NHS England Admits its Hospital Mask Mandate is Based on Modelling That Simply Assumes They Work
BY WILL JONES | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | NOVEMBER 6, 2022
Earlier this year, the Smile Free campaign wrote an open letter to the NHS Chief Executives of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland calling for the lifting of the face mask requirement for all staff, patients and visitors in healthcare settings. Signed by over 2,000 medical and healthcare professionals, the letter cited gold-standard RCT scientific evidence that highlighted both the ineffectiveness of masks as a viral barrier and the potential physical, social and psychological harms associated with their use. The attempts of Scotland and Wales to justify their hospital mask requirements were criticised in an earlier article in the Critic. Now NHS England has spoken, defending its endorsement of mass masking primarily on the basis of computer modelling. Dr. Gary Sidley takes the organisation to task in the Critic.
In a letter dated October 4th 2022, Dame Ruth May (Chief Nursing Officer and national lead for infection control), responding on behalf of Amanda Pritchard (NHS England Chief Executive), asserted that there was “strong” evidence that widespread use of face coverings achieved a “significant impact” on the prevention of COVID-19 transmission. To support this premise she cited a computational modelling study, posted in October 2021. This pre-print paper reported that, based on its model, “universal masking” would achieve a 46% reduction in infections among healthcare workers. Given the substantial amount of robust scientific evidence available, aggregating around the conclusion that – in the real world – masks constitute an ineffective viral barrier, it is astonishing that NHS England is relying on a modelling study to justify its blanket policies.
There appears to be little recognition of the inauspicious legacy of the epidemiologist Professor Neil Ferguson. In collaboration with his colleagues at Imperial College London, Ferguson deployed computer modelling to predict the doomsday scenarios of Covid killing 2.2 million Americans and 500,000 people in the U.K. Such inaccurate prophecies were largely responsible for spooking Western governments into lockdowns, an unprecedented public health policy that has led to extensive collateral harms. Now healthcare chiefs are citing a similar modelling study as a key reason for persisting with mask recommendations in our hospitals, health centres and GP practices.
An initial glance at the study highlighted in the NHS England response is sufficient to reveal that it falls well short of an evidential bar that would justify imposing masks on healthy people. As a pre-print paper, it has not been peer-reviewed, and it comes with an explicit cautionary note at the beginning of the article that “it should not be considered conclusive, used to inform clinical practice or referenced by the media as validated information”. Within the body of the article, there are further warnings about the dubious reliability of its findings – for example, references to its reported outcomes as “highly uncertain”.
The modelling preprint itself acknowledges there are “important gaps in the evidence base” and that “evidence around the efficacy of interventions such as wearing surgical masks… is severely lacking”. Yet by assuming mask efficacy in its model, the paper ‘finds’ face coverings will prevent 46,000 infections of healthcare staff.
Dr. Sidley concludes that policies requiring habitual face coverings are not based on solid empirical evidence: “A piece of ill-fitting cloth or plastic does not transform into an impermeable viral barrier by virtue of crossing the threshold of a hospital or health centre.”
Time to ditch the masks.
Worth reading in full.
UN tells Elon Musk to monitor “harmful disinformation” and “hate speech”
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | November 7, 2022
The UN’s high commissioner for human rights, Volker Türk, has sent an open letter to Twitter’s new owner Elon Musk, asking him to ensure that Twitter respects human rights and monitors hate speech and misinformation.
We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.
In the letter, Türk said he was writing with “concern and apprehension about our digital public square and Twitter’s role in it.”
Türk also said that there is a need to monitor hate speech and disinformation, noting that free speech should not be a “free pass.”
“Like all companies, Twitter needs to understand the harms associated with its platform and take steps to address them,” Türk wrote.
“Respect for our shared human rights should set the guardrails for the platform’s use and evolution. In short, I urge you to ensure human rights are central to the management of Twitter under your leadership.”
He also said that Twitter should respect people’s rights to “fullest extent possible under applicable laws” and to publish transparency reports on government pressure to infringe on people’s rights.
The UN official also warned about so-called misinformation and hate speech.
“Twitter has a responsibility to avoid amplifying content that results in harms to people’s rights,” Türk said. “There is no place for hatred that incites discrimination, hostility or violence on Twitter.
“Hate speech has spread like wildfire on social media … with horrific, life-threatening consequences.”
“Conversely, viral spread of harmful disinformation, such as we have seen during the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to vaccines, results in real world harms. Twitter has a responsibility to avoid amplifying content that results in harms to people’s rights,” the high commissioner said.
The climate scaremongers: Health chief’s nonsensical warning of doom
By Paul Homewood | TCW Defending Freedom | November 4, 2022
We are used to silly, irresponsible climate scare stories from the BBC and the papers, but when they come from the chief executive of the UK Health Security Agency it is quite another matter.
According to the Guardian last week: ‘The climate crisis poses a “significant and growing threat” to health in the UK, the country’s most senior public health expert has warned.
‘Professor Dame Jenny Harries, the chief executive of the UK Health Security Agency, said there was a common misconception that a warmer climate would bring net health benefits due to milder winters. But the climate emergency would bring far wider-reaching health impacts, she said, with food security, flooding and mosquito-borne diseases posing threats.
‘Referring to the recent floods in Pakistan, Harries said the UK needed to build resilience to protect the population from the health impacts of extreme weather events. “Colleagues from Pakistan . . . are suffering from the impacts of flooding. They are dealing with stagnant water, higher risks of sewage overflowing into publicly accessible water spaces,” she said. “We are seeing some of the things that could be happening in the UK”.’
She went on to repeat the fake claims that this summer’s heatwave had killed 2,800 people, a claim already exposed as a sham on TCW. And she warned us that we would have to stay indoors in the middle of the day in summer, and have longer summer holidays for schools. She even ridiculously claimed that we would soon have outbreaks of dengue fever.
The comparison with Pakistan is utterly absurd, and there’s no evidence that summers in England are getting wetter, or for that matter drier.
Indeed, even her claim that we would soon be having Mediterranean summers is just as ridiculous. The simple fact is that even this summer was not as hot as 1976. The average summer temperature may have increased, as cold summers become less frequent, but even with the wall-to-wall sunshine we had this year, summers show no sign of breaking through that 16C barrier:
By contrast, average summer temperatures in the south of France are typically six or seven degrees higher.
Harries’s comments about dengue are particularly misleading. The spread of dengue globally has not been because of climate change, as one of the world’s leading experts on infectious diseases, Professor Duane Gubler, has explained.
According to him, the principal drivers are urbanisation, globalisation and lack of effective mosquito control. The mosquitoes which carry the virus thrive in urban habitats, where dengue quickly spreads, while air travel provides the ideal mechanism for transport of viruses to new cities, regions and continents. The result, he says, is epidemic dengue.
The World Health Organisation also notes that the mosquito which has brought the dengue virus to Europe is actually adapted to cold weather: ‘Aedes albopictus, a secondary dengue vector in Asia, has spread to North America and more than 25 countries in the European Region, largely due to the international trade in used tyres (a breeding habitat) and other goods (e.g. lucky bamboo). Aedes albopictus is highly adaptive and, therefore, can survive in cooler temperate regions of Europe.’
Britain is no stranger to mosquito-borne diseases such as dengue. Large epidemics of dengue have been recorded here and elsewhere in Europe since the 18th century. One massive epidemic, estimated at one million cases with at least 1,000 deaths, occurred in Greece in 1927-28. Climate change has nothing to do with the spread of dengue.
And what about this ‘food security’ Harries is waffling on about? Agricultural output has been rising since the BSE scare of the 1990s:
https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#compare
If the professor is worried about Britain’s food security, maybe she should be objecting to the government’s plans to rewild large swathes of our countryside, to attack the dairy and meat industry and to build solar farms on prime agricultural land.
BBC’s Arctic warming trick
ACCORDING to a BBC report, Svalbard, the Norwegian archipelago deep inside the Arctic Circle, is heating at six times the global average. (The BBC and Guardian now routinely call it ‘heating’ rather than ‘warming’, though I don’t think the Svalbarders would call average annual temperatures of 1C ‘hot’!)
The report, Svalbard: The race to save the fastest-warming place on Earth, states: ‘Svalbard is home to the world’s northernmost permanent settlement, Longyearbyen, which is estimated to be heating at six times the global average. So what is being done to save it?
‘Svalbard’s church is a blood-red wooden building with bright white trim – the most northerly place of worship in the world. Its priest, Siv Limstrand, has been here for only three years but is shocked by the impact of climate change she has witnessed in that time. “Every Sunday when we gather for worship, a part of our intercessions is always about climate change and its threats,” explains Limstrand. “We know that the clock is ticking.”
‘You feel on borrowed time here in what successive scientific studies have found is the fastest-warming place on Earth. Experts from the Norwegian Polar Institute are among those who calculate it is heating six times faster than the global average. The consensus is that the temperature in Svalbard has jumped 4C in the past 50 years. Wildlife and human life are now in a struggle to survive. This is why Limstrand’s congregation is praying for help.’
Obviously a priest who has been there three years is an expert on Svalbard’s climate!
But as this is the BBC, they tell you only half the story. In line with most of the Arctic, Svalbard was virtually as warm as now in the 1930s and 40s, as the chart for Bjoernoeya (Bear Island) shows:
https://www.ecad.eu/indicesextremes/customquerytimeseriesplots.php
In between, as the chart highlights, Svalbard went through a drastic cooling episode in the 1960s and 70s. It is from this unusually cold base period that the BBC claim their 4C of warming. That extreme cold interval affected much of the Arctic, and had a particularly catastrophic effect on countries like Iceland. Trausti Jonsson, senior researcher at the Iceland Met Office, lived through those times and said this:
‘In 1965 there was a real and very sudden climatic change in Iceland (deterioration). It was larger in the north than in the south and affected both the agriculture and fishing – and therefore also the whole of society with soaring unemployment rates and a 50 per cent devaluation of the local currency,’
Going further back in time, ice core studies have shown that Svalbard was as warm as now, if not warmer, in the 1300s, before temperatures plunged in the Little Ice Age. The 1800s were the coldest period of the lot in the last 1,000 years.
There is nothing unprecedented or unusual about Svalbard’s climate nowadays. But the BBC would rather the inhabitants return to the freezing days of the 1960s!
Why Does the UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Report Never Mention Side-Effects?
