Dr. Trozzi to appeal after College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario revokes his licence
PRESS RELEASE | January 25, 2024
The Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal issued a penalty decision today revoking Dr. Mark’s Trozzi‘s medical licence after ruling in October that he had committed acts of professional misconduct by spreading misinformation about Covid-19 science and making statements critical of Covid-19 public health policies and recommendations. Through his counsel, Michael Alexander, Dr. Trozzi announced today that he will exercise his statutory right to appeal the decision to the Ontario Divisional Court.
In reaching its decision, the Tribunal rejected Supreme Court cases, dating from 1939, which hold that Canadians enjoy an absolute constitutional right to express minority opinions on any subject. This allowed the Tribunal to rule that the College has a right to regulate the expression of its members in the name of the public interest.
The Tribunal’s ruling also rested on the prior discipline hearing decision, where the Tribunal found that Dr. Trozzi had caused harm by spreading misinformation, even though expert witnesses for the College failed to tender evidence that Dr. Trozzi’s statements had caused harm to a patient or a member of the public.
In support of its ruling, the Tribunal also rejected a 41-page report Dr. Trozzi submitted in 2021 in which he defended himself against the College’s initial allegations, citing 29 references from mainstream sources such as Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, Public Health Ontario and Statistics Canada. This was done without mentioning that the College’s main expert witness, Dr. Andrew Gardam, had admitted on cross-examination during the discipline hearing that he had never attempted to refute the Trozzi report.
When the pandemic was on the horizon in 2020, Dr. Trozzi, a university professor and 25-year ER veteran, played a leading role in preparing his own ER facility to deal with Covid patients. However, while the press was reporting in late 2020 that ER rooms were overwhelmed, Dr. Trozzi’s ER room was virtually empty. Wondering how this could be, Dr. Trozzi called colleagues around Canada and the U.S. to inquire about their experiences and learned that their ER rooms were empty too.
As a result, Dr. Trozzi began to study Covid-19 science rigorously and soon discovered the government’s narrative regarding the virus was deeply flawed. He then quit his job and devoted himself full-time to exploring the truth about all things Covid on a dedicated site. When a scientist friendly to the government’s narrative alerted the College of Physicians to the site and Dr. Trozzi’s heretical views, the College launched an investigation that resulted in his prosecution for professional misconduct.
Dr. Trozzi’s registration history: no disciplinary issues in 20+ years of medicine since his start Jun. 22, 1990. Issues only began when he, like any other doctors during Covid, spoke out against the unscientific Covid and “vaccine” mandates and, ironically, by continuing to follow the CPSO’s own guidelines prior to Covid, including giving patients informed consent for any medical treatments.Alexander commented: “Since Dr. Trozzi’s right to appeal to the Divisional Court is based on a statute, the Court will be required to employ the highest standard of review on all legal issues, and that standard is correctness. In other words, the Court will have to determine whether the Tribunal got the right answer on every key legal issue; and where it does not, the Court will be required to correct the Tribunal’s reasoning. The College has never had to face a fundamental challenge to its authority on this basis.”
He added: “On correctness review, it will be very hard for the College to justify its initial decision to investigate Dr. Trozzi. Under the legislation, the College must have reasonable and probable grounds, which is the criminal standard, for believing that a member has committed an offence before it can launch an investigation. However, in its orders, the College did not describe any evidence to support the probable belief that Dr. Trozzi had done something wrong, and even failed to cite a specific offence. The appeal should succeed on this point alone.”
Finally: “The Court of Appeal’s recent decision to refuse to hear Jordan Peterson’s case does not mean, as some have speculated, that freedom of expression is dead in Ontario. The Peterson case turned on the issue of whether the College of Psychologists could regulate the form of Dr. Peterson’s expression, not its content. In Trozzi, the Divisional Court must decide whether to recognize the right of every citizen to express an alternative opinion, even if it offends censorious bureaucrats.”
To support Dr. Trozzi, DONATE HERE.
BY DR GARY SIDLEY | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | JANUARY 17, 2024
Like those famous Japanese soldiers still fighting World War II on a remote island decades after everyone else had ended hostilities, a minority of healthcare settings in the U.K. enter 2024 with local managers attempting to insist that visitors and patients wear “face coverings” into a fourth consecutive year. For allowing the dogged persistence of this superstitious practice we can thank the U.K. Health Security Agency (UKHSA), despite the fact its own boss, Dame Jenny Harries, made a series of incredible admissions about the value of masking at the recent Covid Inquiry. There was no solid proof masks ever slowed the spread of Covid, Harries explained. The advice to the public to make their own “face coverings” was “ineffective”. Worst of all, by creating a false sense of security, masking may have actually made things worse, she said. Of course, if you’d been paying attention, you’d know Harries was really just coming full circle.
On March 11th 2020, in her previous role as Deputy Chief Medical Officer for England, less than two weeks before the first lockdown Harries was telling the public in a televised interview with then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson that “for the average member of the public” masks “are really not a good idea… people can put themselves at more risk than less… you can actually trap the virus in the mask and start breathing it in”. Harris was far from alone in dismissing the value of mask-wearing, of course, because in the early spring of 2020 the public health experts spoke with one tongue. “In terms of wearing a mask, our advice is clear: that wearing a mask if you don’t have an infection reduces the risk almost not at all. So we do not advise that,” Professor Chris Whitty, England’s Chief Medical Officer, had told Sky News on March 4th. “We do not recommend masks for general wearing,” echoed England’s Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Professor Jonathan Van Tam, on April 3rd. On the same day, Professor Jason Leitch, Scotland’s Clinical Director said, “the global evidence is masks in the general population don’t work”.
The experts were so clearly united in their anti-mask stance that, around this time, the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) banned the advertisements of two companies because of spurious claims that their face coverings would protect against coronavirus. The intervention by the ASA won the unequivocal support of NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis who said, “callous firms looking to maximise profits by pushing products that fly in the face of official advice is outright dangerous and has rightly been banned”.
On April 16th, then-Transport Secretary Grant Shapps had told ITV that wearing masks would be “counterproductive… the suggestions people would make their own masks; whether it’s clothing and that sort of thing which doesn’t really provide that much protection. Secondly, the way people take it off can sometimes do the reinfection [sic]. Thirdly, it can provide a false sense of security”. But only 49 days later, on June 4th 2020, Shapps announced that “face coverings – not surgical masks – the kind of face covering you can easily make at home” – would be compulsory on public transport from June 15th, on pain of fines of up to £100. A day later, Government announced that, effective June 15th, staff would be required to wear surgical masks – and visitors and outpatients “face coverings” – in all NHS hospitals, a state of affairs that would persist by law for almost two entire years.
Some may argue that, as there is no longer a legal requirement, there is therefore no problem. But there is no shortage of commentators periodically agitating to make the practice a legal requirement again. And in any case, healthcare settings see us at our most vulnerable. Why should we even be asked to live out an intrusive, dehumanising charade? Especially off the back of two years of state-driven hysteria and an unprecedentedly draconian global restriction regime that achieved the grimmest of logical conclusions when one victim, Stephanie Warriner, was choked to death by hospital guards for the ‘crime’ of wearing a mask too low on her face.
