UK Govt Coronavirus Response: Sceptics Thread

[Noallegiance]

2 minutes ago, sancho panza said:

Firm won £123m contract after David Cameron urged Matt Hancock to attend genomics conference (msn.com)

 

A firm employing David Cameron as an adviser won a multi-million pound contract after the former Conservative prime minister reportedly urged the ex-health secretary in a letter to attend a genomics conference.

It comes after Mr Cameron’s work since leaving office was put under the spotlight once again this week for his separate advisory role with the collapsed finance company Greensill Capital, as BBC Panorama reported he made $10m (£7.2m).

According to The Times, Mr Cameron, who was appointed as an adviser to Illumina in 2018, wrote to Matt Hancock in April 2019 “strongly” endorsing an invitation to a conference the US healthcare company had previously sent to his Whitehall office.

Are they having a laugh with that company name?

[sancho panza]

https://www.algora.com/Algora_blog/2021/03/16/mit-harvard-study-suggests-mrna-vaccine-might-permanently-alter-dna-after-all

MIT & Harvard Study Suggests mRNA Vaccine Might Permanently Alter DNA After All

March 16, 2021 Algora Blog 12 Comments

 

Dr. Doug Corrigan via Science With Dr. Doug

“The authors sought to answer how a PCR test is able to detect segments of viral RNA when the virus is presumably absent from a person’s body. They hypothesized that somehow segments of the viral RNA were being copied into DNA and then integrated permanently into the DNA of somatic cells”

In my previous blog, “Will an RNA Vaccine Permanently Alter My DNA?”, I laid out several molecular pathways that would potentially enable the RNA in an mRNA vaccine to be copied and permanently integrated into our DNA. I was absolutely not surprised to find that the majority of people claimed that this prospect was impossible; in fact, I was expecting this response – partly because most people don’t possess a deep enough understanding of molecular biology, and partly because of other implicit biases.

After all, we’ve been told in no uncertain terms that it would be impossible for the mRNA in a vaccine to become integrated into our DNA, simply because “RNA doesn’t work that way.” Well, this current research which was released not too long after my original article demonstrates that yes, indeed, “RNA does work that way”. In my original article, I spelled out this exact molecular pathway.

Specifically, a new study by MIT and Harvard scientists demonstrates that segments of the RNA from the coronavirus itself are most likely becoming a permanent fixture in human DNA. (study linked below). This was once thought near impossible, for the same reasons which are presented to assure us that an RNA vaccine could accomplish no such feat. Against the tides of current biological dogma, these researchers found that the genetic segments of this RNA virus are more than likely making their way into our genome. They also found that the exact pathway that I laid out in in my original article is more than likely the pathway being used (retrotransposon, and in particular a LINE-1 element) for this retro-integration to occur.

And, unlike my previous blog where I hypothesize that such an occurrence would be extremely rare (mainly because I was attempting to temper expectations more conservatively due to the lack of empirical evidence), it appears that this integration of viral RNA segments into our DNA is not as rare as I initially hypothesized. It’s difficult for me to put a number on the probability due to data limitations present in the paper, but based on the frequency they were able to measure this phenomenon in both petri dishes and COVID patients, the probability is much greater than I initially anticipated. Due to this current research, I now place this risk as a more probable event than my original estimation.

To be fair, this study didn’t show that the RNA from the current vaccines is being integrated into our DNA. However, they did show, quite convincingly, that there exists a viable cellular pathway whereby snippets of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA could become integrated into our genomic DNA. In my opinion, more research is needed to both corroborate these findings, and to close some gaps.

That being said, this data can be used to make a conjecture as to whether the RNA present in an RNA vaccine could potentially alter human DNA. This is because an mRNA vaccine consists of snippets of the viral RNA from the genome of SARS-CoV-2; in particular, the current mRNA vaccines harbor stabilized mRNA which encodes the Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, which is the protein that enables the virus to bind to cell-surface receptors and infect our cells.

This was thought near impossible. Based on this ground-breaking study, I would hope that the highly presumptuous claim that such a scenario is impossible will find its way to the trash bin labeled: “Things We Were Absolutely and Unequivocally Certain Couldn’t Happen Which Actually Happened”; although, I have a suspicious feeling that the importance of this study will be minimized in quick order with reports from experts who attempt to poke holes in their work. It’s important to add that this paper is a pre-print that is not peer-reviewed yet; but I went through all of the data, methods, and results, and I see very little wrong with the paper, and some gaps that need closing- but, at least from the standpoint of being able to answer the question: can RNA from the coronavirus use existing cellular pathways to integrate permanently into our DNA? From that perspective, their paper is rock-solid. Also, please take note that these are respected scientists from MIT and Harvard.

Quoting from their paper:

“In support of this hypothesis, we found chimeric transcripts consisting of viral fused to cellular sequences in published data sets of SARS-CoV-2 infected cultured cells and primary cells of patients, consistent with the transcription of viral sequences integrated into the genome. To experimentally corroborate the possibility of viral retro-integration, we describe evidence that SARS-CoV-2 RNAs can be reverse transcribed in human cells by reverse transcriptase (RT) from LINE-1 elements or by HIV-1 RT, and that these DNA sequences can be integrated into the cell genome and subsequently be transcribed. Human endogenous LINE-1 expression was induced upon SARS-CoV-2 infection or by cytokine exposure in cultured cells, suggesting a molecular mechanism for SARS-CoV-2 retro-integration in patients. This novel feature of SARS-CoV-2 infection may explain why patients can continue to produce viral RNA after recovery and suggests a new aspect of RNA virus replication.”

Why did these researchers bother to investigate whether viral RNA could become hardwired into our genomic DNA? It turns out their motive had nothing to do with mRNA vaccines.

The researchers were puzzled by the fact that there is a respectable number of people who are testing positive for COVID-19 by PCR long after the infection was gone. It was also shown that these people were not reinfected.

The authors sought to answer how a PCR test is able to detect segments of viral RNA when the virus is presumably absent from a person’s body. They hypothesized that somehow segments of the viral RNA were being copied into DNA and then integrated permanently into the DNA of somatic cells. This would allow these cells to continuously churn out pieces of viral RNA that would be detected in a PCR test, even though no active infection existed.

Through their experiments, they did not find full-length viral RNA integrated into genomic DNA; rather, they found smaller segments of the viral DNA, mostly representing the nucleocapsid (N) protein of the virus, although other viral segments were found integrated into human DNA at a lower frequency.

In this paper, they demonstrate that:

1) Segments of SARS-CoV-2 Viral RNA can become integrated into human genomic DNA.

2) This newly acquired viral sequence is not silent, meaning that these genetically modified regions of genomic DNA are transcriptionally active (DNA is being converted back into RNA).

3) Segments of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA retro-integrated into human genomic DNA in cell culture. This retro-integration into genomic DNA of COVID-19 patients is also implied indirectly from the detection of chimeric RNA transcripts in cells derived from COVID-19 patients. Although their RNAseq data suggests that genomic alteration is taking place in COVID-19 patients, to prove this point conclusively, PCR, DNA sequencing, or Southern Blot should be carried out on purified genomic DNA of COVID-19 patients to prove this point conclusively. This is a gap that needs to be closed in the research. The in vitro data in human cell lines, however, is air tight.

4) This viral retro-integration of RNA into DNA can be induced by endogenous LINE-1 retrotransposons, which produce an active reverse transcriptase (RT) that converts RNA into DNA. (All humans have multiple copies of LINE-1 retrotransposons residing in their genome.). The frequency of retro-integration of viral RNA into DNA is positively correlated with LINE-1 expression levels in the cell.

5) These LINE-1 retrotransposons can be activated by viral infection with SARS-CoV-2, or cytokine exposure to cells, and this increases the probability of retro-integration.

Instead of going through all of their results in detail (you can do that if you like by reading their paper linked below), I will answer the big question on everyone’s mind – If the virus is able to accomplish this, then why should I care if the vaccine does the same thing?

Well, first let’s just address the big elephant in the room first. First, you should care because, “THEY TOLD YOU THAT THIS WAS IMPOSSIBLE AND TO JUST SHUT UP AND TAKE THE VACCINE.” These pathways that I hypothesized (and these researchers verified with their experiments) are not unknown to people who understand molecular biology at a deeper level. This is not hidden knowledge which is only available to the initiated. I can assure you that the people who are developing the vaccines are people who understand molecular biology at a very sophisticated level. So, why didn’t they discover this, or even ask this question, or even do some experiments to rule it out? Instead, they just used superficially simplistic biology 101 as a smoke screen to tell you that RNA doesn’t convert into DNA. This is utterly disingenuous, and this lack of candor is what motivated me to write my original article. They could have figured this out easily.

Second, there’s a big difference between the scenario where people randomly, and unwittingly, have their genetics monkeyed with because they were exposed to the coronavirus, and the scenario where we willfully vaccinate billions of people while telling them this isn’t happening. Wouldn’t you agree? What is the logic in saying, “Well, this bad thing may or may not happen to you, so we’re going to remove the mystery and ensure that it happens to everyone.”? In my best estimate, this is an ethical decision that you ought to make, not them.

Third, the RNA in the vaccine is a different animal than the RNA produced by the virus.The RNA in the vaccine is artificially engineered. First, it is engineered to stay around in your cells for a much longer time than usual (RNA is naturally unstable and degrades quickly in the cell). Second, it is engineered such that it is efficient at being translated into protein (they accomplish this by codon optimization). Increasing the stability of the RNA increases the probability that it will become integrated into your DNA; and, increasing the translation efficiency increases the amount of protein translated from the RNA if it does happen to become incorporated into your DNA in a transcriptionally active region of your genome. Theoretically, this means that whatever negative effects are associated with the natural process of viral RNA/DNA integration, these negative effects could be more frequent and more pronounced with the vaccine when compared to the natural virus.

As a side note, these researchers found that the genetic information for the nucleocapsid “N” protein was, by far, the largest culprit for being permanently integrated into human DNA (because this RNA is more abundant when the virus replicates in our cells). The vaccine, on the other hand, contains RNA that encodes the Spike (S) protein. Therefore, if the mRNA from the vaccine (or subsegments thereof) were to make its way into a transcriptionally-active region of our genome through a retro-integration process, it will cause our cells to produce an over-abundance of Spike protein, rather than N protein. Our immune system does make antibodies to both N and S proteins, but it is the Spike protein which is the prime target for our immune system because it exists on the outside of the virus. If our cells become permanent (rather than temporary) Spike Protein producing factories due to permanent alteration of our genomic DNA, this could lead to serious autoimmune problems. I would imagine that autoimmunity profiles arising from such a scenario would be differentiated based on order of events (i.e., whether or not someone is vaccinated before or after exposure to coronavirus).

Again, this is a theoretical exercise I am presenting for consideration. I am not making the claim that an mRNA vaccine will permanently alter your genomic DNA, and I didn’t make this claim in my first article, although it appears that troll sites made the fallacious claim that I did. I simply asked the question, and provided hypothetical, plausible molecular pathways by which such an event could occur. I believe this current research validates that this is at least plausible, and most likely probable. It most certainly deserves closer inspection and testing to rule this possibility out, and I would hope that a rigorous and comprehensive test program would be instituted with the same enthusiasm that propelled the vaccine haphazardly through the normal safety checkpoints.

Obviously, even given this information, people are still free to get vaccinated, and will do so according to the overall balance of risks and rewards that they perceive in their mind. The purpose of my article is to make sure you can make that assessment fairly by possessing all potential risks and rewards, rather than an incomplete set. For something as important as this, you should not be operating in the dark.

I would encourage you to share this article to let others know of the potential risks and rewards.

Referenced Article:

Zhang, Liguo, Alexsia Richards, Andrew Khalil, Emile Wogram, Haiting Ma, Richard A. Young, and Rudolf Jaenisch. “SARS-CoV-2 RNA reverse-transcribed and integrated into the human genome.” bioRxiv (2020).

[janch]

Wow, the article above gives substance to what we've all been worried about.  It would appear we can maybe expect more in the way of autoimmune diseases occuring in people who've had the m-RNA vaccine.

[sancho panza]

NZ Doctor,linked to by @maskedtulip upstairs

https://www.bitchute.com/video/VInZ3tYrxKRK/

[sancho panza]

Sheesh.Baby faced assassin.

She's a killer.

https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/Vaccines-Lies-And-Smears-Odyssey-Comp-2:c

 

 

[sancho panza]

22 days in solitary confinement in NZ hotel.Scary,the level of totalitarianism that some Western coutnries have descended into within a year.

Must admit that I've been watching a few of Dr Bailey's video's over the last few days and she really displays a solid,rational understanding of the science and why lockdown's won't work and the damage they do to ordinary people.

 

Edited August 16, 2021 by sancho panza

[sancho panza]

via www.nzdsos.com

A PATHOLOGIST SUMMARY OF WHAT THESE JABS DO TO THE BRAIN AND OTHER ORGANS

covers spike proteins landing all over the body not staying in the deltoid.

'11,000 deaths and we get our first post vaccine autopsy.....is this science anymore?'

'if we have billions to advertise the clot shot to children that don't need it,Dr Fauci,where's the funding for science?'

'when a new unapproved vaccine is put onto the market,we need to use the French system,guilty until proven innocent.'....'if there's an adverse reaction,if there's a death,tehn we need say that it ahppened from that therapy until we prove that it didn't...and we're doing the exact opposite right now.'

'the spike is the toxin.Why are we injecting something into the body that is the toxin?'

and much more.

 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/TsdTTHJteilw/

 

Edited August 16, 2021 by sancho panza

[Caravan Monster]

26 minutes ago, sancho panza said:

via www.nzdsos.com

A PATHOLOGIST SUMMARY OF WHAT THESE JABS DO TO THE BRAIN AND OTHER ORGANS

covers spike proteins landing all over the body not staying in the deltoid.

