As the trans-Atlantic world is pulled into the vortex of a McCarthyite nightmare with a renewed wave of anti-Russian and now anti-China hysterics, a wave of new “Asia Pacific” doctrines have emerged across captured states… I mean “member” states throughout NATO.
Starting with the February 2022 American ‘Indo-Pacific Strategy’, similar anti-China programs have popped up left and right with one principled target in mind: eliminate the threat of China through every tool available.
By early June 2022, the UK announced its own branding of the Asia Pivot remixed into the oddly named ‘Indo-Pacific Tilt’ which focuses less on the liberal eco-friendly language of the EU and devotes itself entirely to vastly increasing its military presence in China’s backyard.
After NATO’s June 2022 Madrid Summit officially designated China as ‘a systemic rival’, Canada’s foreign ministry announced its own Indo-Pacific Strategy in November 2022 followed by an absurd 26 page program published in January 10, 2023 outlining the details of Canada’s new role in the Pacific (which will be the subject of a subsequent report).
On January 25, 2023 NATO’s ironically named ‘Science for Peace and Security Program’ launched a new ‘cooperative initiative on the Indo-Pacific, followed by a January 30, 2023 Atlantic Council Indo-Pacific Security Initiative focused on dealing with “China’s growing threat to the international order”. The same day the Atlantic Council unveiled this new doctrine, an American intelligence spook named Markus Garlauskas was named the program’s new director.
While efforts have been made to avoid using an explicitly militaristic language within the majority of the seemingly unconnected reports outlined above, the fact is that what is emerging is a mutation of Obama’s toxic ‘Asia Pivot’. Unlike the small kinetic wars against non-nuclear states like Iraq or Libya, this new war plan against China is a diverse hodgepodge of every single tool of asymmetrical war launched all at once and targeting not only China, but more importantly China’s weaker neighbors. Besides the obvious conventional military and color revolutionary techniques which I’ve written about extensively in other locations, this new era of Indo-Pacific Strategies rely upon:
1- Seducing Asian neighbors into trade deals, economic partnerships, and military partnerships with the Trans Atlantic community which pull them out of China’s orbit
2- Coerce China’s neighbors into military agreements with the U.S., Canada, the EU and especially the absurd ‘Global NATO’ advocated by Jens Stoltenberg and his think tank clones in Brussels and Washington.
3- Promote an anti-Chinese human rights consensus to justify endless sanctions on Beijing for imagined abuses of Tibetans, forced labor of Uyghurs and tyrannized Hong Kongers.
4- Induce as many nations in the Anglo-American sphere of influence to cut themselves off of business with China or Chinese state firms in order to defend the rules based order
5- Build an anti-development cage around China and its neighboring regions under the guise of ‘ecosystems management’, ‘green finance’, ‘decarbonization’ and ‘ocean conservation’
6- Construct new trade alliances in the Pacific to counteract both China’s maritime Silk Road and also the China-led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) with an ambiguously titled U.S.-led Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF)
Since the architects of this agenda are not known for their commitment to reality, the objectives also include a fair amount of tools that aren’t available but are imagined to be so.
Chief among the list of imaginary tools to subdue China, we find the incredible economic power of the mighty U.S. dollar whose business everyone in the world is believed to desperately desire.
Take the example of some champions of the anti-China program writing at The Hill who criticized IPEF not for being delusional- but rather not for being delusional enough saying: “The IPEF neglects one of the secrets of U.S. success in Asia- access to U.S. markets. It was this lure and a U.S. regional security umbrella that fostered the economic miracles of Japan and South Korea after World War II and later Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and China itself”.
Ignoring the fact that the once viable U.S. economy of the post-WWII decades has become a hollowed out shell of de-industrialized rot replaced with a cancerous speculative bubble economy, the authors of the article cited above exhibit a complete ignorance to the reality that the only insecurity shaking the foundations of the Asia Pacific is caused by the belligerent antagonisms of an insecure dumb giant overcompensating for its own mediocrity and impending collapse.
Even if one disregards my remarks about China’s program as “romantic idealism” and instead consider only the basic self-interest of anyone doing business with China, the basic economic facts of China’s trade relationship with its neighbors should cause anyone with half a brain to recognize where Asian-Pacific nations see as the principled force of their present and future prosperity.
Take the case of the U.S. military colony of Japan, which saw China consume over 20% of her trade exports in 2020, surpassing the USA and which increased from $146 billion to $206 billion in 2021. Despite being run by synthetic puppets clamoring for antagonism with China, Japan much more dependent on China economically than any other nation, including the USA.
Or take South Korea – another candidate for the Pacific NATO and second largest military colony of the Pacific behind Japan, whose largest trading partner is China running up to the tune of $240 billion between 2016-2021 (contrasted with a mere $131 billion with the USA over that same period). Without China, South Korea’s economy literally falls to pieces.
Despite the fact that the USA is desperately trying to intimidate nations of Asia to partner up with itself in opposition to China, Beijing’s trade with all 10 ASEAN nations rose by an incredible 71% over last year and grew 41% with India – both of whom share common interests with Russia, Iran, Africa and the broader multipolar alliance.
The European Union has conducted its fair share of blood-letting under Anglo American pressure over the past year.
First by slashing access to cheap and abundant Russian oil and natural gas, but then by freezing a long-awaited EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investments in May 2021 after China counter sanctioned five European parliamentarians for using CIA-propaganda to justify a sanction regime onto China over alleged abuses of Uyghurs. The freezing of this deal was followed Brussel’s decision to begin imposing tariffs onto Chinese aluminum and by Germany’s cancelling of a Chinese purchase of a chip manufacturer and blocking of China’s purchase of an un-named construction firm. As of January 30, Thierry Breton, European Commissioner for International Markets attested to the EU’s devotion “to the goal of choking China’s semiconductor industry” and went on to say “We fully agree with the objective of depriving China of the most advanced chips. We cannot allow China to access the most advanced technologies”.
Despite these ugly facts, the fact remains that the EU is still (and will continue to be) completely reliant upon trade with Beijing which is still by far the EU’s #1 trade partner. Not only is China the biggest source of exports to the EU (making up 22% of exports in 2021 and whose bilateral trade amounted to $711 billion during the first 10 months of 2022), but the EU is also dependent upon rare earth metals controlled by China (which controls nearly 90% of global supplies). It should be noted that before the USA announced its Indo-Pacific Strategy in February 2022, the EU had already made its own intentions clear to launch its ‘EU Strategy for Cooperation in the Indo-Pacific’ in September 2021 except with the important difference that China was not targeted as a rival or ‘systemic disrupter’ but rather as a partner in cooperation. This spirit of cooperation was obviously intolerable to an oligarchy seeking to set the stage for a new dark age.
Not that this obvious fact should need to be stated, trade with Russia, the Russian-led EAEU, the African Union, Southwest Asia, Central Asia, Gulf States and CELAC nations has also increased in leaps and bounds this year showing no signs of reversal.
I’ve stated this before, and I’ll say it again: China, Russia and every other nation sitting on the other side of the trans-Atlantic gated community are extremely aware of the precarious time bomb that is the Wall Street-City of London bubble banking system.
While synthetic shells might currently be sitting in positions of management within the capitals of Germany, France, Japan, Taiwan and other abused sacrificial states, the vast majority of the people, business class and intelligentsia knows that the script that celebrated a new world order and ‘end of history’ in 1992 no longer applies to the Eurasian-led world.
Barring a mindlessly desperate unleashing of nuclear warheads in the short term, the very fact of the real centers of gravity caused by the pro-growth, human-centric priorities of Eurasia led by China’s evolving Belt and Road initiative ensure that the storms which WILL befall the western world will not be everlasting nor will the dark abyss caused by the meltdown of the banking system be something which cannot be replaced by a viable economic and security architecture more befitting the human species.
Remember how it was all just a fear-porn story designed to discourage people from eating real food, drive up the price of poultry and eggs and sell more vaccines?
Bird flu has jumped to mammals in the UK – so how worried should humans be?
Yes, the experts are back and they have more “warnings”. But don’t worry “It’s not that alarming”… yet. Although clearly someone at the New York Times didn’t get the “don’t be alarmist” memo, because they went with…
An Even Deadlier Pandemic Could Soon Be Here
Anyway, the story is that scientists have found bird flu in otters, bears, dolphins and foxes in the last year. And that means it could potentially jump to humans.
Because the order goes otters->bears->dolphins->foxes->people. That’s like biology 101.
Seriously though, what makes this story nonsense is the only reason they found this virus is that they were looking for it. After last year’s “scare” they have increased screening…using PCR tests.
PCR tests which don’t diagnose disease, don’t reliably work and can find basically anything basically anywhere. You know the arguments.
Essentially, now, all that needs to happen is some nature reserve sends a sample of (dead?) otter to a government lab, the lab runs “routine bird flu screening”… and finds it. Becuase of course it does.
Just like that Bird flu can jump from birds to otters to foxes to dolphins.
… like how “Covid” jumped from bats to people to goats to guavas to motor oil. Remmeber?
But what’s the next step?
Well, testing people of course, since we know it can infect mammals now.
And, like clockwork, cue the “experts” in the Guardian saying [emphasis added]:
scientists warn there is a possibility that bird flu viruses could change and gain the ability to spread easily between people. Monitoring for human infection is extremely important
And – just like Covid – if they start testing everyone for bird flu, they will find it.
But, apparently, the already-approved vaccines aren’t good enough. Just ask the New York Times…
Perhaps the best news is that we have several H5N1 vaccines already approved by the Food and Drug Administration whose safety and immune response have been studied… The current plan is to mass-produce them if and when such an outbreak occurs, based on the particular variant involved […] Worryingly, all but one of the approved vaccines are produced by incubating each dose in an egg.
Good news though, there’s a solution on the way. An mRNA-based solution…
The mRNA-based platforms used to make two of the Covid vaccines also don’t depend on eggs […] those vaccines can be mass-produced faster, in as little as three months. There are currently no approved mRNA vaccines for influenza, but efforts to make one should be expedited.
The American military industrial complex was stunned and embarrassed by the rapid fall of its puppet government in Saigon in 1975. The CIA faced budget cuts and sought a new conflict to justify its size and spending. Portugal had just freed its colonies so there were power struggles in nations such as Angola. The American public was not told that the CIA had begun shipping arms to Angola and hiring mercenaries to fight there. Once news reports about CIA involvement appeared, the effort was spun as a fight against evil communists.
“We call upon the Charity Commission to conduct an independent and urgent investigation into these very serious allegations relating to the British Heart Foundation.”
Joint Open Letter from Doctors for Patients UK, HART and the UK Medical Freedom Alliance to Helen Stephenson, CEO, Charity Commission
Cc: Dr Charmaine Griffiths, CEO, British Heart Foundation (BHF)
Prof Charalambos Antoniades, BHF Chair of Cardiovascular Medicine
Rt Hon Rishi Sunak, Prime Minister
Rt Hon Steve Barclay, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
Mr Andrew Bridgen, MP
Re: Allegations that the British Heart Foundation (BHF) is involved in concealing and withholding important information relating to harms to cardiac function caused by the novel mRNA vaccines
31 January 2023
Dear Ms Stephenson
We wish to express our deep concern, regarding allegations that the British Heart Foundation (BHF) is involved in concealing and withholding important information relating to the potential of the novel mRNA vaccines to damage cardiac tissue and function.
It was alleged in the House of Commons that staff working in a cardiology research department at Oxford University withheld information, for fear of losing funding from the pharmaceutical industry, and were therefore prioritising funding over patient safety.
Mr Andrew Bridgen MP stated in Parliament on 13 December 2022:
“It has also been brought to my attention by a whistleblower from a very reliable source that one of these institutions is covering up clear data that reveals that the mRNA vaccine increases inflammation of the heart arteries. It is covering this up for fear that it may lose funding from the pharmaceutical industry. The lead of that cardiology research department has a prominent leadership role with the British Heart Foundation, and I am disappointed to say that he has sent out non-disclosure agreements to his research team to ensure that this important data never sees the light of day. That is an absolute disgrace.”
It was subsequently asserted on GB News that the research department mentioned above was headed by Professor Charalambos Antoniades whose position is funded by the BHF. Despite GB News approaching Professor Antoniades for comment, he has made no public denial that Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) were entered into by members of his department.
Doctors and the public rely on reputable and well-established charities such as the BHF to provide accurate and up-to-date information, as well as to highlight and investigate potential, novel causes of heart damage and heart disease. Concerns should be raised immediately, whenever there are doubts relating to the safety of any pharmaceutical product, so that administration of the product can be halted, protecting the public from unnecessary harm, while an investigation is carried out.
The BHF rapidly dismissed the allegations made by Mr Bridgen and called for those making the allegation to provide specific and credible information in support of it.
Due to the seriousness of the allegations, and given the absence of any public denial or clarification from Professor Antoniades, we are calling for a full and independent investigation into any suppression of data by the British Heart Foundation itself or by senior BHF grant holders.
There are a significant number of signals that COVID-19 vaccines have led to cardiac pathology, which warrants an urgent review of their safety:
The Pfizer trial saw four cardiac arrests in the vaccination group but only one in the placebo group after 6 months (although the numbers are too small to be statistically significant, this was a signal that should have been followed up).
The evidence for vaccine-induced myocarditis is well established and in older patients this may be misdiagnosed as any of the more common forms of heart disease. The rate of myocardial infarction was disproportionately high in the first three days after vaccination.
Studies in Thailand and Switzerland have shown rises in troponin levels consistent with damaged heart muscle in 3% of those vaccinated. Heart cells cannot be replaced and the resulting scarring can lead to electrical conduction issues and sudden death. 30% of the children in the Thailand study had cardiac signs or symptoms.
Vaccine-derived spike protein was detected in the heart biopsies of 9 out of 15 patients with post-vaccination myocarditis.
Vaccinated people had a rise in cardiovascular risk factors that would predict a significantly increased risk of heart disease (from 11% to 25% risk of a heart attack in 5 years). This study has been criticised for not having a control group but is the equivalent of an early phase clinical trial in demonstrating a safety concern.
An Israeli study showed a 25% increase in acute coronary syndrome and cardiac arrest calls in 16-39 year olds associated with the first and second doses of vaccine but not with COVID-19 infection.
There were 14,000 more cardiac arrest calls to ambulances in England in 2021 than 2020.
There has been a rise in cardiac excess deaths and excess deaths have been disproportionately seen in more highly vaccinated groups e.g. less deprived cohorts and people of white ethnicity.
In a report of 35 autopsies in Germany, there were 5 deaths confirmed as caused by a COVID-19 vaccine and a further 20 deaths where a contribution from the vaccination could not be excluded.
Post mortem studies have shown inflammation of the coronary arteries after vaccination, causing death four months later.
A separate post mortem report showed vaccine-derived spike protein in heart muscle, in the absence of COVID-19 infection, in a subject who had myocarditis before he died.
