Seeing Through the COVID-19 Spin
By Barbara Loe Fisher | The National Vaccine Information Center | April 26, 2021
Seeing through the COVID-19 spin is a challenge even for those who have been writing and talking for years about the need to limit Big Pharma’s influence on health policy and law. Perhaps the greatest change I have seen in vaccine regulation, policymaking and law over the past four decades has been the development of public-private business partnerships between Big Pharma and the government.1 2 3 4 5 That seismic change has affected how new vaccines are developed, licensed and regulated and is influencing what we see happening today.6 7
Since the coronavirus pandemic was declared by government officials in early 2020, lawmakers have been persuaded to build the entire global pandemic response around a single experimental biological product.8 9 10 That single product is generating billions of dollars in profits for liability free drug companies and their partners.11 12 The COVID-19 spin is reaching dizzying new heights every day,13 14 with fundamental facts about the experimental product’s risks and failures getting lost in the hard sell.
At dinner time, if you turn on any major television network in the U.S., you will see that the evening news has turned into one long COVID vaccine commercial infused with a heavy dose of fear mongering. Before the pandemic declaration, we had learned to ignore prescription drug advertising in-between getting news of the day. Now newscasters and TV docs are Pharma’s new COVID “vaccine” sales reps and the only way to get away from the 24/7 sales pitch is to turn off the TV.
Billions of Dollars Paid to TV Networks for DTC Pharma Ads
We should not be surprised. The U.S. and New Zealand are the only two countries in the world that allow direct to consumer pharmaceutical product advertising.15 16 17 In this country. Big Pharma pays US television networks five billion dollars per year to push use of drugs and vaccines.18
Taking a page out of Big Tobacco’s old book and upping the ante, Big Pharma has become a business partner of government.19 The COVID business deal is perhaps the single biggest one in the history of public health programs.20 21 22
Already wealthy drug companies were given at least nine billion dollars from the. government to develop experimental COVID vaccines in record breaking time,23 shaving five to 10 years off the normal vaccine development, testing and licensing process.24 25 But that wasn’t enough. Congress also handed companies a liability shield from lawsuits whenever the product government paid them to produce fails to work as advertised or a person is hurt by using it.26
If you or a loved one dies or is permanently injured by an experimental or soon-to-be FDA licensed COVID vaccine, you cannot sue the drug company who made it, even if there is evidence the company could have made it less reactive or more effective.
Big Pharma Pays Big Tech Billions of Dollars for Ads, Censorship Campaigns
If you are searching for relief from the hype by turning off the TV and turning on your computer, you will be disappointed. The COVID vaccine ad campaign is in high gear online, especially on social media platforms. The Thought Police hired by Big Tech to censor information that does not conform with pre-approved pandemic narratives are making sure you do not have an opportunity to carefully weigh the vaccine’s benefits and risks.27 28 29
Rational thinking on the World Wide Web is no longer tolerated and neither is freedom of speech. The Internet has become a drug company stockholder’s dream and a consumer’s worst nightmare.
Big Pharma and its business partners have paid a lot of money to Big Tech to eliminate freedom of thought and speech online. Right now the weapon of choice is a social media censorship campaign to de-platform dissenters, including reputable charitable organizations like the National Vaccine Information Center publishing well referenced information.30 31 32 The Internet Thought Police are especially upset when anyone talks about reports of serious vaccine complications and deaths, but reports about COVID-19 disease complications and deaths are allowed without restrictions.33
As COVID social distancing regulations have kept more people at home and on their electronic devices, the healthcare and pharma industry has poured more money into direct to consumer digital ads.34 In 2020, drug and vaccine manufacturers funneled about 10 billion dollars into digital advertising that we view on our computers, tablets and cell phones.35 36
How much of Big Tech’s decision to ghost dissenters from search engine results and de-platform social media accounts is influenced by an infusion of direct to consumer advertising dollars from Big Pharma?37
American Taxpayer Pays for COVID-19 Vaccine Ads
This year, the American taxpayer is also paying for TV and digital advertising to promote the use of the COVID-19 vaccine.38 On April 1, 2021, the government announced a three billion dollar COVID vaccine ad campaign39 to get make sure that every American gets vaccinated, a national ad campaign that is using community and religious leaders, as well as celebrities,40 41 to reach into every community to boost vaccine uptake in stores,42 sports arenas,43 schools44 and churches.45
Right now, Pfizer and Moderna, the two U.S. corporations manufacturing experimental messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines are leading beneficiaries of the free advertising paid for by tax dollars. The first to secure an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA, Moderna counts the federal National Institutes for Health as a business partner,46 while Pfizer partnered with the German company BioNTech.47 Together, Moderna and Pfizer have captured market share and, by the end of 2020, Pfizer had achieved a 180 percent increase in revenue48 49 and Moderna had scored an eye watering 3,900 percent increase. 50 51
So what has the COVID vaccine advertising blitz done so far, other than convincing half of all adults to get at least one dose of the vaccine by mid-April 2021?52
The most notable achievement of the COVID vaccine campaign has been to keep everyone in a constant state of fear and confusion about what is true and what is false.53 There are so many misunderstandings and false impressions out there about the biological product manufactured by Moderna and Pfizer, a product that most people call a vaccine and other call a therapeutic drug but I call a cell disrupter biological.
No Long Term Safety Studies of Experimental mRNA Vaccines
Whatever you want to call it, the experimental mRNA technology that Moderna and Pfizer employed to create the product has not yet been licensed by the FDA to prevent infections in humans. 54 It is a genetic engineering technology that radically departs from the production methods used for two centuries to make live attenuated and inactivated viral and bacterial vaccines.55 It is an experimental technology that injects synthetic RNA directly into cells and, in effect, attempts to turn the human body into a vaccine manufacturing machine.56 57
There are no long-term studies58 evaluating the range of effects at the cellular and molecular level on the biological and genetic integrity of humans who receive the product. Nobody knows if it will, over time, negatively affect normal immune function and cause autoimmune and other chronic inflammatory conditions in the body,59 60 61 or provoke enhanced disease in vaccinated persons encountering mutated versions of the coronavirus in the future.62
Myth: Pfizer and Moderna mRNA Vaccines Have Been Proven to Prevent Infection and Transmission of SARS-CoV-2
What are the two biggest myths that have been generated by the advertising campaign being conducted with Pharma and taxpayer dollars?
The first big myth is that if you get two doses of the mRNA COVID vaccine, you will get artificial immunity and cannot be asymptomatically or symptomatically infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and you will not be able to infect others who come in physical contact with you: you dutifully got vaccinated and now you are immune.63 That is a normal assumption because that is what vaccines are supposed to do, but it is a false assumption.
The Emergency Use Authorization the FDA gave to Pfizer and Moderna was not granted based on scientific evidence that the product prevented infection and transmission of SARS-Cov-2.64 65 In fact, the FDA directed manufacturers in the summer of 2020 to make a product that had at least a 50 percent efficacy rate in either preventing or reducing severity of COVID-19 disease.66
The companies chose to apply for an EUA based on nine months of clinical trial data that the product prevents people from developing severe symptoms of COVID-19 disease 67 and reduces the likelihood they will have serious complications leading to hospitalization and death – not that it prevents infection and transmission. There is a difference.
