Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Why Are Professional Athletes Collapsing on the Field?

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola | February 18, 2022

With every passing day, the list of people suffering tragic consequences from the COVID mRNA shots grows longer. Data1 show 23,149 people have died after a COVID jab as of January 28, 2022. There also are 13,575 reports of people with Bell’s palsy, 41,163 who are permanently disabled, 31,185 with myocarditis, 11,765 who have had heart attacks and 3,903 women who have lost their babies after getting the shots.

Many of these people and their stories have remained hidden from public view. YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and other social media platforms have censored the personal stories and videos of individuals documenting their injuries and permanent disabilities, so those who only read mainstream media are unaware of the overwhelming damage being done in the name of science.

However, there is a population of people whose injuries and death have been made public. In the past six months, a slew of professional and amateur athletes have collapsed and died on the field. Yet, mainstream media appear to take this in stride, acting as if what is happening is completely normal.

But, as described by Matt Le Tissier in the first seconds of the video above, this is far from normal. Le Tissier was a soccer legend2 (a sport called football in the U.K.). His prowess on the field earned him the nickname “Le God”3 before leaving the sport to become a sports commentator, most recently with Sky Sports.

As he describes in the interview, he lost that job for speaking out and bringing attention to the large number of unexplained sudden cardiac deaths happening to professional and amateur athletes around the world.

Athletes Are Dying on the Field in Large Numbers

Red Voice Media asks in a headline, “400 Athletes Collapsing & Dying Just in the Last 6 Months?”4 then mentions “small stories coming out about perfectly healthy athletes mysteriously dying.” During the interview, Le Tissier is asked about his thoughts on the surge of cardiac events in the sporting world, to which he responds:5

“I’ve never seen anything like it. I played for 17 years. I don’t think I saw one person in 17 years have to come off the football pitch with breathing difficulties, clutching their heart, heart problems …

The last year, it’s just been unbelievable how many people, not just footballers but sports people in general, tennis players, cricketers, basketball players, just how many are just keeling over. And at some point, surely you have to say this isn’t right, this needs to be investigated.”

Le Tissier acknowledges there may be other factors that have caused this massive rise in cardiac events in athletes. He mentions that the athletes may have had COVID, and this could be a consequence of the illness, or it could be the vaccine. But the point he makes is that it should be investigated and it’s not.

This may cause you to wonder why health experts are not placing blame on the infection, but are in fact ignoring the issue completely. It begs the question: Do they already know the answer?

Le Tissier goes on to talk about player safety and how the sport protects the players from playing too long or too many games, yet they are watching players collapse on the field and apparently are content acting as if this is normal. He calls it a “massive dereliction of duty” that no one in a position of power is calling for an investigation.6

“It’s absolutely disgusting that they can sit there and do nothing about the increase in the amount of sports people who are collapsing on the field of play. And it’s not just what I’ve noticed this season as well. Again, in my career, I don’t remember a single game being halted because of an emergency in the crowd, a medical emergency in the crowd …

I would like somebody to look into that and go well, hang on a minute, can we go back for the last 15 or 20 years and … have a look and see how many times it happened 10 years ago and then how many times it happened in the last year. I’ve been watching a lot of sports and a lot of reports on football, and I’ve never seen anything like it, the amount of games that have been interrupted because of emergencies in the crowd.”

The interviewer pointed out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation, to which Le Tissier agreed, but stressed that an investigation is required to find out if it does. “To my naked eye, this is happening a lot more than it has in the past. I can’t be the only one who is seeing this.”7

Sources and References

February 19, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | Leave a comment

300 medics demand halt to child vaccination as ‘all risk and no benefit’

TCW Defending Freedom – February 18, 2022

FOLLOWING the decision to roll-out Covid vaccines to healthy children aged 5-11 from April, the Children’s Covid Vaccine Advisory Group (CCVAG), comprising a wide range of senior health professionals, have issued a statement urging an immediate halt to the policy.

Dr Ros Jones, chairwoman of the CCVAG, said: ‘Why are the governments of the four nations announcing a rollout of Covid vaccines to healthy children aged 5-11 when they still have not answered urgent questions about safety in 12-17-year-olds?

‘Presumably this “offer” is being made on a “non-urgent” basis because the government has not finished its investigation into the growing evidence of harms to children.

‘This has never been a more urgent matter. We must halt the vaccine roll out while further investigations take place.’

Since yesterday morning, more than 300 healthcare professionals have co-signed a letter to the government and its advisers, in a growing critique of policy by Britain’s medical establishment.

The letter, which you can read here with the full list of signatories, calls for an immediate halt to the UK Covid vaccine roll-out to children to allow time for a thorough investigation.

Data from Hong Kong shows the myocarditis (heart inflammation) risk to teenage boys as high as 1 in 2,680, and they have ceased giving a 2nd dose. ONS figures for the UK have shown a significant rise in non-Covid deaths, representing at least two young men aged 15-19 dying each week, the cause of which has yet to be investigated and correlating with the vaccine roll-out.

The CCVAG says: ‘Vaccinating children is all risk and no benefit. Yet governments are recommending vaccinating healthy 5-11s, most of whom have already had SARS-CoV-2 infection, providing excellent natural immunity.’

About the CCVAG

The Children’s Covid Vaccine Advisory Group comprises a wide number of health professionals and scientists including several of the country’s leading professors in medicine, microbiology and risk, as well as specialists in public health, emergency medicine, paediatrics, infectious disease and primary care.

February 18, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Solidarity and Activism | , | Leave a comment

Heart threat to young men is now undeniable, but vaccinations continue

By Kathy Gyngell | TCW Defending Freedom | February 17, 2022

IT gives me no pleasure to be the fortnightly bearer of bad tidings. It gives me even less pleasure to know that TCW Defending Freedom has been the only media outlet since last July to have regularly published MHRA Yellow Card reports – the records of adverse effects from the Covid vaccines.

We commission a detailed and professional analysis of the data each time, so that we can properly track the consequences of the jabs – including the rising list of fatalities – and freely pass on the information to our readers.

We believe it remains vital that we keep the data accessible in the public domain, with the details that most people would neither be able to find or calculate on their own.

The Yellow Card headlines this week are that deaths have topped 2,000 and now stand at 2,010.

The percentage of reactions to injections stands at one in 118, up from the one in 123 recorded before Christmas.

Reported cases of myocarditis (heart muscle inflammation) are significantly up again, now at 1,941. This compares with 1,362 reported by the beginning of December.

This last development is worrying indeed. First, because of the unexplained excess young male deaths last year that the Government now acknowledges, as Dr Ros Jones reported in TCW yesterday. Second, because it is now well-established that the likelihood of this reaction in young men is higher than their risk of myocarditis from Covid infection.

In this context I would point readers and health professionals to the Government’s own ‘information for health care professionals’ published on January 17.

It emphasises that all suspected cases must be reported to the MHRA using the Yellow Card scheme. It specifically demands that ‘in addition, a serum sample should be collected from any patient that is suspected of experiencing myocarditis or pericarditis following any Covid-19 vaccination and sent to the UK Health Security Agency, Colindale.  Please use the code “Heart Inflammation” or “Myocarditis” for easy identification and which vaccine dose (and vaccine brand) the symptoms developed after.’

Despite this admission of urgency, we have yet to see any alert by the Government to pause the vaccine for younger men, women and children.

We can only conclude that ministers are choosing to disregard a serious risk that they themselves warn of – a worrying display of acute cognitive dissonance.

‘Anyone who develops these symptoms within ten days of a Covid-19 vaccination should urgently seek medical assistance,’ the information alert adjures.

But from the tone of the message, all is seemingly okay, because ‘the existing evidence base shows that most patients with myocarditis post-vaccination respond well to standard treatment for the acute episode, and the prognosis of the myocarditis is good’.

However, it adds that ‘it may have long-term consequences and studies are in progress to further understand the potential longer-term consequences with follow-up at three months and six months’.

Well, we’ll just have to pray that each individual strikes lucky, won’t we? Because while myocarditis may be mild, bringing few or no symptoms, it can also be severe, causing life-threatening heart failure. 

Furthermore, no one can deny that its immediate complications include ventricular dysrhythmias (abnormal heart rhythm), left ventricular aneurysm (swelling of a weakened muscular wall), congestive heart failure, and dilated cardiomyopathy (thinning of the left ventricle). Or that, despite optimal medical management, overall mortality has not changed in the last 30 years. The mortality rate is up to 20 per cent at one year and 50 per cent at five years. 

Why on Earth would any government actively inflict this hazard on healthy young people who are effectively at zero risk of dying from Covid?

Such breathtaking complacency is alarming. It is as though simply acknowledging myocarditis as a reaction makes everything all right and no further action is needed. In effect, the Government can’t ignore the problem, so it neutralises it by normalising it. That may be convenient, but it is mendacious and dangerously disingenuous.

Here is our latest MHRA Yellow Card combination reporting summary up to February 2, 2022 (data published February 10, 2022):

Adult – Primary and Booster/Third Dose, Child Administration

* Pfizer: 25.8million people, 48.7million doses. Yellow Card reporting rate, one in 158 people impacted.

* Astrazeneca: 24.9million people, 49.1million doses. Yellow Card reporting rate, one in 102 people impacted.

* Moderna: 1.6million people, three million doses. Yellow Card reporting rate, one in 45 people impacted

Overall one in 118 people injected experienced a Yellow Card Adverse Event, which may be fewer than 10 per cent of actual figures, according to MHRA.

Adult Booster or 3rd Doses given = 37,419,104 people

Booster Yellow Card Reports: 28,481 (Pfizer) + 452 (AZ) + 15,682 (Moderna) + 148 (Unknown) = 44,763.

Reactions: 469,842 (Pfizer) + 861,650 (AZ) + 117,517 (Moderna) + 4,596 (Unknown) = 1,453,605.

Reports: 163,709 (Pfizer) + 243,279 (AZ) + 35,302 (Moderna) + 1,509 (Unknown) = 443,799 people impacted.

Fatal: 717 (Pfizer) + 1,218 (AZ) + 37 (Moderna) + 38 (Unknown) = 2,010

Blood disorders: 16,694 (Pfizer) + 7,787 (AZ) + 2,405 (Moderna) + 62 (Unknown) = 26,948.

Pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis: 871 (Pfizer) + 3,026 (AZ) + 100 (Moderna) + 25 (Unknown) = 4,022.

Anaphylaxis: 648 (Pfizer) + 870 (AZ) + 87 (Moderna) + 2 (Unknown) = 1,607.

Acute cardiac: 12,094 (Pfizer) + 11,095 (AZ) + 2,965 (Moderna) + 88 (Unknown) = 26,242.

Pericarditis/myocarditis: 1,200 (Pfizer) + 428 (AZ) + 306 (Moderna) + 7 (Unknown) = 1,941

Eye Disorders: 7,700 (Pfizer) + 14,776 (AZ) + 1,445 (Moderna) + 83 (Unknown) = 24,004.

Blindness: 153 (Pfizer) + 316 (AZ) + 31 (Moderna) + 4 (Unknown) = 504.

Deafness: 284 (Pfizer) + 423 (AZ) + 48 (Moderna) + 5 (Unknown) = 760.

Spontaneous abortions: 467 + 1 premature baby death / 14 stillbirth/foetal deaths (Pfizer) + 227 + 5 stillbirth (AZ) + 60 + 1 stillbirth (Moderna) + 5 (Unknown) = 759 miscarriages.

Nervous system disorders: 78,444 (Pfizer) + 181,941 (AZ) + 19,095 (Moderna) + 834 (Unknown) = 280,314.

Strokes and central nervous system haemorrhages: 749 (Pfizer) + 2286 (AZ) + 46 (Moderna) + 15 (Unknown) = 3,096.

Facial paralysis including Bell’s palsy: 1,084 (Pfizer) + 998 (AZ) + 148 (Moderna) + 10 (Unknown) = 2,240.

Vertigo and tinnitus: 4,047 (Pfizer) + 6,888 (AZ) + 671 (Moderna) + 39 (Unknown) = 11,645.

Seizures: 1,061 (Pfizer) + 2,048 (AZ) + 248 (Moderna) + 17 (Unknown) = 3,374.

Paralysis: 493 (Pfizer) + 869 (AZ) + 97 (Moderna) + 8 (Unknown) = 1,467.

Disturbances in consciousness: 7,241 (Pfizer) + 10,897 (AZ) + 2,090 (Moderna) + 73 (Unknown) = 20,301.

Infections: 11,449 (Pfizer) + 20,029 (AZ) + 2,121 (Moderna) + 146 (Unknown) = 33,745.

Herpes: 2,139 (Pfizer) + 2,674 (AZ) + 237 (Moderna) + 23 (Unknown) = 5,073.

Skin disorders: 32,887 (Pfizer) + 53,107 (AZ) + 12,551 (Moderna) + 326 (Unknown) = 98,871

Respiratory disorders: 20,802 (Pfizer) + 29,550 (AZ) + 3,971 (Moderna) + 189 (Unknown) = 54,512.

Reproductive/breast disorders: 30,019 (Pfizer) + 20,606 (AZ) + 4,859 (Moderna) + 199 (Unknown) = 55,683.

Psychiatric disorders: 9,806 (Pfizer) + 18,268 (AZ) + 2,320 (Moderna) + 106 (Unknown) = 30,500.

Vomiting: 5,109 (Pfizer) + 11,629 (AZ) + 1,710 (Moderna) + 58 (Unknown) = 18,506

Tremor: 2,107 (Pfizer) + 9,920 (AZ) + 630 (Moderna) + 50 (Unknown) = 12,707.

Children and young people special report: Suspected side-effects reported in under-18s.

* Pfizer: 3,100,000 children (1st doses) plus 1,400,000 second doses resulting in 2,962 Yellow Cards (up 104 since last week).

* AZ: 12,400 children (1st doses) plus 9,200 second doses resulting in 254 Yellow Cards. Reporting rate one in 49.

* Moderna: 2,000 children (1st doses) and 1,200 second doses resulting in 18 Yellow Cards.

* Brand Unspecified: 18 Yellow Cards

Total = 3,114,400 children injected. Total Yellow Cards for under-18s = 3,252.

For full reports, including 346 pages of specific reaction listings, see here.

February 17, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Why Did Chris Whitty Go From Opposing Face Masks to Mandating Them With No New Evidence They Work?

By Gary Sidley | The Daily Sceptic | February 15, 2022

One of the major frustrations throughout the COVID-19 crisis has been the failure of high-profile journalists to ask ministers and SAGE scientists challenging questions about the rationale for their – often unprecedented – decisions. When they were not baying for earlier and harder restrictions, the journalists who participated in the numerous coronavirus press conferences typically restricted themselves to questions seeking clarification about the detail of a new rule or imposition rather than imploring the experts to justify the reasoning that led to their non-evidenced diktats.

I am sure I’m not alone in fantasising about the sort of questions I would like to put to the key rule-makers responsible for this extraordinary two-year assault on our basic human rights. Consider, for instance, Professor Chris Whitty, England’s Chief Medical Officer, and his belated support for requiring people to wear masks in community settings, arguably the most insidious of all the COVID-19 restrictions.

This is not an academic issue. Thanks to the Government’s relentless messaging about the purported benefits of face coverings, there is a real danger that widespread community masking – with all the attendant physical, social, psychological and environmental harms – could become a permanent feature, at least in certain sections of our society.

Prof. Whitty’s track record on the contentious issue of masking healthy people is, like that of many of the high-profile political and scientific rule-makers, characterised by contradiction. In early March 2020, he unequivocally stated that healthy people should not be wearing face-coverings. One month later, he was faltering, saying that, “The evidence is weak, but the evidence of a small effect is there under certain circumstances”. Since this time he has supported – or, at least silently colluded – with the pro-mask lobby. What changed his mind? No robust evidence supporting mask efficacy emerged in spring 2020, nor any time since, so what ‘nudged’ him to relinquish his anti-mask stance?

To clarify the reasons for his change of mind, I would be keen to be given the opportunity to ask our Chief Medical Officer the following questions:

  1. Around April/May 2020, what piece of robust real-world research made you change your mind about the ineffectiveness of masking healthy people in the community?
  1. As late as December 2020, a WHO document concluded that: “There is only limited and inconsistent scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of masking healthy people in the community.” Do you agree with the BBC Newsnight reporter Deborah Cohen that the WHO’s U-turn on masks was likely to have been the result of political lobbying?
  1. With regard to the imposition of masks, what has been the specific rationale offered to you by the Government’s behavioural scientists, such as Professor David Halpern?
  1. Is it merely a coincidence that masks powerfully help enforce the main ‘nudges’ promoted by behavioural scientists to achieve compliance with COVID-19 restrictions?
  1. Do you agree that the most robust type of scientific evidence is that provided by real-world, randomised controlled trials? If so, how can you reconcile your promotion of mask wearing with the results of such trials that consistently show that masks do not significantly reduce the transmission of respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2?
  1. Do you agree that, in a democratic free society, the evidential bar for mandating an intervention (such as masking the healthy) should be set very high? If so, do you believe that the empirical evidence for the benefits of masks as a means of reducing viral transmission reaches this threshold?
  1. There are a wide range of harms (physical, social, psychological and environmental) associated with masking healthy people, including the maintenance of inflated levels of fear that will have contributed significantly to the tens-of-thousands of non-Covid excess deaths and the current mental health crisis. Do you believe that a marginal reduction in viral transmission can compensate for this extensive collateral damage?
  1. If the Government’s behavioural scientists had not promoted masks as a way of increasing a sense of ‘solidarity’ that encouraged general compliance with the COVID-19 restrictions, can you confirm whether you would have changed your advice?

Growing numbers of people would like to hear Whitty’s answers to these important questions. Given the opportunity, I would be very happy to directly put them to our Chief Medical Officer in a public forum. Failing this, maybe a high-profile journalist will rise to the challenge. Ah, we can but dream.

Dr. Gary Sidley is a retired NHS Consultant Clinical Psychologist, a member of HART and co-founder of the Smile Free campaign.

February 17, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

UK approves vaccination for 5-11 year olds

with some odd decision making as to why

The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | February 16, 2022

Today, England approved COVID-19 vaccinations for children aged 5 to 11 years old. Wales and Scotland had already done so earlier in the week so England’s approval was inevitable. Approval for children in this age category, who are in a clinical risk group, was already given on 22 December 2021.

The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) have just published their independent report as to why the decision has been made.

Before I look at the report, I want to give a little background information.

In September 2021, before the Omicron variant (so a more virulent Delta was prevalent), the JCVI looked at whether to vaccinate healthy 12 to 15 years olds (those without underlying health conditions). They agreed a precautionary approach “given the very low risk of serious disease in those aged 12 to 15 years without an underlying health condition that puts them at increased risk. Given this very low risk, considerations on the potential harms and benefits of vaccination are very finely balanced”.

They acknowledged that “there is increasingly robust evidence of an association between vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis”. They say that whilst myocarditis following vaccination is self-limiting and resolves within a short time, the medium to long-term prognosis (including the possibility of persistence of tissue damage resulting from inflammation) is uncertain.

The JCVI concluded that overall “benefits from vaccination are marginally greater than the potential known harms” but acknowledged “that there is considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the potential harms. The margin of benefit, based primarily on a health perspective, is considered too small to support advice on a universal programme of vaccination of otherwise healthy 12 to 15-year-old children at this time. As longer-term data on potential adverse reactions accrue, greater certainty may allow for a reconsideration of the benefits and harms.”

So the conclusion for this older age group, on a health perspective, was not to vaccinate unless clinically vulnerable.

Fast-forward a few months, add in a more mild variant and suddenly the advice changes for an even younger age group. What has changed? Where is the longer-term data that allowed them to reconsider the benefits and harms?

From the outset of this latest advice, a cynical mind might think that they are trying to absolve themselves of all liability. The report uses lots of language such as “JCVI advises a non-urgent offer of two doses” and “informed consent”.

The report begins by saying that the “intention of this offer is to increase the immunity of vaccinated individuals against severe COVID-19 in advance of a potential future wave of COVID-19”. But concludes, “as the COVID-19 pandemic moves further towards endemicity in the UK, JCVI will review whether, in the longer term, an offer of vaccination to this, and other paediatric age groups, continues to be advised”.

So vaccination is advised to prevent severe Covid in a future wave but as we reach endemicity that future wave may never occur. It seems like this decision is based on modelling and we all know how accurate these models are at forecasting.

In summing up the key considerations they actually state the reasons why vaccination is unnecessary. “Most children aged 5 to 11 have asymptomatic or mild disease…[and] are at extremely low risk of developing severe COVID-19 disease. Of those admitted to hospital over the last few weeks comprising the Omicron wave, the average length of hospital stay was 1 to 2 days. A proportion of these admissions are for precautionary reasons”.

They continue “it is estimated that over 85% of all children aged 5 to 11 will have had prior SARS-CoV-2 infection by the end of January 2022… Natural immunity arising from prior infection will contribute towards protection against future infection and severe disease.”

The report says the vaccination is “anticipated to prevent a small number of hospitalisation and intensive care admissions. The extent of these impacts is highly uncertain.”

February 16, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Student physio told: Take the jab or risk wasting ten years of work

By Sally Beck | TCW Defending Freedom | February 15, 2022

A STUDENT who has spent £100,000 on his education and studied for ten years has been told he may not be allowed to finish his course unless he has a Covid vaccination.

David Shepherd, 28, is studying for his third Masters, an MSc in physiotherapy (pre-registration) at York St John University.

