The Home Office’s attempt to use the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, dubbed the ‘Snoopers’ Charter’, to force a backdoor into Apple’s Advanced Data Protection encryption of cloud backups is again in the news. A secret hearing before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal began on Friday, while additional members of the US Congress, from both parties, have added themselves to the growing numbers of notable figures opposed to the Labour Government’s reckless attack on everyone’s privacy. Led by Yvette Cooper, now known also by the moniker ‘Yvette Snooper’, the Home Office continues to remain blind to the way in which creating a backdoor into encrypted data as a way to let the in ‘good guys’ serves only to create a weakness which hostile countries and cybercriminals can exploit. This comes only months after the discovery of Chinese malware which was making use of CALEA backdoors, which the US Government had placed in American telecom networks, provided a striking illustration of the dangers backdoors pose to national security. Not only does the Home Office’s demand threaten the privacy of all Apple users worldwide, it also jeopardises the UK’s relationship with the US where J.D. Vance has warned against backdooring encryption, Tulsi Gabbard has called it a “clear and egregious violation” and President Trump has described the demand as “something you hear about in China”.
In an effort to distract attention from the dangers of backdoors, the UK Government also removed National Cyber Security Centre webpages advising lawyers to use end-to-end encryption to protect themselves against cyberattacks. It has done this even as the FBI, despite a history of pushing for the undermining of cryptography rights, has been newly urging widespread use of end-to-end encryption in the wake of China’s exploitation of CALEA backdoors. Apple is currently blocking the use of Advanced Data Protection in the UK and some in the software industry have described its actions as opening a frontdoor rather than a backdoor. This is only partially the case. While Advanced Data Protection may be blocked, the data already uploaded to Apple’s end-to-end encrypted version of its cloud service remain safe as Apple does not have any way to decrypt them without user involvement.
The Snoopers’ Charter was a Conservative Party creation, with Labour abstaining during the first vote on it. Keir Starmer in 2016 warned against some aspects of it, though seems willing enough to use it now. Labour mostly supported the bill’s later passage with a small number of MPs across many parties opposing it, including the SNP and the Liberal Democrats – a party perhaps best stereotyped as people with the decency to oppose authoritarianism when it arrives under the banner of national security, but who are often unable to see through its disguise when it cloaks itself under cuddlier excuses like ‘safety’ or ‘solutions‘ to climate change. Conservatives who supported the Snoopers’ Charter while their party was in power might now, watching their dearly held special relationship with the US being threatened, realise why it is dangerous for any government to grant itself extreme powers. However much a politician preparing to vote for new powers may trust his own side only to use them for ‘good’, he would be wiser to concentrate on what his most enthusiastic opponents could do with such capabilities at a future time.
Today, the opposition to cryptographic backdoors crosses both ideological and party lines. Even within the frustrating split forming within Reform we see figures on both sides making the case against this governmental over-reach. Zia Yusuf wrote a good Telegraph article, while Rupert Lowe has written: “I want my data to be private, especially from the state.” Those who take a stand against mass surveillance today must not forget this if they ever end up forming a government. Campaign groups including Big Brother Watch, Liberty, Index on Censorship, the Open Rights Group and Privacy International are speaking out against the Home Office’s demand, asking for the hearing to be made public and preparing court cases to challenge the legality of the request.
As is typical of governments seeking ever greater intrusion in to people’s lives, the things being demanded from Apple are not actually needed. Mass surveillance tactics do not catch criminals, who largely know how to evade them. We do not need automated monitoring of all our bank accounts to discover benefit fraud, especially as this would only reduce combined error and fraud losses by just 1.5%. We do not need driving licence photographs to be uploaded into a facial recognition databases, a plan begun under the Conservative Government and now resurrected by Labour. The 10% of criminals who commit the majority of serious crimes are repeat offenders whose images the police already have. And as the worst criminals tend to be known to law enforcement they can be dealt with using powers which have existed for as long as the concept of policing has existed. If all else fails, it’s technically possible to access the device of a specific suspect via an evil-maid attack. There are definite ethical concerns with such tampering, but not on the scale of the damage wrought by indiscriminate backdooring. However, in their quest for ever greater powers, governments around the world routinely overlook workable and targeted solutions in favour of surveilling everyone, at all times, supposedly to catch the worst criminals, but all too often simply as a new way to penalise the most petty of infractions.
The tribunal is being held in secret and we have not heard so much as a pip from Apple about it, nor is the Home Office discussing the statements being made at the tribunal. Neither has even officially confirmed that the tribunal, which began on Friday, is about Apple. What Apple might say in response is also unknown, but too often opposition to government overreach entirely confines itself to arguing within bounds permitted by the very legislation it seeks to oppose, losing sight of much more important questions of basic morality, practical feasibility and the dangers of slippery slopes. Under the letter of the Snoopers’ Charter Apple is banned from even confirming the news about the backdoor demand, and it is thought that the Home Office may not have been appeased by Apple’s move to withdraw Advanced Data Protection without backdooring it. To reiterate, withdrawing the service means that while Britons’ rights to encrypt their data are being curtailed, secrets already within it are not being compromised. But if Apple is to be ‘hung for a lamb’ it has few reasons not to simply re-enable Advanced Data Protection for UK users. Apple could paint any such act of resistance as an opportunity for a de facto vote by the consuming public. It could even offer a returns and refunds for any users who prefer the Government’s stance. It is not hard to imagine who would win in a popularity poll between Apple and a Government which doesn’t seem to have sufficient confidence in its arguments to make them in an open court.
As I have discussed before, Apple is a popular brand, whereas the Government of Two-Tier Keir, Rachel Thieves, Ed Milliwatt and Yvette Snooper has a strongly net-negative approval rating. And Britain, despite the best efforts of those who inflicted cruel lockdowns and who seek to infest our cities with facial recognition cameras, is not yet China. Most importantly in this context though is that Britain is not China in terms of manufacturing capacity. Apple all too regularly bends the knee to Xi Jinping’s monstrous and expansionist regime and has limited AirDrop due to its popularity among protesters. It has removed VPNs, a Hong Kong protest app and the emoji character for the Taiwanese flag. It does so because, entirely of its own making, Apple has grown dependent on Chinese factories: 95% of its products are made there. And whilst many of Apple’s major suppliers, such as Foxconn, are headquartered in Taiwan, the factories they operate are mostly in China, such as at Longhua and Zhengzhou. There is an important lesson to be learned here on the dangers of depending on Chinese manufacturing, and I can’t be the only one concerned to find that a particular electronic or mechanical component I need to order is made nowhere else.
Apple, by contrast, does not depend on manufacturing facilities within the UK. While our nation can be proud to still have some world-class small businesses making highly specialised products, we are not at the heart of the supply chain for mass manufactured electronic consumer goods. The UK Government’s leverage over Apple is therefore very limited. Furthermore, attempting to ban the import of Apple goods would surely generate a thriving black market, making Apple products even more trendy, and pricey, for those buyers who have yet to see the light of Linux.
As one of the big five tech companies, Apple has not been unwilling to expend effort to shield itself from taxes and other government policies which affect its bottom-line. It would perhaps not be a good look for Apple if it failed to stand up for the privacy of its British customers with equal vigour. Smaller companies, such as Open Whisper Systems, the makers of Signal, and Proton, the company behind ProtonMail, make a point of continuing to provide services to customers in countries where they are forced out, taking a ‘different approach‘ to the one Apple has pursued thus far. It would hardly look good for a company with the might of Apple not to show similar levels of courage. Apple should remember that the Labour Government is temporary and, judging by the wave of post-lockdown resentment which has swept individualist politicians to power around the world, a future UK Government would be likely to look favourably on resistance to mass surveillance demands. What is not so temporary is Apple’s reputation: unlike other big tech companies, its primary business is still the sale of a product to the user. Prospective purchasers of Apple products will not readily forget how Apple reacts to this situation.
Make no mistake, if you have secrets of real value, Apple’s encryption product is probably not the one for you. That is not to say it is insecure – it is highly recommended by many reputable sources. But it is nonetheless a piece of software under the control of a corporation which can disable it if it chooses to do so when under pressure. Because it is end-to-end encrypted it cannot disclose user’s encryption keys when pressurised – it never had a copy of those keys – but it can turn the service off. Open source encryption software does not have this vulnerability to corporate and governmental whims; the code can stand for itself. Whereas a highly integrated app with a centralised dependency can be backdoored or threatened into shutting itself down, with open source code there is no organisation upon which a would-be-snooper can apply leverage. If an adversary, be it a government or anyone else, manages to force the closure of the main repository of the code, perhaps by threatening a website such as GitHub where it might be hosted, then copies of the code downloaded earlier can still be shared via other platforms. Contrast this with proprietary software for which it is possible for the corporation which distributes the software via centralised means to restrict, geographically or on other criteria, its availability. If an adversary manages to threaten the main maintainer of a piece of open source software to a sufficient extent that it buckles to a backdooring demand, others can spot the backdoor and create ‘forked‘ software versions without the unwelcome changes. With proprietary software, on the other hand, nobody outside the company that makes it ever checks the source code against backdooring, plus many such programs push automatic updates which the user cannot prevent.
Setting aside backdoors and security considerations for a moment, consider the following. With open-source software you can easily stick with, or roll back to, an older version whenever you encounter an interface which has worsened after an update, an unwelcome new feature added to a product or the removal of a feature you liked. That is not to say it is necessarily wise to run out-of-date versions of software. Outdated versions of internet-facing software such as browsers and system utilities within a computer’s operating system often have vulnerabilities which can be exploited remotely by installers of malware. But it remains possible. For a lot of entirely locally run software, such as photo and video editors, music recording programs, CAD (Computer Aided Design) tools, programming IDEs (Integrated Development Environments) and office suites, it is nice to have the choice of sticking with what you know alongside options for the latest version. Proprietary apps are typically designed nowadays to limit your thinking to within the narrow range of options they show you, much as Sir Humphrey ensures his Minister only ever gets to pick between the options which Humphrey’s civil servants have drafted. For open source options not everything can always be changed readily, but the software developers usually make adjustable everything they think people would be likely to wish to adjust.
If you need encryption for backing up highly sensitive data, 7zip’s AES 256 implementation has stood the test of time. It can be downloaded for Windows and Mac, with most Linux distributions including built-in graphical interface software compatible with encrypting and decrypting this format. GNU Privacy Guard is another particularly well regarded program, although it can be cumbersome for beginners to use. For Apple devices in particular there are cryptographic tools being recommended which appear to replicate much of the Advanced Data Protection functionality. Unbackdoored cryptographic algorithms are already in the public domain and there is nothing the state can do to stop criminals using them, and nothing it can do to stop anyone else either.
What remains to be seen is whether Apple will turn around, say no, and make a laughing stock of the UK Government, or whether the UK Government will, by ruining our relationship with an America which is now casting off the shackles of the surveillance-obsessed Deep State, make a laughing stock of itself.
Dr R P completed a robotics PhD during the global over-reaction to Covid. He spends his time with one eye on an oscilloscope, one hand on a soldering iron and one ear waiting for the latest bad news. He hopes soon to return to writing articles about things other than cryptographic backdoors.
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.
Still missing the point that it’s “vaccination” that’s driving the outbreaks.
Of course it is!
That would appear to be the only reasonable hypothesis. Try convincing the Vaccinadoes’ of that though…its like talking to a brick wall: they just don’t get that they have been sold snake oil.
It’s possible or even probable that the vaccines reduce mortality from covid for a given covid patient. But a complete analysis must never forget that the vaccines appear to increase the spread of the virus, meaning more get infected and increasing mortality by another route. Unfortunately this is hard to quantify so is conveniently ignored.
And that’s before getting onto the non-covid conditions the shots appear to cause and exacerbate.
This chart uses the data from the week 13 vaccine surveillance report COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report – week 13 (publishing.service.gov.uk) the last report that used comparative data for the vaccinated & unvaccinated.
Because the data is for cases/hospitalisations/deaths / 100,000 it assumes even populations of vaccinated & unvaccinated & applied the HSA’s data to each cohort. The vaccinated don’t come out well.
The jabs DID raise all-cause mortality.
And I wonder what could have possibly caused this massive spike in deaths among young Americans in Q3 2021?
Paging Dr. Mengle Fauci….
Source: https://www.soa.org/48ff80/globalassets/assets/files/resources/research-report/2022/group-life-covid-19-mortality.pdf
When they really get into gear, all this stuff will simply be banned
I get so angry looking at this. U18 cohort shows identical deaths in vaccinated and unvaccinated (barely any). Meaning every child I’ve watched get ‘vaccinated’ (and that’s a lot) was put at risk for NO REASON WHATSOEVER, other than profit motives or something altogether more sinister. What a disgusting crime against humanity.
To go on holiday, for those that I know who were. Can’t have the family ski trip disrupted.
Which was BS anyway as mine managed to ski without being vaccinated. Just had to plan carefully (and be married to someone foolish enough to take the vaccine)
‘… the data is for cases/hospitalisations/deaths / 100,000 it assumes even populations of vaccinated & unvaccinated…’
It does not assume, it is predicated on cohort sizes being different and to adjust for that by using the same denominator – thus a rate for each group rather than raw numbers.
‘It’s possible or even probable that the vaccines reduce mortality from covid for a given covid patient.’
’Given’ CoVid patients are average age 82 with one or more comorbidity who will die anyway within a 12 month period.
Sweden all cause mortality is free of non-CoVid deaths caused by CoVid restrictions, so we can see how many additional lives CoVid claimed.
The answer is Swedish all cause mortality is ‘normal’ compared to pre-epidemic years.
That means no additional deaths from CoVid, that means no lives ’saved’ by vaccines, otherwise all cause mortality would be below average and the so-called vaccines would be ‘the elixir of youth’ and would have magical, life-extending properties.
Looking at stats in other Countries we see excess mortality in a number of non-CoVid areas, likely caused by the restrictions. Take those out and excess deaths would probably be like Sweden.
I suspect that the vaccines reduce covid mortality in individual patients but increase mortality overall through increasing spread and other non-covid side-effects.
In Australia in the first 4 months of 2022 we’ve had more cases, more hospitalisations and more deaths than 2020/2021 combined. So much for ‘vaccine’ efficacy. This 95% preventative figure goes way back to Pfizer’s first release of so-called test results and has surely been totally discredited by now. In my small circle of friends and associates 5 men have had major heart/stroke issues shortly after ‘vaccination – but that’s another story
Gain of Function?
Heart attacks and strokes must surely qualify as ‘Loss of Function’?
The untold story at the moment – though so many of us are hearing of them; and, like you, at first hand.
That is so very sad to hear.
Who knew
I meant WHO knew
Please repeat after me
THERE ARE NO VACCINES
I’m self identifying as a ANTIGENETHERAPYER
Anti-fraud.
Every time you say you don’t believe in vaccines, a fairy dies somewhere…
Who says all these excess mortals died of covvie?
Indeed.
We need to ask the same questions of Australian data that have been asked of UK date: who is classified as “unvaccinated” at any given point; and what comorbidities were present if death occurs? Are we looking at “with” or “of”?
That should have been UK data, of course!
I think it is fairly certain in UK that it is “with” and not “of”, but MSM, and BBC in particular, never explains that important distinction to its audience/readership, and likes to strongly give the impression that it is “of”, thereby continuing to terrify the elderly and the vulnerable.
Currently there are apparently shortages of examination invigilators for official examinations because the staff are “afraid of catching covid”. Something which would be the last thing on my mind, but well done the UK government and all who sail in her for creating such a climate of fear among the population.
I strongly suspect that is happening Australia, too; along with inflated numbers of “cases” produced by “tests” which have been exposed in study after study.
What shame on us….Think D-Day landings. That would never happen now.
To me it isn’t so much shame on us, but shame on the government – they created every aspect of this fiasco while refusing to go along with it themselves because they knew it wasn’t necessary. Bears repeating on a regular basis.
That’s the reason for using excess mortality all causes, because it doesn’t matter.
The point being that if CoVid were the big killer it is supposed to be and the vaccines the great life-saver they are supposed to be, we would see a definite signal between unvaccinated and non-vaccinated, as CoVid deaths would be in ‘all cause’.
We would also not expect all cause mortality to increase after vaccination programmes in heavily vaccinated populations.
When we do we ask, why?
Why?
PM call with Bill and Melinda Gates: 19 May 2020 – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
Do you get extra WEF points for that?
From the moment that the spring epidemic of last year came to a natural end in the UK with no difference in the way it ended between those age groups with and without the jab, I knew the jab was ineffective and that natural immunity was winning the war against covid.
Slogans never won anything.
Using the government’s words against them.
‘Loose Lips Need Botox’?
The author’s conclusion makes no sense. How does excess mortality translate into any level of vaccine effectiveness? Excess mortality measures all cause mortality, not just deaths from COVID. At best, the only conclusion that can be reached is that there is a strong correlation between excess all cause mortality and the vaccination campaigns. More research is required to prove/disprove causality.
To determine vaccine effectiveness against COVID deaths, we would need to know what percentage of all deaths were from COVID and divided between vaccinated and unvaccinated.
Some things are so obvious they just highlight what people have been told NOT to say.
If vaccination is successful we would expect to see no increase in all cause mortality. Doesn’t matter how many were CoVid deaths or not because they would be within the total figure.
If vaccines were effective, all cause mortality would not be in excess, but in populations or groups unvaccinated it would.
For reasons unknown but not hard to figure, the jab was heralded as a miracle cure by the politicians when it appears to be not much different to the flu jab. In fact, if you actually get covid symptoms, they are very similar to flu and similar to winter 2017/18, 2 winters like that and the UK would have reached the covid numbers
I think we are perhaps just beginning to see what the reasons possible are….Gates /WHO power grab over our bodies and injections for all for life (whoever short that might be!) anyone?
If a surgeon decides to remove a patient’s right leg after discovering that the patient has contracted athlete’s foot, no doubt he will be delighted to be able to record an operational success. What will not be recorded is the deleterious effect on the rest of the patient’s life.
Similarly, any ‘covid’ injection (I refuse to use the word ‘vaccination’) may well have some trifling effect on any variation of any seasonal respiratory disease that is floating about but little is said about probable long term inhibited immune response to other infections, for example.
I only ever refer to the ‘lethal injection’. It tends to shut people up.
The analogy applies equally to the lockdown and mask up policy – does more harm than good.
There does seem to be something going on in Asia which is mainly highly vaccinated. South Korea is now seeing a surge in all cause mortality of 29%, along with Singapore which hit 31% at the end of last year.
Japan which saw minus excess deaths before vaccines were introduced is suddenly showing a increase of 9%.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-p-scores-projected-baseline?country=~KOR
The ‘something’ likely is, (according to immunologists) vaccine induced immunosuppression, also known as VAIDS. Perhaps the mRNA gene concoction (‘vaccine’) may have f’d up many of the vaxxed’s immune systems so they cannot effectively fight pathogens. Ironically, some pathogens could be covid variant breakouts from the enormous selection pressure the mass vaccination campaign has induced. Someone should ouija board Mary Shelley.
Gain-of-function (GOF) research involves experimentation that aims or is expected to (and/or, perhaps, actually does) increase the transmissibility and/or virulence of pathogens. Such research, when conducted by responsible scientists, usually aims to improve understanding of disease causing agents, their interaction with human hosts, and/or their potential to cause pandemics.
And when these enhanced pathogens escape from the labs, they have all the potential for causing a pandemic that would not otherwise have happened.
There is not good reason for the gain-of-function research. It’s impossible to predict what natural pathogens will suddenly become dangerous, as there are billions of them, mutating all the time.
The research is dangerous and highly irresponsible. They’re nothing more than bioweapons that are being developed, with the aim of wiping out or severely reducing populations.
They’re of the same level of research as using beagles, with their vocalcords removed so they can’t vocalise their pain, to see how many sandflies it takes to kill them and how quickly. Also being funded by a certain Dr.Fauci.
“What’s probably true instead is that the vaccines do reduce mortality from Covid – but not by 95%.”
Hang on a minute. What the facts show is entirely consistent with the concepts of vaccines being very effective against covid deaths, but also creating non-covid deaths as well, from reactions to the vaccines themselves, and perhaps by making people more likely to catch other respiratory viruses too. Now I’m not saying the vaccines are necessarily 95% effective, but the evidence you’ve shown doesn’t contradict that possibility. On the evidence given vaccines could be saving covid patients lives, but killing lots of others who would otherwise have survived in the absence of a vaccine. The facts of excess all cause mortality deaths AND high vaccine effectiveness against covid deaths are not mutually exclusive.
Or Jabs merely mask SARS2 symptoms and raise the risk of death.
The data seem to suggest that, even if they do reduce the likelihood of death (which for most age cohorts is astonishingly low) the later suppression of natural immunity means a greater likelihood of getting covid. For those to whom it’ll likely be fatal, the old and vulnerable, that’s not a good feature. And it does make a nonsense of the 95% effective shtick.
Its rather more than that though, isn’t it? The excess mortality rises after vaccination. In all cases. I think there might be a different conclusion to draw than that the vaccine is simply ineffective.
“Gove to tackle Russian dirty money” on Talk TV. That’s fine, then can we tackle western oligarchs, like the massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to Big Pharma with their gene editing jabs
Well don’t expect Gove to do it: he takes his orders from the Americans right now.
Why not just ALL dirty money?
Nope London’s unaffordable housing (and thus establishment benefits) depends on ignoring money laundering.
Funny how it was entirely acceptable dirty money until the Ukraine thing.
I still find the claim that the vaxx does anything of much use difficult to substantiate. As Amanuensis has pointed out several times, any data looking at VE tend to end at or well before 60 days, whereas it is increasingly looking like whatever protection the vaxx might provide, merely seems to dampen symptoms rather than eliminate the virus (as appears to also be the case with pfisser’s paxlovid).
In addition, a point never mentioned, is the simple fact that as time went on, health care providers learned better what worked and what did not. I believe the use of standard steroids (initially advised against, oddly enough) was a game changer, as was the realisation that covid was also a blood disease. In NL in 2021 more people were kept out of hospital, not because there were fewer serious patients, but because a protocol had been set up to treat the seriously ill at home through their GPs/district nurses with steroids, oxygen and telemonitoring. This was a protocol not used in the first wave. Similar treatments and protocols must have been used in other countries around the same time, so it is disingenuous to categorically claim it was the vaxx wot saved the day. Particularly as it looks as if the major waves of 2021 were caused and/or exacerbated by the vaxx.
The real test will be the next wave, which is being predicted around May/June and the likely wave in the autumn – if the trend of the vaxxed being more likely to contract and fall ill from the virus continues, then this must be offset against any theoretical protection the vaxx provides.
Naturally, the ‘very rare’ side effects must also be set off against the vaxx’s protection. The real question then would be just how far negative can VE go?
“because a protocol had been set up to treat the seriously ill at home through their GPs/district nurses with steroids, oxygen and telemonitoring”
Not in the UK.
I was on the phone daily asking for medication for my OH, and nothing was available for at-home treatment, e.g. dexamethasone. There were a few drugs available, but only in the very early stages of infection, when the symptoms weren’t that severe. Dexamethasone, oxygen, antibiotics were only available in hospital, when someone is seriously ill and in danger of dying. Until that point nothing except paracetamol, and nothing that would keep someone out of hospital.
Why would you think that’s probable? Because Pfizer said so?
The pattern appears to be the same in every country:
Correlation is not causation, and post hoc does not mean propter hoc, but that’s a hell of a lot of correlation and post hoccing to explain away.
UKHSA data consistently showed lower rates of vaccinated people dying from covid. It is far from perfect evidence but it’s not simple to rebut it either.
A part of that is the artefact of people who contracted Covid within 14 days of the jab being counted as unvaccinated. It’s well established that the immune system is somewhat suppressed immediately after the jab, so this is probably a significant number of sick people who wouldn’t have been sick without the jab and who are then contributing to the stats for unvaccinated hospitalisation.
Regardless of that, the only true measure of impact is excess mortality. It matters little if the jab protects you from Covid if it makes you equally or more likely to die from something else in the process.
Time and again we see a direct correlation between vaccine uptake and excess mortality. Something smells bad, and in a sane world a lot more would be being done to understand what it is that stinks.
Yep. As long as it’s not properly looked at those in power and influence can keep telling themselves there’s no problem.
Doesn’t/didn’t the UKHSA data show that one jab gave better protection than none, but the second jab gave little better protection than being unvaccinated, and the third jab was the charm, with people more likely to end up in hospital or dying than the rest?
Certainly a not-very-reassuring mixed bag. I believe the death effectiveness of the (strongly recommended) triple jab only turned negative just as they pulled the stats.
What was the effectiveness based on? Trial data.
Pfizer managed to reduce the covid deaths from 2 to 1 with the jab in the trial. Statistically irrelevant in a trial of 40k. They claimed this as being 100% effective. They also managed to induce more overall mortality and a 5x increase in heart related deaths. I have seen the data from an ivermectin trial which deaths were 9 in placebo and 3 in ivermectin arm. This was deemed to be statitically irrelevant.
Lots of tricks have been used. Misattributing vaccine deaths into the unjabbed non covid deaths stats by using the 2-3 week before classified as jabbed (same with ‘cases’). Delaying death reporting and then using the vaccine uptake stats at point of death reporting and not at point of infection. This can massively affect rates comparisons. Consistently underestimating the unjabbed population which will have a big effect on rates in unjabbed. They have no idea how many people are really in the country. I would not be suprised if they are overestimating the jabbed pop as well (such as including people who never turned up).
All cause mortality data analysis (eg by Fenton) has shown no statistically relevant overall benefit. If covid was such a threat and the jabs worked as advertised then it would be clear as day in the data. Every single method of data manipulation will have been used to promote the jab effectiveness.
When will Noah stop flirting around the issue and just post up an article titled ‘These ‘Vaccines’ are f***ing sh**’
The results of their own trials, the source of the 95% effectiveness claims, was calculated on a relative risk reduction, if you use their own numbers, the absolute risk reduction was 0.84%.
So yeah, the 95% effective claim was always overstated.
By the time those numbers came out, I’d read the scientific papers on the original SARs mRNA vaccine research, the one where all the humanized mice died from multiple organ failure seemed pertinant enough to avoid the risk all together. That provided enough time to research further, by which time it became clear the new mRNA vax produced cytotoxic spike protein, thanks but no thanks.
7 funerals (5 via zoom) and many horror stories from my family and friends later, you couldn’t pay me enough to take the deaths jabs, I’d rather risk sitting it out in gaol. In a just world, it’s a situation those pushing the vaccines should be facing right about now.
The 95% effectiveness claim from their trials was the manipulated claim. The data release from early this month showed that the real RRR effectiveness against infection was 12% for 7 days! This then dropped to below 1% so ARR was 0.01%
On 28 April, the Australian Bureau of Statistics realeased its all-cause mortality statistics for January 2022 which found that, in Australia, all-cause deaths were 22.1% higher than the historical average (15,805 deaths in January, some 2,865 higher than the historical January baseline average). The ABS claims that Covid deaths were the second leading cause of death (after cancer).
In Australia, 89% of the entire population aged five and over are double jabbed and 65% of people aged 16 and over are triple jabbed so how come Covid is now the second most common cause of death in Australia, given the religious embrace of the miracle Pharma juice that was supposed to stop all the Covid mortality mayhem?
There are two possible interpretations:
(a) If we take the ‘Covid deaths’ figures at face value, that clearly means that the vaxxes don’t work and are, in fact, increasing the susceptibility to death by Covid.
(b) If we are sceptical of the Covid deaths data (as we should be given that the ABS religiously adheres to the WHO’s inflationary definition for a Covid death) then clearly something else is causing deaths to spike. Wonder what that could be, as Australia’s booster program rolled out from January 2022. Maybe, just maybe, the fact that Australia’s medical licensing board (AHPRA) has instructed all doctors to support the jabs otherwise they will be deregistered, also has something to do with downplaying any possible linkage of the vaxx to the death.
That country has gone off the deep end.
A good number of our politicians have – thank God, not all of them. I hope those who’ve had the guts to stand up against this rubbish, in the face of the sneers of the media, are rewarded at the election next Saturday.
The worst two (I think G6 and Phil would agree) have been the Premiers of Victoria and Western Australia – egos swollen by unusually large majorities in their last state elections.
AHPRA has effectively silenced an entire profession. I know doctors who are afraid, with good reason, that if they share their doubts and concerns with patients they will be reported by those who choose to inform.
It should not be forgotten that those very high rates of “vaccination” have been produced by mandates, or the fear of mandates.
Relatives and friends who were deeply suspicious of the jabs and swore they would never have them found themselves forced to reconsider, as they faced unemployment. One chose to lose his job – with serious consequences; others angrily submitted. Those who did, do not want to talk about the jabs. They just hope they’ll be okay.
Another friend submitted after what she described as “bullying” from her boss and the fear that she would lose her job. She collapsed after the second shot with heart issues (an erratic ECG). In the end, her workplace did not mandate the injections.
That last para is tragic.
Pity we won’t have AHPRA on the ballot papers this Saturday, Phil. I’d love to see them voted out of existence.
Have you heard about this?
A council in Western Australia will launch legal action against state vaccination mandates introduced by Premier Mark McGowan’s government.
The Port Hedland Council is aiming to overturn rules that require about 75 per cent of Western Australia to be vaccinated if they want to remain employed.
Bravo to Port Hedland, doubtless responding to the concerns of the local community.
For those who don’t know, Port Hedland is a very important mining centre – and those involved in WA’s mining industry are amongst those who have been mandated.
The suffering inflicted by these mandates, wherever they are, is terrible: families divided, breadwinners anguished.
As for AHPRA, which implements registration and accreditation for health practitioners throughout Australia, they have caused great distress to good and caring people.
There have been a few post-vax deaths in the mining industry. So far none occurred while the victim was operating heavy machinery – I’d call that luck rather than good management.
I saw footage of a public meeting held in the Busselton area, where a lot of FIFO workers live.
Busselton special electors meeting Feb 21 2022 – newsR VIDEO
So many there knew of people with vax injuries of some description.
Thanks Alt, I’ll have a look at that.
I’m trying to get another Lockdownunder Update ready before voting day, but Masky is such a rich source of material…
Have a look at this! From just two years ago. When the Liberal suggested lockdown…
https://twitter.com/hashtagyouwish/status/1487212644696084482
Interesting take by NYT on how Australia was a shining light in its actions compared to the USA. Prepping us all for more of the same?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/15/world/australia/covid-deaths.html
Bugger, it’s paywalled!
You must be joking? THATS the conclusion you come to?
You still think it’s Covid causing the excess deaths.
”Neo, you think that’s air you’re breathing?”
“Overstated”?
Just like the impact of nuclear weapons is now ‘over-rated then?
Deliberate depopulation looks more and more like an explanation with every passing day.
Yes …with every passing day and new revelations of their dark plans to silence us and screw (or inject) us into the ground.
I can’t make any other explanation fit. It’s way beyond malfeasance or the pursuit of profit. It looks like a deliberate attempt to weakening and thin the species.
It may be that motives are mixed. For some, the pursuit of profit with complete contempt for human life would suffice.
But there is evidence that there are those who believe the world’s population needs to be reduced; that they are serious about it; and that they are emotionally, financially and politically capable of carrying their ideas into effect.
Remember the days when we first read Mike Yeadon’s posts and thought he might have lost it a bit and was over egging the pudding slightly?
The figures confirm the impression many of us have noted: more people we know dying. Of those I know or have heard about from those close to them, not one died of or even with Covid. It’s heart issues, again and again.
Heard on BBC Wales this morning they’re going to raise awareness of how to spot heart issues with Athletes and people who do intense exercises.
How dumb do they think we are.
You beat me to it. Sport, something which for everyone is a healthy thing, is now being demonised because they dare not even consider the possibility that it is the injected athletes with the heart problems.
wonder if the study they trumpet has 2 classes of athletes – jabbed and unjabbed? – Bet it doesn’t!
Question……are all these assumptions based on some kind of modeling?
If so surely the fact that millions of people who would never have been hospitalised or would not have died from the infection, but we’re vaccinated anyway, would severely skew the findings?
If I vaccinate a hundred people knowing only one of them will actually die from the disease, and one does die…do I call that vaccine effective?
I appreciate I might well be missing something?
Can we please get that 95% effective number into context.
It invites people to infer that vaccinated you run a risk of only 5% of getting CoVid – that sounds good doesn’t it? Except if it were a vaccine (that is an inoculum which gives immunity to a specific disease caused by a specific pathogen) then risk of getting CoVid would be near zero.
The question to ask is what is the risk of getting CoVid unvaccinated. According to Pfizer it is 0.88% – that is the number of symptomatic subjects who tested PCR positive in the placebo group divided by the number in the group x 100.
0.88% then is the Absolute Risk.
So unvaccinated risk is less than 1%, vaccinated risk is 5% – that can’t be right can it?
The risk of getting CoVid in the group with active ingredient was 0.04%.
So subtracting 0.04% from 0.88% = 0.84% – this is the Absolute Risk Reduction.
0.84% is 95% of 0.88%, so the Relative Risk Reduction = 95%.
In fact the absolute ‘effectiveness’ of the vaccine is less than 1% which doesn’t sound as good as 95% particularly when the risk without vaccination is less than 1%.
So 95% effective was a lie as was the 100% effective claimed by Governments and their posse of experts.
And that now should be clear to even the most ardent nitwits who believed and promoted the propaganda.
It might be added here that in Iceland only a third of the excess mortality might possibly be explained by Covid, based on the number of deaths with Covid in this period.
https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/asia/2022/05/03/india-supreme-court-overturns-mandatory-covid-19-vaccination-policy/
India’s top court on Monday ruled that no person can be forced to get vaccinated and the constitution gives everyone the right to refuse vaccination in a milestone judgement on the country’s Covid-19 policy.
The Supreme Court directed Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government to publish reports on adverse effects caused by vaccines on a publicly accessible system.
it does make me wonder with all these jabs how this has impacted employment and some businesses being short staffed due to sickness etc. You do tend to see some jobs struggling to hire which should be impossible considering there are many millions needing work, does make you wonder.
There’s an interesting table in Our World In Data that shows relative change in excess mortality, country by country, for the period 5 Jan 2020 to April 21 2022, using the 5-year average as a baseline. If you click on the column header for Absolute Change and sort for descending order, you see some interesting figures.
Considering the horror stories about UK covid deaths for the last two years, one might be surprised to see that we outperformed (had lower change in excess deaths than) every European country except for Sweden, Cyprus and Poland.
Interesting that it has not been reported in our ‘enjoying-the-pandemic’ MSM?
Amusingly, Krankie’s lockdown/mask-up Scotland did worse than the UK average by some margin…
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-p-scores-average-baseline?tab=table&country=GTM~PRT~GBR~DEU~FRA~GRC~ISR~SWE~ITA~USA~RUS~NZL~AUS
Correlation is not causation. The reality is that, because of all the variables involved, it is impossibleto prove whether the frankenjabs have saved any lives at all, while undoubtedly having killed and injured many thousands of people.
The only “vaccine” that appears to have signficantly reduced mortality from COVID is the Omnicron variant, which has exposed the uselessness of the gene therapy injections – and (assuming it doesn’t morph into something more deadly) looks like bringing this giant ponzi scheme it to a belated end.
the vaccines do reduce mortality from covid?
so does a bullet in the head….
This article is attempting to whitewash these totally fraudulent covid injections. We’re all still waiting for the alleged SARS-Cov2 virus to be isolated with intent to fulfil Koch’s and Rivers’ Postulates.
none so blind as those that will not see….
This article says vaccines reduce mortality from Covid but not by 95%- it’s actually more like 1% at best and for a short time only. Also the UK vaccine surveillance reports confirm a much greater chance of ending up in hospital and dying after dose 3… Regardless even if correct, it seems that being jabbed increases the incidence of other serious illnesses and deaths from other causes. So what’s it to be? Reduce your chances of going to hospital from Covid (and most people are not seriously ill or hospitalised anyway) v increase your chances of a blood clot, stroke, heart problems, autoimmune illness, cancer or prions disease etc. It isn’t Rocket Science is it.
a genuine vaccine against a pandemic respiratory virus would result in a dramatic fall in the untreated pandemic’s elevated all cause mortality … these fraudulent covid injections, however, do the opposite – they increase all cause mortality, which indicates these injections are in reality bioweapons intended to cause illness and death
“Vaccine efficacy is generally reported as a relative risk reduction (RRR). It uses the relative risk (RR)—ie, the ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine—which is expressed as 1–RR. Ranking by reported efficacy gives relative risk reductions of 95% for the Pfizer–BioNTech, 94% for the Moderna–NIH, 91% for the Gamaleya, 67% for the J&J, and 67% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford vaccines.
“However, RRR should be seen against the background risk of being infected and becoming ill with COVID-19, which varies between populations and over time. Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH, 1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.”
The Lancet Study
Doctors for COVID Ethics
On The accompanying chart:
Pfizer/BioNtech RRR 95.03% ARR From Jab 0.84%
Moderna (NIH) RRR 94.08% ARR 1.24% From Jab
Janssen RRR 66.62% ARR 1.19% From Jab
Astrazeneca/ Oxford RRR 66.84% ARR 1.28% From Jab
The Lancet
5) show 93% of people who died after being vaccinated were killed by the vaccine
The vaccine was implicated in 93% of the deaths in the patients they examined. What’s troubling is the coroner didn’t implicate the vaccine in any of those deaths. Steve Kirsch
I got an email recently from Mike Yeadon, former VP of Pfizer, who urged me to check out this video. He wrote me this email on 12/24/21:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/fHIT55iM4Zv9/
Steve,
This is about the worst 15min I’ve ever seen.
Mass covid19 vaccination is leading to mass murder.
Mike
The video references this paper, posted on December 10, 2021, On COVID vaccines: why they cannot work, and irrefutable evidence of their causative role in deaths after vaccination by Sucharit Bhakdi, MD and Arne Burkhardt, MD. It has been getting a lot of attention lately.
3 minutes from preparation to job done!!
Everything else you have read, or heard, is totally irrelevant – how simple is that?
Covid Crusher: Mix one heaped teaspoon of Iodine table salt in a mug of warm clean water, cup a hand and sniff or snort the entire mugful up your nose, spitting out anything which comes down into your mouth. If sore, then you have a virus, so continue morning noon and night, or more often if you want, until the soreness goes away (2-3 minutes) then blow out your nose and flush away, washing your hands afterwards, until when you do my simple cure, you don’t have any soreness at all, when you flush – job done. Also swallow a couple of mouthfuls of salt water and if you have burning in your lungs, salt killing virus and pneumonia, there too.
My simple salt water cure, kills all Coronaviruses and viruses, as soon as you think you have an infection, or while self isolating, before the viruses mutate into the disease in your head and body, for which there is no cure – that is, after you have been out shopping, or mixing with people with potentially, Omicron or Delta viruses, or any other virus.
It washes behind the eyes, the brain bulb, brain stem (Long Covid), The Escutcheon Tubes to the inner ears and the top of the throat which is at a point roughly level with half way up your ears and not where your mouth is and down the back of your throat, when sore.
I have been doing this simple cure for over 28.5 years and I am and others, never sick from viruses and there is no reason why any of you should be either – when your only alternative are those vaccines!!
I do my simple preparation, after I have been out and about, or come into contact with people who have been vaccinated – it has kept me safe – and I hope it keeps me safe for the foreseeable future as Graphene Oxide is in the very air we breathe, outside, as well, but now from the vaccinated!!
Simply put, if the inside of your nose is dry and crusty, you are OK, if your nose is runny, you really need to do a salt water sniffle as quickly as possible and monitor the results, to see if further salt water sniffles are necessary, but later on in that evening – so far – I remain immune from potential Covid infections, doing just this.
No vaccines for me – ever – pass on my free cure and have those pass it on too
How about it’s the “vaccines” that are both causing the “new waves” post vaccination AND are responsible for the excess mortality?
excess morality (sic) averaged roughly zero ??
Haha: if only!