By Neville Hodgkinson | TCW Defending Freedom | November 7, 2022
A British scientist with 32 years of experience in the pharmaceutical industry warned right at the start of the Covid vaccine rollout that under no circumstances should the gene-based, mRNA jab be given to women of child-bearing age without studies to confirm it was safe.
Dr Mike Yeadon, former vice president for research at Pfizer, one of the manufacturers of the experimental mRNA products, filed a petition with the European Medicines Agency on December, 1, 2020, urging that even testing the jab on human volunteers was unethical without significant safety concerns being taken into account.
One of these was a similarity between virus proteins targeted by the proposed vaccinations and a protein (syncitin) essential for forming the placenta in pregnancy. If antibodies produced by the jab also acted against those proteins, the petition said, ‘it would result in vaccinated women essentially becoming infertile’.
Co-signed by Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, a leading German physician, the document also warned that the vaccine trials were much too short to flag up late adverse effects. It added that the design was such that the trials could not show whether the product worked either in stopping a person from becoming infected, or from infecting others.
Subsequently, Yeadon became one of the first scientists to highlight evidence from a previously confidential Pfizer study showing that the vaccine products do not stay at the injection site but become widely distributed throughout the body, including the ovaries.
In view of the toxic nature of the ‘spike’ protein that the jab manufactures (summarised here), Yeadon warned in August, 2021: ‘My assumption at the moment is that these vaccines are concentrating in the ovaries of every female who has been given them. We don’t know what that will do, but it cannot be benign and it could be seriously harmful.’
It is now widely acknowledged that the jab neither protects against infection nor transmission, as Yeadon and Wodarg spelled out in their petition. If their knowledge had been sought at the outset of the Covid crisis the UK alone could have been spared the £500billion lockdown bill, with enormous associated social damage.
But what about the fertility warnings? Despite his years of experience at the top of his field, Yeadon has been vilified for speaking out. Is he really no more than ‘a hero of Covid conspiracy theorists’, as the Times described him?
Birth rates have fallen significantly in many countries, including the UK, in the wake of the vaccine rollouts. Various reasons for the fall have been suggested – usually excluding the jab.
Yet Dr James Thorp, a 68-year-old American physician who has practised obstetrics for more than 42 years and sees thousands of high-risk pregnant patients each year, has observed many complications attributable to the jabs, including foetal death and miscarriage. ‘What I’ve seen in the last two years is unprecedented,’ he says.
With help from several colleagues, he compared rates of adverse events following the Covid jabs with those reported post-flu vaccination in women of reproductive age. The focus was on events related to pregnancy and menstruation, using data from the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
A preprint of their findings published on September 28 shows a thousand-fold increase in menstrual abnormalities after the Covid jab, and significant increases in miscarriage, foetal malformation, growth abnormalities, cardiac disorders, foetal death and stillbirth.
Thorp has also highlighted risks to newborn babies taking milk from their vaccinated mothers. One study found mRNA from the jab in five out of 11 lactating women who had received the vaccination within six months of their delivery.
Last month, in a wide-ranging review in the US-based Epoch Times of these and other findings, US microbiologist and biomedical scientist Dr Sean Lin revealed that Thorp ‘has seen at least three newborns, completely healthy at the time of their birth, who passed away after being breastfed by their recently vaccinated mothers’. This suggested the vaccine components can not only accumulate in the ovaries but can also be passed on to infants via breastfeeding, he wrote.
He added that details of animal experiments performed before the jabs were authorised, recently obtained under freedom of information legislation, showed that mRNA and spike protein can travel through all barriers in a mother rat to enter its foetus. The rats themselves experienced toxicity during gestation, with some becoming infertile and losing the use of their hind legs.
Calling for an end to all Covid shots for pregnant women until long-term safety data become available, Lin writes: ‘The medical field and health agencies should still adhere to the fundamental ethical principle of ‘Do No Harms’.’
A hospital memo leaked to the Epoch Times by a nurse in Fresno, California, revealed how the hospital is experiencing a dramatic rise in the number of stillbirth cases, now upwards of 22 a month compared with an average of one to two every three months previously. This massive increase seems to align with similar evidence from across the country showing a potential rise in problems with fertility, miscarriages and foetal development, the newspaper reported.
Could the vaccine have contributed to a ‘very unusual’ spike in deaths among newborn babies now being investigated in Scotland?
In the UK, one and a half million Yellow Card reports of suspected adverse reactions to the vaccines include 821 miscarriages and 58,171 reproductive/breast disorders.
With tens of millions of doses administered, those numbers have still not persuaded regulators that there is a problem, although real-world adverse effects can be at least ten times higher than those reported. ‘Our advice remains that the Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective during pregnancy and breastfeeding,’ the Medicines and Health products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) reaffirmed in September.
A review last month in the journal Vaccine declared that based on studies published so far ‘there is no scientific proof’ of any association between the jabs and impaired fertility in either men or women.
It depends on what is meant by ‘scientific proof’. If scientists do not ask the right questions, they can avoid receiving unwelcome answers. Those who drove the vaccine rollout are choosing not to see the thousands of reported disorders as related to the jabs, despite the record numbers, and clearly demonstrated mechanisms of harm.
It took a mathematician/businessman, for example, to point out evidence of a dose-response relationship between the jabs and infant deaths, with significantly more deaths reported when the higher-dose Moderna jab is used during pregnancy than with the Pfizer product.
Igor Chudov, who highlighted this phenomenon using US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) figures, says the Moderna product is associated with nearly twice as many neonatal deaths as the Pfizer vaccine, and 42 per cent more miscarriages.
In the light of these data, he asks: ‘How can Covid vaccine given during pregnancy be safe, and NOT affect infant deaths? How come nobody at the CDC asked this question? How come our media is silent on this?’
It is as though there are parallel universes: one occupied by those who can see no harm, and the other by doctors and scientists who insist a grave situation is staring us in the face.
The latter include three American medical whistle-blowers who found a 2021 rise of nearly 300 per cent in miscarriages among women serving in the US Army compared with the previous five years. There was no increase in 2020, when Covid arrived.
Doctors calling for a halt to Covid vaccination for pregnant women often meet abuse and censorship.
In October 2021, obstetrician and gynaecologist Dr Christiane Northrup told the Epoch Times: ‘Women are having bleedings. The doctors in our area are doing hysterectomies in young women, like 30-somethings. They said “Oh, it’s not unusual”. Let me tell you, as a board-certified gynaecologist, that’s very unusual. Women’s periods are messed up all over the place . . . I’ve had a huge Facebook group of thousands of women talking about this situation that was removed.’
What of Yeadon’s worry that an immune reaction to the spike protein might block pregnancy?
A small study from Singapore, in 15 women, reported that none had developed anti-syncitin antibodies after the jab, but Yeadon says the actual data showed a clear increase, arbitrarily ruled as insignificant by the researchers.
‘It looked like someone had tried to dismiss our concerns by testing for evidence of the particular problem we’d warned about. Unfortunately, all they did is to reinforce our concerns.
‘We’d envisioned the risk that, in responding to the synthetic piece of virus spike protein, women’s immune systems would also make an immune response to their own placental protein. That’s exactly what was reported in the pre-print paper.
‘Based on this concern alone, all these experimental products as a class should have been completely contraindicated in women younger than menopause.’
He insists that a series of toxicology issues meant ‘adverse impacts on conception and ability to sustain a pregnancy were foreseeable from the start . . . There was and still is no data package supporting safety in pregnancy, or prior to conception.’
BY WILLIAM M. BRIGGS | OCTOBER 31, 2022
One of the reasons for broken science is nonsense being passed off as science. Today’s example, and a prominent example, too, comes from the peer-reviewed journal BioScience. From the paper “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency” by William Ripple and others.
Now the word emergency isn’t undefined or unfamiliar: we know the difference between an emergency and a matter of concern, or even a problem. Further, we know the word so well that we know the weather we experience is not any kind of emergency, even if it might, possibly, someday, perhaps, who knows, maybe be a problem. Which it now is not; a problem, that is, let alone emergency. The weather is not acting in any extraordinary way.
Even though we know the word, it doesn’t have a scientific meaning. Emergency, as a word, has no place in scientific discourse. And neither does code red, a term used in the article’s opening sentences: “We are now at ‘code red’ on planet Earth. Humanity is unequivocally facing a climate emergency.”
What—what precisely—is a code red? Is it different from a code orange or code puce? What—what precisely—differentiates code red from code indigo? How many codes are there, and how do we measure or categorize without ambiguity their characteristics?
Obviously, we cannot answer any of those questions; they aren’t even meant to be asked. Which means the term is not part of science. It is instead hyperbolic, and editorial. It is scientific nonsense.
The paper, therefore, is off to a bad start. It has already signaled it is a work of politics and not science. Yet even though the work cannot function at all well as science, it might have value politically. Let’s see the very next sentences:
The scale of untold human suffering, already immense, is rapidly growing with the escalating number of climate-related disasters. Therefore, we urge scientists, citizens, and world leaders to read this Special Report and quickly take the necessary actions to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
The scale of human suffering due to poor or inclement weather is not “already immense”. The suffering is not “rapidly growing”, either. This we know from the work of men like Bjorn Lomberg. One citation will do, though there are many:
Lomberg is careful to make that graph scientific (links here), by defining just what he means by “climate deaths”. Naturally, the definition can be disputed, or changed, and the numbers would change, too. It is true, also, that measuring these things is subject to at least substantial uncertainty, so that the blue line should have something like a plus or minus around it.
Those are scientific criticisms because they speak to the measurements and the certainty we have in them. But, given this picture, and the work of others, it is clear that something like that picture is true; I mean the decrease in deaths. And that, therefore, Ripple’s “rapidly growing” is false.
