We need an inquiry into nudge
Letter to PACAC about ethical concerns arising from the Government’s use of covert psychological ‘nudges’
By Laura Dodsworth | February 1, 2022
Mr William Wragg, MP, Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee
1st February 2022
Dear Mr Wragg,
Re: Ethical concerns arising from the Government’s use of covert psychological ‘nudges’.
Thank you for meeting me to allow me to explain my concerns about the government’s use of behavioural science during the Covid-19 pandemic and beyond. I noted your positive comments about the need to better understand how nudge sits within parliamentary democracy and ministerial accountability, in a Telegraph article dated 28th January 2022, entitled ‘Government nudge unit “used grossly unethical tactics to scare public into Covid compliance”’, which was written in response to a letter by psychologist Gary Sidley et al requesting an investigation.1 I concur with Gary’s letter wholeheartedly.
During the course of researching my book A State of Fear: how the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic I gained a fascinating but sometimes disturbing insight into how reliant the government is on behavioural science and how little transparency there is about the people, methods, impacts and ethics.2
Behavioural scientists and politicians have called for public consultation in the past, but it has not happened. The Science and Technology Select Committee’s 2011 report Behaviour Change noted that there are ‘ethical issues because they involve altering behaviour through mechanisms of which people are not obviously aware’ and ‘ethical acceptability depends to a large extent on an intervention’s proportionality’.3 David Halpern, the head of the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT), has said that ‘if national or local governments are to use these approaches [behavioural psychology tools], they need to ensure that they have public permission to do so – ie, that the nudge is transparent, and that there has been appropriate debate about it’.4
The MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour through public policy discussion document which David Halpern co-authored recommended a public consultation about the use of behavioural insights.5 This has never been more pertinent. Fear messaging was used to encourage compliance with the rules. This has changed our lives and our relationships with each other. It has also changed our relationship with the government. This was predicted in the same report, which warned:
‘People have a strong instinct for reciprocity that informs their relationship with government – they pay taxes and the government provides services in return. This transactional model remains intact if government legislates and provides advice to inform behaviour. But if government is seen as using powerful, pre-conscious effects to subtly change behaviour, people may feel the relationship has changed: now the state is affecting “them” – their very personality.’
Our personalities were changed 2020-2021. And the use of fear – a particularly destabilising tactic – has made recovery harder. The collateral damage is becoming clearer, not least with the identification of Covid Anxiety Syndrome, whereby people have heightened fears which are disproportionate to the remaining threat.6 While it is difficult to extricate the different causes – lockdown, the epidemic itself, government messaging, the media – the overall result merits close scrutiny.
One of the BIT founders, Simon Ruda, admitted in an article published in Unherd, that ‘the most egregious and far-reaching mistake made in responding to the pandemic has been the level of fear willingly conveyed on the public’.7 It’s a pity that this revelation was made so late in the pandemic management. (After the sale of BIT to NESTA for a ‘healthy capital gain’, as Ruda observes, for the BIT shareholders.) If the previous calls for public consultation on the use of nudge had happened years ago, then maybe this egregious mistake could have been avoided. But it is never too late.
I believe the UK needs a full analysis of the tactics used and their impacts from experts, including psychologists, behavioural scientists, mental health specialists, politicians, political scientists, sociologists, philosophers, civil liberties organisations, lawyers, as well as representatives of the public.
Furthermore, the harmful impacts of behavioural science go beyond the handling of the Covid epidemic. The impact of behavioural insights on mental health was reported in Loan Charge All-Party Parliamentary Group Report on the Morse Review into the Loan Charge March 2020.8 It concluded that independent assessment and a suspension of HMRC’s use of behavioural insights was needed, ‘in light of the ongoing suicide risk to those impacted by the Loan Charge’. Clear misconduct and bullying, including using 30 behavioural insights in communications, were cited in one of the seven known suicides of people facing the Loan Charge.
The collaboration between a major UK broadcaster and BIT to promote one of the most controversial policies today is deeply alarming. The report, The Power of TV: Nudging Viewers to Decarbonise their Lifestyles, jointly published by BIT and Sky, shows little regard for the obligation imposed on broadcasters by Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code to maintain ‘due impartiality’ across all their output, particularly when it comes to news and current affairs.9 It also neglects the requirement that broadcasters expose viewers to a wide range of different views when it comes to ‘matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy’. I wrote a letter of complaint to Ofcom with Toby Young, Founder of the Free Speech Union, on 21st December 2021.
Recently, the Home Office has hired an advertising agency to mobilise public opinion against encrypted communications, with plans that include some shockingly manipulative tactics to sway concerned parents.10
In the past two years I have noted new behavioural science appointments within the government, Public Health England (now UKHSA) and NHS, and nudge seems likely to play a bigger part in future government attempts to transform us into ‘model citizens’ and foreground acceptance of controversial policies. Indeed, this is openly acknowledged. One recent report from a team at the University of Bath already shows how behavioural psychologists hope to segue from Covid to climate behaviour change while ‘habits are weakest and most malleable to change’.11 A BIT paper on how to nudge the public towards Net Zero referred to our ‘powerful tendency to conform’.12
I agree with Gary Sidley that the government must be held to account over its use of behavioural science. The Covid epidemic has shone a spotlight onto how embedded behavioural science is within government, but the inquiry would benefit from widening the scope to a historical review and also agree new frameworks for the future. This should include a historical analysis of all campaigns (especially the many unpublished ones), a review of the ethical framework government behavioural scientists adhere to, and scrutiny of accountability. Most importantly, a review must include the general public, who are as yet unaware of the prolific campaigns to influence them below the level of consciousness, but nevertheless fund the campaigns through taxation.
Nudge assumes we are not rational beings. Ruda does not shy away from this in his article, clearly stating that ‘behavioural science was conceived as a means of recognising and correcting the biases that lead humans to make non-rational decisions’. Stripping away our rational choices and influencing us at a subliminal level is anti-democratic and we are now at a crucial point to take stock of the government’s use of these tactics. I hope that PACAC can conduct a comprehensive and independent investigation. I would be delighted to assist by sharing notes and evidence.
I look forward to speaking with you.
Yours sincerely,
Laura Dodsworth
Justice For the Hyde Park One
By Andrew Rootsey | The Daily Sceptic | February 1, 2022
As you may recall, we secured Debbie’s acquittal at Cheltenham Magistrates Court on the December 20th 2021 for offences relating to organising/being involved in organising a gathering of more than 30 people during a period of national lockdown or alternatively for participating in the gathering.
The relevant gathering was a protest held in Stratford Park in Stroud in November 2020 against the restrictions imposed on the British public under the Coronavirus Regulations. The protest was called the ‘Freedom Rally’ and was attended by more than 50 people.
The Stroud ‘Freedom Rally’ was held two days into the second national lockdown and therefore at the time it was illegal to organise a gathering of more than 30 people or to meet in groups of more than two people. A conviction would have left her liable for a £10,000 fine.
Ms. Hicks was acquitted of both offences after the court accepted our argument that her arrest and prosecution was a disproportionate interference with her human rights – namely the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, given that she was engaging in a legitimate protest.
The court found that Ms. Hicks had organised the ‘Freedom Rally’ and had breached the Coronavirus Regulations in force at the time by doing so. However, she had a reasonable excuse because she was attending a legitimate, peaceful and well-organised protest. The officers on the ground at the protest had been labouring under a misapprehension of the law – that protesting was not lawful under the Regulations – and were essentially imposing a blanket ban on protesting. Therefore, their actions in arresting her were not rational or proportionate.
In complete contrast – and a perfect example of how this contentious piece of legislation is flawed and open to misinterpretation – on the November 16th 2021 the City of London Magistrates Court convicted Debbie of breaching similar coronavirus regulations by protesting in Hyde Park against the imposition of lockdown restrictions during the pandemic. The District Judge in this case found that Debbie did not have a ‘reasonable excuse’ for protesting and found that the interference with her Human Rights was proportionate. Debbie was convicted and sentenced to a financial penalty.
The case raises important issues on freedom of expression and assembly, as well as the chilling of the right to protest. We wish to appeal this case to the High Court in order for the High Court to settle the important questions of law raised.
A fundamental consideration for the High Court is the ambiguity of the right to protest during the Coronavirus pandemic during periods of national lockdown and the operation of the ‘reasonable excuse’ jurisdiction in this regard.
The Government has made it clear, as have the courts, including in Debbie’s case before the Cheltenham Magistrates Court, that protesting during the Coronavirus pandemic was never illegal. Yet that was not always clear from the Coronavirus regulations nor was it the understanding of most police officers. How the reasonable excuse defence is to operate in these circumstances requires clarity and we are confident that the High Court will settle the issue in our favour and set a precedent for future cases and those seeking to appeal against their own convictions.
Debbie Hicks is probably best known for filming within the Gloucester Royal Hospital in December 2020 during Tier 3 restrictions. Debbie did so, exercising her freedom of expression, in order to highlight that Government restrictions were having a devastating effect upon access to healthcare across the board and to investigate mainstream media reports that hospitals were overflowing with patients.
Despite her efforts to avoid confrontation, she was challenged at the hospital by two employees. During the exchange, which lasted less than a minute, Debbie did not film the staff members. She explained the purpose of her visit and her views as to the provision of NHS services during lockdown. Staff members took offence at her comments and subsequently made a complaint to the police. Debbie immediately left the hospital voluntarily and was subsequently arrested at her home in front of her family and charged with using abusive, threatening or disorderly words or behaviour.
Debbie was not at the hospital deliberately seeking an encounter with staff. She has in the past been a vociferous supporter of the NHS and has supported NHS staff in respect of vaccine mandates.
In connection with this episode, Debbie stood trial for an offence under Section 5 of Public Order Act on January 6th 2022 and having adjourned the case in order to hand down his judgement the District Judge convicted Debbie of a S5 Public Order Act offence on January 19th 2022 at Cirencester Magistrates Court.
We wish to appeal this conviction as well and ask that the High Court settle this case on the basis that the District Judge was wrong in law to convict Debbie of this offence. We are firmly of the view that the Prosecution case simply did not cross the threshold of what constitutes abusive, threatening or disorderly words or behaviour. The District Judge’s analysis was flawed and did not properly interpret Supreme Court authorities nor give appropriate weight to Debbie’s rights of freedom of expression and assembly as enshrined in the European Convention for Human Rights, nor give appropriate weight to the political nature of Debbie’s views when the case law makes clear political freedom of expression should be given special protection.
Debbie is trying to raise £10,000 to take both cases to the High Court. She hopes that those who continue to believe in freedom of speech and the the right to protest will continue to support her. Our hope is that if we can get these convictions overturned, it will set a legal precedent for those convicted of similar offences and who may face prosecution in the future.
Debbie needs to raise funds in order to pay her legal costs and any help is hugely appreciated. Her fundraiser can be found here.
Andrew Rootsey is a solicitor at Murray Hughman.
Do zero deaths in 2 years justify a vaccine mandate?
Apparently so! We live in very strange times, don’t we?
By Steve Kirsch | January 30, 2022
Credit to UCSF Professor Aditi Bhargava for bringing this particular UK FOIA request to my attention. I haven’t seen it anywhere else, so I thought I’d share it with you in case you missed it as well.
The request was:
Please supply deaths caused solely by covid 19, where covid is the only cause of death listed on the death certificate, broken down by age group and gender between feb 2020 up to and including dec 2021.
Here is the most interesting part of the full response which covered nearly two years since the very start of the pandemic: the number of young people in the UK who died solely from COVID:
Your chance of being killed from COVID is basically 0 if you are under 24 years old.
Therefore, based on this data, if you were a policymaker in the US, you’d want to mandate the vaccines for anyone under 24, right?
0 deaths in 2 years, yet vaccines are mandated for young people in schools and universities.
This is how insane these mandates are.
How can 0 deaths justify a state of emergency applied to people under 24? How can it justify mandating a vaccine?
As far as I know, not a single one of the 3,143 public health officials in the US has spoken out against vaccine mandates for people under 24.
FDA math
Want to know how the FDA justifies the vaccines?
Did you ever read the risk-benefit analysis FDA did for 5 to 11 year olds? It was based entirely on assumptions (not data), assumptions of incredible efficacy at preventing all sorts of covid-19 related harms, and on the adverse event side of the ledger, just one single AE (myocarditis). That’s it. No other risks.
And no use of actual data, because trials provided zero data on any of all the endpoints (benefits and harms) that they thought were important.
See PDF p.39 (section 9.5) of the FDA’s EUA memo on 5-11 year olds: https://www.fda.gov/media/153947/download.
Congress totally trusts the FDA no matter how bad their analysis is.
If you want to see a more realistic risk-benefit analysis, see Dr. Toby Rogers’ analysis. Want more proof? Read this article.
A tale of two cities
In the UK now, we have: masks gone, social distancing gone, work from home gone, care home restrictions gone, travel restrictions gone, VACCINE PASSPORTS GONE and the Coronavirus Emergency Act will not be extended.
In Santa Clara County, we have mandated masks, vaccines, etc. for everyone who works for the County.
Same virus, different policymakers.
Dr. Richard Pan introduces bill in California to close the personal belief exemption loophole
The very worst people in my opinion are the policymakers who actively force every last human being to take the jab by eliminating exemptions. For example, Dr. Richard Pan and his California State Senate bill to keep schools safe which is supported by:
- Los Angeles Unified Board President Kelly Gonez
- Los Angeles Unified Interim Superintendent Megan K. Reilly
- San Diego Unified Board Member Richard Barrera
- California Medical Association President Robert E. Wailes, M.D.
Nowhere in that article do you see any mention of a risk-benefit calculation. Never does he mention the number of lives he’s going to save with his bill. Never does he compute the number of deaths. It’s all fear-based policymaking with no math.
Which begs the question: Is there any policymaker with a working brain in the United States of America? Please identify yourself.
Rocketing Energy Prices Were Part Of The Plan All The Time
By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | January 29, 2022
https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/sixth-carbon-budget/
The above excerpt comes from the CCC’s Sixth Carbon Budget. It shows conclusively that high energy prices have always been the official policy, in order that expensive renewables are made viable.
EU carbon prices have already risen from 32 to 80 euro/tonne in the last year, and the new UK ETS system tracks EU prices, with prices now at £75/tonne.
As it turns out global price rises for natural gas have brought the CCC’s dream to fruition a decade early.
Rich enough to own an electric car? Have some free electricity!
By John Ellwood | TCW Defending Freedom | January 29, 2022
IT IS reported that 21 councils have found a solution to the soaring cost of energy: a source of free electricity which they are providing to wealthy owners of electric vehicles.
One of the councils that has made this startling discovery is Lancaster District Council. Their website proudly proclaims ‘The council is providing free electricity’ for electric vehicle owners.’
A spokesperson for the well-represented Green Party on the council was unapologetic about how they prioritised the distribution of the ‘free electricity’. When asked why they favoured the provision of free fuel to the owners of already subsidised Teslas and Mercedes-EQs, rather than giving it to residents of sub-standard housing who were unable to heat their homes, she replied in a rather abrupt manner: ‘Don’t you know there’s a Climate Emergency! For goodness sake, it’s on the BBC every night! How do you expect the City Council to do its bit to control the weather if rich people drive around in their big cars belching out emissions that are literally killing baby polar bears. It is beastly of you to even ask that question!’
After taking a few moments to compose herself, she put down her cat, dabbed her eyes, and continued, ‘We already do a tremendous amount for the poor people. It is horrid of you to imply that we don’t care about them. We send them leaflets which tell them where they can buy cheap overcoats and jumpers. We encourage them to go to the library to keep warm, and we suggest that they buy a second hand bicycle so they can ride up and down our cycle paths. We even send them our ten favourite vegan quinoa recipes. We simply can’t do everything. There is only so much free electricity to go round. One day we hope to give everyone in the District an electric vehicle, or at least an electric scooter.’
When asked about the source of the free electricity, a representative of the City Council’s secretive Special Initiatives Department, based in a bunker in the Forest of Bowland, declined to give too much away. ‘Let me just say that we are working closely with Lancaster University, members of the Morecambe Witchcraft Society and local alchemists, but other than that my lips are sealed. However, I am allowed to tell you that we are about to make a major announcement about our work on the philosopher’s stone. Watch this space.’
Some have suggested that the electricity being given to electric car owners is not exactly ‘free’ but is courtesy of the council tax payer. If this is the case, it is clearly seen as a ‘vital service’. In a report about the decision to increase council tax in 2021, the Lancaster Guardian wrote that Anne Whitehead, the cabinet member with responsibility for finance, said: ‘We are acutely aware of the additional burden that this rise will place on some households and we do not want to have to ask households to pay more. But as with all public services, the City Council is under pressure financially and needs to protect the vital services it provides.’
Denmark is First EU Country to Scrap All COVID Restrictions
21st Century Wire | January 29, 2022
Later this week, England is scheduled to drop its problematic mask mandate for shops and public transport, along with its highly unpopular vaccine passport regime. Up north, Scotland says it will “relax” so-called ‘work from home guidance,’ and reopen nightclubs, as well as ending venue capacity limits.
While the UK and Ireland gingerly roll-back their highly disruptive COVID restriction policies, other European countries are now leading the way by scrapping the entire ‘pandemic’ regime altogether.
Financial Times reports…
Denmark said it would lift almost all Covid-19 restrictions and stop designating it a “societally critical” disease on Wednesday in the latest sign that western European countries are easing or even eradicating strict measures brought in to combat the Omicron coronavirus variant.
Magnus Heunicke, Denmark’s health minister, wrote to parliament on Wednesday saying that he would remove all Covid-19 restrictions on February 1, except for testing on arrival from abroad. Just as the Danish government did in September, when it lifted all restrictions, it will also stop calling Covid-19 a “societally critical disease”, meaning that it will no longer have the legal basis to introduce wide-ranging curbs.
“Tonight we can begin to lower our shoulders and find our smiles again,” said Mette Frederiksen, Danish prime minister, on Wednesday evening. “The pandemic is still here, but with what we know now, we can dare to believe we are through the critical phase.”
Denmark is the latest European country in recent days to announce it is dropping most or nearly all measures as it follows in the footsteps of the UK, Ireland and the Netherlands…
Meanwhile, mainstream media outlets like Politico report this latest development with the accompanied fear-mongering over the latest “subvariant” – allegedly on the loose:
The announcement comes as a new subvariant of Omicron, BA.2, is gaining a foothold in Denmark and driving infections up, with 46,000 new COVID-19 cases recorded on Wednesday.
“Recent weeks have seen very high infection rates, in fact the highest in the entire pandemic,” Frederiksen said. “Therefore, it may seem strange and paradoxical that we are now ready to let go of the restrictions.”
Some 82 percent of Denmark’s population is fully vaccinated with two doses, of whom 50 percent are boosted with a third dose, according to the Danish Health and Medicines Authority.
However, as the FT points out, with this alleged rise in “cases” (aka PCR positive tests) promoted in the media – there is no corresponding rise in serious illness as a result COVID-19:
Denmark still has one of the highest number of Covid-19 cases per capita in the world, currently more than 10 times its previous peak as Omicron causes tens of thousands of daily infections. But the number of patients in intensive care continues to fall and, even with Omicron, never hit the peaks reached from April 2020 and January 2021.
Elsewhere in Scandinavia, Sweden, Norway and Finland have all announced they will also be easing their restrictions in the coming weeks.
Are vaccine deaths outpacing Covid-only deaths in under-65s?
By Kathy Gyngell | TCW Defending Freedom | January 29, 2022
LAST week several readers alerted me to the government’s reply to a Freedom of Information request as to the number of Covid only deaths. Even to hardened sceptics of the pandemic ‘crisis’ such as myself the answer came as something of a shock. The number of those dying of Covid alone – that is with no coexisting illness or condition – are by any standards low compared with other causes of death. The figures show a total (all age) mortality rate over two years of just 17,500. The figure for the under 65s is very much lower. As one reader put it to me, did we really lock an entire country down in 2020 for just 1,550 under-65s dying?
The real public health threat, as with other diseases, is the country’s dietary and lifestyle choices – obesity and insufficient exercise and vitamin D.
What struck me perhaps even more forcibly was the comparison with the reported number of the MHRA vaccine deaths, 1,954 as of their last publication (see below). It raises the question of whether vaccine deaths have, within one year, outpaced two years of Covid deaths for the under-65s?
That is a genuine question to which I don’t know the answer. It will require a further FOI demanding the publication of an age breakdown of the reported vaccine fatalities. As it stands on the main reporting page with Annex One documents there is no overall total fatality age breakdown provided. This is simply unacceptable. We need to know the ages of the people dying following the vaccines.
The only fatality age breakdown given is for thrombo-embolic (blood clotting) events with concurrent low platelets. Scroll down to about halfway through the long report page link above and see table 6:
Number of UK suspected thrombo-embolic events with concurrent thrombocytopenia ADR cases received for the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca by patient age up to and including 19 January 2022.
By far the largest number of these otherwise preventable deaths are of people under 70, the highest proportion being in the 40-60 category. These may also of course have been people vulnerable to Covid, but given that by far the largest majority of Covid deaths remain in the 70-plus age groups and the absolute majority in the over-80 group, it really makes you wonder at the recklessness of the government’s totally uncompromising and determined vaccine roll out to all age groups, not just the vulnerable ones.
As far as I’m aware, there is no further breakdown available. As far as age related adverse event data reporting goes it is shockingly limited. The only information given about children injected can be found slightly above the half way scroll mark on the above link, ‘Suspected side effects reported in individuals under 18 years old’. There is very limited information offered. The number of children injected rounded to estimate numbers, and number of Yellow Cards filed are listed per brand but no specific adverse event data. It is unclear if the child adverse events reactions listings are included in the overall total and document brand pdfs.
It feels almost futile to say it is not good enough, but it is not. It is nothing short of negligent. Meanwhile the overall number of fatalities and adverse events continue to rise.
The latest MHRA Yellow Card combination reporting summary up to January 12, 2022 (data published January 20, 2022) follows.
Adult – Primary & Booster/Third Dose, Child Administration
Pfizer – 25.5million people – 47.7m doses – Yellow Card reporting rate – 1 in 160 people impacted
AstraZeneca – 24.9m people – 49.1m doses – Yellow Card reporting rate – 1 in 103 people impacted
Moderna – 1.6m people – 3m doses – Yellow Card reporting rate – 1 in 48 people impacted
Overall 1 in 119 people injected experiences a Yellow Card Adverse Event, which may be less than 10 per cent of actual figures according to MHRA.
Adult Booster or 3rd Doses = 36,079,875 people
Booster Yellow Card Reports – 26,076 (Pfizer) + 399 (AZ) + 14,457 (Moderna) + 128 (Unknown) = 41,060
Reactions – 454,881 (Pfizer) + 857,702 (AZ) + 112,011 (Moderna) + 4,477 (Unknown) = 1,429,071
Reports – 158,933 (Pfizer) + 242,148 (AZ) + 33,630 (Moderna) + 1,462 (Unknown) = 436,173 people impacted
Fatal – 696 (Pfizer) + 1,190 (AZ) + 30 (Moderna) + 38 (Unknown) = 1,954
Blood Disorders – 16,320 (Pfizer) + 7,743 (AZ) + 2,317 (Moderna) + 63 (Unknown) = 26,443
Pulmonary Embolism & Deep Vein Thrombosis – 832 (Pfizer) + 2,997 (AZ) + 83 (Moderna) + 25 (Unknown) = 3,937
Anaphylaxis – 624 (Pfizer) + 868 (AZ) + 76 (Moderna) + 2 (Unknown) = 1,572
Acute Cardiac – 11,141 (Pfizer) + 10,855 (AZ) + 2,642 (Moderna) + 86 (Unknown) = 24,724
Pericarditis/Myocarditis – 1,091 (Pfizer) + 417 (AZ) + 276 (Moderna) + 6 (Unknown) = 1,790
Infections – 10,834 (Pfizer) + 19,774 (AZ) + 1,968 (Moderna) + 139 (Unknown) = 32,715
Blindness – 144 (Pfizer) + 312 (AZ) + 25 (Moderna) + 4 (Unknown) = 485
Eye Disorders – 7,452 (Pfizer) + 14,685 (AZ) + 1,350 (Moderna) + 81 (Unknown) = 23,568
Deafness – 272 (Pfizer) + 418 (AZ) + 43 (Moderna) + 5 (Unknown) = 738
Spontaneous Abortions – 438 including 4 miscarriage related deaths + 1 premature baby death / 15 stillbirth/foetal deaths (11 recorded as fatal) (Pfizer)…. + 227 + 2 miscarriage related deaths + 5 stillbirth (AZ)…. + 53 + 1 stillbirth (not recorded as fatal) (Moderna)…. + 4 (Unknown) = 722 miscarriages
Psychiatric Disorders – 9,493 (Pfizer) + 18,171 (AZ) + 2,181 (Moderna) + 105 (Unknown) = 29,950
Headaches & Migraines – 34,083 (Pfizer) + 93,643 (AZ) + 8,681 (Moderna) + 326 (Unknown) = 136,733
Nervous System Disorders – 76,294 (Pfizer) + 181,290 (AZ) + 18,227 (Moderna) + 819 (Unknown) = 276,630
Dizziness – 11,675 (Pfizer) + 24,942 (AZ) + 3,240 (Moderna) + 109 (Unknown) = 39,966
Strokes and CNS haemorrhages – 713 (Pfizer) + 2,262 (AZ) + 40 (Moderna) + 13 (Unknown) = 3,028
Guillain-Barré Syndrome – 84 (Pfizer) + 483 (AZ) + 10 (Moderna) + 6 (Unknown) = 583
Seizures – 1,030 (Pfizer) + 2,032 (AZ) + 240 (Moderna) + 17 (Unknown) = 3,319
Paralysis – 470 (Pfizer) + 857 (AZ) + 88 (Moderna) + 7 (Unknown) = 1422
Respiratory Disorders – 20,042 (Pfizer) + 29,289 (AZ) + 3,708 (Moderna) + 186 (Unknown) = 53,225
Reproductive/Breast Disorders – 28,503 (Pfizer) + 20,324 (AZ) + 4,479 (Moderna) + 185 (Unknown) = 53,491
Children & young people special report
Suspected side effects reported in individuals under 18yrs old
Pfizer – 3,000,000 children (1st doses) plus 900,000 second doses resulting in 2,591 Yellow Cards (up 120 since last week)
AZ – 12,400 children (1st doses) plus 9,000 second doses resulting in 250 Yellow Cards – Reporting rate 1 in 50
Moderna – 1,900 children (1st doses)* and 1,100 second doses resulting in 16 Yellow cards – Reporting rate 1 in 119
Brand Unspecified – 11 Yellow Cards
Total = 3,014,300 children injected
Total Yellow Cards Under 18s = 2,868
*MHRA state: ‘Figures for vaccinations by age group in previous weekly summary reports were based on the person’s age calculated at 31 March 2021. From this week onwards, the age definition will move to a new definition, person’s age calculated at the time of vaccination.’
Full reports including 344 pages of specific reaction listings are here.
Vaccine Site Crime Report – Greenwich Police, Lewisham Station
By The White Rose UK On 26/01/2022
URGENT
Crime References 6029679/21 + Greenwich Police ref 3615315/21
Commander Aitkin or whosoever is now standing responsible for the Peace in Greenwich:
On Saturday 15th about 4PM a group of conscientious people representing the community visited the Clover vaccine centre on General Gordon Sq. We delivered to the chemists who appeared to be in charge of the site a Cease and Desist Notice. They were provided with evidence of grievous harms being caused to patients by both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca supposed “vaccines” being administered at the site.
They also received Government sourced references indicating that there is no evidence of an epidemic in Greenwich or anywhere else in England and Wales; and that the Government itself has designated Covid 19 non-significant. That is to say, there is no justification for the panic induced vaccination of the whole population with an experimental drug causing already horrific injuries. Unfortunately there was no one available to discuss with us in detail our legitimate concerns.
The fact that no qualified and knowledgeable health professional was present to advise and inform patients is in itself a breach of the Nuremberg Code and quashes any claim that informed consent and genuine free choice was available on site. The chemists refused to engage with us. A Sikh gentleman with responsibility for the volunteers serving as patient reception did speak to us in a respectful way. He accepted our grounds for being there and our right to submit evidence. It is your duty to reassure him and the volunteer team who must have been alarmed by what happened that all is well and they are not in ignorance parties to grievous bodily harms or even potential homicides.
The chemists called the Police in their confusion and a Constable Clarke and Constable Lockyer (1636) both from Bexleyheath station arrived eventually and studied the documents served on the vaccination operatives. They were on the phone for a long period and we assume they received instruction from superiors. When they spoke to us, it was immediately obvious they had not understood the seriousness of the situation. They had not understood the justice behind the Notice or the evidence provided in support of it. They were for some reason incapable of comprehending the implications of FOI 52339 issued by Greenwich Council and the one from Hazel Watson on behalf of Bexley Council – that there is no pandemic/epidemic/ medical emergency happening to justify the panic measures afflicting the whole community. We assume as dogsbodies and state apparatchiks and in contravention of their oaths of service that they had been directed to oppose our reasonable, rational and just request for the vaccinations to stop pending proper inquiry.
We understood there is now a live criminal investigation being conducted by the MET at Hammersmith Station – ref 6029679/21. In view of the serious nature of the crimes being alleged – it is reasonable for us to seek immediate suspension of the covid “vaccine” programmes before any more people are killed, incurably heart damaged, deafened, blinded or otherwise horribly afflicted.
We are especially concerned about gratuitous assault and injury being done to children and young people when there is no earthly reason for them to be drug treated. Constables Clarke and Lockyer claimed that taking the treatment was a matter of choice. This is untrue when in effect young people are either being bribed or blackmailed into the injection queue. Blackmail is a very serious offence and is part of the indictment being examined by the MET. Could you confirm the status of the Hammersmith inquiry? Could we remind you also about the local crime reference – 3615315/21 which at this point should also be live and be demanding your urgent and thorough address?
We have to question whether Constables and Clark told the truth when they claimed the Hammersmith investigation was not a live, criminal investigation—and a justification in itself for injections to be halted at the Clover Centre; or at least to allow grounds for Greenwich police discretion to act on the precautionary principle.
We request your immediate attention. If Constables Clark and Lockyer failed in their duty to maintain the Peace and protect the human rights of potentially endangered patients – we request you take immediate action and advise the Clover “vaccine” centre to cease injections until the community can be assured that all is well and the panic within the Authorities is not causing catastrophic health injuries.
Faithfully,
Paul Ursell
Witnessed: M Kitzberger, R Cummin, Sue Johnstone
Supporters: M Ursell
Have Lockdown Sceptics Won the Argument?
By Edward Chancellor | The Daily Sceptic | January 25, 2022
Now that Covid restrictions are being rolled back, various commentators are declaring victory over the miserable virus. Lockdowns, we are told, worked. Only a fool could argue otherwise.
Devi Sridhar, the Chair of Global Public Health at Edinburgh University, who was formerly an exponent of the Zero Covid strategy of completely eradicating the virus, has recently announced in the Guardian that “delaying and preventing infection as much as possible through this pandemic was a worthwhile strategy. In early 2020, there were few treatments, limited testing and no vaccines. The costs of those lockdowns were big, but the effort to buy time paid off”.
At the other end of the political spectrum, Tom Harwood of GB News says much the same. Lockdown sceptics, he writes in CapX, are “bizarrely claiming victory now that restrictions are coming to an end”. The sceptics, Harwood asserts, ignore the success of vaccines. “There is a blindingly obvious distinction between the need for non-pharmaceutical interventions amongst a non-immune population, verses [sic] one with incredibly high levels of immunity.” He points to a lower death toll from the Omicron variant which appeared after the “stupendously successful vaccine rollout”. In conclusion, Harwood writes that to “deny lockdowns worked to reduce spread is to deny logic”.
Let’s examine the logic. If lockdowns bought time for the rollout of vaccines, then we would expect fewer Covid deaths in places that locked down early and fast. That is the case in Australia and New Zealand, which early in the pandemic sealed their borders against the virus. But the trouble with this policy, as our Antipodean friends are discovering, is the difficulty of exiting. Their policy of national self-isolation has lasted nearly two years, and continues in large measure even after most of their population has been vaccinated.
By contrast, in Europe there is no evidence that lockdowns significantly reduced Covid deaths. Sweden, which never locked down, has the same number of deaths per million as Austria, which did (see chart below). It’s true that Swedish deaths ran higher somewhat earlier than Austria, but this ‘bought-time’ doesn’t appear to have changed the final tally.
The evidence from the United States points to a similar conclusion: the Covid death rate (as a share of the population) in Florida, which largely avoided lockdowns, is slightly below the U.S. national average and far below that of New York, which had (and continues to impose) relatively tough restrictions.
It’s true that mass vaccination has reduced the risk of hospitalisation and death from Covid. But lockdown exponents imply that vaccines alone are responsible for the decline in the infection fatality rate. The evidence from South Africa, whose vaccination rate is around a quarter of the European average (49 doses per 100 people versus 180, or 27%), suggests otherwise.
It appears that either Covid has evolved to become less virulent, as the South African doctors suggested back in December, or South Africa’s population has built up strong natural immunity from prior infection – a possibility overlooked by most commentators. It seems likely that both factors have played a role in reducing the virulence of the disease. Even if lockdowns had succeeded in reducing Covid deaths until the vaccine rollout that wouldn’t necessarily justify their imposition. From the start, lockdown sceptics were concerned about the collateral damage caused by closing down the economy, shuttering schools, neglecting conventional health care and forcing people to isolate in their homes for months on end. They railed in vain against the cruelty of lockdowns: mothers giving birth alone, old people dying alone or left for months without visitors in nursing homes, the damage to children’s education, funerals unattended, small businesses crushed and so forth. Finally, the public appears to be waking up to these cruelties. Hence, the fury at the hypocrisy of Downing Street officials who imposed harsh rules for the nation which they didn’t scrupulously follow themselves.
Then there are lockdown’s immense financial costs. At the time, these could be ignored since governments financed them with interest-free loans from central banks. But all that money-printing is now fuelling inflation that will lead to further immiseration in the coming years. The sceptics argued that lockdowns were never subject to a proper cost-benefit analysis which took social and economic costs into account. That remains the case. Thus, not only has there been no ‘victory’ in the war on Covid – on the contrary, the highly contagious Omicron variant appears to be overcoming all attempts to constrain it – but the argument over lockdowns has yet to be decisively won by either side, so that lockdowns are either accepted as a tool of sound public health policy or roundly condemned as a colossal mistake. The sceptics’ work continues.
Edward Chancellor is a financial journalist and the author of Devil Take the Hindmost: A History of Financial Speculation (1998).
Guardian: ANTI-VAXXERS ARE JOINING RACIST MILITIAS
OffGuardian | January 23, 2022
This Week in the New Normal is our weekly chart of the progress of autocracy, authoritarianism and economic restructuring around the world.
1. “ANTI-VAXXERS ARE JOINING RACIST MILITIAS”
We’ve covered the increasing demonisation of the “anti-vaxxers” regularly for over a year now. Ever since Joe Biden announced his new “domestic terrorism bill”, it was obvious that “Anti-vaxxers” were going to be re-branded as some kind of violent threat to democracy (and they were).
Now it’s happening in the UK too, with a story being published warning that “anti-vaxxers” are becoming more militant and there are fears they will “evolve towards US-style militias”, according to the Guardian.
The article references nameless “counter terrorism” officials and anonymous “Whitehall sources”, who warn that…
Latest intelligence assessments describe the anti-vaxxer movement as ostensibly a conveyor belt, delivering fresh recruits to extremist groups, including racially and ethnically motivated violent extremist organisations.
So there you have it, being anti-Covid “vaccines” is a gateway protest. Before you know it you’ll be shaving your head and sieg hieling all over the place.
Absolutely pathetic propaganda, and hopefully not an early warning sign of legislation to come.
2. “WHAT IF DEMOCRACY AND CLIMATE MITIGATION ARE INCOMPATIBLE?”
OK, this is from two weeks ago, but it’s too important to skip. The title says it all, Foreign Policy is genuinely wondering if climate change is too much of a threat to let democracy stand in the way of fighting it.
It’s a long read, soaked to the bone in double-talk and built on some very shaky assumptions, but there’s some good material on there…
Democracy works by compromise, but climate change is precisely the type of problem that seems not to allow for it. As the clock on those climate timelines continues to tick, this structural mismatch is becoming increasingly exposed. And as a result, those concerned by climate change—some already with political power, others grasping for it—are now searching for, and finding, new ways of closing the gap between politics and science, by any means necessary.
It warns in the opening section, before concluding…
… democracy, in its current form, is not necessarily the path to a solution. It might, instead, be part of the problem.
It’s not hard to see where this is going. We warned, several times, that we would be moving on from Covid to climate, and that “climate lockdowns” were a very real possibility. This kind of talk is setting the groundwork for that movement.
3. ‘MORE PEOPLE IS THE LAST THING THIS PLANET NEEDS’
Another from the Guardian, this time interviewing all the hip and happening young men who are “getting vasectomies to save the world”
It’s about the climate. Again.
Apparently, there are already too many people (that’s not true, but whatever), and so young men are getting the snip. Bravely preventing placing the burden of climate catastrophe onto the next generation… by making sure there isn’t one.
One of the (anonymous, and therefore potentially made-up) interviewees went right out cut his balls off the week Donald Trump was elected. That’ll show ’em.
But wait… It’s not just about climate, it’s also about feminism.
Specifically, it’s about correcting the “gender imbalance” traditionally associated with birth control:
Vasectomies address the gender imbalance that still accompanies the choice and practice of birth control. They come with less risk than more invasive and less reliable methods of female contraception, including sterilisation and the coil.
They are genuinely arguing that making yourself sterile forever is less risky and less invasive than having a completely 100% reversible IUD inserted.
Then they start bemoaning that vasectomies can be “hard to come by, especially for younger, childless men“. NHS GPs are apparently reticent to simply sterilise perfectly healthy young men for no good reason:
While there are no laws on the age at which men in the UK can get a vasectomy, the NHS advises that they may be more likely to be accepted if they are older than 30 and have children. “Your GP can refuse to carry out the procedure … if they don’t believe it’s in your best interests,”
Not only that, but the NHS has cut funding to for vasectomies, and perhaps as a result of this, vasectomy numbers are down nationwide. The Guardian want us to think this is a bad thing, but considering the UK’s birth rate has been falling for decades, it might not be.
Nevertheless, there is hope that “world vasectomy day”, and its links to the fight against climate change, will help “burnish” the vasectomy’s progressive image.
The story ends with inspiring words from one of the voluntarily snipped…
“A lot of people are happy to point and say: ‘That’s wrong,’ or film it on their phone… I look at the world and say: ‘That’s not right; I’m going to try to do something about it.’”
A wonderful attitude. I hope he can pass that wisdom on to his children and his children’s children.
… oh, wait.
BONUS: (NEW) HELLHOLE OF THE WEEK
Not Australia this time, well done guys.
This time it’s New Zealand, where Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has just put in place strict new rules to “combat” the spread of Omicron.
Starting today, the whole of the country will move into the red on New Zealand’s “traffic light” system, meaning mandatory masks, lockdowns for the unvaccinated and an increased self-isolation period of 24 days.
How many cases prompted this decision? Nine.
Nine Covid cases in Motueka are confirmed to have the Omicron variant, prompting the decision, Ardern said.
Australia has been pretty aggressive in the game of “anything you can do, I can do worse” they have going with both New Zealand and Canada, so expect a move from them sometime this week.
IT’S NOT ALL BAD…
Yesterday marked 2022’s first “Worldwide Freedom Rally”, with marches taking place all over the world, from London to Bern, to Vancouver to Warsaw to Liverpool to Genoa.
Bilbao, Graz, Brisbane. The list goes on and on and on.
Huge crowds turned out in Toronto… Stockholm… and Sydney.
In London NHS staff threw down their uniforms in front of Downing Street.
These are the people who they want to classify as domestic terrorists and militias.
Also, someone also sent us this sign, which is our new favourite:
All told a pretty hectic week for the new normal crowd, and we didn’t even mention that the world’s ten richest men have doubled their fortunes during the pandemic or the Fed’s report on a digital dollar.
Featured Video
Seyed M. Marandi: Toward Total War in the Middle East
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Geopolitics behind the War in Yemen (I)
By Mahdi Darius NAZEMROAYA | Strategic Culture Foundation | 30.03.2015
The United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia became very uneasy when the Yemenese or Yemenite movement of the Houthi or Ansarallah (meaning the supporters of God in Arabic) gained control of Yemen’s capital, Sanaa/Sana, in September 2014. The US-supported Yemenite President Abd-Rabbuh Manṣour Al-Hadi was humiliatingly forced to share power with the Houthis and the coalition of northern Yemenese tribes that had helped them enter Sana. Al-Hadi declared that negotiations for a Yemeni national unity government would take place and his allies the US and Saudi Arabia tried to use a new national dialogue and mediated talks to co-opt and pacify the Houthis.
The truth has been turned on its head about the war in Yemen. The war and ousting of President Abd-Rabbuh Manṣour Al-Hadi in Yemen are not the results of «Houthi coup» in Yemen. It is the opposite. Al-Hadi was ousted, because with Saudi and US support he tried to backtrack on the power sharing agreements he had made and return Yemen to authoritarian rule. The ousting of President Al-Hadi by the Houthis and their political allies was an unexpected reaction to the takeover Al-Hadi was planning with Washington and the House of Saudi. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Pakistan-Iran talks secure LNG shipment to Islamabad through Hormuz
- Black Sea grain crisis puts global wheat supplies under pressure
- IRGC air defenses destroy another US MQ-1 drone over Strait of Hormuz
- Imran Khan’s entire immediate family detained in Pakistan ahead of mass protest demanding his release
- EU nation detains former presidential frontrunner
- Leaked: Britain’s Sham Conviction Of Hashim Thaci
- Seyed M. Marandi: U.S. Strike Imminent – Toward Total War in the Middle East
- Russia Voted Under Fire. Washington Is Loading the Tankers.
- 12 Things Your Oncologist Was Trained Not to Tell You
- Anthrax Attacks Paved Way for COVID-Era ‘Junk Drugs and Vaccines’
- If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- No Tricks Zone
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
Aletho News 