'11,000 deaths and we get our first post vaccine autopsy.....is this science anymore?'

'if we have billions to advertise the clot shot to children that don't need it,Dr Fauci,where's the funding for science?'

'when a new unapproved vaccine is put onto the market,we need to use the French system,guilty until proven innocent.'....'if there's an adverse reaction,if there's a death,tehn we need say that it ahppened from that therapy until we prove that it didn't...and we're doing the exact opposite right now.'

'the spike is the toxin.Why are we injecting something into the body that is the toxin?'

and much more.

 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/TsdTTHJteilw/

 

+1 well worth ten minutes, explains why the anecdotal and what little adverse reaction data there is, is occurring. 

i. Cowboy boots FTW 

ii. Great presentation, looks conclusive to this layman that it's the spikeys and the 'vaccines' are greater risk than benefit to pretty much everyone. 

[sancho panza]

Dr Sam Bailey video answers common questions re Covid.

'1) She questions the CDC's claim that PCR tests are fit for purpose? Claims poor specificity.New CDC multiplex PCR that can diagnose a range of illnesses eg flu,RSV,PIV etc doesn't bear scurtiny,so get ready for more casedemics.

She says it's a move away from getting clinicians to diagnose and rather use technicians means more case demics,more vaccines.

2) What's everyone dying from?

She says people are seeing huge discrepancy betweenw aht they see with their own eyes and what they ehar on the news.She says inflation of covid deaths could be as high as 1600%.PCR tests are incapable of diagnosing covid.

Looks at 3 year trend,States no excess mortality over last three years.Lockdown may have caused excess mortality.

States madness in Australia-a woman in 90's died of covid and more lock downs have followed.

States covid is not a defineable clincial condition as it has no specific features.

3) What's the delta variant?

She states Delta variant is a public relations campaign and a buzzword used to drive a false pandemic.

States virologists say avriant can mean different things.

States there was never an isolated virus from Wuhan jsut a crude bronco alveolar  sample from a person which analysed potential comdinations and then organise them into a potential genome.There was no step that determined that  these genetic fragments came from a virus or that there is nay virus at all in the specimen.Modern virolgy becomes faith based specualtion.

All of the isolates are computer constructed genomes either from crude clincial samples or from mixed tissue cultures created in a test tube.

States that using this definition a variant can be declared because there are variations in the bases.There are no limits that can be pulled out of the hat.

States there are no clinical trials backing up govts claims that variants are occuring.

4) What about covid antibodies

States antibodies are not a good way to make an accurate way of a person's health status.

David Crowe published a paper criticizng antibody testing because he found samples were testing postive for covid antibodies that had been collected before covid 19 existed....!!!

David Crowe quote

''Antibody tests might be fatally flawed,but they can be used in highly destructive ways.If the number of people who are antibody psotive remains below the level of herd immunity,it will be an excuse to promote or even mandate vaccination,after a vaccine is rushed onto the market.

Antibody tests could also be used to indefinitely qurantine people who do not test positive,asserting that they are at danger of becoming infected and then spreading it to others.''

'

 

 

https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/Covid-Faqs-2:d

[sancho panza]

https://dailysceptic.org/2021/08/19/how-much-did-lockdown-affect-uk-mobility/

The mainstream narrative concerning England’s national lockdowns is that each one arrested a steep upward trend in daily infections that would have otherwise continued unabated. Infections were rising; we had a lockdown; and infections started falling.

However, there are several reasons to doubt this narrative. To begin with, the international evidence suggests the impact of lockdowns on COVID-19 outcomes was marginal at best. They only ‘worked’ – in the sense of halting a nascent epidemic – in a small number of geographically peripheral Western countries, like Australia and New Zealand.

Next, the statistician Simon Wood crunched the numbers on the three English lockdowns, and found that infections were already declining before each one was introduced. His analysis is consistent with the time-course of infections reconstructed by researchers on the REACT antibody survey.

What’s more, the economist David Paton identified seven separate indicators, each showing that infections peaked before the third English lockdown. Indeed, lockdowns are often imposed around the peak of the curve, as governments come under increasing pressure to ‘do something’ about rising case numbers. (Back in July, Chris Whitty told MPs the epidemic was probably already in retreat when the first full lockdown was imposed.)   

The way lockdowns are assumed to work is by reducing the number of interactions that result in viral transmission. However, distinguishing their impact from that of voluntary changes in behaviour is no easy feat (see my recent interview with Philippe Lemoine).

What’s more, since transmission is driven by ‘superspreaders’ (those few individuals who account for a disproportionate share of infections), the relationship between interactions and infections isn’t necessarily linear. For example, reducing interactions by 50% may reduce infections by much less than 50%.

Rather than trying to tease out the effect of lockdowns on infections, one can look at their impact on mobility. If lockdowns are what account for the curves peaking and then falling, one would expect to see sudden declines in mobility just after lockdowns are introduced. And you’d expect these declines to be sustained until case numbers had come down substantially.

Is that what we see? We know from the Google mobility index that there was a rapid decline in mobility during March of 2020, though that decline began seven–10 days before the first lockdown commenced (on March 24th). This is shown in the chart below:

Retail mobility fell at the start of the second lockdown, rose slightly at the end, and unsurprisingly plunged on Christmas day, and then again on New Years Day. (This zig-zag is somewhat obscured on the chart because I used seven-day moving averages.) Though retail mobility remained low in early January, there was no sharp decline at the start of the third lockdown.

Residential mobility is more-or-less the mirror image of workplace mobility, so it will suffice to describe the latter. The index fell during the second lockdown, though by nowhere near the same amount as before the first. It then plunged over the festive period, before dropping slightly at the start of January’s lockdown.

Of the three lockdowns, the second had the clearest impact on mobility. Though discerning the impact of the third is difficult, as parts of England were already under quite heavy restrictions, owing to the Tier system. And one could argue that it exerted an effect by keeping mobility low, rather by causing it to fall further.

On the other hand, average mobility between December 24th and January 1st was actually lower than it had been during the second lockdown. Of course, there is the added complication of household mixing around Christmas and New Year, which isn’t captured by indices of overall mobility.

In an unpublished paper, Harry Shepherd and colleagues were able to quantify mobility in a novel way, using Facebook data. They computed the average co-location probability for each U.K. region. This is the average probability that a user whose home location is in that region spends at least one-minute in the same “level 16 Bing tile” (a small unit of area) as another user from a different home location.  

They then plotted these average co-location probabilities over time, as shown in the chart below. Interestingly, the overall pattern is very similar to the chart above.

There was a dramatic decline in co-location probabilities in March, which largely preceded the first lockdown. There was a small decline during the second lockdown, and then another small decline during the third lockdown. (Note that the authors seem to have mislabelled the third lockdown, which began somewhat earlier than their shading indicates.)

Looking at both charts, it’s clear that mobility remained substantially below the baseline throughout 2020 and the first part of 2021, even during periods with relatively few restrictions in place. This suggests an important role for voluntary changes in behaviour.

There were declines in mobility associated with the lockdowns, but it’s not clear that these had a large, independent effect on the epidemic’s trajectory. March’s steep decline largely preceded Lockdown 1.0, whereas the declines in November and January were much less pronounced.

While lockdown-induced declines in mobility might have caused infections to fall slightly faster than otherwise, it’s difficult to see how they could have single-handedly turned a rising curve into a falling curve. The pace and timing of various events was, I suspect, driven mostly by voluntary changes in behaviour and the build-up of immunity in the population.

By Noah Carl  /  19 August 2021 • 13.39

[sancho panza]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9905079/Trump-claims-COVID-booster-shots-money-making-operation-Pfizer.html

Trump claims COVID booster shots are a 'money-making operation' for Pfizer and he can 'see the dollar signs' in CEO Albert Bourla's eyes

• 'If you're a pure businessman you'll say, "You know what, let's give them another shot, $10 billion of money coming in,"' Trump told Fox Business' Maria Bartiromo
• Trump, who got the jab in January, said he could 'see the dollar signs in their eyes,' calling out the CEO of Pfizer 
• The Biden administration is expected to recommend booster shots for Pfizer and Moderna this week
• Last week the FDA gave emergency approval to boosters for the immunocompromised 

[Hancock]

2 hours ago, sancho panza said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9905079/Trump-claims-COVID-booster-shots-money-making-operation-Pfizer.html

Trump claims COVID booster shots are a 'money-making operation' for Pfizer and he can 'see the dollar signs' in CEO Albert Bourla's eyes

• 'If you're a pure businessman you'll say, "You know what, let's give them another shot, $10 billion of money coming in,"' Trump told Fox Business' Maria Bartiromo
• Trump, who got the jab in January, said he could 'see the dollar signs in their eyes,' calling out the CEO of Pfizer 
• The Biden administration is expected to recommend booster shots for Pfizer and Moderna this week
• Last week the FDA gave emergency approval to boosters for the immunocompromised 

Scary isn't it.

All they need to do is pay a few million in directorships and give the kids of several Senators a job, then they get 10s of billions of taxpayers money, and we get some needless experimental drug injected inside us ... and locked down until enough people take it.

[sancho panza]

Some clinicians with more guts than me.

https://dailysceptic.org/2021/08/22/governments-response-to-pandemic-is-based-on-flawed-assumptions-according-to-133-healthcare-professionals/

https://www.covid19assembly.org/doctors-open-letter/

Our grave concerns about the handling of the COVID pandemic by Governments of the Nations of the UK

Mr Boris Johnson, Prime Minister

Ms Krankie, First Minister for Scotland

Mr Mark Drakeford, First Minister for Wales

Mr Paul Givan, First Minister for Northern Ireland

Mr Sajid Javid, Health Secretary

Dr Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer

Dr Patrick Vallance, Chief Scientific Officer

 

22 August 2021

Dear Sirs and Madam,

Our grave concerns about the handling of the COVID pandemic by Governments of the Nations of the UK.

We write as concerned doctors, nurses, and other allied healthcare professionals with no vested interest in doing so. To the contrary, we face personal risk in relation to our employment for doing so and / or the risk of being personally “smeared” by those who inevitably will not like us speaking out.

We are taking the step of writing this public letter because it has become apparent to us that:

• The  Government (by which we mean the UK government and three devolved governments/administrations and associated government advisors and agencies such as the CMOs, CSA, SAGE, MHRA, JCVI, Public Health services, Ofcom etc, hereinafter “you” or the “Government”) have based the handling of the COVID pandemic on flawed assumptions.
• These have been pointed out to you by numerous individuals and organisations.
• You have failed to engage in dialogue and show no signs of doing so. You have removed from people fundamental rights and altered the fabric of society with little debate in Parliament. No minister responsible for policy has ever appeared in a proper debate with anyone with opposing views on any mainstream media channel.
• Despite being aware of alternative medical and scientific viewpoints you have failed to ensure an open and full discussion of the pros and cons of alternative ways of managing the pandemic.
• The pandemic response policies implemented have caused massive, permanent and unnecessary harm to our nation, and must never be repeated.
• Only by revealing the complete lack of widespread approval among healthcare professionals of your policies will a wider debate be demanded by the public.

In relation to the above, we wish to draw attention to the following points. Supporting references can be provided upon request.

1. No attempt to measure the harms of lockdown policies

The evidence of disastrous effects of lockdowns on the physical and mental health of the population is there for all to see. The harms are massive, widespread, and long lasting. In particular, the psychological impact on a generation of developing children could be lifelong.

It is for this reason that lockdown policies were never part of any pandemic preparedness plans prior to 2020. In fact, they were expressly not recommended in WHO documents, even for severe respiratory viral pathogens and for that matter neither were border closures, face coverings, and testing of asymptomatic individuals. There has been such an inexplicable absence of consideration of the harms caused by lockdown policy it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that this is willful avoidance.

The introduction of such policies was never accompanied by any sort of risk/benefit analysis. As bad as that is, it is even worse that after the event when plenty of data became available by which the harms could be measured, only perfunctory attention to this aspect of pandemic planning has been afforded. Eminent professionals have repeatedly called for discourse on these health impacts in press-conferences but have been universally ignored. 

What is so odd, is that the policies being pursued before mid-March 2020 (self-isolation of the ill and protection of the vulnerable, while otherwise society continued close to normality) were balanced, sensible and reflected the approach established by consensus prior to 2020. No cogent reason was given then for the abrupt change of direction from mid-March 2020 and strikingly none has been put forward at any time since.

2. Institutional nature of COVID

It was actually clear early on from Italian data that COVID (the disease – as opposed to SARS-Cov-2 infection or exposure) was largely a disease of institutions. Care home residents comprised around half of all deaths, despite making up less than 1% of the population. Hospital infections are the major driver of transmission rates as was the case for both SARS1 and MERS. Transmission was associated with hospital contact in up to 40% of cases in the first wave in Spring 2020 and in 64% in winter 2020/2021.

Severe illness among healthy people below 70 years old did occur (as seen with flu pandemics) but was extremely rare.

Despite this, no early, aggressive and targeted measures were taken to protect care homes; to the contrary, patients were discharged without testing to homes where staff had inadequate PPE, training and information. Many unnecessary deaths were caused as a result.

Preparations for this coming winter, including ensuring sufficient capacity and preventative measures such as ventilation solutions, have not been prioritised.

3. The exaggerated nature of the threat

Policy appears to have been directed at systematic exaggeration of the number of deaths which can be attributed to COVID. Testing was designed to find every possible ‘case’ rather than focusing on clinically diagnosed infections and the resulting exaggerated case numbers fed through to the death data with large numbers of people dying ‘with COVID’ and not ‘of COVID’ where the disease was the underlying cause of death.

The policy of publishing a daily death figure meant the figure was based entirely on the PCR test result with no input from treating clinicians. By including all deaths within a time period after a positive test, incidental deaths, with but not due to COVID, were not excluded thereby exaggerating the nature of the threat.

Moreover, in headlines reporting the number of deaths, a categorisation by age was not included. The average age of a COVID-labelled death is 81 for men and 84 for women, higher than the average life expectancy when these people were born. This is a highly relevant fact in assessing the societal impact of the pandemic. Death in old age is a natural phenomenon. It cannot be said that a disease primarily affecting the elderly is the same as one which affects all ages, and yet the government’s messaging appears designed to make the public think that everyone is at equal risk.

Doctors were asked to complete death certificates in the knowledge that the deceased’s death had already been recorded as a COVID death by the Government. Since it would be virtually impossible to find evidence categorically ruling out COVID as a contributory factor to death, once recorded as a “COVID death” by the government, it was inevitable that it would be included as a cause on the death certificate. Diagnosing the cause of death is always difficult and the reduction in post mortems will have inevitably resulted in increased inaccuracy. The fact that deaths due to non-COVID causes actually moved into a substantial deficit (compared to average) as COVID-labelled deaths rose (and this was reversed as COVID-labelled deaths fell) is striking evidence of over-attribution of deaths to COVID.

The overall all-cause mortality rate from 2015-2019 was unusually low and yet these figures have been used to compare to 2020 and 2021 mortality figures which has made the increased mortality appear unprecedented. Comparisons with data from earlier years would have demonstrated that the 2020 mortality rate was exceeded in every year prior to 2003 and is unexceptional as a result. 

Even now COVID cases and deaths continue to be added to the existing total without proper rigour such that overall totals grow ever larger and exaggerate the threat. No effort has been made to count totals in each winter season separately which is standard practice for every other disease.

You have continued to adopt high-frequency advertising through publishing and broadcast media outlets to add to the impact of “fear messaging”. The cost of this has not been widely published, but government procurement websites reveal it to be immense – hundreds of millions of pounds.

The media and government rhetoric is now moving onto the idea that “Long Covid” is going to cause major morbidity in all age groups including children, without having a discussion of the normality of postviral fatigue which lasts upwards of 6 months. This adds to the public fear of the disease, encouraging vaccination amongst those who are highly unlikely to suffer any adverse effects from COVID. 

4. Active suppression of discussion of early treatment using protocols being successfully deployed elsewhere.

The harm caused by COVID and our response to it should have meant that advances in prophylaxis and therapeutics for COVID were embraced. However, evidence on successful treatments has been ignored or even actively suppressed. For example, a study in Oxford published in February 2021 demonstrated that inhaled Budesonide could reduce hospitalisations by 90% in low risk patients and a publication in April 2021 showed that recovery was faster for high risk patients too. However, this important intervention has not been promoted.

Dr. Tess Lawrie, of the Evidence Based Medical Consultancy in Bath, presented a thorough analysis of the prophylactic and therapeutic benefits of Ivermectin to the government in January 2021. More than 24 randomised trials with 3,400 people have demonstrated a 79-91% reduction in infections and a 27-81% reduction in deaths with Ivermectin.

Many doctors are understandably cautious about possible over-interpretation of the available data for the drugs mentioned above and other treatments, although it is to be noted that no such caution seems to have been applied in relation to the treatment of data around the government’s interventions (eg the effectiveness of lockdowns or masks) when used in support of the government’s agenda.

Whatever one’s view on the merits of these repurposed drugs, it is totally unacceptable that doctors who have attempted to merely open discussion about the potential benefits of early treatments for COVID have been heavily and inexplicably censored. Knowing that early treatments which could reduce the risk of requiring hospitalisation might be available would alter the entire view held by many professionals and lay people alike about the threat posed by COVID, and therefore the risk / benefit ratio for vaccination, especially in younger groups.

5. Inappropriate and unethical use of behavioural science to generate unwarranted fear.

Propagation of a deliberate fear narrative (confirmed through publicly accessible government documentation) has been disproportionate, harmful and counterproductive. We request that it should cease forthwith.

To give just one example, the government’s face covering policies seem to have been driven by behavioural psychology advice in relation to generating a level of fear necessary for compliance with other policies. Those policies do not appear to have been driven by reason of infection control, because there is no robust evidence showing that wearing a face covering (particularly cloth or standard surgical masks) is effective against transmission of airborne respiratory pathogens such as SARS-Cov-2. Several high profile institutions and individuals are aware of this and have advocated against face coverings during this pandemic only inexplicably to reverse their advice on the basis of no scientific justification of which we are aware. On the other hand there is plenty of evidence suggesting that mask wearing can cause multiple harms, both physical and mental. This has been particularly distressing for the nation’s school children who have been encouraged by government policy and their schools to wear masks for long periods at school.

Finally, the use of face coverings is highly symbolic and thus counterproductive in making people feel safe. Prolonged wearing risks becoming an ingrained safety behaviour, actually preventing people from getting back to normal because they erroneously attribute their safety to the act of mask wearing rather than to the remote risk, for the vast majority of healthy people under 70 years old, of catching the virus and becoming seriously unwell with COVID.

6. Misunderstanding of the ubiquitous nature of mutations of newly emergent viruses.

The mutation of any novel virus into newer strains – especially when under selection pressure from abnormal restrictions on mixing and vaccination – is normal, unavoidable and not something to be concerned about. Hundreds of thousands of mutations of the original Wuhan strain have already been identified. Chasing down every new emergent variant is counterproductive, harmful and totally unnecessary and there is no convincing evidence that any newly identified variant is any more deadly than the original strain.

Mutant strains appear simultaneously in different countries (by way of ‘convergent evolution’) and the closing of national borders in attempts to prevent variants travelling from one country to another serves no significant infection control purpose and should be abandoned. 

7. Misunderstanding of asymptomatic spread and its use to promote public compliance with restrictions.

It is well-established that asymptomatic spread has never been a major driver of a respiratory disease pandemic and we object to your constant messaging implying this, which should cease forthwith. Never before have we perverted the centuries-old practice of isolating the ill by instead isolating the healthy. Repeated mandates to healthy, asymptomatic people to self-isolate, especially school children, serves no useful purpose and has only contributed to the widespread harms of such policies. In the vast majority of cases healthy people are healthy and cannot transmit the virus and only sick people with symptoms should be isolated. 

The government’s claim that one in three people could have the virus has been shown to be mutually inconsistent with the ONS data on prevalence of disease in society, and the sole effect of this messaging appears to have been to generate fear and promote compliance with government restrictions. The government’s messaging to ‘act as if you have the virus’ has also been unnecessarily fear-inducing given that healthy people are extremely unlikely to transmit the virus to others.

The PCR test, widely used to determine the existence of ‘cases’, is now indisputably acknowledged to be unable reliably to detect infectiousness. The test cannot discriminate between those in whom the presence of fragments of genetic material partially matching the virus is either incidental (perhaps because of past infection), or is representative of active infection, or is indicative of infectiousness. Yet, it has been used almost universally without qualification or clinical diagnosis to justify lockdown policies and to quarantine millions of people needlessly at enormous cost to health and well-being and to the country’s economy. 

Countries that have removed community restrictions have seen no negative consequences which can be attributed to the easing. Empirical data from many countries demonstrates that the rise and fall in infections is seasonal and not due to restrictions or face coverings. The reason for reduced impact of each successive wave is that: (1) most people have some level of immunity either through prior immunity or immunity acquired through exposure; (2) as is usual with emergent new viruses, mutation of the virus towards strains causing milder disease appears to have occurred. Vaccination may also contribute to this although its durability and level of protection against variants is unclear. 

 

The government appears to be talking of “learning to live with COVID” while apparently practicing by stealth a “zero COVID” strategy which is futile and ultimately net-harmful. 

8. Mass testing of healthy children

Repeated testing of children to find asymptomatic cases who are unlikely to spread virus, and treating them like some sort of biohazard is harmful, serves no public health purpose and must stop.

During Easter term, an amount equivalent to the cost of building one District General Hospital was spent weekly on testing schoolchildren to find a few thousand positive ‘cases’, none of which was serious as far as we are aware.

Lockdowns are in fact a far greater contributor to child health problems, with record levels of mental illness and soaring levels of non-COVID infections being seen, which some experts consider to be a result of distancing resulting in deconditioning of the immune system.

Vaccination of the entire adult population should never have been a prerequisite for ending restrictions.

Based merely on early “promising” vaccine data, it is clear that the Government decided in summer 2020 to pursue a policy of viral suppression within the entire population until vaccination was available (which was initially stated to be for the vulnerable only, then later changed – without proper debate or rigorous analysis – to the entire adult population).

This decision was taken despite massive harms consequent to continued lockdowns which were either known to you or ought to have been ascertained so as to be considered in the decision making process.

Moreover, a number of principles of good medical practice and previously unimpeachable ethical standards have been breached in relation to the vaccination campaign, meaning that in most cases, whether the consent obtained can be truly regarded as “fully informed” must be in serious doubt:

• The use of coercion supported by an unprecedented media campaign to persuade the public to be vaccinated, including threats of discrimination, either supported by the law or encouraged socially, for example in co-operation with social media platforms and dating apps.
• The omission of information permitting individuals to make a fully informed choice, especially in relation to the experimental nature of the vaccine agents, extremely low background COVID risk for most people, known occurrence of short-term side-effects and unknown long-term effects.

Finally, we note that the Government is seriously considering the possibility that these vaccines – which have no associated long-term safety data – could be administered to children on the basis that this might provide some degree of protection to adults. We find that notion an appalling and unethical inversion of the long-accepted duty falling on adults to protect children.

10. Over-reliance on modeling while ignoring real-world data

Throughout the pandemic, decisions seem to have been taken utilising unvalidated models produced by groups who have what can only be described as a woeful track record, massively overestimating the impact of several previous pandemics.

The decision-making teams appear to have very little clinical input and, as far as is ascertainable, no clinical immunology expertise.

Moreover, the assumptions underlying the modeling have never been adjusted to take into account real-world observations in the UK and other countries.

It is an astonishing admission that, when asked whether collateral harms had been considered by SAGE, the answer given was that it was not in their remit – they were simply asked to minimise COVID impact. That might be forgivable if some other advisory group was constantly studying the harms side of the ledger, yet this seems not to have been the case.

Conclusions

The UK’s approach to COVID has palpably failed. In the apparent desire to protect one vulnerable group – the elderly – the implemented policies have caused widespread collateral and disproportionate harm to many other vulnerable groups, especially children. Moreover your policies have failed in any event to prevent the UK from notching up one of the highest reported death rates from COVID in the world.

Now, despite very high vaccination rates and the currently very low COVID death and hospitalisation rates, policy continues to be aimed at maintaining a population handicapped by extreme fear with restrictions on everyday life prolonging and deepening the policy-derived harms. To give just one example, NHS waiting lists now stand at 5.1m officially, with – according to the previous Health Secretary – a likely further 7m who will require treatment not yet presented. This is unacceptable and must be addressed urgently.

In short, there needs to be a sea change within the Government which must now pay proper attention to those esteemed experts outside its inner circle who are sounding these alarms. As those involved with healthcare, we are committed to our oath to “first do no harm”, and we can no longer stand by in silence observing policies which have imposed a series of supposed “cures” which are in fact far worse than the disease they are supposed to address.

The signatories of this letter call on you, in Government, without further delay to widen the debate over policy, consult openly with groups of scientists, doctors, psychologists and others who share crucial, scientifically-valid and evidence-based alternative views and to do everything in your power to return the country as rapidly as possible to normality with the minimum of further damage to society.

Yours sincerely,

 

Dr Jonathan Engler, MB ChB LLB (Hons) DipPharmMed

Professor John A Fairclough, BM BS B Med Sci FRCS FFSEM,  Consultant Surgeon, ran vaccination program for a Polio Outbreak, Past President BOSTA, for Orthopaedic Surgeons, Faculty member FFSEM

Mr Tony Hinton, MB ChB, FRCS, FRCS(Oto), Consultant Surgeon

Dr Renee Hoenderkamp, BSc (Hons) MBBS MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr Ros Jones, MBBS, MD, FRCPCH, retired consultant paediatrician

Mr Malcolm Loudon, MB ChB MD FRCSEd FRCS (Gen Surg) MIHM VR

Dr Geoffrey Maidment, MBBS, MD, FRCP, retired consultant physician

Dr Alan Mordue, MB ChB, FFPH (ret), Retired Consultant in Public Health Medicine

Mr Colin Natali, BSc(Hons), MBBS FRCS FRCS(Orth), Consultant Spine Surgeon

Dr Helen Westwood, MBChB MRCGP DCH DRCOG, General Practitioner

 

Other Signatories

Dr	Fiona Martindale	MRCGP, General Practitioner etc etc etc

[janch]

12 hours ago, sancho panza said:

Ms Krankie, First Minister for Scotland

[sancho panza]

Looks like chaos brewing in Tory shires as the usually diligent,cheap and compliant workers in the care sector tell the gubbermint to do one.

About time they got organised and got themselves a living wage.Amazing and tough job they do.

My view is that this attempt to coral care workers pre saged a broader attack on healthcare workers rights.Looks like they've blown it.The workers have told them to f*** off.Good.

I've spoken to loads of care home workers who've been bullied into it.

 

 

https://dailysceptic.org/2021/08/25/a-care-home-official-asks-how-can-i-in-all-conscience-sack-someone-who-has-done-nothing-wrong/

There was a good letter in the Telegraph yesterday by a care home official in despair at the fact that unvaccinated carers must be booted out of their jobs later this year. It is estimated that six in 10 care facilities will be forced to sack some of their staff because they haven’t been ‘jabbed’, but this official rightly asks: “How can I in all conscience sack someone who has done nothing wrong?“

SIR – I am chair of trustees of a private care home. In March 2020 we were given no option but to accept some residents with Covid back from hospital.

Despite all precautions, the disease rampaged through residents and staff. Many older people died, with only our loyal and loving carers at their side. Of staff, 90% caught the disease. They recovered and returned. We have been clear of Covid for over 15 months.

Now I am told I must sack staff who do not wish to be vaccinated. Their loyalty, skill and competence are not in question. How can I in all conscience sack someone who has done nothing wrong? This draconian rule only applies to care homes in England. Where is the justice in that?

I have been vaccinated and support vaccination but how is it reasonable to take people’s jobs because they do not wish to endure this invasive procedure? They cannot be made redundant because the job is still open.

This law hasn’t been thought through. It would have been better if we had been allowed to keep the staff we have and not employ any new unvaccinated staff. I am in despair about this injustice.

Barbara Korzeniowska

London W13

 

via LS

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/aug/24/staffing-shortfall-english-care-homes-drop-in-workers

Volunteers may be required in staffing shortfall at English care homes

‘Alarming’ drop in workers signing up, with many put off by requirement to be fully vaccinated against Covid by 11 November

An army of volunteers could be needed this winter to tackle rising staff shortages in care homes fuelled by the looming requirement for all care home workers to be fully vaccinated against coronavirus, providers have said.

One in five workers on the books of a care worker agency in Sheffield are declining the vaccine, according to Nicola Richards, the director of Palms Row Healthcare. She also reported an “alarming” drop in the number of workers signing up, with many put off by the “no jab, no job” policy. She has been unable to provide temporary staff to some clients in recent weeks.

The government last month calculated that in a worst-case scenario as many as 68,000 care workers – up to 12% – could be lost as a result of the decision to make vaccination a condition of employment in care homes. A more likely prediction is 40,000, but care managers say that even small numbers of people refusing the vaccine will impact services because rotas are already threadbare, with well over 100,000 vacancies in the sector.

A survey at the weekend of care home managers by the Institute of Health and Social Care Management found 58% of operators believed they would have to lay off at least some staff by 11 November based on current rates of vaccination. More than a quarter (28%) of the 681 care operators who responded said they had already lost up to five staff. Three said they had lost more than 20 each.

[macca]

25 deaths from Covid under 18 in the first year.. 74 in total since the start.. Mainly children with severe breathing problems already.. Not that its not terrible

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01897-w

223 deaths during lockdown from child abuse.

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-08-21/harrowing-rise-in-deaths-of-children-due-to-abuse-or-neglect-during-pandemic

So if your a child the lockdowns killed more than the virus.. 

Do they make a vaccine for poverty and shit parents?

[janch]

This paper from Israeli scientists cited (and embedded in the article) from ZH appears to show natural immunity from prior infection is better than the vaccines against the delta variant:

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/ends-debate-israeli-study-shows-natural-immunity-13x-more-effective-vaccines-stopping

"This analysis demonstrated that natural immunity affords longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization due to the delta variant," the researchers said.

[sancho panza]

Words fail me.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9938693/Little-girl-sits-handcuffed-fathers-lap-arrested-Sydney-Covid-hotspot.html

Distressing moment a little girl sits in her handcuffed father's lap while he pleads with officers after being arrested for not wearing a mask in a park in Sydney's Covid hotspot

• Police have been filmed arresting a man in Sydney's Covid hit western suburbs
• Footage posted on TikTok shows the man sitting on the ground in George's Hall
• His little girl roams nearby unattended as he is questioned by two police officers
• He refuses to speak until she is back, with the toddler returning to sit in his lap
• NSW Police said the man was issued a fine for failing to wear a face mask

Video shot by a passerby who stopped to intervene shows the man yelling as the officers tell him to calm down.

'Come on guys, be fair a little bit,' the man filming said. 

'He's got a daughter here, she is by herself. Look, the little girl is scared man.'

The officers tell the man filming to calm down and they will explain the situation to him after they have finished speaking to the father.

'He's committed an offence,' the officer says. 

'He hasn't committed an offence - I walked past and saw everything,' the man filming rebuts.

The father tells one of the officers he will not speak to them until his daughter is standing by his side.

Under NSW's state-wide lockdown, residents are only allowed to leave home for essential reasons, such as authorised work, exercise, healthcare, to buy vital goods, or to be vaccinated. 

Face masks are mandatory in all public indoor places - including shops, offices, and common areas of apartment buildings - and outdoors unless exercising.   

[Hancock]

53 minutes ago, sancho panza said:

Face masks are mandatory in all public indoor places - including shops, offices, and common areas of apartment buildings - and outdoors unless exercising.   

Is the action of walking no longer classed as exercise. 

About 20 years ago i went to Oz on 2 occasions for several months at a time, and it seemed to me back then that is you stick on Aussie in a uniform, they seem to become jobsworths of levels i've never seen before.

If i ever fancied opening up a few gas chambers to finish off several million people, OZ would be my destination of choice such are the levels of complicit drones willing to take things to the excess.

[janch]

2 hours ago, sancho panza said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9938693/Little-girl-sits-handcuffed-fathers-lap-arrested-Sydney-Covid-hotspot.html

That really takes the biscuit.  Words fail me too.

[janch]

Meanwhile we have a new variant to cause a bit more panic and alarm:

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/scientists-warn-about-new-hyper-infectious-south-african-variant

Scientists in South Africa have identified a new variant that "has all of the signatures of immune escape" and very well could be the source of the next variant-driven wave of COVID cases around the world.

[sancho panza]

Vaccine safety update via LS

https://dailysceptic.org/2021/09/01/vaccine-safety-update-12/

• Further ‘breakthrough cases‘ in vaccinated people have been reported in Israel, India and Florida. A preprint study in the Lancet has found that: “Viral loads of breakthrough Delta variant infection cases were 251 times higher than those of cases infected with old strain”, indicating that fully vaccinated people can transmit the Delta variant. 
• Further reports of myocarditis and heart conditions post-Covid vaccine have been acknowledged by the CDC. Case studies have appeared in Clinical Research and Cardiology and BMC Cardiovascular Disorders along with a media report in the Daily Mail.
• The Times reports on rare blood clots caused by COVID-19 vaccines. NICE guidelines have been updated to reflect protocol for the treatment of Vaccine Induced Thrombocytopenia and Thrombosis (VITT) and further guidance is available from the NHS and Thrombosis UK.  Further Clinical Features of VITT appear in the New England Journal of Medicine while the Journal of Korean Medical Science publishes its first case study on intracerebral haemorrhage due to thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome after vaccination against COVID-19. 
• Results of the Moderna trial on children have been published in the New England Journal of Medicine, reporting local reactions after the first injection in 94.2% of participants and after the second injection in 93.4%.  Systemic adverse reactions were reported in 68.5% of the participants after the first injection and in 86.1% after the second injection; grade 3 events were reported in 4.4% and 13.7%, respectively, and one participant reported a grade 4 event. No cases of myocarditis were reported although the authors acknowledge that the sample size (2,489) was likely too small.
• Eleanor Riley, Professor of Immunology and Infectious Disease at Edinburgh University, is reported in the Herald as saying vaccinating young people will not protect adults.
• Public Health England have published their SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England Technical Briefing 21. This continues to demonstrate a similar risk of death for the under-50s between the double vaccinated and unvaccinated (0.07% and 0.04% of Delta cases respectively), questioning the need to continue the vaccination drive in younger people.
• A new analysis by TrialSite News finds that Covid vaccines have 98 times the rate of deaths reported to VAERS than flu vaccines. A comparison of the event rates reported for different vaccines and different adverse reactions provides “material evidence that the increase is not due mainly to an increase in the number of vaccinations given, nor to stimulated reporting”.
• CNBC reports that two senior FDA officials responsible for reviewing COVID-19 vaccine applications – Marion Gruber and Phil Krause, respectively the director and deputy director of the Office of Vaccines Research & Review – have quit the agency, because they are unhappy about the CDC overruling them and moving forward with booster shots.
• VAERS – the American version of the Yellow Card reporting system – released new data on August 13th bringing the total to 595,622 reports of adverse events following Covid vaccines, including 13,068 deaths and 81,050 serious injuries.
• Suspected adverse events in the U.K. as reported in the media: Michael Mitchell (65); Pawel Panasiuk (45); Alex Evans (31); Lisa Shaw (44).

Summary of Adverse Events in the U.K.

According to an updated report published on August 26th, the MHRA Yellow Card reporting system has recorded a total of 1,165,636 events based on 351,404 reports. The total number of fatalities reported is 1,609.

• Pfizer (21.3 million first doses, 16.6 million second doses) now has one Yellow Card in 199 people vaccinated. Deaths: 1 in 41,929 people vaccinated (508).
• AstraZeneca (24.8 million first doses, 23.9 million second doses) has one Yellow Card in 108 people vaccinated. Deaths: 1 in 23,485 people vaccinated (1,056).
• Moderna (1.4 million first doses, 0.7 million second doses) has one Yellow Card in 100 people vaccinated. Deaths: 1 in 50,000 people vaccinated (28).

Overall, one in every 135 people vaccinated (0.7%) have experienced a Yellow Card adverse event. The MHRA has previously estimated that the Yellow Card reporting rate may be approximately 10% of actual figures. On average there have been 47 deaths and 10,500 adverse event injuries reported per week.

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

By Will Jones  /  1 September 2021 • 07.00

[Van Lady]

@sancho panza I’d just like to say thank you for all your detailed, referenced and very informative posts regarding Covid. We’re very lucky on this forum to have a number of excellent posters like you who take the time to provide this info.

 

[sancho panza]

22 hours ago, Van Lady said:

@sancho panza I’d just like to say thank you for all your detailed, referenced and very informative posts regarding Covid. We’re very lucky on this forum to have a number of excellent posters like you who take the time to provide this info.

 

My pleasure,it's so nice to be able to participate in a free and open debate of the facts and the science.

Due homage to @spunko and other posters for their endeavours on behalf of free speech

Edited September 2, 2021 by sancho panza

[Harley]

On 01/09/2021 at 13:42, sancho panza said:

Vaccine safety update via LS

https://dailysceptic.org/2021/09/01/vaccine-safety-update-12/

• Further ‘breakthrough cases‘ in vaccinated people have been reported in Israel, India and Florida. A preprint study in the Lancet has found that: “Viral loads of breakthrough Delta variant infection cases were 251 times higher than those of cases infected with old strain”, indicating that fully vaccinated people can transmit the Delta variant. 
• Further reports of myocarditis and heart conditions post-Covid vaccine have been acknowledged by the CDC. Case studies have appeared in Clinical Research and Cardiology and BMC Cardiovascular Disorders along with a media report in the Daily Mail.
• The Times reports on rare blood clots caused by COVID-19 vaccines. NICE guidelines have been updated to reflect protocol for the treatment of Vaccine Induced Thrombocytopenia and Thrombosis (VITT) and further guidance is available from the NHS and Thrombosis UK.  Further Clinical Features of VITT appear in the New England Journal of Medicine while the Journal of Korean Medical Science publishes its first case study on intracerebral haemorrhage due to thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome after vaccination against COVID-19. 
• Results of the Moderna trial on children have been published in the New England Journal of Medicine, reporting local reactions after the first injection in 94.2% of participants and after the second injection in 93.4%.  Systemic adverse reactions were reported in 68.5% of the participants after the first injection and in 86.1% after the second injection; grade 3 events were reported in 4.4% and 13.7%, respectively, and one participant reported a grade 4 event. No cases of myocarditis were reported although the authors acknowledge that the sample size (2,489) was likely too small.
• Eleanor Riley, Professor of Immunology and Infectious Disease at Edinburgh University, is reported in the Herald as saying vaccinating young people will not protect adults.
• Public Health England have published their SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England Technical Briefing 21. This continues to demonstrate a similar risk of death for the under-50s between the double vaccinated and unvaccinated (0.07% and 0.04% of Delta cases respectively), questioning the need to continue the vaccination drive in younger people.
• A new analysis by TrialSite News finds that Covid vaccines have 98 times the rate of deaths reported to VAERS than flu vaccines. A comparison of the event rates reported for different vaccines and different adverse reactions provides “material evidence that the increase is not due mainly to an increase in the number of vaccinations given, nor to stimulated reporting”.
• CNBC reports that two senior FDA officials responsible for reviewing COVID-19 vaccine applications – Marion Gruber and Phil Krause, respectively the director and deputy director of the Office of Vaccines Research & Review – have quit the agency, because they are unhappy about the CDC overruling them and moving forward with booster shots.
• VAERS – the American version of the Yellow Card reporting system – released new data on August 13th bringing the total to 595,622 reports of adverse events following Covid vaccines, including 13,068 deaths and 81,050 serious injuries.
• Suspected adverse events in the U.K. as reported in the media: Michael Mitchell (65); Pawel Panasiuk (45); Alex Evans (31); Lisa Shaw (44).

Summary of Adverse Events in the U.K.

According to an updated report published on August 26th, the MHRA Yellow Card reporting system has recorded a total of 1,165,636 events based on 351,404 reports. The total number of fatalities reported is 1,609.

• Pfizer (21.3 million first doses, 16.6 million second doses) now has one Yellow Card in 199 people vaccinated. Deaths: 1 in 41,929 people vaccinated (508).
• AstraZeneca (24.8 million first doses, 23.9 million second doses) has one Yellow Card in 108 people vaccinated. Deaths: 1 in 23,485 people vaccinated (1,056).
• Moderna (1.4 million first doses, 0.7 million second doses) has one Yellow Card in 100 people vaccinated. Deaths: 1 in 50,000 people vaccinated (28).

Overall, one in every 135 people vaccinated (0.7%) have experienced a Yellow Card adverse event. The MHRA has previously estimated that the Yellow Card reporting rate may be approximately 10% of actual figures. On average there have been 47 deaths and 10,500 adverse event injuries reported per week.

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

By Will Jones  /  1 September 2021 • 07.00

Especially informative when ranked high to low.  Makes me nervous, jab or not.