Britain didn't need to roll out Covid booster jabs to the entire population, one of the country's top virus experts has said, as he backed natural immunity as superior to vaccine immunity and said letting the virus circulate is "probably the best way to protect the population". The Mail has more.

Sir John Bell, who served as Boris Johnson's testing tsar and an early member of the vaccines taskforce, said he's "not entirely sure" the nation needed top-up doses, which health chiefs said were vital for all adults to boost protection amid the Omicron wave last winter.

Third jabs have been offered to all over-16s and some at-risk 12 to 15-year-olds. And three rounds of seasonal booster jabs have been dished out to certain groups, including the over-50s, frontline NHS staff and carers.

The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is remarkably effective at disrupting many critical physiologic processes both in the short term and in the long term.

I have always been drawn to understanding pharmaceutical injuries, and for years I've participated in support groups for a variety of different toxic pharmaceuticals (e.g. Lupron or Ciprofloxacin and other fluoroquinolones). In addition to being able to witness the human costs of these drugs firsthand (and the gaslighting those forgotten patients experience), this exploration has given me a great deal of perspective on the shared and differing toxicities these drugs share along with what methods can help the myriad of seemingly unrelated symptoms that emerge.

Once the COVID-19 vaccine rollout started, my focus understandably shifted toward them. Although many of the pathologies I saw resembled what I had seen with other toxic drugs (and to some degree responded to the same therapies), there was also a lot I had not seen before, which demonstrated these vaccines were in a different league of toxicity from what I was used to. I have thus spent the last two years trying to understand exactly how these vaccines kill and injure people.

Seven meta-analyses and systematic reviews (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) and three later clinical trials (1,2,3) argued that low vitamin D status increased susceptibility to COVID-19 and the risk of greater disease severity and mortality. Furthermore, there are five meta-analyses and systematic reviews of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of acute respiratory infection (ARI) and COVID-19, as well as a later clinical trial, all showing that supplementation can protect against COVID-19 infection, disease severity and death. The evidence could not be much more conclusive than this.

Consequently, it was surprising to learn about Joliffe et al.'s recent randomised controlled trial of vitamin D to prevent ARIs and COVID-19, which concluded that: "Among people aged 16 years and older with suboptimal vitamin D status, implementation of a population level test-and-treat approach to vitamin D supplementation was not associated with a reduction in risk of all cause acute respiratory tract infection or COVID-19."

Joliffe et al.'s U.K. study was a test-and-treat approach used to determine the effect of correcting suboptimal vitamin D status (25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) < 75 nmol/L) on the risk of contracting ARIs and COVID-19. Those with 25(OH)D < 75 nmol/L (30 ng/mL) were randomised to six months of supplementary vitamin D at 3200 IU/day, 800 IU/day, or no supplements. The outcome was the percentage of subjects with confirmed ARI or COVID-19.

There follows an open letter from 66 doctors, scientists and clinical practitioners to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) and the U.K. Health Security Agency (UKHSA) regarding safety concerns about COVID-19 vaccinations in pregnancy. Where is the evidence, they ask.

Obstetricians and gynaecologists in the U.K. have put their faith in and adjusted their practice according to guidance from their Royal College (RCOG). However, recent advice from the RCOG has been in complete contradiction to everything that it itself and academic institutions have been teaching about evidence-based medicine.

This advice is that: COVID-19 vaccines are not only safe but strongly recommended for pregnant women.

Such advice is not grounded in robust data based on ethically conducted research - and anyone who is medically and academically trained should take serious issue with this.

As a director of the U.K. Medical Freedom Alliance, the U.K.'s most recognised and respected organisation advocating every individual's right to informed consent, bodily autonomy and medical choice, I was shocked and appalled to read the article "Understanding and neutralising COVID-19 misinformation and disinformation", published in the BMJ on November 22nd 2022. The article contains insinuations and unsubstantiated and unreferenced allegations concerning the UKMFA (and other organisations including HART, UsForThem and Children's Health Defense) and which appeared to seek to undermine the contribution of our organisations to a critical debate of national importance.

My shock at the tone and text of the article, and its inclusion in a highly respected medical journal like the BMJ, has been echoed by notable scientists and doctors around the world including Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who posted this strongly worded tweet calling out the "authoritarian nonsense" proposed by the authors of the article, which violates "key civil rights" and is "inconsistent with long standing free speech norms in democratic countries".

Variants have been one of the hallmarks of this pandemic, with ever more infectious forms of the virus apparently mutating themselves into existence at regular intervals. However. it is easy to forget that prior to 2021 variants were a rarity and the only sign of our variant ridden future was the emergence of the scarily named Kent variant (later renamed Alpha) late in 2020. The UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Report started mentioning variants in May of 2021, but only in passing. However, as 2021 wore on new variants started appearing more frequently, and in recent reports there are 10 times more references to 'variants' compared to their debut. (To be fair, there used to be an entirely different vaccine report devoted to 'variants of concern', the Technical Briefings.)

But 'variants' weren't simply a natural process of viral evolution - not when there were people to blame. By summer 2022 there had been multiple articles published explaining that it was the unvaccinated that created these variants, adding to the cries for (mandated) universal vaccination. I believe that the idea that it was the unvaccinated that were causing the problem arose due to a misunderstanding of the role of the mechanisms that drive viral evolution. While it is true that for many vaccines the main source of vaccine escape variants is the unvaccinated, this is only true for sterilising vaccines (which stop any viral load on infection), and isn't the case for non-sterilising vaccines such as the COVID-19 ones. To explain this effect further we need to delve into the evolutionary process.

Vaccine myocarditis is not trivial, mild, or "rare." In young men, it's a far greater risk than Covid hospitalization and death.

On May 12th of last year, school teacher Emily Jo took her 14-year-old son Aiden to get his first Pfizer vaccine dose. The public health authorities and her son's pediatrician unanimously recommended vaccination, prompting her decision. She knew that mRNA shots caused some number of adverse events, like all vaccines, but was re-assured by the CDC and White House's public recommendation.

"The talk amongst the mainstream medical community was that vaccine myocarditis was mild and that this was very rare," she told me.

At that time, despite alarming heart inflammation reports from Israel, the CDC publicly claimed to have found no signal of myocarditis after "intentionally" investigating over 200 million administered doses.

Moreover, Emily Jo was never warned of the myocarditis risk or informed about the risk-benefit profile.

"When I took Aiden to get his vaccines at the drive-through vaccination site, there was no warning about myocarditis. We were not counseled about any side effects to be aware of."

In the name of public safety, scientific innovation, and personal health, Emily Jo sent out a celebratory tweet proclaiming she and her family are "so thankful" their teenage son was able to get vaccinated.

Not this again.

Masks and social distancing should be mandated or encouraged in public to protect people from possible "long COVID", according to a new report commissioned by the Department of Health and Human Services.

A new study published in Diabetologia (the journal of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes [EASD]) finds that outdoor artificial light at night (LAN) is associated with impaired blood glucose control and an increased risk of diabetes, with more than 9 million cases of the disease in Chinese adults being attributed to LAN exposure. The study is by Dr Yu Xu and colleagues at the Shanghai Institute of Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.

People are buzzing about the new documentary "Died Suddenly." I had a chance to listen to it on my commute yesterday. It made me angry. Here's why.

There is some great information in this movie. Information that could — potentially — open people's eyes and minds. In particular, the interviews with the embalmers and morticians are incredible. The long, white fibrous material they have been finding in dead people's arteries and veins after the vaccine rollout is truly horrifying. It isn't new, but it's presented all in one place in a highly compelling way, especially the scene where you see it being removed from a dead body during an embalming session. The movie would have been far more effective if it had just focused on that (and dug deeper to show what they're made of, etc.). But unfortunately it tainted that and other good information (such as presented by Dr. Ryan Cole, Steve Kirsch and Dr. James Thorp) by covering it with a lot of garbage. Here are five examples of the garbage that stuck out and that I remember. There may be more:1

1. The coverage of the DMED data (the military's medical database). Mathew Crawford looked into the DMED data and discovered that the original whistleblowers had made a simple mistake in comparing 2021 with previous years: what they essentially did is to count every office visit instead of every diagnosis. So if you were newly diagnosed with, say, myocarditis, every visit you had with the military health system (more or less) was added up and compared to how many individuals had been diagnosed with myocarditis in previous years. (The details are a bit more nuanced, but that captures the basic gist of the error.)

This means that, although there WAS a sizeable increase in many different health diagnoses, it was not nearly as large as those whistleblowers thought and that Thomas Renz brought to people's attention with his testimony at the 'Second Opinion' hearing by Sen. Ron Johnson, which appears in the movie.

The weirdest thing about this is that none of the people involved in bringing the DMED scandal to light have shown the slightest interest in correcting their mistakes, and so these falsehoods continue to be repeated and now amplified by Stew Peters.

Remember, Peters is the guy who brought us the now totally discredited film that tried to make the case that COVID was deadly because it had similarities to snake venom and was spread through tainted water. I no longer trust anything this guy says or does. He and his team are either terrible at vetting reliable information or they are engaged in a deliberate campaign to discredit the health freedom movement. And it is truly a shame in this case because there is much valuable, true information in the film that is now tainted by being mixed together with so much false information.