Unless he can complete 18 weeks of practical placements, he will be unable to graduate. He has currently finished 12 weeks.

He said: ‘I have been told that I cannot go to placements where I spend time with patients unless I have a Covid jab.

‘The Covid mRNA vaccine is an experimental vaccine which I will consider after the trials have finished in 2023. It is not like the hepatitis B vaccine mandated for health staff. That has years of safety data. There is no long-term safety data for Covid jabs but there is evidence it can cause the inflammatory heart conditions myocarditis and pericarditis in younger men.

‘Everything we do as health professionals hinges on being able to give our patients informed consent so that they know the risks of any procedure.

‘I have a scientific background and I don’t like being a guinea pig for mRNA vaccine technology.’

David is not alone in his concerns about lack of consent. A charity called Consent, set up by parents in 2018 to challenge doctors’ decisions for their teenagers and children, published a full-page advertisement in Metro insisting that the government stop coercing young people into having Covid vaccinations.

David is training to become a musculoskeletal practitioner attached to a GP’s surgery. Back problems account for 30 per cent of visits to the surgery so it is a job with a high demand and he has invested heavily preparing for it.

The money spent on his courses is secondary to his desire to contribute. He said: ‘I have got to the stage where I almost don’t care about the money. It’s the health principles I care about. And I do not want to be coerced into getting the jab.’

David completed a BSc (Hons) undergraduate degree in sports therapy at the University of Bedfordshire between 2012 and 2015. Then he took three Masters degrees receiving a scholarship from Bedfordshire for the first in 2015, which he failed.

He bounced back and between 2019 to 2020 he studied for an MSc at University College London – a Russell Group university – in Physical Therapy in Musculoskeletal Heathcare and Rehabilitation, a highly skilled and unique programme.

Now he is in his second MA year at York St John. Having seen a friend hospitalised after suffering two mini strokes caused by the vaccine, he does not want to take the risk.

He said: ‘Last year was fine, there was no discussion about mandatory vaccination and students got it when they wanted to. Two students in my bubble are from the Republic of Ireland and they got the vaccine just so that they could travel. They are very critical thinking so felt a bit coerced into it.

‘Then the head of our course began sending out emails last November saying how good it is to get vaccinated. She said it shows how much you care about yourself and everybody else. I hate that rhetoric.

‘I continued with the course and did two placements over 12 weeks, both attached to Hull Royal Infirmary. The first was in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD is a group of respiratory diseases including emphysema and bronchitis], going to people’s houses and helping them clear their lungs.

‘I was shadowing two facilitators; one completely understood my position, the second gave me a hard time and was very worried that patients might infect me, despite the fact I would be wearing a mask.

‘I wasn’t allowed to car share with them because I wasn’t vaccinated. It was a bit insulting, and it was “othering”. It made no sense because at that point we did understand that vaccination wasn’t halting the spread.

‘My second placement was predominantly remote, processing post-Covid outcome measures with a team. In one of the multi-disciplinary meetings, they were discussing a patient who had been injured by the vaccine. They were not convinced that she had been injured and thought she was making it out to be worse than it was. It was an interesting conversation to hear.’

In December, all York St John students received an email saying that due to mandatory vaccines being introduced for healthcare workers, students would need to have a vaccination and if they did not, it would affect their ability to finish the course.

‘I spoke to my new tutor; he’d been working in the NHS for 40 years, and he told me he understood my position,’ David said. ‘All changed after I came back after Christmas. I received an email from him that said I must give evidence of a vaccination by January 25.

‘Before Christmas, my tutor thought I would be able to continue with my placements; I need 1,000 hours practice to be able to register with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) and qualify.

‘I asked if I could finish the academic component and he said probably not, it wasn’t worth carrying on if I couldn’t do the placements.

‘I was trying to be pragmatic, but I was quite upset and very stressed about my future. If I got kicked off the course, I would still have to pay back my maintenance loan, but where would I work and what would I do?’

Since then, the Health Secretary has performed a U-turn on mandatory Covid vaccination for health care workers. Even though Sajid Javid scrapped the mandates, he has pushed back the decision to vaccinate to the regulators. He wants them to send a ‘clear message’ that health care workers should all be vaccinated.

David said: ‘Currently, our regulators, the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists and the Health and Care Professions Council, are against mandatory vaccination. So I’m safe for the time being.’

However government concessions can be short-lived, and we know that they want to bring in vaccination by the back door. So David could find that pressure is applied to his regulators behind the scenes, and he will be prevented from working unless he has a Covid jab.

In a letter to nine regulators, including the General Medical Council, Javid made his thoughts clear. He said that abandoning compulsory vaccines ‘in no way diminishes the importance that health and care workers are vaccinated. Indeed, it is the responsibility of all healthcare professionals to take steps to ensure the safety of patients. As the approach to ensuring vaccine uptake among health and care staff changes it is important that this personal professional responsibility is re-emphasised’.

February 15, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Free Covid Tests To Be Axed – There Goes The Scamdemic

By Richie Allen | February 15, 2022

I have been saying for nearly two years now, that if asymptomatic people stopped taking covid tests, then the scamdemic would end immediately. The UK government will announce next week, that if people want to continue to test themselves for covid, they will have to pay for it themselves. In theory, that should be game over.

According to The Times today:

Under proposals being finalised in Whitehall, healthy adults would no longer be eligible to order free lateral flow tests on the NHS. There are also plans to scale back PCR testing, with one option being to limit its availability to older adults and people considered to be clinically vulnerable.

