Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Why have we doctors been silent?

By Lucie Wilk | TCW Defending Freedom | November 15, 2021

AS an NHS hospital doctor, I have had a front-row seat as the drama of the coronavirus pandemic has unfolded. It has been a year and a half of confusion, frustration and anger for me as I’ve watched our profession drawn into complicity with what I anticipate will be regarded as one of the most egregious public health disasters in history.

I have watched as ‘the science’ has been presented on the national stage flanked by Union Jack flags as an unassailable truth. For something so apparently inviolable, it seems to shift and change disconcertingly from week to week, and for those of us looking beneath the pomp to the plain data, we see the rather unexciting (and unchanging) truth: the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, as it turns out, has a much lower infection fatality rate than early predictions. It is less deadly than the seasonal flu in children. The Office for National Statistics has reported the mean age of a Covid-attributed death in the UK to be 80.3 years, slightly older than deaths from other causes (78.2 years over the comparable time period).

What has been most upsetting for me has been the unquestioning compliance from the medical community as increasingly draconian, non-evidence-based and destructive virus control measures have been implemented. Some of the overt corruption, financial conflict of interests and politicisation has been laid bare in editorials in prominent medical journals such as the BMJ. But the vast majority of doctors have had no interest in asking questions or looking further.

My concern over our professional passivity turned to alarm as our compliance required us to support the roll-out of an experimental vaccine to a trusting population.

Contrary to the basic tenets of evidence-based medicine, pronouncing an experimental medical intervention ‘safe and effective’ now does not seem to require any peer-reviewed evidence of safety or clinically meaningful efficacy. The vaccines have not been shown in clinical trials to reduce transmission, hospitalisation or death. The phase 3 trials are not over and the safety data is not complete; the earliest trials will run into 2023.

The consent form for the Covid-19 vaccine does not disclose its status as an unlicensed experimental product. The risks remain largely unknown, although it is becoming clear that the vaccine has resulted in death or injury in a rising number of healthy people. A growing number of vaccine-induced syndromes are being recognised, including immune thrombotic thrombocytopaenia, myocarditis and menstrual irregularities, among many others being published in the literature. At the time of writing, there have been more than 380,000 reports, 1.2million injuries and 1,700 fatalities submitted under the MHRA Yellow Card scheme.

The Prime Minister himself has communicated the latest evidence, that two doses of the vaccine do not stop one contracting the virus, nor do they stop person-to-person transmission, they merely reduce the severity of symptoms. Despite this, it is clear the public are being subjected to a relentless media campaign of shame and coercion, that they must take this experimental product ‘for the greater good’ lest they be viewed as selfish cowards. A vaccine passport is now likely to be rolled out under ‘Plan B’, which proposes to return unlawfully usurped fundamental human rights and freedoms to only the vaccinated. Workers in the care home sector have had their livelihoods tethered to their compliance with the vaccine mandates, and a recent announcement confirms that this will soon include NHS employees. Not only is there no scientific basis for these mandates, these coercive actions breach the Nuremberg Code, as does the unprecedented lack of animal safety data for a novel medical product. A betrayal of the Nuremberg Code constitutes a crime against humanity.

It does not end there. The campaign marches on, and now includes the vaccination of children against a disease that has a statistically negligible chance of harming them. In the world of evidence-based medicine we doctors must weigh risks and benefits, we must ensure the risk of harm is far exceeded by the potential for protection or cure. In this case, with no real risk to healthy children from the infection, any harm is utterly unjustifiable. And the risk of harm is very real and measurable. Vaccine-related myocarditis is now a recognised injury, the risk inversely proportionate to age. Although rare, myocarditis can be fatal, and fatality is more common in the younger population. For reasons that have nothing to do with health, and despite the JCVI advisory board concluding that the health benefits do not outweigh the risks to children, the government is advising that we administer a medicine that carries a risk of serious injury to children who are healthy and who have no significant risk from the disease it purports to protect them against.

Despite all this, and despite our training to look at scientific literature and data with a critical eye, the silence from the medical community in the UK has been deafening. Yet we are the ones who should be shouting all of this from the rooftops. This is a duty of care and an oath we have forgotten.

It is typically those of us most conditioned by the expectations of society, utterly obedient and deferent to authority, who gain entry to medicine. One can see the path: we were good, compliant children and then good, compliant students. Now we are good, compliant doctors. I’m beginning to understand that goodness is measured in a different way, and obedience is not a virtue.

Obedience is learned through fear, threat and intimidation; it is in fact trauma programming and achieved through small control gestures when we were young and helpless. Now we are adults but still operating under these childhood programmes of beliefs and fears. We still feel helpless and beholden to a higher authority. We still submit to an authoritative decree even when it overrides our inherent moral compass.

The horrors of the classic Milgram experiment demonstrated that we live in a deeply traumatised culture, and the same conditioning, in my view, has shaped the medical community and its silence.

Even on the occasion when my counter-narrative evidence cannot be denied by a colleague, the usual response is: ‘It’s coming from the government; our hands are tied.’ But the truth is that most of the time doctors don’t want to see the evidence; their subconscious has prevented them seeing that the parent-like authorities of government, Sage and the MHRA, upon which we project a childlike trust, might be misguided, corrupted or dishonest.

And so we comment to each other on all the changes we are witnessing months into the vaccine roll-out: the unseasonal surge in hospital admissions, the post-jab autoimmune conditions and coagulation disorders, the numbers of ‘double-jabbed’ patients admitted with severe Covid infection, the numbers of lives ruined by lockdown and other Covid control policies. I challenge any doctor to deny that all of this simply feels wrong. To avoid this uncomfortable, authentic, human feeling – important information that should be acted upon – we will reach for something rote. ‘Anecdote is not evidence’ and ‘association is not causation’ will be the justification for carrying on, no questions asked, even though most of the damaging control measures implemented from on high were not based on any evidence at all. Meanwhile, an already struggling NHS has been damaged beyond repair by many of these policies. We are overwhelmed by the demand that we cannot meet, and the complexity of the crisis feels far beyond just one hospital Trust. The locus of responsibility to investigate remains above us and we wait for someone with more authority to come round and make sense of it.

And as we remain silent, the destruction continues.

Most of us went into medicine for the right reasons: to help the vulnerable, to reduce suffering. I know my colleagues are kind and well-intentioned and that their faith in our unelected public health policymakers is the result of a lifetime of conditioning. For those of us who have looked at the data and see the truth, I understand the fear: the risk of non-conformity is immense; careers, reputations and livelihoods are at stake. I recognise an even larger threat: a threat to our chosen profession, our life purpose, the possibility that we have been following a false god in our honest intentions to help the ill. We are at a difficult crossroads, but the choice for me is clear.

Although I am not on the front line in the ‘fight’ against coronavirus, and have had nothing to do with the vaccine campaign, I feel complicit in this public deception. I can no longer hide within a system that has proved itself to be weak-willed and unwilling to stand against the irrevocable erosion of inalienable human rights and freedoms in the name of public health safety. It is past the time for us to grow up, stand up and speak out.

