In Sweden, a new study followed 840,000 people who were double vaccinated for nine months which is longer than any previous study. The researchers matched them or “paired them” with another 840,000 people who were the same, age, sex and from the same area. Out of this 1.6 million pooled sample, 27,000 people went on to get infected, and most of them were unvaccinated (21,000). So that’s not surprising, but underlying this data was an extraordinary trend showing efficacy falling month after month. In the first two to four weeks, the double vaccinated were very well protected. But by nine months later, the efficacy was not just zero, but negative.
The study considered protection against severe disease too, which lasts for longer, but after 6 months, the older men and people most at risk of Covid (sadly) were more likely to catch Covid that the matched same-age unvaccinated controls they were paired with. Nine months after vaccination, the average person is still less likely to end up in hospital, but protection is trending downwards for everyone.
No wonder the word on the lips of most state health officers is “Booster”
If only they had something better to offer than just another dose of the same thing?
From the paper:
In this study, vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 [Pfizer] against symptomatic infection waned progressively from 92% during the first month, to 47% by month 4-6 and from 7 months and onwards no effectiveness was detected. Effectiveness waned slightly slower for mRNA-1273 [Moderna], whereas effectiveness of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 [AstraZenica] was generally lower. Overall, effectiveness was lower and waned faster among men and older individuals. For the outcome of hospitalization or death, effectiveness (any vaccine) waned from 89% during the first month to 42% from month 6 and onwards in the total population. There was notable waning among especially men, older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities.
Not surprisingly, this means that for high risk people in states where all good alternative treatments are banned, booster doses are the *only* option.
The effectiveness against severe illness seems to remain high through 9 months, although not for men, older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities. This strengthens the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third booster dose.
The study, of course, tells us nothing about how well Booster doses work. But it does suggest that “Evidence based” is the most abused and misused phrase on Planet Earth.
The graphs (golly) suggest some trouble ahead:
The vaccines start off with impressive protection against symptomatic disease. However it falls quickly. By the eighth and ninth month the average vaccinated person appears to be more likely to catch Covid than someone who wasn’t vaccinated.
Swedish Vaccine, efficacy after 6 to 9 months. Graph.
In the graph below, protection holds up well against severe disease for four months. But by nine months the average person is only 20% protected. That can’t be good.
Cities which rely solely and completely on vaccination to protect them may appear to cruise for a while, but by five or six months post vaccination, things may unravel unless the population has managed to catch the disease, recover and gain natural protection, or sweep through the Deep State and stop bureaucrats telling doctors what they can and can’t prescribe.
Unfortunately the window to gain natural protection while being protected by the vaccine is just not long enough to avoid overwhelming the hospitals.
…
Swedish Vaccine, protection against severity after 6 to 9 months. Graph.
If only there was some other drug we could use, one that was cheap, safe, in large supply and also worked against Covid in many stages? Imagine how many lives that could save…
In our wildest dreams this hypothetical cheap out-of-patent drug might even have been tested for us on states with two hundred million people to show how well it worked. If only…
Notice in this graph above, protection keeps improving for six weeks after the second dose? Our immune system spends weeks tweaking the antibody profile — and selecting slightly better antibodies. A fully mature immune response is slow, another reason that testing vaccines is not a fast process. And perhaps giving a second dose while the first dose response is not even finished is not the best plan?
On the plus side, researchers tossed out anyone known to have caught Covid, so the study-groups didn’t have a large confounding slab of people with strong natural protection skewing the results — though a few people would have inadvertently or asymptomatically done that anyhow. (Swedish testing rates weren’t that great).
Maybe things are not as bad as these graphs look? (Boy do they look bad).
The problem with matched or paired studies is that whatever factors drive people to get vaccinated in the first place are the same ones putting them at risk of a poorer immune response. Obviously, people at higher risk of dying of Covid will be more likely to get vaccinated. The two groups don’t start out with the same risk. The negative “ratio” at the end may be exaggerated.
There are also behavioral unknowns. Do vaccinated people work in high risk areas like nursing homes? Are they more likely to stay home because they are the kind of person who worries a lot, or are they more likely to wander around ad lib post-vaccine, because they feel safe and protected?
And the group who got vaccinated nine months ago, are obviously not the same sort of people as put it off til September. High risk people were vaccinated earliest and they are the first to reach the “nine months” mark.
The Swedish study is large (to put it mildly) and they even tested a bigger cohort too. By relaxing the matching process they managed to put together a second sort-of-matched cohort of nearly 4 million people. That’s pretty much the whole population of Sweden and it largely confirmed the trends.
In other news, they found that mixing and matching vaccines appear to give a bit better protection than sticking with the same brand.
The real message though, that the authors didn’t say, was that we need to use the damn antiviral treatments we already have — and it’s a crime that we aren’t.
* * *
Unconnected with the study, someone somewhere put together a video that fits this occasion.
A new study shows vaccinated people are about 40% less likely to catch Covid, but if or when they do catch it they pose the same risk to the people close to them regardless of their vaccination status.
The study also confirmed that vaccinated immunity was falling within three months of vaccination. Presumably, if a vaccinated person is 40% less likely to catch Covid in the first place, then being vaccinated will reduce the odds of bringing the SARS virus home on any given day. But given that protection wanes so quickly and Covid has such a high exponential rate of spread, a temporary 40% reduction of the risk of catching the virus is not game-changing.
Relying on vaccination as the sole magic tool to suppress Covid is a fantasy that suits Big Pharma but not The People. And the Big Bad Risk of nastier variants coming from these super leaky vaccinees doesn’t even get a mention. Read the post on the dark vaccine-induced evolution of Marek’s disease in chickens. The arms race generated by 50 years of leaky-vaxxes turned a 1% killer into a 100% killer. We should not be mass vaccinating with a leaky vaccine unless we use an antiviral as well.
The Imperial College study shows that draconian rules isolating the unvaccinated from the vaccinated are not medically justified. Put another way, an unvaccinated person infected with Covid is no more likely to spread the virus than a vaccinated person.
The Imperial College study followed 621 people, and was unusually detailed in measuring the load curves of viral titres as they rise and fall. They found that when infected, both the vaxxed and unvaxxed reached similar peak levels of virus, which supports the idea that they are both just as infectious.
The Urgent need for Early Treatment
By measuring viral loads daily the Imperial College team confirmed that the initial rise of the virus is extraordinarily rapid for the first three days until it peaks. They also found that the early replication rate of the virus goes on to determine the trajectory of the whole infection. So action in the first few days is imperative. People who had the fastest rise and highest peaks also had the longest declines. It seems that whatever it is that slowed the infection in some people in the early days also helped to clear the virus faster. The authors don’t expand on this, but many other studies show early treatment, and especially prophylactic treatment is the most useful.
It is madness to send people home without an early treatment kit, and madness not to give that kit to all the household contacts to use before they get infected. That was the extremely successful tactic used in Uttar Pradesh which largely eliminated the virus.
Vaccinated People Easily Transmit COVID-19 Delta Variant in Households: UK Study
A year-long study from the Imperial College London published in The Lancet on Thursday found that the Delta variant is still highly transmissible within a vaccinated population.
Their study, which surveyed 621 participants, found that of 205 household contacts of people who had the Delta infection, about 38 percent of household contacts who were not vaccinated tested positive, compared with 25 percent who tested positive among vaccinated household contacts.
“By carrying out repeated and frequent sampling from contacts of COVID-19 cases, we found that vaccinated people can contract and pass on infection within households, including to vaccinated household members,” Dr. Anika Singanayagam, co-lead author of the study, said in a statement.
Immunity from full vaccination also dropped in as little as three months, their research also found.
But the critical line from the paper talks about the “secondary attack rate” (confusingly known as SAR) which means the rate of infections the primary case causes.
We identified similar SAR (25%) in household contacts exposed to fully vaccinated index cases as in those exposed to unvaccinated index cases (23%). This finding indicates that breakthrough infections in fully vaccinated people can efficiently transmit infection in the household setting.
What about natural protection — The big invisible factor?
One of the major limitations of this study is that it doesn’t even mention previous infections or natural immunity at all. It’s like a blindness. Some of the unvaccinated and the vaccinated in the UK have already had Covid and have natural protection which appears to be better and longer lasting. So the statistics are pooled values. Are prior infections more likely in the unvaccinated or the vaccinated groups? If the number of prior infections is higher in the unvaccinated group the study will underestimate the benefits of vaccination for people with no immunity. But if prior infections are more likely in the vaccinated that will make the vaccine appear to be more protective than it is. They could have done antibody testing on both groups and found this out. Even though vaccinated people have antibodies to the spike protein, people with natural protection have antibodies to the nucleocapsid as well.
If someone was infected with Covid they would go on to infect about a quarter of their household. This seems rather low compared to studies on the original Wuhan variant in the early part of last year. The reduced spread is probably explained by both vaccination and natural protection. But people may also be changing behaviour and reducing their contact with the newly diagnosed cases. Perhaps some are treating themselves “off label” to stop the spread as well.
Those viral load curves
The details on the rapid growth of the virus in the early days reinforces the need to do early treatment or even better — prophylactic care. Most people don’t get symptoms til after the viral load peaks — they won’t even know the virus is multiplying unless a close contact has tested positive. And if that early treatment can reduce the rate of growth of the virus, it will also likely reduce the length of the illness and infection.
These are log scale graphs, so even a small decline in the initial rate of rise could make the infection much less severe and much less infectious.
A new Taiwanese study investigated wind farm noise on people in homes made of sandstone, concrete, iron or bricks. And they measured the low frequency noise inside and out, and with windows open and closed. Given the health risks involved, they advised that governments ought to set limits on how close towers can be, and recommend airtight windows that nobody opens much.
The same people that panic about the effect of a hot weekend on your grandchildren a hundred years from now, don’t seem so worried about whether the wind towers destroy your sleep or put you at risk of heart attacks today.
LFN [Low Frequency Noise] exposure has been found to cause a variety of health conditions. Exposure to LFN from wind turbines results in headaches, difficulty concentrating, irritability, fatigue, dizziness, tinnitus, aural pain sleep disturbances, and annoyance. Clinically, exposure to LFN from wind turbines may cause increased risk of epilepsy, cardiovascular effects, and coronary artery disease.
It was also found that exposure to noise (including LFN) may have an impact on heart rate variability (HRV).
HRV — The variability of our heartbeats — is a sign of how healthy we are, and how relaxed we feel. To brutally oversimplify — stressed people have a more robotic predictable pattern, but relaxed people’s hearts beat with more flexibility. Slower heart rates usually have more variation. It’s a vast topic. HRV predicts mortality after heart attacks. It’s even been connected with concentration and decision making ability, depression and anxiety.
Who needs windows anyway?
They concluded:
In view of the adverse health impacts of exposure to turbine-generated LFN, it is recommended that the government set regulations on the requisite distances of wind turbines from residences, for houses near wind turbines to be equipped with airtight windows for sound insulation, and for residents living in close proximity to wind turbines to have their windows closed most of the time to reduce LFN transmission.
How many heart attacks should we have today to avoid one heatwave in 2100?
———————-
LATE NOTE: Unintended consequence number 12,003. Closed windows would also increase the spread of viruses indoors, unless the homes had an upgrade on the airconditioning. And without the open-window option for temperature control, homes will use more electricity for heating and cooling. So people get sick more and emissions increase…
And let’s not start on sick-building syndrome, or on the effect that flickering, infrasound, and pulsing have on all the animals for kilometers around these towers. If it harms humans, we can assume that cows, sheep and spotted quolls don’t sleep as well. Who’s done that study?
Even here in Australia the grilling of the Big Four Oil companies made it on the news. For some reason SBS didn’t include this speech.
Florida Rep Byron Donalds let’s rip on the committee’s intimidation tactics, on their rank infringement of freedoms to speak, to do business, and to hold opinions. He savages them for wasting time on a circus like this instead of building an economy.
Best part is 25 seconds to 2:10. What an excellent speaker…
The GWPF have published a provocative piece by Professor Gwythian Prins, which I highly recommend. One chapter in particular captures the fragile moment around which global affairs is orbiting. The West, comfortable and corrupted, is only just starting to become aware of the duplicity and hostile intent of the Chinese Communist Party.
The Chinese Communist Party’s Fifth Plenum text of October 2020, setting out the strategy to 2035, told the nation for the first time in decades to ‘prepare for war’(备战) – meaning in any and all forms. It is true that the Chinese military build-up since 2000 has been relentless and remarkable. However, as we will see, at present we do not face open war, but instead war by other means.
The West needs to be aware of the 36 Strategems from an Era of War
“To Loot A Burning House”
Xi’s tactics are also informed by The Thirty Six Stratagems from the era of the Warring States, a manuscript which is probably a little older than Sun Tzu’s. However, both emerged from periods of great internal turbulence. The Thirty Six are usually grouped into six chapters, and three – two ‘war winning’ strategies and one ‘enemy dealing’ strategy – are most apposite in framing Xi’s conduct.
The first is kill with a borrowed sword (借 刀殺人); in other words, to use our inventions to attack us.
The second is loot a burning house (趁火打劫); to take advantage of an enemy’s misfortune. This metaphor facilitates the principle of ‘ghost attack’ – the perpetration of hostile actions with plausible deniability, such that the attacked party is powerless to retaliate without seeming to be the aggressor. An example would be the current Covid pandemic.
A bioweapon released close to the Lab it came from could be an accident. It’s plausible…
It also encompasses the idea of creating adverse circumstances – setting the house on fire – and pushing the enemy into self-harming behaviour. The third is an ‘enemy dealing’ strategy: hide a knife behind a smile (笑裏 藏刀), the tactic of concealing hostile intent behind apparent co-operation. Conduct over energy and climate policy appears to be a leading arena for this stratagem, as we shall see in detail.
The fifth columnists, the Greens, the university “friends”:
The spear-point for Xi’s ghost attacks is China’s Ministry of State Security United Front Work Department (UFWD): a multiheaded hydra. Xi Jinping has described it as ‘…an important magic weapon for strengthening the party’s ruling position…
The UFWD’s tactics towards us can also be seen to derive from long-standing Chinese strategies such as the Thirty Six. For example, employing the stratagem let the enemy’s own spy sow discord in the enemy camp (反間計), it has, with considerable success, ‘made friends for China’ within and across the western elite establishment. In the British case, that embraces the worlds of business (notably the 48 Group Club), of politics (green activists have been a particular focus for the UFWD54), and spans academia and universities, notably Cambridge under its current Vice-Chancellor, and Nottingham. Science and science publishing, where a naïve belief in the global community of science can, wittingly or not, be exploited to meet China’s objectives are especially targeted. Winning influential friends – ‘Fifth Columnists’ witting or unwitting – so as to destroy an enemy’s ability to resist is a classic indirect approach, straight from the pages of Sun Tzu, and conforming to the first of the ‘chaos strategies’ of the Thirty Six: ‘Remove the firewood from under the pot’ (釜底抽 薪). In western idiom, it is to draw the fires from the boilers to slow and eventually stop the engines.
Is it a coincidence that oil and gas prices are so high?
During 2020, in quick order, China made three long-term oil and gas agreements, with Iran, Abu Dhabi and Saudi Arabia.
If it’s a coincidence now, it won’t be in the future…
To hide a knife behind a smile
… China is currently building 250 GW of additional new coal-fired plant, more than currently exists in the entire USA (229 GW), and a 25% increase on current capacity. Alongside other conventional capacity, such as nuclear and gas, this will support a 50% increase in electricity consumption by 2040 (>10,000 TWh, as compared to 7,000 TWh today). Figure 7 shows China’s fuel mix trends, dominated by coal, and with ‘new renewables’ barely visible traces. We may therefore safely deduce that China has no intention of embracing western ‘green’ obsessions.
…
But has Xi revealed the hostile intent too soon?
With AUKUS formed, the Quad alliance, and nuclear subs on the way for Australia, there are signs the West is waking up (finally).
The new-found resolve of the Anglosphere nations may reinforce the views of those in Peking who have been doubtful of the wisdom of Xi Jinping’s abandonment of the first of the Thirty Six Stratagems (Deceive the heavens to cross the sea), for it is a sign that open hostility has awakened the Five Eyes, as they warned and feared. All officers in the Queen’s navies – RN, RAN, RCN, RNZN – hold Crown Commissions, and her navies are already fully interoperable, and share a professional culture those of the USA, India and Japan. Xi’s critics in Peking will fear that his aggression has prompted the making (or rather, remaking) of a global navy for the Free World, led by the English speaking peoples. We should not assume that his ascendancy is any more secure than that of previous emperors.
The intent is so obvious when studied under the right lens:
Free World builds towards weaknesses, Communist China builds towards strength
China seeks to deny resources to the Free World
It is simply using our green obsessions to its advantage and against our interests. In the terms of the Thirty Six, Peking intends to loot a burning house: it will encourage its competitors (us) to use thermodynamically inferior fuels in order to build in economic weakness, and will assist us in compromising our transport and electricity infrastructures. It will ignore biomass, tidal, geothermal and hydro as strategically insignificant. Nor will it involve itself in hydrogen, recognising that both the current ‘green’ and ‘blue’ routes to its production, as explained earlier, are unviable economically. But it will happily continue to manufacture wind power components and solar panels for us, and it will use uncompetitive market practices to displace western (and Japanese) competitors, and so dominate the markets for these items. In this way, China will weaken our manufacturing bases, while indulging our ‘green’ and ‘Net Zero’ obsessions and it will thus control these markets – and hence us – for so long as we allow it to do so.
There is much to be pondered, and messages to share from The Worm in The Rose, published by Net Zero Watch. It can be downloaded here.
Professor Gwythian Prins is Research Professor Emeritus at the LSE and a member of the Academic Advisory Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
The Liberals doing their best to silence themselves.
Setting symbolic “targets” is not just a PR victory, and “jobs for the Green team” but a big blanket of silence conservatives stuck on themselves. By setting a public target, even if there is zero chance of it reducing CO2, being legislated, or reducing world temperatures by one thousandth of a degree, the most important win for the Green Blob is how it stops conservatives from pointing out the stupid flaws of the Carbonistas. By default it silences half the political machine in Australia and stops voters from getting a choice at the ballot box. Let’s all vote for One Party Democracy comrades!
This announcement carefully deprives the Liberals and National Parties of a key weapon in the up-coming-election, making sure they can’t win another 90 seat majority like Tony Abbott did without being able to criticize the Labor policies with killer one-liners.
They can’t mock the delusions they are aiming for themselves.
Changing Global Weather isn’t free you know. But wait… now it is!
The Labor Party think they can use windmills to stop the storms, but Liberals do too. The sensible half can’t accuse the Labor party of having delusional fantasies of trying to control the weather because there is no sensible half. They can’t say the Climate Models are failing, the predictions are junk, or that Australia has always had fires, floods and droughts and heatwaves all through our history.
They also can’t say that great new technology will fund itself because it’s useful, efficient and competitive. Remember how the government had to put in a Mobile Phone Target in 1992 so everyone would give up their landlines? Yeah, me neither. Only junk new tech needs ongoing forced subsidies, symbolic fantasy targets and mandates.
It’s a small consolation that the Morrison Government won’t legislate the “Net Zero” fantasy, but possibly only because they couldn’t get that grandiose nonsense through the House. So a tiny sliver of democracy remains, thanks to the fear felt by Liberal and National members who may lose their seats to One Nation, United Australia Party and Katter.
Scott Morrison will spend $120 billion of our money on technology because it might solve a problem that a foreign unelected, unaudited committee says we need to solve. So we’ll spent $120 billion on a plan to change the weather on Planet Earth. But we won’t spend one thousandth of that to independently check what the committee says. Almost all the climate scientists who support the IPCC decision are ones whose income increases if they find a crisis.
Scott Morrison’s $120bn new-tech plunge to hit net zero
The Australian
Scott Morrison has unveiled a “middle path” for Australia to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 which promises dramatic carbon reductions across the electricity and transport sectors and a massive investment of up to $120bn for emerging technologies to help achieve the Glasgow target.
The Prime Minister on Tuesday announced the government’s 126-page plan, promising it would not cause massive job losses and disruption to the regions and that Australians would be better off by $2000 on average by 2050 compared to taking no action.
Make no mistake, no Australian scientist is paid by the government to find holes or errors in the IPCC report
No university gets funding that depends on their success in making better climate predictions with space weather or solar factors and without CO2. No government funded research aims to find out if natural forces are more important than carbon dioxide. No team is offered two week foreign junkets 26 years in a row if they show that CO2 is largely beneficial and irrelevant and the IPCC is a one-sided propaganda tool of President Xi.
The ABC and the Nobel Prize committee are not interviewing people who question the IPCC’s conclusions unless they look like freaks with links to the Klan.
Over $79 billion dollars has been fed into one side of a scientific question, while almost none has been put into auditing the reports. (And that was in 2008, it’s worse now).
Yet again Australians vote for something and get the opposite. Toss the idea out of the airlock that this has anything to do with science, trees or weird weather. In a world of corruption and superpowers there are bigger forces at work.
As I said a week ago —the Net Zero pledge was apparently tit-for-tat for nuclear submarines. We get their subs; they get our promise to cripple-our-grid. Which sounds bizarrely unlikely, as if we needed more solar panels to fry the foreign frigates, or more windmills to foil their radar. As if, lord help us, a 0.0001 degree cooler climate will make us harder to invade? Sure. No one ever went to war with a solar powered tank. (Though NATO is thinking about it.)
Read Scott Morrison’s freaky words again. Join the dots. He told the party room that “climate change action had become a key pillar of the western alliance” which means AUKUS (or Australia-UK-US for foreign readers), and that “…there were economic and security imperatives in transitioning to a carbon neutral future.” He also said we need the western alliance “now more than ever”. In the same flavour, just today we hear suddenly that taxpayers will spend $1.8b to buy up a South Pacific telco so the Chinese don’t get it first. The Quickening is here.
There is no mistaking that our PM came back from the US with the AUKUS deal and now suddenly, magically, and nonsensically we have to sabotage our grid in order to defend ourselves. So ponder that we wouldn’t have Net Zero if Donald Trump was still the US President, and we wouldn’t have Net Zero if China wasn’t targeting us aggressively with trade sanctions for daring to ask where the virus came from.
Everything looks different under the Sino red glare
Image by Chris Feser
There is bullying going on by some very big fish. Obviously Boris and Biden leaned on Scott Morrison. But who leaned on them? The list is long — China benefits if we cripple our industrial energy base, raise costs, are less competitive and “demand manage” factory blackouts and random time-off for smelters. A sick grid makes a sick competitor.
But there are so many other groups with their hand in this pot too. The crisis-scientists need “the crisis”, the UN needs a reason to be, the Bankers want their new Fiat Currency with billion dollar profits, and the EU wants others to wreck their grids so their own doesn’t look so bad. Bureaucrats need bureaucracies, and teenagers need a spirit to guide them and a mission that makes sense, but all they can find is Greta. And Big Business wants easy money from Big Bankers, and Big Government. (Customers are such a fickle demanding group.) Why target customers, when you can schmooze with Big Money and be treated like a rock-star by the media, — not to mention any names Andrew Twiggy Forrest.
Glasgow was looking like another complete flop as India, China, Brazil and Russia stay away. The political players needed to find a soft target to be leaned on to keep the PR moment going and apparently Australia was it. We’re the fourth biggest fossil fuel exporter in the world, but we’re a lot easier to push around that the three ahead of us.
As Terry McCrann says — it’s a unilateral energy disarmament
We’re breaking up our energy weapons while our adversaries are building theirs up.
… it is hard to avoid the comparison with the 1930s. That what almost the entirety of the world has embarked on is the energy equivalent of that decade’s appeasement.
Indeed, worse than appeasement: across the developed world, it’s unilateral energy disarmament in the face of the 2020s version of Hitler’s Germany – President Xi’s China. Back then, the political class turned a blind eye to Germany’s re-arming; now the far more numerous – and believe me, greater numbers do not spell greater cognisance – political class turns a similar blind eye to China’s energy re-arming.
This is a China which not only already has the world’s biggest ‘fossil fuel armoury’, so to speak – emitting close to 30 per cent of all global CO2 emissions. But a China which is intent on building its ‘fossil fuel armoury’ ever bigger; is embarked on building, according to Global Coal Plant Tracker’s mid-year analysis, a further 88GW of coal-fired power.
Not planning, not ‘thinking about’, but building, right now – more than three times the entire generation capacity of Australia’s brown and black coal fired power stations.
The hope is that the Nationals have done a deal involving nuclear power — for their sake as well as ours. If they don’t have a serious win up their sleeve from craven caving on “Net Zero” they will be toast at the next election.
It’s Defcon 1 time again for conservative Australians.
Ultimately the Australian Government is responsible for the deaths of Australians, and the deaths of their businesses and jobs, due to the banning of a safe, cheap early treatment for Covid.
Scott Morrison
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Health, could change this. But Scott Morrison and Greg Hunt hide behind The TGA as if an unelected, unaudited committee really rules Australia.
Ivermectin has not just saved lives, but virtually eliminated Covid-19 from Uttar Pradesh, and Indonesia. Some 3.8 billion doses of what’s been called a “wonder drug” have been used around the world. This is a drug is so safe we have fed it to school children in Canberra.
In the last three months Indonesian doctors used ivermectin to cut Covid cases by 98% but at the same time Australia banned ivermectin and relied on vaccination and oppressive lockdowns yet grew cases 500%. If countries larger, poorer and more densely populated can use Ivermectin why can’t Australian doctors prescribe it? Do we give Australian doctors the best education in the world so that they are nothing but robots controlled by an unaccountable committee, or will we allow Doctors to provide the best treatment they believe their patients need?
In 30 Random Controlled Trials, ivermectin prevented 84% of infections. In early treatment it helped 63% of people. Instead of 160,000 cases in Australia, with widespread ivermectin use we could have reduced that just 25,000 and stopped the lockdowns after weeks instead of months.
Australia has no early treatment, we are abandoning people to a virus that almost certainly leaked from a Chinese laboratory. The TGA did not even ban Ivermectin because Australians with prescriptions might be hurt by it, they banned a safe drug because “people might not get vaxed”. Are Australian lives the first concern of Morrison and Hunt, or are the profits of Big Pharmaceutical companies more important? Judge them by their actions.
Indonesia banned ivermectin then relented when a few key politicians championed the cause. Australia can do that too.
On 11th September 2021 the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) took the unprecedented step of effectively banning the prescribing of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 infection in Australia. Contrary to ill-informed media reporting, ivermectin is an important drug which has been used clinically worldwide for several decades, it is on the WHO list of Essential Drugs and has a wide margin of safety compared to most other drugs (including over the counter medications). This petition objects in the strongest possible terms to the banning of ivermectin prescribing for COVID-19 for the following reasons: (1) The banning of ivermectin prescribing ignores the wealth of published clinical trial safety and efficacy evidence in the medical literature supporting the use of ivermectin for the management of COVID-19; (2) The banning of ivermectin prescribing removes a potentially valuable early treatment option for symptomatic COVID-19-infected individuals, in contrast to current health policy of observing such individuals without active treatment until they either get better or worse (and are possibly hospitalized); (3) The banning of ivermectin prescribing for COVID-19 with the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship and the freedom of Australians to choose their own health solutions based on their doctor’s advice.
We therefore ask the House to ensure the immediate repeal of the TGA statement on Ivermectin, and to provide a firm assurance to the Australian people that overreach of this kind by a Federal Government agency will never again limit access to safe treatments in a non-consultative and unilateral manner.
What’s the definition of The Greatest Global Pushover in the world? How about the nation that is often the worlds top exporter of coal and fifth biggest for gas, with the biggest distances, the lowest population density, fastest population growth, in a land where electricity prices have doubled, but which has already cut emissions by a staggering 46% each while adding more renewable energy per capita than any nation on Earth. Yet we worry about being “left behind” or called a pariah?
The hard numbers: Australian emissions have been cut 46% per capita, while the population grew 50% larger and the GDP grew 135%.
Scott Morrison might be the worst negotiator on Earth. He failed to explain our achievements, to defend Australian workers, farmers and households and the voters who voted for him, to reach a deal that’s remotely fair. Teenage girls are gaslighting him. Bullies who serve bankers, greens and China pretend that Australians past carbon dioxide reductions don’t count because we achieved them by Land Use and Forestry. Lordy — Australians grew trees. The travesty! It only shows that the carbon game has nothing to do with the environment and nothing to do with carbon dioxide either. Do megatons of CO2 matter or don’t they?
Emissions per capita (grey line) are exceptional, but emissions per GDP dollar (orange line) are even better. Blakers, A., Stocks, M., and Lu, B. (2019) Australia: the renewable energy superstar, APO Analysis and Policy Observatory, ANU, [PDF]
Per capita, Australia (all shades of red) blitzed the field for installing renewables
Australia is more dependent on mining and resources than most other developed nations:
Fully fifty percent of Australian exports are from mining. These are the most energy intensive exports on Earth, and the world needs these resources. Someone has to dig them up somewhere around the world, yet Australians’ get lumbered with all the emissions accrued in getting these minerals out of the ground? We’ve shifted some of our Aluminium smelters overseas, and to what end? Their smelters are less efficient, carbon emissions have increased, Australian jobs and profits have gone. Who benefits from the rigged carbon shell game? Our competitors.
Australia is not falling behind even by the normal EU-biased way of accounting
The idea that Australia lags behind is a nonsense-stick to beat good people with. The usual way of comparing emissions reductions is per country, not per capita. This suits the EU. Even so Australia has set a similar target compared to everywhere else, which only goes to show how bad our negotiators were. A long time ago, in the first Kyoto agreement John Howard’s team negotiated an 8% increase in emissions for Australia which made some allowance for our rapidly growing population, distances, and energy dependent export industries. Since then, Australian politicians have only managed to weekly, meekly, “join the pack” at our great disadvantage, and at the same time get harangued for not doing even more.
Australians have cut emissions by 46% each, added more renewables per capita than anywhere on Earth, all without Net Zero.
The net cost of Net Zero includes all the glorious subsidies, the extra transmission lines, the rising FCAS bill, the blackouts, the emergency demand management, the damage from surging voltages, the wasted capital expenditure, the squads of flying diesels, synchronous condensors, and the burden that unreliable energy dumps on the whole grid. In the US windpower makes gas power $30/MWh more expensive, — the intermittent generators are vandals on the system, destroying productivity and profits of the good generators.
China is holding a busted flush in the Global Green Poker game. In late summer, local bureaucrats in two-thirds of China’s provinces started enforcing power-saving measures on companies, but after four weeks of rolling blackouts the middle kingdom is so desperate for coal it can’t keep pretending to be Green. The Rust Belt factories were grinding down, homes were even losing power, winter is knocking at the door and the only thing with fuel in China were the prices. It’s the worst energy crisis in a decade, and there’s no holding out for another three weeks to fool the rest of the world into thinking it cares about “carbon”.
Instead a national communist committee called the China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) has apparently ordered mines to go all out — and they are. The word is that China is now digging up nearly 12 million tons of coal each and every day. If they keep this up it will be a “One Billion Ton” quarter, and potentially nearly a 4-billion-ton year. That’s about 8 times Australias entire annual production and about six times the US’s.
“China could see its worst winter power shortage since 2010,” said Citigroup analyst Tracy Liao. “This would increase stagflation risks and growth pressure on the Chinese and the global economy over the coming winter, push energy prices higher and propel large-scale curtailments in commodity downstream sectors.”
It’s hard to overstate the squeeze on supply. Senior managers from State Power Investment Corp., one of the country’s largest power firms, and representatives from southern Guizhou province met late last month with key coal supplier China Shenhua Energy Co. A request for 3 million tons of the fuel ended with an agreement for only an additional 30,000 tons. The miner simply couldn’t guarantee production would rise enough to offer more.
The lurch to burn more coal comes despite President Xi Jinping’s commitment to reduce China’s consumption of the most-polluting fossil fuel from 2026. The nation was the only major polluter to record higher emissions in 2020 than a year earlier, and that annual volume is expected to rise again. It’s an awkward reality with global climate talks scheduled to open in the coming days.
… Indonesia is now China’s biggest overseas coal supplier and last months’ shipments hit a record of 21 million tonnes. Indonesia’s coal is lower-grade and worse for the environment to boot.
China turned to Indonesia after coal from Australia was banned last year during Beijing’s ugly coronavirus feud with Canberra. China planned to make up for the shortfall by extracting more coal from Mongolia, but the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic hammered the Mongolian coal industry, leaving frustrated delivery drivers stranded in refugee camps without pay.
One enterprising Australian supplier, Coronado Global Resources Inc, got around the ban by selling coal from its mines in the United States to China. The Chinese are hungry enough for coal to play along.
When we last looked at Indonesia their massive wave in Covid cases had just peaked after ivermectin was approved again on July 15th. Since then the cases have dropped from 50,000 a day to about 900. On a per capita basis today Indonesia is managing Covid about ten times better than Australia. Think about that.
Remember the reason for the Indonesian surge. In June, they had a controlled rolling caseload of 5,000 a day. It was not rising thanks to a philanthropist called Haryoseno who had been arranging for ivermectin supplies at low cost to help people. But in a fit of modern-medicine, in line with the deadly WHO recommendations, the Indonesian government banned ivermectin on June 12th. Cases took off. Mayhem ensued. And about 90,000 people died in the following surge.
“Indonesians have ignored health warnings to stock up on a “miracle cure” for COVID-19 backed by leading politicians and social media influencers, as an out-of-control virus surge sweeps the country.”
By July 15th the Indonesian government relented, and BPOM approved Ivermectin as Covid-19 Therapeutic Drug. By July 18th new daily cases peaked across Indonesia and now they are lower than they were before. During the surge, at least two million Indonesians were infected.
All bell curves look the same, but some are bigger than others. Timing is everything. OWID
…
Google Trends show Indonesians were searching for ivermectin in early July. The average Indonesian apparently knows more about treating Covid than our Minister of Health. More even than our Chief Medical Officer.
There was one popular search in Indonesia as cases rocketed.
Greg Hunt could have managed the Covid debacle so much better if he’d just phoned up a pharmacist in Bali.
Compare the Rich-mans Vax plan
Australia, on the other hand, decided to vaccinate 15 million people or 70% of the entire population and still has twice as many cases as Indonesia does — even though Indonesia has ten times as many people and only on third of the government revenue.
The Australian TGA committee banned ivermectin on Sept 11th, by the way, possibly to make sure we didn’t accidentally eliminate Covid, or Pfizer’s third quarter profits. Who can tell?
That lockdown-and-vax plan and the roadmap to freedom doesn’t seem to be working too well. In Australia billions of dollars were burnt at the stake, not to mention the health risks of using experimental prophylactics, while Indonesia reduced Covid cases by 98% for about point-one percent of the cost and the main side effects were the deaths of worms, lice and bed bugs.
If Gladys had just dished out the Ivermectin — Uttar Pradesh style — on July 5th, the outbreak would have been over in a few weeks.
Australia vaccinated 70% of the population and locked down its two largest states to control Covid and still hasn’t succeeded. Source: OWID
Since July 18th when Indonesia cases peaked, Australian cases have grown from 31,000 to 150,000.
The only thing more scary than the Ministry of Health’s incompetence is that politicians and philanthropists in the third world have more freedom than Australian ones do. The Indonesian media is more worth watching than the Australian ABC.
At this point people are still dying who could be saved.
As David Archibald says “It means that Australia could end its covid problem anytime it wanted to at hardly any expense at all. Our government would be aware of what the Indonesians have achieved. It also means that any covid deaths from here on are state-sanctioned murder. “
Coercion is not consent. 60% of the state is double vaccinated, and the deadline to comply with these new appalling rules announced yesterday will be Jan 31, 2022. People who don’t obey will be fined an extraordinary $20,000 and their employers $100,000. This effectively gives people a “choice” (not) of Jab or Job and thus, I assume, legally they won’t be able to sue for wrongful dismissal. They will have to quit or get injected. New rules will prohibit the unvaccinated from travelling interstate, even though there are antivirals, and monoclonal antibodies that would make travel safer and be much more effective against transmission of SARS-2 than the current first generation leaky-vaccinations which will probably bring in the virus on the first week flights are allowed with no quarantine. (UPDATE: McGowan said it was an error that this was put on the website, but implies “it’s coming”).
There is Zero Covid in WA, the freedom has been extraordinary and fantastic. There are no chicomm bioweapons, no masks, no distancing, pubs are packed, we can dance and sing and visit our old folks, and there has only been a tiny 12 days of lockdowns in the last 15 months, for which we feel incredibly lucky and very grateful. We wish all our friends could live like this too — like Covid doesn’t exist. The lack of the virus, though, probably means vaccination rates have slowed and hence these new draconian rules are seen as the only way to raise the rates further. The ABC has a story with a headline saying “Around Five Percent” won’t get vaxxed, but the URL and text tells us the real number is 15%. More lies from the ABC.
Apparently that success has to end, not because the voters want that, because they don’t, but because Gladys infected the nation and other corporates, like Qantas, and other state and Federal governments are clamouring to open WA, and presumably NT, SA, QLD and Tasmanian borders too.
Vaccination will become mandatory across a range of new industries covering about 75 per cent of WA’s workforce, with employers and employees facing fines if they do not comply.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.
Print This Post | | 
Follow Jo's Tweets
A new study shows vaccinated people are about 40% less likely to catch Covid, but if or when they do catch it they pose the same risk to the people close to them regardless of their vaccination status.
Xi’s tactics are also informed by The Thirty Six Stratagems from the era of the Warring States, a manuscript which is probably a little older than Sun Tzu’s. However, both emerged from periods of great internal turbulence. The Thirty Six are usually grouped into six chapters, and three – two ‘war winning’ strategies and one ‘enemy dealing’ strategy – are most apposite in framing Xi’s conduct.
Coercion is not consent. 60% of the state is double vaccinated, and the deadline to comply with these new appalling rules announced yesterday will be Jan 31, 2022. People who don’t obey will be fined an extraordinary $20,000 and their employers $100,000. This effectively gives people a “choice” (not) of Jab or Job and thus, I assume, legally they won’t be able to sue for wrongful dismissal. They will have to quit or get injected. New rules will prohibit the unvaccinated from travelling interstate, even though there are antivirals, and monoclonal antibodies that would make travel safer and be much more effective against transmission of SARS-2 than the current first generation leaky-vaccinations which will probably bring in the virus on the first week flights are allowed with no quarantine. (UPDATE: McGowan 
.jpg){kind=link}
Recent Comments