Wednesday, 24 March 2021

IT GOES ON AND ON AND ON

 

Courtesy Imgflip

The Thing is folks there is a lot of text and I hope it does affect you. These are templates for writing to the authorities and information laid out for the future and correspondence. I understand if this is too much, so I will be back to the usual next time. However a huge welcome and lots of love. (Some people these days are afraid of the word love and its connotations, so lots of good healthy thoughts and compassion).  Should the text that follows not interest you scroll down to another few items of a different nature.

Dr Joseph Mercola  Courtesy Singularity Weblog
Below this is taken from Mercola.com any missing videos will be found on his site as he has been deplatformed and censored. Joseph Mercola is a brave and courageous person and for me I admire him immensely.

Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, a general practitioner in Cheshire, England, and the author of three books, including “Statin Nation,” has made it his mission to add some balance to the widespread fear-mongering that occurs at the hands of the health care lobby and media.(use search bar in POST as I have Posted him several times, he was brave enough to say they all were signing Covid on everything medical certificates and no one picked him and doubted him)

“In a world where the truth can be, literally, turned upside down, how can you know what to believe, and who to believe?” he asks. His blog attempts to “dig down to find the meaning behind the headlines,” and one of his recent posts centred on COVID-19 and the “impossible things” — some might call them lies — that are being propagated in its name.1

Courtesy Medium

Top Eight COVID Lies

Kendrick’s post takes aim at widespread COVID-themed disinformation, highlighting six top inconsistencies. I’ve added two more as well.

1.No Such Thing as Herd Immunity — Except From Vaccines — Herd immunity occurs when enough people acquire immunity to an infectious disease such that it can no longer spread widely in the community. When the number susceptible is low enough to prevent epidemic growth, herd immunity is said to have been reached. Prior to the introduction of vaccines, all herd immunity was achieved via exposure to and recovery from an infectious disease.

Eventually, as vaccination became widespread, the concept of herd immunity evolved to include not only the naturally acquired immunity that comes from prior illness but also the temporary vaccine-acquired immunity that can occur after vaccination.

In the case of COVID-19, however, we’ve been told that the idea of natural herd immunity to COVID-19 is not achievable — and even considering that it could be is “deadly and dangerous.”2 Yet, a curious thing happened. When vaccines became available, the idea of vaccine-induced herd immunity to COVID-19 became widespread. According to Kendrick:3

“First, I was told that attempting to create herd immunity was not achievable. It would also be extremely dangerous and would inevitably result in many hundreds of thousands of excess deaths.

Then the vaccines arrived at fantastical speed and I was told that mass vaccination, by creating herd immunity, would be the factor that would allow us to conquer COVID19 and return to normal life. I am not entirely sure which of these things is impossible, but one of them must be.”

2.Vaccines Induce ‘Stronger and Longer Lasting Immunity’ — In February 2021, The HuffPost reported that the COVID-19 vaccine would “induce stronger and longer lasting immunity” than the immunity induced by natural infection.4 However, an internist with special interests in vaccine-induced illnesses, Dr. Meryl Nass, suggests the protection the COVID vaccine provides will be inferior to that acquired via natural infection:

“No one knows how long immunity lasts, if in fact the vaccines do provide some degree of immunity … For every known vaccine, the immunity it provides is less robust and long-lasting than the immunity obtained from having had the infection.

People who have had Covid really have no business getting vaccinated — they get all the risk and none of the benefit.”

In the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advises people who have previously been infected with COVID-19 to still get vaccinated, even though trials suggest there’s no benefit in this population. A CDC report also incorrectly cited the vaccine’s effectiveness for those previously infected, prompting one congressman to say they’re “lying.”

In a high-profile report issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, 15 scientists stated that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine had “consistent high efficacy” of 92% or more among people with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.5

But according to Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky, “That sentence is wrong. There is no efficacy demonstrated in the Pfizer trial among participants with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infections and actually there's no proof in the Moderna trial either.”6 Kendrick adds:7

“I also know that vaccinations can only ever really create an attenuated response. Whereas a full-blown infection triggers a full-blown immune response.

So, I think it is pretty close to impossible that vaccination can provide greater protection than that from getting the actual disease. Which is why I think it is utterly bonkers we are actually vaccinating people who have circulating antibodies in their blood.”

3.Universal Mask Use Is Essential to Stop COVID-19 — It’s been touted that face masks are essential to stopping the spread of COVID-19 and could save 130,000 lives in the U.S. alone.8 But in 2019, the World Health Organization analyzed 10 randomized controlled trials and concluded, “there was no evidence that facemasks are effective in reducing transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”9

Only one randomized controlled trial has been conducted on mask usage and COVID-19 transmission, and it found masks did not statistically significantly reduce the incidence of infection.10

“Never has a trial been subjected to such immediate and hostile reporting. Fact-checkers (whoever exactly they might be, or what understanding they have of medical research) immediately attacked it,” Kendrick noted, adding:11

“Yes, we have now entered a world when political fact checkers feel free to attack and contradict the findings of scientific papers, using such scientific terms as ‘Mostly false’ … Ignoring the modern-day Spanish Inquisition, and their ill-informed criticisms, I will simply call this study.

More evidence that face masks don’t work. Perhaps someone will come along with a study proving that face masks work. So far … nada. Another impossible thing.”

4.COVID-19 Death Statistics — The positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests for COVID-19 are plagued with problems, one of which is that they are not designed to be used as diagnostic tools as they cannot distinguish between inactive (noninfectious) viruses and "live" or reproductive ones.12

If you have a nonreproductive virus in your body, you will not get sick from it and you cannot spread it to others. Further, many if not most laboratories amplify the RNA collected far too many times, which results in healthy people testing "positive.” These false positive tests, in turn, can contribute to the number of people dying “with” COVID-19, but not actually dying “of” the disease.

“[W]e have the very strange concept that any death within twenty-eight days of a positive COVID19 swab is recorded as a COVID19 death,” Kendrick said, explaining:13

“You can have a positive swab long after you have been infected — and recovered. There are just some bits of virus up your nose that can be magnified, through the wonders of the PCR test, into a positive result.

Which means that an elderly person, infected months ago, can be admitted to hospital for any reason whatsoever. The they can have a positive swab — everyone is swabbed. Then they can die, from whatever it was they were admitted for in the first place. Then, they will be recorded as a COVID19 death.

In truth, this is just the start of impossible things when it comes to the number of COVID19 deaths. Do not get me started on PCR cycle numbers, and false positives. We would be here all day.”

5.The Swedish COVID-19 Response Was a Disaster — Sweden handled the pandemic differently than most of the globe, and has been chided for its looser restrictions and lack of severe lockdowns. In October 2020, TIME called the Swedish COVID-19 response a “disaster,”14 but Kendrick cites data showing that the death rate in Sweden in 2020 was right in line with other years — nothing out of the ordinary.15

When Kendrick compared the number of deaths in Sweden in 2012 — one of their highest death statistics — to 2020, the difference between absolute death rate in 2012 and 2020 is 0.012%.

“That is 120 extra deaths per million of the population, which is 1,224 people in a population of 10.2 million. The statistics tell us that twelve thousand people died from COVID19 in Sweden. Maybe you can make all that add up. Frankly, I find it impossible.”16

6.Lockdowns Have Worked — Available data reveal lockdowns have been completely ineffective at lowering positive test rates, while extracting a huge cost in terms of human suffering and societal health.

Using data from the Worldometer,17 Kendrick compiled a list of the countries with the highest rate of COVID-19, based on deaths per million of the population. Every country on the list, which included the U.K., Italy, the U.S., Spain, Mexico and others, had “fairly strict” lockdowns.

Four countries that have been criticized for not having strict lockdowns — Sweden, Japan, Belarus and Nicaragua — did not make the list, and have an average death rate of 391 per million. In contrast, the top 20 “lockdown” countries have an average death rate of 1,520 per million. According to Kendrick:18

“Yet although this evidence is out there, I am being asked to believe that lockdowns work. At least the WHO agrees with me on this impossible thing.

As Dr. David Nabarro, the WHO special envoy on COVID19 said‘We really do appeal to all world leaders, stop using lockdown as your primary method of control. Lockdowns have just one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer.’19

7.Asymptomatic Spreaders Are Driving the Pandemic — The reasoning given for lockdowns, masks and social distancing is to stop the spread of disease among people who are asymptomatic. It’s common sense to stay home if you’re sick and exhibiting symptoms, but for people who feel healthy, the institution of lockdowns to prevent asymptomatic spread is unprecedented.

Yet, during a June 8, 2020, press briefing, Maria Van Kerkhove, the World Health Organization's technical lead for the COVID-19 pandemic, made it very clear that asymptomatic transmission is very rare, meaning an individual who tests positive but does not exhibit symptoms is highly unlikely to transmit live virus to others.

A study in Nature Communications also found "there was no evidence of transmission from asymptomatic positive persons to traced close contacts."20 When they further tested asymptomatic patients for antibodies, they discovered that 190 of the 300, or 63.3%, had actually had a "hot" or productive infection resulting in the production of antibodies. Still, none of their contacts had been infected.21

8.The Virus Didn’t Come From a Lab Accident — Despite the complete absence of a plausible zoonotic origin theory, WHO’s investigative commission, tasked with identifying the origin of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has officially cleared the Wuhan Institute of Virology and two other biosafety level 4 laboratories in Wuhan of wrongdoing, saying these labs had nothing to do with the COVID-19 outbreak.22

The WHO investigation was riddled with conflicts of interest from the start, and no credible theory for natural zoonotic spillover has been presented to date. However, there are at least four distinct lab origin theories, including the serial passage theory, which proposes the virus was created by serial passaging through an animal host or cell culture, as well as evidence for genetic manipulation.23

You may be wondering, if there’s so much evidence pointing toward a lab origin, why are leading health authorities and scientists dismissing it all and insisting SARS-CoV-2 is a natural occurrence, mysterious as it might be?

Should the COVID-19 pandemic be officially recognized as the result of a lab accident, the world might be forced to take a cold hard look at gain-of-function research that allows for the creation of these new pathogens. The end result would ideally be the banning of such research worldwide, with significant financial repercussions, the ending of prestigious careers in that realm and potential criminal charges for those involved as well.

In the face of misinformation and manipulation, what you can do now is keep your eyes open and your ears tuned to the science, so you don’t fall victim to the unnecessary panic and fear, or the increased surveillance and control, that is being created.


From Article above if not found or taken down use link below

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/20/niaid-funded-virus-research-and-used-outbreak-against-us.aspx?ui=e8c6af5927ae452698ce3765c254c17072273464961fd66177ab536279d95416&sd=20070208&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20210320&mid=DM823376&rid=111134709

Courtesy Indiatimes.com


 Some technology from Space a knee support.

https://www.buycircaknee.com/en/index-uk.html?temp=hcvr&loader=1&fomo=1&Affid=393&s1=YH-Int-UK&s2=d6jm3u048pljcba6ieovr62o&s3=&s4=3364&s5=f80a97ba8c764fe784c25aaeb096c88d&domain1=www.esplma.com&network_id=69

 

FAO the Cabinet Office,

 

I am writing in response to your call for evidence on COVID-status certification.

           

In summary, my view is that the Government should not support domestic COVID-status certification and, owing to profound civil liberties, rights and equality concerns, should legislate to prohibit private companies from using COVID-status certification as a requirement for customers and staff alike. I believe this is vital for the Government to uphold its duty to protect human rights and prevent discrimination.

           

I also wish to state at the outset of my response that I am concerned about the validity of this review. Four days after this call for evidence was opened, the Culture Secretary was reported to be planning the use of COVID-status certificates for large stadium events this summer. I am deeply concerned by the prospect that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Minister for COVID-19 Vaccine Deployment among others may have misled parliament and the public by not only issuing assurances that there was no intention to use vaccine passports at all, but by later planning their use just days after opening a review to consider whether their use would be lawful, ethical or effective. 

 

Question 1

 

Which of the following best describes the capacity in which you are responding to this call for evidence?

 

I am a:

 

g) Individual

 

Question 2

 

In your view, what are the key considerations, including opportunities and risks, associated with a potential COVID-status certification scheme? We would welcome specific reference to:

 

a) clinical / medical considerations

 

The professed purpose of a COVID-status certificate is to create environments where the risk of transmitting coronavirus is negligible by requiring evidence of a vaccination or test result as a condition of entry.

           

Firstly, I believe the Government’s priority ought to be protecting those most vulnerable to the virus – which has now happened. The Government reported that 93% of over 75s have received a vaccination and vaccine uptake for younger people at comparatively lower risk continues to be remarkably high. The vaccine deployment success among those most vulnerable to coronavirus means hospitalisations and excess deaths are certain to fall, and onerous controls on society are not justifiable.

           

Secondly, vaccination status is an invalid basis on which to declare an individual as at low risk of transmission. There is currently no conclusive, peer-reviewed evidence on the effect of the COVID vaccines on transmission of the virus, and very little on vaccines and COVID transmission relating to the older age groups.

           

The insufficiency of evidence on the impact of COVID vaccines on transmission of the virus is one of the reasons that the WHO advises against vaccine requirements as a condition of international travel. However, if the vaccines do significantly reduce transmission, infection rates and thus deaths will reduce even faster, rendering onerous controls such as COVID-status certificates even less necessary and even more disproportionate.

           

Whilst evidence on the impact of COVID vaccines on transmissibility of the virus is insufficient, mass testing would be the assumed condition of entry via COVID-status certificates. The proposed method would be to use rapid Lateral Flow Tests (LFTs). Firstly, coerced medical testing of healthy people without any symptoms of coronavirus, especially when the vulnerable population has been vaccinated and the overall impact of coronavirus is vastly reduced, is incredibly difficult to medically justify. Secondly, LFTs are only a useful indicator of infections when the true infection rate in the general population is high. As set out in the Royal Statistical Society COVID-19 Taskforce on 5th March 2021: “while the usual concern with LFTs is false negatives, when infection-prevalence is low there is also a risk that the majority of 'positive' tests could be false positives.” This means individuals (and by proxy their friends, family, colleagues, and anyone else they have come into contact with) could be wrongly denied their rights, falsely denied paid-for products, services or events, and needless panic could be caused which would be harmful both to the reopening of the economy and to individuals’ rights.

           

As an alternative during this period of exiting lockdown, I believe the emphasis should be on strong medical support for those who are infected, rather than treating the whole nation as potentially infectious. This means encouraging and supporting people to isolate and take a reliable test either following the onset of COVID symptoms or exposure to an individual who has tested positive via a reliable test, and improving the NHS Test and Trace system.

           

b) legal, (ethical and equalities) considerations

           

The effect of COVID-status certification would be to socially and economically exclude people without a COVID vaccine or recent test result and deny them basic freedoms. In doing so, some of the most marginalised in society would suffer either direct or indirect discrimination.

           

Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Equality Act 2010 protect individuals from unlawful discrimination. Under equality law, it is unlawful to discriminate against people with ‘protected characteristics’, many of which are engaged by COVID-status certificate proposals, including age, disability, pregnancy and religion or belief.

           

If the Government allows society to be segregated according to vaccination status:

           

Young people would be discriminated against, since there will be lower and slower vaccine uptake as young people are both generally at a low risk of serious illness from the virus and last in line to be offered a vaccination. Children are not eligible for vaccines as trials are ongoing. Further, if vaccines are required annually/periodically, young people could be discriminated against on a corresponding cycle as they will always be last in line to receive vaccines.

           

Disabled people could be discriminated against as some medical conditions prevent individuals from being able to receive a vaccination.

           

Pregnant women would be discriminated against, as covid vaccines are not routinely advised for them and whilst clinical trials are ongoing, women may be cautious about vaccines whilst pregnant, breastfeeding or trying to conceive.

           

Some people with religious or other beliefs may be discriminated against, if those beliefs deter them from receiving a vaccine.

           

Discrimination, inequality and unfairness would be caused not only by medical eligibility for vaccination but by accessibility of vaccinations. Research indicates that people from ethnic minority groups, people with lower levels of education and lower incomes are the most ‘hesitant’ or unlikely to receive COVID vaccines (Fancourt, Paul & Steptoe 2020). Further, many of the estimated 1 million undocumented migrants in the UK are fearful of accessing health services due to punitive data sharing as part of hostile environment policies and may be more apprehensive still if COVID-status certificates become an everyday requirement. We cannot simply erase histories and experiences of discrimination and hostility that have created distrust. In fact, vaccine segregation would only deepen discrimination and alienate people even more. This would be disastrous for trust in public health authorities when trust has never been needed more.

           

Finally, there are billions of citizens of the world who simply will not have access to COVID vaccines for several years to come. As we emerge from the pandemic, disproportionate vaccine requirements should not unfairly impede the rights and freedom of movement of individuals from lower-income countries.

           

The alternative to vaccination evidence, which is a recent test result, also carries legal and ethical problems. Firstly, under even the most extreme UK law, required medical testing is only possible if an individual is known to be potentially infectious (Coronavirus Act 2020). Further, pre-existing public health law only allows a medical examination to be ordered by a magistrate if a person is believed to be infected or contaminated (Health and Social Care Act 2008). However, COVID-status certificates would effectively make medical testing mandatory for all, treating all citizens – and particularly those with protected characteristics who are unable to receive a vaccination – as potentially infectious. The onerous burden of healthy people having to undergo frequent medical testing in order to enjoy basic rights could also lead to a loss of earnings and, if/when tests are no longer free, could incur financial penalties.

 

c) operational / delivery considerations

           

The cost to the public purse of mass testing and the development of a mass COVID-status certification infrastructure is likely to be astronomical, despite the lack of benefits and severe risks.

 

d) considerations relating to the operation of venues that could use a potential COVID-status certification scheme

           

COVID-status certification would be burdensome for venues which would not only be liable to legal challenges from customers and staff, but have to undertake to verify a genuine COVID-status and deny entry to individuals without one. In most public environments such as supermarkets, shopping centres, entertainment venues and restaurants etc. there are no access control mechanisms meaning venues would have to create checkpoints for customers and staff to enter and install security staff to enforce requirements. This would not only lead to increased costs for venues but the likelihood of conflict and altercations and increasingly oppressive environment for citizens.  

           

e) considerations relating to the responsibilities or actions of employers under a potential COVID-status certification scheme.

           

The legal issues outlined above apply to employers, who cannot unlawfully discriminate against current or potential employees. Even if an employer believes they are able to lawfully offer a general service (e.g. a cruise) to exclusively vaccinated individuals, it would be wrong and potentially unlawful to demand that current or prospective staff undergo medical treatment (e.g. vaccination) or medical testing (e.g. LFT) as a condition of employment. These issues merit serious consideration.

           

f) ethical considerations

           

See (b)

           

g) equalities considerations

           

See (b)

           

h) privacy considerations

           

COVID-status certificates present an unprecedented privacy intrusion. Never before have individuals needed to demonstrate their health status or indeed any medical information to enjoy day to day freedoms. The requirement to use an app or, for individuals without a smart phone, a QR code relating to sensitive medical data engages Article 8 privacy rights, GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. This privacy intrusion would be widespread and, in my view, challengeable.

           

The UK has a proud history of opposition to ID cards. We are not a papers-carrying country. COVID-status certificates would turn us into a two-tier, checkpoint society where we each have to show an app or certificate simply in order to enjoy public life. This would be a serious break from our long-guarded democratic traditions, respect of privacy, and would most disadvantage marginalised people. The combination of apps with sensitive health data and the subversion of everyday businesses and events into checkpoints could constitute the biggest expansion of surveillance ever seen in the UK.

           

Further, many health data apps are accessed via biometric facial recognition. The requirement to use facial recognition engages GDPR/DPA rights and individuals should have a right to refuse. Further, facial recognition algorithms suffer from inaccuracy and have particular issues accurately recognising women and people of colour (NIST). Such apps would be likely to compound discrimination issues and may wrongly obstruct individuals from enjoying their rights and freedoms.

           

It has been suggested that exemptions could be created to allow certain unvaccinated people with protected characteristics into spaces governed by COVID-status certificates and/or where only vaccinated people are permitted. As outlined above, I believe there would be serious legal and ethical issues with such controls – but there would be serious privacy issues too. Others may deduce that the exempt or unvaccinated individual has health problems, is pregnant, or has a certain belief system. This is not only an invasion of privacy but could lead to disadvantageous treatment, particularly in an employment context.

           

Bodily autonomy is an important aspect of the right to privacy. Compulsory vaccination, as an involuntary medical treatment, amounts to an interference with the right to a private life (Solomakhin v Ukraine).

 

I believe individuals have the right to make their own choices about their own bodies. UK laws generally respect medical consent and mandatory vaccines are prohibited under the Public Health Act. However, COVID-status certificates would clearly cause people to feel coerced into receiving vaccines to avoid the onerous alternative of constant medical tests or, worse, reduced freedoms. They would have a similar effect to mandatory vaccine policies, which are typically imposed by exclusion or penalties for those who decline vaccines. The penalty of reduced liberties for otherwise healthy individuals who decline a certain medical treatment or test would mark a grave change in our public health system and rights record as a whole.

           

Question 3

           

Are there any other comments you would like to make to inform the COVID-status certification review?

 

Yours sincerely

 

[Your name]

 Apologies if this bored the what so names off of you.

Unless there is absolute PROOF that the vaccine prevents TRANSMISSION of the virus, then there is absolutely NO REASON to have vaccine PASSPORTS., also the WHO has said it's unethical and impractical- still they'll try domestically.

Courtesy  Earth Changes Media 
I have stacks and stacks on this subject in loads and loads of POSTS back and a great example from WTDDY, spaceweather.com and my research can be found;

POST 369. TRUST. Monday 20th May 2019 

Long-Term Study of Heart Rate VSPACE WEATHER BALLOON DATA: Approximately once a week, Spaceweather.com and the students of Earth to Sky Calculus fly space weather balloons to the stratosphere over California. These balloons are equipped with radiation sensors that detect cosmic rays, a surprisingly "down to Earth" form of space weather. Cosmic rays can seed cloudstrigger lightning, and penetrate commercial airplanes. Furthermore, there are studies ( #1#2#3#4) linking cosmic rays with cardiac arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death in the general population. Our latest measurements show that cosmic rays are intensifying, with an increase of more than 18% since 2015 (courtesy to spaceweather.com  where you can get daily forecasts) A thought how much of this affected Covid cases and made them vulnerable to this bad flu as you will see in 2019 blog and rea the # tags and in particular information in their articles about solar minimum and my repeated updates way back to take care if you will during solar minimum.

 variability Responses to Changes in the Solar and Geomagnetic Environment

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5805718/

https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/on-health/2019/09/19/geomagnetic-disturbances-and-cardiovascular-mortality-riskutm_sourcebmc_blogsutm_mediumreferralutm_contentnullutm_campaignblog_2019_on-health/

Just shows what goes on around the world--wars and rumour s of wars and actual wars.
In the next blog the startling revelations and actual contracts that are being given out to space technology and this is just a tip of the iceberg. I could put at least a dozen or more and its all cyber, space, 5G and satellites and a UN and congress law that forbids 'exotic weaponry which the law lists as existing and includes CHEMTRAILS which have vehemently denied and ignored so until  next time. 

Be Well

Geoff
www.shackisback.blogspot  has now got a few more, these are my memoirs, experiences, observations, short anecdotes, koans and riddles with prose, at the moment 955 to pick up and browse. Shack is one of nicknames.




No comments:

Post a comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.