BY AMANUENSIS | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | NOVEMBER 3, 2022
In the past few months I’ve read newspaper articles warning of the increased risk of death following gardening, stress at work, solar flares, sleeping in front of the television, hot weather, cold weather, shock of high energy bills, the price of food, laughing too much and sleeping in the wrong position – these recent warnings add to the multitude of stories on the health consequences of our dietary choices, sedentary lifestyle and climate change. If that wasn’t scary enough, we’ve also seen efforts to educate the public about how common sudden deaths are in younger adults and teenagers. Given this background of suddenly emerging risks to life resulting from our modern lifestyle, it is clearly very important to fully understand all risks that might be emerging resulting from the Covid vaccines, no matter how trivial.
With the above in mind, it is perhaps rather surprising that the Vaccine Surveillance Report from the UKHSA has never actually mentioned vaccine side-effects or complications. Sure, the word ‘safe’ is typically used a few times in each report, but there’s never been a mention of side-effects and their rates. They don’t even like to use the term ‘rare side-effects’ – as far as the Vaccine Surveillance Reports are concerned the vaccines are simply ‘safe’. They’ve never reported any of the data from the Yellow Card side-effect reporting system, nor mentioned any of the increasing numbers of scientific studies reporting on an increasing number of ‘complications’ after receiving the various vaccines.
I suppose at this point I could stop – since side-effects aren’t covered in the Vaccine Surveillance Reports, and this is a series of posts reviewing the UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Reports, there’s nothing to discuss. However, vaccine side-effects and complications are important, so I hope that I can be forgiven for exploring this aspect of the vaccines a little further in this post.
Over the past 18 months there have been many studies which have found worrying high side-effect rates following vaccination. The results of these studies have been discussed in multiple places across the internet, and many of these studies have been covered by the Daily Sceptic. The only common theme has been the remarkable insistence by authorities worldwide on ignoring the results of these studies, except where the evidence has become overwhelming and they are forced into some response.
The vast array of side-effects found by these investigative studies is now too voluminous to cover completely here, so instead I’ll focus on a few specific side-effects and discuss the response to these new findings.
Thrombocytopenia and blood-clotting related problems
The first inkling that there might be a risk of thrombocytopenia (low blood platelet count) after vaccination came in January 2021, a mere month after the vaccinations started, after a doctor in New York died of complications following acute thrombocytopenia about two weeks after being given the Pfizer vaccine. Pfizer responded with a statement that this definitely wasn’t anything to do with their vaccine, despite acute thrombocytopenia being relatively rare and the doctor not being in a risk group. In the months that followed, many more cases of thrombocytopenia and other blood clotting disorders occurred, from Pfizer and the other vaccine offerings, but the official response remained coincidence. Eventually the volume of problems became too large to ignore, and in June 2021 the U.K. authorities decided that those aged under 40 shouldn’t be offered the AstraZeneca vaccine. I found this restriction to the AstraZeneca vaccine a bit odd, as the other vaccines appeared to have similarly high rates of clotting problems in the weeks following vaccination, but it appears that the authorities had chosen their demon to blame. Of course, older adults weren’t too keen to be told that they were going to have to take these risks, and demand for the AstraZeneca vaccine plummeted. A few months later the AstraZeneca vaccine was only made available to those who were unable to take the Pfizer vaccine (the only alternative in the U.K. at that time). Even though the known problems of clotting related disorders post-vaccination are bad enough, it isn’t clear if the instances of severe clotting related problems (resulting in hospitalisation) are also accompanied by higher numbers of clotting problems below the clinical threshold (‘microclotting’), or whether these mild cases might have longer term consequences. Another area of post-vaccine effects that demands more research.
Myocarditis
The risk from myocarditis first appeared in a leaked report out of Israel in April 2021 suggesting worryingly high rates occurring in younger males. Quite why it was deemed necessary for this safety-related information to be kept secret isn’t clear, but authorities worldwide responded quickly once the information was leaked to reassure everyone that this risk was very very low and that the vaccines were very very safe (and effective, of course). While the official line is that post-vaccination myocarditis is rare, studies keep on finding higher and higher incidence rates, particularly in the young male risk group. Indeed, in August a scientific paper describing the impact of Covid vaccination in Thailand suggested that the conditions suggestive of myocarditis and pericarditis after vaccination were found in over 29% of vaccine recipients aged between 13 and 18 years of age, and a similar result has since been described after vaccination in Switzerland. The longer term impact of these ‘mild problems related to the heart’ aren’t yet known.
Period related problems
All clinical studies into side-effects are mindful of the need to treat any issues related to sexual function carefully – individuals are less likely to seek medical attention when it comes to sex-related problems and those related to our reproductive systems in general. Thus it should have been a huge red-flag when anecdotal reports of heavy or missed periods following vaccination started to appear early in 2021. Alas, our authorities simply responded with the usual ‘it definitely isn’t the vaccines’ and ignored the problem. The complex situation regarding reporting of side-effects related to reproductive function is nicely illustrated by the number of problems reported to the Yellow Card side-effect reporting system – early May 2021 saw a huge increase in reporting of side-effects related to menstruation. The reason? Most likely, an article on the problem on BBC Radio 4’s Women’s Hour in late March, in which listeners were urged to report any problems into the Yellow-Card system. It is very disappointing that our side-effect reporting system could be so heavily influenced by a radio programme in this way. Really there should have been active monitoring of post-vaccination complications and side-effects, but the inadequate Yellow Card system is all we had. Official guidelines now state that problems related to menstruation are relatively rare but even if they do occur they’ll be of no consequence whatsoever and women shouldn’t worry about taking the vaccines. Eventually we’ll find out if this reassurance was correct.