November 15, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Negative Vaccine Effectiveness Isn’t a New Phenomenon – it Turned Up in the Swine Flu Vaccine

By Mike Hearn | The Daily Sceptic | November 15, 2021

The Daily Sceptic has for some time been reporting on the apparent negative vaccine effectiveness visible in raw U.K. health data. Despite some age ranges now showing that the vaccinated are more than twice as likely to get Covid as the unvaccinated, this is routinely adjusted out, leading UKHSA to un-intuitively claim that the vaccines are still highly effective even against symptomatic disease. A recent post by new contributor Amaneunsis explains the Test Negative Case Control approach (TNCC) used by authorities and researchers to adjust the data, and demonstrates that while a theoretically powerful way to remove some possible confounders, it rests on an initially reasonable-sounding assumption that vaccines don’t make your susceptibility to infection worse:

A situation where this assumption may be violated is the presence of viral interference, where vaccinated individuals may be more likely to be infected by alternative pathogens.

Chua et al, Epidemiology, 2020

Amanuensis then compares results between the two different statistical approaches in a Qatari study to explore whether violation of this assumption is a realistic possibility and concludes that the multi-variate logistic regression found in their appendix supports the idea that viral interference can start happening a few months after initial vaccination.

What other angles can we explore this idea through? One way is to read the literature on prior epidemics.

H1N1

Between 2009-2010 there was a pandemic of H1N1 influenza, better known as Swine Flu. In April 2009 a small outbreak was detected in northern British Columbia. Researchers from Canada’s public health agencies researched the outbreak by doing interviews, testing and sero-surveys of the affected population. They were especially interested in the question of how effectively the routine trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) was protecting people against H1N1.

The effect they saw was unexpected and previously unknown: people who had taken the flu vaccine had a more than doubled chance of getting sick with flu during the H1N1 outbreak:

We present the first observation of an unexpected association between prior seasonal influenza vaccination and pH1N1 illness … participants reporting pH1N1-related ILI during the period 1 April through 5 June 2009 were more than twice as likely to report having previously received seasonal influenza vaccine.

Janjua et al, Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2010

This result was shocking to the researchers. They were well aware of the impact these results could have on public support for the influenza vaccine programme and thus they didn’t merely double check their results, or request another team replicate their findings. They waited a year and a half, until six different investigations were all saying the same thing:

Canadian investigators thus embarked on a series of confirmatory studies… these showed 1.4–2.5- fold increased risk of medically attended, laboratory-confirmed pH1N1 illness among prior 2008–2009 TIV recipients… 6 observational studies based on different methods and settings, including the current outbreak investigation, consistently showed increased risk of pH1N1 illness during the spring and summer of 2009 associated with prior receipt of the 2008–2009 TIV

After the sixth study they seem to have accepted that the effect they were seeing was real.

One reason for their hesitation was that studies reported in other countries were inconclusive. Some suggested protective effects; nearly as many suggested no effect at all, and one other report showed increased risk. However, there was a very real risk of the so-called ‘file drawer’ problem, where inconvenient research simply doesn’t get published at all, and the Canadians had by this point made an enormous effort to make the conclusions go away via further research. The follow-up investigations left them with a high degree of confidence in what they were seeing, thus they explained contradictory foreign studies as being likely a result of either Canada-specific factors or flawed studies:

Findings of pH1N1 risk associated with TIV – consistent in Canada but conflicting elsewhere – may have been due to methodological differences and/or unrecognised flaws, differences in immunisation programs or population immunity, or a specific mechanistic effect of Canadian TIV. High rates of immunisation and the use of a single domestic manufacturer to supply >75% of the TIV in Canada may have enhanced the power within Canada to detect a vaccine-specific effect.

Quality analysis

How robust is this research? This is an epidemiological study and by now it’s worth being extremely sceptical of such papers, even if they run counter-narrative. Surprisingly, this paper seems quite good. It’s not written by epidemiologists and bears little resemblence to the sort of modelling papers that now dominate policy making. In particular, it:

  • Makes no predictions, only studies past events to learn from them.
  • Puts actual boots on the ground to gather the data they need.
  • Correlates self-reported symptoms with a sero-survey.
  • Makes restrained use of statistical methods (the primary results are a standard logistic regression).
  • Controls for age, chronic conditions, Aboriginal status and household density, a selection which looks reasonable (the epidemic affected an Aboriginal reserve and they differ from the normal Canadian population health wise in several aspects).
  • Stratifies by age. Note that Swine Flu was the opposite of COVID: it affected the young worse than the elderly.
  • Honestly discusses the weaknesses of their study, which are primarily due to the small size of the epidemic rather than anything they could have addressed.

If there are errors in this work they are of a type that aren’t easily spotted by outsiders. Although we should give a tip of the hat to this team, after reading so many absurd public health papers over the past two years it’s nonetheless hard to escape the feeling that when researchers are about to violate some tenet of vaccine dogma they suddenly become model scientists, presumably in the hope that by applying higher standards they’ll find a reason why their results are wrong.

Other investigations

In 2018 Rikin et al published a study in the journal Vaccine designed to solve “the misperception that inactivated vaccine can cause influenza” which was acting as “a barrier to influenza vaccination“. They concluded that the folk intuition they were fighting wasn’t actually wrong in any meaningful way, due to the presence of viral interference:

Among children there was an increase in the hazard of [acute respiratory illness] caused by non-influenza respiratory pathogens post-influenza vaccination compared to unvaccinated children during the same period. Potential mechanisms for this association warrant further investigation. Future research could investigate whether medical decision-making surrounding influenza vaccination may be improved by acknowledging patient experiences, counseling regarding different types of ARI, and correcting the misperception that all ARI occurring after vaccination are caused by influenza.

Rikin et al, Vaccine, 2018

Although the paper claims that the mechanisms warrant further investigation, in reality at least one mechanism had been hypothesised as far back as 1960. In a seminal paper Thomas Francis Jr. coined the term “original antigen sin” to describe the way the immune system appears to prefer re-manufacturing antibodies for antigens similar to those it’s seen before, versus developing new antibodies customised for a slightly different invader. The odd name may be due to Francis Jr. having a Presbyterian priest as a father, thus OAS is sometimes summarised as “the first flu is forever”. This imprinting process can cause the immune system to misfire when challenged with a similar but different virus.

Some evidence for this comes from a 2017 review paper in the Journal of Infectious Diseases titled “The Doctrine of Original Antigenic Sin”, which stated:

Approximately 40 years ago, it was observed that sequential influenza vaccination might lead to reduced vaccine effectiveness (VE). This conclusion was largely dismissed after an experimental study involving sequential administration of then-standard influenza vaccines. Recent observations have provided convincing evidence that reduced VE after sequential influenza vaccination is a real phenomenon.

Monto et al, Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2017

Amusingly, the paper also states that, “Hoskins et al concluded at that time that prior infection is more effective than vaccination in preventing subsequent infection, an observation that remains undisputed.” How times change.

Speculating for a moment, viral interference might explain why despite influenza vaccines being advertised as having positive efficacy multiple studies have failed to find any impact on mortality at the population level (effectiveness). For example, in 2004 a U.S. government study concluded that they “could not correlate increasing vaccination coverage after 1980 with declining mortality rates in any age group” and “observational studies substantially overestimate vaccination benefit”. This is difficult to reconcile with trials and studies showing efficacy at sizes smaller than overall population, but could be explained if vaccines merely redirect immune resources towards one pathogen away from equally dangerous variants. The same phenomenon was found in Italy.

There are also counter-studies. By 2018 awareness was growing of the problem of viral interference and the impact it can have on TNCC effectiveness metrics. In 2020 Wolff published a study of flu outbreaks in the U.S. military. It opens by confirming the problem highlighted by Amanuensis:

The virus interference phenomenon goes against the basic assumption of the test-negative vaccine effectiveness study that vaccination does not change the risk of infection with other respiratory illness, thus potentially biasing vaccine effectiveness results in the positive direction.

Wolff, Vaccine, 2020

This time “receipt of influenza vaccination was not associated with virus interference among our population”. However the results of this study are rather contradictory and confusing, e.g. it also says “Examining non-influenza viruses specifically, the odds of both coronavirus and human metapneumovirus in vaccinated individuals were significantly higher when compared to unvaccinated individuals (OR = 1.36 and 1.51, respectively)”. Overall, Wolff seems to have found a mixed bag of effects in which the vaccines worked against influenza, but made some other viruses easier to catch and still others harder.

Analysis

Despite the institutional pedigree of the Canadian public health researchers reporting the problem, other researchers have struggled to accept it. They are subject to the same systematic social conditioning as everyone else, which is why the HSA’s explanation of why they use the TNCC methodology starts by simply saying “vaccines work”, even though their raw data actually shows the exact opposite – for the original definition of “work”, at least.

As a consequence researchers sometimes hide this problem when it arises by deleting negative effectiveness from data sets or models. Recently UCL modellers responded to the changing UK data by simply imposing a zero lower bound. No justification was given for this, and as the above papers show, presumably no literature survey was done to sanity-check this “fix”. The Qatari study initially also did this, and thus their key results (see table 2) vary wildly between initial and final versions. Fortunately, they realised that this was not scientific and changed their approach before publication.

The problem seems to go like this: everyone knows vaccines work, thus data showing they don’t must be in error and in need of fixing. Different adjustments are tried for confounders (sometimes real, sometimes hypothetical) until the data comes good, at which point the results are published and the idea that vaccines work is reinforced, leading to a greater propensity to view opposing data as flawed and in need of correction… ad infinitum.

The raw data now departs so seriously from the conclusions drawn from it that it would require a staggeringly huge behavioural change between the two camps to explain, one which stretches credulity past breaking point. The argument that the data requires adjustment/replacement due to speculated behavioural differences has another problem: that’s a sword that cuts in both directions. UKHSA is keen to stress that its raw data shows some effectiveness against hospitalisation. But that data is hopelessly confounded at this point by the fact that vaccine recipients are being told, in no uncertain terms, that while they might well get sick with Covid after taking it, the vaccine means their case won’t be “severe” and they definitely won’t need to go to hospital. “Severe” is a vague standard. Because Covid has a wide range of severities there will be many borderline cases where going to hospital is effectively a choice that could go either way.

Opinion polling shows consistently that governments and media have catastrophically failed to educate the population about Covid correctly: people routinely estimate that the unvaccinated infection:fatality ratio is orders of magnitude higher than it really is. In a recent French survey the population estimated the IFR at an astounding 16% (the true level is closer to 0.1%-0.3%) and their understanding of severity has got worse over time. If you previously believed that you had a 16% chance of dying if you got Covid, you were very likely to rush to hospital immediately on presentation of more or less any Covid-like symptoms. If you now believe that the vaccine reduces this risk to negligible levels then you’re very unlikely to bother unless you become quite seriously sick indeed, because to do so would effectively be a repudiation of the advice of government, scientific and medical authority. And if there’s one behavioural difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated that is more plausible than any other, it’s that the vaccinated are self-selecting for strong faith in scientific claims by authority figures. I’ve not yet seen any recognition by public health that this confounder exists – they are literally telling people what to do, and then declaring victory when people do it. If hospitalisation was 100% a force of nature that involved no element free will this wouldn’t matter, but the 50% drop in A&E admissions at the start of lockdown showed quite clearly that it’s not.

Conclusions

Negative effectiveness is important because if a vaccine halves your risk of getting one virus but doubles your risk of getting a closely related virus, you can end up back at square one. In fact, you’d end up in a worse position than when you started because vaccination programmes aren’t free: they consume enormous resources, both financially and in terms of public health staffing, and cause collateral damage via vaccine injuries (hence why vaccine manufacturers refuse to accept liability for harm caused by their products). It’s therefore of critical importance to understand the gestalt effect of vaccination on the immune system, and not merely on the specific variant of a virus that was originally targeted.

The fact that papers published as recently as 2018 are talking about negative vaccine effectiveness as a new, not really understood effect should give governments serious pause for thought. Most people in public health are clearly unfamiliar with this phenomenon – as indeed we all are – and are thus tempted to either ignore it, delete it from their data, or try to convince the public that it must be a statistical artefact and anyone talking about it is guilty of spreading “misinformation”. The reports in these papers provide recent evidence that vaccines making epidemics worse is in fact a real phenomenon and that it has been previously detected by serious researchers who took every effort to avoid that conclusion.

Nonetheless, despite my harsh words about IFR education above, we must acknowledge that the UKHSA is so far standing by the basic moral and foundational principles of public statistics. Their answer to the confounders and denominators debate is clearly written, straightforward, reasonable and ends by saying:

We believe that transparency – coupled with explanation – remains the best way to deal with misinformation.

That’s absolutely true. The deep exploration of obscure but important topics by independent parties is possible in the U.K. largely because the HSA is not only publishing statistics in both raw and processed forms, but has continued to do so even in the face of pressure tactics from organisations like Full Fact and the so-called Office for Statistical Regulation (whose contribution to these matters has so far been quite worthless). England is one of the very few countries in the world in which this level of conversation is possible, as most public health agencies have long ago decided not to trust the population with raw data in useful form. While the outcomes may or may not be “increasing vaccine confidence in this country and worldwide”, as the HSA goes on to say, there are actually things more important than vaccines that people need confidence in – like government and society itself. Trustworthy and rigorously debated government statistics are a fundamental pillar on which democratic legitimacy and thus social stability rests. Other parts of the world should learn from the British government’s example.

Many questions now lie open:

  1. To what extent does negative effectiveness require viruses to be different? For example, is the difference between H1N1 and the flu strains targeted by the Canadian TIV bigger, smaller or the same as the gap between COVID Alpha and COVID Delta, as perceived by the immune system?
  2. Although highly suggestive, is this genuinely happening with COVID vaccines, or is raw negative effectiveness due to something else, e.g. a temporal artefact caused by splitting waves into two overlapping waves as effectiveness wears off, or indeed, due to lack of adjustments for factors that TNCC fixes even though it may introduce other problems?
  3. Should this cause health authorities to abandon TNCC as a methodology, despite its speed and cost advantages?

The fact that TNCC can artificially make vaccines appear more effective than they really are, and that this would actually have happened during the Swine Flu pandemic, should really be addressed at the highest levels before anyone uses terms like “misinformation” again.

Mike Hearn is a software engineer who between 2006-2014 worked at Google in roles involving data analysis.

November 15, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Welsh Government can’t provide any evidence for vaccine passport effectiveness

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | November 13, 2021

The Welsh Liberal Democrats continue their campaign against introduction of Covid Passes, calling attention to the fact that not even those in government who are pushing the controversial certificates are able to properly justify them.

On its site, the party noted that the Welsh government has admitted to not having any empirical evidence that introducing Covid passes helped stem the tide of coronavirus transmission in places of mass gatherings of people.

Naturally, the government response to a question on this subject didn’t put the evaluation of the effectiveness of Covid passes in quite so many words, but the opposition interpreted them to mean just that.

The scheme was launched on October 11, and a month later, the Liberal Democrats are quoting a reply they got to their letter about this issue sent to Health Minister Eluned Morgan by party leader Jane Dodd.

In it, Morgan says that too little time had elapsed since the rollout of Covid passes to be able to assess their effectiveness, but that there was “positive feedback” from stakeholders and users of the passes. And it seems the positive feedback has to do with subjective feelings, rather than, as the Liberal Democrats put it, hard evidence.

Covid pass, Morgan writes, has given those holding it “the confidence to attend venues and events, knowing everyone else is either fully vaccinated or has had a very recent negative test result.”

Commenting on this response, Dodd noted that laws with such a strong impact on people’s civil liberties must be justified by strong evidence. She also noted that her party was not opposed to efforts to curb Covid and associated harm, but insists that action taken to this end “must be proportional and based on an evidence-based strategy that has a clear outcome.”

Dodd went on to cite a leaked UK government document that showed Covid passes might even be harmful in terms of producing more infections as more people are gathering in smaller spaces – possibly under a false sense of security.

And even though Morgan cited positive feedback from “stakeholders,” the businesses affected by Covid passes continue to feel increased burden from the scheme, while not receiving financial aid to help them cope.

Lastly, Dodd urged the government to state a precise date when this policy, which she said was “introduced without sufficient evidence,” will come to an end.

November 13, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Why does Iran say we do not have ‘nuclear negotiations’?

By Abdolreza Hadizadeh | Press TV | November 13, 2021

The first step in any negotiation is that the participants must share common views on the issue that will be discussed. The main topic takes center stage and viewpoints on its resolution will be put to consultation by the countries participating in the negotiations. Iran’s Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian and his deputy Ali Baqeri-Kani are seeking to build a common understanding about the nature of future discussions through making trips and phone calls with their counterparts.

In this regard, the Islamic Republic of Iran stresses that it will not participate in any talks revolving around the nuclear issue, and that the country’s nuclear program will not be the topic of any future negotiations.

But, what is the reason for such position in the talks which are set to start on November 29?

The case of negotiations related to Iran’s nuclear issue was closed in 2015 and the parties achieved significant results. In the course of the talks leading up to the nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1 group of countries, the Islamic Republic faced unsubstantiated and political allegations. The country had also been subjected to attacks and questions that led it to be unjustly accused by Western media. Therefore, Iran had to build the necessary trust to show its goodwill seriousness.

So, Iran made large-scale retreats in the field of peaceful nuclear energy before the lifting of sanctions. This issue was strongly challenged inside the country. Critics of the agreement in Iran raised the question of why the Zionist regime is engaged in non-peaceful activities without being a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (​NPT) while Iran is not supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency and even punished in some way despite its NPT membership and extensive cooperation with the UN atomic watchdog.

The negotiations reached a conclusion and all countries were obliged to honor their commitments based on a specific timetable.

According to the deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the IAEA was responsible for verifying Iran’s practical measures at its nuclear sites. Later, in 16 reports, the body confirmed goodwill on the part of the Islamic Republic and its full implementation of the nuclear agreement.

These verification reports proved that Iran’s nuclear issue was only a political case brought by the country’s enemies and rivals. Iran’s full commitment to nuclear restrictions took place while the administration of former US president Barack Obama violated the JCPOA through various sanctions and pressure.

After that, the unilateral and illegal withdrawal of Obama’s successor, Donald Trump, from the JCPOA completed the unfinished work of the Democrats, and thus the United States practically violated an international agreement as well as UN Security Council Resolution 2231. Other JCPOA members either failed to provide Iran with the economic benefits of the deal or, like the three European countries, sided with America.

Hence, the United States and the European states are accused of reneging on their obligations. After the US pullout from the JCPOA, the Islamic Republic exercised more than two years of “strategic patience” to prevent the collapse of the nuclear pact.

Then Iran decided, in accordance with Articles 36 and 37 of the deal, to expand its peaceful nuclear activities and take reciprocal measures in the face of the blatant violation of the agreement.

The difference between the political actions of the Islamic Republic and the United States was that Washington through its withdrawal from the JCPOA breached the international agreement, while Tehran expanded its nuclear activities using the mechanisms and methods in the agreement to reaffirm its commitment to the failed deal.

However, the US government’s measures seriously damaged and weakened the deal, and significantly increased the Iranian people’s distrust towards Washington, according to opinion polls.

Investigation into one JCPOA signatory’s violation of its commitments is now the subject of the talks, and other axes of the negotiations will be formed around it, the most important of which are as follows:

1) The Islamic Republic will by no means renegotiate its previously negotiated nuclear issues. Other subjects such as missile and regional issues will also be off the agenda of the talks.

2) If the US government allows itself to completely change its policy towards international obligations after the change of each government, it must give the new Iranian government the right to at least oppose part of the Vienna talks under the previous administration and call for the beginning of new negotiations.

3) The US government’s unilateral and illegal move has made the high wall of mistrust between Iran and America stronger and more stable. If current US officials regard as wrong the path pursued in the past and regret it, they should take confidence-building measures now.

Unfortunately, so far, despite US President Joe Biden’s criticism of Trump’s policies towards the nuclear deal, Iran has not seen any serious change. Hours after taking office, Biden issued 17 executive orders to annul the previous administration’s decisions, but regarding Iran, he continued Trump’s strategy. This matter intensifies the need for the US to build trust.

4) The US has inflicted heavy damage on Iran over the past three years due to its unilateral withdrawal from the nuclear deal. The United States must apologize, compensate the losses, and compensate for Iran’s lack of benefit from the JCPOA.

5) Following confidence-building measures, the US must completely fulfill its obligations. It must remove visa bans, as well as the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA), the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), and more than 1,500 sanctions imposed on our country by US governments since its signing of the JCPOA.

6) Iran should have ample time to verify the normalization of its trade and the transfer of currency into the country.

7) The United States must commit itself not to violate its obligations with the change of governments in the country. Additionally, due to the growing distrust towards the US, its ability to trigger the snapback mechanism should be blocked and locked.

8) With the lifting of sanctions and the compensation for the damage inflicted on Iran, along with America’s commitment not to renege on its obligations again, Iran can take steps to return to the restrictions imposed under the JCPOA and thus the nuclear deal can be revived.

November 13, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Anti-Covid pass campaigners’ message – Welsh defeat won’t stop us

TCW Defending Freedom – November 10, 2021

YESTERDAY was a dark day for Wales as plans to extend the use of Covid passes were agreed by the Welsh Parliament, the Senedd – no thanks to Plaid Cymru who shamefully backed the government – and  set to start next Monday.

So no more cinemas, theatres, or concert halls for the new pariahs of Welsh society, no freedom for anyone who chooses not to have the experimental covid ‘vaccine’.

How very nasty, how very irrational.

The group Together, who have been co-ordinating a national campaign and who were in Cardiff lobbying yesterday, rightly refuse to be set back. They will keep on fighting this injustice. We all must. As they pointed out in their supporters’ email today, there has been no attempt by the Welsh Government to provide any evidence whatsoever (which they can’t, since the evidence does not stack up) to justify this egregious theft of individual liberty. They also report on the bad faith of the Senedd who refused to let its members speak to them. So much for any vestige of a free society in Wales.

That said, the Together team reported how inspiring it was to see so many people come from various parts of the UK to Cardiff to have their voices heard together. What is needed now, they say, is to get as many people who want to enjoy life normally and see friends without restrictions in a discriminatory  two-tier society, engaging with Together’s events around the country.

The next of these is tomorrow, Thursday November 11, in New Brighton, Merseyside for a panel event: Can there be Science without Free Speech? It is to be held at Hope, the anti-supermarket, Victoria Road, New Brighton, Merseyside. Speakers include @DrHoenderkamp @jadenozzz @danieldaviesRPL @alanvibe.

They also invite us to ‘Stand with Health care Workers’ tomorrow in London at 3pm at Parliament Square. As we’ve already reported 60,000 care workers face loss of jobs because of the introduction of mandatory vaccinations. Choice is a fundamental right for all, and we need to uphold it.

November 10, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Solidarity and Activism | , , | Leave a comment

Silencing criticism of Israel

PSA vs. Nazim Ali—What it means for the pro-Palestine Activists

By Massoud Shajareh | MEMO | November 9, 2021

Many of you will have seen the recent news about Nazim Ali’s loss at the High Court. A detailed timeline can be found elsewhere. I want to discuss the three main consequences of this judgment.

First, a quick summary of the case itself. In June 2017, Ali took part in the annual Al-Quds Day parade, during which he made several ill-advised comments about Zionists and Zionism. The Campaign against Antisemitism (CAA) complained to the police and to the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC). The police complaint was passed to the CPS, who decided not to press charges; this was appealed and, again, the CPS declined to prosecute Ali. So, the CAA brought a private prosecution against Ali, which the CPS took over and discontinued. This decision was challenged by way of judicial review, which the CAA lost, as the court agreed with the CPS that Ali’s comments were anti-Israel -Zionist in nature and not anti-Semitic.

The GPhC complaints team subsequently decided that Ali’s words were anti-Israel political speech, that they were not anti-Semitic or racist, and dismissed the CAA’s complaint. Ali was notified that the complaint was closed. However, in the summer of 2019, the GPhC reopened the case, justifying its decision on the basis that it had to evaluate Ali’s comments based on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism.

Late last year, those proceedings culminated in the GPhC finding the comments made by Mr Ali to be offensive but not anti-Semitic. They held that, a reasonable bystander who was apprised of all the facts would not consider his speech in their context (a pro-Palestine rally) to be anti-Semitic. They took account of the context, Ali’s explanation of his words and his upstanding character. It issued him with a warning, on the grounds that his words were offensive and his behaviour amounted to misconduct.

Pro-Israel campaigners prevailed upon the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care (PSA) to appeal the GPhC decision to the High Court, which has now decided the GPhC reconsider afresh the allegations of anti-Semitism against Mr Ali, on the grounds that the body had erred by taking into account Ali’s explanation for, and intention behind, the words. The High Court held that Ali’s intention and explanation could not form part of the analysis of whether his words were anti-Semitic. Instead, an “objective” test should be used—something the learned judge does not define; he only elaborates on what it cannot include, i.e., the intention of the speaker.

So why is this dangerous?

  • Once you remove intention, all criticism of Israel and Zionism is potentially anti-Semitic: Intention behind words is important. They tell us what the speaker intended, or meant, to say. In the context of controversial subjects, such as Israel/Palestine, they become crucial to understanding what the speaker means. The CAA/UKLFI and others want the courts and tribunals to adopt the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism as the “objective” definition. This is a controversial definition, one which puts substantial emphasis on criticism of Israel. Once an “objective” definition is accepted, where intention is not relevant, pro-Palestine activists will find there is little they can say about Israel without being labelled anti-Semitic.
  • The “objective” definition will be wielded as a weapon to harass and silence professionals who criticise Israel. Pro-Israel groups will target any and every one they can identify as a regulated professional who has the temerity to criticise Israel in public. As the definition is “objective”, pro-Israel groups will simply start framing their complaints as the “person’s words are objectively anti-Semitic” in each case, thereby, avoiding the need to discuss the speaker’s intention. The regulators themselves seem uninterested in the politicised nature of the complaints and will bring to bear their full regulatory weight on the individual— involving a complaints process, a tribunal, lawyers’ fees, appeals and counter appeals. The thought of such an overwhelming process will be enough to stop any regulated professional from publicly criticising Israel or Zionism.
  1. Regulated professionals are just the start— this will set a chilling benchmark that can be replicated in many other regulatory and disciplinary settings. Labour party members accused of anti-Semitism, university disciplinary proceedings, employment tribunals and others will find this case being cited as a precedent. Suddenly, union members are accused of “objective” anti-Semitism as they believe Israel is an apartheid state. Their intent is irrelevant, as the complaint will be framed as the meaning of their words is anti-Semitic— and it is according to the “objective” IHRA definition: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.” Teachers, students, employees of any major company, anyone who criticises Israel in public, will find complaints being made against them by pro-Israel groups. These groups know most people do not want their livelihood taken from them; they calculate most people will just remain silent about Israel’s crimes rather than face being disciplined and being removed from employment.

Ali’s words were inappropriate and, on occasion, factually inaccurate (Israel and Zionism are guilty of a lot, but they did not set fire to Grenfell), but they were not anti-Semitic. Our purpose in fighting this judgment is not to defend Ali’s words. Rather, it is to stop the creation of a precedent that will silence virtually all criticism of Israel. Pro-Israel groups wish to proscribe all criticism of Israel; this judgment gives them the tools with which to achieve their goals. Free speech on Israel will be eroded if we do not fight back now.

November 9, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

The courts are backing the Covid vaccine madness

By Sally Beck | TCW Defending Freedom | November 9, 2021

IN THE last few weeks the High Court has thrown out two big Covid vaccine legal challenges. Last Tuesday they said No to a judicial review to stop mandatory vaccination for health care workers, and in September they threw out a bid to injunct and pause the vaccination of children and teenagers aged 12 to 17.

I was in court for both cases, and heard the judges put intelligent and insightful questions to the claimants’ legal teams. Both justices clearly found their well-constructed arguments on the vaccines’ questionable efficacy, and arguments about bodily autonomy, compelling and unsettling. Despite this, they sided with the government using the pandemic as a get-out clause.

Solicitor Stephen Jackson, whose firm Jackson Osborne brought both cases, said: ‘The court absolved itself from any need to consider the extent of the investigation made by the government into Covid vaccines and the analysis they’ve made. So basically, what they are saying is that the government have consulted experts and are not going to look at it any further.

‘The court’s position is that there’s a particularly wide margin of discretion where the government is considering complex data and science. They say that the Secretary of State for Health, Sajid Javid, is entitled to rely upon the advice of the experts he goes to.

‘It gives the government a blank cheque. As long as they have taken advice from an expert body, the court assumes their advice is correct. If you turn up to court and seek to challenge that advice, they say you are simply presenting an alternative expert view, but you cannot establish that the expert advice seen by the government is unreasonable or irrational.’

It seems that the vaccine juggernaut is unstoppable, despite growing evidence of irreparable harms and even death, with more than 1,700 fatalities reported. The argument is that this is a minuscule number considering that 55.6million doses have been given.

The government is fully aware of vaccine harm and has known about it since the 20th century childhood vaccination schedule was introduced in 1959. It considers that collateral damage, however severe, serves the common good. We should just shut up and take one for the team.

Each vaccine can leave its own deadly calling card and Covid jabs are no different. The ones used in the UK are produced by Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson. Their particular signature is blood clots and low platelets (VITT), inflammation of the heart in the form of myocarditis and pericarditis (particularly affecting young men), Guillain-Barré syndrome (an autoimmune disorder that attacks the nerves and can cause paralysis), and Bell’s palsy (temporary paralysis affecting one side of the face).

None of these horrors concern the judiciary yet, which is endlessly frustrating for Stephen Jackson and barrister Francis Hoar QC, who was involved in both cases.

Jackson said: ‘The courts are very reluctant to interfere with government decisions. If they feel they might be treading on political ground, then they steer a wide course.

‘The way they avoid interference is to cite the pandemic. The pandemic trumps everything.’

Millionaire entrepreneur Simon Dolan failed in his bid to obtain a judicial review earlier this year. He planned to challenge the government over lockdowns and mask wearing, claiming that Boris Johnson and Co had acted illegally and disproportionately. His defeat set the tone.

‘In the Simon Dolan case they basically said that there’s a two-stage process; first stage: it’s a pandemic, next stage is that the government has a very wide discretion as to their response,’ Jackson said.

‘In the care home case, they went further and said they had looked at a European Court of Human Rights case, heard in April, where Czech parents challenged the state’s mandatory vaccine schedule for nursery school children. It was a case where children were excluded from premises of education unless they had their vaccines. The judge who heard the care workers case said that what the government is doing now is nothing very different.

‘What the court doesn’t recognise in that analogy is that in the Czech case you are talking about very well-established vaccines with long safety records. By comparison we’re still looking at experimental technology with Pfizer and Moderna’s mRNA vaccines, which remain under trial until 2023. We still don’t know the long-term effects.’

The same applies to children. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) said covid vaccines offer very little benefit to the under-18s and recognised that they have the potential to harm. They recommended against routine vaccination for this age group, but the UK’s four chief medical officers (CMOs) overruled them saying that the JCVI hadn’t taken into account the school days they might lose, and the effect that being locked out of education would have on their mental health. In contrast, the CMOs did not take into account potential vaccine damage, days off school because of adverse reactions and time spent away from class to receive the jabs.

A judicial review is where the courts are asked by citizens adversely affected by government rules to review the decisions made by them. In 2018 there were 3,597 claims lodged but only 184, or 5 per cent, proceeded to a full hearing. Of the cases heard, 50 per cent were won, so there are chances at victory. The government knows this, abhors challenge and feels that the judicial review process is being used to excess, having lost two high profile cases, one on Brexit and the other on the prorogation of Parliament.

Bloodied, battered and humiliated, the Conservatives now want to change the law to restrict judicial reviews. In July, Johnson introduced the Judicial Review and Courts Bill which former Secretary of State David Davis called ‘a worrying assault on the legal system and an attempt to avoid accountability’.

Covid cases are challenging, based on complex science which judges do not necessarily have the skills to weigh up. Both Justice Robert Jay, who heard arguments in the child vaccination hearing, and Justice Philippa Whipple, appointed to rule in the care home challenge, indicated this. Jay almost threw up his hands at one point saying in effect, I don’t understand this, this is all science. Whipple modestly asked for the arguments to be kept simple saying: ‘I am a bear of very little brain. These are matters of complex data and science.’

Listening, it felt both were looking for a back door escape route.

The care home case was brought by two care home workers. One, Julie Peters, from Poole, a former programme director of Barchester Healthcare, a large provider with over 200 locations, was sacked for refusing the jab. She said: ‘I’ve lost my job, the government has changed the law so that although technically, I can fight for unfair dismissal, it’s likely I would lose. I also lost the challenge to overturn the legislation making vaccination mandatory for care home workers. So, any hairdresser, electrician, cleaner, occupational health care worker, or care home staff now has to have a vaccine to enter a care home. I’m pretty devastated.’

November 9, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

When in doubt, fiddle with the vaccine figures

By Tom Penn | TCW Defending Freedom | November 9, 2021

DR Mary Ramsay, Head of Immunisation at the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) and joint ‘chief editor’ of their vaccine database, penned a recent blog post for gov.uk in which she makes a most ludicrous claim.

She states that the dramatic rise in cases in the vaccinated cohort compared with the unjabbed should be interpreted not as evidence of the vaccine’s inefficacy, but rather as consequence of behavioural traits in the vaccinated, whom she alleges are ‘more health conscious and therefore more likely to get tested’, and who ‘behave differently, particularly with regard to social interactions and therefore may have differing levels of exposure to Covid-19’.

According to Ramsay, then, the epidemic of reinfection is the fault not of the vaccine itself but its recipients, who if only they would just stop testing themselves and socialising with each other might just conveniently knock the issue of inefficacy on the head.

It appears that the UKHSA have found themselves between a rock and a hard place vis-a-vis the rollout. Without mass testing there exists no casedemic, and without a casedemic there in turn exists no pandemic. Without an engineered pandemic there exists not the vehicle by which to crush self-determination. However, maintain hypochondriacal mass testing and current levels of faux-freedom, and the casedemic ends up inconveniently betraying the inefficacy of the product, vehicle for the introduction of a universal, health-based identification system; critical in turn to the instalment of a single, global government.

Two recent announcements lead me to speculate that once the majority of children have been vaccinated, the death season is over, and we can supposedly make our way out of the Covid Stadium, ‘Van-Tam Cup’ in hand after a winter playing out the longest tournament of public health intervention-football ever known, the UKHSA’s muddying of data will only accelerate.

The MHRA’s approval of Merck’s molnupiravir antiviral drug to treat symptomatic Covid-19 (Pfizer’s Paxlovid offering is yet to be approved), and the likelihood that vaccine smart patches could begin human trials by the middle of 2022, introduce two more elements to an already obscenely corrupt so-called crisis which may end up prolonging the use of damaging public health controls for many winters to come, as the data harvested from how these various Covid-19 ‘treatments’ interact with each other could provide limitless scope for misinterpretation or outright censure, and thus the basis for manufacturing further interventions.

It is the running theme of this counterfeit emergency that data has been modelled, muzzled, meddled with and misconstrued with a view to help obfuscate an ulterior geopolitical agenda. Dr Mary Ramsay, for example, has solved the matter of vaccine inefficacy by simply defecting from pharmaceutical to behavioural science unchallenged.

What might happen when government agencies begin playing off booster-shot data against molnupiravir efficacy against vaccine smart-patch glitches against case rates against hospital figures, and then measuring it all up against what appears to be a state-decreed behavioural and mental health index? The answer: the end of the current Anthropocene epoch as we know it, and the beginning proper of its successor: the Propagandacene.

Molnupiravir is already being trumpeted as the world’s ‘first’ at-home treatment designed to reduce drastically the chance of hospitalisation from Covid-19, yet we already know that to be a false claim, and so right from the off Merck’s offering is fishy; the words of Dr June Raine from the mostly mute MHRA ringing equally hollow: ‘With no compromises on quality, safety and effectiveness, the public can trust that the MHRA has conducted a robust and thorough assessment of the data.’

Some of us have been knocking on the door of the MHRA’s appalling Covid-19 vaccine Yellow Card Reporting System figures for quite some time now, and yet they still refuse to open. Will it be the same with molnupiravir, vaccine smart patches and Lord knows what else the druids of the post-Covid International Order have in store for us?

Introduce alongside all of the aforementioned the incoming attack on the nation’s constitution by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, the consumer healthcare association’s vision of a decade of self care, and the Nudge Unit’s new Net Zero/Zero Covid psyops campaign, and we shall, if we haven’t already, enter an era of human evolution wherein the blame for every single problem in society, no matter how far removed from the common man’s sphere of influence, will be laid squarely at his feet nonetheless. He will doubtless obediently hang his head in shame whilst the hooded executioner readies yet more killing apparatus.

November 9, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Iconic singer Van Morrison sued over Covid-19 comments

NO MORE LOCKDOWN, NO MORE FASCIST POLICE, NO MORE TAKING OF OUR FREEDOM AND OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHTS

AS I WALKED OUT

BORN TO BE FREE OF THE COVID SCAM

https://www.bitchute.com/video/4OPLfKgq9i3h/

RT | November 8, 2021

Northern Ireland’s health minister, Robin Swann, has filed a defamation lawsuit against Van Morrison after the rock and R&B legend labeled him “very dangerous” over Covid-19 restrictions during the pandemic.

Swan’s legal team believes Morrison’s repeated public statements harmed the minister’s reputation by implying he was unfit for his position during the health crisis. The statement of claim against the 76-year-old singer-songwriter was filed in September.

“Proceedings have been issued and are ongoing against Van Morrison. We are aiming for a trial in February,” Swann’s lawyer, Paul Tweed, told local media on Sunday.

Swann’s choice of legal representation signals his strong desire to win the case, as Tweed is known as a high-profile libel lawyer, who has previously represented the likes of Harrison Ford, Justin Timberlake, and Jennifer Lopez.

The fallout between the minister and musician occurred in June after Morrison’s gig in Belfast was canceled at the last moment due to coronavirus restrictions.

The singer still got on stage and told the audience: “Robin Swann has all the power. So I say Robin Swann is very dangerous.” He also tried to persuade the crowd to chant: “Robin Swann is very dangerous.” […]

Last year, Swann criticized Morrison over his songs about the coronavirus restrictions, including ‘Born to Be Free’, ‘As I Walked Out’, and ‘No More Lockdown’. … Full article

November 9, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

Myocarditis ‘tends to be mild’? Tell that to this vaccine victim

By Sally Beck | TCW Defending Freedom | November 8, 2021

YOUNG men who develop the heart conditions myocarditis or pericarditis post Covid vaccination are ‘extremely rare’ according to the UK’s drugs watchdog. This is not true, says leading US cardiologist Dr Peter McCullough, and even if it was true, it is no comfort if you are one of the ‘rare’ cases to find yourself in hospital with heart inflammation like Amanda Hartnetty’s 21-year-old son.

‘The term “rare” is getting old now,’ she said. ‘My son was admitted to hospital in August two days after his second Moderna jab. He had been there for a week when a nurse told him: “Another one of you with myocarditis after the vaccine has just come in and he’s 29.” I wonder how rare it really is?’

According to Dr McCullough, heart inflammation cases in the US have increased by 21,000 per cent in four months, predominantly affecting young men. He said: ‘In June 2021, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) said there were 200 cases of myocarditis. By October we had 10,304 cases. This number is shocking.’

Amanda’s youngest son, now 22, who does not want to be named, was admitted to Hillingdon Hospital, Uxbridge, on August 19 with excruciating chest pain.

Amanda, 57, from north London, who works in customer support, said: ‘He and his girlfriend had been to visit the university where he was just about to start, then stayed at a friend’s overnight. In the morning they were driving back and his arms were in incredible pain, he had tingling in his fingers and his chest felt really heavy. Then he felt sick and shivery and started vomiting. He said his chest felt like it was being ripped apart.

‘He had no idea what was wrong, and they thought he might have food poisoning. They got back to her place where she dialled 111. The call handler made an appointment for him at the hospital for an hour’s time and then they sat in A&E for hours.’

Crucially, hospital staff measured his troponin level and when they got the results, they were so startling they thought they were wrong. Troponin is a protein which regulates the heartbeat. The normal level for a 21-year-old is less than 14 ng/l (nanograms per litre), but his was sky high. ‘My son’s level was 7,000 and it rose to 25,000 at its worst,’ said Amanda.

This can indicate that the person is having a heart attack, but he was diagnosed with myocarditis which has similar symptoms of chest pain, shortness of breath and fatigue, because his electrocardiogram (ECG), which checks the heart’s rhythm, was fine. His discharge letter confirms that the vaccine was the cause, saying ‘myocarditis secondary to Covid-19 vaccination’.

Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle, can cause a cardiac arrest and can be fatal. It is more serious than pericarditis (also linked to the vaccine) which is inflammation of the sac surrounding the heart. Myocarditis is caused either by a virus – so SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, could cause it – or it is autoimmune, when your body attacks itself. Vaccines are designed to provoke the immune system so it is entirely possible that an unexpected immune response could occur, but the NHS know little about vaccination as a cause of myocarditis and often pooh-pooh the connection.

Hillingdon is part of Harefield Hospital, which has a specialist heart unit, so thankfully Amanda’s son was in the best place to get the best care, but at first, hospital staff would not consider the possibility that Moderna’s Covid jab had caused his problems.

He spent a week in hospital but even after he was discharged last month, his GP was unaware of the connection. ‘He was trying to explain to the GP that his problems had been caused by the vaccination and she had never heard of it. That’s why I’m speaking out now because this is a side-effect that is just not known about. It was such a shock to take in. We didn’t know about it, and it was not discussed with him before he had his jab.

‘We are so lucky his girlfriend called 111. Who knows what might have happened if she hadn’t? A nurse told me they were really worried, and they didn’t want to tell him how worried they were.’

The youngest of four siblings, he was a fit, healthy young man who played drums in a rock band, held down jobs in a restaurant and a warehouse and before lockdown last March, was keen to join the RAF. He is now so debilitated he is unable to do any exercise and has been advised not to do anything more strenuous than a walk until at least January. Most days, he needs an afternoon nap. Three months on and an MRI scan shows that his heart is still inflamed, which contradicts the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) advice that ‘cases tend to be mild when they do occur’.

Jonathan Engler, a bio-medical entrepreneur who has studied law and medicine and developed a phase III clinical trial for a heart failure medicine, said: ‘If you’ve had myocarditis you have to be monitored permanently and are at risk of developing heart disease later in life.’

The British Heart Foundation, our premier heart health charity, say that if the damage is severe you may need a heart transplant.

Amanda said: ‘One question neither the hospital nor the GP could answer is what happens if he catches Covid? They said they don’t know because they don’t have the data. I also asked if there would be any lasting damage and the best answer they can give me is “hopefully not”.’

Meanwhile, her son is taking things easy and trying not to think about the future: ‘He has to take betablockers to stabilise his mood so that his heart rate isn’t raised,’ she said.

Amanda’s four children have all had their childhood vaccines, as have her three grandchildren. ‘I am not antivax,’ she said. But she was worried about the speed with which the Covid jabs were introduced and the lack of long-term data.

She received her first Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine on March 1 from the now-notorious batch number PV46671 and suffered a serious adverse reaction. There are now 11 people known to have had bad reactions to that batch, and seven spoke to TCW earlier this year.

Amanda, who does not use social media, was unaware that there was a problem with that particular batch until we spoke. She said: ‘I was so ill afterwards; I threw up before I got home from the surgery. It was like instant, proper flu, no build-up like you normally get of feeling under the weather for a couple of days. I had shivers and shakes and a terrible headache. I felt like my head was in a fog and I just wanted to sleep. I was like that for a week, and it took weeks for me to get better.’

She filled in a Yellow Card report for the MHRA about her son but not herself. She said: ‘They sent lots of questions back like “does he take drugs,” they listed everything apart from what was in the jab.

‘My message is that people do need to look out for these side-effects. They were not mentioned to us before we got our jabs, so I just wonder how many others know about them.’

November 8, 2021 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

NHS accused of ‘lying’ about Covid stats to promote vaccination

RT | November 8, 2021

NHS chief Amanda Pritchard claimed that 14 times as many Covid-19 patients are in Britain’s hospitals as this time last year. However, even the NHS itself has admitted that Pritchard’s claim uses misleading figures.

Multiple news reports on Monday told the same story: Britain’s hospitals are seeing “14 times more coronavirus patients than this time last year,” and the country faces a “difficult winter,” as people gather indoors, where the virus is more likely to spread.

https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1457678439557832705?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1457678439557832705%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fuk%2F539687-nhs-covid-patients-fake-news%2F

The source of the “14 times” figure is Amanda Pritchard, Chief Executive of NHS England. Pritchard used the apparently alarming surge in hospitalisations to encourage the 4.5 million Britons who still haven’t gotten vaccinated to roll up their sleeves, and those eligible to take their third shot of the vaccine.

However, NHS data shows that Pritchard’s figures are false. According to the health service, a 7-day average of 9,331 Covid-19 patients were in hospital at the beginning of November, compared to 12,654 a year earlier. Just over 1,000 people per day were being admitted to hospital at the end of October, compared to 1,500 last year.

Pritchard was swiftly accused of peddling fake news, with commentators warning that such misleading figures were straying into “resignation territory.”

Amid a growing clamour online, NHS officials told reporters shortly afterwards that Pritchard was citing figures from August 2021 compared to August 2020. Hospital admissions were indeed 14 times higher this August than in 2020, but only for several days toward the end of the month. Since then, they have trended downwards and are now comparable to last year’s rate.

However, hospitalisations persist despite the fact that nine out of 10 people over the age of 12 in the UK have received at least one dose of a Covid-19 vaccine, according to NHS statistics. Rising cases too have called into question the long-term efficacy of the jabs, but government officials still insist on vaccination as key to defeating the virus – and studies suggest those vaccinated patients still fare better if they catch the virus.

As Pritchard called on the population to get vaccinated or go in for booster jabs, former Health Secretary Matt Hancock called on Monday for the government to mandate vaccines for healthcare workers. “There is no respectable argument left not to force health and social care workers to get jabbed,” he wrote in The Telegraph, calling the vaccine “the only reason for the safe return of our liberty.”

November 8, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

UKHSA Admits it’s Monitoring Current Vaccine Effectiveness But Not Publishing It. What’s it Got to Hide?

By Will Jones | The Daily Sceptic | November 6, 2021 

The UKHSA has admitted for the first time that it is undertaking internal analysis “every week or two” to monitor the current real-world performance of the vaccines but not publishing the results.

In an email seen by the Daily Sceptic, Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of Immunisation at the UKHSA, admits that her agency is continuing to undertake regular analysis of vaccine effectiveness but, despite publishing a weekly Vaccine Surveillance report, is not publishing the estimates.

The Vaccine Surveillance reports have recently been criticised by the U.K Statistics Authority and others for including data which shows infection rates in the vaccinated running at more than double the rate in the unvaccinated. Critics have argued this gives a misleading impression that the vaccines are ineffective or worse. They say it is really a result of problems with the population estimates and systemic differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.

The UKHSA has responded by altering the presentation of its data to draw attention to these limitations and make clear that, in its view, the data should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness.

However, it has not published an update of its own estimates of vaccine effectiveness using data more recent than May 2021. This means it has not updated its estimates with data from the summer and autumn, a period when its raw data shows infections in the vaccinated outpacing those in the unvaccinated.

In a recent post I encouraged readers to contact Dr Ramsay to ask her to publish an update of her agency’s study of vaccine effectiveness. In a reply to one reader, seen by the Daily Secptic, Dr Ramsay made the stunning admission:

We continue to undertake TNCC analysis every week or two and will update this when things change or when we want to highlight a new analysis, for example for a new variant or the booster effect.

TNCC stands for test-negative case control, and it is one of the approaches UKHSA uses for estimating vaccine effectiveness, which it deems to eliminate key biases in the data, especially from different testing behaviour.

Dr Ramsay has thus admitted that they are continuously monitoring real-world vaccine effectiveness using their worrying data. Why then are they not routinely publishing the results? What have they got to hide?

Dr Ramsay says they will publish an update when “things change” or when they want to highlight a new variant or the impact of boosters. In the meantime, they are publishing the raw data showing infections in the vaccinated eclipsing those in the unvaccinated, but telling people the data is biased and no conclusions can be drawn about the vaccines. This is an absurd state of affairs and needs to be challenged.

As before, if readers want politely to suggest that UKHSA actually publishes its estimates of vaccine effectiveness based on the latest real-world data, you can email Dr Mary Ramsay here (or find her on Twitter here).

November 7, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »