A nurse friend who did not want to hear when I first questioned Covid jab safety two years ago is now furious about having been bludgeoned by the NHS into having three shots. She survived the first two but had massive bleeding after the third. Looking more deeply into the data, she found to her horror that the ‘safe and effective’ claim is completely unfounded.
I suspect there are hundreds of thousands of other healthcare workers feeling the same sense of betrayal, and that this is contributing in a major way to the current staffing crisis.
My friend’s experience is exactly in line with new figures from Australia showing a dramatic dose-response relationship between the number of jabs and the risk of having to go into hospital with Covid or dying from it.
The New South Wales (NSW) data, for the two weeks ending December 31st, are a rarity in that they include vaccination status.
Out of 1,415 hospitalised patients where this status was known, 10 had received a single dose, 218 two doses, 377 three doses and 810 four doses. There were zero hospital admissions for Covid among the unvaccinated, who comprise 13% of the NSW population.
Deaths followed a similar pattern except that six unvaccinated people were reported as having died of Covid. None were in hospital, raising the possibility that their diagnosis was assumed rather than confirmed.
Only one patient died who had received a single jab. Nine deaths were in those who had received two doses, and 19 in the triple-jabbed. The figure then shot up to 53 in those who had four shots.
Businessman and mathematician Igor Chudov, reporting here on the NSW findings, acknowledges that the figures will be skewed by differences in how many people have had the different number of shots. After adjusting for those differences, however, he finds that the four-times-jabbed have a four times increased risk of hospitalisation compared with those who had two shots.
While some of this may be further explained by age differences, with older people being given more shots, Chudov concludes that the data show the Covid vaccines to be an “utter failure”.
He notes that a year ago, the NSW health minister Brad Hazzard declared: “There is no question that we will not get out of this pandemic without a very substantial portion of our population being vaccinated.”
That “substantial portion” – 84.3% – has been achieved. But even in Australia’s mid-summer, the country is in the middle of another Covid wave. And it is the unvaccinated who are at zero risk of being ill enough to have to go into hospital, in NSW at least.
Further evidence of the failure of the vaccine drive, Chudov notes, is that deaths overall in Australia are running at about a fifth higher than usual.
What awaits Australia in 2023? We do not know, and Covid proved everyone’s past predictions wrong. I cannot see how these endless waves of Covid will end when people’s immunity worldwide is unset by reckless vaccinations [see here].
The only thing I know is that if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. I hope that Australians will soon stop taking Covid vaccines.
They will not be helped in that by the NSW health authority, which has decided to drop vaccination status from its weekly reports, as from December 31st.
It says the data were included from 2021, when vaccines were first rolled out, “to monitor trends in the relationship between vaccination and outcomes”. But now most of the population have received at least two jabs, and with timing differences between booster doses, “the trends between vaccines and outcomes cannot be interpreted”.
A similar, convenient inability to interpret unfavourable data has occurred in the U.K., as pointed out last month in a detailed analysis by Amanuensis, pen-name for an ex-academic and senior government adviser who contributes regularly to the Daily Sceptic. He or she wrote:
It wasn’t until early September 2021 that the UKHSA [U.K. Health Security Agency] started to include actual vaccine surveillance data in the Vaccine Surveillance Report. I’ve often wondered why it started to offer these data, as even in that September report the data didn’t support the “vaccines are good” narrative.
My favourite theory is that someone in authority, ignorant of the complexities of the immune system (that’s the vast majority of those in authority, if not all of them), demanded that the data be included to show the population how well the vaccines were bound to be performing.
The data first presented were troubling, showing higher rates of Covid in the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated for those aged over 40. The UKHSA included a small paragraph “to remind readers that you mustn’t simply look at the data and infer how well the vaccines are doing”.
However, data based on population-wide testing tend to at least offer a strong indication of what is really going on. The real-world data… were highly suggestive of a problem that should have been prioritised for rigorous investigation, not explained away with the flick of a pen.
Six reports later, the situation had deteriorated, with rates in the vaccinated higher than in the unvaccinated for all those aged over 30, and much higher rates for those aged 40-60.
The agency stopped publishing “helpful” charts, presumably because they made it too easy to interpret how bad things were getting, Amanuensis says.
They continued to publish raw data for a while, but with ever more text on the dangers of interpreting the figures ‘at face value’, and eventually a stern warning that the data should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness.
The last set of data on infection rates strongly suggested that the vaccines were significantly increasing the risk of infection with Covid. Of course, the UKHSA was keen to suggest that the differences seen between vaccinated and unvaccinated infection rates were actually due to… well, anything that they could think of that wasn’t the vaccines…
The UKHSA authors were right to point out some potential reasons for the very high incidence of Covid in the vaccinated population, but they left one potential reason out: that they had used a poorly tested vaccine that might have resulted in an increase in the risk of infection.
To include this potential reason would have been supported by prior research into candidate vaccines for coronaviruses (including SARS and MERS). Alas, we’ve gone far beyond the realms of ‘trust the science’ and it is clear that no one in authority is allowed to even whisper the potential for the vaccines to have made things worse.
We’re now nine months from that last table of real world data on Covid infection by vaccination status, and in the meantime studies from around the world continue to suggest that the vaccines increase the risk of Covid infection.
The most recent, from the U.S. state of Ohio, showed disease risk significantly correlated with number of vaccine doses given. Health workers who received three shots were approximately three times more likely to get infected with the Omicron variant, compared with the unvaccinated.
Amanuensis writes:
Perhaps if the UKHSA had been more interested in having an open mind compared with its ‘it’s anything but the vaccines’ attitude towards the data it presented there might have been more caution taken with the vaccine rollout. As a consequence we might currently be seeing far fewer than one in 20 of the population concurrently infected with Covid.
One glimmer of hope: my nurse friend says that whereas everyone at her hospital was bullied into receiving booster doses up to the third shot, the pressure has now stopped over fourth doses and beyond. At least hospital staff, it seems, are recognising the real-world data that regulators still wish to hide.
Neville Hodgkinson is a former medical and science correspondent at the Sunday Times. This article was first published by TCW Defending Freedom.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I’m not sure if I feel sorry for the woman on TikTok being so paranoid or just want to mock her. However I’m sure the best thing she could do to protect her health would be loosing at least 50lb.
“A woman ventured out of her house in Portland, Oregon, for the first time in three years to go see Barbie“. If it were possible to capture everything that’s wrong with society in one short sentence, then there it is. No, I wouldn’t feel sorry for her. These people are too stupid to see they’ve been played in multiple ways and are contributing to the destruction of society.
…I’ve seen the videos from Portland on the ‘net…it’s one of the worst US hellscapes….….people are leaving in droves..and homelessness is ‘up’ by 50%’…..the Democrat lead city decriminalised personal possession drug use, in 2021…looks like a hell-hole…
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10923923/Portland-resembles-open-air-drug-market-legalizing-hard-drugs.html
..and she’s worried about Convid?? LOL! ..bless….
You’d think she might like to go out into nature and experience a forest, a stream and the sounds of birds after being locked away in her house for three years but no, it’s Barbie, a film about a woman who leaves her fantasy land to explore the real (so called real) world. The irony.
“The public still isn’t being told the full, horrifying truth about the Net Zero permanent revolution”
As this article points out, this is now getting to the stage when this all gets gritty. IMO the first crunch point comes with the ban on the sale and installation of new oil boilers in 2026. Around 2 million homes and 4-5 million people depend on oil boilers for heating, every year a proportion of those 2 million boilers breakdown beyond repair and need to be replaced. Many of these oil boilers are in rural homes where fitting and successfully operating a heat pump is problematic if not to say downright impossible.
What this article makes clear is that beyond some marginal tinkering of dates and details, TPTB cannot legally do much to radically alter any of these net-zero madness requirements. To do this they would need to rescind the Climate Change Act, there seems little chance of our present eco-obsessed uni-party parliament doing any such thing. If the 2026 oil boiler ban goes ahead as scheduled then there will soon be news reports of poor rural households freezing in unheated homes because their oil boiler has broken down beyond repair and they cannot replace it. If we get a cold snap there will doubtless be reports of rural pensioners dying of hypothermia in unheated houses. Is this all going to be accepted as sad but necessary collateral damage in the greater good of net-zero?
I am rather afraid that for our current uni-party eco-politicians it is fast getting towards the time when it will be too late to stop the slide that sees immiserated poor UK citizens allowed to die in the higher interests of net-zero.
Seems as if we are locked inside a rocket heading for a head on collision with an asteroid. No matter how much you tell the pilot that there’s an asteroid ahead of us, he keeps to his course and ignores all warnings. Much of the peripheral evidence supporting the Net Zero narrative have already been shown to be a sham: EVs, solar panels, wind farms, the climate vs weather, sea ice, and even polar bears! It doesn’t make one iota of difference how much evidence you present because those pulling the levers on behalf of the ones pushing the narrative have too much invested in it. There’s a lot of money to be made through people’s misery and death. It would take a popular revolution to do something meaningful but that’s not going to happen. The only place where we can do something is at the local level – exactly what TPTB are doing through things like C40 etc. At this level, you can actually get up and challenge a councillor across the council floor. Write to your MP and he sends back the pre-agreed text. And speak to people, as many people as you can about it and tell them what is coming and where to read about it. We can find the reverse booster (dodgy word – sorry!) button on the rocket before it’s too late!
“It would take a popular revolution to do something meaningful but that’s not going to happen.”
I think a Trump presidency with a supportive House could stop the madness.
But, as we all know, the US Deep State will do everything in their power to stop that. And, as JFK proves, that would include assassination…but also, if they lose control of the voting machinery, they might even trigger a societal collapse (bank closures, emergency measures, etc) to prevent the Election going ahead.
Our boiler packed up last winter. It took about a week to get a new, essentially like for like one fitted. Imagine if you couldn’t just do a like for like but had to get a heat pump in. External works, which in our case would require planning permission plus heritage planning, a can of worms! New double size radiators. Can you use micro-bore pipes with a heat pump? It’s a big project, I’d say you’d be doing well to get it sorted in a month. What’s more, I can imagine the cowboys locking their lips in anticipation of this market taking off.
A friend’s husband is a plumber. He spends much of his time either taking out ASHP ‘heating’, or adding additional systems. He has never come across an ASHP system that actually keeps the occupiers warm.
All part of the plan I’m afraid. Rural communities, people living in the countryside must be removed first before dealing with the suburbs. Destination.. new smart cities.. housing greatly reduced numbers of course..
I wonder how much longer before they make moves towards banning woodburners (‘cos climate innit?). It’ll be coming at some point no doubt.
Bloody certainty Aethelred. I expect this year.
That’s definitely the plan George. Allegedly we are not building enough houses in this country. Complete and utter bullshit. It doesn’t matter where I travel to these days EVERY town has massive homebuilding schemes under way. EVERY damned town.
The push to empty the countryside will require a bit if a kick although at the moment I cannot see where this will come from. Cancelling boilers won’t do it in my opinion.
We have oil CH. Like many counties we live in an area of scattered villages whose heating choice is solid fuel, oil or LPG. I think that the metropolitan green types probably think it’s just a few country piles that would be affected by an oil boiler ban, not realising that ordinary working people in 2 bed terraces can have oil CH as well, and this includes social housing.
Anyway, I am seriously considering buying a spare oil boiler and storing it for as and when needed.
“If the 2026 oil boiler ban goes ahead as scheduled then there will soon be news reports of poor rural households freezing in unheated homes because their oil boiler has broken down beyond repair and they cannot replace it. If we get a cold snap there will doubtless be reports of rural pensioners dying of hypothermia in unheated houses. Is this all going to be accepted as sad but necessary collateral damage in the greater good of net-zero?”
Or is part of the plan to cause an exodus from the countryside and in to towns and cities where dense populations can be more easily monitored and controlled and if required killed with perhaps table d’hote viruses and infections?
I’d rather just put on another jumper, HP!
Remember when the mRNA jib jabs being called ”gene therapy” was classed as ‘conspiracy theory’?
”A team of researchers has used lipid nanoparticles loaded with mRNA—the starring technology in some COVID-19 vaccines—to noninvasively and selectively trigger cell death in living mice’s blood stem cells. And in a second experiment, they used the nanoparticle system to remove a sickle cell–producing gene in human cells.
The new advance involves a single injection and uses antibodies to target the payload to its intended destination. And it makes its cellular or genetic modifications directly in the body without the need for cell extraction.”
https://cen.acs.org/pharmaceuticals/gene-therapy/mRNA-loaded-lipid-nanoparticles-reprogram-cells/101/web/2023/08
Interesting piece about the role of behavioural scientists and the significant role they play in manipulating the masses for the benefit of the global elite and their agendas.
”If the gross neglect of ethical principles was not troubling enough, the recent pronouncements by prominent UK behavioural scientists – the enforcers of stage 3 of the authoritarian template – also indicate escalating stridency and duplicity.
Professor David Halpern (the chief executive of the Behavioural Insight Team [BIT], aka the ‘Nudge Unit’) exemplifies this increasing confidence.
In a January 2023 interview with The Telegraph, Halpern described how he had nudged Boris Johnson, the serving Prime Minister, into wearing a mask: ‘We did share with him a slide pack at one point. It had a series of images of pretty much every single world leader wearing a mask, and then a picture with him not’. This subliminal prod, to covertly exert normative pressure on Johnson, was used to point out that ‘a normal thing for a world leader to do right now is wear a mask’. In the same interview, Halpern goes on to express his intent for a behavioural ‘scaffolding’ to be put in place to encourage mask wearing in Britain.
So despite the wealth of empirical evidence that the wearing of face coverings in community settings is both ineffective and harmful, Halpern felt justified in promoting widespread masking, presumably because such a policy chimed with his own ideological beliefs.”
https://www.hartgroup.org/nudgers/
Why is Halpern not prosecuted for malfeasance in a Public Office?
Or, at least, struck off the psychologists´ register for misuse of psychology?
Because the regulatory body is also captured & used to enforce the political agenda not ensure the integrity & quality of the professionals thus regulated.
Ho well, they can always full back on the polar bears…ho no, they’re doing well also? damn!.. Haha, the ice sheets,.. wot, they’re increasing? Alrighty, global wildfire inferno!..What do mean it was worse in the 1930s? and that 85% are caused by human activity? Balls…right then,..global boiling, there, beat that!
We’d better hope that global boiling convinces them or they’ll never believe the world ends a week on Tuesday!
When in doubt blame it on Putin…LOL….Damn! That man has got a lot to answer for….
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/vladimir-putins-war-threats-aliens-26017787
Vladimir Putin’s war threats are why aliens haven’t made first contact, expert claims
Russia’s Vladimir Putin’s constant threats risking World War Three erupting is hindering chances of aliens making first contact with humans on Earth, a UFO expert has said…
Nanu Nanu!,,,,,,,LOL!….
Clowns out in force, I see. But the Daily Star was only ever a clown central rag anyway.
Oh I agree, it was just a bit of fun…although Putin is actually to blame for everything according to the MSM…..and Nick Pope did use to work for the UK Government ‘alien Department’ many years ago..and is considered some sort of expert!!? LOL!
Can you imagine the aliens arriving in Washington DC and demanding to see the leader of the free world. They’d still be laughing light years from here…
Dr John Campbell’s latest about WHO global digital vaccine passports. He appears as a concerned angel next to the Director General’s right shoulder. To complete the picture a smug looking Bill Gates should be appearing next to his left shoulder: –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1ZGbqXrfD8
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66367224 ‘Where people have to choose between food or home insurance’
The BBC article starts with the assertion ‘As extreme weather events multiply, home insurance providers in the US are rapidly raising rates – or quitting the business altogether – forcing many into severe financial distress.‘
The first thing to address is that extreme weather events are not ‘multiplying’ – that’s hyperbole. They may be increasing slightly though that in itself needs proof that it’s not the outcome of increased reporting or increases in the area occupied by people which results in the same number and intensity of weather events causing more trouble for mankind.
Multiplying? Only if we’re talking about multiplying by numbers close to one.
The article goes on to say:
Hmm… ‘devastating storms‘…’routinely crash against its shores‘? So it’s normal for New Orleans then.
The article is a story about inflation (in the economic sense) affecting the insurance industry. Insurance underwriters are in the businesses to make money – if they find they’re paying out more than they used to they will raise their prices (premiums) to protect their profits. If they can make more money elsewhere they’ll withdraw from the business completely, leaving less competition to help keep prices down.
So are insurers paying out more than they used to and if so, why? Yes, of course they are paying out more. The value of household goods and properties has increased as the population has expanded and the number of genuinely ‘poor’ has decreased. In the event of a total loss of a household property the average replacement costs are far higher than they used to be; prices for property, vehicles, furniture, white goods, entertainment equipment all have increased over the years – and so have insurance premiums to compensate.
At the same time that insurance prices have increased people have come to feel entitled not to carry any personal risk. As an anecdotal example, I was surprised that an ex-colleague made a claim on their household insurance when their child accidentally cracked the rim of the lavatory by dropping the seat on it – I was even more surprised that his claim was paid in full and the replacement works left him with a distinctly improved bathroom.
An attitude seems to have developed that people must claim for anything and everything in order to benefit more than the insurance premium costs them. This results in a kind of arms race between the insurers and the insured. Those, on either side, not able to keep up have to drop out of the race.
We are living through a period of high inflation mostly caused by the majority of governments spending scarce resources on futile attempts to curb a not very deadly disease. High inflation is a consequence and manifests in many different ways.
Is Esther McVey going to get the Andrew Bridgen treatment?