Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

More Focus On The Impossible Costs Of A Fully Wind/Solar/Battery Energy System

By Francis Menton | Manhattan Contrarian | February 1, 2022

It should be glaringly obvious that, if we are shortly going to try to convert to a “net zero” carbon emissions energy system based entirely on wind, sun and batteries, then there needs to be serious focus on the feasibility and costs of such a system. The particular part of such a prospective system that needs the most focus is the method of energy storage, its cost and, indeed, feasibility. That part needs focus because, as wind and solar increase their share of generation over 50% of the total, storage becomes far and away the dominant driver of the total costs. Moreover, there is no clear way to identify some fixed amount of storage that will be sufficient to make such a system reliable enough to power a modern economy without full backup from dispatchable sources. This also should be glaringly obvious to anyone who thinks about the problem for any amount of time.

And yet, as recently as a couple of weeks ago, it seemed like the entire Western world was racing forward to “net zero” based on wind and sun without anyone anywhere giving real thought to the problem of the amount of storage needed, let alone its cost, and let alone whether any fixed amount of storage could ever fully assure complete reliability. A retired, independent guy named Roger Andrews had done some calculations back in 2018 for test cases of California and Germany, which had showed that at least 30 days’ of storage would be needed to back up a fully wind/solar system. Andrews’s work showed that storage costs just to be sufficient to match actual wind/solar intermittency patterns for 2017 would likely cause a multiplication of the cost of electricity by something in the range of a factor of 14 to 22. But Andrews did not even get to the point of considering how much storage might be needed in worst case scenarios of lengthy winter wind or sun droughts.

And then Andrews died suddenly in early 2019, and nobody immediately took up where he left off.

But then a few weeks ago I discovered at Watts Up With That some new work from someone named Ken Gregory (again, a retired, independent guy — funny, isn’t it?), who produced a spreadsheet for the entire United States again showing that about 30 days’ storage would be needed to back up a fully wind/solar system. (Cost for the storage, assuming all energy use gets electrified: about $400 trillion.)

And now, some others are getting into the act. And none too soon. A guy named Roger Caiazza has a blog called Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York. Caiazza, as you might by now have guessed, is another independent retired guy. In the past few months, he has turned his attention principally to the energy transition supposedly getting underway here in New York State, as a result of something called the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act of 2019 (the Climate Act). The Climate Act created a gaggle of bureaucracies, and the end of 2021 saw those bureaucracies utter something they call the “Scoping Plan,” laying out how New York is going to go from its current energy system to the nirvana of electrification of everything together with “net zero” emissions by no later than 2050.

The Scoping Plan is a massive document (some 330 pages plus another 500+ pages of appendices) of breathtaking incompetence. The basic approach, summarized by me in this post of December 29, 2021, is that designated “expert” bureaucrats working for the State, themselves having no actual idea how to achieve “net zero” from an engineering perspective, will get around that problem by simply ordering the people to achieve the “net zero” goal by a date certain. Then, presumably some engineers will magically emerge to work out the details. The thousands of people who put this thing together apparently do not regard proof of cost or feasibility as any part of their job. As to the key problem of energy storage to achieve “net zero” goals, the Scoping Plan, in nearly 1000 pages of heft, never even gets to the point of recognizing that the MWH (as opposed to MW) is the key unit that must be considered to assess issues of cost and feasibility.

For the past many weeks, Caiazza has been putting out one post after another ripping the Climate Act and the “Scoping Plan” apart, piece by piece. But for today, I want to focus on one post from January 24 titled “Scoping Plan Reliability Feasibility – Renewable Variability.” This post considers the implications of dependence only on wind and solar power, particularly as to how much storage would be needed with such a system, and without remaining fossil fuel backup, to achieve necessary system reliability.

Rather than creating a spreadsheet for annual wind and solar generation, in the manner of Andrews or Gregory, Caiazza takes a different approach, which is simply to consider a worst-case scenario. (For this purpose Caiazza draws on a January 20 piece from a guy named David Wojick at PA Pundits International.). The beauty of considering the worst-case scenario is that the math becomes so simple you can do it in your head.

So here is the scenario considered by Caiazza. Your mission as the State is to deliver 1000 MW of power continuously with complete reliability, but with only the wind and sun to provide the generation. How much generation capacity do you need, and how much storage do you need? And how much will it cost? (New York’s average current usage is about 18,000 MW, and by the time everything is electrified that will be at least 60,000 MW, so we can multiply everything by 60 at the end to see what the cost implications are for the State of New York.)

First what is the hypothesized worst case? To make the math simple, Caiazza hypothesizes a solar/storage only system, and a five day winter period of overcast, followed by two sunny days to recharge before the next such worst-case 5-day sun drought.

The required battery capacity is simple. Five days at 24 hours a day is 120 hours. To supply a steady 1,000 MW that is a whopping 120,000 MWh of storage. We already have the overnight storage capacity for 16 hours so we now need an additional 104 hours, which means 104,000 MWh of additional storage.

But the 120,000 MWH of storage assumes that you charge the batteries up to 100% and discharge them down to 0%. Real world batteries are supposed to only range between about 20% and 80% charge for best performance.

The standard practice is to operate between 80% and 20%. In that case the available storage is just 60% of the nameplate capacity. This turns the dark days 120,000 MWh into a requirement for 200,000 MWh.

I might throw in that solar panels don’t produce at full capacity for anything close to 8 hours on even the sunniest winter day, but who’s quibbling?

Now suppose that in this worst-case scenario we only had two days to charge up since the last 5 day drought:

Two days gives us 16 hours of charging time for the needed 120,000 MWh, which requires a large 7,500 MW of generating capacity. We already have 3,000 MW of generating capacity but that is in use providing round the clock sunny day power. It is not available to help recharge the dark days batteries. Turns out we need a whopping 10,500 MW of solar generating capacity.

That’s right, it’s not just that you need 200,000 MWH of storage, but you also need more than ten times the “capacity” of solar panels as the mere 1000 MW that you are trying to deliver on a firm basis, just to deal with this worst case scenario to deliver 1000 MW firm through one bad month in the winter.

For cost of storage, Caiazza takes what he calls a standard EIA figure of $250/MWH for the batteries. At this price, 200,000 MWH would cost $50 billion. Then there is the cost of the solar panels. Here, Caiazza has a standard EIA figure of $1.3 million per MW. For the 10,500 MW capacity case, that would mean $13.7 billion. Add the $50 billion plus the $13.7 billion and you get $63.7 billion.

And that’s for the 1000 MW firm power case. Remember, fully-electrified New York State is going to need 60,000 MW firm. So multiply the $63.7 billion by 60, and you get $3.822 trillion. For comparison, the annual GDP of New York State is approximately $1.75 trillion.

Caiazza points out that the state’s Scoping Plan gives necessary storage costs for the new wind/solar/battery system in the range of $288.6 to $310.5 billion. These figures are about 10 times lower than we just calculated. But Caiazza attempts to find in the Scoping Plan the assumptions on which these numbers were calculated, and he can’t find it. Neither can I. Maybe some reader can take a crack.

The reader may find that Caiazza’s $3.8 trillion figure for New York State seems remarkably small relative to the number calculated by Gregory. Gregory got about $400 trillion for the U.S. as a whole. New York representing about 7% of the U.S. economy, that would mean that the cost of the storage piece for New York would be closer to $30 trillion than $4 trillion. The difference is that Caiazza is calculating the cost of just getting through one “worst case” week in the winter, while Gregory considers the cost of trying to get through a whole year where energy needs to be stored up from the summer to get through the whole winter.

