No jab, no transplant: Covid vaccine rules are heartless and senseless

Vicky Derderian is a fighter. For seven years her heart has struggled to pump blood around her body, stretching thinner and growing weaker, a condition called dilated cardiomyopathy. In 2020, she was fitted biventricular assist devices, implantable pumps that help both sides of her heart function while she awaits a transplant.

There’s only one obstacle. The Alfred Hospital in Melbourne insists she get a Covid vaccine even though Vicky has a permanent exemption provided by the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) because of the well-known risk that Covid vaccines can trigger heart inflammation.

Dr Peter McCullough, one of the most published cardiologists in the world, has been in Australia this month speaking at sold-out events about treating Covid. He says that under no circumstances should Vicky, or any heart transplant patient, get a Covid vaccine because of the damage it can do to the heart.

That’s what happened to Natalie Boyce. She was only 21 and a competitive netball player. Yet she died of heart failure at the Alfred in March 2022, six weeks after receiving a Moderna booster.

Natalie had been diagnosed with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), an autoimmune disorder that can cause the body to make antibodies that attack the cells lining blood vessels causing blood clots. People with a history of autoimmune disorders were excluded from the Covid vaccine clinical trials because it was recognised the vaccine might trigger dangerous clotting. Sure enough, in March 2021, a 27-year-old woman with undiagnosed APS developed catastrophic clotting and kidney failure. She survived thanks to the expert care she received and her case was published in the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology on 7 December 2021.

Tragically, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) failed to warn Australians of the risk Covid vaccines pose to people with APS. Three months later Natalie died after the Moderna booster triggered catastrophic clotting causing kidney and heart failure.

The TGA has also refused to warn Australians that the Pfizer Covid vaccine triggered fatal myocarditis in Roberto Garin, a healthy 52-year-old father of two who died a week after his first jab. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) accepted that Roberto’s death was caused by a Covid vaccine. It lists a total of 15 deaths in this category. The TGA only lists 14. The ABS explains the difference by noting that it accepts expert reports while waiting for a coronial finding, which can take years. Despite repeated approaches, the TGA refuses to explain, on the record, why it has not accepted the findings of the expert forensic pathologist Bernard l’Ons.

L’Ons found that Roberto had an undiagnosed sarcoidosis, a benign inflammatory condition affecting his heart. The heart also showed a clear transition from cardiac sarcoidosis to fulminating myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle so rapid and severe that it is frequently fatal. Critically, l’Ons dates the time of transition to the time of Covid-19 vaccination.

So concerned was l’Ons that he suggested sarcoid patients receive an echocardiogram prior to a Pfizer Covid-19 vaccination to check whether the sarcoidosis affected their heart so that if it did, alternative vaccination types could be considered.

In the context of a pandemic caused by a novel pathogen and the use of novel vaccines which have only provisional approval, why is the TGA sitting on this vital information? Dr l’Ons’ warning is acutely important to Vicky. She has already been diagnosed with ‘chronic heart inflammation suggestive of untreated myocarditis’ and ‘likely cardiac sarcoidosis’. Dr McCullough says if Vicky’s heart sustains any more damage it is almost certainly going to be lethal.

Desperate to get the authorities to respect Vicky’s vaccine exemption, her husband John asked Victorian Senator Ralph Babet of the United Australia Party to raise her case in the Senate, which he did. It led to national television coverage. On the Today program Dr Nick Coatsworth, Australia’s former deputy chief medical officer, told Vicky she should get a Covid vaccine because if she got Covid after her transplant not only might she die, her transplanted heart would die with her.

This makes no sense. Everybody from Bill Gates to Albert Bourla has admitted that Covid vaccines don’t stop infection. More importantly, vaccination is more dangerous for Vicky than infection. This is because the vaccine is injected into the body and circulates in the blood stream where it can enter the cells of any tissue or organ in the body – including her heart – and create spike proteins which are always inflammatory.

A respiratory infection, on the other hand, starts in the mucous membranes of the nose, giving Vicky a chance to fight it off with her innate immune system aided by nasal sprays, antivirals and anti-inflammatory drugs before it gets into her lungs and from there into her blood stream.

It has also now been admitted, in a study published in the Lancet on 16 February and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation no less, that vaccine immunity wanes far more rapidly than infection-acquired immunity. That is hardly surprising since it is true for every other infection yet this fact has been denied for most of the pandemic by US and Australian health authorities.

Not only does vaccine immunity wane rapidly, it isn’t triggered until the virus gets into the blood, whereas infection immunity kicks in in the nose. In addition, a study conducted in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Freiburg and published in the peer-reviewed journal Pathogens this month shows that in heart transplant recipients natural infection gives superior immunity compared to vaccination.

A last problem for Vicky is that there are studies in corneal and lung transplantation which show that vaccination in either the donor or the recipient can increase the risk of organ rejection or failure. There is no data yet on heart transplants but in an ideal world, says Dr McCullough, it would be better to receive a donated organ from an unvaccinated person.

Nobody knows better than Vicky that this is not an ideal world as she battles on in search of doctors and regulators with a heart and a brain.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/02/no-jab-no-transplant/

*****************************************************

The iron triangle of energy realism

Possibly the most powerful argument against the quest for Net Zero can be briefly stated using the Iron Triangle of Power Supply, bearing in mind the logic of testing (or falsification, as Karl Popper called it).

The three aspects of the triangle are:

Continuous input of power to the grid. Adequate input is required all the time, not just most of the time or almost all the time.

Wind droughts and especially windless nights break the continuity of input from wind power when there is no solar.

There is effectively no storage to bridge the gaps (despite all the talk about batteries and pumped hydro).

Consequently, the proposition that the grid can run on wind and solar power is falsified (ruled out) and there is no justification for the decision to contaminate the grid with subsidised and mandated intermittent input from environmentally ruinous wind and solar facilities.

In defiance of the Iron Triangle, the official position is that we just need more installed wind and solar facilities, and more storage. That is stated by the Prime Minister, the Climate and Energy Minister, and the CEO of the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO). It is dutifully repeated by all the usual suspects in the ABC and the mainstream media, although over a hundred leading journalists have received the briefing notes from the Energy Realists of Australia over the last three years.

The briefing notes were compiled by an elite squad of almost-dead white males and Ben Beattie, recruited to work with The Energy Realists of Australia – joking, of course.

What is the point of more wind and solar capacity?

Wind and solar can displace coal (to a point that we have almost reached), but they can’t replace it.

The rate of exit from coal is not accelerated by increasing penetration on good wind and solar days, it is limited by the lowest level of output on nights with little or no wind, as a convoy travels at the speed of the slowest vessel, the water penetrates the levee at the lowest point, a chain is only as strong as the weakest link and stock get out of the yard through gaps in the fence even if the rest of the fence is built to the sky.

What storage?

Batteries can be dismissed very quickly by comparing the capacity of the biggest batteries in the world with the amount of power required to get through a windless night. Journalists don’t help by reporting the capacity of batteries in MW instead of MWh (megawatt hours). Scribes who report MW instead of MWh should be promptly escorted from the building with their personal effects thrown into the street after them.

More words are required to describe the inadequacy of pumped hydro because there are many large schemes around the world, and there are some small ones in Australia already. However, I am not aware of any large scheme that runs on wind and solar alone. The largest facility at Bath, Philadelphia (US), runs entirely on coal and nuclear power to enable those plants to run continuously at their optimum output.

Conclusion

We need to keep enough conventional power, mostly coal power, to meet the highest levels of demand at dinner times in high summer and deep winter, until we have nuclear power on deck.

A note on the logic of testing that was mentioned at the start of this piece. It has gone missing in science (on walkabout?) since it became generally accepted in the 1960s that Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm theory (science by consensus) had superseded Karl Popper’s critical approach (forming a preference after rigorous testing and comparison of rival theories.) That is an important topic for another day.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/02/the-iron-triangle-of-energy-realism/

*******************************************************

One in two companies found to overstate green credentials in ACCC review

More than one in two companies surveyed by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission were found to have overstated their clean or green credentials in a move which may expose them to legal action.

The ACCC said it was concerned at the level of greenwashing identified in a blitz of the advertising and packaging of 247 businesses.

The regulator found 57 per cent of the companies reviewed made inflated or wrong claims about their environmental impact, with the cosmetics, clothing, footwear, and food and drink industries the worst offenders.

ACCC deputy chair Catriona Lowe said these companies may find themselves the target of legal action or infringement notices to correct their statements or face fines.

Ms Lowe said the regulator would not tolerate greenwashing that wrongly gave the impression a product was more environmentally sensitive than it was.

“We’re seeing businesses not providing evidence of the claims they’re making,” she said.

“We are increasingly seeing consumers making their purchasing decision on the basis of the green credentials for their goods and services.”

Ms Lowe said the ACCC would not just stop at claims made on products, but would seek to scrutinise claims made by businesses around offsetting emissions or announcing environmental targets “without clear plans of how they’re going to achieve those goals”.

“It is possible of course that some of the claims that are being made are able to be verified but of course we’re standing in the shoes of the consumer,” she said.

The ACCC’s planned crackdown comes days after the Australian Securities and Investments Commission handed out court action against superannuation giant Mercer, over its green claims.

Australia's best business newsletter. Get the edge with AM and PM briefings, plus breaking news alerts in your inbox.

Ms Lowe said the ACCC would take a firm line on companies that misled or deceived consumers around their green credentials, warning fines could be levied into the millions.

“We will certainly be undertaking our assessment and thinking carefully about the impact on consumers and the gain that may have been obtained by making the false claims relative to the investment required to make the claim true,” she said.

A report by the ACCC notes the regulator will conduct further analysis of these issues and is planning to produce and release “economy-wide guidance material, as well as targeted guidance for specific sectors” outlining expectations around green claims.

Ms Lowe said the regulator was concerned about companies making claims packaging could be recycled when those products could not be accepted by most recyclers.

An ACCC spokeswoman said the regulator was engaging with “relevant industry participants” in a bid to ensure clarity and transparency about handling soft plastics recycling after the REDcycle scheme collapsed.

The NSW Supreme Court ordered on Monday to wind up the REDcycle company after finding it was hopelessly insolvent and failed to pay fees for storing thousands of tonnes of soft plastics around the country.

“The ACCC is conscious of the significant financial and environmental impacts if food and grocery suppliers were to dispose of existing packaging containing the REDcycle logo and Australasian Recycling Label (ARL) ‘return to store’ labelling in landfill,” the spokeswoman said.

“We have engaged with industry participants about taking all reasonable alternative steps to ensure that representations to consumers are accurate. For example, this could be achieved through information provided in their other advertising and marketing.”

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/companies/one-in-two-companies-found-to-overstate-green-credentials-in-accc-review/news-story/e28d321a98012a169b62c77441e178f9

***************************************************

Fossil fuel shift: Electrifying all households could cost more than $60bn

A move to electrify all Australian households could cost taxpayers more than $60bn, analysis from the national peak body for pipeline infrastructure has revealed, highlighting the challenges of paying for the country’s transition away from fossil fuels.

The Australian Pipelines and Gas Association chief executive Steve Davies said the “enormous price tag” of fully electrifying all homes had been “frequently downplayed”.

Mr Davies pointed to costings by the Parliamentary Budget Office for independent senator David Pocock that calculated it would cost $11.3m over the forwards to help a single ACT suburb electrify.

This figure was based on a model to give $13,000 a household to help 1000 homes in Canberra transition to be fully electric.

The taxpayer-funded subsidies would cover 50 per cent of the capital and installation costs for solar panels, electric reverse-cycle airconditioning and heat pump water heaters.

Mr Davies said the total price of electrifying all 5.1 million households across the nation currently on gas suggested the total taxpayer bill could exceed $66.3bn.

He said Australia’s transition towards renewables must be done with consideration given to the nation’s “cost-of-living” crisis. “Every change we make to decarbonise our country will come at a cost and the enormous price tag of fully electrifying Australian homes and business has been frequently downplayed,” he said.

“Each industry, including the gas infrastructure sector, has a responsibility to decarbonise and do so in a way that’s economical for households and businesses during this cost-of-living crisis.”

Under Senator Pocock’s model costed by the PBO, households would be expected to fund the other half of the transition through concessional loans from the government.

Senator Pocock is pushing for a national electrification program to accelerate emissions reductions and help reduce household energy bills.

In conjunction with Saul Griffith and Rewiring Australia, Senator Pocock said the cost of a nationwide rollout would be about $12bn, roughly equal to the government’s annual fossil fuel subsidies.

He has advocated for the ­government to develop a “demonstration project” in Canberra to create the world’s first fully electrified suburb, which would guarantee participating households a 20-25 per cent saving per annum on fuel and energy bills.

A spokeswoman for Senator Pocock said a pilot program would help identify obstacles and work through solutions. “It is about creating jobs, saving people money and ensuring we reap the benefits of the smart energy transition already under way,” she said.

“Australians clearly understand and appreciate the benefits of electrification as the world-leading adoption of rooftop solar shows, together with the rapid increase in the rate of uptake in electric vehicles.”

Energy and Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen isin talks with the Greens to develop an electrification package to help households and businesses transition off gas, after Labor struck a deal with the minor party to ensure passage of its $1.5bn energy support package in December.

The Australian understands negotiations are ongoing over what is included in the package and how it will be funded.

Greens leader Adam Bandt said it was time “coal and gas corporations paid their fair share of tax” to help households and businesses switch to clean power. “Greedy gas corporations have seen the writing on the wall and they’re desperate to eke out a few more years gouging customers and cooking the planet,” he said.

“What’s expensive is giving greedy gas corporations billions in public subsidies while they pay no tax and drive households and businesses into the ground with wartime profiteering.”

Deloitte Access Economics partner Pradeep Philip said electrification in the economy was a “no-brainer” but that governments should not be expected to pay for the whole transition to ­renewables.

“Governments can be catalytic in driving investment but they cannot be expected to do the lot,” Mr Philip said. “One reason is because you want markets to work and need competitive markets to be more efficient, and there are limits to government.

“The key is there is good commercial returns for Australian businesses as they electrify. Governments have to be prudent and invest budget dollars widely.”

Opposition climate change and energy spokesman Ted O’Brien said Australians would ultimately pay through higher energy bills or higher taxes if the government poured “billions” into electrification programs.

“If the government pours billions into new programs like this one, it’ll be the Australian people who ultimately pay through higher energy bills or higher taxes,” he said.

“Instead of reducing mounting cost-of-living pressures on households and businesses, the government keeps making the situation worse by doing deals with the Greens and with the ­independents.”

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/fossil-fuel-shift-electrifying-all-households-could-cost-more-than-60bn/news-story/43e077a8db81c451fe0e7b0f3e56f4fb

************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

***************************************