What’s also troubling is the way that the only side-effects that are discussed in the traditional media are the ones that have been officially recognised (albeit under duress). What about the increase in hospital consultant activity for stroke victims over the last 18 months?
Or the increase in consultant activity for hormonal problems?
Or the increase in referrals for suspected cancers?
Like the significant increase in excess deaths that we’ve seen this year, there seems to be much going on but little interest on the part of our authorities to investigate these issues at all. Maybe they’re all the result of the lockdowns, maybe they’re due to Covid itself, maybe it was the vaccines, and perhaps it is all just a massive coincidence – but it simply isn’t good enough to decide that it can’t possibly be the vaccines and refuse to even discuss undertaking the research that might clarify the situation.
At least in recent weeks we’ve had an increase in calls for some robust investigations to be undertaken, such as discussed in the Daily Sceptic in mid October. Then again, we’ve also had the brief hour-and-a-half spent a week ago by the House of Commons to debate the issues around vaccine safety. Despite some MPs detailing concerns about the safety of the vaccines, the Chair was quick to respond with empty reassurances and the debate ended with a statement urging people to get vaccinated to protect themselves, others and the NHS. I fear that there’ll be quite some way to go before the full impact of the vaccines is accepted by our authorities.
An important aspect of the rate of side-effects and complications is the impact on the risk-benefit analysis used by our authorities to determine who should take the vaccines. The risk of side-effects should be tolerable so long as the benefit offered by any medical product is greater than the risks. Since the vaccines were introduced back in December 2020 we have seen marked changes both in the risks posed by the vaccines (more side-effects and complications have come to light) and the benefits offered (the vaccines clearly offer little protection against infection, their protection against hospitalisation and death appears to be rather less than claimed, and at the same time Covid appears to have evolved to become much less virulent). In addition, nearly everyone in the Western world will now have had a Covid infection, resulting in at least some natural immunity. Unfortunately, our authorities have never actually published any of their risk-benefit analyses and how the ratio changes with age and morbidity, so we can’t tell how new information on risks and benefits has changed the calculation. Then again, I suppose it is easier to be inconsistent if you never actually tell anyone what factors your decisions are based upon.
One of the big problems regarding the Covid mRNA vaccines in particular is that there were only sparse data published on how long the mRNA would remain active in the body and where it would end up (pharmacokinetics and biodistribution). Originally the reassuring voices told us that the mRNA would break down within hours, and that the mRNA vesicles would remain close to the point of injection. However, evidence has emerged in the months since our authorities proceeded to inject everyone in the world that has suggested that the mRNA remains active for many weeks following vaccination, that it travels to multiple organs in the body and that the pharmaceutical companies knew this prior to the vaccines being released. Even worse, a recent study has suggested that the mRNA is present in breast milk for a short time following vaccination (for fairness I must point out that our authorities still think that it is completely and utterly safe for recently vaccinated mothers to continue breastfeeding). I find it concerning that we’re only now starting to find out the full complexity of the interaction of the mRNA vaccines with the body.
Recent studies have estimated the current rate of serious short-term side-effects after the Covid vaccines at around one in 800. I find this number interesting, as I suspect that this is as bad a side-effect rate as could be found for a supposedly benign or prophylactic treatment. I estimate that an incidence rate of around one in 1,000 marks the point at which problems become apparent even to a casual observer, provided sufficient numbers are given the medical product. If a side-effect rate for a benign or prophylactic treatment is worse than this people would notice and demand that the medicine or medical treatment is withdrawn. Thankfully, there aren’t too many examples of terrible medical mistakes – probably the most famous example is Thalidomide, where around one in 1,000 mothers who took the drug gave birth to a child with serious physical malformations. Even so, it took three years before the nature of the problem was understood and Thalidomide was withdrawn from sale. It is perhaps interesting to note that at least in the early stages of the problem being recognised the blame was put on the nuclear tests that had occurred in previous years – was this the 1950s equivalent of ‘climate change’?
Where serious side-effects are more common than this for a supposedly benign product, the response is typically more rapid. The famous example here is Elixir Sulphanilamide, a treatment for bacterial infections created in the 1930s that caused over 100 deaths in the few weeks that it was for sale. The problem with Elixir Sulphanilamide was that it hadn’t been tested before release and the manufacturers hadn’t realised that a primary component was highly toxic. The owner of the company that made the elixir famously denied responsibility, stating that “we have been supplying a legitimate professional demand and not once could have foreseen the unlooked for results”. It was this scandal that led to the creation of the FDA in the USA, along with stringent requirements for the testing of new medical products. After the disaster it was demanded that never again would a medical treatment be released and given to many thousands of people without being fully tested to explore all potential problems (and not simply the ‘looked-for’ problems). As a side note, the outcome of the Elixir Sulphanilamide scandal was that the scientist who developed the formula committed suicide as a result of the extreme guilt of causing so much harm, while the company that released the medicine without testing was given a nominal fine. The manufacturer went on to produce further drugs (and profits) and after a succession of takeovers is now part of the pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline. Funny how it all works.
Next time I’ll discuss one of the most wildly enthusiastic aspects of the Vaccine Surveillance Report – the predictions made by computer-models of the reduction in infections, hospitalisations and deaths offered by the vaccines.
Amanuensis is an ex-academic and senior Government scientist. He blogs at Bartram’s Folly.
Research: Countries That Sought ‘Zero-COVID’ Lockdowns Have The Least Immunity
Kevin Frayer/Getty Images
By Steve Watson | Summit News | November 4, 2022
New research has revealed the countries that implemented the harshest lockdowns as part of ‘zero-COVID’ policies now have the least immunity from the virus itself.
The analysis by The Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington’s School of Medicine estimates that China, which still has multiple lockdowns in place, has the lowest level of immunity to COVID-19 on the planet.
Other nations that didn’t institute harsh lockdowns, including Russia, Singapore and Brazil are thought to have the highest immunity levels, according to the research.
The research estimates immunity rates according to infection numbers, vaccination rates and how much time has passed in the interim.
The analysis posits that as of the end of October 2022, just 17.2% of the Chinese population have immunity from the virus, while Russia on the other hand is estimated to have an immunity rating of 74.5% with everyone in the country having contracted the virus.
While Singapore’s immunity rating is thought to be around 70%, and Brazil’s 68%, Japan, another country that put into place harsh restrictions is believed to have just 38.9% immunity.
The U.S. is believed to have 60.5% immunity at this time, according to the analysis.
Ironically, given the IHME’s COVID model being used to laud strict restrictions, the analysis again highlights the futility of lockdowns in preventing the spread of the virus in the longterm.
Johns Hopkins University previously concluded that lockdowns have had a much more detrimental impact on society than they have produced any benefit, with researchers urging that they “are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.”
A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report released last month highlighted how a record number of children in the U.S. are now being hospitalised with common colds due to weakened immune systems.
The CDC data is consistent with research by scientists at Yale who warned that it is not normal to see children with combinations of seven common viruses, including adenovirus, rhinovirus, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), human metapneumovirus, influenza and parainfluenza, as well as COVID-19.
As we previously highlighted, there has also been a global outbreak of hepatitis cases in children, with the media asserting the cause is “unknown.”
Biden administration officials have continuously pushed for children to keep wearing masks in schools, and there are still hordes of hypochondriacs forcing their children to do so, despite COVID posing virtually no risk to the health of children in normal circumstances.
The European Medicines Agency’s (EMA), Europe’s equivalent of the FDA, has also warned that relying on endless rounds of booster shots to fight COVID-19 could end up causing “immune response” problems.
What We Knew In the Early Days
Brownstone Institute | November 4, 2022
The claim is now everywhere: we had to lock down because we just didn’t know about this virus. It was all very confusing and we had to play it safe. We had no other option because we just had no clarity about what we were dealing with. The precautionary principle dictated the unprecedented actions.
Actually, the precautionary principle goes both directions. It also dictates that we not enact policies that we know for sure would wreck lives and liberties. They did it anyway, without sufficient knowledge that the measures would achieve any positive good.
We approach the third year and people have forgotten that all the harms of lockdowns were strongly warned about by many voices in many venues. In addition, the virus was much better understood back then and openly discussed. We knew for certain that the panic and fear were being wildly overblown.
Below follows resources assembled by the ‘Robber Baron‘ and many others who write for the Brownstone Institute. These citations from newspapers, magazines, academic journals and interviews, with many respected voices, show that we certainly knew tremendous amounts in the early days. All the warnings and information were readily available to anyone paying attention.
We certainly live in an age of short attention span but many of these signs and warnings came weeks or months before the world locked down and they chronicled the damage as it was happening. Why all this came to be completely ignored remains the burning question.
