Researchers working at Belgium’s Princess Elisabeth Polar Station in Antarctica have contracted Covid-19, even though all personnel have been inoculated and any new arrival has to follow rigorous safety protocols.
Two-thirds of the station’s staff of 25 have been infected with the coronavirus, Belgium’s polar secretariat confirmed to local media earlier this week. But how the virus could have reached the remote station, located some 220km (137 miles) from the Antarctic coast, remains a mystery.
“All those present have received two doses of vaccine, and one person has even received a booster shot,” said Alain Hubert, the facility’s executive operator and head of security measures. All staff members also have to undergo a series of PCR tests on their long journey to the station.
Those en route there take one PCR test in Belgium before leaving for South Africa and another five days after their arrival. They self-isolate for 10 days in Cape Town, then undergo two further tests: one before leaving for Antarctica and another five days after arriving at the station.
Nonetheless, even such strict control measures were apparently not stringent enough, as the first Covid-19 case was reported at the station in mid-December among a group of new arrivals. The person in question was immediately placed in isolation, but two others were soon revealed to have contracted the coronavirus as well.
All three infected researchers were evacuated on December 23, but this measure did not stop the virus from spreading further. A virologist contacted by the polar secretariat said the variant that has infected personnel at the station might be Omicron – the highly transmissible strain recently discovered in South Africa.
There are two emergency doctors and all the necessary equipment at the station to treat anyone who falls ill, according to the media. In the meantime, the polar secretariat has placed all personnel under quarantine and put a halt to any new arrivals until the Covid-19 cluster there dissipates. Explorers venturing on two new expeditions had been expected on January 12, but their arrival has now been delayed.
**Displays number of deaths and disabilities associated with each batch/lot number = indication of relative toxicity of one batch/lot compared to another
**No one currently knows the reason why some batches/lots are associated with excessive deaths, disabilities and adverse reactions (up to 50 x). Until we do know, it is best to be cautious
**[“Batch-code” = “Lot Number” = the number they write on your vaccination card.]
All data is sourced from VAERS, a public database of over 700,000 adverse reaction reports for Moderna, Pfizer and Janssen Covid 19 vaccines in the USA.
Our intention is to present the VAERS data in an accessible and unadulterated form, that can be easily verified using the links below
I haven’t written about this because some people who I rely on for advice believe that there are too many unknowns to make a determination as to whether increased adverse event reports are due to a bad “batch” or a bad “vial” or something else.
The unknowns include:
were certain sites just reporting more reliably so any vials sent there would appear more dangerous?
how many vials are in a particular lot?
where did all the vials of a given lot go?
could there have a been a problem in transit?
could there have been a problem with storage?
if a vial is not kept at the proper temperature, could it become dangerous?
…
The inability for anyone to analyze these vials as well as the lack of transparency about each batch makes finding the answer to these questions very difficult.
In this talk delivered in Fresno, California, Dr. McCullough delivers one of his best lectures to date, discussing Covid-19, vaccines, SARS-CoV-2, spike proteins, Covid-19 home treatments, censorship, and Prof. Mattias Desmet’s theories about mass formation psychosis, among many other topics.
Dr. McCullough summarizes the lecture as follows:
* COVID pandemic is a global disaster
* Pathophysiology is complex—not amenable to single-drug treatment
* The prehospital phase is the therapeutic opportunity
* Early ambulatory therapy with a sequenced, multi-drug regimen is supported by available sources of evidence and has a positive benefit-to-risk profile
* Reduces the risk for hospitalization and death
* More safely temporize to close the crisis with herd immunity
* COVID-19 genetic vaccines
* Unfavorable safety profile
* Protection not sufficiently complete or durable
* Censorship and reprisal are working to crush freedom of speech, scientific discourse and medical progress
(no, this has nothing to do with the american koch brothers. it’s a common name and this is a quasi-government health agency.)
