Connect with us

Futures Try To Rebound From Biggest Market Rout In Over Two Years

Futures Try To Rebound From Biggest Market Rout In Over Two Years

US equity futures are trying to rebound after their biggest plunge in more…



Futures Try To Rebound From Biggest Market Rout In Over Two Years

US equity futures are trying to rebound after their biggest plunge in more than two years, when the hotter than expected CPI print wiped out 4.3% or $1.5 trillion in market value from the S&P, and are up a modest 0.2% at 730am ET, erasing most of an earlier gain of 0.6%. Nasdaq 100 futures rose 0.7% after the tech-heavy gauge tumbled 5.5% in its worst day since March 2020.  Ahead of today's PPI print, the Bloomberg dollar index retreated after jumping the most in three months on Tuesday, while 10-year Treasurys ticked higher, hovering near a decade-peak. Oil was flat now that the traders consider $80 as a "Biden Bottom."

In premarket trading, heavyweight tech stocks posted modest gains a day after the Nasdaq 100 Index saw its biggest decline since March 2020. Apple (AAPL US) +1%, Microsoft (MSFT US) +2%. Other notable movers:

  • Starbucks (SBUX US) shares rise 2.3% in premarket trading after the coffee giant raised its three-year outlook for profit and sales at an annual presentation to investors. Analysts were mostly positive on the upgrades, with Jefferies finding the new three-year targets achievable.
  • Oracle (ORCL US) was initiated as hold at Berenberg as the broker sees balanced opportunities and risks for the software firm, while not expecting a major re-rating over the medium term.

“The equity rally over the past week was based more on sentiment than a material change in the underlying economic drivers,” UBS Global Wealth Management strategists led by Mark Haefele wrote in a note. “Tuesday’s selloff is a reminder that a sustained rally is likely to require clear evidence that inflation is on a downward trend.”

While the magnitude of Tuesday’s drop was indeed historic, and the intraday swing in spoos was one of the top 5 on record...

... the S&P 500 only reversed gains made in the previous four sessions that had been fueled by expectations of a softer reading on the US consumer price index. Investors have been waiting for any sign of peak inflation to come back to the equity market, while the previously discussed lack of a spike in the VIX shows that Tuesday’s selloff was more a recalibration of expectations than panic selling.

“Heading into the August CPI print, a number of traders thought they had information, and positioned very aggressively in the cash equity and derivatives markets,” said Christopher Harvey, head of equity strategy at Wells Fargo. “It turns out they did not have any real information on CPI (only a hunch based upon recent trends), and now they do not have as much AUM.”

The selling on Tuesday was most acute in the more speculative corners of the market that are particularly sensitive to higher interest rates. Technology falls into this category because the stock prices are based on expected future earnings, which are devalued when interest rates rise. Every single stock on the Nasdaq 100 was in the red on Tuesday, with the Index plunging the most since the world nearly ended in March 2020.

Tuesday's hot CPI data added to concern the Federal Reserve will need to push interest rates much higher to contain price pressures, with many now expecting a 4.50%-4.75% terminal rate (and in the case of Nomura, a 100bps rate hike) raising the risk of a recession. Now all eyes will be on the Fed decision next week, with swaps traders certain the central bank will raise interest rates three-quarters of a percentage point, and odds of a 100bps hike rising as high as 47% yesterday before easing.

“Multiple compression will continue as long as we have sticky inflation,” said Marija Veitmane, a senior strategist at State Street Global Markets. “Profits will crater. We still see a lot of downside on equities.” She added that central banks need to slow demand and cause pain in the economy to rein in inflation. The longer recession is delayed, the harder it will be, she said, which is true but politicians simply lack to will to enact a massive recession with millions of unemployed workers and is why the Fed will be ordered - soon enough - to reverse.

In Europe, the Stoxx 600 index slipped about 0.4%, though it pared a deeper drop as retailers gained, led by Inditex SA after the owner of the Zara fashion chain reported a jump in profit. Utilities were the among the worst-performing sectors as the European Commission considers plans to contain the energy crisis, which may include revenue caps. FTSE MIB outperforms peers, adding 0.7%, FTSE 100 lags, dropping 0.7%.

