UK to arm Ukraine with anti-ship missiles against Russia – Kiev’s envoy
RT | February 8, 2022
The UK will supply Kiev with anti-ship missiles to potentially use against the Russian Navy in the Black Sea, Ukraine’s envoy to Britain, Vadim Pristayko, said in an interview with Novoye Radio on Tuesday. The official did not specify what munitions London is sending, nor the date they are set to arrive in Ukraine.
“For the first time, our armed forces, the Navy in particular, will receive real weapons, missiles that will finally enable us to have something against the Russians in the Black and Azov Seas,” the diplomat said.
The upcoming delivery of anti-ship missiles apparently falls under the £1.7 billion ($2.3 billion) deal, reached by London and Kiev last year. Under the agreement, the UK provides Ukraine with a loan, which Kiev has to pay back within 10 years, with the funds set to be spent on navy-related military hardware supplied by Britain. According to Pristayko, the equipment includes two minesweepers that are currently being “refitted” at a dockyard in Scotland, as well as other hardware.
“Our armed forces had never received such serious funds from abroad for their development,” the diplomat said.
Ukraine has enjoyed an uptick in foreign military aid in recent months amid fears of an allegedly looming attack by its neighbor, Russia. The UK has been among the top arms suppliers of Ukraine, sending in a large cache of NLAW shoulder-fired anti-tank missiles back in January, as well as deploying additional military instructors to teach Ukrainian forces to operate the systems.
Western media outlets and top politicians have repeatedly warned of Moscow’s allegedly imminent invasion of Ukraine, which has failed to materialize so far, with no solid evidence of the existence of such plans ever produced. Moscow has consistently rejected seeking to attack Kiev, denying claims that the movement of its troops in the relative vicinity of the Belarusian or Ukrainian border somehow threaten its neighbor.
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba on Monday revealed the scale of foreign military aid Ukraine has already received.
“Ukraine has gotten more international political and economic support, as well as security,” the top diplomat said. “Over these weeks and months, we have received more than $1.5 billion, and more than 1,000 tons of arms and armaments.”
UK “reforming” human rights law… compulsory vaccines on the horizon?
By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | February 8, 2022
The UK government is planning to re-work its human rights law to put an increased emphasis on “personal responsibility” and “duties to the wider society”, as well as preventing people “abusing” their rights.
Sounds pretty awful, doesn’t it? But let’s go back to the beginning.
In December 2020 the UK government announced they would be looking into Human Rights reform in the near future.
These announcements became more concrete a year later on December 14th 2021, when the government began a “consultation” on restructuring the Human Rights Act.
The plan is to replace current rights legislation with a so-called “UK Bill of Rights”, a policy dating from the Cameron administration. The new “bill of rights” would update and replace the Human Rights Act.
As a brief summary of UK human rights law:
Some rights are enshrined in common law from the days of Magna Carta, but the vast majority of the time when we talk about “human rights” in the UK we’re referring to the Human Rights Act 1998.
This act was written into law as essentially a verbatim copy of the European Convention on Human Rights passed by the Council of Europe in the 1950s.
The purpose of writing the international treaty into domestic law was so British citizens could take human rights cases to domestic courts, instead of having to go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
As with most human rights laws, from the UN Declaration of Human Rights to the US Constitution, a lot of the time the Human Rights Act is flat-out ignored, or at best worked around. But it does exist, and it does offer some protection of the individual from the power of the state.
Will that continue to be the case after these “reforms”?
The UK’s current “consultation” on Human Rights “reform” is set to end next month (March 2022), & whatever its final recommendations are will likely not be published for several months after that. But, while we can’t yet be certain exactly what they will say…we can get some rough ideas from what they have released so far.
Dominic Raab, the Justice Secretary who commissioned the consultation, recently said in an interview on LBC:
Our plans for a Bill of Rights will strengthen typically British rights like freedom of speech and trial by jury, while preventing abuses of the system and adding a healthy dose of common sense.”
If you’re anything like me, the phrases “abuses of the system” and “common sense” just made your inner cynic twitch, but there’s no real detail there.
Perhaps you’re thinking, at this point, that if you read the whole briefing document there will be nothing there to justify any paranoia.
… except I have, and there is.
If you drill down through the filler, and can read through the bureaucratic language, there are some pretty concerning red flags waving around, especially in their stated aims [emphasis added]:
Our reforms will be a check on the expansion and inflation of rights without democratic oversight and consent, and will provide greater legal certainty.
[The Bill of Rights will] provide greater clarity regarding the interpretation of certain rights, such as the right to respect for private and family life, by guiding the UK courts in interpreting the rights and balancing them with the interests of our society as a whole
[The Bill of Rights will] provide more certainty for public authorities to discharge the functions Parliament has given them, without the fear that this will expose them to costly human rights litigation
The government is committed to ensuring that the biggest social media companies protect users from abuse and harm, and in doing so ensuring that everyone can enjoy their right to freedom of expression free from the fear of abuse.
Protecting authorities from legal consequences, stamping out “abuse” online, subordinating privacy to national security… these are pretty routine aims of new legislation these days. They are expected, almost cliche.
The biggest and freshest warning sign is the sheer number of mentions of “duty” or “responsibility” or “the wider society”.
For example, this sentence from the forward written by Raab himself:
our system must strike the proper balance of rights and responsibilities, individual liberty and the public interest,
And in point 6 of the Executive Summary…
The Bill of Rights will make sure a proper balance is struck between individuals’ rights, personal responsibility, and the wider public interest.
… and then point 9 too:
[The Bill of rights will] recognise that responsibilities exist alongside rights, and that these should be reflected in the approach to balancing qualified rights and the remedies available for human rights claims
The header at the top of Chapter 3, “The Case for Reforming UK Human Rights Law”, bemoans:
the growth of a ‘rights culture’ that has displaced due focus on personal responsibility and the public interest […] public protection [is] put at risk by the exponential expansion of rights
Going into greater detail further down:
The international human rights framework recognises that not all rights are absolute and that an individual’s rights may need to be balanced, either against the rights of others or against the wider public interest. Many of the rights in the Convention are ‘qualified’, recognising explicitly the need to respect the rights of others and the broader needs of society […] The idea that rights come alongside duties and responsibilities is steeped in the UK tradition of liberty
And then again, in the first paragraph from section IV “Emphasising the role of responsibilities within the human rights framework” [emphasis added]:
We all have responsibilities in our society: to society (such as to obey the law and pay taxes), to our families, and to people around us. Everyone holds human rights whether or not they undertake their responsibilities, particularly the absolute rights in the Convention such as the prohibition on torture. Nonetheless, the government believes that our new human rights framework should reflect the importance of responsibilities.
It carries on in equally concerning fashion…
when a court is considering the proportionality of an interference with a person’s qualified rights, it will consider the extent to which the person has fulfilled their own relevant responsibilities.
The overall message is clear: Human rights can be tempered with “responsibilities” & anyone who does not fulfil their “responsibilities” is less deserving of the legal protection of their rights.
This is neither new thinking nor new language. Throughout “Covid times” we have seen talk of liberty parried with talk of duty, but it predates Covid too.
For years free speech has been tempered with talk of “being offensive” or “spreading misinformation”. The right to privacy has long been secondary to “national security” and “keeping people safe”.
Human Rights law is regularly trumped by The Patriot Act or Investigatory Powers Act or a dozen equally appalling pieces of legislation from both sides of the Atlantic.
But now, rather than bypassing human rights laws, this government is going to – to quote Raab – “rebuild them”. Meaning shred the existing ones and write all new ones. Ones that use “common sense” to make sure people are “responsible” and don’t “abuse” their rights.
Within the scope of this so-called “reform” is the desire to add conditions to basic human liberties. Exchanging “self-evident” truths, “endowed upon men at their creation”, for a quid-pro-quo agreement with the state.
This is a seismic shift in the very definition of “rights”.
The entire point of human rights is that they are innate and inalienable, they exist for everyone everywhere, and are not in the gift of any authority.
But now, rather, the UK government is arguing your rights are given to you at their behest, and that they come at the cost of expected duty.
And given all the talk during the “pandemic” regarding “protecting others” and being “responsible” – with masks, lockdowns and most especially vaccines – it’s not hard to see how these new “duties” could be applied in the future.
There’s no direct talk of compulsory vaccination, yet, but if these new “human rights” laws are made a reality, the next pandemic could be much harder to navigate.
You can read the complete consultation on human rights reform here.
Mandatory Vaccination via the Back Door
The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | February 8, 2022
There has been a lot of fanfare about the recent decision to abandon mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations for National Health Service (NHS) staff in England. However, the pressure is still on.
The welcome U-turn was announced on 31 January, when Sajid Javid (the health secretary) said that whilst looking at the risks and opportunities of the vaccination as a condition of deployment policy, there were 2 new factors to consider. Firstly, the population as a whole is better protected against hospitalisation and secondly, Omicron is intrinsically less severe. He then concluded that while vaccination remains our very best line of defence, he no longer believes it is proportionate to require vaccination through statute.
All reasonably sensible stuff so far and this is what the majority of the media picked up on. However, he wasn’t finished yet. He continued with the following statement (emphasis my own):
Some basic facts remain: vaccines save lives, and everyone working in health and social care has a professional duty to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
So, while we will seek to end vaccination as a condition of deployment in health and social care settings using statute, I am taking the following steps:
First, I have written to professional regulators operating across health to ask them to urgently review current guidance to registrants on vaccinations, including COVID-19, to emphasise their professional responsibilities in this area.
Second, I have asked the NHS to review its policies on the hiring of new staff and the deployment of existing staff, taking into account their vaccination status.
And third, I’ve asked my officials to consult on updating my department’s code of practice, which applies to all CQC registered providers of all healthcare and social care in England.
They will consult on strengthening requirements in relation to COVID-19 including reflecting the latest advice on infection prevention control.
So it seems that, as suspected, the U-turn didn’t occur because it was the sensible path to follow but because of political motives. Too much pressure was building up in support of the unvaccinated health care workers. Furthermore, there would have been nowhere to hide politically, when 10 percent of the health care staff were sacked, causing massive chaos in an already overstretched service.
However, the pressure is still on for the staff who have chosen not to be vaccinated. Firstly, the regulations have not been revoked yet, they will be subject to a consultation and parliamentary approval. Secondly, similar to my article on the removal of human rights, there will be professional pressure applied to staff in the interests of the greater good. Thirdly, policies will be changed making it very difficult for unvaccinated workers. As one nurse put it:
No vaccine mandate but; you can’t change jobs, take a promotion, progress in your career, and you will forever be coerced into taking a jab and live with constant fear that one day you could be sacked for not taking it.
This is not over!
Yesterday, a Times article reported that Sajid Javid has told medical regulators to insist staff get jabs. It says the health secretary has said that “medical regulators must crack down on unvaccinated staff”. The article reports that “he has written to nine regulators, including the General Medical Council (GMC) and Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC). Abandoning compulsory vaccines ‘in no way diminished the importance that health and care workers are vaccinated. Indeed, it is the responsibility of all health care professionals to take steps to ensure the safety of patients’. [Sajid is] ‘concerned that the guidance from the professional regulators on this issue is currently limited to a statement about vaccination in general’ rather than about Covid-19 in particular”. Javid told the regulators “that they should ‘urgently’ work with senior health leaders ‘to ensure yourself that your current guidance on vaccination for Covid, sends a clear message to registrants’.”
I don’t think there will be much opposition at management level in the NHS, when individuals such as Chris Hopson (CEO of NHS Providers) and Matthew Taylor (CEO of NHS Confederation) issued a joint statement saying “NHS leaders are frustrated to have such a significant change in policy at the 11th hour, given all the hard and complex work that has gone into meeting the deadline set by the government. They recognise the reasons . . . but there will be concern at what this means for wider messaging about the importance of vaccination for the population as a whole.”
Also yesterday, England’s Chief Medical Officer (Chris Whitty), together with the Chief Nursing Officer, Chief Midwifery Officer, Medical Directors and others wrote to NHS colleagues about their professional responsibility to get vaccinated.
In the letter they say “COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective because there have been over 10 billion doses given worldwide”. They also say that the vaccines “provide protection from becoming infected”. I don’t know how they can claim that when data from the UK Health Security Agency itself, shows infection rates to be higher in the majority of vaccinated age groups.
The main gist of the letter is to guilt health care workers into getting vaccinated. They use words such as “professional responsibility”, “the public reasonably expect” and “to protect our patients”. The letter ends by saying “the great majority of heathcare workers have already done so [been vaccinated]. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now.
The level of coercion to get vaccinated, particular with health care workers, is unacceptable and is not dying down. For a novel vaccine, with no medium to long term studies on side effects, the choice is down to the individual. The data suggests that the vaccinated are more likely to be infected, not less. So, even if the vaccine does protect someone on an individual basis, they are more likely to be infectious around patients, not less. Especially, if the vaccine masks any symptoms meaning a vaccinated individual is more likely to be infected and not realise they are.
Mandatory vaccinations for healthcare workers has been abolished for now, but the pressure is still being placed on them. Will new workers have to be vaccinated, will vaccination be necessary for certain roles or to progress careers. Or will the constant shaming or being made to feel guilty be too much for the individuals who have chosen not to be vaccinated and will they have to leave anyway but this time, without any legal redress or compensation?
The crescendoing chatter that this is for some greater good is also deeply concerning. The majority of individuals, when left to their own devices, will choose the correct path when deciding on the finely balanced risks between what is good for themselves and the public. Most people will always want to do the right thing and very often choose to help others over themselves. The only danger in society right now is the thought that public health officials or ministers can decide what is good for an individual based on a perceived threat to society. This top-down policy is not only dangerous but won’t achieve the results they are looking for.
I will conclude with a comment made by a reader on one of my previous articles:
“As a Human Geneticist in a profession that was responsible for the horrors of the Eugenics movement, I have been deeply steeped in ethics and the importance of abiding by codes of conduct especially those created after WW2 such as the Nuremberg Codes. As soon as one strays from these codes, one immediately falls into the danger of recreating the past horrors. Individual rights must always be respected over any other consideration and any abrogation of those rights no matter what the rationale must always be challenged and justified and as temporary and minimal as possible. One thing I learned taking courses in the mathematics of epidemiology is that public health are not trained in ethics in the same way. In fact they are almost trained in the opposite to always think of the good of the whole of society over the rights of individuals. Of all branches of medical health out there, it does not surprise me that tyranny came from public health.”
Negative vaccine efficacy example in the UK
By Steve Kirsch | February 8, 2022
Summary
This example shows that triple vaccinated people in the UK are more likely to be hospitalized, not less likely. In other words, the vaccines are doing the opposite of what the health authorities claimed. Mandating vaccination is actually making the problem worse, not better.
The FOIA request
Consider the following FOIA request from Feb 3, 2022:
Now consider the following stats:
So we have 130/182 = 71% of the patients in the hospital are triple vaccinated.
But only 45% of the public is triple vaccinated.
Negative efficacy
If the vaccines worked, we’d see that fewer than 45% of the patients are triple vaccinated. Instead, we see the opposite.
In other words, not only are the vaccines not working, but they are actually making it more likely you will be infected. Whoops.
UK Government data confirms negative efficacy
Reminds me of this chart showing similar negative vaccine efficacy.
The only question remains: when will people wake up?
Students should not be coerced into Covid vaccination
TCW Defending Freedom – February 8, 2022
A COUPLE of weeks ago we published a letter from Queen’s University Medical School in Belfast to its medical students which all but made it a requirement for students to get vaccinated to complete all aspects of their course. Since then we have heard from a number of distressed parents and students at various institutions revealing a much wider problem of coercive vaccination for students. It’s not just prospective doctors, but nurses and physios who are being subjected to this coercive pressure and being told they can’t take or complete their course unless they get jabbed.
This is despite the recent rollback of several Covid restrictions including Covid passes. Universities and students continue to be put under enormous pressure from their higher education bosses to see to it that students are vaccinated and told that is both a public safety and ‘duty’ requirement. See below, for example, how the Welsh Government frame both question and answer in their guidance to students, omitting any mention of the fact that at their age students are at no serious risk from Covid-19 let alone the Omicron variant.
Q: How can I feel safe at university with the Omicron variant?
A: The most effective way to manage personal risk is to take up the offer of vaccination. All those eligible should get two doses of the vaccine and when invited, get their booster as a priority to have increased protection. Taking this responsibility and becoming vaccinated means that as well as protecting ourselves we are considerate of others. This will help us all to get back to doing the things we’ve missed the most. It is never too late to get the vaccine and walk-in centres are open to all, including international students.
There you have it. The official narrative, the official perspective.
The Department for Education likewise in its most recent ‘Guidance’ is still pressuring higher education providers to encourage student vaccination. It tells them that they should have ‘communications strategies for students and staff, which will include principles such as [encouraging] students to take up the offer of both doses of the coronavirus vaccine, and the booster jab as soon as they are eligible’.
They inform the universities of the checklist of ‘communications’ they must prepare. This includes making sure that ‘Students are strongly encouraged to get vaccinated and know how to get a Covid-19 vaccine.’ Covid-related ‘behavioural expectations’ for students are clearly set out, including ‘continuing to behave responsibly’. This pressure comes down the line, directed first at the universities and then from the universities (in order, no doubt, to tick their own compliance boxes) to the student body. It is not difficult to see how parents and students come to succumb to it, even against their better judgment, in fear of wasted investment and blighted careers before they start.
Not one of these official publications sets out the balance of risk for students between taking and not taking the jab. Not one explains the vaccine’s limited efficacy against infection or transmission. Appallingly, that the vaccine may not be in students’ short-term or long-term health interests is not even considered.
That is why the Together Declaration’s latest campaign in support of university students to stop this vaccination coercion in order to continue their education is so welcome. What they ask us all to do is to write to the vice chancellors of the main universities. You can copy the text from this letter into an email and then BCC (important that you BCC, not CC) this list of names and send it. If you want to be more personal and diligent you can contact the vice chancellors separately and by name, which you can find here.
If you are on Twitter and any other social media, please tweet this graphic.
‘I contacted all vice chancellors at the main universities today. We hope they will do the right thing and will not be insisting on vaccination as a condition of education.
@UniversitiesUK we hope you will also be pushing institutions to allow freedom of choice’.
Government and universities have no business either to be encouraging students (many of whom will have had and recovered from Covid) to be guinea pigs or to be making vaccination a condition of education. You can tweet that too!
Increased energy prices could “cause heart attacks and strokes”
In the middle of the cost of living crisis, the press has found yet another reason people might keel over… and it’s still not the vaccine.
By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | February 5, 2022
Our UK readers will be familiar with the press coverage of the cost of living crisis in this country, as wages continue to fall further and further behind inflation, and the economy reels from the deliberately devastating lockdown, the cost of everything from food to fuel is ever increasing.
People are understandably troubled and anxious, whether or not the energy cost crisis is genuine or manufactured for the sake of profits, the reality is that many people will face the choice of heating their homes or eating enough food over the last two months of winter and into the spring.
This could easily result in people – especially the elderly or disabled – suffering health problems or even death due to the cold or malnutrition. Many of these people will likely become “covid cases” or “covid deaths” once they’re subjected to the totally unreliable tests.
It’s all a perfect little circuit. And it serves the Covid agenda in more ways than one, because it’s just handed the press yet another explanation for heart attacks that haven’t happened yet.
It seems like only a few days ago we ran an article pointing out all the numerous different reasons the press are predicting people will have heart attacks this year… and that’s because it was.
Stress, anxiety, the weather, “long covid” and a plague of undiagnosed aortic stenosis are all predicted to cause thousands upon thousands of heart attacks and strokes in the near future.
And now so is the increased cost of living.
Appearing on Lorraine on ITV yesterday morning, Dr Amir Khan claimed:
… if you can’t afford to heat your home, it actually causes an increased risk of developing heart attacks and strokes because your blood vessels contract to conserve heat, which pushes your blood pressure up, and over time that has an impact on your heart attack risk.”
In future, maybe they should simply run press releases saying “Covid vaccine only thing in world which doesn’t cause a heart attack”
As Neil Oliver pointed out on Twitter…
Stop ‘harmful’ mass testing of children now, demand MPs
TCW Defending Freedom – February 4, 2022
THE cross-party Pandemic Response and Recovery All-Party Parliamentary Group of MPs met this week to hear whether there is a case for the continued mass testing of healthy children by schools and nurseries.
The committee is co-chaired by Conservative MP Esther McVey and Labour MP Graham Stringer. The group examined the pros and cons of testing in schools, and growing concerns about the likely physical and mental health harms caused by constant testing. Their uncompromising conclusion was that the mass testing of healthy children is ‘harmful, invasive and unevidenced’.
Ms McVey told the group something few of the public outside parents are aware of, which is that children are still routinely being asked to take tests, even at primary school, regardless of whether they have symptoms.
Though the threat of school closures has been lifted and the requirement for children to wear masks rescinded, hundreds of thousands of children are still missing schooling, she said, owing to constant testing and the government requirement for healthy children to isolate.
She informed the group that the evidence presented by their experts found no benefits to mass testing and that the children are not drivers of transmission. They have been disrupted, harmed and distressed despite the absence of any robust randomised control trial evidence of the benefits of mass testing them: ‘The evidence we have heard is clear. Testing in schools must stop, especially in the absence of any sort of study on the impact it has on our children’s physical and mental health. Evidence sessions such as this one are so important, to allow us to get a full picture before we make a decision and put our case to the Government.’
Mr Stringer said: ‘We cannot continue to force such an invasive procedure and we have heard today of children as young as two being physically restrained by their parents, put in headlocks or vomiting after the tests. As I have said before, the evidence to impose these sorts of measures must be overwhelming and I’m not aware the evidence exists that testing healthy children is beneficial and will help stop the spread of SAR-CoV-2. Not to mention the eye-watering sums spent on testing which could have been so much better spent on redressing some of the damage already caused to child mental health. Surely the time has come to stop the mass testing of healthy children?’
The group heard from Dr Angela E Raffle, honorary senior lecturer, University of Bristol Medical School Department of Population Health Sciences, Dr Allyson Pollock, clinical professor of public health at the University of Newcastle, child and adolescent clinical psychologist Dr Zenobia Storah, Professor Ellen Townsend, professor of psychology at the University of Nottingham and Mark Ward, a parent who spoke about the traumatic experiences of testing his toddler.
They all argued against the mass testing of healthy children in schools, highlighting the insufficient scientific and clinical evidence and arguing that, far from being of any public health benefit, mass testing causes significant damage to children.
Dr Raffle said: ‘SARS-CoV-2 testing of healthy school children needs to stop. The World Health Organisation cautions against mass symptomless testing because of high costs, lack of evidence on impact, and risk of diverting resources from more important activities. There is no sound evidence that testing children leads to reduction in serious cases of Covid-19. The policy decision in England to introduce school testing appears to have been a political decision, to create the impression of safety, rather than investing in staffing and ventilation which would have made an impact. The tests being used have not been properly evaluated as self-tests or for use in children. Children are low transmitters compared with adults. The net effect of the school testing is harmful because of the trauma of repeated testing and the disruption to children’s lives through repeated exclusion and isolation. Testing is important when done under medical supervision in order to guide decisions about the best way to treat a child who is ill, but the indiscriminate use of tests in children who are well is unjustified.’
Professor Pollock said: ‘Many of the so-called public health measures applied over the last two years have been no more than blanket measures applied with no evidence but with serious consequences, such as mass testing healthy school children. The tests are inappropriate and in the UK we completely ignored the Wilson and Junger 1968 principles of screening. They are not tests of infectiousness so children were and are being isolated unnecessarily. We know from studies that infected children do not spread the virus to others readily, not other children, their families nor their teachers. Now with the milder Omicron variant, many of them will be asymptomatic, so constantly mass testing healthy children is not only a traumatic experience but an appalling waste of time and is something that should only be done if clinically necessary, such as if a child is ill enough to need medical attention.’
Dr Storah described mass testing of healthy children as ‘harmful, invasive and unevidenced’ and ‘nothing short of state-sponsored child abuse’. She said: ‘I have been working with young people throughout the last two years and have seen a steep rise in mental health conditions as a result of measures like testing. These obsessive infection control measures are causing worrying levels of highly anxious behaviour. They maintain and amplify the fear messaging, further exacerbated when children are surrounded by adults, their parents or teachers, also constantly testing. It is utterly extraordinary for a society to treat their young in such an abusive way, to throw decades of understanding about normal child development out of the window without having considered the risk factors. One in six young people now meets the diagnostic criteria for at least one mental health disorder but there is still time to lessen and even reverse the long-term psychological impact this is having on our children. Children and adolescents need to be prioritised and mass testing, like face coverings, must be consigned to the policy bin, once and for all. What is required immediately is a return to normality for all children and all school and extra-curricular environments.’
Professor of Psychology Ellen Townsend told the group: ‘It is unclear what mass testing healthy children is achieving from a Public Health perspective. No studies have been carried out to understand if there are any benefits and no evaluation has been done on the psychological impact of testing – this is a grave and unethical oversight. We must recognise that children are at minimal risk to others but the harms caused to children, the disruption of testing protocols in schools and the resulting absences, are completely disproportionate to the proclaimed benefits of indiscriminate mass testing. The president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health was quite correct when she said last year that testing in schools was causing unnecessary chaos.’
You can find information about the APPG and its membership here and here.
No question the vaccines increase your susceptibility to COVID. What else do they do?
By Meryl Nass, MD | February 3, 2022
https://www.publichealthscotland.scot/media/11404/22-02-02-covid19-winter_publication_report.pdf
If you live in Scotland, a small country, the government, with its NHS, is like Santa: it knows if you’ve been bad or good. Scotland has 5.5 million residents. Over 5 million of them are listed in Scotland’s report of cases, above. The rest are kids too young for the vaccine. Sadly for Scots, 80% went along with the jab. It didn’t help them. And you can’t dispute these numbers: look at the narrow confidence intervals.
So now we know the jabbed get more COVID. What we suspect is that they also get more heart attacks, strokes, blood clots, autoimmune diseases and myocarditis. Will Scotland release those data, ever?
Different vaccines reveal different side effects
MHRA should release the raw data for public scrutiny
Health Advisory & Recovery Team | February 1, 2022
The MHRA Yellow Card reporting system is designed to provide a signal of possible problems with new drugs based on reports of suspected adverse reactions from qualified medical practitioners. The data collected could be of much more value if more details were published. The MHRA shares such information with the pharmaceutical industry but, despite its role being to protect the public and relying on public funding, this data is not put into the public domain.
To make the most of what information is available the reports on different vaccine types can be compared. Any side effects that are a result of the production of the spike protein itself may be similar between all vaccine types. However, if one vaccine type has a much higher rate of a particular adverse effect than other vaccine types then this is suggestive of a genuine causal relationship. Confounders such as age may account for part of these differences, which is why publishing the raw data is so important.
Data sharing
The Yellow Card scheme is administered by the MHRA, a government body funded, at least in part, by the public. The data for the scheme is collected largely by NHS staff, who are again funded by the public. However, despite public finance being crucial to the generation of Yellow Card data, the MHRA have refused to release the anonymised individual patient data from this scheme for independent analysis (FOI 21/640). The MHRA argue that release of these data would be too onerous, yet paradoxically these same data are passed on to the vaccine manufacturers for analysis as a matter of routine (FOI 21/942). All that the public can access from Yellow Card is a rudimentary summary of the total numbers of adverse events recorded for each vaccine type in particular medical categories.
The MHRA’s attitude to data sharing stands in stark contrast to the situation in the USA, where the VAERS reporting system [2] provides anonymised individual patient data, and the detailed analyses that this allows has been crucial for recognising important safety signals [3] — albeit US Regulators have been slow off the mark in making full use of the data available to them. We note that the MHRA’s refusal to share the information that they hold within the Yellow Card database would not be tolerated in the general science community where access to raw data is now a prerequisite for publication in peer reviewed journals.
Despite the intransigence of the MHRA over the issue of releasing raw data from the Yellow Card scheme to the general public, it is incumbent upon the scientific community to make the maximum use of the data released from the scheme to scrutinise the validity of the conclusions that the MHRA reach in their weekly reports. This is particularly important to achieve because, despite FOI requests to see the scientific analyses on which their conclusions are based, the MHRA have been unable to produce any such reports (FOI 21/942).
Comparing frequency of reports by vaccine type
The weekly data released from the Yellow Card scheme takes the form of the total number of doses of each of the vaccines given, the total number of reports filed for each vaccine type, and the total number of adverse reactions recorded for each of a huge range of medical conditions compiled separately for each of the vaccine types. What insights can we gain from analysis of this information?
A simple question that we can ask is whether the different vaccines elicit the same or different rates of reporting of adverse reactions or number of reactions per report. The answer is clear (Table 1). There is something about a Moderna injection that generates a higher frequency of adverse event reports with less reactions per report than an Astrazeneca vaccination, which in turn generates a higher frequency of reports and more reactions per report than a Pfizer injection. The figures involved are so huge that these differences cannot be due to chance. There is something important happening that needs to be explained.
Table 1. Percentage of vaccinations resulting in a Yellow card report, and mean number of adverse events per report for three covid-19 vaccines administered in the UK
Risk of misinterpretation
Unfortunately, however, our interpretation can never be secure. The results we see could be due to the vaccines themselves. Alternatively, they could also be due to some confounding factor like the differences in age profile of the patients who were injected with different vaccine types, or to certain vaccine types being injected predominantly as boosters, or some combination of such factors. Yet distinguishing between alternative explanations is vital. If the effects we see are indeed due predominantly to vaccine type, this would have serious implications for vaccination policy and optimum choice of vaccine for minimising adverse reactions. However, analysis of confounding effects can only be achieved if the raw, anonymised individual patient data from the Yellow Card scheme are released by MHRA.
Comparing type of report by vaccine type
The second type of question that we can address using the Yellow Card data is whether choice of vaccines affects the spectrum of medical conditions recorded as adverse reactions. To answer this question, we can first sum up the number of adverse events elicited by each vaccine under the broad headings Blood & Vascular, Cardiac, Immune, Reproductive & Breast, Respiratory, Skin, Nervous System, Eye, Muscle and Other. A simple test for heterogeneity indicates that the relative frequency with which these classes of adverse reactions occur is highly dependent on the type of vaccine administered (χ2(18) = 29508, P<<0.001). Figure 1 illustrates the percentage by which the observed numbers of adverse reactions differ from the number expected if all vaccines elicited the same spectrum of adverse reactions. It is clear from the figure that departures from expectations are particularly large in the categories Blood & Vascular, Cardiac, Reproductive & Breast, and Skin; the different vaccines are eliciting quite different relative frequencies of adverse reaction in these categories.
For the categories Blood & Vascular, Cardiac, and to a lesser extent Immune and Reproductive & Breast, much higher than expected numbers of adverse reactions are elicited when the mRNA vaccines are administered, and lower than expected numbers of adverse reactions are found when the virus vectored Astrazeneca vaccine is used. Given that the same spike protein is encoded in the mRNA and virus vectored vaccines, this suggests that differences in the observed spectra of adverse reactions may be related to the mode of delivery of the spike encoding nucleic acid sequence in the vaccine. This observation for the Cardiac category is in agreement with a recent case series analysis which found that the risk of myocarditis is greater following sequential doses of mRNA vaccine than sequential doses of the adenovirus vaccine [4]. The role of the mRNA vaccine delivery system itself in eliciting adverse reactions must therefore come under scrutiny.
Figure 1. Percentage deviation of observed number of adverse reactions from the number expected if the spectrum of adverse events was the same for all vaccines. Data from nine different categories of adverse events are shown
While this example shows that the Yellow Card data may be helpful for generating ideas and supporting other studies, the inadequacy of the partial information currently released by the MHRA means that our interpretation of such data will always be compromised. Again, we do not possess the means to control for possible confounding factors (age and sex of individual, vaccine dose number etc.) that could contribute to the results observed. Nevertheless, in this example, the sheer size of the apparent effects of vaccine type on the spectrum of adverse effects indicates that a thorough investigation is essential. If the vaccine effect were confirmed, this would have serious real-world implications for the Covid-19 vaccination programme and the safety and health of the UK population.
Conclusion
The data we need to carry out the necessary analysis to maximise the usefulness of the Yellow Card scheme has already been collected at the public expense and is currently held by the MHRA. We call upon the MHRA immediately to release the raw, anonymised, individual patient data from the Yellow Card reporting scheme to enable rigorous scrutiny of Covid-19 vaccine adverse events by doctors, researchers and the public. This echoes the recent call by BMJ editors for immediate release of raw data from trials conducted by vaccine manufacturers [5].
2. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vaers/index.html
3. https://jessicar.substack.com/p/a-report-on-myocarditis-adverse-events
4. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1
5. Doshi P, Godlee F, Abbasi K. Covid-19 vaccines and treatments: we must have raw data, now BMJ 2022; 376 Covid-19 vaccines and treatments: we must have raw data, now | The BMJ
Former Pfizer VP Michael Yeadon demands apology from media over ‘lies’ asserting vaccine safety
Dr Michael Yeadon, former Pfizer vice president and co-founder of Doctors for COVID-19 Ethics
By Patrick Delaney | LifeSiteNews | February 2, 2022
After being excoriated by mainstream media outlets regarding his concern that COVID-19 gene-based vaccines could cause fertility issues in young women, Dr. Michael Yeadon is now requesting contrition on the part of media outlets as leaked data from the U.S. military indicates heavy spikes in these tragic outcomes.
“I’m not vindictive, but I want some humility and contrition from the BBC and all other media outlets that lied to their audiences,” said the former Pfizer vice president and Chief Scientist for allergy and respiratory.
Yeadon, who spent 32 years in the industry leading new medicines research and retired from the pharmaceutical giant with the most senior research position in his field, was an author of a submitted petition to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in December 2020 that raised substantial concerns regarding a lack of sufficient testing of the experimental COVID-19 gene-based vaccines, prior to their emergency use authorizations.
With regard to the possibility of the shots endangering the fertility of women, Yeadon and his colleague, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, wrote, “There is no indication whether antibodies against spike proteins of SARS viruses would also act like anti-Syncytin-1 antibodies. However, if this were to be the case this would then also prevent the formation of a placenta which would result in vaccinated women essentially becoming infertile.”
Such a possibility would need to be ruled out through standard experimentation prior to imposing such substances onto the entire population, according to the doctors.
“It’s important to note that none of these gene-based agents had completed what’s called ‘reproductive toxicology,’” Yeadon wrote in his recent statement. “Over a year later, this battery of tests in animals still has not been done. So there was and still is no data package supporting safety in pregnancy or prior to conception.”
Media response to valid concerns: attacks, smears, vilifications
“As a society, we’ve practiced the precautionary principle most assiduously in relation to conception and pregnancy ever since the tragedy of thalidomide, over 60 years ago. So we had hoped that some at least in the media would take this [concern] with the seriousness it deserved,” he wrote.
“Did that happen? No. Instead, we were attacked, smeared and vilified in every medium, from Twitter to the BBC,” the British national wrote. “[M]ajor broadcasters actively lied to the public, explicitly stating that these agents were completely safe in pregnancy.”
Indeed, Reuters excoriated the doctors for making their inquiry “without providing evidence, that the vaccines could cause infertility in women,” shifting the burden of proof onto the petitioners from the regulators whose job it is to ensure proper safety trials are completed before the release of such drugs.
The article quoted an anonymous spokesman for Britain’s Department of Health & Social Care, saying, “These claims are false, dangerous and deeply irresponsible.”
Reuters later attempted to “fact-check” Yeadon as well over several concerns including the danger to fertility, to which he simply reiterated common ethical principles with regard to human experimentation: “No one in their right mind thinks giving experimental treatments to pregnant women is other than reckless. Especially when reproductive toxicity testing is incomplete.”
Of special note for Yeadon was BBC Radio talk show hostess Emma Barnett, who “directly attacked me by name on air in the most unpleasant terms,” which also led to his charging the program with slander. In response, after a bit of investigation, the program editor conceded, apologized to Yeadon, and cut their false representation of the former Pfizer scientist from their recorded podcast.
“[Barnett] also had her guest, who was from the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, repeat the lies that it was perfectly safe for young women to be injected,” Yeadon called out in his statement.
Preprint paper reveals placental-damaging antibodies increased 2.5 fold after shots
Also of note for the former executive was a preprint study published last May that appeared to attempt a rebuttal of his concern that anti-Syncytin-1 antibodies could be developed due to the shots, but instead reinforced them showing a 2.5 fold increase of the placental-damaging antibodies in days 1 to 4 after COVID-19 gene-therapy injections.
The paper, which claimed a conflict of interest in being funded by Johnson & Johnson, went on to explain that though they had observed this major increase, they did not examine its “clinical significance,” thus admitting they didn’t know if these higher levels of the antibody flagged an actual safety problem with regards to fertility and miscarriage.
At the same time, the study’s authors acknowledged data showing “spontaneous miscarriage as the most common obstetric outcome after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.”
Based on the outcome of this study alone, Yeadon said “all of these experimental products as a class should have been completely contraindicated in women younger than menopause.”
Pfizer & Moderna ‘definitely knew’ these mRNA products would ‘accumulate in the ovaries’
An additional source of concern regarding fertility was that “the mRNA products (Pfizer and Moderna) would accumulate in ovaries,” the British national explained.
“An FOI request to the Japanese Medicines Agency revealed that product accumulation in ovaries occurred in experiments in rodents. I searched the literature based on these specific concerns and found a 2012 review [here], explicitly drawing attention to the evidence that the lipid nanoparticle formulations as a class do, in fact, accumulate in ovaries and may represent an unappreciated reproductive risk to humans. This was ‘a well-known problem’ to experts in that field,” Yeadon explained.
“I’ll say that again. The pharmaceutical industry definitely knew, in 2012, that formulating these agents in lipid nanoparticles would lead them to accumulate in the ovaries of women to whom these were given.
“No one in the industry or in leading media could claim ‘they didn’t know about these risks to successful pregnancy,’” he emphasized.
Results from the U.S. military leak confirm damage done to unborn children and fertility
“So it’s with tremendous anger and sorrow that I heard of military physicians blowing the whistle about the evidence of harms in pregnancy that their proprietary safety monitoring database had thrown out,” Yeadon said, referring to last week’s revelations during a U.S. Senate panel discussion.
“In the intervening months since journalists (including but definitely not limited to Emma Barnett) chose to downplay or downright lie about our concerns, we learned that women in the U.S. military were experiencing 3X normal rates of miscarriage,” he explained.
In fact, these data leaks, given by three “decorated high-ranking soldiers who are doctors and public health officials,” in sworn declarations under penalty of perjury, show several increases in negative impacts upon fertility, including spontaneous abortion, among this military population where enforcement of an experimental COVID gene-vaccine mandate is strictly observed.
As presented by these soldiers, the following 2021 increases only include the first 10 months of the year (January through October) and are compared with the full five-year average of figures taken from 2016 through 2020.
- Miscarriages — increase of 279%
- Female infertility – increase of 471%
- Male infertility — increase of 344%
- Congenital malformations (birth defects) – increase of 156%
And considering most children conceived after these injections had not been born before November 2021, the final figure of birth defects is likely to significantly increase as well.
Journalists, regulators and manufacturers: ‘You are way out over thin ice and deep water’
After Yeadon’s request for contrition from the BBC and other media outlets, he went on to implore readers, “please do not get injected with these inherently dangerous and ineffective experimental products. Warn anyone you know about the risks to pregnancy, now confirmed by whistleblowers from physicians in the U.S. military.
“Please also tell them there are likely to be other reproductive health consequences, even in young girls, because of accumulation [of lipid nanoparticles] in their ovaries.“
Having originally alerted the EMA of several other possible toxic outcomes due to the injections, Yeadon highlighted that he and Dr. Wodarg were sadly also right about their warning of “allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccination,” citing examples from the UK of emergency interventions and tragic deaths.
“Having had two of two serious harms we warned about, prior to regulatory authorisations, come to pass,” he said. “I humbly recommend that governments and journalists everywhere recognise what you’ve done and lobby for or directly decide to immediately and completely withdraw all these experimental products from the market, before some of the other specified concerns (or issues we didn’t think of) show up in the safety monitoring systems.”
“Journalists, regulators, healthcare professionals and politicians, as well [as], of course, the manufacturers, you are way out over thin ice and deep water. I don’t know how you’re planning to get out from under this before the wider public more fully appreciates what you’ve done,” Yeadon wrote.
“One possibility is that you won’t be able to hide your complicity in the massed harms you’ve done to millions of people. In this case, I look forward to giving evidence against you in a court of law,” he concluded.
Dr. Yeadon’s full statement can be accessed here.
How Many Pregnant Women Have Actually Died of COVID-19?
The Daily Sceptic | February 3, 2022
There follows a guest post by a Daily Sceptic reader, who wishes to remain anonymous, who, being pregnant, was following closely the advice and studies concerning pregnant women. However, her own analysis of the reports on the deaths of pregnant women with COVID-19 suggested that the alarming statistics about Covid in pregnancy she was being provided with did not stack up.
As a pregnant woman, I have been following advice and studies that concern this group closely. Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find any balanced information amongst the blatant propaganda. I am so sick of being told at every turn that ICU is full of unvaccinated pregnant women. Below is an example of the stuff that gets shared online by my local maternity team.
So I thought I would look at what stats MBRRACE had released lately. They have two reports that caught my eye in particular: one on maternal Covid deaths March-May 2020 (10 women) and another covering the period June 2020-March 2021 (17 women).
Despite being such a small group of people, I feel that each case is a fascinating story that paints a dramatically different picture to that portrayed by the media and the NHS. Here are some points that stood out to me from each report
March-May 2020 (10 deaths)
- None of the women who died received any actual treatment, just support.
- Three of the ten women died because they were too scared to go to hospital.
- Four women died of suicide and not being able to access help was a factor (I don’t think they were included in the ten deaths, but the insinuation is that Covid restrictions contributed to their deaths).
- Two women were murdered by their partners, with health services already knowing they were at risk (again, I don’t think they were included in the ten, but the insinuation about restrictions is there again).
- The quote “pregnancy [sic] and postpartum women do not appear to be at higher risk of severe COVID-19 than non-pregnant women” seems telling.
- Only two women were classified as having received “good care”.
June 2020-March 2021 (17 deaths)
- Three women did not even have Covid but died as a result of the side effects of restrictions.
- Four women tested positive but died of unrelated causes – two of these women received poor care because of their Covid status.
- 60% of the women who actually died from Covid were obese and a further 20% were overweight.
- 50% had pre-existing mental health conditions (personally I believe that this both prevents women from being able to speak up for themselves and creates a stigma that they are ‘difficult patients’).
- One woman died at home of a urinary tract infection because no translator was available for her telephone appointment.
- Four women died because they were too scared to go to hospital – one of these women sought no antenatal care at all and died after giving birth at home.
- One woman died after being given painkillers for backache – she was only seen remotely by a GP so he or she couldn’t see she was both heavily pregnant and had sepsis.
- Another woman died of sepsis from a miscarriage because doctors assumed she just had (asymptomatic) Covid.
- A woman died of obvious kidney/liver problems shortly after birth because again, doctors bizarrely assumed she was actually suffering from Covid following a positive routine test.
- 90% of the women who died had “care” that was not managed by the RCOG guidelines.
- One woman was not given treatment despite poor clinical indications, as she did not “look sick”.
- Three women who were very poorly and were considered for ECMO were denied this despite not having any contraindications.
- One woman died from a pulmonary embolism at home after her GP’s online triage system did not recognise either her Covid status or recent pregnancy as risk factors and didn’t give her an urgent appointment.
- Only 10% of the women received “good care”, and in 70% improvements in care may have meant they survived.
The reports are heartbreaking and I do not wish to diminish the pain that these women’s families must be suffering, but it is abundantly clear that very few of these women died from actual Covid – many appear to be victims of the restrictions and fear – and the handful that did had significant confounding factors.
Featured Video
IRAN WAR “ON PAUSE” – w/ Prof. Glenn Diesen
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Because no animal reservoir has been found for SARS-CoV-2, it cannot properly be termed a zoonosis.* Should we call it a labnosis? And what does that mean?
By Meryl Nass, MD | July 12, 2021
After a year and a half of seeking but not finding SARS-2 in any wildlife anywhere (apart from domesticated or zoo animals that appear to have caught it from humans) is it time to say, yes, it didn’t just escape from a lab. It was created, built, assembled in a lab. Or many labs
Coronavirus scientists have been constructing new viruses out of bits and pieces of other viruses for a long time.
Why did they do it? … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- IRAN WAR “ON PAUSE” – w/ Prof. Glenn Diesen
- Zelensky threatens to attack Belarus
- UK to send Ukraine 150,000 drones
- ‘Biased censorship’: Iran deputy FM slams X for stripping him of blue tick
- Hezbollah lawmaker says Israel has 60 days to withdraw from Lebanon
- Iran rules out IAEA inspections of war-damaged nuclear sites
- Israeli regime’s only interest is ‘permanent war,’ Iran’s FM Araghchi says
- Syria, Lebanon, and the limits of power
- How Multipolarity Forced Trump to Capitulate… For Now
- Switzerland confirms US-Iran talks planned for Friday are cancelled
- If Americans Knew
- UNICEF: “Trauma is woven into the very fabric of childhood in Gaza”
- 15 articles a day: The extent of the Israeli army’s media interference
- Greek Orthodox Patriarchate denounces Israeli seizure of church land in Jerusalem
- How Hillel International uses antisemitism training and ‘campus climate’ concerns to attack Palestine solidarity
- Old Iraq war architects rise up against Trump’s Iran deal
- Unmasking Axios, its Israeli ties and agenda
- Israel Is Bleeding Support in the U.S. – and Pouring Tens of Millions Into Trying to Change That
- Israeli army included on UN blacklist for 3rd year over ‘grave violations’ against children
- Trita Parsi on the Iran deal, Israel, and how Iran has been a ‘cash cow’ for AIPAC
- JD Vance speaks truth to Israel: “You can’t just kill your way out of every problem” – Daily Update
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Chile’s Relative Sea Level Was 3.2 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Beyond The Pitch: Why FIFA’s World Cup Is One Of Humanity’s Best Investments
- Climate Alarmists Now Using Natural Phenomena To Support Their Claims
- New Study: Significant CO2 Fluxes From Non-Volcanic Sources Are Largely Neglected In Carbon Budgets
- Women Climate Scientists Being Harassed, Insulted By Skeptics, Claims Berkeley Earth Researcher
- Germany’s Longterm Spring Climate Data Show “No Climate Trend”
- New Study: Solar Photovoltaic, Wind Power Fail To Meet Annual Energy Demands 62% Of The Time
- Germany’s Die Welt: “Too Much Is Too Much” … Green Energies Are Cannabalizing Each Other!
- Germany’s Ecological Holocaust… Once Fairy Tale Forests Getting Cleared For Wind Turbines
- A Grand Solar Minimum Has Arrived…Global Cooling Of At Least 1°C Is Expected By The 2030s, 2040s
Aletho News 
