Month: December 2021

The Twitterati Wake Up To The Fact That Covid Models Are Basically Crap, i.e. They’re Policy-Based Evidence Making

Well, knock me down with a feather. It’s not like some of us didn’t realise this from the word go, when Imperial College and the serial epidemiological modelling failure Professor Pantsdown Ferguson churned out their extremely suspect ‘projections’ (which ‘informed’ government lockdown policy), using some ancient indecipherable computing code which even the experts could not analyse or interpret. So, 21 months later, when the Johnson regime is threatening once again to ruin Christmas and New Year for everybody based on equally dodgy ‘worst case scenario’ projections of infections, deaths and hospitalisations from Omicron, the great and the good have finally twigged and they’re like ‘Oh my God! If only we’d known about this earlier’. Sure.

The ‘news’ is all over twitter today. Particularly irritating that politicians appear to have only just realised what’s been going on, as a result of Fraser Nelson of the Spectator finally asking the right questions and actually getting honest answers:

Some of us had a head start admittedly, from witnessing for years the shenanigans of the catastrophic climate change modellers at the Met Office and elsewhere, who equally just adore using worst case scenario projections to [in]form policy. Or rather, should I say, justify policy already formed. You see, all politicians need in order to justify sweeping changes to our entire way of life is for ‘scientists’ to come up with some really scary projections of what might plausibly happen if we don’t implement radical ‘solutions’ right now – but preferably the week before last. Then they simply invoke the Precautionary Principle: ‘we must plan for the worst, even if it seems unlikely to happen’.

With climate change modelling, what they did is develop very complex coupled ocean and atmosphere circulation models, hard-wired with the ‘science’ of greenhouse gas radiative forcing. These models spewed forth ’emergent’ values of ‘climate sensitivity’ (i.e. the amount by which the earth would warm for a doubling of atmospheric CO2) which varied anywhere between 1.5C and 6C, meaning that projections of future climate change are fraught with uncertainty. So what did they do? They preferentially focussed on those models which tended to have higher climate sensitivities in order to produce studies outlining scary climate change scenarios which rags like the Guardian and New York Times have picked up on for years and propagandised as ‘settled science’ absent any caveats to their gullible readership.

Not only that, but climate models also rely upon input in order to produce an output (e.g. how warm it will be in 2100 and how much ice will have melted, contributing to an increase in sea level etc.). This input consists of estimates of future man-made greenhouse gas emissions, which in turn depends upon global economic growth, energy use (the actual amount, plus from what source), plus a whole host of socio-economic variables. It’s not an exact science, but climate ‘scientists’ have been inordinately fond of using a very unrealistic high end emissions scenario called RCP8.5 (Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5) to plug into their already biased computer models in order to produce some very scary climate change Thermageddons which the media have obligingly disseminated as ‘fact’.

Thus the ‘climate crisis’ was born, in fact not long after little Greta, the climate activist pixie, was also born, who, after bunking off classes, then began to admonish us all for destroying the planet with climate change hell-fire and ruining her future. Bummer, I’m sure you will agree. How dare we.

I wrote about the similarities between catastrophic climate modelling and Covid modelling way back in April 2020.

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. Professor Neil Ferguson at Imperial College, London said ‘DO SOMETHING OR PEOPLE WILL DIE!’ So the government did something and people still died, not in their hundreds of thousands, but, it would seem, in numbers probably irrespective of a lockdown which was initiated too late in the day and was nowhere near strict enough to have a measurable effect on what is probably an exceptionally contagious virus. American IMHE modellers got it wrong a third time, predicting loads more deaths in the UK and the US, even in lockdown, than actually occurred.

Back then I actually believed the CCP myth that closing down society totally for a short period might conceivably stop the spread of a contagious virus, or at least buy time to prepare. I was wrong of course, but pleased to admit that I soon changed my mind when the facts about useless, destructive lockdowns became glaringly apparent. Others did not, sadly. The government gained initial compliance through fear and they’re still using the same tactic nearly two years later, but many people are not buying it this time around.

People are still scared by Covid-19; they’re scared of dying, naturally, not in many years’ time because of bad weather, but next week, due to some horrible illness which probably escaped from a lab in Wuhan, China. The government and the Medicine Men currently in control of control of government decision-making, use that fear to control us and to convince us of the legitimacy of their policy.

I wrote again, in July 2020, about the similarities between climate models and epidemiological models and, as you can see from many of the comments, was roundly criticised for my observations, by people who really should have known better. Perhaps they do now.

It is an article of faith: climate change is dangerous. Dare to criticise that view and, as a non scientist, you will be labelled a ‘climate denier’ and a crank. As a scientist, you will also be called a denier and a crank, as well as being ex-communicated, ostracised, hounded, disciplined, humiliated, vilified, cancelled, forced out of your job even. Dare to question the validity of epidemiological models which portray Covid-19 as a killer pandemic which, without lockdown, will cut through the populace like a knife, claiming hundreds of thousands of lives and overwhelming health services and you are similarly frowned upon by the prevailing epidemiological oligarchy.

Update: 20th December, 2021

Tony Heller has made a good video explaining the exact same methods used by climate and Covid modellers.

https://newtube.app/TonyHeller/WhYweap?u=t

Is Omicron a Product of Natural Evolution Of SARS-CoV-2?

The prevailing view seems to be that Omicron evolved due to selection pressure from mass vaccination; hence the many ‘mutations’ in the spike region which enable it to potentially evade the vaccine immune response, even more effectively than Delta.

But what if it has evolved naturally? This is an intriguing possibility pointed out by Robert Malone in response to a research paper recently published, which I feel should be treated with caution but it is at least a very plausible explanation for present observations regarding Omicron, i.e. its very high infectiousness and relatively mild clinical presentation.

Robert says:

Based on current reports, Omicron appears to be associated with three broad characteristics: Vaccine escape (resistance), increased viral replication and reduced disease.

You might think that because the virus is replicating even faster than Delta, and thus associated with high viral loads, it might cause enhanced clinical disease. In delta, the high viral loads combined with lack of symptoms in the jabbed were put down to the ‘fact’ that being jabbed prevents serious symptoms. But that’s very unlikely to be the case with Omicron. ‘So what’s going on?’ asks Robert.

What is going on? How can increased levels of Omicron virus replication be associated with reduced disease?  How did so many mutations in the receptor binding domain of Omicron arise, apparently spontaneously?  Why do the evolutionary tree plots show that Omicron represents a separate branch from currently circulating viruses?  How could so many mutations which confer vaccine resistance suddenly appear?  Botswana (and South Africa in general) does not have a very high vaccination rate, so why would a vaccine-resistant virus strain develop in this region. Did someone engineer and release yet another virus?  Lots and lots of questions.  Very few answers.  And then this new press release from the University of Hong Kong arrived today, showing that Omicron replicates more highly in conducting airway cells (bronchus), and less in lung cells.  I think that the paper above provides with some important clues that could help us make sense out of this puzzle.

Robert explains in rather technical language what happens when a virus ‘mutates’, both due to selective pressure (from vaccines) and due to natural evolutionary pressures created by the innate and adaptive immune response in unvaccinated individuals, of which there are many in Botswana and South Africa, where Omicron was originally discovered (although, a note of caution here, it was found in foreign travellers who were double-jabbed).

The question is not whether viral mutations occur with or without vaccination, but rather what natural selection pressures are present to select which viruses survive, infect other cells, and make more copies of themselves.  If you have not been vaccinated or infected before, there are a variety of ways that our body, innate immune system (natural antibodies and natural killer cells) and adaptive immunity “select” which viruses do or do not survive to replicate and infect others.  This process of repeated selection and replication of the viral particles which are most able to survive in your body causes the genetic characteristics of the “swarm” of viruses infecting you to gradually change – genetically speaking. This is called natural selection of the fittest, and this process happens for everything that uses DNA or RNA to carry information from one generation to the next.  This is the process that creates the gradual changes which we call “evolution”. 

Vaccination with the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 creates a “selection” force on any swarm of viruses that infect a new host.  So does the immunity created by “natural immunity” – the adaptive and innate immune responses that your body is left with after it has been infected and recovered from that infection.  Basically, anything that creates an obstacle to the virus infecting a host, replicating, and jumping to another host will drive the virus to evolve to evade that obstacle.

So, basically, yes, Omicron could have evolved in response to idiotic, dangerous and ill-conceived mass vaccination campaigns (a theory promoted by Geert Vanden Bossche) or it might just have evolved in response to natural selection pressures in a region of the world where a minority only have been jabbed (Africa).

What we know about Omicron is that it has many new mutations in the RBD.  These mutations are absolutely associated with increased resistance to the effects of vaccine-induced antibodies.  But was the development of this cluster of new mutations driven by natural selection due to vaccination?  In an area of the world that does not have a very high vaccination rate?  That does not make sense.

What if Omicron is the consequence of evolutionary pressure to replicate and infect more efficiently, perhaps to compete with Delta?  Or as a consequence of passing between human and animal (cat, ungulate) hosts?  What if what has really happened is that Omicron has evolved to change the location where it replicates in our body?  What if it has evolved to replicate more in our upper respiratory airway, and less in the deep part of our lung tissues?

It’s an intriguing possibility which consigns Omicron basically to the status of a highly infectious common cold which generally only affects the upper respiratory tract.

Robert makes an interesting observation re. human thought processes:

We often seem to fall into simple, binary thinking when considering complicated problems.  Left or right-wing politics. Vaccinated or unvaccinated selecting for newly evolved viruses.  This can limit our ability to make sense out of the world.  But what if what is going on with Omicron is not so much driven by antibodies directed against the Spike RBD, but by selection for shifting the region of the respiratory tract that it infects?  Or perhaps, this variant has bounced back and forth between humans and other species, and in so doing it has accumulated mutations which have exploited subtle differences in the ACE2 receptor. 

He may be right. We may all have been blind-sided by this sneaky little virus. My mind is still open to all possibilities. We need more data. That’s how science works. We certainly don’t need more fascist ‘vaccine’ mandates. That’s how Nazism/communism works.

Robert finishes on a positive note. Perhaps we are witnessing a Christmas miracle, the birth of a ‘natural vaccine’ in the form of Omicron which will finally end the suspect ‘Covid pandemic’, even though it might not end the horrifying pandemic of Covid fascism which is sweeping the globe.

Perhaps what we are seeing with Omicron is the genetic consequence of one of these evolutionary bursts.

This is why this new finding from a team at Hong Kong University is so significant.  Because it indicates that what may be most important about Omicron may not be the ability to evade vaccine-induced immunity, but that it has shifted its preferred tissue target for infection and replication to the upper airway instead of deep lung.  That could explain why it is more infectious, replicates to higher levels, and yet causes less severe disease.

Let’s hope that is our best gift this Christmas.

God works in mysterious ways, so they say. Perhaps he sent his Son back to earth this Christmas in the form of Omicron? That would indeed be very strange and mysterious. One thing’s for sure. The human race desperately needs a respite from the relentless evil forces which are operating globally right now.

A very Merry Christmas to all.

Dr. Robert Malone: Spike Proteins May Cause Permanent Damage — Undercurrents

Reposted from Undercurrents. This is extremely alarming and all parents should watch this before they make the decision to have their children injected. Governments are lying to you and the campaign of extreme coercion to effectively force children to get jabbed is illegal and is a crime against humanity, perpetrated upon the most vulnerable in our society – innocent children.

Dr. Robert Malone: Spike Proteins May Cause Permanent Damage — Undercurrents

It’s Optimistic, But Is It Rational?

Oh no, not Matt. One of my favourite climate sceptical thinkers has succumbed to the Cult of the Vackseen. What can I say? I’m deeply disappointed and disillusioned. Even if not always agreeing with Matt, I’ve defended his way of thinking against attacks from the more hysterical members of the Climate Cult, as here. I’ve respected his rationalism, even if not always sharing his optimism. But what have we got here?

Matt is a scientist. Where is his rationale for getting boosted? Where is his rationale and evidence to justify getting boosted with a totally different ‘vaccine’ from his first two jabs? Which manufacturer is he going to blame if it turns out that the intense reaction he suffered is the start of something more ominous? Is he healthy? I presume so. So why would he even contemplate getting ‘boosted’ when the advice from the WHO is that they are not recommended for healthy adults?

He’s written lots about the lab origin of the original Wuhan SARS-CoV-2 virus and believes that the furin cleavage site on the spike protein was modified via gain of function research, effectively making it a man-made bioweapon. Matt just admitted that he had a third dose of mRNA ‘vaccine’ this time, which tells his cells to manufacture these man-made spike proteins in their trillions and Moderna has three times the mRNA of Pfizer even, so it generates a lot of toxic, hyper-inflammatory antigens – and he wonders why the extraordinarily intense fever? Just the jab working – he hopes.

That’s optimism for you, but it ain’t rational. Yet another sceptic bites the dust.

Del Boy Scientists Discover Clotshot ‘Trigger’

Our American friends might not appreciate the subtle headline above, most likely because they are unaware of the highly successful and much loved UK comedy series ‘Only Fools and Horses’. Del Boy and Trigger are both characters in that sitcom.

I use the headline mockingly, to illustrate the absurdity of UK mainstream ‘news’. This isn’t news. it’s not ‘newly discovered’. It’s not really ground-breaking scientific research. In fact, it’s been known about for years, even before the advent of the Covid-19 ‘vaccines’. I wrote about it here.

The BBC and the rest of the MSM here in the UK are making a big deal about it. This is the BBC headline:

Covid: Trigger of rare blood clots with AstraZeneca jab found by scientists

Shouts at you. Makes you think that some new and exciting scientific discovery has happened. It hasn’t. They may have uncovered more details about the mechanism involved. That’s it basically. All that’s happened is that Del Boy has discovered that Trigger has replaced the handle on his old broom.

The BBC say:

Scientists believe they have found “the trigger” that leads to extremely rare blood clots after the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid vaccine.

The team – in Cardiff and the US – have shown in exquisite detail how a protein in the blood is attracted to a key component of the vaccine.

They think this kicks off a chain reaction, involving the immune system, that can culminate in dangerous clots.

It also started a scientific detective hunt to figure out what was going on and if it could be prevented. The Cardiff team were given emergency government funding to find the answers.

Ooh, really? A real life detective hunt!

The researchers thought the adenovirus might be linked to the rare clots occurring in some people.

They did? Why’s that I wonder? Could it have something to do with the fact that adenovirus vectors were implicated in blood clotting years ago? Surely not! I wrote about this very topic in the reference above:

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.

So any claims of ‘new discovery’ by the press are total bullshit and moreover they conceal the fact that the manufacturers of the Oxford/AZ chimp virus ‘vaccine’ must have known from the word go that their product carried a significant risk of inducing blood clots.

They even knew a lot about the mechanism of the binding of the adenovirus to platelets way back in 2009 and this scientific study describes it in detail, which sounds suspiciously similar to the mechanism ‘newly discovered’ by Del Boy scientists today – though I’m not an expert judge in that respect. The point is, scientists knew that adenoviral vectors were a potential problem 10 years before the Covid ‘vaccines’ appeared on the scene. Just how gullible and stupid do the main stream press think we are?

Boosters – Who Needs Them? Plus, Why The mRNA/DNA ‘Vaccines’ Do NOT Protect Against Infection

Here’s an enlightening little video from the brilliant Sucharit Bhakdi, which taught me something which I had hitherto been completely unaware of.

https://rumble.com/vpw1y9-the-covid-vaccines-were-designed-to-fail.html

Therefore, none of these vaccines can work.

There is no vaccine that you put into your muscle that can ever protect you against an infection of the respiratory tract.

That’s it. Simple. The ‘vaccines’ do not prevent infection and they never have. They can’t. Here’s why, according to Dr. Bhakdi.

There are two types of neutralising antibodies. Neutralising antibodies are those which prevent the virus from entering the host cell by recognising the receptor region on the spike – the receptor binding domain (RBD). They are found in two distinct places in the body: in the blood/lymphatic system and the mucosal linings, and they are produced by the lymphocytes (killer white blood cells). The neutralising antibodies in the blood protect the vital organs from being invaded by a foreign virus. There are also neutralising antibodies produced locally in the mucus membranes of the nose, mouth and gastro-intestinal tract and these directly prevent viruses travelling beyond that point to the lungs and other organs.

Now, these two immune systems – the mucosal and the blood – are functionally distinct and very rarely interact. The ‘vaccines’, injected into the muscle, only stimulate the production of neutralising antibodies in the blood and the lymph. They do not, they cannot produce antibodies targeting virus in the respiratory and intestinal tracts. SARS-CoV-2 is an airborne respiratory virus . . . . . go figure, as they say.

‘Vaccination’ is not going to neutralise the SARS-CoV-2 virus at the main point of entry into the body (the nose and the mouth). Nor, for the record, is a flimsy piece of cheap fabric made in China, despite being made a legal requirement by Mr Fascist Shiny Bonce and Mr Fascist Blonde Mop Head. Take home message: the ‘vaccines’ are not going to prevent transmission or infection. Period. They may protect against serious disease (for a few months at least) in some vulnerable individuals by preventing viral entry into the cells of the vital organs. That’s it though.

But hey, don’t take my word for it. Don’t even take world-renowned expert Dr. Bhakdi’s word for it, because you never know, he might be a secret tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist looking for nefarious ways to undermine the ‘vaccines’.

So yes, we look for confirmation of what Dr. Bhakdi says in the literature. And we find it. [Cue: sharp intake of breath by the ‘fact-checkers’]

Lets’s start here:

Within the immune system, a series of anatomically distinct compartments can be distinguished, each of which is specially adapted to generate a response to pathogens present in a particular set of body tissues.

Two key features define these compartments. The first is that immune responses induced within one compartment are largely confined in expression to that particular compartment. The second is that lymphocytes are restricted to particular compartments by expression of homing receptors that are bound by ligands, known as addressins, that are specifically expressed within the tissues of the compartment.

So, it’s true, the mucosal immune system is functionally distinct from the immune system of the blood and furthermore, the lymphocytes which produce the neutralising antibodies in those separate compartments are confined to that location.

Then there’s this:

Although the COVID-19 pandemic has been ongoing now for several months, very little attention has been given to mucosal immunity in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Yet this virus primarily infects the mucosal surfaces of the respiratory tract (and possibly also the digestive tract) at least until advanced stages of the disease when viral RNA may become detectable in the circulation (1). The virus may also be acquired through the mouth, and at the conjunctival surface of the eye whence it drains into the nasal passages through the lacrimal duct. This means that its interactions with the immune system, during both inductive and effector phases, must first occur predominantly if not exclusively at the respiratory and oral mucosae. This has profound implications for the outcomes and should guide our approach to investigating and comprehending adaptive immunity in COVID-19 disease, including its diagnosis, treatment, and effective vaccine development. In terms of both the deployment of immune cells and the production of immunoglobulins, the mucosal immune system is by far the largest component of the entire immune system, having evolved to provide protection at the main sites of infectious threat: the mucosae (2). Secretory IgA (SIgA) is produced in quantities far exceeding those of all other immunoglobulin isotypes combined (3).

Exactly what Dr Bhakdi said. If you’re still not convinced though:

Almost all efforts at vaccine development against COVID-19 focus on systemic injection, which predominantly induces circulatory IgG antibodies and, potentially, cytotoxic T cells (18). These routes are poorly effective at generating mucosal immune responses, which can only be induced by mucosal routes of immunization, including through the NALT in the URT.

Finally, we have this information sheet released by the World Heath organisation, dated 3rd September 2021. The WHO talk about infection-induced immunity, how it “lasts many months” and “is multi-faceted and generates antibodies against the spike protein plus other non-structural proteins (Nucleoprotein (N), Matrix protein (M), Envelope protein (E)).” Also how it “induces systemic immunity and mucosal immunity”.

The ‘vaccines’ induce only systemic immunity and even that against only the narrow spike region. So the all important first line of defence against infection, the mucosal immune system, is only stimulated by natural infection. They don’t tell you that, do they? The vaccine creationists and the natural immunity deniers would have you believe that you have to get jabbed every 3 months with an mRNA booster in order to be protected from Covid. But the former is exactly what the WHO was saying a few months ago.

It gets more damning. The WHO say:

Current COVID 19 vaccines induce systemic immunity only and no mucosal immunity.

Current intramuscular COVID-19 vaccines do not induce mucosal immunity. They do not induce the same multifaceted immune response as a natural infection but do protect from severe disease.

The WHO confirms what Bhakdi was saying. The ‘vaccines’ don’t work. They are non-sterilising. They don’t prevent infection. They are nothing more than a prophylactic against severe disease and in that respect they are only potentially useful in that section of the populace which is vulnerable to serious disease (a small minority). The mass vaccination campaign is thus a fraud and a very dangerous experiment on humanity expedited for financial and political gain.

On the subject of boosters, the WHO is unequivocal:

Third doses should be prioritized for the vulnerable: those most at-risk populations when there is evidence of waning immunity against severe disease and death. They are not for the fit and healthy.

Jabhead just authorised the rollout of boosters for all adults and a second myocarditis-inducing dose for non-vulnerable children to supposedly protect against the new threat of Omicron (aka the Moronic variant). That is both moronic and deeply malign, from a politician allegedly employed to work in our best interests, given what the actual science says.