One final point. Suppose that, based on even a few decades of meteorological data, you determine that this five day winter sun drought is the true worst case scenario, and you put together a system on that basis. OK, what now happens when one year you get a six day drought? By hypothesis your fossil fuel backup has been dismantled and is no longer available. Does all power then just go out on that sixth day? Remember, this is the dead of winter. People are going to freeze to death. So are you going to keep the fossil fuel backup around just for this one day that might occur only once every few decades? If so, how much of the fossil fuel backup capacity do you need to keep? Think about that for a second. The answer is, all of it. In the 60,000 MW firm power requirement scenario for New York State, you will need 60,000 MW of available fossil fuel capacity to cover that one day when the batteries run out. Dozens of major power plants, fully maintained, and with fuel at the ready, capable of being turned on for this one emergency day perhaps once every twenty years.

Or you can try to avoid that by building yet more solar panels and more batteries so that you can get through a six day sun drought. But what happens when you get a drought of seven days?

It’s almost impossible to contemplate the lack of critical thinking that is going into this so-called green energy transition.

February 5, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

Whistleblower: Gunshot Wounds, Baby Deliveries, Car Accidents All Being Coded as “COVID” in Hospitals to Keep Federal Funding Flowing

By Brian Shilhavy | Health Impact News | February 4, 2022

More evidence is surfacing showing that hospitals today are still collecting federal funds as an incentive to diagnose patients with “COVID” via a PCR Test, even if the patient was brought to the hospital with gunshot wounds, or to have a child, or from a car accident.

Project Veritas released a video yesterday of a whistleblower, Jeanne Stagg, who was working as a Senior Administrative Nurse at United Healthcare in Louisiana.

She came forward to expose the fraudulent practices still going on in hospitals today where people who have no symptoms of COVID come into the hospital, such as from gunshot wounds, or to have a baby, or because they were in a car accident, and are then tested positive for COVID and coded as a “COVID patient” when they are admitted to the hospital.

This releases federal funding that financially benefits the hospitals, but can literally kill the patient because they get the wrong treatment.

And to demonstrate how this is happening, a man has just come forward to give his testimony in public about how he was in a car accident, where EMS ambulance services arrived on the scene and sedated him against his will, air lifted him to a hospital allegedly in Tucson, Arizona, and he woke up 8 hours later on a ventilator because he was diagnosed as a “COVID” patient.

He was all alone in his room when he woke up, so he took himself off of the ventilator, removed the IV and catheter, and demanded to be released from the hospital.

He considers himself lucky to be alive today.

This is on our Bitchute channel, and also on our Telegram channel.

February 5, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Ocean acidification claims by researchers run into the ‘decline effect’

Tallbloke’s Talkshop | February 4, 2022

There are no ‘acidified’ oceans so the whole topic was over-hyped from the start. ‘Seawater is slightly basic (meaning pH > 7), and ocean acidification involves a shift towards pH-neutral conditions rather than a transition to acidic conditions (pH < 7)’ – Wikipedia. Another climate scare gets deflated.

– – –

As humans fill the atmosphere with excess carbon dioxide, much of it gets absorbed by the oceans, acidifying them (claims Phys.org)—a potential concern for marine life.

According to a new study publishing February 3rd in PLOS Biology, however, previously high-profile worries about an effect on fish behavior appear to have declined.

The research led by Jeff Clements and Fredrik Jutfelt at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, along with Josefin Sundin (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences) and Timothy Clark (Deakin University), demonstrates that the apparent severity of ocean acidification impacts on fish behavior, as reported in the scientific literature, has declined dramatically over the past decade.

The researchers used meta-analysis to analyze trends in reported effects of ocean acidification on fish behavior in studies published from 2009-2019. While early studies reported extremely clear and strong effects, the magnitude of those impacts has decreased over time and have been negligible for the past five years.

“A textbook example of the decline effect”, explains Dr. Clements, lead author of the study.

“The decline effect is the tendency for the strength of scientific findings to decrease in magnitude over time. While relatively well-recognized in fields like psychology and medicine, it is lesser known in ecology—our study provides perhaps the most striking example of it in this field to date.”

To determine what might have caused the decline effect in their meta-analysis, the authors explored numerous biological factors, but found that biological differences between studies through time could not explain the results.

Instead, common scientific biases largely explained the decline effect.

“Science often suffers from publication bias, where strong effects are selectively published by authors and prestigious journals”, says co-author Prof. Jutfelt. “It’s only after others try to replicate initial results and publish less-striking findings that true effects become known. Our analysis shows that strong effects in this field are favorably published in high impact journals.”

Alongside publication bias, studies that reported severe effects tended to have smaller sample sizes.

Full article here.

February 4, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

Former Pfizer VP Michael Yeadon demands apology from media over ‘lies’ asserting vaccine safety

Dr Michael Yeadon, former Pfizer vice president and co-founder of Doctors for COVID-19 Ethics
By Patrick Delaney | LifeSiteNews | February 2, 2022

After being excoriated by mainstream media outlets regarding his concern that COVID-19 gene-based vaccines could cause fertility issues in young women, Dr. Michael Yeadon is now requesting contrition on the part of media outlets as leaked data from the U.S. military indicates heavy spikes in these tragic outcomes. 

“I’m not vindictive, but I want some humility and contrition from the BBC and all other media outlets that lied to their audiences,” said the former Pfizer vice president and Chief Scientist for allergy and respiratory. 

Yeadon, who spent 32 years in the industry leading new medicines research and retired from the pharmaceutical giant with the most senior research position in his field, was an author of a submitted petition to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in December 2020 that raised substantial concerns regarding a lack of sufficient testing of the experimental COVID-19 gene-based vaccines, prior to their emergency use authorizations. 

With regard to the possibility of the shots endangering the fertility of women, Yeadon and his colleague, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, wrote, “There is no indication whether antibodies against spike proteins of SARS viruses would also act like anti-Syncytin-1 antibodies. However, if this were to be the case this would then also prevent the formation of a placenta which would result in vaccinated women essentially becoming infertile.” 

Such a possibility would need to be ruled out through standard experimentation prior to imposing such substances onto the entire population, according to the doctors. 

“It’s important to note that none of these gene-based agents had completed what’s called ‘reproductive toxicology,’” Yeadon wrote in his recent statement. “Over a year later, this battery of tests in animals still has not been done. So there was and still is no data package supporting safety in pregnancy or prior to conception.” 

Media response to valid concerns: attacks, smears, vilifications 

“As a society, we’ve practiced the precautionary principle most assiduously in relation to conception and pregnancy ever since the tragedy of thalidomide, over 60 years ago. So we had hoped that some at least in the media would take this [concern] with the seriousness it deserved,” he wrote. 

“Did that happen? No. Instead, we were attacked, smeared and vilified in every medium, from Twitter to the BBC,” the British national wrote. “[M]ajor broadcasters actively lied to the public, explicitly stating that these agents were completely safe in pregnancy.” 

Indeed, Reuters excoriated the doctors for making their inquiry “without providing evidence, that the vaccines could cause infertility in women,” shifting the burden of proof onto the petitioners from the regulators whose job it is to ensure proper safety trials are completed before the release of such drugs. 

Reuters later attempted to “fact-check” Yeadon as well over several concerns including the danger to fertility, to which he simply reiterated common ethical principles with regard to human experimentation: “No one in their right mind thinks giving experimental treatments to pregnant women is other than reckless. Especially when reproductive toxicity testing is incomplete.” 

Of special note for Yeadon was BBC Radio talk show hostess Emma Barnett, who “directly attacked me by name on air in the most unpleasant terms,” which also led to his charging the program with slander. In response, after a bit of investigation, the program editor conceded, apologized to Yeadon, and cut their false representation of the former Pfizer scientist from their recorded podcast. 

“[Barnett] also had her guest, who was from the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, repeat the lies that it was perfectly safe for young women to be injected,” Yeadon called out in his statement. 

Preprint paper reveals placental-damaging antibodies increased 2.5 fold after shots 

Also of note for the former executive was a preprint study published last May that appeared to attempt a rebuttal of his concern that anti-Syncytin-1 antibodies could be developed due to the shots, but instead reinforced them showing a 2.5 fold increase of the placental-damaging antibodies in days 1 to 4 after COVID-19 gene-therapy injections.  

The paper, which claimed a conflict of interest in being funded by Johnson & Johnson, went on to explain that though they had observed this major increase, they did not examine its “clinical significance,” thus admitting they didn’t know if these higher levels of the antibody flagged an actual safety problem with regards to fertility and miscarriage.  

At the same time, the study’s authors acknowledged data showing “spontaneous miscarriage as the most common obstetric outcome after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.”  

Based on the outcome of this study alone, Yeadon said “all of these experimental products as a class should have been completely contraindicated in women younger than menopause.”  

Pfizer & Moderna ‘definitely knew’ these mRNA products would ‘accumulate in the ovaries’ 

An additional source of concern regarding fertility was that “the mRNA products (Pfizer and Moderna) would accumulate in ovaries,” the British national explained. 

“An FOI request to the Japanese Medicines Agency revealed that product accumulation in ovaries occurred in experiments in rodents. I searched the literature based on these specific concerns and found a 2012 review [here], explicitly drawing attention to the evidence that the lipid nanoparticle formulations as a class do, in fact, accumulate in ovaries and may represent an unappreciated reproductive risk to humans. This was ‘a well-known problem’ to experts in that field,” Yeadon explained. 

“I’ll say that again. The pharmaceutical industry definitely knew, in 2012, that formulating these agents in lipid nanoparticles would lead them to accumulate in the ovaries of women to whom these were given.  

“No one in the industry or in leading media could claim ‘they didn’t know about these risks to successful pregnancy,’” he emphasized. 

Results from the U.S. military leak confirm damage done to unborn children and fertility 

“So it’s with tremendous anger and sorrow that I heard of military physicians blowing the whistle about the evidence of harms in pregnancy that their proprietary safety monitoring database had thrown out,” Yeadon said, referring to last week’s revelations during a U.S. Senate panel discussion. 

“In the intervening months since journalists (including but definitely not limited to Emma Barnett) chose to downplay or downright lie about our concerns, we learned that women in the U.S. military were experiencing 3X normal rates of miscarriage,” he explained. 

In fact, these data leaks, given by three “decorated high-ranking soldiers who are doctors and public health officials,” in sworn declarations under penalty of perjury, show several increases in negative impacts upon fertility, including spontaneous abortion, among this military population where enforcement of an experimental COVID gene-vaccine mandate is strictly observed. 

As presented by these soldiers, the following 2021 increases only include the first 10 months of the year (January through October) and are compared with the full five-year average of figures taken from 2016 through 2020.  

  • Miscarriages — increase of 279% 
  • Female infertility – increase of 471% 
  • Male infertility — increase of 344% 
  • Congenital malformations (birth defects) – increase of 156% 

And considering most children conceived after these injections had not been born before November 2021, the final figure of birth defects is likely to significantly increase as well. 

Journalists, regulators and manufacturers: ‘You are way out over thin ice and deep water’ 

After Yeadon’s request for contrition from the BBC and other media outlets, he went on to implore readers, “please do not get injected with these inherently dangerous and ineffective experimental products. Warn anyone you know about the risks to pregnancy, now confirmed by whistleblowers from physicians in the U.S. military. 

“Please also tell them there are likely to be other reproductive health consequences, even in young girls, because of accumulation [of lipid nanoparticles] in their ovaries.“ 

Having originally alerted the EMA of several other possible toxic outcomes due to the injections, Yeadon highlighted that he and Dr. Wodarg were sadly also right about their warning of “allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccination,” citing examples from the UK of emergency interventions and tragic deaths. 

“Having had two of two serious harms we warned about, prior to regulatory authorisations, come to pass,” he said. “I humbly recommend that governments and journalists everywhere recognise what you’ve done and lobby for or directly decide to immediately and completely withdraw all these experimental products from the market, before some of the other specified concerns (or issues we didn’t think of) show up in the safety monitoring systems.” 

“Journalists, regulators, healthcare professionals and politicians, as well [as], of course, the manufacturers, you are way out over thin ice and deep water. I don’t know how you’re planning to get out from under this before the wider public more fully appreciates what you’ve done,” Yeadon wrote. 

“One possibility is that you won’t be able to hide your complicity in the massed harms you’ve done to millions of people. In this case, I look forward to giving evidence against you in a court of law,” he concluded. 

Dr. Yeadon’s full statement can be accessed here. 

February 3, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

These 5 Studies Reveal a Disturbing Trend — Researchers Presenting Conclusions That Don’t Match the Data

By Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D. and Madhava Setty, M.D. | The Defender | February 2, 2022

It was January 2020, the very beginning of COVID, when news articles began appearing that connected the genetics of the virus with gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

These speculations were put to rest by an authoritative statement in the prestigious journal Nature Medicine, echoed by a summary in Science and an unusual affidavit in the Lancet signed by an impressive list of prominent scientists.

The message in the Nature Medicine article was dispositive: “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.”

But where was the support for this confident conclusion in the article itself?

The 2,200-word article in Nature Medicine (Anderson, et al) contained a lot of natural history and sociological speculation, but only one tepid argument against laboratory origin: that the virus’s spike protein was not a perfect fit to the human ACE-2 receptor.

The authors expressed confidence that any genetic engineers would certainly have computer-optimized the virus in this regard, and since the virus was not so optimized, it could not have come from a laboratory. That was the full content of their argument.

Most readers, even most scientists, take in the executive summary of an article and do not wade through the technical details. But for careful readers of the article, there was a stark disconnect between the Cliff Notes and the novel, between the article’s succinct (and specious) conclusion and its detailed scientific content.

This was the beginning of a new practice in the write-up of medical research. Recent revelations in the Fauci/Collins emails shed light on the origins of this tactic and the motives behind it.

In the past, if a company wanted, for example, to make a drug look more effective than it really was, it would choose a statistical technique that masked its downside, or it would tamper with the data.

What companies would not do, in the past, was describe the results of a statistical analysis that proves X is false, then publish it with an Abstract that claims X is true.

But this strange practice has become more common in the last two years. Academic papers are being published in which the abstract, the discussion section and even the title flatly contradict the content within.

Why is this happening? There are at least three possibilities:

  • The authors cannot understand their own data.
  • The authors are being impelled by the editorial staff to arrive at conclusions that match the ascendant narrative.
  • The authors and editors realize the only way to get their results into publication is to avoid a censorship net that gets activated by any statement critical of vaccination efficacy or safety.

Before reaching any conclusions, let’s take a closer look at some examples of this troubling phenomenon arising in what should be the foundation of what is known: published scientific data.

In this article, we present five different published studies. Each to varying degrees exemplifies a disconnect between the data and the conclusions.

Example 1: ‘Phase I Study of High-Dose L-Methylfolate in updates Combination with Temozolomide and Bevacizumab in Recurrent IDH Wild-Type High-Grade Glioma’

This example is unrelated to the pandemic, but it typifies a common practice in the pharma-dominated world of medical research. If a remedy is cheap and out of patent, there is no one motivated to study its efficacy.

But research practice has gone well beyond neglect. In fact, investigators are skewing statistics to make cheap, effective treatments look ineffective if they are in competition with expensive pharma products.

This is ridiculously easy to do — all it requires is incompetence. Using the wrong statistical test, using a weak test when a stronger one applies — or just about any mistake in parsing the data — is far more likely to make compelling data appear random than the opposite.

Is it always incompetence? Or is it more often a well-thought-out deception that uses seemingly erudite analysis to lead the undiscerning reader into believing the wrong conclusion?

In the case of this article, a simple B vitamin (L-Methylfolate) was shown to double the life expectancy of 6 out of 14 brain cancer patients who received it, while showing no benefit (and no harm) to the other half of the patients.

The purple jagged line extending out to the right represents 40% of patients who lived dramatically longer when treated with L-Methylfolate (LMF).

The abstract reports that “LMF-treated patients had median overall survival of 9.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 9.1–35.4] comparable with bevacizumab historical control 8.6 months (95% CI, 6.8–10.8).”

The increase in median survival time is just a few months and not statistically significant. But the average survival time of the folate-treated group was more than double, and the difference was statistically significant (by my calculation, not in the article).

But the average is what is more commonly reported, and most readers don’t understand the difference between average and median.

The longest surviving patient on the B vitamin was still alive at the end of the study (3.5 years) when every one of the patients treated only with traditional chemo was dead before 1.5 years.

There were three different dosages in the study, (30, 60, 90 mg) and it was not reported whether the longest-living patients were receiving the highest dosages.

This is, in fact, a hugely promising pilot study about treating a common, fatal cancer with a simple vitamin. If it were an expensive chemotherapy drug instead of a cheap vitamin, you can be sure it would have been hailed as a breakthrough.

But this study will not create much excitement, and few oncologists will even know to prescribe methylfolate for their glioma patients.

Example 2: ‘Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons’

Earlier this year, MacLeod et al used data from a prominent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study to calculate that for women in their first trimester, the rate of miscarriage following administration of an mRNA COVID vaccine was an alarming 82%.

On Jan. 7, the CDC released a report designed to dispel our misgivings about vaccinating pregnant women. Its conclusions were unequivocal:

“These data support the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. CDC recommends COVID-19 vaccination for women who are pregnant, recently pregnant, who are trying to become pregnant now, or who might become pregnant in the future.”

The Defender reported on the numerous flaws in this study. The most egregious deficiency was the dearth of pregnant women in the study who were vaccinated early in their pregnancy (less than 2%).

The authors admit their study could not quantify the risk of vaccine exposure in the first trimester: “First trimester vaccinations are not included in analyses stratified by trimester because few exposures occurred…”

How then can they recommend COVID vaccination for women who are “recently pregnant” if their analyses excluded women in their first trimester?

This report serves a purpose. People who read it superficially will find the reported results reassuring — including front-line doctors who don’t have time to evaluate the research critically.

The CDC chose to paint over troubling safety concerns with reassuring words that are unsupported by clear science.

Example 3: ‘Public Health Scotland COVID-19 & Winter Statistical Report’

There is a section of this report comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated rates of disease, preceded by a warning to the reader not to take the data at face value.

“PLEASE READ BEFORE REVIEWING THE FOLLOWING TABLES AND FIGURES There is a large risk of misinterpretation of the data presented in this section due to the complexities of vaccination data …”

The data the authors don’t want us to misinterpret say that people who have been vaccinated with one shot or three shots are 50% more likely to contract COVID-19 compared to people who are unvaccinated.

People who receive two shots are more than twice as likely to contract COVID-19. This is according to the authors’ own method of calculating age-standardized disease rates.

The authors emphasize it’s not about case numbers — it’s about severe outcomes, hospitalizations and deaths:

“Evidence suggests the COVID-19 vaccines are 90% effective at preventing a severe outcome of COVID-19. COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths are strongly driven by older age, with most deaths occurring in those over 70 years old and having multiple other illnesses. But overall, you are less likely to be hospitalized if you are vaccinated with a booster.”

What data are they talking about? Here are results from their own data table:

The only substantial reduction is from people who received the third shot, which has only recently been available in Scotland. But for the three-shot cohort only, vaccination effectiveness is declining over the four weeks.

This adds to previous evidence that protection from the vaccine is short-lived, and each injection provides a shorter window of protection than the previous one. Also, note the hospitalization statistics may have been gamed.

Since the publication of this article, England but not Scotland has backed off requirements for vaccination IDs.

Example 4: ‘Clinically Suspected Myocarditis Temporally Related to COVID-19 Vaccination in Adolescents and Young Adults’

Myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart, is a severe and life-shortening disease. It is virtually unknown in young people, but it is a recognized side effect of the COVID vaccines, especially in boys and young men.

This article summarizes the experience of 139 young patients (ages 12 to 20) who were hospitalized for myocarditis following vaccination.

19% of them were taken into intensive care.

Two required infusions of pressors and inotropes (potent intravenous drugs used to raise critically low blood pressure).

Every patient had an elevated Troponin I level. Troponin is an enzyme specific to cardiac myocytes. Levels above 0.4 ng/ml are strongly suggestive of heart damage. These young patients had a median Troponin I level of 8.12 ng/ml — over 20 times greater than the levels found in people suffering heart attacks.

“Conclusions: Most cases of suspected COVID-19 vaccine myocarditis occurring in persons <21 years have a mild clinical course with rapid resolution of symptoms.”

“Mild clinical course” — We suppose this refers to the 81% who did not go to the ICU or the fact that none died or required ECMO (Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation, a desperate means to keep the body oxygenated when a patient’s heart or lungs have completely failed).

In any case, every single person in this study was hospitalized. When does a “mild clinical course” require hospitalization for a two-day median length of stay?

“Rapid resolution of symptoms” — How would anyone know this? Myocarditis in older patients doubles the probability of death for the long term.

We don’t know what it will do to young boys in the long term, especially since every patient had some damage to their heart as evidenced by significantly abnormal troponin levels. And we don’t fully understand the mechanism by which the vaccines cause myocarditis.

Example 5: ‘Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States’

This is the title of a paper by two statisticians from the Harvard School of Public Health, published on Sept. 30, 2021, in the European Journal of Epidemiology.

The title makes the important claim that there is no public health benefit from vaccination. COVID-19 is spreading at the same rate in different populations, unrelated to whether the population is mostly vaccinated or mostly unvaccinated.

It’s a powerful counterpoint to the ubiquitous demand that more people should undergo vaccination for the sake of their community.

The paper completely undermines the requirement of vaccination to attend meetings, concerts, theater and other public gatherings. It says there is no legitimacy to the creeping government vaccine mandates for travel.

But the data in the paper don’t show that vaccination and spread of COVID-19 are “unrelated.” In fact, there is a paradoxical relationship, an insidious relationship: The more vaccinated countries had more new COVID-19 cases (during the week when the survey was conducted). The correlation is significant (p=0.04).

Still, the authors conclude by explicitly recommending propagandizing of the unvaccinated: “In summary, even as efforts should be made to encourage populations to get vaccinated it should be done so with humility and respect.”

It may sometimes be wrong to promote flawed health policy, but apparently, it’s a good thing, so long as it is done with humility and respect.

Why would these researchers take the trouble to publish data that is so damning to the vaccine narrative, and then pull punches in the title and in the conclusions?

Are we to assume that these authors who have assiduously extracted data from 68 different countries and nearly 3,000 U.S. counties were unable to notice their meticulous scatter plot unequivocally demonstrates high vaccination uptake is associated with higher (NOT lower) prevalence of COVID-19?

This seems to be a different case from the first example, where shills for the pharmaceutical industry set out to create a deceptive narrative. We think it’s probable that in this case, soft-pedaling the implications of these glaring data may not have been the authors’ choice, but rather a decision by the journal’s editors.

We know from personal experience how difficult it is to get an article through peer review at most “reputable” medical journals when the results are out of sync with the COVID narrative.

It may well be that these authors fought hard to get their subversive message into print, and in order to get past peer review, they softened the language, especially, the title.

Conclusions

The church was once the most trusted institution in Europe. Then the bishops started selling indulgences — a kind of get-out-of-hell-free pass for rich sinners.

Today the most trusted institution is science.

Sources: Gallup, Gallup, Gallup, Pew

This is true despite the fact that scientists are human, subject to error and to corruption.

Medical journals have become financially dependent on their advertisers, which are almost exclusively the pharmaceutical giants.

For several decades now, the “Church of Science” has been selling indulgences. With enough money, you could buy a scientific study that says what you want it to say.

Darell Huff’s book, “How to Lie with Statistics,” first published in 1954, remains the all-time best-seller in its field.

Recently, Gerald Posner documented the way in which the pharmaceutical industry has used its profits to affect science at every level, from medical researchers to journal editors to government regulatory agencies to the journalists who interpret science for the public.

Pressure is being placed on independent researchers by the journal editors and peer reviewers, many of whom have ties to Big Pharma. Valid studies, honestly reported, can be rejected for publication if they send a message that threatens corporate profits.

In the age of COVID, we see three reasons that an article’s conclusions might become detached from its statistical findings:

  1. Scientists have suddenly abandoned basic logic and reason. This is an implausible explanation because, as has been demonstrated above, these examples demonstrate diligence in gathering data. There is no reason why they would abandon diligence in arriving at reasonable conclusions.
  2. Shortcuts by pharmaceutical companies and their shills in academia. Rigging clinical trials the old-fashioned way is expensive and time-consuming. It’s also uncertain. Sometimes the truth rears its head even if a study is designed to conceal it. Even a study that is designed to fail might succeed when the inconvenient truths are sufficiently stubborn. How much easier it is to report the results and then tack on an abstract and a discussion section that say what you want to say, regardless of the data tables in the body of the article!
  3. Scientist authors are well aware of the pernicious censorship in scientific publication that has emerged in recent days. This is perhaps the most intriguing possibility. If researchers behind the study have some prestige and some influence, they still may find they have to soften their rhetoric in order to pass peer review. However, what we are witnessing today is more than a tendency to be “diplomatic” in their choice of words. What does it mean when their conclusions do not match the findings? Are they trying to tell us that they are gagged? Are they silently screaming at us to look at the data and not their interpretation of them?

The Nature Medicine article on the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (reviewed first) seems to be an example of researcher corruption.

The article in the European Journal of Epidemiology (Example 5), which relates vaccination rates to COVID prevalence, is more likely an example of corruption by journal editors and peer reviewers.

In this instance, the data and conclusions are so disparate that it begs us to reconsider the cynical position that all scientists have been corrupted. Is there a better way for conscientious scientists to signal their community that they are being censored than by compiling solid data that tell a compelling story and then arriving at a nonsensical conclusion? Are they imploring us to read between the lines?

For the other four articles reviewed above, we leave it to your judgment — how do you think the conclusions came to be so disconnected from the statistical findings in these same articles?

Obviously, this blatant distortion of scientific write-ups is not a long-range strategy, but the world is moving fast, and people who count on their ability to shape scientific conclusions to their financial interests will be successful for long enough to do a great deal of mischief.

What will be the damage to the credibility of science when the dust clears?

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.

Madhava Setty, M.D. is senior science editor for The Defender.

© 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 3, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

FDA Grants Full Approval of Moderna’s Spikevax COVID Vaccine — Another ‘Bait-and-Switch?’

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | February 2, 2022

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Monday granted full approval of Moderna’s Spikevax COVID vaccine for people 18 and older.

Similar to the agency’s licensing last year of Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine, the approval raised a number of legal questions related to mandates and product availability.

Spikevax is a two-dose primary series, approved also for administration as part of a heterologous (“mix and match”) single booster dose for individuals who previously completed their original series of vaccinations with the Pfizer or Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccines.

According to the FDA, Spikevax “has the same formulation as the [Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)] Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine and … can be used interchangeably with the EUA Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine to provide the COVID-19 vaccination series.”

However, in its approval letter, the FDA said Spikevax is “legally distinct” from the Moderna EUA vaccine:

“The licensed vaccine has the same formulation as the EUA-authorized vaccine and the products can be used interchangeably to provide the vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness.”

The FDA made the same distinction between the Pfizer-BioNTech EUA vaccine and the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine, which the agency fully licensed in August, 2021, a move that raised questions about liability and the legality of vaccine mandates.

After Monday’s announcement, media outlets were quick to reassure the public the two Moderna vaccines are the same and that this was just a marketing ploy, where Moderna simply “rebranded” what is otherwise the same vaccine.

No ‘fully licensed’ COVID actually available

While Moderna’s Spikevax vaccine is now fully licensed, the original Moderna vaccine will remain under EUA. Indeed, the FDA on Jan. 7 reissued the EUA.

The FDA has also made it clear the Spikevax vaccine will not be available to the American public, announcing:

“Although SPIKEVAX (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) and Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) are approved to prevent COVID-19 in certain individuals within the scope of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine authorization, there is not sufficient approved vaccine available for distribution to this population in its entirety at the time of reissuance of this EUA.”

These claims parallel the chain of events that followed the FDA’s full approval of the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine in August 2021.

At the time, Pfizer and the FDA claimed Comirnaty was not yet available, as there were sufficient stocks of the Pfizer-BioNTech EUA vaccine still available to be administered.

As of this writing, the FDA states, via its website, that Comirnaty products are “not orderable at this time.”

The FDA has not indicated when, or if, the Spikevax and Comirnaty vaccines will be available for distribution in the U.S.

Are EUA and fully licensed vaccines really interchangeable? 

As reported by The Defender, there is a significant legal distinction between products authorized under EUA and those fully licensed by the FDA.

EUA products are experimental under U.S. law. Under the Nuremberg Code and federal regulations, no one can force a human being to participate in this experiment.

Specifically, under 21 U.S. Code Sec.360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), “authorization for medical products for use in emergencies,” it is unlawful to deny someone a job or an education because they refuse to be an experimental subject. Instead, potential recipients have an absolute right to refuse EUA vaccines.

That’s an issue military members, unable to find any vaccination sites that offer the fully licensed Comirnaty vaccine, cited in various lawsuits challenging vaccine mandates.

Notably, on Nov. 12, 2021, a federal judge rejected an argument by the U.S. Department of Defense, in defending the military’s vaccine mandate, that the Pfizer Comirnaty and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines are “interchangeable.”

U.S. law also requires the EUA designation be used only when “there is no adequate, approved and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing or treating such disease or condition.”

This means that, in legal terms, all EUA products should be withdrawn once alternative products have received full approval.

Perhaps the most significant legal distinction, however, pertains to the legal protections afforded vaccine manufacturers, depending on how their product is classified.

Under the 2005 Public Readiness and Preparedness (PREP) Act, EUA-approved vaccines enjoy a significant liability shield. Specifically, vaccine manufacturers, distributors, providers, and government officials involved in the policymaking, approval, and distribution process are immune from any legal liability.

Under such regulations, the only way an injured party can sue is if he or she can prove willful misconduct, and if the U.S. government has also brought an enforcement action against the party for willful misconduct.

No such lawsuit has ever succeeded.

Conversely, fully licensed vaccines, such as Spikevax and Comirnaty, do not have a liability shield, and are instead subject to the same product liability laws as other products.

This means the Spikevax and Comirnaty vaccines could expose pharmaceutical companies to significant financial claims if individuals injured by the vaccines chose to sue the vaccine makers.

The rush to get COVID vaccines authorized for all ages — a ploy to avoid liability? 

There’s another reason Pfizer and Moderna don’t want their fully licensed vaccines to be available yet — they’re waiting for the vaccines to be authorized, then licensed, for children as young as 6 months old.

Why? Because once a vaccine is fully licensed by the FDA, the only way its manufacturer can be shielded from legal liability is if the vaccine is added to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s childhood vaccination schedule.

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), passed into law in 1986, provides a legal liability shield to drugmakers if they receive full authorization for all ages and the vaccine is added to the mandatory schedule.

Reporting on the FDA’s approval of Spikevax, investigative journalist Jordan Schachtel wrote:

“Are Pfizer and Moderna waiting for full authorization for children’s shots to distribute Comirnaty and Spikevax to the masses? There’s plenty of litigators who have suggested that this is exactly what is going on in Big Pharma world.”

By creating the public perception that the Pfizer and Moderna EUA vaccines are fully approved, businesses, schools and other institutions are emboldened to impose vaccine mandates that violate existing law and allow the vaccines to be administered without informed consent.

It has also been argued that by relabeling the product, any previous data regarding vaccine injuries and side effects identified in association with the EUA vaccine are not counted in the safety studies for the approved vaccine.

The FDA approval of the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine, its subsequent lack of availability and the continued administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech EUA vaccine led Children’s Health Defense (CHD) to file a lawsuit against the FDA and its acting director, Dr. Janet Woodcock, for their allegedly deceptive and rushed approval of the Comirnaty vaccine, arguing that the approval represented a classic “bait and switch” tactic.

CHD further alleged in its lawsuit that the FDA violated federal law when it simultaneously licensed Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine and extended Pfizer’s EUA — as the agency has now done with Moderna and Spikevax — for a vaccine that has the “same formulation” and that “can be used interchangeably,” according to the FDA.

FDA admits no safety data for Spikevax use among pregnant women

Beyond the legal questions raised by the FDA’s approval this week of Spikevax, the approval also raises safety questions.

For instance, the FDA admitted Spikevax was insufficiently tested on pregnant women, stating that “[a]vailable data on SPIKEVAX administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy.”

Furthermore, Spikevax was approved without having been tested for its ability to provide protection against the Omicron variant, which is reported to account for 99.9% of current U.S. COVID cases — it was approved only for providing protection against mutations that are no longer circulating.

And yet, the FDA cited the Omicron variant as the reason behind its decision to pull its EUA for monoclonal antibody products. The FDA claims that these products have not been shown to provide protection against the Omicron variant.

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., is an independent journalist and researcher based in Athens, Greece.

© 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 3, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Acceptance of and Commitment To Freedom – #SolutionsWatch

Corbett • 02/01/2022

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Iain Davis of In-This-Together joins us once again, this time to discuss his latest article, “Acceptance of and Commitment to Freedom.” In this conversation, James and Iain move from an examination of the feelings of hope and despair that have been instilled in the population by the would-be social engineers to a conversation about how we can use behavioural psychology to reassert our power and regain our sovereignty.

Watch on Archive / BitChute / Minds / Odysee or Download the mp4

SHOW NOTES:

What Is All This Isolation Doing to Us?

Iain Davis Dissects the Pseudopandemic

Acceptance of and Commitment to Freedom

WHO Technical Advisory Group principles

Conspiracy Theories by Cass Sunstein (pdf)

SPI-B: Current adherence to behavioural and social interventions in the UK, 22 March 2020

MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour through public policy

Options for increasing adherence to social distancing measures

A State of Fear by Laura Dodsworth

February 3, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment

The Race Is On for an Omicron Jab

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | February 1, 2022

At this stage in the game, it’s apparent that the COVID jab no longer works. Many health officials and world leaders are even openly acknowledging that the COVID shots cannot end the pandemic and that we must learn to live with the virus.

A major driver for this U-turn in the pandemic narrative is the emergence of the Omicron variant which, by mid-January 2022, accounted for 99.5% of all COVID cases in the U.S.1

The infection, which is far milder than previous ones, is ripping through populations, leaving natural herd immunity in its wake. Despite that, vaccine makers are still hard at work to produce an Omicron-specific injection.2 Pfizer has promised to have one ready by March 2022.3

The question is why, seeing how by the time the shot is released, just about everybody will have been exposed. If natural herd immunity is already maxed out, what good could a “vaccine” possibly do?

‘Everyone’ Will Have Natural Immunity

As Dr. William Moss, executive director of the International Vaccine Access Center at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health told CNBC,4 “An omicron-targeted vaccine was needed in December [2021]. It still could be valuable but I do think in many ways, it’s too late.”

Dr. Shaun Truelove, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and a member of a team of researchers who make COVID projections, agreed, saying, “Given how quickly this [variant] is happening, [the targeted vaccine] may not matter because everybody’s going to be infected.”5 Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla even admits he doesn’t know “whether or not the new vaccine is needed or how it could be used,” CNBC reports.

January 25, 2022, Pfizer and Moderna announced they’ve started enrolling adults, 18 to 55, for trials on an Omicron-specific jab in the U.S. and South Africa.6 Pfizer will evaluate safety, tolerability and immune response in 1,420 volunteers,7 some of whom will have received two doses while others will have received three already. A third cohort will be unvaccinated (although one wonders where they’ll get those from).

Moderna has also joined the pointless race to produce an Omicron booster,8 although it’s doubtful they’ll be able to produce one any faster than Pfizer.

Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel told CNBC that a fourth COVID jab also may be on the horizon, “as the efficacy of boosters will likely decline over time.”9 It’s unclear what strain that fourth shot would target.

Israel Proves Failure of COVID Boosters

For a preview of what’s in store after third and fourth booster shots, all we have to do is look at Israel, where more than 250,000 fourth doses had already been given by early January 2022. According to CNBC:10

“Early data from Israel shows that a fourth dose does increase antibody levels, says Dr. David Hirschwerk, infectious disease specialist and medical director at Northwell Health’s North Shore University Hospital.”

What CNBC neglects to note is that, after the rollout of a fourth dose, Israel now has the highest COVID case rate per capita of any country in the world since the beginning of the pandemic.

Looking at a Reuters graph11 of Israel’s seven-day average case rate, something absolutely abnormal appears to have happened in mid-January 2022, as the line shoots straight upward, hitting an all-time high of 75,603 new infections per day on January 24, 2022.

This, despite 74% of the population having received at least one dose, 67% having received two doses, and 56% having received at least one booster, as of January 25, 2022.12

What Does It Mean To Be ‘Fully Vaxxed’?

While the pandemic narrative has recently shifted, and rather dramatically, with some leaders openly speaking out against boosters without getting canceled or censored, it seems clear that we’re not out of the woods yet when it comes to COVID shots.

Vaccine makers clearly aim to make the COVID shot, at bare minimum, an annual injection.13 In the meantime, the definition of what it means to be “fully vaccinated” against COVID keeps shifting. At the beginning of 2021, many people undoubtedly got their primary series (two shots of Pfizer or Moderna, or a single jab in the case of AstraZeneca and Janssen) thinking life would be easier that way.

Being “fully vaccinated,” they wouldn’t be inconvenienced by vaccine passport restrictions and mandates. Well, that fantasy only lasted a few months. Now, those who got the first required series find themselves in the unwelcome position of being among the “unvaccinated” again unless they submit to a third jab.

As explained by U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky during a recent press briefing:14

“What we’re really working to do is pivot the language to make sure everyone is up to date with their COVID-19 vaccines as they personally could be, should be, based on when they got their last vaccine. If you’ve recently gotten your second dose but you’re not eligible for a booster, you’re up-to-date. If you’re eligible for a booster and you haven’t gotten it, you’re not up-to-date and you need to get your booster.”

It’s only a matter of time before those with three jabs will be “unvaccinated” unless they submit to a fourth, and so on, ad nauseum. An as-yet unanswered question is how many mRNA injections can a person survive?

Considering the injection causes your body to produce toxic spike protein in uncontrolled amounts, it seems reasonable to assume there’s a tolerance limit, although that limit may vary from person to person. There’s really no telling how many people are one shot away from a crippling side effect or sudden death.

Each Shot Degrades Your Immune System

As reported by The Exposé,15 January 22, 2022, government data from around the world suggest people who have received at least two shots are now showing signs of serious immune system degradation.

According to that report, data from Australia, the U.S., Canada, Scotland and England clearly show “that their vaccinated populations immune system capability has been decimated when compared to the not-vaccinated population.” For starters, Omicron cases are rising far more rapidly and readily among the fully jabbed and boosted than among the unvaxxed.

In Australia, the fully jabbed are 2.2 times more likely to catch COVID than the unvaccinated. “So, the vaccine passports holders are 2.2x more likely to spread COVID than the unvaxxed who are denied vaccine passports and locked up in detention centers,” The Exposé dryly notes.

Several studies have also shown the effectiveness of the jab wanes incredibly rapidly. And, disturbingly, it doesn’t peter out at zero. Immunity goes negative, meaning the fully vaxxed and boosted rapidly become MORE prone to COVID infection than they ever were before.

Negative Effectiveness Rates Found in Many Countries

In the U.S., a study16 on 780,225 U.S. veterans found the effectiveness of the jab dropped precipitously over six months:

  • Janssen dropped from 86.4% effectiveness at the outset to 13.1% in the sixth month
  • Moderna dropped from 89.2% to 58%
  • Pfizer dropped from 86.9% to 43.3%

A Canadian study17 found vaccine effectiveness started declining sharply within as little as the second week after the second jab. By the sixth month after the second jab, the blood of 70% of nursing home residents had “very poor ability to neutralize the coronavirus infection in laboratory experiments.”

In the U.K., government data “show a clear linear fall-off in vaccine efficiency at an average rate of 4.8% per week for the over 18s,” The Exposé reports,18 and by the time you get past Week 9 after jab No. 2, effectiveness starts going negative.

“Doubly vaxxed (unboosted) people in the U.K. have now (as of January 2022) run right out of immune system efficiency against both Delta and Omicron when compared to unvaccinated people,” The Exposé writes. The question is whether or not there might be a point at which the immune system stops deteriorating. As of now, we don’t know.

Using data from five UK HSA COVID-19 Vaccine Surveillance Reports, The Exposé created the following graph, illustrating “the overall immune system performance among all age groups in England over the past five months.”

The Exposé explains:19

“What we can see from the above is that the immune system performance for adults aged between 18 and 59 has deteriorated to the worst levels yet since they were given the COVID-19 vaccine.

Whilst the immune system performance of everyone over the age of 60 has deteriorated dramatically following receipt of the booster shot, but not yet to the level seen between week 37 and week 40. The over 70’s have however seen the most dramatic fall in immune system performance between month 4 and month 5 alongside 18-29-year-olds.

The 55% boost to the immune systems of the over 80’s given by the boosters between month 3 and month 4 has all but deteriorated between month 4 and month 5. Their immune system is performing 1% better than it was in month 3 but still 54% worse than their unvaccinated counterparts.

The 73% boost to the immune systems of the 70-79-year-olds given by the boosters between month 3 and month 4 has also all but deteriorated between month 4 and month 5. Their immune system is performing 10% better than it was in month 3 but still 63% worse than their unvaccinated counterparts.

The minor boost however, given to the immune systems of everyone between the age of 30 and 59 by the boosters between month 3 and 4 has been completely decimated by the following month, whilst 18-29-year-olds have seen a 60% decline in their immune system performance between months 4 and 5.”

Are Double- and Triple-Jabbed People at Risk for VAIDS?

By now you may be wondering whether this negative effectiveness could be indicative of something far worse than just being more prone to Omicron infection. The Exposé20 believes the double- and triple-jabbed may actually have vaccine-acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or VAIDS, similar to AIDS.

While I think it’s still too early to come to a definitive conclusion, former Pfizer vice president Michael Yeadon has made a similar statement.21 In a December 6, 2021, article on americasfrontlinedoctors.org, Yeadon is quoted saying:22

“If immune erosion occurs after two doses and just a few months, how can we exclude the possibility that effects of an untested ‘booster’ will not erode more rapidly and to a greater extent?”

The article goes on to cite a Lancet preprint23 that compared outcomes among “vaccinated” and unvaccinated Swedes over the course of nine months. As in other studies, they found that protection against symptomatic COVID rapidly declined, and by six months’ post-jab, “some of the more vulnerable vaccinated groups were at greater risk than their unvaccinated peers.”

“Doctors are calling this phenomena in the repeatedly vaccinated ‘immune erosion’ or ‘acquired immune deficiency,’ accounting for elevated incidence of myocarditis and other post-vaccine illnesses that either affect them more rapidly, resulting in death, or more slowly, resulting in chronic illness,” the Frontline Doctors explain.24

The article also cites an August 2021 report from Scotland,25 which found those who had received the jab were 3.3 times more likely to die from COVID infection than the unvaccinated — a finding that certainly blows a huge hole in the claim that the jab prevents serious illness and death even if you do get symptomatic infection.

ICU Admissions Spike Among Vaxxed Immunocompromised Brits

The Daily Mail at the end of November 2021 also reported that weekly ICU admissions of “most vulnerable patients” had risen by 50% in the two preceding months, and that 1 in 28 ICU patients had conditions affecting their immune system. Blood cancer patients and organ transplant patients made up a bulk of this group.26

While the Daily Mail blamed the unusually high rate of admissions of immunocompromised patients on the government’s failure to roll out booster shots fast enough to counteract waning immunity, this is incredibly short-sighted. As noted by America’s Frontline Doctors, the shots are creating “vaccine addicts,” in the sense that their immune system won’t be able to ward off COVID without them. However, it’s still a losing venture, as each shot only worsens the immune erosion.

In the final analysis, it looks as though many may indeed end up being just one shot away from VAIDS as they continue to chase protection from an ever-mutating coronavirus.

The Daily Mail article tells the story of a transplant patient who was desperate to get his booster, knowing he was at high risk for COVID complications. It took three weeks, but he finally got his third shot. The very next day — THE NEXT DAY — he developed “a blinding headache, nausea and dizziness. A lateral flow test was positive and a follow-up PCR test confirmed that he had caught COVID.”

But rather than realizing he’s a victim of that third shot, the man is irrationally convinced that had he just gotten the third dose sooner, he wouldn’t have gotten COVID at all. Sadly, people like these will likely die from their “COVID jab addiction.” In closing, The Exposé writes:27

“Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome is a condition that leads to the loss of immune cells and leaves individuals susceptible to other infections and the development of certain types of cancers. In other words, it completely decimates the immune system.

Therefore, could we be seeing some new form of COVID-19 vaccine induced acquired immunodeficiency syndrome? Only time will tell, but judging by the current figures it looks like we will only need to wait a matter of weeks to find out.”

Sources and References

February 2, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

More On The NHS Vax Mandate Scrapping

By Tom Woods | Principia Scientific International | February 1, 2022

For two solid years the world has been turned upside-down by an elite bent on the suppression of alternative points of view.

What we laughingly call the “mitigation measures” they imposed on us haven’t done a bit of good, and instead have caused death and impoverishment everywhere they’ve been tried.

With only a handful of exceptions, every major institution has been an enemy of sanity.

You and I have been up against every channel of fashionable opinion.

That we’ve managed, under these impossible conditions, to win any victories at all is a miracle. But they keep on coming.

The most recent: in England, the National Health Service (NHS) mandate for health-care and home-care workers is being scrapped.

There are a couple of reasons that this is especially welcome and happy news.

First, it was only a week ago that the Daily Mail was running this headline: “‘No plans’ to scrap Covid vaccine mandate for frontline medics in England, Downing Street says as it doubles down on plan despite warnings NHS could lose 80,000 workers overnight.”

So we went from “no plans” to “the mandate is scrapped” in a week.

Why did they do it?

Some are trying to say it’s because of the relative mildness of the Omicron variant, and that under these conditions a vaccine mandate is no longer a proportionate response.

Maybe. But I doubt it.

Here’s a more plausible answer.

The Daily Mail reports that what prompted the revision were “fears it could force the NHS to sack around 80,000 staff who remain unvaccinated.”

According to Chris Hopson, chief executive of NHS Providers: “There were always two risks to manage here: the risk of Covid cross-infection in healthcare settings and the consequences of losing staff if significant numbers choose not to be vaccinated.”

Stop and think about what this means.

Noncompliance forced them to abandon the mandate.

And not even majority noncompliance. We’re talking in the neighborhood of 10 to 20 percent.

I know there’s plenty of hideousness still out there. I hear that.

But when we get a win, let’s be happy, and keep on pushing forward.

February 1, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Freedom Alliance demands reparations for sacked care home workers

By Michael Curzon | BOURNBROOK | January 31, 2022

Many will have been pleased this morning to read the Covid vaccine mandate for NHS and social care workers is on its way out. But what happens now to the care home staff who already lost their jobs when the vaccine became a requirement for them in November?

They are expected to be able to return to their jobs, though some say this isn’t enough. The ‘Freedom Alliance’ party says these should receive reparations, funded by a windfall tax on the pharmaceutical industry.

Leader Jonathan Tilt said:

“These care employees should all be compensated for their lost income, consequential loss and psychological harm caused. This formal system of reparations should be managed by the Government and funded by a windfall tax on the pharmaceutical industry.

The Government chose to deliberately target care workers back in November 2021 believing that as a group they were an easy target for introducing medical mandates. They were wrong and the bravery of the care staff… has prevented the further extension of the totalitarian medical mandates. These brave workers deserve full and proper compensation for the loss they have suffered and the harm they have been caused.

February 1, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Write History

Corona Collapse: Reader Reports Wanted

eugyppius | February 1, 2022

Containment is collapsing around the world. I want to compile reader reports on local debates and the mood on the street.

I am grateful for anything you can give me, but local information is golden. What your friends think, how local politicians are reacting, how mask rules and other regulations are received, what’s up with testing, how people feel about vaccine coercion, the difference between what the law demands and what is enforced – all of this can be hard to get from press reports, and is what I most value from you, my fantastic readers.

Write to me with your report at containment@tutanota.com.

I read everything you send me. Even if I can only respond to a few emails, I really do read everything you send, I have learned so much from all of you.

February 1, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

NATO — Strategic Asset or Liability?

BY PAT BUCHANAN • UNZ REVIEW • FEBRUARY 1, 2022

Is the territorial integrity of Ukraine a cause worth America’s fighting a war with Russia?

No, it is not. And this is why President Joe Biden has declared that the U.S. will not become militarily involved should Russia invade Ukraine.

Biden is saying that, no matter our sentiments, our vital interests dictate staying out of a Russia-Ukraine war.

But why then does Secretary of State Antony Blinken continue to insist there is an “open door” for Ukraine to NATO membership — when that would require us to do what U.S. vital interests dictate we not do: fight a war with Russia for Ukraine?

NATO’s “open door policy” is based on Article 10, which declares that NATO members, “may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State … to accede to this Treaty.”

Moreover, membership is open to “any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area.”

Note that NATO admission requires “unanimous” consent of all 30 present members.

Blinken has often stated this as U.S. policy: “From our perspective, NATO’s door is open and remains open, and that is our commitment.”

What Blinken is saying is this: While America will not fight for Ukraine today, America remains open to Ukraine’s accession to NATO, in which event we would have to fight for Ukraine tomorrow, were it attacked by Russia.

What the U.S. needs to do is to say with clarity that while Ukraine is free to apply to NATO, NATO is free to veto that application, and the enlargement of NATO beyond its present eastern frontiers is over, done.

In this crisis, we need to recall how and why NATO was created.

In 1949, the year China fell to Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin exploded an atom bomb, we formed NATO as a defensive alliance to prevent a Russian drive west, from the Elbe to the Rhine to the Channel.

Of the original 12 members of NATO, the U.S. and Canada were on the western side of the Atlantic. Iceland and the U.K. were islands in the Atlantic. France and Portugal were on the Atlantic’s eastern shore.

Denmark, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg were astride the avenue of attack the Red Army would have to take to reach the Channel.

Norway was the lone original NATO nation that shared a border with the USSR itself. Italy was the 12th member.

Clearly, this was a defensive alliance to prevent a Soviet invasion of Western Europe such as Hitler had executed in the spring of 1940, when Nazi Germany overran Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg and France, and threw the British off the continent at Dunkirk.

Nations that joined NATO during the Cold War were Greece and Turkey in 1952, Germany in 1955, and Spain in 1982.

But, with the end of the Cold War, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the overthrow of Soviet Communism, and the breakup of the USSR into 15 nations by 1991, NATO, its goal — the defense of Central and Western Europe — achieved, its job done, did not go out of business.

Instead, NATO added 14 new members and moved almost 1,000 miles east, into Russia’s front yard and then onto Russia’s front porch.

The Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland joined in 1999. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia became NATO nations in 2004. Albania and Croatia joined in 2009, Montenegro in 2017, and North Macedonia in 2020.

Understandably, Russian President Vladimir Putin asked himself: To what end, and for what beneficent purpose, was this doubling in size of an alliance that was formed to contain us, and, if necessary, fight a war against Mother Russia?

Alliances, which involve war guarantees, commitments to fight in defense of the allied nations, invariably carry costs and risks as well as rewards and benefits in terms of strengthened security.

But when we brought Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia into NATO, what benefits in added strength did we receive to justify the provocation this would be to Russia, and the risk it might entail if Moscow objected and, one fine day, walked back into these Baltic states?

If we will not fight for the independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine, the second largest nation in Europe with a population of over 40 million people, why would we go to war with a nuclear-armed Russia over Estonia, a tiny and almost indefensible nation with a population of 1.3 million?

Besides Ukraine, two nations have been considering membership in NATO: Finland and Georgia. Accession of either would put NATO on yet another border of Russia, with the usual U.S. bases and forces.

While this would enrage Russia, how would it make us stronger?

Perhaps, instead of adding new nations on whose behalf we will go to war with a great power like Russia, we consider reducing the roster of NATO and restricting the number of nations for whom we must fight to those nations that are vital to our security and bring added strength to the alliance.

February 1, 2022 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »