Month: June 2021

What’s Causing Abnormal Periods in Women Post ‘Vaccination’?

This is what the Daily Expose reports:

Thousands of women have been reporting period problems after they received the Covid-19 vaccine and are now being monitored by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

4,000 women have reported changes in their menstrual cycle after getting their Covid jab, particularly among those aged 30 to 49.

Figures obtained by The Sunday Times show that 2,734 reports of period problems after the AstraZeneca vaccine was made to the MHRA up to May 17th, a further 1,158 were related to the Pfizer jab, and 66 were linked to the Moderna vaccine.

The period side effects primarily include heavier than normal bleeding and other irregularities, which are believed to have affected more women who have not reported their experience.

Despite over 4,000 women reporting these issues post-vaccination, doctors have said that there is “no increased risk” of period problems after the jab so there is no reason to add it to the growing list of side effects.

June Raine of the MHRA, of course, has dismissed claims of anything unusual happening, despite the fact that 4000 yellow card reports is likely to be just the tip of the iceberg. Something definitely odd appears to be happening though, judging from the nature of many anecdotal reports by women all over the world.

MHRA chief executive Dr June Raine said: ‘Alongside the independent experts of the Commission on Human Medicines and members of its Medicines for Women’s Health Expert Advisory Group, we have reviewed reports of menstrual disorders and unexpected vaginal bleeding, suspected as adverse reactions to vaccination. 

‘The current evidence does not suggest an increased risk, following vaccination, with the UK’s three Covid vaccines.

‘The number of reports is low in relation to the number of women who have had the vaccine to date and the background rate of menstrual disorders generally. 

‘We continue to closely monitor these reports for potential signals.’

Usual dismissive guff from the medical and pharmaceutical regulatory bodies whenever serious side effects to the ‘vaccines’ are mentioned. Many women are reporting highly unusual disruptions to their periods; women who have always had light periods suddenly experiencing very heavy and painful periods, even post menopausal women reporting having a period soon after the jab. Does that come under ‘background rate’ of menstrual disorders? I don’t think so. These women commented in the Daily Mail for instance:

Well I was one of the 4000 who reported it to the yellow card. Post menopausal for 2 years yet had a period 3 weeks after my Pfizer jab. Not a coincidence!

I’m 41 my monthly’s have completely stopped since having the first jab. I’ve had my second and still no period. I had to go for a scan and they can’t see a problem. I think it’s definitely something to do with the vaccine, as I was as regular as clockwork before.

There are thousands of similar comments from other women on social media and elsewhere

Raine, as a woman, should be thoroughly ashamed of herself for being so blatantly and arrogantly dismissive of these real concerns.

So what’s going on? Well, the first clue might be the peer reviewed scientific literature which demonstrates that lipid nanoparticles in the blood stream tend to accumulate in the ovaries and the second clue is the demonstration that Covid ‘vaccine’ lipid nanoparticles and spike proteins do not stay confined to the local injection site and can in fact escape into the blood vessels and thus travel throughout the body. The former has been known about since at least 2013, so Pfizer and Moderna knew, in advance, that if their product did manage to escape into the blood stream, it would accumulate in the female reproductive organs. Here for instance:

Lipidots are original nanoparticulate lipid delivery vectors for drugs and contrast agents made from materials generally regarded as safe. Here, we characterized the in vivo stability, biodistribution, and pharmacokinetics of lipidots.

Radioactive and fluorescent tracers displayed a similar nanoparticle-driven biodistribution, indicative of the lipidots’ integrity during the first hours after injection. Lipidots distributed in the liver and, surprisingly, in the steroid-rich organs adrenals and ovaries, but not in the spleen.

We report the pharmacokinetics and whole-body biodistribution of triply labeled lipidots in mice. Results from organ counting and fluorescence detection were confirmed by live optical imaging and ex vivo histologic examination of target organs. Unexpectedly, lipidots showed specific uptake in steroid organs. Unexpectedly, lipidots showed specific uptake in steroid organs, which to our knowledge has never yet been reported for a lipid nanoparticle.

Altogether, uptake was major in gonadosteroid organs (i.e., liver, adrenals, ovaries), suggesting a specific tropism of lipidots for these organs.

But the really shocking thing is that the ovaries accumulated so many lipidots that the researchers could actually see them fluorescing through the skin of the mice!

DiD fluorescence levels in the ovaries were high enough to be observed directly through the skin of live mice 24 h after the injection of DiD-loaded lipidots

The presence of lipids was still quite high even after a week:

Tritium and fluorescence signals persisted also in the adrenals and ovaries: in the ovaries, uptake for 3H maximized at 52 ± 2.3 %ID/g at 16 h after injection and still was 21 ± 4.6 %ID/g at 168 h after injection

I found it interesting that Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA ‘vaccine’ technology, in his interview with Brett Weinstein, mentioned in passing that the lipids could be ionised. Could this be part of the reason why they are accumulating in specific organs, notably the ovaries, and not others? This study published in 2017 makes it clear that there are genuine concerns about possible toxic effects of nanoparticles on the female reproductive system:

The wide application of nanomaterials in industry, consumer products, and medicine has raised concerns regarding the potential toxicity of nanoparticles in humans. In this review, the effects of nanomaterials on the reproductive system in animal models are discussed. Females are particularly more vulnerable to nanoparticle toxicity, and toxicity in this population may affect reproductivity and fetal development. Moreover, various types of nanoparticles have negative impacts on male germ cells, fetal development, and the female reproductive system. These impacts are associated with nanoparticle modification, composition, concentration, route of administration, and the species of the animal. Therefore, understanding the impacts of nanoparticles on animal growth and reproduction is essential. Many studies have examined the effects of nanoparticles on primary and secondary target organs, with a concentration on the in vivo and in vitro effects of nanoparticles on the male and female reproductive systems at the clinical, cellular, and molecular levels. This review provides important information regarding organism safety and the potential hazards of nanoparticle use and supports the application of nanotechnologies by minimizing the adverse effects of nanoparticles in vulnerable populations.

Fertility, reproduction, and fetal development are essential to sustain a species, highlighting the importance of the growing public awareness of the toxicity of NPs on the reproductive system. Women have only about 400 follicles that reach maturity and undergo ovulation during their lifetime, meaning that there is a limited opportunity for reproduction (Hillier, 1994Song et al., 2009). Moreover, reproductive female organs, including the uterus and ovaries, exhibit periodic growth, and regeneration that is regulated by hormones. The hormonal control system has dynamic functions and is susceptible to the physiological stress caused by foreign particles (Warren and Perlroth, 2001Armenti et al., 2008), and any interruption in female reproduction potentially results in fetal anomalies.

Moreover, it suggests the mechanism whereby ionised nanoparticles might be able to penetrate the specialized barrier of specific human organs:

Other vital organs of the human body that nanoparticles reach include the brain (Elder et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2008), and the testis (Bai et al., 2010), or even the fetus, which are protected by their own specialized barriers. Nevertheless, even these vital organs are not fully protected, since certain nanoparticles can effectively penetrate their barriers (De Jong et al., 2008). The ability of nanoparticles to bypass/penetrate these defensive, protective barriers of the human body depends on their physical (e.g., size, shape, aspect ratio; Meng et al., 2007; Qiu et al., 2010; Ma et al., 2011) and chemical properties (e.g., aggregation, surface chemical, charge status). For example, positively charged nanoparticles can more effectively enter the cell since the cellular membrane (which consists of a double layer of phospholipids) is negatively charged. This has been also confirmed in independent experiments studying the cellular uptake of nanoparticles (e.g., polyethyleneimine-coated mesoporous silica nanoparticles), which are positively charged, demonstrating an increased uptake by cells compared to negatively charged nanoparticles (Xia et al., 2009). Thus, the increased uptake of positively charged (cationic) nanoparticles may result in increased damage of membrane phospholipids as well as increased damage to cellular compartments (e.g., the lysosomes; Xia et al., 2006).

Doesn’t look too good does it, if, in ‘vaccinated’ women especially, there are millions of ionized lipids floating around in the bloodstream, ready to release their mRNA into cells, forcing them to manufacture what is now known to be a highly cytotoxic spike protein? Ionized lipids which just ‘happen’ to preferentially accumulate in the female reproductive organs. Which brings us back to the enigma of why ‘vaccinated’ women are experiencing highly unusual and alarming irregularities in their normally very stable periods.

An interesting study published in 1998 looked at ionized proteins and their ability to pass unhindered (or not) through the selectively permeable ovarian follicular blood barrier. It’s interesting because it reveals that the permeability of the barrier depends on the ionizing charge of the protein molecule, and whether or not ovulation is taking place:

This report characterizes the permeability and selectivity properties of the ovarian blood-follicle barrier. Proteins of similar size but opposite net charge possess strikingly different permeabilities with respect to this barrier. Inter-α-inhibitor (I α I, 220 kDa, pI ~ 6.2) is excluded from the follicle until an ovulatory stimulus, whereas immunoglobulin G (IgG, 155 kDa, pI ~ 6.5–7.0) passes into the follicle without an ovulatory stimulus. However, cationization of I α I results in its influx into the follicle in the absence of an ovulatory signal. Conversely, anionization of IgG results in its exclusion from the follicle unless an ovulatory stimulus (hCG administration) is provided. Molecular size also plays a role in blood-follicle barrier selectivity. For example, cationization of 2-macroglobulin (pI ~ 8.5; 700 kDa) fails to facilitate its entry into unstimulated follicles. Conversely, negatively charged BSA (pl ~ 4.5; 66 kDa) passes freely into unstimulated follicles. These studies support the hypothesis that the blood-follicle barrier is size-selective but that charge sign and density play a role in the permeability of this barrier to proteins within an intermediate size range.

Earlier studies provided evidence that the blood-follicle barrier was located at the level of the ovarian microvasculature and demonstrated that it was freely permeable to most molecules below 70-300 kDa [1-5]. Surprisingly, however, it was also shown that molecules of the IaI family could enter the follicular fluid only after an ovulatory surge of gonadotropin [4, 5]. Thus, the trans-barrier flux of these negatively charged proteins was regulated differently from neutral or positively charged proteins of similar size, suggesting that charge might also play a role in permeability of the blood-follicle barrier. A test of this hypothesis was carried out by cationizing IotI and demonstrating that this positively charged molecule crossed the barrier in the absence of gonadotropic stimulation. Studies involving another serum protein, IgG, also supported this hypothesis. IgG carries a net neutral to slightly positive charge and is similar in size to IoI but is characterized by a strikingly different
follicular distribution. No ovulatory stimulus was needed for native IgG to cross the barrier and enter the follicle. At an appropriate level of anionization, however, regulation of its trans-barrier flux was similar to that of IaI.

Basically, what this study found is that negatively charged proteins could only pass across the ovarian blood-follicle during an ovulatory surge. The egg during ovulation starts to develop in the follicle and is released into the uterus some days later and if it is not fertilized, the uterine lining breaks down and a woman passes blood from the vagina.

Now this is just pure speculation on my part but could these disruptions to women’s periods have anything to do with maybe negatively charged lipid nanoparticles or even negatively charged soluble spike proteins passing preferentially into the the follicle during ovulation, contaminating the developing egg therein, the same egg which is later released directly into the uterus, stimulating the breakdown of the uterine lining and consequent loss of blood if it is infertile? Could the contamination of the egg with toxic spike proteins and/or lipid nanoparticles be resulting in these irregularities in women’s periods? It’s an unsettling thought and as I say it is pure layperson speculation on my part. I have no idea what ionising charge the lipids may have, whether positive or negative, whether that charge varies, and the same for the spike proteins, but I believe it should at least be looked at. The heavier periods may of course be as a consequence of the presence of the lipids/spike proteins in the blood vessels which feed the uterine lining and have nothing to do with the egg. However, if the egg itself is being contaminated with these products of the ‘vaccine’, then I would think this definitely has implications for fertility.

Update: July 4th 2021

Robert Malone has tweeted this:

Deaths And ‘Cases’ Of Delta Variant In ‘Vaccinated’ And Unvaccinated – A Complicated Picture

There’s been a lot of talk on social media regarding the 17th technical briefing on alleged variants of concern in the United Kingdom. According to the UK government’s own figures on the Delta (formerly known as the ‘Indian’) variant, up to 21st June, these were the data for cases, hospitalisations and deaths attributable to said VOC:

Summary of the information:

/ There were a total of 53,822 ‘cases’ (positive tests) in unvaccinated individuals, virtually all of them in the under 50s.

/ There were 13,715 ‘cases’ in those >21 days post vax dose 1, just over two thirds of them in under 50s age bracket.

/ There were 7235 ‘cases’ in those fully ‘vaccinated’, roughly divided equally between those over 50 and those under 50.

/ All of the deaths in the double vaccinated were in those over 50; none occurred in the under 50s. 50 fatalities out of 3546.

/ 6 deaths occurred in those under 50 in the unvaccinated group. 6 fatalities out of 52846.

/ 38 deaths occurred in those over 50 in the unvaccinated; 38 deaths out of 976.

/ For the fully vaccinated, the ‘case’ fatality rate is 50/3546=1.41% in the over 50s.

/ For the unvaccinated, the ‘case’ fatality rate is 38/976=3.89% in the over 50s.

/ In the unvaccinated, the ‘case’ fatality rate for those under 50 was 6/52846=0.011%

/ No data is available for the ‘case’ fatality rate in those under 50 who are fully vaccinated.

So, from this, if we are to take the government’s figures at face value – and I’m still not sure how they are identifying Delta cases re. ‘genotyping’ as opposed to ‘sequencing’, or the relative proportions of those two methods which make up the total – we get a somewhat confusing picture. It would appear that in the fully vaxxed over 50s, the chance of dying if you’re infected with the delta variant is about a third of the chance of dying if you are unvaxxed. But the vast majority of delta ‘cases’ are in the unvaxxed under 50s (52,846), yet only 6 of those people died. Only 976 ‘cases’ occurred in the unvaxxed over 50s – which may reflect the relative lack of over 50s who have not been jabbed. Conversely, 3546 ‘cases’ occurred in the fully jabbed over 50s, which may reflect just how many fully jabbed over 50s there are. The take home message appears to be: if you are over 50, it might be worth getting jabbed to reduce your risk of dying from Covid, but if you’re under 50, the chance of dying even if you’re infected with the delta variant is very small.

The risk calculation above of course does not take into account the risk of dying or being seriously injured as a consequence of getting jabbed, which is significant for all age groups, as we have seen. So even though, if you are over 50, you might theoretically have lowered your risk of death from Covid by getting jabbed, you will also have raised your risk of death (by what is looking like to be a comparable amount) by getting jabbed, plus there are also unforeseen future risks. If you’re under 50, the jab is probably more of a risk to life and health than Covid, especially if you’re under 30, in which case you’d have to be nuts to get jabbed – or bullied mercilessly into it (which is happening).

Study Concludes: Vaccines Are Killing About As Many People as they are Saving and Causing Many More Serious Injuries

Here’s the study, published today.


Background: COVID-19 vaccines have had expedited reviews without sufficient safety data. We wanted to compare risks and benefits. Method: We calculated the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) from a large Israeli field study to prevent one death. We accessed the Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) database of the European Medicines Agency and of the Dutch National Register ( to extract the number of cases reporting severe side effects and the number of cases with fatal side effects. Result: The NNTV is between 200–700 to prevent one case of COVID-19 for the mRNA vaccine marketed by Pfizer, while the NNTV to prevent one death is between 9000 and 50,000 (95% confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate. The number of cases experiencing adverse reactions has been reported to be 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. Currently, we see 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11/100,000 vaccinations. For three deaths prevented by vaccination, we have to accept one inflicted by vaccination. Conclusions: This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.

Where do they get that figure of 3 deaths prevented for every death caused? I think it may actually be a typo because their own figures, even quoted in the abstract, don’t lead to that conclusion. Using the point estimate of 16,000 NNTV to prevent one death, this is roughly six lives saved per 100,000 vaccinated, meaning that four die and sixteen are seriously injured to prevent six deaths. That’s a ratio of 3 lives saved for every two killed by the vaccines. The text confirms this:

Thus, we need to accept that around 16 cases will develop severe adverse reactions from COVID-19 vaccines per 100,000 vaccinations delivered, and approximately four people will die from the consequences of being vaccinated per 100,000 vaccinations delivered. Adopting the point estimate of NNTV = 16,000 (95% CI, 9000–50,000) to prevent one COVID-19-related death, for every six (95% CI, 2–11) deaths prevented by vaccination, we may incur four deaths as a consequence of or associated with the vaccination. Simply put: As we prevent three deaths by vaccinating, we incur two deaths.

It’s not good is it, especially when you include the 16 people out of every 100k with life-changing injuries, especially when you consider that the long term risks of these ‘vaccines’ must also be added in and they are not likely to be insignificant. Yet the absolute scumbags in government are still pushing the jabs for all they are worth, convincing healthy people that they need to get them if they want to travel abroad. This is what that weasel Schapps posted on Twitter today (with apologies to all weasel-kind):

Our government is telling people to risk their lives for no net clinical benefit and to significantly risk serious, life-changing injuries, in order to be able to travel freely, which is their God-given right, a basic human right which was never the government’s lawful perogative to remove. I cannot convey my dismay and disgust at that without lapsing into a string of expletives, so I’ll leave it there.

The study outlines the clinical reasons behind these deaths and adverse reactions which are now becoming generally accepted (except by megalomaniac, psychopathic, murderous, power-mad politicians of course).

A recent experimental study showed that the SARS-CoV2 spike protein is sufficient to produce endothelial damage [23]. This provides a potential causal rationale for the most serious and most frequent side effects, namely, vascular problems such as thrombotic events. The vector-based COVID-19 vaccines can produce soluble spike proteins, which multiply the potential damage sites [24]. The spike protein also contains domains that may bind to cholinergic receptors, thereby compromising the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathways, enhancing inflammatory processes [25]. A recent review listed several other potential side effects of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines that may also emerge later than in the observation periods covered here [26].

As the authors point out, the risk-benefit ratio of adults getting ‘vaccinated’ might be even worse because of underreporting of adverse side effects and no way should kids be jabbed.

Finally, we note that from experience with reporting side effects from other drugs, only a small fraction of side effects is reported to adverse events databases [27,28]. The median underreporting can be as high as 95% [29].Given this fact and the high number of serious side effects already reported, the current political trend to vaccinate children who are at very low risk of suffering from COVID-19 in the first place must be reconsidered.

In conclusion:

The present assessment raises the question whether it would be necessary to rethink policies and use COVID-19 vaccines more sparingly and with some discretion only in those that are willing to accept the risk because they feel more at risk from the true infection than the mock infection. Perhaps it might be necessary to dampen the enthusiasm by sober facts?

Can you actually envisage a time when you will hear sober facts coming from the mouths of Hancock and Johnson and the ‘vaccine minister’ Zahawi? I can’t. It’s been relentless lies and disinformation so far. They are committed to jabbing literally every person in the UK with these verifiable toxins and they are determined to make social outcasts (or worse) of those people who refuse them.

Snow Models, Ice Models and Climate Models Generate ‘Data’ According to Scientists

Arctic Sea-Ice

This is what Professor Johan Rockstrom posted on Twitter 2 days ago:

Here is Rockstrom’s profile. As you can see he’s an earth science bigwig on ‘global sustainability’ and ‘planetary boundaries’ and he’s also Director of the Potsdam Institute, so he’s definitely an ‘expert’ who we should take very seriously. When he says that the Arctic sea ice ‘tipping element’ is fast approaching a ‘tipping point’ of no return, we should put our fingers to our lips and tremble with trepidation whilst whispering ‘Oh my God’, over and over, in barely audible, abject, stupefied terror.

Here’s what that Graun article says:

Arctic sea ice thinning twice as fast as thought, study finds

Less ice means more global heating, a vicious cycle that also leaves the region open to new oil extraction

Sea ice across much of the Arctic is thinning twice as fast as previously thought, researchers have found.

Arctic ice is melting as the climate crisis drives up temperatures, resulting in a vicious circle in which more dark water is exposed to the sun’s heat, leading to even more heating of the planet.

OMG, ‘climate crisis, vicious circle, even more heating’. We’re all going to DIE!

So what’s the evidence, where’s the data for this imminent irreversible planetary catastrophe? Well, it’s models, innit:

Calculating the thickness of sea ice from satellite radar data is difficult because the amount of snow cover on top varies significantly. Until now, the snow data used came from measurements by Soviet expeditions on ice floes between 1954 and 1991. But the climate crisis has drastically changed the Arctic, meaning this information is out of date.

The new research used novel computer models to produce detailed snow cover estimates from 2002 to 2018. The models tracked temperature, snowfall and ice floe movement to assess the accumulation of snow. Using this data to calculate sea ice thickness showed it is thinning twice as fast as previously estimated in the seas around the central Arctic, which make up the bulk of the polar region.

Robbie Mallett of University College London (it’s gone right down hill since I left, I can tell you), who led the study, says:

The Soviet-era data was hard won, Mallett said. “They sent these brave guys out and they sat on these drifting stations and floated around the Arctic, sometimes for years at a time, measuring the snow depth.” But the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change identified the lack of more recent data as a key knowledge gap in 2019.

Yep, those hardy Russians actually went out and collected real data from the real world. They got off their arses and endured arduous conditions for long periods in order to physically measure sea ice thickness. This is what used to exclusively be called ‘data’. But now ‘data’ can be obtained by sitting on your lazy backside in a nice warm room in front of a computer screen, using ‘models’. Weather models, climate models, snow models, ice models, you name it, they’ve got models for everything these days and they generate ‘data’. You can probably even download them as an app on your iPhone, so you can now do what those brave, intrepid Russians did even whilst sipping your soy latte in some cafe in Islington. It’s great. Way back in 2019, even the IPCC admitted that there was a lack of real data on sea ice thickness. Now, 2 years into the post normal, post empiricist, post colonial, post Enlightenment, computer generated era of ‘Science’ (which governments religiously ‘follow’ to produce allegedly ‘evidence-based policy’ on stuff as diverse as public health in a pandemic, bad weather and sea level rise), we have new data which ‘evidences’ an imminent tipping point in Arctic sea-ice decline due to the fast approaching anthropogenic fossil fuel carbon-based Thermageddon.

Here are a few quotes from the actual UL paper:

To investigate the impact of variability and trends in snow cover on regional sea ice thickness we use the results of SnowModel-LG (Liston et al.2020aStroeve et al.2020). SnowModel-LG is a Lagrangian model for snow accumulation over sea ice; the model is capable of assimilating meteorological data from different atmospheric reanalyses (see below) and combines them with sea ice motion vectors to generate pan-Arctic snow-depth and density distributions.

SnowModel-LG exhibits more significant interannual variability than mW99 in its output because it reflects year-to-year variations in weather and sea ice dynamics.

SnowModel-LG creates a snow distribution based on reanalysis data, and the accuracy of these snow data is unlikely to exceed the accuracy of the input. There is significant spread in the representation of the actual distribution of relevant meteorological parameters by atmospheric reanalyses (Boisvert et al.2018Barrett et al.2020). The results of SnowModel-LG therefore depend on the reanalysis data set used.

So basically, their new model which relies upon meteorological reanalysis data (more models) shows that interannual variability in weather conditions in the Arctic is much greater than thought and this results, curiously, in the regional trend in sea ice thickness decline being also larger than previously estimated in some areas.

4.3 New and faster thickness declines in the marginal seas

As well as exhibiting higher interannual variability than mW99, SnowModel-LG values decline over time in most regions due to decreasing SWE values year over year. Here we examine the aggregate contribution of a more variable but declining time series in determining the magnitude and significance of trends in .

We first assess regions where was already in statistically significant decline when calculated with mW99. This is the case for all months in the Laptev and Kara seas and 4 of 7 months in the Chukchi and Barents sea. The rate of decline in these regions grew significantly when calculated with SnowModel-LG data (Fig. 10; green panels). Relative to the decline rate calculated with mW99, this represents average increases of 62 % in the Laptev sea, 81 % in the Kara Sea and 102 % in the Barents Sea. The largest increase in an already statistically significant decline was in the Chukchi Sea in April, where the decline rate increased by a factor of 2.1. When analysed as an aggregated area and with mW99, the total marginal seas area exhibits a statistically significant negative trend in November, December, January and April. The East Siberian Sea is the only region to have a month of decline when calculated with mW99 but not with SnowModel-LG.

We also analyse these regional declines as a percentage of the regional mean sea ice thickness in the observational period (2002–2018; Fig. 11). We observe the average growth-season thinning to increase from 21 % per decade to 42 % per decade in the Barents Sea, 39 % to 56 % per decade in the Kara Sea, and 24 % to 40 % per decade in the Laptev Sea when using SnowModel-LG instead of mW99. Five of the 7 growth-season months in the Chukchi Sea exhibit a decline with SnowModel-LG of (on average) 44 % per decade. This is much more than that of the 4 significant months observable with mW99 (25 % per decade). We find the marginal seas (when considered as a contiguous, aggregated group) to be losing 30 % of its mean thickness per decade in the 6 statistically significant months when SIT is calculated using SnowModel-LG (as opposed to mW99).

So it’s the marginal seas, more than the central Arctic region which, according to this study, are declining even faster in sea ice thickness than previously estimated. So let’s take a look at the map of sea-ice thickness for this year, May 2021 and compare it with 10 years ago, May 2011

Can you spot the significant decline in sea-ice thickness? Here is what marine biologist Susan Crockford says about this year’s sea-ice thickness:

Surprising sea ice thickness across the Arctic is good news for polar bears

This year near the end of May the distribution of thickest sea ice (3.5-5m/11.5-16.4 ft – or more) is a bit surprising, given that the WMO has suggested we may be only five years away from a “dangerous tipping point” in global temperatures. There is the usual and expected band of thick ice in the Arctic Ocean across northern Greenland and Canada’s most northern islands but there are also some patches in the peripheral seas (especially north of Svalbard, southeast Greenland, Foxe Basin, Hudson Strait, Chukchi Sea, Laptev Sea). This is plenty of sea ice for polar bear hunting at this time of year (mating season is pretty much over) and that thick ice will provide summer habitat for bears that choose to stay on the ice during the low-ice season: not even close to an emergency for polar bears.

Thick ice along the coasts of the Chukchi and Laptev Seas in Russia seems to be reasonably common, see closeup of the 2021 chart below:

Note that the Chukchi Sea and Laptev Sea both have thick ice this year. These two were singled out by the study above as showing the fastest declines in sea-ice thickness; indeed the Chuckchi provides the Graun headline ‘Arctic ice thinning twice as fast as thought’. Perhaps it is just interannual variability and these regions will show a marked decline next year, placing polar bears once again at risk of extinction. Alarmists can but hope.

Matt Ridley in the Telegraph

Matt also takes aim at the epidemiological and climate modelers, who are so fond of their worst case scenarios, in the Telegraph. He says:

The Government’s reliance on Sage experts’ computer modelling to predict what would happen with or without various interventions has proved about as useful as the ancient Roman habit of consulting trained experts in “haruspicy” – interpreting the entrails of chickens.

Again and again, worst-case scenarios are presented with absurd precision, sometimes deliberately to frighten us into compliance. The notorious press conference last October that told us 4,000 people a day might die was based on a model that was already well out of date.

Pessimism bias in modelling has two roots. The first is that worst-case scenarios are more likely to catch the attention of ministers and broadcasters: academics are as competitive as anybody in seeking such attention. The second is that modellers have little to lose by being pessimistic, but being too optimistic risks can ruin their reputations. Ask Michael Fish, the weather forecaster who in 1987 reassured viewers that hurricanes hardly ever happen.

Then he identifies the tendency I have criticised here, namely the false assumption that the output of models can be treated as ‘data’:

As Steve Baker MP has been arguing for months, the modellers must face formal challenge. It is not just in the case of Covid that haruspicy is determining policy. There is a growing tendency to speak about the outcomes of models in language that implies they generate evidence, rather than forecasts. This is especially a problem in the field of climate science. As the novelist Michael Crichton put it in 2003: “No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world: increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a reality.”

Examine the forecasts underpinning government agencies’ plans for climate change and you will find they often rely on a notorious model called RCP8.5, which was always intended as extreme and unrealistic. Among a stack of bonkers assumptions, it projects that the world will get half its energy from coal in 2100, burning 10 times as much as today, even using it to make fuel for aircraft and vehicles. In this and every other respect, RCP8.5 is already badly wrong, but it has infected policy-makers like a virus, a fact you generally have to dig out of the footnotes of government documents.

I was pointing out the parallels between climate and Covid modelling in April last year:

“They got it wrong the second time because they relied upon an epidemiological model (adapted from an old ‘flu model) which predicted 510,000 deaths from a virus which we knew virtually nothing about.

Climate change modellers never get it wrong, simply because even when their models don’t agree with reality, this is either because the observations are wrong, or because they still ‘do a reasonable job’ of modelling past and present climate change (especially when inconvenient ‘blips’ are ironed out by retrospective adjustments to the data), but principally because the subject of their claimed modelling expertise lies many years off in the future – climate change to be expected in 2050 or 2100, when the real impacts will begin to be felt. Imperial’s and IMHE’s worst case scenarios look way off, just weeks after they were proposed and after governments acted on the modeller’s advice. Their assumptions are being rapidly challenged by new data and research. Nothing similar happens in climate change land. Their worst case scenario (RCP8.5), though comprehensively debunked, still lives on and is still being defended by Met Office scientists on the basis that ‘carbon feedbacks (however unlikely) cannot be ruled out’.

Ice models and climate models combined are data points

At least, they are according to Dr Tamsin Edwards of King’s College London, writing in the Graun:

Sea levels are going to rise, no matter what. This is certain. But new
research I helped produce shows how much we could limit the damage: sea level rise from the melting of ice could be halved this century if we meet the Paris agreement target of keeping global warming to 1.5C.

The aim of our research was to provide a coherent picture of the future of the world’s land ice using hundreds of simulations. 

Connecting parts of the world: the world’s land ice is made up of global glaciers in 19 regions, and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets at each pole. Our methods allow us to use exactly the same predictions of global warming for each. This may sound obvious, but is actually unusual, perhaps unique at this scale. Each part of the world is simulated separately, by different groups of people, using different climate models to provide the warming levels. We realigned all these predictions to make them consistent.

Connecting the data: at its heart, this study is a join-the-dots picture. Our 38 groups of modellers created nearly 900 simulations of glaciers and ice sheets. Each one is a data point about its contribution to future sea level rise. Here, we connected the points with lines, using a statistical method called “emulation”. Imagine clusters of stars in the sky: drawing the constellations allow us to visualise the full picture more easily – not just a few points of light, but each detail of Orion’s torso, limbs, belt and bow.

Not only are model outputs ‘data’; they are also stars in the firmament! Tamsin and the other eighty four authors of this study are also very fond of focusing on worst case scenarios:

So, for those most at risk, we made a second set of predictions in a pessimistic storyline where Antarctica is particularly sensitive to climate change. We found the losses from the ice sheet could be five times larger than the main predictions, which would imply a 5% chance of the land ice contribution to sea level exceeding 56cm in 2100 – even if we limit warming to 1.5C. Such a storyline would mean far more severe increases in flooding.

How did they generate this particular set of ‘data points’? This is explained in the actual paper:

Given the wide range and cancellations of responses across models and parameters, we
present alternative ‘pessimistic but physically plausible’ Antarctica projections for risk-averse
stakeholders, by combining a set of assumptions that lead to high sea level contributions.
These are: the four ice sheet models most sensitive to basal melting; the four climate models
that lead to highest Antarctic sea level contributions, and the one used to drive most of the ice
shelf collapse simulations; the high basal melt (Pine Island Glacier) distribution; and with ice
shelf collapse ‘on’ (i.e. combining robustness tests 6 and 7 and sensitivity tests 6 and 10). This
storyline would come about if the high basal melt sensitivities currently observed at Pine
Island Glacier soon become widespread around the continent; the ice sheet responds to these
with extensive retreat and rapid ice flow; and atmospheric warming is sufficient to
disintegrate ice shelves, but does not substantially increase snowfall. The risk-averse
projections are more than five times the main estimates: median 21 cm (95th percentile range
7 to 43 cm) under the NDCs (Fig. 3j), and essentially the same under SSP5-85 (Table 1;
regions shown in Extended Data Figure 4: test 11), with the 95th percentiles emerging above
the main projections after 2040 (Fig. 3d). This is very similar to projections under an
extreme scenario of widespread ice shelf collapses for RCP8.5 (median 21 cm; 95th percentile
range 9 to 39 cm).

I’m sorry Tamsin, but model output is not data and your worst case scenario of glacier melt and resultant sea level rise is not physically or socio-economically ‘plausible’. Climate scientists and epidemiological modelers do not live in the same world as the rest of us, but they insist that we make plans and real sacrifices to prepare for the nightmarish world which they do inhabit, if only on a part time basis.

“We have never seen anything like this”: Mass Vaccinated Israel Experiences a Surge of Winter Viral Infections in Midsummer.

This comes straight from the Annals of ‘Screw With Nature and Nature Will Screw With You’. Israel is one of the most Covid ‘vaccinated’ countries in the world, with 58% of the populace now fully jabbed, including kids as young as 16. They’ve paid a high price for that ‘privilege’ though. First, deaths spiked soon after ‘vaccination’. Then the government introduced medical Apartheid by instigating the Green passport scheme, which has recently been abandoned as unworkable, probably because not enough people were getting jabbed. Then recently, they’ve discovered that jabbing youngsters (who don’t need to be ‘vaccinated’ against Covid) has resulted in a significant increase in myocarditis (inflammation of heart muscle), a serious condition which can be life threatening. Now they’ve got even more problems – the emergence of winter respiratory viruses in midsummer.

The corona crisis might be over, but all over Israel adults and children are getting sick with viral infections in a phenomenon that is unprecedented for this time of the year, according to several medical professionals.“We have never seen anything like this,” said Dr. Tal Brosh, head of Infectious Disease Unit at the Samson Assuta Ashdod Hospital. “We’ve been monitoring viral infections in the hospital, which of course is just the tip of the iceberg of what is going on in the community, as for each hospitalized patient, there are many more out there. Since the spring, we have been seeing an increasing number of respiratory diseases, and since May there has been a surge in RSV cases.”RSV, or respiratory syncytial virus, usually appears in the winter together with the influenza, and is especially serious for very young children and older, vulnerable adults.

“We usually see it disappearing in the summer, but if we consider the numbers now, it looks like winter in previous years,” said Brosh. “During the winter 2020-2021, we did not see one individual case of RSV.” RSV is not the only virus that is widely circulating – other diseases that are currently infecting a growing number of people are a type of adenovirus, the human metapneumovirus (HMPV), and the rhinovirus. All of them are associated with respiratory symptoms and other symptoms similar to those of a severe cold. At the same time, influenza has not hit the country since the winter previous to the pandemic.

So, they ended the alleged ‘Covid crisis’ only to end up with a series of other crises, medical and political. They ‘killed’ the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic, which mainly affected the ill and the very old, and ended up with an unprecedented summer epidemic of RSV and other viruses which not only affect the old but also the very young, who were never at risk of Covid. God only knows what the winter holds, when ‘flu will most likely come roaring back (if it ever went away). Of course, the ‘experts’ are playing it down and saying it’s because of the ending of lockdowns and mask wearing, but I suspect that is far too simplistic an explanation. If masks and lockdowns failed to kill Covid (and there is no evidence that they have contained the spread of SARS-CoV-2, virtually everywhere they’ve been tried), then it’s highly unlikely that they had any significant impact on other respiratory viruses.

Snir noted that after the year of the pandemic, it is not surprising that these diseases are reappearing.

“We did not see them during the winter because we were wearing masks and because of the lockdowns, but they are normal viruses,” she said.

So what’s causing this re-emergence of winter respiratory viruses? We know that the ‘vaccines’ can trigger the re-emergence of latent viruses, especially Herpes Zoster. So perhaps normally seasonally dormant viruses have been re-activated by the mass vaccination campaign? It’s a possibility, as outlined here:

Unfortunately, as virus circulation decreases, the age of primary infection increases, and since age is directly associated with pathogenicity, vaccinating children would likely lead to lower infection rates but higher case fatality rates.22 Additionally, depending on the relative durations of immunity induced by vaccines and infection, and the rate of viral antigenic change, vaccinating children might increase the frequency of large seasonal epidemics, leading to overall increases in virus induced morbidity and mortality.5

Finally, mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 induce greater antibody responses than natural infection but may elicit CD8 T cell responses that are less broadly protective against future variants.23,24 Further studies on the differences between vaccine and infection induced immunity should be done to explore and quantify these trade-offs.

Whatever the actual reasons for the current outbreaks of respiratory viruses in Israel may be, it looks highly likely that the decision to mass vaccinate the entire population with experimental, gene-based ‘vaccines’ is going to turn out to be unwise at the least, catastrophic at worst. The UK is not far behind Israel, so expect a similar phenomenon here, with people suffering colds and other respiratory ailments during the height of summer, which no doubt our lying government will identify as the beginning of a third ‘deadly wave’ of Covid.

“It is now apparent that these products in the blood stream are toxic to humans. An immediate halt to the vaccination programme is required”

These are the words of Dr Tess Lawrie (MBBCh, PhD), Director, Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy Ltd and EbMC Squared CiC, in a letter to Dr June Raine, Chief Executive of the MHRA, the same MHRA which has recently authorised the use of the Pfizer ‘vaccine’ in children aged 12-15. It is almost inconceivable that they would do this, given the number and seriousness of the adverse reactions to the ‘vaccines’ being recorded on their own ‘early warning’ database, especially when children of that age are at statistically zero risk of serious Covid disease. But we live in strange times, so strange in fact, so deeply disturbing that our government is threatening not to end lockdown restrictions completely on June 21st because they haven’t coerced enough younger people to get injected with the blood toxin they are calling a ‘vaccine’.

Here are a few relevant passages from that letter:

The Covid-19 vaccines were rolled out in the UK on the 8th of December 2020. As of the 6th May 2021 nearly 39 million people have received their first dose of the Covid-19 vaccine, and 24 million both doses. Sufficient data have now accumulated to get a good overview of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). I would, therefore, like to draw your attention to the high number of covid-19 vaccine-attributed deaths and ADRs that have been reported via the Yellow Card system between the 4th January 2021 and the 26th May 2021. In total, 1,253 deaths and 888,196 ADRs (256,224 individual reports) were reported during this period.

To facilitate a better clinical understanding of the nature of the adverse events occurring, primarily to inform doctors at the frontline, we have searched the Yellow Card reports using pathology-specific key words to group the data according to the following five broad, clinically relevant categories:

A. Bleeding, Clotting and Ischaemic ADRs

B. Immune System ADRs

C. ‘Pain’ ADRs

D. Neurological ADRs

E. ADRs involving loss of Sight, Hearing, Speech or Smell

F. Pregnancy ADRs

A. Bleeding, Clotting and Ischaemic Adverse Drug Reactions

We used the following SEARCH TERMS to identify bleeding, clotting and ischaemic ADRs: bleed, haemo*, thrombo*, emboli*, coag*, death, ischaem*, infarct*, angina, stroke, cerebrovascular, CVA.

We included the term ‘death’ in this search group, as this term accounted for many reported fatalities (438) without specific details. Given the large number of fatalities without a specific cause of death, we considered that ADRs reported in this way, in particular as ‘sudden death’, would be most likely to occur from haemorrhagic, thrombo-embolic or ischaemic events. Given the seriousness of this ADR, we considered it justifiable to do this pending a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to clarify the cause of death in these 438 people.

Using these search terms, 13,766 bleeding, clotting and ischaemic ADRs were identified – 856 of which were fatal. Government reports have highlighted the occurrence of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, apparently accounting for 24 fatalities and 226 ADRs up to the 26th May 2021.However, our analysis indicates that thromboembolic ADRs have been reported in almost every vein and artery, including large vessels like the aorta, and in every organ including other parts of the brain, lungs, heart, spleen, kidneys, ovaries and liver, with life-threatening and life-changing consequences. The most common Yellow Card categories affected by these sorts of ADRs were the nervous system (152 fatalities, mainly from brain bleeds and clots), respiratory (with 103 fatalities, mainly from pulmonary thromboembolism) and cardiac categories (81 fatalities).

So, you see, it’s not just “extremely rare” cerebral venous sinus thromboses which are the problem here. Blood clots are forming in blood vessels throughout the body and in virtually every organ. This suggests that the vaccine and/or its spike protein product is getting into the vascular system and being distributed widely. This was not supposed to happen! To get an idea of just how massive a problem this may be, Dr Reiner Fuellmich, the German lawyer currently pursuing Covid human rights violations class action lawsuits, cites a German clinical study which measured D-dimer levels in volunteers before and after ‘vaccination’. Regardless of any adverse reactions, D-dimer levels were elevated post vaccination in almost half of volunteers, proving that clot formation was taking place. If that sample is representative of the vaccinated population as a whole, then it is truly shocking. Remember, each time you are jabbed, these toxins circulate around the blood system and the psychopaths in charge are proposing 3rd and even 4th booster jabs this winter.

Thrombo-embolic events aren’t the only problem:

B. Immune System Adverse Drug Reactions (Infection, Inflammation,Autoimmune, Allergic)

We used the following SEARCH TERMS to identify immune system ADRs: INFECTION (category), IMMUNE DISORDERS (category), -itis; immun, multiple sclerosis, lupus, myasthenia, pernicious, diabetes, Addison, Crohn’s, Coeliac, Graves, alopecia, amyloidosis, antiphospholipid, angioedema, Behcet’s, pemphigoid, psoriasis, aplasia, sarcoidosis, scleroderma, thrombocytopenia, vitiligo, Miller Fisher, Guillain-Barre; allerg*, urticaria, rash, eczema, asthma.

To the 26th May, a total of 54,870 ADRs and 171 fatalities fell into this category, which comprised the second most common cause of post-vaccination fatalities after ‘Bleeding, Clotting and Ischaemic ADRs’. However, only 4 associated fatalities were reported under the Yellow card ‘IMMUNE DISORDERS’ category, with the majority (141 fatalities associated with 19,474 ADRs) reported under the ‘INFECTIONS’ category. Among 1,187 people for whom post-vaccination COVID infection was reported, there were 72 fatalities (6% of reported COVID infection ADRs).

Many ‘INFECTION’ category ADRs indicated the occurrence of re-activation of latent viruses, including Herpes Zoster or shingles (1,827 ADRs), Herpes Simplex (943 ADRs, 1 fatal), and Rabies (1 fatal ADR) infections. This is strongly suggestive of vaccine-induced immune-compromise.Bell’s palsy, also associated with latent virus reactivation, is reported in the Neurological ADRs section of this report (D). Also suggestive of vaccine-induced immunocompromise was the high number of immune-mediated conditions reported, including Guillain-Barré Syndrome (280 ADRs, 6 deaths), Crohn’s and non-infective colitis (231 ADRs, 2 deaths) and Multiple Sclerosis (113 ADRs).

Allergic responses to the vaccines comprised 25,270 reported ADRs, with 4 fatalities occurring among 1,001 people experiencing anaphylactic reactions. 

Additionally, we have the following classes of adverse reactions which also give cause for concern:

C. ‘Pain’ Adverse Drug Reactions

D. Neurological Adverse Drug Reactions

E. Adverse Drug Reactions involving loss of sight, hearing, speech or smell

F. Pregnancy Adverse Drug Reactions

As if all that wasn’t bad enough, we also have the unforeseen potential long term adverse reactions. We know for sure now that the drug companies have screwed up by not anticipating very serious immediate adverse reactions, so it’s more than plausible that they have failed to anticipate long term serious adverse reactions too.

According to the recent paper by Seneff and Nigh (1), potential acute and long-term pathologies include:

• Pathogenic priming, multisystem inflammatory disease and autoimmunity

• Allergic reactions and anaphylaxis

• Antibody dependent enhancement

• Activation of latent viral infections

• Neurodegeneration and prion diseases

• Emergence of novel variants of SARSCoV2

• Integration of the spike protein gene into the human DNA

The author calls for an immediate halt to the vaccine rollout:

The nature and variety of ADRs reported to the Yellow Card System are consistent with the potential pathologies described in this paper and supported by other recent scientific papers on vaccine-induced harms, which are mediated through the vaccine spike protein product (2,3). It is now apparent that these products in the blood stream are toxic to humans. An immediate halt to the vaccination programme is required whilst a full and independent safety analysis is undertaken to investigate the full extent of the harms, which the UK Yellow Card data suggest include thromboembolism, multisystem inflammatory disease, immune suppression,autoimmunity and anaphylaxis, as well as Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE).

This is perhaps the most damning sentence in the entire letter:

The MHRA now has more than enough evidence on the Yellow Card system to declare the COVID-19 vaccines unsafe for use in humans.

Why? Well, aside from the obvious, it comes within a week of when, far from withdrawing the emergency use authorisation for these ‘vaccines’ generally, the MHRA has in fact extended their use to children who were not even included in the original trials, on the basis of a ridiculously underpowered recent clinical trial in the States. Seriously WTAF is going on?

UPDATE: Watch this video. Just watch it – before YouTube delete it. I cannot stress how important it is to view this video. It is your duty as a human being.

Here is the entire video:,-in-three-easy:0?r=FuWwFotRbicqY9GHyWBqDdTNNHpaTgC9

The UK Government’s Own Data Botherers Signal That The Covid Herd Immunity Threshold Has Been Surpassed

When herd immunity has been reached or surpassed, this means that a contagious disease-causing virus is effectively endemic and can no longer spread epidemically unless it mutates sufficiently so as to evade natural or vaccine-induced defences. The Office for National Statistics has just tweeted this:

This means that in England, Wales & NI, the sero-positive rate for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 is now an astoundingly high 80%. This exceeds even the unscientific and absurdly high herd immunity threshold previously cited by SAGE ‘experts’ of 60-70% assuming that the entire population is equally susceptible to SARS-CoV-2, which it most definitely is not. In immunological terms, the population is heterogeneous which means that the effective herd immunity threshold for Covid is probably much lower, around 40%. This lower threshold was probably achieved by the end of December last year, largely via natural infections, just as the vaccinations were getting going. So all that’s happened since is that sero-positivity has doubled due to ‘vaccinating’ millions of people who didn’t need to be ‘vaccinated’ and we have now exceeded even government scientists’ own implausibly high community immunity threshold. Also, summer has finally arrived, putting a natural lid on the spread of the virus.

So, in essence, there is absolutely no excuse for not fully dispensing with restrictions and fully opening up the country on June 21st – something which the government could have safely done months ago. But they’re trying desperately to claim that the new, scary, more transmissible Delta variant (aka the ‘Indian’ variant) is spreading rapidly among the younger generation who haven’t been jabbed and therefore opening up must be delayed until more of those people get jabbed. Basically, they’re lying about the supposed health risk of a new variant and they’re threatening to delay returning our stolen civil liberties in order to blackmail younger people into getting jabbed. The fact is, if the sero-positive rate is 80%, many young people will already be immune to SARS-CoV-2, many of those via natural infection, which will confer robust immunity against all variants, because all variants so far differ only very slightly from the original Wuhan strain and infection-acquired immunity is broad spectrum. In fact the concern is that if too many youngsters get jabbed with a narrow spectrum immunity-inducing ‘vaccine’ then this may override their broad spectrum T-cell mediated natural immune response, making them more susceptible to being infected with new variants.

It definitely is time for the government to end all restrictions on commerce, hospitality, entertainment, travel and personal liberty, to stop ‘vaccinating’ people unnecessarily, to not even think about ‘vaccinating’ kids and to let us get on with our lives free of state control and fear-mongering propaganda. But they probably won’t. They have grown to love lockdowns and the control which they can exert over us all by falsely claiming a state of emergency exists as a result of a ‘deadly pandemic’. They can’t or won’t let go and the MHRA has scandalously just authorised the Pfizer ‘vaccine’ for use in 12-15 year olds so they will want to keep the fear going and the ’emergency’ on simmer all over summer so they can justify jabbing your kids with an experimental gene-based ‘vaccine’ whose long term consequences are unknown and whose short term consequences mean that the risk to children of getting jabbed outweighs considerably any alleged benefit.