It has long been recognised that masks achieve no appreciable reduction in the transmission of respiratory viruses. We knew this in 2015-16 with regard to surgeons and their patients (here and here). We knew this in 2020 from a gold-standard Cochrane review, an analysis of 14 studies on influenza and a healthcare investigation that concluded that masks “may paradoxically lead to more transmissions”. The amount of robust evidence pointing to the ineffectiveness of face coverings has only increased since this time, culminating in the 2023 Cochrane review. On healthcare settings specifically, a study in April 2023 concluded that mask requirements in a large London hospital made “no discernible difference” to Covid transmission rates. UKHSA guidance acknowledges that the evidence of the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions (including masks) is “weak” and “would be graded as low or very low certainty”. Even when masks were legally required in healthcare settings, no quality standard was ever specified – we were asked to swallow the absurdity that strapping any old bit of rag to our faces was to ‘Follow the Science’. Refer to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and you will find that even surgical masks are not regarded as personal protective equipment (PPE) under the European Directive 89/686/EEC (PPE Regulation 2002 SI 2002 No. 1144). HSE notes that surgical masks “are normally worn during medical procedures to protect not only the patient but also the healthcare worker from the transfer of microorganisms, body fluids and particulate matter generated from any splash and splatter. Whilst they will provide a physical barrier to large projected droplets, they do not provide full respiratory protection against smaller suspended droplets and aerosols”.
Even leaving aside Harries’s now repeated suggestions that masks can cause more harm than good when it comes to Covid, health is of course about much more than attempting to avoid one virus, and masking has never been a benign intervention.
Routine masking, particularly for long periods of time, is increasingly recognised to be associated with a wide range of physical, psychological and social harms (see here for an overview). A recent research study highlighted the potential risks of elevated carbon dioxide levels associated with long-term mask wearing, particularly for children, adolescents and pregnant mothers.
Then there are the human costs of routine masking in healthcare settings: the exclusion of the hard-of-hearing; the re-traumatising of the historically abused; the increased risk of falls in the elderly; the exacerbation of confusion in the already confused; the aggravation of the autistic, anxious and panic-prone; the marginalisation of already stigmatised groups; and the impediment to the goal of soothing the frightened child or suicidal teenager. Faceless interactions impede the development of healing relationships. Humane healthcare, delivered with demonstrable warmth and compassion, will always be more effective than the robotic version emitted by a faceless professional hidden behind a veneer of sterility.
But patients in healthcare settings aren’t the only victims of the mask farce. Respect for institutional science has rightly taken a knock as well, as Peter Horby, Professor of Emerging Infectious Diseases and Global Health at the University of Oxford, conveyed to the Covid Inquiry. During peak Covid, Horby chaired NERVTAG, a high-profile group of scientific experts who routinely provided advice to SAGE. Appearing before the Inquiry on October 18th 2023, he confirmed that “NERVTAG had looked at the issues of face masks in the past… and had taken quite a stringent scientific view that the highest quality evidence is randomised controlled trials… and those data were fairly clear… that the evidence was weak. And we maintained that position on how we saw the evidence, focusing on the data from randomised controlled trials.”
Lady Hallett (the less-than impartial Chair of the inquiry) interrupted, saying, “I’m sorry, I’m not following, Sir Peter. If there’s a possible benefit, what’s the downside?”
“The downside is that you are making a population-wide recommendation based on weak evidence which may weaken trust in your scientific independence and integrity,” Horby replied.
Why would scientists and public health experts risk this very obvious downside? The most obvious explanation is that forcing the public to wear masks was a highly visible way to be seen to be ‘doing something’ that came with at least a couple of attractive bonuses to politicians and bureaucrats. One, the practice had superficial ‘gut feel’ appeal to the layperson – if you didn’t think about it very much, and never looked at the evidence, masking felt like it should work. Two, as with most of the non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) it shifted blame for Covid impacts away from the state and health service and onto individuals. ‘Rule breakers’ among the public – now easily identifiable by sight – made for convenient folk devils and scapegoats.
On June 1st 2022, in a letter co-signed by the same Professor Stephen Powis who had been so withering about “callous firms” promoting face masks to stop the spread of Covid, new guidance from NHS England – referencing “updates from UKHSA” – effectively passed the buck for masking down to local healthcare managers, amid general talk of “transitioning back” to pre-Covid policies.
At the time, the Smile Free campaign wrote:
Two years after the imposition of masking in English hospitals, it is most regrettable that NHS England and the authors of this latest guidance could not simply have signalled a clean break and consigned this unprecedented, poorly evidenced and ultimately failed policy to history. Since they have chosen not to, by far the most likely outcome is that masking in English hospitals will now become a ‘postcode lottery’ based on the whims of local staff.
In an open letter co-signed by over 2,200 doctors, scientists and healthcare professionals in summer 2022, we had called on the NHS Chief Executives in each of the home nations to revise the guidance for doctors, nurses and other health professionals with immediate effect, leaving the individual – whether a professional or service user – to decide whether he or she wanted to wear a mask or not, thereby bringing healthcare into line with other community settings. But with the Government having terrified the public with lurid fear campaigns, advised gravely that masks would “keep everyone safe” and endorsed this claim with the law and eye-watering fines of up to £3,200 for non-compliance, perhaps we should not be surprised that simply pulling the comfort blanket away again was rather too rich for the NHS’s blood.
A reply, dated October 4th 2022, from Dame Ruth May, Chief Nursing Office and national lead for infection control at NHS England, justified current mask advice to hospitals with a computer modelling report linked to Professor Neil Ferguson’s Imperial College that by its own admission was “highly uncertain”. We were startled to find the report was also literally labelled “Should not be used to inform clinical practice” on page one.
Despite masks never having actually gone away in many healthcare settings, the following day, news outlets were reporting the “return of the mask”. Between the Mail and Sun’s accounts, eight different NHS Trusts were reintroducing a range of measures, prominent among which were mask “requirements” for patients and visitors.
In all cases, these measures were apparently being introduced as a result of “Covid’s resurgence” with “surveillance data suggesting Covid is on the rise in England”.
Were those trusts imposing mask “requirements” in areas of above-average Covid prevalence? It appears not; there was no discernible pattern and, in fact, glaring contradictions. For example, Barnsley, with continuing significant restrictions, had a catchment area with the lowest daily new cases per 100,000 people; while Swindon and surrounding areas, served by the Great Western Trust that had reduced its mask restrictions, had the highest rate.
In investigating one trust, ESNEFT, the 10,000 patients reportedly seen every day were still being subjected to “safety theatre” going into a third year of the Covid saga, seemingly driven by a very small and unaccountable infection control team, if not in reality the whims of one man.
Even into autumn 2023, ESNEFT’s website giving advice for visitors to wards and to Accident & Emergency still states that people are required to wear “surgical face masks covering their nose and mouth” where there is a “high-risk of transmission of contagious respiratory infection” or if clinical staff ask them to wear one.
On September 26th 2023 the Smile Free campaign submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to ESNEFT, seeking three pieces of information:
ESNEFT replied a month later, saying that it “does not have access” to any data related to Covid case numbers within its locality. Obviously, this raises the question as to how its staff ever knew whether ‘Covid cases’ were increasing, decreasing or staying flat? It further raises the question as to how they were ever able to make any decisions on mandating, or even recommending, the wearing of face coverings as ‘protection’ against a respiratory virus? It also throws into doubt ESNEFT’s operational competence. ESNEFT also claims that, as it hasn’t operated a “universal mandate” since May 2023, it doesn’t have a risk assessment. ESNEFT never answered the final question, concerning the most recent date at which it conducted a risk assessment. Should we conclude it has never done one?