Which doesn’t make his statement valueless. Since we are dealing, as we have learned, with a political paper, and not a scientific one, and in politics anything goes, Ripple will likely get away with his falsehood.
Which is why he goes from the political strength of “rapidly growing” to (in the next paragraph) “The consequences of global heating are becoming increasingly extreme, and outcomes such as global societal collapse are plausible and dangerously underexplored”.
Global societal collapse! I suppose we could criticize that term, too, since it, being undefined, means only what horrors are held in the mind of individual readers, but we see where we are now.
It’s not that this paper doesn’t have aspects that look like science. It does. For instance, there’s a table which claims “April 2022: Climate change likely contributed to extreme rainfall in Eastern South Africa, which triggered flooding and landslides that killed at least 435 people and affected more than 40,000 people.”
What makes this advocacy and not science is that Ripple makes no attempt to give alternate, and even more likely, explanations for the rain. There are also many critiques proving these attributions are, at absolute best, vastly over-certain, and most likely just plain wrong.
To make this paper science, and not advocacy, those legitimate and strong critiques must be at least mentioned, even if they are dismissed. Not just for this instance, but in each claim made about the causes of weather supposedly running amok.
Science is about discovering the causes of observables. If all possible likely causes are not given or investigated, then the work can be no better than bad science. Or no science at all, as we have here.
But this paper will be taken as science, especially by those rulers who have “solutions” to sell. Especially since its original 2020 version attracted “14,700 signatories from 158 countries”. If you are in the majority who take science to be a vote, then this number of signers is irresistible.
The Health Ministry sits on millions of doses that will never be administered
eugyppius: a plague chronicle – November 7, 2022
We are now two months into the bivalent booster vaccination campaign, and interest remains more lukewarm than ever:
Family physicians are seeing less interest in vaccination against Corona, according to data from a physicians’ professional organisation. “Vaccination is our best sword in the fight against severe outcomes. It’s therefore that much more regrettable that the vaccination campaign is currently stagnating,” the national chairman of the German General Practitioners’ Association, Markus Beier, said …
Doctors no longer receive nearly as many requests for vaccination from patients as the Standing Commission on Vaccination recommends be vaccinated, Beier said. “Of course, our doctors use every opportunity in their practices to educate patients about vaccination, but the results is now rather meagre.” The truth must be told: “The run on Corona vaccinations has now slowed to a crawl.”
This is rough news especially for the vaccinators in the German Health Ministry, who rolled out their truly dismal “Ich schütze mich” (“I protect myself”) ad campaign less than a month ago – to absolutely no effect whatsoever.
As with many of the most important stories, this one has been carefully downplayed by the press. The only commentary I can find is this tepid piece in FAZ, which complains about “the aggressive counter-campaign from the ranks of the antivaxxers.” Maybe vaccine critics have changed a few minds here or there, but it’s nothing in comparison to what the vaccinators have done to their own cause. Never before in history have Germans been so rapidly and so widely exposed to a new pharmaceutical as they have to the Corona vaccines, and now that personal experience of the jabs is at an all-time high, enthusiasm could hardly be lower. This is the final repudiation of the vaccinators, and the one that matters the most.
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.
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.
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:
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:
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!
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.
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.
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.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
The volcanic mineral medicine will not patent — for the toxic burden medicine will not name
Lies are Unbekoming – October 30, 2026
Zeolite is old. It is in Roman concrete that has held for two thousand years. It’s in the water filters of ancient cisterns. It’s in the stomachs of Pacific livestock whose keepers knew, somehow, that this grey crumbling rock made the animals healthier. It’s in Soviet clinical protocols from the 1960s. It’s in the standard emergency response to the Chernobyl explosion.
In 1986, after the Chernobyl reactor failure, the Soviet Union manufactured and distributed natural zeolite at industrial scale — for soil remediation, for livestock feed, for human consumption, for the cleanup itself. Karl Hecht, who had been director of the Institute for Experimental and Clinical Pathophysiology at the Charité of Humboldt University Berlin, spent the six decades after that building the clinical research base — on silicon’s role in human health, on zeolite’s clinical safety, on its applications in ageing. In 2018, Pavelić and colleagues published a comprehensive clinical safety review of natural clinoptilolite in Frontiers in Pharmacology. In 2019, Mastinu analysed its binding affinities. In the Western medical literature, these works sit largely uncited.
What has not been treated at book length, until now, is how a volcanic mineral with six decades of Soviet clinical work behind it, two major peer-reviewed Western reviews, and ongoing clinical use across the former Eastern Bloc, remains almost entirely absent from Western medical practice — and what the toxic burden it’s meant to address actually is.
The Zeolite Book gathers the Soviet clinical record, the Western peer-reviewed studies, three contemporary practitioner voices, and three serious counterviews into one honest treatment. That’s why the book runs to seven appendices. 288 pages, four parts, three practitioner voices, three counterviews, seven appendices. The honest treatment is the argument.
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