TAKE HOME FACT: COVID-19 vaccines were not designed and have not yet been proven to prevent infection and transmission of the new coronavirus in the majority of recipients. Apparently, that is why public health officials are telling vaccinated people they have to continue wearing masks and social distancing just like unvaccinated people.68 69
Myth: It is “Good” to Feel Bad After mRNA Covid-19 Shots Because It Means the Vaccine is “Working”
The second big myth being perpetuated by COVID spin is that when you have strong reactions to a COVID-19 shot, it is “good” because it means the vaccine is “working.”70 71
The companies and public health officials admit that the mRNA vaccines are reactive and that the majority of people, especially younger people, who get vaccinated will experience reactions strong enough to require a day or two of recovery and even time off work.72 73 But there is not one credible scientific study published in the medical literature demonstrating that high fevers, chills, headache, joint and muscle aching, disabling fatigue and other symptoms are “good” for the body and indicate the body is successfully producing artificial immunity.
In fact, strong reactions to pharmaceutical products like drugs and vaccines are usually something to be concerned about and a reason to exercise caution, especially with repeat doses. 74 75 76
More concerning are the 68,000 adverse event reports following COVID-19 vaccinations, including over 2600 deaths, 77 that have been reported as of April 8, 2021 to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) created under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.78 79 80 81 More than 70 percent of the reaction reports occurred in people between 17 and 65 years old. And that may be just the tip of the iceberg because one government funded study found that less than one percent of vaccine reactions are ever reported to the vaccine reaction reporting system82 created under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
Although Pfizer, Moderna and the government admit that messenger RNA COVID vaccines can cause a lot of reaction symptoms like fever, body pain and disabling fatigue,83 84 85 they adamantly deny that the shots cause sudden death86 87 88 or blood clots89 90 91 92 and bleeding disorders like immune thrombocytopenic purpura,93 cardiac and respiratory arrest,94 95 and other very serious health problems.96
Where is the biological mechanism science that proves it is only a coincidence when people suddenly die within minutes, 97 days or weeks of being given a COVID shot98 and that none of the tens of thousands of bad health outcomes being reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System are causally related?99
Where is science backing up the claim that feeling so bad you can’t get out of bed or go to work after getting vaccinated is “good” because being in pain is evidence that the product is effective?
TAKE HOME FACT: COVID-19 shots cause reactions in the majority of people.100 101 There is no scientific evidence that having strong reactions to a drug or biological means that the product is effective.102
Government health officials have said that COVID-19 vaccines will be approved for use in children of any age by early 2022.103 With the majority of adults suffering very strong COVID vaccine reactions, especially younger adults,104 105 why are there plans to give the messenger RNA cell disrupter biological to infants and young children when the CDC says the majority of chilren with COVID-19 disease either have mild symptoms or no symptoms at all? 106
The enormous sums of money that Big Pharma and government is spending on television and digital ad campaigns to make sure that every child and adult in America gets a COVID-19 vaccine is creating false impressions and assumptions. When public policy precedes the science and aggressive advertising campaign blur the lines between facts and myths, truth gets lost in the spin and nobody is safe.
Go to NVIC.org and learn more about SARS-Cov-2 and the biological product being referred to as the COVID-19 vaccine on our new coronavirus information pages.
Go to NVICAdvocacy.org, where you can learn how to help defend informed consent rights in your state so you can make voluntary decisions about vaccination for yourself and your minor children.
References
1 Fisher BL. Here Comes the 21st Century Cures Act: Say Goodbye to Vaccine Safety Science. NVIC Newsletter July 21, 2015.
2 Ramsey L, Friedman LF. The government agency in charge of approving drugs gets a surprising amount of money from the companies that make them. Business Insider Aug. 17, 2016.
3 Fisher BL. End Pharma Liability Shield Endangering Public Health and Human Rights. NVIC Newsletter Nov. 8, 2016.
4 The Vaccine Reaction. Drug Companies Pay FDA and NIH to Fast Track and Market Vaccines. Sept 28, 2018.
5 Fisher BL. WHO, Government, Gates & Government: Who’s Calling the Shots? NVIC Newsletter Jan. 27, 2019.
6 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Public–private partnership responses to COVID-19 and future pandemics: Proceedings of a workshop—in brief. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press 2020.
7 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). COVID-19: Federal Efforts to Accelerate Vaccine and Therapeutic Development But More Transparency Needed on Emergency Use Authorization. Nov. 17, 2020.
8 National Institutes of Health. NIH clinical trial of investigational vaccine for COVID-19 begins. NIH Press Release Mar. 16, 2020.
9 Lurie N, Saville M et al. Developing Covid-19 Vaccines at Pandemic Speed. NEJM Mar. 31, 2020
10 Fisher BL. COVID-19 Meltdown and Pharma’s Big Money Win. NVIC Newsletter Apr. 1, 2020.
11 Kollewe J. From Pfizer to Moderna: Who’s making billions from Covid-19 vaccines? The Guardian Mar. 6, 2021.
12 Egan M. Pfizer and Moderna could score $32 billion in Covid-19 vaccine sales – in 2021 alone. CNN Dec. 11, 2020.
13 Megan Garnett Coyle. Ad Tech Leaders Unite to Measure the Ad Council & COVID Collaborative’s COVID-19 Vaccine Education Initiative – the Largest PSA Campaign in US History. Businesswire Mar. 30. 2021.
History
14 Medical Xpress. US launches major COVI vaccination ad campaign. Apr. 1, 2021.
15 Lee B. How is Consumer Drug Advertising Regulated in the United States? June 17, 2019.
16 Harvard Health Publishing. Do not get sold on drug advertising. February 2017.
17 Rapaport L. U.S. health care industry spends $30 billion a year on marketing. Reuters Jan. 8, 2019.
18 Kanski A. Nielsen: Pfizer tops list of biggest pharma advertisers in 2018. Medical Marketing & Media Apr. 2, 2019.
19 Johnson B. Up in Smoke: Documents from the Annals of Tobacco Marketing. Ad Age Mar. 29, 2010.
20 Meyer R. Profiteering off a Covid vaccine. World of DTC Marketing Mar. 25, 2021.
21 Kollewe J. From Pfizer to Moderna: Who’s making billions from Covid-19 vaccines? The Guardian Mar. 6, 2021.
22 Dunleavy BP. Pfizer CEO says need for third dose of COVID-19 vaccine ‘likely.’ UPI Apr. 16, 2021.
23 Weintraub EW. Federal spending on COVID-19 vaccine candidates tops $9 billion, spread among 7 companies. USA Today Aug. 10, 2020.
24 The College of Physicians of Philadelphia. Vaccine Development, Testing and Regulation. The History of Vaccines Jan. 17, 2018.
25 Broom D. 5 charts that tell the story of vaccines today. World Economic Forum June 2, 2020.
26 Fisher BL, Parpia R. 2005 PREP Act and 1986 Act Shield Vaccine Manufacturer’s from Liability. The Vaccine Reaction Aug. 10, 2020.
