I once had a dog called Ellwood. He’d been horribly abused. He was a lot smarter than Tobias.
Conservative Member of Parliament for Bournemouth East and Chair of the House of Commons Select Defence Committee, Tobias Ellwood, was invited onto the James Whale Show on Talk Radio to talk about the threat of climate change. Here he is from 11′ 40″ onwards. You have to watch it to believe it.
Here are a few juicy quotes taken from that erudite explanation by Ellwood of what climate change is and why we need to be concerned about it:
“So when we come to saying how can we change this, it all comes down to this hole in the ozone layer which is allowing the planet to heat up and we can actually close back this ozone layer if we’re a little bit more careful about CO2 emissions.”
Eh? Hole in the ozone layer? CO2 emissions? What’s that all about then? Well, according to science genius Ellwood:
“A lot of the stuff that we are burning today has been accumulated over millions of years, and coal and so forth and that is causing such a jump in CO2 emissions, it’s causing to burn a hole in the ozone layer.”
Ah, right, so CO2 from fossil fuels has ‘burnt’ a hole in the ozone layer and this is causing the planet to heat up. If you compare the Ellwood explanation of man-made climate change with Johnson’s explanation, this actually makes Johnson, who likens CO2 to a “great tea cosy in the sky”, seem like a Cambridge physics don.
Presenter: “It’s not burning holes in the ozone layer though is it, that was CFC’s, this is about greenhouse gases.”
Ellwood: “It’s the same thing, it’s the same thing, it’s causing our planet to heat up because the sun is able to have too much of an impact.”
Yep, Ellwoodian Fizzics basically states that if you burn a hole in the ozone layer with fossil fuel carbon dioxide, then the Sun is able to sneak through that hole and heat up the planet even more, so you’ve got to close the hole up in order to stop deserts growing, ice caps melting, crops failing and sea levels rising. Simples.
This is the man who is presumably highly influential in the UK’s defence policy folks. Sleep well. We’ve got a safe pair of hands there – minus the brain, of course.
‘Environmentalists’ have had their beady green eyes on your pet dogs and cats for years but they’re stepping up the assault now ahead of COP26 and also as they joyously surf the wave of economic and social destruction created by the fake ‘Covid crisis’, insisting that we must #buildbackbetter and #buildbackgreener. That process of ‘building back’ is to include dispensing with pets apparently, because their carbon pawprint is way too high and unacceptable to the High Priests of the Climate Action movement. This is very much an issue close to my heart, having currently two rescue German Shepherds and having spent more than half a lifetime in the company of animals, mainly rescue dogs, so I’ll try not to descend into incoherent ranting and keep to the facts, difficult as it is to resist the urge to verbally abuse these misanthropic, dog-hating, cat-hating freaks. You see, there I go already!
On GMB this morning, they invited Donnachadh McCarthy on to talk about the need to eradicate pets from the face of the planet in order to save wild animals from extinction and the environment from degradation:
‘Donna’, you may – or may not – recall is, according to his Twitter profile:
“Co-founder Stop Killing Cyclists. Author “The Prostitute State – How Britain’s Democracy Was Bought”. Eco-auditor. Eco-columnist for Independent.”
He’s also followed by Richard Betts, senior ‘climate scientist’ at the UK Meteorological Office, now a prominent advocate of Extinction Rebellion activists’ tactics and an apologist for the mythical ‘climate crisis’. I have no idea if Betts supports the gradual eradication of pets and dogs in order to ‘save the planet’ but the company kept by ‘climate scientists’ in their effort to convince us all that there is in fact a scientifically demonstrable ‘climate emergency’ is increasingly dubious of late.
In the video here, reproduced in The Sun newspaper, credit must be given to Susannah Reid who calls out ‘Donna’ on this issue, rightly pointing out that we, as human beings, also have a carbon footprint and, if we’re going to start getting rid of our pets by ‘not replacing them’ as loved family members, then when do we start getting rid of our kids – and ourselves? It’s one thing giving up an inanimate object like a car – as adored and as absolutely necessary as affordable personal transport is for millions of people – but it’s quite another thing to give up what most people consider a loved family member, albeit that they have four paws and a waggy tail. When Susannah points out that she ‘puts her kids and her pets before the planet’, Donna finds this ‘shocking’. He actually thinks that addressing the so called ‘extinction crisis’ is more important than our allegiance to our companion animals and our own children – who, in his eyes, are just useless, superfluous creators of excess carbon and thus shoud be gradually eliminated, i.e don’t breed and don’t have pets. This is a cold, callous, deeply misanthropic and cruel perspective which is sadly more and more typical of these neo Malthusian climate crisis freaks who think that the final solution to imminent man-made Thermageddon is drastic depopulation, not just of human beings, but their ‘useless eater’ companion animals as well.
Donna says that a Biosciences Journal study published in 2019 demonstrates that “the state of the carbon emissions from the average dog is equivalent to two household’s electricity emissions for a year”. What does this even mean? The study he mentions is probably this one: ‘The Ecological Paw Print of Companion Dogs and Cats’. As far as I can see, it mentions nothing about household electricity emissions. It compares the GHG emissions and “ecological paw print” (EPP) of cats and dogs in Japan, the Netherlands and China. This is what it says:
Meat-based diets require more energy and water and, therefore, have far greater environmental impacts than plant-based diets (Pimentel and Pimentel 2003, Reijnders and Soret 2003, Wirsenius et al. 2010, Okin 2017). For example, in China, commercial pet dry food has higher percentages of animal meat products than human foods. Therefore, the dietary EPP and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of companion dogs relying on commercial dry food was found to be much higher than the dogs relying on human leftover foods (Su et al. 2018b). If we look at differences between countries—assuming all companion dogs and cats eat commercial dry food—then the dietary EPP of all companion dogs and cats in China equals the dietary EF of between 70 million and 245 million Chinese people, in terms of homemade food (Su et al. 2018b). The carbon emissions resulting from the food consumption of these animals are equivalent to the emissions generated by the food consumption of between 34 million and 107 million Chinese people (Su et al. 2018b). Meanwhile, in Japan, companion dogs and cats may consume between 3.6% and 15.6% of the food eaten by Japanese people, and through their consumption, Japanese companions release between 2.5 million and 10.7 million tons of GHG per year (Su and Martens 2018).
The authors estimate the annual EPP in hectares (first column) and annual GHG emission in tons (second column) for the average sized dog (10-20kg), for dogs fed exclusively on dry kibble, as follows:
Per capita average-size dog
According to the Independent the average middle class family of four emits about 0.75 tons annually from electricity usage. Two families therefore emit 1.5 tons, which is indeed the same as the upper estimate of GHG emissions for a dog in China or Holland, but nearly twice the upper estimate for dogs in Japan. If we take the lower estimate, then the average dog uses less than half of just one family’s electricity in China and Holland and one sixth of a family’s average electricity emissions in Japan, therefore one twelth of two families’ emissions. So Donna’s assertion that your average pooch is the carbon criminal equivalent of two average families using electricity is stretching the truth somewhat, especially as your ‘average dog’ is probably not fed exclusively on a diet of industrially manufactured kibble.
But of course it stands to reason that dogs, being mainly carnivores, will be fed largely on a diet of animal protein and will therefore have an annual carbon footprint if that meat is produced commercially. Just as human beings eating meat (or even vegans) have a non negligible carbon footprint. Is this a valid excuse to abolish the age old human practice of keeping companion animals, especially canine companion animals? Because, you can be sure, it will never be enough. Once all the cats and dogs are gone, they’ll be coming for your children, demanding that you only have two, then one, then stop breeding. They’ll demand that you never eat meat again, then they’ll demand that you remove yourself completely from the gene pool in order to reduce your personal carbon footprint to zero. It will be the only way to prevent the ‘climate emergency’.
But back to dogs. What did dogs ever do for the human race? In response, it’ll be like the Monty Python sketch ‘What have the Romans ever done for us?’
The answers will be, throughout 40,000 years of co-evolving with domesticated wolves:
/ They helped us hunt wild prey
/ They gave us protection.
/ They gave us unconditional love
/ They protected our houses and our herd animals
/ They boosted our natural immunity via exposure to pathogens and by raising our oxytocin levels
/ By demanding walkies, they made us fitter and healthier, in mind and in body
/ Working in law enforcement and the military, they have apprehended criminals, kept us all safer and saved countless human lives
/ They have been the eyes and ears of disabled people and safe-guarded ill people by warning of e.g. imminent epileptic seizures
I could go on. The environmentalists want ‘rid of them’. The new breed of ‘environmentalists’ actually want rid of humanity as well. They are the ultimate misanthropists who would love to see the ‘virus’ that is humanity wiped out, along with every single one of their domesticated agricultural and companion animals. Net Zero = Net Zero human race. Only when ‘we’ are all gone will the planet be happy again. Of course, ‘they’ (the neo-Malthusian Greens) will be the last to vacate, because they have to oversee the cull, naturally.
Here is what the government’s SPI-M modelling group says about the next step to ending lockdown:
It is highly likely that there will be a further resurgence in hospitalisations and deaths after the later steps of the Roadmap. The scale, shape, and timing of any resurgence remain highly uncertain; in most scenarios modelled, any peak is smaller than the wave seen in January 2021, however, scenarios with little transmission reduction after Step 4 or with pessimistic but plausible vaccine efficacy assumptions can result in resurgences in hospitalisations of a similar scale to January 2021.
Maintaining baseline measures to reduce transmission once restrictions are lifted is almost certain to save many lives and minimise the threat to hospital capacity.
Even accounting for some seasonal variation in transmission, the peak could occur in either summer or late summer/autumn. It is possible that seasonality could delay or flatten the resurgence but is highly unlikely to prevent it altogether.
So, a third resurgence, according to the government’s modellers, is almost certain to occur, if not in summer, then in autumn, and it will be bad, unless we all behave ourselves by complying with ongoing restrictions.
So, what was the point of the ‘vaccines’ you ask. Well, Pol Pot Belly has already informed us that it is the lockdowns which are mainly responsible for the observed decline in deaths, hospitalisations and infections, not the vackseens. So there. You got jabbed for nothing. Naturally, there has been a huge outcry and the terminally stupid have been very effectively ‘nudged’ into defending the mass vaccination program on the basis that it has demonstrably reduced deaths and hospitalisations. Those who got the ‘vaccine’ in order to return to normal just can’t believe they were suckered into getting the jab for nowt and that it had nothing to do with the observed decline in deaths and hospitalisations, so they’ve angrily reacted to the suggestion on Twitter:
It’s science, innit. The ‘vaccines’ must have caused the decline. Even the Telegraph says so. They’ve identified the ‘vaccine effect’:
Let’s just forget about the fact that the ‘vaccines’ caused ‘Covid outbreaks’ in the over 80s shall we and let’s just forget about seasonality and the very high possibility that herd immunity has been achieved in the UK, even before the rollout of the ‘vaccines’. Let’s just conveniently forget that they are not demonstrated to reduce the severity of symptoms in the over 80s or reduce the rates of transmission or infection. Let’s forget all that and just say ‘the vaccines worked; they must have worked otherwise I am going to look like a complete idiot for having been conned into getting jabbed when I’m not personally at risk’.
But the bad news is Johnson was right; they don’t work, or at least they don’t work very well. SPI-M-O confirms it:
The resurgence in both hospitalisations and deaths is dominated by those that have received two doses of the vaccine, comprising around 60% and 70% of the wave respectively. This can be attributed to the high levels of uptake in the most at-risk age groups, such that immunisation failures account for more serious illness than unvaccinated individuals.
This is discussed further in paragraphs 55 and 56.
‘Immunisation failures’ leading to the vulnerable getting infected, hospitalised and dying. Just like the 1st and second waves then, without the life saving ‘vaccines’. That’s a lot of ‘immunisation failures’ for 95% effective ‘vaccines’.
Who becomes seriously ill in a resurgence?
Figure 11 illustrates the age and vaccination status of those hospitalised (left) and dying (right) over time in Warwick ’s central scenario for the whole Roadmap (equivalent to Figure 4). The top plots are absolute numbers and the bottom plots are as a proportion of those admitted or dying.
This shows that most deaths and admissions in a post-Roadmap resurgence are in people who have received two vaccine doses, even without vaccine protection waning or a variant emerging that escapes vaccines. This is because vaccine uptake has been so high in the oldest age groups (modelled here at 95% in the over 50-year olds). There are therefore 5% of over 50-year olds who have not been vaccinated, and 95% x 10% = 9.5% of over 50-year olds who are vaccinated but, nevertheless, not protected against death. This is not the result of vaccines being ineffective, merely uptake being so high.
Oh right, so because so many vulnerable people got jabbed, this means that a resurgence of deaths and hospitalisations will inevitably involve mainly the ‘vaccinated’, but this doesn’t mean that the ‘vaccines’ are not effective, just not perfect. We must therefore presume that lots more people would otherwise get sick and die in a third (Or is it fourth? I’m losing count) wave if they hadn’t been ‘vaccinated’. This is bullshit because it assumes that vaccination is far more effective than infection-acquired or prior natural immunity, not just in the vulnerable, but in those people getting infected and thus transmitting the virus to others in a new resurgence.
An alternative, deeply unsettling explanation for why the government considers a resurgence of hospitalisations and deaths among the ‘vaccinated’ to be likely is that the ‘vaccines’ may indeed make the ‘vaccinated’ more susceptible to infection and serious disease than had they not been ‘vaccinated’ at all. It’s not like this is beyond the realms of possibility. ‘Vaccine’ trials for SARS-CoV-1 (which is 80% genetically the same as SARS-CoV-2) were halted because all the ferrets injected with the ‘vaccine’ died when they were subsequently exposed to the wild type virus. This is called antibody dependent enhancement. It’s also a matter of fact that those recently jabbed are more likely to get infected than those who are not ‘vaccinated’ (see my previous posts). Even after two doses, an Israeli study found that the ‘vaccinated’ were eight times more likely to get infected with the South African variant B.1.351. So, if this variant starts spreading in the UK this summer, what do you think is going to happen?
Here’s an interesting article with lots of graphs showing Covid ‘outbreaks’ in many countries worldwide, alongside vaccine rollouts. Here is what the author says (my bold):
But what is very clear looking at data worldwide, is that vaccinations are certainly not associated with a reliable fall in covid cases in any predictable timeframe. This, alongside the observations in the trial, surely must be addressed. What is happening here? Is it just that vaccinations are coincidentally being rolled out at the same time as outbreaks are due? In very many places?
Or is the vaccine not working immediately? If not, why not? How long does it take to see an effect of infection reduction at a population and individual level?
Or is the vaccine making people more susceptible to infection? If this is the case (which is biologically plausible according to many we are in touch with), is this a temporary effect? What causes it? Should we mitigate against it? Should we ensure people are vaccinated in a low covid environment? Do vaccinated people need extra protection immediately following vaccination?
How long does it take for any increased susceptibility to diminish?
We must know the answers to these questions. Vaccinations are intended to be offered to every man, woman and child in the country, even though many people simply are not susceptible to covid, or have seen off an infection easily. We must understand what the benefit to the community is before we can assess the risk of vaccination properly to the individual if most individuals are only to be vaccinated for the benefit of the community.
We are told that everyone must be vaccinated. But then that restrictions still can’t end even after that has happened. Why is that? Is it because the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission? How can free informed consent be given under these conditions?
Yes, you read that correctly. People in Israel who have been given two doses of the Pfizer mRNA ‘vaccine’ are eight times more likely to become infected with the B.1.351 variant of SARS-CoV-2 than unvaccinated individuals according to a study published just a few days ago.
Here, we performed a case-control study that examined whether BNT162b2 vaccinees with documented SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to become infected with B.1.1.7 or B.1.351 compared with unvaccinated individuals. Vaccinees infected at least a week after the second dose were disproportionally infected with B.1.351 (odds ratio of 8:1)
But that’s not all. The dominant variant of SARS-CoV-2 in Israel is B.1.1.7, the so called ‘Kent variant’, alleged to be more transmissible and more deadly than the previous dominant variants of the virus. Vaccinees were also disproportionately likely to become infected with B.1.1.7 for a week or two after the first dose and even a week after the second, so they were actually more vulnerable to Covid during that period than those who received no vaccine. This might explain the sharp rise in ‘Covid deaths’ very soon after vaccination, observed in many countries throughout the world.
So, the pro-vaxx fanatics might say ‘Well, yeah, a few people die and stuff after getting the vaccine, but those who don’t die get protected, so it’s all OK in the end’. Er, no. Because, in Israel, those people who made it through two doses without getting seriously sick or dying ‘with Covid’, were still as likely to get infected with the dominant variant of SARS-CoV-2 as the unvaccinated!
“No statistically significant difference was observed in the rates of B.1.1.7 infection in FE [fully vaccinated, more than a week after second dose] cases versus unvaccinated controls (odds ratio [OR] of 6:4, one-sided exact McNemar test p=0.38), but a significantly higher proportion of B.1.351 was observed in FE cases vs. unvaccinated controls (OR of 8:1, one-sided exact McNemar test, p=0.02).”
So what the flying f**k is the point in a healthy, non vulnerable person (who is highly unlikely to get severe symtoms from a SARS-CoV-2 infection) getting ‘vaccinated’ against Covid if it makes no bloody difference at all as regards their likelihood of becoming infected with the dominant circulating strain? Also, if, by getting ‘vaccinated’, it makes them initially more vulnerable to the dominant circulating variant and a lot more vulnerable, even after two full doses, to getting infected with a rare variant which might in future become more prevalent, then what, pray to God, is the point? I can’t see it. You’re putting yourself at greater risk by getting an experimental ‘vaccine’ than you are by relying upon your own natural healthy immune system. Not only that, you are signalling to your government that they can push you around and tell you what to put inside your own body. That is an extremely dangerous thing to do, as we are about to find out, as the Israelis have already found out.
Would you believe it though, one of the authors of this study has gone on Twitter to promote her work, saying that it is actually justification for mass vaccination? What? In which Universe? Down which rabbit hole? On the other side of which hyper-dimensional Wormhole?
That last tweet just really kills me. It’s basically saying ‘Follow the science (our science) – get vaccinated!’ I expected a lot better from Israeli scientists. A lot better.
Today, April 12th, herd immunity Monday, is also the day that Pol Pot Belly ‘allows’ pubs and ‘non-essential’ shops to open up and warns us all not to go mad with our’ new found’ ancient freedoms which he stole from us under false pretences over a year ago.
But since April started, it’s been very cold and the past few days have seen bitterly cold northerly winds, snow showers and overnight frosts. So anyone wanting to enjoy a relaxed pint at their local for the first time in months (assuming they have a beer garden) is going to have to wrap up warm because if they don’t, they’re going to be more in danger of catching a nasty cold than getting Covid (oh, silly me, I forgot, they’re one and the same, for most people).
So pubs which ‘stick to the rules’ in order to prevent the NHS being overrun by the handful of sick and dying victims of the deadly pandemic which is ripping through the land are probably going to be disapppointed by the less than enthusiastic response to the snail-like relaxation of Covid restrictions, especially as their no doubt recently ‘vaccinated’ patrons will be forced to ‘sign in’ to the Gestapo run track ‘n’ trace system in order to sit outside in the freezing cold.
Britain, in mid-April, is in the middle of a ‘pandemic’ whilst also in the midst of a climate crisis. What a bummer.
An important new study has been published in the Earth and Space Science journal of the AGU, which establishes a close correlation between solar activity (namely, the end of solar cycles) and the transition from prevailing El Nino to La Nina conditions in the Pacific. Says one of the authors:
“Energy from the Sun is the major driver of our entire Earth system and makes life on Earth possible,” said Scott McIntosh, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and co-author of the paper. “Even so, the scientific community has been unclear on the role that solar variability plays in influencing weather and climate events here on Earth. This study shows there’s reason to believe it absolutely does and why the connection may have been missed in the past.”
The researchers looked at the 22 year Hale Cycle and established a statistically significant correlation between the well defined end of the Hale Cycle and sea surface temperatures in the central Pacific:
The 22-year cycle begins when oppositely charged magnetic bands that wrap the Sun appear near the star’s polar latitudes, according to their recent studies. Over the cycle, these bands migrate toward the equator—causing sunspots to appear as they travel across the mid-latitudes. The cycle ends when the bands meet in the middle, mutually annihilating one another in what the research team calls a terminator event. These terminators provide precise guideposts for the end of one cycle and the beginning of the next.
The researchers imposed these terminator events over sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific stretching back to 1960. They found that the five terminator events that occurred between that time and 2010-11 all coincided with a flip from an El Nino (when sea surface temperatures are warmer than average) to a La Nina (when the sea surface temperatures are cooler than average). The end of the most recent solar cycle—which is unfolding now—is also coinciding with the beginning of a La Nina event.
It appears to be very unlikely that the correlation is purely coincidental, with now six terminator events being simultaneous with a switch from El Nino to Lan Nina conditions:
In fact, the researchers did a number of statistical analyses to determine the likelihood that the correlation was just a fluke. They found there was only a 1 in 5,000 chance or less (depending on the statistical test) that all five terminator events included in the study would randomly coincide with the flip in ocean temperatures. Now that a sixth terminator event—and the corresponding start of a new solar cycle in 2020—has also coincided with an La Nina event, the chance of a random occurrence is even more remote, the authors said.
The study did not attempt to establish a causal mechanism, but critically it has established beyond all reasonable doubt that there must exist some causal relationship between major fluctuations in the solar magnetic field and climate variability on earth.
In the paper itself, the authors state:
A forecast of the Sun’s global behavior places the next solar cycle termination in mid‐2020; should a major oceanic swing follow [it has], then the challenge becomes: when does correlation become causation and how does the process work?
In the previous section, we have made use of a modified Superposed Epoch Analysis (mSEA) to investigate the relationships between solar activity measures and variability in a standard measure of the variability in the Earth’s largest ocean—the Pacific. We have observed that this mSEA method brackets solar activity and correspondingly systematic transitions from warm‐to‐cool Pacific conditions around abrupt changes in solar activity we have labeled termination points. These termination points mark the transition from one solar activity (sunspot) cycle to the next following the cancellation or annihilation of the previous cycle’s magnetic flux at the solar equator—the end of Hale magnetic cycles.
Correlation does not imply causation; however, the recurrent nature of the ONI signal in the terminator fiducial would appear to indicate a strong physical connection between the two systems. Appendix B discusses three statistical Monte Carlo tests that show the chances of these events lining up for five cycles are remote: in summary we may reject the null hypothesis of random cooccurrences with a confidence level p < 3.4 × 10−3.
What’s interesting is that the authors identify the past several decades as a ‘default El Nino like state’ when cloud cover in the Western Pacific has been depleted, coincident with a weakened Pacific Walker circulation and strengthened Brewer-Dobson circulation. During this period, they argue that ENSO has been uniquely sensitive to variations in solar activity:
Thus, over the past several decades the cloud pattern in the western Pacific has adopted an almost El Niño‐like default state, consistent with an observed eastward shift in precipitation in the tropical Pacific and weakening of the Walker circulation over the last century (Deser et al., 2004; Vecchi & Soden, 2007a), and which has been tied, via simple thermodynamics, to a warmer atmosphere.
Thus, it is entirely plausible that since changes in the (upper) atmosphere brought on by a strengthened Brewer‐Dobson circulation, weakened Pacific Walker circulation, and less cloudy Western Pacific, enables the relatively constant terminator‐driven changes to have sufficient “impact” to flip the system from El Niño to La Niña, independent of the actual mechanism that couples solar changes to clouds and ENSO.
The 2020 termination of the last Hale cycle, marked by the end of SC24 and beginning of SC25 is, according to Valentina Zharkhova, the beginning of a Maunder-like Minimum which will last from 2020-2053. If, as she suggests, global surface temperatures decline during this period, then we might expect the relationship between Terminator events and the switch from El Nino to La Nina to become less pronounced. The current progression of the Pacific to a La Nina may in fact be the beginning of a phase change from an ‘El Nino-like default state’ to a La Nina-like default state where, ironically, solar activity has less of an influence on central Pacific ocean surface temperatures. We shall see. All I can at this present time is that it’s extremely cold here in England at the start of April – it’s been perishing most days since January – and it certainly feels like a Maunder Minimum! Two very warm days at the end of March doesn’t quite convince me that global warming has not deserted the UK!
It’s strange isn’t it, that days after Mike Yeadon and other scientists wrote to the European Medicines Agency warning of the potential for serious thrombolic adverse reactions associated with the Covid ‘vaccines’, many countries in Europe put a temporary hold on vaccinations with AZ whilst the EMA and the German regulator looked into it. The British government claimed there was no evidence of any link between the AZ jab and blood clots and Pol Pot Belly went live on TV to get the AZ jab despite earlier claiming that he was ‘bursting with [natural] antibodies’.
The EMA then reversed their decision, despite there being evidence that there was a significant increased risk of this very rare form of blood clotting in women under 60 administered with the vackseen. The vaccine was ‘safe and effective’ they said and there was no evidence of a link with rare blood clotting and the benefits outweighed the risks, blah, blah, blah, despite the fact that the risk to healthy women under 60 from Covid-19 is tiny.
But now, Germany has suspended the use of AZ in the under 60s and the EMA has changed its tune. In the Mail:
One of the European drug regulator’s senior officials today claimed there is now a ‘clear’ link between AstraZeneca’s Covid vaccine and potentially deadly blood clots.
Marco Cavaleri, head of vaccines at the European Medicines Agency (EMA), said that CVST — a brain blockage that can lead to a stroke — was occurring more often than expected in younger people.
But he admitted that the body was still baffled about how the jab may trigger the rare complication.
Despite his comments, Mr Cavaleri’s agency has repeatedly insisted AstraZeneca’s jab is safe and the benefits outweigh any risks.
Last week it slapped down Germany for suspending its use in under-60s, arguing there was ‘no evidence’ to support age-based restrictions.
But at the same time, the watchdog paved the way for a potential U-turn, warning that the rate of the complication did appear to be slightly higher than expected in vaccinated under-60s.
Experts across the board say the evidence is now ‘shifting’ and that the jab is likely – in extremely rare cases – to cause the brain blockage.
‘Shifting’ . . . . yeah, right. It was there in the first place. First they took notice, then they dismissed it, no doubt for political reasons, then they were forced to look at it again because incidences of blood clotting in vaccinees kept happening.
The MHRA have not yet moved to restrict AZ vaccinations and Pol Pot Belly was out in Macclesfield a few days ago promoting the jab, no doubt thinking at the time that he would be announcing the introduction of vaccine passports, having not anticipated the strength of opposition to them.
Boris Johnson today called on Britons to still get the jab while on a visit to an AstraZeneca factory in Macclesfield, saying the ‘best thing’ they can do is ‘look at what the MHRA say’. He added: ‘Their advice to people is to keep going out there, get your jab, get your second jab.’
But he glossed over questions about whether the UK could impose a ban on the jab for under-30s.
Of course, the hard-nosed statisticians claim that the chance of a person dying from Covid in the younger age groups is still much higher than the chance of dying from the rare form of CVST blood clotting. The Mail reproduces this graph:
Convincing isn’t it? Except for the fact that it completely ignores:
/ Covid deaths in the 25-44 age groups are overwhelmingly those with serious underlying illness, both male and female.
/ AFAIA CVST events are mainly in younger women with no underlying health issues who are at much less risk of dying from Covid-19 than is the impression given by that chart.
/ ‘Covid deaths’ are almost certainly overestimated, therefore the risk of dying from Covid is also overestimated.
/ Other adverse reaction risks are associated with being jabbed (there are many), including unknown long term risks.
So why would any sane, healthy woman (or man even) under 60, but particularly under 45, opt to get jabbed with an experimental ‘vaccine’ with demonstrable serious side effects (including CVST) and unknown future long term health effects supposedly in order to ‘protect’ themselves against a disease which, if they were to contract, would probably present as no worse than a bad cold, if they were unlucky? Most liklely answer: because the government told them they wouldn’t be able to go on holiday if they didn’t! But it’s the vaccine refuseniks who are ‘selfish’ apparently.
This letter from a consultant in the NHS, published by the British Medical Journal, is worth printing in full (bold mine), without comment. None needed.
“Re: Do doctors have to have the covid-19 vaccine?
I have had more vaccines in my life than most people and come from a place of significant personal and professional experience in relation to this pandemic, having managed a service during the first 2 waves and all the contingencies that go with that.
Nevertheless, what I am currently struggling with is the failure to report the reality of the morbidity caused by our current vaccination program within the health service and staff population. The levels of sickness after vaccination is unprecedented and staff are getting very sick and some with neurological symptoms which is having a huge impact on the health service function. Even the young and healthy are off for days, some for weeks, and some requiring medical treatment. Whole teams are being taken out as they went to get vaccinated together.
Mandatory vaccination in this instance is stupid, unethical and irresponsible when it comes to protecting our staff and public health. We are in the voluntary phase of vaccination, and encouraging staff to take an unlicensed product that is impacting on their immediate health, and I have direct experience of staff contracting Covid AFTER vaccination and probably transmitting it. In fact, it is clearly stated that these vaccine products do not offer immunity or stop transmission. In which case why are we doing it? There is no longitudinal safety data (a couple of months of trial data at best) available and these products are only under emergency licensing. What is to say that there are no longitudinal adverse effects that we may face that may put the entire health sector at risk?
Flu is a massive annual killer, it inundates the health system, it kills young people, the old the comorbid, and yet people can chose whether or not they have that vaccine (which had been around for a long time). And you can list a whole number of other examples of vaccines that are not mandatory and yet they protect against diseases of higher consequence.
Coercion and mandating medical treatments on our staff, of members of the public especially when treatments are still in the experimental phase, are firmly in the realms of a totalitarian Nazi dystopia and fall far outside of our ethical values as the guardians of health.
I and my entire family have had COVID. This as well as most of my friends, relatives and colleagues. I have recently lost a relatively young family member with comorbidities to heart failure, resulting from the pneumonia caused by Covid. Despite this, I would never debase myself and agree, that we should abandon our liberal principles and the international stance on bodily sovereignty, free informed choice and human rights and support unprecedented coercion of professionals, patients and people to have experimental treatments with limited safety data. This and the policies that go with this are more of a danger to our society than anything else we have faced over the last year.
What has happened to “my body my choice?” What has happened to scientific and open debate? If I don’t prescribe an antibiotic to a patient who doesn’t need it as they are healthy, am I anti-antibiotics? Or an antibiotic-denier? Is it not time that people truly thought about what is happening to us and where all of this is taking us?”
Here is another letter from GP, Dr Teck Khong. It is one of a few (very few) which actually rationalises the decision to refuse the ‘vaccine’ on sound medical, ethical and scientific grounds, in response to an article which bizarrely seeks to argue the case for staff getting the highly experimental, emergency use only, demonstrably harmful and largely unnecessary ‘vaccine’ on exactly the same grounds!
When I was offered Covid vaccination by my GP, I asked him which it was he was offering me. He thought they were all the same until I explained that there are 7 technological approaches being employed in the making of the 214 vaccine candidates that were in the pipeline or had reached emergency authorisation in December 2020. This impression of homogeneity has been allowed to be glibly glossed over in the mass immunisation programme.
Equally, it is disingenuous to give the public the impression that there are no potential long term sequelae, no more than is the dearth of information that makes the ethical requirement of informed consent a mockery given the relentless and coercive push of the mass immunisation programme.
We in the medical profession should remain not only vigilant to adverse events in the aftermath of vaccination but must also be advocates of our patients in timely intervention with the most appropriate medicines for any given clinical stage of illness presentation. Additionally, we must continue to support one another in the understanding of the pathophysiology of causally related adverse events so we are enabled to define with greater accuracy the risk factors of the vulnerable. Indeed, it would appear that many may not require vaccination while some are peculiarly susceptible not only to SARS-CoV-2 but to developing serious reactions to certain classes of the Covid vaccines.
Dr Teck Khong GP Past President of BMA Leicestershire & Rutland
I can’t believe there are only 10 responses to this article so far. I think it demonstrates how reluctant NHS staff are to make their opinions public, which is not good at all. Debate has been stifled within the medical profession.
Update: 13th April 2021
The BMJ have now removed the letter from Dr. Polyakova, replacing it with this statement:
So, they allege that a letter which they published, which was presumably verified as genuine and which they do not criticise itself as being untrue, “is being used to spread misinformation” and is being “attributed in a misleading way on certain websites and social media”. In what way? How? By quoting in full, as I have done here and letting people make up their own minds about a letter which is pretty damn clear and leaves very little room for misinterpretation? This is just pathetic and transparent censorship of inconvenient information by BMJ, published on their own website, which they now find deeply embarrassing, so therefore have ‘unpublished’ it, using a risible excuse for so doing. It doesn’t really inspire much trust does it?
I’ve written about the puzzling increase in ‘Covid deaths’ here and here, which appears to be occurring soon after initial rollouts of the Covid vackseens in many places throughout the world. It’s becoming so common now that it cannot be dismissed as mere ‘coincidence’. This appears to be a real phenomenon which should be urgently investigated, but is not. This is what is happening in Hungary:
Despite vaccination success, Hungary sets daily record COVID deaths
Hungary is suffering a devastating surge in COVID-19 deaths, despite the fact it has the highest vaccination rate in the European Union.
It set a new daily death record on Wednesday with 302 fatalities and currently has the highest weekly death rate per one million inhabitants in the world.
The deaths come in spite of its ambitious vaccination programme that is leading the way in the EU, with the country boosting its supplies with China’s Sinopharm and Russia’s Sputnik V vaccines.
More than 2 million jabs have been administered as of Tuesday, inoculating more than 20% of the population.
Journalists in Hungary published an open letter on Wednesday demanding access to the overburdened hospitals in order to report what is happening, as they denounced “obstruction” from the Hungarian government.
“Doctors and nurses are not free to express themselves publicly and the press is not allowed to enter medical units” and vaccination centres, the editors of 28 newspapers and TV stations said.
“The lack of information has serious consequences,” the authors of the letter said. “Because of the lack of reporting on the reality of hospitals, many people still minimise the dangers of the virus and do not take protective measures, which contributes to exacerbating the epidemic.
What are they trying to hide? What is causing these ‘Covid deaths’? Are the ‘vackseens’ rendering people more susceptible to infection with SARS-CoV-2 by temporarily depressing immunity? Are they somehow infecting people with Covid, given that there appears to be a bizarre 48% increased risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 after the first injection? Or are they perhaps not ‘Covid deaths’ but vaccine-related deaths? Why isn’t the main stream media asking these questions?
This means that, this month at least, according to UAH satellite data, the world is now no warmer than it was in 2012, at the end of the long global warming ‘pause’ from 1998 to 2012. In other words, all of the global warming in the El Nino years after 2012 has been reversed. If the current run of cool months continues, it will not be long before the running 13 month mean coincides with the new 30 year climate normal of 1991-2020. This may happen around November 2021, when the great and the good of UN IPCC and climate concerned world leaders meet in Glasgow for COP26. They’ll be discussing how to avoid man-made Thermageddon in a world which will have refused to warm significantly in 30 years, telling us all that we must give up our cars, our jet set lifestyles (which the fascist vaccine passports will probably already have severely curtailed), our gas boilers and any hope of selling our old houses because of the introduction of new green insulation standards which make them prohibitively expensive to upgrade.