Australian hospitals have experienced intense service pressure since Summer 2021, despite no significant COVID-19 infection rates or reduction in healthcare capacity at that time.
Australians have seen a similarly timed rise in excess non-Covid deaths, with ischaemic heart disease being the biggest contributor. This was despite no significant volume of COVID-19 cases or reduction in healthcare before Omicron as was seen in the UK.
Systematic exploratory analysis of the possible causes in the rise in excess deaths by comparing countries, suggests a link to healthcare quality cannot be excluded but there is no link to COVID-19 or Long Covid. There is a weak link to lockdown severity but a strong correlation with vaccination.
Crucially, data has not been shared to counter the hypothesis that the mRNA vaccinations are linked to recent excess deaths caused primarily by cardiac pathology. The ONS were regularly publishing deaths by vaccination status. The last data was released for May 2022 and showed a higher mortality rate for that month in the vaccinated. No data has been shared since.
As medical professionals, and in the interest of patient safety, we demand that the British Heart Foundation immediately release the following information, in the public interest and in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA):
Any and all information and emails regarding potential and actual harms caused by the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.
A copy of any Non-Disclosure Agreements that have been sent to people working at, or associated with, the British Heart Foundation and Oxford University, relating to COVID-19 vaccine safety and data.
A full list of conflicts of interests that the BHF and Oxford University have relating to the COVID-19 vaccines.
We further call upon the Charity Commission to conduct an independent and urgent investigation into these very serious allegations relating to the British Heart Foundation. Suppression of research findings, conflicts of interest and acting in the interests of commercial entities are in direct conflict with the requirements inherent in holding charitable status.
Thank you for your attention. We look forward to receiving a prompt response.
Professor Richard Ennos, MA, PhD. Honorary Professorial Fellow, University of Edinburgh
Professor John A Fairclough, BM BS, BMed Sci, FRCS, FFSEM(UK), Professor Emeritus, Honorary
Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon
Professor Dennis McGonagle,PhD, FRCPI, Consultant Rheumatologist, University of Leeds
Professor Anthony Fryer, PhD, FRCPath, Professor of Clinical Biochemistry, Keele University
Professor Karol Sikora, MA, MBBChir, PhD, FRCR, FRCP, FFPM, Honorary Professor of Professional Practice, Buckingham University
Professor Angus Dalgleish, MD, FRCP, FRACP, FRCPath, FMedSci, Professor of Oncology, University of London; Principal, Institute for Cancer Vaccines & Immunotherapy
Professor Roger Watson, FRCP Edin, FRCN, FAAN, Professor of Nursing
Lord Moonie, MBChB, MRCPsych, MFCM, MSc, retired member of House of Lords, former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State 2001-2003, former Consultant in Public Health Medicine
Dr Najmiah K Ahmad, BM, MRCA, FCARCSI, Consultant Anaesthetist
Dr Ali Ajaz, Consultant Psychiatrist
Dr Shiraz Akram, BDS, Dental Surgeon
Dr Sonia Allam, MBChB, FRCA, Consultant Anaesthetist
Dr Victoria Anderson, MBChB, MRCGP, MRCPCH, DRCOG, General Practitioner
Julie Annakin, RN, Immunisation Specialist Nurse
Wendy Armstrong, RN, BSc, DipHE, Practice Nurse
Dr Abby Astle, MBBChir, BA(Cantab), DCH, DGM, MRCGP, GP Principal, GP Trainer, GP Examiner
Dr Jonathan Eastwood, BSc, MBChB, MRCGP, General Practitioner
Dr Jonathan Engler, MBChB, LlB(Hons), DipPharmMed
Dr Elizabeth Evans, MA(Cantab), MBBS, DRCOG, retired Doctor, Director UKMFA
Dr Chris Exley, PhD, FRSB, retired Professor in Bioinorganic Chemistry
Dr John Flack, BPharm, PhD, retired Director of Safety Evaluation at Beecham Pharmaceuticals 1980-1989 and Senior Vice-president for Drug Discovery 1990-92 SmithKline Beecham
Dr Simon Fox, BSc, BMBCh, FRCP, Consultant in Infectious Diseases and Internal Medicine
Gayle Gerry, BSc(Hons), Registered Nurse
Sophie Gidet, RM, Midwife
Dr Cathy Greig, MBBCh(Hons), General Practitioner
Dr Ali Haggett, Mental Health Community Work, 3rd sector, former Lecturer in the History of Medicine
Mr Anthony Hinton, MBChB, FRCS, Consultant ENT Surgeon, London
Ian Humphreys, UKMFA Programme Director
Dr Keith Johnson, BA, DPhil(Oxon), IP Consultant for Diagnostic Testing
Dr C Geoffrey Maidment, MD, FRCP, retired Consultant Physician
Mr Ahmad K Malik, FRCS(Tr & Orth), Dip Med Sport, Consultant Trauma & Orthopaedic Surgeon
Dr Ayiesha Malik, MBChB, General Practitioner
Dr Imran Malik, MBBS, MRCP, MRCGP, General Practitioner
Dr Kulvinder S Manik. MBChB, MRCGP(2010), MA(Cantab), LlM(Gray’s Inn)
Dr Fiona Martindale, MBChB, MRCGP, General Practitioner
Dr Sam McBride, BSc(Hons) Medical Microbiology & Immunobiology, MBBCh, BAO, MSc in Clinical Gerontology, MRCP(UK), FRCEM, FRCP(Edinburgh), NHS Emergency Medicine & Geriatrics
Kaira McCallum, BSc, retired Pharmacist, Director of Strategy UKMFA
Mr Ian McDermott, MBBS, MS, FRCS(Tr&Orth), FFSEM(UK), Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon
Dr Scott Mitchell, MBChB, MRCS, Emergency Medicine Physician
Dr Alistair Montgomery, MBChB, MRCGP, DRCOG, retired General Practitioner
Dr Alan Mordue, MBChB, FFPH, retired Consultant in Public Health Medicine & Epidemiology
Dr David Morris, MBChB, MRCP(UK), General Practitioner
Margaret Moss, MA(Cantab), CBiol, MRSB, Director, The Nutrition and Allergy Clinic, Cheshire
Theresa Ann Mounsey, BSc Hons in Midwifery studies.
Dr Alice Murkies, MBBS, MD, FRACGP, General Practitioner and Medical Researcher
Dr Greta Mushet, MBChB, MRCPsych, retired Consultant Psychiatrist in Psychotherapy
Dr Angela Musso, MD, MRCGP, DRCOG, FRACGP, MFPC, General Practitioner
Dr Sarah Myhill, MBBS, Dip NM, Retired GP, Independent Naturopathic Physician
Dr Christopher Newton, PhD, Biochemist, CIMMBER
Dr Rachel Nicoll, PhD, Medical researcher
Tim Nike, BSc(Hons), MCSP, HCPC, Senior Neurological Physiotherapist
Dr Richard O’Shea, MBBCH, BA(Hons) MRCGP, General Practitioner
We genuinely urge doctors involved with medical regulation not to go down with the sinking ship of authoritarian censorship and suppression of intellectual freedom. Not only is this behaviour historically illiterate and intellectually feeble, it is putting the safety of patients at risk, causing hazards to public health, runs counter to our community standards of a liberal democracy, and sits in conflict with the societal benefits of intellectual freedom that have recently been stated by the High Court of Australia.
When has there been a society that prospers because people are cancelled, removed, or ‘disappeared’ from their vital work because they dared to disagree with the ‘regime’s unquestionable truth?’ Do our modern medical authoritarians want to be looked back on with the same pathetic disdain with which we judge similar historical despots?