27 Fisher BL. The New Internet Police Protecting You from Freedom of Thought and Speech. NVIC Newsletter Dec. 3, 2018.
28 Caceres M. When Even the New York Times Doesn’t Pass Facebook Muster. The Vaccine Reaction Dec. 28, 2020.
29 Mercola J. New Thought Police NewsGuard Is Owned by Big Pharma. Jan. 24, 2020.
30 Fisher BL. Vaccination and Censorship: The Truth Will Set Us Free. NVIC Newsletter Jan. 26, 2021.
31 O’Neill J. White House working with social media giants to silence anti-vaxxers. New York Post Feb. 19, 2021.
32 Attkisson S. CENSORED: The National Vaccine Information Center. Mar. 8, 2021.
33 Presson J. Questions linger about COVID-19 vaccine. The Mountaineer Feb. 12, 2021.
34 Droesch B. US Healthcare and Pharma Is Among the Fastest-Growing Digital Ad Spenders. EMarketer Oct. 9, 2020.
35 Droesch B. US Healthcare and Pharma Is Among the Fastest-Growing Digital Ad Spenders. EMarketer Oct. 9, 2020.
36 Silk B. Why Digital Is the Future for Pharma Advertising. Ethoseo Oct. 15, 2019.
37 Robbins R. Get ready for more drug ads: Facebook is making a bid for pharma dollars. STAT News Nov. 1, 2016.
38 Holmes K, Kaufman E. HHS begins national vaccine ad campaign with You Tube ads. CNN Dec. 4, 2020.
39 DHHS. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Launches Nationwide Network of Trusted Voices to Encourage Vaccination in Next Phase of Public Education Campaign. HHS Press Office Apr. 1, 2021.
40 Facher L. The White House is set to unveil a wide-reaching billion-dollar campaign aimed at convincing every American to get vaccinated. STAT News Mar. 15, 2021.
41 Associated Press. Celebrities Make a Stand for COVID-19 Vaccines on TV Special. Voice of America Apr. 16, 2021.
42 Walmart. Administering COVID-19 Vaccines. Apr. 21, 2021.
43 Hoffman DC. Mass COVID-19 Vaccination Site Set to Open at PPG Paints Arena. KDKA2 Mar. 15, 2021.
44 Archie A. This Indiana school district is helping high schoolers get a COBID-19 vaccine before prom. Louisville Courier Journal Apr. 13, 2021.
45 AdventHealth News. AdventHealth Partners with Churches to Provide COVID-19 Vaccines. Apr. 20, 2021.
46 Collins FS. Statement from NIH and BARDA on the FDA Emergency Use Authorization of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. NIAID Dec. 18, 2020.
47 Pfizer Inc. Pfizer and BioNTech Announce Further Details on Collaboration to Accelerate Global GOVIC-19 Vaccine Development. Businesswire Apr. 9, 2020.
48 Macrotrends. Pfizer Revenue 2006-2020. January 2021.
49 NASDAQ. Pfizer sees about $15 billion in 2021 sales from COVID-19 vaccine. Feb. 2, 2021.
50 NASDAQ. Moderna Earnings Date, Estimates & History. MarketBeat Apr. 16, 2021.
51 CBS News. Moderna forecasts $18.4 billion in COVID-19 vaccine sales. Feb. 28, 2021.
52 Yen H, Mattise J. Half of US adults have received at least one COVID-19 shot. Associated Press Apr. 18, 2021.
53 Syal A. Is It Safe to Visit Grandparents After Getting COVID Vaccine? NBC Feb. 14, 2021.
54 Pfizer Inc. The Facts About Pfizer and BioNTech’s COVID-19 Vaccine. Jan 6, 2021.
55 Banks MA. What Are mRNA Vaccines, and Could They Work Against COVID-19? Smithsonian Magazine Nov. 16, 2020.
56 Trafton A. Explained: Why RNA vaccines for Covid-19 raced to the front of the pack. MIT News Office Dec. 11, 2020.
57 Langreth R, Krege N. Moderna Wants to Transform the Body Into a Vaccine-Making Machine. Bloomberg News Aug. 11, 2020.
58 Harris R. Long-Term Studies of COVID-19 Vaccines Hurt by Placebo Recipients Getting Immunized. NPR Feb. 19, 2021.
59 Pardi N, Hogan MJ et al. mRNA vaccines – a new era in vaccinology. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2018; 17: 261-279.
60 Jaffe-Hoffman M. Could mRNA COVID-19 vaccines be dangerous in the long- term? Jerusalem Post Nov. 17, 2020.
61 Odell J. Messenger RNA (nRNA) SARS Coronavirus ‘Vaccines’ and their Potential Autoimmunity Part 2. Bioregulatory Medicine Institute Feb. 24, 2021.
62 Arvin AM, Fink K et al. A perspective on potent antibody-dependent enhancement of SARA-Cov-2. Nature 2020; 584: 352-363.
63 Healthline. How Long Does Immunity Last After COVID-19?: How vaccine-induced immunity after receiving immunization works. Feb. 24, 2021.
64 FDA. Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. Dec. 11, 2020.
65 FDA. Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. Dec. 18, 2020.
66 Heidt A. FDA to Require 50 Percent Efficacy for COVID-19 Vaccines. The Scientist July 1, 2020.
67 Crist C. Early Vaccines Will Prevent Symptoms, Not Virus. WebMD Oct. 28, 2020.
68 Syal A. Is It Safe to Visit Grandparents After Getting COVID Vaccine? NBC Feb. 14, 2021.
69 Rouan R. Fact Check: CDC recommends masks in most cases even after COVID-19 vaccines. USA Today Apr. 22, 2021.
70 Crow S. The CDC Says These 3 Side Effects Mean Your Vaccine Is Working. Yahoo Feb. 15, 2021.
71 Finberg R. No, vaccine side effects don’t tell you how well your immune system will protect you from COVID-19. Yahoo News Apr. 19, 2021.
72 Hendler C. Severe Reactions to COVID-19 Vaccine Close Schools in Michigan, Ohio and New York. The Vaccine Reaction Mar. 8, 2021.
73 Farber M. Is the COVID-19 vaccine effective if you don’t have a reaction to it? Fox News Feb. 9, 2021.
74 Bircher AJ. Symptoms and danger signs in acute drug hypersensitivity. Toxicology 2005; 209(2): 201-207.
75 Davidovici BB, Wolf R. The challenge of drug-rechallenge: Facts and controversies. Clin Dermatol 2010; 281(3): 249-253.
76 GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals. Highlights of Prescribing Information for INFANRIX – diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis vaccine adsorbed suspension: Contraindications, Warnings and Precautions. Nov. 20, 2019.
77 MedAlerts. Search the VAERS Database.
78 FDA. VAERS Overview. Mar. 29, 2019.
79 CDC. Vaccine Safety: Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
80 LaVigne P. The Story Behind MedAlerts. NVIC Newsletter Aug. 20, 2013.
81 The College of Physicians of Philadelphia. Vaccine Injury Compensation Programs: National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA)/National Childhood Vaccine Injury Program (NCVIP). The History of Vaccines Jan. 17, 2018.
