Australia is seemingly intent on becoming the Antipodean answer to full blown Covid-flavoured Nazism. Melbourne is locked down and under strict curfew because of a handful of ‘cases’. Queensland has decreed that the Unjabbed cannot enter or leave its borders. Now the New South Wales government is talking about getting 24,000 children into a sports arena to jab them without their parents being present and they’re calling it an ‘opportunity’. Terrfifying. What the hell happened in Australia? Who would ever have expected Down Under to become an actual Hell on earth? I used to think it might be the nearest place to heaven. If this is repeated across the Anglosphere, then God help us all.
Well here we are. The Endgame, or at least the Beginning of the End Game. On so called ‘Freedom’ Day, when, after 16 months of punishing psychological torture occasioned via the application of relentless fear-based propaganda and accompanied by soul-destroying restrictions upon our social life and our freedom of movement, we were all looking forward to a break. But now we’re told that in two months time, full blown medical apartheid is coming to the UK.
You won’t be permitted entry into any large crowded venue unless you have been jabbed twice with a gene-based ‘therapy’ which makes your body produce a known cytotoxin, currently implicated in the deaths of many thousands of people and the serious injury of many thousands more, according to the official data (VAERS, Yellow Card & EMA), which are themselves probably a gross underestimate of actual fatalities and injuries. This includes of course young people for whom a social life is a virtual necessity, who are NOT vulnerable to Covid, but who are probably at even greater risk of serious ‘vaccine’ injury precisely because of their robust natural immunity.
Science is dead. Logic is dead. Medical ethics are dead. Soon many people will be dead, totally unnecessarily, because the government mandated that they risk their lives in order to enjoy the ‘privileges’ of a miserable half-life in a fascist medical apartheid state. If they get away with this, freedom will be lost forever and nobody will be able to participate in society, not even buy food and other essentials, unless they have submitted to injection of toxic cocktails of substances created by the pharmaceutical industry ‘for the greater good’.
We jumped aboard the cattle trucks when we let these evil bastards lock us up in our homes, restrict our right to breathe fresh air, and then even violate our own sacred bodily temples for a mess of pottage. The destination where we are headed is now horrifyingly clear. Vaccination will set you free:
Impfung Macht Frei
Right now, across the United Kingdom, distraught parents worried about the potential side effects of new vaccines are now confronted with equally distraught children understandably terrified that if they don’t get themselves jabbed (for a disease that poses almost zero risk to their health, as the UK’s scientific establishment readily admits) their social life will be over.
Never in my life have I hated any government quite so much as I loathe this despicable, bullying, mendacious, devious, dishonest, corrupt, fascistic regime
Whereas 12 months ago, Dellers was an outlier and a ‘conspiracy theorist’, he is now definitely not alone in his anger and dismay. We are headed into a very dark period in human history.
Here is the data, in graph form.
The cumulative total deaths for 20 years prior to 2021 for all vaccines in VAERS is less than the total for just 6 months from the Covid ‘vaccines’ in 2021: 3192 vs. 4826. It’s now nearly 6000 deaths reported in VAERS.
Thanks to Joel Smalley for submitting a FOI request to get this data.
Some people might be tempted to argue that the number of people ‘vaccinated’ against Covid is much greater than the number injected yearly with all other vaccines, so this is an unfair comparison. But that’s not true. In the winter season 2018/19, roughly 14 million people received the ‘flu vaccine in the UK. This is just ‘flu. How many millions received vaccines to protect against other diseases? Roughly 30 million people in the UK had received two jabs against Covid in June 2021, so the numbers vaccinated against Covid vs. all other vaccines are going to be comparable – in the multiple millions. This means that the reported death rate from the Covid ‘vaccines’ is MANY times higher than that from all other vaccines, in the US and in the UK. An unprecedented fatality rate in fact, yet still our government is pushing us to get jabbed, using extreme coercive measures combined with threats and propaganda which would not be out of place in 1930s Germany. Our government rushed these jabs through without due caution and now they are pushing like crazy for the entire populace – including children – to get jabbed. Why? Not for public health reasons that’s for sure. Here’s what Robert Malone has to say:
‘In a conventional vaccine you can precisely calculate how much protein goes into your shoulder because it’s fixed and predictable, but in the case of these genetic vaccines you can’t,’ he warned.
‘You can’t calculate how long it produces this protein and how much protein it makes and exactly what cells in your body the protein goes into. Conventional vaccines go around your cell, but for these gene therapy-based vaccines the target is your cell.’
When I asked whether he thought the UK (which was the first country in the world to approve the Pfizer vaccine on December 2, 2020) rushed through their approval of it, Dr Malone quickly responded: ‘I wouldn’t say maybe, I would say they did. You can’t take a process that normally takes a decade and push it down into nine months and not cut corners.’
Children are at very low risk of hospitalisation and death from Covid-19, Dr Malone confirmed. In their age group, the risks overwhelmingly outweigh the benefits from the vaccine.
The risks are the cardiotoxicity events (pericarditis and myocarditis) being recorded in the adverse event databases coming out of Israel, Norway and the Netherlands, to name but a few.
Given that the MHRA and FDA have approved the Pfizer vaccine for 12 to 15-year-olds and have been actively encouraging the use of it across multiple age groups, Dr Malone likened this application to the situation where ‘if you give a three-year-old a hammer, everything becomes a nail’.
Update 12th July 2021
Joel has updated the VAERS data. It now looks like this:
Here is a series of tweets from Robert Dingwall, who is a member of SAGE:
This is great. However, our detestable government and its new Health Secretary, Savid Jabid, who insists he will still wear a mask after July 19th, have made it legal for shops and businesses to impose their own mask mandates, effectively meaning nothing much will change if, as I suspect, many shops and businesses continue to insist that masks are worn on their premises. I believe the government knows this. I believe the government is actually encouraging this stance by big business. The fear-based control freakery and the anti-human, anti-science, anti-society ‘new normal’ will continue over summer until masks are probably once again made mandatory during autumn and winter. The naked human face is set to become taboo if we cannot summon the courage and determination to resist en masse, as a society, this continuing outrage, which is in fact an assault upon science, society, rationality, humanity and basic human freedom.
I’ve been saying for quite some time that, as a society, we have thrown our children under the bus for Covid. First we locked them up at home and deprived them of schooling, leisure activities and much needed social contact with their peers and other adults. Many have suffered grievously as a result. Then we bizarrely, absurdly, insanely, shockingly, demanded that they wear useless masks in lessons, supposedly in order to ‘protect’ bed-wetting teachers, whipped up into a frenzy of self-righteous and selfish indulgence by the actions of the government and their own unions. This despite the documented psychological, social and physical harms of doing so. As a society, we tolerated this outrage. We also demanded that they be subjected to a punishing regime of having a swab shoved up their nose or down their throat every few days in order to demonstrate that they were not ‘infected’ with a disease which they were not suffering from! If they were ‘infected’ (very likely a false positive) then they and their peers were sent home to isolate for 10 days as punishment. Why? Why as a society have we tolerated such an outrageous and cruel abuse of our children?
Thus it became obvious very early on that we might also eventually tolerate the ultimate abuse of our kids – subjecting them to dangerous clinical experimentation for no proven public health benefit and certainly for zero clinical benefit. The government and Big Pharma have been salivating at the prospect of doing so for some months now. It was just one small step from the masks and the testing. But one ‘small’ step too far for Neil Oliver and I hope many others. If we lose this fight against getting kids jabbed, then we have lost our society and more importantly, our humanity. It must not be allowed to happen under any circumstances whatsoever.
Update 4th July
This is a ghastly new low for Twitter, who have now labelled this tweet by GB News as ‘misleading’, insisting that the jab is recommended for ‘most people’. Utterly demonic and disgusting beyond belief; the blatant censoring of heartfelt and genuine concern for the welfare of children. Time to get off Twitter and to assist taking down Big Tech and its evil stranglehold on ‘information’.
This is quite frankly devastating. The government and the NHS might think they are untouchable but they cannot walk away from these extremely serious allegations of misconduct and breach of public duty, which may indeed amount to criminal offences. Here is the letter in full, which should, if we lived in a free, fair and open society, be published in all the main newspapers and main stream media outlets, especially the BBC. But we don’t.
Sir Simon StevensMy client raised concerns during his NHS five year revalidation appraisal process with the NHS in November 2020.
Chief Executive Officer
2 July 2021
Dear Mr Stevens
Re: My Client: Dr Sam White
I am instructed by Dr Sam White, a GP.
Dr Sam White has had his licence to practise within the NHS suspended by letter from the NHS dated 26 June 2021.
Please treat this letter as a public interest disclosure or whistle blow in that it raises allegations of alleged criminal conduct and breach of legal obligations by those leading the covid response.
The reasons given for my client’s suspension have been inconsistent. My client has been told one thing verbally and another in writing.
What my client has been told in writing is he has been suspended on the basis of his social media output.
My client’s social media output does not differ in any material extent to other clinicians also with an online presence who have not been suspended.
All of these concerns were raised during the revalidation appraisal process and overlap with what is in my client’s social media content.
The NHS took no action on either the substance of the concerns raised in my client’s appraisal nor did the NHS take any action against my client for raising those concerns during his appraisal. My client’s appraisal was signed off by the NHS Responsible Person. The same Responsible Person who later suspended my client.
It would appear that the reason the NHS took the action they did of suspending my client from practice in the NHS was the fact that the contents of Dr White’s video went viral clocking up over a million views in June 2021.
The NHS appears to have taken umbrage at my client letting the cat out of the bag. The NHS appear to have acted in the way they did because my client pointed out that there are a number of elephants in the room. My client is entitled to point out alleged wrongdoing and is also entitled not to be victimised for so doing.
My client’s social media output sets out two main propositions which are further developed here:
The vaccine programme has been rolled out in breach of the legal requirements for clinicians to obtain the free and informed consent of those being vaccinated.
That the requirement to wear face coverings in an NHS setting is in breach of common law obligations not to cause harm and breaches statutory obligations in relation to provision of PPE.
My client has instructed me to write to you setting out the complaint that he has been victimised and harassed for telling the truth by the organisation you head.
Clinicians should feel able to voice genuine concerns relating to alleged malpractice without fear for their ability to practice within the NHS being suspended.
The truth that Dr White is telling may be uncomfortable for you to hear. But hear it you must.
I am instructed to copy this letter to the relevant regulators as well as law enforcement.
I am also instructed by my client to publish this letter on social media as the public has the right to know what is happening and how truth is being suppressed.
The allegations are that the following groups of people have committed unlawful and potentially criminal acts in breach of their common law obligations to act in the best interests of the public as well as in breach of their common law obligation of doing no harm to the public.
The Nolan Principles of Standards in Public Life are alleged to have been breached.
The groups of people who my client alleges have breached common law obligations are:
The Executive Board of the NHS.
Senior public office holders within the civil service.
The Executive Board of the MHRA.
In relation to the MHRA they have failed to ensure that the vaccine advertising programme meets their common law obligations as well as their statutory obligations.
The MHRA in granting emergency use authorisation for the vaccines has failed in their obligation to consider whether there are safe and effective medicines available as an alternative to vaccination.
The MHRA is failing in its obligations in failing either to instruct a bio-distribution study is conducted on those who have been vaccinated or in failing to publish the findings of such a bio-distribution study. A bio-distribution study is a study of what happens to the vaccine after it is injected into the body.
I am instructed to set out the factual allegations in a comprehensible way, free of jargon, so the general public can follow what is being said.
To assist my client has provided source material to back up every single one of his principal facts and that source material will be referenced via footnotes or endnotes.
The Vaccination Roll Out:
Clinicians practising within the NHS are obliged to do two things when administering a vaccine:
To do no harm.
To obtain the free and informed consent of those being vaccinated.
The law on free and informed consent is set out in the case of Montgomery.
Montgomery’s case which went to the Supreme Court laid down the principles for what amounts to free and informed consent.
That the patient is given sufficient information – to allow individuals to make choices that will affect their health and well being on proper information.1
Sufficient information means informing the patient of the availability of other treatments.2
That the patient is informed of the material risks of taking the vaccine and the material risks of declining the vaccine.
The Montgomery principles are in line with Article 6 of the Unesco Declaration of Bio-Ethics and Human Rights, the right to decline any medical treatment without being penalised is enshrined in International Law.3
1 Per Lord Justice Simon in Webster v Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust  EWCA Civ 62
2 Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board  UKSC 11
Breach of these principles on free and informed consent is professional gross misconduct at an individual level.
At an organisational level if the NHS does not have clear evidence that every person being vaccinated has given free and informed consent it will render those holding executive office within the NHS as legally liable for those institutional failings.
The Government has set the vaccination strategy. The NHS has led the roll out. The strategy and roll out has included the provision of information to the public.
Much of the information has been inadequate or misleading.
Montgomery Guideline 1: Sufficiency of Information:
The provision of information has been inadequate. The principal source of information to the public has been the following:
The Daily Press Conferences.
The NHS badged advertisements.
The Patient Information Leaflet.
The information presented has not informed the public of the following material risks:
The material risk of being infected with the coronavirus.
The material risk if infected of being hospitalised by the coronavirus.
The material risk if infected of not being hospitalised by the coronavirus.
The material risk of dying from the coronavirus infection.
The material chance of recovering from the coronavirus infection.
The material chance of having an asymptomatic infection.
The numbers of people with existing antibody immunity or memorised T cell response.
Before we come to what information has been presented to the public it should be noted that those presenting the information have not publicly declared at the press conferences their financial links to the vaccine industry. Public Office Holders should
act with integrity and transparency when presenting information to the public, particularly information relating to public health.
Those financial links include direct investment in the vaccine industry as well as financial assistance with grants from charitable foundations set up by those with investments in the vaccine industry.4
It should be noted that Moderna’s share price has risen from $10 to over $200 5 in the space of eighteen months. Bill Gates and his charitable foundation are significant investors in Moderna6, one of the companies supplying a vaccine. It should also be noted that Bill Gates has a known association with Geoffrey Epstein.7
Many of those presenting the information to the public are associated with or employed directly or indirectly by organisations who have been financially funded by the Gates Foundation.
The MHRA, the UK regulatory body approving the vaccines, has itself been funded by the Gates Foundation.8
Finally the former secretary of state did not declare to the public that he had a girlfriend and he did not declare that that girlfriend had financial links through her business with PPE and other contracts9 over which Matt Hancock had responsibility.
When presenting information on a public health matter the Nolan Principles require transparency.
The Nolan Principles requires those presenting the information to declare any interests publicly so that those receiving the information can determine whether the information has been presented in an objective way or in a way that lacks balance and may favour any undeclared interests.
How many people know for example that our Chief Medical Officer has been or is involved in Vaccine organisations which have been substantially funded by the Gates Foundation as well as other vaccine businesses?10
How many people know that our Chief Scientific Officer has substantial investments in Astra Zeneca?
Dominic Cummings talked about Mr Gates’ influence in government during his session in select committee.
If a Public Office Holder is presenting information about public health to the public, those people should be upfront and transparent about their interests and who has funded those interests as they might have a bias towards vaccination when other more optimal routes may be available. Vaccination should not be presented as the only route out of the declared pandemic when there are other routes that can be run in tandem. The Officials should level with the public.
It seems from day one the Public have been informed via press conferences that there was only one medical route out of the pandemic and that was via vaccination. That route is not the only available route. Quicker, cheaper and less risky routes are also available as an alternative to those who have no need or desire to be vaccinated and these routes have been known about for many months.
Taking each risk in turn:
The material risk of being infected:
The Government and the NHS has supplied information to the public information on the number of infections.
That information does not differentiate between:
a. Those individuals testing positive without a Doctor or nurse diagnosing that individual and confirming that they are infected and or are ill with covid.
b. Those individuals testing positive where a Doctor or nurse has diagnosed infection in that individual and has diagnosed that they are ill with covid.
The principal diagnosis tools have been:
a. The lateral flow test.
b. The PCR test.
Primary Care in the form of General Practice Doctors have by and large been kept out of the diagnostic loop.
The NHS’s internal leaflet says that a positive test should not be relied on alone but a clinician, a Doctor or nurse, should confirm the fact of infection by clinical diagnosis.
The tests have been subject to major criticism for being unreliable and producing false positives. 11 The writer of this letter has a letter from his MP stating that the tests used can test for any Winter virus. It is probable therefore that the data presented by the government as infections with coronavirus also includes individuals who have tested positive but the test has failed to distinguish what sort of virus is present and whether that virus is old or recent.
Dr Fauci admitted that PCR tests do not test for infectiousness.12
Reports of schoolchildren testing positive using lemon juice show how unreliable these tests are. 13
The inventor of the PCR test has also stated that the PCR test should not be used as a diagnosis tool.
The Portuguese Court of Appeal said it is contrary to international law for a positive test result alone to be used without a Doctor or nurse also seeing the person with that test result and diagnosing an infection.14
The public do not know how many people have been classed as an infection on test alone or on test and clinical diagnosis. That is a major failing in gathering data and presenting data.
The cycle threshold at which the PCR test has been set is too high to give reliable data on infection.
The WHO suggested re-setting the cycle rate on the PCR test in January 2021 it is unknown whether the NHS has adopted that advice.15
The press conferences have heightened the public’s sense of the material risk as the information presented has in my client’s view exaggerated the numbers in a material way.
There has been no publicity at all at the press conferences that covid is not a High Consequence Infectious Disease.16
The material risk of being hospitalised with covid:
The numbers of hospitalisations of people with covid has been presented to the public at the press conference and then disseminated via news broadcasts.
That information has not differentiated between:
a. Those presenting in hospital with covid illness.
b. Those presenting in hospital with another condition who have subsequently been tested positive for coronavirus.
c. Whether those hospitalised with coronavirus have caught the infection in hospital.
The information presented to the public has also not set out the numbers of people who have recovered from covid.
In assessing material risk the public need to have adequate information.
The allegation is that the information has been presented in such a way to make the public think that the material risks are greater than they are. This has either been intentional or grossly negligent.
Presenting information in a distorted way affects the public’s ability to weigh up the material risk that coronavirus presents.
The public are unable to give proper informed consent to vaccination if the material risks have been exaggerated or distorted.
The material risks of dying from covid:
The information presented to the public does not differentiate between:
a. Those dying from covid.
b. Those dying from another condition but who have tested positive within 28 days of death.
c. Those dying from another condition but who have tested positive after death.
d. The death certificates are allowed to be signed by Doctors who may not have seen the individual who has died before death.
e. Anyone who has died within 28 days of a positive test is recorded as a covid death.
The public is unable to determine what their material risk is of dying from covid as the numbers of deaths from covid have been exaggerated and are unreliable. The CDC in the USA has recently presented its information in a different way to enable any individual to find out how many people have died from covid alone without having any other medical condition or co-morbidity.17
A Portuguese Court has recently found that the numbers of people said to have died from covid has been exaggerated.18
The data about risk of dying has also been confused by the fact that Do Not Resuscitate Notices have been used unilaterally without consent and the widespread use of Midazolam during the pandemic in care home settings.19 20
The information that has been presented shows that the distribution of risk is uneven.
Those under 75 who are healthy are unlikely to die from covid.
The risk is asymmetrical.
The vaccination roll out has been symmetrical.
The government’s communication on vaccination has been inconsistent.
The Prime Minister of the country in January 2021 described the vaccination roll out as an immunisation programme. That communication gave the public the impression that vaccines would provide immunity.
The vaccine trials have been set up have as their trial design and trial protocol to reduce symptoms21. The Prime Minister was at best sloppy with his language as the vaccine trial protocols was to test for efficacy of symptom reduction.
It should also be noted that the vaccine protocols also refer to the use of PCR tests in the clinical trials, despite those tests’ known unreliability.22
None of the vaccines provide immunity. None of the vaccines stop transmission.
Initially the government said that only those identified as vulnerable should be vaccinated. That then changed. Mr Gates met with the PM before the change in policy, this meeting with Mr Gates was to discuss a global vaccine strategy.23
Initially the government said that children would not be vaccinated. That then changed.
Initially government said restrictions would be released when 15 million people had been vaccinated, that then changed.
Initially government said it had no plans for vaccination passports, that then changed.
Providing inconsistent and changing information does not enable the public to have adequate information to give informed consent.
The Patient Information Leaflet:
The NHS has provided the Patient Information Leaflet to some patients who are being vaccinated.
That Patient Information Leaflet does not present the material risks and the material benefits of the vaccination in an adequate way:
The Patient Information Leaflet does not make clear that the vaccines are still in clinical trial.
The Patient Information Leaflet does not make any reference to alternatives to vaccination.
The Patient Information Leaflet does not make clear that the mRNA vaccines are experimental in that these vaccines have never been used before and there is no data on medium term to long term safety. mRNA vaccines are described by the FDA as gene therapy.24
The Patient Information Leaflet does not make clear that the clinical trials being run to show the safety and efficacy of the vaccine did not include particular cohorts of people including pregnant women and the very elderly. There is therefore no evidence available to show that they are safe and efficacious for those cohorts.
The Patient Information Leaflet does not make clear that the clinical trials are only using people who have not been infected with covid. There is therefore no data on safety and efficacy for vaccination of those who have been infected. Many people who have been infected with coronavirus are also being vaccinated.
The Patient Information Leaflet does not set out the difference between the absolute risk and the relative risk from coronavirus infection.
By being vaccinated each individual is reducing their absolute risk of being infected and dying from covid by 1%. 25
Advertising of the vaccine:
The NHS allowed its logo on a series of adverts using celebrities to promote vaccination.
It is also alleged that a number of celebrities have been paid to promote the vaccine via their social media.
None of the vaccines have received marketing authorisation from the MHRA26. So there is a question mark as to whether an emergency use authorised vaccination should be advertised at all as there is very limited number of vaccines to choose from.
Advertising of licensed medicines is strictly regulated. The Human Medicines Regulations 201227 make it a criminal offence for licensed medicines to be advertised by celebrities and any advert should notify the viewer what the active ingredient is in the vaccine if there is only one active ingredient. These adverts breach the law in my client’s view.
The NHS has taken no steps to distance itself from HM Government’s attempt to fetter every UK citizen’s right to decline any medical intervention.
The advertising campaign has placed pressure on people to have a vaccination. In the advertisement it is suggested that vaccination protects other members of a family including the elderly. However free and informed consent
means that no one should be under any pressure from any family member to have a vaccination or indeed any medical treatment. The NHS website even states that in its section on informed consent.28
The vaccination adverts give the impression that the vaccines have been licensed rather than the true position which is that they have been emergency use authorised which is a lower regulatory threshold than licensing.
The advertisements infer that the vaccines are safe. Safety is about risks. The adverts make no reference to the risk, however small, of serious adverse events.
Information on Vaccine Passports:
HM Government has linked vaccination with the ability to travel using a vaccination passport. 29
Many UK citizens know at least one person whose only reason for being vaccinated is to go on holiday.
HM Government has been coercive in linking release of restrictions to vaccination.
A publicly funded National Health Service is breaching its obligations to its patients in not distancing itself and calling out such unlawful government coercion. NHS clinicians should be not be used as conduits for government policy. That politicises health.
The NHS should make it clear that it does not endorse coercion or any fettering of an individual’s right to consent or decline any medical intervention.
Montgomery Guideline 2: Availability of other treatments:
The NHS has published no information in its Patient Information Leaflet on the efficacy of other available treatments available to combat coronavirus infection or the disease of covid.
The body has an incredible way of treating itself if it is infected.
It’s called the immune system.
The NHS should not be proposing a medical intervention when most people have a readily available treatment system to combat the infection and disease namely their immune system.
The immune system for most people will fight off the infection by the production of antibodies.
Further that immune response will be memorised by the T cells and B cells and will provide long lasting protection.
It is proven from SARS Coronavirus 1 in 2002 that T cells and B cells memorise the antibody response for many years.3031
There has been very little information to the public on the efficacy of the immune system to fight off any covid infection. The immune system is the first line of defence yet has been ignored by our NHS and by the government and SAGE.
It is accepted that the thymus gland which produces T cells and B cells gets less efficient over the age of 70 or if a person is immune compromised.
Taking vitamin D will enhance the immune system. These have only been provided as supplements.
At no time during any of the press conferences has the government and its advisers stressed the importance of the immune system and how to take care of
it as a first line of defence against coronavirus. It’s only ever been about the vaccine. The failure to provide adequate information of the role of the immune system is an egregious breach of Montgomery.
Immunity gained via infection is better than any immunity enhancement from vaccination.32
Professor Whitty, to be fair, did say that for most people covid will be a mild illness. He therefore implied, without expressly stating it, that most people’s immune system will fight off the illness arising from a coronavirus infection.
There is now ample data that there are a number of therapeutics that will work to prevent infection, and prevent hospitalisation and death.
Those therapeutics are:
Ivermectin. There are numerous studies showing the efficacy of Ivermectin, it is also proven safe.33 34Courts have ordered the use of Ivermectin in some jurisdictions.35
HCQ and Zinc.36
Budoneside or anti-inflammatory respiratory inhalers37.38
The evidence has been available for some time that all these work to prevent infection, to prevent, hospitalisation and to prevent death.
34 Published Ahead-of-Print : American Journal of Therapeutics (lww.com)
There is limited or no information in the Patient Information Leaflet on available treatments other than vaccination.
Why haven’t these medicines been made available? These medicines have been successful in a number of other countries and have prevented death and hospitalisation.
Why hasn’t the MHRA investigated these other available and cheaper alternatives before granting emergency use authorisation to vaccines with no proven long term safety record?
My client cannot understand why the NHS does not make available safe and effective medicines. This is grossly negligent.
These safe and effective medicines and the immune system are the elephant in the room. The NHS does not want to look at them. The regulator does not want to look at them. SAGE does not want to look at them. The government does not want to look at them. Who’s pulling the strings?
The question is why isn’t the public being given a choice? Do commercial considerations and political agendas take precedence over public health? If so that’s an extremely serious matter.
The NHS and the government appear to be very quick to vaccinate the population but very slow to consider and make available cheaper, safer and effective alternatives, to give the people an option. Why is that?
3.Montgomery Guidelines: Risks of Vaccination:
At none of the press conferences have the risks of vaccination been presented.
The advertising campaigns infer that the vaccines are safe.
The mRNA method of vaccination is considered a gene therapy product according to the US FDA.39
Serious adverse event data is being collected by the MHRA. But is not being disseminated to news outlets or via the press conferences40
That serious adverse event data is not being presented by Government or the NHS in its Patient Information Leaflet.
Data from deaths falling within 28 days of vaccination is not being collected, let alone communicated.
The Salk Institute has found that the spike protein, a constituent component in the vaccine or the vaccine’s mode of action, is a toxin.41
The Japanese medicine regulator has found that those who have been vaccinated have a concentration of spike proteins in every organ of their body, in particular the ovaries42. This study is a called a bio-distribution study.
The NHS does not appear to have done any bio-distribution study of those who have been vaccinated.
The MHRA has not required a bio-distribution study to be conducted to check the safety of vaccination and if there has been a bio-distribution study conducted it has not been communicated to the public.
A number of regulators around the world have required health authorities to stop using the vaccine on health grounds.
The last UK emergency vaccine after swine flu was also suspended on safety grounds after 50 deaths.
The material risks from vaccination known to date are:
a. Death in extreme cases. Over 1300 deaths reported on the yellow card system.43
b. Bells Palsy.
c. Thrombo-embolic events with low platelets.
d. Capillary Leak Syndrome.
e. Menstrual disorder and extreme bleeding.
f. Myocarditis and Pericarditis.
g. Antibody dependant enhancement.
The public is not able to give informed consent to vaccination as the data on the material risks on vaccination is being inadequately collated and the data that is collected is then not communicated to the public at any Press Conference.
The public is being informed that the vaccination is a public health benefit, the risks of vaccination are not being communicated in as systematic way as coronavirus infections and deaths are communicated.
It is up to individuals to decide whether they want to take material risks, however low the likelihood of the risk materialising, yet no or inadequate information is being presented on those risks.
Adults may shortly be asked to give consent to vaccination for their children when the risks of coronavirus to children is exceptionally low. This is one of the reasons my client did not want any involvement in the vaccination programme.
Every clinician vaccinating any individual must tell the individual of the risk of a serious adverse event, however small that risk is. This requirement does not appear to be built into the vaccine roll out in any systematic way.
My client is raising these concerns in this letter and these concerns are consistent with his obligation as a professional to act in accordance with the law and with professional ethics. The public who paid his wages up until recently deserve nothing less.
The second issue is the requirement for the public to wear masks in the NHS setting.
The requirement to wear a mask in an NHS setting is unlawful for the following reasons:
a. The requirement is for the public and clinicians to wear masks on NHS facilities.
b. The mask is not defined.
c. If the mask is a piece of PPE, the 1992 PPE Regulations are engaged.44
d. The employer is obliged under regulation 6 to evaluate both the risks and the suitability of the PPE.45
e. Any evaluation of the risks would have to pose three questions:
i. What are the risks of asymptomatic infection?
ii. What are the risks of symptomatic infection?
iii. How are those risks best mitigated?
f. To answer the first question the risk of asymptomatic infection is low.46 Dr Fauci said that asymptomatic infection has never been the driver of any respiratory virus.
g. The risks of symptomatic transmission are higher.
h. What is the best way to mitigate the risks?
i. To provide category 3 PPE masks is the answer as they show efficacy in reducing transmission. These have not been provided or indeed mandated by the Health Secretary.
j. PPE Regulations require all masks to meet EC standards and to be category three in the case of the risk posed by biological agents.47
k. The masks provided to NHS clinicians are not category three. It is against the law to provide unsuitable PPE. It is also mandatory to follow the PPE regulations. 48
l. The NHS has issued guidance that any person on NHS facilities must wear a mask. There is however no requirement for the public to wear a category three mask.
m. The requirement for the public to wear any mask in any NHS facility does not provide any benefit to the public.49 50
n. The requirement for the public to wear a mask in any NHS facility poses a material risk. The risks of mask wearing is of bacterial infection plus a risk of hypoxia for prolonged use. 51
o. There is also the risk posed by CO2 and a RCT reported in JEMA found 6 times the safe level of CO2 in children wearing masks. 52
p. Anything other than a Category 3 mask is inadequate as PPE for the risk of infection posed by a biological agent.
q. The NHS has a policy that any patient or relative must wear a mask as must any clinician.
r. However there is no requirement that the masks have to be PPE. The masks therefore pose more risk than benefit.
s. The masks that are being worn by the public are unregulated.
t. Some of the masks have been manufactured in China and contain toxins.53
u. The NHS has failed the public in its guidance as unregulated masks pose more risks than benefits.
v. The NHS has failed its staff by requiring all staff to wear masks which pose more risks than benefits.
The issues raised by my client and other clinicians who have not been suspended raise issues about the integrity of those leading the Covid response. They raise issues about whether the information that has been provided to the public has been collected and presented fairly. They raise issues of breaches of the law and accepted standards in public life. They raise issues of whether private individuals with charitable foundations have too much influence on policy direction and whether the financial support offered by those individuals and foundations is healthy in a transparent democracy.
How can the National Health Service be endorsing the government policy of vaccine passports when that policy:
Makes those who wish to rely on their own immune system second class citizens.
That policy gives privileges to citizens who take a medical intervention, vaccination.
By endorsing the vaccine passport policy the National Health Service is not only endorsing a breach of international law which makes sacrosanct an individual’s right to decline any medical intervention without any repercussion but also breaches the UK law on informed consent. Since when did the National Health Service morph into the National Pharmaceutical Distribution Service?
The writer of this letter has a backlog of whistle blowers to advise with examples of pressure being placed on employees within care and NHS settings during the covid pandemic, including exaggeration of covid bed occupancy and hospitalisation, such pressure is unethical and contrary to the standards the public expect in public health settings.
Please feel free to contact me directly for any further clarification, in the meantime we have copied in the relevant regulators who no doubt will conduct a full and independent and robust enquiry into the issues raised in this letter.
I look forward to hearing from you with a full response to the points raised.
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).
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 (lareb.nl) 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 . 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 . The spike protein also contains domains that may bind to cholinergic receptors, thereby compromising the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathways, enhancing inflammatory processes . 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 .
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% .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.
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.
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., 2020a; Stroeve 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., 2018; Barrett 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.
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.