In response to a similar FOI request around the same time, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, which had reintroduced masking “requirements”, told us it doesn’t “hold the data for regional/community Covid data”, nor “a formal risk assessment” that would justify reintroduction of mask-wearing. In fact, it doesn’t have any “formal risk assessment” used to justify the mandating of masks at all, from any time. Instead it claims it has “a trust-wide expert group which reviews and agrees all actions required depending on the Covid prevalence level which includes the wearing of COVID-19 face masks”. In other words, unilateral decisions are made by a group of staff who don’t feel it necessary to follow the prescribed decision-making processes within their organisation (the NHS) and who don’t record their findings and document them in any formal way. We therefore followed up, asking for the roles of the individuals in this group. At time of writing, the trust had not provided an answer despite being long overdue based on FOI requirements.
In a second open letter in summer 2023, this time co-signed by over 2,500 doctors, scientists and healthcare professionals and 7,500 members of the public, we called on the NHS Chief Executives to immediately issue clear new guidance explicitly discouraging any routine requirement for staff, patients or visitors to cover their faces in healthcare settings.
This time, NHS England’s Dame Ruth May specifically referenced UKHSA guidance as the reason for the ongoing “postcode lottery”, stating “the current UKHSA guidance… sets out that in health and care settings, non-pharmaceutical interventions (such as mask wearing and enhanced ventilation) may be used, depending on local prevalence and risk assessment, with the aim to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2”. It is interesting that “local prevalence and risk assessment” should be emphasised as the key considerations, since our investigations show hospitals unable to provide any evidence of increased local prevalence, nor risk assessments, to underpin their arbitrary decisions.
On November 2nd 2023, a few weeks before Harries’s appearance at the Covid Inquiry, we wrote an open letter to her at UKHSA asking her to explain the discrepancy between UKHSA’s current guidance, which, while broadly recommending a return to pre-pandemic normality, continues to allow re-imposition of masks where there is a local appetite for it, and its recent literature review, which concluded the evidence for masks reducing viral transmission was, at best, very weak.
We asked Harries to immediately update UKHSA guidance so as to:
At time of writing, we still await a reply – though we note that via her Covid Inquiry testimony Harries has clearly conceded point one above, and identified one extremely significant harm – the false sense of security engendered by masking – from point two.
In everyday life, it only makes sense to initiate a new action if we are reasonably confident it will not result in more harms than benefits. The importance of this notion is amplified manyfold when it is powerful actors – politicians and their public health experts – forcing the change on their citizens. The ‘Precautionary Principle‘ in its original form endorsed this important rule and complemented the Hippocratic oath of our medical doctors to “first do no harm”. Yet throughout the Covid saga we have witnessed a total disregard for this principle with the imposition of a series of non-evidenced restrictions, driven more by politics than science, where the resulting collateral damage – to both the public and to the reputation of medicine and institutional science – has dwarfed any benefits. A prominent example of such absurdity has been the mask requirement in community settings.
Dr. Gary Sidley is a retired NHS Consultant Clinical Psychologist and co-founder of the Smile Free campaign opposed to mask mandates.
By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | January 24, 2024
Four national institutions have failed to model the 2050 energy system correctly, and all of them in ways that lead to understatement of the costs of Net Zero.
Over the weekend, the Sunday Telegraph reported that the Climate Change Committee has got its energy system modelling wrong. The revelation was made by Sir Christopher Llewellyn Smith, the lead author of the recent Royal Society report on electricity storage, in remarks made at a seminar at Oxford.
According to Sir Christopher, the Climate Change Committee’s estimates of the costs of Net Zero are fundamentally flawed because they have only modelled isolated years. As he pointed out in the seminar, low-wind years can happen back to back, which means that the Climate Change Committee need twice as much storage capacity as they thought. As a result, they have underestimated the costs.
However, the Sunday Telegraph didn’t mention that it’s not just the Climate Change Committee that has made this mistake. In the same seminar, Sir Christopher pointed out that the National Infrastructure Commission has done the same thing, despite being warned of the problem of clusters of low-wind years. So they too will have underestimated the costs.
The National Infrastructure Assessment… is also based on one year…they were told by the Met Office ‘you can get extreme events’…it’s not enough to look at one. They looked at one, so they got the answer wrong. The Met Office are really angry, because they told them ‘don’t do it’, but they did it.
I can also reveal that National Grid ESO, in its Future Energy Scenarios, has done the same thing. I wrote to the NGESO team to ask how they did things, and was told that their models are prepared using weather conditions in 2013, which they describe as an “average year”. They are starting to run tests against low-wind conditions (so-called ‘dunkelflautes’), but back-to-back wind droughts don’t seem to be on their radar yet:
The generation provided from renewables, as well as the demand profile, is typically based on an average weather year (2013).
For FES23, we also conducted an initial piece of analysis looking at abnormal weather conditions (resulting in abnormal supply and demand patterns), the results of which can be found in our FES23 publication under the title Dunkelflaute Period. We took a period of extreme weather, in this case between Jan-Feb 1985, and applied it to our Consumer Transformation scenario in 2050, to look at how the system would respond to a sustained period low renewable output…
We are planning on looking at abnormal supply and exceptional demand in more detail going forward as well as the effects of more extreme weather.
That means that they too will have underestimated the cost of Net Zero.
The Royal Society is to be congratulated for clarifying the problem. However, it turns out that their own modelling is fundamentally flawed too. That’s because, while they model 37 years of different wind speeds, they assume that electricity demand is always the same. Sir Christopher has admitted that this is not correct, in a podcast broadcast last year. As he put it then:
And now I confess something that is a bit of a weakness in our report. We’ve got this model of one year of demand… based in the weather in 2018…We simply repeat that 37 times.
This is clearly wrong, because in 2050 it is imagined that we will all heat our homes with electric heat pumps. Electricity demand will therefore be much higher in cold years than in mild ones, and if we have back to back cold years, we are going to need much more storage.
So, four well funded national institutions have failed to model the 2050 correctly, and all of them in ways that low-balls the cost of Net Zero. That’s a remarkable coincidence, and one that should probably raise alarm bells about the extent of the rot in the British establishment.
BY CHRIS MORRISON | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | JANUARY 24, 2024
In October the Daily Sceptic reported on a paper written for the Royal Society led by Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith of Oxford University that concluded batteries were not the answer to the huge storage requirements of intermittent ‘green’ electricity power. Despite the prestigious academic fire power on parade, the paper died a death in the popular prints, presumably because of its unwelcome message about the much-touted battery solution. But recent revelations suggest the report could act as a loose thread that helps unravel the collectivist Net Zero agenda in the U.K. The Royal Society analysed decades of local wind speeds and found the electricity system needed the equivalent of at least a third of green energy to be stored as backup. Such a cost would be astronomical. Now it appears that the Government’s Climate Change Committee (CCC) fudged the issue by using just one year of high wind data in persuading Members of Parliament in 2019 to donkey-nod through Theresa May’s insane legislative rush to Net Zero by 2050.
