In 2006, Professor Nicholas Stern produced a report on climate at the request of the British Government. It claimed that climate-related damage would dramatically increase in coming years and was hugely influential at the time. Two years later, Parliament passed the Climate Change Act, the seminal legislation that put Britain on its disastrous path to Net Zero. Seventeen years later, the U.S. economist Professor Roger Pielke observes that Stern’s predictions of climate and weather impacts were only true in one year – 2017 – and in dollar terms the cumulative overestimation in financial damage to date is about $1 trillion.
At the time, the economist Ruth Lea has probably never written a truer word. She told readers of the Daily Telegraph that “I have little doubt that the Government will use the Stern report as a political prop, under the guise of the moral case for saving the planet, for unilaterally raising energy costs”. In the years that followed, successive British Governments did just that, reducing a commitment to cheap local fossil fuel, and promoting unreliable green energy with massive subsidies paid by British consumers.
The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change was a major exercise in green scare propaganda highlighting an improbable increase in global temperatures of up to 5°C. Noted Lea: “In Stern’s worst case scenario, global GDP by the end of the century would be 20% lower than would be the case if climate change had been tackled.” She quoted Stern, who said “our actions could create risks of major disruptions to economic and social activity on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century”.
Professor Pielke noted that Stern reported correctly that weather and climate disasters over the decades leading to 2005 totalled around 0.2% of global GDP. Stern made two assumptions of future increases. A lower bound of constant 2% increases in the costs of extreme weather over and above changes in wealth and inflation, and an upper bound assuming a rate of increase of 1% each decade reaching 6% in 2045. Stern said that these values are “likely underestimates”, but the following graph shows that they were not.
In the lower bound example, the grey bars show the expected loss increase from 0.2% of GDP to about 0.35%. The actual losses are shown in black and the dashed linear trend line has hardly moved. Only the one year in 2017 was higher than Stern’s forecast, and Pielke computes the cumulative financial error over the 17 years at no less than $1 trillion. He notes that Stern’s failed prediction “is good news for the world”.
Pielke also compiles a second graph showing the results from the upper bound estimates. These guesses soar quickly but there is no evidence from current loss patterns that that reality will make its presence felt. But then with global warming slowing to barely a 0.1°C rise since the turn of the century, there is not a great deal of reality about Stern’s 5°C temperature hike. Pielke’s observations would seem to undermine the “simple conclusion” of the Stern review that, “the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting”.
These days Professor Stern is the chair of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at the London School of Economics. Grantham is a promotional research operation committed to accelerating the transition to Net Zero, and it is backed by numerous green billionaire foundations. Its main backer is the green billionaire investor Jeremy Grantham. Stern is still promoting his report, bizarrely telling an audience in October 2021 that his work, “contrary to being alarmist, underestimated the risks, the damage associated with temperatures increasing, and the probability of temperature increases”. It was said to be important to keep going down to zero carbon dioxide by mid-century. Renewables, with storage, he fantasised, now competed without subsidy or carbon price in much of the world. The fact that you can’t store renewables at any worthwhile scale does not seem to have occurred to Stern.
Back in 2006 when Stern’s report was first published, the environmental economist Professor Richard Tol observed: “If a student of mine were to hand in this report as a Master’s thesis, perhaps if I were in a good mood I would give him a ‘D’ for diligence; but more likely an ‘F’ for fail. … Stern consistently picks the most pessimistic for every choice that one can make. He overestimates through cherry-picking, he double counts particularly the risks, and he underestimates what development and adaptation will do to impacts.”
But does any of that matter? Stern was important green nudge propaganda at the time paving the way for a radical collectivist transformation of society through the Net Zero project.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
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 still get called anti vax even though I just want to be sure that I’m making the right decision as to whether to have my children vaccinated/injected with an experimental new gene therapy. I’m still not sure whether it’s worth the risk for myself which is why i haven’t take it yet. The more I get lectured by my CEO at work, the BBC, the MSM the more I think I’m the subject of the most powerful drug pushers in the world.
I always say I’m not joining the experiment I’m just waiting for the results to come in…
I’m a member of the control group
It wouldn’t be science if there’s no control group.
Informed consent, I’m informed and I don’t consent.
Yup. And I’m not “hesitant” either. I an completely un-hesitant in not having them.
Here on the Costas, our beautiful cleaning girl (25) has just had her second dose of Astra Zeneca. She works with children, so was told it’s mandatory. What worried her is having to sign and indemnity/disclaimer in the event of any side effects from the concoction. In my 17 year service career, involving having “an armful of everything going” (to quote Tony Hancock), I don’t recall every having to do such a thing. I’m a 72 year old refusenik.
Using ONS data it has been calculated the chances of a healthy child under 10 dying from C19 is 1 in 4m, thus members of this younger age group have 164x more chance of dying from the vaxx than from C19 (and up to 1640x more chance of dying if the under-reporting caveat is applied).
The likelihood of dying from C19 for anyone in the 10 – 19 age group is around 1 in 2.5 million. This means (using these official vaxx death figure of 1 in 24,331) that a healthy person in this 10-19 age group person has ONE HUNDRED TIMES more chance of dying from the vaxx than from C19 (and up to ONE THOUSAND TIMES more chance of dying if the under-reporting caveat is applied).
Following through by age group:
20-29 y/o – c20x (up to 200x*) more chance of dying from the vaxx than C19
30-39 y/o – c7x (up to 70x*) more chance of dying from the vaxx than C19
40-49 y/o – c2x (up to 20x*) more chance of dying from the vaxx than C19
(*) 90% under reporting caveat, although a recent ‘expert’ report in LDS put this under reporting figure higher at at 95%, which would double again these figures.
Either way this is Extremely Skewed Russian Roulette with experimental gene therapy still in Phase III trials until 2023 – and that prior to 2020 had never been approved for human useage, and is currently only being used under emergency measures legislation.
The fact that mRNA vaccines are not new tech is even more concerning, as they have consistently failed to be approved for human usage over the past decade despite several attempts. Likewise viral vector vaccines (AZ).
Oh, and these stats do not include serious life changing (but non-fatal) adverse reactions from the vaxx. Many are reactions that that C19 does not have, such as blindness, nervous disorders, GBS etc – which have proven way more numerous than recorded fatalities.
Read ‘em below and weep….
https://yellowcard.ukcolumn.org/yellow-card-reports
Thank you so much for this – I did read them and I did weep.
What is so sad is that I am meeting so many people with Vaccine Remorse but they say they are just frightened to confront the figures — This is a humanitarian tragedy — IT IS EVIL IN THE EXTREME THAT OUR GOVERNMENT AND MSM ARE NOT BEING HONEST — WORSE THAT THEY NOW WANT THE CHILDREN
“with an experimental new gene therapy.”
Given it isn’t an experimental new gene therapy, then perhaps the first thing to do is stop using flowery and inaccruate language and balance your thinking.
All vaccines and viruses co-opt the cellular replication mechanisms. RNA viruses like SARS-2 use the same mRNA techniques that newer vaccines mimic.
https://www.immunology.org/public-information/bitesized-immunology/pathogens-and-disease/virus-replication
It’s very difficult to make an informed decision without actually being informed in the first place.
The vaccines aren’t perfect by any means but unless you are young the Infection fatality rates and injury rates of Covid are higher than the vaccine fatality rates and injury rates of vaccination.
The zero risk option isn’t available. Eventually you either get vaccinated, or you catch Covid. There is no other way this ends.
20+ % of people seem to be innately immune to COVID. They just cannot catch it.
There is also the additional ‘option’ that many people have already caught and recovered from Covid which has been circulating for well over 18 months now.
Yes, and we know how many that has killed. Which is why we developed vaccines.
“Yes, and we know how many that has killed. “
Well if you do, you’re probably the only man on the planet who does, given the misinformation, confusion and downright dishonesty over defining and measuring “covid deaths”.
What we do know is that overall deaths are not significantly up this year, regardless of responses, so we certainly haven’t faced any kind of “once in a lifetime pandemic”.
“What we do know is that overall deaths are not significantly up this year, regardless of responses, so we certainly haven’t faced any kind of “once in a lifetime pandemic””
What we also know is that it is not comparable to previous years because of all the interventions. Simply reducing car traffic reduces deaths.
We know the range of deaths and the likelihood. We can analyse the data in numerous ways. We can listen to several interpretations, and that gives anybody capable a probability distribution.
You do that on the other side, then and then you decide on the balance of probabilities.
Or at least you do if you are rational.
I’ve seen no reason yet to believe that any of the panic responses significantly changed the outcomes, certainly in those countries where the disease got established (the vast majority).
And the simple fact is that as far as the risks from covid are concerned, they would be classed as de minimis for me. Not significantly different from the risks faced routinely, every year of my life, from respiratory viruses. Better to ignore them than to incur significant costs trying to hide from them.
And significant costs would certainly include taking experimental new medical treatment with (by definition) unknown long term consequences. Not that I’m particularly worried about those either, for a male past likely breeding age like myself. But I’ve always been a believer in requiring strong positive justification for medical treatment, and not easily convinced by supposed prophylactic treatment. The precautionary principle.
On the subject of deaths not being much above average you say:
“What we also know is that it is not comparable to previous years because of all the interventions. Simply reducing car traffic reduces deaths.”
To which I say simply denying treatment for a multitude of conditions and mentally and physically torturing vulnerable people (and everyone else for that matter) increases deaths.
Why do you assume your own conclusion?
Isn’t it remarkable that the “interventions” make covid not only less dangerous but invisible?
I really don’t know where you are coming from or who you are. Rational you aren’t. Able to read and interpret data?-no I don’t think so.
People like you are responsible for spreading mis-information, you are cetainly not a credit to society or, indeed, this forum of the informed
“Caught and recovered.”
Operative word: recovered.
We don’t accurately know how many people it’s killed because of skewed classification and data collection.
P.S.: they developed these vaccines well before they knew how infectious it was, or how deadly, i.e. December 2019/January 2020.
Errr, sorry Lucan – but we don’t. All we know is the number the government is telling us ad nauseam, day after day on MSM, but that’s people who died ‘with’ Covid and not necessarily ‘of’ Covid. We also know that this is an institutional disease and that a large chunk of deaths occoured in care homes. Don’t misunderstand me; I’m not for one minute suggesting that care home residents don’t matter – they absolutely do. My point is simply that the vast majority of the population don’t live in a care home and that, knowing what we know now (and the government almost certainly knew at the time), many of those deaths were caused by discharging patients from hospital where they contracted the disease – and many of them could have been avoided.
Regarding your point about the vaccines not being experimental – can you give an example of another vaccine that uses the same techniques, has been granted emergancy use only, whose manufacturers have a ‘get out of jail free’ card if things go wrong (which they clearly are) and whose phase 3 trials are yet to be completed?
As others have pointed out, your final sentence about catching Covid or getting vaccinated isn’t just grossly misleading – it’s flat out wrong! Having said all that, well done for having the testicular fortitude to come on here to spread government propaganda!
Phase 1 and Phase 2 haven’t been completed either.
Back in December over 1 million were said to have an active Covid infection on a particular day. These of course were infections bad for people to register symptoms. Probably 10 of millions of people developed Covid immunity in each of of the two Covid waves and it’s quite possible 20% had immunity already.
Do you feel lucky? Well do yah?
Yes.
Exactly, don’t risk your life with the experimental pseudo vaccines.
It’s not a matter of “feeling lucky”. Its a question of looking at the risks (known risks, and unknown risks) and making a choice. Just like, say, whether to cross the road.
Precisely – it is our decision, not one to be misappropriated by a notoriously dishonest government, crap analysis by scientists with conflicting interests or pressure from ignorant plebs.
Yep feel free to have my jabs
Yes, because I’ve already had it, Lucan. I hope the vaccines go well for you though.
Hello Sandra and all the others who bother to reply to Lucan Grey – It seems to me that Lucan Grey has the kind of intelligence or lack of that our government covet — haaha! The figures are there for all to see why bother with people like LG.
Oh, yes. Definitely!
I am not an anti-vaxxer, but I wait for the results of 3 to 4 years of controlled trials.
My wife, and 4 adult offspring are more Gung-Ho.
They have had their jabs, all with no side-effects.
(My wife remarked yesterday:
“It’s as if they had vaccinated me with Distilled Water”.
Now there’s a thought! )
Possibly because we follow much the same dietary supplements which appear to work. No Colds or Flu for years.
We don’t need to be lucky. We just need to be informed about how we can improve our metabolic and immune health.
Yes i am lucky – lucky that i don’t personally know such a clown as yourself.
I could have used much more derogatory terms as I am sure many on here would
Watch Robert Malone on ‘Darkhorse’ for his opinion on the dangers of taking part in the emergency ‘vaccine’ trial. He patented mRNA technology in 1989.
If you don’t take him seriously, then all hope for you is lost. He recommends halting the trial until more information is to hand.
I’m not surprised I’ve never had the flu so my immune system must be working just fine so I will not be taking any vaccine and risks harming it!
“Given it isn’t an experimental new gene therapy“
OK, you assert that. On the other hand I saw Dr Robert Malone stating the opposite in no uncertain terms a few days ago:
“All three vaccines in the UK are based on gene therapy technology and are producing spike protein in cells”
Clearly the fact, that you adduce, that these vaccines “mimic” existing processes in no way makes their use in this form not “new”, and given they have not completed the normal trials we would apply to a new vaccine (on the absurd and dishonest pretext of a supposed “emergency”), they clearly are still experimental.
So given Dr Malone’s very impressive technical background in this area, I’ll take his opinion over yours, thanks.
I’d link you to the excellent discussion in which Malone made that comment, but those noble defenders of truth and decency at Youtube have censored it for “violating YouTube’s Community Guidelines”.
Very reassuring. Not.
“So given Dr Malone’s very impressive technical background in this area, I’ll take his opinion over yours, thanks.”
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. Why his particular eminations rather than the dozens of others that say the opposite?
Forget about “experts” who are just the priests of the foolish.
Look at the data. Get it in comparable format and then make a risk judgement based upon that.
We’ve had millions of shots. We know what the fatality rate is. We know what the damage rate is. We know the same for the illness itself.
Take your pick. But you will be taking one of those risks whether you like it or not.
I went for the lowest risk option based upon rational analysis, not feeling and belief.
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. Why his particular eminations rather than the dozens of others that say the opposite?”
I haven’t seen “dozens” of people claim this vaccine isn’t “experimental new gene therapy”. If I did I’d examine the credibility of their assertion much as I did yours, and probably find it equally wanting.
As I pointed out “new” and “experimental” are not honestly contestable in this context. As for whether it’s “gene therapy”, well that’s largely of only semantic significance anyway. I see no reason not to stick with Malone’s opinion on it until you come up with a comparably qualified one to the contrary.
“We’ve had millions of shots. We know what the fatality rate is. We know what the damage rate is. We know the same for the illness itself.“
Well no, part of the problem is precisely that we don’t really know either. But the information we have certainly suggests the danger from the disease is trivial for the vast majority, and the dangers from the vaccines are basically unknown.
I’m less confident than you are that the data is accurate, but leaving that aside do you not also need to include a factor for how effective the vaccine actually is. That hasn’t been clear to me.
And finally, no-one knows what the long term effects are, and side effects emerging that do not seem to have been considered does not inspire confidence.
It’s amazing that some still need the bleedin’ obvious spelled out to them.
You have to be totally deluded (or paid off) to assert that this snake oil is ‘safe’ within established limits.
As to effectiveness – the ~1% ARR isn’t very convincing.
According to the Yellow Card data, approximately 1 in every 31,000 people who has had a vaccine in the UK has subsequently died, at a time an in a manner which merited a Yellow Card being raised.
We know from Prof Ioannidis’s studies that the overall IFR for COVID-19 on a global basis is, for the under 65s, 0.05% (1 in 2000 people).
So bearing in mind that it’s actually quite difficult to get infected with COVID these days (only 1 in 450 people in England are supposedly infected), the risk of dying from the virus and the risk from the vaccine are rather more closely matched than you suggest.
If the vaccine was any good, the risks associated would be NOWHERE NEAR those from the virus. They would be orders of magntitude less.
But they are not.
One caveat : taking the snake oil is like deliberately infecting yourself if the IFR is to be used as a metric. Only then do you have a proper starting line for the comparison.
It ain’t ‘snake oil’ ffs, it’s dangerous experimental gene therapy being approved for human use only under bogus emergency regulations. I’ve pulled Annie up on this nonsense as well. Snake Oil implies at worst a useless placebo, not a massive Big Pharma project and overwhelming existential risk to you and yours.
These experimental vaxxes are already unleashing serious damage to the health of thousands of people – including at least 1330 UK deaths to date – and goodness knows what long term and inter-generational damage.
In fact they are several orders of magnitude higher.
At least 100 times more chance of dying form the vaxx than C19 for 10-19 year olds (and this itself is an underestimate as factoring in 90% under reporting this figure would be nearer 1000 times).
What has happened to understanding mathematical basics in the UK? This lack of understanding statistics is going to kill you and your kids
Well it isn’t going to me or my kids, but it may kill other people’s kids, I agree.
‘Why his particular eminations (sic)…..’
Possibly because he invented mRNA vaccines and DNA vaccines?
That’s because you clearly think that we are in the middle of the Black Plague and we have bodies lining up in the streets. This is not even close. In fact, it’s not even as bad as the Asian Flu and Hong Kong flu.
This settles the argument about whether or not the vaxxes are experimental:
Bioethics of Experimental COVID Vaccine Deployment under EUA: It’s time we stop and look at what’s going down.
https://trialsitenews.com/bioethics-of-experimental-covid-vaccine-deployment-under-eua-its-time-we-stop-and-look-at-whats-going-down/
Robert W Malone, MD, MS1
I provide this brief essay for the TrialSite community because you are involved or at least interested in human subject clinical research. By way of background, please understand that I am a vaccine specialist and advocate, as well as the original inventor of the mRNA vaccine (and DNA vaccine) core platform technology. But I also have extensive training in bioethics from the University of Maryland, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, and Harvard Medical School, and advanced clinical development and regulatory affairs are core competencies for me.
Before examining the bioethical foundations of current policy and practice which underpin experimental COVID vaccine deployment in many in many western nations, allow me to begin by sharing some “real world” first-hand evidence.
I was on a call with a Canadian primary care physician last week for a couple of hours. He related the story of the six (in his mind) highly unusual clinical cases of post-vaccination adverse events that he has personally observed in his practice involving vaccination of his patients with the Pfizer mRNA vaccine product. Keep in mind that it was Canadian physicians – acting of their own accord – who filed the FOIA to gain access to the Pfizer vaccine IND (see https://trialsitenews.com/did-pfizer-fail-to-perform-industry-standard-animal-testing-prior-to-initiation-of-mrna-clinical-trials/).
What was most alarming to me was that my clinical primary practice physician colleague told me that each of these cases were reported as per the proper channels in Canada, and each was summarily determined to not be vaccine related by the authorities without significant investigation. Furthermore, he reported to me that any practicing physician in Canada who goes public with concerns about vaccine safety is subjected to a storm of derision from academic physicians and potential termination of employment (state-controlled socialized medicine) and loss of license to practice.
This is one face of censorship in the time of COVID (see https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.15252/embr.202051420). But what are official public health leaders afraid of? Why is it necessary to suppress discussion and full disclosure of information concerning mRNA reactogenicity and safety risks? Let’s analyze the vaccine-related adverse event data rigorously. Is there information or patterns that can be found, such as the recent finding of the cardiomyopathy signals, or the latent virus reactivation signals? We should be enlisting the best biostatistics and machine learning experts to examine these data, and the results should- no must- be made available to the public promptly. Please follow along and take a moment to examine the underlying bioethics of this situation with me.
I believe that adult citizens must be allowed free will, the freedom to choose. This is particularly true in the case of clinical research. These mRNA and recombinant adenovirus vaccine products remain experimental at this time. Furthermore, we are supposed to be doing rigorous, fact-based science and medicine. If rigorous and transparent evaluation of vaccine reactogenicity and treatment-emergent post-vaccination adverse events is not done, we (the public health, clinical research and vaccine developer communities) play right into the hands of anti-vaxxer memes and validate many of their arguments. The suppression of information, discussion, and outright censorship concerning these current COVID vaccines which are based on gene therapy technologies cast a bad light on the entire vaccine enterprise. It is my opinion that the adult public can handle information and open discussion. Furthermore, we must fully disclose any and all risks associated with these experimental research products.
In this context, the adult public are basically research subjects that are not being required to sign informed consent due to EUA waiver. But that does not mean that they do not deserve the full disclosure of risks that one would normally require in an informed consent document for a clinical trial. And now some national authorities are calling on the deployment of EUA vaccines to adolescents and the young, which by definition are not able to directly provide informed consent to participate in clinical research – written or otherwise.
The key point here is that what is being done by suppressing open disclosure and debate concerning the profile of adverse events associated with these vaccines violates fundamental bioethical principles for clinical research. This goes back to the Geneva convention and the Helsinki declaration. See https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/.
There must be informed consent for experimentation on human subjects. The human subjects – you, me, and the citizens of these countries – must be informed of risks. As a community, we have already had a discussion and made our decision – we cannot compel prisoners, military recruits, or any other population of humans to participate in a clinical research study. For example, see the Belmont report, which provided the rationale for US federal law Code of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 46 (subpart A), referred to as “The Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects” (also known as the “Common Rule”).
Quoting from the Belmont Report:
“Informed Consent. — Respect for persons requires that subjects, to the degree that they are capable, be given the opportunity to choose what shall or shall not happen to them. This opportunity is provided when adequate standards for informed consent are satisfied.
While the importance of informed consent is unquestioned, controversy prevails over the nature and possibility of an informed consent. Nonetheless, there is widespread agreement that the consent process can be analyzed as containing three elements: information, comprehension and voluntariness.”
https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html
Information, comprehension, and voluntariness. To my eyes, it appears that in many regions public health leadership has stepped over the line and is now violating the bedrock principles which form the foundation upon which the ethics of clinical research are built. I believe that this must stop. We must have transparent public disclosure of risks – in a broad sense – associated with these experimental vaccines. It is either that, or the entire modern bioethical structure which supports human subjects research will have to be re-thought.
I really think we need to
“stop, children, what’s that sound – everybody look what’s going down”
(For What it’s Worth, Buffalo Springfield)
Furthermore, as these vaccines are not yet market authorized (licensed), coercion of human subjects to participate in medical experimentation is specifically forbidden. Therefore, public health policies which meet generally accepted criteria for coercion to participate in clinical research are forbidden.
For example, if I were to propose a clinical trial involving children and entice participation by giving out ice cream to those willing to participate, any institutional human subjects safety board (IRB) in the United States would reject that protocol. If I were to propose a clinical research protocol wherein the population of a geographic region would lose personal liberties unless 70% of the population participated in my study, once again, that protocol would be rejected by any US IRB based on coercion of subject participation. No coercion to participate in the study is allowed. In human subject clinical research, in most countries of the world this is considered a bright line that cannot be crossed. So, now we are told to waive that requirement without even so much as open public discussion being allowed?
In conclusion, I hope that you will join me; stop to take a moment and consider for yourself what is going on. The logic seems clear to me. 1) An unlicensed medical product deployed under emergency use authorization (EUA) remains an experimental product under clinical research development. 2) EUA authorized by national authorities basically grants a short-term right to administer the research product to human subjects without written informed consent. 3) The Geneva Convention, the Helsinki declaration, and the entire structure which supports ethical human subjects research requires that research subjects be fully informed of risks and must consent to participation without coercion. Has that bright line been crossed? If so, what actions are to be taken? I look forward to learning from your thoughts and conclusions.
Excellent. Thank God for Malone’s integrity.
He is a good man. No, a great man.
I wonder how much pressure is applied to UK GPs not to complete yellow card reports. And of course most of the patients won’t know the scheme. So any numbers on vax deaths/harms can only be wildly underrestimated.
Its very simple, sunshine. The only reason you are posting on a sceptic site about a vaccine for a disease with an IFR of 0.15% is because you are paid to do so.
All the lab animals died which is all you need to know.
On the Diamond Princess the virus was lose for weeks without any response. In a closed environment with a target demographic at no point did more than 17% of the population caught covid.
The evidence from that suggests that nearly 80% of the population had a pre-existing immunity to the virus. So no you don’t either get covid or get vaccinated, its more complicated.
Before any vaccination campaign the first thing should have been to see who had T-Cell immunity. Then vax the vulnerable if they so wish. The virus is only lethal to a small demographic with co-morbidity. For the vast majority its only a minor or mild illness.
… and that 17% infection figure (in a closed environment) has been reflected in other studies.
Once herd immunity is reached, there is the third option of “you don’t catch covid as it has died out”.
It won’t die out, most likely. It will almost certainly become another endemic seasonal cold virus like its four predecessors.
Arguably it already has.
Mike Yeadon says the exact opposite and he has the expert specialist knowledge in this field:
“I believe this just happened, a media event with Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) & a handful of very many people who are severely affected after covid19 vaccination. Horribly moving testimony.
Towards the end, the Senator gave a short presentation using nothing but public evidence.
The carnage is truly awful. On deaths alone, we are in six months approaching the numbers who’ve died shortly after covid19 vaccines as seen for all other vaccines, which is 31 years (when VAERS was set up). So roughly 50x more lethal than typical vaccines.
Anyone in the healthcare industry MUST acknowledge that some seriously terrible things are happening & those looking into innocent faces need to STAND UP TOGETHER & bring this mass psychosis/ crime to a shuddering halt.
No matter how you think we got here, people with functioning moral compasses must now get this runaway train to be stopped, by any means necessary.
Best wishes
Mike”
Good comment from Mike .
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/06/sen-ron-johnson-hearing-mother-disabled-daughter-breaks-crying-sharing-covid-vaccine-destroyed-daughters-life-video/
“Sen. Ron Johnson Hearing: Mother with Disabled Daughter Breaks Down Crying While Sharing How COVID Vaccine Shattered Her Daughter’s Life
US Senator Ron Johnson held a press conference with families who are victims of the COVID vaccine Monday at the Federal Courthouse in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
The families from across the country came to talk about the adverse reactions they have experienced after taking a COVID-19 vaccine.
Just last week the CDC admitted they were finding more cases of rare heart inflammation than expected in young adults who took the COVID vaccine.
The CDC also admitted last week that more people young people have been hospitalized from the COVID vaccine than from the COVID virus.
“The vaccines aren’t perfect by any means but unless you are young the Infection fatality rates and injury rates of Covid are higher than the vaccine fatality rates and injury rates of vaccination.”
That’s your claim. It’s not proven fact. As Alex Berenson has pointed out – and as freely available evidence supports – wherever a mass vaccination programme is launched in a country, the rates for Covid deaths and cases shoot up. The classic case was Mongolia which had 0 Covid deaths before the vaccination programme and then thousands within a few weeks. The deaths occur mainly among the elderly and vulnerable. The health authorities have never accepted the link, but the link is clear and evidenced. If the authorities ignore the facts, then the claims they make about risks and benefits are not grounded in fact and are simply assertions designed to support a narrative.
… and we saw this happen in December-January this year. It’s the only really feasible explanation for the shape of the curve.
Joel Smalley produced a video illustrating this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xSrc_s2Gqfw
Impact of COVID Vaccinations on Mortality
Thank you for raising this, okuk. See also Chile, and India.
I’ve also noticed reports (bit slow to this, as I avoid much news) of ailing children in the UK. My daughter’s school, for example, has reported lots of ‘cases’ (yes, I know). Given that the little darlings have not (yet) had any injections, but many of the parents/careers/grannies etc have… Well, I’m sure you can see where I’m heading.
Hate to think that I’ve avoided 90% of the bollocks for the last 18 months, only to be at risk for not staying away from the pricks (as I’ve occasionally heard the injected ones called).
“Eventually you either get vaccinated, or you catch Covid. There is no other way this ends.”
I do find your contributions valuable, LG, but this simply isn’t true, not least because getting the jab does not prevent you getting covid.
And, of course, if you catch covid and recover, you don’t need the jab. Although our overlords have made no allowance for that at all.
“It’s very difficult to make an informed decision without actually being informed in the first place.”
Absolutely true. Which is why it’s folly to get jabbed :
There is though. You get vaccinated AND you catch Covid…
Andrew Marr, symptomatic. Friend of a woman in the supermarket, twice vaxxed, tested positive, no symptoms.
“The vaccines aren’t perfect by any means…” Vaccines better be goddamn perfect otherwise you have needless deaths, and if that is the case, the risks of the vaccines outweigh the benefits. You are part of the problem with that type of thinking.
“Eventually you either get vaccinated, or you catch Covid.”
Or in some cases, such as Andrew Marr, you get vaccinated and still catch covid.
Don’t be bullied this is your health and that of your children. Point out the vaccine trials supposedly end in 2023 and you’ll decide then.
My sympathies. I’m in exactly the same position. At my firm I’m now being asked to plan an internal comms campaign using workforce testimonials to show colleagues how thrilled everyone is who’s been jabbed. It’s the height of idiocy, and even my gentle suggestion that they might be opening themselves up to legal liability is ignored. On ethical grounds I’m trying to dissociate myself from working on this project – I have a close and trusted colleague who has been jabbed who is willing to take it on instead.
Injecting kids is simply playing medico-russian-roulette…
https://twitter.com/goddeksineal/status/1409896041298677760?s=20
already immunised by having had Sars Cold 2
We are plebs not worthy
The media minister has said that “people who are important” should be entitled to avoid tough quarantine rules when travelling to the UK.
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/quarantine-euros-final-minister-green-list-b1871077.html
Stand in South Hill Park Bracknell every Sunday 10am meet fellow lockdown sceptics, keep yourself sane, make new friends and have a laugh.
Join our Stand in the Park – Bracknell – Telegram Group
http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
“They originally submitted it to the BMJ as a ‘Rapid Response’, but it was rejected.”
Surprise, surprise.
Of course, that’s how “scientific consensus” on what is “The Science” is maintained.
We need to add a further layer of evidential quality below “expert opinion”:
“Supposed expert consensus formed in an environment of systematic coercion and censorship”
https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/healthevidence/evidencepyramid
“Clarify” is a new synonym for back-peddle frantically.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-06-make-a-wish-policy-vaccinations.html
12-year old Maddie de Garay was excited to be part of the Covid vaccine trial. Her parents are in medicine & engineering and wanted their kids to help bring an end to the pandemic. But now, Maddie is in a wheelchair and needs a feeding tube. They want her to be believed.
https://twitter.com/SenRonJohnson/status/1409704740213166080
There is no longer a zero risk option.
Did they treat him with ivermectin?
Did he have underlying health conditions?
He lost 6 stone in hospital – not conclusive, but maybe heavy when he went in.
People die all the time, from different conditions. Some want certain treatments, others do not.. There are always options: Do nothing and live your life, get vaccinated and live your life, wear a mask forever. Never go outside. Use Ivermectin, or not. Use vit D, or not. Any combination of these options.
It’s called choice.
Every year people die of flus, and always have, so there never was a zero risk option, but there is an overwhelming comparative option by age group if people bothered doing the maths (and remember this is just fatalities).
u10 – c164x (up to 1640x*) more chance of dying from the vaxx than C19
10-19 y/o – c100x (up to1000x*) more chance of dying from the vaxx than C19
20-29 y/o – c20x (up to 200x*) more chance of dying from the vaxx than C19
30-39 y/o – c7x (up to 70x*) more chance of dying from the vaxx than C19
40-49 y/o – c2x (up to 20x*) more chance of dying from the vaxx than C19
(*) applying the 90% MHRA under reporting caveat.
What the f. are you incontinently wittering about with this bit of non-evidence of anything?
Haha, nicely put!
I cannot understand parents who would willingly put their precious children forward as experiments. They deserve to be thrown in prison to rot!
708 reports from 3b flu vaccinations, versus 1160 from 150m covid vaccinations looks pretty stark!
But not surprising given the timescales involved and the hysteria surrounding the development of covid vaccines
You mean, it’s not surprising that vaccines produced in a panic and authorised early, without proper trialling, to address a supposed “emergency”, have many more harmful effects than vaccines produced in a more measured manner?
The fact that the authors are suggest a basic study with control group to look into this and that is being rejected or actively not being done by governments says a great deal to me about not caring about populations and just wanting to vaccinate as many as possible. It seems criminal. Glad that Toby published this and glad these doctors have taken the risk of speaking out.
Love this ..
Brilliant!!! That answers twattish vaxomane Piers Morgan.
Very true …
Well, it’s all very well raising this now the damage has been done. But people previously dismissed as “anti-vaxxers”, “conspiracy nutters” and “unintelligent” were pointing out the dangers back in Autumn 2020.
The risks were obvious since: all previous attempts to market mRNA vaccines had been rejected because they produced too high a rate of inflammatory responses; the experience with another vaccine meant to deal with a common respiratory virus (the flu vaccine) was extremely mixed (with the vaccine being blamed for the deaths of many of the most vulnerable people while also proving ineffective in terms of protection); the leaked social media comments of healthy trial volunteers made it clear the vaccine would be very demanding in terms of energetics (way beyond the capacity of the weakest to survive); and lastly the manfuacturers told us having the vaccine would not be a “walk in the park” – bit of a hint there!
The risk that the mass vaccination programme would become coercive and would provide a platform for the Digital ID based “new totalitarianism” was made clear as well.
But Toby and co. have indulged vaxo-triumphalism month after month, presumably on the misguided basis that vaccination was the path to freedom. It is now obvious to all but the purblind tha this ain’t so.
By the end of January 2021 just 689 people under the age of 60, with no
co-morbidities, had died from Covid-19 in England and Wales according to NHS England. So the, ‘it’s a vaccine or catch Covid’ is just an utterly barmy, illogical and unscientific bit of blather! It also shows that Vaxxing any healthy people in this age cohort is entirely unnecessary and, in my opinion, totally immoral.
They want the Children – They don’t care —-