In this article we present two rays of hope in the context that the tide is changing. Firstly, for those doctors who genuinely want to have an open expression of ideas, there is a High Court precedent about the benefits to society of intellectual freedom where professional views asserted in the context of intellectual freedom can be expressed forcefully even if they cause offence, embarrassment, or lack of trust.
Secondly, for those doctors who continue to persecute other doctors for participating in the act of intellectual freedom, accumulated medical, ethical and legal information – we believe this warrants consideration that those doctors involved with AHPRA and the Medical Board of Australia themselves have their licenses suspended as they potentially pose a danger to the public’s health, in our opinion.
Go forth and be confident in the concept of intellectual freedom
Recent controversy has surrounded the sanctioning, by regulatory authorities, of doctors for publicly expressing views on elements of the Covid pandemic. Doctors have been punished because they sought to bring critical (if not ideologically uncomfortable) medical information to the public’s awareness.
This controversy is fundamentally about the limits of intellectual freedom doctors have within the constraints of general, and often highly subjective, Codes of Conduct that doctors must adhere to. In this context, a recent unanimous High Court of Australia judgment gives an important window into how the Court considers what the boundaries of intellectual freedom are and how the Court considers attempts by authorities to curtail such freedom under the guise of ‘conduct.’ (Find the example in detail at the end of the article.)
Although the case of Ridd v James Cook University (JCU) involved specific clauses within an Enterprise Bargaining Agreement, the High Court included valuable commentary on the societal importance of intellectual freedom from an instrumental, ethical, and historical perspective. This provides a useful context for academic freedom in general. Inherent in the developed concept of intellectual freedom is the ability to dissent against the establishment narrative. It is one of the modern marvels of living in a liberal democracy and brings tremendous benefit to society, as affirmed by the High Court:
‘Once developed, justification for intellectual freedom is instrumental. The instrumental justification is the search for truth in the contested marketplace of ideas, the social importance of which Frankfurter J spoke powerfully about.’
The Court further affirmed that:
‘Another justification is ethical rather than instrumental. Intellectual freedom plays “an important ethical role, not just in the lives of the few people it protects, but in the life of the community more generally” to ensure the primacy of individual conviction: “not to profess what one believes to be false” and “a duty to speak out for what one believes to be true.”’
Although doctors do not have a specific clause guaranteeing them the right to intellectual freedom, the High Court’s discussion of the societal benefits makes it difficult to argue that doctors should be punished for participation in the act of intellectual freedom.
There have been suggestions that the sanctioning of doctors has not necessarily been for the content of their views but how they have expressed them; invoking concepts such as incivility, rudeness, bullying, and harassment.
The Court explicitly addressed this issue in Ridd v JCU and was forthright in the view that intellectual freedom is not always pretty and wrapped in civility; curtailment on these grounds necessarily involves an assault on the fundamental phenomenon of intellectual freedom itself:
‘The instrumental and ethical foundations for the developed concept of intellectual freedom are powerful reasons why it has rarely been restricted by any asserted “right” of others to respect or courtesy … however desirable courtesy and respect might be, the purpose of intellectual freedom must permit of expression that departs from those civil norms.’
Furthermore, the Court reinforced the concept that there is no right against embarrassment or against lack of trust resulting from someone else’s assertions made in the course of intellectual freedom.
The Court quotes Dworkin:
‘The idea that people have that right [to protection from speech that might reasonably be thought to embarrass or lower others’ esteem for them or their own self-respect] is absurd. Of course, it would be good if everyone liked and respected everyone else who merited that response. But we cannot recognise a right to respect, or a right to be free from the effects of speech that makes respect less likely, without wholly subverting the central ideals of the culture of independence and denying the ethical individualism that culture protects.’
For the public’s safety it’s time to cancel the cancellers
It is absolutely frightening that major medico-legal organisations have issued advice to doctors to be wary about participating in intellectual freedom and that even reporting on evidence-based scientific data might put them in peril of being professionally ‘disappeared’ if that data doesn’t conform with the government’s ‘messaging.’ Is that what the community at large expects?
Sure, the regime may allow some new information if it is from a regime-approved source and disseminated in a way that the regime approves. But that defeats the whole purpose of intellectual freedom and merely perpetuates the formation of insular establishment echo chambers. A previous article showed the mass lethality of that group-think and establishment thinking during the first world war until dissident thinkers like General Sir John Monash came along.
But what about supposedly ‘bad ideas?’
Firstly, if those ideas are plausible, then as the High Court says, the truth is found in the ‘contested marketplace of ideas.’ If they are really bad ideas, then the sunlight of rigorous intellectual critique is the best disinfectant. Does driving a bad idea underground really make people think, ‘Oh well, the government told me it’s wrong, so it must be?’
Dr Li Wenliang was credited as one of the first doctors in Wuhan to sound the alarm about Covid on social media.
‘In early January (2020), he was called in by both medical officials and the police, and forced to sign a statement denouncing his warning as an unfounded and illegal rumor.’ [New York Times] Sound familiar?
And it is accepted that chilling the expression of ideas (by making people scared to speak out) is just as detrimental as the specific banning of ideas.
Scholars of history, the Australian public at large, Dr Li and the High Court of Australia, understand the importance of the developed concept of intellectual freedom.
In this context, intellectual freedom is so important to knowledge advancement through, as the High Court ruled regarding ‘the contested marketplace of ideas,’ that banning intellectual freedom (unilaterally removing that contested marketplace) poses a serious risk to public health. Therefore, should doctors associated with AHPRA or the Medical Board of Australia who have participated at all in the dangerous repression of intellectual freedom have their licences to practice medicine immediately suspended while a thorough investigation is undertaken into their fitness to practice?
What builds trust in an institution? Intellectual freedom through open scientific discourse or enforced adherence to the regime’s singular ‘truth’ under the threat of professional excommunication?
Public health is still dependent on individuals receiving informed consent about treatments, consent being specific to the individual patient.
This introduces the last issue where transparency should be favoured over repression. If any information comes to light that would materially alter someone’s decision to give/not give consent (and that information was suppressed as a result of the chilling effect on intellectual freedom by AHPRA/Medical Board’s censorship), then AHPRA and the Medical Board should be open to both civil and criminal liability for any harm caused due to the silence they fashioned.
Statements by the High Court of Australia in Ridd v James Cook University
One developed justification for intellectual freedom is instrumental. The instrumental justification is the search for truth in the contested marketplace of ideas, the social importance of which Justice Felix Frankfurter spoke powerfully about in Sweezy v New Hampshire. Another justification is ethical rather than instrumental. Intellectual freedom plays ‘an important ethical role not just in the lives of the few people it protects, but in the life of the community more generally’ to ensure the primacy of individual conviction: ‘Not to profess what one believes to be false’ and ‘a duty to speak out for what one believes to be true.’
Whilst different views might reasonably be taken about some additional restrictions upon intellectual freedom, the instrumental and ethical foundations for the developed concept of intellectual freedom are powerful reasons why it has rarely been restricted by any asserted ‘right’ of others to respect or courtesy. It is not necessary to go as far as Said’s assertion that ‘the whole point [of an intellectual] is to be embarrassing, contrary, even unpleasant’ to conclude that, however desirable courtesy and respect might be, the purpose of intellectual freedom must permit of expression that departs from those civil norms.
JCU’s submission depends upon drawing a distinction between what is said and how it is said. But such a distinction may not exist. The content of what is said often depends upon how it is said. This is particularly so when impugned speech concerns the expression of an opinion. The content of speech that expresses an opinion will often be inseparable from the strength of conviction with which the opinion is held, which is tied to the manner of expression. The message conveyed by a statement, expressed tentatively ‘It may be that it was an error for Professor Jones to claim that the earth is flat’ expresses a proposition only of possibility. It cannot be divorced from the tentative manner in which it was expressed. By contrast, ‘no reasonable person could ever claim that the earth is flat’ expresses a proposition of certainty, all the more so if it is expressed in an emphatic manner.
That interpretation aligns with the long-standing core meaning of intellectual freedom. Whilst a prohibition upon disrespectful and discourteous conduct in intellectual expression might be a ‘convenient plan for having peace in the intellectual world,’ the ‘price paid for this sort of intellectual pacification, is the sacrifice of the entire moral courage of the human mind.’ The 2016 Censure given to Dr Ridd was, therefore, not justified.
Michael Keane is adjunct associate professor, Swinburne University, Adjunct senior lecturer, Monash University and a specialist anaesthetist.
“Beatles” ISIS member was tried in the US was to conceal his previous links to British intelligence and his role in their regime-change efforts in Syria
In January 2023, reports emerged that Alexanda Kotey, known as “Jihadi George” and one of the four British ISIS members collectively known as the “Beatles,” had disappeared from the custody of the US Bureau of Prisons (BOP).
In 2022, Kotey was convicted in a US court and sentenced to life in prison for the abduction and detention of multiple western hostages in Syria between 2012 and 2015, including journalists James Foley, John Cantlie, and Steven Sotloff, and aid workers Kayla Jean Mueller, Peter Kassig, David Haines, and Alan Henning, most of whom were later executed by ISIS.
A BOP spokesperson refused to provide details of Kotey’s whereabouts or why he had been moved, stating only that there are “several reasons” why an inmate may be referred to as “not in BOP custody,” including for “court hearings, medical treatment or for other reasons. We do not provide specific information on the status of inmates who are not in the custody of the BOP for safety, security, or privacy reasons.”
Kotey’s links with British intelligence
The refusal of BOP officials to provide details of Kotey’s whereabouts raises fears that Kotey may be able to escape facing justice for his crimes. This is due to Kotey’s previous links to British intelligence, which sought to use UK-based Islamist extremists such as Kotey as proxies in the 2011 US-led regime-change war against the Syrian government.
Kotey’s links to British intelligence are evidenced by the convoluted effort to prosecute him after his 2018 detention by the US-backed and Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).
Although Kotey held UK citizenship like three of his alleged victims, Haines, Henning, and Cantlie, British officials insisted that Kotey and fellow Beatle Elshafee Elsheikh be tried in US rather than UK courts.
A review of events surrounding Kotey’s case reveals that prosecuting the West Londoner in the US was necessary to avoid revealing his and fellow Beatles’ links to British intelligence.
Laying the foundations for ISIS
Kotey traveled to Syria in August 2012 with fellow Beatle Muhammad Emzawi, known as “Jihadi John,” as part of a “terror-funnel” established by British intelligence. Upon arrival in Syria, Kotey and Emzawi immediately joined an armed group fighting against the Syrian government known as Katibat al-Muhajireen.
In November 2012, Emzawi participated in the abduction of American journalist James Foley and British journalist John Cantlie near the town of Binnish in northwestern Syria.
Kotey, Emzawi, and Elsheikh then served as prison guards for Foley, Cantlie, and other western hostages. Many members of Katibat al-Muhajireen – including the trio – then helped lay the foundation for the rise of ISIS by joining the terror group when it was established in April 2013.
Foley was brutally murdered by Emzawi in August 2014. In a video recording of the murder, a black-clad and masked Emzawi beheaded Foley, who was kneeling in the desert sand in an orange Guantanamo-style prisoner’s jumpsuit. Sotloff, Haines, Hennig, and Kassig were murdered subsequently, while Cantlie’s whereabouts are still unknown.
Terrorism researcher Raffaello Pantucci reports that Kotey and Elsheikh, “were longstanding figures of concern to the security services. Involved in a West London network that has long fed young British men to jihadi battlefields and created terrorist cells back in the UK.”
The Times reports that according to court papers filed in Kotey’s case, he first tried to travel to Syria with three other Britons via the Channel tunnel in February 2012 but was denied entry at the Turkish border and deported.
A month later, Kotey tried again but failed to reach Syria by flying from Barcelona. He returned to London through St Pancras station, where police arrested him for carrying a “lock-blade knife.”
The Times reported further that, “In August 2012 Kotey tried for a third time to make it to Syria by travelling overland across Europe with Emwazi. He has disclosed that the pair were detained at least twice during the two-month journey, although it is unclear in which countries. Each time, it seems, they were allowed to continue on their way.”
A spokesman for the SDF claimed that Kotey entered Turkey in 2012 “even though the Turkish intelligence had his jihadi record. He gained two months’ residence in Turkey and then he was allowed to go to Syria and he entered Syrian soil through the border crossing at Bab al Hawa.”
After years of fighting for Katibat al-Muhajireen and then ISIS, Kotey and Elsheikh were detained by the SDF in 2018 as the Caliphate faced defeat by the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies on the one hand, and US and SDF forces on the other, during the race to control Syria’s northeastern oil and grain producing regions. Emzawi had already been killed in a US airstrike in 2015.
Trial in the US instead of UK
By the time of Kotey’s detention in 2018, British police had long been collecting evidence of Kotey’s terrorist activities. As a result, the Guardianreported that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had charged Kotey with five counts of murder and eight counts of hostage-taking in February 2016, and issued warrants for his arrest.
However, once Kotey was in SDF custody, British officials took extraordinary legal measures to ensure he would not be brought back to the UK for trial, insisting instead that Kotey be tried in a US court.
The British Home Office then revoked Kotey’s British citizenship, making it more difficult to prosecute him in the UK. According to Ken Macdonald, a former UK director of public prosecutions, stripping Kotey of his citizenship appeared to be an attempt by the government “to duck responsibility for bringing this Briton to justice.”
The Guardianreports that UK Security Minister Ben Wallace claimed to parliament in July 2018 that the UK did not have enough evidence to try Kotey and a US trial was the only option. However, a legal source with knowledge of the case claimed that the “British families of those murdered by ‘the Beatles’ were misled by UK government officials” and told that “if these men are not sent to the US, we won’t be able to prosecute them.”
The Telegraphreported in 2018 that according to a leaked letter from British Home Secretary Sajid Javid, the Metropolitan Police and FBI had been investigating Kotey’s activities in Syria for the past four years, “collecting more than 600 witness statements in a criminal inquiry involving 14 other countries,” and that there was “intelligence” implicating Kotey in the “kidnap and murder” of two Britons and three Americans.
Britain’s support of terrorists in Syria
UK officials were correct, however, in saying to the victims’ families that if Kotey and Elsheikh were not sent to the US, they could not be prosecuted. This was because British intelligence had been directly supporting Katibat al-Muhajireen, the armed group Kotey, Elsheikh, and Emzawi initially fought for during the time they participated in the abduction and captivity of numerous western hostages.
Two previous efforts to convict British citizens on terrorism charges for their involvement with Katibat al-Muhajireen had fallen apart for this specific reason, illustrating British intelligence support for the armed group.
The first was the 2015 terror trial of Swedish citizen Bherlin Gildo, who according to the Daily Mail fought for Katibat al-Muhajireen and later for the official al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, the Nusra Front.
The Guardianreports that after Gildo abandoned the conflict, he was detained while transiting through Heathrow Airport. He was accused by British authorities of attending a terrorist training camp and receiving weapons training between 31 August, 2012, and 1 March, 2013, as well as possessing information likely to be useful to a terrorist.
However, the terror trial collapsed “after fears of deep embarrassment” to the British security services. This was because, as Gildo’s lawyer explained, “British intelligence agencies were supporting the same Syrian opposition groups as he [Gildo] was.”
Another example is former Guantanamo detainee Moazzam Begg, who was also tried on terror charges for assisting Katibat al-Muhajireen. Begg traveled to Syria several times in 2012 and provided physical training to foreign fighters from the group in Aleppo, as reported by Foreign Policy. Begg made his latest trip to Syria in December 2012.
As a result, Begg was detained by UK authorities in 2014 and accused of attending a terrorist training camp. The Guardianreported, however, that Begg was freed after British intelligence officials from MI5, “belatedly gave police and prosecutors a series of documents that detailed the agency’s extensive contacts with him before and after his trips to Syria,” and which showed that MI5 told Begg he could continue his work for the so-called opposition in Syria “unhindered.”
It was therefore clear that any terror trial of Kotey and Elsheikh in the UK would collapse for the same reasons as the previous cases, leaving UK officials no choice but to have them tried in the US instead.
In the letter leaked to the Telegraph, former Home Secretary Sajid Javid explained that “the UK does not currently intend to request, nor actively encourage, the transfer of Kotey and El-sheikh to the UK to support future UK-based prosecution.” Showing that he was under pressure as a result of this decision, Javid wrote further to the letter’s addressee, “I do understand your frustration on this subject.”
The Telegraph notes further that, “despite repeated ministerial assurances that British jihadists traveling to Syria would be held to account in British courts, the Home Secretary’s letter discloses concerns that laws in this country may not be robust enough to ensure successful prosecution. He believes American terrorism laws are more effective.”
In other words, British law was not robust enough to convict someone on terrorism charges for fighting with a terrorist group the UK intelligence services themselves supported.
The capital punishment loophole
Despite claims that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Kotey in the UK, any successful conviction in the US would have relied on evidence collected by UK prosecutors, which would have to be shared with their US counterparts.
This was problematic, however, because US officials had not provided assurances that Kotey would not face the death penalty if convicted. Because the death penalty is banned in the UK, it was contrary to long standing UK policy to provide evidence that could contribute to a death sentence.
Home Secretary Javid nevertheless approved providing evidence against Kotey and Elsheikh to US prosecutors after the pair were transferred from SDF to US custody.
House of Lords member Alex Carlile, a former reviewer of terrorism legislation, described Javid’s willingness to approve this as “a dramatic change of policy by a minister, secretly, without any discussion in parliament,” and that “Britain has always said that it will pass information and intelligence, in appropriate cases, provided there is no death penalty. That is a decades-old policy and it is not for the home secretary to change that policy.”
This led Elsheikh’s mother to sue the British government, fearing that if her son and Kotey were convicted in a US court, they would be executed. The case eventually went to the British Supreme Court, which according to the New York Times, “unanimously ruled that the British home secretary’s decision to transfer personal data to law enforcement authorities abroad for use in capital criminal proceedings without any safeguards violated a data protection law passed in 2018.”
As a result, US Attorney General William Barr belatedly gave the assurance in August 2020 that Kotey and Elsheikh would not face the death penalty, allowing the sharing of evidence and the prosecution to move forward.
A testimony of the west’s support of ISIS
In 2022, Kotey and Elsheikh were finally convicted and sentenced to life in prison. At the time, the Washington Post explained that the successful prosecution of Elsheikh and Kotey had been unlikely, given that at time of their capture, it was “unclear whether an American trial would happen at all. A federal prosecution was met with opposition at the highest levels of government on two continents.”
While the reason for Kotey’s recent disappearance from US Bureau of Prisons custody is unclear, the insistence of UK officials to have him and fellow Beatle Elsheikh prosecuted in a US rather than UK court, and the reluctance of both governments to try the two ISIS militants at all, indicates that British planners wished to hide their previous support for extremists who helped lay the foundation for ISIS.
While ISIS is widely understood to have emerged in Iraq, evidence continues to emerge showing that officials in London and Washington played the crucial role in the rise of the notorious terror group as part of a broader effort to topple the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad.
In a previous article I introduced the concept of looking at mortality from non-respiratory causes (i.e., not deaths from flu, Covid or other similar pathogens) as a better indicator of core mortality changes in the U.K. population than either excess deaths alone (or even excess non-Covid deaths). This is because most of the variation in the number of deaths between winter and summer and from year to year are due to respiratory causes; thus, take those out and you get a clearer picture of the underlying health of the population and whether people are generally getting sick and dying more or less than in recent years from causes such as cardiovascular problems, cancer, Alzheimer’s and so on.
I decided to go back and re-analyse the data in order to see how excess non-respiratory mortality has accumulated over the last few years. I discovered that this showed a total for 2021, 2022 and 2023 (thus far) of 49,696 deaths. When one takes into account the mortality displacement for this time period (owing to the pandemic bringing expected deaths forward; explained here), which I estimate as 23,650 deaths, the non-respiratory excess mortality reaches 73,346 deaths.
Comparing this to the number of deaths due to Covid (as underlying cause) over the same time period, which total 89,629 deaths, we see that the Covid figure is just 16,283 or 22% higher. Bearing in mind that it is widely acknowledged that there has been overcounting of Covid deaths (and thus conversely undercounting of non-respiratory deaths), the two tallies are now broadly similar, and thus an emergency situation at least as dangerous as the pandemic itself has arisen, which must surely now be addressed by the authorities.
To highlight the overcounting of Covid deaths, one only need compare the data for ‘deaths due to’ against ‘deaths with’ for COVID-19, and contrast it with the figures for other respiratory diseases. For Covid around 82% of deaths ‘with Covid’ are claimed to be ‘due to’ Covid over the course of the pandemic, yet with all other respiratory diseases only 34% of deaths ‘with’ the disease are claimed to be ‘due to’ it. The reason for the considerable discrepancy is unclear and suggests Covid is being significantly over-attributed as underlying cause.
For this article I calculated the number of excess non-respiratory deaths (relative to 2015-2019 pre-Covid averages) for each week of the year, and then calculated the cumulative values over the course of a full year. These charts confirm the suitability of the concept of non-respiratory mortality to serve as a stable core mortality rate that does not normally vary significantly from year to year. This is because there is a clear tendency (pre-Covid) for the cumulative non-respiratory mortality values to tend back to zero (i.e., the x-axis) if there has been a period of abnormal positive or negative values for an extended time. This indicates the role of mortality displacement in causing overall deaths to even out over time.
In fact, even in 2020 the shape of the curve (orange) looks very similar to the pre-Covid curves, excepting for the sudden spike at the beginning of the first wave of the pandemic when chaotic counting was arguably occurring. Without this the curve would hug the x-axis pretty much all through the year.
When we look at the curves for 2021, 2022 and 2023, however, the pattern changes radically. From week 18 in the spring of 2021 onwards the curve begins to point only upwards, and it further accelerates from the spring of 2022 and once again in the early part of 2023.
Please note all these curves are generated from the raw data from the ONS weekly reports for England and Wales. They are not adjusted for mortality displacement or anything else.
Putting all these curves together on one chart illustrates the changing pattern over the course of the pandemic, and in particular the striking upward turn in the spring of 2021.
