Month: May 2021

Revealed: Why the Oxford AstraZeneca Jab is Even More Dangerous than the mRNA ‘Vaccines’

People are dying and suffering from serious illness, including strokes, brain haemorrhages, blood clotting, blindness, heart attacks, neurological/nervous disorders, etc. soon after getting jabbed with any of the ‘vaccines’ currently available in the UK – Pfizer, Moderna and Oxford/AstraZeneca. This is a fact. 44 year old BBC presenter Lisa Shaw has just died from a blood clot, having been injected with AZ’s viral vector ‘vaccine’ – as part of a scandalously coerced mass vaccination program, in violation of the Nuremberg Code, fully supported by and sold to a gullible, fearful public by her own employer. The AZ jab definitely appears to be – at present – the worst offender as far as serious adverse reactions are concerned.

Our government, the media, the NHS and the MHRA tell us that this carnage means the AZ jab is ‘safe and rigorously tested’. 182,751 people, including 806 dead people, might disagree. Let us also be aware that many adverse reactions are not being reported, and indeed there is evidence to suggest that doctors and medical staff are deliberately not reporting adverse reactions to the jabs in those people they coerced to get jabbed. The VAERS database in the US for instance, is cited as recording only 1-10% of all adverse drug reactions.

Considering that many of the victims of this mass stabbing exercise by the state are people who are at minimal risk from Covid, considering that many of them will have already had robust and durable natural immunity to Covid anyway, via past infection, this is a massive scandal and evidence of an ongoing crime against humanity.

We now have emerging research which might explain why the adenovirus vectored Oxford AZ DNA jab is even more dangerous than the mRNA Pfizer and Moderna jabs. It has to do with the genetically modified chimpanzee adenovirus itself and the way in which it gets its ‘payload’ of SARS-Cov-2 spike encoding DNA into our cells.

During the last months many countries have started the immunization of millions of people by using
vector-based vaccines. Unfortunately, severe side effects became overt during these vaccination
campaigns: cerebral venous sinus thromboses (CVST), absolutely rare under normal life conditions, were
found as a severe side effect that occured 4-14 days after first vaccinations. Besides CVST, Splanchnic
Vein Thrombosis (SVT) was also observed. This type of adverse event has not been observed in the
clinical studies of AstraZeneca, and therefore led immediately to a halt in vaccinations in several
european countries. These events were mostly associated with thrombocytopenia, and thus, similar to the
well-known Heparin-induced thrombo cytopenia (HIT). Meanwhile, scientists have proposed a mechanism
to explain this vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia. However, they do not provide a satisfactory
explanation for the late thromboembolic events. Here, we present data that may explain these severe side
effects which have been attributed to adenoviral vaccines.

What is the fundamental difference between mRNA and vector-based vaccines? The mRNA vaccines are
delivered by a lipid nanoparticle containing the appropriate mRNA molecule – coding for the spike protein
of SARS-CoV-2 – to muscle cells surrounding the injection site. Cells that have successfully taken up these
nanoparticles will release their cargo mRNA into the cytosol, where it will be translated into Spike protein
in the rough endoplasmatic reticulum (ER). Subsequently, the translated and folded Spike proteins will be
post-translationally modified in the ER and Golgi apparatus and transported to the outer membrane – as
membrane-anchored proteins. This way, the immune system is able to recognize the viral antigen, which
in turn triggers the initial events for all subsequent immunological processes to produce specific B- and T effector cells.
What happens to the same Spike gene when delivered via an adenoviral system? The adenovirus life
cycle includes the infection of cells, uncoating of the virus in the cytosol, entry of the adenoviral DNA into
the nucleus, and subsequently gene transcription by the host transcription machinery (6). All adenoviral
systems follow exactly these steps (Ad5, Ad26 and chimp Ad). Thus, the SARS-CoV-2 Spike gene will be
transcribed inside of the nucleus and subsequently exported as mRNA out of the nucleus. Arriving in the
cytosol, the mRNA will again be translated into the Spike protein (see above).
And exactly here lies the problem: the viral piece of DNA – deriving from an RNA virus – is not optimized to
be transcribed inside of the nucleus. Solely this 3,822 nucleotide long open reading frame, coding for a
primary product of 1274 amino acid long Spike protein, contains 6 predicted splice donor and 5 predicted
acceptor sites. This problem becomes even more severe when using codon-optimized Spike reading
frames (depending on the company: up to 13 splice donor and 11 acceptor sites; see Fig. 1A). Thus, it
could well be that the Spike open reading frame of SARS-CoV-2 is potentially disrupted by arbitrary splice
events when transcribed inside the nucleus. Most, if not all, of these undesirable splice events would
produce shorter protein variants, disrupting the Spike protein upstream of the C-terminally located
membrane anchor, and thus, leading to soluble Spike protein variants.

In simple translation, what the authors are saying here is that because the AZ and other ‘vaccines’ deliver a piece of DNA (not mRNA) directly into the cell nucleus via the adenovirus vector, then there is the possibility that errors will occur when that DNA is transcribed back into RNA inside the nucleus. Thus, when the RNA is expelled from the nucleus into the surrounding cell material and starts instructing the cell machinery to manufacture the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, those spike proteins produced might be ‘missing bits’; they will be shorter versions of the actual spike protein which, as result, will be able to migrate into the blood vessels where they will bind to platelets and cause serious health issues, namely haemorrhaging and clotting, which is exactly what we are seeing with AZ adverse reactions.

It’s not just the AZ ‘vaccine’:

The authors give the mRNA ‘vaccines’ a free pass on safety because they say that this production of soluble spike proteins just can’t happen with mRNA delivered into the cell cytosol:

Here, we present first molecular evidence that vector-based vaccines encoding the Spike protein exhibit a
problem that is completely absent in mRNA-based vaccines. This is due to the fact that during the
vaccination step, the adenoviral DNA enters the nucleus and use the host machinery to transcribe its
(trans)genes inside the nucleus. However, RNA viruses have evolved in the absence of any post transcriptional modifcation systems that are usually enabled to process the primary RNA transcripts of
nuclear encoded genes.

They even say the AZ ‘vaccine’ can be ‘re-optimized’:

Based on our findings, we strongly suggest that the Spike open reading frames – wildtype or codonoptimized in vector-based vaccines has to be re-optimized to avoid unintended splice reactions and to increase the safety of these pharmaceutical products. Vice versa, all mRNA-based vaccines should represent safe products, because the delivered mRNA will only be translated into surface antigen, without having any possibility to participate in nuclear splice events.

Unfortunately, spike proteins ‘leaking’ into the blood system can and do happen with other type ‘vaccines’ also, so it’s not a problem unique to AstraZeneca. The mRNA ‘vaccines’, though apparently less dangerous than the Oxford AZ viral vector vaccine, still have a whole host of serious side effects including thrombotic events like clots, strokes, heart attacks, haemorrhages, many linked to thrombocytopenia (low blood platelet count). Something which the manufacturers said couldn’t happen, has happened: spike proteins have been detected circulating in the blood of several volunteers who were administered the Moderna ‘vaccine’. Supposedly, they are at such minute concentrations that they cannot cause damage, but then this underpowered study looked at just a handful of healthy volunteers who were not suffering serious adverse side effects. The point is, the ‘experts’ have no explanation as to why they are there at all.

SARS-CoV-2 proteins were measured in longitudinal plasma samples collected from 13 participants who received two doses of mRNA-1273 vaccine. 11 of 13 participants showed detectable levels of SARS-CoV-2 protein as early as day one after first vaccine injection.

Nonetheless, evidence of systemic detection of spike and S1 protein production from the mRNA-1273 vaccine is significant and has not yet been described in any vaccine study, likely due to limitations in assay sensitivity and timing assessment. The clinical relevance of this finding is unknown and should be further explored.

It’s not just soluble SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins

The Daily Fail would have us believe that the problem with the AZ ‘vaccine’, which is just ‘very rare’ brain haemorrhages, has now been identified and can be fixed. Not really a big deal according to them.

Germans scientists say they have figured out why the Covid vaccines from  AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson are linked to rare blood clots

In a new pre-print, the team says the problem is with the adenovirus vector, a common cold virus used to get the body to induce an immune response

They claim the vaccine is sent into the cell nucleus instead of surrounding fluid, where parts of it break off and create mutated versions of themselves 

The mutated versions then enter the body and trigger the rare blood clots

Scientists say they can genetically adapt the vaccine to prevent the virus’s spike proteins, which it uses to enter cells, from splitting apart

That’s all OK then. What they don’t tell you, probably because they didn’t read the study carefully, assuming they even read it at all, is that this newly identified faulty transcription of DNA to RNA, resulting in the production of truncated, soluble spike proteins, is not the only problem with the viral vector ‘vaccines’. The other major problem is the genetically modified adenovirus vector itself. It too can bind to platelets and cause thrombocytopenia. The issue has been known about for at least 15 years, so there’s no excuse for the manufacturers to claim that such an adverse effect was unforeseen – it wasn’t. Here for instance:

Thrombocytopenia has been consistently reported following the administration of adenoviral gene transfer vectors. The mechanism underlying this phenomenon is currently unknown.

And here:

Thrombocytopenia is a major adverse effect of high dose systemic administration of adenoviral (Ad) gene therapy vectors. While a previous report did not find platelet activation by Ad [1], recent studies have shown that Ad may activate platelets [2] and binds in vivo to murine thrombocytes resulting in hepatic sequestration [3]. Ad-induced thrombocytopenia has been shown to be dose-dependent, saturable and reversible [4], compatible with a ligand-receptor mechanism. Recently, binding of Ad to platelet was indirectly suggested following interference of platelet adhesion to fibronectin after incubation with Ad [2]. In this study we developed a direct flow cytometry assay to quantitatively analyze Ad attachment to human platelets in vitro and to characterize their interaction.

What this clearly tells us is that there are two major problems with the AZ viral vector vaccine, giving rise to very similar serious thrombotic adverse reactions associated with a low blood platelet count and those two problems arise separately as a result of SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins migrating into the blood, plus the adenovirus itself binding to blood platelets. The authors of this new study do actually point this out, but then they appear to ignore it, along with the media reporting on the paper.

Therefore, we propose a pathological disease mechanism that is depicted in Fig. 1D. On one hand, the
recently described VITT mechanism
is based on the artificial activation of PF4 by adenoviral proteins or
DNA molecules, which can similarly to heparin, act as a poly-anion to mediate PF4 activation. In patients
that exhibit a high load of auto-antibodies against PF4, this may cause the observed thrombocytopenia
(Fig. 1D, left side). The other side of the pathological disease mechanism is depicted as well (Fig. 1D, right
side). Based on our splicing data, membrane-anchored and soluble Spike protein variants are produced
after the vaccination procedure. When the immune system now starts the production of anti-Spike
antibodies (days 4–16), these antibodies will recognize the membrane-anchored as well as soluble Spike

VITT is Vaccine Induced Thrombosis and Thrombocytopenia and is a known adverse effect of adenovirus gene therapy vectors, not just ‘vaccines’. Drug companies have known about the dangers for years. Here is the handy diagram provided by the authors of the new study, which distinguishes between the two:

In summary, the AZ ‘vaccine’ is dangerous; (a) as a result of a known side effect of the administration of adenovirus vectors, (b) as a result of an unforeseen faulty transcription of DNA into RNA, resulting in the production of soluble spike proteins, which are binding to blood platelets. The mRNA vaccines appear not to be so dangerous, but they certainly don’t have a free pass on safety, as implied wrongly by the authors of the new study on AZ adverse reactions.

Central England Spring Forecast

Looking at the current mean Central England temperature anomaly for May (up to 21st), and looking at the various forecasts out to the end of May (none of which look very promising), I predict that Spring in Central England as a whole will turn out to have a mean temperature of about 7.7C, which ranks it the same as 1902 and 1916 in the Met Office seasonal ranked CET database. This means that Spring 2021 will be probably be ranked 108 in a list of years going from coldest to warmest, with a total of 362 years. So it will turn out cold, but not exceptionally cold, the only reason being is that March 2021 was anomalously warm, though I can’t say I registered that fact here in the East of England. The only really warm day (or two) came right at the end of March before it turned freezing cold at the beginning of April. Spring might turn out to be warmer or even cooler than this, depending on the weather over the next 10 days.

It’s hardly Global Warming Britain though is it, where we’re all being encouraged/coerced/ordered to give up our gas boilers and petrol and diesel cars to prevent the scourge of imminent global Thermageddon. You thought the days of Empire had gone didn’t you? Think again. Apparently, according to our government, if the British people go Net Zero carbon by 2050, meaning no more foreign holidays, no meat, no dairy, no dogs, no cats, no personal transport worth speaking of, sky high electricity bills, smart meters so smart they can dial down your access to electricity when the wind isn’t blowing, maybe even ‘climate lockdowns’ and various other state-imposed eco-austerities, then the rest of the world will look look on and go ‘Wow, we’ll do that too, in order to save the planet, because Great Britain has set such a shining example!’ Because, you see, we currently contribute less than 1% to total global GHG emissions, so the UK reducing its emission to zero is going to make virtually no difference whatsoever to climate change, even assuming that human GHG emissions are the principal driver of climate change – which is a bit difficult to believe given the distinct lack of warming in the 21st century barring natural ENSO events. In fact, the globe is now cooling quite markedly and the failed spring in the UK is probably a symptom of that, as is the current extreme cold in Australia and elsewhere no doubt.

But of course, one cool spring does not a cooling trend make. Springs in England have warmed noticeably since the end of the 1970s. We’ll have to wait at least 10 years to see if 2013 and 2021 will be part of a gradual cooling trend in the 21st century. Meanwhile, when it does get cold, use your gas fired central heating as much as possible because it might not be long before the eco-Nazis turn off the gas supply to your street and demand that you spend twenty grand on a heat pump which won’t do such a good job of keeping you warm.

Salk Institute: SARS-CoV-2 Spike Proteins Cause Damage To Blood Vessels But the Same Spike Proteins Coded By the Vaccines Are Safe!

We already knew that the SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins were implicated in serious damage to blood vessels in severe cases of Covid disease in the immune-compromised. Here (Sept 2020) for instance:

Critically ill patients diagnosed with COVID-19 may develop a pro-thrombotic state that places them at a dramatically increased lethal risk.

We demonstrated that COVID-19 patients present with increased mean platelet volume (MPV) and platelet hyperactivity, which correlated with a decrease in overall platelet count. Detectable SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the blood stream was associated with platelet hyperactivity in critically ill patients. Platelets expressed ACE2, a host cell receptor for SARS-CoV-2, and TMPRSS2, a serine protease for Spike protein priming. SARS-CoV-2 and its Spike protein directly enhanced platelet activation such as platelet aggregation, PAC-1 binding, CD62P expression, α granule secretion, dense granule release, platelet spreading, and clot retraction in vitro, and thereby Spike protein enhanced thrombosis formation in wild-type mice transfused with hACE2 transgenic platelets, but this was not observed in animals transfused with wild-type platelets in vivo.

Our findings uncovered a novel function of SARS-CoV-2 on platelet activation via binding of Spike to ACE2. SARS-CoV-2-induced platelet activation may participate in thrombus formation and inflammatory responses in COVID-19 patients.

Or here (Jan 2021):

It was found that the treatment of cultured primary human pulmonary artery smooth muscle cells (SMCs) or human pulmonary artery endothelial cells with the recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike protein S1 subunit is sufficient to promote cell signaling without the rest of the viral components [21]. Furthermore, our analysis of the postmortem lung tissues of patients who died of COVID-19 has determined that these patients exhibited pulmonary vascular wall thickening, a hallmark of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) [21]. Based on these results, we proposed that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (without the rest of the viral components) triggers cell signaling events that may promote pulmonary vascular remodeling and PAH as well as possibly other cardiovascular complications [21,22].

The Salk Institute have recently published another study which comes to much the same conclusions. They seem to think they might be the first to discover the mechanism whereby the spike causes endothelial damage:

The paper, published on April 30, 2021, in Circulation Research, also shows conclusively that COVID-19 is a vascular disease, demonstrating exactly how the SARS-CoV-2 virus damages and attacks the vascular system on a cellular level. The findings help explain COVID-19’s wide variety of seemingly unconnected complications, and could open the door for new research into more effective therapies.

“A lot of people think of it as a respiratory disease, but it’s really a vascular disease,” says Assistant Research Professor Uri Manor, who is co-senior author of the study. “That could explain why some people have strokes, and why some people have issues in other parts of the body. The commonality between them is that they all have vascular underpinnings.”

While the findings themselves aren’t entirely a surprise, the paper provides clear confirmation and a detailed explanation of the mechanism through which the protein damages vascular cells for the first time. There’s been a growing consensus that SARS-CoV-2 affects the vascular system, but exactly how it did so was not understood. Similarly, scientists studying other coronaviruses have long suspected that the spike protein contributed to damaging vascular endothelial cells, but this is the first time the process has been documented.

Previous studies have shown a similar effect when cells were exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but this is the first study to show that the damage occurs when cells are exposed to the spike protein on its own.

Just looking at the other two studies cited above (which are by no means exhaustive) I think Salk’s claim to originality is somewhat dubious. But what is even more dubious is their claim (minus any proper scientific evidence) that the spike protein of the virus itself can cause serious cardiovascular symptoms independent of the virus in those infected with SARS-CoV-2 but that, for some mysterious reason, the very same spike proteins generated by the body’s cells after vaccination are ‘safe’ and do not cause such symptoms! Hence they say:

LA JOLLA—Scientists have known for a while that SARS-CoV-2’s distinctive “spike” proteins help the virus infect its host by latching on to healthy cells. Now, a major new study shows that the virus spike proteins (which behave very differently than those safely encoded by vaccines) also play a key role in the disease itself.

Excuse me? The scientific justification for this claim appears to come from this brief and somewhat confusing statement from the authors themselves:

. . . . . . our data reveals that S protein alone can damage endothelium, manifested by impaired mitochondrial function and eNOS activity but increased glycolysis. It appears that S protein in ECs increases redox stress which may lead to AMPK deactivation, MDM2 upregulation, and ultimately ACE2 destabilization.4 Although these findings need to be confirmed with the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the future study, it seems paradoxical that ACE2 reduction by S protein would decrease the virus infectivity, thereby protecting endothelium. However, a dysregulated renin-angiotensin system due to ACE2 reduction may exacerbate endothelial dysfunction, leading to endotheliitis. Collectively, our results suggest that the S protein-exerted EC damage overrides the decreased virus infectivity. This conclusion suggests that vaccination-generated antibody and/or exogenous antibody against S protein not only protects the host from SARS-CoV-2 infectivity but also inhibits S protein-imposed endothelial injury.

Does that mealy-mouthed scientific explanation make sense? It doesn’t to me. I’m not an expert admittedly but I can sense there is something amiss here. Especially considering the fact that other scientists have also questioned the wisdom of injecting young, healthy people with a ‘vaccine’ which induces their body cells to manufacture the very spike protein which, in severe cases of Covid – which young, healthy people are at very minimal risk from – causes life-threatening cardiovascular disease. Hence, the authors of the PubMed study cited above say:

Vaccines that introduce the spike protein into our body to elicit virus-neutralizing antibodies are currently being developed. In this article, we note that human host cells sensitively respond to the spike protein to elicit cell signaling. Thus, it is important to be aware that the spike protein produced by the new COVID-19 vaccines may also affect the host cells. We should monitor the long-term consequences of these vaccines carefully, especially when they are administered to otherwise healthy individuals.

But, you know, vaccine passport, idiot selfish refuseniks and all that. They’ve simply got to jab every single person on the planet, including your kids, because ‘nobody’s safe until we’re all safe’, right? With the huge and growing number of documented cardiovascular adverse reactions to the ‘vaccines’ (heart attack, stroke, eye damage, haemorrhaging, blood clots, ‘extremely rare’ cerebral haemorrhaging, heavy periods in women) I think it is a near certainty that the spike proteins raised by the ‘vaccines’ do not behave differently at all from the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself and the only difference is that the ‘vaccine’ spike proteins are causing severe cardiovascular disease in people who would not be at significant risk of severe cardiovascular symptoms from SARS-CoV-2 infection, because their innate immune system would prevent the virus from ever progressing to the point where it was able to enter the blood stream and effectively poison the blood with toxic spikes.


It gets murkier. Robin Monotti on Telegram made a Youtube video about this Salk study which they promply deleted, calling it ‘medical misinformation’. What a surprise! However, what did surprise me is that Salk did not originally claim the ‘vaccine’ spike proteins were safe in their initial press release and they actually changed the wording in the article after Robin had released his video. No conspiracy there then.

Note that since I released this video Salk added the words “safely encoded” in their article in their also newly added description of the vaccine spike protein. VAERS numbers indicate this theoretical description does not correspond to the full and complete reality of the situation. Original Salk text was this: “Scientists have known for a while that SARS-CoV-2’s distinctive “spike” proteins help the virus infect its host by latching on to healthy cells. Now, a major new study shows that they also play a key role in the disease itself”

The video is available here on Brandnewtube:

And on Bitchute:

They really, really, really want you to get jabbed with these ‘vaccines’.

Great Britain is Now Just a Heartbeat Away from 1930s Germany

I warned that this is where blind compliance with government diktats would take us. We are almost there. The government and the media are actively encouraging the condemnation, the demonisation of those people who, for whatever reason, have decided not to avail themselves of the ‘offer’ of being jabbed with an experimental ‘vaccine’ licensed for emergency use only with now demonstrable serious side effects. If a brainwashed public, still in the grip of fear deliberately generated by SAGE and amplified by the media and the government, take this message seriously, then hell is coming, riding a pale horse. The unvaxxed are going to be outrageously discriminated against at best, violently assaulted and forcibly removed from society at the very worst. The Pandora’s Box is almost open.

The unvaccinated are about to become the ‘unclean Jews’ in 21st Century Britain unless people wake up now to the hideous coercive devices being employed by this government and a complicit media.

Banned Paper – ‘COVID Vaccines: Necessity, Efficacy and Safety’

Seeing as how censorship is now rife on social media and academic platforms, it is incumbent upon us humble sceptical bloggers to reproduce material authored by respected critics of the official narrative, which is being censored. So here it is, originally published by, who then banned it. Here is the link to the archived version. Here is the link to the version republished by UK Column.

COVID Vaccines: Necessity, Efficacy and Safety

Doctors for Covid Ethics

Abstract: COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers have been exempted from legal liability for vaccine-induced harm. It is therefore in the interests of all those authorising, enforcing and administering COVID-19 vaccinations to understand the evidence regarding the risks and benefits of these vaccines, since liability for harm will fall on them.

In short, the available evidence and science indicate that COVID-19 vaccines are unnecessary, ineffective and unsafe.

  • Necessity: immunocompetent individuals are protected against SARS-CoV-2 by cellular immunity. Vaccinating low-risk groups is therefore unnecessary. For immunocompromised individuals who do fall ill with COVID-19 there is a range of medical treatments that have been proven safe and effective. Vaccinating the vulnerable is therefore equally unnecessary. Both immunocompetent and vulnerable groups are better protected against variants of SARS-CoV-2 by naturally acquired immunity and by medication than by vaccination.1 
  • Efficacy: Covid-19 vaccines lack a viable mechanism of action against SARS-CoV-2 infection of the airways. Induction of antibodies cannot prevent infection by an agent such as SARS-CoV-2 that invades through the respiratory tract. Moreover, none of the vaccine trials have provided any evidence that vaccination prevents transmission of the infection by vaccinated individuals; urging vaccination to “protect others” therefore has no basis in fact.
  • Safety: The vaccines are dangerous to both healthy individuals and those with pre-existing chronic disease, for reasons such as the following: risk of lethal and non-lethal disruptions of blood clotting including bleeding disorders, thrombosis in the brain, stroke and heart attack; autoimmune and allergic reactions; antibody-dependent enhancement of disease; and vaccine impurities due to rushed manufacturing and unregulated production standards.

The risk-benefit calculus is therefore clear: the experimental vaccines are needless, ineffective and dangerous. Actors authorising, coercing or administering experimental COVID-19 vaccination are exposing populations and patients to serious, unnecessary, and unjustified medical risks.

1. The vaccines are unnecessary

  1. Multiple lines of research indicate that immunocompetent people display “robust” and lasting cellular (T cell) immunity to SARS-CoV viruses [1], including SARS-CoV-2 and its variants [2]. T cell protection stems not only from exposure to SARS-CoV-2 itself, but from cross-reactive immunity following previous exposure to common cold coronaviruses [1,310]. Such immunity was detectable after infections up to 17 years prior [1,3]. Therefore, immunocompetent people do not need vaccination against SARS-Cov-2.
  2. Natural T-Cell immunity provides stronger and more comprehensive protection against all SARS-CoV-2 strains than vaccines, because naturally primed immunity recognises multiple virus epitopes and costimulatory signals, not merely a single (spike) protein. Thus, immunocompetent people are better protected against SARS-CoV-2 and any variants that may arise by their own immunity than by the current crop of vaccines.
  3. The vaccines have been touted as a means to prevent asymptomatic infection [11], and by extension “asymptomatic transmission.” However, “asymptomatic transmission” is an artefact of invalid and unreliable PCR test procedures and interpretations, leading to high false-positive rates [1215]. Evidence indicates that PCR-positive, asymptomatic people are healthy false-positives, not carriers. A comprehensive study of 9,899,828 people in China found that asymptomatic individuals testing positive for COVID-19 never infected others [16]. In contrast, the papers cited by the Centre for Disease Control [17,18] to justify claims of asymptomatic transmission are based on hypothetical models, not empirical studies; they present assumptions and estimates rather than evidence. Preventing asymptomatic infection is not a viable rationale for promoting vaccination of the general population.
  4. In most countries, most people will now have immunity to SARS-CoV-2 [19]. Depending on their degree of previously acquired cross-immunity, they will have had no symptoms, mild and uncharacteristic symptoms, or more severe symptoms, possibly including anosmia (loss of sense of smell) or other somewhat characteristic signs of the COVID-19 disease. Regardless of disease severity, they will now have sufficient immunity to be protected from severe disease in the event of renewed exposure. This majority of the population will not benefit at all from being vaccinated.
  5. Population survival of COVID-19 exceeds 99.8% globally [2022]. In countries that have been intensely infected over several months, less than 0.2% of the population have died and had their deaths classified as ‘with covid19’. It is typically a mild to moderately severe illness. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of people are not at risk from COVID-19 and do not require vaccination for their own protection.
  6. In those susceptible to severe infection, Covid-19 is a treatable illness. A convergence of evidence indicates that early treatment with existing drugs reduces hospitalisation and mortality by ~85% and 75%, respectively [2327]. These drugs include many tried and true antiinflammatory, antiviral, and anticoagulant medications, as well as monoclonal antibodies, zinc, and vitamins C and D. Industry and government decisions to sideline such proven treatments through selective research support [24], regulatory bias, and even outright sanctions against doctors daring to use such treatments on their own initiative have been out of step with existing laws, standard medical practice, and research; the legal requirement to consider real world evidence has fallen by the wayside [28]. The systematic denial and denigration of these effective therapies has underpinned the spurious justification for the emergency use authorisation of the vaccines, which requires that “no standard acceptable treatment is available” [29]. Plainly stated, vaccines are not necessary to prevent severe disease.

2. The vaccines lack efficacy

  1. At a mechanistic level, the concept of immunity to COVID-19 via antibody induction, as per COVID-19 vaccination, is medical nonsense. Airborne viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 enter the body via the airways and lungs, where antibody concentrations are too low to prevent infection. Vaccine-induced antibodies primarily circulate in the bloodstream, while concentrations on the mucous membranes of lungs and airways is low. Given that COVID-19 primarily spreads and causes disease by infecting these mucous membranes, vaccines miss the immunological mark. The documents submitted by the vaccine manufacturers to the various regulatory bodies contain no evidence that vaccination prevents airway infection, which would be crucial for breaking the chain of transmission. Thus, vaccines are immunologically inappropriate for COVID-19.
  2. Medium to long-term vaccine efficacy is unknown. Phase 3, medium term, 24-month trials will not be complete until 2023: There is no medium-term or long term longitudinal data regarding vaccine efficacy.
  3. Short term data has not established prevention of severe disease. The European Medicines Agency has noted of the Comirnaty (Pfizer mRNA) vaccine that severe COVID-19 cases “were rare in the study, and statistically certain conclusion cannot be drawn” from it [30]. Similarly, the Pfizer document submitted to the FDA [31] concludes that efficacy against mortality could not be demonstrated. Thus, the vaccines have not been shown to prevent death or severe disease even in the short term.
  4. The correlates of protection against COVID-19 are unknown. Researchers have not yet established how to measure protection against Covid-19. As a result, efficacy studies are stabbing around in the dark. After completion of Phase 1 and 2 studies, for instance, a paper in the journal Vaccine noted that “without understanding the correlates of protection, it is impossible to currently address questions regarding vaccine-associated protection, risk of COVID-19 reinfection, herd immunity, and the possibility of elimination of SARS-CoV-2 from the human population” [32]. Thus, Vaccine efficacy cannot be evaluated because we have not yet established how to measure it.

3. The vaccines are dangerous

  1. Just as smoking could be and was predicted to cause lung cancer based on first principles, all gene-based vaccines can be expected to cause blood clotting and bleeding disorders [33], based on their molecular mechanisms of action. Consistent with this, diseases of this kind have been observed across age groups, leading to temporary vaccine suspensions around the world: The vaccines are not safe.
  2. Contrary to claims that blood disorders post-vaccination are “rare”, many common vaccine side effects (headaches, nausea, vomiting and haematoma-like “rashes” over the body) may indicate thrombosis and other severe abnormalities. Moreover, vaccine-induced diffuse micro-thromboses in the lungs can mimic pneumonia and may be misdiagnosed as COVID-19. Clotting events currently receiving media attention are likely just the “tip of a huge iceberg” [34]: The vaccines are not safe.
  3. Due to immunological priming, risks of clotting, bleeding and other adverse events can be expected to increase with each re-vaccination and each intervening coronavirus exposure. Over time, whether months or years [35], this renders both vaccination and coronaviruses dangerous to young and healthy age groups, for whom without vaccination COVID-19 poses no substantive risk.

Since vaccine roll-out, COVID-19 incidence has risen in numerous areas with high vaccination rates [3638]. Furthermore, multiple series of COVID-19 fatalities have occurred shortly after the onset vaccinations in senior homes [39,40]. These cases may have been due not only to antibody-dependent enhancement but also to a general immunosuppressive effect of the vaccines, which is suggested by the increased occurrence of Herpes zoster in certain patients [41]. Immunosuppression may have caused a previously asymptomatic infection to become clinically manifest. Regardless of the exact mechanism responsible for these reported deaths, we must expect that the vaccines will increase rather than decrease lethality of COVID-19—the vaccines are not safe.

  1. The vaccines are experimental by definition. They will remain in Phase 3 trials until 2023. Recipients are human subjects entitled to free informed consent under Nuremberg and other protections, including the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s resolution 2361 [42] and the FDA’s terms of emergency use authorisation [29]. With respect to safety data from Phase 1 and 2 trials, in spite of initially large sample sizes, the journal Vaccine reports that “the vaccination strategy chosen for further development may have only been given to as few as 12 participants” [32]. With such extremely small sample sizes, the journal notes that “larger Phase 3 studies conducted over longer periods of time will be necessary” to establish safety. The risks that remain to be evaluated in Phase 3 trials into 2023, with entire populations as subjects, include not only thrombosis and bleeding abnormalities, but other autoimmune responses, allergic reactions, unknown tropisms (tissue destinations) of lipid nanoparticles [35], antibody-dependent enhancement [4346] and the impact of rushed, questionably executed, poorly regulated [47] and reportedly inconsistent manufacturing methods, conferring risks of potentially harmful impurities such as uncontrolled DNA residues [48]. The vaccines are not safe, either for recipients or for those who use them or authorise their use.
  2. Initial experience might suggest that the adenovirus-derived vaccines (AstraZeneca/Johnson & Johnson) cause graver adverse effects than the mRNA (Pfizer/Moderna) vaccines. However, upon repeated injection, the former will soon induce antibodies against the proteins of the adenovirus vector. These antibodies will then neutralize most of the vaccine virus particles and cause their disposal before they can infect any cells, thereby limiting the intensity of tissue damage.

In contrast, in the mRNA vaccines, there is no protein antigen for the antibodies to recognize. Thus, regardless of the existing degree of immunity, the vaccine mRNA is going to reach its target—the body cells. These will then express the spike protein and subsequently suffer the full onslaught of the immune system. With the mRNA vaccines, the risk of severe adverse events is virtually guaranteed to increase with every successive injection. In the long term, they are therefore even more dangerous than the vector vaccines. Their apparent preferment over the latter is concerning in the highest degree; these vaccines are not safe.

4. Ethics and legal points to consider

  1. Conflicts of interest abound in the scientific literature and within organisations that recommend and promote vaccines, while demonising alternate strategies (reliance on natural immunity and early treatment). Authorities, doctors and medical personnel need to protect themselves by evaluating the sources of their information for conflicts of interest extremely closely.
  2. Authorities, doctors and medical personnel need to be similarly careful not to ignore the credible and independent literature on vaccine necessity, safety and efficacy, given the foreseeable mass deaths and harms that must be expected unless the vaccination campaign is stopped.
  3. Vaccine manufacturers have exempted themselves from legal liability for adverse events for a reason. When vaccine deaths and harms occur, liability will fall to those responsible for the vaccines’ authorisation, administration and/or coercion via vaccine passports, none of which can be justified on a sober, evidence-based risk-benefit analysis.
  4. All political, regulatory and medical actors involved in COVID-19 vaccination should familiarise themselves with the Nuremberg code and other legal provisions in order to protect themselves.


  1. Le Bert, N. et al. (2020) SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls. Nature 584:457-462
  2. Tarke, A. et al. (2021) Negligible impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants on CD4+ and CD8+ T cell reactivity in COVID-19 exposed donors and vaccinees. bioRxiv -:x-x
  3. Anonymous, (2020) Scientists uncover SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in recovered COVID-19 and SARS patients.
  4. Beasley, D. (2020) Scientists focus on how immune system T cells fight coronavirus in absence of antibodies.
  5. Bozkus, C.C. (2020) SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells without antibodies. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 20:463
  6. Grifoni, A. et al. (2020) Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals. Cell 181:1489-1501.e15
  7. Mateus, J. et al. (2020) Selective and cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2 T cell epitopes in unexposed humans. Science 370:89-94
  8. McCurry-Schmidt, M. (2020) Exposure to common cold coronaviruses can teach the immune system to recognize SARS-CoV-2.
  9. Palmer, S. et al. (2021) COVID-19 hospitalization rates rise exponentially with age, inversely proportional to thymic T-cell production. J. R. Soc. Interface 18:20200982
  10. Sekine, T. et al. (2020) Robust T Cell Immunity in Convalescent Individuals with Asymptomatic or Mild COVID-19. Cell 183:158-168.e14
  11. Drake, J. (2021) Now We Know: Covid-19 Vaccines Prevent Asymptomatic Infection, Too.
  12. Bossuyt, P.M. (2020) Testing COVID-19 tests faces methodological challenges. Journal of clinical epidemiology 126:172-176
  13. Jefferson, T. et al. (2020) Viral cultures for COVID-19 infectivity assessment. Systematic review. Clin. Infect. Dis. ciaa1764:x-x
  14. Borger, P. et al. (2020) External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results.
  15. Mandavilli, A. (2020) Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.
  16. Cao, S. et al. (2020) Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China. Nat. Commun. 11:5917
  17. Moghadas, S.M. et al. (2020) The implications of silent transmission for the control of COVID-19 outbreaks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 117:17513-17515
  18. Johansson, M.A. et al. (2021) SARS-CoV-2 Transmission From People Without COVID-19 Symptoms. JAMA network open 4:e2035057
  19. Yeadon, M. (2020) What SAGE got wrong.
  20. Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2020) Global perspective of COVID‐19 epidemiology for a full‐cycle pandemic. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 50:x-x
  21. Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2021) Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of COVID‐19: An overview of systematic evaluations. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. -:x-x
  22. Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2020) Infection fatality rate of Covid-19 inferred from seroprevalence data. Bulletin of the World Health Organisation.
  23. Orient, J. et al. (2020) A Guide to Home-Based COVID Treatment.
  24. McCullough, P.A. et al. (2020) Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). Reviews in cardiovascular medicine 21:517-530
  25. Procter, B.C. et al. (2021) Early Ambulatory Multidrug Therapy Reduces Hospitalization and Death in High-Risk Patients with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). International journal of innovative research in medical science 6:219-221
  26. McCullough, P.A. et al. (2021) Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection. Am. J. Med. 134:16-22
  27. Anonymous, (2020) Real-time database and meta analysis of 588 COVID-19 studies.
  28. Hirschhorn, J.S. (2021) COVID scandal: Feds ignored 2016 law requiring use of real world evidence.
  29. Anonymous, (1998) Emergency Use of an Investigational Drug or Biologic: Guidance for Institutional Review Boards and Clinical Investigators.
  30. Anonymous, (2021) EMA assessment report: Comirnaty.
  31. Anonymous, (2020) FDA briefing document: Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.
  32. Giurgea, L.T. and Memoli, M.J. (2020) Navigating the Quagmire: Comparison and Interpretation of COVID-19 Vaccine Phase 1/2 Clinical Trials. Vaccines 8:746
  33. Bhakdi, S. et al. (2021) Urgent Open Letter from Doctors and Scientists to the European Medicines Agency regarding COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Concerns.
  34. Bhakdi, S. (2021) Rebuttal letter to European Medicines Agency from Doctors for Covid Ethics, April 1, 2021.
  35. Ulm, J.W. (2020) Rapid response to: Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us.
  36. Reimann, N. (2021) Covid Spiking In Over A Dozen States—Most With High Vaccination Rates.
  37. Meredith, S. (2021) Chile has one of the world’s best vaccination rates. Covid is surging there anyway.
  38. Bhuyan, A. (2021) Covid-19: India sees new spike in cases despite vaccine rollout. BMJ 372:n854
  39. Morrissey, K. (2021) Open letter to Dr. Karina Butler.
  40. Anonymous, (2021) Open Letter from the UK Medical Freedom Alliance: Urgent warning re Covid-19 vaccine-related deaths in the elderly and Care Homes.
  41. Furer, V. et al. (2021) Herpes zoster following BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccination in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases: a case series. Rheumatology -:x-x
  42. Anonymous, (2021) Covid-19 vaccines: ethical, legal and practical considerations.
  43. Tseng, C. et al. (2012) Immunization with SARS coronavirus vaccines leads to pulmonary immunopathology on challenge with the SARS virus. PLoS One 7:e35421
  44. Bolles, M. et al. (2011) A double-inactivated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus vaccine provides incomplete protection in mice and induces increased eosinophilic proinflammatory pulmonary response upon challenge. J. Virol. 85:12201-15
  45. Weingartl, H. et al. (2004) Immunization with modified vaccinia virus Ankara-based recombinant vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome is associated with enhanced hepatitis in ferrets. J. Virol. 78:12672-6
  46. Czub, M. et al. (2005) Evaluation of modified vaccinia virus Ankara based recombinant SARS vaccine in ferrets. Vaccine 23:2273-9
  47. Tinari, S. (2021) The EMA covid-19 data leak, and what it tells us about mRNA instability. BMJ 372:n627
  48. Anonymous, (2021) Interview with Dr. Vanessa Schmidt-Krüger.

Study Concludes that Covid Sceptics are Smart, Sophisticated, Scientifically Literate and Very Dangerous!

This is probably one of the most amazing studies on Scepticism and Sceptics (Covid, in this case) I’ve ever read, which just blows away Lew’s clumsy and faltering attempts to mischaracterise and traduce climate sceptics. It really is a work of fine art which comes to all the ‘wrong’ conclusions about a group of people who formally question the official scientific narrative. Having done so it then proceeds to completely turn those conclusions (which are glowingly positive overall) upon their head to bizarrely argue for a negative interpretation of scepticism which is totally unjustified by their findings! I’ve never seen anything like it.

Before I give my own analysis of the study, here are some tweets from a person equally amazed by it:

Astounding! Nobody ever wrote such a glowing ‘critical’ report on climate sceptics! As far as our detractors are concerned we are a bunch of retarded, anti-science, know-nothing deniers who have the audacity to challenge the ‘experts’ using crude denialist talking points, moon landing type conspiracy theories and graphs and data which have long been debunked by researchers and by reality itself. Mind you, there doesn’t appear to be a great deal of natural crossover between climate scepticism and Covid scepticism, a fact which has caused me considerable personal distress over the last year.

These researchers however, really took a deep dive into the Covid scepticism universe, perhaps expecting it to be inhabited by tin-foil hat wearing, unsophisticated, ill informed, scientifically illiterate numbskulls (maybe after they read Lew and Cook’s outpourings on climate scepticism), only to discover that it was populated by people who valued science and empirical data rather more than their ideological opponents and what is more, were often better qualified to analyse that data than their opponents! BIG lol.

I will just add to Commie Lee Jones’ series of excellent tweets with a few choice quotes from the paper of my own. This is particularly revealing:

Far from ignoring scientific evidence to argue for individual freedom, antimaskers often engage deeply with public datasets and make what we call “counter-visualizations”—visualizations using orthodox methods to make unorthodox arguments—to challenge mainstream narratives that the pandemic is urgent and ongoing.

This is a bizarre argument. What they are saying in effect is that natural conclusions from the data are unorthodox, whereas the unsubstantiated and demonstrably illogical conclusions of policy makers and government science advisers, using the same data, is to be considered orthodox. You see what they did? Lockdowns and mass mask wearing, never before used to try to control a pandemic (with the exception of Spanish ‘flu patchily implemented mask mandates in 1918 – which demonstrably failed) are now orthodox. Natural, logical and scientific interpretations of the data are now unorthodox.

However, we find that anti-mask groups on Twitter often create polished counter-visualizations that would not be out of place in scientific papers, health department reports, and publications like the Financial Times.

While previous literature in visualization and science communication has emphasized the need for data and media literacy as a way to combat misinformation [43, 47, 89], this study finds that anti-mask groups practice a form of data literacy in spades. Within this constituency, unorthodox viewpoints do not result from a deficiency of data literacy; sophisticated practices of data literacy are a means of consolidating and promulgating views that fly in the face of scientific orthodoxy.

So, they find that “anti-mask groups practice a form of data literacy in spades”. Hilarious!

The following passage reveals that the authors do not in fact understand what science actually is, as they equate ‘mainstream science’ with the prevailing public narrative.

In media studies, the term “counterpublic” describes constituencies that organize themselves in opposition to mainstream civic discourse, often by agentively using communications media [37]. In approaching anti-maskers as a counterpublic (a group shaped by its hostile stance toward mainstream science), we focus particular attention on one form of agentive media production central to their movement: data visualization. We define this counterpublic’s visualization practices as “counter-visualizations” that use orthodox scientific methods to make unorthodox arguments, beyond the pale of the scientific establishment.

I think the authors must be media studies graduates by the sound of it. ‘Mainstream civic discourse’ is not mainstream science and conclusions based on the use of orthodox scientific methods are not, by definition, beyond the pale of the scientific establishment. What an utterly ridiculous thing to say.

Here they go again, mistaking a mythical Covid ‘scientific consensus’ for mainstream epidemilogical science when it is nothing of the sort. There is no consensus on Covid beyond an inflexible, rigidly enforced, medically unprecedented and globally homogeneous political response to the pandemic allegedly scientifically informed by a very few ‘expert’ modelers and even fewer epidemiologists. The authors do not understand this at all. Hence they equate rational, science-based questioning of the prevailing political and social narrative with a political counter culture.

As a subculture, anti-masking amplifies anti-establishment currents pervasive in U.S. political culture. Data literacy, for antimaskers, exemplifies distinctly American ideals of intellectual selfreliance, which historically takes the form of rejecting experts and other elites [53]. The counter-visualizations that they produce and circulate not only challenge scientific consensus, but they also assert the value of independence in a society that they believe promotes an overall de-skilling and dumbing-down of the population for the sake of more effective social control.

The authors double down on their confused idea of what science is and by so doing they increasingly mischaracterize so called ‘anti-maskers’ who rely upon science and data to question the alleged ‘scientific consensus’ on Covid, a consensus which does not exist and a dominant narrative which is most definitely not rooted firmly in established science.

While academic science is traditionally a system for producing knowledge within a laboratory, validating it through peer review, and sharing results within subsidiary communities, anti-maskers reject this hierarchical social model. They espouse a vision of science that is radically egalitarian and individualist. This study forces us to see that coronavirus skeptics champion science as a personal practice that prizes rationality and autonomy; for them, it is not a body of knowledge certified by an institution of experts.

Finally, what is most revealing is that these authors haven’t got a clue why the ‘antimaskers’ come to such divergent conclusions from the supposed ‘mainstream’ using exactly the same data. They just waffle some nonsense about cases and deaths in an attempt to explain it – and fail, miserably:

So how do these groups diverge from scientific orthodoxy if they are using the same data? We have identified a few sleights of hand that contribute to the broader epistemological crisis we identify between these groups and the majority of scientific researchers. For instance, they argue that there is an outsized emphasis on deaths versus cases: if the current datasets are fundamentally subjective and prone to manipulation (e.g., increased levels of faulty testing, asymptomatic vs. symptomatic cases), then deaths are the only reliable markers of the pandemic’s severity. Even then, these groups believe that deaths are an additionally problematic category because doctors are using a COVID diagnosis as the main cause of death (i.e., people who die because of COVID) when in reality there are other factors at play (i.e., dying with but not because of COVID). Since these categories are fundamentally subject to human interpretation, especially by those who have a vested interest in reporting as many COVID deaths as possible, these numbers are vastly over-reported, unreliable, and no more significant than the flu.

To underline the fact that they haven’t got a clue, they say this, near the end of the paper:

Understanding how these groups skillfully manipulate data to undermine mainstream science requires us to adjust the theoretical assumptions in HCI research about how data can be leveraged in public discourse.

By not having the foggiest idea how Covid sceptics arrive at conclusions so very different from the alleged ‘consensus’, the authors simply revert to accusing them of ‘skillfully manipulating’ the data in order to ‘undermine mainstream science’. So actually, in conclusion, although this study gives credit where credit is due to Covid sceptics, their overall approach is not so very different from Lewandowsky et al after all.

Update: The Conservative Woman “Covid sceptics aren’t as stupid as we thought, say experts”

SCIENCE is good. The use of the scientific method was first found in Babylonian texts and was filtered through the mind of Aristotle. It travelled, gaining definition and seriousness, via Arab physicists and the Somerset monk and Oxford scholar Roger Bacon. From there it bounced through the minds of Galileo, Descartes and Newton until finally becoming codified and universally accepted as: (1) observation and experiment, (2) hypothesis, (3) verification by fresh observation and experiment.

The government today claims that it is led by data, not dates. The government’s policies on lockdown and Covid are not political but strictly ‘based on the science’. Government information films are fronted by scientific high priests. Never in the history of the UK has public policy been so outsourced to the men and women in lab coats.

Ranged against them are the rag-tag, amateur and by definition ignorant ranks of the lockdown sceptics, baffled by numbers and complaining about ongoing restrictions in the face of mutations and variants.

Researchers at MIT set out to find out the way that US lockdown sceptics, and in particular mask sceptics, were using data, what data they were using and what primary colours they were using for their fingerpaints.

Something I missed which has an immediate resonance with Climate ‘why should we give you our data if you are going to use it against us?’ Gate:

So much so that at one point the MIT team suggest that far from allowing greater public access to the data, the data should be made more difficult to find:

‘These findings suggest that the ability for the scientific community and public health departments to better convey the urgency of the US coronavirus pandemic may not be strengthened by introducing more downloadable datasets . . .

What the MIT team has discovered is not what was assumed, mostly by government-supporting scientists, that the general public were, ‘data illiterate’: far from it. Allowing them unhindered access to the data, instead of undermining lockdown-sceptics, strengthens their hand. They sound baffled by the sceptics who ‘often reveal themselves to be more sophisticated in their understanding of how scientific knowledge is socially constructed than their ideological adversaries, who espouse naïve realism about the “objective” truth of public health data’.

And here is the Lew roll/Merchants of Doubt moment right at the end of the paper, when the authors just cannot reconcile their findings with their confirmational bias, so resort to simple name-calling and insults:

Then comes the pay-off. For some reason the MIT researchers, obviously so disgusted by finding out that ordinary people are rigorous and not nearly as stupid as generally thought, compare them to the tobacco lobby and the January Capitol Hill protesters.

By engaging in such wild and unreasonable ad hominems they merely look as if they are trying to be acceptable in the MIT common room, despite their findings. Those findings are clear that if anybody is applying the traditional idea behind the scientific method, it is not those supporting the Government’s approach to lockdown policy, but those questioning it.

Mike Yeadon in The Conservative Woman

I quote from the article here, advise you to read it in its entirety and make the following points along the lines of ‘I told you so’. I was saying much of what Mike says here last spring and summer, at the Cliscep website, and was being roundly criticised, condemned, “despised”, even humiliated for doing so.

To date, despite the brains, expertise and stature of those alarmed by the disproportionate and destructive response of agencies and governments around the world to Covid-19, as a group they have patently been ineffective. Unwittingly, dissenters have been playing the parts intended by those, including our own Government and their advisers, who control the global Covid narrative. 

They judged correctly that we polite Brits wouldn’t accuse them of outright lying, even though they often do exactly that. Boris Johnson’s recent piece to camera, telling us that it was lockdown and not vaccination which reduced cases and deaths, is a case in point. 

Yet it’s certain this isn’t true, and also certain he and his advisers know it isn’t true.

The government’s advisers are not fools. Some may be, but the upper echelons are very smart. They believe polite people won’t say ‘not only are you lying but you’re doing it in concert with other, non-democratic actors’, because that’s conspiracy theory stuff, right? Powerful people never use their influence to benefit their interests, do they? Hmm. The only thing that’s different is scale and the power their public positions give them. Other than that, they’re just another a bunch of grubby criminals, ripping off unsuspecting people.

Truth is our most powerful tool. And that truth is that we’re being lied to.  

The truth also, however hard it is to believe it, is that there is unequivocal and clear evidence of planning and co-ordination. Not to face this fact is to have your head in the sand. Where it’s leading is easy to discern, once people are willing to lift their internal censoring and look objectively at the evidence.

First, though, the lies. It’s abundantly clear now that pretty much everything that the public has been told and continues to be told is between untrue and downright lies.

So here are a few points which leap out from Dr Yeadon’s article, which I tried my best to convey many months ago, to no good effect:

/ There is clear evidence of malign intent

/ There is clear evidence of numerous, deliberate, calculated lies

/ There is clear evidence of planning

/ The ‘vaccines’ are demonstrably dangerous and not needed for the purpose for which they are being sold to a gullible public

/ Brits have been too ‘polite’ to question the evidence before their very eyes

/ Masks don’t work – they are merely a form of fear-based control

/ Lockdowns don’t work

/ The ‘Covid crisis’ scam has a clear connection to the ‘Climate crisis’ scam

/ We have already reached herd immunity in the UK, largely through natural infections

/ Herd immunity via mass vaccination with these vaccines is an absurd and unscientific concept and is evidence of another direct lie by the authorities

/ Governments and their advisers have actively conspired with Big Business and other actors in order to bring about what is now effectively a global medical tyranny, soon to morph into a total control tyranny via ‘vaccine passports’ if they are not strongly resisted by largely compliant populations. This is not a ‘theory’ anymore. The Great Reset and ‘Build Back Better’ is upon us. It is many things, but in essence, it is evil.

Daily Mail Promotes Highly Dubious Claim that the ‘Vaccines’ are Safe for Pregnant Women

Can the press get any lower? Promoting a dubious claim that the ‘vaccines’ are entirely safe, even beneficial for pregnant women. thereby inciting them to put their own health at risk and to risk the death of their unborn child? For what? To supposedly ‘protect’ themselves and their child against a disease which is virtually no threat to them at all? It hardly seems possible, but this is where we are today. The Covid mass vaccination campaign is palpably evil and so are the people promoting it.

I don’t need to be a ‘conspiracy theorist’ to say this, because the facts speak for themselves. Here is what the Fail says:

Premature birth more likely for pregnant women who catch Covid, studies show

But experts say around one in five pregnant patients are hesitant over getting jab

No evidence to suggest any Covid jab has any effect on pregnancy, say scientists

Early studies of the vaccine on animals also showed no issues around pregnancy 

The message from health chiefs is clear: Covid-19 vaccines are safe for pregnant women. While a question mark hung over this vital detail earlier on in jab trials, today there is clear data to show there is no risk to mothers-to-be or their unborn children.

It is a major step forwards in the battle against the virus.

And there is even evidence that vaccinating women now may have knock-on benefits for any children they have in the future, too. Since the immunity provided by a Covid vaccine is passed down to the foetus, wide take-up of the jab will eventually lead to a generation of children with in-built resistance.So what is the basis of these bold claims?

Jesus Christ, I can hardly believe I read that last paragraph. ‘Built in resistance’? Against a disease which babies are not vulnerable to? The evil, ugly head of eugenics rises once again.

What is the basis for the bold safety claims made by the Fail? Let us be in no doubt whatsoever. At their introduction, just a few months ago, these ‘vaccines’ had not been tested on pregnant women:

In November, Pfizer became the first company to announce that its vaccine was effective against Covid-19 – but the company also said it hadn’t yet been tested on pregnant women.

This is entirely normal for vaccine trials, says Dr O’Brien, adding: ‘Traditionally, pregnant women are excluded from these studies as a precaution.’

Early studies of the vaccine on animals also showed no issues around pregnancy. Nonetheless, due to a lack of data, the Government warned expectant women not to have the jab – NHS leaflets circulated at the start of the rollout reiterated this. The effect, experts say, was to entrench worries in a group already naturally cautious about what medicines they take.

Then, in April, suddenly, everything changed and Wanksock went public to advise pregnant women that the jab was safe and they should seriously consider getting it after the JCVI changed its advice to allow pregnant women to book the Pfizer or Moderna jabs following a trial in the US. Here is what the Fail reports about that trial, which allegedly demonstrates that the Pfizer and Moderna jabs are ‘safe’ for pregnant women:

“Instead, the JCVI decided to wait for data from America to filter through before making a call.

In early April, that data arrived in the form of a major study published by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It had tracked the condition of more than 90,000 pregnant women who had received a vaccine, the majority of them in their third trimester.

The CDC was able to report that there were no safety concerns.

Since then, the number of pregnant American women who have had a vaccine has risen to more than 105,000. However, finer data released from within that study set off fresh anxieties.

The CDC closely monitored more than 800 participants. Of that group, 712 had a live birth, while 115 suffered a loss of pregnancy.

This means that roughly one in eight woman who’d been jabbed had lost their baby.

It is a scary thought but, in fact, this is identical to the average rate of pregnancy loss in the population, according to NHS figures.

Armed with this knowledge, on April 16 the JCVI made the recommendation to the Government that pregnant women, along with any planning pregnancy or currently breastfeeding, should be invited for vaccination along with their age and clinical risk group.

However, the recommendation extended only to the Pfizer and Moderna jabs. It did not include the UK’s Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.”

Pay particular attention to the bold. 90,000 women were tracked but only 900 or so were monitored closely and of those, one in eight lost their unborn child. But it’s all OK according to the Fail (and presumably also the NHS, the JCVI and the British government) because this is the same as the rate of spontaneous abortion in the population at large. Right. So, silly me, I went and checked, didn’t I and this is what I found:

Miscarriage accounts for 42,000 hospital admissions  in the UK annually[1].

Miscarriage occurs in 12-24% of recognised pregnancies; the true rate is probably higher as many may occur before a woman has realised she is pregnant[1].

85% of spontaneous miscarriages occur in the first trimester.

The risk falls rapidly with advancing gestation[2]:

9.4% at 6 complete weeks of gestation.

4.2% at 7 weeks.

1.5% at 8 weeks.

0.5% at 9 weeks.

0.7 % at 10 weeks.

85% of miscarriages occur in the First Trimester. As the pregnancy term progresses the risk of miscarriage diminishes rapidly. The First Trimester covers weeks 0-13, the Second Trimester 14-26 and the Third Trimester 27-40. Miscarriages don’t even technically occur in the Third Trimester; they are known as stillbirths.

I don’t know where the Fail gets the figure of 90,000 from because I have read the study in question and it only mentions a total of 35,691 participants. It is obvious where their figures of 712 and 115 come from though:

A total of 35,691 v-safe participants 16 to 54 years of age identified as pregnant. Injection-site pain was reported more frequently among pregnant persons than among nonpregnant women, whereas headache, myalgia, chills, and fever were reported less frequently. Among 3958 participants enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, 827 had a completed pregnancy, of which 115 (13.9%) resulted in a pregnancy loss and 712 (86.1%) resulted in a live birth (mostly among participants with vaccination in the third trimester). 

A ‘completed pregnancy’, contrary to what it suggests, is not a completed pregnancy as such, resulting in a live or tragic still birth, it is a pregnancy which goes either full term or is aborted at an earlier stage. Hence:

For analysis of pregnancy outcomes in the v-safe pregnancy registry, data were restricted to completed pregnancies (i.e., live-born infant, spontaneous abortion, induced abortion, or stillbirth)

Before we go any further though, let’s take a look at what this CDC-run ‘v-safe pregnancy register’ actually is:

V-safe Surveillance System and Pregnancy Registry

V-safe is a new CDC smartphone-based active-surveillance system developed for the Covid-19 vaccination program; enrollment is voluntary. V-safe sends text messages to participants with weblinks to online surveys that assess for adverse reactions and health status during a postvaccination follow-up period. Follow-up continues 12 months after the final dose of a Covid-19 vaccine. During the first week after vaccination with any dose of a Covid-19 vaccine, participants are prompted to report local and systemic signs and symptoms during daily surveys and rank them as mild, moderate, or severe; surveys at all time points assess for events of adverse health effects. If participants indicate that they required medical care at any time point, they are asked to complete a report to the VAERS through active telephone outreach.

In other words, it’s a smartphone app which links to the VAERS reporting system if participants require medical attention for adverse reactions.

To give you an idea of the type of people running this study, they are keen to emphasise ‘pregnant persons’ and people who ‘identify as pregnant’ over the politically incorrect ‘pregnant women’:

Many pregnant persons in the United States are receiving messenger RNA (mRNA) coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) vaccines, but data are limited on their safety in pregnancy.

A total of 35,691 v-safe participants 16 to 54 years of age identified as pregnant. Injection-site pain was reported more frequently among pregnant persons . . . . .

But if you think this sounds pretyy absurd, look at what they say later in the study:

To identify persons who received one or both Covid-19 vaccine doses while pregnant or who became pregnant after Covid-19 vaccination, v-safe surveys include pregnancy questions for persons who do not report their sex as male. Persons who identify as pregnant are then contacted by telephone and, if they meet inclusion criteria, are offered enrollment in the v-safe pregnancy registry.

So at pains are they to avoid using the term women that they resort to describing “persons who do not report their sex as male”! Bloody hell! Who enrols themself in a pregnancy study and puts on the form “I am not male”? If you are pregnant, you are a woman – biological fact. There shouldn’t even be a place on the form for stating whether you are male, female or ‘other’. But there you are. This is a supposedly ‘scientific’ study carried out via a smartphone survey and obviously monitored and analysed by the obsessively woke.

It doesn’t get a lot better when we start examining the actual figures either. “From December 14, 2020, to February 28, 2021, a total of 35,691 v-safe participants identified as pregnant.” Of those, only 86.5% actually reported themselves as being pregnant at the time of vaccination! I kid you not:

Pregnant at time of vaccination16,522 (85.8)14,365 (87.4)30,887 (86.5)

So nearly 5000 ‘persons’ who identified as preggers didn’t actually say they were pregnant at the time of vaccination! Presumably, these were the ones who also said “I am not male”.

Anyway, it’s not this larger survey that we’re interested in; it’s the smaller V-safe pregnancy register – and a smaller subset of people within that. This is where the figures come from to make the claim that the ‘vaccines’ are ‘safe’ to administer to pregnant women.

As of March 30, 2021, the v-safe pregnancy registry call center attempted to contact 5230 persons who were vaccinated through February 28, 2021, and who identified during a v-safe survey as pregnant at or shortly after Covid-19 vaccination. Of these, 912 were unreachable, 86 declined to participate, and 274 did not meet inclusion criteria (e.g., were never pregnant, were pregnant but received vaccination more than 30 days before the last menstrual period, or did not provide enough information to determine eligibility). The registry enrolled 3958 participants with vaccination from December 14, 2020, to February 28, 2021, of whom 3719 (94.0%) identified as health care personnel. Among enrolled participants, most were 25 to 44 years of age (98.8%), non-Hispanic White (79.0%), and, at the time of interview, did not report a Covid-19 diagnosis during pregnancy (97.6%) (Table 3). Receipt of a first dose of vaccine meeting registry-eligibility criteria was reported by 92 participants (2.3%) during the periconception period, by 1132 (28.6%) in the first trimester of pregnancy, by 1714 (43.3%) in the second trimester, and by 1019 (25.7%) in the third trimester (1 participant was missing information to determine the timing of vaccination) (Table 3). Among 1040 participants (91.9%) who received a vaccine in the first trimester and 1700 (99.2%) who received a vaccine in the second trimester, initial data had been collected and follow-up scheduled at designated time points approximately 10 to 12 weeks apart; limited follow-up calls had been made at the time of this analysis.

So that’s 3958 people who were enrolled, 94% of whom declared themselves as health personnel, 79% of whom were white. Sounds really representative doesn’t it? But this hardly representative small sample shrinks even more when only ‘completed pregnancies’ are considered. There were 827 in total.

Among 827 participants who had a completed pregnancy, the pregnancy resulted in a live birth in 712 (86.1%), in a spontaneous abortion in 104 (12.6%), in stillbirth in 1 (0.1%), and in other outcomes (induced abortion and ectopic pregnancy) in 10 (1.2%). A total of 96 of 104 spontaneous abortions (92.3%) occurred before 13 weeks of gestation (Table 4), and 700 of 712 pregnancies that resulted in a live birth (98.3%) were among persons who received their first eligible vaccine dose in the third trimester.

This last paragraph is basically what the Fail relies upon to claim that the ‘vaccines’ are safe on account of the fact that the rate of spontaneous abortions in this small sample of health care workers is approximately the same as that in the unvaxxed population as a whole, before Covid-19. But what it actually says is that in a small sample of vaccinated mainly Caucasian healthcare workers, 12.6% experienced spontaneous abortions and 92.3% of those occurred earlier than 13 weeks into gestation. But if we go back to the the figures above referencing the risk of spontaneous abortion, we see immediately that the majority occur in the period 0-8 weeks into gestation. So without more specific information of just when these spontaneous abortions occurred in the vaccinated women, we can’t say for sure that there is absolutely nothing to worry about, because it may be the case for instance, that most of those spontaneous abortions occurred between 8-13 weeks, in which case they would not reflect the situation in the wider populace.

What we are left with, is a very small sample of highly unrepresentative individuals surveyed over the phone being used to make the sweeping claim that the ‘vaccines’ are safe to use in all pregnant women. A study survey which ran only for 2 months and 2 weeks when a full term pregnancy is 9 months. If you’re not white, and you’re not a healthcare worker and you have half a brain, you might be forgiven for thinking that this is not sufficient ‘evidence’ to risk your own health and the life of your unborn child. Even if you fail to qualify for either of the first two categories, but still have at least half a brain, you should also think very carefully before you take the plunge and get unnecessarily ‘vaccinated’ with child on the mere say so of the media, Big Pharma and government ministers and ‘experts’.

Update: ‘The Vaccines Work’ – except when they are associated with major outbreaks, lockdowns and huge numbers of adverse reactions

Let’s start at home. This was reported in the Times:

More than 500 people who had been vaccinated against Covid-19 have been admitted to hospital with the infection, a UK study has found.

The patients had all received one dose of the vaccine at least three weeks before they were admitted.

Researchers said the patients were largely frail and elderly and the number represented around 1 per cent of the 52,000 people involved in the research.

So, 1% of people ‘vaccinated’ against Covid were subsequently admitted to hospital with Covid. Of those, 113 died. That’s a ‘vaccine-related infection fatality rate’ of 0.2%, which is about the same as the overall IFR of Covid, which suggests to me that, if we’re charitable, we can conclude that the ‘vaccines’ do sod all to stop infections and deaths, but as we have seen previously, the reality is that getting ‘vaccinated’ appears to actually increase one’s risk of becoming infected, at least in the two to three weeks after the first dose. So what’s going on? ‘Not unexpected’ vaccine failure according to the ‘experts’. What? Don’t they mean ‘not unexpected complete failure to prevent infection, serious illness and death ‘at least 3 weeks’ after the first dose? What kind of vackseen is that then?

They also noted the level of “vaccine failure” detected was not unexpected based on the results of trials that took place before vaccines were rolled out.

Colin Semple, professor of outbreak medicine at Liverpool University and one of the leaders of the study, warned: “People should not be surprised about some vaccine failure. It is what was predicted. It does result in tragedy. We are all talking about the statistics, but if it is your granny it is a tragedy for your family.”

The findings were released by the UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. The study showed one in 14 of the participating patients admitted to hospital since early December with Covid had had at least one dose.

Oh, so that’s all OK then. Entirely expected ‘vaccine failure’ but obviously if granny got vaxxed and died, it’s not so OK. Actually, it’s not OK whichever way you look at it. So what’s causing this ‘expected vaccine failure’, according to the experts?

Most of these patients were infected “shortly before or around the time of vaccination”, the report says and goes on to warn: “Elderly and vulnerable people who had been shielding, may have inadvertently been exposed and infected either through the end-to-end process of vaccination, or shortly after vaccination through behavioural changes where they wrongly assume they are immune.”

That supposedly accounts for the period immediately after vaccination but we’re talking about 526 people here who were admitted to hospital 3 weeks or more after the first jab, when they should have been protected. ‘Experts’ can’t explain it:

The NHS advises patients they are likely to have good protection from the virus three or four weeks after their first jab. However, 526 people received their injection at least 21 days before they were admitted to hospital. Among these patients 113 people died. The research team regarded these cases as vaccine failures.

Dr Annemarie Docherty, a critical care consultant and researcher at Edinburgh University, said the reasons why the vaccines had failed in these patients were not clear. She said it was possible the lack of immunity in these individuals would not have been rectified by a second dose.

‘Experts’ are investigating whether the scariants are involved in these unexplained failures. But despite the ‘vaccines’ apparently not offering any extra protection at all, based on a comparison of IFR before and after ‘vaccination (see above), ‘experts’ say that it is still good news on the jab’s effectiveness. How ‘experts’ come to that conclusion is way beyond my amateurish understanding, I must admit.

Experts are investigating whether those immunised who caught Covid-19 were more likely to get specific variants of the disease.

The researchers stressed their findings largely represented good news about the effectiveness of vaccination.

The Seychelles is the most Covid-vaccinated country in the world, even pipping Israel to the post, with 60% of residents having had two jabs, so they should be virtually Covid-free, right? Wrong. They’ve just gone into a two week lockdown because ‘cases’ are soaring. So, when we say ‘the wonder jab’, what that actually means is, you wonder what the hell the point of it is.

The country began vaccinations in January using a donation of Chinese vaccines from the United Arab Emirates. According to Bloomberg, by April 12th, “59% of the doses administered were Sinopharm vaccines and the rest were Covishield, a version of AstraZeneca’s shot made under licence in India.”

The Government put the surge down to people being less careful, particularly over Easter. However, setting aside whether population behaviour is a plausible explanation, this doesn’t explain why the vaccines are not preventing transmission or infection.

People being ‘less careful’? You’ve got to be kidding me. The whole point of getting ‘vaccinated’ is you are protected; you don’t need to be careful. The excuses being rolled out for the failures of the vackseens to actually do what they say on the tin are becoming more and more absurd: ‘You’re old, you got infected ‘just before’ being jabbed, it’s a new scariant and facts aside, it’s still ‘good news’ because the ‘vaccines’ are ‘effective’ simply because we say they are.’

Lastly, there’s the ‘small’ matter of the huge number of adverse reactions (including death) to the ‘vaccines’ being recorded on the VAERS and Yellow Card reporting systems. Conspiracy theorists in the media are claiming that these reporting sites have been indundated with fake claims by anti-vaxxers intent on discrediting the ultra-safe and effective Covid vaccines. I mean, I’m sure they’re correct. The main stream media have never knowingly reported untruths. It’s definitely an organised anti-science campaign. But just in case it’s not, and the media have innocently got something wrong on one of those extremely rare occasions, here are the latest horrifying figures:

US Quackcines Kill Kids

The risk of a child under 15 dying from SARS-CoV-2 is virtually zero, but 4000 children have so far been jabbed in the US according to VAERS data. Of those, 9 have died within 28 days, equating to a ‘vaccine fatality rate’ of 0.22%. So the risk of death from vaccinating children (according to VAERS reports) is much higher than the risk of death from Covid itself. This is just the beginning. This does not include unreported fatalities and it does not include any long term ill health or death resulting from vaccination of children. Why are they doing this? There is no convincing medical or public health reason. It is certainly not to protect children from a disease which they are not vulnerable to.

In September, the UK government is going to start vaccinating children in order to supposedly make schools ‘safe’. The choice will be: you either wear a useless mask for 8 hours a day or you get jabbed with a lethal ‘vaccine’ which you don’t need in order to return to class. Do you see now how blind compliance ends up? The innocent pay the price. Those without a voice pay the price because you chose to obey, with not a murmur of dissent.