Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

How freedom of choice on gender divides children and their parents

By Anastasia Safronova | RT | November 4, 2021

As schools increasingly push freedom of self-identification, parents are often unaware of how deeply rooted this ideology has become among their children. A number of international experts tell RT there’s reason to be concerned.

You can never know for sure what’s going on in another person’s head – especially when that person’s a child. And, while you might imagine otherwise, particularly when it’s your own child. Are you so certain you really know everything about them? The reality may shock you.

The scenario in which children trust their ‘virtual’ friends more than their parents is nothing new. The rift between generations is deepening. And, in many places, one of the key factors contributing to this division is the education system. Schools are so focused on honouring students’ freedom of expression and self-identification – including when it comes to their gender – that they often make children’s lives more complicated and stressful rather than less.

“Projects to be worked on”

Angus Fox, a British academic who represents a global alliance of parents and professional groups in his role as the MD of Genspect, is of the view that, in countries where the debate over gender issues being on the school curriculum is raging, the education system has become too political. He says, “Teaching children the basic skills they need to value themselves, to look after their own mental health first and foremost – that seems to have gone. Practical things seem to have disappeared from the curriculum, to be replaced by very ideological stuff.”

Some teachers even appear to view their pupils as a sort of scientific experiment, Fox suggests. “They see children as projects to be worked on, so they start to have this very emotionally intrusive relationship,” he explains. Younger teachers, in particular, may reject the normative beliefs of the older generation – and that applies not only to more senior colleagues, but to some children’s parents too. “They see these very vulnerable children asking, ‘What am I?’ and they take advantage of that – almost, in a way, attacking their parents. What’s happening in schools is terrifying.”

“It’s not about child welfare – it’s about teachers creating the kind of the world they want to live in.”

The situation is very concerning, according to British science teacher and writer Debbie Hayton, who is herself transgender. What happens in schools is going far beyond the concept of ‘safeguarding,’ she says. “Safeguarding is where we protect children from possible harm. As teachers, we tell children that we can’t keep secrets. If children tell us something important, we need to share it with other responsible adults. But there’s a different standard being applied to these transgender-identified children, which is that secrets can be kept from their parents.”

Whatever the situation, the same rules should be applied, Hayton insists. Last year, she spoke to a mother from Massachusetts whose 14-year-old daughter had identified as transgender for three years. Jennifer, a physician in her 50s, told Hayton her child’s school hadn’t revealed that she had started to question her gender identity. When the teenager asked to be prescribed puberty blockers, Jennifer realized no one had warned her daughter about the possibly irreversible side effects.

Fox is aware of stories like Jennifer’s. He says, “I heard of a young girl who started to take testosterone, and her mother said, ‘It can damage your bone health, as you’re a girl.’ But she replied, ‘I identify as a man, so why would testosterone affect me differently from anyone else who’s a man?’ These kids truly believe they can say they’re something and they become something. When the enormity of that hits the parent, it’s often too late.”

“There’s a whole generation of kids who find it very difficult to believe you if you say, ‘Hold on! It’s not that simple. You’ve got this body and you can’t mess it up!’”

“I have a friend who’s a male de-transitioner, and he says that the people he was hanging around with treated their body like it was a customizable object, like a doll,” continues Fox. Young people are often very naïve, no matter how smart they are, and the danger is that their decisions can be influenced by campaign groups, some of which receive funding from pharmaceutical companies, he cautions.

“Influencing children towards a specific way of thinking”

Mary Laval, a member of Genspect’s press team, is the mother of a gender-questioning teenager. She thinks schools should be inclusive and encourage children to be open-minded. “However, it’s not their place to start teaching kids ideology and to spread misinformation,” she says. In her view, gender ideology has become akin to religion, and, and, as in non-religious schools, parents have the right to expect that their children are not taught religion. It’s a plea made by many parents: to have the right to choose whether their son or daughter is taught that they have the freedom to choose their gender.

Reports of schools trying to hide their students’ gender preferences from their parents – usually justified by the institution’s need to protect vulnerable minors – are frequently reported in the media. Occasionally, parents file lawsuits, being of the view that they have the right to know what’s going on with their children.

Sometimes, the pursuit of ideological goals leads to major problems, as evidenced by the recent scandal involving the Loudoun County School Board, in Virginia, US, which became far greater than just a local conflict between parents and the education system. Two sexual assault cases were filed in two different schools in the space of six months, with the same student convicted of one charge and facing a sexual battery charge for the other. Parents in the county were furious, blaming the authorities for seemingly having tried to silence the matter after the first case, which saw the male student in question enter the female toilets wearing a skirt and carry out the aforementioned assault. Students themselves staged a protest demanding their school guarantee their safety.

According to Genspect founder Stella O’Malley, a psychotherapist and best-selling author, it’s inappropriate for schools to misuse their position of responsibility to influence children into thinking a certain way. She says, “​​Schools are for educating young people, for broadening their minds. Young people need to be allowed the opportunity to first learn about concepts in a neutral manner so they can ultimately decide for themselves their own views on any given topic.”

There’s one more angle to this issue that’s worth considering here. Relationships between teenagers are not always straightforward – they’re often not very kind to each other. Last month, it was reported that a group of students from an Illinois high school staged a survey asking whether “queers” should be allowed to use the restroom alongside “normal people.” That’s just one example of the anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment coming to the fore in some American high schools, fanned, it would appear, by an insistent focus on gender and sexuality. Many professionals believe the question of gender wouldn’t have become so difficult for youngsters of all persuasions if the debate – which was originally initiated by adults, after all – hadn’t been allowed to get so heated.

Fox says most parents don’t believe it’s a problem to teach about gender in school until it affects their family personally. He explains: “You get this phenomenon of ‘Well, yes, but not my child.’ A lot of parents I work with have been very honest and said, ‘Mea culpa. I made a terrible mistake. Because, before it was my child, I saw other children going through this and I thought, it was a good thing that we now have more trans people.’” However, when it comes to being told by their child’s school about their own offspring’s wish to transition, Fox says, their opinion often changes drastically. “They say, ‘It can’t be true. I don’t believe what you say.’”

The situation is exacerbated by mainstream and social media pouring fuel on the fire, while, at the same time, avoiding covering all sides of the argument. Fox says, “It’s as if you say you’re trans and everyone should jump up and celebrate, and anyone who does anything different is a figure of hate. It’s very difficult to operate in that climate.”

However, the tide may be turning. According to Hayton, the public is starting to challenge the one-sided narrative, at least in the UK. “The line being pushed is that children have their gender identity and only they know about it, and that needs to be affirmed at all cost. But people are speaking out against that, and there’s a debate now,” she says. “In other English-speaking countries, I’m seeing less of it, however – they seem to be further behind.”

Those who feel there should be a broader dialogue are coming under a lot of pressure, but they’re persevering, determined to ensure alternative views get airtime too. “There are a lot of people willing to start the debate,” she concludes.

November 4, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

The News is being Nudged

A joint report from Sky and the UK government’s Nudge Unit reveals a startling collaboration

By Laura Dodsworth | November 2, 2021

propaganda, n

The systematic dissemination of information, esp. in a biased or misleading way, in order to promote a political cause or point of view.

– Oxford English Dictionary

Is the news still news when it is being nudged by the UK government’s behavioural scientists?

Sky announced this week that behaviour change on climate can be driven by TV. It released a video which opened with the lines, “We cannot understate the urgency. But faced with issues of such enormity, what role can we play?”

It’s not actually a question, they have already decided their role. Sky announced that it was collaborating with the “independent Behavioural Insights Team”. That sounds more palatable than collaborating with the government doesn’t it? But the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) is one third owned by the Cabinet Office and appears to be on permanent tenure at Downing Street. Can a company which is one third owned by the government be fairly described as “independent”?

BIT’s report The Power of TV: Nudging Viewers to Decarbonise their Lifestyles makes a number of startling admissions.

“Behaviour change via broadcasting and traditional media has historically been aimed at improving public health, boosting gender equality, and reducing violence. Imagine the potential for emissions reductions if the same methods were used to encourage sustainable behaviours!”

The key word is “historical”. If you have ever suspected that social and political issues were being confected somewhat artificially in TV programming, you were right. This is an admission of social engineering.

According to a joint survey by Sky and BIT, 70% of people across Europe are willing to change their behaviour to address the climate crisis and 80% support TV broadcasters ‘nudging’ viewers to think about the environment, whether that’s through documentaries, advertising or increasing the coverage of environmental issues in the news.

Climate policy is a tricky nut to crack – persuading us to have under-performing and expensive boilers, asking us to switch insects for meat, stop taking foreign holidays and drive our cars less is going to be a hard sell. So the nudgers are going to use the telly box to persuade the recalcitrant masses.

The survey itself uses ‘social conformity’. Ah, you are supposed to think, if 80% of people think TV programming should be used to ‘nudge’ us, then that’s what I think too. Notoriously, however, there is a gap between what people say they want in surveys and what they actually want. The ultimate proof will be in behaviour and ratings.

The report states that broadcasters and content creators have a “unique opportunity to make a difference for the planet”. (I wonder what difference it would make if Sky’s CEO stopped commuting transatlantically by private jet?)

According to the report, the British public are unwilling to take supposedly “high impact” actions, such as eating less meat and dairy, switching to electric vehicles, using public transport, and switching to green pensions.

The Power of TV: Nudging Viewers to Decarbonise their Lifestyles

The report is audaciously bossy about how broadcasters and content creators should change the British public’s behaviour.

Advice such as “Frequency of exposure to green themes could be enhanced by building ecological beliefs and traits into core characters within a show so that green issues can fluently be raised time and time again,” sounds potentially tedious.

You will see fewer characters “carelessly drinking from a plastic bottle”. But you will see more kids programming centre on green issues to influence you as well as the kids to promote “intergenerational spillover”.

Suggestions continue with “a family could discuss reducing their waste” in a comedy show. Making that funny is quite the gauntlet throw. News segments could “explore barriers to acting green and share stories for overcoming them,” which doesn’t sound particularly newsworthy. An episode of a drama could include references to buying an electric vehicle and, of course, characters should order vegetarian options in restaurants.

Plump the cushions, grab a cuppa and get ready for the green themes in your favourite psyopera, I mean soap opera. During COP26, storylines are converging on the environment. Soap ratings have diminished over the years and is it any wonder? People don’t want to be preached to. Creativity cannot be programmed and storytelling is an art. It is naïve arrogance to believe this sort of technocratic tinkering will engage viewers. We gravitate to good stories.

Mercifully, BIT suggests that broadcasters “avoid a negative tone” and warns that “fear-mongering, guilt-tripping, blaming, or preaching can be counter-productive.” (I wonder if a certain book had an impact?)

In addition to Sky, another eleven major UK media brands, including the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, RTE, Britbox and Discovery, have pledged to increase the amount and “quality” of their climate coverage. So expect the airwaves to be flooded with the techniques suggested in the BIT report. At the same time, expect very little media scrutiny of this astonishing collaboration between nudgers and newscasters. And in print and online, the BBC, The Guardian, The Times and the Financial Times have added specific climate sections to their news.

A few months after the publication of A State of Fear, a government advisor told me that the behavioural scientists are “very pleased with themselves” and “Britain is seen as leading the way in how to manipulate people. There is skipping in Whitehall corridors. The public have been proved to be incredibly sheepish, so there’s more nudge coming.” And so there is.

My book concluded that the UK government’s use of behavioural science during the Covid epidemic lacked transparency and was anti-democratic. BIT’s report might appear to rebut both accusations. Don’t be fooled. It rests upon a survey which says people want to be nudged through the media. But research conducted by biased and vested parties is not a substitute for a democratic mandate. The British public never voted for or consented to the creation of a Nudge Unit to subliminally influence them and then set the news agenda. Furthermore, when behavioural scientists – and by extension the government – influence the news, it risks the inquiry, debate and balance that the media owes the public.

Whatever you believe about climate, or Covid-19, or any other agenda, can any mental contortions justify the news being nudged? We would criticise such blatant propaganda if it happened in any other country and we should not tolerate here. We should switch it off.

November 3, 2021 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Suffer the children: How the young are groomed into the transgender trap

By Belinda Brown | TCW Defending Freedom | November 3, 2021

THE eminent biologist Lord Robert Winston recently reminded viewers of BBC’s Question Time that ‘you cannot change your sex. Your sex actually is there in every single cell in the body. You have chromosomal sex, you have genetic sex, you have hormonal sex, you have all sorts of psychological brain sex, they’re all different’.

He said this in defence of Professor Kathleen Stock, the latest victim of death threats and significant harassment having fallen foul of the transgender lobby, who has also won the support of Equalities MInister Kemi Badenoch.

The most vulnerable victims of the trans lobby’s bullying ideological agenda however are not the feminist academics, nor even the female athletes who are now forced to compete against the opposite and far more powerful sex.

They are not even the women in prisons who have to fend off male rapists in their midst, terrible though their situation is and their fear must be.

The most vulnerable are the unacknowledged victims of this ever more determined lobby. They are the children who are systematically groomed to believe they can be the opposite sex.

The trans lobby will tell you that this decision-making is driven by the child. But given the endless funding for propaganda, the persistent drip of modern sex education and zeal of certain child psychiatrists, it is hardly children who are leading the way.

Today, from the earliest ages the normal development of an understanding of sex differences is prevented. Children are given books such as Are you a boy or are you a girl? which teach them not to assume that anyone has a particular sex.

They are further confused with lessons on the gender unicorn which deny biological sex facts.

Along with concepts such as ‘gender expression’, ‘gender identity’ and ‘assigned sex’, serious attempts are being made by some educationalists and trans lobbyists to stop the idea (indeed the fact) that we are born as boys or girls from ever taking root.

It is the most vulnerable of children – those who for whatever reason do not adhere to rigid gender stereotypes – who are too often singled out for special gender treatment; they are ‘affirmed’ as not being their sex.

Being ‘affirmed’ means that this child will instead be told that they are indeed the opposite sex and will be treated as such. The child’s peer group and all his or her trusted adults will be encouraged, or even compelled, to engage in this myth.

Affirmation is but the first step in the process of social transition which sets the child on a path which is likely to involve them in medicalisation for the rest of their lives.

The biggest threat (from the trans ideologists’ point of view) to this process is the onset of puberty. If a child has been told by trusted adults that he (or she) is actually the opposite sex, it could be confusing if significant changes happening to his body led to the conclusion that he had been lied to, or that his trusted adults were wrong.

To avoid this, lobbyists have campaigned for puberty-blocking drugs to be given earlier, at the first onset of puberty. In fact, children are often encouraged to ‘transition’ in the interlude between primary and secondary school, so that no one will ever know they are ‘trans’.

The reality check provided by puberty is averted. And those on puberty-blockers are almost invariably moved on to taking cross-sex hormones.

A female cannot move into womanhood if she hasn’t been able to go through puberty as a girl. This is what Keira Bell was condemned to. Keira is the brave young woman who had treatment at the NHS-run Tavistock child gender clinic in Devon and brought a successful judicial review against the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation, sadly since overturned by the Appeal Court.

She has explained how this process worked: ‘The idea was that this would give me a “pause” to think about whether I wanted to continue to a further gender transition.

‘This so-called pause put me into what felt like menopause with hot flushes, night sweats and brain fog. All this made it more difficult to think clearly about what I should do.

‘By the end of a year of this treatment, when I was presented with the option of moving on to testosterone, I jumped at it – I wanted to feel like a young man, not an old woman.’

This shocking process has been allowed to carry on because we’ve been told that if we didn’t allow it, these young people would kill themselves.

But study after study shows that gender dysphoria is much more likely to be a consequence than a cause of psychological problems – problems that the process of transition may entrench or worsen. In fact, the relationship is the other way around.

A recent study of gender dysphoric children showed that almost 90 per cent had comorbid (simultaneous) health diagnoses and other indicators of psychological distress. (The precise figure is 88.6 per cent – see top of page 80).

Sixty-five per cent of gender dysphoric children suffered from anxiety. Sixty-two per cent suffered from depression. More than 33 per cent had behavioural disorders. The presence of autism was another cause for concern.

The link between gender dysphoria and pre-existing mental ill-health was also confirmed by a study of de-transitioners, of whom 58 per cent felt that their gender dysphoria was caused by trauma or a mental health condition.

This is not a new discovery, but has been found repeatedly in studies. It has just been conveniently ignored. The family stories told by these children and their parents often reveal the source of their mental health disorders. Adverse childhood experiences had been very much part of their lives.

Sixty-six per cent had experienced family conflict, 66 per cent parental mental illness; 60 per cent had lost an important figure via separation, and bullying had been common for 54 per cent. Thirty-nine per cent experienced maltreatment (p.71).

We may be tempted to lay the blame at the feet of these families who, despite measurably high levels of dysfunction and conflict, appear to have no awareness that their problems could be impacting on the child as well as themselves.

Instead, what appears to happen is that the child’s gender dysphoria provides a handy explanation for all the stresses and strains which the family or individual may be feeling, and even better from their point of view, a medical solution through which these problems can be resolved.

Keira Bell explains it thus: ‘When I was seen at the Tavistock Clinic, I had so many issues that it was comforting to think I really had only one that needed solving: I was a male in a female body.’

But the blame does not really lie with these families. Often they were from disadvantaged groups in society, living under considerable financial and social stress. Their biggest crime is perhaps a lack of common sense. Far more culpable are the media, the well-funded lobby groups and the clinicians who’ve recklessly applied this fashionable theory.

This essay will continue tomorrow.

November 3, 2021 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Useless Green Energy Hitting The Wall

By Francis Menton | Manhattan Contrarian | October 13, 2021

In the field of litigation settlements, people sometimes talk about a “win, win” scenario — a settlement structure where both sides can get some advantage and simultaneously claim victory. By that criterion, what is “green” energy (aka intermittent wind and solar power)? The public pays hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies to get the things built, and in return it gets: sudden shortages and soaring prices for coal, oil, gas and electricity; and dramatically reduced reliability of the electrical grid, leading to periodic blackouts and risks of many more of same; and despite it all fossil fuel use doesn’t go down. It’s a “lose, lose, lose.”

As the world comes out of the pandemic and the international economy returns to attempting to fulfill normal consumer demand, you can see green energy hitting the wall pretty much everywhere you look. It’s just a question of which data points you want to collect for a day’s entertainment.

The current energy crisis in Europe and Asia is of course getting next to no coverage in the U.S. media. But over at Bloomberg News they have a big story on October 4. That’s Bloomberg News as in Mike Bloomberg — the man with four private jets and at least ten houses who devotes his public life to hectoring you to cut your “carbon footprint.” But now suddenly the Bloomberg News people seem to have figured out that periodic energy crises are an inevitable consequence of increasing reliance on the undependable wind and sun. The headline of the article is “Global Energy Crisis Is the First of Many in the Green Power Era.” The Bloomberg piece itself is behind paywall, but extensive excerpts can be found at Climate Depot, where they call it a “moment of clarity”:

The next several decades could see more periods of energy-driven inflation, fuel shortages and lost economic growth as electricity supplies are left vulnerable to shocks.. . . . The world is living through the first major energy crisis of the clean-power transition. It won’t be the last. . . . Wind and solar power production have soared in the last decade. But both renewable sources are notoriously fickle — available at some times and not at others. And electricity, unlike gas or coal, is difficult to store in meaningful quantities. That’s a problem, because on the electrical grid, supply and demand must be constantly, perfectly balanced. Throw that balance out of whack, and blackouts result.

No kidding.

Meanwhile, the latest place to get hit with blackouts due to an unreliable grid is China. (Previous rounds of blackouts traceable to over-reliance on unreliable wind and/or solar power have hit South Australia in 2016, California in 2020, and Texas in February this year.). From the New York Times, September 27:

Power cuts and even blackouts have slowed or closed factories across China in recent days, adding a new threat to the country’s slowing economy and potentially further snarling global supply chains ahead of the busy Christmas shopping season in the West. The outages have rippled across most of eastern China, where the bulk of the population lives and works.

But didn’t the same New York Times just tell us on October 8 that China is “the world leader” in both solar power and wind power? Somehow, neither of those seems to help when electricity demand suddenly ramps up. Just yesterday the Guardian reported that the recent power chaos is causing China to re-emphasize what they call “energy security,” which the Guardian takes to mean fossil fuels, particularly coal:

China plans to build more coal-fired power plants and has hinted that it will rethink its timetable to slash emissions. . . . In a statement after a meeting of Beijing’s National Energy Commission, the Chinese premier, Li Keqiang, stressed the importance of regular energy supply, after swathes of the country were plunged into darkness by rolling blackouts that hit factories and homes. While China has published plans to reach peak carbon emissions by 2030, the statement hinted that the energy crisis had led the Communist party to rethink the timing of this ambition, with a new “phased timetable and roadmap for peaking carbon emissions”. . . . “Energy security should be the premise on which a modern energy system is built and and the capacity for energy self-supply should be enhanced,” the statement said.

Over in the UK, somebody has now finally taken the time to do a calculation of how much it would cost to provide sufficient battery storage to get the country through an extended (ten day) period of dark and calm in the winter, assuming a grid relying 100% on wind and solar generation. The calculation has been made by Professors Peter Edwards and Peter Dobson of Oxford University, and Gari Owen of Annwvyn Solutions, on behalf of Net Zero Watch, which is a project of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. (Full disclosure: I serve on the board of the American affiliate of this organization.). The answer that Edwards, Dobson and Owen come up with is approximately 3 trillion British pounds. For comparison, UK GDP in 2020 was just under 2 trillion British pounds. And if you look at the Edwards/Dobson/Owen calculation, you will realize that they assume zero loss of energy on the round trip into and out of the batteries. That’s rather a favorable assumption, given that in practice an all-wind-and-solar system would need to store power all the way from the summer to the winter. What percentage of your cell phone’s battery charge is left if you leave the device unplugged on the shelf for six months? But then, it’s all fantasy anyway, so what does it matter?

And finally, the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Agency has just (October 6) come out with its annual International Energy Outlook. This is the sage projection of our wisest gurus of how the production and consumption of energy will change over the three decades from now until 2050. Surely then these guys will show us how the world will achieve the true path to Net Zero carbon emissions within that time frame, if not much sooner.

OK, then, here is the key chart:

Wait a minute! Could they really be saying that, rather than being on a path to oblivion, all major fossil fuel categories (petroleum, natural gas and coal) will continue to see increased usage right on through 2050, and with no indication that any decline will have begun even then? Yes, that is exactly what they are saying. Indeed the projected increases in consumption of two of those fuels are quite dramatic — up in the range of 50% for natural gas and 40% for petroleum. Yes, so-called “renewables” are projected to increase dramatically; but after thirty years of this, they will still, according to EIA, provide only about 25% of “primary energy consumption,” which is less than petroleum alone, and barely a third of the combined contribution of petroleum, natural gas and coal.

But don’t worry, prices for gasoline and electricity will increase by a multiple, and we’ll have regular blackouts.

November 1, 2021 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Internet Trolls Face Jail For Causing “Psychological Harm!”

By Richie Allen | November 1, 2021

The Times is reporting this morning that trolls could be sentenced to two years imprisonment for sending messages or posting content that causes psychological harm.

Writing in this morning’s paper, Home Affairs Editor Matt Dathan said:

Ministers will overhaul communication laws by creating new offences in the forthcoming Online Safety Bill, the flagship legislation to combat abuse and hatred on the internet.

The Department for Culture, Media & Sport has accepted recommendations from the Law Commission for crimes to be based on “likely psychological harm”.

The proposed law change will shift the focus on to the “harmful effect” of a message rather than if it contains “indecent” or “grossly offensive” content, which is the present basis for assessing its criminality.

A new offence of “threatening communications” will target messages and social media posts that contain threats of serious harm. It would be an offence where somebody intends a victim to fear the threat will be carried out.

A “knowingly false communication” offence will be created that will criminalise those who send or post a message they know to be false with the intention to cause “emotional, psychological, or physical harm to the likely audience”. Government sources gave the example of antivaxers spreading false information that they know to be untrue.

The new offences will include so-called “pile-ons” where a number of individuals join others in sending harassing messages to a victim on social media.

I have been warning Richie Allen Show listeners for several years now, that this was coming. Long before the advent of covid-19, I predicted that people would eventually be prosecuted and even imprisoned for expressing their opinions.

You might well ask, how could the state prove that someone “knowingly” sent an anti-vaccine communication? In a fair and just world it would be next to impossible to prove that the accused antivaxxer didn’t believe what he/she was saying. But these are not fair and just times. It’s open tyranny now.

You might think that all any defendant would need do is march into court with the latest Yellow Card reports. UK citizens who believe that they have had an adverse reaction to a jab can report it on the government website. It’s known as the Yellow Card scheme.

Again, in a righteous world, that would be the end of it. But there’s nothing righteous about our world right now.

The Online Harms Bill was dreamt up to destroy the independent media. Three years ago, I was approached by academics from Salford University and an old friend who still works for the BBC.

They told me that they were coming for the independent/alternative media and that The Richie Allen Show was top of the list in the UK. You’ll remember me telling you that at the time.

Three years ago, The Department for Culture, Media and Sport held hearings about online harms and misinformation, to gather the facts before publishing the Online Harms white paper. As the producer of the country’s most popular independent news show, I peppered them with emails, asking to be allowed to provide a statement to the hearing about what it is that I (and others) do and why we do it. I never received a reply.

Throughout the scamdemic, I have platformed academics from long established universities and colleges, men and women who have challenged lockdown, the claims about covid and of course, the vaccines.

Every one of those guests earned the right to express their opinions in a public forum. But that just won’t do. If your agenda is to regularly inject everyone on the planet with mRNA and DNA jabs, you must first rid yourself of any opposition. It’s happening now.

I said it already, it’s open tyranny. Your government is proposing to lock up its citizens for expressing opinions based on their own personal experiences or what they have read elsewhere, often in official documents.

Some day soon, it’ll be an offence to question vaccine safety and a crime to declare that you do not believe the global warming narrative on the basis that expressing such thoughts causes real harm to others.

I can hardly believe that this is happening. But it is.

November 1, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Molnupiravir: Covid Wonder Drug or Money-Making Scam?

By Ryan Matters | OffGuardian | October 28, 2021

What happens when you fail in your attempts to create a vaccine for “Covid-19” and then realize you’ve just missed out on a billion-dollar profit-making opportunity?

You hurriedly develop a new drug, rush it through a clinical trial (which you yourself design to ensure good results), and then announce it to the world as the Covid cure we’ve all been waiting for, except no one’s been waiting for it because Covid isn’t any more deadly than the flu, and can be treated by easy-to-procure, inexpensive means (if it exists at all).

But governments are too stupid to know that and you own most of the corrupt politicians making the decisions, so who cares? As long as they’re willing to invest in your new concoction, it doesn’t even have to be necessary, or safe, or effective, or ethical…

Yes, I’m talking about “Molnupiravir”, Merck’s latest poison being promoted as an effective treatment against covid-19 (hang on, I thought that’s what the vaccines were for?).

This unapproved (yes, unapproved) drug costs $700 per course and the US government has just agreed to buy 1.7m courses. That’s a 1.2 BILLION dollar investment.

The deal is part of the Biden administration’s pledge to “respond to the health needs of the public”, but, in actuality, it’s simply a money-siphoning operation, with the American public coming off second best.

Molnupiravir is being sold to the public as the next big breakthrough in Covid-19 treatment off the back of what appears to be a SINGLE study, which was never even completed. Furthermore, the study was conducted by Merck (the makers of the drug), who chose not to disclose any adverse events. If that isn’t suspicious enough, the study was never published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Media press releases are apparently the new standard when it comes to evaluating medical treatments. After all, why would you wait for independent confirmation of your results or objective peer-review when you can get paid journalists, without a shred of medical expertise, to convince the public that they need your new drug?

If government scientists with integrity were in charge of assessing Molnupiravir, not bribed pharma shills, they may be alarmed at the lack of testing or the failure to disclose adverse events, they may even notice that vitamin D has had FAR superior results in combating “Covid-19”. In fact, one study, published in the highly respected and influential Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, found that vitamin D reduced mortality among severe covid-19 patients by 79%.

Compare that to the alleged 50% reduction offered by Molnupiravir for “mild-to-moderately ill” patients. Not to mention the difference in cost. As stated earlier, Molnupiravir runs at $700 per course, while vitamin D costs a fraction of that (probably less than $10!).

Furthermore, while Merck chose not to disclose adverse reactions, years worth of reliable data shows that vitamin D supplementation is extremely safe. And not only is taking vitamin D safe, but it also has a wealth of benefits for a variety of conditions including depression, anxiety, pain, inflammation, hypertension, cardiovascular disease and more.

As was obvious from the very beginning of the “pandemic” when nutritional medicine experts were slandered in the press for recommending “lethal” doses of vitamins, world health has been hijacked by the profit-hungry, empathy-dead, toxic cartel of Big Pharma “medicine”, and our governments have been in bed with them all along.

Furthermore, this has been going on longer than most people think. In fact, more than a decade earlier, governments were locking in billion-dollar deals to buy stockpiles of “Tamiflu”, an equally useless influenza drug that was later found to have no effect on reducing hospitalizations, deaths or complications from influenza.

In fact, Tamiflu was subsequently found to cause a raft of serious adverse reactions including delirium, panic attacks and even hallucinations. The “milder” side effects include nausea and vomiting.

In 2020, an unsealed whistleblower lawsuit revealed that drug company Hoffman-La Roche, the maker of Tamiflu, misrepresented clinical studies and made false claims regarding the effectiveness of the drug to treat influenza. In a 2020 article, Nasdaq quotes attorney Mark Lanier as saying that:

As alleged in the complaint – Tamiflu does not do what Roche promised… Roche hid this fact for many years by selectively citing its studies and suppressing the data about Tamiflu. The company utilized lobbyists, key opinion leaders and ghostwriters to promote Tamiflu with a deceptive promise to governments fearful of an influenza pandemic.”

Nonetheless, the medicine remains on the World Health Organization’s “essential medicines” list. The US and UK governments spent $1.3 billion and $703 million respectively buying “strategic reserves” of Tamiflu in preparation for a global flu pandemic.

At the time, the media (which had not yet totally sold out to Mr. Global) condemned the investments as a waste of money.

Governments made these outlandish investments off the back of “incomplete” data, which is exactly what has occurred with the latest deal to procure Merck’s Molnupiravir. And I’ll bet that when more data comes out, it will be found, once again, that governments wasted millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money.

Bribed politicians would rather deepen their pockets than institute sensible health policies or invest money into procuring and promoting vitamin D, which would not only save lives but help to improve mental health in a woefully deficient population ravaged by anxiety and depression.

As functional medicine expert, Dr. Alex Vasquez states in his latest blog,

… viral infections and the fear and ignorance around them have become a great way for drug companies to sell worthless drugs to their bribed politicians. If we spent that money on heath-promotion rather than fear-promotion, we’d be freer, stronger, healthier, and we’d emancipate ourselves from the mental slavery of fear, ignorance, and dependence.”

Furthermore, the importance of sunlight cannot be overstated, for apart from being our principal source of Vitamin D, it also induces the production of several powerful antiviral metabolites that aid the body in fighting off illness.

This article would not be complete without at least mentioning some of the corrupt dealings, legal cases and blatant crimes that Merck has been involved in over the years. The most egregious of these offenses, and one of the largest scandals in medical history, was the company’s promotion of its anti-inflammatory drug, Vioxx.

During its height, Vioxx was earning Merck $2 billion in revenue per year and estimations have found that around 25 million patients were prescribed the drug. In September 2004, Merck was forced to recall Vioxx on account of it being shown to cause adverse cardiovascular events, such as heart attacks and stroke.

Merck was slammed with a massive class-action lawsuit that was eventually settled for $4.85 billion in 2007. Not only did Merck cover up data suggesting its drug was dangerous, they illegally promoted it as an “off-label” treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, without any indication of its effectiveness.

According to the testimony of Dr. David Graham, the Associate Director for Science and Medicine in FDA’s Office of Drug Safety, Vioxx caused 55,000 premature deaths from heart attacks and stroke.

Even years after taking the medication, patients often still experience problems, indicating that Vioxx may have killed far more people than the conservative estimate made by Dr. Graham, who, after all, works for the FDA, the organization that was responsible for assessing the drug’s safety.

In fact, after analysing US national mortality data starting from the year Vioxx was released up to the year it was withdrawn, Ron Unz, [former] publisher of The American Conservative, came to the startling conclusion that Vioxx may have been responsible for up to 500,000 deaths, mostly in the elderly (age 65+) population.

After the scandal, Merck hired the services of PR company, Burson-Marstellar (whose past campaigns include covering up genocide in Nigeria, fighting health authorities on the issue of second-hand cigarette smoke, and playing down Apple’s abuse of Chinese factory workers), to help clean up its public image and assert them as an “ethical player in the healthcare arena”.

And it seems to have worked, for here we are, 15 years later with another worthless – and possibly quite dangerous – Merck drug being promoted around the world as a treatment for “Covid-19”. Predictably, the UK government has now expressed interest in Molnupiravir, with many more countries expected to follow suit.

But Merck’s criminal history stretches further back than 1999 when Vioxx hit the shelves, for, as early as the 1960s, Merck faced controversy regarding its arthritis medication, Indocin. Although the drug had been approved by the FDA, it was later revealed that the medication had not been adequately tested for efficacy or side effects.

Less than a decade later, Merck’s drug DES (diethylstilbestrol), alleged to prevent miscarriages, was found to be carcinogenic, causing cases of cervical cancer and other gynaecological disorders. And last (but certainly not least), in 2007, Merck’s cholesterol drug, “Zetia” was shown to cause liver disease, a risk that was known to Merck who intentionally concealed the damning trial results.

Before ending this article, I would like to quote a section from one of my previous articles titled Big Pharma Power Vortex vs Zero Deaths From Vitamins, as I believe it’s particularly pertinent here:

For those who think the media are simply biased towards pharmaceutical drugs, this is a naive assumption. Behind the headline-making newspapers, magazines and television programs is a coordinated socio-political power vortex seeded in Big Pharma/Big Money corruption.

Drawing on the work of Dr. Alex Vasquez, I present here a brief summary of how the system works:

    1. Medical journals are inherently biased towards publishing pro-drug articles. These then serve as advertisements for the pharmaceutical industry which pays millions of dollars for journal reprints.
    2. Mainstream media outlets such as newspapers, magazines, TV shows and online publications then republish the pro-drug information, much to the delight of the pharmaceutical industry.
    3. Medical science and mainstream media then become a pro-drug echo chamber for biased, Big Pharma propaganda.
    4. Drug companies increase their sales, gaining profits and building influence to the point where they have more power than governments.
    5. Pharmaceutical companies infiltrate medical education, media, and health policy; they pay “researchers” to publish and teach information favourable to the pharmaceutical paradigm.
    6. Governments then write policies and make investments that favour drug companies rather than the citizens of that country.

At the time of writing, Molnupiravir has not yet been FDA approved. However, Merck has asked the FDA to grant “emergency” approval on account of the drug’s alleged effectiveness. Considering the decisions made by the FDA thus far, along with the fact that funding from pharmaceutical companies like Merck makes up 75% of the FDA’s drug review budget, what do you think the chances are of Molnupiravir’s approval being granted?

And would you trust a doctor who prescribed it to you?

October 31, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Leave a comment

UK Covers Up War Crimes for Political Reasons

By Vladimir Platov – New Eastern Outlook – 31.10.2021

It is common knowledge that the British armed forces have been heavily involved in the conflicts of the last decades incited by the United States as they used their troops on a large scale in Iraq and Afghanistan, to name a few. Due to the US and UK military actions in those countries a lot of civilians died and their families and representatives vehemently demand justice for those guilty of war crimes.

Through Resolution 2391 (XXIII) dated November 26, 1968, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. The rules aimed at protecting the victims of armed conflict, and placing restrictions on the methods and means of warfare, are spelled out in detail in international humanitarian law, which also defines the mechanisms for ensuring compliance with these rules.

However, the US and the UK have recently, and inexcusably, started to think of themselves as outside the scope of these international legal documents that they adopted themselves, and allow them to be ostensibly violated. Moreover, as evidenced by numerous testimony, including those published in Western media outlets, there is the increasing desire to cover up the war crimes that have been committed in recent decades in the Middle East and Afghanistan by US military service personnel, and some of its allies. Besides the efforts to shirk responsibility for the crimes committed through the use of such tactics, it has become increasingly evident that the US and UK military agencies have not properly monitored operations conducted by their combat units.

Thus, not only Arab, but also British media outlets have on multiple occasions reported the evidence that high-ranking British officials with the Ministry of Defense had been covering up the war crimes committed by UK military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan for years. These outlets have reported on multiple occasions, in particular, about the war crimes involving personnel from elite British special forces, such as the SAS and Black Watch. On top of that, journalistic investigations found hard evidence of the falsification of documents; in these, premeditated killings and torture in Afghanistan and Iraq were dressed up as “Special Ops against terrorists” while inquiry into the committed crimes was stonewalled due to explicit political pressure. In this vein, on instructions of then UK Defense Secretary Michael Fallon all proceeding regarding these matters were dismissed even before they got to court. The investigation by the BBC and the Times reporters has clearly shown that evidence collection and production was prevented due to political reasons.

For example, The Sunday Times has provided evidence regarding the involvement of one British Special Air Service soldier in the killings, as well as the evidence of crimes committed by members of the Black Watch battalion, which is part of the Royal Regiment of Scotland, including beatings, torture, and sexual abuse. These actions alone are enough to be scrutinized in the International Criminal Court.

It is worth pointing out that in order to investigate the complaints lodged by Iraqis about the British military’s actions, an IHAT (Iraq Historic Allegations Team) investigative group was specifically established to examine hundreds of claims made by victims’ relatives. However, in January 2016, swayed by then British Prime Minister David Cameron, the UK Ministry of Defense announced that investigation into 57 criminal cases filed against the British military had been discontinued.  Moreover, intentionally trying to downplay criminal acts the UK authorities suspended from legal practice solicitor Phil Shiner that had handed over to IHAT data about more than 1,000 instances of violence by the military. In an all-out attempt to obstruct the investigations concerning offenses committed by the British military, Boris Johnson, the incumbent head of the UK Cabinet, authored the corresponding bill on Overseas Operations allowing for the suspension of investigation.

In 2017, Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled that during their presence in Iraq British troops had breached the Geneva Conventions by committing pre-meditated murder, intentionally inflicting severe sufferings or grievous bodily harm, engaging in meaningless and large-scale destruction and appropriation of property (not warranted by military necessity), deliberate attacks on the civilian population as such or on individual civilians not directly involved in hostilities and offending human dignity including engagement in humiliating and degrading treatment.

Nonetheless, the Service Police Legacy Investigations (SPLI) dropped all cases related to UK service members alleged crimes committed between 2003 and 2009 in Iraq. None of 1,291 charges resulted in prosecutions or prison time. Iraqi civilians claims regarding the criminal behavior of British soldiers were considered by the police officers of the Royal Navy and the police of the Royal Air Force who were part of SPLI. As the UK Defense Secretary Ben Wallace stated on October 20 in the House of Commons, the SPLI “officially closed its doors”, and noted that the main problem in the activities of this structure was the “lack of evidence base”, while acknowledging that “some shocking and shameful incidents did happen in Iraq.” “We recognize that there were four convictions of UK military personnel for offences in Iraq including offences of assault and inhuman treatment.”

There is no doubt that such a decision by the SPLI was again clearly driven by the political interests of the current Johnson’s government, which is wary of an uptick in anti-government protests in the country amid growing public discontent with the performance and policies of the British authorities.

It is worth noting that the UK government has a lengthy track record of harboring war criminals for decades. Since 1948, the Malaysians have been unable to seek justice in a case of the Scots guards massacring residents in a village near the town of Batang Kali, where 24 people were killed for no reason. Moreover, these murderers even took memento photo by the victims bodies. However, the British authorities have not brought anyone to justice and have not even bothered to pay compensation to the relatives of those murdered more than 70 years ago…

Such British policies, and, especially efforts of the UK Ministry of Defense regarding the war crimes cover-up raises a lot questions for the UK authorities. As for the UN, International Committee of the Red Cross, International Criminal Court and many other human rights institutions, they have a duty to respond to such crimes despite the attempts by certain British political circles to hush up such criminal activities and shirk responsibility.

October 31, 2021 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Doctor: “Society Has Convinced Kids That They’re Killing Granny”

By Richie Allen | October 28, 2021

A GP has told Talk Radio that masks have no place in schools and that “children have been convinced by society that they are the ones letting Grandma die.”

Speaking to Julia Hartley-Brewer, Dr. Renee Hoenderkamp said:

“In fact there are lots of arguments to not have masks in school. There are so many harms that are done by masks and I am so tired of hearing people say, “it’s nothing, it’s easy to wear a mask.” It isn’t.

I have seen children over the last 20 months reduced from gregarious, outgoing, confident young teenagers, into gibbering wrecks who are having panic attacks all day and coming to see me with their parents because they don’t know how to cope anymore.

And they don’t know how to cope because they have been convinced by society that they are the people that are letting Grandma die. They are the people that are catching this germ at school and then bringing it home and spreading it throughout society. We need to stop.”

It’s unconscionable isn’t it? And yet it is really happening. The nation’s children have been brainwashed into believing that they are walking talking biological weapons who can kill their grandparents with a hug.

If that isn’t child abuse, then what is?

October 28, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

The Leaky Vaccine Breakthrough Variant Is Here

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | October 26, 2021

It was only a matter of time before a vaccine-resistant strain of COVID-19 would surface, and that time has already come to pass. As reported by The Conservative Treehouse October 3, 2021:1

“What this study2 finds is exactly what vaccine developer Geert Vanden Bossche (Belgium) has been predicting. The predominance of antibody-resistant SARS-Cov-2 variants in vaccine breakthrough cases from the San Francisco Bay Area, California …

Dr. Vanden Bossche has been using Israeli data and showing3 how the widespread vaccination rates were creating pressure on the virus to mutate into variants with higher levels of contagion.

The unvaccinated group has been keeping the pressure down by defeating the virus and carrying natural immunity. However, as the unvaccinated population is increasingly made smaller, the pressure on the virus to mutate increases. Subsequently, these mutations stay at higher or more effective levels of infection.”

Vaccine-Evading Variants Are Emerging

The study, posted on the preprint server medRxiv, August 25, 2021, concluded that those who are fully “vaccinated” against COVID-19 are in fact more susceptible to COVID variant infections than unvaccinated people.

Vanden Bossche’s theory was that vaccine antibodies would suppress natural antibody responses, allowing variants to slip through, and this seems to be what’s happening. As explained by The Conservative Treehouse October 3, 2021:4

“Among vaccinated individuals, a COVID variant virus is not recognized by the specialized antibodies provided by the vaccine, and the natural antibodies have been programmed to stand down.”

According to the authors of the study:5

“Associations between vaccine breakthrough cases and infection by SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants have remained largely unexplored. Here we analyzed SARS-CoV-2 whole-genome sequences and viral loads from 1,373 persons with COVID-19 from the San Francisco Bay Area from February 1 to June 30, 2021, of which 125 (9.1%) were vaccine breakthrough infections.

Fully vaccinated were more likely than unvaccinated persons to be infected by variants carrying mutations associated with decreased antibody neutralization (78% versus 48%), but not by those associated with increased infectivity (85% versus 77%) …

These findings suggest that vaccine breakthrough cases are preferentially caused by circulating antibody-resistant SARS-CoV-2 variants, and that symptomatic breakthrough infections may potentially transmit COVID-19 as efficiently as unvaccinated infections, regardless of the infecting lineage.”

“Be careful around vaccinated people, because they can carry a more resistant form of COVID-19,” The Conservative Treehouse warns, adding that the narrow protection you get from the COVID shot will inevitably necessitate a booster shot for each emerging new variant that is resistant to the shots.

UK Data Show Increased COVID Mortality Among Fully Vaxxed

British data also raise serious questions about the wisdom of this injection campaign. In its Technical Briefing 23,6 published September 17, 2021, Public Health England reveals data showing the COVID death toll is actually higher among the fully vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated.

Between February 1, 2021, and September 12, 2021, 157,400 fully vaccinated patients (26.52% of total cases) were diagnosed with a Delta variant. Among the unvaccinated, there were 257,357 Delta variant cases (43.36% of total cases).

However, while Delta infections were far more prevalent among the unvaccinated, these patients also had better outcomes. In all, 63.5% of those who died from COVID-19 within 28 days of a positive test were fully vaccinated (1,613 compared to 722 in the unvaccinated group).

More Signs of Antibody-Dependent Enhancement

In a letter to the editor of the Journal of Infection,7 published August 9, 2021, three researchers point out that “infection-enhancing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies recognize both the original Wuhan/D614G strain and Delta variants,” which suggests antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) is emerging. According to the authors:8

“Antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) of infection is a safety concern for vaccine strategies. In a recent publication, Li et al. (Cell 184 :4203–4219, 2021) have reported that infection-enhancing antibodies directed against the N-terminal domain (NTD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein facilitate virus infection in vitro, but not in vivo.

However, this study was performed with the original Wuhan/D614G strain. Since the Covid-19 pandemic is now dominated with Delta variants, we analyzed the interaction of facilitating antibodies with the NTD of these variants … [W]e show that enhancing antibodies have a higher affinity for Delta variants than for Wuhan/D614G NTDs …

As the NTD is also targeted by neutralizing antibodies, our data suggest that the balance between neutralizing and facilitating antibodies in vaccinated individuals is in favor of neutralization for the original Wuhan/D614G strain.

However, in the case of the Delta variant, neutralizing antibodies have a decreased affinity for the spike protein, whereas facilitating antibodies display a strikingly increased affinity. Thus, ADE may be a concern for people receiving vaccines based on the original Wuhan strain spike sequence (either mRNA or viral vectors).”

As noted by independent journalist Sharyl Attkisson,9 “Despite the fact that multiple medical authorities predicted, told us, and hoped, ADE would not impact Covid-19 vaccines, data from the study indicates it has done just that.”

Antibody Levels Decrease After Second Dose

While you’re not considered “fully vaccinated” until 14 days after your first dose of Janssen’s or AstraZeneca’s shot, or second dose of Moderna’s or Pfizer’s, a recent Israeli study found antibody levels actually decrease after the second dose of Pfizer’s COVID shot. The findings were reported by The Jerusalem Post, October 7, 2021:10

“Antibody levels decrease rapidly after two doses of the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine, a study11 by researchers at the Sheba Medical Center published … in the New England Journal of Medicine …

The research also showed the probability that different groups of individuals — based on age and general health status — will find themselves below a certain antibody threshold after a period of six months.”

In all, 4,868 staff members at the Sheba Medical Center participated in the study,12 undergoing monthly serological tests to measure their antibodies for up to six months after their second Pfizer shot.

Everyone, regardless of age or gender, saw a rapid decline in their antibodies after the second dose. IgG antibodies — which are part of your humoral immune response — decreased at a consistent rate over time, whereas the neutralizing antibodies rapidly decreased during the first three months, and then slowed down thereafter. According to the authors:13

“Although IgG antibody levels were highly correlated with neutralizing antibody titers (Spearman’s rank correlation between 0.68 and 0.75), the regression relationship between the IgG and neutralizing antibody levels depended on the time since receipt of the second vaccine dose …

The highest titers after the receipt of the second vaccine dose (peak) were observed during days 4 through 30, so this was defined as the peak period.

The expected geometric mean titer (GMT) for IgG for the peak period, expressed as a sample-to-cutoff ratio, was 29.3. A substantial reduction in the IgG level each month, which culminated in a decrease by a factor of 18.3 after 6 months, was observed.

Neutralizing antibody titers also decreased significantly, with a decrease by a factor of 3.9 from the peak to the end of study period 2, but the decrease from the start of period 3 onward was much slower, with an overall decrease by a factor of 1.2 during periods 3 through 6. The GMT of neutralizing antibody, expressed as a 50% neutralization titer, was 557.1 in the peak period and decreased to 119.4 in period 6 …

Six months after receipt of the second dose, neutralizing antibody titers were substantially lower among men than among women, lower among persons 65 years of age or older than among those 18 to less than 45 years of age, and lower among participants with immunosuppression than among those without immunosuppression.”

COVID-19 Unrelated to Jab in 68 Countries, 2,947 US Counties

The Israeli findings above can help explain the findings of a study14 published September 30, 2021, in the European Journal of Epidemiology, which found no relationship between COVID-19 cases and levels of vaccination in 68 countries worldwide and 2,947 counties in the U.S. If anything, areas with high vaccination rates had slightly higher incidences of COVID-19. According to the authors:15

“[T]he trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people.”

Iceland and Portugal, for example, where more than 75% of their populations are fully vaccinated, had more COVID-19 cases per 1 million people than Vietnam and South Africa, where only about 10% of the populations are fully vaccinated.16

Data from U.S. counties showed the same thing. New COVID-19 cases per 100,000 people were “largely similar,” regardless of the percentage of a state’s population that was fully vaccinated.

“There … appears to be no significant signaling of COVID-19 cases decreasing with higher percentages of population fully vaccinated,” the authors wrote.17 Notably, out of the five U.S. counties with the highest vaccination rates — ranging from 84.3% to 99.9% fully vaccinated — four of them were on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s “high transmission” list. Meanwhile, 26.3% of the 57 counties with “low transmission” have vaccination rates below 20%.

The study even accounted for a one-month lag time that could occur among the fully vaccinated, since it’s said that it takes two weeks after the final dose for “full immunity” to occur. Still, “no discernable association between COVID-19 cases and levels of fully vaccinated” was observed.18

Key Reasons Why Reliance on Jabs Should Be Reexamined

The study summed up several reasons why the “sole reliance on vaccination as a primary strategy to mitigate COVID-19” should be reevaluated. For starters, the jab’s effectiveness is rapidly waning.

“A substantial decline in immunity from mRNA vaccines six months’ post immunization has … been reported,” the researchers noted, adding that even severe hospitalization and death from COVID-19, which the jabs claim to protect against, have increased from 0.01% to 9% and 0% to 15.1%, respectively, among the fully vaccinated from January 2021 to May 2021.19

If the jabs work as advertised, why haven’t these rates continued to rise instead of fall? “It is also emerging,” the researchers noted, “that immunity derived from the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine may not be as strong as immunity acquired through recovery from the COVID-19 virus.”20

For instance, a retrospective observational study published August 25, 2021, revealed that natural immunity is superior to immunity from COVID-19 jabs. According to the authors:21

“This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.”

Reinfection Is Very Rare

The fact is, while breakthrough cases continue among those who have gotten one or more COVID-19 injections, it’s extremely rare to get COVID-19 after you’ve recovered from the infection. How rare? Researchers from Ireland conducted a systematic review including 615,777 people who had recovered from COVID-19, with a maximum duration of follow-up of more than 10 months.22

“Reinfection was an uncommon event,” they noted, “with no study reporting an increase in the risk of reinfection over time.” The absolute reinfection rate ranged from 0% to 1.1%, while the median reinfection rate was just 0.27%.23,24,25

Another study revealed similarly reassuring results. It followed 43,044 SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positive people for up to 35 weeks, and only 0.7% were reinfected. When genome sequencing was applied to estimate population-level risk of reinfection, the risk was estimated at 0.1%.26

There was no indication of waning immunity over seven months of follow-up, unlike with the COVID-19 injection, which led the researchers to conclude that “Reinfection is rare. Natural infection appears to elicit strong protection against reinfection with an efficacy >90% for at least seven months.”27

All Risk for No Reward?

The purpose of informed consent is to give people all of the data related to a medical procedure so they can make an educated decision before consenting. In the case of COVID-19 injections, such data initially weren’t available, given their emergency authorization, and as concerning side effects became apparent, attempts to share them publicly were suppressed.

In August 2021, a large study from Israel28 revealed that the Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA jab is associated with a threefold increased risk of myocarditis,29 leading to the condition at a rate of one to five events per 100,000 persons.30 Other elevated risks were also identified following the COVID-19 jab, including lymphadenopathy (swollen lymph nodes), appendicitis and herpes zoster infection.31

Dr. Peter McCullough, an internist, cardiologist and epidemiologist, is among those who have warned that COVID-19 injections are not only failing but putting lives at risk.32

According to McCullough, by January 22, 2021, there had been 186 deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database following COVID-19 injection — more than enough to reach the mortality signal of concern to stop the program.

“With a program this size, anything over 150 deaths would be an alarm signal,” he said. The U.S. “hit 186 deaths with only 27 million Americans jabbed.” McCullough believes if the proper safety boards had been in place, the COVID-19 jab program would have been shut down in February 2021 based on safety and risk of death.33

Now, with data showing no difference in rates of COVID-19 cases among the vaxxed and unvaxxed, it appears more and more likely that the injections have a high level of risk with very little reward, especially among certain populations, like youth.

Mass Vaccination Drives Mutations

It’s well-known that if you put living organisms like bacteria or viruses under pressure, via antibiotics, antibodies or chemotherapeutics, for example, but don’t kill them off completely, you can inadvertently encourage their mutation into more virulent strains. Those that escape your immune system end up surviving and selecting mutations to ensure their further survival.

Many have warned about immune escape due to the pressure being placed upon the COVID-19 virus during mass vaccination,34 and according to one mathematical model,35 a worst-case scenario can develop when a large percentage of a population is vaccinated but viral transmission remains high, such as it is now. This is a prime scenario for the development of resistant mutant strains.36

At this point, COVID-19 injection failures and serious jab-related health risks are both apparent. We now also have data showing that having a high vaccination rate does nothing to lower COVID-19 incidence.

It might actually increase it slightly, as we’re seeing in India. In Kerala, India, which boasts a 93% vaccination rate, more than half of all new COVID cases are fully vaccinated, as are 57% of COVID-related deaths.37 With all data pointing in the same direction, it’s clear that COVID shots aren’t the answer. As noted in the European of Journal of Epidemiology :38

“Stigmatizing populations can do more harm than good. Importantly, other non-pharmacological prevention efforts (e.g., the importance of basic public health hygiene with regards to maintaining safe distance or handwashing, promoting better frequent and cheaper forms of testing) needs to be renewed in order to strike the balance of learning to live with COVID-19 in the same manner we continue to live a 100 years later with various seasonal alterations of the 1918 Influenza virus.”

If You’re ‘Vaccinated’ You May Be High-Risk for COVID

As predicted from the very beginning of the mass vaccination campaign, we’re now starting to see evidence of ADE, which makes people more prone to serious illness rather than less.

Even if your risk for ADE is small (and we have no data on prevalence as of yet), the data we do have suggest the shots aren’t ending outbreaks, and indeed can’t, end them, as it’s the vaccinated who are facilitating the emergence of vaccine-evading variants. The real answer is natural herd immunity, as natural immunity protects against most variants and not just one.

To be on the safe side, I recommend considering yourself “high-risk” for severe COVID if you’ve received one or more shots, and implement known effective treatment at the first sign of a respiratory infection.

Options include the Zelenko protocol,39 the MATH+ protocols40 and nebulized hydrogen peroxide, as detailed in Dr. David Brownstein’s case paper.41 Whichever treatment protocol you use, make sure you begin treatment as soon as possible, ideally at first onset of symptoms.

Sources and References

October 27, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Pressure Mounts on the UKHSA to Stop Publishing Data Showing Infection Rates Higher in the Vaccinated

By Will Jones | The Daily Sceptic | October 27, 2021

The Prime Minister may have acknowledged reality and stated that being double vaccinated “doesn’t protect you against catching the disease, and it doesn’t protect you against passing it on” but others appear to remain in denial.

On Sunday I asked whether now that the PM had let the cat out of the bag the media would start reporting properly on the UKHSA data showing higher infection rates in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. It appears the answer is no, at least if the Times‘s Tom Whipple is any indication.

In a typically mean-spirited piece – in which anyone who doesn’t agree with his favoured scientist of the hour is smeared as a conspiracy theorist and purveyor of misinformation – Whipple quotes Cambridge statistician Professor David Spiegelhalter, who heaps opprobrium on the U.K. Health Security Agency (the successor to PHE) for daring to publish data that contradicts the official vaccine narrative. Spiegelhalter says of the UKHSA vaccine surveillance reports:

This presentation of statistics is deeply untrustworthy and completely unacceptable… I cannot believe that UKHSA is putting out graphics showing higher infection rates in vaccinated than unvaccinated groups, when this is simply an artefact due to using clearly inappropriate estimates of the population. This has been repeatedly pointed out to them, and yet they continue to provide material for conspiracy theorists around the world.

This is the graphic he is presumably referring to.

If Professor Spiegelhalter has a source for his claim that higher infection rates in the vaccinated are “simply an artefact” of erroneous population estimates then he doesn’t provide it.

Whipple says the data has been “seized upon around the world”.

The numbers have been promoted by members of HART, a U.K. group that publishes vaccine misinformation. They have also been quoted on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast in the US, which reaches 11 million people.

Appearing on that podcast, Alex Berenson, a U.S. journalist now banned from Twitter, specifically referenced the source to show it was reliable.

The UKHSA is adamant that it is doing nothing wrong. The Times quotes Dr Mary Ramsay, head of immunisation at the UKHSA, explaining: “Immunisation information systems like NIMS are the internationally recognised gold standard for measuring vaccine uptake.”

So Professor Spiegelhalter thinks that the gold standard gives “clearly inappropriate estimates of the population”, and using it is “deeply untrustworthy and completely unacceptable”? That may be his view, but the UKHSA can hardly be criticised for following the recognised standards for its work.

A more measured criticism is provided by Colin Angus, a statistician from the University of Sheffield, who the Times quotes saying that using NIMS data makes sense but the “huge uncertainty” in the population estimates should be clearer.

Whipple, however, goes further and claims that “using population data from other official sources shows, instead, shows that the protection of vaccines continues”. Yet he does not provide those sources or go into any detail about how they back up his claim.

For now, the UKHSA is defending its report (we’ll see how long it holds out for). But even so, Dr Ramsay is adamant that the report rules out using the data to estimate vaccine effectiveness: “The report clearly explains that the vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths should not be used to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of misinterpreting this data because of differences in risk, behaviour and testing in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.”

This defence somewhat misses Professor Spiegelhalter’s criticism about population estimates. But it’s also misleading in that the report doesn’t “clearly” explain that its data “should not be used to assess vaccine effectiveness”. What it says is it is “not the most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of misinterpretation”. But, as explained before, using population-based data on infection rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated is certainly a valid method of estimating unadjusted vaccine effectiveness, which is defined as the reduced infection rate in the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated. While a complete study would then adjust those raw figures for potential systemic biases (with varying degrees of success), we shouldn’t necessarily expect those adjustments to be large or change the picture radically. Indeed, when a population-based study from California (which showed vaccine effectiveness against infection declining fast), carried out these adjustments the figures barely changed at all.

The UKHSA report adds that: “Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different sources and is described earlier in this report.” In fact, though, most of those estimates are reported as low confidence (see below), which means: “Little evidence is available at present and results are inconclusive.” While it claims high confidence for its estimates against symptomatic disease, a footnote explains that this only holds for 12-16 weeks: “This typically applies for at least the first three to four months after vaccination. For some outcomes there may be waning of effectiveness beyond this point.”

It is precisely this “waning of effectiveness” that the latest real-world data is giving us insight into. Rather than trying to discredit that data and those who report it by throwing around general, unquantified criticisms, scientists and academics like Professor Spiegelhalter should be redoubling efforts to provide constructive analysis to get to the bottom of what’s really going on with the vaccines. If there are issues with the population estimates then those need to be looked at, and if there are biases that need adjusting for then those need to be quantified. But do, please, get on with it – and lay off the smearing of those who raise the questions.

October 27, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

UK Is Testing For Covid 10 TIMES More Than Other European Countries

By Richie Allen | October 27, 2021

How many times has it been said on The Richie Allen Show, that if the NHS stopped testing for covid-19, the pandemic would disappear? I must have said it a thousand times.

Yesterday, Professor Sir Andrew Pollard told the commons science and technology committee:

“If you look across western Europe, we have about 10 times more tests done each day, per head of population. We do have a lot of transmission at the moment, but it’s not right to say that those rates are really telling us something that we can compare internationally.”

Pollard, who is credited as a co-creator of the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab, went on to say:

“I think when we look at these data it is really important not to bash the UK with a very high case rate, because actually it’s partly related to a very high testing rate. I’m not not trying to deny that there’s plenty of transmission at the moment, because there is. It’s just that the comparisons are problematic.”

The latest numbers suggest that there are around 50,000 new covid cases a day in the UK. This has led to calls for the return of restrictions including mandating masks again, working from home and vaccine passports.

However, Pollard said that hospital admissions and death figures were “misleading” as the real-time data cannot differentiate between those who are admitted or die “with” Covid and admissions or deaths due to Covid. He said:

“If you have a lot of transmission in the community, lots of people will die from lots of other causes that are not Covid but will be included in the numbers. The death rates are quite misleading at a time of high Covid in the community. Secondly, the hospital admission data are also misleading because they’re also generated in real time. So if I’m admitted for appendicitis today and I had a Covid positive test, that will appear in the daily data.”

This is the second time in a week that Pollard has said that the data is being misrepresented. This isn’t new. The government and its scientific advisers know this. The threat from covid-19 is being wildly exaggerated.

However, the broadcast media refuses to touch it. There is no pandemic. There never was. The tyranny would end in a heartbeat if the media explained to the public that they are being played and that they have nothing to fear from covid. Fat chance though.

October 27, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Vaccine Safety Update #15

The Daily Sceptic | October 25, 2021

This is the 15th of the round-ups of Covid vaccine safety reports and news compiled by a group of medical doctors who are monitoring developments but prefer to remain anonymous in the current climate (find the 14th one here).

By no means is this part of an effort to generate alarm about the vaccines or dissuade anyone from getting inoculated. It should be read in conjunction with the Daily Sceptic‘s other posts on vaccines, which include both encouraging and not so encouraging developments. At the Daily Sceptic we report all the news about the vaccines whether positive or negative and give no one advice about whether they should or should not take them. Unlike with lockdowns, we are neither pro-vaccine nor anti-vaccine; we see our job as reporting the facts, not advocating for or against a particular policy. The vaccine technology is novel and the vaccines have not yet fully completed their trials, which is why they’re in use under temporary and not full market authorisation. This has been done on account of the emergency situation and the trial data was largely encouraging on both efficacy and safety. For a summary of that data, see this preamble to the Government’s page on the Yellow Card reporting system. (Dr Tess Lawrie in June wrote an open letter to Dr June Raine, head of the MHRA, arguing that: “The MHRA now has more than enough evidence on the Yellow Card system to declare the COVID-19 vaccines unsafe for use in humans,” a claim that has been ‘fact checked’ here.) Boris Johnson has now said that the vaccine “doesn’t protect you against catching the disease, and it doesn’t protect you against passing it on”. We publish information and opinion to inform public debate and help readers reach their own conclusions about what is best for them, based on the available data.

  • The U.S. CDC has set up a monitoring system for reporting COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough cases – as of October 18th 2021 there have been 41,127 breakthrough cases reported, 10,857 of whom died.
  • Dr Scott McLachlan reports an excessive number of healthy babies born to mothers who’ve had the vaccine during pregnancy dying within 48-72 hours of birth.
  • The latest U.K. Covid figures by vaccination status, up to week 41 (17th October), report higher cases of Covid per 100,000 people in double-vaccinated than unvaccinated.
  • Sweden has suspended the Moderna jab indefinitely after vaccinated patients developed myocarditis, whilst a case of Pfizer vaccine-associated-myocarditis is reported as the cause of death in a 22 year old man in Korea.
  • VAERS – the American version of the Yellow Card reporting system – released new data on October 15th bringing the total to 818.044 reports of adverse events following Covid vaccines, including 17,128 deaths and 122,833 serious injuries.
  • DAEN Australia – the equivalent of the Yellow Card reporting system – has logged (up to October 10th) 67,063 reports of adverse events, including 589 deaths. Australia has recorded 1,432 Covid deaths to date.
  • Children (Under 18) Adverse Events U.K. – up to October 13th, MHRA report a total of 1,297 adverse event reports, comprising 1,056 Pfizer, 233 AstraZeneca, 5 Moderna and 3 unspecified. Myocarditis reports remain 10 in a million for this age group. No information is provided on fatalities.

Summary of Adverse Events in the U.K.

According to an updated report published on October 21st, the MHRA Yellow Card reporting system has recorded a total of 1,236,485 events based on 375,493 reports. The total number of fatalities reported is 1,715.

  • Pfizer (22.9 million first doses, 19.9 million second doses) now has one Yellow Card in 187 people vaccinated. Deaths: 1 in 40,603 people vaccinated (564).
  • AstraZeneca (24.9 million first doses, 24.1 million second doses) has one Yellow Card in 106 people vaccinated. Deaths: 1 in 22,616 people vaccinated (1,101).
  • Moderna (1.5 million first doses, 1.2 million second doses) has one Yellow Card in 89 people vaccinated. Deaths: 1 in 78,947 people vaccinated (19).

Overall, one in every 131 people vaccinated (0.76%) have experienced a Yellow Card adverse event. The MHRA has previously estimated that the Yellow Card reporting rate may be approximately 10% of actual figures.

  • Thrombosis & Embolism (all types) = 7,105
  • Anaphylaxis = 1,367
  • Acute Cardiac = 16,299
  • Pericarditis/Myocarditis (Heart inflammation) = 4,342
  • Headaches & Migraines = 123,251
  • Blindness = 427
  • Deafness = 608
  • Spontaneous Abortions = 603 miscarriages + 13 foetal deaths/stillbirths
  • Facial Paralysis incl. Bell’s Palsy = 1,769
  • Strokes and CNS haemorrhages = 2,677
  • Guillain-Barré Syndrome = 500
  • Pulmonary Embolism & Deep Vein Thrombosis = 3,510
  • Seizures = 2,888
  • Paralysis = 1,181
  • Tinnitus/Vertigo – 3,066 (Pfizer) + 6,584 (AZ) + 323 (Moderna) + 26 (Unknown) = 9,999
  • Tremor = 11,502
  • Nosebleeds = 3,135
  • Dizziness = 35,704
  • Vomiting = 15,892
  • Reproductive/Breast Disorders – = 44,548

Further analysis can be found via the U.K. Freedom Project.

Source: Pfizer; Moderna; AstraZeneca; Unspecified. “F” denotes fatal.

October 26, 2021 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »