BY DR DAVID PATON | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | NOVEMBER 8, 2022
A new peer reviewed article in the journal Vaccine has been published comparing surveys data on attitudes to vaccination from before the pandemic with attitudes now.
The authors report that “paradoxically, despite the success of COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, vaccine confidence has significantly declined since the onset of the pandemic”.
I am not quite sure why the authors appear so surprised at their result but a clue can be found in their use of the word “despite”. In many countries the “success” of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign relied in large part in pressuring, bullying and sometimes coercing people to get vaccinated.
Now if governments tell you that getting vaccinated is in your best interests, but that nonetheless those who choose not to get vaccinated will be pilloried in the press and on social media, barred from participating in normal everyday activities and, in some cases, sacked from their employment, perhaps we should not be surprised that people start to doubt whether those governments really do have their best interests at heart.
And those doubts have substance behind them. From a very early stage, it was clear that for many people, the known risks from vaccination probably outweighed any likely benefit. This was most obvious for those who had already had Covid (and for whom the marginal impact of vaccination in preventing a further infection was small), for groups who faced very low risks of serious illness if they contracted Covid and especially for young males for whom vaccination seems to be bring additional risks of heart problems.
But instead of acknowledging that Covid-19 vaccines may make sense for some people and not everyone, too many public health officials, scientists and politicians have systematically downplayed immunity from previous infection, brushed aside concerns over side effects and dismissed concerns that the roll out to the whole population was rushed given uncertainty over long term effects.
The latter was a particularly serious error. Right from the start of the roll out the public was assured that the vaccines had been thoroughly tested. Yet in May 2021, the Government decided to stop providing the AstraZeneca vaccine to under 40s due to the relatively high rate of blood clots. That decision would have been little consolation to the families of the 73 people whose deaths the MHRA report as being linked to that vaccine.
Rather than taking that as a lesson, authorities around the world doubled down and rolled out vaccine mandates, passports and travel restrictions as a way of twisting more arms into receiving the jab. Ironically, these measures were aimed primarily at young people for whom the benefits of vaccination were lowest and (particularly for males) the risks seem highest.
The official rationale for these policies was that vaccination would help protect others from being infected. We now know that there was never any evidence to back this up. And when official data started to suggest that the vaccinated may be getting infected at similar if not greater rates than the unvaccinated, the response of some journalists was not to probe further and investigate but to encourage the authorities to suppress the data. Truly, you could not make it up.
Researchers such as Alex de Figueiredo from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine warned at the time that coercion was likely to lead to a loss of trust in vaccination more generally. With the latest research paper, we have firm evidence that this is indeed the case.
It is not unreasonable to conclude that the most dangerous ‘anti-vaxxers’ over the past two years have not been fringe conspiracy theorists but governments and the public health establishment itself.
It’s a sorry state of affairs, but where do we go from here? Well public health leaders could start by switching tack. Rather than setting out to persuade everyone to get vaccinated, they could concentrate on providing good information about benefits and risks to help people decide whether vaccination is right for them. If, at the same time, they start to engage honestly with those who have suffered side effects and acknowledge the high level of uncertainty that still exists in the evidence, perhaps they can begin to regain some of the trust they have so negligently lost.
David Paton is Professor of Industrial Economics at Nottingham University Business School.
By Madhava Setty, M.D. | The Defender | November 9, 2022
Pfizer last week announced what some media outlets called “good news” about its COVID-19 bivalent booster, for which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in August granted Emergency Use Authorization on the basis of testing conducted on eight mice.
In a press release, Pfizer summarized the updated data from its phase 2/3 clinical trial on the Pfizer-BioNTech Omicron BA.4/BA.5-adapted bivalent COVID-19 vaccine:
In simplest terms, the bivalent booster increased antibodies to the Omicron sublineages by a factor of 13.2, whereas the original booster increased them by a factor of only 2.9.
This increase was seen only in people over age 55.
Although the new booster produced a more modest increase (9.5 fold) in antibodies in the younger age group (18-55), Pfizer chose not to report what the response was in the age-matched group who received the original booster.
Did the bivalent booster offer any advantage in people younger than 55? Pfizer’s press release sidesteps this important question by focusing only on the results in the 55 or older cohort.
Dr. Ugur Sahin, CEO and co-founder of BioNTech, stated:
“These data demonstrate that our BA.4/BA.5-adapted bivalent vaccine works as conceptually planned in providing stronger protection against the Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 sublineages.”
By “these data” Sahin is referring only to those 55 or older as no comparative results were given in the 18-55 group. But how does he know that this rise in antibody levels will provide “stronger protection against the Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 sublineages?”
Were there any clinical outcome differences in terms of COVID-19 infections? None were recorded. Neither were any recorded in the preliminary data from the same study reported in a previous Pfizer press release.
This was likely why Sahin cautiously stated at that time:
“These preliminary findings are consistent with our preclinical data showing a substantial increase in the neutralizing antibody response against the Omicron sublineages BA.4 and BA.5.”
At what point does an “increase in the neutralizing antibody response” confer “stronger protection?”
Sahin doesn’t know — and neither does the FDA, which insisted that despite this uncertainty, the agency had enough grounds to cajole/compel/coerce those who acquired SARS-CoV-2 antibodies from a previous bout with COVID-19 to get jabbed anyway.
Questions about the two groups
The 36 people over age 55 who received the new bivalent formulation used in this comparison were taken from a larger pool of participants. They were “evenly stratified between those who had evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and those who did not.”
Furthermore, Pfizer informed us that the “control” group — those people who received the original booster formulation — were also a subgroup of participants but were taken from a different study “while ensuring the same equal stratification.” This group is thus called a “comparator group” and is not a true control group.
How did Pfizer decide which participants to use from the two separate studies?
Pfizer assured us the trial participants they used in the comparative group were “randomly selected.” However, we are not told how Pfizer selected those in the bivalent booster cohort.
Did they choose participants who had particularly high antibody responses? Were those in the comparative group actually chosen randomly — or were they chosen because of their particularly low responses?
In fairness, we are dissecting a press release and not any published research. However, given the company’s poor track record on transparency and integrity, these questions are not entirely unfounded.
In any case, there would be little incentive for Pfizer to cherry-pick participant data to showcase the benefit of its new bivalent booster. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has already granted Pfizer Emergency Use Authorization for the bivalent booster.
However, Pfizer admitted that there was a difference between the two groups. The interval between the booster and the trial participant’s last exposure to a vaccine was significantly longer in those who received the bivalent booster (10-11 vs. 7 months). Could this difference affect the antibody responses in the two groups?
Pfizer shrugs this off, explaining that “Despite this difference, pre-booster antibody titers were similar for both.”
But pre-booster antibody titers were not the metric of interest — it was the difference in antibody titers before and after that Pfizer was seeking to compare. At least one study indicates that a longer interval between vaccine exposure results in a greater antibody response.
Furthermore, Pfizer’s results indicate that the antibody response was lower in those who had a previous bout of COVID-19, or as they put it, “greater in those without prior infection.”
As early as February 2022, the CDC reported that 57.7% of the U.S. population had been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 through seroprevalence studies. Not only is this most recently available data nine months old, but the CDC also admitted that this was an underestimate because breakthrough infections result in lower anti-N titers (vaccinated people who succumb to COVID-19 generate lower levels of anti-nucleocapsid antibodies than those who are unvaccinated).
In other words, unless you are in the minority and have not had COVID-19, you can look forward to a lower antibody response from the bivalent booster.
What about safety?
“The safety profile remains favorable for the bivalent vaccine and consistent with the original vaccine,” according to Pfizer.
And Pfizer knows this because three dozen bivalent booster recipients didn’t suffer any serious adverse events after one month of observation.
Apparently, Pfizer continues to believe that its original COVID-19 vaccine has a favorable safety profile — despite the more than 31,000 reports of deaths submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS (most occurring in the first seven days after inoculation), the 7.8% of vaccinated people who reported to V-safe that they sought medical attention after a COVID-19 vaccine and the nearly 80,000 serious adverse events and 1,223 deaths reported within three months of the vaccine’s roll-out, according to Pfizer’s own post-marketing analysis.
Ongoing studies will not determine any benefit
Despite reporting only inconsequential data in three dozen people over the age of 55, Pfizer announced in the same press release:
“A booster dose of the BA.4/BA.5-adapted bivalent vaccine has been authorized for emergency use by the FDA for ages 5 years and older and has also been granted marketing authorization in the EU by the European Commission following a positive opinion from the EMA for ages 12 years and older. An application for marketing authorization of the BA.4/BA.5 booster has been submitted to the EMA for children ages 5 through 11.”
And more good news:
“[Pfizer and BioNTech] also initiated a Phase 1/2/3 trial in September 2022, to evaluate the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of different doses and dosing regimens of the companies’ Omicron BA.4/BA.5-adapted bivalent vaccine among children 6 months through 11 years of age.”
Yes. It is important for parents to know what dose their child can tolerate.
However, conspicuously missing in the design of this ongoing pediatric trial is the determination of efficacy — how good the product is in protecting children from contracting COVID-19 or from negative COVID-19 outcomes (death, hospitalization, ER visits, etc.). Isn’t that the point of a “vaccine” trial?
Apparently not — at least not according to the study description:
“The purpose of this clinical trial is to learn about the safety, extent of the side effects, and immune responses of the study vaccine (called bivalent BNT162b2 Omicron containing vaccine) in healthy children.”
Although having an estimated enrollment of 2,270 children, this ongoing trial will not answer the primary question parents will ask: Will this therapy benefit my kid?
Rather it will only allow Pfizer and BioNTech to determine how powerful their experimental mRNA product is in provoking infants and children to generate Omicron-specific antibodies.
Why are Pfizer and BioNTech not interested in proving their product does anything meaningful? Could it be because they realize this would be an impossible task?
Using data from nine months ago, the CDC reported that at least 75% of children in this age group had already acquired natural immunity to this disease. It is highly improbable that this study could demonstrate any differences in COVID-19 infection rates or outcomes, even with more than 2,000 children enrolled.
Madhava Setty, M.D. is senior science editor for The Defender.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Samizdat – 10.11.2022
The number of British citizens neither working nor looking for a job has grown dramatically since the beginning of the pandemic. Much of this can be attributed to mental health issues, which could impede the UK’s economic growth, economists warn.
According to research carried out by a UK media outlet, the number of economically inactive people in Britain rose by 537,500 between June 2019 and June 2022. About 450,000 of these cases were connected to mental health issues. The number of economically inactive people in the UK has skyrocketed to almost nine million. Britons are plagued by depression and anxiety disorders, the research shows.
This trend will have a negative impact on the British economy, the analysts warn. For instance, Deloitte’s research unit states that mental disorders of employees affect the productivity and turnover of companies. According to their report, annual costs associated with poor mental health have increased by 25% since the outbreak of COVID-19.
The epidemic of mental disorders will affect the British economy globally, economists claim.
Many experts claim the “rise in economic inactivity will hold UK growth back.” Economically inactive people do not contribute to public finances. Furthermore, the disability benefits bill in the UK has already reached £14.7 billion.
Mental disorders are among a number of conditions that may qualify for disability benefits. Depression and anxiety disorders are on the list, but in general any mental condition qualifies if it prevents a person from gaining or maintaining employment.
The U.S. Government’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) was updated today, and there are now 4,534 fetal deaths recorded in VAERS following COVID-19 vaccines given to pregnant and child-bearing women. (Source.)
And these recorded fetal deaths are but a fraction of the real number of unborn children who have died since the COVID-19 experimental vaccines were given emergency use authorization, as a previous report published for Department of Health and Human Services stated that fewer than 1% of all vaccine adverse events are actually reported to VAERS. (Source.)
Three of these fetal deaths have followed the new Bivalent COVID-19 booster shots from Pfizer and Moderna, including a 26-year-old woman from Arizona who developed breast cancer following the vaccine, and chose to have chemotherapy and terminate the life of her unborn child.
VAERS ID: 2447825: Began noting a breast lump 9/2021 Biopsied ER/PR + HER 2- breast cancer MRI 3/17/2022 with hepatic mets multiple small pulmonary mets also noted. Liver biopsy 4/1/22 consistent with metastatic breast cancer. Noted to be pregnant when she went for port-a-cath.
Choose to terminate pregnancy 3/31/22 to allow for complete chemo. ACT 4/5/22-7/23/22 . PET noted resolved axillary nodules and pulmonary nodules, Liver mets responding but still with activity. Sarted Lupron and anastrozole 8/10/22, Kisqoli addes 8/23/22.
I am not saying MRNA vaccines caused this but I have seen way more and way younger breast cancer in this remote population in than in a very long career.
We have had 18 new cancers since the vaccines only 1 was unvaccinated. This is the youngest ever. (Source.)
By way of contrast, for the 30 years prior to the emergency use authorization of the COVID-19 vaccines, there were 2,245 reported cases of fetal deaths following all FDA-approved vaccines, or about 75 fetal deaths per year. (Source.)
Taking the total fetal deaths following COVID-19 vaccines for the year 2021, 3,774 fetal deaths (source), that is an increase of 4,943% over the yearly average of fetal deaths following all FDA-approved vaccines for the previous 30 years.
Besides these government statistics from VAERS, medical professionals are corroborating this evidence of infanticide by COVID-19 vaccines based on the increase they are seeing in fetal deaths and stillborn babies following the roll outs of the COVID-19 vaccines.
An alleged leaked email from a “managing nurse” from a hospital in Fresno, California, states that there has been an increase in stillbirths following the COVID-19 vaccines, and that this trend is expected to continue according to Epoch Times.
This follows a report we recently published by Dr. John Campbell regarding the increase in neonatal deaths in Scotland.
And that follows another report we published last month (October, 2022) from Dr. James Thorp, a board certified OBGYN and Maternal Fetal Medicine Physician with over 43 years of obstetrical experience, who was interviewed by Dr. Drew Pensky and stated that in the past two years since the mRNA COVID vaccines were introduced, he has seen an “off-the-charts” rise in sudden fetal death and adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as fetal malformation and even fetal cardiac arrest, among his patients.
Health Advisory & Recovery Team | November 8, 2022
Early this month, HART outlined the detailed mechanisms that have been deployed to crush constructive dissent in the Covid era. The assault on the rational mind has been one of shock & awe — a concerted effort to ridicule, gaslight and coerce those considering the ultimate heresy of questioning what they have been told to believe. “Moving at the speed of science” (big pharma terms and conditions apply) seems to imply the opposite of what normal human beings would describe as the scientific method.
Bloated and corrupt monopolies tend, over time, to buckle and collapse under the weight of their own inconsistencies. Discrepancies become harder to paper over; the truth will out. ‘Fact’-checkers — so often funded by those their ‘fact’-checks protect — are increasingly having to back-pedal and deal with periodic humiliation as they post-rationalise their obviously fallible discernment.
Despite all these bloopers, ‘fact’-checkers are still hawking their wares: much like flares and chaff on the battlefield, they distract, distort and deflect efforts to engage in substantive debate. It is usually best to ignore their antics — engaging in serious dissection of straw men erected by po-faced (yet well-funded) narrative ninnies just stymies effort that could otherwise be expending on sorting wheat from chaff. After all — cui bono? If one has spotted a genuine warning signal that might undermine a profitable grift, is it not likely that the peddler of that grift will wish to muddy the waters so as to protect their racket? The more the fact-checkers squirm as they face up to a litany of their own contradictory assertions, the more it highlights the work of those that are scientifically critiquing the pronouncements emanating from big pharma’s marketing mouthpieces.
It is no secret that members of HART devoted some of their spare time in support of Dr Aseem Malhotra whose two peer-reviewed journal papers were recently published in the Journal of Insulin Resistance (the JIR Papers ). Up popped the usual suspects with a cacophony of denigrating ad hominem and otherwise spurious attacks. To be quite honest, the more abusive and baseless these are, the more likely it is that they do not have anything material to contribute, and the noise just brings the papers to the attention of a wider audience.
On a more positive note, some of the ‘fact’-checkers at least sugar-coat their ‘findings’ in polite language. This is to be encouraged — after all, the thrust & parry of scientific discourse requires hypotheses to be challenged. Science Feedback, via their subsidiary Health Feedback, wrote a long article in response to Dr Malhotra’s JIR Papers. It seems they did not really have much of a legitimate complaint, because the first 350-odd words are devoted to ‘criticism by association’. One might paraphrase: “Dr Malhotra has links to HART, who have said things that big pharma do not like!”.
Moving on, Health Feedback attempts to undermine the evidence presented in the JIR Papers that the mRNA injections “might do more harm than good”, which they claim is unsupported, citing a supposed p-hacking issue in the conclusions of one (a pre-print) of the 48 references in the Part I of Dr Malhotra’s papers. It is bold of Health Feedback to attempt to rubbish this claim given the conclusions of a 23 million-strong cohort study published in JAMA Cardiology in April 2022 that supported this statement. Subsequently, a pre-print has also demonstrated that mRNA boosters resulted in 18 severe adverse events for every Covid hospitalisation prevented for 18-29 year-olds, and another new publication from Japanese researchers finds that: “SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was associated with higher risk of myocarditis death, not only in young adults but also in all age groups including the elderly. Considering [the] healthy vaccinee effect, the risk may be 4 times or higher than the apparent risk of myocarditis death. Underreporting should also be considered. Based on this study, risk of myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination may be more serious than that reported previously”.
While of course the last two of these papers only became available after their ‘fact’-check, Health Feedback still doubles down on its claims by arguing in a subsequent section that there is little evidence that post-vaccine myocarditis has long-term health implications. This is a classic ‘hostage to fortune’ statement which, over time, will answer itself — in the meantime, why should unsuspecting vaccinees be unwitting guinea pigs in a real-world experiment to find this out? It is somewhat pertinent that this question is being asked in a week that Moderna admitted — deep in the supplementary data from a clinical trial of its mRNA injections — that there had been a “new-onset Type 1 diabetes mellitus and diabetic ketoacidosis” in a one-year-old infant which was considered related by the trial assessors. No need for a ‘fact’-check on this one: this tragedy is both a travesty and the truth.
Health Feedback takes the above criticisms as supporting evidence for the claim that Dr Malhotra has deployed a ‘cherry picking’ strategy to ignore evidence that does not support his conclusions. This is a touch rich. Dr Malhotra covered a lot of ground in the JIR Papers, citing almost 110 references, a large proportion of which are published journal papers. A legitimate response to the JIR Papers is to challenge the specific claims made and to seek to challenge the logic that underpins the conclusions. The p-hacking point (which was invalid as explained by HART member Prof Fenton here) that they bring to bear is a useful challenge that contributed to the debate — it just so happens that Health Feedback’s response strengthens Dr Malhotra’s argument by allowing these other references to be brought to the attention of the reader.
As for the various (slightly pathetic, it has to be said) attempts to ridicule and “play the man, not the ball” with respect to organisations like HART, characterising us as misinformation spreaders: these are particularly noteworthy for their lack of supporting evidence. We would encourage Health Feedback to interrogate our output and come up with specific evidence of their claim. While they are at it, they might like to comment on this somewhat unfortunate statement from one of Health Feedback’s front of house members:
“The experts are saying that the vaccines do not reduce transmission, but that is an inaccurate statement,” [Dr Monica] Gandhi says. “Vaccines have always decreased transmission. What they should be saying is that the clinical trials were not designed to test for asymptomatic infection, but there is every biological reason in the world to believe that they will reduce asymptomatic transmission”.
The highlighted text above is incorrect: it is well known that so-called ‘leaky vaccines’ do “not prevent infection, viral replication or transmission”. Call the ‘fact’-checkers. Oh.
And as for ‘every biological reason’ to ‘believe’… are ‘fact’-checkers in the business of proving things scientifically or amplifying beliefs? Real-world evidence seems to indicate that transmission seems to be somewhat unaffected — or possibly worsened — by the injections.
Given that this statement was published in a March 2021 Association of American Medical Colleges article that was claiming to address vaccine hesitancy (read: coerce people to participate in the mRNA injection scheme), perhaps Health Feedback might wish to look at the plank in its own eye while addressing any motes in Dr Malhotra’s?
HART applauds Dr Malhotra’s attempts to sound the alarm that the precautionary principle is not being adhered to. The Nelsonian ignorance of various ‘public health’ bodies — who keep declaring that they “really do not see the signal” — is the real villain of the piece.
All in all, HART welcomes the publicity that outfits like Health Feedback provide, despite the disappointing ‘fact’-checking moniker. They are, in a somewhat peculiar way, furthering scientific discourse by advertising Dr Malhotra’s work to the wider public. We are honoured to be associated with brave and principled people such as him.
MSM sources are now warning of a co-pandemics of flu, RSV and Covid…but is there any reason to be afraid?
By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | November 9, 2022
The “tripledemic” is upon us, according to the mainstream media. What is a “tripledemic”, you ask?
Apparently, it’s when we have simultaneous pandemics of influenza, Covid and RSV at the same time. At least, according to the LA Times :
A ‘tripledemic’ of flu, RSV and COVID is feared in California
And the Atlantic :
What a ‘Tripledemic’ Means for Your Body
And CBS:
“Tripledemic” in U.S. could bring deluge of patients to hospitals
All three stories – and there are many others out there too – hit the same handful of talking points.
They report that the flu is back after its “mysterious” disappearance during the Covid “pandemic” (the Alantic notes US flu cases reduced by well over 90% and calls it “getting lucky”, the doublethink is unbelievable).
They also warn that Covid is “still around” or “not over”, or some variation on that.
However, the main thrust of the fear is reserved for RSV. Now, you’re all probably more than familiar with “flu”. And you’re definitely tired of hearing about Covid. But RSV could be a new one for you… so let me explain.
THE VIRUS
Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is – according to virus theory – one of the many viruses circulating in the general population at all times. To quote the Mayo Clinic’s website [emphasis added]:
Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) causes infections of the lungs and respiratory tract. It’s so common that most children have been infected with the virus by age 2. Respiratory syncytial (sin-SISH-ul) virus can also infect adults. In adults and older, healthy children, RSV symptoms are mild and typically mimic the common cold.
And according to the CDC:
Almost all children will have had an RSV infection by their second birthday […] Most RSV infections go away on their own in a week or two.
So, according to official sources, RSV is not serious in the vast majority of cases, and almost all of us have already had it.
In fact, seeing as the symptoms are both generic and mild, the odds are you have had it multiple times throughout your life and never really known. It’s simply one of the many viruses known to cause what we refer to as “the common cold”.
THE DECEPTION
There’s a trick being played here, and as usual in the age of the “pandemic”, it’s a trick of language. The powers that be are exploiting linguistic ambiguity in order to generate fear.
Across most of the world, we simply refer to “a cold” or “the flu” almost interchangeably to describe the dozen or so respiratory infections we all get throughout our lifetime.
Most of the time we don’t know what specific virus or bacteria is supposedly the cause, we have no way of finding out and it doesn’t make any difference because the symptoms and treatments are all the same: Cough, fever, headache – bedrest, orange juice and painkillers.
Now, essentially, the media are taking advantage of that ubiquitous ambiguity by naming something that has always been there but pretending it is something new.
Here’s a case in point, the Scientific American published this article on November 4th, which headlines:
RSV Is Surging: What We Know about This Common and Surprisingly Dangerous Virus
Now, although the headline claims RSV is “surprisingly dangerous”, the article seems to go out of its way to prove the opposite.
The article does warn that RSV can be “particularly dangerous for newborn babies and adults older than age 65” and the immunocompromised, but this is true of literally every pathogen. And even then, they go on to add:
only about 1 to 2 percent of children under six months with RSV need hospitalization (usually for a couple of days), and death is rare.
This is a tactic we’re all familiar with – it was routine, throughout the Covid narrative, for official voices to tell us to be afraid, whilst simultaneously explaining there was nothing to be afraid of.
This approach clearly serves some purpose, although I could not say for certain what that may be.
Regardless, the deception is obvious and clearly deliberate.
The question is, why?
THE MOTIVE
To sum up – there is no reason to fear RSV infection. The media are clear about that themselves, even if they bury it under layers of hysterical headlines.
It is just one of the many viruses which cause – or are said to cause – cold or flu symptoms, all of which circulate the whole world constantly, especially at this time of year.
There’s ALWAYS a “tripledemic”, or a quademic or a septemic. The only difference is now they are naming it.
They are taking the routine and pretending it’s exceptional simply to try and frighten you.
Why?
Well, rather predictably, to sell vaccines.
Yes, you’ll be relieved to know that just as RSV is hitting the headlines for the first time EVER, they’ve also just produced the first ever vaccines against it.
On November 1st, Vox reported:
New RSV vaccines are coming. This is very, very good news.
Which claims:
After decades of failed efforts to produce an RSV vaccine, several highly effective ones are finally on the verge of approval.
On the same day, Pfizer announced “positive top-line data” for their new RSV vaccine, with CNN reporting:
After promising trial results for maternal RSV vaccine, Pfizer says it will seek FDA approval this year
That’s right, after decades of trying and dozens of failed attempts, the pharmaceutical companies have finally managed to create not just one but multiple effective vaccines against an endemic virus… just as the virus has hit the headlines.
Now, this all sounds rather familiar, doesn’t it?
If you didn’t fall for this last time you don’t need me to warn you.
If you DID fall for this last time?
Well, fool you once shame on them, fool you twice…
By Neville Hodgkinson | TCW Defending Freedom | November 7, 2022
A British scientist with 32 years of experience in the pharmaceutical industry warned right at the start of the Covid vaccine rollout that under no circumstances should the gene-based, mRNA jab be given to women of child-bearing age without studies to confirm it was safe.
Dr Mike Yeadon, former vice president for research at Pfizer, one of the manufacturers of the experimental mRNA products, filed a petition with the European Medicines Agency on December, 1, 2020, urging that even testing the jab on human volunteers was unethical without significant safety concerns being taken into account.
One of these was a similarity between virus proteins targeted by the proposed vaccinations and a protein (syncitin) essential for forming the placenta in pregnancy. If antibodies produced by the jab also acted against those proteins, the petition said, ‘it would result in vaccinated women essentially becoming infertile’.
Co-signed by Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, a leading German physician, the document also warned that the vaccine trials were much too short to flag up late adverse effects. It added that the design was such that the trials could not show whether the product worked either in stopping a person from becoming infected, or from infecting others.
Subsequently, Yeadon became one of the first scientists to highlight evidence from a previously confidential Pfizer study showing that the vaccine products do not stay at the injection site but become widely distributed throughout the body, including the ovaries.
In view of the toxic nature of the ‘spike’ protein that the jab manufactures (summarised here), Yeadon warned in August, 2021: ‘My assumption at the moment is that these vaccines are concentrating in the ovaries of every female who has been given them. We don’t know what that will do, but it cannot be benign and it could be seriously harmful.’
It is now widely acknowledged that the jab neither protects against infection nor transmission, as Yeadon and Wodarg spelled out in their petition. If their knowledge had been sought at the outset of the Covid crisis the UK alone could have been spared the £500billion lockdown bill, with enormous associated social damage.
But what about the fertility warnings? Despite his years of experience at the top of his field, Yeadon has been vilified for speaking out. Is he really no more than ‘a hero of Covid conspiracy theorists’, as the Times described him?
Birth rates have fallen significantly in many countries, including the UK, in the wake of the vaccine rollouts. Various reasons for the fall have been suggested – usually excluding the jab.
Yet Dr James Thorp, a 68-year-old American physician who has practised obstetrics for more than 42 years and sees thousands of high-risk pregnant patients each year, has observed many complications attributable to the jabs, including foetal death and miscarriage. ‘What I’ve seen in the last two years is unprecedented,’ he says.
With help from several colleagues, he compared rates of adverse events following the Covid jabs with those reported post-flu vaccination in women of reproductive age. The focus was on events related to pregnancy and menstruation, using data from the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
A preprint of their findings published on September 28 shows a thousand-fold increase in menstrual abnormalities after the Covid jab, and significant increases in miscarriage, foetal malformation, growth abnormalities, cardiac disorders, foetal death and stillbirth.
Thorp has also highlighted risks to newborn babies taking milk from their vaccinated mothers. One study found mRNA from the jab in five out of 11 lactating women who had received the vaccination within six months of their delivery.
Last month, in a wide-ranging review in the US-based Epoch Times of these and other findings, US microbiologist and biomedical scientist Dr Sean Lin revealed that Thorp ‘has seen at least three newborns, completely healthy at the time of their birth, who passed away after being breastfed by their recently vaccinated mothers’. This suggested the vaccine components can not only accumulate in the ovaries but can also be passed on to infants via breastfeeding, he wrote.
He added that details of animal experiments performed before the jabs were authorised, recently obtained under freedom of information legislation, showed that mRNA and spike protein can travel through all barriers in a mother rat to enter its foetus. The rats themselves experienced toxicity during gestation, with some becoming infertile and losing the use of their hind legs.
Calling for an end to all Covid shots for pregnant women until long-term safety data become available, Lin writes: ‘The medical field and health agencies should still adhere to the fundamental ethical principle of ‘Do No Harms’.’
A hospital memo leaked to the Epoch Times by a nurse in Fresno, California, revealed how the hospital is experiencing a dramatic rise in the number of stillbirth cases, now upwards of 22 a month compared with an average of one to two every three months previously. This massive increase seems to align with similar evidence from across the country showing a potential rise in problems with fertility, miscarriages and foetal development, the newspaper reported.
Could the vaccine have contributed to a ‘very unusual’ spike in deaths among newborn babies now being investigated in Scotland?
In the UK, one and a half million Yellow Card reports of suspected adverse reactions to the vaccines include 821 miscarriages and 58,171 reproductive/breast disorders.
With tens of millions of doses administered, those numbers have still not persuaded regulators that there is a problem, although real-world adverse effects can be at least ten times higher than those reported. ‘Our advice remains that the Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective during pregnancy and breastfeeding,’ the Medicines and Health products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) reaffirmed in September.
A review last month in the journal Vaccine declared that based on studies published so far ‘there is no scientific proof’ of any association between the jabs and impaired fertility in either men or women.
It depends on what is meant by ‘scientific proof’. If scientists do not ask the right questions, they can avoid receiving unwelcome answers. Those who drove the vaccine rollout are choosing not to see the thousands of reported disorders as related to the jabs, despite the record numbers, and clearly demonstrated mechanisms of harm.
It took a mathematician/businessman, for example, to point out evidence of a dose-response relationship between the jabs and infant deaths, with significantly more deaths reported when the higher-dose Moderna jab is used during pregnancy than with the Pfizer product.
Igor Chudov, who highlighted this phenomenon using US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) figures, says the Moderna product is associated with nearly twice as many neonatal deaths as the Pfizer vaccine, and 42 per cent more miscarriages.
In the light of these data, he asks: ‘How can Covid vaccine given during pregnancy be safe, and NOT affect infant deaths? How come nobody at the CDC asked this question? How come our media is silent on this?’
It is as though there are parallel universes: one occupied by those who can see no harm, and the other by doctors and scientists who insist a grave situation is staring us in the face.
The latter include three American medical whistle-blowers who found a 2021 rise of nearly 300 per cent in miscarriages among women serving in the US Army compared with the previous five years. There was no increase in 2020, when Covid arrived.
Doctors calling for a halt to Covid vaccination for pregnant women often meet abuse and censorship.
In October 2021, obstetrician and gynaecologist Dr Christiane Northrup told the Epoch Times: ‘Women are having bleedings. The doctors in our area are doing hysterectomies in young women, like 30-somethings. They said “Oh, it’s not unusual”. Let me tell you, as a board-certified gynaecologist, that’s very unusual. Women’s periods are messed up all over the place . . . I’ve had a huge Facebook group of thousands of women talking about this situation that was removed.’
What of Yeadon’s worry that an immune reaction to the spike protein might block pregnancy?
A small study from Singapore, in 15 women, reported that none had developed anti-syncitin antibodies after the jab, but Yeadon says the actual data showed a clear increase, arbitrarily ruled as insignificant by the researchers.
‘It looked like someone had tried to dismiss our concerns by testing for evidence of the particular problem we’d warned about. Unfortunately, all they did is to reinforce our concerns.
‘We’d envisioned the risk that, in responding to the synthetic piece of virus spike protein, women’s immune systems would also make an immune response to their own placental protein. That’s exactly what was reported in the pre-print paper.
‘Based on this concern alone, all these experimental products as a class should have been completely contraindicated in women younger than menopause.’
He insists that a series of toxicology issues meant ‘adverse impacts on conception and ability to sustain a pregnancy were foreseeable from the start . . . There was and still is no data package supporting safety in pregnancy, or prior to conception.’
The Health Ministry sits on millions of doses that will never be administered
eugyppius: a plague chronicle – November 7, 2022
We are now two months into the bivalent booster vaccination campaign, and interest remains more lukewarm than ever:
Family physicians are seeing less interest in vaccination against Corona, according to data from a physicians’ professional organisation. “Vaccination is our best sword in the fight against severe outcomes. It’s therefore that much more regrettable that the vaccination campaign is currently stagnating,” the national chairman of the German General Practitioners’ Association, Markus Beier, said …
Doctors no longer receive nearly as many requests for vaccination from patients as the Standing Commission on Vaccination recommends be vaccinated, Beier said. “Of course, our doctors use every opportunity in their practices to educate patients about vaccination, but the results is now rather meagre.” The truth must be told: “The run on Corona vaccinations has now slowed to a crawl.”
This is rough news especially for the vaccinators in the German Health Ministry, who rolled out their truly dismal “Ich schütze mich” (“I protect myself”) ad campaign less than a month ago – to absolutely no effect whatsoever.
As with many of the most important stories, this one has been carefully downplayed by the press. The only commentary I can find is this tepid piece in FAZ, which complains about “the aggressive counter-campaign from the ranks of the antivaxxers.” Maybe vaccine critics have changed a few minds here or there, but it’s nothing in comparison to what the vaccinators have done to their own cause. Never before in history have Germans been so rapidly and so widely exposed to a new pharmaceutical as they have to the Corona vaccines, and now that personal experience of the jabs is at an all-time high, enthusiasm could hardly be lower. This is the final repudiation of the vaccinators, and the one that matters the most.
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | November 7, 2022
The UN’s high commissioner for human rights, Volker Türk, has sent an open letter to Twitter’s new owner Elon Musk, asking him to ensure that Twitter respects human rights and monitors hate speech and misinformation.
We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.
In the letter, Türk said he was writing with “concern and apprehension about our digital public square and Twitter’s role in it.”
Türk also said that there is a need to monitor hate speech and disinformation, noting that free speech should not be a “free pass.”
“Like all companies, Twitter needs to understand the harms associated with its platform and take steps to address them,” Türk wrote.
“Respect for our shared human rights should set the guardrails for the platform’s use and evolution. In short, I urge you to ensure human rights are central to the management of Twitter under your leadership.”
He also said that Twitter should respect people’s rights to “fullest extent possible under applicable laws” and to publish transparency reports on government pressure to infringe on people’s rights.
The UN official also warned about so-called misinformation and hate speech.
“Twitter has a responsibility to avoid amplifying content that results in harms to people’s rights,” Türk said. “There is no place for hatred that incites discrimination, hostility or violence on Twitter.
“Hate speech has spread like wildfire on social media … with horrific, life-threatening consequences.”
“Conversely, viral spread of harmful disinformation, such as we have seen during the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to vaccines, results in real world harms. Twitter has a responsibility to avoid amplifying content that results in harms to people’s rights,” the high commissioner said.
BY AMANUENSIS | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | NOVEMBER 3, 2022
In the past few months I’ve read newspaper articles warning of the increased risk of death following gardening, stress at work, solar flares, sleeping in front of the television, hot weather, cold weather, shock of high energy bills, the price of food, laughing too much and sleeping in the wrong position – these recent warnings add to the multitude of stories on the health consequences of our dietary choices, sedentary lifestyle and climate change. If that wasn’t scary enough, we’ve also seen efforts to educate the public about how common sudden deaths are in younger adults and teenagers. Given this background of suddenly emerging risks to life resulting from our modern lifestyle, it is clearly very important to fully understand all risks that might be emerging resulting from the Covid vaccines, no matter how trivial.
With the above in mind, it is perhaps rather surprising that the Vaccine Surveillance Report from the UKHSA has never actually mentioned vaccine side-effects or complications. Sure, the word ‘safe’ is typically used a few times in each report, but there’s never been a mention of side-effects and their rates. They don’t even like to use the term ‘rare side-effects’ – as far as the Vaccine Surveillance Reports are concerned the vaccines are simply ‘safe’. They’ve never reported any of the data from the Yellow Card side-effect reporting system, nor mentioned any of the increasing numbers of scientific studies reporting on an increasing number of ‘complications’ after receiving the various vaccines.
I suppose at this point I could stop – since side-effects aren’t covered in the Vaccine Surveillance Reports, and this is a series of posts reviewing the UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Reports, there’s nothing to discuss. However, vaccine side-effects and complications are important, so I hope that I can be forgiven for exploring this aspect of the vaccines a little further in this post.
Over the past 18 months there have been many studies which have found worrying high side-effect rates following vaccination. The results of these studies have been discussed in multiple places across the internet, and many of these studies have been covered by the Daily Sceptic. The only common theme has been the remarkable insistence by authorities worldwide on ignoring the results of these studies, except where the evidence has become overwhelming and they are forced into some response.
The vast array of side-effects found by these investigative studies is now too voluminous to cover completely here, so instead I’ll focus on a few specific side-effects and discuss the response to these new findings.
Thrombocytopenia and blood-clotting related problems
The first inkling that there might be a risk of thrombocytopenia (low blood platelet count) after vaccination came in January 2021, a mere month after the vaccinations started, after a doctor in New York died of complications following acute thrombocytopenia about two weeks after being given the Pfizer vaccine. Pfizer responded with a statement that this definitely wasn’t anything to do with their vaccine, despite acute thrombocytopenia being relatively rare and the doctor not being in a risk group. In the months that followed, many more cases of thrombocytopenia and other blood clotting disorders occurred, from Pfizer and the other vaccine offerings, but the official response remained coincidence. Eventually the volume of problems became too large to ignore, and in June 2021 the U.K. authorities decided that those aged under 40 shouldn’t be offered the AstraZeneca vaccine. I found this restriction to the AstraZeneca vaccine a bit odd, as the other vaccines appeared to have similarly high rates of clotting problems in the weeks following vaccination, but it appears that the authorities had chosen their demon to blame. Of course, older adults weren’t too keen to be told that they were going to have to take these risks, and demand for the AstraZeneca vaccine plummeted. A few months later the AstraZeneca vaccine was only made available to those who were unable to take the Pfizer vaccine (the only alternative in the U.K. at that time). Even though the known problems of clotting related disorders post-vaccination are bad enough, it isn’t clear if the instances of severe clotting related problems (resulting in hospitalisation) are also accompanied by higher numbers of clotting problems below the clinical threshold (‘microclotting’), or whether these mild cases might have longer term consequences. Another area of post-vaccine effects that demands more research.
Myocarditis
The risk from myocarditis first appeared in a leaked report out of Israel in April 2021 suggesting worryingly high rates occurring in younger males. Quite why it was deemed necessary for this safety-related information to be kept secret isn’t clear, but authorities worldwide responded quickly once the information was leaked to reassure everyone that this risk was very very low and that the vaccines were very very safe (and effective, of course). While the official line is that post-vaccination myocarditis is rare, studies keep on finding higher and higher incidence rates, particularly in the young male risk group. Indeed, in August a scientific paper describing the impact of Covid vaccination in Thailand suggested that the conditions suggestive of myocarditis and pericarditis after vaccination were found in over 29% of vaccine recipients aged between 13 and 18 years of age, and a similar result has since been described after vaccination in Switzerland. The longer term impact of these ‘mild problems related to the heart’ aren’t yet known.
Period related problems
All clinical studies into side-effects are mindful of the need to treat any issues related to sexual function carefully – individuals are less likely to seek medical attention when it comes to sex-related problems and those related to our reproductive systems in general. Thus it should have been a huge red-flag when anecdotal reports of heavy or missed periods following vaccination started to appear early in 2021. Alas, our authorities simply responded with the usual ‘it definitely isn’t the vaccines’ and ignored the problem. The complex situation regarding reporting of side-effects related to reproductive function is nicely illustrated by the number of problems reported to the Yellow Card side-effect reporting system – early May 2021 saw a huge increase in reporting of side-effects related to menstruation. The reason? Most likely, an article on the problem on BBC Radio 4’s Women’s Hour in late March, in which listeners were urged to report any problems into the Yellow-Card system. It is very disappointing that our side-effect reporting system could be so heavily influenced by a radio programme in this way. Really there should have been active monitoring of post-vaccination complications and side-effects, but the inadequate Yellow Card system is all we had. Official guidelines now state that problems related to menstruation are relatively rare but even if they do occur they’ll be of no consequence whatsoever and women shouldn’t worry about taking the vaccines. Eventually we’ll find out if this reassurance was correct.
What’s also troubling is the way that the only side-effects that are discussed in the traditional media are the ones that have been officially recognised (albeit under duress). What about the increase in hospital consultant activity for stroke victims over the last 18 months?
Or the increase in consultant activity for hormonal problems?
Or the increase in referrals for suspected cancers?
Like the significant increase in excess deaths that we’ve seen this year, there seems to be much going on but little interest on the part of our authorities to investigate these issues at all. Maybe they’re all the result of the lockdowns, maybe they’re due to Covid itself, maybe it was the vaccines, and perhaps it is all just a massive coincidence – but it simply isn’t good enough to decide that it can’t possibly be the vaccines and refuse to even discuss undertaking the research that might clarify the situation.
At least in recent weeks we’ve had an increase in calls for some robust investigations to be undertaken, such as discussed in the Daily Sceptic in mid October. Then again, we’ve also had the brief hour-and-a-half spent a week ago by the House of Commons to debate the issues around vaccine safety. Despite some MPs detailing concerns about the safety of the vaccines, the Chair was quick to respond with empty reassurances and the debate ended with a statement urging people to get vaccinated to protect themselves, others and the NHS. I fear that there’ll be quite some way to go before the full impact of the vaccines is accepted by our authorities.
An important aspect of the rate of side-effects and complications is the impact on the risk-benefit analysis used by our authorities to determine who should take the vaccines. The risk of side-effects should be tolerable so long as the benefit offered by any medical product is greater than the risks. Since the vaccines were introduced back in December 2020 we have seen marked changes both in the risks posed by the vaccines (more side-effects and complications have come to light) and the benefits offered (the vaccines clearly offer little protection against infection, their protection against hospitalisation and death appears to be rather less than claimed, and at the same time Covid appears to have evolved to become much less virulent). In addition, nearly everyone in the Western world will now have had a Covid infection, resulting in at least some natural immunity. Unfortunately, our authorities have never actually published any of their risk-benefit analyses and how the ratio changes with age and morbidity, so we can’t tell how new information on risks and benefits has changed the calculation. Then again, I suppose it is easier to be inconsistent if you never actually tell anyone what factors your decisions are based upon.
One of the big problems regarding the Covid mRNA vaccines in particular is that there were only sparse data published on how long the mRNA would remain active in the body and where it would end up (pharmacokinetics and biodistribution). Originally the reassuring voices told us that the mRNA would break down within hours, and that the mRNA vesicles would remain close to the point of injection. However, evidence has emerged in the months since our authorities proceeded to inject everyone in the world that has suggested that the mRNA remains active for many weeks following vaccination, that it travels to multiple organs in the body and that the pharmaceutical companies knew this prior to the vaccines being released. Even worse, a recent study has suggested that the mRNA is present in breast milk for a short time following vaccination (for fairness I must point out that our authorities still think that it is completely and utterly safe for recently vaccinated mothers to continue breastfeeding). I find it concerning that we’re only now starting to find out the full complexity of the interaction of the mRNA vaccines with the body.
Recent studies have estimated the current rate of serious short-term side-effects after the Covid vaccines at around one in 800. I find this number interesting, as I suspect that this is as bad a side-effect rate as could be found for a supposedly benign or prophylactic treatment. I estimate that an incidence rate of around one in 1,000 marks the point at which problems become apparent even to a casual observer, provided sufficient numbers are given the medical product. If a side-effect rate for a benign or prophylactic treatment is worse than this people would notice and demand that the medicine or medical treatment is withdrawn. Thankfully, there aren’t too many examples of terrible medical mistakes – probably the most famous example is Thalidomide, where around one in 1,000 mothers who took the drug gave birth to a child with serious physical malformations. Even so, it took three years before the nature of the problem was understood and Thalidomide was withdrawn from sale. It is perhaps interesting to note that at least in the early stages of the problem being recognised the blame was put on the nuclear tests that had occurred in previous years – was this the 1950s equivalent of ‘climate change’?
Where serious side-effects are more common than this for a supposedly benign product, the response is typically more rapid. The famous example here is Elixir Sulphanilamide, a treatment for bacterial infections created in the 1930s that caused over 100 deaths in the few weeks that it was for sale. The problem with Elixir Sulphanilamide was that it hadn’t been tested before release and the manufacturers hadn’t realised that a primary component was highly toxic. The owner of the company that made the elixir famously denied responsibility, stating that “we have been supplying a legitimate professional demand and not once could have foreseen the unlooked for results”. It was this scandal that led to the creation of the FDA in the USA, along with stringent requirements for the testing of new medical products. After the disaster it was demanded that never again would a medical treatment be released and given to many thousands of people without being fully tested to explore all potential problems (and not simply the ‘looked-for’ problems). As a side note, the outcome of the Elixir Sulphanilamide scandal was that the scientist who developed the formula committed suicide as a result of the extreme guilt of causing so much harm, while the company that released the medicine without testing was given a nominal fine. The manufacturer went on to produce further drugs (and profits) and after a succession of takeovers is now part of the pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline. Funny how it all works.
Next time I’ll discuss one of the most wildly enthusiastic aspects of the Vaccine Surveillance Report – the predictions made by computer-models of the reduction in infections, hospitalisations and deaths offered by the vaccines.
Amanuensis is an ex-academic and senior Government scientist. He blogs at Bartram’s Folly.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
An excerpt from ‘The Great Betrayal’
By James W. Carden | The Realist Review | June 14, 2026
Joe Biden’s presidency may ultimately come to be seen as a cautionary tale. Here was a president who showed little interest in entertaining arguments that might have contradicted his most deeply held assumptions.[1] And there were precious few within the upper ranks of the administration who might have attempted to do so, after all, only policy hands and political operatives who had come up through the ranks of the Clinton and Obama administrations or had longstanding ties to the citadels of the foreign policy community were invited into the fold. … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 