reactivation occurred following a first dose (68.2%), a second dose (12.8%) or a booster (0.6%). The most important VZV manifestation was dermatome herpes zoster rash, which accounted for 86.4% of events in vaccinated subjects. Twenty patients (11.3%) presented serious VZV events after vaccination, with Herpes Zoster ophthalmicus (5.6%) and post-herpetic neuralgia (3.4%) predominating. No VZV pneumonia or deaths were recorded. Antiviral prescriptions were made in 96.2% of vaccinated subjects. No significant differences between vaccinated and infected subjects were found. Conclusion: This study indicates that the occurrence of VZV reactivation is clinically relevant.
Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is a hyperinflammatory condition associated with antecedent SARS-CoV-2 infection. In the USA, reporting of MIS-C after vaccination is required under COVID-19 vaccine emergency use authorisations. We aimed to investigate reports of individuals aged 12–20 years with MIS-C after COVID-19 vaccination reported to passive surveillance systems or through clinician outreach to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Findings
Using surveillance results from December 14, 2020, to August 31, 2021, we identified 21 individuals with MIS-C after COVID-19 vaccination. Of these 21 individuals, median age was 16 years (range 12–20); 13 (62%) were male, and eight (38%) were female. All 21 were hospitalised: 12 (57%) were admitted to an intensive care unit, and all were discharged home. 15 (71%) of 21 individuals had laboratory evidence of past or recent SARS-CoV-2 infection, and six (29%) did not. As of August 31, 2021, 21 335 331 individuals aged 12–20 years had received one or more doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, making the overall reporting rate for MIS-C after vaccination 1·0 cases per million individuals receiving one or more doses in this age group. The reporting rate in only those without evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 0·3 cases per million vaccinated individuals.
Interpretation
Here, we describe a small number of individuals with MIS-C who had received one or more doses of a COVID-19 vaccine before illness onset; the contribution of vaccination to these illnesses is unknown. Our findings suggest that MIS-C after COVID-19 vaccination is rare. Continued reporting of potential cases and surveillance for MIS-C illnesses after COVID-19 vaccination is warranted.
Conclusion
When it comes to the legitimacy of the COVID vaccines, the worst is yet to come. The intensity and range of bad health impacts will become a horror story in coming years.
Total Diabetes From 2001 to 2020, diabetes prevalence significantly increased among over 18s 37.3 million people have diabetes (11.3% of the US population).
28.7 million people have been diagnosed with diabetes.
8.5 million people who have diabetes have not been diagnosed (do not know they have it)
Total Prediabetes 96 million US adults have prediabetes.
Cost of Diabetes (2017) $327 billion, $237 billion direct medical costs $90 billion in lost productivity
Another €100,000 (£88,000, $107,000) has been gifted to a climate journalist via the foundation of Spain’s second largest bank, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA (BBVA). The money is an annual presentation and was recently given to the New Yorker writer Elizabeth Kolbert. The bank said it gave her the cash “for her extraordinary ability to communicate in a rigorous, attractive manner the fundamental environmental challenges of our time”. BBVA is deeply involved in funding subsidy-heavy renewable technologies. It recently declared record profits for 2022 of €6.42 billion, and noted that it had channelled €50 billion into “sustainable business”. Past cash recipients include Matt McGrath of the BBC, the Guardian newspaper and Marlowe Hood of Agence France-Presse (AFP).
The foundation was particularly impressed with Kolbert’s 2016 seminal book, The Sixth Mass Extinction, which was awarded a ‘non-fiction’ Pulitzer Prize. This was said to have documented the dramatic loss of species that the planet is suffering. “One third of all reef building corals, a third of all freshwater molluscs, a third of sharks and rays, a quarter of all mammals, a fifth of reptiles and a sixth of all birds are heading towards oblivion,” she said. For good measure, she claimed that around a half of all living species on the Earth could disappear by the end of the century.
Kolbert is a Climate Catastrophist straight from central casting. She fervently believes that humans can control the climate by adjusting levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, a proposition that is disputed by many scientists. She compares climate ‘deniers’ to flat-earthers. What ‘deniers’ think of climate science, or rather her take on said science, is “completely irrelevant“. Like most people in her world, she says, “I have low tolerance for people who deny facts and disregard truths”.
The sixth mass extinction scare is becoming very popular in climate Armageddon circles, and is heavily promoted by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). But it suffers from a major flaw – a lack of proof. Most of the claims are produced by models and are just opinions. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) lists 823 animals and plant species (mostly animals) that have gone extinct since 1500. If you are in the Pulitzer prize winning territory of a sixth mass extinction, you might expect to be able to show more than 823 extinct species in 522 years.
The WWF has been responsible for much extinction alarmism since its Living Planet Index has estimated at least a 50% vertebrate decline since 1970. But a group of Canadian biologists recently cast considerable doubt on this claim, suggesting that it was a cherry pick. They showed that the estimate was produced from less than 3% of vertebrate populations. “If these extremely declining populations are excluded, the global trend switches to an increase,” they point out. “More informative indices are needed,” they conclude. The finding is perhaps not surprising since the small increases in CO2 over the last 40 years has produced 14% more vegetation across the globe.
Five years ago, the eminent Smithsonian palaeontologist Doug Erwin dismissed sixth mass extinction talk as “junk science“. He went on to state that “many of those making facile comparisons between the current situation and past mass extinctions don’t have a clue about the difference in the nature of the data, much less how truly awful the mass extinctions recorded in the marine fossil record actually were”.
As regular readers are aware, MIT Emeritus Professor Richard Lindzen believes the entire climate narrative is “absurd”. However, he acknowledges it has near-universal acceptance, despite the fact that in a normal world the counterarguments would be compelling. “Perhaps it is the trillions of dollars being diverted into every green project under the sun, and the relentless propaganda from grant-dependent academics and agenda-driven journalists, along with the political control offered to elite groups in society by Net Zero, that currently says it is not absurd,” he suggests.
Neil Winton spent 34 years working for the international news agency Reuters, including four years as science and technology correspondent reporting on global warming. He wrote a recent article noting that anyone who abused people by calling them a climate denier “betrays the fact they know little about climate science, or are too lazy to do their own research”. They are more interested in forcing their views on the public and silencing debate, he added. The idea that the science is settled, he says, won’t last long if the reporter can be bothered to use a search engine revealing “scores if not hundreds of highly qualified scientists who beg to differ”.
In his new book on Net Zero, Winton notes, the author Ross Clark accuses Reuters of joining an organisation “which is dedicated to presenting a partisan view of climate change, and silences those who dare to disagree by activating the obnoxious ‘denier’ assertion”.
This organisation is called Covering Climate Now (CC Now), and it specialises in ready-to-publish climate scare stories. The Daily Sceptic wrote about it in December under the heading ‘How billionaires fill the Media with climate fear and panic’. CC Now feeds over 500 media operations and its ‘partners’ include some of the biggest names in news publishing such as Reuters, Bloomberg, AFP, CBS News,ABC News and MSNBC News.
Winston notes that CC Now issues the advice: “For God’s sake do not platform climate denialists.” Op-eds that detract from the scientific consensus or ridicule climate activism “don’t belong in a serious news outlet”, it says. Since when did Reuters require an outside organisation to advise it on how to report on controversial issues, asks Winton.
He adds: “If you dig deeper though you’ll find it uses weasel words only too familiar to those like me who’ve striven to provide real honesty and balance to the argument. It reveals itself as just another arrogant, warmist outfit dedicated to shutting down those with whom it disagrees. Not a thing Reuters should be associated with, surely?”
If you believe what the media tell you, you would think so. But you would be wrong. As the chart below for 1980 to 2022 shows, there is no obvious trend in the frequency of major hurricanes worldwide during the satellite era.
The IPCC, the UN climate panel, can also find no evidence either, stating in their latest climate assessment: ‘There is low confidence in most reported long-term (multi-decadal to centennial) trends in Tropical Cyclone frequency- or intensity-based metrics due to changes in the technology used to collect the best-track data.’
The US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration says the same about Atlantic hurricanes: ‘There is no strong evidence of century-scale increasing trends in US landfalling hurricanes or major hurricanes. Similarly for Atlantic basin-wide hurricane frequency (after adjusting for observing capabilities), there is not strong evidence for an increase since the late 1800s in hurricanes, major hurricanes, or the proportion of hurricanes that reach major hurricane intensity.’
But facts don’t matter to the climate warriors at the BBC, who published a ‘Reality Check‘ following Hurricane Ian last summer, which claimed that there was evidence that hurricanes were getting more powerful.
I fired off a complaint to the BBC at the time, which their Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) have now rejected. They presented no real data to counter any of the evidence I have outlined above. Instead they relied almost entirely on computer modelled projections of what might happen in future.
Their dismissal of my complaint sums it up better than I can: ‘The evidence would therefore appear to indicate climate scientists who have studied hurricanes and the effect of human-induced climate change agree the proportion of tropical cyclones which develop into hurricanes or major hurricanes is expected to increase, and those hurricanes are expected to have higher peak wind speeds ‘
Of course, it was not what could happen in the future which I was complaining about. It was their claim that such changes are already happening. In short, they created a straw man and knocked it down, while ignoring the actual complaint!
The real problem, of course, is that the ECU is part of the BBC, and will always back them up even when the evidence against them is overwhelming. The BBC will never be properly held to account until a truly independent complaints unit is set up.
An increase in the pace at which sea levels are rising threatens “a mass exodus of entire populations on a biblical scale” and whole nations could be drowned under the waves, the UN Secretary General has warned. The Guardianhas more.
The climate crisis is causing sea levels to rise faster than for 3,000 years, bringing a “torrent of trouble” to almost a billion people, from London to Los Angeles and Bangkok to Buenos Aires, António Guterres said on Tuesday. Some nations could cease to exist, drowned under the waves, he said.
Addressing the UN Security Council, Guterres said slashing carbon emissions, addressing problems such as poverty that worsen the impact of the rising seas on communities and developing new international laws to protect those made homeless – and even stateless – were all needed. He said sea level rise was a threat-multiplier which, by damaging lives, economies and infrastructure, had “dramatic implications” for global peace and security.
Significant sea level rise is already inevitable with current levels of global heating, but the consequences of failing to tackle the problem are “unthinkable”. Guterres said: “Low-lying communities and entire countries could disappear for ever. We would witness a mass exodus of entire populations on a biblical scale. And we would see ever fiercer competition for fresh water, land and other resources. People’s human rights do not disappear because their homes do,” he said. “Yes, this means international refugee law.”
A new compilation of data from the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) shows that sea levels are rising fast and the global ocean has warmed faster over the past century than at any time in the past 11,000 years. Sea levels rise as warmer water expands and ice caps and glaciers melt. …
In fact, sea levels are not accelerating and have continued rising at a modest 10-12 cm a century – not something that is going to give any nation an existential crisis any time soon. I somehow think that countries might be able to adapt to a one metre rise per millennium.
But why let facts get in the way of a good disaster narrative that justifies lots of Government intervention and control?
Immunity acquired from past COVID-19 infection provides strong, lasting protection against severe outcomes from the illness at a level “as high if not higher” than that provided by mRNA vaccines, according to a study published Thursday in The Lancet.
Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 65 studies worldwide, providing overwhelming evidence to support what many scientists, doctors and studies have said since early in the COVID-19 pandemic.
“The Lancet is finally acknowledging what doctors and scientists have been gaslit for saying for years — that natural immunity provides superior protection to experimental vaccines,” said Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., chairman and chief litigation counsel for Children’s Health Defense.
“Only the tsunami of propaganda and censorship from the pharma/government biosecurity cartel and the controlled media persuaded the public that Pfizer and Moderna were better at protecting the human immune system than God and evolution,” he added.
The study found that immunity acquired from infection was often far more robust and consistently waned more slowly than the immunity from two doses of an mRNA vaccine.
The researchers found that natural immunity was at least 88.9% effective against severe disease, hospitalization and death for all COVID-19 variants 10 months after infection.
It also provided 78.6% protection against reinfection for all variants except omicron BA.1, for which protection was 45.3%.
At an October 2022 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices meeting, the CDC presented data showing that vaccine-acquired immunity after two or three injections dropped to zero six months after injection, and then became negative.
The Lancet study stated that “although protection from reinfection from all variants wanes over time, our analysis of the available data suggests that the level of protection afforded by previous infection is at least as high, if not higher than that provided by two-dose vaccination using high-quality mRNA vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech).”
The authors argued, based on their findings, that natural immunity should be recognized along with vaccines when authorities are considering restricting travel, access to venues and work based on immunization status.
Commenting on these conclusions, Dr. Meryl Nass, internist and epidemiologist, said:
“While framing this as an acknowledgment that natural immunity confers protection, what it is also doing is providing tacit agreement that government-imposed policies restricting travel are acceptable. It furthermore provides tacit approval of vaccine passports.”
The ‘cartel’s’ war on natural immunity
In October 2020, The Lancet published an article — “Scientific consensus on the COVID-19 pandemic: we need to act now” — by authors including CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, which was widely covered in the mainstream press. They stated that “there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection” and that “the consequence of waning immunity would present a risk to vulnerable populations for the indefinite future.”
But in November 2021, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request forced the CDC to admit that it didn’t even collect data on natural immunity.
Then, in January 2022, the CDC was compelled to revise its position on natural immunity, acknowledging in a report that natural immunity against COVID-19 was at least three times as effective as vaccination at preventing people from becoming infected with the Delta variant.
The pharmaceutical companies were also aware of the benefits of naturally acquired immunity, although they suppressed that information, documents revealed.
In October 2021, Project Veritas exposed three Pfizer officials saying that antibodies lead to equal if not better protection against the virus compared to the vaccine, The Defender reported.
Later, in April 2022, Pfizer documents held by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and released under court order confirmed Pfizer knew natural immunity was as effective as the company’s COVID-19 vaccine at preventing severe illness, journalist Kim Iversen reported.
Most recently, the Twitter files revealed that a Pfizer board member who used to head the FDA lobbied Twitter to take action against a post accurately pointing out that natural immunity is superior to COVID-19 vaccination, The Epoch Times reported.
FOIA requests also revealed that Dr. Anthony Fauci and his boss, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, colluded to suppress the Great Barrington Declaration, which argues that natural immunity plays an important role in mitigating public harm from COVID-19, The Defender reported.
The vaccines are failing, which means we need more vaccines
Media that reported on the study, including NBC, ABC and U.S. News & World Report, continue to advocate for vaccination as the more important way to protect against severe disease and death from COVID-19.
This is despite the fact that even vaccine advocates Bill Gates and Fauci admitted that COVID-19 vaccines perform poorly.
In a paper published last month in Cell Host and Microbe, Fauci and his co-authors confirmed that the predominantly mucosal respiratory viruses, including influenza, coronaviruses, respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV, and common colds “have not to date been effectively controlled by licensed or experimental vaccines.”
They concluded, “Durably protective vaccines against non-systemic mucosal respiratory viruses with high mortality rates have thus far eluded vaccine development efforts.”
Nass said that while it is quite significant for The Lancet to publish these findings about natural immunity, the authors’ framing, like the admissions by Gates and Fauci, “is intended to quietly, without apology, veer away from current COVID vaccines, while implying that more money is needed to develop new types of vaccines. No one made any mistakes. No one accepts any blame. Chris Murray never erred with his outlandish estimates. No, just send money and let us do the science.”
Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that Israel felt threatened by Iran’s growing influence in the Middle East. Netanyahu expressed his Iranophobic view in a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Russia’s Black Sea resort of Sochi on Wednesday. Press TV has asked Scott Rickard, former American intelligence linguist from Tampa, Florida, and Brent Budowsky, a columnist at The Hill from Washington, to give their thoughts on the issue.
Rickard said Tel Aviv is concerned about the fact that the regime could not carry out its old project to spread sectarian divisions and pave the way for dismemberment of the countries in the Middle East region because of the Iranian-led resistance against Israeli policies, not only in the occupied territories of Palestine but also in the whole region.
“Iran is not a threat to Israel whatsoever. The threat that Israel sees is the fact that their Oded Yinon Plan is being put to a hold by Iran,” the intelligence linguist said on Thursday night.
“They (the Israelis) look at Iran as a threat only because they have no influence on their governments and Iran is autonomous and is not under the Zionist influence,” he added.
Since the victory of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979, Tehran has been critical of Israel’s policies in the region, whereas “no leaders [of other states] even dared to speak out against Zionism,” Rickard argued. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
ABOUT 60 PERCENT of the world’s pasture land (about 2.2 million km2), just less than half the world’s usable surface is covered by grazing systems. Distributed between arid, semi arid and sub humid, humid, temperate and tropical highlands zones, this supports about 360 million cattle (half of which are in the humid savannas), and over 600 million sheep and goats, mostly in the arid rangelands. The distribution of livestock over the different ecological zones is provided in Annex Table 2.
Aletho News
Aletho News 