UK Govt Coronavirus Response: Sceptics Thread

[Bornagain]

17 hours ago, Pip321 said:

Does anyone have a simple view on the...why? I know some companies will make some money....but this feels much much more a concerted effort to stifle debate. 

I completely understand why they don't want TV presenters giving a medical view and may even have wanted to test their ability to control......but why is the medical profession and 'science' not been given the opportunity for healthy critical debate. 

Just about all Governments wildy over reacted to Covid in Spring 2020, they stole peoples freedoms, terrified the general population and printed money driving inflation - in short, they really fucked things up.

The Medical/Government Maffia must have realised this pretty quickly, but what could they do ? The damage was done, the genie was out of the bottle and flying around the room.

They knew that left to its own devices the virus would mop up the old, fat, ill and unlucky and disappear into history as all the cold/flu virus of the past had done - yet they had panicked,cried wolf and been responsible for massive harm to the population and the economy.

To admit tht they hade fucked up is not possible as the reputation of the entire money making industry and government would be destroyed, this meant they had no option but to continue with the narrative that they had written.

Vaccines offered them a way out, "Covid was a killer but our medical industry found a way to save us all."

Unfortunately, as is now pretty well documented, the vaccines did not prevent us from catching and transmitting the disease and hence did not act like a magic bullet, it is also known that a lot of people who had no risk from Covid have been damaged - some fatally.

The Medical Maffia cannot admit to any of this until the events are considered to be history and all the major players have either died or retired with their loot.

It will then (perhaps in a decade) make its way into the media as one of the biggest fuck-ups of all time but by then it will be much too late to blame individuals, organisations or companies as so much water will have passed under the bridge.

Lessons will be learned.

 

 

[Onsamui]

21 hours ago, Pip321 said:

It’s taken me a week or two since seeing these threads with initial thoughts of eating veg etc (which I will do) but in the end I have decided to follow the vitamin and mineral supplement recommendations from this thread and summary from @The Masked Tulip and the videos. Thanks for the advice  

Holland & Barrett have a sale in so just bought a load of bits to compliment a healthy diet and exercise.

Hopefully will help get rid of the consequences of the 3 vaccines I have had🤢

Suramin and IVM I believe can help but I am not sure you can remove the exp. drug spike protein from the body.  Potential COVID Spike Protein Detoxification Regime Discussed in Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) | BioSpace

[Onsamui]

13 hours ago, Bobthebuilder said:

Gotta be something like that.

My mothers side of the family are undertakers, they saw no difference in numbers during the whole thing.

What turned my head in May 2020 was the lack of body bags, I knew it was bullshit.

What are they seeing now with the increased deaths?

[Bobthebuilder]

4 minutes ago, Onsamui said:

What are they seeing now with the increased deaths?

I dont know, have not asked.

[Heart's Ease]

1 hour ago, Onsamui said:

Suramin and IVM I believe can help but I am not sure you can remove the exp. drug spike protein from the body.  Potential COVID Spike Protein Detoxification Regime Discussed in Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) | BioSpace

Nattokinase seems to crop up again and again. @Pip321search DOSBODS.

https://covid19.onedaymd.com/2023/03/dr-peter-mccullough-prescription-and.html?m=1

Dr Peter McCullough has extensively researched how to detox from Spike protein. Previously the most fêted cardiologist in the USA, he was cancelled for proposing his very simple COVID 19 protocol and for expressing concerns re the jibby jabs.

This is why a search even with duckduckgo or brave browser throws up pages of "fact checking" about him.

He's the one I'd be searching if I'd partaken in the experiment.

[janch]

19 hours ago, BurntBread said:

the only other thing that has been seriously discussed is a depopulation plan that (fingers crossed since only some of the future has happened yet) failed or was foiled. I am at the stage where I believe that is possible, but it's not compelling to me: there's a potential motive, but no actual evidence.

I'm of the opinion now that the vax is a bioweapon and was designed to kill.  There I've said it......There are some very nasty people in control (cabal) who have/had all the world governments and media under their thumbs and a lot of very gullible/bribable/easily lead people to do their bidding (useful idiots). 

The thing which swung it for me that it was all deliberate was when they made the jabs mandatory.  At no time in the past has everyone in the population been required to take any kind of medicine without their medical condition being taken into account.

I have also had personal experience of being forcibly jabbed by the state aginst my will.  I'm no longer surprised by anything they decide to do.

[Pip321]

On 11/11/2023 at 14:17, janch said:

I'm of the opinion now that the vax is a bioweapon and was designed to kill.  There I've said it......There are some very nasty people in control (cabal) who have/had all the world governments and media under their thumbs and a lot of very gullible/bribable/easily lead people to do their bidding (useful idiots). 

The thing which swung it for me that it was all deliberate was when they made the jabs mandatory.  At no time in the past has everyone in the population been required to take any kind of medicine without their medical condition being taken into account.

I have also had personal experience of being forcibly jabbed by the state aginst my will.  I'm no longer surprised by anything they decide to do.

The West flag wavers don’t understand how they (all citizens) are be perceived as ‘commodity and energy users’ and are using valuable finite resources that really those in charge need to continue to maintain their lifestyles. 600 million Africans don’t even have a plug never mind a ‘Tesla to save the planet’….they want us in the West to use less or they want us to ‘be less’  

I am not saying carbon emissions impact is a complete myth, I am saying it’s not the real agenda it is the excuse……Private jets flying EU members to climate conventions whilst sewerage belches into our rivers, they don’t care about environment they just want us to stop using stuff.

Also as energy becomes the real currency so they need us to stop using that energy….otherwise it’s shifts power to those who produce and of course that shifts power to the Middle East and those darn ruskies. (Luckily there has been no western interference over there🤦🏻‍♂️) 

They could be more honest I guess….ie stop using our energy cos we need jets and rockets….or we will have to reduce the number of users. 

Edited November 13, 2023 by Pip321

[sancho panza]

On 11/11/2023 at 09:53, Onsamui said:

What are they seeing now with the increased deaths?

I've psoted this before but JC covers the issue well.Large rise in excess deaths in multiple countries,whetehr it's vaxx related or lcokdown related,I don't think we'll ver know for sure but in about ten years they'll take an edcuated guess much like Vioxx.

 

[sancho panza]

On 11/11/2023 at 08:53, Bornagain said:

Just about all Governments wildy over reacted to Covid in Spring 2020, they stole peoples freedoms, terrified the general population and printed money driving inflation - in short, they really fucked things up.

The Medical/Government Maffia must have realised this pretty quickly, but what could they do ? The damage was done, the genie was out of the bottle and flying around the room.

To admit tht they hade fucked up is not possible as the reputation of the entire money making industry and government would be destroyed, this meant they had no option but to continue with the narrative that they had written.

Vaccines offered them a way out, "Covid was a killer but our medical industry found a way to save us all."

The Medical Maffia cannot admit to any of this until the events are considered to be history and all the major players have either died or retired with their loot.

It will then (perhaps in a decade) make its way into the media as one of the biggest fuck-ups of all time but by then it will be much too late to blame individuals, organisations or companies as so much water will have passed under the bridge.

 

 

I wholeheartedly agree with the bits in bold.They knew pretty soon they'd screwed up royally but with lifelong reputations and careers on the line,they were never going to admit it.Giesecke quote is apt here.Easy to get into Lockdowns,hard to get out wihtout admitting how much you got wrong.They then compounded the lockdown f*** up with the vaccine f*** up.

We had a Remembrance Day reunion Sat night.One of the lads is now a paramedic with a different service to me.He said at the big city hospital he works at the staff were calling the vaxx injuries 'covid clots'.He had one jab,it made him really ill and never had number two.Interesting thing he was saying was that he was asking me if I remembered seeing so many young people having strokes and cardiac issues as before the vaxx.The word is out there at last and he didn't shy away from the controversy either.

@dnb24 are you seeing this as well?

At the very start of this thread,a couple of things were psoted that have really stood the test of time.First up Ioannidis' prediction that coof IFR would be around the level of flu based on the 'covid petri dish' that was the Diamond Princess cruise ship where Neil Fergusons apocolypitc predictions were never backed by the evidence

1) Prof John Ioannidis

17 March 2020

A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/

2) Dr Malcolm Kendrick

6 April 2020

As a GP, I fear our Covid-19 lockdown will result in significantly more deaths than we are trying to prevent

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/485110-covid-19-lockdown-deaths/

3) Dr Johan Giesecke-Swedish Epedemiologist-interview with Freddie Sayers-where he famously said

'the problem with lockdowns isn't getting into them but getting out of them.'

https://order-order.com/2020/04/18/must-watch-swedish-epidemiologist-lays-swedens-thinking-video/

• The flattening of the curve we are seeing now is due to the most vulnerable dying first as much as the lockdown
• UK policy on lockdown and in other European countries is not evidence-based
• The correct policy is to protect the old and the frail only
• This will eventually lead to herd immunity as a “by-product”
• The initial UK response, before the “180 degree U-turn”, was better
• The Imperial College paper was “not very good” and he has never seen an unpublished, non-peer-reviewed paper have so much policy impact
• Is dismissive of the 510,000 figure that was predicted if mitigation measures were not implemented
• The Imperial College paper was much too pessimistic and did not factor in the now much increased ICU capacity
• Any such models are a dubious basis for public policy anyway, taking no account of real world specifics
• The results will eventually be similar for all countries
• Covid-19 is a “mild disease” and similar to the flu, and it was the novelty of the disease that scared people.
• The actual fatality rate of Covid-19 will in all likelihood turn out to be in the region of 0.1%
• At least 50% of the population of both the UK and Sweden will likely be shown to have already had the disease when mass antibody testing becomes available

[ashestoashes]

there's videos of WHO, WEF and big farmer saying they needed quicker turnaround in vaxx development and ability to produce them to scale worldwide so everyone was protected, just so happened they had wonderful mRNA technology that would allow them to do this (also good for big farmer profits). Pretty much everything was done in the pandemic to ensure the jabs or other big farmer products were the only solution to ending the lockdowns. The worldwide development of mRNA jabs and production facilities is ongoing in preparation for the next pandemic. 

[dnb24]

1 hour ago, sancho panza said:

are you seeing this as wel

Worse mate, it’s the cancers- it’s nuts how quick these are taking hold, and how fast they are finishing people off- and it’s happening at the coal face ie NHS staff. 

[sancho panza]

52 minutes ago, dnb24 said:

Worse mate, it’s the cancers- it’s nuts how quick these are taking hold, and how fast they are finishing people off- and it’s happening at the coal face ie NHS staff. 

Are many people calling it out as Vaxx related? Or is there still some faith in the shots.Quite a few at work have had vaxx injuries-mainly cardiac related such as palpitations,one or two more serious.Our work population is very young though.Average age easily sub 30 these days I'd say.

I think vaxx uptake amongst NHS staff is very low these days.

[dnb24]

34 minutes ago, sancho panza said:

Are many people calling it out as Vaxx related? Or is there still some faith in the shots.Quite a few at work have had vaxx injuries-mainly cardiac related such as palpitations,one or two more serious.Our work population is very young though.Average age easily sub 30 these days I'd say.

I think vaxx uptake amongst NHS staff is very low these days.

No, not in my place, vax uptake is very very low, but I think the cancers are being but down as chance, rather than the vax. There were quite a number of cardiac symptoms around a year ago in the workforce but these were put down as covid related. I can’t definitively say whether the cancers are vax related or not- this is all anecdotal. From what I’m seeing if you have a history of cancer the vax doesn’t help. 

Edited November 13, 2023 by dnb24

[BurntBread]

4 hours ago, sancho panza said:

 

I wholeheartedly agree with the bits in bold.They knew pretty soon they'd screwed up royally but with lifelong reputations and careers on the line,they were never going to admit it.Giesecke quote is apt here.Easy to get into Lockdowns,hard to get out wihtout admitting how much you got wrong.They then compounded the lockdown f*** up with the vaccine f*** up.

We had a Remembrance Day reunion Sat night.One of the lads is now a paramedic with a different service to me.He said at the big city hospital he works at the staff were calling the vaxx injuries 'covid clots'.He had one jab,it made him really ill and never had number two.Interesting thing he was saying was that he was asking me if I remembered seeing so many young people having strokes and cardiac issues as before the vaxx.The word is out there at last and he didn't shy away from the controversy either.

@dnb24 are you seeing this as well?

At the very start of this thread,a couple of things were psoted that have really stood the test of time.First up Ioannidis' prediction that coof IFR would be around the level of flu based on the 'covid petri dish' that was the Diamond Princess cruise ship where Neil Fergusons apocolypitc predictions were never backed by the evidence

1) Prof John Ioannidis

17 March 2020

A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/

2) Dr Malcolm Kendrick

6 April 2020

As a GP, I fear our Covid-19 lockdown will result in significantly more deaths than we are trying to prevent

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/485110-covid-19-lockdown-deaths/

3) Dr Johan Giesecke-Swedish Epedemiologist-interview with Freddie Sayers-where he famously said

'the problem with lockdowns isn't getting into them but getting out of them.'

https://order-order.com/2020/04/18/must-watch-swedish-epidemiologist-lays-swedens-thinking-video/

• The flattening of the curve we are seeing now is due to the most vulnerable dying first as much as the lockdown
• UK policy on lockdown and in other European countries is not evidence-based
• The correct policy is to protect the old and the frail only
• This will eventually lead to herd immunity as a “by-product”
• The initial UK response, before the “180 degree U-turn”, was better
• The Imperial College paper was “not very good” and he has never seen an unpublished, non-peer-reviewed paper have so much policy impact
• Is dismissive of the 510,000 figure that was predicted if mitigation measures were not implemented
• The Imperial College paper was much too pessimistic and did not factor in the now much increased ICU capacity
• Any such models are a dubious basis for public policy anyway, taking no account of real world specifics
• The results will eventually be similar for all countries
• Covid-19 is a “mild disease” and similar to the flu, and it was the novelty of the disease that scared people.
• The actual fatality rate of Covid-19 will in all likelihood turn out to be in the region of 0.1%
• At least 50% of the population of both the UK and Sweden will likely be shown to have already had the disease when mass antibody testing becomes available

One big thing very early on, which I think you reported, Sancho (and a big thank you if it was you). That was that the NHS were deliberately staggering the "vaccination" of teams so they didn't all go off sick simultaneously. Now, this was not necessarily anything serious, but knowing that the injections made people ill enough to have a few days off work, while every media outlet was singing their unalloyed praise, was a big wtf moment for me, and we knew it here right away. It meant I noticed comments from people at work, and could draw them out a bit about what happened. One lady collapsed at home after her AZ jab. One young chap and his friend had chest pains, and then of course lots of people were sick for a day or two. I don't think the people I spoke to were able to reflect in what was going on at the time, but the triumph of truth will be a war of attrition if it succeeds at all, and your report hopefully put a little bit if grit into the demonic machinery very early on. I do know a few people who quietly refused to get their youngest child jabbed. I don't know their logic (when all their older children went through the procedure), but just maybe some of the early info had a tiny, contributory effect in tipping the scales in some folks' minds.

[Onsamui]

4 hours ago, ashestoashes said:

there's videos of WHO, WEF and big farmer saying they needed quicker turnaround in vaxx development and ability to produce them to scale worldwide so everyone was protected, just so happened they had wonderful mRNA technology that would allow them to do this (also good for big farmer profits). Pretty much everything was done in the pandemic to ensure the jabs or other big farmer products were the only solution to ending the lockdowns. The worldwide development of mRNA jabs and production facilities is ongoing in preparation for the next pandemic. 

Blow the factories up.

[Onsamui]

3 hours ago, dnb24 said:

Worse mate, it’s the cancers- it’s nuts how quick these are taking hold, and how fast they are finishing people off- and it’s happening at the coal face ie NHS staff. 

Now I am worried, two brothers one a GP vaxd and boosted and GP brother is recovering from Bladder Cancer.

[Heart's Ease]

On 09/11/2023 at 23:12, sancho panza said:

DJ on the test case.

Likely class actions to follow he reasons.

Bascially as @Heart's Ease pointed out earlier,absolute risk reduction ref covid was 1.2%.......see screenshot

Only just got round to listening to this. Covers The Telegraph story very well.

Also nice coverage of the BBC 'clarification' of the banners plastered all over BBC parliament channel when Andrew Bridgen MP gave his excess deaths speech to the usual empty chamber.  To help any conspiracy theorists Dr John reads out the statement from the BBC which insists that this wasn't editorially driven...."and I don't want people arguing with the BBC because a lot of these [BBC] people have got BAs in journalism."

[sancho panza]

7 hours ago, dnb24 said:

No, not in my place, vax uptake is very very low, but I think the cancers are being but down as chance, rather than the vax. There were quite a number of cardiac symptoms around a year ago in the workforce but these were put down as covid related. I can’t definitively say whether the cancers are vax related or not- this is all anecdotal. From what I’m seeing if you have a history of cancer the vax doesn’t help. 

I think that echoes what Prof Angus Dalgliesh has said ref people who've been in remission for years finding themselves getting diagnosed in stages 3/4.

Nov 29/2022

Fired Employees Sue Nike, NBA Over Vaccine Mandate — TPG, Inc. (tpgonlinedaily.com)

Dr. Angus Dalgleish, a sought-after oncologist in London, has written a letter to the editor-in-chief of the British Medical Journal, urging the journal to “make valid informed consent for Covid vaccination a priority topic” because cancers and other diseases are rapidly progressing among “boosted” people.

Dalgleish, 72, is a professor of oncology at St George’s, University of London, known for his contributions to HIV/AIDS research. Here is his letter:

“Covid no longer needs a vaccine programme, given the average age of death of Covid in the U.K. is 82 and from all other causes is 81 and falling.

“The link with clots, myocarditis, heart attacks and strokes is now well accepted, as is the link with myelitis and neuropathy. (We predicted these side effects in our June 2020 QRBD article Sorensen et al. 2020, as the blast analysis revealed 79% homologies to human epitopes, especially PF4 and myelin.)

“However, there is now another reason to halt all vaccine programmes. As a practicing oncologist, I am seeing people with stable disease rapidly progress after being forced to have a booster, usually so they can travel.

“Even within my own personal contacts, I am seeing B cell-based disease after the boosters. They describe being distinctly unwell a few days to weeks after the booster — one developing leukaemia, two work colleagues Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and an old friend who has felt like he has had Long Covid since receiving his booster and who, after getting severe bone pain, has been diagnosed as having multiple metastases from a rare B cell disorder.

“I am experienced enough to know that these are not the coincidental anecdotes that many suggest, especially as the same pattern is being seen in Germany, Australia and the USA.

“The reports of innate immune suppression after mRNA for several weeks would fit, as all these patients to date have melanoma or B cell based cancers, which are very susceptible to immune control — and that is before the reports of suppressor gene suppression by mRNA in laboratory experiments.

“This must be aired and debated immediately.”

In June, a paper co-written by Dr. Stephanie Seneff, MIT researcher, in Food & Chemical Toxicology, reported the MRNA vaccines promote “sustained synthesis” of the spike protein, which suppresses the body’s interferon responses and impairs innate immunity

[Pip321]

Since starting my Vitamins, minerals and healthy eating etc last week I have caught my first cold in a year, awful sore throat and nose and nasty cough at night.

I will of course persevere.😉

Sure it will pass but had to laugh at the irony😆😆.

[sancho panza]

JC with more doom from the life insurance industry in teh US .I've pulled out the stat that he leads with as it speaks for itself.Deaths amongst 15-19 year olds 20% higher than pre coof.

Notable silence from Gubbermint says JC

In teh UK deaths amongst 0-24 year olds higher now than during the coof

Oz,excess deaths-mmmmm..................

Candada excess deeaths...mmmm...

vid here

 

Edited November 15, 2023 by sancho panza

[sancho panza]

New Post vaxx syndrome identified in Yale Paper -preprint,as yet not peer reviewed.

Paper

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.11.09.23298266v1.full.pdf

ABSTRACT
Introduction: A chronic post-vaccination syndrome (PVS) after covid-19 vaccination has been
reported but has yet to be well characterized.
Methods: We included 241 individuals aged 18 and older who self-reported PVS after covid-19
vaccination and who joined the online Yale Listen to Immune, Symptom and Treatment
Experiences Now (LISTEN) Study from May 2022 to July 2023. We summarized their
demographics, health status, symptoms, treatments tried, and overall experience

Results: The median age of participants was 46 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 38 to 56), with
192 (80%) identifying as female, 209 (87%) as non-Hispanic White, and 211 (88%) from the
United States. Among these participants with PVS, 127 (55%) had received the BNT162b2
[Pfizer-BioNTech] vaccine, and 86 (37%) received the mRNA-1273 [Moderna] vaccine. The
median time from the day of index vaccination to symptom onset was three days (IQR: 1 day to
8 days). The time from vaccination to symptom survey completion was 595 days (IQR: 417 to
661 days). The median Euro-QoL visual analogue scale score was 50 (IQR: 39 to 70). The five
most common symptoms were exercise intolerance (71%), excessive fatigue (69%), numbness
(63%), brain fog (63%), and neuropathy (63%). In the week before survey completion,
participants reported feeling unease (93%), fearfulness (82%), and overwhelmed by worries
(81%), as well as feelings of helplessness (80%), anxiety (76%), depression (76%), hopelessness
(72%), and worthlessness (49%) at least once. Participants reported a median of 20 (IQR: 13 to
30) interventions to treat their condition.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, people reporting PVS after covid-19 vaccination in this study are highly
symptomatic, have poor health status, and have tried many treatment strategies without success.

As PVS is associated with considerable suffering, there is an urgent need to understand its
mechanism to provide prevention, diagnosis, and treatment strategies.

[The Grey Man]

31 minutes ago, sancho panza said:

New Post vaxx syndrome identified in Yale Paper -preprint,as yet not peer reviewed.

Paper

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.11.09.23298266v1.full.pdf

ABSTRACT
Introduction: A chronic post-vaccination syndrome (PVS) after covid-19 vaccination has been
reported but has yet to be well characterized.
Methods: We included 241 individuals aged 18 and older who self-reported PVS after covid-19
vaccination and who joined the online Yale Listen to Immune, Symptom and Treatment
Experiences Now (LISTEN) Study from May 2022 to July 2023. We summarized their
demographics, health status, symptoms, treatments tried, and overall experience

Results: The median age of participants was 46 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 38 to 56), with
192 (80%) identifying as female, 209 (87%) as non-Hispanic White, and 211 (88%) from the
United States. Among these participants with PVS, 127 (55%) had received the BNT162b2
[Pfizer-BioNTech] vaccine, and 86 (37%) received the mRNA-1273 [Moderna] vaccine. The
median time from the day of index vaccination to symptom onset was three days (IQR: 1 day to
8 days). The time from vaccination to symptom survey completion was 595 days (IQR: 417 to
661 days). The median Euro-QoL visual analogue scale score was 50 (IQR: 39 to 70). The five
most common symptoms were exercise intolerance (71%), excessive fatigue (69%), numbness
(63%), brain fog (63%), and neuropathy (63%). In the week before survey completion,
participants reported feeling unease (93%), fearfulness (82%), and overwhelmed by worries
(81%), as well as feelings of helplessness (80%), anxiety (76%), depression (76%), hopelessness
(72%), and worthlessness (49%) at least once. Participants reported a median of 20 (IQR: 13 to
30) interventions to treat their condition.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, people reporting PVS after covid-19 vaccination in this study are highly
symptomatic, have poor health status, and have tried many treatment strategies without success.

As PVS is associated with considerable suffering, there is an urgent need to understand its
mechanism to provide prevention, diagnosis, and treatment strategies.

I have a rather dark thought watching this.

There was some relaxation on science journal pre prints at the start of Covid.

The irony, the government's in the west, using the UK as an example, OFCOM as an example, then ran a counter view and censoring.

An opinion. There are plenty of papers coming out that are going against the Holy grail.

A few views here. Controlled release of information. Possible closure of this pre release of papers.

[BurntBread]

13 hours ago, The Grey Man said:

Controlled release of information. Possible closure of this pre release of papers.

Not really possible, I think. The pre-print process (publication before peer-review in an archive that is not considered authoritative) is too ingrained in the way that several disciplines work, notably molecular biology, genetics, and physics/astronomy. Also, the pre-print servers are generally not owned by the journals.

Over the course of the last 30 years there has been a transfer of ownership of the scientific journals, from learned societies, where the profits were used to fund research (or at least conferences and general running of the societies and publicity), to the current case where they are almost all owned by commercial publishing houses, which are ultimately controlled in the same way as the mainstream media. The BMJ is still in the original model, as are the Physical Review journals, but not a lot else is.

The pre-print servers, like ArXiv and Bioarxiv are (I think) run on university infrastructure, so you might be suspicious about them; but there is very little editorial control, so they can't (yet) be used very effectively as tools for creating a false narrative.

Two caveats: my information may be out of date, and with a sufficiently compromised scientific community, no technical mechanism will save it.

[sancho panza]

via Clare Craig X feed

Starting to get very real,court cases,data,data and more data.....

https://www.hartgroup.org/deaths-of-scottish-babies

Deaths of Scottish babies

November 16, 2023

 

Risk of 1 death for every 690 doses given in pregnancy

Public Health Scotland demonstrated a significant increase in neonatal deaths (in the first month of life) in 2021 but refused to investigate whether it was related to the vaccine because such an analysis “whilst being uninformative for public health decision making, had the potential to be used to harm vaccine confidence”. 

One particular Scotsman, who tweets here and has this substack, has persevered with FOI requests and has revealed alarming signals that Public Health Scotland chose to ignore. There was a clear rise in neonatal deaths amounting to an extra 35 dead babies which coincided exactly with when pregnant women were vaccinated.

 

Figure 1: Neonatal death rate per 1,000 births since 2010 with average in orange plotted against covid vaccine doses given to pregnant women

 

During the vaccination period (March 2021 to May 2022) Scotland had 60,169 births and based on historic rates would have expected 128 babies to die in the neonatal period, but 163 did. 

There have also been too many post-neonatal deaths (deaths in first year of life) and those have not yet settled down. Over that period (Jul 2021 on) there were 94,501 births. Based on historic rates 101 deaths post natal deaths would be expected, but the 131 were recorded, an excess of 30 babies dying. 

Including both neonatal and postnatal deaths there have been 65 additional deaths. Over the period of interest there were 45,098 doses of covid vaccine given. If the extra deaths were all due to the covid vaccines that would equate to a risk of 1 extra death for every 690 doses administered.

Despite numerous FOI requests and involvement of the Information Commissioner’s Office, data on the vaccine status of the mothers of these dead babies has not been forthcoming. 

 

Table 1: Calculations of excess neonatal and postnatal deaths 

 

It is possible to cross check this data with data from other sources. National Records of Scotland publishes deaths by registration date. This can be subject to delays but it at least allows a ball park check. The NRS data shows the number of deaths at age 0. Combining that with birth data gives a baseline level of baby deaths which can be compared to the level of deaths in the post vaccine period. The number of birth registrations were impacted by lockdown so that period has been excluded from the analysis. Pre-vaccination the mortality was 0.324% and after vaccines it was 0.376% which amounts to an extra 28 deaths a year or a baby dying every fortnight (see figure 2). The NRS aged standardised mortality rate data for deaths at age 0 shows a rise from 316 per 100,000 to 376. For Scotland’s ~50,000 births a year that works out at 30 extra deaths per year – again in line with the FOI data (see figure 3).

 

Figure 2: NRS data on deaths at age 0 per births

Figure 3: NRS age standardised mortality data for age 0 years. N.B. the chart is split in two for 2021 with one data point for the pre-pregnancy-vaccine period and one for the post pregnancy vaccine period.

 

Public Health Scotland have conveniently decided to stop publishing data on the impacts of covid. The cancer data stopped abruptly in 2022 and the neonatal death data showed another rise in July 2023. 

 

Figure 4: Latest Public Health Scotland neonatal death data

 

In England the data is less transparent. It is, however, possible to compare death registrations in those aged 0 with birth data from here and here. The mortality rate per birth in the first year of life has risen by 27% by this measure.

 

 

Many of the people whose deaths were attributed to covid had a lower life expectancy than their peers of the same age. However, if we generously assume they had an average life expectancy then for Scotland there were 13,040 years of life lost to covid. The deaths of these 65 babies amounts to more than 5,200 years of life lost and the harm is ongoing.

[sancho panza]

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/11/25/norwegian-researchers-find-masks-linked-with-covid-infections/

A new peer-reviewed study by Norwegian researchers has recently been published titled “Association between Face mask use and Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Infection – Cross-sectional study”. In case you didn’t already know, a cross-sectional study “is a type of observational study that analyses data from a population, or a representative subset, at a specific point in time”, in this case early 2022. However, the data were collected during an RCT of wearing glasses. So what kind of association did they find?

We examined the association between face masks and risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 using cross-sectional data from 3,209 participants in a randomized trial of using glasses to reduce the risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2. Face mask use was based on participants’ response to the end-of-follow-up survey. We found that the incidence of self-reported COVID-19 was 33% (aRR 1.33; 95% CI 1.03 – 1.72) higher in those wearing face masks often or sometimes, and 40% (aRR 1.40; 95% CI 1.08 – 1.82) higher in those wearing face masks almost always or always, compared to participants who reported wearing face masks never or almost never.

Oh dear. And these are the results after controlling for observable confounders. In the raw data, regular mask-wearers had a 74-75% higher risk of testing positive for Covid.

The crude estimates show a higher incidence of testing positive for COVID-19 in the groups that used face masks more frequently, with 8.6% of participants who never or almost never used masks, 15.0% of participants who sometimes used masks, and 15.1% of participants who almost always or always used masks reporting a positive test result. The risk was 1.74 (1.38 to 2.18) times higher in those who wore face masks often or sometimes and 1.75 (1.39 to 2.21) times higher in those who wore face masks almost always or always, compared to participants who reported never or almost never wore masks.

Well, this is embarrassing for the pro-maskers, isn’t it? Frankly, I think you’d need a heart of stone not to laugh at these results.

So does this study prove that masks actually increase your risk of catching Covid? No. The authors mention various possible biases that could have affected the results.

A major limitation of our study is the non-randomized, cross-sectional study design. It may be that mask wearers were more prone to wear masks to protect others from their own infection. This reverse causality may explain the positive association between risk of infection and mask usage, and could be supported by the finding that participants reporting to wear masks also were more likely to test themselves for COVID-19. Furthermore, there may be other behavioural differences related to perception of risk or occupation that we did not observe, that are linked to the likelihood of wearing mask or to the likelihood of being tested for COVID-19 when symptomatic. There is also the possibility that mask wearers feel somewhat protected and thus change their behaviours to not observe social distancing, so that any benefit of masking is offset by increased exposure. Lastly, our main outcome was based on self-report, which is also a possible source of bias.

I think these are all valid points. Norwegians who did/didn’t wear masks in early 2022 probably did work in different jobs and behave differently outside of work too, and some may have worn masks because they tested positive. Without randomising people into groups that are as identical as possible beforehand, like in the Danish mask RCT that found no effect, researchers risk finding all sorts of spurious correlations and associations. So I totally agree with the authors that “caution is imperative when interpreting the results from this and other observational studies on the relationship between mask wearing and infection risk”.

However, governments worldwide forced people to wear masks on the basis of observational studies far poorer than this one, such as the U.S. CDC’s classic study of two hairstylists.

If we’ve learned anything since 2020, it’s that there’s no study too shoddy that politicians and other public officials won’t use it as an excuse to force you to do whatever they want you to do.

So should we raise the evidence bar necessary to clear before similar mandates and restrictions can be implemented in the future? For example, requiring statistically significant results from well conducted RCTs? That would be a start, but it probably wouldn’t be enough to save us from future tyranny or stupidity.

Take, for example, the RCT of wearing glasses the above data came from. People who wore glasses had a statistically significant 10% lower risk of self-reported respiratory infections and a 17% lower risk of self-reported Covid infections which almost reached significance. But even if the results for self-reported Covid infections had reached significance too, does anyone think these results would justify glasses-wearing mandates? Ultimately, the decision to wear masks, glasses or a stick-on moustache should be left to the individual: My face, my choice.

Put simply, if we want to avoid the authorities again putting ill-conceived restrictions on our actions, we need to put restrictions on the authorities’ ill-conceived actions.