82 Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc. Electronic System for Public Health Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. AHRQ 2011.
83 The Vaccine Reaction. Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine Provokes COVID-Like Symptoms in Phase 3 Trial. Oct. 19, 2020.
84 Fisher BL. Over 3,000 “Health Impact Events” After COVID-19 mRNA Vaccinations. The Vaccine Reaction Dec. 22, 2020.
85 Gale J. COVID-19 vaccine side effects hit some recipients hard; that’s not all bad. Here’s what to do about them. Seattle Times Mar. 11, 2021.
86 Sforza T. Health care worker dies after second dose of COVID vaccine, investigation underway. Orange County Register Feb. 4, 2021.
87 Percy N. Kaiser says Pfizer vaccine likely not cause of Calfornia woman’s death. Mercury News Feb. 15, 2021
88 Brown E. Fact Check: Have 966 People Died After Receiving the COVID vaccine? Newsweek Mar. 8, 2021.
89 Goldstein S. Blood clots prevalent with Pfizer and Moderna Vaccine as with Astra Zeneca’s study. Dow Jones/Market Watch Apr. 16, 2021.
90 Ma A. Schuster-Bruce C. Johnson & Johnson asked other drugmakers to help it study blood-clot risks, and Moderna and Pfizer decline, report says. Business Insider Apr. 16, 2021.
91 Scribner H. Recent vaccine news should improve further confidence, doctor says. Deseret News Apr. 15, 2021.
92 Beusekom MV. Study: COVID much more likely than vaccines to cause blood clot. CIDRAP Apr. 15, 2021.
93 Fisher BL. Miami Obstetrician Develops Bleeding Disorder, Dies After Getting COVID-19 Vaccine. The Vaccine Reaction Jan. 11, 2021.
94 Israel National News. Mexican doctor hospitalized after receiving COVID-19 vaccine. Jan. 2, 2021.
95 Microsoft News. 72-year old man sent to ICU following COVID-19 vaccination; MOH confirms cardiac arrest wasn’t caused by vaccine. Feb. 19, 2021.
96 Fisher BL. Healthy Mom, 39, in Utah Dies of Organ Failure Days After Moderna COVID Vaccination. The Vaccine Reaction Mar. 15. 2021.
97 The Vaccine Reaction. Woman Dies Immediately After Getting COVID-9 Vaccine in Virginia. Feb. 21, 2021.
98 Haglage A. No evidence COVID-19 vaccines cause death epidemiologists say: ‘Coincidences are going to happen.’ Yahoo Feb. 4, 2021.
99 Rouan R. Fact check: CDC data on adverse effects of vaccine cannot determine cause. USA Today Apr. 8, 2021.
100 CDC. Local Reactions, Systemic Reactions, Adverse Events and Serious Adverse Events: Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine. Dec. 13, 2020.
101 FDA. Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. Dec. 18, 2020.
102 Finberg R. No, vaccine side effects don’t tell you how well your immune system will protect you from COVID-19. Yahoo News Apr. 19, 2021.
103 Thomas N. Fauci expects almost all children to be eligible for Covid-19 vaccines by first quarter 2022 at the latest. CNN Apr 18, 2021.
104 Koweek M. Younger adults are having harsher Covid vaccine side effects. WHIO TV Mar. 5, 2021.
105 Bendix A. Why you can expect more severe vaccine side effects if you’re younger or a woman. Business Insider Apr. 6, 2021.
106 CDC. COVID-19 in Children and Teens: What You Need to Know. Mar. 17, 2021.
When Will the Evidence From Florida and Texas Break Through the SAGE Groupthink?
By Will Jones • Lockdown Sceptics • May 16, 2021
The latest model of doom from Government advisory group SAGE appeared yesterday, predicting a ludicrous 10,000 hospital admissions a day in mid-July in a vaccinated population (nearly three times the January peak) because of the Indian variant – and that’s the central scenario. Furthermore, the researchers don’t even think the Indian variant is more deadly or particularly good at evading vaccines. So how do they conclude it will precipitate such a calamity?
Professor Adam Kucharski, a SAGE modeller from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), explains their reasoning:
The issue is that many people have a mental image that we’ve [already] had the biggest possible epidemic waves, whereas we’ve actually had ones that are relatively small compared to what could have happened without control measures in place. Because of these controls, only a fraction of the people who could have got infected in the past year or so have been infected, so they’re still out there. Of course, for many of these people vaccines have now decreased their risk substantially. But a very large number of infections that come with a very small individual level of risk can produce a similar outcome to a smaller epidemic that carries a larger individual level of risk.
Maths whizz Glen Bishop, writing for Lockdown Sceptics, has shown why SAGE’s assumptions are so unrealistic as to produce these highly implausible scenarios. In their central scenario, for example, they assume that around half of the UK will be simultaneously infected in one week in mid-July. This is despite the January peak only having around 2% of the population infected at one time, according to the ONS.
Another of the models’ big assumptions, prominent in what Prof Kucharski says above, is that lockdowns and social distancing have successfully suppressed the virus and that it is only because they continue in some form that the flood of infections, hospitalisations and deaths is held back. The latest modelling starkly shows how, even with a high vaccination coverage as in the UK, such an assumption can produce predictions so dire they send twitchy Governments reaching for the lockdown order.
As the SAGE briefing says:
At this point in the vaccine rollout, there are still too few adults vaccinated to prevent a significant resurgence that ultimately could put unsustainable pressure on the NHS, without non-pharmaceutical interventions. … It is a realistic possibility that this new variant of concern could be 50% more transmissible. If [the Indian variant] does have such a large transmission advantage, it is a realistic possibility that progressing with all roadmap steps would lead to a substantial resurgence of hospitalisations.
In fact, there is no evidence (outside models, which are not evidence) that lockdown measures or social distancing have any significant impact on reducing Covid infections or deaths. This is why the states in America which removed their restrictions in March (Texas) or last autumn (Florida) or never imposed them (South Dakota) are doing no worse, and often better, than many states which maintained strict restrictions throughout the winter (see the graph above). Sweden demonstrates a similar point in Europe.
The depressing truth, though, is that sceptics have largely failed to get this basic point across to those in charge and their scientific advisers. It’s not as though the evidence is not there. There are numerous peer-reviewed articles in leading journals that set out the evidence on this, and more keep appearing. Leading scientists have raised their heads to make the evidence-based case.
Graphs like the above, which should by themselves undermine the entire lockdown edifice, are easy to produce. Leading journalists such as Fraser Nelson, writing in one of the leading Tory newspapers, the Telegraph, has pointed repeatedly to the evidence on this. The data is plain for all to see and the voices highlighting it are not marginal or lacking in credibility.
Yet here we are again, with another model built on dubious assumptions and a presumption of lockdown efficacy once more imperilling our liberty. Freedom has never felt so fragile as in these past 14 months, when access to basic liberties has rested on the evidence-free assumptions made by a small group of mathematical modellers whose word seems to be taken as holy writ by those in charge.
Adam Kucharski is on Twitter. So why not ask him (politely!) why, if so many people remain so susceptible to this virus and its variants as to produce such dire predictions, Florida, Texas and South Dakota have fared no worse than places which have imposed or maintained restrictions? I’ve put the graph as the featured image to make it easy to share – just put a link to this article in the tweet and the graph should appear. If you get any answers from him, why not email them to us here.
REVIEW: COVID-19 Vaccines May Lead To Prion-Linked Brain Degeneration Similar To Mad Cow Disease
Researchers published a review that sounds the alarm about potential unintended COVID-19 vaccine side effects
By Tom Pappert | National File | May 12, 2021
A new review of possible unintended consequences of COVID-19 vaccines suggests that the controversial mRNA vaccines – Moderna and Pfizer – may lead to unexpected neurological conditions similar to Mad Cow Disease.
The review by Stephanie Seneff, who works at the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at MIT, and Dr. Nigh, who specializes in Naturopathic Oncologogy at Immerson Health in Portland, Oregon, was released this week in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research, and devotes a considerable space to discussing the research of Dr. J. Bart Classen, who first published a research paper on the possibility of prion-linked brain degeneration caused by the COVID-19 vaccine last month, and expands on his research.
The researchers explain that “researchers have identified a signature motif linked to susceptibility to misfolding into toxic oligomers, called the glycine zipper motif. It is characterized by a pattern of two glycine residues spaced by three intervening amino acids, represented as GxxxG. The bovine prion linked to MADCOW has a spectacular sequence of ten GxxxGs in a row,” and notes that “the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is a transmembrane protein, and that it contains five GxxxG motifs in its sequence” and, thus, “it becomes extremely plausible that it could behave as a prion”.
“Recall that the mRNA vaccines are designed with an altered sequence that replaces two adjacent amino acids in the fusion domain with a pair of prolines,” the authors continue. “This is done intentionally in order to force the protein to remain in its open state and make it harder for it to fuse with the membrane. This seems to us like a dangerous step towards misfolding potentially leading to prion disease.”
Prions were first described as the method by which Mad Cow Disease causes brain degeneration due to misfolding proteins in the body. The CDC notes that “prion diseases are usually rapidly progressive and always fatal.” Mad Cow Disease “progressively attacks the brain but can remain dormant for decades,” per the BBC.
“Pfizer claims the RNA fragments ‘likely… will not result in expressed proteins’ due to their assumed rapid degradation in the cell,” the researchers note. They add, “While we are not asserting that non-spike proteins generated from fragmented RNA would be misfolded or otherwise pathological, we believe they would at least contribute to cellular stress that promotes prion-associated conformational changes in the spike protein that is present.”
When Classen previously published his research, fact checkers were quick to point to public statements from Pfizer that dismissed concerns of brain prions as a result of their vaccine. It may be worth noting that “the most expensive settlement that Pfizer has paid was over $2.3 billion paid as a fine to resolve civil and criminal penalties for illegal marketing of four medications including Bextra, Geodon, Zyvox, and Lyrics.”
The End of The Mask
By Kip Hansen | Watts Up With That? | May 15, 2021
If there was ever a surer example of the perversion of the Power of Experts than the Covid Mask Mania, I am unaware of it. I doubt that there is a single self-aware person in the world that does not know what the Covid Mask Mania means, even most of those who have been stanch supporters and promoters of The Mask are aware that it is, in fact, a product of a world-wide Mass Hysteria that grew out of the unknowns surrounding the outbreak of a novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China in late 2019.
Those of you who still have the ability to remember the recent past, despite endless propaganda aimed at making you forget, the original CDC Guidance on Face Masks for Covid-19 was this:
Wear a facemask if you are sick
If you are sick: You should wear a facemask when you are around other people (e.g., sharing a room or vehicle) and before you enter a healthcare provider’s office. If you are not able to wear a facemask (for example, because it causes trouble breathing), then you should do your best to cover your coughs and sneezes, and people who are caring for you should wear a facemask if they enter your room. Learn what to do if you are sick.
If you are NOT sick: You do not need to wear a facemask unless you are caring for someone who is sick (and they are not able to wear a facemask). Facemasks may be in short supply and they should be saved for caregivers.[ source CDC website dated 28 March 2020 via WayBack Machine ]
The Famous Fauci, back when he was just Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and not yet a global media star – let me be clear, we are talking about when Dr. Anthony Fauci was the nation’s leading expert on infectious diseases of all kinds – he said the following in a televised interview on March 8, 2020:
[ Quoting the opinion checking website, FactCheck.org which found that history requires a revision in order to comply with “latest guidelines” in its current coverage here. ]
Here’s what Fauci told Dr. Jon LaPook, chief medical correspondent for CBS News, in the clip circulating on social media:
LaPook, March 8: There’s a lot of confusion among people, and misinformation, surrounding face masks. Can you discuss that?
Fauci: The masks are important for someone who’s infected to prevent them from infecting someone else… Right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks.
LaPook: You’re sure of it? Because people are listening really closely to this.
Fauci: … There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.
LaPook: And can you get some schmutz, sort of staying inside there?
Fauci: Of course, of course. But, when you think masks, you should think of health care providers needing them and people who are ill. The people who, when you look at the films of foreign countries and you see 85% of the people wearing masks — that’s fine, that’s fine. I’m not against it. If you want to do it, that’s fine.
LaPook: But it can lead to a shortage of masks?
Fauci: Exactly, that’s the point. It could lead to a shortage of masks for the people who really need it.”
Other than adding a link to the definition of schmutz – I have not highlighted any of Faucci’s statement. I don’t need to catch Fauci out in anything because Fauci was absolutely scientifically correct in everything he said. In this, he totally depended on the existing science on the prevention of the transmission of coronavirus illnesses. And the science on the topic has not changed – if anything, it has been reinforced over and over throughout the Covid-19 pandemic.
Yet, FactOpinionCheck.org decided that Fauci, the USA’s leading expert on Infectious Diseases and their transmission, was not expert enough – so they check his knowledge against the opinion of the Director of the CDC? No…. against the opinion of Dr. Dean Winslow, a well-known infectious disease physician at Stanford (University) Health Care who told FactOpinionCheck.org:
“In early March, so few patients had been tested that public health officials didn’t yet know that people could spread the virus without showing symptoms, said Winslow.
“That was just not known at that point.”
There was no new science that suddenly made masks effective for the general public but something maybe about Covid-19.
And what does that science really say? “… there’s little scientific evidence that the various face coverings we call ‘masks’ do much if anything to stop the spread of the coronavirus.” [ source ] There are just too many peer-reviewed, high-powered, definitive studies and meta-analyses to list here. The Big List of such studies is in the book: “The Price of Panic. . . .” by Jay W. Richards, Douglas Axe, and William Briggs.
It is, of course, as in all things that deal with the political interference in things that should depend on strict empirical science, worse than that.
In April 2020, the Famous Fauci said
“So, we want to make sure that this issue of having a broader community approach towards putting on a facial covering doesn’t, in fact, get in the way of the primary purpose of masks.
[ which was, he had just explained: “masks that are most appropriately used and necessary for the front-line health care workers, who do need it for the clear and present danger that they find themselves in when they are taking care of people who are actually sick with coronavirus disease.” ]
And in that regard, that’s why what we’re talking about are things that may not necessarily need to be a classical mask, but could be some sort of facial covering.
You know, we’re pretty good in making things in a way that spontaneously becomes effective just because of your own creativity.”
[ source – PBS interview here. ]
Once the CDC changed it’s tune on masks, demanding that The Mask be worn at all times under almost all circumstances, the rhetoric ramped up not only demanding that everyone everywhere wear masks, but accusing those who fail or refuse to wear masks of “killing their grandmothers” (Andrew Cuomo – Governor of New York – a charge he repeats in the present about those who don’t get vaccinated).
In a mass-hysteria-type reaction, everyone who could find a public megaphone jumped on the bandwagon, making wilder and wilder public statements about the deadly-serious importance of wearing masks:
“Everyone should wear a mask,” Blumberg said. “People who say ‘I don’t believe masks work’ are ignoring scientific evidence. It’s not a belief system. It’s like saying, ‘I don’t believe in gravity.’
“People who don’t wear a mask increase the risk of transmission to everyone, not just the people they come into contact with,” he said. “It’s all the people those people will have contact with. You’re being an irresponsible member of the community if you’re not wearing a mask.” [ source ]
Wearing a mask became a virtue signaling bellweather: “I’m a good person, a patriot, a saint….” Because I wear a mask, even in my own home or when alone in my car.
And now?
In an unexpected change of heart (must have been as there has been no new science or breakthrough understanding), the CDC has said:
Vaccinated Americans May Go Without Masks in Most Places, Federal Officials Say
Fully vaccinated people do not have to wear masks or maintain social distance indoors or outdoors, with some exceptions, the C.D.C. advised. [ source ]
Directly from the CDC:
“Update that fully vaccinated people no longer need to wear a mask or physically distance in any setting, except where required by federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial laws, rules, and regulations, including local business and workplace guidance
Update that fully vaccinated people can refrain from testing following a known exposure unless they are residents or employees of a correctional or detention facility or a homeless shelter”
[ source: CDC here 13 May 2021 ]
End BQ
What does this mean for the real world?
Up to 13 May 2021, US News and World Report list the following U.S. states as having NO Mask Mandate previous-to-CDC-announcement:
Alabama | Alaska | Arizona | Arkansas | Florida | Georgia | Idaho | Indiana | Iowa | Kansas | Louisiana | Minnesota | Mississippi | Missouri | Montana | Nebraska | New Hampshire | North Dakota | Oklahoma | South Carolina | South Dakota | Tennessee | Texas | Utah | Wisconsin | Wyoming | Northern Mariana Islands (an unincorporated territory and commonwealth of the U.S.)
That’s 26 out of 50 states with no mandate before the new CDC guidelines.
So far today:
Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear says the state’s mask mandate will end June 11, 2021. On that date, the Bluegrass State will also return to 100% capacity at venues and events. [ source ]
Minnesota — Following New CDC Guidance, Governor Walz Announces End to Statewide Face Covering Requirement — Minnesota will align with CDC guidance and recommend unvaccinated Minnesotans continue to wear face coverings indoors [ source ]
North Carolina has removed its indoor mask mandate for most settings and lifted all mass gathering and social distancing limits. This step forward is effective immediately and follows yesterday’s guidance from the CDC. [ source ]
Rhode Island — paraphrasing “fully vaccinated people, as of this coming Tuesday, will no longer need to wear masks or social distance”. [ source ]
Michigan – paraphrasing “everyone who is two weeks out from their second vaccine dose can go without a mask”. [ source ]
Oregon – “Starting today, Oregon will be following this guidance, which only applies to fully-vaccinated individuals. That means Oregonians who are fully-vaccinated no longer need to wear masks or social distance in most public spaces.” [ source ]
Florida — “Floridians should not be penalized for rejecting the overreach of local authorities through unnecessary mask mandates,” [Governor] DeSantis wrote on Twitter Thursday about his decision to pardon the Carnevales. [ who had been arrested for failing to require masks and social distancing at their business, a gym.]” “The governor confirmed his intentions to pardon people at a press conference Thursday in Ormond Beach, Florida, saying he would “remit” the remaining outstanding fines that have been issued against people at the state’s next clemency meeting.” [ source ]
Connecticut — Masks Not Required Indoors For Fully Vaccinated People in Connecticut Starting May 19: Governor [ source ]
Illinois – “Gov. J.B. Pritzker says that he will revise executive orders to sync up with new CDC guidelines on mask wearing by vaccinated individuals in indoor and outdoor spaces.” [ source ]
Nevada – “On May 3, Gov. Steve Sisolak signed an emergency directive updating mask and face covering requirements for the state to align with the CDC’s recommendations, including any subsequent guidance. As a result, the new guidance from the federal agency became effective immediately, according to a news release from the state.” [ source ]
Pennsylvania – “In short, the Health Department says it is following the CDC’s lead. That means Pennsylvanians who are fully vaccinated no longer have to wear masks outdoors or indoors except in certain situations.“ [ source ]
Washington – “Masks off: Fully vaccinated people can shed masks in Washington, [Washington Governor] Inslee announces following new CDC rules” [ source ]
New York – “Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today announced that New York State will adopt the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s new guidance on mask use for fully vaccinated people. The guidelines state that fully vaccinated people, defined as two or more weeks after receiving the second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or the single-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine, no longer need to wear masks outdoors, except in certain crowded settings and venues.” [ source ]
Virginia – “Governor Ralph Northam today lifted Virginia’s universal indoor mask mandate to align with new guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Governor Northam also announced that Virginia will ease all distancing and capacity restrictions on Friday, May 28, two weeks earlier than planned. The updates to Virginia’s mask policy …. will become effective at midnight tonight along with previously announced changes to mitigation measures.” [ source ]
Colorado – “Coloradans who are fully vaccinated are no longer required to wear masks, and people who aren’t vaccinated are only required to wear them in limited settings, Gov. Jared Polis said Friday.” [ source ]
Delaware – “Governor John Carney on Friday announced that – effective May 21 – the State of Delaware will lift its requirement that Delawareans and visitors must wear face coverings anytime they are indoors with others outside their household. Delawareans should instead follow masking guidance issued on Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for all indoor and outdoor activities.” [ source ]
West Virginia – “West Virginia Governor Jim Justice announced that he is signing an executive order to modify the face covering requirement during a press conference on Friday. The governor says West Virginia will immediately begin following the updated CDC guidance for those who are fully vaccinated. The facial covering requirement will still apply to those who have not been vaccinated until June 20.” [ source ]
The Governors of the states (in the United States) are announcing allegiance to the CDC so quickly that I literally cannot keep up with adding them in above as I write this column.
How long do you think the other governors, who have not yet fallen into line with the new (and very welcome) diktat from the CDC, can delay? Does anyone think that citizens of one state seeing freedom restored in the neighboring state will not demand the same freedom?
I think that reasonable people will realize that the mask mandate was unnecessary from the beginning — especially as The Science from The Epidemiologists has been telling them all to expect to have to wear masks for at least another six months, a year longer, two years, or maybe forever. In a poll conducted by the NY Timesthat was completed just 4 days ago, 81% of professional epidemiologists expected mask mandates to continue for at least 1 more year. 52% expected masking to last for more than a year. The minimum expected was “a few more months”. Up until yesterday, Epidemiologists represented The Science…. no longer, they have been kicked to the curb.
In my opinion, this new CDC Guideline breaks the back of the oppressive Covid-19 Panic Power Grab by presidents, governors, city councils and mayors who have reveled in their free pass to rule by executive order under emergency powers without oversight by elected law makers.
There will be no going back, I don’t think the people will stand for it, at least not in the United States.
‘Inconvenient’ U.S. Wildfire Data Has Been ‘Disappeared’ by National Interagency Fire Center
By Anthony Watts | Watts Up With That? | May 13, 2021
It’s been an open secret, ever since Dr. Michael Mann used “Mike’s Nature Trick” to “hide the decline” by covering up some inconvenient tree ring data in the hockey stick climate graph, that climate alarmists will go to almost any length to only show the public the “crisis side” of climate data.
The National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) has been the keeper of U.S. wildfire data for decades, tracking both the number of wildfires and acreage burned all the way back to 1926. However, after making that entire dataset public for decades, now, in a blatant act of cherry picking, NIFC “disappeared” a portion of it, and only show data from 1983. You can see it here.
Fortunately, the Internet never forgets, and the entire dataset is preserved on the Internet Wayback machine and other places, despite NIFC’s ham-handed attempt to disappear the data.
Why would they do this you ask? The answer is simple; data prior to 1983 shows that U.S. wildfires were far worse both in frequency and total acreage burned. By disappearing all data prior to 1983, which just happens to be the lowest point in the dataset, now all of the sudden we get a positive slope of worsening wildfire aligning with increased global temperature, which is perfect for claiming “climate change is making wildfire worse.” See figure 1 below for a before and after comparison of what the data looks like when you plot it.
Figure 1: Comparison of the before and after erasure NIFC dataset showing acres burned. The blue trend line goes from a negative trend to a positive one when cherry picked data is used.
Clearly, wildfires were far worse in the past, and clearly, now the data tells an entirely different story when showing only data post-1983. The new story told by the sanitized data is in alignment with the irrational screeching of climate alarmists that “wildfires are driven by climate change”.
This wholesale erasure of important public data stinks, but in today’s narrative control culture that wants to rid us of anything that might be inconvenient or doesn’t fit the “woke” narrative, it isn’t surprising.
Interestingly, the history on the Internet Wayback Machine shows how NIFC rationalized this erasure of important public data.
Back in June 2011 when this data was first presented by NIFC publicly, it was simply presented “as-is”. They say only this:
Figures prior to 1983 may be revised as NICC verifies historical data.
In 2018, they added a new caveat, saying this:
The National Interagency Coordination Center at NIFC compiles annual wildland fire statistics for federal and state agencies. This information is provided through Situation Reports, which have been in use for several decades. Prior to 1983, sources of these figures are not known, or cannot be confirmed, and were not derived from the current situation reporting process. As a result the figures prior to 1983 should not be compared to later data.
According to the Internet Wayback Machine, that caveat first appeared on the NIFC data page somewhere between January 14 and March 7 of 2018.
Curiously, that caveat appeared just a few weeks after I first drew wide attention to the issue in December 2017, with an article citing NIFC fire data titled Is climate change REALLY the culprit causing California’s wildfires?
It seems they received some blowback from the idea that their data, when plotted, clearly showed wildfires to be far worse in the past, completely blowing the global-warming-climate-change-wildfire connection out of the water.
Here is what NIFC says now:
Prior to 1983, the federal wildland fire agencies did not track official wildfire data using current reporting processes. As a result, there is no official data prior to 1983 posted on this site.
Not only is that a lie of omission, it is ridiculous. Their agenda seems very clear. When the data was first published, they only advised the public that some data prior to 1983 might be “… revised as NICC verifies historical data”.
There was no published concern that the data might be invalid, or that we shouldn’t use it. Besides, the data is very simple; a count of the number of fires and the number of acres burned. How hard is that to compile and verify as accurate?
What’s worse is that this data has been trusted for decades in almost every news story about any wildfire that ever occurred in the U.S. In virtually every news story about a wildfire, the number of acres burned it THE NUMBER the press uses in the story, without it, there is no scale of the severity of the fire. Similarly, for every story about “what a bad wildfire season we’ve had”, the press cites the number of fires as well as the acreage burned.
And now, after decades of that data being provided to the press and the public, and nearly a decade of NIFC making it publicly available on their website, they want us to believe that it is now unreliable data?
Seriously, just how hard is it to count the number of fires that have happened and the number of acres burned?
What NIFC is doing is essentially labeling every firefighter, every fire captain, every forester, and every smoke jumper who has fought wildfires for decades as being untrustworthy in their assessment and measurement of this critical, yet very simple fire data. I’ll take data from people on the fire scene over government bureaucratic doublespeak every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
This whole affair is outrageous. But what is even more outrageous is that NIFC isn’t at all transparent as to the reason for the change. They essentially say “The data prior to 1983 is no good, trust us”. There is no citation of a study, no methodology given, no rationale for the removal. That’s not science, that’s not statistics, that’s not even sensible, but that is what is happening.
Plotting the entire NIFC dataset (before it was partially disappeared) gives us some hints as to why this has been done, and how wildfire and weather patterns have been inextricably linked for decades. Note figure 2 below, combining the number of fires and number of acres burned. See the annotations that I have added.
Figure 2: Plot of the entire NIFC wildfire dataset, with acreage burned in amber, and total number of fires in a given year in blue. Annotations show major weather events in the U.S.
Clearly, what NIFC has done by saying data prior to 1983 is “unreliable” and disappearing it is not just hiding important fire history, but cherry picking a data starting point that is the lowest in the entire record to ensure that an upwards trend exists from that point.
The definition of cherry picking is:
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position.
And by choosing the lowest point in the record for total fires, 1983, and making all data prior to that unavailable, NIFC ensures that any comparison between fires and climate change over the last 38 years always shows an upward trend and correlation with rising temperature.
It seems to me that NIFC very likely caved to pressure from climate activists to disappear this inconvenient data. By erasing the past data, NIFC has become untrustworthy. This erasure is not just unscientific, it’s dishonest and possibly fraudulent.
For posterity, the entire dataset from NIFC (including pre-1983) is available here in an Excel (.xlsx) file:
NIFC-Wildfires-1926-2020Download
UPDATE: Here is an analysis paper from 2015 using the same data that is on the U.S. Forest Service website:
Sorry, CBS, NOAA’s “U.S. Climate Normals,” Report Misrepresents the Science
By H. Sterling Burnett | ClimateRealism | May 7, 2021
CBS News’ story covering of the Biden administration’s new U.S Climate Normals report says government data show the United States is warming at an unusually rapid rate due to human induced climate change, causing more frequent and severe extreme weather events. This story, as with the government report it is based upon, is long on alarm but short on facts. Data from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) show temperatures in the United States aren’t rising at an unusually rapid rate. In addition, incidences of extreme weather events are neither more frequent nor more severe than in the past.
“Just a quick glance at the new U.S. Climate Normals maps published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on Tuesday is enough for most climate scientists to say, ‘I told you so,’” writes CBS in an article, titled “NOAA’s “new normal” climate report is anything but normal.”
“While the new normals are just 10 years removed from the earlier set, the changes are still significant. In that time the nation has warmed an average of half a degree Fahrenheit,” CBS continues. “That may not sound like much, but small changes in the normals mean much larger changes in the extremes like extremes like heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods and hurricanes.”
NOAA’s new report may claim temperatures are rising across the United States, and weather is getting more extreme, but its own data and data from the IPCC say otherwise.
As discussed in Climate at a Glance: Temperatures, contrary to NOAA’s claim that temperatures are rising rapidly, thermometer readings in the United States report current temperatures are similar to the temperatures recorded 80 years ago. Also, NOAA’s own U.S. Climate Reference Network, an extremely accurate network of temperature stations throughout the United States requiring no corrective adjustments, shows no significant warming has occurred in the United States since it was established in 2005.
Data from the IPCC and NOAA also demonstrate there has been no measurable increase in the number or severity of droughts, hurricanes or floods, since the early part of the 19th century. Also, data from the IPCC and NOAA show the incidences of heatwaves [see the figure below] and wildfires in the United States and globally have actually declined during the recent period of modest warming.
Had CBS compared the publicly available data against the alarming soundbites contained in the Biden administration’s new U.S. Climate Normals report, it could have easily discovered the report misrepresents what data show. A news organization committed to pursuing the truth, wherever it leads, would have looked beneath the surface of the report at the underlying data. Such an investigation would have revealed temperatures aren’t rising unnaturally, and weather extremes aren’t increasing.
That’s the good news CBS should have reported.
H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. is managing editor of Environment & Climate News and a research fellow for environment and energy policy at The Heartland Institute. Burnett worked at the National Center for Policy Analysis for 18 years, most recently as a senior fellow in charge of NCPA’s environmental policy program. He has held various positions in professional and public policy organizations, including serving as a member of the Environment and Natural Resources Task Force in the Texas Comptroller’s e-Texas commission.
Telegraph’s Global Security Correspondents Claim No Trade Off Between Lockdowns and the Economy
By Will Jones • Lockdown Sceptics • May 12, 2021
The Telegraph‘s Global Health Security correspondents Paul Nuki and Sarah Newey claimed this morning that there is “no trade off” between the economy and public health when it comes to COVID-19 and lockdowns.
Writing in the newspaper, the correspondents (whose coverage is partly funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) write that the “‘health v economy’ trade-off” is “false” because “countries where the virus was swiftly contained – such as Vietnam – have seen less economic damage, plus far fewer deaths”.
This claim, based on one country, fails to acknowledge that the entire South East Asian region, regardless of the measures taken, has had a much milder experience of COVID-19 than some other parts of the world, particularly Europe and the Americas. Furthermore, while it may be true that Vietnam’s early border closures produced better outcomes (there is some evidence of this), that bird has well and truly flown for most of the world so the example of Vietnam is now irrelevant as far as this pandemic is concerned.
Perhaps, though, they have a future pandemic in mind. In fact, the peer-reviewed evidence is that lockdowns have no impact on the epidemic death toll (although it’s worth noting that Vietnam, which Nuki and Newey hold up as an example we should follow in future, has never imposed a full, country-wide lockdown). It’s also not clear how countries which close their borders to an endemic virus can ever hope to open them again – a problem Vietnam is currently experiencing. Vietnam is also not exactly an international global hub.
The article is part the Global Health Security team’s promotion of an agenda to give the World Health Organisation more funding and more power to declare pandemics faster and be more proactive in ensuring compliance amongst states with public health edicts. They note approvingly that the pandemic has “thrust health to the centre stage, and may be an opportunity to promote a ‘green and healthy recovery’”. They appear to like the idea of a fast-acting global government imposing lockdowns so we can all be like Vietnam and “contain” the virus quickly, supposedly without suffering economic damage despite the vast disruption to the global economy this would bring.
Nuki and Newey highlight the problem of “viral misinformation” as one of 13 “mistakes” made early in the pandemic, though they blame the internet and social media rather than the WHO, despite its part in promoting myths about the virus such as that it doesn’t spread between humans and it doesn’t spread via aerosols.
But are Nuki and Newey engaging in disseminating misinformation of their own, making the bizarre claim that public health containment strategies have no trade-off with the economy based on a single unrepresentative country? When the U.K. economy shrank by a record 9.9% in 2020, this claim is frankly ridiculous and such claims are at odds with the Telegraph’s overall coverage of the way different countries have managed the pandemic, which has been quite balanced. Should the paper really be allowing a team of journalists whose work is partly funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to use its platform to promote an agenda of enhanced global control in the name of public health?
Featured Video
AIDS Inc. by Gary Null (2007)
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Clash of Civilization, Iran Part II
By Jamal Kanj – Intifada-Palestine.com – January 14, 2011
Israel’s survival kit is: perpetuate conflict, insecurity to rationalize collective hate and finally playing victim.
Devoid of conflict, Israel implodes internally; without hate, Zionism loses its justification; and playing eternal victim to continue blackmailing the West. Absence of this holy trinity, Israel ceases to exist.
From its inception, the house of Zion has mastered exploiting adversarial powers to advance Israel’s cause. For instance, their influence over the Democratic Party in the US began with President Truman’s bid for 2nd term election in 1948.
Responding to strong opposition from Secretary of State General George Marshall and Department experts urging against recognition of Israel, President Truman replied: “I’m sorry gentlemen but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands [Jewish voters] who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of [voting] Arabs among my constituents”
Zionists influence over liberal American politics was matched with the doctrinal school of Conservative theoreticians aligning the Republican Party’s platform with Israel’s objectives. The Neoconservative Zionists, coined Zioncons, invented the “Clash of Civilization” concept to fight Israel’s wars. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Merck Virologists Admitted to Falsely Certifying Vaccine Efficacy
- Mandatory Folic Acid for every man, woman & child
- Pro-Palestine protesters arrested outside UK’s ruling Labour Conference in Liverpool
- Mauritius denies landing permit to flight from Israel, forcing cancellation: Tour operator
- Israeli finance minister calls for genocidal war on West Bank, annexation of south Lebanon
- 12 Things Your Psychiatrist Was Trained Not to Tell You
- From Unipolar Universalism to Multipolar Civilizational Distinctiveness
- RSF military group defects, joins Sudanese army: State media
- Ireland goalkeeper refuses to play ‘Israel’ as squad weighs boycott
- China pushes back against US on Cuba, Iran
- If Americans Knew
- Israel forces Gazans to live in constant peril – Daily Update
- Deconstructing Netanyahu’s pants-on-fire UN rant – Daily Update
- 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
- 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