- 2019: WHO Global Influenza Programme recommends against lockdowns and masks
- Sept 2019: Johns Hopkins pandemic preparedness study recommends against lockdowns
- Jan 24: Doctor warns that mass quarantine won’t work and will devastate society
- Jan 30: Obama health adviser says stop panicking
- Feb 5: Fauci says there’s no asymptomatic spread
- Feb 28: Fauci says this is more akin to flu than something more deadly
- Mar: 81% of Chinese Covid cases are mild
- Mar 1: Sweden: No effective measure to let healthy school children stay at home
- Mar 2: Discussion on how Covid IFR was likely much lower than predicted
- Mar 2: 800 public health scientists warn against lockdowns, quartantines, restrictions
- Mar 3: Article on why masks are impractical
- Mar 3: Berkeley doctor indicates masks are not helpful in preventing Covid
- Mar 4: Doctor says Covid not nearly as deadly as feared
- Mar 4: Your doctor is not panicking and neither should you
- Mar 6: Doctor talking about unnecessary panic over Covid
- Mar 9: Article on how Covid is only really dangerous to the elderly
- Mar 12: Chief medical officer saying people shouldn’t wear masks
- Mar 13: Review found severe mental health problems from prolonged quarantine
- Mar 15: Medical organisation says stopping elective surgeries is unnecessary and dangerous
- Mar 17: Warning of financial crisis, unrest, civil strife, war, and a meltdown of the social fabric
- Mar 19: Article about Covid overaction and its issues
- Mar 25: Data about the health impacts of crushing the economy
- Mar 26: Early evidence of hospitals inaccurately listing Covid as cause of death
- Mar 26: Early data show we’re overreacting to Covid
- Mar 28: Predictions about the harms of lockdowns: Drugs, Suicide, and Crime
- Mar 28: Guardian outlines rise in domestic abuse throughout the world
- Mar 30: Study showing children are not the primary spreader of Covid
- Apr 1: Article saying masks offer little to no advantage outside of hospital settings
- Apr 3: An overview on the dangers of lockdowns
- Apr 4: Warning of the harm in delaying non-Covid medical procedures
- Apr 4: Research showing the seasonality of Coronaviruses
- Apr 6: U.N. warns about domestic violence surge
- Apr 6: Piece on domestic abuse during lockdown
- Apr 7: Study from China finds of 7,324 COVID-19 cases only two transmissions occurred outdoors
- Apr 7: Piece on the mental health cost of the lockdown on kids
- Apr 8: Research showing school lockdowns aren’t helpful and cause great harm
- Apr 13: More confirmation about domestic abuse rising due to lockdowns
- Apr 14: Children are very unlikely to contract Covid
- Apr 15: Barely any transmission from outdoor activities
- Apr 15: Different approaches by countries have little impact on Covid deaths
- Apr 15: Molecular Biologist suggests the cure is worse than the disease
- Apr 16: UN overview about the poverty/death that will come from lockdowns
- Apr 16: CDC mask study concludes that masks don’t work
- Apr 17: Info on how damaging cancelled procedures are
- Apr 20: Oxford professor says cases in U.K. peaked before lockdown
- Apr 22: Potential for 60,000 cancer deaths due to lack of screening/treatment
- Apr 23: The harm lockdowns are having on people with heart conditions
- Apr 24: Data on the mental health toll of lockdowns
- Apr 24: Study showing school closings are the least cost-effective pandemic policy
- Apr 27: The rise of domestic abuse during lockdowns
- Apr 28: Increasing child abuse is a side effect of Covid lockdowns
- Apr 29: Cancer deaths could increase by 20% due to lockdown
- Apr 30: Santa Clara seroprevalence study shows high prevalence
- May 1: Indications from Europe that lockdowns are ineffective
How Doctors and Nurses Betrayed Patients – and Themselves
Dr. Vernon Coleman | 21st Century Wire
NOTE: This article was first published over two years ago – on 12.7.20. Sadly, it remains perfectly valid today.
A growing number of doctors and nurses appear to be waking up and questioning the absence of any science behind the coronavirus hoax.
That’s very nice, and I congratulate them.
But what the devil took them so long?
Why did they wait so long to speak out?
Their silence betrayed their patients, their profession and themselves.
Only a complete moron could have thought that this manufactured ‘crisis’ necessitated the closure of hospitals and GP surgeries.
How could doctors stand by seeing cancer patients deprived of essential treatment? The NHS should have been stoned not clapped.
There was never any greater risk than there is with the flu every year.
Indeed, the figures show that the ordinary flu bug has always posed a much bigger risk than the coronavirus.
So far this year the coronavirus has affected 10 million people worldwide.
The flu can affect 1 billion people in the same period.
And the mortality rates for the two are almost identical.
We don’t close down hospitals and clinics whenever the flu appears.
So, obviously, this was a politically motivated closure of hospitals, shops, businesses and so on. And doctors should have seen that.
And just as the closure of hospitals will result in far more deaths than covid 19 so the wearing of masks will result in far more deaths than could possibly be saved. Wearing a mask reduces blood oxygen levels. I have seen car drivers with masks on. I’ve even seen bus drivers wearing masks. These things reduce blood oxygen. There will, before long, be a disaster with a bus crashing because the driver was wearing a mask and became hypoxic.Why else do you think governments everywhere admit that people with respiratory or heart problems don’t have to wear a mask?
And the stupid rules about social distancing were never justified. There was never any science to support them.
Anyone who believes in the twin heresies of social distancing and masks is, by definition, either certifiably insane, a cretin or on the dark side of the human race. Most are left wing, pro EU fascists and believers in the climate change nonsense.
Doctors and nurses who are now waking up to the fact that they’ve been tricked are claiming that they were told that if they spoke out they would be punished.
DANCING NURSES: In 2020, exhibitionist medical staff in the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada took to social media and proceeded to make a mockery of a locked-down populace who were ordered to stay at home to in order to ‘save the healthcare system from being overloaded.’
Well, it’s true that the authorities are punishing doctors who dare to question the official line. I know of a doctor in the UK who was struck off the medical register for questioning the coronavirus story. And in the USA Dr Scott Jensen, a doctor who is also a state senator, is being investigated for making statements about the similarity of the coronavirus to the flu and about the way death certificates were being signed.
And it is also true that simple and effective remedies have been banned or demonised simply so that we could all be prepared for the vaccine.
But if most of the doctors in a big hospital spoke out no bureaucrat would dare to strike them all off the register. If 500 doctors stood up for the truth it would be impossible to take away all their licenses.
`I work in a hospital,’ wrote one brave NHS employee. ‘So far none of the nurses, doctors or domestics has been off sick. And patients with the coronavirus are transported all around the hospital, to X-ray, to CT scan and to the ward and yet mysteriously no one gets infected.’
What sort of spineless people are working in health care these days? That’s the sort of excuse popular with lesser war criminals.
Still, looking on the slightly bright side, some of them are waking up and now realise that the coronavirus hoax was exactly that – a piece of political trickery, conceived and executed by people with hidden agendas. The damage done by the hospital closures will be massive. And the mental issues caused by the fear will be long-lasting – even permanent. Millions are suffering from severe depression as a result of the lies that have been told. Suicide rates are going to rocket.
Any doctors who are still social distancing and wearing masks outside the operating theatre should be ashamed of themselves. They, like much of the rest of the population, have been made fools of and if they had any professional pride left they would be red-faced, embarrassed by their own gullibility and ashamed of how easily they’ve been made part of a wicked conspiracy and made to look like fools.
Now is the time for the medical and nursing professions to stand up and to demand some answers and explanations from the leaders of their professions and from the administrators who gave the orders which have led to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
They should also insist that hospitals are now opened fully, and that patients are told that there is nothing to fear.
For although a growing number of doctors now realise that the coronavirus scare is hoax there are still hospitals and administrators who are behaving as though we were in the middle of an outbreak of the bubonic plague.
The latest piece of lunacy in the NHS is for the people in charge to suggest that patients who want treatment at an Accident and Emergency department should telephone and make an appointment.
NHS England’s national medical director has reportedly told the House of Commons health and social care committee that the health service wanted patients to telephone first and be given a timed slot to attend the A&E department.
I’ve heard everything now.
Patients who are desperate for help, bleeding, in pain, with bones sticking out at funny angles will be expected to telephone and make an appointment to be seen in the accident and emergency department. Triage will, it seems, now be done by teenagers on the telephone. What qualifications will they have? GCSE in woodwork, perhaps?
Distraught relatives will have to telephone and fix an appointment before going to the hospital. Is the plan simply to kill more patients? Did the hospital closures not kill enough?
I will tell you what is going to happen.
Everyone is going to ring for an ambulance. And who can blame them?
As for hospitals, well even the Royal College of Physicians admits that many NHS services will not get back to full capacity for more than a year.
Millions of patients will wait too long. Patients in pain will have to wait for more than a year for treatment. Waiting times will be obscenely long. Tens of thousands will not be seen until it is too late. Tens of thousands of people who could have lived will die.
Around the world the death toll from the hoax will be measured in millions.
Comparatively few will have died of the coronavirus.
The vast majority will have died because they were shut out, abandoned or too frightened to seek help.
And the medical and nursing professions have to take responsibility for all that pain, that sorrow and those deaths.
Doctors should not have accepted the unscientific gibberish behind the coronavirus hoax. Before allowing hospitals to be shut down they should have asked questions. It was never difficult to see that mistakes were being made.
Doctors and nurses betrayed their patients and their professions but they also betrayed themselves.
Too many were happy to accept the weekly applause and the praise when they knew that they deserved neither.
It is time now for the healing professions to make amends.
They should make it clear to the administrators and the politicians that they are no longer prepared to accept the coronavirus nonsense.
They should demand their government’s medical advisors be sacked. They should demand that all members of the elite, medical establishment be sacked too.
They should demand that social distancing be abandoned and that masks should be burned.
They should tell the public that there is nothing to fear.
And they should be prepared to work long hours to clear the backlog of patients as quickly as possible.
There really is no choice.
If doctors and nurses do not stand up then they will be truly unworthy.
This article was originally a script for a YouTube video in July 2020. The video was taken down almost as quickly as it was put up.
Vernon Coleman’s book Coleman’s Laws: Twelve Essential Medical Secrets Which Could Save Your Life is available as an eBook and a paperback on Amazon. His book Superbody: How to Boost Your Immune System is also available as a paperback and an eBook.
Some States Say ‘No’ to Coronavirus Shots Mandate for Students Despite CDC’s Childhood Vaccine Schedule Change
By Adam Dick | RonPaul Institute | November 2, 2022
In October, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advisory committee voted to add yearly experimental coronavirus “vaccine” shots to the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule. Many state governments have a history of looking to this CDC schedule to guide their imposing of shots mandates for students.
Which states will follow along to mandate the newly added shots? As we start the month following the committee’s vote, it is good to take a look across the country to see what different state governments have done to protect against or welcome the CDC schedule’s addition of these yearly shots that have proven to be neither safe nor effective and that are asserted to target a threat that has been long known to pose a miniscule risk of serious sickness or death for children. Young adults in college have also tended to be at very low risk, though you wouldn’t know it from the draconian policies many universities imposed in the name of countering coronavirus.
Compounding the absurdity and detestability of including the coronavirus shots in the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule is that the much-hyped coronavirus that people were worried about during the coronavirus scare is long gone. What is not gone is the risk of serious sickness or death from the shots.
Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo advised well when he posted the following at Twitter last week:
Parents, don’t hold your breath… CDC & FDA abandoned their posts. Keep sticking with your intuition and keep those COVID jabs away from your kids.
Unfortunately, when faced with a shots mandate for school attendance, many parents may, against their better judgment, give in to the pressure and authorize their children being given the shots. Older students at universities that have more commonly imposed coronavirus shots mandates since last year have faced similarly terrible pressure to take the shots.
The good news is that, according to tracking by the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP), 21 state governments have taken at least some action to prohibit mandating coronavirus shots for students. Still, even where state governments have taken action against mandated coronavirus shots for students, there is in many cases room to make that protection against pushing these shots on students both stronger and broader.
Check out NASHP’s map of America where you can see information regarding states standing up against or supporting mandated coronavirus shots for students. Put the cursor over a state to find out some details regarding a particular state’s policy on mandating the shots.
Copyright © 2022 by RonPaul Institute.
Study: Incidence Of Acute Cardiac Involvement After mRNA Booster “800 Times Higher”
By P Gosselin | NoTricksZone | November 2, 2022
“Alarming: 1 in 35 booster patients has lab values indicating acute heart damage.”
That’s the headline of an article by at transparenztest.de.
The finding is based on results by a Swiss observational study by Prof. Christian Eugen Mueller published here.
1 of 35 individuals showed laboratory values indicative of acute cardiac injury after booster mRNA vaccination.
Researchers led by Prof. Christian Eugen Müller of the University Hospital Basel investigated the extent to which cardiac involvement occurs after mRNA booster vaccinations. Heart damage from the mRNA booster shots appears to be a much higher risk than previously thought, the recent findings show.
777 employees of Basel University Hospital, median age 37 years and 69% female, had received booster vaccination. After 3 days, their troponin levels (hs-cTnT) were measured. Troponin is a laboratory value that indicates acute damage to the heart.
Much higher in women
“40 subjects showed elevated troponin levels. In 18 of these cases, other causes were present. The remaining 22 cases corresponded to an incidence of 2.8%. The incidence in women was 3.7% and in men only 0.8%,” reports transparenztest.de. “Most of the subjects had no cardiovascular history. Three days after vaccination, their troponin levels (hs-cTnT) were measured to detect cardiac damage. If levels were elevated, another hs-cTnT measurement and imaging examination followed the next day.”
The surprising results were presented at the 2022 ESC Congress.
It had been previously suggested that such complications were very rare, with an incidence in the range of only 0.0035%. But the new study results suggest it’s far worse.
800 times higher than previously shown
According to Prof. Christian Müller: “The study confirms the hypothesis that the incidence of acute cardiac involvement is higher than thought. At 2.8% it was 800 times higher than in passive observational studies. But now that we need annual booster vaccinations, there could be a lot of vaccine-related cardiac involvement.”
Prof. Christian Müller adds. “From day 3 to day 4, we observed a clear drop in troponin in almost all participants, indicating that this was an acute problem.”
“Alarmingly high”
“The incidence of 2.8% of acute cardiac involvement is alarmingly high,” transparenztest.de warns. “Thus, 1 out of 35 boostered persons shows such values shortly after the mRNA vaccination. Converted, one would have e.g. with 350,000 booster vaccinations consequently 10,000 persons or with 3.5 million 100,000 persons, who show such laboratory values of an acute heart damage.”
Also see: Dr. John Campbell
Featured Video
U.S. Naval Blockade & Ground Invasion of Iran?
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Free Book
Tell Me Again, Who Made The Desert Bloom?
Lawrence of Cyberia | March 19, 2010
In December 1945 and January 1946, the British Mandate authorities carried out an extensive survey of Palestine, in support of the work of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine. The results were published in the Survey of Palestine, which has been scanned and made available online by Palestine Remembered; all 1300 pages can be read here.
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Russian security chief issues warning to four NATO states
- Seyed M. Marandi: U.S. Naval Blockade & Ground Invasion of Iran?
- The Iran War Exposes the Emptiness of American ‘Strength’ in East Asia
- Europe’s Drone Pipeline to Ukraine Could Soon be in Russia’s Crosshairs – Analyst
- EU spied on Orban for years – former Slovak minister
- Fact-Checking the “Placebo Control” Fact Checkers
- An Open Letter To President Donald Trump (My Response) | Candace
- Arms industry given direct influence over university courses
- Another Trump Flip Flop: From ‘Kill FISA’ to ‘Clean Renewal’
- AIPAC ‘slimeball’ Eric Swalwell leaves the stage
- If Americans Knew
- Mark Levin and Jonathan Pollard Push for Nuking Iran
- TCN: America Enables Israel’s Crimes
- Israel’s Next Leader Will Be Just Like Bibi – but Without the Corruption
- Born into war, raised across borders: The story of Gaza’s premature babies separated from their parents amid Israel’s genocide
- Israeli soldiers suspected of raping Palestinian detainee allowed to return to service
- Gaza flooded with sweets as fuel and medicine withheld, health official warns
- Israel, US ready for wars to resume, as Gaza healthcare is in freefall – Daily Update
- Commentary: take away Israel’s biggest weapon
- The Myth of Israel as ‘US Aircraft Carrier’ in Middle East
- Israeli Media: ‘Diseases Are Everywhere’: Gaza’s ‘Catastrophic’ Healthcare Crisis Is Worsening
- No Tricks Zone
- 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
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
Aletho News 