Note that there appears to be little evidence of any need for an age-standardised adjustment to prevent an upward drift in death rates owing to an ageing population. Even after six years from the beginning of 2015 through to the end of 2020, the cumulative non-respiratory mortality is still around the zero mark, and even dips a little below in the first three months of 2021 (remember this is mortality with the respiratory deaths including Covid taken out).
Recent articles from Dr. Noah Carl have questioned whether mortality was unusually high in 2022 because, when the figures are adjusted for an ageing population using the age-standardised mortality rate (ASMR), excess deaths come out low. The ASMR is a hypothetical construct that is used to adjust crude mortality data for changes in the age structure of a population. It relies on a standardised population model that provides the weightings in the population of different age groups. This is a very useful model that can make sense of changing mortality rates over time when studying the demography of a population.
However, I would argue that it is not a useful model during times of exceptional change, as it relies on assumptions of weightings that change only incrementally over time and doesn’t take into account when a large number of deaths occur unexpectedly in older age groups. During the Covid pandemic there have been nearly 200,000 excess deaths (relative to the 2015-2019 average), and these are largely concentrated in the oldest age groups, i.e., the groups that provide the bulk of ‘normal’ mortality.
In particular, the over-80 age group comprises just 4.6% of the U.K. population yet delivers almost 60% of deaths in a normal year. As the U.K. population is roughly 67 million people, this puts the over-80s at about three million persons. The occurrence of 200,000 excess deaths in this age group implies a drop in the ‘weighting’ of this age group in the age make-up of the population of some 6.5%.
As the mortality in the U.K. in recent times has averaged about 600,000 deaths per year, a 6.5% adjustment in 60% of them would represent about 24,000 fewer deaths to be expected in 2022 than standardised models would predict, counteracting the ASMR expectation that the number of deaths should rise owing to an ageing population. 2022 has, however, seen something of a record year in overall mortality figures.
This is why, instead of looking at a misleading age-standardised mortality rate, we get a much better picture of what’s going on if we look at non-respiratory mortality as a measure of ‘core’ mortality, taking out the highly variable respiratory deaths. It’s worth noting here that it’s possible that the reason ‘core’ non-respiratory mortality has remained stable over recent years rather than rising as the age-standardised model would predict is because stronger winter flu seasons such as 2017-18 have naturally counteracted the effect of ageing on ‘core’ mortality.
The actuarial profession certainly seems to agree that there is a negative trend in underlying life expectancy based on what has been happening in 2022.
The upshot of this analysis of non-respiratory mortality is that something extraordinary has been occurring in the trends in core mortality since spring 2021, notably around the time of the Covid vaccination rollout. This worrying trend is currently accelerating and requires an urgent inquiry into whether the vaccinations themselves are playing a part or, if not, what is going on.
It is easy to get bogged down in the technical detail of the climate debate. But science can distract us from the fact that before climate change, environmentalists made exactly the same kind of predictions that now drive arguments for draconian climate policies. The gloomy predictions of civilisation’s imminent collapse made by environmentalists in the 1970s came to nothing – the world population grew larger, wealthier, healthier and safer. This should alert us to the fact that, whether or not ‘climate change is real’, environmentalism is a radical political ideology, bent on reorganising the world, whatever the facts are. It is not merely a response to scientific discovery about our relationship with the natural world.
We should not forget this historical context of the climate debate and motivation for the climate policy agenda, because ideology is insidious, and far more powerful than scientific rationalism. Today’s radical greens, from world leaders to street-blocking narcissists, have learned not to make the mistake of their predecessors. Rather than making predictions that fail to materialise, their new trick is to claim that the ‘climate crisis’ is ‘happening now’: people are starving, diseases are rampant, storms, floods, wildfires and heatwaves kill thousands by the day, forcing millions from their homes and into poverty, all underpinned by dramatic images on TV news stories to cement the narrative without any journalistic incredulity towards official stories.
But the ‘climate crisis’ simply isn’t happening at all. Just as the world defied green predictions half a century ago, all metrics of human welfare make the opposite case: humanity is thriving like never before. And just as in the 1970s, it is ideology, not fact, which drives the green narrative. In our new film, we at Climate Debate UK attempt to show how this regressive ideology has been transmitted, using the idea of a ‘climate crisis’, from the top strata of global society, through governments and the media, to very young children, where it poisons their view of the world and their futures.
It is ideology, not mere scientific error, that has blinded people to the fact that abundant, affordable and reliable energy has made the world a much better place. Worse, it is ideology that has clouded the moral judgement of people who have wilfully turned extremely young children into instruments of the political agenda, to prevent them driving this development onward. ‘Science’ is just a fig leaf.
Much of the analysis around Covid 19 vaccine harms revolves around counts of deaths, and excess mortality. This is perfectly understandable since “excess deaths” is a “hard” measure in that most countries are able to count the number of their citizens who have died quite accurately so this does allow for some reasonably informative inferences and international comparisons.
The same is of course not the case for “covid deaths” which even the strongest proponents of the establishment covid narrative have had to admit are affected by differences between countries in classification, testing rates, and policies.
However, as well as many countries experiencing excess deaths, there is currently a second huge problem: marked increases in the numbers registering as long-term disabled.
Because registering as disabled is usually done for the purposes of receiving financial assistance or other support from the state, there is a built-in gatekeeping function which limits spurious claims, so we can be reasonably confident that any significant increases represent genuine medical issues.
Looking at the USA first, a group called Phinance recently published an analysis of the proportion of the US civilian labor force who are registered as disabled.
This graph shows the % of workers aged 16 to 64 with a disability against the total number of Covid vaccinations administered in the same age group.
Phinance also published this graph which is a regression analysis showing a very strong correlation between the increase in the number disabled and the total number of doses given – something which actually is rather obvious from the above.
It is fair to point out that such a regression analysis should not in general be performed on cumulative series of data (ie total doses administered), but rather on discrete data (which in this case would be daily or weekly doses). If the measurements can only increase and not fall (as with cumulative data), this limits the significance of any correlation observed, as by default they will rise together.
This is less of a problem here in that only one of the 2 data points (vaccines) is cumulative (for the other axis they have used the increase in the number disabled). However, we wrote to the authors to ask why they didn’t use daily or weekly doses administered.
They responded with the not unreasonable point that because the adverse effects occur over a wide and variable period after dosing, a cumulative series is probably more informative. We agree. Just because fewer doses were given one week does not mean there were fewer people at risk of developing a post vaccination disability in that week.
The extremely experienced medical statistician who blogs as “John Dee” has performed further analysis on the US data above. The article is rather technical but in essence by applying a number of sophisticated statistical tools he concludes that using cumulative data may exaggerate but has not invalidated the findings, which should therefore be regarded as highly suggestive (though not in themselves proof of) a causal relationship.
However, the criticism of the statistical methodology was never really “on point” anyway. Science advances through testing hypotheses by questioning the available data.
The point of the analysis of the disability data was not to conclusively “prove” that the vaccines cause harm, but rather to answer the question: Is there a signal of potential concern which warrants further study? The answer to this appears to be “yes” and anyone finding excuses to not even look further should be regarded as willfully blind.
Of course, the link to vaccination could quite easily be further tested by ascertainment of the vaccination status of a representative sample of the disabled, with comparisons to disability rates in the unvaccinated. That this is not even being discussed must surely be regarded as a red flag.
When a potential signal of concern is replicated internationally, it increases the likelihood that we are dealing with a causal relationship. Not much quality data on disability rates is available from other countries, but one country which does publish some comparable data is the UK.
In the UK, if disabled, a state payment called a personal independence payment (PIP) can be claimed. An official UK government report states that there have been “unprecedented levels of new claims in recent quarters” (in England and Wales).
This has been reported by various news websites, including Yahoo’s article titled “The ‘astonishing’ rise in people claiming one key benefit”.
PIP data is actually downloadable from an official UK government website, and “John Dee” has performed some analysis on it which can be read here and here.
The new claims data plotted against cumulative doses administered looks like this (with thanks to John Dee for the graphs):
Clearly, this bears an uncanny resemblance to the US data above.
As he did with the US data, John has drilled deeper into the data, showing, for example that whilst claim rates in the pandemic period were similar to those in the pre-pandemic period, there is a huge uptick in the post-vaccine period, with the error bars (and statistical tests of significance) indicating that this is not just random variation.
Moreover, he has used a technique called “cross-correlation” which strongly suggests that “the increase in the month-on-month changes in total administered doses is followed three months later by a rise in month-on-month changes in new cleared claims.”
This would appear to add plausibility to the causation argument, in that three months is the period required by the government as a minimum qualifying period before an application for PIP can be filed.
Overall, these datasets surely raise huge concerns, which could be assuaged by further more detailed examination of the data, especially including vaccination status. We urge governments to carry out such an analysis, which need only be performed on a representative sample in order to generate reliable conclusions.
Martin Sandler, editor of “The Letters of John F. Kennedy,” discussed the possibility that Israel’s Mossad was behind the assassination of President John F. Kennedy during a book talk at the John F. Kennedy Museum in Hyannis, Massachusetts on November 6, 2013.
Sandler is an award-winning author of numerous popular books and textbooks on American history. He has taught at the University of Massachusetts and Smith College.
Sandler’s full Hyannis talk was broadcast on C-SPAN’s Book TV; the segment on the JFK assassination is on C-SPAN here.
Author Michael Collins Piper discusses this subject in his book “Final judgment : The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy,” available on Archive.org, Amazon, and in some libraries.
Although Israel has possessed nuclear weapons since the 1960’s, it maintains a policy of nuclear opacity, never officially confirming the existence of its nuclear program. Accordingly, Israel has never signed the NPT.
For information on Israel’s nuclear weapons see this and this and this and this and this.
The video is also on YouTube. For related videos go here.
I guess the research wasn’t so clear then. The pandemicists will now begin to say many stupid things, as they beat a hasty retreat from policies that are more and more universally repudiated.
Chief German pandemic botherer and renowned virus pest Karl Lauterbach in November 2020:
Here’s a good, topical summary on the question of whether schools are driving the second wave, whether they’re sites of superspreading, what the research shows. Dr. Zoe Hyde, an expert on Covid in children, says the research is clear, schools cause clusters of infections, they drive the pandemic, the research is clear. I agree.
Chief German pandemic botherer, renowned virus pest and now Health Minister Karl Lauterbach just this morning:
… Lauterbach … has called the long closure of schools and day-care centres during the pandemic a mistake. Many businesses were “relatively spared” during the pandemic, he said … “But we went very hard on the schools and on the children.” …
“This was the advice from the scientists who advised the federal government at the time,” Lauterbach said. Back then, too little was known about Corona transmission. In retrospect, however, the belief that many infections occur in schools and day-care centres “did not prove to be correct in this way.” Other countries had “acted somewhat differently” and had set other priorities.
Schools and day-care centres closed for months during the first waves of Corona. Lauterbach was not yet the Federal Minister of Health at the time, but as an SPD health politician in the joint government with the CDU/CSU he was involved in important decisions …
Lauterbach said that he considered it difficult to ask for forgiveness in light of this retrospective assessment of the pandemic measures. … “Often our knowledge was simply not good enough,” Lauterbach said. This is a different matter, he said, than if the wrong policies had been deliberately enacted in the face of better knowledge at the time.
There’s a lot to say about this. The most obvious, is the open attempt to shift blame for catastrophic pandemic measures onto not-so-nebulous “scientists who advised the federal government” – a clear jab at Christian Drosten. And of course there is the very tired lie that nobody knew any better in 2020, even though by the Fall of that year – when Lauterbach zealously retweeted Covid lunatics like Zoe Hyde – his own government was publishing weekly contact tracing data that sourced the plurality of infections to care homes and could find almost none in educational or childcare settings, despite the heavy testing there. It’s especially frustrating to read statements like this now, because many, many of us spent a good part of November 2020 pointing precisely at these numbers, only to be thoroughly ignored.
What’s most important, though, is the emerging strategy that we see here and in other places, to contain the growing impression that our entire pandemic response has been a failure. Too many people have been complicit in these ruinous policies for there ever to be an open acknowledgment that they constitute a wholesale disaster. Instead, they’ll try to pick aspects of the containment regime to repudiate, in the hopes that limited admissions will calm their critics and forestall an avalanche. In Germany, they’ve decided that it’s the school closures that are to be officially regretted.
I suspect this is a preview of the strategy they’ll pursue with the mass vaccination campaign. Around this time next year, they’ll start to admit that in their zeal to save lives, they might’ve accidentally overvaccinated some younger cohorts. They didn’t know any better at the time, they’ll say. They were just acting in good faith, they’ll add.
Unvaccinated patients have mentioned half-jokingly that COVID-19 vaccination in friends and family makes some of them “crazy.” While I have always brushed this off as fear driven vaccine ideology taking over common sense in some zealots, the building literature on neuropsychiatric symptoms is alarming. There are now ~10 papers describing headache, fever, and a range of acute neuropsychiatric symptoms after both mRNA and adenoviral COVID-19 vaccination. The strong bias among editors and publishers has kept countless papers out of the mainstream medical media, hence one has to look far and wide to find information on the topic of vaccine safety. Borovina et al, from Croatia described three cases of acute headache followed by psychosis.
Borovina T, Popović J, Mastelić T, Sučević Ercegovac M, Kustura L, Uglešić B, Glavina T. First Episode of Psychosis Following the COVID-19 Vaccination – A Case Series. Psychiatr Danub. 2022 Summer;34(2):377-380. doi: 10.24869/psyd.2022.377. PMID: 35772162.
All three patients required hospitalization with exhaustive diagnostic testing and medical treatment. One of the cases progressed to attempted suicide with a knife stabbing to the abdomen requiring emergency abdominal surgery. As a doctor I am disturbed by medical evidence demonstrating gene coded SARS-CoV-2 Wuhan Institute of Virology Spike protein in the human brain after vaccination. I wonder how many subtle changes go clinically unrecognized. Even if a small number are affect, the massive numbers who came forward make any “rare” complication a common issue to face in clinical practice.
In conclusion, we should not downplay or attempt to normalize neuropsychiatric symptoms after COVID-19 shots. Every case should be taken seriously. Suicides after December 10, 2020 should be investigated and the brand, doses, and dates of vaccination should be recorded by healthcare personnel and noted by family members.
I doubt these professors have anything to fear from a food tax
By Eric Worrall | Watts Up With That? | November 19, 2016
A group of researchers in Oxford University, England have suggested that imposing a massive tax on carbon intensive foods – specifically protein rich foods like meat and dairy – could help combat climate change. […]
This proposal, from a group of people who have probably never missed a meal in their lives, is totally obscene. High income countries often have a lot of poor people who would be hard hit by increases in the price of food.
Needlessly exacerbating the risk poor people don’t get enough to eat, especially children and pregnant mothers, who are especially vulnerable to adverse health impacts from lack of protein in their diet – if this ghastly proposal is ever implemented, future generations will look upon it as a crime against humanity. – Read full article
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
Aletho News 