The ExposeThe ONS dataset, available on the ONS website here, details deaths by vaccination status from April 1, 2021, to May 31, 2023. Our analysis focused on mortality rates per 100,000 person-years from January to May 2023 among residents in England aged 18 to 39 and 40 to 49, and what we found is truly shocking.

Initial observations of the data prove that individuals aged 18 to 39 who had received four doses of a COVID-19 vaccine exhibited higher mortality rates compared to their unvaccinated counterparts.

In every single month, four-dose vaccinated teenagers and young adults were significantly more likely to die than unvaccinated teenagers and young adults. The same can also be said for one-dose vaccinated teenagers and young adults, and two-dose vaccinated teens and young adults in February 2023.

The difference in mortality rates was so stark that the unvaccinated only managed to reach a mortality rate of 31.1 per 100,000 person-years in January, whereas the four-dose vaccinated managed to reach a shocking mortality rate of 106 per 100,000 person-years in the same month.

The one-dose vaccinated also fared much worse than the unvaccinated with a mortality rate of 53.3 per 100,000 person-years in January 2023.

For the remaining months, unvaccinated teens and young adults mortality rate remained within the 20-something per 100,000 person-years. Whereas four-dose vaccinated teens and young adults mortality rates only went as low as 80.9 per 100,00 in April and remained within 85 to 106 per 100,000 for the remaining months.

The January to May average mortality rate per 100,000 person-years was 26.56 for unvaccinated teens and young adults and a shocking 94.58 per 100,000 for four-dose vaccinated teens and young adults.

Meaning on average, the four-dose vaccinated were 256% more likely to die than the unvaccinated based on mortality rates per 100,000.

A similar pattern was also discovered among people aged 40 to 49.

The figures reveal that both one-dose and four-dose vaccinated adults aged 40-49 were significantly more likely to die than unvaccinated adults of the same age in every single month since the beginning of 2023.

January was the worst month for both vaccinated groups as a mortality rate per 100,000 of 411.3 was recorded among the one-dose vaccinated and a mortality rate of 258.5 per 100,000 was recorded among the four-dose vaccinated.

Whereas a mortality rate of just 144.5 per 100,000 was recorded among the unvaccinated.

[…]

It shows that the January to May average mortality rates were 132.08 per 100,000 among the unvaccinated, 264.14 per 100,000 among the one-dose vaccinated and 225.2 per 100,000 among the four-dose vaccinated. Meaning, on average, the one-dose vaccinated were 100% more likely to die than the unvaccinated, and the four-dose vaccinated were 71% more likely to die.

However, a month-by-month analysis shows that in March, the four-dose vaccinated were 104% more likely to die than unvaccinated 40-49-year-olds based on mortality rates per 100,000.

While in January, the one-dose vaccinated were 185% more likely to die than unvaccinated 40-49-year-olds.

Because these figures are mortality rate per 100,000 it cannot be argued that this is because more people have had the Covid-19 vaccine. This means the figures are extremely worrying, especially when we consider the fact they also include Covid-19 deaths.

These figures explain why young people are dying of cancer at an explosive rate.

Since the roll-out of COVID-19 vaccines, there has been an unprecedented rise in the deaths of young people between 2021 and 2022 from rapidly metastasizing and terminal cancers, according to data from the UK’s Office for National Statistics (ONS).

The data provided by the ONS on the rate of cancer deaths above the historic norm in 2022 for ages 15-44 in the U.K. include:

• A 28% rise in fatal breast cancer rates in women.
• An 80% increase in pancreatic cancer deaths among women and a 60% increase among men.
• A 55% increase among men in colon cancer deaths and a 41% increase in women.
• A 120% increase in fatal melanomas among men and a 35% increase in women.
• A 35% increase in brain cancer deaths among men and a 12% rise in women.
• A 60% increase in cancer death rates among men in cancers “without site specification” and a 55% increase among women.

A full analysis of the cancer rates can be read in full here.

All of these figures are both shocking and extremely worrying, proving COVID-19 vaccination increases a person’s mortality rate, which in turn proves COVID-19 vaccination is killing teens, young adults and the middle-aged in the tens of thousands.

[…]

Via https://expose-news.com/2024/03/14/correlation-covid-vaccines-and-rising-cancer-cases-in-children/

Ron Clutz

Randall G. Holcombe writes at Independent Institute President Biden’s Climate Aspirations.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.  H/T John Ray

Most of what the political class calls policies are
really aspirations with no policy content.

They are feel-good statements that promote goals most people would support, with no associated policies that would move toward those goals. The following is an example.

The White House’s web page for the National Climate Task Force (skip down to the section “President Biden’s Actions to Tackle the Climate Crisis”) lists emissions goals for 2030, 2035, and 2050, well after President Biden will have left office, even if he serves out a second term. These are aspirations and aspirations that would have to be met by his successors, letting the president off the accountability hook.

What prompted me to write about this subject was this article titled “Biden’s scaled-back power rule raises doubts over US climate target,” which reports on an actual policy. The Biden administration has decided to exclude natural gas power plants from upcoming emissions standards.   The key point in this example is that the president’s actual policy works against the president’s stated goals.

Further down, the website lists the Biden administration’s accomplishments toward fulfilling his climate aspirations. They include a record number of electric vehicles and charging stations, new solar and wind projects, and supporting domestic manufacturing of clean energy technologies.

Those may be good things, but they are
things the private sector is doing.

“Support” isn’t a policy; it’s an attempt to take political credit for private sector action. If these things count as accomplishments, they are private sector accomplishments, not Biden administration accomplishments.

The website also credits the Biden administration for finalizing the strongest vehicle emissions standards in American history and proposing more robust standards for greenhouse gas and air pollution emissions. Those are not policies; they are aspirations. Should those aspirations be realized, it will be because the private sector has figured out how to reduce its emissions.

As the political season ramps up this year, notice that the “policies”
that politicians will propose are not really policies at all; they are aspirations.

They say, “Here are some good things I would like to accomplish if I am elected,” but they don’t say how they intend to accomplish them. They amount to feel-good slogans rather than actual public policies.

Most people will be in favor of mitigating climate change,
reducing crime, securing the border, and reducing the budget deficit.

Those are feel-good aspirations. Fewer people will favor specific policies aimed at realizing those aspirations. That’s why politicians talk about aspirations rather than specific policies. That’s also why those aspirations often fail to be realized.

The aspirations are popular; the policies to accomplish them are less so.
That’s why the Biden administration is enacting a policy
that works against his own stated goals.

Footnote:  Climate and Energy Policies No Relation to Climate Mitigation

When it comes to controlling weather and climate, it’s actually worse than the author says.  What policies there are serve only to destroy society’s energy platform with no discernable impact on the supposed problem.

[…]

Via https://rclutz.com/2024/03/14/elites-empty-climate-policies/

Kit Knightly

The headlines are full of measles at the moment, in the way that always reeks of coordination.

The measles outbreak in the US has been simmering away for weeks, but was brought back to the front burner in the last few days. The Daily Mail headlining:

America on verge of measles MAYHEM: Hundreds feared to be infected in California and Arizona outbreaks as US suffers year’s worth of cases in two months

It’s not just Arizona and California either. Chicago, Florida and Philadelphia all have “outbreaks” of their own.

An article in the Atlantic headlined “The Return of Measles”, claims there have been measles outbreaks in 19 separate states.

Meanwhile, on our side of the pond, a measles outbreak that started in Birmingham in January has apparently spread north and south. The UK’s total cases are apparently up to ~733.

In Ireland, the scary story is that one person on a flight from Abu Dhabi to Dublin tested positive for measles a couple of days ago. That number has since risen to three! The authorities are desperately hunting down anyone who was on that plane.

That’s three measles scare-stories in three different countries at the same time, with maybe more on the way

To quote Ian Fleming, “once is happenstance, twice is a coincidence and three times is enemy action”.

So what is this “enemy action”? Where is this story going?

First, let’s get this out of the way: This is not a public health scare. Not a real one. Measles is not especially dangerous, with a reported case fatality ratio of about 0.02% in Western countries, meaning for every 5000 people who get measles 4999 will survive.

So what’s with the scary headlines? What’s the endgame here?

To answer that we need to ask “who are the media are blaming?”, and as with most issues these days there are two answers to that.

Yes, it’s another binary.

On the one hand, the “left” arm of media is busily blaming “anti-vaxxers”. The “right” arm of the media is blaming illegal immigrants.

Let’s examine the left side first.

Last week the New York Times headlined:

Vaccination Rates Dipped for Years. Now, There’s a Measles Outbreak in Britain.

Then, two days ago the Los Angeles Times reported:

More parents are delaying their kids’ vaccines, and it’s alarming pediatricians

The Louisville Courier-Journal has an article in a similar vein, claiming “Covid denialism allows other infectious diseases to spread”.

In the UK the “liberal” press is laying the blame at the feet of the so-called “Wakefield generation” (referencing Dr Andrew Wakefield, who publicized a possible link between MMR and autism in the 1990s).

In Canada, TVO.me, a not-for-profit run by the Ontario Board of Education, opines “With measles making a comeback globally, we need to talk about vaccine hesitancy”

Having established “blame”, is there a proposed “solution”?

Of course — making the MMR vaccine mandatory.

The UK’s NHS has already launched a major MMR vaccine drive, with accompanying talk in the media claiming “Want to get rid of measles? Make the vaccine compulsory for kids”

In Canada – where there has barely been an outbreak yet – CTV discussed the possibility of mandatory measles vaccines four days ago.

That’s one side of the argument, which can be roughly summed up as “Anti-vaxxers are fueling measles outbreaks, make vaccines mandatory”

What’s the other side?

The other is blaming illegal immigrants

The “outbreak” in Chicago has been traced to an “overcrowded” migrant centre.

Two separate articles in the Daily Mail cite “experts” who blame the nationwide “outbreak” on the “open southern border”:

Biden’s border is leaving America open to drug-resistant outbreaks, experts warn – as second measles case is confirmed in Chicago migrant shelter

They’ve been setting the stage for this particular “issue” since at least last summer, when USA Today warned that New York’s Asylum Seekers were a potential “public health crisis”, while the UK tabloids were talking about TB outbreaks in asylum centres.

Their proposed “solution”? Control the borders. How? Why, with biometric visa tracking and digital IDs obviously.

This was first suggested years ago. When Trump was campaigning in 2016 he promised what they now call the “digital border wall”, powered by AI. Similar systems are already in the works in other places around the world. According to the DHS website, they are already using biometric facial recognition at border crossings.

In December 2023, the UK’s former Lord Chancellor David Gauke wrote:

Do you really want to stop the boats? If so, you should back digital ID cards.

As I wrote in my piece 2024: The Year Global Government Takes Shape, digital identity systems have long been the elite’s catch-all solution, including to stopping illegal immigration.

That’s the other side of the argument. Essentially, “Illegal immigrants are bringing disease over the border, we must institute AI-powered biometric digital identity checkpoints to stop them”

This split-blame approach existed when we published our previous Measles article back in January, the difference is now the solutions are coming out, a manipulated non-choice between two different dystopian tools of control.

That’s the false binary: are the anti-vaxxers or immigrants to blame? Should we introduce digital identity systems to secure the border or mandatory vaccines to increase immunity?

Whichever side you pick, you lay the groundwork for both, because by your taking a position you have legitimized the false predicate of the argument. That’s the rhetorical trick.

Both sides build their position on the same underlying assumption – i.e. there is a measles outbreak and we must do something about it – and both sides play on existing biases to scapegoat a minority, hoping to leverage that division into more authoritarian social controls of one kind or another.

[…]

Via https://off-guardian.org/2024/03/13/measles-mayhem-where-is-this-going/

Jonathan Turley

We have previously discussed the unrelenting attacks by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his allies on free speech. There has been a steady criminalization of speech, including even jokes and religious speech, in Canada. Now, the Canadian parliament is moving toward a new change that would allow the imposition of life imprisonment on those who post views deemed supportive of genocide. With a growing movement calling Israel’s war in Gaza “genocide,” the potential scope of such a law is readily apparent. That appears to be its very draw for anti-free speech advocates in the country.

The Online Harms Act, or Bill C-63 increases the potential penalties from five years to life imprisonment. It also increases the penalty for the willful promotion of hatred (a dangerously ill-defined crime) from two years to five years. The proposed changes constitute a doubling down on Canada’s commitment to reducing free speech for citizens despite criticism from many in the civil liberties community.

Justice Minister Arif Virani employed the same hysteria to convince citizens to surrender their freedoms to the government. He expressed how terrified he was with the potential of free speech, stating that he is “terrified of the dangers that lurk on the internet for our children.”

It is not likely to end there. Today the rationale is genocide. However, once the new penalties are in place, a host of other groups will demand similar treatment for those with opposing views on their own causes.  This law already increased the penalties for anything deemed hateful speech.

The law comes after Canada blocked a Russian dissident from becoming a citizen because of her violation of Russian anti-free speech laws. In a telling act, the government said that the same conduct (i.e., free speech) could be a crime in Canada.  Indeed, it may now be punished even more harshly.

[…]

Via https://jonathanturley.org/2024/03/14/oh-canada-the-parliament-moves-to-impose-potential-life-imprisonment-for-speech-crimes/

Steve Watson

Transgender lobbyists are upset that the National Health Service in the UK has announced that children will no longer be given puberty blocker prescriptions following conclusions by health experts that there are serious safety concerns.

The NHS commissioned the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to review the published evidence on Gonadotrophin Releasing Hormone Analogues (GnRHa), AKA puberty blockers, which prevent the body from making sex hormones.

An NHS England policy document published Tuesday noted “NHS England has carefully considered the evidence review conducted by NICE (2020) and has identified and reviewed any further published evidence available to date.”

“We have concluded that there is not enough evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness of PSH (puberty suppressing hormones) to make the treatment routinely available at this time,” the document further noted.

Gender dysphoria treatment will continue on the government run health service in the UK, however puberty blockers will now only be used in clinical trials by following the decision.

The investigation was undertaken after the number of children being referred to Gender Identity Development Service in the UK, which prescribes puberty blockers, shot up from 250 kids in 2012 to more than 5,000 in 2022.

As we highlighted last year, The number of children placed on puberty blockers for ‘gender affirming care’ doubled in the UK in a year despite the NHS saying it would stop the practice.

At least 100 children, some as young as 12, have been given the drugs since July 2022 regardless of the NHS’ decision that month to stop doing so based on a damning review by Dr Hilary Cass, former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.

Dr Cass warned that puberty blockers could permanently disrupt the brain development of adolescents, and irreversibly rewire neural circuits.

Cass also charged that Tavistock clinic, where the ‘treatment’ is carried out, operates an “affirmative, non-exploratory approach”, diagnosing children with gender dysphoria without proper oversight.

Other critics have charged that the NHS was practising ‘gay conversion therapy’ by using the drugs on children.

Commenting on the NHS decision to ban the drugs, health minister Maria Caulfield said “We welcome this landmark decision by the NHS to end the routine prescription of puberty blockers and this guidance which recognises that care must be based on evidence, expert clinical opinion and in the best interests of the child.”

“The NHS must ensure its Gender Identity Services protect, support and act in the best interests of children and we will continue to work with NHS England to protect children in this area,” she added.

Former prime minister Liz Truss urged that the ban should also be applied to private practices, calling on the government to back her amendment to the Health and Equality Acts Bill to make the prescription of puberty blockers to children completely illegal in the UK.

“I welcome NHS England’s decision to end the routine prescription of puberty blockers to children for gender dysphoria,” she said, adding “I urge the Government to back my Bill on Friday which will reinforce this in law and also prevent these drugs being supplied privately.”

Transgender activists criticised the NHS move, with advocacy group Stonewall stating “All trans young people deserve access to high quality, timely healthcare.”

The group went on to falsely claim that puberty blockers are reversible, stating “For some, an important part of this care comes in the form of puberty blockers, a reversible treatment that delays the onset of puberty, prescribed by expert endocrinologists, giving the young person extra time to evaluate their next steps. We are concerned that NHS England will be putting new prescriptions on hold until a research protocol is up and running at the end of 2024.”

Trans activists also took to social media to complain that confused children will no longer have puberty blockers prescribed to them on the NHS, encouraging people to sue the ‘far right’ health service and go private instead, and claiming that “cis kids” will still get puberty blockers prescribed to them.

[…]

Via https://modernity.news/2024/03/13/trans-lobbyists-angry-that-uk-nhs-has-banned-puberty-blockers-for-kids/

Dr Eddy Betterman

There is another new Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) “vaccine” they are calling a “booster,” 2023-2024 edition, that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) wants all seniors over the age of 65 to get this year.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) panel says older adults need immediate protection from “the increased risk of severe disease from COVID-19,” and that they can achieve this by getting jabbed with the latest chemical shots from the pharmaceutical industry.

In a February 28 press release, the CDC says its new recommendation is based on “the currently available data on vaccine effectiveness,” which allegedly points to the newest boosters providing solid protection for the elderly against the latest Chinese Virus strains.

“Adults 65 years and older are disproportionately impacted by COVID-19, with more than half of COVID-19 hospitalizations during October 2023 to December 2023 occurring in this age group,” the CDC claims.

“Data continues to show the importance of vaccination to protect those most at risk for severe outcomes of COVID-19. An additional dose of the updated COVID-19 vaccine may restore protection that has waned since a fall vaccine dose, providing increased protection to adults ages 65 years and older.”

(Related: No matter how much you’ve been injured by COVID jabs, the CDC still wants you to keep getting jabbed with every new “booster.”)

CDC fearmongering yet again

Some members of the CDC advisory panel were unhappy with the initial recommendation, not because it went too far and is based on pseudoscience but rather because, in their opinion, it did not go far enough in scaring old people to take the latest booster.

The first proposed guidance was merely a recommendation that elderly folks may want to get the newest boosters. Some CDC panel members argued that the recommendation needed stronger language instructing people 65 and older that they should get the latest boosters, otherwise they might get sick and die.

In the end, the panel voted 11-1 to use stronger, scarier-sounding wording after CDC Director Dr. Mandy Cohen decided it sounded best, arguing that it would light a fire under the feet of old people to better scare them into taking the new injections, no questions asked.

“Most COVID-19 deaths and hospitalizations last year were among people 65 years and older,” Cohen claimed about why she supported the stronger recommendation. “An additional vaccine dose can provide added protection that may have decreased over time for those at highest risk.”

What Cohen conveniently failed to bring up is a new study out of Japan that warns about the dangers of the newest boosters. That study determined that there is insufficient evidence to back pushing these new shots on older adults.

“The real driver behind all this decision making is generating and following the money,” wrote one skeptical commenter about why the CDC continues to lie to the public about the deadly shots.

“If you can’t earn it, then get yourself into a niche where you can make it legal to steal it from those who do earn it while eliminating the rest. That’s where we’re at now.”

“Actually, this is also about population control,” responded another. “The CDC is guilty of crimes against humanity. I wonder if anyone will ever do something about it … I seriously doubt it.”

“They don’t even care anymore that we know they’re trying to kill us,” said another. “I guess they didn’t reach their elderly death goal the first time around, so now they’re pushing yet another round of these poison shots.”

[…]

Via https://dreddymd.com/2024/03/13/cdc-pushing-covid-booster-shots-elderly-65/

Episode 39 Building Power – General and First Consul

Living the French Revolution and Age of Napoleon

Dr Suzanne M Desan

Film Review

By 1799 France, which was still at war with Britain and Austria, had lost nearly all their territory in northern Italy and Austria. In the spring of 1800, First Council and General Napoleon led 93,000 troops across the Alps to attack the Austrians’ rear flank in Milan and cut off their supply lines.

Despite losing to the Austrians in the Siege of Genoa in June, two French generals (Desaix and Kellermann) turned the tide and forced the Austrians to agree to an armistice and withdraw their troops from Genoa and Lombardy.

In his role as First Council, between 1800 and 1804 Napoleon negotiated peace treaties with Bavaria, Naples, Spain, Portugal, Russia, the Ottoman Empire, the US, Great Britain and Austria. The treaties restored French hegemony over northern Italy, Belgium and the left bani of the Rhine. It also recognized France’s satellite republics in Netherlands, Switzerland and Northern Italy. The “Cisalpine Republic” became the  “Italian Republic” with Bonaparte as president. Peace lasted roughly one year.

Although First Consul Bonaparte moved into Louis XVI’s Tuilleries palace, he deliberately dressed as commoner. He also moved the Council of State (created in December 1799 to draft new laws and resolve administrative disputes) into the palace. One of the first measures passed was to shut down all political clubs and to ban most political newspapers. In 1799, the number declined from 73 to 13 and by 1804 it was down to four.

The first serious threat to Napoleon’s rule occurred on December 24, 1800, when a bomb exploded near his carriage. Although his chief of police Joseph Fouche used horseshoe prints to trace the plot to two known royalists, Napoleon insisted anarchists (Jacobins) were involved. He eventually ordered 11 men to be guillotined – two guilty royalists and 9 innocent Jacobins.

Repression deepened as he

• rounded up and deported dozens of Jacobins and established military tribunals in southern and western France.
• granted full amnesty to emigres who wished to return to France.
• crushed the resurgent Vendee Revolt* and recruited some of its leaders to serve in his government.

Following eight months of secret negotiations with Pius VII in 1800, Napoleon issued the Concordat of 1801 (which remained in force until 1905), stipulating that the French government would continued to pay priests, protestant clergy (and eventually rabbis); that Napoleon would appoint bishops and the pope merely consecrate them; and that the Catholic church forswear all claims to church lands that had been nationalized and sold. Although France remained a secular state, on Easter Sunday 1802 French church bells rang out for the first time since the Revolution.

In August 1802, a plebiscite approved a new constitution that made Napoleon First Consul for life, omitted any declaration of rights and centralized power in a strong executive consisting of Napoleon and two other Consuls (who had 10-year terms). The Consuls appointed members of the two legislative chambers: a Trabinaire, which could debate legislation but not vote, on it and a Council of State which could vote on legislation but not debate it. The constitution also allowed for a 60-member senate the Consuls appointed for life that would judge whether laws were constitutional and gave Consults the power to appoint local officials (who ceased to be elected by local residents).

This 1802 constitution was approved with a 20% turnout. The 1799 constitution had ended the secret ballot. All adult males were eligible to vote, but they had to sign their ballots.

*See 1793: The French Revolution Faces Counterrevolution

Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/149323/149397