Sweden and Germany: No Deaths In Children Due to Covid
BY PAUL ELIAS ALEXANDER | BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE | DECEMBER 8, 2021
The decision by parents to vaccinate their child against Covid is really a question of risk management. Parents must seriously consider that Covid-19 is a less dangerous illness for children than influenza. It has shown to be so and quite stably near 20 months now.
Children do not readily acquire this pathogen, spread to other children, spread to adults, take it home, get severely ill, or die from it. It is that simple. We know children tend not to transmit Covid-19 virus and that the concept of asymptomatic spread has been questioned severely, particularly for children.
Children, if infected, just do not spread Covid-19 to others readily, either to other children, other adults in their families or otherwise, nor to their teachers. This was demonstrated elegantly in a study performed in the French Alps. The pediatric literature is clear science on this. Overwhelming data shows that the SARS-CoV-2-associated burden of severe disease or death in children and adolescents is very low (statistically zero).
Swedish data by Ludvigsson reported on the 1,951,905 children in Sweden (as of December 31, 2019) who were 1 to 16 years of age who attended school with largely no lockdowns or masks. They found zero (0) deaths. “Despite Sweden’s having kept schools and preschools open, we found a low incidence of severe Covid-19 among schoolchildren and children of preschool age during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.”
A recent German study (collating evidence from three sources 1) a national seroprevalence study (the SARSCoV-2 KIDS study), 2) the German statutory notification system and 3) a nationwide registry on children and adolescents hospitalized with either SARS-CoV-2 or Pediatric Inflammatory Multisystem Syndrome (PIMS-TS)) reported that there were zero (0) deaths in children 5 to 18 years old across the period of study.
Governments and public health officials have driven this pandemic of fear and propaganda. But parents willing to assess this purely from a benefit versus risk position might ask themselves: ‘If my child has little if any risk, near zero risk of severe sequelae or death, and thus no benefit from the vaccine, yet there could be potential harms and as yet unknown harms from the vaccine (as already reported in adults who have received the vaccines), then why would I subject my child to such a vaccine?
And in the presence of the potential risks, as well as the fact that a vaccine for Covid-19 is simply not indicated in children, why would a parent allow their child to be vaccinated with still-experimental vaccines? The children should live normally, free, and if exposed to SARS-CoV-2 we can rest assured that in the vast majority of cases, they will have no to only mild symptoms while at the same time developing naturally acquired immunity, and harmlessly; an immunity that is definitely superior to that which might be caused by a vaccine.
The innate immunity in children that they come with and which works to protect them will work here and has worked here wonderfully (innate antibodies and NK cells, as well as other components of the innate immune compartment). This approach would also accelerate the development of the much needed herd immunity about which much has been written.
In addition to concerns related to immediate or long-term sequelae of the new mRNA vaccines in children, there is clear data suggesting that the vaccines might not be as effective against infection and spread as initially reported.
We also have reports of the vaccinal antibodies functioning to suppress the innate antibodies (potentially devastating for children who depend on these as their first line of defense) and outcompeting them given the vaccine antibodies are specific and have high affinity for their antigen, while innate are non-specific and with low-affinity. This is a huge problem, especially if the vaccinal immunity outcompetes the naturally acquired immunity antibodies, etc.
So why are we rushing to vaccinate our children? Drs. Fauci of NIAID, Walensky of CDC, and Francis Collins of NIH are reckless here with the vaccine developers e.g. Pfizer and Moderna, for they know these vaccines lack the proper safety testing and we do not know what will happen to children long-term.
This really is about risk management decisions we as free people (as parents) are presumably allowed to make in the USA. This is not only about science. Remember also, children cannot give proper informed consent e.g. an 8-month-old, a one-year-old.
This is a very important ethical matter. The death rate in children e.g. under 12, is as close to zero as we can get. None of the lockdown and school closure policies worked and all have failed with crushing harms on populations.
We have masked our children, closed schools, locked them down, driven surges in suicides in adults as well as our children due to these policies, and now we seek to vaccinate children with a vaccine for which we have no data on the long-term harms. Is there any wonder why there is a loss of trust and why parents might be reluctant to comply with every edict being issued by governments concerning health?
Dr Alexander holds a PhD. He has experience in epidemiology and in the teaching clinical epidemiology, evidence-based medicine, and research methodology.
WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN, FOR THEY ARE OUR FUTURE
By Dr Daniel Niemiec | Vaccine Choice Australia | December 8, 2021
The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) have provisionally approved the Pfizer vaccine for use in children aged 5-11 years. The roll out will begin on 10 January 2022.
Let’s take a look at the facts.
According to the Department of Health, at the time of writing, there have been 64,388 cases of COVID-19 in those aged 0-19. Tragically, three children have lost their lives.
However, on closer examination, the three children who passed away did so with COVID-19, not from COVID-19. This is an important distinction.
According to a report in The Age, a “child aged under 10 years, who died with COVID-19, also had other serious comorbidities”.
The article also states that a “15-year-old Melbourne girl who health authorities said had a “a number of health conditions” also died with the virus”.
A report in The Guardian claimed that a “teenager from south-west Sydney died in August after contracting pneumococcal meningitis, and while he was also Covid-positive it was not the reason for his hospitalisation or death”.
It is clear that all three deaths were due to other causes, and not from COVID-19. Yet, they are listed as COVID-19 deaths on the Department of Health website.
University of Sydney infectious diseases paediatrician Robert Booy said that the “risk of deaths associated with COVID-19 in children and teenagers were extremely low compared even with vaccinated adults… Of the 25 deaths in COVID-positive children and teens up to the age of 16 recorded in Britain until March this year, half of them were in children who had a major medical problem… For example, Down syndrome, cerebral palsy or severe heart and lung disease.”
A study conducted in Germany and published on the preprint server MedRxiv found that “SARS-CoV-2-associated burden of a severe disease course or death in children and adolescents is low”.
“The lowest risk was observed in children aged 5-11 without comorbidities. In this group, the ICU admission rate was 0.2 per 10,000 and case fatality could not be calculated, due to an absence of cases.”
Another study conducted in Sweden and published in the New England Journal of Medicine demonstrated a “low incidence of severe Covid-19 among schoolchildren and children of preschool age during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic”.
Children are not at risk of severe illness, hospitalisation and death from SARS-CoV-2. Vaccinating children against COVID-19 is completely unwarranted and unnecessary.
The Australian Product Information for the Pfizer vaccine shows that the Phase 2/3 trial (Study C4591007) included 2,268 children aged 5-11, of which 2,158 were followed up for at least two months after the second dose.
Of these 2,268 children, 3 in the vaccine group and 16 in the placebo group developed COVID-19, resulting in a vaccine efficacy of 90.7%, according to the New England Journal of Medicine. This is known as relative risk reduction.
On closer inspection, 19 children out of 2,268 developed COVID-19, which equates to 0.8% of the total number of participants. The absolute risk reduction of the COVID-19 vaccine for those aged 5-11 is 1.9%. This is the actual efficacy of the vaccine, and is a more accurate measure of an individual’s overall risk.
Not only is the vaccine unwarranted given the mild nature of SARS-CoV-2 in children, it is also ineffective at preventing mild to moderate disease.
However, the most disturbing statement in the Australian Product Information is this:
“THE SAFETY EVALUATION IN STUDY C4591007 IS ONGOING.”
A vaccine, which is still in the clinical trial phase until July 2024, according to National Institutes of Health (NIH), and which uses technology that has never been used on a mass population previously, is being injected into children with unknown longer-term safety.
This is completely unforgiveable. This defies all reason and logic. The vaccine should never have been provisionally approved for children aged 5-11 based on this data.
According to the Australian Product Information, “the most frequent adverse reactions in children 5 to <12 years of age that received 2 doses included injection site pain (>80%), fatigue (>50%), headache (>30%), injection site redness and swelling (>20%), myalgia and chills (>10%)”.
The following adverse reactions from post-market experience were derived from spontaneous reports and the “frequencies could not be determined and are thus considered as not known” :
- Anaphylaxis and hypersensitivity reactions (e.g., rash, pruritis, urticaria, angioedema)
- Myocarditis and pericarditis
- Diarrhoea and vomiting
- Pain in the extremity (arm)
- Extensive swelling of the vaccinated limb
The New England Journal of Medicine summarises the safety and efficacy in children aged 5-11 as follows:
“Limitations of the study include the lack of longer-term follow-up to assess the duration of immune responses, efficacy, and safety. However, longer-term follow-up from this study, which will continue for 2 years, should provide clarification. This study was also not powered to detect potential rare side effects of BNT162b2 in 5-to-11-year-olds.”
What dystopian nightmare are we living in?
Let that sink in.
The longer-term follow-up “should provide clarification” and the study was “not powered to detect potential rare side effects”.
What if the longer-term follow up provides clarification that the vaccine is unsafe for use in children? It will be too late. The damage will have already been done.
We have seen from post-market assessment that serious adverse reactions are occurring in children aged 12-17, especially myocarditis and pericarditis.
According to the TGA’s COVID-19 vaccine weekly safety report, there have been 137 cases of suspected myocarditis and 109 cases of suspected pericarditis in those aged 12-17 following vaccination with the Pfizer vaccine.
“We have observed a higher-than-expected number of cases of myocarditis in vaccinated compared to unvaccinated individuals for Comirnaty (Pfizer). The Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety at the World Health Organization has recently stated that current evidence suggests a likely causal association between myocarditis and the mRNA vaccines.”
A study in Clinical Infectious Diseases demonstrated a “significant increase in the risk of acute myocarditis/pericarditis following Comirnaty vaccination among Chinese male adolescents, especially after the second dose”.
“The overall incidence of acute myocarditis/pericarditis was 18.52… per 100,000 persons vaccinated.”
In other words, 1 in every 5,400 children. The clinical trial for those aged 5-11 only had 2,268 participants. This sample size is not large enough to detect an adverse event such as myocarditis or pericarditis.
Another pre-print study in MedRxiv concluded that “post-vaccination CAE (cardiac adverse event) rate was highest in young boys aged 12-15 following dose two. For boys 12-17 without medical comorbidities, the likelihood of post vaccination dose two CAE is 162.2 and 94.0/million respectively. This incidence exceeds their expected 120-day COVID-19 hospitalisation rate at both moderate (August 21, 2021 rates) and high COVID-19 hospitalisation incidence.”
Why are we putting children at risk of a serious heart condition, along with other severe side effects, for a virus that they have almost no chance of dying from?
And finally, this article in the British Medical Journal.
“The number of children that would need to be vaccinated to protect just one adult from a bout of severe covid-19 – considering the low transmission rates, the high proportion of children already being post-covid, and most adults being vaccinated or post-covid – would be extraordinarily high”.
“Moreover, this number would likely compare unfavourably to the number of children that would be harmed, including for rare serious events.”
“There is no need to rush to vaccinate children against covid-19 – the vast majority stands little to benefit, and it is ethically dubious to pursue a hypothetical protection of adults while exposing children to harms, known and unknown.”
Enough is enough. It’s time to stand up.
We need to protect our children, for they are our future.
As Predicted, They’re Coming For The Unvaccinated
By Richie Allen | December 9, 2021
Yesterday, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced that his government would move to Plan B covid measures as a precaution against the emergence of the omicron variant. He was lying. What else is new, I hear you say.
In my opinion there is no omicron variant. It is a fantasy. Johnson’s government moved to Plan B for one reason only, to turn the jabbed against the unjabbed.
In recent weeks, regular listeners to my radio show will have heard me play dozens of soundbites from UK TV and radio news shows, where the public is invited to call in and opine on what should be done about the anti-vaxxers.
I said that we were being primed or conditioned for a day of reckoning next year, when the government will announce “enough is enough, we can’t keep shutting down society, we must mandate the jabs.”
Nothing that has happened since, has changed my mind. UK Health Secretary Sajid Javid said this morning that mandatory jabs will not be pursued by his government. He said that such a thing would be “unethical.” He was lying too.
Today, the public are quite rightly enraged at the announcement of new covid measures and the prospect that they will be tightened further still on December 18th.
However, the great majority of people are not demanding an end to this charade at once. No, they’re raging at the Tories for holding Christmas party’s last year while they were locked down and obeying the rules.
And predictably, they’re turning their ire on the unjabbed.
Take a look at this outtake from this morning’s Jeremy Vine Show on Channel 5. The guests call for the unjabbed to be blamed for the tyrannical covid restrictions. They even suggest that we should be exiled.
Instead of challenging them, the impotent host egged them on.
We’re in the fight of our lives now.
Covid has been horrible for me. Do I regret being unjabbed? Not for a second!
By Julia | TCW Defending Freedom | December 9, 2021
COMPARED with Australia’s other police-run fiefdoms, South Australia has generally stayed under the Covid madness radar. No public police thuggery and rubber bullets in the back, no beating up grandmothers and pregnant women, no Daniel Andrews, no dictatorial legislation, no forced Covid camps, no rounding up of Aboriginal community members (so far). There has been Covid farce, however – a mind-boggling absence of perspective and proportionality reflective of the manic, embedded zero-Covid ideology experienced in other Australasian jurisdictions.
First, there was the pizza outbreak in November 2020. After a man with Covid-19 lied about his link to an Adelaide pizza parlour, the whole State entered a lockdown slated for six days which ended abruptly after three, due to lack of interest from the virus.
Then there was the ‘don’t touch the football’ affair, when Australian Rules fans were warned to duck if the ball came towards the crowd.
The latest is the case of a South Australian Senator, Alex Antic, a vigorous opponent of vaccine mandates and lockdowns, who was carted off to quarantine in a ‘medi-hotel’ after returning from Parliament in Canberra. (Antic is a conservative Liberal in a State run by so-called ‘moderates’ aka Leftists who should be in another party.)
This is in the State that has experienced four Covid deaths. Four. And 952 ‘cases’. South Australia has no crisis whatsoever, certainly none that can justify the establishment of a mini-police state. But the State is run not by a Premier but by an unelected police commissioner and an unelected chief health officer.
Which brings us to the persecution of Dr Bruce Paix, a doctor of 32 years in South Australia who is now unemployed due to ‘vaccine hesitancy’. Dr Paix has been issuing exemptions for mask/vaccines and is a staunch critic of the Covid vaccine and lockdowns. He contacted a member of Parliament, who happens to be South Australia’s acting attorney general, about matters Covid. This politician, one Josh Teague, or someone in his office, it would seem, notified the police. As a result Dr Paix was visited by officers and told that he should stop contacting the MP to voice concerns about Covid management policies.
He was advised to ‘tone down his emails’ and ‘be careful what he writes’, as his communications were ‘drawing attention to him’. Soft, friendly police power. In reality, an iron fist in a velvet glove.
Dr Paix is responsible for a string of Covid crimes – he is unvaxxed, he strays off message, he speaks out, and, worst of all, he is willing to grant exemptions from the jab. His offence in this case seems to have been his act of approaching his elected representative to seek a meeting to protest against a government policy, and his act of letter writing.
Seven officials raided the surgery of another such dissenting doctor, Mark Hobart, in Melbourne last month and seized confidential patient files, an appointment book, and other documents after he refused to hand them over. Inevitably, Hobart is described as ‘controversial’, such is the embedded state of Covid ideology across the legacy media.
Such doctors are quickly swooped on and threatened with being de-registered. The Victorian state government even changed the rules about exemptions to close off what it sees as ‘loopholes’. Patients were apparently ‘doctor shopping’ to find a practitioner who would give them a medical exemption from the vaccine.
A spokesman for the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and the Medical Board of Australia has made their message clear: that vaccination is a non-negotiable part of the public health response to the Covid-19 pandemic and that advising against it ‘undermines the national immunisation campaign’.
They said the consequences for doctors of not complying would include having their registrations suspended.
The Australian Covid State has relied massively on third party collaboration for maintaining fear and hysteria and for enforcing Covid mandates. The corporate media and the churches are but two of the most egregious examples. Arguably the role of the medical establishment and behaviour of supine, self-regarding doctors is way more appalling than that of all the other ‘just-following-orders’ functionaries of Covid totalitarianism. They are guilty of
· Bullying patients to get the jab, whatever their medical circumstances;
· Collaborating with government in refusing exemptions to patients who palpably deserve them;
· Propagating lies about Covid and about those who question the official Covid narrative;
· Not speaking up and out against ‘medical tyranny’ in Australia;
· Getting into bed with Big Pharma;
· Making a mockery of the Hippocratic Oath, ‘first, do no harm’ by cheering on the vaccination of healthy youth, some of whom they know will die from the vaccines.
Dr Bruce Paix and Dr Mark Hobart have found themselves at the sharp end of the medical wars over Covid. They are enemies of the Covid State, hunted down like the Aborigines of the past – and under Covid Law are once again.
Harvard study finds high vaccination rate does not correlate with low COVID rate
By Joel S Hirschorn | December 8, 2021
“Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States” is the title of what has become a famous article from Harvard scholars.
Here are key conclusions: “At the country-level, there appears to be no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases in the last 7 days (see figure).
In fact, the trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people.
Notably, Israel with over 60% of their population fully vaccinated had the highest COVID-19 cases per 1 million people in the last 7 days.
The lack of a meaningful association between percentage population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases is further exemplified, for instance, by comparison of Iceland and Portugal. Both countries have over 75% of their population fully vaccinated and have more COVID-19 cases per 1 million people than countries such as Vietnam and South Africa that have around 10% of their population fully vaccinated.”
“Masks were to soften you up for Plan B”
By Laura Dodsworth | December 8, 2021
‘Masks were a softening up exercise for Plan B,’ according to a government whistleblower. He told me that while there is little appetite in the Cabinet for a full lockdown, Covid Passes are ‘oven-baked’ and ready to go.
In my opinion, the UK government’s Winter Plan was always about Plan B. It displayed a classic ‘foot-in-the-door’ strategy – the raison d’être of Plan A was to prepare you for Plan B. Now winter is upon us, and the nudges fall in a flurry of torpefying snowflakes. Worst case scenarios, big numbers, salutary stories in the media, threats and cajolements are directed at us daily. Plan B is in motion as calls for working from home are heard from the usual suspects and we hear the Cabinet is divided on Covid Passes.
This seasoned government insider plays a key role on a Covid task force and has decided to speak out now because he is disturbed by the unethical reasons for mandating masks. Firstly, ‘It’s a highly political move to reset the Johnson administration’s orientation after bad polling over sleaze and corruption. If Omicron turns out to be super-bad and the public ask what the government did about it, the answer is we implemented masks. The one-way systems, plexiglass screens and masks are to give you an illusion of the government doing something. It’s just theatre. There is no evidence base or proportionality in favour of masks.’
Boris Johnson is a fan of deadcatting, a technique to deflect attention from one issue to another, akin to throwing a dead cat on a table during a heated debate to change the topic. Masks are a dead cat. In this case rather than throw them on the table, the government have slung them on our faces.
Face masks are increasingly discredited, but certain journalists fell hungrily upon a recent new study which concluded that face masks reduce transmission by 53%. The Guardian, The Times, Metro and New Scientist positively feasted. However, that fragrant soupçon of a percentage was based upon weak evidence, there were confounding factors and caution was required when interpreting the study, as Fullfact explained.
‘The public are annoyingly on board about masks’, said this task force advisor. ‘Journalists have not demanded evidence that they work. But the message from the government and the media is hegemonic – everyone says they do work.’
As I set out in my book A State of Fear: How the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic masks are a nudge, even described as a ‘signal’ by David Halpern, the director of the UK government’s Behavioural Insights Team. Similarly, Professor Neil Ferguson said that masks remind us ‘we’re not completely out of the woods yet’. They serve as a visible public reminder of the pandemic, turning us back into walking billboards pronouncing danger. My source concurred: ‘Masks are a behavioural psychology policy. We need to stop pretending that it’s about public health. Nudge is a big thing in government.’
Despite ‘a pretty much unlimited budget to run trials’ they didn’t run one for masks ‘because they knew that they don’t work’. In effect, ‘the trial was Scotland versus England. And we found they don’t work.’
For this government insider the implications are now too serious to remain silent because ‘we are lying when we say masks work. They are a signal, a psyop. And we’ve criminalised not wearing them. Masks also transfer the blame onto individuals for the epidemic spreading. We have people counting the unmasked on public transport, policing each other. It is deeply unethical that we have set people against each other in this way. It allows the creation of an “out group” to blame.’ He points out that it is the government we should blame for not increasing healthcare capacity.
The timing of our conversation is interesting. He speaks to me just before the news about Downing Street Christmas parties breaks. People are rightly angry about hypocrisy and the pain of their own cancelled plans last year. The nation suffered last minute restrictions while Downing Street enjoyed revelry. More than one million pounds in fines have been served to nearly 2,000 Covid-19 rule breakers at Westminster magistrates court, including throwing and attending parties, while Boris Johnson evades punishment.
But the real point is not the hypocrisy, or that we suffered while they did not. Rather it is that those who organised and attended the party had a different risk calculus. They did not feel imperilled by parties and gatherings. They knew they were safe, just as they know that masks don’t work. What we are expected to believe is another matter.
As these distasteful double standards are unmasked, Ministers are considering whether to impose Plan B and roll out Covid Passes. When the Winter Plan was published, we were told that the trigger to move from Plan A to Plan B was if the NHS comes under ‘unsustainable pressure’. This was left deliberately vague. If you were watching cases and hospitalisations with an anxious eye, I’m afraid you were missing the more important signs: stories about doctors’ anger at the ‘selfish’ un-jabbed, daily polling via Twitter, TV shows and Yougov about the national appetite for Covid Passes and mandates, and the reintroduction of masks.
There is an army of behavioural scientists, communications specialists and Covid task forces focussed on Covid. The government insider told me there are hundreds of people in this Covid apparatus, even though we are no longer in an emergency. Robert Higgs talks about the ‘ratchet effect’ in his book Crisis and Leviathan whereby the state expands in response to a crisis and then doesn’t recede afterwards to its former level. The aura of emergency will not fade and we risk ever more stringent and unpalatable restrictions unless this apparatus is dismantled. Furthermore, public reputations have been staked on enforcing restrictions, including journalists, scientists and politicians.
The government insider is brutal about the reality of our situation: ‘England is teetering on the edge of a depressing, bureacratic, safety-obsessed society. We’re not at the level of Germany or Austria yet, but we’re on a precipice nonetheless.’ On his primary reason for calling me, he said he is ‘ashamed how much people believe in masks despite the lack of evidence’.
Our leader’s masks are slipping, exposing hypocrisy, psychological manipulation and barefaced lies. Frankly, I am ashamed of them.
Media are gagging challenges to the Government’s Covid narrative
By Mark Sharman | TCW Defending Freedom | December 8, 2021
In his skyscraper office high above New York’s Sixth Avenue, Roger Ailes, then boss of the Right-leaning Fox News, was justifying his channel’s slogan, ‘Fair and Balanced.’
It was a well-rehearsed line. The rest of the US media, he said, were the liberal Left. ‘So we balance it – and that’s fair.’
Later, an underling added that in America you chose the channel that best fuelled your own views. ‘It just depends on how you take your political medicine.’
On the flight home, I thought how fortunate we were in the UK, with a remit of impartiality in broadcasting; a duty to report fairly and evenly. Less than two decades later, I wonder what’s happened to those intrinsic values.
In all my years around newsrooms, decent journalists have seen it as their right and obligation to seek out the truth, to scrutinise and determine the facts. But on Covid-19, mainstream news outlets have seemingly kow-towed to the Government line, following the ‘official’ science.
Worse, opposing views have been ignored, blocked or summarily dismissed as ‘conspiracy theories’ or ‘misinformation.’ This is not honest journalism as I know it, especially at a time when the Government has extra powers of control over the population. I was taught early that the more someone pushed for or against a story, the more it needed investigating. So what changed?
It’s bad enough that Big Tech acts as the world’s censor, suspending or cancelling any accounts that carry unpalatable comments about the virus or the vaccines. But the UK’s communications regulator Ofcom has also muscled in.
The authority instructed broadcasters to be alert to ‘health claims related to the virus which may be harmful; medical advice which may be harmful; accuracy or material misleadingness in programmes in relation to the virus or public policy relating to it’.
When did it become the regulator’s job to determine debate on Government policy? In effect it discourages investigation of alternative views. And who decides what is accurate or misinformation anyway?
Some media outlets have their own ‘fact checkers,’ but I’m not overly encouraged that BBC News has a Specialist Disinformation Reporter (the title hardly suggests impartiality) or that Sky’s Digital and Forensics team compiled an article that begins: ‘Covid-19 conspiracy groups who have attempted to undermine efforts to bring the pandemic under control are increasingly sharing climate change misinformation.’
The terms prosecutor, judge and jury spring to mind – and try as I might, I couldn’t find any hard evidence that so-called ‘theories’ were bunkum. They weren’t proven either, but that’s not the point.
Maybe the root can be found in Event 201, a simulated global coronavirus pandemic exercise organised by the World Economic Forum, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Johns Hopkins Centre for Health Security, in October 2019.
Advice to world governments included ‘flood the media with fast, accurate and consistent information’ (some would say propaganda), while media companies, for their part, ‘should commit to ensuring that authoritative messages are prioritised and that false messages are suppressed, including through the use of technology’.
We’ve certainly witnessed less-than-overt Government behaviour.
In her best-selling book A State of Fear, Laura Dodsworth charts how proven psychological techniques influenced the Government in frightening and intimidating the population, ‘nudging’ us to comply over Covid. And how mainstream media acted as cheerleaders in weaponising that fear.
It should make uncomfortable reading for any news executive.
Our Government is supposed to serve us, not use fear tactics to bring us to heel. As an industry, we should challenge the narrative much more rigorously, starting with the numbers. At least the BBC carries the small print, that deaths are from any cause within 28 days of positive test. However, these quickly become Covid deaths on many daily score charts. It’s inaccurate reporting. Or should I call it misinformation? Or again, propaganda?
Now the shame-and-blame game has shifted to the unvaccinated (I prefer vaccine-free), those ‘radical anti-vaxxers … spreading fake news’ according to Austria’s Chancellor as he introduced compulsory vaccination.
When did it become acceptable to persecute people who stand up for that most basic of human rights, that of their own body autonomy?
Why are we not outraged that our neighbours in the Netherlands, ordinary citizens, are shot by their own police? Or that Australians are beaten and shot by rubber bullets, or incarcerated in what has become a police state?
Are we ready to accept such a reaction on the streets of London, Birmingham or Sheffield? What angle would the MSM take, police violence or mob rule? Which way would the scales dip?
A recent protest, not widely reported, saw thousands of people marching through London; students, medics, teachers and ex-servicemen, of all ages and races, people with genuine concerns for their children and their democratic freedoms.
They seek the truth and nothing but the truth about the virus and, particularly, the safety of the vaccines. And they have deep convictions that the truth is not forthcoming from the Government or from broadcasters and newspapers.
And that’s the point. If the media continue to stifle alternative views that flourish on various social sites, and continue to follow the censorial state narrative instead of encouraging healthy open debate, they are fuelling the very ‘conspiracies’ they seek to dismiss.
The Paucity of Evidence for Mandated Covid-19 Vaccine Boosters
BY ANDREW BOSTOM | BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE| DECEMBER 6, 2021
Federal legal challenges have temporarily enjoined the Biden Administration’s sweeping large business, health care worker, and federal contractor covid-19 vaccine mandates. Notwithstanding these injunctions staying primary covid-19 vaccine mandates, “amendments” mandating booster covid-19 vaccinations have already been issued, as examples, for New Mexico healthcare workers, and University of Massachusetts-Amherst students.
Dr. Allon Friedman’s recent Brownstone essay, citing randomized, controlled trial data on primary covid-19 vaccination, demonstrated, “The Pfizer and Moderna trials show that in lower risk populations (which account for most of society) COVID-19 vaccines do not reduce mortality.” Friedman concluded, “Therefore, [covid-19] vaccine mandates, which are enormously costly and terribly divisive, are a cure worse than the disease.”
Why did Dr. Friedman rely exclusively—and appositely—upon randomized, controlled trial data to justify his conclusion? Almost sixty years ago (in 1963) Campbell and Stanley published their seminal monograph on research methodology entitled “Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research.” This work, which shaped research designs ever since highlighted the major threats to validity that are avoided, uniquely, by the randomized controlled trial—a true experimental design.
Observational studies and all other non-randomized designs lacking parallel control groups, which they referred to as “quasi-experimental,” are fraught with known biases investigators attempt to control for, after the fact, with limited success. Worse still are intractable, unknown biases which the randomization process, alone, accounts for. Guyatt and colleagues, in their 2008 British Medical Journal paper “GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations”, updated and reinforced these ideas, appropriately assigning highest priority to randomized, controlled trial evidence.
On Friday, November 19, 2021, CDC Director Dr. Walensky endorsed the expanded recommendations of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) that booster (third dose) shots be provided to all adults 18 years of age, and older, who received their second Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccine second doses, at least 6-months earlier.
What randomized, controlled trial evidence were the basis for this “unanimous decision,” touted by Dr. Walensky?
Although two small, published, randomized, placebo-controlled trials—one in kidney transplant recipients, and another in a general population—revealed enhanced immune responses to boosters, CDC’s recommendation clearly hinged upon a large, unpublished Pfizer randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial.
A month before the CDC expanded booster recommendation was announced, Pfizer’s “randomized trial results by press release” were issued (10/21/21). The ~10,000 person, placebo-controlled randomized covid-19 vaccine booster trial, yielded a 95.6% reduction in symptomatic covid-19 infections (i.e., 109 in the placebo group; 9 in the boosted group), after a median 2.5 months of follow-up. The press release also included this important caveat:
“The observed relative vaccine efficacy of 95.6% (95% CI: 89.3, 98.6) reflects the reduction in disease occurrence in the boosted group versus the non-boosted group in those without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
The November 19, 2021, ACIP presentation of Pfizer’s Dr. John Perez included enough data about prior infection to conclude boosters did not reduce covid-19 infections relative to placebo in this clinically relevant, ever burgeoning subgroup. Simple calculations (based upon the slides from pages 16 and 17) indicate there were only 2 symptomatic covid-19 infections among the 524 trial participants with a history of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, 1/275 who received boosters, and 1/249 given placebo injections (p=0.944 for incidence rate difference of 0.038%).
Moreover, CDC’s Dr. Oliver, in her ACIP review (p. 25) of Pfizer’s booster trial data, acknowledged that within the full cohort of ~10,000 there were no covid-19 hospitalizations or deaths, and no data to assess any impact on SARS-CoV-2 transmission.
These findings comprise a striking paucity of randomized trial evidence on the “efficacy” of boosters—literally none on the most clinically relevant outcomes of serious covid-19 morbidity and mortality. Even the potential effect of boosters on SARS-CoV-2 transmission remains unaddressed.
Rapidly accumulating data strongly suggest prior covid-19 infection, “natural immunity,” is more robust, flexible, and enduring than exclusive covid-19 vaccine-acquired immunity. Pfizer’s covid-19 booster trial data confirm boosters afford no benefit in preventing covid-19 infections among those with natural immunity.
Given these overall randomized trial findings regarding covid-19 vaccine boosters—absence of even a short- term reduction in mild covid-19 infections in those with natural immunity, and no data establishing that boosters prevent covid-19 hospitalizations, deaths, or SARS-CoV-2 transmission—there is no rational, evidence-based justification for covid-19 vaccine “booster mandates.”
Andrew Bostom, M.D. MS, is an academic clinical trialist and epidemiologist, who is currently a Research Physician at the Brown University Center For Primary Care and Prevention of Kent-Memorial Hospital in Rhode Island.
Punishing doctors is actually punishing patients
By Chris Leitch, Leader, Social Credit | December 5, 2021
The [New Zealand] government’s refusal to let GPs, midwives, and other specialist medical staff who are unvaccinated continue to work has no medical foundation and is simply punishment because of their refusal to be vaccinated.
That situation has nothing to do with patient safety.
It is now firmly established that both vaccinated and unvaccinated medical professionals can pass on corona virus to their patients so barring those unvaccinated from working is actually punishment of their patients as well.
A GP could have up to 25 people of mixed vaccination status in his home celebrating a birthday, yet those same 25 people could not attend his medical practice and consult him on their medical issues.
A midwife could have up to 25 people of mixed vaccination status in her home celebrating a christening yet she is unable to attend to the birthing needs of the pregnant mothers and expectant fathers in that same group professionally.
A dentist could have 25 people of mixed vaccination status in his home celebrating a house-warming yet those same 25 people cannot attend his dental surgery for treatment on their teeth.
Not only has the government’s medical mandate taken away the livelihoods of those health professionals but more importantly it is punishing patients by denying them the ability to get the medical care they need from the people they choose to provide it.
If the government was serious about patient safety, as it says it is, then it would allow patients to sign an acknowledgement of risk and consent form – the very same process that patients go through before an operation in hospital – and then let them consult the medical professionals they wish in the premises they wish.
Those medical professionals can then get back to work doing what they are highly trained for and what we desperately need them to do – provide the health care their patients deserve.
Given that both vaccinated and unvaccinated medical professionals can pass on corona virus to their patients, anything less will simply prove that punishment, not patient safety, is the reason for denying patients access to their chosen medical professional.
A sample consent form is below.
Disclaimer:
Social Credit is not against vaccination.
Social Credit is not aligned with Voices For Freedom or any other similar organisation.
Social Credit does stand up for the right of people to choose the medical treatment they deem appropriate and that includes vaccinations.
Social Credit does stand up for the right of people to refuse medical treatment should they so choose.
Click here to view sample consent form
Please support this petition against the coercion of children to get the jab
Rebecca Lawrence started this petition to Jacinda Ardern:
Children as young as 12 are now being excluded from their hobbies, recreational activities and school activities due to the vaccine mandates.
The 12-17 year old age group is not susceptible to serious adverse affects from covid-19. This age group IS susceptible to mental health issues – we have one of the worst statistics in the world. Sports and activities can help maintain good mental health. Being excluded from these activities could increase the likelihood of depression and anxiety within this age group.
The vaccine has not be tested for long term effects, so it’s unclear whether it will cause harm to these kids in the future. Short term effects show adverse reactions to the vaccine are relatively high in the age group compared with the older age groups.
It is fundamentally WRONG to exclude children based on their / their parents health choices
Evidence that torpedoes Javid’s ‘jab them all’ crusade
By Neville Hodgkinson | TCW Defending Freedom | December 7, 2021
An advantage of being a veteran medical and science correspondent is that I can draw on a variety of memories to help inform me about current events, including ever-increasing evidence of the futility – or worse – of the NHS’s drive to jab everyone with the highly experimental Covid vaccines.
One of those memories dates back to 1991, when I attended a conference in Moscow on environmental concerns. It ended up at the Kremlin, with an address by President Gorbachev, and I met a number of his scientific advisers.
They told me, in a nutshell, that the collapse of the Soviet Union had been brought about by a kind of ‘sclerosis’ in the flow of vital information, particularly affecting the environment. The top-down structure of decision-making, and state control of media, had blocked healthy communication.
They gave the example of a huge lake polluted by effluent flowing down a river from a factory, such that the livelihoods of thousands of fishermen were destroyed. Word would be sent upstream but would not be acted on, because of pressure on the factory from above to meet state-sanctioned production targets. The scientists saw the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster as the ‘heart attack’ that finally forced change.
I am reminded of their insights by the impediments to free flow of information surrounding Covid decision-making.
For more than a year now, leading doctors and scientists internationally have expressed concerns about the top-down, state-sanctioned, one-size-must-fit-all vaccination approach to tackling the pandemic.
As described in extraordinary detail in Robert Kennedy Jr’s new book The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health
(see here, here and here), a hugely wealthy and influential cartel has been largely successful in blocking expression of those concerns.
It is frustrating to see Health Secretary Sajid Javid declaring the delivery of Covid booster jabs to be the NHS’s new national mission. He wants this ‘mission impossible’ to be intensified, even at the price of further destroying face-to-face appointments with family doctors – once one of the great strengths of the UK health service.
But as Kennedy’s book demonstrates, scientists on whom MPs and ministers ought to be able to depend for reliable information and advice are compromised by funds from the vaccines cartel.
We cannot rely on mainstream media to put this right: a study of nearly 20,000 Gates Foundation grants made up to the end of June this year found more than $250million went towards journalism. In these days when most traditional media are struggling to make ends meet, that money is hugely influential.
Occasionally, a glimmer of light slips through a chink in the curtain, such as this analysis which appeared last week in The Lancet Regional Health – Europe, one of a new suite of publications launched under the medical journal’s umbrella. The evidence it presents torpedoes the rationale for the ‘jab everyone’ drive.
Professor Günter Kampf, of Greifswald University medical school, Germany, says high vaccination rates were expected to reduce transmission and thereby lessen the burden of disease. But recent data ‘indicate that the epidemiological relevance of Covid-19 vaccinated individuals is increasing’ – in other words, the vaccine is not doing what was expected of it.
He cites a UK study showing that in households where a Covid case had been identified, the disease was passed on to about as many contacts (25 per cent) when the patient was fully vaccinated as when the patient was unvaccinated (23 per cent). Peak viral load did not differ, either, between the jabbed and the unjabbed.
Studies in both Germany and the UK show that so-called breakthrough infections increase steadily after vaccination.
In late July this year, among vaccinated patients 60 years and older in Germany, 16.9 per cent became ill with Covid; by the end of October, the rate was 58.9 per cent. A similar situation was described in the UK, Kampf says.
There is even evidence of the vaccinated becoming proportionately more at risk of developing Covid than the unvaccinated, in all age groups of 30 years or more. Argument continues over why this should be – the unvaccinated may be both generally healthier and more health-conscious, for example.
In Israel, where a hospital-based outbreak was traced back to a fully vaccinated Covid patient, 14 patients, also fully vaccinated, became severely ill or died after being exposed to the virus; while two unvaccinated patients, who also became cases, developed only mild disease.
Kampf concludes that it is ‘grossly negligent’ to ignore vaccinated people as a source of transmission of the Covid virus when deciding public health measures.
His analysis supports warnings, detailed here and here as well as in Kennedy’s book, that the nature of the vaccine is such that it may impede the development of natural immunity, and make recipients more vulnerable to virus variants than the unvaccinated.
That is just one more reason why – unless the stranglehold on information reaching decision-makers and the public is broken – we may be heading for a catastrophe of Chernobyl-like proportions.
Remember when the FDA’s top vaccine regulator said even a moderately effective Covid shot could produce herd immunity if 70 percent of people got it?
By Alex Berenson | December 7, 2021
In late July 2020, Dr. Peter Marks, who oversees vaccines for the Food and Drug Administration, spoke for an FDA-produced podcast about the Covid vaccines.
At the time, the big mRNA vaccine trials were just beginning, and the two-part interview was fairly straightforward. It opened with Marks explaining what a vaccine is.
Later, though, Marks explained how an effective vaccine might end the epidemic:
What we also know is that once one reaches a certain level of protection, roughly 70 percent, and if 70 percent of the population gets that vaccine, you start to get to a place where the infectious disease that you’re trying to prevent, in this case, let’s read COVID-19 into that, it doesn’t have anywhere to go and you start to be able to help wipe that infectious disease out…
70 percent protection by 70 percent of the population equals (basically) no more Covid. Got it, doc!
The next week, Marks again explained the importance of 70 percent protection – and this time, he used the magic h-word:
That’s the concept of herd immunity that you have enough people in the population that can’t get the disease, that the disease has nowhere to go if it shows up. That’s exactly what we’d like to ultimately see with a really effective vaccine, one that might have, I think, we estimate at least 70 percent efficacy…
This might be a good time to remind you that much of Western Europe hit Marks’s magic number months ago. In countries like Britain, 70 percent (okay, 69.3!) of people – not adults, the entire population – is fully vaccinated. And about 30 percent of Britons have now received a third dose.
So how come a vaccine that was supposedly 95 percent effective at preventing infection (and supposedly even better at stopping severe disease) in clinical trials has completely failed to stop the epidemic?
Or, put another way, if the vaccines work, what’s going on?
Oh well. We’ll figure it out next pandemic. Meantime, get yer free booster today!
SOURCE: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/fda-insight/fda-insight-vaccines-covid-19-part-1
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/fda-insight/fda-insight-vaccines-covid-19-part-2
Featured Video
EUROPE FEARS RUSSIA’S NEXT MOVE / Ian Proud
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
New Book
New Book: No Autoimmunity The Body Doesn’t Attack Itself
Lies are Unbekoming | September 24, 2026
The label for Humira, once the best-selling drug in the world, lists its risks in plain print. One of them, in the label’s own words, is new “autoimmune” disease.
A drug prescribed for a condition labelled autoimmune carries a warning that it can cause a condition labelled autoimmune. That contradiction sits in every box, on a folded paper almost nobody reads.
My new book starts there.
No Autoimmunity: The Body Doesn’t Attack Itself
For seventy years, “your body is attacking itself, and we don’t know why” has ended the conversation for people diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, Hashimoto’s, Type 1 diabetes, Crohn’s and psoriasis. More than eighty conditions now carry the autoimmune label. The diagnosis comes with a prescription for life. It almost never comes with a question about cause.
This book asks the question and answers it from the framework’s own records: its drug labels, its journals, its regulatory filings, and its own experiments. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Merz regime wants ‘secret police’ – opposition
- Israeli settlers terrorize West Bank Palestinians with state-provided drones: Report
- They see them, then kill them: Israeli quadcopters track, deliberately target civilians in Gaza
- Debunked: Trump’s egregious UNGA claims on war against Iran crumble under scrutiny
- Europe was part of the infrastructure of US aggression against Iran: Deputy FM
- New evidence on the Bucha Massacre
- Italy and France debunk reports CIA issued ‘Russian drone threat’ warning
- How Russia is Rewiring the Global South
- Britain’s elites want you ready to die for a war they keep imagining
- Inside Ukraine’s propaganda operation targeting Americans
- If Americans Knew
- Trump betrayed voters with his campaign lies and prioritized a foreign country once he took office
- Netanyahu calls Israel’s war in Gaza ‘opposite of genocide’ in UN speech to near-empty hall
- Settler Kidnappings: Torture, Sexual Abuse and Terrorisation of Palestinian Abductees as Israel Deepens Annexation of West Bank
- Gaza winter nears as 162,000 tents become unusable, raising fears of humanitarian crisis
- Netanyahu says, “It’s the opposite of genocide”; UN says Gaza economy is world’s ‘most severe crisis on record’ – Daily Update
- Israel’s US-Backed Assault on Gaza Has Created the ‘World’s Most Severe Economic Crisis on Record’: UN
- ‘Protecting U.S. Citizens’… From Israel
- ‘This is where I live now, the back of a truck’: a day in the life of a grandmother in Gaza
- In UN Speech, Iran’s President Displays Pictures of Children Killed by US, Brings Attention to Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal
- Israel displaces hundreds of Palestinians amid wave of demolitions in West Bank
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Earth And Venus Surface Warmth Largely Explained By Convection And Lapse Rate, Not CO2 Or Radiation
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