data such as this is easy to misinterpret and nearly everyone is doing it incorrectly, so i’d like to walk through why, counter to what many are claiming, this data actually shows that boosters have negative VE (vaccine efficacy).
caveat: this is a small and likely incomplete societal dataset. the sample size is possibly large enough to give us a sense of outcomes, but as with all societal data, it’s difficult to know what bias may be injected by self selection for testing and for vaccination. error bars are likely meaningful.
but we work with what we have, not what we would prefer, so let’s take a look:
– 4020, ergo 95,58 % vollständig Geimpfte (1137 davon geboostert) – 186 Ungeimpfte (4,42 %)
4020 cases with 2 or more doses of vaccine, 1137 of them with boosters.
186 cases in the unvaccinated.
(unfortunately, there is no breakout for 1 dose only, so i’m presuming that group has been included in “unvaccinated”)
germany is 70.5% “full vaccinated.” (per OWID) thus, by the definitions this report uses, it is 29.5% unvaccinated.
it is 38.2% boosted as of 12/30/21. it’s not clear to me if this study is using that figure or only counting as boosted those who got their booster more than 14 days ago (as many seem to count it). if this is so, the number drops to 29.3%. i will look at it both ways to try to create some bookends for the range. (if anyone can clarify, i’d be grateful)
to see what is happening more granularly, we first need to regroup the terms:
from this one can see that the 3 groups are actually fairly similar in size, but quite divergent in outcomes.
many seem to presume that because cases in the boosted are a lower percentage of overall cases than the boosted are of the overall population that this shows vaccine efficacy.
this is not, however, correct as can be readily seen once we adjust this data to a per capita level.
that data looks like this (using 83.2mm for german population)
and this makes the issue obvious.
to calculate VE, we need to compare the vaccinated cohorts to the unvaccinated. that’s the control group. there are probably some pretty significant error bars here, but this outcome is STARK. the risk ratios for all vaccinated groups are far, far higher than control.
boosting does seem to lead to a 2/3 risk reduction vs just being double vaxxed but still leaves one at 4.7X the risk of the unvaccinated.
this risk ratio leads to VE figures that are, frankly, so bad that i suspect there must be some sort of bias here. this looks too extreme to be entirely plausible and far exceeds all other data i have seen.
one possible source of this issue is definitional. if the german study is using “boosted +14 days” as its definition, then the numbers change quite a bit as the size of the boosted group shrinks and the size of double vaxxed rises causing their risk rates to converge somewhat.
another possible source of contamination is the actual act of running a booster campaign during an outbreak.
the tendency toward transitory immune suppression created by mRNA vaccine administration is well documented.
the danes found it to be on the order of 40-100% increase in the likelihood of infection in the 2 weeks following administration (with 100% likely being a better proxy for genpop as they resemble HCW’s more than NH residents). this study was during a period of relatively low prevalence and with a less contagious variant than omicron. this needle could have moved quite a lot by now.
and all this piles up, so if you are doubling the risk of a group already showing increased risk due to vaccine escape/antigenic fixation/OAS the issue may become multiplicative. […]
Fully referenced facts about covid-19, provided by experts in the field, to help our readers make a realistic risk assessment.
“The only means to fight the plague is honesty.” (Albert Camus, 1947)
Overview
Lethality: According to the latest immunological studies, the overall infection fatality rate (IFR) of covid in the general population is about 0.1% to 0.5% in most countries, which is most closely comparable to the medium influenza pandemics of 1936, 1957 and 1968.
Vaccines: Real-world studies have shown a very high, but rapidly declining covid vaccine effectiveness against severe disease. Vaccination cannot prevent infection and transmission. Various severe and fatal vaccine adverse events have been reported, including in young people. A prior infection generally confers superior immunity compared to vaccination.
Treatment: For people at high risk or high exposure, early or prophylactic treatment is essential to prevent progression of the disease. According to numerous international studies, early outpatient treatment of covid may significantly reduce hospitalizations and deaths.
Age profile: The median age of covid deaths is over 80 years in most Western countries (78 in the US) and about 5% of the deceased had no serious preconditions. The age and risk profile of covid mortality is therefore comparable to normal mortality, but increases it proportionally.
Nursing homes: In many Western countries, about 50% of all covid deaths have occurred in nursing homes, which require targeted and humane protection. In some cases, care home residents died not from the coronavirus, but from weeks of stress and isolation.
Excess mortality: Overall, the pandemic has increased mortality by 5% to 25% in most Western countries. In some countries, up to 30% of additional deaths have been caused not by covid, but by indirect effects of the pandemic and lockdowns (including drug overdose deaths).
Antibodies: By the end of 2020, between 10% and 30% of the population in most Western countries had coronavirus antibodies. In India and some Latin American countries, coronavirus infection prevalence reached up to 75% by the summer of 2021.
Symptoms: About 30% of all infected persons show no symptoms. Overall, about 95% of all people develop at most mild or moderate symptoms and do not require hospitalization. Early outpatient treatment may significantly reduce hospitalizations.
Long covid: Up to 10% of symptomatic people experience post-acute or long covid, i.e. covid-related symptoms that last several weeks or months. Long covid may also affect younger and previously healthy people whose initial course of disease was rather mild.
Transmission: Indoor aerosols appear to be the main route of transmission of the coronavirus, while outdoor aerosols, droplets, as well as most object surfaces appear to play a minor role. The coronavirus season in the northern hemisphere usually lasts from November to April.
Masks: There is still little to no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of face masks in the general population, and the introduction of mandatory masks couldn’t contain or slow the epidemic in most countries. If used improperly, masks may increase the risk of infection.
Children and schools: In contrast to influenza, the risk of disease and transmission in children is rather low in the case of covid. There was and is therefore no medical reason for the closure of elementary schools or other measures specifically aimed at children.
Contact tracing: A WHO study of 2019 on measures against influenza pandemics concluded that from a medical perspective, contact tracing is “not recommended in any circumstances”. Contact tracing apps on cell phones have also proven ineffective in most countries.
Virus mutations: Similar to influenza viruses, mutations occur frequently in coronaviruses. Most of these mutations are insignificant, but some of them may increase the transmissibility, virulence or immune evasion of the virus to some extent.
Sweden: In Sweden, covid mortality without lockdown has been comparable to a strong influenza season and somewhat below the EU average. About 50% of Swedish deaths occurred in nursing homes and the median age of Swedish covid deaths was about 84 years.
Virus origin: The origin of the new coronavirus remains unknown, but the best evidence currently points to a covid-like pneumonia incident in a Chinese mine in 2012, whose virus samples were collected, stored and researched by the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). Due to cooperations, some US labs may also have had access to these viruses.
Surveillance: NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden warned that the coronavirus pandemic may be used to expand global surveillance. Many governments have restricted fundamental rights of their citizens and announced plans to introduce digital biometric vaccine passports.
You must take this product. You cannot sue if injured. You can maybe see the clinical trial safety data in 75+ years. And the deidentified post-licensure safety data – no, you cannot see that either.
Threepriorposts explained how the FDA seeks to delay for 75+ years full production of Pfizer’s pre-licensure safety data. While we have that fight, we submitted a request to the CDC, on behalf of ICAN, for the deidentified post-licensure safety data for the Covid-19 vaccines in the CDC’s v-safe system. Even though this data is available in deidentified form (meaning, it includes no personal health information), the CDC refused to produce this data claiming it is not deidentified.
So, on behalf of ICAN, we filed a federal lawsuit against the CDC and its parent entity, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to force the CDC to produce this data to the public. The CDC should have no issue doing so because it has already made this data available to a private company – Oracle – in deidentified form. It is telling that Larry Ellison’s company can see the data American taxpayers paid the CDC to collect but the average American and independent scientists cannot?!
