UK Govt Coronavirus Response: Sceptics Thread

[sancho panza]

Matt Taibbi discusses twitter files and censorship

 

Edited December 23, 2022 by sancho panza

[dnb24]

Ifr determined

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393512201982X

peer reviewed.

[sancho panza]

4 hours ago, dnb24 said:

Ifr determined

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393512201982X

peer reviewed.

SO bascially same level as Flu iirc?

Edited December 30, 2022 by sancho panza

[sancho panza]

https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2022/12/05/jme-2022-108449

Introduction

COVID-19 vaccine booster mandates have been controversial, especially in younger age groups. Two main factors continue to drive scientific controversy: a lack of evidence that booster doses provide a meaningful reduction in hospitalisation risk among healthy adolescents and young adults, and mounting evidence that widespread prior infection confers significant protection against hospitalisation due to (re)infection. Further, mandates have deleterious societal consequences and are eroding trust in scientific and government institutions.1 In North America, as of May 2022 at least 1000 colleges and university campuses required COVID-19 vaccination, and over 300 required boosters.2 More than 50 petitions have been written opposing these vaccine mandates,3 raising specific legal and ethical complaints.4 To our knowledge, few have changed their vaccine guidance for the 2022–2023 academic year and several have mandated the new bivalent booster.

Policymakers, public health scholars and bioethicists have argued both for and against COVID-19 vaccine mandates. The strongest argument made by proponents of vaccine mandates is based on the harm principle: insofar as vaccines prevent transmission and thereby reduce harm to others, restrictions on individual freedom are viewed as more ethically justifiable.5 However, a reduction in risk to others (especially if this is a small or temporary effect) might not alone be sufficient to justify a booster mandate in young people. Savulescu6 and Giubilini and colleagues7 have argued that, to be ethical, vaccine mandates require four conditions: that the disease be a grave public health threat; that there is a safe and effective vaccine; that mandatory vaccination has a superior cost/benefit profile in comparison to other alternatives; and that the level of coercion is proportionate.

Proportionality is a key principle in public health ethics.1 To be proportionate, a policy must be expected to produce public health benefits that outweigh relevant harms, including harms related to coercion, undue pressure, loss of employment and education and other forms of liberty restriction. Williams8 has argued that COVID-19 vaccine mandates may be justified for older but not younger people, among whom such policies are not proportionate given a lack of clarity that benefits outweigh harms. Such ethical assessments should rely on empirical data: thorough risk-benefit assessment requires quantification (where possible) of relevant risks and benefits for the group affected by the policy. With respect to poor outcomes due to COVID-19, the most consistent predictors are age9 and comorbidities.10 Similarly, age and sex are prominent risk factors for vaccine-associated reactogenicity11 and serious adverse events (SAE) such as myocarditis, which is more common in young males.12 Vaccine requirements should therefore be predicated on an age-stratified and sex-stratified risk-benefit analysis and consider the protective effects of prior infection.13

In this paper, we integrate a risk-benefit assessment of SARS-CoV-2 boosters for adults under 30 years old with an ethical analysis of mandates at universities. Our estimate suggests an expected net harm from boosters in this young adult age group, whereby the negative outcomes of all SAEs and hospitalisations may on average outweigh the expected benefits in terms of COVID-19 hospitalisations averted. We also examine the specific harms to males from myo/pericarditis. We then outline a five-part ethical argument empirically assessing booster mandates for young people informed by the quantitative assessment. First, we argue that there has been a lack of transparent risk-benefit assessment; second, that vaccine mandates may result in a net expected harm to individual young adults; third, that vaccine mandates are not proportionate; fourth, that US mandates violate the reciprocity principle because of current gaps in vaccine injury compensation schemes; fifth, that mandates are even less proportionate than the foregoing analyses suggest because current high levels of coercion or pressure may create wider societal harms. We consider possible counterarguments including potential rationales for mandates based on a desire for social cohesion or safety and summarise why such arguments cannot justify current COVID-19 vaccine mandates. We suggest that general mandates for young people ignore key data, entail wider social harms and/or abuses of power and are arguably undermining rather than contributing to social trust and solidarity.

Booster vaccine-associated myocarditis rates in university-age males 18–29 years

The CDC estimated the rate of postbooster myocarditis during days 0–7 following BNT162b2 vaccine administration in males aged 16–17 years to be approximately 1 in 41 50051 using passive surveillance through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and approximately 1 in 500051 using active surveillance with the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). In males aged 18–29 years, the postbooster myocarditis rate for both products combined using VAERS was reported to be 1 in 101 00052 (ages 18–24) to 1 in 208 00052 (ages 25–29) while the VSD rate was much higher at 1 in 14 20052 (mRNA-1273) to 1 in 21 00052 (BNT162b2). Two other population-based studies from the USA and Israel in males aged 18–39 years found the rate to be 1 in 7000 (147.0 per million third doses)53 to 9000 (126.6 per million third doses).54 In both of these studies, BNT162b2 was the vaccine administered prior to diagnosis. For our estimates, and assuming a precautionary stance, we have used active surveillance rates or population-based rates. For males aged 18–29 years we consider the rate 1 in 700053 to be the most reliable because the method relies on CDC definitions and databases.59 We also provide a 16–17 year-old rate because academic acceleration allows some older adolscents to attend college along with the freshman cohort, and in some cases students need to be vaccinated before their 18th birthday to enrol or be assigned to housing. For males aged 16–17 years, we use the VSD rate of 1 in 5000.51 In table 1C, we provide a range of myopericarditis estimates for consideration.

Conclusion

Based on public data provided by the CDC,19 we estimate that in the fall of 2022 at least 31 207–42 836 young adults aged 18–29 years must be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent one Omicron-related COVID-19 hospitalisation over 6 months. Given the fact that this estimate does not take into account the protection conferred by prior infection or a risk adjustment for comorbidity status, this should be considered a conservative and optimistic assessment of benefit. Our estimate shows that university COVID-19 vaccine mandates are likely to cause net expected harms to young healthy adults—for each hospitalisation averted we estimate approximately 18.5 SAEs and 1430–4626 disruptions of daily activities—that is not outweighed by a proportionate public health benefit. Serious COVID-19 vaccine-associated harms are not adequately compensated for by current US vaccine injury systems. As such, these severe infringements of individual liberty and human rights are ethically unjustifiable.

Mandates are also associated with wider social harms. The fact that such policies were implemented despite controversy among experts and without updating the sole publicly available risk-benefit analysis19 to the current Omicron variants nor submitting the methods to public scrutiny suggests a profound lack of transparency in scientific and regulatory policy making. These findings have implications for mandates in other settings such as schools, corporations, healthcare systems and the military. Policymakers should repeal COVID-19 vaccine mandates for young adults immediately and ensure pathways to compensation to those who have suffered negative consequences from these policies. Regulatory agencies should facilitate independent scientific analysis through open access to participant-level clinical trial data to allow risk-stratified and age-stratified risk-benefit analyses of any new vaccines prior to issuing recommendations.125 This is needed to begin what will be a long process of rebuilding trust in public health.

Edited December 31, 2022 by sancho panza

[sancho panza]

Bit above my paygrade but backs up what Prof Angus Dalgiesh was saying previously.

IgG4 and cancer - a mechanism of action for cancer relapse and onset

Class switching and tumor promotion...

Jessica Rose

12 hr ago

 

 

 

As you all know, IgG4 has come onto the hot-seat lately in the context of the mRNA shots. I was prompted this morning after watching Chris Martenson’s summary video of Jikkyleaks’ new FOI findings to look into the relationship between IgG4 and cancer. Again, cancer statistics in VAERS and from clinical settings are completely atypical since the roll-out of the COVID shots and I have been sounding the alarm on this for over a year.

I refer you all to a paper published in 2016 in Current Allergy and Asthma Reports entitled: “IgG4 Characteristics and Functions in Cancer Immunity”.1

This paper reveals that not only is there a link between tumor progression and the presence of IgG4 due to class switching, but that this link might even be necessary for tumor promotion and progression.

Let’s really do some background on IgG4. It’s different from its brother and sister IgG subclasses for a very interesting reason: it can swap out its arms - even it’s entire half - if it so feels like! This is called Fab arm exchange.2 It’s Fab! Well, not in the context of cancer. But I will get to that. There is an excellent review article in Frontiers in Immunology that describes a new classification for IgG4 antibodies entitled: “A New Classification System for IgG4 Autoantibodies”3 that I would be remiss not to reference and even quote in this background. The author did a fantastic job.

She opened her review with this phrase:

IgG4 autoimmune diseases are characterized by the presence of antigen-specific autoantibodies of the IgG4 subclass and contain well-characterized diseases such as muscle-specific kinase myasthenia gravis, pemphigus, and thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura.

As a side note: Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura, or TTP, is a rare and serious blood disease4 and similar to one of the 2 adverse event types addressed by the CDC/FDA in MMWR reports at the beginning of the roll-out of these COVID-19 products. The refer to it this similar condition as ‘Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome’. On Dec 16, 2021, Isaac See: a member of the Vaccine Safety Team working on the CDC COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force, provided the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) with information on a clearly defined safety signal originating from VAERS. You can see that presentation here.

On IgG4 class switching and what it means pathologically

IgG4 class switching is associated with chronic exposure to antigen. This particular subclass of antibody can outcompete other antibody species, like IgG1, to subsequently block their effector mechanisms. One of these effector mechanisms imposed by IgG1 is tumor control (or suppression), mediated by antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC), antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis (ADCP) and complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC). And yes, I do see the irony of the three-letter name. These mechanisms are all ways to keep unwanted cells and material under control.

On ADCC, ADCP and CDC (not the agency)

ADCC involves programmed cell death (apoptosis) of unwanted cells. Yes, cells have self-destruct mechanisms. Nature is so cool. This happens via binding of antibodies to antigens presented on unwanted cells (as tags) for subsequent binding of effector cells, like Natural Killer cells, to induce the signal for self-destruction of the unwanted cell. So the bottom line is, antibodies can mediate the induction of the self-destruct signal in cells if they are ‘unwanted’.

ADCP involves consumption of unwanted cells by effector cells. Yes, cells eat other cells. Again, nature is so cool. This happens via binding of antibodies to antigens presented on on unwanted cells (as tags) for subsequent binding of effector cells, like phagocytes (macrophages), to induce signals for phagocytosis (eating) of the unwanted cell.

CDC is a mechanism by which antibodies work together with the complement cascade to remove pathogens and/or control overgrowth of unwanted cells. There are three complement pathways called the classical, alternative and lectin pathways. Complement is a necessary and complex system that involves a cascade of proteins and events to unfold that leads to the formation of a Membrane Attack Complex (MAC). The MAC creates a hole in the membrane of the unwanted cell and makes it leak and die. I always wanted to start a band and call it Membrane Attack Complex. That’s how nerdy I am. One of the proteins involved as a component of the complement cascade is called C3b and it is essential as an opsonin which is a mediator for phagocytosis or opsonization, so think: ADCP.

Figure 1: The complement cascade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complement_system.

A nice schematic summary of these antibody mechanism of actions can be found in a publication by Ulrike Herbrand in BioProcessing Journal from 2016.5

Figure 2: The mechanisms of action of antibodies. https://www.criver.com/sites/default/files/resources/Antibody-DependentCellularPhagocytosisTheMechanismofActionThatGetsNoRespect-ADiscussionAboutImprovingBioassayReproducibility.pdf

Now that you understand perfectly how important these antibody functions are for removing unwanted cells and foreign material, you can imagine how important they might be in suppressing tumor formation by suppressing the growth rate of cancer cells. Be very aware, these mechanisms of action are enacted by the IgG1 subclass. So the question becomes, what happens in the context of cancer, specifically, when the antibody subclass ratio changes due to chronic exposure to antigen? Or more precisely, what happens when the IgG1: IgG4 subclass antibody ratio inverts in the context of tumor suppression?

Here’s a schematic from the above-mentioned paper (IgG4 Characteristics and Functions in Cancer Immunity) to illustrate exactly what happens.

Figure 3: Structural and functional features of IgG4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4705142/

I want to draw your attention to shift from tumor suppression to tumor progression due to the prevalence of IgG4 as opposed to IgG1. Do you see the problem?

It is very important to understand why the special and unique ‘Fab’ulousness of IgG4 is relevant in this context. The authors in this paper write:

A direct consequence of Fab-arm exchange is the production of IgG4 antibodies with random dual specificity, unable to cross-link identical antigens and therefore perhaps unable to form large [Immune Complex] IC against a specific target.

What this means, is that the unique ability of this typically rare subclass of antibody to switch out its arms, makes it unable to act out the things that I described above that IgG1 can do. Namely, form immune complexes and bind receptors on cells for removal of unwanted cells. So those three ways: the ADCC, ADCP and CDC - that aid in removal of unwanted cells are all nullified in the scenario where IgG4 is prevalent. Worse than that, since the subclass switch is literally the by-product of continuous antigen stimulation, then this is an immunological endorsement of a ‘win’ for IgG4 if we consider competition for binding sites. In effect, IgG4 outcompetes IgG1 and thus, the scales tip from tumor suppression, to tumor progression. All because of IgG4.

Now I don’t want to scare everyone, but persistent re-injection of a messenger RNA that encodes a foreign, highly immunogenic protein, is NOT a good idea in this context. This is precisely continuous antigen stimulation by spike protein. Not only that, since we know that both the mRNA and the spike protein are long-lasting in the body, you mightn’t even have to re-inject yourself repeatedly qualify as undergoing continuous antigen stimulation. In fact, I would bet that this would be a given. Furthermore, I would bet that due to this continuous antigen stimulation, the IgG1:IgG4 subclass ratio is inverted in people who are persistently making spike, and that these people would be subject to cancer promotion, rather than suppression.

My take home message: This is why people are experiencing relapses of cancers previously in remission and this is why new and rare cancers are appearing as well.

[sancho panza]

On 19/12/2022 at 23:55, sancho panza said:

First few bits in bold say it all.Prof Angus Dalgliesh

There's a growing number of voices raising concerns

https://dailysceptic.org/2022/12/19/i-have-tried-sounding-the-alarm-about-the-vaccines-causing-cancer-relapse-but-the-mainstream-media-dont-want-to-know/

Following my recent communication about my very real concern over the recurrence of cancer in many of my melanoma patients who have been stable for long periods, at least five years and in one case 18 years, other oncologists have contacted me to say they are seeing the same phenomenon.

Seeing the recurrence of these cancers after all this time naturally makes me wonder if there is a common cause? I had previously noted that relapse in stable cancer is often associated with severe long-term stress, such as bankruptcy, divorce, etc. However I found that none of my patients had any such extra stress during this time but they had all had booster vaccines and, indeed, a couple of them noted that they had a very bad reaction to the booster which they did not have to the first two injections. 

I then noted that some of these patients were not having a normal pattern of relapse but rather an explosive relapse, with metastases occurring at the same time in several sites. Obviously, I began to wonder whether the booster vaccines could be causing these relapses and were not just coincidence, as my colleagues were willing to suggest. 

Within a three-month period I have been able to identify eight people who have developed B-cell malignancies following the booster, with two of them reporting that they instantly felt very unwell after the booster, having had no problem after the first two vaccines, then describing the symptoms of extreme exhaustion and long Covid before being investigated and finding out that they had a B-cell leukaemia in two cases, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in five and a very aggressive myeloma in the other case. 

Scientifically, I was reading reports that the booster was leading to a big excess of antibodies at the expense of the T-cell response and that this T-cell suppression could last for three weeks, if not more. To me, this could be causal as the immune system is being asked to make an excessive response through the humoral inflammatory part of the immune response against a virus variant which is no longer in existence in the community. This exertion leads to immune exhaustion, which is why these patients are reporting up to a 50% greater increase in Omicron, or other variations, than the non-vaccinated.

Having communicated these observations I was rapidly reminded that I had written an article, published in the Daily Mail in the middle of 2021, which encouraged people to get vaccinated, particularly younger people. This was a very thorough article, written under my name but essentially conducted by interview, for the purpose of condoning the vaccine rollout at the time. Although I had started to have concerns, the overwhelming push by the Government and the medical community was that this would be in everyone’s best interest. So the environment at that time was completely different to what it is now. Indeed, my own take on this was soon to change very dramatically when my own son developed myocarditis after having a jab he did not want but that he needed for work and travel purposes. I also then found out that one of his friends in his early 30s had suffered a stroke and that a niece of my close colleague had a fatal heart attack at the age of 34, having had the vaccine for her occupation as a nurse! I began to be highly alarmed that it was the vaccines causing these symptoms, and that just as we had written right at the very beginning of the pandemic, a genetically engineered virus had serious implications for vaccine design. This paper, which was suppressed and therefore did not appear in print for many months, reported that the sequence of the virus was completely consistent with having been genetically engineered, with a furin cleavage site and six inserts at places that would make the virus very infectious, and the reason this had such tremendous implications for vaccine design was that 80% of these sequences had homology to human epitopes. In particular, we had noticed a homology with platelet factor 4 and myelin. The former is also certainly associated with what is known as VITT (low platelets and clotting issues) and the latter associated with all the neurological problems, such as transverse myelitis, both of which are now recognised as side-effects of the vaccine even by the MHRA.

Although it took some time to get these findings out into press, they were delivered to and widely circulated to the Cabinet and various medical committees as we thought these observations were crucially important. Unfortunately, they were ignored.

However, the cases of myocarditis did not even need this trigger as young hearts over-express the ACE-receptor, which the virus had been trained in the laboratory to bind to with very high affinity and it is this that sets off the inflammatory response, which leads to myocarditis, pericarditis, stroke and deaths, which it is now clear are far more common in the under-40s than caused by the virus infection itself.

It was also shortly after this time that it became evident that the virus was attenuating, as all viruses do. In addition, treatment was improving so the virus was leading to fewer hospitalisations and deaths. I believe this is a very important factor to take into account as it was clear at the end of the first year that the pandemic was reducing and the virus becoming less aggressive, with the emergence of the Omicron variant, just as large sections of the population were being vaccinated.

In late 2021 it was becoming manifestly evident too that the vaccines were anything but safe and effective and that the disease was not nearly as problematic as it was at the beginning of 2020 when it was being rendered much worse with what I believed at the time to be ludicrous responses. These included both lockdown and the refusal to treat Covid as a respiratory airborne virus with consensus mechanisms but instead pushing patients on to a randomised trial, known as RECOVERY, which ended up showing what everyone knew: that if there is an acute inflammation in the lungs patients need dexamethasone. The early responses also included putting patients on ventilation, which now is known to be the last thing that should have been done as it seemed to encourage early death.

When the facts change, or new facts emerge, the position of all those in authority directing mandates should change but unfortunately, they did not.

I tried desperately to point out that all the evidence that vaccines might have been useful in helping to curtail the pandemic was changing; that it was becoming very clear that there were highly significant side-effects to the vaccine programme that Pfizer had gone to great lengths to cover up, and that it was only a court case in the U.S. that led to them becoming available. At this stage the whole vaccine programme should have been stopped but nobody seemed to want to address this, neither the Government, the medical authorities or the media. 

Having written many articles for the Daily Mail arguing against lockdown and for it never to be used again, I was extremely keen to address my change of opinion on the vaccines and to warn people of their dangers particularly to younger people, and to point out there were no grounds at all for giving it to children. Unfortunately, all my efforts and approaches to the mainstream media on this subject have been rejected. This, I believe, is something that will come back to haunt all those who introduced an Orwellian kind of suppression to the emerging truth, which labelled doctors trying to save their patients along the lines of ‘first do no harm’ as outcasts or villains.

context for Dalgliesh

https://dailysceptic.org/2022/12/19/i-have-tried-sounding-the-alarm-about-the-vaccines-causing-cancer-relapse-but-the-mainstream-media-dont-want-to-know/

Following my recent communication about my very real concern over the recurrence of cancer in many of my melanoma patients who have been stable for long periods, at least five years and in one case 18 years, other oncologists have contacted me to say they are seeing the same phenomenon.

Seeing the recurrence of these cancers after all this time naturally makes me wonder if there is a common cause? I had previously noted that relapse in stable cancer is often associated with severe long-term stress, such as bankruptcy, divorce, etc. However I found that none of my patients had any such extra stress during this time but they had all had booster vaccines and, indeed, a couple of them noted that they had a very bad reaction to the booster which they did not have to the first two injections. 

I then noted that some of these patients were not having a normal pattern of relapse but rather an explosive relapse, with metastases occurring at the same time in several sites. Obviously, I began to wonder whether the booster vaccines could be causing these relapses and were not just coincidence, as my colleagues were willing to suggest. 

Within a three-month period I have been able to identify eight people who have developed B-cell malignancies following the booster, with two of them reporting that they instantly felt very unwell after the booster, having had no problem after the first two vaccines, then describing the symptoms of extreme exhaustion and long Covid before being investigated and finding out that they had a B-cell leukaemia in two cases, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in five and a very aggressive myeloma in the other case. 

Scientifically, I was reading reports that the booster was leading to a big excess of antibodies at the expense of the T-cell response and that this T-cell suppression could last for three weeks, if not more. To me, this could be causal as the immune system is being asked to make an excessive response through the humoral inflammatory part of the immune response against a virus variant which is no longer in existence in the community. This exertion leads to immune exhaustion, which is why these patients are reporting up to a 50% greater increase in Omicron, or other variations, than the non-vaccinated.

 

 

[sancho panza]

3 min vid.worth a watch

Edited December 31, 2022 by sancho panza

[Bilbo]

14 hours ago, sancho panza said:

https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2022/12/05/jme-2022-108449

 

An article from Andrew Bridgen Tory MP in today's Times. I have posted on COVID section but think it belongs here as well.

Free link 

https://archive.ph/2022.12.31-101351/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tory-mp-andrew-bridgen-says-covid-19-was-kept-secret-and-then-exploited-kvchksz2h

Tory MP has claimed global elites conspired to keep coronavirus secret for months, before exaggerating its severity to impose restrictions.

[sancho panza]

Stephen Petty on the effectiveness of masks......depressing that clinicians are still touting them as a way of reducing spread when the evidence is pretty clear

'human hair,covid particle is a 1000 times smaller than the cross section of a human hair.'

 

[Chewing Grass]

10 minutes ago, sancho panza said:

Stephen Petty on the effectiveness of masks......depressing that clinicians are still touting them as a way of reducing spread when the evidence is pretty clear

'human hair,covid particle is a 1000 times smaller than the cross section of a human hair.'

 

Top Bloke - superb dry presentation.

[Heart's Ease]

35 minutes ago, sancho panza said:

Stephen Petty on the effectiveness of masks......depressing that clinicians are still touting them as a way of reducing spread when the evidence is pretty clear

'human hair,covid particle is a 1000 times smaller than the cross section of a human hair.'

 

Thanks @sancho panzafor posting. Had not seen. From a click through to YouTube I see his testimony was from 30 March 2022.  Saving the full link here. 

om the comments I see Ivor Cummings spoke about it. I can never keep up with the COVID forum so saved here.

 

[sancho panza]

Sky pose the question ...what can be done with excess deaths so high?

You can only hope the powers that be don't opt for another set of lockdowns took a crisis and made it an even bigger crisis

12,000 patients ready for realease but can't be discharged without social care.......well that vaxx mandate that led to 40,000 carers sacked without replacements lined up, panned out beautifully didn't it?

Huge rise in excess deaths but the talking head Sky bring only mentions the 'pandemic' rather than the 'lockdown' which sort of tells us where he sits with the narrative.

 

https://news.sky.com/video/the-nhs-is-under-pressure-with-excess-deaths-in-2022-higher-than-the-last-5-years-on-average-12779324

The NHS is under pressure with excess deaths in 2022 higher than the last 5 years on average

Ashish Joshi breaks down the numbers behind the pressure on the NHS this winter. With excess deaths up on the last five years and the number of fully qualified GPs dipping, what measures must be taken to keep this from being the worst winter in NHS history?

[sancho panza]

The Sceptic leads the charge.

Decl:I donate to the wonderful people,please support them if you can,every penny helps in the fight for free speech and open debate

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/01/05/excess-non-covid-deaths-surge-to-30000-since-april-as-deaths-in-week-before-christmas-hit-20-above-average/

Excess Non-Covid Deaths Surge to 30,000 Since April as Deaths in Week Before Christmas Hit 20% Above Average

by Will Jones

5 January 2023 4:00 PM

Deaths registered in England and Wales were a massive 20.7% above the five-year average in the week ending December 23rd, according to the latest data from the ONS. There were a total of 14,530 deaths that week, which is 2,493 above the five-year average. Of these, 429 involved COVID-19 as a contributory cause and 308 were due to Covid as underlying cause, leaving 2,185 excess non-Covid deaths. Of the total, 829 deaths were recorded as due to ‘influenza and pneumonia’ as underlying cause. The total number of excess non-Covid deaths since the surge began in April is now just shy of 30,000 at 29,880.

The chart below plots the deaths by date of occurrence. I have also plotted the vaccine boosters, though clearly the latest surge in excess deaths (unlike those in the spring and autumn) has no correlation with new booster doses.

This chart shows autumn booster doses in over-75s along with excess non-Covid deaths, showing the correlation during the autumn, though not in December. Covid deaths are also shown.

The cause of the huge number of excess deaths in December is unclear. Detailed cause of death data are not yet available for December. The excess deaths are concentrated in the older age groups, with no notable rise in the under-50s, who were notably excluded from the autumn booster campaign. It is a severe flu season, so this will be contributing. The pressures on hospitals, ambulances and other health services will also be playing a part. Once again, the rise in excess non-Covid deaths has occurred at the same time as a wave of Covid infections. This phenomenon has been observed internationally and the reasons for it are unclear. An interaction between the Covid vaccines and Covid infection, perhaps resulting in deadly autoimmune attack on vital organs such as the heart, or via some other mechanism, remains possible and requires further investigation.

Are excess deaths higher in the vaccinated? The U.K. Government, like other governments, does not publish good quality data on deaths by vaccination status (which seems suspicious in itself). However, deaths during 2022 are notable for reversing the usual demographic trends, with less deprived groups and white people having higher excess death rates, as shown in the charts below, which were produced by HART. Note how the red line moves from being at the bottom in 2021 to at or near the top in 2022.

The most notable difference between these demographic groups that could explain such a remarkable shift is that whites and less deprived groups tend to have higher vaccination rates. For example, despite being more diverse and lower income, London had much lower excess deaths than the South East during 2022. Between May 1st and November 18th, London had excess mortality of 8% versus 13% in the South East. London is double-jabbed 80% and triple-jabbed 64%, well below the rates in the South East, which is double-jabbed 90% and triple-jabbed 80%. This is hardly conclusive proof, but alongside other data is highly suggestive that vaccines are playing a role in the recent high excess mortality.

[sancho panza]

absolutely incredible testimony

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/01/06/top-cancer-expert-aggressive-cancers-appearing-after-vaccine-boosters-not-a-coincidence/

I’m Angus Dalgleish. I’m a Professor of Oncology at St. George’s, a Consultant Medical Oncologist, and I have started to notice that several of my patients have melanoma who’ve been stable with stage 4 disease, they’ve had very good immunotherapy or other treatment and I’ve been reviewing them from five to 20 years. I’ve noticed that I have now over six, possibly seven, even an eighth yesterday, who’ve clearly relapsed following the booster vaccine.

At first we didn’t put the two together, but when a patient said, “I felt awful since the vaccine, I’ve just been drained”, they’ve described symptoms like a Long Covid, and the next thing we know, two, three weeks, couple of months later they’ve got clear evidence of relapse. And these relapses are quite aggressive. They’re not a gentle relapse. They’re relapses that are requiring systemic therapy as opposed to a little nodule that requires surgical incision.

But it’s not just this. I’m now very much aware in my own circle of many people, they haven’t got a melanoma – they’ve never had anything before – but they’ve got lumps and bumps and they’re not felling well. And two people I’ve interviewed at great length, they all put it down to feeling awful after their booster. They were fine with the first two vaccines, they just had shivers, flu etc. But they’ve described being very tired, very fatigued, wanting to stay in bed, and this has dragged on to the point were they’ve gone to the doctor and they’ve had blood counts and investigations and I now know seven of them, two of them have leukemias, and others have lymphomas, and one of them has a very bad melanoma, which he is absolutely sure was instigated by the booster as he developed dreadful symptoms.

So really I want to bring to everybody’s attention that I think that this does not look like a coincidence to me and we need to join forces and see if this is a real effect and if it is we must stop all the boosters immediately. Thank you.

London Professor of Oncology calls for urgent stop to C19 boosters:

"As an Oncologist I Am Seeing People With Stable Cancer Rapidly Relapse After a C19 Booster"

Angus Dalgleish, Professor of Oncology at St. Georges Hospital Medical School London. pic.twitter.com/taBZpU9neL

— Robin Monotti (@robinmonotti) January 3, 2023

Read Professor Dalgleish’s earlier articles in the Daily Sceptic warning of this potential adverse effect here and here.

[sancho panza]

Recently(two weeks back) overheard one of our officers saying we were running short of 1:10,000 adrenaline (used in cardiac arrests) across the province due to an uptick in the amount of arrests the serivce has been attending.Here's the detail and @Chewing Grass

Edited January 8, 2023 by sancho panza

[sancho panza]

I subscribe to Lyn Alden and part of her recent investment letter is worthy of psoting here as she comes at it from an angle the basement would understand

'Chinese Re-Opening

China has abruptly pivoted out of its zero-COVID policy that it maintained for three years.

I’ve been observing and reporting on some of the extreme and concerning social controls in China for a while, and they pulled the plug on a number of them very quickly. A sharp drop in economic output combined with protests across multiple cities, seem to have convinced officials to reframe the narrative.

In fact, they’ve pivoted out of the policy so quickly, that other countries are temporarily putting restrictions on travelers from China, because many people in China have the virus all of a sudden after not being exposed to it for so long.

Back in my November 27th report, I analyzed the Taiwan pivot out of its zero-covid policy, including the sharp uptick in cases that occurred when they did so.

For the first two years of the virus, as a small island, Taiwan meticulously maintained a zero-COVID approach. They mostly shut themselves off from the world, and would do extensive contact tracing and quarantining to ensure the virus wouldn’t spread through the population.

They had among the lowest reported deaths from the virus in the world, and could keep a lot of things open internally by controlling the entrances. But in spring 2022, after the Omicron wave, their health officials changed the policy. Omicron was incredibly transmissible but less fatal, and trying to forever prevent the spread of the virus became increasingly untenable, like trying to prevent the seasonal flu.

, the country changed course towards a strategy of living with the virus.

In terms of deaths, this was sadly like ripping a band-aid off. Many people were exposed to the virus for the first time, and there have been 14,000+ deaths.

Chart Source: Worldometer

Each death is tragic, representing someone’s parent, sibling, or friend. A life lived, and a life now gone.

However, with Taiwan’s population of around 24 million people, the baseline number of deaths per year is nearly 200,000. These 14,000 deaths represented 0.06% of the population so far. Furthermore, the deaths were concentrated in the demographic of people who are both elderly and have pre-existing conditions, which means the number of total lost life-years is less than if, say, a similar number of people of all ages were killed in the bombing of a city or some similar horror of that scale.

This type of uptick in deaths is probably something that Chinese officials fear, if they do an approach towards re-opening. And unlike Taiwan, China made zero-COVID more of a matter of national pride, using it as evidence for their socioeconomic system supposedly being better than that of the West. This makes it harder to pivot in the face of changing facts.

But long-term lockdown policies do have a cost, aside from the obvious threat towards individual freedom in general.

For example, what percentage of the population suffers increased health problems from social isolation or insufficient exercise amid extensive and repeated lockdowns? How many people have heightened stress from failed businesses or struggling finances, that they might not have otherwise faced under non-lockdown conditions? Or to what extent is normal childhood learning and socialization disrupted by these types of policies?

Some of this is very hard to measure.

-Lyn Alden, November 27th, 2022 premium report

Indeed, reports show that hundreds of millions of people in China got the virus recently, now that they have pivoted like Taiwan did. Much like the situation in Taiwan, it was like ripping a band-aid off, letting the virus flow through broad parts of the previously unexposed Chinese population all at once. But, this was inevitable at this point. Band-aids have to come off eventually.

Almost 250 million people in China may have caught Covid-19 in the first 20 days of December, according to an internal estimate from the nation’s top health officials, Bloomberg News and the Financial Times reported Friday.

If correct, the estimate – which CNN cannot independently confirm – would account for roughly 18% of China’s 1.4 billion people and represent the largest Covid-19 outbreak to date globally.

–CNN, December 23rd, 2022

The South China Morning Post ran an opinion piece on January 6th that was rather blunt for a publication based in Hong Kong and owned by Alibaba (BABA), at least in the current state of Chinese politics. It was called, “China’s zero-Covid policy, botched re-opening will puzzle historians for years to come“.

It has become apparent that mainland China has botched its Covid-19 reopening. After three years of maintaining a strict zero-Covid policy, the surprise at its about-face has been surpassed only by questions as to why such a costly, unsustainable policy was pursued for so long.

Economists and historians will spend years trying to find the answers to three mysteries in relation to China’s (mis)handling of the pandemic.

First is the question of what the true costs of the zero-Covid policy were, and in particular, whether they were worth paying.

[…]

The second mystery historians will try to solve is why a policy as obviously short-sighted and unsustainable as zero-Covid was maintained for so long and with such ideological fervour.

[…]

The third mystery that economists may ponder in the future is why a widely anticipated economic rebound, and the resumption of the China growth story after the abandonment of zero-Covid, did not materialise in 2023.

China and the US are the two largest economies in the world, so in addition to monitoring the US business cycle in rate-of-change terms, we need to see how quickly China is coming back online, This is especially true as it relates to commodities and oil demand, since the slowdown in China was part of why those prices were able to relax in 2022 despite tight supply-side situations.

Pictet Asset Management provided a great chart in their January report about China stimulating as the US continues tightening, creating a likely divergence in 2023 outcomes between the West and the East:

However, it remains unclear to what extent China will stimulate in 2023, and perhaps more importantly, how impactful that stimulus will be for an economic rebound.

[Long-game]

On 05/01/2023 at 22:00, sancho panza said:

The Sceptic leads the charge.

Decl:I donate to the wonderful people,please support them if you can,every penny helps in the fight for free speech and open debate

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/01/05/excess-non-covid-deaths-surge-to-30000-since-april-as-deaths-in-week-before-christmas-hit-20-above-average/

Excess Non-Covid Deaths Surge to 30,000 Since April as Deaths in Week Before Christmas Hit 20% Above Average

by Will Jones

5 January 2023 4:00 PM

Deaths registered in England and Wales were a massive 20.7% above the five-year average in the week ending December 23rd, according to the latest data from the ONS. There were a total of 14,530 deaths that week, which is 2,493 above the five-year average. Of these, 429 involved COVID-19 as a contributory cause and 308 were due to Covid as underlying cause, leaving 2,185 excess non-Covid deaths. Of the total, 829 deaths were recorded as due to ‘influenza and pneumonia’ as underlying cause. The total number of excess non-Covid deaths since the surge began in April is now just shy of 30,000 at 29,880.

The chart below plots the deaths by date of occurrence. I have also plotted the vaccine boosters, though clearly the latest surge in excess deaths (unlike those in the spring and autumn) has no correlation with new booster doses.

This chart shows autumn booster doses in over-75s along with excess non-Covid deaths, showing the correlation during the autumn, though not in December. Covid deaths are also shown.

The cause of the huge number of excess deaths in December is unclear. Detailed cause of death data are not yet available for December. The excess deaths are concentrated in the older age groups, with no notable rise in the under-50s, who were notably excluded from the autumn booster campaign. It is a severe flu season, so this will be contributing. The pressures on hospitals, ambulances and other health services will also be playing a part. Once again, the rise in excess non-Covid deaths has occurred at the same time as a wave of Covid infections. This phenomenon has been observed internationally and the reasons for it are unclear. An interaction between the Covid vaccines and Covid infection, perhaps resulting in deadly autoimmune attack on vital organs such as the heart, or via some other mechanism, remains possible and requires further investigation.

Are excess deaths higher in the vaccinated? The U.K. Government, like other governments, does not publish good quality data on deaths by vaccination status (which seems suspicious in itself). However, deaths during 2022 are notable for reversing the usual demographic trends, with less deprived groups and white people having higher excess death rates, as shown in the charts below, which were produced by HART. Note how the red line moves from being at the bottom in 2021 to at or near the top in 2022.

The most notable difference between these demographic groups that could explain such a remarkable shift is that whites and less deprived groups tend to have higher vaccination rates. For example, despite being more diverse and lower income, London had much lower excess deaths than the South East during 2022. Between May 1st and November 18th, London had excess mortality of 8% versus 13% in the South East. London is double-jabbed 80% and triple-jabbed 64%, well below the rates in the South East, which is double-jabbed 90% and triple-jabbed 80%. This is hardly conclusive proof, but alongside other data is highly suggestive that vaccines are playing a role in the recent high excess mortality.

A most arresting development, pardon the pun! Mainstream media are now reporting this, I can't see any uptick locally, but the NHS is under the cosh and everyone has the cough and cold. Immune systems have been damaged badly, keep up with the good posts!

[sancho panza]

This has 2.7 million views on Twitter

Malhotra in Telegraph.

What's interesting is that you can see through the death of his father,where his scepticism came from.

It's worth remembering that the bulk of adverse reactions will go undetected according the MHRA

British Heart Foundation needs to take an honest reflection on it's behaviour here.

 

 

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fhealth-fitness%2Fbody%2Fcritics-claim-covid-jabs-causing-heart-problems-do-have-proof%2F

Critics claim Covid jabs are causing heart problems – do they have any proof?

While there have always been anti-vaxxers, this new concern is drawing in people from outside usual conspiracy theory circles

 

On Monday evening, the American football player Damar Hamlin collapsed on the field after colliding with an opponent. He suffered a cardiac arrest and needed to be twice resuscitated. Within hours, social media was rife with speculation that the 24-year-old Buffalo Bills star was the victim of a Covid jab, his heart – it was speculated – having been dangerously weakened by the vaccination.

The British cardiologist Aseem Malhotra tweeted about the incident. “One obvious question many are asking is whether he had the mRNA jab,” he wrote, going on to point out that myocarditis (heart inflammation) – a side-effect linked to the vaccine – increases “sudden cardiac death risk in contact sports”, where “blunt impact to the chest” is common.

Fortunately Hamlin’s condition is improving. At the time of writing, although the player was still in intensive care, doctors report he was awake and talking to his family and medical team at the University of Cincinnati Medical Center.

Even before the Hamlin incident, the link between vaccines and heart problems is a theory that has gained momentum in recent months, with the Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen calling for a halt to the roll-out of mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna.

“The mRNA vaccines are not safe, not effective and not necessary,” he told Parliament last month. “The Government's current policy on the mRNA vaccines is on the wrong side of medical ethics, is on the wrong side of scientific data, and ultimately it will be on the wrong side of history.”

So what is driving this renewed wave of vaccine scepticism? Does the vaccine actually affect the heart? And even if it does, do the benefits still outweigh the risks?

A renewed fear 

While there have always been anti-vaxxers, this new concern is drawing in people from outside usual conspiracy theory circles. In a recent article published in the Journal of Insulin Resistance, Dr Malhotra praised vaccines as “one of medicine’s greatest achievements”. He was one of the first doctors to receive two doses of Pfizer to protect his patients. He even appeared on TV’s Good Morning Britain encouraging vaccine uptake.

“Traditional vaccines are one of the safest medicines we’ve got,” he told The Telegraph. “They are the Holy Grail of medicine, and it was not even a possibility for me that they could do any harm.”

But the death of his father changed his mind. Dr Kailash Chand, former deputy chair of the British Medical Association (BMA), was a seemingly fit 73-year-old, when he suffered a fatal cardiac arrest last July.

A post-mortem revealed severe blockages in two of three major arteries. Even though Dr Chand had his booster vaccine six months earlier, his son believes it was a factor. 

 “I  knew my dad’s medical history inside out,” said Dr Malhotra. “He was one of the fittest guys I knew, who kept up his 10,000 steps a day even in lockdown. Just a few weeks before we were walking up mountains together.

“We did some heart scans a few years earlier and all was clear, so when the post-mortem showed severe blockages I couldn’t understand it, even though it was my [area of] expertise.

“At the time people were trolling me, saying it was the vaccine, and I got really angry and blocked them, because that was not my mindset. But then I started to notice increased incidences in cardiac deaths and I started to wonder.”

A worrying increase in heart deaths

Dr Malhotra is right to say that heart deaths have increased alarmingly in the last few years. According to the British Heart Foundation there have been around 30,000 more deaths than expected involving heart disease since the pandemic began – more than 230 additional deaths over expected rates each week. 

In some weeks last year, there were more than 1,000 excess deaths with cardiovascular disease mentioned on the death certificate. 

But if we are looking for a reason for the rise, there are plenty to choose from without needing to point a finger at Covid vaccines.

A Covid infection itself is known to raise the risk of a stroke and heart attack, so the virus was likely to be a significant factor in the increase, at least in the first year of the pandemic. 

Turmoil within the health service is also taking its toll. There has been widespread disruption to heart care services since ‘Protect the NHS’ mandates were enacted by the Government, meaning patients often did not get critical treatment in time. 

While suspected heart attack patients should be picked up by ambulance within 18 minutes, that figure has risen to 48 minutes, and there are 350,000 heart patients currently waiting for time-sensitive treatment – an increase of 50 per cent since the pandemic began. 

These systemic problems have been exacerbated by lockdowns and work from home edicts, which contributed to more sedentary lifestyles and a rise in alcohol intake at a time when Britain was already facing historic levels of obesity and heart disease. 

While Dr Malhotra acknowledges that other causes are a factor, he remains convinced that vaccines are also playing a role. 

He cites Pfizer’s own trial data, which showed there were four cardiac arrests in those who took the vaccine compared with just one in the placebo group. 

And he points to a controversial study published in the journal Circulation by the US cardiologist Dr Stephen Gundry, who claimed that inflammatory markers in his patients soared after they received vaccines – taking their five-year heart attack risk from 11 per cent to 25 percent. 

“That is a massive jump,” he said. “If I decided to smoke 40 cigarettes a day, ate junk food, drank and didn’t exercise I couldn’t get anywhere near that.”

The Gundry study was heavily criticised, and has been significantly amended to make clear the biomarker increases were observational, there was no control group, no unvaccinated patients were included, and no statistical comparison was conducted. 

A link to vaccines and heart problems

It is certainly true that some people have experienced heart problems following the Moderna and Pfizer mRNA vaccines.

The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) asks doctors to report side-effects via its ‘Yellow Card’ scheme, and since the roll-out there has been a steady trickle of heart complaints suspected to be linked to the jabs.  

Figures up to November 23 2022 show the MHRA has received 851 reports of myocarditis – inflammation of the heart muscle – linked to the Pfizer vaccination. There have also been a further 579 reports of pericarditis – inflammation of the lining outside the heart – linked to the jab.

Most cases were mild, with individuals recovering in a short time, although there have been seven deaths. 

By comparison, there were 241 reports of myocarditis and 226 reports of pericarditis linked to Oxford’s AstraZeneca jab, and six deaths. For Moderna there were 251 reports of myocarditis and 149 of pericarditis, and two deaths. 

The problems are only now coming to light because Phase 3 clinical trials have too few people enrolled to pick up rare events, particularly if the heightened risk occurs in a small subgroup – such as young men.

But although these figures may seem high, they must be set against the sheer volume of vaccinations that have been carried out since 2020. 

By last autumn, 53 million first doses had been administered in Britain, and more than 90 million boosters. Of these, Pfizer makes up 57 per cent of all jabs, AstraZeneca 29 per cent and Moderna 14 per cent. 

So although the risk is there, it is very small. Overall, the myocarditis reporting rate for Moderna is around 14 complaints for every million doses, for Pfizer it is 10 in a million and for AstraZeneca, five in a million. For pericarditis, the reporting rate is eight in a million doses for Moderna, six in a million for Pfizer and five in a million for AstraZeneca.

Britain would usually expect around 60 new cases of myocarditis per million people each year, and 100 new cases of pericarditis, so it does seem that the vaccines have caused a rise in the normal background rate. 

However it is also important to remember that Covid also carries a risk of myocarditis – and one that is far higher than the vaccine, at 1,500 cases per million infections.

This is why experts believe that the benefits of a jab far outweigh the risk. 

The British Heart Foundation told The Telegraph: “The scientific consensus is that the benefits of Covid vaccination, including a reduced risk of severe illness or death, far outweigh the very small risk of rare side effects like myocarditis or pericarditis for the vast majority of people, especially as people get older. 

 “This is why it’s particularly important if you’re over 50 that you have a booster when offered it to give you even greater protection.”

An increased risk in young men

For younger people – particularly young men – the risk does seem to be higher, which could explain why people are linking the vaccine to the collapse of athletes such as Hamlin.

Rumours about the vaccine affecting sports stars first started circulating after Denmark’s Christian Eriksen suffered on-field cardiac arrest during the Euro 2020 championship. 

A study published in the European Heart Journal in 2021 also suggested that myocarditis can increase the risk of life-threatening heart arrhythmias caused by a blunt impact to the chest, particularly in contact sports. 

Inter Milan has since confirmed that Eriksen had not been vaccinated at the time of his collapse, and despite claims on social media, there does not appear to be a significant rise in players collapsing in recent years.

However, it remains the case that younger men are more at risk following the vaccine. One large European study estimated that in the week following a second Pfizer jab there would be around 27 more cases of myocarditis per million in 12 to 29-year-old males than would be expected in an unvaccinated population. For Moderna there would be an extra 132 cases per million.

Longer follow-ups find more cases. A second European study suggested that within 28 days of a second mRNA jab there would be an extra 57 cases of myocarditis than usual for males aged 16 to 24 with Pfizer, and 188 per million with Moderna. 

But the benefits appear to outweigh the risks. 

A major review by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that although there would be up to 47 more cases of myocarditis in 12 to 29-year-old males per million vaccines, the jabs would prevent 11,000 Covid infections, 560 hospitalisations, 138 ICU admissions and six deaths. 

It is the reason that most experts do not believe the heart issues are cause for alarm. 

Dr Chenyu Sun, of Saint Joseph Hospital Chicago, who recently carried out a meta-analysis of myocarditis after vaccination involving 58 million people, said: “When myocarditis or pericarditis develop after a Covid vaccination, the symptoms are usually less severe and largely self-remitting compared with other cases. 

“As a clinician, I strongly recommend that people get a Covid vaccine unless there are absolute contraindications such as known allergies.”

 

[sancho panza]

Inresting discussion here between Dr John and Prof of Immunolgy Robert Clancy.eye opening.Words like 'scary' are on my level.I did learn a great deal about the immune response more generally.

Raises questions about it not being trialled in humans, and that the notion that the mRNA would stay in the arm,that people's reactions to the mRNA vaccines as people produce differing amounts of the antigen.

This is importnant because it explains why we've seen such varying adverse reactions.

Prof Clancy at 16 mins

'you can't control where they are,where they go,you can't controal how much of the antigen they make and how long they do it for'

 

 

Edited January 16, 2023 by sancho panza

[sancho panza]

from 44 mintues Farage interviews Robert Malone.Worth the time

 

[sancho panza]

Ardern is gone.Soon to be elevated to teh UN apparently where she can try and ruin more lives as she'll be unconstrained by New Zealands small population

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11651299/Jacinda-Ardern-resigns-New-Zealands-Prime-Minister.html

[sancho panza]

Too funny.Avi and Ezra doing what journalist's should have done long ago.

'why did you keep quiet about the vaccine not preventing trasnmission?'

 

[sancho panza]

I respect Aseem Malhotra so much already but watching this,I come awaty with even more respect for the guy.From 11 minutes particularly.The guy has real guts.

 

[sancho panza]

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/01/27/lockdowns-responsible-for-thousands-of-alcohol-deaths-ons/

Lockdowns Responsible for Thousands of Alcohol Deaths – ONS

Christmas is a time for family, rest and reflection, when few people hit the web, read reports and look at what is happening around them. 

This is why the timing of the U.K.’s Office for National Statistics (ONS) “Alcohol-specific deaths in the U.K.: registered in 2021” probably meant little pick up from mainstream media. However, the report contains disturbing facts which should be highlighted to all – it makes for a sobering read. 

First, the analysis of deaths related to alcohol is based on internationally assigned codes, so there is little wriggle room for what follows: “Alcohol-specific deaths only include those health conditions where each death is a direct consequence of alcohol.”

Second, as the report’s authors note repeatedly, the figures are likely to be underestimated as they are specifically and directly related to alcohol consumption and do not consider the broader spectrum of alcohol-related pathologies. For example, in which, excessive alcohol consumption did take place, but the cause of death was ischaemic heart disease. But here comes the bad news.

While alcoholic deaths were relatively stable in the decade before 2020 – in 2019 there were 7,565 deaths (11.8 per 100,000 inhabitants) – there has been a sudden increase in 2020, 8,974 deaths (14.0 per 100,000) and 2021, 9,641 deaths (or 14.8 per 100,000) making the 2021 tally 27.4% higher than in 2019. 

The authors attribute the increase to the higher use of alcohol during the time restrictions were applied, and the timing is highly suggestive. However, what concerns us is the speed (two years) with which the incidence has picked up. 

These are deaths wholly attributable to alcohol, which means that at least 27.4% more of our fellow citizens have drunk themselves to death thanks to the imposition of curtailment of individual freedom. Males die more frequently – twice that of females. Mental disorders and accidental poisoning events were present but played a small part in adding to the tally. Most of the deaths will have been habitual heavy drinkers who found refuge by increasing their daily intake. 

No other explanation is possible for the speed of such an increase because alcoholic disease is the result of years of abuse and an abnormal lifestyle. Alcohol-related liver cirrhosis does not develop overnight – it typically develops after heavy drinking for 10 or more years.

The ONS statisticians also issue a stark warning: the consequences of increased exposure to alcohol and lifestyle changes will take some time to manifest themselves fully. This is what they report:

The survey “Wider Impacts of COVID-19 on Health” (WICH) monitoring tool… showed that, as of March 2022, “increasing and higher risk drinking” had remained at heightened levels. Research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research suggested that if these consumption patterns persist, there could be hundreds of thousands of additional cases of alcohol-related diseases and thousands of extra deaths as a result.

So here we have another documented consequence of the social and democratic catastrophe of lockdowns. There’s plenty of evidence indicating increased consumption of alcohol during lockdowns that were associated with a host of factors, including a deterioration in psychological well-being and one’s finances. Moreover, the problem is not limited to the UK: in an online survey of U.S. adults from May 2020, one-third reported binge drinking, and 7% extreme binge drinking. Similar increases in alcohol use are observed in France and Germany; however, a systematic review shows consumption varied depending on the country.

Any reader suspicious of the timing of the release of the ONS report can be reassured: December is the expected release date of the annual alcohol report on deaths.

[sancho panza]

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/01/27/deaths-running-26-above-pre-pandemic-levels-and-the-vaccines-remain-a-leading-suspect/

Deaths Running 26% Above Pre-Pandemic Levels – and the Vaccines Remain a Leading Suspect

 

Deaths continue to run at extraordinary levels in England and Wales. In the week ending January 13th 2023 there were 17,381 deaths, which is 2,837 or 19.5% above the five-year average. This is despite the five-year average having risen due to the early 2021 Covid wave. Compared to the pre-pandemic five-year average of 13,822 it is 3,559 or 25.7% above average.

There were 922 deaths with Covid registered on the death certificate, of which 654 were registered as due to Covid as underlying cause. This leaves 2,183 excess deaths from a different underlying cause. Since the wave of excess non-Covid deaths began in April the total now stands at 34,691.

ONS

I have previously noted how waves of excess non-Covid deaths appear to correlate with the Covid booster campaigns in spring and autumn, as seen in the chart below, which shows deaths by date of occurrence in England and Wales.

It’s clear, however, that these correlations with booster rollouts are far from determinative of the overall shape of the curve. In particular, deaths remained high during the summer and have spiked over the winter, despite few boosters being delivered in those periods.

The Health Advisory and Recovery Team (HART) has noted this week that high-level mortality data like these do not contain an “obvious smoking gun” pointing to vaccines causing high numbers of deaths specifically during the vaccination campaigns. Rather, the excess deaths are broadly spread throughout the year. The appearance is of something generally raising the likelihood of death, or equivalently, reducing life expectancy. (This doesn’t appear to be due to an ageing population; see here for a discussion on this point.)

The lack of correlation with vaccination programmes has led some to question the role that vaccines are playing in driving the excess deaths and advance arguments in support of other possible explanations, such as Long Covid, the NHS crisis and the legacy of lockdown including missed treatment. While some of these other contributors may be valid, it would be wrong to rule out a role for the vaccines simply on the basis of a lack of correlation with vaccination campaigns. This is because the mechanisms by which a vaccine may injure a person are not fully understood, and those for which understanding is more developed, such as auto-immune reactions due to the persistence of spike protein in the blood and organs, give plenty of scope for a delayed effect. In particular, we should note that many of the excess deaths are related to the heart and circulatory system, and the vaccines are known to increase the risk of such deaths.

Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty has recently claimed that 5,170 deaths in men aged 50-64 could have been helped by heart medications that were missed during the pandemic. Health Secretary Steve Barclay agreed, saying that “we know from the data that there are more 50 to 64-year-olds with cardiovascular issues” – a state of affairs he blamed on “the result of delays in that age group seeing a GP because of the pandemic and in some cases, not getting statins for hypertension in time”. The British Heart Foundation published research earlier this month which made similar claims.

However, such claims were dismissed by Dr. Carl Heneghan, Professor of Evidence-based Medicine at Oxford University, and his colleague Dr. Tom Jefferson, who wrote that the extra cardiovascular disease deaths cannot be accounted for by a fall in drug treatment or drop in risk monitoring, “given the lack of evidence of an effect”. In making this assessment they relied in part on a major recent study reviewing the trial data on statins and concluding that the benefits of statins were minimal and most of the trial participants who took statins derived no clinical benefit. Dr. Heneghan and Dr. Jefferson also noted that the claimed reduction in prescriptions appears to be illusory, with rises and falls well within normal levels.

Unlike allegedly missed prescriptions, the NHS crisis is more plausibly contributing to excess deaths, as people experience severe delays getting urgent medical attention. However, the crisis can hardly explain sustained levels of deaths throughout the year or generally increased demand for health services. Something must be making people sicker in the first place.

As I have noted previously, the main alternative explanation is the after-effects of the virus, also known as Long Covid. Interestingly, the British Heart Foundation dismisses this as a factor, laying the blame entirely on access to healthcare – though is there an agenda here of calling for more resources for the sector? But many others see the virus as a much bigger factor than the vaccines in driving additional heart deaths.

One problem for the vaccine-deaths hypothesis, however, is the lack of excess working-age deaths in a number of highly vaccinated countries. Ron Unz has written an article drawing attention to this point, noting that while working-age mortality has been very high in the United States and U.K., some other countries, including highly vaccinated ones, have been exempt from this trend.

To develop his argument, Unz draws on analysis which shows that a very strong predictor of working-age mortality in 2022 is mortality in 2020, as illustrated in the charts below.

From this Unz concludes that: “The level of 2022 deaths was largely determined by the same factors, probably the interaction of Covid infections with local health characteristics, such as obesity levels and the strength of the public health system rather than having been influenced by the vaxxing.”

This correlation is a very helpful observation, but it actually has the opposite meaning to that which Unz takes from it. Far from suggesting the vaccines are not playing a role, it is consistent with the vaccines playing a significant role. This is because the elevated deaths in 2020 were caused largely by COVID-19 (as well as lockdown measures). But during 2021 and in 2022, Covid was no longer driving excess deaths. Whether this was due to protection from the vaccines, the growth of natural immunity or the arrival of the milder Omicron variants is not relevant here. What matters is that excess deaths shifted from being primarily respiratory related, driven by COVID-19, to being cardiovascular related, driven by an unknown cause.

, what was now driving these excess deaths, which, as Unz notes, appear to be occurring among the same risk groups as were at risk of serious COVID-19? Unz proposes it is still Covid, and that despite the reduction in the severity of the disease, it is the virus behind the scenes driving the extra cardiovascular deaths.

A critical point here is that this is a false dichotomy: an argument like this for the virus being involved in non-Covid cardiovascular deaths is really also an argument for the vaccines potentially being involved as well. This is because one of the main arguments for the vaccines being involved is that the mRNA and spike protein travel to various organs, especially the heart, and persist there for weeks and months, causing injury and triggering auto-immune attacks – a mechanism supported by a number of autopsy studies. But this is a very similar mechanism to how the virus may contribute to problems with the heart and other organs. Indeed, it is likely that both are contributing to the effect, reinforcing each other in various ways. Another possibility is that the immune tolerance induced by repeated vaccinations is contributing to the persistence of the spike protein in the body. Either way, it means that the underlying risk factors for Covid death will often be the same for vaccine death, and the correspondence between mortality in 2020 and 2022 would therefore be expected.

The question, then, is whether the virus or vaccines are playing the bigger, more fundamental role in driving excess heart deaths.

One reason for thinking that the vaccines may be playing a big part is that the vaccine enters the body via the blood directly whereas the virus enters via the respiratory tract and thus has much more limited access to the blood and heart in most cases.

Further evidence supporting a role for the vaccines comes from the work of Professor Christine Stabell-Benn and colleagues, who looked at the vaccine trial data and found no overall mortality benefit from the mRNA vaccines, and a particular signal for increased heart deaths. This suggests that while the vaccines reduce Covid deaths they may increase other deaths, particularly from cardiovascular causes.

Some health experts in Japan have come to a similar conclusion. In Japan, Covid deaths have actually been increasing after each booster campaign. However, public health authorities have noted that the ‘Covid’ deaths now are more likely to be test-positive deaths from cardiovascular problems rather than classic respiratory deaths. There are also many non-Covid excess deaths in Japan, largely from heart problems.

With respect to myocarditis in particular, a recent analysis by HART notes that elevated myocarditis admissions began with the vaccine rollout and did not occur in 2020, indicating a limited role for the virus and a major role for the vaccines.

Diaz et al.

Given this evidence that the vaccines may be playing a large role in excess deaths, why then are working age deaths below average in many countries, as Unz observes?

Differences in vaccination rates may be doing their bit here. Some analyses have suggested that higher booster rates are associated with higher deaths in 2022.

Booster rates and excess deaths in European countries (HART)

Booster rates and excess deaths in weeks 10-35 2022 (Chudov)

, this may explain some of the variation. Also, recall that for working-age mortality, Unz’s analysis shows that one of the main predictors of 2022 mortality is 2020 mortality, suggesting a common cause in both years. A natural interpretation of this, given the drop in Covid severity and the arrival of the vaccines, is that populations less susceptible to COVID-19 are, for the same reasons – such as prevalence of obesity, heart disease and so on – also less susceptible to fatal vaccine injury.

What we really need, of course, are more and better data – split by vaccination status, age, health conditions, prior infection status and so on. Even better, we need well-designed, prospective controlled studies that look into these things properly. The fact that, after more than two years, we still have none of these things should give even the most ardent defenders of the vaccines pause for thought. If the data were favourable to the vaccines, would they not have been made available with great fanfare long ago?

In the meantime, it’s clear that the vaccines are still a leading suspect in the question of why so many people have been dying, mainly from heart-related issues, in the last two years.