Sir Chris’s report showed that wind could fall away for days at a time during periods of intense cold dominated by high atmospheric pressure. It also found wind speeds varied between years, all of which is in fact known and has been studied widely by other scientists. The Telegraph has reported on remarks made by Sir Chris after the paper was published in which he noted that the CCC has “conceded privately” that reliance on one year’s data was a “mistake”. It appears that the information given to MPs committing to 2050 Net Zero assumed there would be just seven days when wind turbines would produce less than 10% of their potential electricity output. According to Net Zero Watch that compares with 30 such days in 2020, 33 in 2019 and 56 in 2018.
In reporting that the CCC has conceded the “mistake”, the Telegraph noted that Sir Chris said the committee was still saying it doesn’t differ much from Sir Chris’s calculations. “Well that’s not quite true,” observed the Oxford Emeritus Professor. Asked by the newspaper if it disputed the account of Sir Chris, a CCC spokesman said it had “nothing further to add”.
Of course the ‘Noble Lie’ that Net Zero must be foisted on an unwilling population whatever the economic and societal cost will need to be preserved. Nothing to see here, move along please, is likely to guide most mainstream media in covering these latest revelations. The investigative science and Net Zero writer Paul Homewood is less inclined to ignore the serious matter. “It is now clear that Parliament authorised Net Zero without any proper assessment, whether financial or energy, and the whole Net Zero legislation must now be suspended until a full independent assessment is carried out.” He goes further and states that current and past members of the CCC must be held to account, and “excluded from any further influence over the country’s energy policy, or indeed on any issue of public policy”.
In general, nobody wants to talk about the lack of wind and solar backup, so there is a widespread pretence that the problem will somehow be solved in the future. But having dismissed any role for batteries, the Royal Society suggested hydrogen as a solution, an idea, alas, only slightly less dumb than batteries. Highly explosive, low kinetic energy compared with hydrocarbons, expensive to produce, difficult to store and move around – the disadvantages are all too obvious. Francis Menton of the Manhattan Contrarian saw the report as an “enormous improvement” on every other effort on the subject of large scale energy storage systems. But in the end, the authors still have a “quasi-religious commitment” to a fossil-free future, and this means that the report, despite containing much valuable information, “is actually useless for any public policy purpose”.
What is becoming clear is the level of statistical deception that is practised across climate science and the promotion of Net Zero. Surface temperature measurements are frequently adjusted upwards on a retrospective basis despite ignoring growing urban heat corruptions, activists use computer models to run up garbage-in, garbage-out scares on an almost daily basis, and bad weather is deliberately confused with long-term climate to suggest the latter is changing due to human caused carbon dioxide. All lapped up without a critical word between them by members of the mainstream media increasingly funded by elite billionaires.
The donkey-nodding politicians and the poodle media often hide behind the notion that they are just following the ‘science’. There is no such thing as the ‘science’, settled or otherwise, just the ongoing scientific process. The distinguished scientist and Nobel laureate Richard Feynman captured the integrity of the process when he wrote: “If you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid – not only what you think is right about it. … Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them.”
Renewable energy is not a low-cost substitute for fossil fuels, notes a forward in Rupert Darwall’s recently published report on Net Zero and Britain’s “disastrous” energy policies. High and rising energy costs have locked Britain into economic decline, a suggestion given weight by last week’s savage destruction of the steel economy of Port Talbot. Renewables are not cheap, nor can they provide the reliability that modern societies expect and on which they depend. His report is said to convincingly demonstrate “how Britain was conned into Net Zero by deceptive and illusory promises of cheap wind power”.
The CCC is a dedicated green activist group that sits at the heart of U.K. Government. It is a pernicious, untrustworthy force in British politics giving cover to policies that will lead to de-industrialisation and massive changes in future lifestyle including restriction on diet, transport and personal freedoms.
Here’s hoping the wind scandal blows the damn thing away.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
How the Loss of One Career Fueled the Spectacular Rise of Another
2018 interview with Dr. Paul Marik
By Justus R. Hope | Repurposed Drugs: Powers & Possibilities | January 14, 2024
Someone once said that if you fail to adapt to a changing environment, you can quickly become extinct. However, if Dr. Paul Marik is anything, he is resourceful, and adapts quickly.
Dr. Paul E. Marik, the beloved Professor and Chairman of the Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at the Eastern Virginia University School of Medicine, courageously stood up for saving lives at the cost of his career.
Long a trailblazer in the use of repurposed drugs against life-threatening diseases like Sepsis, Dr. Marik published his studies on IV Vitamin C and its profound benefit in Sepsis patients.
Like Dr. Linus Pauling before him, Dr. Marik found that Vitamin C could be repurposed to great effect against a variety of diseases. Both scientists are known as out-of-the box and brilliant thinkers. Both changed the world. And both men stood strong for their beliefs despite existential career attacks.
Pauling’s book, The Nature of the Chemical Bond, is considered “chemistry’s most influential book of this century and its effective bible“.
In the three decades following its publication, it was cited more than 16,000 times and continues to be the foundational work on chemical bonds.
While a rising science star early in his career, he formed an association with Dr. Robert Oppenheimer on their joint research. This unfortunately ended abruptly after Oppenheimer made a pass at his wife Ava Helen Pauling, while Pauling was away. Oppenheimer invited her to join him on a tryst in Mexico. Ava declined and immediately reported this to Linus.
Dr. Linus Pauling is one of only five in history to win two Nobel Prizes, one for Chemistry in 1954 and the other as a Peace Prize in 1962 for his anti-war activism.
However, because of his activist passion to save lives, Dr. Pauling was ousted from his position at Caltech – The California Institute of Technology – for political reasons.
In 1958, the Caltech Board of Trustees asked him to resign his position as Chairman of the Chemistry and Chemical Engineering Division. Some 30 years later they would reverse themselves and forever honor Pauling.
Dr. Paul Marik has enjoyed his reputation as the “most published and influential clinician/researcher in critical care medicine in the United States” and for good reason. Dr. Marik is a giant in the academic research world with an H-Index of 111, which placed him in the top percentile of the world’s elite published physicians.
His IV Vitamin C protocol known as HAT garnered massive attention with more than 1100 anecdotes from physicians around the world noting similar almost miraculous results in their septic shock patients.
“The mortality reduction Paul achieved in sepsis patients was an absolute risk reduction of 32% in his study, and then his hospital observed a 16% absolute risk reduction across the entire hospital (but his protocol was used in only one unit).”
After the Pandemic struck, Dr. Marik wrote to the WHO, Dr. Fauci, the head of the NIH, the head of New York City’s Department of Health, and the Health Minister in Lombardy, Italy about his new repurposed drug COVID protocol – pre-Ivermectin – involving Vitamin C, Quercetin, Zinc and Melatonin. He explained that lives could be saved by offering this to patients immediately. Marik wrote in his letter,
“Dr. Fauci and others are promoting the idea of performing randomized controlled trials (RCTs). I believe that it is unethical to do such trials. How can you offer patients a placebo when testing a drug that you believe may have clinical efficacy? Every patient needs to get the best treatment we can offer; we could expect no less for our loved ones. Furthermore, once these trials are eventually completed we will all be dead, or the pandemic will be over! This does not mean we should not be studying the impact of these interventions; detailed observational studies can provide useful information.”
Similar to Dr. Pauling’s cry for nuclear arms de-escalation, instead of persuading officials, all Dr. Marik’s letter did was paint a bright red bullseye on his forehead. They viewed him as an obstacle to their agenda which in both cases did not involve the good of humanity.
The powers that be had already decided upon deploying a vaccine under emergency use authorization. Allowing Dr. Marik to save his Eastern Virginia University Hospital ICU patients with Ivermectin would have spelled the end of that vaccine emergency use approval. So, in a politically and economically motivated assault, Dr. Marik was forced out of his position and career. To add further insult, he was pressured to resign his medical license.
As Dr. Pauling so keenly observed decades ago,
“There is, of course, always a threat to academic freedom – as there is to the other aspects of the freedom and rights of the individual, in the continued attacks which are made on this freedom, these rights, by the selfish, the overly ambitious, the misguided, the unscrupulous, who seek to oppress the great body of mankind in order that they themselves may profit – and we must always be on the alert against this threat, and must fight it with vigor when it becomes dangerous.”
A lesser man might have given up. But not Dr. Marik. Despite facing financial, personal and professional ruin, Dr. Marik focused not on himself, but on others. With laser-like intensity, Dr. Marik found his footing on what mattered most to him, saving the lives of others.
And with that fateful decision, the great Dr. Paul E. Marik made history by researching and publishing the solution for cancer, a riddle that has eluded almost all of even the greatest scientists who preceded him.
Dr. Paul Marik, who had been plunged into the deepest depths of despair, came roaring back with a purpose driven by divine inspiration. And now millions of lives are better for it.
We can all learn from the similarities to Dr. Pauling, and how his later life unfolded. Pauling’s genius led him to discover not only the secrets of ionic and covalent bonds between atoms, but the beneficial effects of various vitamins and amino acids on diseases like cancer.
Pauling, who was afflicted with Bright’s Disease – a kidney condition – at age 40, found an unorthodox but effective way to treat himself using 3 grams per day of Vitamin C. However, this use of repurposed vitamins threatened the status quo, and was vehemently denounced as “quackery.” Dr. Marik has found himself similarly attacked by various monied interests.
Dr. Pierre Kory writes colorfully about Marik’s experience in his book, The War on Ivermectin, which is required reading for anyone who cares about the truth. While Pauling found that Vitamin C was friendly to his diseased kidneys, Marik observed that far fewer IVC treated sepsis patients required dialysis because most recovered – to the great dismay of the hospital nephrologists whose income depended upon a steady stream supplying their dialysis clinics.
Pauling published two studies about a group of 100 terminally ill cancer patients where survival was increased by as much as four-fold compared to a similar group of controls.
Predictably, Pauling was heavily attacked. Yet in the end, with the help of his own 3 gram per day steady Vitamin C supplement use, he lived well and to the ripe old age of 93. His prolonged survival alone – in the face of Bright’s Disease -testifies as a monumental anecdote to the efficacy of his approach. Francis Crick hails Pauling as the “Father of Molecular Biology” while Nobel Laureate Peter Agre credits Pauling with inspiring him.
Caltech corrected their error in dismissing him by establishing a symposium and lectureship series in his name. The Pauling Lecture Series at Caltech began its first year in 1989 with a lecture by its namesake. Their chemistry department christened room 22 of Gates Hall as The Linus Pauling Lecture Hall.
Similarly, Dr. Marik has continued undeterred in his mission to save humanity. With unbridled passion, he researched the existing body of medical literature on cancer and repurposed drugs and published his masterpiece, Cancer Care, the most comprehensive book on the subject.
While reducing the mortality rate in sepsis by 32% is monumental, his Cancer Care work will likely reduce that disease’s mortality by even more. Cancer is now becoming the Number One cause of death in the United States, and with the recent acceleration of “Unexplained Deaths” and Turbo Cancers around the world, Marik’s work is even more vital.
His book has rapidly rose the ranks to Amazon Best Seller. And Dr. Marik is organizing a series of cancer-related medical conferences, the next in Arizona in February that attracts physicians and healthcare providers from a variety of backgrounds with the common denominator of a desire to save lives, not to be politically correct.
Dr. Paul Marik is now finding his voice and true calling in the second act of his life, just as Dr. Linus Pauling did after unlocking the secrets of the atom. Despite their obvious brilliance, both possess an even rarer commodity, that of an unswerving moral compass.
By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | January 22, 2024
Having set up the big lie about storms, by naming every passing low pressure system and only reporting wind speeds at high altitude and clifftop sites, the Met Office have now doubled down with the lie that storms in the UK are more intense, and it is due to climate change:
Yet the Met Office’s own State of the Climate Report last year was absolutely clear that storms are now less intense than in the 1980s and 90s:
Claire Nasir then compounds her error by talking about rainfall.
Despite the heatwave in June, rainfall for the summer as a whole was above average, as was spring. So where she got this idea of a rainfall deficit is a mystery.
Meanwhile, although autumn was wetter than average, it was a long way from being unusually so. To call it a shift between extremes is the sort of palpable nonsense we are so used now to hearing from the Met Office.
It is time that the Met Office’s climate change work was defunded, and the organisation returned to its proud tradition as a Meteorological Office.
On Treatments
Lies are Unbekoming | January 20, 2024
I’ve written a lot about the sins of childhood vaccination and the reasons to avoid their unnecessary, unsafe, and ineffective dangers.
What I haven’t written about is what to do when that unvaccinated child falls ill. Yes, they do still fall ill, but far less than poisoned children.
This stack aims to address that gap.
If you have decided to raise an unvaccinated child, you need to do a few things.
You should find a trusted alternative doctor, that is comfortable with high dose Vitamin C. As Larry Cook outlines in Section 9 of his free online course.
Find An Alternative Doctor Now
If you do not yet have an alternative doctor on your team, especially one who can give vitamin C IVs, I would like to encourage you to actively search one out before the need arises. High dose vitamin C IVs are extremely effective for all infectious diseases and other ailments as well. Plus, alternative doctors are going to have more treatment methods than just antibiotics.
You need to work at increasing your knowledge.
Parents of unvaccinated children need to work harder to obtain and maintain the knowledge that will allow them to be self-sufficient and independent (as much as possible) of establishment Cartel Medicine.
To that end, you should increase your Vitamin C knowledge.
I would also recommend that both parents do Larry Cook’s free online course.
Made up of the following parts:
1. Natural Immunity Versus Vaccination
2. What Really Saved Us From Disease?
3. Vaccine Efficacy Failure
4. Vaccine Safety Fraud
5. Vaccine “Science,” Cover-Up and Manipulation
6. Vaccine Injury Is Everywhere
7. A Healthy Family Is Your Child’s Best Defense
8. Don’t Panic When Your Child Gets Sick
9. The “Vaccine Preventable Illnesses” Explained
10. Staying Vaccine Free In A Hostile World
11. Vaccine Injury Treatment and Recovery
12. Join The Fight To End Medical Tyranny
An unvaccinated child is unlikely to end up with many ear infections but in case they do, here is a free eBook from Larry Cook.
You should also buy and read:
The Unvaccinated Child is an unparalleled naturopathic treatment guide for common childhood illnesses. Its style is reader friendly for parents without a medical background or for practitioners looking for treatment options to offer their patients. As children can contract many of the childhood illnesses regardless of vaccination status, this is a practical must-have book for any parent whether their child has or has not been vaccinated.
The Unvaccinated Child reviews the history of germs and how a child’s terrain is a better indicator of health or disease. The naturopathic foundations of health familiarize parents with the necessary steps to create long term health. The authors go through each childhood illness children are commonly vaccinated for and offer naturopathic treatments such as herbs, supplements, essential oils, homeopathy, hydrotherapy, nutrition, and physical medicine as tools to work through each illness. The book includes a compendium of naturopathic protocols with a complete how-to section, resources and references to arm readers with the means to effectively nurture children back to health.
Contact: vitalhealthpub@gmail.com
5.0 out of 5 stars Holy grail of knowledge!
This book is a must! If you don’t vaccinate, partially vaccinate or fully vaccinate this book can and will benefit you. There are treatments for diseases, when to seek help and what to look out for. There is a lot of great info in this book that I have added to my arsenal of homeopathic remedies! I feel more prepared and confident in treating something if it arises. – DHowell
They dedicate a chapter to each of the following childhood illnesses.
Chapter 8: Chickenpox (Varicella)
Chapter 9: Diphtheria
Chapter 10: Flu (Influenza)
Chapter 11: Hepatitis A
Chapter 12: Hepatitis B
Chapter 13: HiB (Haemophilus Influenzae type B)
Chapter 14: HPV (Human Papillomavirus)
Chapter 15: Measles
Chapter 16: Meningitis
Chapter 17: Mumps
Chapter 18: Pertussis
Chapter 19: Pneumonia (Pneumococcal)
Chapter 20: Polio
Chapter 21: Rota
Chapter 22: Rubella
Chapter 23: Tetanus
Finally, here is a summary of a range of the treatment modalities described in the book and some excerpts.
This book provides guidance on using natural remedies and treatments to support children’s health during times of illness. The remedies cover rest, diet, supplements, physical treatments, and environmental adjustments.
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | January 18, 2024
As the WHO and media attempt to keep the public in fear with the threat of an unknown disease, we breakdown what ‘disease X’ really symbolizes. Meanwhile, gain-of-function experiments continue to put humanity in great peril.
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | January 18, 2024
Del takes a deep dive on the newly approved RSV vaccine’s side effects on pregnant women. Using data straight from ABRYSVO’s own box insert for data, he highlights the increased risk of preterm birth and buffer ingredients such as polysorbate 80 and residual DNA from host cell proteins from Chinese hamster cell lines. Does this sound safe to you?
By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 18, 2024
The National Toxicology Program (NTP) has no plans to further study the effects of cellphone radiofrequency radiation (RFR) on human health — even though the program’s own $30 million study that took about 10 years to complete in 2018 reported evidence of cancer and DNA damage.
The NTP said in an updated January 2024 fact sheet that it was abandoning further investigation because “the research was technically challenging and more resource-intensive than expected.”
For decades, the NTP has been the premier governmental testing program for pharmaceuticals, chemicals and radiation, according to Devra Davis, Ph.D., MPH, a toxicologist and epidemiologist who served on the board of scientific counselors for the NTP when it was launched in the 1980s.
Commenting on the news, Davis said, “It is the ultimate arrogance and folly to stop doing research on this major growing environmental pollutant, precisely when we have ample evidence of harm.”
Davis has authored more than 200 peer-reviewed publications in books and journals, ranging from The Lancet to the Journal of the American Medical Association.
In February 2023, she and her colleagues published a review of more than 200 studies that linked wireless radiation to negative biological effects including oxidative stress and DNA damage, cardiomyopathy, carcinogenicity, sperm damage, memory damage and other neurological effects.
They will soon publish a “major new article” in Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development journal about “new science” on RFR and call for precaution, she said.
Davis — who also is the founding director of the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology of the U.S. National Research Council at the National Academy of Sciences and the founder and president of Environmental Health Trust — called out the U.S. government for failing to ensure that wireless radiation is safe:
“The government’s decision to stop funding research on cellphone radiation is consistent with the Chinese proverb ‘If you don’t want to know, don’t ask.’
“The US government has a variation of that in the policy of, ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ If you don’t want to know whether cell tower radiation is having a biological impact, stop doing the research!”
Miriam Eckenfels-Garcia, director of Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) and Wireless program, told The Defender :
“Discontinuing government-funded research because it is ‘technically challenging’ and ‘resource-intensive’ is not what we expect from government agencies that are supposed to protect people from the harms of big industry.
“This research is important so that people can make informed decisions when it comes to the use of technology.”
W. Scott McCollough, lead litigator for CHD’s EMR cases, agreed. “I am concerned that the absence of evidence will be contorted into a claim of evidence of absence.”
As of early last year, the NTP was still conducting RFR research. A February 2023 fact sheet said scientists had “overcome several technical issues” and developed a better system for exposing animals to RFR for their studies.
NTP said researchers were “now making progress” on four research goals:
In its January 2024 fact sheet, the NTP reported the researchers had “tested the new exposure system using in vivo rodent studies” and that their research was “complete.”
The NTP did not say whether the researchers had achieved those four research goals and, if so, what the results were. It did, however, make clear that its previous studies — which used 2G and 3G cellphones — “do not apply” to 4G or 5G technologies.
The Defender reached out to NTP’s press office for clarification about why the new fact sheet appears to contradict the NTP website (updated Jan. 8, 2024) on cellphone radiation research which says NTP still has “current research efforts,” however NTP did not respond by our publication deadline.
The NTP’s discontinuation of its RFR research suggests the U.S. government has no intention of studying the possible biological effects of 5G.
Meanwhile, researchers such as Davis continue to say there is reason for concern. Davis pointed out that infertility clinics ask men about their wireless devices and cellphone habits:
“They tell them to take these phones off their bodies and out of their pockets because there is evidence … where the greater the exposure, the lower the sperm count, and the poorer the sperm quality.
“This has been repeatedly shown in studies with human sperm done under controlled conditions, as well as cross-sectional studies.”
“In fact,” she added, “whether the government stops doing the research or not, there is a massive study underway because we have billions of people being exposed to ever-increasing levels of wireless radiation throughout the world. Millions of American children are exposed every day in classrooms.”
“The only problem is there is no control group anymore, which will make it difficult, but not impossible, to discern the impacts of wireless radiation,” Davis said.
What NTP’s 2018 study found
As The Defender previously reported, NTP researchers in 2018 concluded there was “clear evidence” that male rats exposed to high levels of RF similar to those emitted by 2G and 3G cellphones developed cancerous heart tumors, and “some evidence” of tumors in the brain and adrenal gland of exposed male rats.
Davis said NTP’s conclusions were consistent with and corroborated dozens of other studies. “It wasn’t like it [the NTP study] was a one-off study,” she said.
Once the word got out that the findings of the NTP study were positive — meaning the government researchers had found an association between cellphone radiation and the growth of cancerous tumors — the telecommunication industry “started its tactics” to suppress the findings, Davis said.
Davis has been researching those tactics for more than a decade. She is the author of “Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Is Doing to Hide It, and How to Protect Your Family.”
Instead of the NTP study report being released in 2016, when it was first ready, she said, the telecom industry exerted pressure to subject the study’s conclusions to an unprecedented level of scrutiny.
“When the first drafts began to circulate internally, it was elevated for a peer review unlike any that has ever been conducted in the history of the entire program — and I can say that with great certainty. No other compound or substance [studied by the NTP] has ever been subject to this level of peer review,” Davis said.
A panel of external scientific experts convened for a three-day review of the study and its conclusions in March 2018.