What is the v-safe system you may ask? Since rolling out the Covid-19 vaccines, the FDA and CDC have stated that their primary safety monitoring system, VAERS, is unreliable. The CDC therefore deployed a new safety monitoring system for COVID-19 vaccines called “v-safe.” V-safe is a smartphone app that allows vaccine recipients to “tell CDC about any side effects after getting the COVID-19 vaccine.” The purpose of the app “is to rapidly characterize the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines when given outside a clinical trial setting.” With this new system, the CDC claims that these “vaccines are being administered under the most intensive vaccine safety monitoring effort in U.S. history.”
That all sounds great. And a CDC document explains that data submitted to v-safe is “collected, managed, and housed on a secure server by Oracle,” a private computer technology company, and that Oracle can access “aggregate deidentified data for reporting.” This means data submitted to v-safe is already available in deidentified form and could be immediately released to the public.
But yet, after we submitted a FOIA request to the CDC, on behalf of ICAN, to produce the deidentified v-safe data, the CDC acknowledged that “v-safe data contains approximately 119 million medical entries” but refused to produce that data by claiming that the “information in the app is not de-identified.” The CDC had apparently not read its own documentation regarding v-safe. But we had. So, we appealed this decision and submitted another request to the CDC that expressly asked only for any deidentified v-safe data, in the app or otherwise. Meaning, in the form that the CDC made the data available to Oracle. Incredibly, the CDC administratively closed this request stating it was duplicative of the original request.
Let me break that down again. The first request was denied by the CDC because it claimed the request sought data in the app that was deidentified. But then the CDC closed the second request, which made clear it is seeking only deidentified data (in the app or otherwise), by claiming the second request was duplicative of the first request! If this sounds ridiculous, it is because it is.
The public should be outraged by the CDC’s games.
The introduction to the lawsuit is copied below with a link to the entire complaint at the end. As with the pre-licensure Pfizer data, if you find what you are reading difficult to believe, that is because it is dystopian for the government to give pharmaceutical companies billions, mandate Americans to take their products, prohibit Americans from suing for harms, yet refuse to let Americans see the pre- and post-licensure safety data for these products. The lesson yet again is that civil and individual rights should never be contingent upon a medical procedure.
INTRODUCTION TO LAWSUIT AGAINST CDC FOR V-SAFE DATA
1. Between December 2020 and February 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) issued Emergency Use Authorizations for three COVID-19 vaccines, one of which subsequently received FDA approval in August 2021. While the FDA approved these vaccines, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), is charged with monitoring the safety of all vaccines, including the COVID-19 vaccines approved by the FDA. The CDC claims that these “COVID-19 vaccines are being administered under the most intensive vaccine safety monitoring effort in U.S. history[.]”
2. The federal government has mandated that millions of Americans receive these vaccine products. HHS has also given pharmaceutical companies complete immunity for injuries caused by those products. Mandating that millions of Americans inject a product for which they cannot hold the manufacturer liable if the product injures them demands complete transparency, especially when it comes to releasing the data underlying the product’s safety. FOIA exists precisely so that the American people can obtain transparency and, in this case, obtain the data which supports the CDC’s claims to intensive safety monitoring.
3. As for the pre-licensure data submitted by the pharmaceutical companies, the FDA took the position in another FOIA action that, because it needs to deidentify that data, it needs at least 75 years to produce the data to the public. As for the post-licensure data, the FDA and CDC have said that their prior primary existing safety monitoring program was incapable of determining causation and were otherwise unreliable. The CDC has, however, deployed a new safety monitoring system for the COVID-19 vaccines, v-safe, and the data within v-safe is already available in deidentified form and could be forthwith released to the public.
4. V-safe is a smartphone app that allows vaccine recipients to “tell CDC about any side effects after getting the COVID-19 vaccine.” The purpose of the app “is to rapidly characterize the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines when given outside a clinical trial setting and to detect and evaluate clinically important adverse events and safety issues that might impact policy or regulatory decisions.”
5. Data submitted to v-safe is “collected, managed, and housed on a secure server by Oracle,” a private computer technology company. Although the CDC has “access to the individualized survey data,” Oracle can only access “aggregate deidentified data for reporting.”
6. Plaintiff asked through its instant FOIA requests that the CDC produce the deidentified data from the v-safe program in the same form that Oracle can access. Plaintiff believes that to assure transparency regarding the government’s claim that COVID-19 vaccines are “safe and effective,” the public should have immediate access to all v-safe data, in deidentified form, and therefore, once the CDC produces that data, Plaintiff intends to make it publicly available. Despite the fact that the deidentified data already exists, it is already in the hands of a private company, and the CDC has never objected to its production, the CDC has so far failed to produce it to Plaintiff or to the American public. The federal government is thereby not only failing to provide the transparency necessary to earn the American people’s trust regarding these vaccines but is also failing to comply with FOIA.
7. Plaintiff Informed Consent Action Network (“Plaintiff”) is a non-profit organization that advocates for informed consent and full transparency and disseminates information necessary for same with regard to all medical interventions. It intends to make all v-safe data immediately available to the public so that independent scientists can immediately analyze that data. It believes that we need all hands on deck, both inside and outside the government, to address serious and ongoing issues with the vaccine program, including waning immunity, adverse reactions, etc. Locking out independent scientists from addressing these issues is dangerous, irresponsible, unethical, and illegal.
8. To acquire the v-safe data, Plaintiff made three requests to the CDC pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552, as amended) (“FOIA”) seeking information regarding v-safe.
‘There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.’ George Orwell: 1984
COVID has shattered our lives and our faith in a great many things. Social psychologist Roy Baumeister warns in Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty that ‘Evil usually enters the world unrecognised by the people who open the door and let it in.’
Regardless of their original motives, it must be plain to our leaders by now that the impact of their actions is evil. Governments the world over have contrived to weaken the independence and strength of individual minds by forcing people to live in a perpetual state of propaganda-induced fear by the imposition of illiberal and capricious rules.
Do not be deceived by the fake normality around you – this is war. A putsch so outrageous, so duplicitous and of such a scale that it surpasses anything attempted before. There is no lie too small, and no betrayal too large, that has not been used to further the elite vision of the ‘New Normal’.
Let’s remember before Covid, a time when we were being warned of the catastrophic dangers of leaving the EU and the MSM was characterising Brexit as a collective suicidal act committed by xenophobic proles given too much licence, harking back to a lost age of empire.
Elites were badly shaken, and people naïve to believe that their democratic decision would go unpunished. We had exhibited wrong-thinking, economic illiteracy and, importantly, set a dangerous precedent. Our future, as a sovereign nation, was consequently crushed, and we find ourselves in thrall to globalist powers.
Before history is erased, we should set down some truths. On Monday, March 9, 2020 the World Health Organisation reported that cases of a ‘novel’ virus [patents applied for the previous year] had topped one hundred thousand worldwide. The virus origin was unclear, most likely manufactured, a bioweapon, but certainly not to be named Wuhan, for that would be racist.
Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director-general of the WHO, was reticent about classifying the outbreak as a global pandemic, saying: ‘This is a respiratory pathogen that is capable of community transmission, but which can be contained with the right measures.’
The ‘right measures’ which were adopted almost universally are the oppression and lockdowns beloved by the Communist government of China. The separation of people into the compliant and the non-compliant – the ‘good collectivist’ from the bad. The globalist elite saw a pandemic as their opportunity for the Great Reset.
SARS‐CoV‐2 is the virus identified as causing Covid-19. Last year the US Centers for Disease Control estimated its mortality rate at 0.25 to 3 per cent of those who became ill with it. The true Covid mortality rate is disputed, due in no small measure to the ubiquitous use of ‘scientifically meaningless’ PCR tests, an unprecedented conflation of ‘case’ numbers with actual illnesses, and changes in how causes of death are attributed.
Post-mortems were restricted and most deaths certified as Covid – even if, as in care homes, there had been no examination or formal diagnosis by a doctor and residents had multiple co-morbidities.
Matt Hancock ditched the UK’s well-established pandemic plans to shelter and protect the vulnerable and permit the healthy to continue their lives. The government then abdicated public health decisions to a group of unelected ‘experts’ misnamed Sage; the majority of its members have ties to Big Pharma.
The collective brain that is Sage promoted only one solution: vaccines. Quickly repurposed with taxpayer funds, given emergency authorisation and indemnity from liability for harm; the gene therapies sold to patsies everywhere. Clinicians proposing alternatives found themselves denigrated then silenced, and the use of cheap, proven interventions such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine blocked: the consequence, thousands of avoidable deaths.
Sage is a tyrant: infallible, like Anthony Fauci. Both have the hubris to declare they are ‘the science.’ High-handed and broaching no dissent, it seeks, asMax Aitken, later Lord Beaverbrook did, power over the masses, to ‘Kiss ’em one day and kick ’em the next.’ But, as Kipling said, ‘Power without responsibility [is] the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.’
‘Our National Health Service’ was an early casualty – repurposed into a machine unresponsive to anything but Covid and the mass distribution of gene therapies as vaccines. These, especially the mRNA formulae, do not meet any previous definition of a vaccine, and offer little protection or immunity from the virus. They look increasingly like ‘elaborately engineered toxins’.
Resultant harms are widespread and known to be under-reported. Those who complied, out of fear or a false sense of communitarianism, now find themselves officially unvaccinated and ‘eligible’ for new regular boosters: betrayed ad infinitum for base profit.
Do not be afraid, our masters tell us, this is not coercion, but any who do not comply will be separated out and denied their freedom. ‘Democratic’ states are stigmatising healthy people as unclean and wicked, dangerous to the safety of us all; detention camps are already built.
World leaders’ actions are ‘not about restricting people’s rights’; there is no assault on liberty but only necessary action ‘for the Common Good’ – the collective benefit – the calling card of totalitarian rule.
We have become a diminished little nation, fearful and cowed, mesmerised by Newspeak and content to believe that government cares for our wellbeing. It does not, nor does Big Pharma, the ‘Guardians’ of the World Economic Forum, or billionaires flying around in private jets warning that we must all prepare for the next global emergency.
Re-educated, we now understand that freedom is whatever the Covidocracy says it is. Democracy is a good thing, provided you vote for the right people. Health is what a PCR test shows, experimental gene therapies are vaccines; vaccines do not prevent you from getting a disease or passing it on; consent is doing what you are told; bodily integrity applies only to abortion; all flu is Covid, but not all Covid is flu; and the National Health Service is nothing of the kind.
Science is whatever Gates and Schwab are investing in (hint – common cold and smallpox vaccines, synthetic ‘meat’ and biometric nano chips). A man is a woman if he says so, and 2+2 does indeed, make 5.
On October 29, 2021, 53 authors put their name on a paper that they should be, at best, deeply ashamed of and, at worst, held liable for. Seventeen of those authors were members of CDC’s COVID-19 Response Team. ICAN sent them a letter detailing the gross scientific misconduct evidenced in the paper and demanded that they withdraw their names from the study.
It misleadingly concludes that the unvaccinated have more than a 5x greater risk of becoming infected with COVID-19 than those who are vaccinated. If this strikes you as absurd based on the dozens and dozens of peer-reviewed studies that show the opposite result, and based on everything we know about natural immunity, that is because it is.
There are multiple layers of issues with the way this rigged study was conducted. First, it makes an irrelevant and meaningless comparison. This study does not answer the question of whether vaccination or previous infection is better at decreasing the risk of subsequent COVID-19 disease. Had it studied this question, it would likely show what over 50 other studies have shown: previous infection is more durable, robust, and effective.
Instead, it compares, on the one hand, the percentage of previously positive patients admitted with COVID-like illnesses (CLI) that test positive, with, on the other hand, the percentage of previously vaccinated patients admitted with CLI that test positive. This is meaningless. Under this approach, if there are 100,000 vaccinated individuals admitted with CLI and 10% of them test positive but there are only 10 previously infected individuals admitted with CLI and 100% of them test positive, this study design would find that the previously infected individuals are 10 times (100%/10%) more likely to test positive for the virus. Nonsense.
Further, what should have been the most eye-opening data revealed by the study was seemingly ignored by the authors and by the CDC! The data showed that between June and September 2021, when the percentage of Americans who had previously been infected was just about equal to the percentage who had been fully vaccinated (and not previously infected), but yet the vaccinated had 5,213 cases of CLI and 306 positive cases while the previously infected had only 189 cases of CLI and 89 positive cases.
This finding should have been jaw dropping and raised questions within the CDC such as “why, when the number of people in each group should be the same, are we seeing so many more COVID-like illnesses and COVID-19 infections in those vaccinated than in those who have natural immunity?” But this study was not about asking these questions or getting to the truth.
ICAN made clear to the CDC authors that it knows what they already know: The study was designed to support the irrational, illogical, authoritarian, and punitive policies of the CDC to apply limitations to those previously infected that do not apply to those vaccinated. This is not science. This is misconduct. The burden is now on these scientists to either do the right thing and withdraw from the paper or to double down and deal with the legal consequences of doing so.
The Pfizer 6 month data shows that Pfizer’s COVID-19 inoculations cause more illness than they prevent. Plus, an overview of the Pfizer trial flaws in both design and execution.
Our alliance of independent Canadian doctors, scientists and health care practitioners is committed to providing top-quality and balanced evidence-based information to the Canadian public about COVID-19 so that hospitalizations can be reduced, lives saved, and our country safely restored as quickly as possible.
Tony Blair was quoted recently as saying: “If you’re not vaccinated at the moment you’re not just irresponsible, you’re an idiot.”
Before the Covid vaccine was rolled out PHE published data that showed those aged 80 years or over were seventy times more likely to die than those under 40. Earlier this year, before young adults and children were vaccinated, the JVCI said that the incidence of severe outcomes from Covid in children and young people was very low and that Covid disease in children was typically mild or asymptomatic. COVID-19 has killed fewer children than seasonal flu in a normal year according to data compiled by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The data was clear even in 2020 that if you were under 50 and in good health your risk of serious harm or death from the disease was vanishingly small.
For valid consent to be obtained for vaccination, not only would it be necessary to have a good perspective of Covid risk for that particular individual, it would also be essential to know whether naturally acquired immunity conferred as good or better protection and if remaining unvaccinated increased the risk to others. A former vaccine taskforce chief and many scientists involved in the Covid vaccine manufacture have stated that they were never designed to end transmission and this has now become clear for all to see. A recent Danish study confirms natural immunity is better.
For the above reasons it was refreshing to hear the Japanese Government declare: “Do not discriminate against the unvaccinated.”
Another factor that is important for valid informed consent and the decision on whether to be vaccinated or not is to look at the history of medicine. When new medical ideas or treatments were embarked upon how risky were they and how accomplished were healthcare professionals in providing that treatment?
In February this year the BMJ produced an article estimating 237 million or more medication errors are made every year in the U.K.
A few of the biggest medical scandals in history include thalidomide in the 50s and 60s, the HIV tainted blood scandal in the 80s and the PIP silicone implants more recently.
Are sceptical patients idiots? Are cautious people, including parents of young children, who have diligently assessed their risk profiles, done their own research, and shunned all the coercion, ‘idiots’?
Finally, it is also important in making the vaccination decision to ask ourselves how much we trust those in power and how often they can get big things wrong.
Galileo spent his last years in house arrest, was tried and forced to retract his perfectly correct position about the solar system being centred around the Sun, instead of around the Earth. Was he an idiot?
Were those who questioned the presence of weapons of mass destruction or the alleged guilt of the U.K. sub-postmasters all idiots?
Mr Blair, you later said: “Possibly I was a little too undiplomatic in my use of language.” No, Mr Blair, you were being arrogant and discriminatory. You do not acknowledge the deficiencies in the Covid vaccination programme’s ability to prevent infections over time without continual boosters; the evidence now clearly demonstrating the superiority of naturally acquired immunity for all but the extremely vulnerable; the unknown consequences of a novel strategy that attempts to control an airborne virus and its very real limitations in preventing transmission. You neglect to discuss medical ethics in relation to informed consent and how your comment can stigmatise people and thereby coerce them into being vaccinated.
Worst of all, Mr Blair, is that you made such a remark without submitting yourself to the challenge of fair scrutiny. Have you said this face-to-face to those I refer to above? Have you openly debated this one-on-one with scientists that say the opposite? Would you be prepared to be interviewed by such scientists, or would that scare you into thinking that you might look like an… unwise person?
The last two weeks have brought three new studies finding negative efficacy for two vaccine doses, meaning the vaccinated are more likely to be infected than the unvaccinated. These are study findings, not raw data, so have been adjusted for various biases and confounders, making it harder to dismiss them as anomalous or skewed.
The first is a pre-print study from Denmark, published on December 23rd, which looked at nearly all PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infections in Denmark from November 20th to December 12th and investigated them to see if they were likely to be the Omicron variant. By comparing the vaccination status of those infected, the researchers found a vaccine effectiveness against the Omicron variant of minus-76.5% for Pfizer and minus-39.3% for Moderna three months after double vaccination (see chart above), meaning the double-vaccinated were considerably more likely to be infected than the unvaccinated. They found the vaccine effectiveness against Omicron was significantly lower than against Delta, with Pfizer vaccine effectiveness at 53.8% and Moderna at 65% against Delta after three months. They reported that a third dose of Pfizer got vaccine effectiveness against Omicron back up to 54.6%, at least for a month. The full results are in the table below.
Hansen et al
The latest vaccine effectiveness study from the UKHSA confirms these results. Against Omicron, the UKHSA reports zero or negative vaccine effectiveness from a double-dose of all three vaccines (AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Moderna) after five months. The third dose takes it up again, but only into the 40-60% range, and dropping fast.
AstraZeneca
Pfizer
Moderna
A new study in Eurosurveillance from Norway also backs up the observation of negative vaccine effectiveness against Omicron, with a higher proportion of those who tested positive in the particular outbreak in the study being double-vaccinated than those who did not test positive (98% versus 93%).
Somestudies had already found negative vaccine effectiveness against Delta, in line with the unadjusted figures from the UKHSA, though many people had dismissed these results as anomalous or biased. With Omicron, the reports of negative efficacy are becoming impossible to ignore, with even the UKHSA publishing graphs showing it after three months on two doses. At some point, health authorities are going to need to grapple with what the data is showing on this and stop pretending it isn’t there.
By Kevin Barrett | Crescent | Dhu al-Qa’dah 24, 1445
In corporate America, hostile takeovers are commonplace. They occur when an aggressor—a larger corporation or rich individuals—seizes control of a smaller corporation without asking permission.
What few recognize is that the United States itself has been subjected to a hostile takeover. Since the aggressor, the illegitimate settler colony known as “Israel,” is much smaller than the US, the takeover has necessarily been surreptitious.
As of June, 2024, Israel’s gradual takeover of the US has become obvious and undeniable—a proverbial “elephant in the living room.” … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