The changes, which will be announced after months of speculation, will be announced as part of the government’s Living Safely With Covid strategy, which is due to be published next week. The new strategy could come into effect as soon as next month.

Ministers are facing pressure from the Treasury to reduce the multibillion-pound cost of continuing coronavirus testing on the NHS, with Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, understood to be calling also for the end of most PCR testing for people with Covid-19 symptoms.

The cost of living is skyrocketing. My guess is that most people who have been testing themselves regularly, won’t be as quick to order the tests when they have to pay for them out of their own pockets.

That will put a huge dent in the daily case numbers. In theory, that should be the end of the scam. I say in theory, because who knows what they are holding up their sleeves.

February 15, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

University’s top donor withdraws support over ‘ridiculous’ Covid rules

RT | February 11, 2022

The UK’s Durham University has lost its biggest individual donor, multimillionaire Mark Hillery, who pulled his financial support over Covid-19 rules he slammed as “ridiculous.”

A former hedge fund manager and university alumnus, Hillery donated almost £7m to the university’s Collingwood College between 2015 and 2021. He has funded a number of facilities, including a new arts center that bears his name, according to the student newspaper Palatinate, which was the first to reveal Hillery’s decision to withdraw his support.

The alumnus has actively supported the university for more than 20 years, hosting various events, and even sometimes paying for the students’ drinks in a college bar. He expressed deep regret over what he called “a very depressing state of affairs.”

In an interview with Palatinate he revealed that, prior to his decision to “step back,” he several times contacted the university to express his disagreement over the anti-Covid measures. However, this year the university chose to adopt policies which he said were even stricter than the government’s, including a temporary return to online teaching and face-mask mandates.

“Urgency that should have been displayed to fully normalize [the university] to the same status as the rest of society has not been there,” Hillery said.

He complained that the same “pedantic and ineffective policies that place the priorities of the paying students at the bottom of the pile are simply continued and refined,” adding that he would not visit Durham again “while there is a single Covid-related rule imposed on the students.”

Hillery, who is worth a reported £165 million and ranks 743rd on the Sunday Times Rich List 2020, did not rule out that in the future he might resume his support, underlining, however, that “it’s all far too little too late.”

The university expressed gratitude for Hillery’s “support in many initiatives” but said that the health and safety of its students and staff have always been a priority.

“We have been guided at all times by the local trajectory of the pandemic which varied at different times across the UK,” a spokesperson added.

February 13, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

RIP Freedom of Speech

In lockstep in multiple countries

The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | February 12, 2022

As with so many things that are happening at the moment, the attack on free speech is happening in multiple countries at the same time.

Firstly in the UK.

A draft Online Safety Bill was first presented to Parliament in May 2021 but has been strengthened in the last few weeks. Originally the draft Bill focussed on large web companies but the government has recently announced that more changes would be made and new criminal offences added.

One of these new offences would be spreading Covid-19 disinformation under a crime of sending a false communication. This offence would be committed if a person sends a communication they know to be false with the intention to cause non-trivial emotional, psychological or physical harm. The maximum sentence is 51 weeks.

The average person might think it is reasonable to imprison somebody for communicating something they know to be false with the intention to cause harm. However, what is “false” and what is “harm”? The last few years have shown us that these are now very subjective topics. Information that was true in 2019 became false in 2020 and is starting to be true again in 2022. A truth that is communicated to somebody who believes it to be false may cause them emotional or psychological harm. Intention is necessary for the crime to take place but if something is deemed to be false and deemed to cause harm then it could be argued that if the person who communicated the information, knew the information was on the “harmful list” then intention was there.

And who is deciding what information is false? The government? That almost sounds like a punchline to a joke. We’ll just end up with news articles such as the one below – Sponsored by the UK Government (see the text in blue).

The Bill was already censorial enough, making online companies remove content which was deemed to be harmful but not illegal. As we have seen in recent times, corporations’ misinformation policies have been arbitrary enough, which will only worsen with governments deciding what is true and what is false. Now, in a step one-removed from pre-crime, these companies will be made to proactively “prevent people being exposed in the first place”.

The government press release on the strengthening of this bill says that “to proactively tackle the priority offences, firms will need to make sure the features, functionalities and algorithms of their services are designed to prevent their users encountering them and minimise the length of time this content is available. This could be achieved by automated or human content moderation, banning illegal search terms, spotting suspicious users and having effective systems in place to prevent banned users opening new accounts”.

In almost Orwellian double-speak the press release says the Bill “will better protect people’s right to free expression online”. What this means is, it will better protect people’s free expression of government approved material. It continues by saying “it will have to be proven in court that a defendant sent a communication without any reasonable excuse and did so intending to cause serious distress or worse, with exemptions for communication which contributes to a matter of public interest”. So the government says something is a matter of public interest (e.g. vaccines) and suddenly intention doesn’t have to be proven.

Please sign this online petition to remove requirements that specifically target lawful speech from the Bill.

Next to the US.

At almost the same time, the US sent out a bulletin “Summary of Terrorism Threat to the U.S. Homeland”.

This states that “the United States remains in a heightened threat environment fueled by several factors, including an online environment filled with false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms of mis- dis- and mal-information (MDM) introduced and/or amplified by foreign and domestic threat actors. These threat actors seek to exacerbate societal friction to sow discord and undermine public trust in government institutions to encourage unrest, which could potentially inspire acts of violence”.

According to the bulletin, “the proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions” has “increased the volatility, unpredictability, and complexity of the threat environment”.

