By Meryl Nass, MD | December 12, 2021
I checked the Federal Register and there has been no notice that Comirnaty has been added to the National Childhood Vaccine injury Program (NVICP). I confirmed this by checking whether Comirnaty had been added to the childhood schedule, and according to the HRSA, which manages both compensation programs, it has not.
So, if you receive the licensed Comirnaty vaccine, correctly labeled as the brand-name product and not the vaccine being fobbed off as licensed product, and you are injured, you are free to sue the manufacturer for your injury. Could this be why Pfizer wrote, “Pfizer does not plan to produce any product with these new [Comirnaty National Drug Codes] and labels over the next few months while EUA authorized product is still available and being made available for U.S. distribution.”
If, however, you receive the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine under Emergency Use Authorization, or the Moderna or J and J vaccine, you can’t sue anyone. You have the right to beg HRSA for compensation of lost wages and unpaid medical bills, period. So far, HRSA and the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program it administers have not paid out one dime for the approximately one million injuries and 20,000 deaths reported to VAERS for any COVID vaccine.
In other words, the federal government (DHHS) has not admitted a single injury was caused by a COVID vaccine. CDC says it has not linked a single death to a COVID vaccine–not even when the patient walked into the vaccination center but got carried out to the morgue. FDA doesn’t know much about myocarditis, Bell’s Palsy, thrombosis, thrombocytopenia, pulmonary emboli, etc. There are no black box warnings on any of the COVID vaccines.
HRSA, FDA, CDC and NIH are all agencies within the federal Department of Health and Human Services. They have all gotten their stories straight. They know nothing and they are just following orders. Heil HHS!
They can’t find a doggone problem in the 20 or so databases they are spending many $millions of your money to “study.”
Want to know the biggest conspiracy in the US right now? It is the HHS.
FDA has access to a bunch of electronic databases it has termed the “BEST” Initiative, and it published a plan to use them to study heart attacks, pulmonary embolism, thrombocytopenia, etc. back in July. Where are the results, FDA? What are you waiting for? (According to CDC, “More than 459 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through November 29, 2021.”). It seems clear that we aren’t supposed to be informed of FDA’s findings until everyone possible has been vaccinated, at which point the results will be irrelevant.
In October 2020, FDA’s Steve Anderson told us there were even more databases that would be studied.
On August 23, 2021, FDA announced its databases were inadequate to assess myocarditis, so BioNTech would have to do it for them. Here is what FDA wrote about its inability to use VAERS and its many other databases:
NOT SUFFICIENT???
Unsaid, but implied, is that if FDA is incapable of studying thousands of reported cases of myocarditis, it probably cannot study the other serious adverse events that have been reported in conjunction with COVID vaccines.
VAERS has operated for 30 years, collecting reports of vaccine adverse events. It averaged under 100 cases of myocarditis reported yearly until this year. Through November, CDC reports it received 1949 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis, in those under 30. CDC didn’t say what the total number of reports for all ages was.
Somehow, these HHS don’t seem all that concerned that the admitted reporting rate of myocarditis is over 20 times the average during the past 30 years. Why?
CDC has been even more shady in its analyses of safety as FDA, if that is even possible. Below, Nancy Messonier, then head of Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases at CDC, presented this list of databases that CDC would be using in the evaluation of COVID vaccine safety, on December 10, 2020. Apart from the V-safe (which they stopped talking about last January), VSD (which somehow can’t find any problems, not even myocarditis) and VAERS, all these other databases have been MIA.
NIH, whose job has never been to issue treatment guidelines, but instead to do and fund research, suddenly took over the treatment guidelines for COVID early in 2020. It formed a committee of internal and eternal “experts” to make up the guidelines. How were they chosen? That is not clear, but what is clear is that 16 of these so-called experts had current or recent financial entanglements with Gilead, the maker of remdesivir. NIH and the US Army also owned pieces of remdesivir. A number of other had financial conflicts with Merck. While NIH is the biggest single funder of medical research in the world, I cannot recall seeing a single study it funded on the safety of COVID vaccines. But somehow vaccines are its number one recommendation.
But it is not even clear that the committee is functional. The NIH has been sued to learn whether a vote was even taken by the committee regarding its ivermectin guidelines, which fly in the face of the evidence on ivermectin. How was NIH somehow authorized to issue guidelines in the first place?
Here is what has obviously occurred. All these agencies were told they had to keep quiet on vaccine problems (and perhaps problems of other COVID treatments), and they had to fiddle with their data or their analytic methods, or both, to get the required results. And there was to be NO BAD NEWS, no matter what. And no good news regarding generic treatments.
As we have seen, the so-called scientists and physicians working as bureaucrats in these agencies all caved, sucked it up, did the dirty work, kept their jobs, and betrayed their oaths and the trust of the people of the USA and the world.
THE EXPOSÉ | DECEMBER 11, 2021
Serious questions need to be answered as to why Boris Johnson’s Government have decided to restrict the freedoms of the unvaccinated population through the introduction of Vaccine Passports, when the latest official data shows that the vaccinated population have accounted for 3 in every 5 Covid-19 cases, 3 in every 5 Covid-19 hospitalisations, and 4 in every 5 Covid-19 deaths, in England since August 16th 2021.
During a national Covid-19 briefing that took place on Tuesday December 8th, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom announced that ‘Plan B’ would be implemented in England from Wednesday December 15th, which would entail ‘working from home’ (if you can) orders, and the introduction of Vaccine Passports.
The reason given for the commencement of ‘Plan B’ is that it has to be done to protect the public from the alleged new Omicron variant of the Covid-19 virus. A variant which as of December 11th, has failed to cause a single fatality in the UK, with just several hundred cases allegedly being confirmed.
A new law will come into effect from Wednesday December 15th, which will state that Vaccine Passports will become mandatory for entry to nightclubs and other large venues, including Premier League football matches and concerts. We’re told they will be required for indoor settings of 500 people or more, outdoor settings of 4,000 people or more, and any setting with 10,000 attendees or more.
There will be many in England who believe Vaccine Passports are the answer to their prayers. Two years of misinformation, and disinformation mixed with propaganda published by the mainstream media can do that to people. But unfortunately the official data published by the UK Government proves that they are far from it, and suggests Vaccine Passports have absolutely nothing to do with protecting public health, and instead everything to do with controlling the nation.
The UK Health Security Agency (PHE) is an executive agency of the Department of Health and Social Care and recently replaced Public Health England. The Chief Executive of the agency is Dr Jenny Harries OBE, who you may recognise from the television as she has served as Deputy Chief Medical Officer for England throughout the pandemic.
The UKHSA publish a weekly ‘Vaccine Surveillance’ report which contains data on Covid-19 cases, hospitalisations, and deaths by vaccination status over a period of four weeks, and unfortunately for the vaccinated population, the official data shows that they have accounted for the majority of Covid-19 cases, hospitalisations, and deaths for at least the past four months.
We have used the following official reports for our analysis –
Covid-19 Cases
Table 8 of the latest report shows the number of Covid-19 cases by vaccination status in England. The table may have been attributed a different number in previous reports published by the UKHSA, but the following chart shows cases by vaccination status over a period of 16 weeks from 16 Aug 21 to 05 Dec 21.
The chart shows that between August and early September, the vaccinated population accounted for the majority of Covid-19 cases. However, between the middle of September and early October this switched to the not-vaccinated population accounting for the majority of cases. This is most likely due to children returning to school in September and being “encouraged” to test on a regular basis.
But between October 11th and December 5th the roles reversed again, and it is the fully vaccinated population that have accounted for the majority of Covid-19 cases in England.
This data alone puts an end to the myth that it is selfish to not be vaccinated, because it’s quite clear the jabs do not prevent infection or transmission. Which begs the question as to why Boris Johnson has decided to implement Vaccine Passports in England?
The above chart shows the cumulative number of cases by vaccination status between 16 Aug 21 and 05 Dec 21, and illustrates quite clearly that the fully vaccinated have accounted for the majority of cases since August.
What we can see from the above is that the unvaccinated had accounted for the majority of cases up to October 10th, however since this date there has been a switch with the fully vaccinated taking the lead, hitting a cumulative total of 1.5 million confirmed cases by Dec 5th.
When including the 258,387 confirmed cases among the partly vaccinated during this period, the total cases among the vaccinated population rises to 1,757,444. Whilst the number of cases among the unvaccinated population during this period of 16 weeks has amounted to 1,403,100.
Covid-19 Hospitalisations
Table 9 of the latest report shows the number of Covid-19 hospitalisations by vaccination status in England. The table may have been attributed a different number in previous reports published by the UKHSA, but the following chart shows cases by vaccination status over a period of 16 weeks from 16 Aug 21 to 05 Dec 21.
You may have heard several times this week on national television from people such as Dr Hilary, Lorraine Kelly, and Martin Kemp that “90% of the people currently in hospital with Covid-19 have not been vaccinated”.
Well it looks like they have been lying to you because the official UK Government data the fully vaccinated population have accounted for the majority of Covid-19 hospitalisation every month since at least August.
The above chart shows the cumulative number of hospitalisations by vaccination status between 16 Aug 21 and 05Dec 21, and shows just how bad things have actually been for the vaccinated population compared to the unvaccinated.
Between Aug 16 and Dec 05, the unvaccinated population accounted for 11,767 Covid-19 hospitalisations. But the vaccinated population have accounted for nearly double the amount, recording 19,730 hospitalisations, with 18,406 of those being among the 2/3 dose vaccinated population. This means the vaccinated population have accounted for 63% of Covid-19 hospitalisations since August 2021.
Covid-19 Deaths
Table 10 (b) of the latest report shows the number of Covid-19 hospitalisations by vaccination status in England. The table may have been attributed a different number in previous reports published by the UKHSA, but the following chart shows cases by vaccination status over a period of 16 weeks from 16 Aug 21 to 05 Dec 21.
The above chart proves that the fully vaccinated population have accounted for the majority of Covid-19 deaths every single month since August 2021, with things really taking a turn for the worse in October.
The highest number of Covid-19 deaths in single four week period among the fully vaccinated population has been 3,284, whereas the highest number of Covid-19 deaths among the unvaccinated population in a four week period has been just 850. That’s a 286% difference.
The above chart shows the cumulative number of deaths by vaccination status between 16 Aug 21 and 05 Dec 21, and illustrates quite clearly that this is very much a pandemic of the fully vaccinated.
Between 16 Aug 21 and 05 Dec 21 there were 3,070 Covid-19 deaths among the unvaccinated population in England, compared to 12,058 deaths among the vaccinated population during the same time frame. That is a 293% difference.
Covid-19 Fatality Rates by Vaccination Status
The official data shows the the vaccinated population have accounted for 56% of Covid-19 cases, 63% of hospitalisations, and 80% of deaths over the past 16 weeks in England.
It’s quite clear that the jabs do not prevent infection or transmission, but they are alleged to reduce the risk of hospitalisation and death. However, if this were the case then should we not be seeing a graph that looks more like this?
So why aren’t we?
It could have something to do witht he fact that the data suggests the Covid-19 injections are actually increasing the risk of death due to Covid-19 rather than reducing it by the claimed 95%.
The following graph shows the case-fatality rate among the not-vaccinated population, and the case-fatality rate among the 2/3 dose vaccinated population over the past 16 weeks.
The case-fatality rate is calculated by dividing the number of known deaths by the number of known cases among the population. As we can see from the above the case-fatality rate among the not-vaccinated population is just 0.2%, which is what is in line with the average case-fatality rate in 2020 before a Covid-19 injection was introduced to the masses.
However, the case-fatality rate among the fully vaccinated population is much higher, equating to 0.8%. Therefore the fully vaccinated are 4 times / 300% more likely to die if exposed to the Covid-19 virus based on official UK Government figures.
The following graph shows the hospitalisation-fatality rate among the not-vaccinated population, and the hospitalisation-fatality rate among the 2/3 dose vaccinated population over the past 16 weeks.
The hospitalisation-fatality rate is calculated by dividing the number of known deaths by the number of known hospitalisations among the population. As we can see from the above the hospitalsiation-fatality rate among the not-vaccinated population is 26%.
But the hospitalisation-fatality rate among the fully vaccinated population is frighteningly higher equating to a shocking 63%. This means the fully vaccinated population are 2.4 / 142% more likely to die once hospitalised with Covid-19.
So now that you know that the double / triple jabbed population have accounted for 3 in every 5 cases, 3 in every 5 hospitalisations, and 4 in every 5 Deaths over the past 4 months in England, and that the UK Government has been laughing at you since at least Christmas 2020 through their alleged Christmas parties, are you going to allow them to take away your freedom yet again in response to an alleged variant that has so far caused zero fatalities, or are you going to stand up, carry on living, and say “no” this time around?
Because this will not end until we all say it does.
By Alex Berenson | Unreported Truths | December 11, 2021
A six-tweet thread from a South African engineer sums up the apparent state of play: Omicron appears more contagious but far milder than earlier strains of Covid.
South African physicians and hospitals have leaned in this direction all along. But now we have close to three weeks of data and they are saying so with increasing certainty. The lag from symptoms to severe disease is about a week. If large numbers of patients were going to progress to hospitalization or intensive care, they almost surely would have done so by now.
Perhaps one more week and we will know for sure, but at this point it would be a stunning reversal if Omicron were NEARLY as dangerous as earlier strains. And the Omicron’s mildness is not because South Africa is highly vaccinated; only about 1 in 4 South Africans is fully vaccinated.
What has not yet been said – and will surely NOT be by the media – is that assuming this data holds, Omicron’s emergence should end any and all vaccination efforts with the mRNA or DNA/AAV vaccines. Their risk profile has been steadily worsening – one has yet coherently explained the synchronized rise in all-cause mortality in highly vaccinated countries. The Netherlands saw all-cause mortality 41 percent above normal (yes, 41 percent) in its most recent week of data. Only one of five of those deaths was Covid related.
Giving these vaccines for a virus that appears to be becoming a cold for most people is horrendously bad public policy. Especially since the vaccines don’t appear to work very well against Omicron in any case.
All that’s left now is to track the mess from the vaccines. Let’s hope it’s temporary.
The end.
SOURCE:
By Meryl Nass, MD | December 11, 2021
According to the CDC, as of December 10, 2021:
About 200.7 million people, or 60.5% of the total U.S. population, have been fully vaccinated.*
About 49.9 million additional/booster doses in fully vaccinated people have been reported.“
What does this really mean?
I think a large chunk of the population was sucked into getting the vaccines initially, but a considerable number of them have seen through the vaccine propaganda and realize it is not solving the COVID problem, and is not providing vaccinated individuals much protection.
Perhaps some of them have noticed that Israel is already talking about shot #4. Or they may have heard that if the Omicron strain continues to cause very mild disease, it will serve as as a natural vaccine, inoculating people who get it.
By Mike Hearn | The Daily Sceptic | December 11, 2021
Today the Telegraph reported that:
Experts from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) predict that a wave of infection caused by Omicron – if no additional restrictions are introduced – could lead to hospital admissions being around twice as high as the previous peak seen in January 2021.
Dr Rosanna Barnard, from LSHTM’s Centre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, who co-led the research, said the modellers’ most pessimistic scenario suggests that “we may have to endure more stringent restrictions to ensure the NHS is not overwhelmed”.
As we’ve come to expect from LSHTM and epidemiology in general, the model forming the basis for this ‘expert’ claim is unscientific and contains severe problems, making its predictions worthless. Equally expected, the press ignores these issues and indeed gives the impression that they haven’t actually read the underlying paper at all.
The ‘paper’ was uploaded an hour ago as of writing, but I put the word paper in quotes because not only is this document not peer reviewed in any way, it’s not even a single document. Instead, it’s a file that claims it will be continually updated, yet which has no version numbers. This might make it tricky to talk about, as by the time you read this it’s possible the document will have changed. Fortunately, they’re uploading files via GitHub, meaning we can follow any future revisions that are uploaded here.
Errors
The first shortcoming of the ‘paper’ becomes apparent on page 1:
Due to a lack of data, we assume Omicron has the same severity as Delta.
In reality, there is data and so far it indicates that Omicron is much milder than Delta:
Early data from the Steve Biko and Tshwane District Hospital Complex in South Africa’s capital Pretoria, which is at the centre of the outbreak, showed that on December 2nd only nine of the 42 patients on the Covid ward, all of whom were unvaccinated, were being treated for the virus and were in need of oxygen. The remainder of the patients had tested positive but were asymptomatic and being treated for other conditions.
The pattern of milder disease in Pretoria is corroborated by data for the whole of Gauteng province. Eight per cent of Covid-positive hospital patients are being treated in intensive care units, down from 23% throughout the Delta wave, and just 2% are on ventilators, down from 11%.
Financial Times, December 7th
The LSHTM document claims to be accurate as of today, but just ignores the data available so far and replaces it with an assumption; one that lets them argue for more restrictions.
What kind of restrictions? The LSHTM modellers are big fans of mask wearing:
All scenarios considered assume a 7.5% reduction in transmission following the introduction of limited mask-wearing measures by the U.K. Government on November 30th 2021, which we assume lasts until April 30th 2022. This is in keeping with our previous estimates for the impact of increased mask-wearing on transmission.
I was curious how they arrived at this number given the abundant evidence that mask mandates have no impact at all (example one, example two). But no such luck – a reference at the end of the above paragraph points to this document, which doesn’t contain the word “mask” anywhere and “7.5%” likewise cannot be found. I wondered if maybe this was a typo but the claim that the relevant reference supports mask wearing appears several times and the word “mask” isn’t mentioned in references before or after either.
There are many other assumptions of dubious validity in this paper. I don’t have time today to try and list all of them, although maybe someone else wants to have a go. A few that jumped out on a quick read through are:
Analysis
If you’re new to adversarial reviews of epidemiology papers some of the above points may seem nit-picky, or even made in bad faith. Take the problem of the citation error – does it really matter? Surely, it’s just some sort of obscure copy/paste error or typo? Unfortunately, we cannot simply overlook such failures. The phenomenon of apparently random or outright deceptive citations is one I’ve written about previously. This problem is astoundingly widespread in academia. Most people will assume that a numerical claim by researchers that has a citation must have at least some level of truth to it, but in fact, meta-scientific study has indicated the error rate in citations is as high as 25%. A full quarter of scientific claims pointing to ‘evidence’ turn out when checked to be citing something that doesn’t support their point! This error rate feels roughly in line with my own experiences and that’s why it’s always worth verifying citations for dubious claims.
The reality is that academic output, especially in anything that involves statistical modelling, frequently turns out to not merely be unreliable but leaves the reader with the impression that the authors must have started with a desired conclusion and then worked backwards to try and find sciencey-sounding points to support it. Inconvenient data is claimed not to exist, convenient data is cherry picked, and where no convenient data can be found it’s just conjured into existence. Claims are made and cited but the citations don’t contain supporting evidence, or turn out to be just more assumptions. Every possible outcome is modelled and all but the most alarming are discarded. The scientific method is inconsistently used, at best, and instead scientism rules the day; meanwhile, universities applaud and defend this behaviour to the bitter end. Academia is in serious trouble: huge numbers of researchers just have no standards whatsoever and there are no institutional incentives to care.
Some readers will undoubtably wonder why we’re still bothering to do this kind of analysis given that there’s nothing really new here. On the Daily Sceptic alone we’ve covered these sorts of errors here, here, here, here, here and here – and that’s not even a comprehensive list. So why bother? I think it’s worth continuing to do this kind of work for a couple of reasons:
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | November 18, 2021
In an historic interview for The HighWire, host Del Bigtree sits down with Vaccinologist, Geert Vanden Bossche, Ph.D., D.V.M., to hear Geert’s dire warning about mass Covid vaccination of children, and the catastrophe which may follow:
HealthImpactNews | December 3, 2021
Great video compilation proving that Fauci, Gates, the CDC have lied about the effectiveness of the COVID-19 shots, that are raking in $BILLIONS for Gates and Big Pharma:
BY PAUL ELIAS ALEXANDER | BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE | DECEMBER 8, 2021
The decision by parents to vaccinate their child against Covid is really a question of risk management. Parents must seriously consider that Covid-19 is a less dangerous illness for children than influenza. It has shown to be so and quite stably near 20 months now.
Children do not readily acquire this pathogen, spread to other children, spread to adults, take it home, get severely ill, or die from it. It is that simple. We know children tend not to transmit Covid-19 virus and that the concept of asymptomatic spread has been questioned severely, particularly for children.
Children, if infected, just do not spread Covid-19 to others readily, either to other children, other adults in their families or otherwise, nor to their teachers. This was demonstrated elegantly in a study performed in the French Alps. The pediatric literature is clear science on this. Overwhelming data shows that the SARS-CoV-2-associated burden of severe disease or death in children and adolescents is very low (statistically zero).
Swedish data by Ludvigsson reported on the 1,951,905 children in Sweden (as of December 31, 2019) who were 1 to 16 years of age who attended school with largely no lockdowns or masks. They found zero (0) deaths. “Despite Sweden’s having kept schools and preschools open, we found a low incidence of severe Covid-19 among schoolchildren and children of preschool age during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.”
A recent German study (collating evidence from three sources 1) a national seroprevalence study (the SARSCoV-2 KIDS study), 2) the German statutory notification system and 3) a nationwide registry on children and adolescents hospitalized with either SARS-CoV-2 or Pediatric Inflammatory Multisystem Syndrome (PIMS-TS)) reported that there were zero (0) deaths in children 5 to 18 years old across the period of study.
Governments and public health officials have driven this pandemic of fear and propaganda. But parents willing to assess this purely from a benefit versus risk position might ask themselves: ‘If my child has little if any risk, near zero risk of severe sequelae or death, and thus no benefit from the vaccine, yet there could be potential harms and as yet unknown harms from the vaccine (as already reported in adults who have received the vaccines), then why would I subject my child to such a vaccine?
And in the presence of the potential risks, as well as the fact that a vaccine for Covid-19 is simply not indicated in children, why would a parent allow their child to be vaccinated with still-experimental vaccines? The children should live normally, free, and if exposed to SARS-CoV-2 we can rest assured that in the vast majority of cases, they will have no to only mild symptoms while at the same time developing naturally acquired immunity, and harmlessly; an immunity that is definitely superior to that which might be caused by a vaccine.
The innate immunity in children that they come with and which works to protect them will work here and has worked here wonderfully (innate antibodies and NK cells, as well as other components of the innate immune compartment). This approach would also accelerate the development of the much needed herd immunity about which much has been written.
In addition to concerns related to immediate or long-term sequelae of the new mRNA vaccines in children, there is clear data suggesting that the vaccines might not be as effective against infection and spread as initially reported.
We also have reports of the vaccinal antibodies functioning to suppress the innate antibodies (potentially devastating for children who depend on these as their first line of defense) and outcompeting them given the vaccine antibodies are specific and have high affinity for their antigen, while innate are non-specific and with low-affinity. This is a huge problem, especially if the vaccinal immunity outcompetes the naturally acquired immunity antibodies, etc.
So why are we rushing to vaccinate our children? Drs. Fauci of NIAID, Walensky of CDC, and Francis Collins of NIH are reckless here with the vaccine developers e.g. Pfizer and Moderna, for they know these vaccines lack the proper safety testing and we do not know what will happen to children long-term.
This really is about risk management decisions we as free people (as parents) are presumably allowed to make in the USA. This is not only about science. Remember also, children cannot give proper informed consent e.g. an 8-month-old, a one-year-old.
This is a very important ethical matter. The death rate in children e.g. under 12, is as close to zero as we can get. None of the lockdown and school closure policies worked and all have failed with crushing harms on populations.
We have masked our children, closed schools, locked them down, driven surges in suicides in adults as well as our children due to these policies, and now we seek to vaccinate children with a vaccine for which we have no data on the long-term harms. Is there any wonder why there is a loss of trust and why parents might be reluctant to comply with every edict being issued by governments concerning health?
Dr Alexander holds a PhD. He has experience in epidemiology and in the teaching clinical epidemiology, evidence-based medicine, and research methodology.
By Julia | TCW Defending Freedom | December 9, 2021
COMPARED with Australia’s other police-run fiefdoms, South Australia has generally stayed under the Covid madness radar. No public police thuggery and rubber bullets in the back, no beating up grandmothers and pregnant women, no Daniel Andrews, no dictatorial legislation, no forced Covid camps, no rounding up of Aboriginal community members (so far). There has been Covid farce, however – a mind-boggling absence of perspective and proportionality reflective of the manic, embedded zero-Covid ideology experienced in other Australasian jurisdictions.
First, there was the pizza outbreak in November 2020. After a man with Covid-19 lied about his link to an Adelaide pizza parlour, the whole State entered a lockdown slated for six days which ended abruptly after three, due to lack of interest from the virus.
Then there was the ‘don’t touch the football’ affair, when Australian Rules fans were warned to duck if the ball came towards the crowd.
The latest is the case of a South Australian Senator, Alex Antic, a vigorous opponent of vaccine mandates and lockdowns, who was carted off to quarantine in a ‘medi-hotel’ after returning from Parliament in Canberra. (Antic is a conservative Liberal in a State run by so-called ‘moderates’ aka Leftists who should be in another party.)
This is in the State that has experienced four Covid deaths. Four. And 952 ‘cases’. South Australia has no crisis whatsoever, certainly none that can justify the establishment of a mini-police state. But the State is run not by a Premier but by an unelected police commissioner and an unelected chief health officer.
Which brings us to the persecution of Dr Bruce Paix, a doctor of 32 years in South Australia who is now unemployed due to ‘vaccine hesitancy’. Dr Paix has been issuing exemptions for mask/vaccines and is a staunch critic of the Covid vaccine and lockdowns. He contacted a member of Parliament, who happens to be South Australia’s acting attorney general, about matters Covid. This politician, one Josh Teague, or someone in his office, it would seem, notified the police. As a result Dr Paix was visited by officers and told that he should stop contacting the MP to voice concerns about Covid management policies.
He was advised to ‘tone down his emails’ and ‘be careful what he writes’, as his communications were ‘drawing attention to him’. Soft, friendly police power. In reality, an iron fist in a velvet glove.
Dr Paix is responsible for a string of Covid crimes – he is unvaxxed, he strays off message, he speaks out, and, worst of all, he is willing to grant exemptions from the jab. His offence in this case seems to have been his act of approaching his elected representative to seek a meeting to protest against a government policy, and his act of letter writing.
Seven officials raided the surgery of another such dissenting doctor, Mark Hobart, in Melbourne last month and seized confidential patient files, an appointment book, and other documents after he refused to hand them over. Inevitably, Hobart is described as ‘controversial’, such is the embedded state of Covid ideology across the legacy media.
Such doctors are quickly swooped on and threatened with being de-registered. The Victorian state government even changed the rules about exemptions to close off what it sees as ‘loopholes’. Patients were apparently ‘doctor shopping’ to find a practitioner who would give them a medical exemption from the vaccine.
A spokesman for the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and the Medical Board of Australia has made their message clear: that vaccination is a non-negotiable part of the public health response to the Covid-19 pandemic and that advising against it ‘undermines the national immunisation campaign’.
They said the consequences for doctors of not complying would include having their registrations suspended.
The Australian Covid State has relied massively on third party collaboration for maintaining fear and hysteria and for enforcing Covid mandates. The corporate media and the churches are but two of the most egregious examples. Arguably the role of the medical establishment and behaviour of supine, self-regarding doctors is way more appalling than that of all the other ‘just-following-orders’ functionaries of Covid totalitarianism. They are guilty of
· Bullying patients to get the jab, whatever their medical circumstances;
· Collaborating with government in refusing exemptions to patients who palpably deserve them;
· Propagating lies about Covid and about those who question the official Covid narrative;
· Not speaking up and out against ‘medical tyranny’ in Australia;
· Getting into bed with Big Pharma;
· Making a mockery of the Hippocratic Oath, ‘first, do no harm’ by cheering on the vaccination of healthy youth, some of whom they know will die from the vaccines.
Dr Bruce Paix and Dr Mark Hobart have found themselves at the sharp end of the medical wars over Covid. They are enemies of the Covid State, hunted down like the Aborigines of the past – and under Covid Law are once again.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Dr. Vernon Coleman – 21st Century Wire – September 2, 2022
Recycling was introduced, worldwide, as a tool to teach citizens to become compliant.
Forcing citizens to sort their rubbish into up to nine separate bags or boxes every week had absolutely nothing to do with ‘saving the planet’ and everything to do with teaching citizens (through a mixture of fines and shame) to behave ‘responsibly’ i.e. to do as they were told without looking too closely at the rationale of what they were being told to do.
The recycling never had anything to do with protecting the planet, of course. Most of the rubbish sorted, washed and collected in the UK was taken abroad, by lorry or ship or train, and burnt or dumped. It was, quite simply, impractical and not cost effective to recycle the material that had been collected. And, of course, collecting the sorted rubbish involved massive costs in terms of cash and pollution.
Today, the recycling business has reached an apogee of lunacy. Councils introduce ever more complex rules and fees. They refuse to take away much of the waste that is collected. And those wanting to take their rubbish to a ‘recycling’ centre will probably have to make an appointment and answer a host of questions.
It is no surprise that fly-tipping has become a major problem. The biggest causes of plastic in the sea are dumped fishing gear and plastic waste (much of it officially designated as recycled) which has been dumped by ships.
The good news, however, is that in Britain, recycling rates are falling. More and more people have become aware that the whole recycling movement was just another piece of manipulative trickery.
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