However, rather than downplaying the study’s conclusions, the experts concluded that the scientific evidence in the study was so strong they recommended the NTP reclassify some of its conclusions from “some evidence” to “clear evidence” of carcinogenic activity.
To date, more than 250 scientists — who together have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on the biologic and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produced by wireless devices, including cellphones — signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for health warnings and stronger exposure limits.
Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is a reporter and researcher for The Defender based in Fairfield, Iowa.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
The College is trying to punish Dr. Charles Hoffe for numerous 100% scientifically accurate statements on multiple aspects of Covid science.
Pierre Kory’s Medical Musings | January 18, 2024
Canadian community doctor Dr. Charles Hoffe was one of the first to notice something was “wrong” with the vaccines in April 2021 after he witnessed terrible injuries (strokes etc.) and even a death in the patients he was vaccinating. He then wrote an open letter to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia with his observations and concerns, suggesting that perhaps the jabs should be put on pause until their safety could be more assured. One paragraph from the letter said:
“In our small community of Lytton, BC, we have one person dead, and three people who look as though they will be permanently disabled, following their first dose of the Moderna vaccine. The age of those affected ranges from 38 to 82 years of age,” he wrote.
Hoffe was then banned from working in the local emergency ward and other provincial hospitals. He later submitted more than a dozen claims of vaccine injuries on behalf of his patients, but all were denied validity.
*For more background, click tweet below by Dr. Mark Trozzi, another persecuted Canadian doctor for a summary of what is happening to Hoffe (and includes a powerful speech by Dr. Hoffe).
Through FOIA obtained emails, Hoffe and his lawyer discovered that the College’s first and only internal response was to find someone to report Dr. Hoffe for writing the letter. There is no evidence of any concern for the patients nor a request or investigation into Hoffe’s patient records. They instead simply told him each report was a “coincidence” and that it was best if he stop talking about this issue in the hospital. Both shocking and unsurprising I know.
He instead rightly began speaking out publicly and the three mainstream media outlets in Canada (there are only 3) have in turn, viciously and repeatedly done hit jobs on him, making him appear as the least credible doctor in the country (which my readers know well is a censoring tactic, i.e. make truth tellers appear as un-credible as possible so no-one will listen to or believe them).
More recently the College began an investigation into Dr. Hoffe for numerous public comments he has made since his letter. This is a summary of the supposedly inaccurate statements made by Dr. Hoffe:
6.1. Patient Safety and Experimental Nature ………………………………………………………………… 23
6.2. Potential Harms to Fertility in Women …………………………………………………………………… 27
6.3. Myocarditis in Children ………………………………………………………………………………………. 30
6.4. Ivermectin for Treatment and Prophylaxis ……………………………………………………………… 33
6.5. Ivermectin Access ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 36
6.6. Harms to Pregnant Women …………………………………………………………………………………. 39
6.7. Microscopic Clotting ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 42
6.8. Adverse Events Following Immunization ………………………………………………………………… 46
6.9. Harms to Children ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 50
6.10. Vaccine Shedding ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 53
6.11. Statement (1). April 4, 2021, email to Dr. Carol Fenton from Dr. Charles Hoffe………………. 56
6.12. Statement (2). April 5, 2021, open letter to Dr. Bonnie Henry from Dr. Charles Hoffe ……… 60
6.13. Statement (3). April 21, 2021, email to Dr. Carol Fenton from Dr. Charles Hoffe …………….. 64
The College then hired an “expert” named Dr. Trevor Corniel who submitted a 151 page report with a whopping 191 references. In that report he argues that each and every public statement made by Dr. Hoffe on the above topics was “incorrect,” “misleading,” “inflammatory” and violated both the College “Prudence Standard” and “Harm Reduction Standard.” Know that these “standards” are ethical codes of conduct that members of the College must abide by (remember ethics?). In my expert opinion, I argue that Corneil (knowingly or unknowingly) amassed data from fraudulent peer-reviewed literature and captured public health agency recommendations to support his conclusions that Hoffe is in violation of practice standards.
If Dr. Hoffe were to be found guilty as argued by Dr. Corniel, he is at risk of losing his livelihood (license) and could be fined up to $100,000. So they want to end his career and then take his money. I wonder how many future doctors will speak up against the next Big Pharma-Government fraud in Canada once Hoffe’s fate becomes well-publicized? As far as I can tell, Canada only had less than a handful of publicly outspoken doctors and scientists in Canada during Covid (Charles Hoffe, Byram Bridle, Mark Trozzi, Paul Alexander, and William Makis – if I am leaving anyone out, I apologize). However, good luck hearing advice from un-conflicted doctors in the next pandemic.
**Since first posting this, subscribers have sent me other names of outspoken and/or persecuted Canadian docs so the list is larger than I thought: Rochagne Killian, Patrick Phillips, Chris Shoemaker, Daniel Nagase, Rodger Hodkinson, Patrick Phillips, Chris Milburn, Laura Braden, Michael Palmer, Crystal Luchkiw..
Anyway, Hoffe’s lawyer, Lee Turner of Doak Shirreff Lawyers LLP in Kelowna, B.C. engaged me to defend a number of Hoffe’s statements regarding ivermectin and shedding. I was proud to learn I was joining an All-Star team of medical dissident experts defending him such as Jessica Rose, Peter McCullough, Kevin McKernan etc. I plan to ask them to also post their expert reports on Substack, and I will create a central post linked to all for those interested.
Of note, Lee has been practicing trial law in British Columbia for 30 years and is experienced in administrative, public health, and personal injury law. He has been very busy in Covid as he has represented numerous nurses, physicians and other health care providers and individuals who were negatively impacted by Canadian Covid-19 public health measures and mandates (which as you know were far more draconian than here in the U.S).
I elected to do the case pro-bono and began by reading Corneils “expert” report which viciously and repeatedly attacked Hoffe for his many accurate statements. I was so infuriated after reading it, I said to myself “Game on (expletive)” and immediately launched into a writing and researching frenzy over the last 5 days and I would say I put over 20 hours of work into my report. It is 47 single spaced pages with who knows how many hyperlinked references.
I hope I am not being too full of myself but I want to share what Lee Turner wrote to me after he read it:
“Pierre, I don’t even know how to express how incredible the information in your report is. It is one of the most thorough and well written expert reports I have read in my 30 year career. And I have read a lot of expert reports. I made a few minor corrections to spelling, and adding in punctuation (periods, commas or colons) and that was it. I think it is very well written and contains powerful evidence.”
Lets go through Count #1 against Dr. Hoffe shall we? … continue
New research has experts angered by the “complete and utter regulatory failure” to ensure patient safety
BY MARYANNE DEMASI, PHD | JANUARY 16, 2024
After three years on the market and billions of doses later, the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines continue to throw up surprises.
A landmark study, published last December in Nature, has reignited concerns over the safety of the vaccines.
The study, by highly credentialled UK researchers, found that in addition to spike protein, Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine can instruct cells to produce other ‘off-target’ proteins, which are foreign to the immune system.
How does it happen?
The researchers say that ribosomes, which are responsible for decoding the mRNA in cells, can slip and misread the coded instructions about 8% of the time – known as “ribosomal frameshifting.”
They say the ‘glitch’ has to do with how the mRNA in the vaccine has been genetically modified.
Unlike naturally-occurring mRNA, the mRNA that exists in the vaccines has had a ‘uridine’ base replaced with a ‘N1-methyl pseudouridine’ (to stabilise it) and unfortunately, has made it prone to reading errors.
But are these ‘off-target’ proteins harmful?
At a press briefing, the study researchers insisted there were no safety concerns, and that their findings did not indicate the mRNA vaccines were unsafe.
The BBC characterised the glitch as a “harmless tiny slip” in mRNA gene translation.
Science said there was “nothing alarming” about the study, and interviewed experts who reiterated the absence of adverse events associated with these off-target proteins.
However, David Wiseman, a research scientist involved in medical product development, is not so convinced. He, and his co-authors, published their comments in Nature.
I spoke with Dr Wiseman about his concerns and what this research might mean for patient safety.
DEMASI: Thanks for speaking with me Dr Wiseman. How concerned are you about these latest findings?
WISEMAN: I’m very concerned. This raises more questions about the long-term safety of the mRNA vaccines.
DEMASI: Before we discuss what they found, can you explain the purpose of the study?
WISEMAN: Well, these researchers asked a simple question – are the instructions contained within the mRNA of the vaccines being faithfully carried out. Or put another way, does the body make the spike protein it’s supposed to make, as instructed by the mRNA’s code.
It’s like saying here’s a recipe with instructions on how to make a cake – it’s grandma’s cake recipe. These researchers wanted to know if the mRNA could accurately give instructions on how to make Grandma’s cake or whether it would produce a corrupted version of grandma’s cake.
These researchers obviously knew from the literature that modifying some of the bases in the vaccine’s RNA – as was the case for the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines – that it might cause misreads of different kinds. It’s known as ‘frameshifting.’
DEMASI: And what exactly did they find?
WISEMAN: They found the Pfizer vaccine can cause your cells to make proteins that they are not supposed to make – you end up with what I call “Pfrankenstein proteins.”
DEMASI: Because sometimes there are errors in the way the mRNA is read?
WISEMAN: Yes. Imagine the following three-letter English words ABE DAN TEA TON ERA TWO – the letters are like the code on the mRNA. Now instead of starting to read the sentence at the letter “A” of the first word, you frameshift to the next letter – the letter “B.”
That means that all the other letters are shifted to the left and it will give you a new sentence with three-letter words BED ANT EAT ONE RAT etcetera.
So, the new words have a completely different meaning from the original words. This is what happened in the body of some people vaccinated with Pfizer’s product.
New unwanted “off-target” proteins were produced, that actually led to an “off-target” immune response.
DEMASI: So, were these off-target proteins detected in the blood of people who’d been vaccinated?
No, they did not measure these proteins in the blood of people who’d been vaccinated.
These researchers did something similar to what I did with the six English words – they “predicted” what some of these off-target proteins would look like, had there been a problem with frameshifting.
They made these frameshift proteins in the lab – about 30 or 40 of them – pooled them together in a test tube and then exposed them to blood lymphocytes (white blood cells that mount the immune response) taken from people who’d been vaccinated.
What they found in about 25 to 33% of people who’d received Pfizer’s product, was that their lymphocytes, responded immunologically when exposed to these frameshift proteins in a test tube.
It means their lymphocytes had seen the proteins before – their immune system had already been primed from a prior exposure, presumably after that person had received the mRNA vaccine.
DEMASI: They also tested samples from people who’d received the AstraZeneca vaccine and saw no immune reaction – can you explain why?
WISEMAN: The AstraZeneca vaccine is a different technology. It is a DNA vaccine and does not have the uridine modification that is causing the frameshifting in the mRNA vaccine.
So, it’s not surprising that the lymphocytes from people given the AstraZeneca vaccine did not react to these frameshift proteins, because they’d never seen them before.
DEMASI: They didn’t study people vaccinated with Moderna, but would you say the problem is likely to happen with Moderna’s vaccine too?
WISEMAN: Yes, I would because it’s also an mRNA vaccine and contains the same sort of uridine modification as the Pfizer vaccine.
DEMASI: OK, so making proteins you’re not supposed to make sounds bad, but the media coverage seemed to suggest there wasn’t a problem….
WISEMAN: What you have to realise is that your body is being hijacked, not just to produce spike protein, but also to produce other, what I call, “Pfrankenstein” proteins that are completely uncharacterised.
We don’t know what they are, what they do, for how long they’re made or how long they last in the body, and we have no idea what their toxicity is. From the Nature paper however, we do know that these unwanted proteins elicit immune reactions in the body.
DEMASI: What could these immune reactions lead to? You were concerned about autoimmune conditions?
WISEMAN: Yes. These researchers showed that frameshifting could create chimeric proteins. Basically, as the ribosome reads the code for the spike protein, it may slip in the middle of reading the code. So, the first half is spike protein, and the second half is a Pfrankenstein protein.
Now, just imagine one half can still attach to the ACE2 receptor on cells but on the other end, you’ve got this Pfrankenstein protein dangling outside of the cells. Your immune system is going to destroy the cell because it looks foreign, and now you’ve got something that looks like an autoimmune condition.
Or you could have a protein that turns out to be not necessarily identical, but sufficiently similar to another protein in our body like a hormone and it ends up mimicking the hormone’s activity and disturbing your endocrine system.
DEMASI: But the study authors said there were “no adverse events” associated with these frameshift proteins.
WISEMAN: The authors wrote, “…there is no evidence that frameshifted products in humans generated from BNT162b2 vaccination are associated with adverse outcomes.”
But they only looked at 21 people who received Pfizer’s vaccine, so you cannot call that a serious safety study by any stretch of the imagination.
And how did they select these people? The volunteers were part of another government funded study and had not reported undue effects from vaccination. Since they did not study subjects who had reported adverse vaccine effects, the selection of participants was probably biased.
DEMASI: The authors of the study said that with some tweaks they could identify potential slips and reduce reading errors…..
WISEMAN: Right, and this work should’ve been done by the vaccine manufacturers and by the regulators before the product was authorised and given to billions of people. They’ve asked people to take a vaccine, and put it into children and they have no clue what is happening inside the body.
What they’re trying to say now is that there have been no problems identified in 21 people, but in the future there may be problems, so we should just keep studying it.
Are you kidding me? What they’re saying is that ‘we will inject you first and ask safety questions later.’ It’s not good enough.
It’s just like the retired Pfizer executive admitted in a Nature article, “We flew the aeroplane while we were still building it.”
DEMASI: Shouldn’t the drug regulators be all over this?
WISEMAN: This has been a complete and utter regulatory failure. The 2021 WHO guidelines say that for mRNA vaccines the manufacturers have to disclose all the sequences and unexpected reading frames. They were required to have done this work already… The FDA should have been looking at it.
The mRNA vaccines are causing our bodies to produce uncharacterised proteins, with unknown toxicology, that produce an immune response of unknown clinical significance. The dereliction of duty by regulators shows how they’ve sunken to an all-time low.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Judith Curry | Climate Etc. | November 5, 2013
Groupthink: A pattern of thought charaterized by self-deception, forced manufacture of consent, and conformity to group values and ethics.
Groupthink: Collective Delusions in Organizations and Markets, by Roland Benabou, published in the Review of Economic Studies. Benabou also has a talk (ppt slides) on this subject.
First, a definition of groupthink (from the ppt slides):
Janis (1972)’s eight symptoms [of groupthink]:
Sound like any groups that we know? … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 