Covid-19

Vaccinated People are Eight Times more likely to be infected with the South African Variant

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.

Oxford/AstraZeneca Vaccine & Blood Clots – the Shifting Sands of Evidence

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.

BMJ: ‘Unprececedented levels of sickness after vaccination’

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?

Dear Editor

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!

Dear Editor,

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.

When ‘despite’ should perhaps be interpreted as ‘because of’.

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?

flipboard
mail icon
reddit
messenger-dsk
linkedin
vk

Killing the Flock: The Insanity of Mass Vaccinating with Non-Sterilising Vaccines

For the faint-hearted and the clueless, virtue-signalling ‘I got my vax, now go get yours’ pro-vax fanatics, look away now. This is not going to be pretty.

First off, it’s not a ‘vaccine’, it’s (jokingly) a ‘vackseen’. This guy knows it and he explains it brilliantly, in the most entertaining, lively, accessible and informative manner:

https://brandnewtube.com/watch/chris-crutchfield-on-mrna-jabs-well-worth-a-listen_tMs4mEGU71KLeX7.html

But that’s not the half of it. Pfizer and Moderna both admit that their vackseens are unlikely to be sterilising (i.e. prevent ongoing transmission. The makers of the Oxford AstraZeneca jab have apparently conducted very recent studies which do demonstrate that their product prevents ongoing transmission, but we should take this claim with a large pinch of salt at the moment. We were told that the vackseens would herald the end of lockdowns and the removal of restrictions on our way of life. They lied, because they knew that the vackseens most likely did not prevent ongoing transmission, only reduced (by an indeterminate amount) the seriousness of symptoms in those infected. If you did your ‘duty’ and bowled up to get jabbed when ‘invited’ (e.g. badgered incessantly, ruthlessly, in many cases), then you were suckered. There ain’t no kind way of saying that:

Elderly people should not kiss their grandchildren even if they have received a second dose of a coronavirus vaccine, an expert claimed today.

Professor Anthony Harnden, deputy chairman of the Joint Committee of Vaccines and Immunisation (JCVI), said it may not be safe to break social-distancing rules even after having two doses.

“You need to be really careful and remember that even after the second dose of vaccine it’s not necessarily 100 per cent effective,” he said.

“At the moment, we still need to be cautious and obey the rules and I don’t think kissing grandchildren is allowed”.

Now they’ve moved the goal-posts – twice. First it was ‘back to normal’ when the most at risk get vaccinated which, considering that the whole point of the emergency authorisation vackseens was supposed to be to protect those most at risk of severe disease (the very elderly and those with severe health conditions), thus ‘protecting the NHS’, this made sense. But then they decided it was to be extended to the over 50s; now the goal, according to the NHS, is to ‘vaccinate’ at least 80% of the population so as to achieve ‘herd immunity’. This, apart from being pseudoscientific nonsense, flies in the face of the fact that it is highly unlikely that any of the vackseens so far authorised for emergency use will stop ongong transmission, thus making a mockery of this stated ambition – and, by the way, the pursuance by this fascist government of digitised domestic vaccination passports. Also, by vaccinating at least 80% of the population, this will undoubtedly mean that groups not recommended by the manufacturers to be administered the vackseens under the terms of the emergency use authorisation, will actually be included in the rollout, which is absurd.

In pursuing a policy of mass vaccination, the government is in fact conducting a very dangerous and medically unnecessary experiment upon humanity, one which the actual science does not justify. Why?

A vaccine researcher has called for an immediate halt to all ongoing mass vaccination campaigns. I quote:

Geert Vanden Bossche, DVM, PhD virology, independent seasoned vaccine researcher, previous SPO at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and SPM at GAVI is urging WHO and world political leaders to immediately halt all ongoing Covid-19 mass vaccination campaigns as there is compelling evidence that they will soon dramatically worsen the consequences of the current pandemic.

In particular, lack of understanding of the consequences of immune pressure on highly mutable viruses has now allowed for the approval of a number of Covid-19 vaccines that are completely contraindicated for fighting a pandemic, regardless of the technology used. Although safe and efficacious and providing temporary relief to part of the population and to healthcare facilities, these vaccines will soon come with a heavy toll to be paid by the entire population if mass vaccination campaigns continue.

In our naïve and simplistic attempt to prevent the pandemic from running its natural course, we are in fact providing the beast with an even much better opportunity to escape host immunity than natural infection does

This man has published an open letter to the WHO and he does seem extremely concerned and his arguments do appear to be reasonable. I don’t know if he’s legitimate, but given the magnitude of his warnings, it would seem odd if there is not some official reply from the WHO or qualified epidemiologists, if only to debunk his terrifying concerns. Personally, I think they seem quite plausible, if you read this:

It makes sense, if you apply selective pressure to a virus in circulation by using a ‘leaky vaccine’ in millions of people, then that virus is going to adapt to escape the vaccines and cause a lot more problems than if we had left it to run its course naturally through the vast majority of the populace who are not susceptible to severe disease, protecting only those who are vulnerable. This was the original plan and it was what was advocated by the Great Barrington Declaration. But governments ignored this sound scientific advice and went for lockdowns and now mass vaccination campaigns with wholly unsuitable vackseens.

This could turn out to be a public health catastrophe if the case with leaky vaccines in poultry is anything to go by:

“When a vaccine works perfectly, as do the childhood vaccines for smallpox, polio, mumps, rubella, and measles, it prevents vaccinated individuals from being sickened by the disease, and it also prevents them from transmitting the virus to others,” says Andrew Read, a leader of the research team and professor of biology and entomology and biotechnology at Penn State.

These vaccines are a type that is “perfect” because they are designed to mimic the perfect immunity that humans naturally develop after having survived one of these diseases.

“We humans never have experienced any contagious disease that kills as many unvaccinated hosts as these poultry viruses can, but we now are entering an era when we are starting to develop next-generation vaccines that are leaky because they are for diseases that do not do a good job of producing strong natural immunity—diseases like HIV and malaria,” Read says.

“Vaccines for human diseases are the least-expensive, most-effective public-health interventions we ever have had,” Read says. “But the concern now is about the next-generation vaccines. If the next-generation vaccines are leaky, they could drive the evolution of more-virulent strains of the virus.”

The leaky vaccines are here – the Covid vaccines. They are being rolled out to millions without a second thought about the consequences; in fact they are being outrageously coerced by governments worldwide. Do they actually want to see us all die if something goes wrong? The most vulnerable may initially be the unvaccinated, but even those vaccinated may be vulnerable to any virulent new variants which emerge as a direct consequence of this insane mass medical intervention. In that regard, remind me again why Blair was so keen to have partially vaccinated people wandering around for weeks longer than recommended by the manufacturers themselves, after receiving only one jab? Remind me again of the fact that many millions in Third World countries will indeed not be vaccinated for quite some time.

So, when you are offered your vackseen and you smugly think to yourself ‘yeah, I’m going to have it because I want to protect myself and my fellow human beings’ or you just think ‘I want to be able to go to the pub or go on holiday’, ask yourself if you’re really doing yourself and/or humanity a big favour by opting into this mass coerced clinical trial which Kill Gates has dreamed about for years.

Update: 9th March 2021

This guy is completely legit. This is actually quite terrifying. Why are government scientists now warning of a ‘third surge’ of Covid deaths and a particularly bad influenza season later this year? I suggest that they know they have potentially screwed up big time. A third of the UK have already been ‘vaccinated’ and millions more are likely to succumb to coercion. It may already be too late to avert this disaster. See where blind compliance to government and unshakable faith in ‘science’ gets you? See where it gets us?

What is behind the sharp rise in ‘Covid deaths’ soon after vaccination?

This has been bothering me for a month now. It’s why I wrote this post. When a third of residents at a nursing home just ‘happen’ to die ‘from Covid’ soon after getting vaccinated against Covid, you naturally start to ask questions. Well, at least I do. Especially when the same pattern is repeated all over the world: here, here, and here, for example. The BBC doesn’t, most of the MSM doesn’t and the vaccine-obsessed government certainly doesn’t. Other people question what’s going on too; people much smarter and better qualified to analyse data and data anomalies than myself. Joel Smalley is one such person. He is interviewed here:

The entire video is well worth watching. He illustrates very convincingly that the new ‘baseline’ for excess deaths in the UK has now moved upwards as a direct result of continuing denial of healthcare to the populace. 1000 deaths each week, every week, since the beginning of lockdown 1 in March 2020 are directly attributable to restricted access to the NHS of those suffering life threatening diseases and injuries. These deaths will continue for the foreseeable future, maybe even get worse. But I draw your attention in particular to 1hr 8mins onwards, where he talks about an ‘unexplained’ rise in deaths coincident with vaccine rollouts.

Smalley identifies near perfect correlations with vaccine rollouts and ‘Covid deaths’ of the over 80s, in England, Scotland (3 weeks later), in care homes (beginning after Christmas and New Year) and in the general community. This should concern the government, the NHS and PHE and the media greatly, but it appears not to, at least publicly. In fact, the media are quick to claim the apparent stunning success of the vaccines in preventing deaths in the older age groups, because deaths are falling rapidly. However, deaths are falling rapidly coincident with a sharp decline in vaccinations, as the rollout program in those groups comes to an end. So, you have to ask, is the lack of deaths simply a result of the lack of bodies? It’s a chilling question.

But it actually gets worse. In Israel, where a large percentage of the population have already received two doses of the Pfizer jab, there appears to be a direct correlation with ‘Covid deaths’ and vaccination even in the younger age groups. Joel is on the case again:

Here are the graphs he presents in that tweet:

It looks to me like vaccine deaths are in fact being misattributed as ‘Covid deaths’ and that significantly more deaths are occurring in the older age groups presumably due to increased frailty. But even in the 60-69 age groups, it looks like the vaccines are killing significant numbers of people – a total of 66 ‘Covid deaths’ where none occurred prior to the vaccine rollout.

Somebody else has crunched the numbers on vaccinations in Israel and they reveal a very disturbing picture.

Our reanalyses of these data explain why during the massive vaccination project initiated mid-December 2020 during a confinement, daily new confirmed COVID-19 cases failed to decrease as they do during confinements, and, more importantly, why numbers of serious, critical and death cases increased during that period that covered at least one month. From mid-December to mid-February (two months), 2337 among all Israeli 5351 official COVID-deaths occurred.Our analyses indicate orders of magnitude increases in deaths rates during the 5-week long vaccination process, as compared to the unvaccinated and those after completing the vaccination process.

The number of COVID-19 deaths among the vaccinated since the start of the vaccination action seems to explain the increased death rates from COVID-19 observed since December 2020.
For that purpose, we calculate the products of the number of vaccinated people above age 65 by 0.2 and the number of vaccinated people below 65 by 0.04. This shows that most COVID-19 deaths in that period are for vaccinated people, as shows the table provided by the Ministry of health at the beginning of February.

During the vaccination action from mid-December until mid-February, 2337 among all 5351 COVID-19 deaths reported for Israel occurred, 43.7%. Among these, since January 19, 1271 COVID-19 deaths were reported for Israel.The table provided by the Ministry of Health on February 10 states 660 COVID-19 deaths among the vaccinated, 51.9% of the deaths for that period. Only 1.3 million Israeli, among 8 million (about 1 in 8, 12.5%), were vaccinated during that period. Accordingly, vaccination promotes deaths because 51.9% of deaths during that period are for the 12.5% vaccinated in that period. In addition the serious and critical cases during that period is more than the reported serious cases, the adverse effect of the vaccination process is most likely worse than what appears from the data at hand.

The horror continues. The deaths among those vaccinated should be added to the numerous AVC and cardiac events reported just after vaccination that are not included among COVID-19 deaths which about double the deaths among those vaccinated, whose numbers remain unknown and which we will try to find in the coming days.
At this point we state that vaccinations caused more deaths than the coronavirus would have during the same period.

We conclude that the Pfizer vaccines, for the elderly, killed during the 5-week vaccination period about 40 times more people than the disease itself would have killed, and about 260 times more people than the disease among the younger age class. We stress that this is in order to produce a green passport valid at most 6 months, and promote Pfizer sales.
These estimated numbers of deaths from the vaccine are probably much lower than actual numbers as it accounts only for those defined as COVID-19 deaths for that short time period and does not include AVC and cardiac (and other) events resulting from the inflammatory reactions in tens of reports documented on the NAKIM site, which themselves are only the iceberg’s tip, see here.

If the author’s analysis is correct and these figures are true, then this is a shocking revelation, especially considering that Israeli residents have been heavily coerced into getting vaccinated and now actually need a ‘Green passport’ to gain access to many places. Remembering also that these are just the deaths occurring very soon after vaccination. In the longer term, who knows what will happen because none of the vaccines have been tested over more than a few months. Will it turn out that you have to risk your health and even your life by taking part in a mass clinical trial if you want to do all those things which previously were your inalienable right to do in a free society? This is what the Johnson government is considering implementing in the UK too, even after assuring people that they would not be introducing domestic vaccine passports. Goebbels Gove is in charge of the government review into them.

Mike Hulme, Climate Emergency and Extinction Denier, is also a Lockdown and Mass Covid Vaccination Sceptic

Mike Hulme is a former climate scientist at UEA who has consistently, with integrity and honesty, resisted the siren call of climate alarmism. Most especially, when the extinction fanatics and climate emergency cultists came to the fore and commandeered the climate change social narrative in 2019, he wrote this very sensible and enlightening piece on his blog, which was covered by Paul Matthews at Cliscep here. Hulme says:

Yet I resist the current mood of ‘extinctionism’ which pervades the new public discourse around climate change.  Talking about the future in this way is counter-productive.  And it does a disservice to development, justice, peace-making and humanitarian projects being undertaken around the world today.

A denier is a person who denies something, “… who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence.”  If I do not believe that climate change will drive the human species to extinction, does that make me an extinction denier?  For I do not believe that there is good scientific or historical evidence that climate change will lead to human extinction.

This rise in extinction rhetoric in (largely) English-speaking societies over the past 12 months is in part linked to the IPCC’s Special Report on 1.5C Warming published last October.  The slogan “we have only 12 years left” has somehow been extracted from this Report and feeds the rise of climate clocks such as this one from the Human Impact Lab in Montreal.  But the IPCC Report offers neither scientific nor historical evidence for human extinction.

From this extinction fear arises the “panic” that Greta Thunberg has called for.  Panic demands a response and one response is to declare an emergency.  ‘Climate emergencies’ are now being declared in jurisdictions ranging from universities, the British Parliament and several local authorities in the UK. 

But the rhetoric of extinction and emergency does not adequately describe the situation we find ourselves in.  Declaring a climate emergency implies the possibility of time-limited radical and decisive action that can end the emergency.  But climate change is not like this.  The historical trajectory of human expansion, western imperialism and technological development has created climate change as a new condition of human existence rather than as a path to extinction.

It’s interesting that Professor Hulme identifies SR15 as the possible source of the climate emergency/climate crisis and extinction rhetoric, whilst at the same time denying that the science therein lent any credibility to such claims. But that’s what the IPCC do. They publish the science and then they promote an unjustified and somewhat alarmist interpretation of that science in the summary for policy makers. What is more interesting is that he implies that anthropogenic climate change, which is not an existential threat or an emergency, is something we must learn to live with and adapt to and presumably attempt to mitigate.

He rejects the fear narrative:

The rhetoric of climate and extinction does not help us psychologically.  It all too easily induces feelings of terror as Ed Maibach at George Mason University bluntly remarks, “As a public health professional (and as a human), I find the prospect of 3 or 4 degree C of global warming to be nothing short of terrifying.”  But inducing a state of terror generates counter-productive responses in human behaviour.

He also rejects the idea that we need a wholesale reorganisation of society and political structures in order to deal with climate change:

Nor does the rhetoric of climate and extinction help us politically.  Simply ‘uniting behind the science’ or ‘passing on the words of science’ gets us no further forward politically.  Even if climate science predicted the extinction of humanity, as Darrick Evensen explains climate change “raises a host of ethical, historical and cultural questions that are at most tangentially connected to any scientific findings.”

Bearing this in mind, it is perhaps not surprising to find that Mike Hulme also rejects the ‘Covid crisis’ narrative and is sceptical of the value of lockdowns, arguing for the restoration of our society and former political structures, stating that we must learn to live with this disease. Hulme rejects the simplistic narrative that mass vaccination will achieve a return to normality, as promoted by politicians and as naively believed by so many.

There is a naïve assumption that mass vaccination will allow social life in the UK to return to normal.  It is far from obvious that this is so.  As the authoritarian regulation of public life extends and continues, the erosion of collective and individual freedoms will only be reversed if citizens demand it.

He criticises the misguided belief in science as the saviour of society and the sole arbiter of policy:

Science is sustained on the promise that its enterprise not only yields greater knowledge about how the physical world works but, crucially, that this knowledge offers more certainty about the future.  And that with more certainty about the future, science therefore enables better (‘more rational’) decisions to be made about how to secure policy goals. 

The political rhetoric regarding the progression of the coronavirus pandemic and the development of vaccines has certainly leant heavily on this promise.  Those whose guiding light is premised on science, therefore remain suspended between finding ways of living a worthwhile life amidst deep uncertainty and waiting for science to deliver on its promise.

But such a prospectus mis-sells science.  And it underestimates the complexity of how physical and social worlds interact to create the future.  The more scientific knowledge is gained about the physical world, the more it is realized what is still not known.  The exploratory frontier of science never closes; indeed, it continues to expand.  This is what history teaches us, not least with respect to infectious diseases and vaccines.

The vaccine rollout will not, cannot restore what has been lost through lockdowns:

Now don’t mis-read me.  I am most definitely not anti-science and vaccines are good things. Absolutely.  The world needs them, desperately.  But we deceive ourselves badly if we think that the mass roll out of vaccines will by itself put back together our broken social and economic worlds.  The biggest danger in the roll-out of vaccines is that in the public mind they are interpreted as white horses riding out to save us.

This is a mirage.  Vaccines will reduce case fatality rates and the incidence of serious side-effects.  But transmission will continue, albeit at lower rates but with occasional spikes.  SARS-CoV-2 will still be with us.  We need to find better ways of living with the risks this virus will continue to pose to life and health than by suspending individual and collective freedoms through shutting down society (lockdown). 

He is obviously very concerned at the loss of liberty and the social and psychological harms inflicted upon us as a result of lockdowns:

These restrictions are deeply worrying, whilst also appearing disarmingly mundane.

Worrying for those who hold to a certain view of western liberal democracy are the following: the abandonment of the right of assembly; unprecedented state restriction on personal freedom of movement; the forcible incarceration of elders in care homes (keeping them alive so that they may die lonely and alone); the isolation of the mentally ill in hospitals; the enforced schooling of children at home; the suspension of the right to trade; the expansion of state surveillance; the enlargement and intrusion of police powers into private life.

Who could disagree? Quite a few, apparently, which is worrying in itself.

He says what I have been saying myself for many months. The only way to end this nightmare is for us, the people, to stand up and re-assert our right to live life normally again. The government is not going to give us back what it has taken unless we demand it. Meekly acquiescing to a coerced mass vaccination campaign which mainly benefits people like Bill Gates will not get us back to normal. Quite the opposite in fact. It will inform the government that it can dictate to us even what we put into our own bodies. That is an extremely perilous thing to do.

The simple belief that securing the mass roll out of vaccines will automatically reverse the state’s appropriation of unprecedented powers, manifest in the large and small ways summarized above, is dangerous in both its naivety and passivity.  Vaccines of course do not have the agency to return rights and freedoms that have been suspended, but neither can we expect politicians or medical experts to automatically restore them.  The totalizing hold that the central state now has on British political and social life will only be relaxed by citizens demanding the return of those liberties and freedoms that have been withheld. 

Until public fear is neutralised, COVID risk normalised and citizens demand the Government returns their political and social freedoms, we will remain living under conditions of emergency, thus perpetuating the fragmentation and de-socialisation of society.

There is hard political, psychological and social work to be done in re-constructing the basic elements of a free and sociable society that have been so badly damaged.  Three things are necessary in the weeks, months and years ahead to achieve what the vaccines on their own cannot achieve — the re-socialisation of society.

Mike advises of the need to dispel the irrational and damaging fear which has been deliberately generated and engineered by alarmist academics and psychologists at SAGE, the media and by the government itself:

Second is to alter the mass psychology of a nation that has been tutored by the iatocracy and the media into fearing coronavirus.  Sociologist Robert Dingwall argues thus: “Above all, we must dispel the current mood of fear and the arguments of those who thrive upon that fear.”  Or to quote a more distant, but equally perceptive, voice: “The only thing we have to fear is … fear itself – nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance”.

Finally, Mike advises us that we must learn to live with the risk of death or disease from SARS-CoV-2. Just like the ever present risks of climate change must be normalized, managed and incorporated into our existing social and political structures sensibly and rationally, which means not kowtowing to the demands of extinction rebellion fanatics and hysterics at the Graun screaming that we must radically alter our society, our behaviours and our modes of governance in order to avert an existential climate crisis.

And, third, it is necessary to accept that COVID-19 and its threats to human life and health will not be eliminated by vaccines.  COVID risk needs to be treated just like other presenting risks.  (I am not saying that all risks are equal in threat or the same in character; rather, that we need equally to learn how to live with risk while preserving the things we value).  COVID risk should not be exceptionalised.  It needs to be assimilated into everyday risk awareness, social norms and human behaviour.

One Third of Vaccinated Residents at a Basingstoke Nursing Home Are Now Dead – BBC Calls it a ‘Covid Outbreak’.

Twenty-two residents of the same Hampshire care home have died after testing positive for Covid-19.

Owner Avery Healthcare said all the deaths at Pemberley House in Basingstoke occurred this month.

The number of deaths accounted for approximately a third of those living at the home, which provides care for people over 65.

They died after testing positive for Covid-19. Therefore it’s a ‘Covid outbreak’, naturally. They also died after being vaccinated.

“As a company we are supporting the vaccine roll-out and our focus remains on supporting the wellbeing of residents, families and staff as we work through this together.”

A spokeswoman for Hampshire County Council said the local authority did not comment on deaths within private care homes and offered condolences to the families affected.

She added that “protection from the vaccine takes time” so even people who have had the jab should continue to regularly wash their hands, use face coverings and stay two metres apart.

They didn’t wash their hands enough or stay 2 metres apart, obviously.

RIP you lovely people. So sorry for the grieving relatives.

Update 08/02/2021

This graph shows the immune suppression (lymphocyte count) shortly after the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine is administered. As you can see, it is very significant and this could possibly make a very old and frail person susceptible to a life threatening infection.

The Johnson Regime’s Travel Ban Will Devastate Endangered African Wildlife

It’s now effectively illegal to leave the UK. We are living on Prison Island. Supposedly, this is because of a ‘deadly virus’ and its ever changing ‘new variants’. It is to ‘protect us’. No, it is not, it is the dictatorial, fascist, globalist, Communist – call it what you will – UK government flexing its authoritarian muscles over us all using a flu like respiratory virus as a convenient excuse to crush our civil liberties and in particular our freedom to travel.

Why would the UK government want us to stop travelling and seeing the world? Because the peasantry have had it too good for too long and they have become enlightened and knowledgeable, freedom-loving, outward-looking, globe-trotting individuals who must be put back in their box if the Great Reset is to work.

Essential to the Great Reset of course is the destruction of society and the economy as we know it to enable our dictatorial governments to ‘build back better’ which is ‘build back greener’ which basically means eco-communism on a global scale in order to ‘save the planet’ from the world-destroying anthropogenic carbon-dioxide Thermageddon molecule.

To this end, the UK government has committed to reaching net zero by 2050. That will mean very drastic changes in our lifestyle. It will mean closing most airports and ending all ‘unnecessary’ international travel in the next decade. The plan is outlined here, in a report commissioned by the government. Patel’s arrogant curtailment of our most basic human rights has nothing whatsoever to do with a virus, everything to do with reaching the legally binding net zero emissions target. But that will entail huge collateral damage. I wonder if she cares. I wonder if the government cares. I doubt it.

They’ve only got 8 years to force the closure of all airports except Heathrow, Belfast and Glasgow. Destroying the international tourism industry and sending all budget airline operators into bankruptcy is the way they will do it. It’s so they can ‘save the planet’ remember, prevent mass extinctions, an environmental, ecological and climatological catastrophe. Yeah, right:

In addition to the human cost, she highlighted the impact that a loss of tourists is having on conservation efforts. “The 100,000-plus Namibians dependent on tourism are all hanging on by the barest of margins, and tourism is also vital in protecting species such as black and white rhino, elephant, lion, cheetah, leopard, pangolin, and wild dog,” she said.

“Any further delay in allowing UK tourists to visit Namibia will directly result in increased poaching, habitat destruction and a humanitarian disaster. 

“We are already seeing the effects of this in terms of huge increases in poverty in remote communities which have traditionally relied on tourism; children are unable to attend school, families cannot buy food, villages are beginning to question the value of conserving wildlife when faced with the ongoing inability to meet their basic needs. 

“If we are not able to welcome UK tourists back to Namibia when this lockdown eases, many more companies will be forced into liquidation and the future of conservation here will be in serious trouble. We can never get back the iconic species that may be lost, and we must do everything in our power to prevent this catastrophe.” 

Her thoughts were echoed by Alexandra Matts, director of UK firm Extraordinary Africa. She said: “Each job in a safari camp supports 8-10 people. Without tourism those jobs don’t exist. There is little to no social security in any of the countries we work in so the people who rely on that income have no other fallback. In many companies, management have taken huge reductions in salaries to protect those at the bottom, and camp owners are trying to keep staff afloat out of rapidly dwindling savings. 

“Vast tracts of land, such as the conservancies around the Maasai Mara, are protected for wildlife only because of the income from tourism. In addition, almost every single lodge and camp we work with has outreach projects to support conservation and the local community – anti-poaching projects, school projects, HIV projects, water projects – the list goes on. Without tourism jobs, without tourist money to protect land, without tourism funding for vital projects, the consequences are devastating.”

Jane Palmer of Conservation Travel Africa, a small UK firm that specialises in volunteering breaks, said: “While we are all desperate to travel, we need to remember that the people and wildlife on the ground in Africa are even more desperate for us to visit. What is just a holiday for us means so much more to the people that companies like ours are trying to support. Does that make travel to Africa an unimportant luxury?”

Killing off iconic African wildlife and habitat and pushing millions of Africans into poverty to ‘save the planet’ by reducing our tiny contribution to global GHG emissions, whilst China, which gave us this ‘deadly pandemic’ – and its travel-destroying ‘mutant strains’ – in the first place, races away building thousands more coal-fired power stations. Ironic too, that it is mainly Chinese demand for exotic animal products which will now be contributing to the accelerated decline of African wildlife. Wasn’t it supposed to be the Chinese demand for exotic animals to eat which gave us this bloody world-destroying, most hyped ‘pandemic’ in human history?

The Strange Case Of The Disappearance Of ‘Flu

Apparently, according to WHO figures, influenza cases from Week 15 (April) of 2020 have declined by 98% compared to 2019, whilst Covid-19 cases have correspondingly soared. This is very strange, you have to admit. Here are the figures:

So what on earth is going on? Is it a conspiracy? Have health departments all across the world been wrongly assigning ‘flu cases as Covid-19 cases, in effect faking the entire Covid-19 pandemic? Has the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 somehow ‘driven out’ ‘flu since April, preventing people from being infected with the ‘flu virus if they are already infected with SARS-CoV-2? Has mass mask wearing and social distancing prevented the spread of the ‘flu but not, bizarrely, the spread of SARS-CoV-2? All these explanations seem a little far fetched.

But we need an explanation. The transition from ‘flu to Covid is stark indeed. Here are the case statistics for North America and Northern Europe:

It’s ridiculous isn’t it. How can ‘flu just suddenly disappear? My guess is it did not. Flu and pneumonia are still mentioned on plenty of death certificates. My guess is that the focus on testing for Covid-19 has meant that ‘flu cases are being sidelined, but that moreover, people presenting with severe respiratory disease and dying from severe respiratory disease are those same people who, in a normal year would have presented with the ‘flu and died from it. SARS-CoV-2 appears to have usurped the role of ‘flu in the vulnerable population this year and carried off the susceptible. Not only that, it did so in many countries in a much shorter period, around March and April. It also carried off those who would have died naturally from other diseases too, like cancer, heart disease, stroke etc.

In this respect, Covid-19 is not a pandemic, but a syndemic. It has killed people all over the world by acting in synchrony with – and in some cases by displacing, as with ‘flu – other known morbidities. Very few healthy people under 60 have died directly from Covid-19. Here is what Richard Horton in the Lancet has to say and I believe it is very significant:

As the world approaches 1 million deaths from COVID-19, we must confront the fact that we are taking a far too narrow approach to managing this outbreak of a new coronavirus. We have viewed the cause of this crisis as an infectious disease. All of our interventions have focused on cutting lines of viral transmission, thereby controlling the spread of the pathogen. The “science” that has guided governments has been driven mostly by epidemic modellers and infectious disease specialists, who understandably frame the present health emergency in centuries-old terms of plague. But what we have learned so far tells us that the story of COVID-19 is not so simple. Two categories of disease are interacting within specific populations—infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and an array of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). These conditions are clustering within social groups according to patterns of inequality deeply embedded in our societies. The aggregation of these diseases on a background of social and economic disparity exacerbates the adverse effects of each separate disease. COVID-19 is not a pandemic. It is a syndemic. The syndemic nature of the threat we face means that a more nuanced approach is needed if we are to protect the health of our communities.