[Note: This essay is abstracted from my eBook Myths: Widely Held But False Beliefs In The Climate Change Crisis, available on Amazon]
In their Fifth Assessment Report the IPCC, the ‘internationally accepted scientific authority on climate change’, gave their opinion of how much of the recent global warming was caused by human activity: ‘It is extremely likely [95-100 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic [i.e. man-made] increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together’. Reflecting that opinion Wikipedia states that the ‘Scientific consensus on climate change’ is that ‘the Earth is warming and… this warming is mainly caused by human activities’. It claims that 97-100% of actively publishing climate scientists endorse this opinion. Similarly, NASA claim that, ‘A consensus on climate change and its human cause exists… human activities are the primary cause of the observed climate-warming trend over the past century.’ And in an October 2020 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes climatologist Dr Michael Mann said, ‘There’s about as much scientific consensus about human-caused climate change as there is about gravity.’ So is it actually true that 97-100% of climate scientists explicitly or implicitly endorse this key IPCC opinion?
Although science is not remotely democratic (it only needs one scientist to prove that the ‘consensus view’ is wrong and it is wrong) the fact remains that if this 97-100% consensus assertion is true then it is indeed very powerful. If the ‘internationally accepted scientific authority on climate change’ says something is almost certainly true and almost all climate scientists in the world agree then it almost certainly must be true – mustn’t it? Whilst there is undoubtedly almost total scientific consensus amongst the scientific authorities (literally dozens of scientific academies from around the world explicitly or implicitly endorse the IPCC’s opinions) that does not necessarily reflect the consensus view amongst climate scientists themselves. So what exactly is it that climate scientists agree on?
The consensus argument is epitomized by Barack Obama’s 2013 tweet that, ‘Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous’. He tweeted this immediately after the publication of the most famous climate change consensus survey, Quantifying the consensus on man-made global warming in the scientific literature (John Cook et al, 2013) conducted by Skeptical Science, a small group of climate change activists, who, despite their name, are precisely the opposite of climate change skeptics (their strapline is ‘Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism’). This study examined the Abstracts from 11,944 climate science papers published over the twenty-year period from 1991 to 2011. It concluded that 97.1% of the Abstracts (that actually expressed an opinion on the causes of global warming) endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gas emissions (or, at least, greenhouse gases) cause global warming. Although this was 97% of Abstracts, not 97% of climate scientists, it is not unreasonable to suppose that, based on this survey, about 97% of climate scientists endorse the view that man-made greenhouse gas emissions (or, at least, greenhouse gases) cause global warming. It said nothing whatsoever about how much warming those emissions were causing and whether or not such warming was ‘dangerous’. It is probably the case that at least 99.9% of people who might describe themselves as climate scientists (including those most skeptical about the climate change crisis idea) endorse the view that man-made greenhouse gas emissions (or, at least, greenhouse gases) cause global warming, i.e. some global warming. That is not in any serious dispute. The dispute is about how much global warming human activity is causing and whether or not it is ‘dangerous’. So the study revealed nothing that was not already well known and uncontroversial.
Skeptical Science summarized their findings with the statement, ‘97% of climate papers expressing a position on human-caused global warming agree: global warming is happening and we are the cause’ – where ‘we are the cause’ clearly implied ‘we are the sole cause’ instead of what it actually found, viz. that we are the cause of some of the global warming. If the study had been able to show convincingly that 97% of climate scientists endorsed the IPCC’s opinion that human activity was the predominant cause of global warming between 1951 and 2010 then that would certainly have strongly supported the view that there was almost total scientific consensus that the IPCC was right. But of all the Abstracts reviewed in this study only 0.3% explicitly endorsed that central IPCC opinion1. Even (ex-IPCC) Mike Hulme has noted that, ‘The Cook et al study is hopelessly confused… in one place the paper claims to be exploring “the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW [Global Warming]” and yet the headline conclusion is based on rating abstracts according to whether “humans are causing global warming”. These are two entirely different judgements.’ The recently published paper Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature (Lynas et al, 2021) claims that the consensus is actually 2% higher – but once again only actually finds a 99% consensus that human activity contributes to climate change to some extent2; in fact about 99% of the papers reviewed in this study failed to explicitly quantify the extent. A survey3 of more than 1,800 climate scientists conducted in 2015 concluded that just 43% of them would endorse the IPCC opinion about our recent predominant role in global warming (and how many of them were agreeing based primarily on their faith in the IPCC and/or their self-interest in staying ‘on message’ to the climate change crisis narrative?)
Mike Hulme has stated that, ‘Claims such as “2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate” are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts.’ Supporting that view, an independent study4 found that the views expressed by the IPCC were the consensus of a leadership cadre of just 53 (about 2%) of them, 44 of whom were very closely linked professionally, having co-authored papers with one another and so very likely to share the same opinions. The author of the study, John McLean (climate data analyst at the Australian Climate Science Coalition and an Expert Reviewer for the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report), concluded that ‘Governments have naively and unwisely accepted the claims of a human influence on global temperatures made by a close-knit clique of a few dozen scientists, many of them climate modellers, as if they were representative of the opinion of the wider scientific community.’
One of the most comprehensive reviews5 ever performed of surveys of the scientific consensus on climate change concluded:
- The articles and surveys most commonly cited as showing support for a ‘scientific consensus’ in favor of the catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis are without exception methodologically flawed and often deliberately misleading.
- There is no survey or study showing ‘consensus’ on the most important scientific issues in the climate change debate.
- Extensive survey data show deep disagreement among scientists on scientific issues that must be resolved before the man-made global warming hypothesis can be validated. Many prominent experts and probably most working scientists disagree with the claims made by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
So what is the real scientific consensus on climate change? There is almost total scientific consensus that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing, that that increase is predominantly due to human activity, that the climate system is warming, that climate change is happening and that human activity has contributed to some extent to the warming, changing climate. Note again that skeptical scientists, like Dr Roy Spencer and Dr Judith Curry and Dr Richard Lindzen, are part of this ‘scientific consensus on climate change’; the idea that they constitute the 3% of scientists who do not support the scientific consensus on climate change is a false idea, misrepresenting what the ‘scientific consensus on climate change’ actually is6. This misrepresentation is designed to bolster the ‘climate change crisis’ narrative and to marginalize and neutralize the skeptical scientists by making their views appear to fall far outside the overwhelming consensus view, even though they actually share that consensus view. Basically, the ‘consensus’ breaks down over the issue of whether or not human activity has been predominantly responsible for recent warming – and whether or not that warming is ‘dangerous’. The power of the false ‘97% scientific consensus that human activity has been predominantly responsible for climate change’ meme, perpetuated by Wikipedia, NASA, Facebook (and many others) is that it can be used very effectively to strangle at birth any debate about the science. As Dr Richard Lindzen has put it, ‘The claim is meant to satisfy the non-expert that he or she has no need to understand the science. Mere agreement with the 97 percent will indicate that one is a supporter of science and superior to anyone denying disaster. This actually satisfies a psychological need for many people.’
So if we return to Dr Michael Mann’s statement that, ‘There’s about as much scientific consensus about human-caused climate change as there is about gravity’ this is very disingenuous. Whilst there is almost total scientific consensus that climate change is ‘real’ and happening and that there has been some human-caused influence, there is no such scientific consensus over the extent of the human-caused influence and whether or not it could reasonably be described as ‘dangerous’, let alone a ‘crisis’.
References
1 Legates et al. (2015), Science & Education and ‘Consensus? What Consensus?’, GWPF Note 5, thegwpf.org, September 2013 and ‘Richard Tol’s Excellent Summary of the Flaws in Cook et al. (2013) and ‘The Infamous 97% Consensus Paper’, wattsupwiththat.com, 26 March 2015 and ‘The Cook ‘97% consensus’ paper, exposed by new book for the fraud that it really is’, wattsupwiththat.com, 12 March 2016
2 ‘Cooked Up Consensus: Lynas et al “Should Rather Be Classified As Propaganda, Bad Science”’, wattsupwiththat.com, 26 October 2021
3 Bart Strengers, Bart Verheggen and Kees Vringer (2015), Climate Science Survey, Questions and Responses, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, pp 1 – 39
4 ‘Prejudiced authors, prejudiced findings’, John McLean, (Science and Public Policy Institute), July 2008
5 Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming (2015) – Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, S. Fred Singer
6 ‘Study: 3% Contrarians Derailing the 97% Climate Consensus’, wattsupwiththat.com, 18 December 2021
February 11, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Book Review, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Facebook, IPCC, NASA, Obama, Wikipedia |
Leave a comment
It shouldn’t be needed, but it is. Florida governor Ron DeSantis has introduced a patient protection bill, so that ‘if you’re in a hospital or long-term care facility, you have a right to have your loved ones there present with you.’ Every other state and country will hopefully follow. Some places have even prevented the dying from dying in the company and warmth of loved ones.
Reacting to the Governors bill, Brownstone scholar Dr. Jay Bhattacharya tweeted:
“Perhaps the cruelest lockdown policy: preventing people from visiting their sick loved ones in hospitals or long-term care facilities”
Many people commented on that post. The stories came pouring in. Among the many, here are some:
“No perhaps about it… it was heartless, ineffective and cruel. I lost my mother during this; I am not sure I can ever forgive the hospital policy makers for this.” – Danny Peoples, USA (@Danny99634068)
“We were allowed to see my mom for 5 minutes the day of her death. 2 by 2, though. We couldn’t be with her all together as a family. The 9 weeks prior she suffered alone in ICU surrounded by people in space suits. No visitors. She never had Covid. She died with no dignity.” – ClownBasket (@ClownBasket)
“My grandma passed away in May 2020. The last time the family saw her was outside the window at her assisted living facility, unable to actually speak due to her difficulty hearing.” – Analytical Badger, Wisconsin (@BadgerStats)
“My mom got kicked out of the hospital by security (in FL, only 6 months ago) trying to visit my dad on Day 3 of his hospital stay. They assured her they were taking care of him. He passed from a heart attack 2 days later. The lack of allowing for patient advocacy is sickening.” – Psyche’s Dagger (@PsychesDagger)
“My grandma didn’t deserve her last ten months of isolation.” – Mark Changizi (@MarkChangizi)
“I’ll never be over my blind father having to advocate for himself alone in a hospital for 3 1/2 weeks. Never. I have his messages of pure fear.” – Jennifer Hotes, Seattle, WA (@JenniferLHotes)
“I was in hospital, heart attack in BC a year ago. Scariest moment in my life, [they] wouldn’t let my wife visit me.” – hear.the.truth.now, Penticton, BC, Canada (@MandelbrotG)
“How I wished Mass General Hospital would have done things differently. An old woman wanted her husband to accompany her upstairs for a doctor appointment, but MGH wouldn’t allow it. She was nervous and terrified. I will never forget what they did to people.” – Fibci, MA (@Fibci2)
“No fan of DeSantis but currently some hospitals in CA prohibit someone from seeing their depressed spouse, family members from coming in to help a mildly delirious loved one, kids from seeing their parents unless they’re gravely ill. Even if family’s vaxed x3… It’s not right.” – James Lim, MD, Southern California (@JLimHospMD)
“Agreed. My dad walked into a hospital last year and came out on hospice because my mom was not allowed to see him.” – Tia Ghose, San Fransisco, CA (@tiaghose)
“My wife’s abuelo was taken out of his Bogota apartment by men in hazmat suits, not allowed to say goodbye to his wife of 50 years, died alone in hospital, funeral in a parking lot. When abuela got covid they didn’t call the hospital. She stayed home. Everyone got to say goodbye.” – Team Sweden (@SwedenTeam)
“In New York, my 84-year-old mother had sepsis. We had to literally drop her off at the door. She was unable to advocate for herself and we were not able to speak with her for days. It was incredibly hard to reach her doctor or a nurse. It was an unmitigated disaster.” – thedatadon, Florida (@thedatadonald)
“Our good friend was only 44 and had no idea he had stage 4 colorectal, liver, lung, and lymphatic cancer. He fought as long as he could but none of us were ever able to see him in his final days in the hospital. Final months really. One visitor per day. Today is his birthday.” – Dave (@Dave31952257)
“My vaccinated Dad wasn’t able to go see his vaccinated Mom (my Grandma) last Mother’s Day because of a ban on “non-essential” travel between Quebec and Ontario. She died 2 days before the ban was lifted. Her brother was killed by Nazis. Lest we forget.” – Adam Millward Art, Montréal, Canada (@nexusvisions)
“My aunt died in an empty hospital in Amarillo from breast cancer in late 2020. She was so scared of the virus she didn’t go to the doctor until her breast literally started to atrophy and she collapsed. No visitors. I had to help her son sneak in to see her and we were kicked out.” – razumikhin (@cw_cnnr)
“I’m afraid to let my family members [be admitted] to the hospital. Not afraid of covid at all, we’ve all had it, but worried about having family isolated and no one to advocate for them.” – Donna H, Pleasant Grove, Utah (@Donna_H67)
“My dad was in assisted living, in good health except unsteady on his feet. When prolonged Covid restrictions prevented any of us, his family, from visiting, and kept him confined to his room even for meals, he told an aide ‘This is no way to live’. 10 days later he went to Heaven.” – Tray Shelley, (@tlsintexas)
“Yesterday my husband’s cousins were not allowed in the hospital where their mother was dying (non-covid related). It was unexpected and it is obscene that they were unable to say goodbye. They needed it and she needed it.” – Yada yada yada (@3girlsmommd)
“This brings me to tears because I worked in a nursing home through the pandemic, and it broke my heart that dying patients couldn’t have their families with them! We had to be their family, but it was tragic!” – Jean Walker (@JeanWal33859349)
“The people who will remember the (fear) pandemic response the most are not people who got sick and recovered, but rather people barred from seeing their loved ones who died while hospitalized.” – Dr. NotWoke Setty, Tampa, FL (@hsettymd)
“I had to fight the VA, hospital administrators and threaten to sue to bring my father home. He passed quietly with my Mom next to him, surrounded by family. It breaks my heart that our most precious population has been treated so cruelly.” – Sherry (@sherryande)
“My father had pancreatic cancer. We were forced to leave his bedside due to the lockdown he was alone his final days the hospital called in his final moments but when we got there he was gone. He died alone. Tomorrow is his birthday.” – foodforlife123456 (@foodforlife1231)
“In December 2020, my wife took a prayer blanket to the hospital that she had made for her mother in the hospital. No one in the hospital would come to take it to her room. She died the next day which was Christmas morning while our girls were opening presents.” – Postman, Texas (@postman2421)
“I couldn’t visit my Dad in the hospital for 2 weeks before he died. I was “allowed” to see him the day he died but it was too late.” – Gary (@gmangehl)
“I work with dementia residents. For a year and a half these residents couldn’t communicate with their families because they weren’t capable of phone calls or window visits. That is a long time for someone with dementia. They deteriorate further or pass in that time. So inhumane.” – paige (@pgs300)
“My mom passed away in April of 2020 at a retirement home. She was 102, in surprisingly good health, but declined immediately following the lockdown. The facility did break rules to allow family in to be with her over her last week or so. There was no opportunity for a funeral.” – Prickly Mystic (@MysticPrickly)
“My grandma has been dying in hospital for about a week with us waiting in the lot begging to visit for five minutes. No. I think she’s simply losing the will to live. Genuinely wonder how many excess deaths are deaths of despair and loneliness.” – goldnecklace (@goldnecklace2)
“In 2020 Melbourne my mother was in residential care. Our first lockdown took her mind. When I saw her after this, she didn’t know who I was. We were then locked down for a second time. This second lockdown took her life. Cruel and unnecessary.” – HegelOrHegel (@HegelorHegel)
“I have seen this firsthand in the nursing facilities I go to. So many of my patients died from sheer loneliness. It has been incredibly hard for me as a behavioral health provider to witness. Kudos to Gov Ron DeSantis for making sure this doesn’t happen in Florida.” – Dr Deepan Chatterjee, Maryland (@DrDeepChat007)
“I live in BC, Canada; my elderly aunt literally starved when her daughters weren’t allowed to see her and help her eat, went from 100 to 71 lbs. and admin kept telling my cousins she was ‘fine’. Finally concerned care aides contacted them to tell them she wasn’t fine.” – Marion Ambler, Vancouver, Canada (@MarionAmbler)
“I brought my Dad who has dementia to see my stepmom in a rehab facility during the lockdowns. Luckily, she had a first-floor room with a window. We stood outside in the POURING rain talking to her. He was so confused and mad that she wouldn’t let him in.” – Kfaria (@Kfaria8)
“I wasn’t able to see my grandma before she died. My dad luckily was, but his brother was not. He stayed in town for weeks hoping they’d let him see her. They said if she went into a critical condition, they’d let us see her. They never did. She died alone.” – Marie (@mariecaun)
“A family member died of cancer during one of the many lockdowns in Canada. No one was allowed to see him. His funeral was only allowed to be 10 people. It’s like their lives didn’t matter. So so sad.” – Fern (@fern_forrest_)
“I worry constantly that my 87-year-old blind mother will need medical treatment and she will be alone. She says she will not go for fear of not coming out. The thought terrifies me, I have many sleepless nights.” – goodnightfromthelowerlevel (@mmmaybe)
“Of everything in my ICU career, what will stick with me most is being in patients’ rooms when they died, alone, while their distraught loved ones watched through an iPad because they weren’t allowed to be in the hospital.” – Trucker Enthusiast (@_Spolar_)
“In Canada I couldn’t visit my grandmother in the hospital, but they allowed skype calls via the hospital iPad. They never charged the iPads. She died and I never got to see her even remotely.” – Vovin, Toronto, Canada (@vovin5)
“My father-in-law died alone with no last rites. We watched on zoom. He was petrified. There were no services. The following week BLM rallies in Boston started and those were totally fine. I was called a racist for being angry.” – Mom Loves Wine, Boston, USA (@Momloveswine1)
“Yep. Was prevented from seeing my Grammy for all of 2020 until her death in 2021. 99 years young. She died alone.” – Concerned Citizen, Encinitas, California (@mercury941)
“Yup. And women giving birth alone. SHAMEFUL.” – Kelley (@kelley14419438)
“Also, not allowing husbands in for important ultrasound visits to be with their wife, where there may be something wrong with the baby.” – ec47c (@ec147c)
“My elderly father had procedure in Florida hospital 2 weeks ago. Frustrated at being alone and not understanding all that was going on, he complained so much they discharged him 48 hours later. At home, next morning, his bed sheets were soaked in blood. He healed. But we had a scare.” – Ewetopian (@Ewetopian)
“My mom is in the hospital (non-covid related) and she’s only allowed 1 named visitor her entire stay. She’s been in for weeks and sobbing and depressed all day. It’s torture and cruel and is protecting no one.” – Free and Loud (@ohiogirl81511)
“Because of these monsters, my grandmother spent almost a year in isolation in her tiny room. She met her two newest great grandchildren through a window and started talking to pictures on the wall. Fortunately, we eventually got her out. Never forgive, never forget.” – Danny Hudson, Nashville, Tennessee (@FinEssentials)
“To all the nurses that snuck people in – you are HEROES.” – Divinely Placed Texan, Hillsborough County, Florida (@Maskingchildbad)
“My friend in Alabama’s dad was in assisted living facility with Parkinson’s. Family barred from seeing him from March-Aug 2020, when they received call saying he was at end of life and that ‘he had declined significantly since his fall in April’ that they had never been told about!” – Here Is Publius, Virginia (@hereispublius)
“I have an elderly extended family member who died of non-Covid reasons – who was not permitted contact with any family member during the last 3 months of her life. Because of the insanity that took over epidemiology.” – Falskerbra (@UnitedAirPR)
“My husband is going in for open heart surgery this week. I’ve had Covid and recovered. I’m being told I won’t be able to see him in the hospital while he’s in recovery. (Illinois) it’s sick and disgusting!” – plain belly sneech (@skjohns1965)
“My grandfather in law was unable to see his daughter, my mother-in-law, before she passed away from cancer. My coworker was unable to visit her daughter in the hospital and didn’t find out she had died until three days after.” – Babs, Massachusetts (@MantiB)
“My mom passed away after a month in a rehab facility after surgery 8 months ago. Only my dad was allowed to see her, only 2 hours/week. Rest of us had to wave to her through the window. She died alone. All of us were fully vaxed.” – A Parent of CPS kids, Chicago, IL (@AcpsParent)
“The nursing home tried to keep me out, but my daughter had the two of us listed as “compassionate caregivers” and they were forced to let us in. Thanks to Gov. DeSantis my mother did not die alone, and I will always, always be grateful.” – Carolyn Tackett, South Shore, Florida, (@CarolsCloset)
“My friend’s dad in Florida had to go check himself into the hospital with internal bleeding. His liver transplant was postponed. His wife crying in the parking lot. Thank God he was released, and he passed in his sleep at home. 10 people at his funeral. June 2020. Never forget.” – OrangeChickenMH (@OrangeChickenMH)
“My grandmother did not have covid. And died after a month of isolation from her family and suspected neglect. Staff too stretched thin and emotionally worn. She died two days before she was set to come home. On their 70th anniversary. She would have been 93 today.” – SAEDogmom (@SaeDogmom)
“My adult son was recently hospitalized for appendicitis; I was not allowed to see him. Fortunately, all went well, but it was very upsetting just in that minor instance. I can’t imagine if you had elderly parents or God forbid a spouse you couldn’t see in a more dire situation.” – AverageAmerican (@Average00037367)
“I had an older friend who died of prostate cancer during the pandemic. I wrote this piece as a tribute to him and so I can always remember how we treated dying people during COVID.” – Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, California (@DrJBhattacharya)
“Haven’t seen my grandma in 2 years. She lost my papa just before all this started. Married for 68 years. She was put in a home for her safety. Now she is alone and grieving on her own Broken heart. She has rapidly declined because only one person has been allowed to see her” – Karl, Vancouver, Canada (@K59096598)
“My severely mentally and physically handicapped cousin. Went in for viral pneumonia. Tested positive in hospital, moved to covid ward. No visitors allowed. Died alone, afraid and confused. Unforgivable.” – Deb (@Deb08795065)
“My 94-year-old dad with red heart problems was in a board and care home. I could only stand on the front porch luckily his room faced the street, and he didn’t have his hearing aids, so I’d have to yell. The neighbors thought I was nuts. I got to see him four a few minutes the day before he died.” – FlowerPowerKatie, Silicon Valleey, California (@nileskt)
“You can think DeSantis is wrong on so many other fronts, and he’s still right about this. Loneliness is a cruel punishment for people whose only crime is being old.” – Shannon Brownlee, Washington DC (@ShannonBrownlee)
“My best friend’s mother got sick but put off going to the hospital because she was terrified of being there alone. It got bad enough she finally went- a week later she was dead. Alone. Family wasn’t permitted to be with her even in the final hours.” – Sam M (@iamsamh2)
“Imagine how many people died because they avoided hospitals for this exact reason.” – Meredith (@Opportunitweet)
“Last time I saw my grandmother she said, ‘live your life honey’, repeatedly. I was lucky she was in a private facility that allowed visitors. The day she left this world we were having the first dinner party since the beginning of all this. I lived my life that day.” – nooneinparticular (@SweateyYeti)
February 11, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
Why are there so many articles on heart attacks recently?
There have always been articles, now and then, discussing strenuous activities that can cause heart attacks. However, in recent weeks there seems to have been a flurry of them.
Are there more heart attacks happening? Are they being caused by Covid? Lack of care during lockdowns? Lockdowns themselves? Vaccines?
Do you have access to any cardiac data and what do you think is causing them, if there are in fact more? (To be fair, looking at my recent energy bills did make me fill a bit funny).
A selection of the articles I am talking about:
The Times
Wales Online – Energy bill price rise may cause heart attacks and strokes
New York Post – The little-known heart attack that’s striking ‘fit and healthy’ women as young as 22
The Sun – How the weather is HARMING your health – from heart attacks to stroke and gout
The Times – Rise in heart attacks attributed to pandemic stress and poor diet
BBC – Devoted football fans experience ‘dangerous’ levels of stress
The Sun – HIDDEN RISK Urgent warning as 300,000 Brits living with stealth disease that could kill within 5 years
Express – Heart attack: The drink that could trigger a ‘sudden’ cardiac arrest – ‘catastrophic’
Express – Heart attack: Does skipping breakfast increase your risk?
Times of India – Why are heart attacks becoming common in ‘seemingly’ fit people?
Mining Journal – Sports can break your heart in more ways than one
Daily Mail – Expert warns that shovelling snow can be a deadly way to discover underlying cardiovascular conditions as straining the heart with physical activity could cause sudden death
Daily Mail – Popping a paracetamol each day could raise your risk of a deadly heart attack or stroke by a FIFTH, study warns
Heart – Cannabis use disorder may be linked to growing number of heart attacks in younger adults
February 11, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
Elon Musk’s brain-chip company Neuralink has caused horrific damage to test monkeys, according to a complaint filed by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) on Thursday and seen by the New York Post. The complaint, filed with the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), concerns Neuralink testing on the monkeys carried out at the University of California at Davis from 2017 to 2020.
The group has accused Neuralink and its host university of nine violations of the US federal Animal Welfare Act, noting in their complaint that “many, if not all, of the monkeys experienced extreme suffering as a result of inadequate animal care and the highly invasive head implants during the experiments.” It reportedly goes on to claim that the Neuralink implant procedure “produced recurring infections in the animals, significantly compromising their health, as well as the integrity of the research.”
They have also sued UC Davis to obtain more photos, videos, and information about the test monkeys, saying that the only such material that has been made public has been heavily curated by Musk’s company, showing a healthy-looking monkey playing a video game, supposedly with its mind. The university has denied any wrongdoing.
Aside from publicizing the clip of the monkey gamer, Musk has remained silent about the results of the animal Neuralink trials. In December, he suggested human trials will begin this year, and even went so far as to post a job listing seeking a clinical trials director last month. However, the project has experienced delays before – Musk declared last March that human trials would begin within months, even though the Tesla tycoon has yet to move beyond pigs and (non-human) primates.
While it’s not clear if the suffering the monkeys allegedly experienced is related to the delay in entering the human test phase, the degree of trauma cited in the complaint suggests Musk and his researchers may have to make some design improvements before testing their invention on humans.
One monkey reportedly described in the complaint was found missing extremities “possibly from self-mutilation or other unspecified trauma,” and was later killed during a “terminal procedure.” Another monkey had holes drilled in its skull in order to implant the Neuralink electrodes directly into its brain – only to develop a “bloody skin infection” and be put down. And a third appeared to survive the electrode implantation, only to be overcome with “vomiting, retching and gasping.” Days later, it allegedly “appeared to collapse from exhaustion/fatigue” and finally died, revealing it had suffered a brain hemorrhage.
The primates described by the Post were just three of the 15 experimental subjects – out of 23 test monkeys in total – that died or were euthanized during the three year period covered by the complaint.
Musk initially sold the idea of Neuralink as a brain-boosting implant to help humanity keep pace with the development of artificial intelligence, warning that otherwise we would be relegated to the status of “house cats” ruled by computers.
However, he has more recently scaled back that rhetoric, claiming that its primary use will be to help paralyzed people and others with brain injuries improve their quality of life.
He hasn’t stopped touting the ease with which a Neuralink can supposedly be implanted into the user’s brain, however, insisting it can be done in an hour without general anesthesia. He also described a future where Neuralink implanting centers are as ubiquitous as ear-piercing kiosks were in American malls.
February 10, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | United States |
Leave a comment
Comedian Heather McDonald, 51, has posted a video showing her collapsing mid-set during a stand-up routine in Tempe, Arizona earlier this week.
In the video McDonald collapses just moments after saying she is vaccinated, boosted, and still has her period, proclaiming that she still hasn’t contracted Covid and that “clearly, Jesus loves me the most. Seriously. So nice, so nice.” The next moment she stumbles, rolls her eyes and falls unconscious, hitting her head on the stage floor. The audience can be heard laughing as apparently everyone assumed it was all part of the act.
Her sister had her rushed to the hospital, where it was revealed she had fractured her skull. The reason for her collapse is still unknown, but her publicist has stated that it may have been “because of dehydration.” … Full article
The family of Bob Saget has revealed the comedian died of “head trauma” in his Florida hotel room
RT | February 10, 2022
Comedian Bob Saget’s death last month was caused by “head trauma” sustained in his Florida hotel room, according to a statement released by his family that shared the conclusion from the medical examiner’s office investigation into the passing of the ‘Full House’ star.
“Now that we have the final conclusions from the authorities’ investigation, we felt it only proper that the fans hear those conclusions directly from us,” the statement said. “The authorities have determined that Bob passed from head trauma. They have concluded that he accidentally hit the back of his head on something, thought nothing of it and went to sleep.” … Full article
February 10, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | COVID-19 Vaccine, United States |
Leave a comment
The New York Times reports on the growth of ‘climate therapy’ for leftists suffering from ‘eco-anxiety’, including people who are having panic attacks over perceived environmental catastrophes and their friends going on holiday.
In an article titled ‘Climate Change Enters the Therapy Room’, the newspaper reports, “Eco-anxiety, a concept introduced by young activists, has entered a mainstream vocabulary. And professional organizations are hurrying to catch up. Though there is little empirical data on effective treatments, the field is expanding swiftly.”
According to Portland psychologist Dr. Thomas J. Doherty, who has built an entire practice catering for the treatment of climate anxiety, people are being triggered into mental breakdowns by things as simple as their friends discussing future vacations.
“An 18-year-old student who sometimes experiences panic attacks so severe that she can’t get out of bed; a 69-year-old glacial geologist who is sometimes overwhelmed with sadness when he looks at his grandchildren; a man in his 50s who erupts in frustration over his friends’ consumption choices, unable to tolerate their chatter about vacations in Tuscany,” states the report.
Instead of accurately describing this for what it is, hysterical nonsense based on the maniacal delusion that the earth is dying, the NYT describes such therapy as “rational.”
Surveys show that people who hold left-wing beliefs are more likely to suffer from a mental health condition.
A major contributing factor to this is undoubtedly their gullibility in believing all the contrived global crises and neurotic moral panics relentlessly spoon fed to them by the legacy media.
“Rather than help these people by shattering their delusions, the Times is encouraging their mental illness for political gain,” notes Chris Menahan.
No doubt the mass hysteria generated by COVID-19 will also be weaponized in future to amplify calls for climate lockdowns in the name of saving the planet.
February 10, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Progressive Hypocrite, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | New York Times |
Leave a comment
From the 1950s through the 1980s the CIA overthrew democratically elected governments and assassinated leaders in the U.S. and around the world in the name of fighting communism.
After the fall of communism, the CIA pivoted to fighting terrorism. After 9/11 their mission expanded considerably to include a global network of black sites where they conducted torture. They also engage in covert military operations on the ground inside a wide range of countries.
More recently, the CIA has expanded their mission yet again. We have evidence of coordination between the U.S. Department of Defense, Fauci, the EcoHealth Alliance, bioweapons labs in the U.S., and the Wuhan Institute of Virology (a Chinese bioweapons lab) to conduct gain-of-function research. This has all of the hallmarks of a CIA operation.
One could make the case that the CIA is now fighting viruses/pandemics in the name of national defense. But this effort CREATED the chimera virus that has killed more Americans than all foreign wars combined. Since the chimera virus was released, governments across the developed world, Pharma, and Big Tech have all worked together to control the message, surveil and censor the population, and smash any dissent. Again this reeks of CIA involvement.
So my question is, who/what exactly is the CIA fighting these days? My hunch is that the answer is us. Not just the medical freedom movement (although we are certainly targeted) but the general public. This seems like a class war and the CIA’s new mission is not to defend the U.S. per se but rather to defend the global ruling class from the peasants who might overthrow them.
February 10, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Militarism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | CIA, Covid-19, United States |
Leave a comment
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did it again.
The FDA last week granted its seal of approval for a ghost vaccine that is unavailable in the United States — and it did so using a preordained process that made a mockery of “science” and of “regulation.”
Days later, the CDC backed the FDA’s decision, using similarly flawed data and reasoning.
The approval of Moderna’s Spikevax COVID-19 vaccine was an even greater travesty than the FDA’s approval last August of Pfizer’s Comirnaty shot.
That’s because Moderna has been even more secretive than Pfizer about its trial data, and because Moderna’s shot is linked to an even higher rate of heart disease than Pfizer’s.
The FDA’s approval of the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine led people to believe they would get a fully licensed, FDA-approved vaccine — when in fact they were still getting the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine distributed under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).
People can ask for the Comirnaty vaccine as often as they like — but it is not being distributed in the U.S. The Comirnaty vaccine is supposed to be the same formulation as the old Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, but the vials labeled “Comirnaty” are in a legal class of their own.
Why this Kabuki theater?
Because any adult who is harmed or killed as a side effect of an “FDA-approved” vaccine can sue the manufacturer. But if you are harmed in exactly the same way by an EUA vaccine, you are out of luck — the manufacturer and everyone in the chain of delivery has full immunity from lawsuits. The law depends on the label.
Now Moderna has the same legal advantage as Pfizer. Its “Spikevax” is the same formula as the old Moderna vaccine, but only if you are dosed with a vial bearing the “Spikevax” label can you sue for bodily harm. So, of course, the Moderna vaccine continues to be distributed, but Spikevax is not available in the U.S.
The approval of Spikevax is not just a legal sham. It’s also a scientific sham. FDA approval is supposed to include long-term safety testing, but there is no long-term data available for a product that has been in existence less than a year.
The FDA hearings on the licensing of Spikevax were one-sided and dominated by self-congratulatory rhetoric. They also raised more questions than answers.
Questions for the FDA
- Besides offering publicity to the manufacturer and sowing confusion in the public mind, why would the manufacturers want FDA approval for a vaccine that is not available in the U.S.?
- Neither Pfizer nor Moderna explicitly specified the content of their placebos, but a published review claims they were simple saline. If this is the case, why is the rate of medical problems following injection with a “placebo” so much higher with Moderna’s placebo compared to Pfizer’s placebo?
For example, 18 people out of 15,000 in the Moderna placebo group died before the start of the trial (2 weeks from the second vaccination), while only 4 people out of 22,000 who received Pfizer’s placebo dose died in a comparable period. There were 31 “severe adverse events” in the placebo group of the Moderna trial, and zero in the (larger) Pfizer placebo group. What was in that “placebo” that killed 18 people and sent 31 to the hospital?
- The FDA relies on the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) to help assess the safety of vaccines before approval. There was an animated debate at the VRBPAC meeting for the Pfizer vaccine. Why was VRBPAC not invited to convene for the Moderna vaccine? The answer is given in this letter of approval from the FDA to Moderna (January 31, 2022):
“We did not refer your application to the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee because our review of information submitted in your BLA [Biologics License Application], including the clinical study design and trial results, did not raise concerns or controversial issues that would have benefited from an advisory committee discussion.”
- The FDA plainly states that it limited the scope of its analysis to the trial data alone. Why isn’t the FDA interested in the enormous amount of data that has become available in the last year?
Safety: Did FDA cook the books?
Deaths and disabilities associated with the mRNA “vaccines” have occurred with shocking frequency, 90 times as many as the worst vaccine in the past. There have been more than 1 million COVID vaccine reactions reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), compared to 11,000 for the worst vaccine in 2020 (Shingrix).
There were more than twice as many deaths related to the COVID vaccines this year as the sum total of all vaccine deaths in the 30-year history of VAERS.
To rig the approval process in favor of such a product, the FDA needed to rewrite the rule book. The agency did this with a new statistical criterion, masking murder with mathematics. I am grateful to Matthew Crawford for having decoded the algebra and sounded the alarm.
The safety criterion chosen by the FDA is an obscure computation called PRR, which stands for Proportional Reporting Ratio. As the name implies, it is based on RATIOS of different event types and is utterly blind to the ABSOLUTE RATE of such events.
PRR measures the distribution of different kinds of adverse events, e.g. blood clots, heart attacks and deaths. If those ratios are severely out of line with the great variety of vaccine reactions in the past, PRR would detect that.
For example, if the new vaccines caused an extraordinary risk of myocarditis, but everything else was low, then PRR would flag that. But if myocarditis was just one risk among many that have been reported from past vaccines, then PRR would not pick that up.
The real scandal is that PRR is blind to the absolute risk numbers. PRR is defined in such a way as to look for unusual PATTERNS of adverse events, but it is completely insensitive to unusual RATES of adverse events.
Of course, it is the rates and not the patterns that are of primary concern, and the PRR is designed NOT to reflect that.
For example, suppose we have two vaccines:
- Vaccine A has 1 reported death per million vaccinations, 3 reported heart attacks per million, and 20 reported headaches per million.
- Vaccine B has 1 reported death per hundred vaccinations, 3 reported heart attacks per hundred, and 20 reported headaches per hundred.
Vaccine A is quite safe, and vaccine B is extremely dangerous. And yet the formula for PRR will produce the same result for vaccine A and B!
Clearly, PRR is not an appropriate criterion for evaluating the safety of any particular vaccine. Did the FDA use PRR in order to cook the books?
In Moderna’s own trials, 1.3% of vaccine recipients had a reaction to the vaccine that was severe enough to require medical attention. The following possible side effects were listed in information given to doctors:
“Anaphylaxis and other severe allergic reactions, myocarditis, pericarditis, and syncope have been reported following administration of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine during mass vaccination outside of clinical trials.”
Off with his head! — the CDC’s ACIP hearings
In Alice’s Wonderland, the Red Queen’s justice began with the execution, then there was a verdict — and finally a trial.
The FDA hearing was followed by a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which reports to the CDC.
The committee on Feb. 4 voted to recommend the Moderna Spikevax. Only after that action step had been secured did the committee hear testimony from the Public Health Agency of Canada that Moderna’s vaccine was associated with a myocarditis risk five times higher than Pfizer’s.
Questions for the CDC
- All-cause mortality was equal in both placebo and vaccine groups (16 deaths in each). In the midst of a pandemic, Moderna’s vaccine demonstrated no survival benefit. This should have been enough to end any further consideration of approval.
- We have detailed data on myocarditis from decades of past history. One-fourth of myocarditis patients are dead within 5 years, but the same study reports that if the myocarditis is caused by human immunodeficiency virus, then three-fourths die in the same 5 years.
We have no long-term data on vaccine-induced myocarditis, but we do have some 6-month data, which show 39% of cases still had their activity restricted by their doctors, 20% were still on heart medication, 32% still reported chest pain, 22% still had shortness of breath, 22% had palpitations and 25% still reported fatigue. Thirteen vaccine recipients died. (All these numbers were presented at the ACIP hearing on Feb. 4.)
Why should we have confidence that the course of vaccine-induced myocarditis will be much less severe than other forms of the disease?
- The Moderna trial, like the Pfizer trial, was limited to healthy people, mostly young, with no pre-existing problems. Pregnant women were explicitly excluded. Why is the vaccine being approved as safe for everyone, including diabetics and immune-compromised, elderly and pregnant women?
- When mRNA vaccines were approved on an emergency basis, the FDA promised to track all safety concerns with a new cell phone app called V-Safe. Why are the results of V-Safe being withheld from the public?
- The FDA was considering approval of Moderna’s vaccine in January 2022. There was a full year’s experience with side effects reported from nearly 200 million doses of the Moderna vaccine in the U.S. alone. But the FDA limited its consideration to the 15,000 subjects who were in the Moderna trial, ending March 26, 2021. Why was this huge trove of data on vaccine safety not reviewed by the FDA?
- Yes, we understand that the vaccine doesn’t become fully effective until 2 weeks after the second shot. But is that a reason to exclude from consideration the damage that is inflicted by enhanced vulnerability to disease during those two weeks, or, for that matter, the four weeks between shots? These have been counted as diseases of the “unvaccinated,” but in fact, people in this stage of treatment are much more vulnerable than the truly unvaccinated.
- France and Germany do not recommend Moderna’s vaccination for young people, presumably because the Moderna vaccine is associated with a higher rate of myocarditis than the Pfizer vaccine. How did our FDA come to a different conclusion?
- Anaphylaxis following vaccination is an immediate, life-threatening and an undeniable consequence of the vaccine. The CDC claimed the rate of anaphylaxis is 6 per 1 million.
However, in March of 2021, an examination of anaphylaxis following mRNA vaccines revealed a much higher incidence of this adverse event. In fact, 9 of 38,971 Moderna vaccine recipients suffered documented anaphylaxis. This equates to 230 per million, or 38 times higher than the CDC estimate.
Efficacy — but at what cost?
The proper measure of the efficacy of any medication is how it affects all aspects of a patient’s health. But in evaluating the Moderna vaccine, the FDA looked only at its effect on COVID.
There are early but disturbing indications that vaccination worldwide has had dramatic effects on other aspects of health, unrelated to COVID. Insurance company trade journals report that they are paying life insurance claims for adults 18-64 years of age at a rate 40% higher than during any normal year.
This number from OneAmerica (Indianapolis) has been echoed by other studies in Europe. A leaked spreadsheet from the Defense Medical Epidemiological Database showed that incidences of many medical problems in the U.S. military surged in this year of vaccination. For example, heart attacks were up 343%, cancers up 218%, among many other disorders.
Could it be that the vaccines have had a small benefit for COVID severity and disastrous impact on other aspects of human health?
We now have some real-world experience with the efficacy of vaccines. For example, we know the virus mutated to a more contagious, less lethal form. Omicron is now the dominant form of the virus in the U.S. and most other parts of the world today.
The Omicron mutations are concentrated in the spike protein — the only part of the virus to which the vaccinated population has immunity. This suggests the virus is mutating in response to the vaccine, and mutations are an important factor affecting efficacy in the long run.
Nevertheless, the FDA considered efficacy data predominantly from the first five months of data (through March 26, 2021) in making its decision to fully license Spikevax, with an absolute cutoff in November, before Omicron became dominant.
More questions
- Almost all subjects in the original Moderna trial who received placebo initially were subsequently given the vaccine. How will we ever know the long-term effects of the vaccine if we have no controls with which to compare?
- Why do CDC studies of death rates based on vaccination status differ so markedly from the same question asked by independent groups in other countries?
Here, for example, is a report from Public Health Scotland stating that vaccination increases vulnerability to Omicron. Here is a similar report from England. This study shows countries with higher vaccination rates tend to have higher rates of COVID, and this one confirms the same result for U.S. states.
- We are now in an era dominated by the Omicron variant, against which all the vaccines seem much less effective. But even “follow-up data” was analyzed only through March 26, 2021, nine months before Omicron took over. Why did the FDA base its decision on data only from older variants?
- The secondary efficacy endpoint was the prevention of severe COVID-19. Now that it is accepted that there is little, if any, protective effect of mRNA vaccines from infection, the prevention of severe disease should be the primary focus of approval determination.
Moderna claims its vaccine efficacy is an astonishing 98.2% in preventing severe COVID-19 (Table 8). Pfizer’s was 96.7% (Table S6).
The reason for the calculated difference in efficacy between these two products was not from a lower incidence of severe disease in the vaccine arm of Moderna’s trial (it was lower in Pfizer’s trial). It was because the incidence of severe disease in Moderna’s placebo group was much higher than in Pfizer’s.
Severe COVID-19 in Pfizer’s placebo group occurred in 30 participants out of 23,0379. In Moderna’s, severe disease occurred in 106 participants out of 14,164 that received a placebo. Why was the incidence of severe COVID-19 nearly six times higher in Moderna’s placebo group than Pfizer’s?
Postscript: Failure was never an option
In America, why are clinical trials for new drugs run by the same companies that own the drugs, and will profit from them if the trial is successful?
It’s a glaring conflict of interest, but necessary within a capitalist system. Since the trials cost, typically, hundreds of millions of dollars, only the company that will profit from the drug is motivated to invest such huge sums in testing.
In the case of the COVID vaccines, however, the development and the trials were both publicly funded. There was no excuse for contracting the same organization both to develop and test their own product.
Moderna’s development cost was funded through Operation Warp Speed in the U.S. and Pfizer through the German government. Now, the companies are reaping windfall profits, though they risked no money of their own.
This leaves us wondering, did our government ever want a fair and unbiased evaluation of the COVID vaccines? Or — after a full year of telling the public that vaccines were the only path out of the COVID crisis — did NIH feel they could not risk the possibility that the trials might fail?
There were no animal tests. There was no time to experimentally optimize dosage and delivery. They had to guess right the first time.
Maybe they thought this is what the exigency of a pandemic required — but please don’t call it “science.”
Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D., has a background in theoretical physics. Since the 1990s, he is best known for his contributions to the biology of aging, including many articles and two books.
© 2022 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
February 10, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | CDC, COVID-19 Vaccine, FDA, United States |
Leave a comment
IN the 1984 Unicef State of the World’s Children report, its director general James Grant talked of how the developing world was lagging 50 years behind the industrialised world in terms of child mortality rates. Explaining how the industrialised world had succeeded in reducing its own child mortality rates, he acknowledged that ‘the mainspring of this great leap forward was rising living standards – better food, water, housing, sanitation, education and income’.
Although the spread of maternal and child health care undoubtedly played an important role, health technology and medical services played only a secondary part, and the report stated that effective vaccines for measles became available only ‘after child deaths from measles had been reduced to almost zero by better nutrition’.
Yet despite malnutrition being the spectre that loomed large in the Unicef reports, Grant was quick to explain vaccines could help with that as well: ‘All infections are nutritional setbacks. Often the climb back to normal weight and growth takes several weeks. Immunisation against the six main infectious diseases of childhood would therefore be a partial “immunisation” against malnutrition itself.’
It was not long after the retirement of Dr Halfdan Mahler, WHO’s director general from 1973-1988, that Unicef, the Rockefeller Foundation (RF) and other ‘partners’ launched the Children’s Vaccine Initiative (CVI) to encourage developing countries to self-finance their Child Survival Revolution vaccination programmes. This was a significant change of direction. No longer would vaccines be interim aid schemes: they were to be elevated to a strategic priority and meagre health budgets would be redirected to pay for them. The justification made was ‘that the development, introduction, and widespread use of vaccines in industrialised and developing countries have resulted in considerable progress against some of the most devastating infections of humankind.’
Today, the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), contrary to the admission in the 1984 Unicef report that vaccines had only a secondary impact on child mortality, claims that the improved socio-economic conditions in industrialised countries only had an indirect impact on disease.
It is more than 20 years since the RF and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) joined forces, using the World Bank to create the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI), now known as GAVI, The Vaccine Alliance. In the mid-1990s, with new leaders at the helm of both Unicef and the WHO, Dr Seth Berkley, the RF’s associate director of health sciences, proposed to James Wolfensohn, the Rockefeller Foundation trustee appointed to the Presidency of the World Bank (WB) in 1995, that the WB and the RF stage ‘a coup’.
Berkley wanted to replace the CVI, which was failing to live up to the expectations of the vaccine manufacturers: ‘We will have an outside body that can bring in industry [which the World Health Organisation cannot legally do], do advocacy and build a truly international alliance’.
GAVI was officially created ‘to save children’s lives and protect people’s health through the widespread use of safe vaccines, with a particular focus on the needs of developing countries’. Structured as a public-private partnership, largely funded by BMGF and vaccine manufacturers, GAVI’s purpose was reverse the stagnation of the vaccine market, shaping it so more new and underused vaccines could be sold to the developing world.
Until 2017, the WHO modelled vaccine impact estimates for GAVI. However as Gavi’s questions became more strategy and policy-oriented, with a need ‘to better account for uncertainty’ and to be able ‘to estimate the vaccine impact more accurately striving for the highest level of scientific rigour’, GAVI and the Gates Foundation outsourced this modelling work to a consortium led by Professor Neil Ferguson.
The unique selling point of vaccines is that, as products targeted at healthy people, virtually every person on the planet becomes a potential customer and, even better, a repeat customer. Vaccines represent opportunities for continuous growth and profit, unrivalled in the pharmaceutical sector even before Covid-19.
In 2011 when Seth Berkley left the RF to become GAVI’s CEO to oversee the implementation of its ‘Decade of the Vaccine’, vaccines accounted for only 3 per cent of all pharmaceutical sales. But they stood apart from all other pharmaceuticals in one significant way: their sales were growing at twice the rate of any other pharmaceutical product, at 10-15 per cent per annum compared with 5-7 per cent for other products.
A 2013 survey of industry trends prepared by WHO health economist Miloud Kaddar predicted that the global market for vaccines would become an engine of growth for the industry, increasing in market value to $100billion by 2025. In a single year the Covid-19 vaccines alone have eclipsed those projections, generating $150billion revenue for the financial year 2021-2022 according to the World Economic Forum (WEF).
The revenue growth that Kaddar’s survey found didn’t, however, come from developing countries. It came from persuading all countries, whether industrialised or developing, to target 90 per cent coverage rates for all vaccines on their national immunisation schedules. When he conducted his survey Kaddar found 82 per cent of all sales were in fact to the 15 per cent of the global population living in industrialised countries where living standards are highest and where well-nourished populations have the lowest disease burden. The portion of the world GAVI was meant to be targeting remained a largely untapped market.
GAVI’s first task was to increase surveillance of vaccination coverage, which is the number of people in a population who have been inoculated with specific vaccines as recommended in the immunisation schedules. In 2004, for example, in an effort to hit coverage targets, the UK introduced financial incentives to encourage GP practices to increase vaccination rates for three childhood vaccines and seasonal influenza for four at-risk groups.
Additional financial incentives were offered to NHS Hospital Trusts in 2016 to increase influenza vaccine uptake by frontline staff. Unlike the threatened Covid vaccine mandate, flu vaccination is not compulsory but strongly encouraged as evidenced by NHS England’s suggested incentives: ‘Staff appreciate recognition for their contributions to the health of others and including an incentive or reward aspect to a staff flu vaccination programme can be effective. A small threat can have a big impact. Even something as simple as a sticker to show they have had their jab can be worn as a sign of pride and signal to others that they should have the flu vaccination.’
It heralded the bribery and coercion to come with the Government’s determination to achieve population level Covid vaccine take up.
February 9, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | CDC, Gates Foundation, GAVI, Rockefeller Foundation |
Leave a comment
On the morning of January 25, 1993, a man named Mir Amal Kansi appeared outside CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, where he began assassinating people who were driving their cars into the facility. He ended up killing two CIA employees and wounding three others.
Four years later, FBI agents arrested Kansi in Pakistan and brought him back to the United States.
Kansi was prosecuted in a Virginia state court for murder, where he was convicted and sentenced to die. On November 14, 2002, the state of Virginia executed him.
What I find fascinating in this episode is that under U.S national-security law, when the CIA assassinates people, it isn’t considered murder. But as Kansi’s case shows, when people assassinate CIA officials, it is considered murder.
Kansi gave the reason for his assassinations. No, he didn’t say that he hated America for its “freedom and values.” He said that the reason he was assassinating CIA officials was to retaliate for the fact that the U.S. government was killing people in Iraq and for its role in helping Israel kill Palestinians.
Under U.S. national-security law, U.S. officials can assassinate anyone they want — “communists,” “terrorists,” “bad guys,” “adversaries,” “opponents,” “rivals,” or “enemies.” When they do that, it’s to be called an “assassination” or a “targeted killing.”
Moreover, under the law, U.S. officials can kill whoever they want with economic sanctions, as they were doing with the Iraqi people at the time that Kansi was retaliating. I am reminded of U.S. Ambassador Madeleine Albright’s infamous statement that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children from the sanctions were “worth it.” Those killings weren’t called “murder” of course. They were called unfortunate deaths arising from the sanctions.
U.S. officials also wield the authority to kill whoever they want with invasions of Third-World countries. The people of Afghanistan and Iraq can attest to that. Again, those killings are not considered to be murder. They are considered to be casualties of war.
If, however, anyone retaliates against the national-security establishment by assassinating officials within the national-security establishment, it’s called “murder,” in which case the assassin will be put to death after being accorded a trial.
Of course, this was the law prior to the 9/11 attacks. After those attacks, the law was implicitly amended to provide that the national-security establishment had the option of taking “bad guys” like Kansi to Gitmo, where they could be tortured, held indefinitely without trial, or executed after a kangaroo trial before a military tribunal.
All this hypocrisy goes to show what the conversion from a limited-government republic to a national-security state has done to the consciences of the American people. Most everyone has come to accept the state-sponsored assassinations and deaths arising from sanctions, embargoes, invasions, occupations, and wars of aggression to just be part of the U.S. government’s “foreign policy tools.”
As I pointed out in a recent blog post, however, the Pentagon’s and the CIA’s assassinations constitute murder, just as Kansi’s assassinations do. Why, even Lyndon Johnson referred to the CIA’s assassination program as “Murder, Inc.,” which is precisely what it is. The same goes for deaths arising from sanctions, embargoes, wars of aggression, invasions, and occupations. It’s just plain murder.
Referring to Kansi, Virginia prosecutor Robert F. Horne stated, “I’ve tried an awful lot of killers in my life, and I think he’s the only one I’ve run into that is absolutely proud of what he did. You get a lot of killers who don’t feel all that bad about what they did, but he’s proud of it.”
Apparently Horne has never met any CIA assassins. Like Kansi, they feel really good about their killings and are absolutely proud of what they do. What Horne fails to realize is that even though Kansi is a “bad guy” for assassinating people, that doesn’t convert the CIA assassins into “good guys.”
It’s probably worth mentioning that after Kansi was executed, four American citizens were assassinated in Pakistan in retaliation.
What we need in America is a great awakening, one that involves a revival of individual conscience. When that day comes, Americans will put a stop to the evil within our midst by converting America back to a limited-government republic and putting an end to state-sponsored murder. It will also make Americans traveling overseas a lot safer.
February 9, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | CIA, Human rights, Iraq, Palestine, United States |
Leave a comment
Defense contractors and program advocates have unusual control over what the public sees, leading to bad oversight, or worse.
Withholding information under the guise of classification “undermine[s] our national security, as well as critical democratic objectives, by impeding our ability to share information in a timely manner,” Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines said just last month. The Wall Street Journal, Senator Elizabeth Warren, and the Washington Post all agree. But the Defense Department is going in the opposite direction. It is attempting to mask deficiencies in weapons programs — revealed by their own testing — from the public.
This effectively squashes debate and oversight of their programs. The costs come in the form of more expense, additional delays, and underperforming weapons in the hands of our military, which has and will cost lives.
Nickolas H. Guertin, the Defense Department’s newly installed Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E), wasted no time undermining his own office by going along with a scheme egged on by the military services to bury information about how the weapons they buy with taxpayer money are actually performing. Mr. Guertin endorsed his office’s new FY 2021 Annual Report, required by law, with wholesale deletions of presumably relevant material deemed not classified, but “Controlled Unclassified Information” (CUI), a category created during the Obama administration but not so dramatically exploited in these reports until now.
Last December, Guertin’s immediate predecessor explained that unclassified information was being removed from the new public report because it “shouldn’t wind up in our adversaries’ hands.” Of course any material that will help enemies should be withheld and reported only in the classified version of the Director’s Annual Report to Congress. However, there is an important class of information that is essential to understand the depth and scope of plusses and minuses in how a weapon has performed in testing and how rigorously it was tested. This is essential to public understanding, and it is that comprehension that drives oversight by Congress, and even the Pentagon, to fix the problems. This is how our system attempts to make sure no seriously flawed systems get into the hands of our forces, which would truly aid the enemy, in addition to endangering our own people.
The unclassified-but-not-for-public-eyes information (a preposterous category in itself) is not an effort to keep the enemy in the dark, but to keep the public in the dark. It stems from advocates of programs in the Pentagon bureaucracy and defense contractors seeking to mask deficiencies. They want to make sure no controversies emerge that might endanger the money flow, even when the problems cost more, cause delays, limit the combat effectiveness of these weapons, and endanger the lives of the troops. That is precisely what the DOT&E law was designed to stop when it was created in 1983 by a group of Republicans and Democrats in Congress over the bitter opposition of the Pentagon leadership and fellow travelers in Congress and industry.
Under the new CUI regime, the omissions are serious. Director Guertin’s report discloses that 22 accounts of weapons and their testing saw information removed by the military services. An article from Breaking Defense discusses what has been deleted, such as whether the defense systems on the Navy’s new $13 billion aircraft carrier can or cannot “detect, track, engage, and defeat the types of threats for which the system was designed.” It is one thing to foolishly disclose a technical flaw an enemy can exploit; it is quite another to disclose that system X, Y or Z cannot do its job — and with enough detail to permit an understanding whether the problem is serious and what fixes must be applied. Keeping that information away from the public simply means that Congress and the Pentagon will be under less pressure to act responsibly — and that the pressure that is applied will be less informed and easier to overcome.
Not among the programs that Breaking Defense found to have been watered down by the withholding of unclassified information was the notorious F-35, suggesting there is a second level of information deletion at work here. Reviewing the F-35 report submitted by Director Guertin, compared to predecessors, reveals a fundamental — even profound — problem.
The Annual Report submitted by DOT&E J. Michael Gilmore in his last report in FY 2016 contained 62 pages of analysis of the F-35. Reports by his immediate successor, Robert F. Behler, varied from 30 to 16 pages. The section of the Guertin report on the F-35 is a whole nine pages. The texts of the previous reports were radically different. They contained multiple tables, details, and explanations for how and why the F-35 was failing to meet its performance and reliability thresholds, let alone combat expectations. Under meaningful explanatory discussion were issues such as the inability of the aircraft to be available for a mission, unpredictable performance in a stressful combat environment, and details like un-commanded maneuvers due to aerodynamic flaws and the gun not shooting where the pilot aimed.
Also reported were the efforts of some in the military services and the F-35 Joint Program Office to incompletely test the aircraft or manipulate test results. None of this shows up in the public Guertin report. Multiple issues, such as the gun, have disappeared, and previous manipulations of the hundreds of deficiencies discovered in the F-35 would appear to be less of a concern today.
There are two problems here, not one: there is the information behind the CUI labeling cover, and information never included in the report because the DOT&E office knew what the military services wanted addressed, and what they didn’t. It is the latter —self-censorship — that appears far more serious than the false classification issue. Why? Because it results in not just the deletion of phrases and sentences, but presumably pages and pages of detail and analysis. On the other hand, those with access to the CUI version of the report can make a comparison, should they choose to do so.
Program advocacy in the Pentagon, much of which is done by defense corporations, is exercising control over the previously more independent and objective reports to Congress and the public on weapons testing. Inadequate public reporting means feeble oversight, plain and simple.
The current Director of the Operational Test Office is new to the job, but he is off to a very poor start. His office was created to contend with the forces arrayed against tough testing and complete, honest reporting, not comply with them. If there is any meaningful oversight in Congress, the redactions in DOT&E Guertin’s recent Annual Report should be fully assessed. More importantly, the prior restraint/self-censorship apparent in producing this and any other DOT&E reports needs to be fully investigated and eviscerated.
February 9, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Deception, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | Obama, United States |
Leave a comment
If you’ve ever felt like Google’s watching you, it’s because they, quite literally, are. “The truth is that contrary to Google’s representations it continues to systematically surveil customers and profit from customer data,” Karl A. Racine, the attorney general for the District of Columbia, said in a statement.1
He’s among four attorneys general who have sued Google for its deceptive practices in collecting location data from the public. The separate lawsuits allege that Google continued to track location data of its users even after they had disabled location tracking.
“Google falsely led consumers to believe that changing their account and device settings would allow customers to protect their privacy and control what personal data the company could access,” Racine said.2
Google’s Been Secretly Tracking People Since at Least 2014
Racine initiated an investigation into Google after a 2018 AP News report revealed Google was tracking people’s movements even when they’d opted out of such tracking.3 Google’s misleading claims to users regarding privacy protections available in their account settings have been ongoing since at least 2014, Racine’s investigation found.4
The AP investigation included a real-world example from privacy researcher Gunes Acar, whose location was tracked to dozens of locations over the course of several days, and the data saved to his Google account, even though he had turned “Location History” off on his cellphone.5
Location data collected by Google has been used in criminal cases in the past, including a warrant issued by police in Raleigh, North Carolina, to track down devices in the area of a murder.6 When you use an app like Google Maps, it will ask you to allow access to location, but it also tracks your location during use of apps that you might not expect. According to the AP investigation:7
“For example, Google stores a snapshot of where you are when you merely open its Maps app. Automatic daily weather updates on Android phones pinpoint roughly where you are. And some searches that have nothing to do with location, like “chocolate chip cookies,” or “kids science kits,” pinpoint your precise latitude and longitude — accurate to the square foot — and save it to your Google account.
The privacy issue affects some two billion users of devices that run Google’s Android operating software and hundreds of millions of worldwide iPhone users who rely on Google for maps or search.”
Tracking You Even When ‘Location History’ Is Off
At issue is the company’s continued tracking of its users even when Location History is turned off. “If you’re going to allow users to turn off something called ‘Location History,’ then all the places where you maintain location history should be turned off,” Jonathan Mayer, a former chief technologist for the Federal Communications Commission’s enforcement bureau, told the AP. “That seems like a pretty straightforward position to have.”8
Indeed, it states on Google’s Account Help webpage, “You can turn off Location History for your account at any time.” Only lower down on the page does it explain, however, that location data may still be saved even if Location History is paused:9
“If you have other settings like Web & App Activity turned on and you pause Location History or delete location data from Location History, you may still have location data saved in your Google Account as part of your use of other Google sites, apps, and services.
For example, location data may be saved as part of activity on Search and Maps when your Web & App Activity setting is on, and included in your photos depending on your camera app settings.”
Aside from hiding location tracking under settings users wouldn’t expect, like Web & App Activity — which is turned on by default — Google is accused of collecting and storing location information via Google services, Wi-Fi data and marketing partners, again after device or account settings had been changed to stop location tracking.10
In addition to the District of Columbia, the attorneys general of Texas, Washington and Indiana have also filed lawsuits against Google for their deceptive data collection practices. The suits allege that Google also pressured users to use location tracking more often because it claimed — falsely — that its products wouldn’t function properly without it.11
“Google has prioritized profits over people,” Todd Rokita, Indiana attorney general, told The New York Times. “It has prioritized financial earnings over following the law.”12 Texas, meanwhile, has also filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google that alleges it has abused a monopoly over ad space auctions to marketers. The suit joins those from more than a dozen other states that claim Google has maintained and abused a monopoly over searches online.13
Google Is Even Tracking Children
Google has been called a dictator with unprecedented power because it relies on techniques of manipulation that have never existed before in human history, according to Robert Epstein, a Harvard trained psychologist who is now a senior research psychologist for the American Institute of Behavioral Research and Technology, where for the last decade he has helped expose Google’s manipulative and deceptive practices.
They’re not only a surveillance agency — think about products like Google Wallet, Google Docs, Google Drive and YouTube — but also a censoring agency with the ability to restrict or block access to websites across the internet, thus deciding what you can and cannot see.
Google has also infiltrated education with its Google classrooms, usage of which skyrocketed during the pandemic, but many aren’t aware that even their children are being tracked. The attorney general of New Mexico filed a suit against Google for its educational tools in its classroom suite, helping to “break through the fog,” Harvard professor Shoshana Zuboff said:14
“[The suit is] identifying the huge amounts of data that they’re taking about kids, how they track them across the internet are they integrate it with all the other Google streams of information and have it as a foundation for tracking those children all the way through their adulthood.”
The suit was later dismissed, but the attorney general filed an appeal, maintaining that Google’s G-Suite for Education products “spy on New Mexico students’ online activities for its own commercial purposes, without notice to parents and without attempting to obtain parental consent.”15
Google Force Installed COVID-19 Tracking Apps
In another sign of Google’s dictatorial tendencies, it partnered with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and Apple to create a smartphone app called MassNotify, which tracks and traces people, advising the users of others’ COVID-19 status.
While the tool claims to have been developed “with a focus on privacy,”16 the app suddenly appeared on Massachusetts residents’ Android phones out of nowhere, without consent. The feature must be enabled by the user for it to function, but it’s extremely disconcerting that the tool was automatically added to people’s cellphones, whether they intend to use it or not.
In China, COVID-19 tracking apps have been used as surveillance tools in collaboration with its social credit system, raising red flags that this force-installed app could be tracking residents’ movements and contacts without their knowledge and consent. The MassNotify app uses Google’s and Apple’s Bluetooth-based Exposure Notifications Express program.
The software framework was first released in April 2020,17 with the goal of allowing users who test positive for COVID-19 to report their results, which then sends out an alert to anyone whose phone crossed paths with the positive case and may have been exposed. The Exposure Notifications Express program acts as a blueprint from which states can implement their own tracking systems without having to develop their own individual apps.
While other states have required users to download an app to use the system, MassNotify was integrated directly into the operating system of Android phones.18 Such apps are based on technology developed by Apple and Google that was previously known as the “Privacy-Preserving Contact Tracing Project”19 and is now referred to as the Exposure Notifications API (application programming interface).
In a May 2020 Forbes article by Simon Chandler, he pointed out that while contact tracing apps “may be cryptographically secure,” they still “threaten our privacy in broader and more insidious ways,”20 namely encouraging you to keep your cellphone with you at all times and tracking your whereabouts while you do, and further “normalizing” the constant use of technology to dictate your freedoms and behavior.
Using ‘Trickery for Profits’
The attorneys’ general lawsuits against Google are seeking fines and an end to Google’s use of “dark patterns” that influence users to give up more and more personal data in order for the company to increase its profits. The suits allege that Google’s products are designed to pressure users to allow location tracking “inadvertently or out of frustration,” in violation of state consumer protection laws.21
“Google uses tricks to continuously seek to track a user’s location,” Racine said. “This suit, by four attorneys general, on a bipartisan basis, is an overdue enforcement action against a flagrant violator of privacy and the laws of our states.” The more data that Google collects about individual users, the more advertising dollars it can generate. But, Racine noted, “The time of trickery for profits is over.”22
In a similar lawsuit filed in 2020, Arizona attorney general Mark Brnovich also alleged that Google used deceptive practices to track its users’ locations. That suit stated:23
“This case concerns Google’s widespread and systematic use of deceptive and unfair business practices to obtain information about the location of its users, including its users in Arizona, which Google then exploits to power its lucrative advertising business. Google makes it impractical if not impossible for users to meaningfully opt-out of Google’s collection of location information, should the users seek to do so.”
Location data, meanwhile, can be used to reveal your gym memberships, health care visits, stores and restaurants you frequent or where you go to church. It may also be used to provide personalized ads on digital billboards as you pass by, and Google tracks and provides to its customers information about how well online ads work to drive people into brick-and-mortar stores.24
In addition to disabling as many location tracking apps as possible, and deleting your location history from your Google accounts, you can avoid additional Google products — and the privacy invasions they entail — using the following tips:
- Stop using Google search engines. Alternatives include DuckDuckGo and Startpage
- Uninstall Google Chrome and use Brave or Opera browser instead, available for all computers and mobile devices. From a security perspective, Opera is far superior to Chrome and offers a free VPN service (virtual private network) to further preserve your privacy
- If you have a Gmail account, try a non-Google email service instead such as ProtonMail, an encrypted email service based in Switzerland
- Stop using Google docs. Digital Trends has published an article suggesting a number of alternatives25
- If you’re a student, do not convert the Google accounts you created as a student into personal accounts
Sources and References
February 9, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular | China, Covid-19, Google, Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
If you regard the United States as perhaps flawed but overall a force for good in the world . . .
Aletho News 