GOV.UK – Transparency and data – UKHSA’s vaccines report

Source: https://ukhsa.blog.gov.uk/2021/11/02/transparency-and-data-ukhsas-vaccines-report/

Note the avoidance of stating a link between the vaccine and preventing infection. There is a word salad in the middle of the blog that seeks to provide an unconvincing narrative for the rationale for high numbers of cases in the vaccinated.

“Vaccines work. They have played a critical role in breaking the link between infection and severe outcomes…”

“As well as this, the UKHSA publishes rates of cases, hospitalisations and deaths by vaccination status, and the data in our report shows that the rates of hospitalisation and deaths are substantially lower in fully vaccinated people , across all age groups. It is clear therefore that COVID-19 vaccines provide a high level of protection against severe outcomes.”

“A simple comparison of COVID-19 case rates in those who are vaccinated and unvaccinated should not be used to assess how effective a vaccine is in preventing serious health outcomes.”

Several important factors can affect the rates of diagnosed COVID-19 cases and this may result in a lower rate in unvaccinated than in vaccinated people. For example:

  • People who are fully vaccinated may be more health conscious and therefore more likely to get tested for COVID-19 and so more likely to be identified as a case (based on the data provided by the NHS Test and Trace).
  • Many of those who were at the head of the queue for vaccination are those at higher risk from COVID-19 due to their age, their occupation, their family circumstances or because of underlying health issues.
  • People who are fully vaccinated and people who are unvaccinated may behave differently, particularly with regard to social interactions and therefore may have differing levels of exposure to COVID-19.
  • People who have never been vaccinated are more likely to have caught COVID-19 in the weeks or months before the period of the cases covered in the report. This gives them some natural immunity to the virus for a few months which may have contributed to a lower case rate in the past few weeks.

Infowars: The CDC is not the only agency that aggressively covers up the truth regarding vaccine damage and death

The CDC is not the only agency that aggressively covers up the truth regarding vaccine damage and death.
It’s an international problem.
45 page report here: http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/BSEM-2011.pdf
Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD:
In summary, the transcripts of the JCVI/DH meetings from the period from 1983 to 2010 appear to show that:
1) Instead of reacting appropriately by re-examining existing vaccination policies when safety concerns over specific vaccines were identified by their own investigations, the JCVI either a) took no action, b) skewed or selectively removed unfavourable safety data from public reports and c) made intensive efforts to reassure both the public and the authorities in the safety of respective vaccines;
2) Significantly restricted contraindication to vaccination criteria in order to increase vaccination rates despite outstanding and unresolved safety issues;
3) On multiple occasions requested from vaccine manufacturers to make specific amendments to their data sheets, when these were in conflict with JCVI’s official advices on immunisations;
4) Persistently relied on methodologically dubious studies, while dismissing independent research, to promote vaccine policies;
5) Persistently and categorically downplayed safety concerns while over-inflating vaccine benefits;
6) Promoted and elaborated a plan for introducing new vaccines of questionable efficacy and safety into the routine paediatric schedule, on the assumption that the licenses would eventually be granted;
7) Actively discouraged research on vaccine safety issues;
8) Deliberately took advantage of parents’ trust and lack of relevant knowledge on vaccinations in order to promote a scientifically unsupported immunisation program which could put certain children at risk of severe long-term neurological damage.

WHO agency: Air pollution causes cancer

WHO agency: Air pollution causes cancer

LONDON (AP) — What many commuters choking on smog have long suspected has finally been scientifically validated: air pollution causes lung cancer.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer declared on Thursday that air pollution is a carcinogen, alongside known dangers such as asbestos, tobacco and ultraviolet radiation. The decision came after a consultation by an expert panel organized by IARC, the cancer agency of the World Health Organization, which is based in Lyon, France.

“The air most people breathe has become polluted with a complicated mixture of cancer-causing substances,” said Kurt Straif, head of the IARC department that evaluates carcinogens. He said the agency now considers pollution to be “the most important environmental carcinogen,” ahead of second-hand cigarette and cigar smoke.

IARC had previously deemed some of the components in air pollution such as diesel fumes to be carcinogens, but this is the first time it has classified air pollution in its entirety as cancer causing.

The risk to the individual is low, but Straif said the main sources of pollution are widespread, including transportation, power plants, and industrial and agricultural emissions.

Air pollution is a complex mixture that includes gases and particulate matter, and IARC said one of its primary risks is the fine particles that can be deposited deep in the lungs of people.

“These are difficult things for the individual to avoid,” he said, while observing the worrying dark clouds from nearby factories that he could see from his office window in Lyon on Wednesday. “When I walk on a street where there’s heavy pollution from diesel exhaust, I try to go a bit further away,” he said. “So that’s something you can do.”