White House Earmarks $10 Billion for More COVID Vaccines as CDC Says 82 Million Doses Wasted Since Rollout

The Biden administration said this week it is diverting more than $10 billion in COVID-19 testing and relief funds to buy more COVID-19 vaccines and treatments. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 82 million doses of the vaccine have gone to waste since the December 2020 rollout.

By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D.

25

Link copied

Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free.

The Biden administration said this week it is diverting more than $10 billion in COVID-19 testing and relief funds to buy more COVID-19 vaccines and treatments, The Associated Press (AP) reported.

The money was diverted from plans to buy COVID-19 tests and personal protective equipment, reported NBC, as well as funding for research and development of new COVID-19 vaccines, according to AP.

The redirected funds will be used to start negotiating contracts with vaccine-makers to make new doses for the fall, including “next-generation” vaccines that pharmaceutical companies are developing to target new COVID-19 variants.

Roughly $5 billion will go to support the purchase of new COVID-19 vaccine doses for a fall immunization campaign and $4.9 billion will be used to procure about 10 million remaining courses of Pfizer’s Paxlovid COVID-19 antiviral pill, a White House official who asked not to be named told Bloomberg.

Another $300 million will be used to buy monoclonal antibody treatments, the official said.

The White House on Thursday said it had already procured 10 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines for children ages 6 months to 5 years in anticipation of vaccines for that age group obtaining Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) next week.

According to a White House statement, the administration plans to make “millions more [of the vaccines] available in the coming weeks” to states and healthcare workers. It is unclear if the administration’s pre-purchase of the as-yet-unauthorized vaccines is part of the $10 billion in diverted funds announced this week.

The administration’s move to divert funding to buy more COVID-19 vaccine doses comes just days after the Center for Disease Control (CDC) shared data with NBC News revealing the U.S. wasted 82.1 million COVID-19 vaccines from December 2020 through mid-May 2022.

1 Million Copies Sold — ‘The Real Anthony Fauci’ — The book that launched a movement. BUY TODAY!

Biden administration: ‘We had no choice’

The Biden administration blamed Congress for not approving the $22.5 billion in COVID-19 funding the president proposed in early March, saying it was left with “no choice” but to divert funding in order to secure vaccines and treatments for Americans in the fall and winter.

If the U.S. government doesn’t act quickly to secure vaccines, other countries will lock in their own places in line ahead of the U.S., limiting the U.S.’s ability to market vaccines to Americans, the White House said.

“The administration has to act because Congress won’t,” the White House said in a statement provided to the AP.

The redirection of funding will have “serious consequences on the development of next-generation vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics, domestic vaccine production capacity, stockpiling of PPE and the procurement of tests and testing supplies for federally qualified and community health centers,” according to the statement.

Congress members blocked the passage of allocating $10 billion in new taxpayer money to address COVID-19, saying they wanted more transparency about how money already appropriated had been spent, NBC News reported.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told the Washington Examiner:

“Before Democrats spend billions more and risk driving prices even higher, the Biden administration must provide a detailed breakdown of how the federal government has disbursed the $6 trillion Congress already approved to fight the pandemic.”

Republicans in the Senate argued the government should repurpose funds from the large sum approved under last year’s American Rescue Plan.

They also demanded a vote on an amendment that would extend immigration restrictions at the U.S.-Mexican border before considering a COVID-19 funding package.

The White House did not immediately provide more detailed information about which specific vaccines or treatments it was seeking to procure with the reallocated funds, reported AP.

Additionally, the White House did not say how many doses would be purchased, citing contract requirements for the lack of clarity.

Although no formal contracts were announced, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel of experts this week recommended the FDA grant EUA for the Novavax COVID-19 vaccine.

Assuming Novavax formally obtains EUA and the CDC signs off on it, the government will have a fourth COVID-19 vaccine to choose from, in addition to the Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson (marketed as Janssen) vaccines.

It's Time to Follow the Science. Join our Campaign!

11% of COVID vaccines paid for by taxpayers wasted since December 2020

The 82.1 million wasted doses of COVID-19 vaccines represent just over 11% of the total number of vaccines bought and distributed by the U.S. government between the December 2020 rollout of the first vaccines and mid-May of this year.

This figure is a sizable increase since late February, when the CDC told the AP 65 million doses — roughly 9.5% of all delivered doses — had gone to waste since December 2020.

Although the overall amount of waste is within the range expected by the World Health Organization for large vaccine campaigns, public health experts consider the amount of waste to be alarming, reported NBC.

“It’s a tremendous loss to pandemic control,” said Dr. Sheela Shenoi, an infectious disease expert at the Yale School of Medicine.

Ravi Anupindi, a professor of operations management at the University of Michigan who has studied vaccination campaigns, said the millions of wasted vaccines “is a demand problem.”

“The demand has plateaued or is coming down, and that leads to open-vial wastage — especially with multidose vials,” Anupindi explained.

According to Independent Journal Review, “Coronavirus vaccines that were paid for to go into the arms of Americans are going down the drain — or into a landfill — now that many places in America have more doses than people who want them.”

CDC guidelines on COVID-19 vaccination encourage all eligible individuals get the vaccine — even if that means generating waste.

The CDC’s website states:

“As more Americans get vaccinated, COVID-19 cases, outbreaks, hospitalizations, and deaths would be expected to decline significantly. In the efforts to expand access to COVID-19 vaccines, providers should take every opportunity to vaccinate all eligible persons [original emphasis] with a primary series or booster dose.

“However, as the rate of vaccine administration slows, the likelihood of leaving unused doses in a vial may increase.”

Pharmacy chains CVS and Walmart were responsible for over a quarter of the tossed doses, due to the vast volume of COVID-19 vaccines they handle.

Some of the 82.1 million doses expired on pharmacy shelves before they could be used. Others spoiled when pharmacies lost power or when freezers broke. But many were simply tossed at the end of the day when no one wanted the last few doses of an open vial.

“​​We often have to open a multidose vial at the end of the day for a single walk-in,” CVS said in a statement. “Those vials have a very limited shelf life, which unfortunately means unused vaccine will be disposed of.”

Telegram Channel

https://t.me/+LtveYCKl-JtlNzkx

Biden’s Imminent Plan for Mass Vaccination of Young Children Before Health Agencies Make a Decision

The White House recently discussed President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 strategy, including what they refer to as “a historic vaccination program” that has led to 220 million vaccinated Americans with another 100 million booster shots administered. With the vaccines widely distributed and available—and free—the White House has declared that consequently, COVID-19 deaths are down 90% since he took office. But is this a true statement? TrialSite probes into that matter plus reviews POTUS' operational plan to ensure high ongoing vaccination rates targeting COVID-19. The key to this approach is the vaccination of young children aged 5 and under. Next week, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) consider this vulnerable cohort for mass vaccination—calling for a greenlight for this “historic milestone in the nation’s fight against the virus.” What is this operational plan? What are the underlying assumptions? Does the President of the United States (POTUS) and his administration consider risk at all? Have they already made up their minds that mass COVID-19 vaccination must occur even though the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) haven’t even made formal decisions yet? 

What follows is a TrialSite breakdown of the POTUS approach. 

What is the core underlying assumption of the POTUS’ plan?

The core underlying assumption of the plan is that vaccination with the current batch of vaccine products is the most effective and safe way to ensure the entire American population is adequately protected against SARS-CoV-2.

What’s the underlying theme in terms of delivery and administration?

The White House acknowledges both the localized, state-wide, and national nature of this pandemic response declaring, “State and local governments, healthcare providers, federal pharmacy partners, national and community-based organizations, and other entities will be critical to the success of this historic, nationwide effort.”

The Biden administration brings very much a top-down approach packed with local buy-in, declaring that local resources such as physicians or community groups are “trusted messengers” that work with the administration in a “concerted effort to ensure that all families have answers to their questions and know about the importance of getting their children vaccinated.”

Is the Biden Administration eager to vaccinate young children?

Absolutely. The White House declared in this statement that even though the FDA and CDC haven’t completed their independent review processes—and that POTUS plans for “all scenarios,” the first such scenario will be that they can commence “first vaccinations…as early as the week of June 20th” with a scale of thereafter.  

POTUS has been working hard in anticipation of this milestone, even though the safety hasn’t been verified for this vulnerable cohort. For example, the President’s team communicated that they have been working across states, regions, and communities including healthcare providers to offer 10 million ready-to-administer doses. They have ensured that 85% of children in the US reside within five miles of a potential vaccination site.

What are the elements of Biden’s plan?

First and foremost, POTUS wants a secure supply of vaccine products starting with 10 million available doses by late June. Biden’s administration is concerned about diverse access—e.g., across a broad range of pediatric providers, for example, in both urban and rural settings. Consequently, they have ordered package sizes of 100 doses bundled with appropriate supplies to serve younger kids, even including smaller needles.

Additionally, this means convenience, bringing the vaccine to healthcare clinics and centers situated in the most vulnerable of populations, from inner-city lower-income African American and Latino neighborhoods to Native American tribal lands to rural areas where other socioeconomically vulnerable populations reside.

How does POTUS reach into these disparate and diverse communities for mass vaccination?

Key to this top-down approach is collaborative stakeholder buy-in. For example, the Administration seeks buy-in and participation from healthcare organizations to community-based groups across states, localities, tribes, and territories.

Does the local pediatrician factor into this plan?

Absolutely. Pediatricians and primary care providers are key to the President’s scheme to make vaccinations available at thousands of pediatric and primary care sites across the country.”

Why such a focus on pediatricians?

For the obvious reason that they are the most trusted by families for important healthcare decisions. The administration reminds all that “three in four children under the age of five receive their flu vaccine in a doctor’s office.” Moreover, additional healthcare “screening” and “counseling” can be offered locally. But in poor areas, health centers are also a vital part of the POTUS’ strategy.

Why are children’s health systems important?

Many of America’s most vulnerable children are seen at Children’s Health Systems and hospitals. These institutions “play an essential role in our efforts to ensure access for our nation’s highest-risk kids, including those with obesity, diabetes, asthma, or immunosuppression.”

What about the poorest families?

For the poorest of American families and their children, POTUS depends on the participation of state and local public health clinics and sites. With “longstanding” ties to these centers, the POTUS admin is concerned about the nation’s most vulnerable children in very low-income households—they may not have regular access to a family doctor or pediatrician. The administration will work to ensure vaccination via local public health clinics, for example.

What about pharmacies?

The POTUS admin will also collaborate with local pharmacies, enabling them to offer the vaccine for young children at as many local pharmacies as possible. 

Messaging as to the importance of mass vaccination against COVID-19?

The current White House administration believes strongly in getting the message out, shaping the narrative, and influencing the influencers in local communities. They do so via the “leveraging” of federal programs “to reach parents and families with information and advance equity.” The Administration will repurpose strategies that leverage existing programs including:

• Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program (over 6 million families served)

• Head Start Program (1 million families served)

• Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) Program (over 140,000 parents and young children across the country at risk for poor maternal and child health outcomes)

• Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs (over 800,000 children aged 5 and under supported by these programs)

• Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)—a massive federal program, which emphasizes state-by-state governance.

However, the administration notes:

 “This effort builds on the work that CMS has already done to require state Medicaid programs to pay healthcare providers for providing counseling visits to parents and guardians about the importance of kids’ vaccination—giving families the support they need to engage with trusted community providers.”

What other societal channels are being called out?

A range of other avenues to educate and influence are called out by Biden’s administration, from tapping into the educational system to medical societies to various associations and ethnic and racial demographic-focused organizations for ongoing vaccine advocacy.

What other unique social networking and influencing does POTUS have planned?

Noteworthy, the administration will use a “What to Expect” platform with over 20 million moms to author a blog series that showcases doctors and various “trusted experts” to answer questions about pediatric COVID-19 vaccines, for example. They also will use this and other social media to “dispel myths about the COVID-19 vaccine and children.”

Has the POTUS administration already deemed the vaccine safe for young children even though the regulatory agencies charged with doing so have yet to determine a decision?

Yes. This certainly seems to be the case. Too much planning has gone into the mass vaccination of children to consider the alternative. Already, the administration is planning to dispel what it deems misinformation about vaccine safety.

Does POTUS mention that the decision by parents should be based on a risk-benefit analysis?

No. POTUS and his administration assume the vaccine is safe and that a massive unleashed federal apparatus must now execute a wide array of actions to disseminate information, win mindshare, and execute the vaccination campaign.

The FDA recently acknowledged there are safety issues with the mRNA-based vaccines, especially for younger people aged 12 to 29 who are the most vulnerable.

Are any safety issues mentioned in the recent White House administration strategy?

No.

Is this the typical way that a government should go about educating the population about drugs and vaccines? 

Well, it depends on one’s point of view. From one vantage, this approach seems to represent an overreach of the federal government into individual Americans’ lives, but from the POTUS point of view, this is a dire emergency that needs immediate action and vaccination is the best way to reduce collective healthcare risks.

Telegram Channel

https://t.me/+LtveYCKl-JtlNzkx

CDC Deputy Director Acknowledges Significantly Elevated Risks & Long-Term Effects Associated with COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines at FDA VRBPAC Meeting

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) now shares information more openly about the risks associated with the COVID-19 vaccines. In the recent FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) June 7th meeting, Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, Deputy Director of the H1N1 Vaccine Task Force at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) acknowledged at 1:15.57 that based on reviews from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and other sources, including the pharmaceutical companies, there is “significantly elevated risks” associated with the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. These include both Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) and Moderna’s (mRNA-1273) vaccine products. While the question-and-answer session opened up a dialogue about the problem, including deaths, perhaps for the first time in such a public manner, an accompanying presentation emphasized the incidence is rare.  

TrialSite includes the entire VRBPAC meeting video as well as the specific myocarditis question and answer session with the CDC deputy director starting at 7:21.43.  

The session titled,  “June 2022 video: FDA Q&A, FDA mRNA vaccines Cause 'Significantly Elevated Risk' of Myocarditis with 'Long Term Effects'" suggests that the FDA and CDC are starting to publicly acknowledge that there are risks with the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Based on TrialSite’s tracking of safety incidence, more than likely the FDA will be compelled to disclose more risks to the public over time. 

Zeroing in on the data, deputy director Shimabukuro presents information from a table titled, “VAERS Reporting Rates of myocarditis (per 1 million doses administered) after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, days 0-7 and 8-21 post-vaccination.”

He shared that the data reveals an elevated risk of myocarditis with data from 0-7 and 8-21 days. Shimabukuro shows a table with peach-colored cells depicting higher risk cohorts associated with myocarditis and the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, including the highest risk cluster of males aged 12 to 29. This, of course, is not new information for a sizeable sample of the American population. TrialSite and a handful of media, as well as independent journalists, continue often at their own expense to report on the risks associated with the mRNA vaccines. This is a task that should have been funded and managed from the start by the agencies under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The CDC deputy director goes on to acknowledge that with certain cohorts, a rate of 40 to 60 incidents of myocarditis per million doses administered contributed to risk analysis. The CDC analyst also shared, perhaps for the first time in such a public way, deaths associated with the mRNA vaccines. According to the analyst, the CDC and FDA acknowledge  21 reported deaths associated with the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.  A brief review of VAERS finds a total of 14,980 deaths reported by various parties in association with the COVID-19 vaccines. Both the CDC and FDA have been quick to suggest that most of these cannot be proven to be linked to the vaccines. They also point out that based on the total number of vaccine doses administered, the deaths equal 0.0025%.

Shimabukuro shared that a summary of the cases reveals that myocarditis cases recover between 3 to 8 months. However, when asked pointed questions about long-term effects, the CDC deputy director stated, “I think there can be long-term residual effects of myocarditis.”

During the June 7 VBRPAC meeting, the FDA also recently shared a presentation titled, “Update on Myocarditis following mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination” also presented by Tom Shimabukuro. In this presentation, the CDC analyst introduces the epidemiology of myocarditis, shares the distribution of cases across age groups, and compares characteristics of myocarditis via a viral source and the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

The presentation moved on to the topic of VAERS, a description of the safety system, and a breakdown of analyzed myocarditis cases associated with the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. According to the CDC deputy director, out of an estimated 491.9 million primary series and 1st booster mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in the United States among people ages 18 years and older, only a total of 1321 cases of myocarditis fit into the CDC definition.

In addition to other information, the CDC analyst in the summary acknowledges a causal association between mRNA COVID-19 vaccination and myocarditis and pericarditis. They note that cases cluster in the first week of vaccination and that the risk is greatest in adolescents and young adults. Furthermore, the risk for myocarditis is higher after the second dose of the mRNA vaccine when compared to the first dose of the primary series (first two jabs) while males, as TrialSite has reported for nearly a year, face a higher risk than females. They also report that rates reported in VAERS are higher after the second dose of the vaccine administration. Shimabukuro reports the risk of myocarditis during the booster dose is higher for a “minority of the age strata" (e.g., males aged 16-17 years). While again the CDC and FDA declare that based on their review a majority of the cases recover between 3- and 8-months post-diagnosis, they don’t address what happens to those that don’t recover. That’s a concern.

Telegram Channel

https://t.me/+LtveYCKl-JtlNzkx

CDC Publishes Hidden Pfizer Document With An Admission That Proves Military Jab Mandates Illegal [VIDEO]

"it's so corrupt, it's mind blowing... it's clear under the law, you cannot force or mandate someone to take an emergency use authorized drug."

BY ZACH HEILMAN

While there aren’t many people around the world who haven’t heard of the COVID-19 drug that wasn’t promoted as the best option at fighting the coronavirus, not many know that it was also marketed as Comirnaty. According to the FDA, “On August 23, 2021, FDA announced the first approval of a COVID-19 vaccine. The vaccine has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and will now be marketed as Comirnaty, for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 16 years of age and older.” That might not sound suspicious, but attorney Thomas Renz, who has been a critic of the COVID-19 agenda, noted how Pfizer can’t make Comirnaty.

Appearing on His Glory, Renz used a statement from Pfizer to show how the COVID-19 drug that was used on military soldiers was illegal. In the video below, he said, “I’m quoting here – Pfizer received the initial FDA BLA license on 8/23/2021 for its COVID 19 vaccine for use in individuals 16 and older.

At that time, FDA published a BLA package insert that included the approved new COVID-19 vaccine trade name Comirnaty and listed two new NDCs and images of labels with the new trade name. This is what’s important. These NDC will not be manufactured. Only NDCs for the subsequently BLA approved tri sucrose formulation will be produced.”

Knowing that the wording and terms can be confusing, Renz added, “What that means in English is that Pfizer is just admitting they didn’t make Comirnaty. They’re not going to make any Comirnaty. This whole Comirnaty licensing was a load of crap to try and convince people to get these jabs. And so when the military is saying that, you know, they can force these jabs on their soldiers because they’re licensed, they’re lying because they’re not available, and the military knows it. And the military is the one who’s contracted with Pfizer to get these jabs.”

As mentioned above, the attorney also explained how it made the COVID-19 jab in the military illegal. “See, one of the dirty secrets is everybody thinks that all this was done through DHHS, it appears now, and we’re just finding this out, that this is being done through the military so that they can dodge licensing and procurement requirements. It’s so corrupt. It’s mind-blowing. And this here demonstrates, because it’s clear under the law, you cannot force or mandate someone to take an emergency use authorized drug.”

Renz, having witnessed the fraud and corruption surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, admitted and warned, “The Biden administration is so corrupt from top to bottom. I mean, there should be impeachment. There should be trials. And there should probably be a lot of jail time for a lot of people. You’re going to try and get this put on the childhood vaccine schedule, and you can’t go to school without getting it. They’re going to try and have that happen. So we have got to take a stand on this. We’ve got to stop this. It’s the safety of your kids, and it’s our future.”

Telegram Channel

https://t.me/+LtveYCKl-JtlNzkx

In 2007 Al Gore’s 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth met its match in a devastating documentary shown on British television station Channel 4.  The documentary was released at the beginning of March 2007 and two and a half months later had been viewed by millions of people on the internet.

“Despite its flamboyant title, The Great Global Warming Swindle is based on sound science and interviews with real climate scientists, including me,” wrote S. Fred Singer in 2007.  An Inconvenient Truth, on the other hand, is mostly an emotional presentation from a single politician.

Dr. S. Fred Singer (1924–2020) was a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute and Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia. He was the author or editor of 14 books on climate science, energy, and environmental issues as well as the author of over 400 articles in scientific and public policy journals plus over 200 articles in popular publications

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

EMAIL ADDRESS

SUBSCRIBE

Follow The Exposé’s Official Channel on Telegram here
Join the conversation in our Telegram Discussion Group here

By S. Fred Singer, 22 May 2007, republished from Independent Institute

The scientific arguments presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle can be stated quite briefly:

There is no proof global warming is caused by rising greenhouse gases

There is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activity. Ice core records from the past 650,000 years show that temperature increases have preceded—not resulted from—increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, suggesting that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2. As the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapour is far, far more important than CO2. Dire predictions of future warming are based almost entirely on computer climate models, yet these models do not accurately understand the role of water vapour – and, in any case, water vapour is not within our control. Plus, computer models cannot account for the observed cooling of much of the past century (1940–75), nor for the observed patterns of warming – what we call the “fingerprints.” For example, the Antarctic is cooling while models predict warming. And where the models call for the middle atmosphere to warm faster than the surface, the observations show the exact opposite.

The best evidence supporting natural causes of temperature fluctuations is the changes in cloudiness, which correspond strongly with regular variations in solar activity. The current warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that’s been traced back almost a million years. It accounts for the Medieval Warm Period around 1100 A.D. when the Vikings settled Greenland and grew crops, and the Little Ice Age, from about 1400 to 1850 A.D., which brought severe winters and cold summers to Europe, with failed harvests, starvation, disease, and general misery. Attempts have been made to claim that the current warming is “unusual” using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data. Advocates have tried to deny the existence of these historic climate swings and claim that the current warming is “unusual” by using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data, resulting in the famous “hockey–stick” temperature graph. The hockey-stick graph has now been thoroughly discredited.

We cannot control the natural causes of global warming

If the cause of warming is mostly natural, then there is little we can do about it. We cannot control the inconstant sun, the likely origin of most climate variability. None of the schemes for greenhouse gas reduction currently bandied about will do any good; they are all irrelevant, useless, and wildly expensive:

• Control of CO2 emissions, whether by rationing or elaborate cap–and–trade schemes

• Uneconomic “alternative” energy, such as ethanol and the impractical “hydrogen economy”

• Massive installations of wind turbines and solar collectors

• Proposed projects for the sequestration of CO2 from smokestacks or even from the atmosphere

Ironically, even if CO2 were responsible for the observed warming trend, all these schemes would be ineffective—unless we could persuade every nation, including China, to cut fuel use by 80 percent!

A warmer climate does not equate to negative impacts

Finally, no one can show that a warmer climate would produce negative impacts overall. The much–feared rise in sea levels does not seem to depend on short–term temperature changes, as the rate of sea–level increases has been steady since the last ice age, 10,000 years ago. In fact, many economists argue that the opposite is more likely—that warming produces a net benefit, that it increases incomes and standards of living. Why do we assume that the present climate is the optimum? Surely, the chance of this must be vanishingly small, and the economic history of past climate warmings bear this out.

But the main message of The Great Global Warming Swindle is much broader. Why should we devote our scarce resources to what is essentially a non–problem, and ignore the real problems the world faces: hunger, disease, denial of human rights—not to mention the threats of terrorism and nuclear wars? And are we really prepared to deal with natural disasters; pandemics that can wipe out most of the human race, or even the impact of an asteroid, such as the one that wiped out the dinosaurs? Yet politicians and the elites throughout much of the world prefer to squander our limited resources on fashionable issues, rather than concentrate on real problems. Just consider the scary predictions emanating from supposedly responsible world figures: the chief scientist of Great Britain tells us that unless we insulate our houses and use more efficient light bulbs, the Antarctic will be the only habitable continent by 2100, with a few surviving breeding couples propagating the human race. Seriously!

I imagine that in the not-too-distant future all the hype will have died down, particularly if the climate should decide to cool—as it did during much of the past century; we should take note here that it has not warmed since 1998. Future generations will look back on the current madness and wonder what it was all about. They will have movies like An Inconvenient Truth and documentaries like The Great Global Warming Swindle to remind them.

About the documentary

According to the group of leading scientists brought together by documentary maker Martin Durkin everything you’ve ever been told about global warming is probably untrue. Just as we’ve begun to take it for granted that climate change is a man-made phenomenon, Durkin’s documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle, slays the whole premise of global warming.

“Global warming has become a story of huge political significance; environmental activists using scare tactics to further their cause; scientists adding credence to secure billions of dollars in research money; politicians after headlines and a media happy to play along. No one dares speak against it for risk of being unpopular, losing funds and jeopardising careers.”

The Great Global Warming Swindle caused controversy in the UK when it premiered on 8 March 2007 on Channel 4. The documentary argues against the virtually unchallenged consensus that global warming is man-made.

A statement from the makers of this film asserts that the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming could very well be “the biggest scam of modern times.” According to Durkin, the chief cause of climate change is not human activity but changes in radiation from the sun.

Some have called The Great Global Warming Swindle the definitive retort to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. Using a comprehensive range of evidence, it’s claimed that warming over the past 300 years represents a natural recovery from a ‘Little Ice Age’.

According to the documentary, humans do have an effect on climate but it’s infinitesimally small compared with the vast natural forces which are constantly pushing global temperatures this way and that. From melting glaciers and rising sea levels, The Great Global Warming Swindle debunks the myths and exposes what may well prove to be the darkest chapter in the history of mankind.

Watch the full documentary below.

The Great Global Warming Swindle, Channel 4, 8 March 2007 (73 mins)

If the video is removed from YouTube you can watch it on Rumble HERE.

Main contributors to The Great Global Warming Swindle are:

1. Professor Tim Ball – Dept. of Climatology – University of Winnepeg, Canada

2. Professor Nir Shaviv – Institute of Physics – University of Jerusalem, Israel

3. Professor Ian Clark – Dept. of Earth Sciences – University of Ottawa, Canada

4. Dr. Piers Corbyn, Solar Physicist, Climate Forecaster, Weather Action, UK

5. Professor John Christy – Dept. of Atmospheric Science – University of Alabama, Huntsville – Lead Author, IPCC (NASA Medal – Exceptional Scientific Achievement)

6. Professor Philip Stott – Dept of Biogeography – University of London, UK

7. Al Gore – Former Presidental Candidate

8. Margaret Thatcher – Global-Warming Promoter

9. Professor Paul Reiter – IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris, France

10. Professor Richard Lindzen – IPCC & M.I.T.

11. Patrick Moore – Co-Founder – Greenpeace

12. Dr. Roy Spencer – Weather Satellite Team Leader – NASA

13. Professor Patrick Michaels – Department of Environmental Sciences – University of Virginia, US

14. Nigel Calder – Former Editor – New Scientist

15. James Shikwati – Economist & Author

16. Lord Lawson of Blaby – Secretary of Energy – UK Parliament Investigator, UK

17. Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu – Director, International Arctic Research Centre

18. Professor Fredrick Singer – Former Director, US National Weather Service

19. Professor Carl Wunsch – Dept. of Oceanography – M.I.T., Harvard, University College, London, University of Cambridge, UK

20. Professor Eigil Friis-Christensen – Director, Danish National Space Centre

21. Dr. Roy Spencer – NASA Weather Satellite Team Leader

22. Paul Driessen – Author: Green Power, Black Death

Telegram Channel

https://t.me/+LtveYCKl-JtlNzkx

Recently we revealed how office data published by the UK Government showed that the vaccinated population in England had a higher mortality rate per 100,000 than the unvaccinated population.

Our analysis found that it takes approximately 5 months from receiving the Covid-19 vaccine for that elevated mortality rate to be realised.

Well, now the latest UK Government data on deaths in England and Wales adds further weight to the above findings because the UK has been experiencing excess deaths again since the end of April 2022. Approximately 5 months after the mass winter “Booster” vaccination campaign.

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

EMAIL ADDRESS

SUBSCRIBE

Follow The Exposé’s Official Channel on Telegram here
Join the conversation in our Telegram Discussion Group here

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) publishes weekly figures on deaths registered in England and Wales. The most recent data shows deaths up to 27th May 2022.

The following chart, created by the ONS, shows the number of deaths per week compared to the 5 year average –

Source

The most recent week shows that there were 10,860 deaths in England and Wales, equating to 996 excess deaths against the five-year average. But this is a trend that has been occurring since the end of April 2022.

Source

The question is, why?

You’ve likely all seen the headlines this week on Doctors being baffled by an uptick in “Sudden Adult Death Syndrome” (SADS)?

Source

If you haven’t then we have covered it in detail in an article you can read here. But this “baffling” uptick in healthy young people dying unexpectedly from “a mysterious syndrome”, and the fact excess deaths are on the rise again in England and Wales is simply because of Covid-19 vaccination.

This is because further ONS data shows that Covid-19 vaccination significantly increases the risk of death and kills thousands after five months.

On the 17th May, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) published its latest dataset on deaths by vaccination status in England, and it has revealed a whole host of shocking findings.

For example we now know that according to the ONS, 70,000 people have died within 28 days of Covid-19 vaccination in England, and 179,000 people have died within 60 days.

We also now know that Covid-19 vaccination increases children’s risk of death between 8,100% and 30,200%.

Table 1 of the ONS dataset contains figures on the monthly age-standardised mortality rates by vaccination status for deaths between 1st Jan 21 and 31st March 22. The first Covid-19 injection was administered in England on 8th December 2021, and here are the figures on mortality rates by vaccination status in the following 4 months –

The unvaccinated were substantially more likely to die of any cause other than Covid-19 than the vaccinated population in both January and February 2021, before the rates seemed to normalise by the end of April.

But look at what happened from May 2021 onwards –

All of a sudden, the vaccinated population as a whole were more likely to die than the unvaccinated of any cause other than Covid-19, and this trend has continued month after month since. It also turns out this trend tally’s up with those who received the Covid-19 injections first.

People in England were vaccinated by order of age, with the eldest being offered the Covid-19 injection first.

The following chart shows the age-standardised mortality rates per 100,000 person-years by vaccination status and age-group for the month of May 2021 –

The figures show that in May the three age groups who had a higher mortality rate among the vaccinated were the 70-79, 80-89, and 90+-year-olds. The trend then continues into June with vaccinated 60-69-year-olds joining the highest mortality rate club.

The ONS data shows that this trend continues month after month until all age groups are more likely to die if they have been vaccinated. So with the UK Government starting a nationwide winter booster campaign in December 2021, it should actually come as no surprise as to why five months later we are now seeing excess deaths on the rise again in England and Wales –

Telegram Channel

https://t.me/+LtveYCKl-JtlNzkx

SHOCKING – At least 77K Dead & 7.3 Million injured due to COVID Vaccination across USA, Europe, UK & Australia

The latest reports released by medicine regulators around the world reveal that there have been at least 7.3 million injuries reported as adverse reactions to the Covid-19 injections up to late May and early June 2022, including 77,068 deaths.

However, these horrific figures do not illustrate the true nature of the consequences of Covid-19 vaccination because it is estimated by medicine regulators that just 1 to 10% of adverse events are actually reported.

And further study shows that this is far from expected with data from the USA revealing Covid-19 vaccination is proving to be at least 49x deadlier than Flu vaccination per number of doses administered.

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

EMAIL ADDRESS

SUBSCRIBE

Follow The Exposé’s Official Channel on Telegram here
Join the conversation in our Telegram Discussion Group here

Let’s start by looking at the official figures for the UK. The UK’s medicine regulator is the Medicine and Healthcare product Regulatory Agency (MHRA), and since early 2021 they have publishing weekly updates on adverse events reported against the Covid-19 injections.

The latest reports can be found within the ‘Annex 1 Vaccine Analysis Print’ section on this page here. The MHRA notes that they have delayed the publication of their weekly report due to the Jubilee bank holiday period. So their latest reports cover adverse events received up to 25th May 2022.

According to the MHRA, 492657 injuries have been reported in the UK due to the Pfizer Covid-19 injection and these include 778 deaths.

869,324 injuries have been reported as adverse reactions to the AstraZeneca Covid-19 injection and these include 1,277 deaths.

129,406 injuries have been reported due to the Moderna Covid-19 injection and these include 59 deaths.

And finally, 5,295 injuries have been reported where the brand of vaccine has not been specified, and these include 47 deaths.

This means, that as of 25th May 2022, the MHRA has received 1,496,742 injury reports due to Covid-19 injection, and these sadly include 2,161 deaths.

Next up we come to the data published in the USA by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

The CDC hosts a Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) that is updated weekly and can be found here. The latest data contains VAERS reports processed (not received) as of 3rd June 2022.

According to the CDC, 1,285,329 injuries have been reported due to Covid-19 vaccination.

Sadly, these include 28,714 deaths.

Next up we have Australia. Australia’s medicine regulator is known as the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). The TGA hosts an online ‘Database of Adverse Event Notifications’ which can be found here.

The most recent figures cover up to 27th May 2022, and they reveal that the TGA has received 129,923 reports of adverse events against the Covid-19 injections, and the TGA considers 127,282 of these to be a direct cause of Covid-19 vaccination.

Sadly, the TGA has also received 877 reports of death due to Covid-19 vaccination.

Source Data

Finally, we have Europe. The European Union’s medicine regulator is known as the European Medicines Agency (EMA). They host an online database of adverse events known as Eudravigilance which can be found here.

Unfortunately, Eudravigilance is probably the slowest and most difficult system to navigate, so finding the total number of adverse events and deaths is extremely tedious.

However, thanks to the work of ‘Health Impact News‘, we’re able to reveal that the EMA has received reports containing 4,416,778 injuries due to Covid-19 vaccination as of June 4th 2022, and sadly these include 45,316 deaths.

The injuries have been reported against the following Covid-19 injections –

• COVID-19 MRNA VACCINE MODERNA (CX-024414)

• COVID-19 MRNA VACCINE PFIZER-BIONTECH

• COVID-19 VACCINE ASTRAZENECA (CHADOX1 NCOV-19)

• COVID-19 VACCINE JANSSEN (AD26.COV2.S)

• COVID-19 VACCINE NOVAVAX (NVX-COV2373)

And unfortunately, 1,992,940 of those injuries are considered extremely serious.

21,333 deaths and 2,244,030 injuries have been reported against the Pfizer jab, 12,010 deaths and 732,849 injuries have been reported against the Moderna jab, 9,033 deaths and 1,280,160 injuries have been reported against the AstraZeneca jab, 2,940 deaths and 156,991 injuries have been reported against the Janssen jab, and 2,748 injuries have been reported against the Novavax jab.

This means that throughout Europe, the USA, the UK and Australia, medicine regulators have received reports of 7,338,772 injuries and 77,068 deaths due to Covid-19 vaccination.

Many people may believe this is to be expected due to so many people being vaccinated, but we can assure you it is not, and we can prove it.

Because a study of official US Government data comparing the number of doses administered to the number of adverse events officially reported has found that the Covid-19 injections are at least 49x / 4,800% deadlier than the Influenza vaccines.

The following chart shows the total number of flu vaccine doses administered in 13 full flu seasons all the way from the 2008/2009 flu season to the 2019-2020 flu season. The data has been extracted from the CDC info found here.

In all between the 08/09 flu season and the 19/20 flu season there were a total of 1,720,400,000 (1.7204 billion) doses of the flu jab administered in the USA.

Whereas from the start of the Covid-19 vaccination campaign up to 28th Jan 22 there were a total of 549,915,298 (549.9 million) doses of the Covid-19 vaccine administered in the USA.

The following chart shows the number of adverse event reports made to the CDC’s VAERS database against the Covid-19 vaccines that resulted in death up to 28th Jan 22 in the USA, and the number of adverse event reports made to VAERS against the flu vaccines that resulted in death between 2008 and 2020 in the USA –

The raw numbers alone show that in the space of 14 months there were 15.7 times as many adverse event reports made against the Covid-19 vaccines that resulted in death than what was made against the Flu vaccines in 13 years.

But when we actually work out the rate of deaths per number of doses administered, we find that the Covid-19 vaccines have proven to be even deadlier than they first appear.

The following chart shows the number of doses of vaccine administered per reported death in the USA for both the flu vaccines and the Covid-19 vaccines –

Between 2008 and 2020, the rate of adverse event reports to the flu vaccine resulting in death equates to 1 death per 2,594,871.79 doses administered.

But the rate of adverse event reports to the Covid-19 vaccines resulting in death equates to 1 death per 52,759.79 doses administered.

Therefore, the Covid-19 injections are proving to be at least 49.18 times deadlier than the flu vaccines, and that’s without taking into account the fact the Flu jabs are mainly administered to the elderly who are more likely to die, whereas the Covid-19 injections have been administered to all age groups.

Telegram Channel

https://t.me/+LtveYCKl-JtlNzkx