Key factors contributing to the current heightened threat environment include “widespread online proliferation of false or misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19”.

Furthermore, “as COVID-19 restrictions continue to decrease nationwide, increased access to commercial and government facilities and the rising number of mass gatherings could provide increased opportunities for individuals looking to commit acts of violence to do so, often with little or no warning. Meanwhile, COVID-19 mitigation measures—particularly COVID-19 vaccine and mask mandates—have been used by domestic violent extremists to justify violence since 2020 and could continue to inspire these extremists to target government, healthcare, and academic institutions that they associate with those measures”.

So in a step up from the UK’s response, the US is labelling individuals who produce any MDM as terrorists. Obviously, any language that incites violence is unacceptable but to confuse people encouraging unrest with those discussing whether Ivermectin could help save lives is completely unacceptable.

And finally in Canada.

Again, as if in lockstep, Justin Trudeau is trying to revive his controversial Internet legislation bill. Once known as Bill C-10, to fool those unintelligent Covid deniers, it has been changed to Bill C-11.

There are concerns that the legislation could be used to censor social media. The government have denied this but experts hold the opposite view. Who to believe, hmmm? The Toronto Sun reports that Trudeau is using the current national tensions as a smokescreen to let them slip in unpopular pieces of legislation. Never let a good crisis go to waste!

When we remove freedom of speech and censorship of controversial topics becomes common place, we turn into a dangerous society. Not only can authors be imprisoned for airing their views but, just as importantly, debate becomes restricted resulting in truths being hidden and novel and radical ideas supressed.

But if they can’t censor you, maybe they’ll just give you a morality pill so you don’t produce the stuff in the first place!

February 12, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , | Leave a comment

The UK wants to criminalize “misinformation” online as its own health service gets caught posting falsehoods

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | February 11, 2022

Less than a week after the UK proposed criminalizing the posting of some types of “knowingly false” information online, England’s National Health Service has taken down a social media video over inaccurate information.

Last week, NHS England posted a video on its Twitter account with more than half-a-million followers to promote vaccination in kids.

The video claimed that 1% of children will be hospitalized because of Covid, 136 kids in the UK had died because of Covid, and 117,000 children have “long Covid.”

The video went viral attracting comments and retweets from some of the most popular influencers in the health category.

But some, including Dr. Robert Hughes, a clinical research fellow at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, questioned the accuracy of the data.

“As both a parent and scientist who has been involved in research on symptom duration and severity of covid in children, the cited statistics didn’t make sense to me,” Hughes wrote in an article in UnHerd. “The idea that 1% of children with Covid are hospitalized for it didn’t pass the ‘sniff test.’”

The video also shared the story of a kid aged 11 that was suffering from long Covid. According to Hughes, the story contradicted the vaccination guidance in the UK, as it does not even recommend vaccination for that age group.

Additionally, there is not yet any substantial evidence to support that the vaccine prevents long Covid.

Hughes also notes that NHS England was silent when he and others questioned the accuracy of the data.

“Several people agreed with me, sharing their working for why these numbers are at best long outdated, may be orders of magnitude out, and risk undermining confidence in vaccine communications and uptake.

“But others seemed to dig in, praising both the content and tone of the messaging when challenged, and directing the discussion into an important, but different, one about the merits of extending Covid vaccination to children rather than the need for accurate and honest communication about vaccination,” Dr. Hughes wrote for UnHerd.

Hughes contacted the Office of the Statistics Regulator about the numbers. The Statistics Regulator agreed that it was important that the NHS provides accurate figures.

“It is important that figures provided by NHSE&I are accurate and reliable,” the Office of the Statistics Regulator said. “In this case the claim made in the video fell short of these expectations – we contacted NHSE&I and it acknowledged that the data were historic and had methodological shortcomings. We are therefore glad that the content has now been removed from Twitter.”

Before its removal, the video had already been widely shared.

February 11, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Who will carry the can?

Health Advisory & Recovery Team | February 9, 2022

Attention has increasingly begun to turn towards vaccine efficacy and vaccine damage now that we have collated some twelve months of data. HART has recently focused on the issue of the appropriateness and efficacy, as well as safety, of vaccinating children. One of the issues that has not been explored by anyone is liability for vaccine-induced damage; by this is meant liability to those not covered by the blanket government indemnity given to the vaccine manufacturers, but the potential liability of those pushing the vaccines, be that the personal liability of government officials, NHS employees, schools as well as public and private sector employers (or potentially the officials and employees of these organisations themselves). This is  a real issue given that none of the individuals encouraging, administering or in other ways nudging or coercing the acceptance of these procedures has any idea of the content of the vaccines, nor of the medium or long term side effects that these might produce.

This article was prompted by an unconfirmed report (court papers have not been published so as far as we are concerned this remains anecdotal) from France that a life insurance company had refused a claim under its policy against the death of an insured individual who died of the vaccine. The refusal was justified on the basis that damage from experimental voluntary medical procedures are not covered (the vaccines are currently still of course only approved under an emergency protocol) and that such a death would therefore be classified as suicide. It went on to say that suicide from this cause was also not covered under its policy. The case was taken to the highest court in France and the claimants lost. It is not clear that an English court, for a similar situation in England and Wales under English law, would come to the same conclusion. The view from discussions in the insurance market is that it would not, but this is also anecdotal at this stage. Suicide would almost invariably be covered under an English law life insurance policy. However, the French case does begin to put this issue into sharper relief.

There have also been reports from an insurer in the United States (OneAmerica) that deaths of 16-64 year olds have increased by 40%, based on its numbers in comparable quarters year on year. Similar increases have been reported by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India. This is a catastrophic increase, given that a 1-in-200-year event would correspond to a 10% increase and would in itself be categorised as a catastrophe event by insurers if it were widely experienced. While one or two swallows does not make a summer, this is an unfolding event that insurers and regulators will be watching closely. The time to watch is this month as insurers begin to report on their Q4/21 numbers, but the picture is not likely to improve throughout the year. Swiss Re and Munich Re, the world’s most prolific reinsurers, will be worth keeping an eye on, as a key market bellwether. If the numbers are half or even a quarter as bad as OneAmerica’s data, there will have been some actuarial deep dives and the focus will soon turn to begin investigation of  the vaccine as one of the only materially different exogenous factors that could have influenced the data.

Furthermore, one of the states of the USA is in the early stages of introducing primary legislation to make employers liable for just this sort of event. The US is notoriously litigious, though Canada and Australia are very close behind. The principle of requiring the manufacturer and in some cases distributor as well as in this instance the administrator of a product to be liable if it causes harm is a perfectly sound one. This ultimately would be for the courts to decide, but in a liability policy, all parties involved with the drug that does harm would be in the chain of people to sue. However, in the case of vaccinations, a key part of that principle has long been abandoned, in that for decades now, since the first Reagan administration and Thatcher’s era in the UK, governments have given full indemnities to the pharmaceutical industry for vaccine-related liabilities. Yet governments themselves offer only paltry and complex compensation schemes that can take years to pay out at huge actual, as well as emotional cost to the victims, for sums that come nowhere close to being real compensation. This is and always has been unjust, legally unwise and morally wrong. It effectively encourages the wrong priorities for pharma, giving profit an easy priority over safety. And worst of all, it leaves victims powerless, jobless, and of course injured. It puts them and their wider families into crippling financial difficulties and does nothing to curb the behaviour of pharma. The family speaking here describe the huge financial impact in addition to the impact of the injury itself on an 18-year-old girl and her parents. Add to that, cooperative governments that then mandate vaccines and encourage or coerce employers to do so. This is disproportionate given the risk from the virus in most younger people and we witness a healthcare system that seems to have become prone to forget — or even relegate — what should be a sacrosanct principle of First Do No Harm. The result is a toxic mix in which the only beneficiaries are the balance sheets of pharma and their shareholders.

One sure-fire way of stopping vaccine mandates in their tracks is for primary legislation to ensure that employers are liable if they go along with government mandates or nudges. Insurers are likely to react by reviewing coverage for such scenarios, where under legislation they can. Employers will not wish to assume such liabilities without adequate insurance. And should they fall foul of this obvious pitfall, shareholders may resort to Director’s and Officer’s liability insurance lawsuits before which Workers’ Compensation (and their European and other-world equivalents) actions are likely to play out.

Let us hope that such legislation passes and spreads swiftly around the world.

February 9, 2022 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Narrative collapse quickens pace

The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | February 9, 2022

Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister of the UK, has, today announced that all coronavirus restrictions will be lifted in less than two weeks. This is a month earlier than initially proposed, showing the accelerating change in the narrative.

He said he plans to abolish the remaining restrictions in the UK, including the self-isolation rules after testing positive. It is not clear, however, whether this will also apply to the unvaccinated.

Mr Johnson said “I can tell the house today, that it is my intention to return on the first day after the half term recess to present our strategy for living with Covid”. What is this new normal that the Prime Minister has in plan? Surely living with Covid means going back to the old normal, not even thinking about Covid anymore?

In other parts of the world, Portugal, Greece and France are to ease travel restrictions and Italy is changing its mask mandate for outdoor areas. The EU is removing testing regimes for fully vaccinated travellers, again leaving the nasty after taste that the new narrative is to go back to normal whilst leaving restrictions on the unvaccinated.

Across the pond, in Canada, Saskatchewan Premier, Scott Moe, announced the end to Covid passes and masks, signalling a victory for the protesting Truckers. Will Trudeau realise which way the wind is blowing and cave in but try to spin a victory or will he double down?

Fauci has said that America is almost past the ‘full blown’ pandemic phase and will be winding down restrictions and masks ‘soon’.

Although Scottish First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, admitted that Scotland is entering a ‘calmer’ stage of the pandemic, she still decided that masks and Covid certification will remain.

The Scottish public, on the other hand, are saying enough is enough. Data from their Test AND Protect system shows that 91.5% of incomplete cases (purple), in the recent few weeks, are due to the public not responding to the surveillance calls.

It seems the narrative is collapsing and faster and faster each day. However, whilst this may be due to Omicron being more mild, I remain sceptical. The reasons being given are the same reasons many of us said restrictions were unnecessary in the first place. Now, all of a sudden, the corona fog is receding and everyone, in multiple countries and along similar time scales, is seeing the light. Or are they? Will all restrictions be removed or will they remain all but in name for the unvaccinated?

Will they remove all legislation to ensure none of these measures will never return again? If the legislation stays then it will be all too easy for restrictions to return when vaccines wane and seasonal illnesses return in the winter.

Will they remove all restrictions for everybody, including the unvaccinated? That means no additional testing regimes for the unvaccinated and no back-door use of Covid passes.

Or are we truly seeing the end of the pandemic? Some of the pharma documentation that I am about to write an article on may suggest that they see the writing is on the wall.

The next few weeks will certainly be interesting and the key will be to keep an eye on the small print.

February 9, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »