Featured

Tip - If you are using a phone, set the "Desktop Site" option in your browser

Trust me - I'm an Obstetrician/Midwife/Gynaecologist?

Details: Category: Health; Published: 11 November 2022; Hits: 1113

2022-11-11

There are many now who believe that the Covid jabs have led to increasing numbers of stillbirths and other issues around maternity care, but DR EMMA JONES writing for Unherd catalogues a history of problems in NHS maternity units going back well before the start of the "pandemic", from the point of view of one who has personally lived the experience.

"I thought I had seen everything. But nothing prepares you for O&G"

"This internal politics put lives at risk"

"Once held up as a beacon of good practice, it is now seen as enabling the 'worst scandal in NHS history' "

"Following publication of the report, ... Police were said have identified 823 cases ... between 2003 and 2022. It bears repeating: this is a medical trust that had been celebrated by the NHS for having high standards"

"A ... NHS Foundation Trust obstetrician recently told a coroner that he had been pressured by an NHS manager to claim a baby delivered in the hospital was stillborn. Dr ... said it was done out of “loyalty” to the trust (his NHS manager denied this). This is the language of the mafia — not a taxpayer-funded, state-run healthcare system"

Unless of course the State is the mafia.

"Fail to pay your TV licence, and you can go to jail. Fail in your duty of care so that babies die, and nothing happens. There are simply no consequences for the worst and serial offenders within the NHS, and so a culture of mediocrity prevails"

Inform yourself.

Are Today's Nurses and Medicos Competent?

Details: Category: Health; Published: 10 November 2022; Hits: 1433

2022-11-10

We would all hope so, indeed we should demand so, since nurses need numerical ability in order to get the decimal point in the right place when administering drugs to patients - who may well not think (for any number of reasons) to check their work in this department.

Startlingly, some experienced nursing professionals, writing in the Daily Sceptic, fear that nursing numeracy cannot at all be taken for granted.

"When George Orwell’s Big Brother in Nineteen Eighty-Four taught that two plus two equals five, the point was that authoritarians can make people believe something they know to be untrue. If nurses are innumerate, a pandemic can be presented with whatever numbers that the Government wants to induce fear and compliance"

"Don't be ridiculous!" I hear you say, but - "How many trotted out the mantra about the COVID-19 vaccines being 95% effective, not realising (as has been often explained) the fundamental difference between relative risk as opposed to absolute risk reduction?"

Of course, dear reader, I don't have to explain the difference between "relative risk" and "absolute risk" to you, do I?

But I have another quibble with many of these statistics - the absolute risk that we will (for example) develop cancer may (or may not!) be twice as high if we measure that likelihood over a longer period. So my risk of getting cancer may very likely be twice as high when measured over a period of two years than if measured over a period of one year, if only because I have run much the same risk for twice as long.

Yet statements such as "95% effective" need to be similarly qualified by a time period, since it is now more or less universally accepted that Covid vaccine protection wanes over time - even to the extent of becoming negative ... why else would we need constant boosters?

So to determine efficacy we must qualify this efficacy with a time period - how long is it efficacious for?

How many times did you hear any authority quote an efficacy or a risk together with an associated time-frame?

Is it any wonder then, given the above, what some pharmaceutical companies believe they can get away with?

Something We Were Not Told About the Pandemic?

Details: Category: Covid; Published: 04 November 2022; Hits: 1788

2022-11-04

Including who was in charge of the pandemic response, apparently.

Of course the lead was taken by America, but evidence has been uncovered that the Anthony Fauci - Deborah Birx duality was not in charge.

It seems that the legal situation was changed, effectively by presidential fiat:

"An astonishing Government document dated March 13th 2020 ... reveals that United States policy in response to SARS-CoV-2 was set not by the public health agencies ... but rather by the National Security Council"

"The NSC does not include as regular attendees any representatives from public health related agencies"

" ... on March 18th 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) – which comprises the CDC, NIAID, NIH and other ... agencies – had no official leadership role in pandemic response"

"On March 13th 2020, President Donald J. Trump declared a nationwide emergency under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act ... authorising assistance administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Five days later, the President notified then-FEMA Administrator Peter Gaynor that the agency would assume leadership of the federal pandemic response effort"

OK, so we have an unprecedented (in recent times) pandemic emergency, apparently originating from China, which required resolute, precise and effective action, and the first step was to give control of the federal response to a security agency that had no medical experience to speak of ... what could possibly go wrong?

This is a bit of a deep dive onto the legal labyrinth (as far as so far possible) but the implications for the practical management of the policies measures and staff required to counter the incoming threat can't be understated - the whole raft of established pandemic preparedness planning was turned upside down at precisely the time that it was actually needed.

But there's more ...

"I believe that the national security authorities took control of the Covid pandemic response not just in the U.S. but in many of our allied countries (the U.K., Australia, Germany, Israel and others) because they knew SARS-CoV-2 was an engineered virus that leaked from a lab researching potential bioweapons"

(It seems that the UK was a bit slower off the mark in the reorganisation race, not completing the transition from Public Health England to the UKHSA until April 2021. It still reports to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, although I note that it coexists cheek by jowl with an adjacent military establishment of some repute at Porton Down)

The Daily Sceptic brings an entirely new perspective to our understanding of how the pandemic response was handled, and this is essential reading for those of us who wish to inform ourselves (as well as we may) on this historic event.

Dr Mike Yeadon Tells It as He Sees It

Details: Category: Free Citizen; Published: 01 November 2022; Hits: 1976

2022-11-01

The now famous (or infamous if you prefer) Dr Yeadon has extended his study to include global politics, especially those politics as promulgated by the UN.

What has this got to do with medicine? What has medicine got to do with politics?

Well, he applies the same analytical research and thinking that led him to a successful medical career to the field of global politics, in particular the politics of the United Nations.

And yes, his starting-point is the Covid-19 "pandemic" and all its works.

If you ask me (oh, go on!) he has excelled himself in this exposition for Halloween on CHD.TV yesterday - a must-watch.

Unmissable (68 minutes).

Do also check out the links to Hedley Rees, whom Mike mentions at the start of his video.

Why Do We Need an Institute for Responsible Technology?

Details: Category: Free Citizen; Published: 30 October 2022; Hits: 1199

2022-10-30

Well, if the wholesale roll-out of experimental largely untested pharmaceutical gene-editing products across all (healthy!) populations and age-groups regardless of risk isn't enough to convince you, how about the uncontrolled roll-out of untested unregulated and unlabelled gene-edited flora and fauna (including food) all across the world for all manner of profitable purposes?

"Gene editing is cheap, easy, prone to side effects, poorly regulated and can permanently alter nature’s gene pool - a recipe for disaster"

This annoying video with its irritating tinkly muzak sets out the technical risks well enough, but the primary issues that concern me are:

a) Our freedom of choice to accept or reject such foods and products will be quickly (or immediately if labelling is not deemed necessary) reduced to virtually zero. You can eat anything you like but there will no longer be any original natural foods available.

b) The Big-Pharma-Crony-Government axis has conclusively demonstrated that we have absolutely no reason to trust any product of Big-Corporate-Crony-Government.

c) Regulation in the public interest is not the answer where Big-Money can and does buy any regulator. If we are arguing for better regulation then we are on the wrong horse. We should simply make it illegal, break up the corporations who are pushing it, and bury the technology for good (yes, that's easier said than done, but where's our ambition?).

Still interested? Watch the video, read the article (recommended).

Page 283 of 315