Archive
A conspiracy of silence has left us trapped in permanent Covid fear.
By SHERELLE JACOBS 20th December 2021. Find Article Here:-
sense that we have stumbled into a monumental Covid trap. True, the Prime Minister was unable to announce fresh Covid restrictions yesterday amid Cabinet concerns about the limitations of the data on omicron. His political authority to impose restrictions has undoubtedly been weakened by further revelations about Downing Street parties and restive Tory back-benchers. Still there’s little reason for lockdown-sceptics to cheer just yet. Christmas is still in chaos, as ambiguity in No 10’s messaging leaves the public, with little clarity about whether they should go ahead with their festive plans. Worse, Boris Johnson left the door open for further measures, even an unprecedented post-vaccine lockdown.
This ought to be a seismic moment in the history of Covid. We thought that mass vaccination would effectively bring the pandemic to an end, with booster jabs used to top up immunity every year as we learned to live with the virus. Yet the great weight of scientific opinion – which the PM and many politicians are still hesitant to go against – now evidently disagrees. A consensus has formed that vaccines are not enough to prevent endemic Covid from potentially overwhelming the NHS, and seasonal restrictions may also be needed.
If omicron turns out to be milder and takes over from delta, evolutionary biology may yet rescue us from this impasse. The great fear, however, is that even a mild strain could continue to wreak havoc, a medical non-entity for most, but a source of serious illness for too many.
In which case, the future looks bleak indeed. This is no longer a question of whether the economy and the vulnerable can cope over the next few months with tighter restrictions, but about the re-engineering of society. Could winter Zoom classes become the new normal for schools in the long term, for example? Are pubs set to become summer enterprises like ice cream vans? What are the implications for the UK’s knowledge economy if home-working becomes a seasonal inevitability? Are we geared up for an ugly showdown with the unvaccinated?
The Government should be levelling with the public about these existential questions, and the size of the stakes. Instead, it invites a climate of secrecy and hysteria. In particular, the question of how science informs political decisions remains shrouded in mystery. It is not even clear who in Whitehall decided what range of scenarios Sage experts should model when omicron emerged. Nor is it clear that omicron risks are being balanced against the harms of restrictions. In a recent Twitter exchange with Fraser Nelson, Prof Graham Medley appeared to admit that Sage has been only asked to model bad outcomes.
This chimes with Sage adviser Prof Mark Woolhouse’s extraordinary warning to the Commons science select committee back in August 2020, that modellers are simply “doing what they are asked to do”. Sadly, his suggestion that modelling “has been used to address a very narrow set of questions”, such as the effectiveness of lockdowns and social distancing, while overlooking other possible responses such as shielding the vulnerable, was ignored.
The apparent slanting of the evidence presented to policy-makers is compounded by the temerity of many politicians. Some of them may be finding their backbones now, but it has come late in the day. We went into lockdown back in March 2020, in large part, it seems because that’s what everyone else in Europe was doing and few MPs were brave enough to question the approach. As Sweden has found, it takes gumption to go against the grain. Although lockdown-sceptic Tory MPs have sought to challenge the Prime Minister, not least on vaccine passports, they lack the numbers to derail him.
Frighteningly, the current climate of fear is being driven not just by political cowardice, but intellectual intolerance. Coordinated academic challenge to Covid orthodoxies has fizzled out since the Great Barrington Declaration sparked controversy in October 2020. Still smarting from the backlash against the statement, which called on politicians to consider “focused protection” of the vulnerable as an alternative to restrictions, outspoken “heretics” have changed tack, optimistically talking up the potential for antibody treatments and cycles of reinfection to get us out of the pandemic instead,
Given the ostracism these scientists have faced, their reticence is understandable. When a chilling email surfaced this month from Francis Collins, director of America’s National Institute of Health to Chief Medical Officer Anthony Fauci, in which the former called for a “quick and devastating takedown of [Barrington’s] premises”, it caused barely a ripple of criticism from academics.
And yet now more than ever, we need open and balanced debate about the alternatives to restrictions. It is time to look again at focused protection. Twenty seven per cent of Covid-attributed deaths occurred in care homes as of October 2021. Yet, disgracefully, as we enter an omicron wave, we once again lack a proper shielding plan.
It is also infuriating that the obvious long-term alternative to restrictions – NHS reform – remains taboo. The Government has had plenty of opportunity since the first lockdown to figure out the best measures to boost ICU capacity. Admittedly, while creating more beds sounds easy, recruiting more specialist doctors and nurses will take years. Rolling out ICU training tradition to more medical practitioners without compromising the quality of care will also be tricky. All the more reason to make this top priority alongside the waiting list backlog. Instead No 10 continues to mindlessly chuck billions at the health service without a plan, as it primes us to protect “our dear NHS” like good citizens once again.
I don’t think it’s hyperbolic to say that we risk tipping into the realm of Communist China here. While Beijing’s experts are pressured into falling into line with its Zero Covid approach, dissenters who dare to point out that endless lockdowns are “squeezing dry… the last sign of life” in border towns face public vitriol. The writer Guobin Yang has described “an atmosphere of manufactured positivity” in which “truth is labelled negative energy”. In Britain we are in danger of choking on our own brand of “manufactured negativity”, as we are asked to commit to permanent restrictions in our patriotic preservation of the NHS against the fearsome ravages of Covid. We must pull back from such a fate, before it is too late.
Chris Whitty admits Natural Immunity is much better than Vaccine induced Immunity to Covid-19.
BY THE EXPOSÉ ON DECEMBER 21, 2021. Find Article and Video Here:-
Professor Chris Whitty, the Chief Medical Officer for England, admitted that natural immunity is far superior to vaccine induced immunity to the Covid-19 virus, in a confusing speech made in a Covid-19 press conference on December 15th, which has been overlooked by the mainstream media.
Here’s what Chris Whitty had to say in full in regard to the severity of the Omicron Covid-19 variant during the press conference –
“I think there has been a certain amount of commentary about the fact that doctors and scientists in South Africa, and I really want to pay huge tribute to South African science and medicine, what they’ve done so quickly has been remarkable, have indicated that there may be some reduction in the hospitalisation rates they’re seeing with Omicron, and I want to put a really serious caution on this, because I think it has been over interpreted.
“The first caution on this is simply a numerical one. If the rate of hospitalisation were to half, but you are doubling every two days, in two days you are back to where you were before you actually had the hospitalisations, if the peak of this is twice as great then halving of the hospitalisation rate you still end up in the same place. This peak is growing very fast.
“The second point I want to make, which I’m not sure is being fully absorbed by everybody, is that the amount of immunity in South Africa for this wave because of a prior Delta wave and vaccination, is far higher than it was for their last wave.
“Therefore, the fact that there is a lower hospitalisation rate is unsurprising. So if you think about what happened to us in the UK with our Alpha wave in January, February this year, the infection hospitalisation rate for people over 65 was around 22%, prior to vaccination. Once you have alot of immunity due to primarily vaccination and also some infection the infection hospitalisation rate in the same age group dropped to 6%. That just because theres more immunity.
“Well there is more immunity in South Africa now than there was in their last wave, therefore some degree of drop is to be expected, now that doesn’t mean that there isn’t some degree of slightly milder disease, that is possible, but I just think there is a danger people have over interpreted this to say this is not a problem and what are we worrying about? I want to be clear, I’m afraid this is going to be a problem, exact proportions of it of course South African scientists, and UK scientists, and Scientists Globally are trying to determine.”
Now like many who watched it, you’re probably wondering what exactly the Chief Medical Officer was actually trying to say in that extremely long winded, and confusing monologue.
Well, it isn’t until you actually look at the data for South Africa and the UK, that you begin to realise that Chris Whitty was admitting the Omicron variant may be more deadly in the UK than it is in South Africa because natural immunity is far superior to vaccine induced immunity.
The main gist of what Chris Whitty was trying to say is that the Omicron variant may only be similar to the common cold in South Africa because the population currently has strong immunity due to a previous wave of the Delta variant and vaccination.
But if this is the case, then why would it be worse in the UK which has also suffered a significant Delta wave and high vaccination rates?
Well first, let’s take a look at the actual vaccination rate in South Africa. According to ‘Our World in Data’, as of 14 Dec 21, 18,530,650 people (31.2% of the population) in South Africa had received at least one dose of a Covid-19 vaccine, and 15,473,473 people (26.1% of the population) in South Africa had received at least two doses of a Covid-1 vaccine. Zero people have received a booster dose because it was only approved by authorities on December 9th.
Now, let’s contrast that with the numbers for the UK.
According to ‘Our World in Data’, as of 14 Dec 21, 51,332,920 people (76.4% of the population) had received at least one dose of a Covid-19 vaccine, 46,842,497 people (69.7%) had received at least two doses of a Covid-19 vaccine, and 24,732,162 people (36.8%) has received their booster dose.
So as we can clearly see, there are more people who have received their booster in the UK than there are people who have had two doses in South Africa.
You’re probably aware of the relentless ‘Get Boosted Now’ propaganda being published left, right and centre, especially if you read the newspapers as the UK Government used your money to persuade all newspapers to cover the front and back pages with that ‘Get Boosted Now’ propaganda on the morning of Dec 20th.
The reason the Government and its scientific advisors have given for the relentless push to administer a third dose to Brits is that two doses may not be enough to protect against the Omicron variant, but a third dose might just give you the protection you need.
We don’t need to go into why this doesn’t make any sense (if you want to know why then see here), we just need to make the point that –
- If the boosters are what is required to protect again Omicron,
- and the UK has administered 24.7 million, with the elderly and vulnerable all receiving theirs in September and October,
- and South Africa has administered zero boosters,
- and only fully vaccinated 26% of it’s population,
- how on earth does South Africa have better immunity than the UK meaning South African’s are only suffering mild disease, but the UK is about to suffer a very serious problem?
Let’s go through the process of elimation to find the answer.
Has the UK experienced a wave of Delta infections?
Yes.
Has South Africa experienced a wave of Delta infections?
Yes.
Did the UK have extremely high vaccination rates when Delta hit?
Yes.
Did South Africa have extremely high vaccination rates when Delta hit?
No.
Does South Africa have extremely high vaccination rates now?
No.
Did the vaccinated account for the vast majority of Delta cases in the UK?
Yes. See here.
Did the UK administer booster doses to the elderly and most vulnerable prior to Omicron hitting its shores?
Yes.
Did South Africa administer booster doses to the elderly and most vulnerable prior to Omicron hitting its shores?
No.
Has anyone died due to Omicron in South Africa?
Apparently not.
Has anyone died with Omicron in the UK?
Yes, well within 28 days of a positive test result they have.
Did Chris Whitty say that South Africa has much stronger immunity than the UK?
Yes.
Did Chris Whitty say this is why South Africa may only be seeing mild disease with the Omicron variant?
Yes.
Did Chris Whitty say that Omicron is going to be a significant problem for the UK?
Yes.
So if South Africa has an extremely low vaccination rate and is only suffering mild disease, and the UK has an extremely high vaccination rate alongside a high booster uptake but is still going to suffer a significant problem, is Chris Whitty not therefore clearly stating that natural immunity is far superior to vaccine induced immunity?
Absolutely.
Thanks to the extremely confusing way in which it was explained during the Covid-19 press conference on December 15th, the entire world has missed the fact that the Chief Medical Officer for England has just admitted that natural immunity is far superior to vaccine induced immunity, and that the vaccines are the reason why the UK is going to suffer because of the Omicron variant.
“The second point I want to make, which I’m not sure is being fully absorbed by everybody, is that the amount of immunity in South Africa for this wave because of a prior Delta wave and vaccination, is far higher than it was for their last wave. Therefore, the fact that there is a lower hospitalisation rate is unsurprising. I want to be clear, I’m afraid this is going to be a problem (in the UK).”
The CDC Withdraw the Emergency Use of The PCR Test In 10 Days’ Time, Why Is It Still Being Used In The UK?
BY PATRICIA HARRITY ON DECEMBER 21, 2021. Find Article Here:-
Back in July 2021, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced that its PCR test has failed its full review and will have its Emergency Use Authorization revoked.
The Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test, the CDC’s benchmark COVID diagnostic testing system, will be withdrawn for Emergency Use by the end of 2021 due to an inordinate frequency of false-positive and negative results.
“The FDA has identified this as a Class I recall, the most serious type of recall. Use of these devices may cause serious injuries or death,” the FDA stated on its website.
“After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only” (source).
“CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives” (source).
The FDA goes on to explain the risks associated with false positives and negatives:
False-negative results may lead to delayed diagnosis or inappropriate treatment of SARS-CoV-2, which may cause patient harm including serious illness and death. False-negative results can also lead to further spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including when presumed negative patients are grouped into cohorts in health care, long-term care, and other facilities based on false test results.
False-positive results could lead to a delay in the correct diagnosis and the initiation of an appropriate treatment for the actual cause of patient illness, which could be another life-threatening disease that is not SARS-CoV-2. False-positive results could also lead to further spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus when presumed positive patients are grouped into cohorts based on false test results (source)
Although the CDC was also a distributor of the RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel they advised that from September 30, 2021, they would no longer happen and that laboratories should transition away from the Diagnostic Panel by the end of 2021 (source). Why would the CDC wait until the end of 2021 to cease the use of the RT-PCR Test?
The Novel Coronavirus
We are now almost at the second anniversary of the commencement of the governments across the globe terrorising their own people by claiming that there was a deadly new virus due to an initial 44 “cases” of pneumonia with unknown aetiology being discovered.
However, this was a virus that was so deadly, but we had to be tested for it to see if we had it or not.
The RT PCR Debut
This began after a “public health emergency of international concern” (PHEIC) which was declared by the WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (source). An “emergency” situation was created despite the fact that there were a reported 170 deaths, which with a global population of over seven and three-quarters of a billion people (7,794,798,739) the number was relatively minuscule.
Not to mention the fact that 99% of the “cases” and 170 deaths which were all in China, were deemed to have been from a novel virus that had not been proven to exist, as it had not been isolated.
The Increase of Cases
A week or so before the WHO declaration of the PHEIC on January 23, 2020, a paper now referred to as the Corman Drosten paper had appeared on the WHO’s website (13th and 17th January 2020) from the scientific journal Eurosurveillance.
The authors of the published paper were Dr. Christian Drosten, and several of his colleagues from the Berlin Virology Institute, and the head of a biotech company, TIB Molbiol Syntheselabor GmbH, claimed to have developed the first effective test for detecting whether someone is infected with the novel coronavirus.
Despite the fact that the authors had acknowledged that they had designed the test “without having virus material available” The RT PCR test was to enter centre stage, enabling the statistics or “cases” to align with the declaration from the WHO resulting in the total number of cases increasing to 9,826.64 by the very next day.
The RT PCR Test Flaws
However, in November 2020 the Cornan Drosten paper which had been the basis for the widespread use of the PCR test had been reviewed by a group of scientists, Pieter Borger, Rajesh Kumar Malhotra, and Michael Yeadon et al.
The group of scientists and researchers concluded that the “external peer review of the RT PCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2” reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level.”
Just as the CDC had found, these flaws were consequences for false-positive results according to the scientists (source).
Also, as reported in the Expose by a biomedical scientist, “when PCR is performed badly and/or at high cycle numbers (as has been common) the target sequence may not even be present in the sample and a “positive” result is simply an artefact of the PCR process”
The scientist argued that “The PCR cannot diagnose the infectious status of a person in any proven way and no consistent link has ever been found between a disease state and the PCR results”
“The misapplication of a completely inaccurate PCR means that COVID-19 is a scientifically meaningless construct that is nothing more than a self-referential illusion (source).
The Flaws Have Been Ignored
For more than a year scientists have alerted us to the fact that the test is meaningless, but their conclusions have not been acted upon by the government and health bodies who have continued to use the test.
Consequently, the “cases” deemed to be COVID infections have continued on a reign of terror, all due to the power of a PCR test that was seriously flawed (source).
The Government Advice
This was also aided by the UK government of course, who advised that if you had any of the 3 symptoms deemed to be COVID-19 symptoms, even if mild to get a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test as soon as possible.
The three symptoms were and still are; a high temperature, a new, continuous cough, or you’ve lost your sense of smell or taste (source). These symptoms are those many people would have had year in year out, of course, due to the common cold.
Nonetheless, the familiar symptoms of the common cold were soon discarded like a commodity victim of a capitalist society by many who now preferred to call their sniffles the “novel COVID-19”.
After all we live in a society that encourages us to bin the old faithful in return for the new improved version whether it is needed or not.
Gone was the need for man flu also, the sympathy for this new virus did not have to be begged for, not even for those people who were “asymptomatic” aka “healthy” just as long as the person was in receipt of a positive PCR result.
Roll Up, Roll Up, Come and Get Your Free PCR Test
Also appealing to our conditioning within a capitalist society, the test has been marketed as “free” as if that will entice us to have it.
Additionally, the UK government also uses terminology akin to consumerism style marketing by saying that they were “offering a service” and that a PCR test kit can even be “sent to your home, book an appointment at a walk-in or drive-through test site”.
They make it sound as frivolous and as easy as an Amazon order or purchasing our fast-food meal, activities that we now have a comfortable familiarity with.
Therefore, speaking the language of the neo-liberal consumer society that we have all become accustomed to the government “offered the service” to healthy people that did not need a test. In fact, they gave more reasons for those without symptoms to have the test, than those with symptoms.
Also, notice below how they boldly use a call to action “Get a free PCR test,” which is a well-known marketing ploy, they are not asking they are telling your subconscious to do it, which perhaps works in a similar fashion to people returning from the supermarket with tat they do not actually need.
Clearly their tactics worked
Despite how obvious it has been that the RT PCR assay is a tool used to afford the statistical basis to a pandemic in order to produce enough cases worthy of the term “pandemic” and therefore all measures that were put in place under the “emergency”.
These measures have adversely affected many and for some, they have been devastatingly life-changing, yet they would not have been accepted so readily by the population without the daily “cases” being used to frighten us all into compliance.
So, there we have it, “the government need the tool in order to frighten us into compliance”, it is meaningless in terms of a diagnostic tool, but it has worked a treat for our government enabling the enforcement of measures, vaccines, and now boosters.
While we still have people queueing up to ascertain if they had the novel coronavirus, we will always be fraudulently placed within that “Public Health Emergency of International Concern”
Interview with retired Footballer Matt le Tissier talking about the increasing number of footballers collapsing on the pitch.
Published December 14th, 2021. Find 37min Video Here:-
How the BBC lost its way on Covid.
By Charlie Walsham 19th December 2021. Find Article Here:-
I’ve seen from the inside how the corporation has failed in its reporting on the pandemic.
Ihave been a BBC journalist for many years, and in that time I have been committed to impartiality and the corporation’s Reithian values to inform and educate. My despair about the BBC’s one-sided coverage of the pandemic though has been steadily growing for some time. And in early December, as I listened to a BBC radio broadcast, I felt the corporation reach a new low.
During a morning phone-in show on 5Live the topic of discussion was Covid jabs and whether they should be mandated, or if punitive action should be taken against those who refuse them, such as imposing lockdowns on the unvaccinated. Setting aside the fact that these authoritarian measures are now considered a matter for breezy debate, I at least expected a balanced discussion.
This was wishful thinking on my part, as ‘Michael from Birmingham’ – a caller – was about to find out. Michael told the host he hadn’t been vaccinated because he didn’t trust ‘the data’ and cited historic incidents of documented corporate malfeasance by pharmaceutical giants to explain why he was concerned. Now you may disagree with Michael, or think him completely deluded, but he was still a person who had genuine fears about the vaccine and its safety. Yet instead of holding a reasoned debate with his concerned caller, the host immediately lost his temper, talked over Michael, implied he was a flat-earther and then muted him entirely.
It was an interaction that goes to the very heart of the dismal failure of BBC News. I have been working at BBC News throughout the Covid era and have witnessed how the insatiable demands of the 24-hour news cycle have exacerbated a serious and protracted crisis. I have also seen how any attempt at balance has been abandoned in favour of supporting and promoting Covid restrictions.
It didn’t have to be this way. Initially, the BBC covered the pandemic in a considered and measured manner, pointing out in news summaries in early 2020 that the majority of those who succumbed to the illness had ‘underlying health problems’ and the vast majority of people who were infected would live to tell the tale. There was a time when even the joyless Chris Whitty used to emphasise this fact at news conferences.
But that context was quickly jettisoned as complacency turned to panic within government and newsrooms everywhere were swept up in a major story. The BBC’s public service brief meant reporting on Covid had an extra dimension: we had to do this ‘right’; lives depended on it; we must be responsible and ‘follow the science’; and we must debunk misinformation. These well-meaning intentions were to have unintended consequences.I have come to the depressing conclusion that this pattern will repeat every time we face a new Covid variant
The government pursued its lockdown strategy with a campaign specifically designed to frighten the public. BBC employees were not immune to this approach; neither were their managers, who were soon bombarding staff with email missives about Covid. Far-reaching measures were promised to keep BBC employees ‘safe’ from the invisible killer in our midst. Thousands of staff members were allowed to work from home. Those of us in ‘broadcast critical’ roles remained at our desks, at least two metres apart from our departmental colleagues, tapping nervously away at our sanitised keyboards in near-deserted buildings.
The atmosphere in these BBC offices in the early days of the pandemic became comically oppressive. Absurd in-house ‘safety measures’ were introduced, including baffling one-way arrow stickers on floors which routinely pointed the wrong way, making navigating staircases the stuff of an Oscar Reutersvärd fever dream. Ludicrous lift capacity limits were also imposed: only one person at a time would be allowed to travel in an elevator capable of holding a small crowd – but only up, not down. Then, in a move that could have come straight from the sitcom W1A, ‘proximity monitoring devices’ were issued to staff to enforce social distancing. These re-purposed pagers issued a quacking noise whenever one colleague came ‘dangerously’ close to another.
It was perhaps inevitable that this risk-averse, anxiety-inducing environment would have an effect on the editorial stance of the BBC. Before long, colleagues I respected, and who held sway over running orders, succumbed to the belief that lockdowns, social distancing and face coverings – the whole gamut of coronavirus measures – were the only viable route out of the crisis. Alternative strategies, even those backed by eminent scientists and medics, were dismissed as dangerous or the work of cranks without any effort being made to properly examine their ideas.
In a further deterioration of journalistic standards, the impact of Covid-19 and measures imposed to ‘stop the spread’ started to be routinely conflated in news bulletins. All the horrors of lockdown – the enforced isolation of older people; funerals without mourners; the dying being denied a relative’s hand to hold in their final hours – were blamed directly on the coronavirus, rather than the rules, and characterised as tragic but unavoidable consequences of an essential national sacrifice.
Then there were the daily death figures, reported as ‘within 28 days of a positive test’ but with little additional context. When daily deaths began to fall, positive test results would be reported instead.
Licence fee payers might have expected the BBC’s well-remunerated senior correspondents to step up to the plate and interrogate the long-term impacts of the lockdown strategy. Covid restrictions may have saved the lives of mainly older people in the short term but what of their impact on the lives and livelihoods of younger generations in the longer run? Anyone who held such hopes was to be seriously disappointed. Political correspondents instead lined up to pile pressure on ministers to take ever more draconian steps to tackle the coronavirus. ‘Why haven’t you closed down schools, Minister? Why haven’t you imposed a mask mandate? Will you order another lockdown? When? Why not sooner?’
And then there was the Health Cluster, a BBC News department which was notorious before the pandemic as being the place where stories go to die. It found itself at the centre of a maelstrom: a medical and moral morass it made no attempt whatsoever to untangle. Health reporters did not scrutinise No. 10’s medical advisers but instead amplified them, becoming, in effect, the government’s Covid propaganda wing.
The Health Cluster’s shortcomings didn’t end there. Blinded by liberal sensibilities and hamstrung by an unhealthy departmental culture, its reporters went out their way to characterise the suggestion that Covid-19 might have leaked from a Chinese lab as a conspiracy theory promoted by Donald Trump. On a BBC News webpage (which remains online), one BBC health hack said the World Health Organisation had ‘closed the lid’ on the lab leak theory after visiting Wuhan in February.
As ‘Freedom Day’ beckoned in July this year, I began to feel less downbeat about the BBC. Sure, BBC News outlets continued to invite an army of Covid zealots onto the airwaves, all of whom seemed to call for restrictions to continue indefinitely. But I thought the end of the pandemic might be in sight. Most of my BBC colleagues are good, well-meaning people. Perhaps senior managers and editors were guilty only of a form of noble cause corruption, trying their best during an unprecedented health crisis to help keep the public safe. Maybe the BBC had done nothing fundamentally wrong and I was the one who was overreacting.
But this winter has seen a rise in infections again, and inevitably there have been renewed calls for the country to lock down to protect our health service. No one knows how bad the Omicron wave will be and it might just be that only a lockdown can prevent the NHS being overwhelmed this winter. But the national broadcaster should surely feature both sides of the debate and not just relentlessly make the case for further restrictions while ignoring the toll they have on our society.
The BBC insists that it has ‘covered the pandemic with great care and in detail, which is what people expect of the BBC and it is why we have seen record audiences coming to us throughout, both in the UK and around the world.’ But there are signs that the corporation is once again failing in this critical function. The BBC News website now almost constantly features the ‘Live’ number of coronavirus cases. ‘Two vaccine doses don’t stop you catching Omicron’ read a headline last week, as if this was somehow remarkable – totally ignoring the fact that double-jabbed BBC staff had been succumbing to the coronavirus for months, long before Omicron reared its head.
I have come to the depressing conclusion that this pattern will keep on repeating every year and every time we face a new Covid variant.
There is a strong case to be made now that the vaccines have done their job and should (as long as the Omicron variant does not significantly evade them) protect the vast majority of people from serious illness, meaning we should no longer be forced to endure any new restrictions.
Most people in the country have obediently had the jabs when offered, including me. Personally speaking, I would rather face Covid than face compulsory restrictions every year – or live in a two-tier society where those who get jabbed enjoy freedoms denied to the unvaccinated. We’re not there yet but we seem to be getting closer by the day.
As the public service broadcaster in a democratic country the BBC should understand and feature this debate – and not act as a government campaigner. Instead, with its reporting of the pandemic, it has made a truly awful ‘new normal’ much more likely.
WRITTEN BY Charlie Walsham
Charlie Walsham is the pseudonym of a BBC News employee who has worked at the Corporation for several years. No fee has been paid for this article.
In The Age Of Omicron, The Jabbed Are Now Catching & Spreading Covid At A Higher Rate Than The Unvaxxed.
By Susan Duclos – All News PipeLine. 19th December 2021. Find Article Here:-
Time To Lock Down The Vaxxed Now That They Are The Super-Spreaders?
For the last nearly two years we have heard vax worshipers accuse those refusing to take the experimental COVID vaccines that were created and fast-tracked, bypassing traditional testing for long-term effects, and refusing the lock down their entire lives, as “grandma killer,” as well as “nurse killer, a doctor killer, a cop killer, a grocery clerk killer, a student killer, a 5 year old killer, a bus driver killer, a father killer who just had a child killer, a family killer.”
Wow, let’s get Mr. Joe Lockhart, who is quoted above, a fainting couch and throw in some pearls to clutch while we are at it.
First it was the Covid vax, or a set of two, then because they didn’t work the way vaccines are supposed to, it was then discussed that the definition of vaccinated be changed to include another shot, a “booster,” before one could be considered fully vaccinated.
Chief medical advisor to the president Dr. Anthony Fauci echoed similar sentiments on COVID vaccine boosters last week during an interview with Reuters.
“Right now, officially, ‘fully vaccinated’ equals two shots of the mRNA and one shot of the J&J, but without a doubt that could change. That’s on the table for discussion,” Fauci said.
As an aside, it is very disconcerting how these days if a definition is not the “preferred narrative”, certain dictionaries and online sites will just change the definition, like words do not matter anymore at all.
ENTER OMICRON……….
The first year, everyone had a complete freakfest over the COVID pandemic that came out of Wuhan China, to the point where Americans were forced to stay home, social distance, and mask up everywhere they went, but what we didn’t see in any meaningful way, were mutating variants, until the vaccines….. but that is neither here nor there at this point.
The overreactions and power grabs from liberal state leaders did far more harm, to the economy, mental health of adults and children, including stress levels and depression, the supply chain, causing food shortages and more, than the COVID virus ever could.
In a paragraph from a piece at the very liberal website The Atlantic, we see, at least some liberals are finally starting to “get” what is happening.
At this point, the CDC has recorded that less than a quarter of adults who are fully vaccinated under the existing definition have gotten a third shot. That leaves about 150 million people who are vaccinated but unboosted. Given that the people in this group are less protected against infection, they’re at greater risk of passing on the disease to unvaccinated or partially vaccinated kids, as well as to unvaccinated or immunologically vulnerable adults. They will also pass the coronavirus more readily among themselves. Settings that might have previously seemed safe for vaccinated folks—say, a restaurant or performance venue that strictly checks vaccination status—could become fertile ground for transmission, because the people inside them are more likely to catch and spread the virus. Indeed, anecdotal reports already suggest that large indoor gatherings of fully vaccinated people can become super-spreader events in the age of Omicron.
Yes, those with one shot are dangerous to those with two shots, and those with two shots are dangerous to those with a booster shot, making it three, and those with one, two, and three jabs are dangerous to everyone…. vaxxed or unvaxxed.
Reuters, hardly a conservative bastion of thought, has a piece published on December 10, 2021, titled “Most reported U.S. Omicron cases have hit the fully vaccinated – CDC,” which pretty much says it all when it comes to the efficacy of the vaccines or the booster, since many of the cases cited also had received the “booster,” that the Biden regime is trying to force Americans to take.
NBC News, again, a liberal leaning news outlet, reports the following:
As cases of Covid-19 rise throughout the U.S., health officials warn that an increasing number of fully vaccinated people are being hospitalized or going to the emergency room. The concern about waning immunity against severe Covid infection comes as the Food and Drug Administration is expected to authorize a Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine booster shot for all adults 18 and older.
Astounding that these new reports are reporting what Independent News has been reporting for months, yet still claiming that the next “booster” will do the trick. Remember though, when Independent Media reported it, we were accused of misinformation.
The vaccines are not working. The citations used are purposely those in the liberal mainstream media, so no one can look and say “well those are conservatives sources.”
What those reports are not informing their audiences of is that before the Omicran variant was being used as a hammer to intimidate people into taking a “booster,” or third jab, reports were seen about hospitals seeing more breakthrough cases (fully vaxxed getting Covid), even in other countries.
In fact, it seems the media in other countries have been far more honest than the Biden’s regime’s propaganda arm in the U.S., aka the MSM.
Irish Times, back in September:
Vaccination has drastically reduced the overall number of infections and reduced the severity of infections where they occur. However, the number of breakthrough infections has increased as the population of vaccinated people has grown.
At the end of August, 54 per cent of Covid-19 patients – or 168 patients – were fully vaccinated. Some 44 per cent were not fully vaccinated, and in 2 per cent of cases, the vaccination status was unknown.
To this day, liberals who have trusted the MSM still claim that the breakthrough cases are “rare.”
People.com on December 16, titles their article “Doctor Says Fully Vaccinated People Are Going to Test Positive with Omicron: ‘Our New Normal’.”
Of course, being part of the liberal media establishment, they insist “that is fine.”
BOTTOM LINE- GIVE THEM A TASTE OF THEIR OWN MEDICINE
So, using the same “logic” that liberal state leaders and the Biden regime has been using, since it isn’t the unvaxxed spreading the Omicron variant, shouldn’t we now be locking down the vaxxed and boostered, since the are now the super-spreaders?
Shouldn’t they be limited in where they go and what they can do, just as the unvaxxed has been since Covid first showed up?
The same crowd that has been very vocal about their insistence that the unvaxxed be prevented from being allowed entrance into supermarkets, and shunned by societies, hasn’t made the same argument from those responsible for the majority of recent outbreaks and infections.
The silence from them on who is now killing the grandmothers, is deafening.
We have seen the media, Democrats and online liberals pushing a narrative that families should not allow unvaccinated members to come to their homes for the holidays, or to make them get tested before entering the home.
• Holiday hell: 3 in 5 Americans BANNING unvaccinated relatives from family gatherings!
• Why unvaccinated family members shouldn’t be invited to the holiday dinner table
• Fauci: Families Should Require Vaccination Proof Before Holiday Gatherings
Maybe it should be the other way around since this has become the “pandemic of the vaccinated.”
Lock em down, lock em out, and give them all a taste of their own medicine.
Omicron is Not Normal
By eugyppius 20th December 2021. Find Article Here:-
Everything suggests this variant was leaked from a laboratory engaged in gain-of-function research.
Omicron is not normal. No immediate progenitors are known; its closest relatives are viruses last seen in early- to mid-2020. The orthodox explanation for this awkward fact, is that it has spent the last 18 months lurking “in a geography with poor genomic surveillance … or … in a chronically infected individual.” The simpler explanation is that it leaked from a laboratory.
As el gato malo and others have indicated, evidence is strong that Omicron circulates preferentially in the vaccinated. In all likelihood, it is the result of gain-of-function research, in which SARS-2 was passaged repeatedly through convalescent or vaccinated plasma, in the hopes of helping the virus evade acquired immunity. The purpose of this research would be to anticipate future immune-escape variants that vaccines might target.
Omicron carries a series of highly unlikely and suspicious mutations in its spike protein. It is hard to imagine that these mutations can have arisen via natural processes, because all but one of them are nonsynonymous – that is, they code for different amino acid sequences. Starkly mutated variants favoured by natural selection should have a great many meaningless synonymous mutations as well.
Omicron’s ancestors may have spent a significant amount of time adapting to mouse cells, before re-entering human hosts. Omicron appears selected to replicate primarily in the bronchial tract. Deeper in the human lung, it functions far less efficiently than Delta or the first strains from Wuhan. This is probably why it causes mostly mild illness, and it is reminiscent of techniques used to make live attenuated influenza vaccines safer for use in humans. Such vaccines are cold-adapted, that is, selected to circulate primarily in the cooler upper respiratory tract rather than in the warmer, more vulnerable lungs.
The balance of the evidence is that Omicron leaked from a lab engaged in SARS-2 vaccine research. There are many possibilities: It might represent a live, attenuated virus vaccine used informally among researchers, that mutated back to virulence and escaped; it might have been released accidentally; it could even be an attempt to develop a self-spreading vaccine to immunise animals or third world populations.
UPDATE: Igor Chudov points to his own similar analysis from 2 December.
The Truth is Where? 