Earlier in the session, Asian stocks and bonds tumbled in the wake of the broad-based selloff on Wall Street while the yen strengthened after Japan warned of possible intervention in the currency market. Equity indexes in Japan, Hong Kong and Australia slumped, led by Nikkei which closed down 2.8%. Hang Seng and Shanghai Comp were also negative amid headwinds from an approaching typhoon and with the US reportedly in early talks on sanctions against China to deter it from invading Taiwan.

Japanese equities tumbled the most in three months, following a broad selloff in the US as inflation data fueled expectations for tighter Federal Reserve policy. The Topix fell 2% to close at 1,947.46, while the Nikkei declined 2.8% to 27,818.62. Both gauges slid by the most since June 13. Keyence Corp. contributed the most to the Topix loss, decreasing 5.1%. Out of 2,169 stocks in the index, 172 rose and 1,943 fell, while 54 were unchanged. “The content of the CPI data clearly showed that inflation is quite persistent and it’s difficult to see any clear outlook,” said Hitoshi Asaoka, a strategist at Asset Management One. “Wage inflation was seen in a wide range for the service-related sector and there are no signs that it will slow down.”  Inflation Surprise Puts Onus on Fed to Hit Brakes Even Harder Stocks pared losses in late morning trading before retreating again in the afternoon as the yen strengthened about 0.6% against the dollar. The Nikkei reported that the Bank of Japan conducted a so-called rate check in the currency market, a move considered a precursor for intervention.

In Australia, the S&P/ASX 200 index fell 2.6% to close at 6,828.60, the most decline since June 14, as Asian stocks and bonds tumbled in the wake of the broad-based selloff on Wall Street.  All sectors declined, with banks and mining shares weighing most.  In New Zealand, the S&P/NZX 50 index fell 0.9% to 11,658.04.

In FX, the yen pulled back from a slide toward the key 145 level versus the dollar after a Nikkei report that the Bank of Japan conducted a so-called rate check with traders to see the price of the currency against the greenback. The finance minister warned he wouldn’t rule out any response if curr ent trends continued. The country’s 10-year bond yield rose to 0.25%, the upper end of the central bank’s policy band. The Bloomberg dollar spot index fell 0.2%. NZD and AUD are the weakest performers in G-10 FX, JPY and GBP outperform.

  • Japan’s currency rose more than 1% to around the 143 level after falling to 144.96 against the dollar early in the Asian session after reports that the Bank of Japan conducted a rate check on forex with market participants, a move that’s seen as a precursor to intervening in the currency market. Benchmark 10- year bond yields rose to the upper end of the central bank’s designated range.
  • The euro briefly rose above parity against the dollar before paring gains. European bond yields were steady to a few bps higher
  • Swedish bonds underperformed European peers as markets were increasingly looking for a 100bps Riksbank rate hik next week after inflation rose to a three-decade high
  • The pound erased an early gain after UK headline inflation missed economist estimates, only to rebound. The UK yield curve steepened as short-dated bonds fell while longer maturities were little changed
  • UK inflation eased from its highest rate in four decades after petrol declined. The CPI rose 9.9% from a year ago last month, slower than the 10.1% pace in July. Economists expected a reading of 10%
  • The Australian dollar was steady amid losses in iron ore

“Many emerging markets are feeling the heat of the strong US dollar,” said Chi Lo, senior market strategist for Asia Pacific at BNP Paribas Asset Management, citing their debt burdens in greenbacks. “Only China can afford to defy this global rate-rise trend by keeping its easing policy stance.”

In rates, Treasuries fell across the curve, sending yields 2-3bps higher, and near the bottom of Tuesday’s range, a sharp bear-flattening move following hot August CPI and strong 30-year bond auction. Curve spreads are little changed with 2s10s and 5s30s spreads inverted.  US yields cheaper by 2bp-4bp across the curve with 10-year around 3.45%, underperforming bunds by ~1.5bp, gilts by ~2.5bp. The yield on short-end gilts eases about 3bps to 3.14%, while bunds 10-year yield climbs about 1bp to 1.73%.

In commodities, WTI trades within Tuesday’s range, adding 0.3% to near $87.54. Most base metals are in the red; LME nickel falls 1.7%, underperforming peers. LME lead outperforms, adding 0.6%. Spot gold is little changed at $1,704/oz.  The IEA cut its 2022 demand growth view by 110k BPD to 2.1mln BPD (prev. 2.21mln BPD); faltering Chinese economy, slowdown in OECD countries undercutting demand.

Bitcoin and Ethereum trade sideways just above 20k and 1.6k respectively, after crashing again on Tuesday.

To the day ahead now, and data releases include the UK CPI reading for August, Euro Area industrial production for July and US PPI for August. From central banks, we’ll hear from the ECB’s Villeroy. And in politics, European Commission President Von der Leyen will deliver her State of the Union address.

Market Snapshot

  • S&P 500 futures up 0.6% to 3,955.50
  • MXAP down 1.9% to 152.39
  • MXAPJ down 2.2% to 500.13
  • Nikkei down 2.8% to 27,818.62
  • Topix down 2.0% to 1,947.46
  • Hang Seng Index down 2.5% to 18,847.10
  • Shanghai Composite down 0.8% to 3,237.54
  • Sensex down 0.2% to 60,447.02
  • Australia S&P/ASX 200 down 2.6% to 6,828.62
  • Kospi down 1.6% to 2,411.42
  • STOXX Europe 600 down 0.2% to 420.19
  • German 10Y yield little changed at 1.72%
  • Euro up 0.3% to $1.0001
  • Gold spot up 0.2% to $1,704.99
  • U.S. Dollar Index down 0.33% to 109.46

Top Overnight News from Bloomberg

  • Jeffrey Gundlach of DoubleLine Capital is worried the Fed will choke off economic growth by raising interest rates too fast. Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers is among those saying the central bank needs to hike even faster to restore its credibility
  • The EU’s executive arm plans to recommend cutting funding for Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s administration on concerns about widespread graft in Hungary, according to senior EU officials
  • French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire raised this year’s economic-growth forecast to 2.7% from 2.5% as consumption and corporate investment hold up, and job creation remains dynamic
  • France’s power-grid operator expects to ask households, businesses and local governments to reduce energy consumption several times over the next six months, to avoid rotating power cuts as the country grapples with a regional energy crisis

A more detailed look at global markets courtesy of Newsquawk

Asian stocks declined following the bloodbath on Wall St where the S&P 500 had its worst day since June 2020, the DJIA slumped by nearly 1,300 points, while the Nasdaq 100 led the declines with all constituents in the red after hot US inflation data spurred more hawkish Fed rate pricing. ASX 200 was pressured with losses in all sectors and underperformance in real estate after ASIC moved to stop investment in two major property funds. Nikkei 225 fell below 28k amid notable losses in the tech industry and with stronger than expected Machinery Orders doing little to inspire a turnaround. Hang Seng and Shanghai Comp were also negative amid headwinds from an approaching typhoon and with the US reportedly in early talks on sanctions against China to deter it from invading Taiwan.

Top Asian News

  • PBoC set USD/CNY mid-point at 6.9116 vs exp. 6.9003 (prev. 6.8928).
  • US congressional panel was told by experts that the US ban on sales by Nvidia to Chinese clients will slow Beijing’s efforts to build a facial recognition surveillance network and further restrictions on high-tech product sales should be imposed, according to SCMP.
  • Hong Kong is to tighten rules regarding issuing provisional vaccine passes to travellers, according to SCMP.
  • Japanese Finance Minister Suzuki said FX intervention is among the options and FX moves are apparently rapid, while he added they are very concerned about sharp yen weakening and will take necessary steps if such moves persist.
  • BoJ reportedly conducted a rate check on FX in apparent preparation for currency intervention, according to Nikkei. JiJi suggested the rate check was conducted with USD/JPY at 144.90. Note, officials have since refrained from confirming the rate check.
  • Japanese Finance Minister Suzuki said recent JPY moves have been quite sharp; reiterates will not rule out any options when asked about intervention, via Reuters.
  • Indian Trade Body executive said that the State Bank of India is ready for INR trade with Russia; Indian trade body executive expects exports from the country to pick up in October.
  • Indian trade body executive sees a singing of India-UK Free Trade Agreement by the end of October; India-Australia trade pact likely by November.

European bourses trade mostly lower but off worst levels, but the sentiment remains dampened. European sectors are mostly lower with no overarching theme. Stateside, US equity futures consolidated overnight after yesterday’s detrimental losses, with a relatively broad-based gains performance seen across the main futures contract in the early European hours

Top European News

  • Queen’s Coffin to Lie in State as Mourners Face 30-Hour Wait
  • EU Aims to Boost Ukraine’s Economy With Single Market Access
  • EU Starts Talks With Norway to Try to Cut the Price of Gas
  • Auto Trader Downgraded by Morgan Stanley; Schibsted Raised
  • Russia Earns Less Despite Higher Oil Flows in August, IEA Says


  • The JPY is in focus and stands as the outperformer amid overnight reports of a rate check conducted by the BoJ, whilst verbal intervention continued from Japanese officials.
  • DXY is subsequently pressured but holds onto a 109.00 handle whilst EUR/USD trades on either side of parity
  • The Pound bounced firmly in spite of softer than expected UK inflation data, albeit after an initial decline and following very heavy losses on Tuesday.

Fixed Income

  • Bunds are regaining a firmer grasp of the 143.00 handle between 143.76-142.83 parameters following a strong 2044 auction.
  • Gilts and the 10 year T-note have also bounced from deeper intraday lows in consolidative trade.


  • WTI and Brent are relatively contained after the front month futures settled lower yesterday.
  • US Private Inventory Data (bbls): Crude +6.0mln (exp. +0.8mln), Cushing +0.1mln, Gasoline -3.2mln (exp. -0.9mln), Distillates +1.8mln (exp. +0.6mln).
  • IEA OMR: Cut its 2022 demand growth view by 110k BPD to 2.1mln BPD (prev. 2.21mln BPD); faltering Chinese economy, slowdown in OECD countries undercutting demand
  • Spot gold holds onto the USD 1,700/oz mark after dipping to a USD 1,696.10/oz low yesterday, with upside levels including the10, 21, and 50 DMAs
  • Base metals are relatively flat awaiting the next catalyst.

US Event Calendar

  • 07:00: Sept. MBA Mortgage Applications -1.2%, prior -0.8%
  • 08:30: Aug. PPI Final Demand MoM, est. -0.1%, prior -0.5%; YoY, est. 8.8%, prior 9.8%
  • 08:30: Aug. PPI Ex Food and Energy MoM, est. 0.3%, prior 0.2%; YoY, est. 7.0%, prior 7.6%
  • 08:30: Aug. PPI Ex Food, Energy, Trade MoM, est. 0.2%, prior 0.2%; YoY, est. 5.5%, prior 5.8%

DB's Jim Reid concludes the overnight wrap

After a recent run of optimism that the US economy might achieve a soft landing, and that upsides on inflation were now behind us, yesterday saw that narrative take a significant blow on the back of another stronger-than-expected CPI release. Both the monthly headline and core CPI prints surprised on the upside, which in turn led investors to ratchet up the amount of rate hikes they’re pricing in for the coming months. Indeed, futures are not only pricing in another 75bps hike from the Fed next week, but they are now pricing in a meaningful probability of a 100bp hike, while also viewing the prospect of a fourth consecutive 75bps move in November as an increasingly likely outcome.

The material tightening of policy expectations sucked the life out of equities, making it one of the worst single-day performances since the onset of the pandemic with the S&P 500 (-4.32%) and the NASDAQ (-5.16%) each having their worst day since June 2020.

In terms of the details of that CPI print, the monthly headline number was actually pretty subdued again at +0.1%. However, that was two-tenths above the -0.1% reading that had been anticipated by the consensus, and meant that the year-on-year measure only drifted down to +8.3% (vs. +8.1% expected). Furthermore, the bulk of that downward pressure came from energy once again (-5.0% on the month), and if you look at the core CPI measure that excludes the volatile food and energy components, that was still rising at +0.6% on the month (vs. +0.3% expected), which is well above rates consistent with the Fed’s target. In fact on a year-on-year basis, core CPI rose to its fastest pace since March at +6.3% (vs. +6.1% expected).

Looking at some alternative measures, the details of the report are even less flattering than the headline +0.1% number. For instance, the Cleveland Fed’s trimmed mean (which excludes the biggest price outliers in the consumer basket) saw a +0.6% gain on the month, which shows that inflation is still broad-based, and that the headline number is being dragged down by outliers. On top of that, the “stickier” components of the consumer price basket were the ones seeing the more rapid increases, with the Atlanta Fed’s Sticky CPI series gaining +0.6% on the month, which contrasts with the -0.9% decline in the Flexible CPI series. So ultimately there was a sense following the report that many market participants may have got ahead of themselves after the previous month’s downside inflation surprise, which after all was the biggest downside surprise relative to consensus in over five years. As I outlined in my CoTD yesterday (link here) that came out before the data, it’s easy to conclude that inflation has peaked due to a collapse in many supply side factors of late but the problem is that we think most of the inflation is now demand led and until the lagged effect of Fed hikes bites inflation will be sticky. The good news about demand side inflation is that the Fed have a fair amount of power over it. The bad news is that it might require notably higher interest rates still. If you’re not on the Chart of the Day (CoTD) and want to be, please email

Given the latest inflation data, investors moved to price in a much more aggressive pace of rate hikes from the Fed over the coming months, with a number of new milestones reached. First, investors are now fully pricing in a 75bps move at next week’s meeting, with a non-negligible chance (c.34%) of 100bps as well. Second, a 75bps hike is now seen as more likely than not for the November meeting too. And third, the implied rate by the December meeting now exceeds 4% for the first time, which is a far cry from the 0.82% rate expected when 2022 began. Markets are also expecting a more hawkish Fed into 2023 as well, with the December 2023 rate moving up +18.7bps to 3.82%.

Those expectations of a more hawkish Fed led to a major selloff for Treasuries, with the 2yr yield soaring +18.5bps to a post-2007 high of 3.76%, whilst the 10yr yield rose +5.0bps to 3.41%. That was driven by higher real yields, and at one point the 10yr real yield even exceeded 1% in trading, before falling back to close at 0.96%. The entire yield curve flattened given the higher probability of a harder landing, with 2s10s ending the day at -34.8bps and 5s30s falling -15.5bps to finish inverted (-10.3bps) for the first time since the start of the month. In Asia, US 10yr USTs are another +1.2bps higher with 2yrs +0.5bps. It was a similar story on the other side of the Atlantic too, as the CPI report led investors to expect more rate hikes from the ECB as well, with 129bps of further hikes priced in for the remaining two meetings this year up from 118bps at the start of play. In turn, yields on 10yr bunds (+7.5bps), OATs (+6.4bps) and BTPs (+3.3bps) all moved higher.

As previewed at the top, the sharp tightening in rates led to the worst day in a while for US equities.The S&P 500 experienced a rout that saw it shed -4.33% on the day, its worst day since June 2020, where just 5 companies in the entire index moved higher on the day. Tech stocks were particularly impacted, with the NASDAQ down -5.16%, whilst the FANG+ index of megacap tech stocks fell by a massive -6.56% (worse day since September 2020) given its particular sensitivity to raising discount rates. Bear in mind that up until the CPI release, futures had actually been pointing to gains in the US, following which there was a sharp turnaround in the other direction. That was evident in Europe too, where the STOXX 600 swung from an intraday high of +0.64% just before the release before closing -1.55% lower.

In terms of yesterday’s other news, the UK unemployment rate fell to 3.6% in the three months to July (vs. 3.8% expected), marking its lowest rate since 1974. The number of payrolled employees in August was also up by +71k (vs. 60k expected), and growth in average total pay was up +5.5% in the three months to July (vs. 5.4% expected).So cumulatively the data is pointing towards further hikes from the BoE, and the hike priced in for next week’s meeting went up by +2.6bps yesterday to 68.7bps. Gilts underperformed their counterparts elsewhere in Europe, and the 10yr yield rose +9.0bps to a fresh high for the decade at 3.17%.

Elsewhere, Brent crude oil prices rebounded more than +2.5% intraday (to close down -0.88%) following reports that the United States was considering purchasing crude at $80/bbl to rebuild the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. However, that price level had been floated a few months back, and any repurchases will likely take place over the course of a few years, and wouldn’t begin in the near-term. So those headlines probably are not as incrementally important as yesterday’s intraday price action may suggest.

Elsewhere, the ever-looming geopolitical tail risks provided another nugget yesterday, with Reuters reporting the US was in early discussions of considering sanctions against China to deter an invasion of Taiwan, with Taiwan lobbying EU to take similar steps. Early days in this story, but unquestionably a potential flashpoint to keep an eye on. Regular readers will know we think a bi-polar world with sanctions and trade barriers between the two blocks is a reasonable medium-term scenario.

The strong inflation print has also shaken stocks across Asia with the Hang Seng (-2.58%) leading losses followed by the Nikkei (-2.18%), Kospi (-1.68%), the CSI (-1.24%) and the Shanghai Composite (-1.02%).

S&P 500 and NASDAQ 100 futures are trading +0.20% and +0.13% higher respectively. Stoxx futures are down c.-0.75% as the main index closed before the last leg of the US sell-off.

Elsewhere, China extended its currency defense as the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) set the daily reference rate for the yuan at the strongest bias on record at 6.9116 per US dollar, 598 pips stronger than the Bloomberg average estimate. Separately, yields on 10-yr Japanese government bonds (JGB) advanced to 0.25% for the first time since June, touching the upper end of the BOJ’s target range. This story has gone quiet in recent months so it'll be interesting if the risk of the BoJ YCC policy going starts to bubble again. Indeed, the Japanese yen is hovering close to its 24-year low at 144.43 against the US dollar after the dollar jumped +1.4% on the surprisingly strong US inflation report.

There wasn’t much in the way of other data yesterday, but the German ZEW survey for September came in beneath expectations, with the current situation component falling to -60.5 (vs. -52.1 expected), and the expectations component down to -61.9 (vs. -59.5 expected). That’s the lowest reading for the expectations component since October 2008 at the depths of the financial crisis.

To the day ahead now, and data releases include the UK CPI reading for August, Euro Area industrial production for July and US PPI for August. From central banks, we’ll hear from the ECB’s Villeroy. And in politics, European Commission President Von der Leyen will deliver her State of the Union address.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/14/2022 - 07:54

Read More

Continue Reading


Plan will put everyone in England within 15 minutes of green space – but what matters is justice not distance

The UK government wants every household in England to be within 15 minutes walk of a park, woodland or water.



GIOIA PHOTO / shutterstock

How long does it take you to walk to your nearest park, woodland, lake or river? If it takes more than 15 minutes, according to the UK government’s new environmental improvement plan for England, something needs to be done about it. It says 38% people in England don’t have a green or blue space within a 15-minute walk of their home.

The plan promises a “new and ambitious commitment to work across government and beyond” to provide access to local green and blue spaces. It recognises the importance of connecting with nature, and that time spent outdoors is good for physical and mental health.

That’s a message researchers have been underlining for years, as a recent evidence review shows, and it has been amplified by COVID-19, which showed the importance of local green and blue spaces for wellbeing.

But the plan’s laudable ambitions overlook the ways our experiences of the outdoors are shaped by privileges of wealth and health.

If you live in a disadvantaged area, your local green space may be further away from your home, or you might have to share it with more people. As the campaign group Fields in Trust pointed out in a 2022 report, this is a question of justice.

However, there’s more to justice than the amount of space you have to share with others, or how long it takes you to get there. It’s also about how you feel and what you can do when you get there.

My own research highlights some key questions we need to ask if we’re to protect and improve our green spaces for future generations. Questions such as “Do I feel welcome here?” “Does this space meet my needs?” or “Do I get a say in how it is looked after?” highlight the fact that access is a matter of equality and democracy.

Some green spaces are greener than others

There are three key aspects of green and blue spaces that should be considered, and invested in, if the environmental improvement plan is to be more than wishful thinking.

People playing football
Some green spaces aren’t for everyone. 1000 Words / shutterstock

First, not all green and blue spaces are the same or provide the same benefits. The qualities of a football pitch are very different from those provided by a woodland walk along a stream.

Lumping them all together as “green and blue spaces” overlooks the need for a variety of spaces within easy reach to meet local people’s needs for physical and mental wellbeing.

Second, not all spaces are equally well looked after. Spaces that are fly-tipped or associated with antisocial activities can feel intimidating, especially after dark.

Green and blue spaces in disadvantaged areas need more care, and that requires time and money. As Public Health England noted, access to good quality green spaces is worse in more disadvantaged areas.

Third, simply being in a space won’t necessarily bring you all the benefits a space can offer. For people suffering from anxiety or depression, for example, more structured activities might be more helpful.

This could include time spent on rivers or allotments as part of the government’s pilot plan to tackle mental ill health by prescribing time in nature.

Be like Birmingham

In Birmingham, the local authority isn’t content with trumpeting the merits of its 600 parks. Instead, the city has developed a city of nature plan (I was part of a team that evaluated it).

At the heart of its approach is the idea of environmental justice, which it defines as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, colour, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies”.

Map of city highlighting parks
Birmingham’s 600 parks and open spaces are shared between 1.1 million residents of the city proper. Intrepix / shutterstock

To apply environmental justice to the city’s green spaces, Birmingham Council has assessed each of its 69 electoral ward in terms of access to green space of two hectares (about three football pitches) or more within 1,000 metres, as well as flood risk, urban heat island effects, health inequalities and deprivation.

Through this work, it has identified 13 of its 69 wards which are most in need of investment to reach a new “fair parks standard”. These mainly central areas have less accessible green space, are more at risk of flooding and urban heating, and are more deprived.

Starting with a pilot programme in Bordesley & Highgate Ward (setting for the BBC series Peaky Blinders), the plan is then to invest in a further five priority areas in central and east Birmingham: Balsall Heath West, Nechells, Gravelly Hill, Pype Hayes and Castle Vale.

This is the kind of approach that could guide investment in many other cities. It links funding with equalities and brings together climate change, public health and community issues. It shows that quality and equity can’t just be boiled down to the distance between your home and the nearest park.

The challenge now is to learn from Birmingham’s pioneering approach and apply similar principles elsewhere. At its best, this work can be used to highlight the challenges not only of applying resources equitably, but of ensuring the resources are there in the first place, an issue the environmental impact plan rather predictably glosses over.

Julian Dobson and colleagues were funded by the National Trust and National Lottery Heritage Fund to evaluate the Future Parks Accelerator programme. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

UN Initiative Targets And Doxxes Doctors And Nurses Who Don’t Follow COVID-19 Narrative

UN Initiative Targets And Doxxes Doctors And Nurses Who Don’t Follow COVID-19 Narrative

Authored by Katie Spence via The Epoch Times (emphasis…



UN Initiative Targets And Doxxes Doctors And Nurses Who Don't Follow COVID-19 Narrative

Authored by Katie Spence via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Nicole Sirotek is a registered nurse in Nevada with over a decade of experience working in some of the harshest conditions. When a hurricane devastated Puerto Rico, Sirotek and the organization she founded, American Frontline Nurses (AFLN), were there and gave out over 500 pounds of medical equipment and supplies.

National flags in front of the United Nations headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. A group started as part of the United Nations Verified initiative has targeted nurses and doctors who don't follow the official narrative on COVID-19. (Fabrice Coffrini/AFP)

She hasn’t hesitated to be the first in when an emergency hits and medical professionals are needed. She’s lost count of the number of times she’s woken up on a cot in the middle of nowhere, boots still strapped to her feet, and ready to go.

But in tears during an interview with The Epoch Times, she detailed her ordeal with harassment and doxing over the past year and how she’s contemplated suicide due to crippling anxiety and depression.

It took such a toll on my mental health. I wasn’t sleeping and wasn’t eating,” Sirotek said.

To regain her mental health, she decided to step back from the group she started. But even that decision brought pain.

I said after I left New York, I’d do everything that I can to make sure it didn’t happen again,” Sirotek said, recalling the death she witnessed when she volunteered in New York as a nurse at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. “I mean, for me to step back and take a break just makes me feel like I failed!”

A mobile station in New York on Dec. 29, 2021. (Richard Moore/The Epoch Times)

Sirotek is the victim of ongoing harassment. She’s received pictures of her children posed in slaughterhouses and hanging from a noose, drive-by photos of her house, and letters with white powder that exploded upon opening.

The Nevada State Board of Nursing was inundated with calls for Sirotek’s professional demise and flooded with anonymous complaints.

These complaints trace back to Team Halo, a social media influencer campaign formed as part of the United Nations Verified initiative and the Vaccine Confidence Project.

In response, Sirotek filed a police report. Her lawyer sent a cease-and-desist letter. The Epoch Times reviewed the documents.

The reply from the cease-and-desist letter? The client was acting within his First Amendment rights.

The Harassment Begins

In February 2022, Sirotek, as the face of AFLN, a patient advocacy network that boasts 22,000 nurses, appeared before Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and testified about the harm patients were experiencing when they sought treatment for COVID-19.

She said she didn’t witness patients dying from the novel virus when she volunteered to work the front lines in New York at the start of the pandemic.

Instead, in her opinion, as a medical professional with multiple master’s degrees, patients were dying from “negligence” and “medical malfeasance.

Sirotek detailed the withholding by higher-ups of steroids and Ibuprofen and the prescribing of remdesivir. Additionally, there was zero willingness to consider possible early intervention treatments like ivermectin.

As the pandemic continued, such practices only escalated, Sirotek said.

Sirotek’s testimony resulted in cheers, widespread attention, and a target on her back.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) (C) speaks during a panel discussion titled COVID-19: A Second Opinion in Washington DC Jan. 24, 2022. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

[The harassment] all started the day we got back from DC,” Sirotek said.

At first, the attacks started with the typical “you’re transphobic, you’re anti-LGBTQ. I mean, they even called me racist,” Sirotek, who is Hispanic, recalled.

And as more patients sought AFLN’s help, the attacks increased in frequency and force.

At first, Sirotek said the attacks appeared to come from random people. But as the attacks continued, the terms “Project Halo,” “Team Halo,” and “#TeamHalo” continually cropped up. Especially on TikTok and from two accounts, “@jesss2019” and “@thatsassynp.”

“[@thatsassynp] just kept on saying how I was spreading misinformation, [that] ivermectin doesn’t work,” Sirotek said. “He kept targeting the Nevada State Board of Nursing because I was on the Practice Act Committee, and he did not feel like that was acceptable.”

Craig Perry, a lawyer representing nurses, including Sirotek, before the Nevada State Board of Nursing, confirmed Sirotek’s account. The executive director of the Nevada State Board of Nursing, Cathy Dinauer, declined to provide details on complaints or investigations, stating to The Epoch Times via email that they are “confidential.”

Sirotek said the complaints overwhelmed her ability to defend her nursing license.

“Untimely, they were filing so many complaints against me that [the Nevada State Board of Nursing] had to start filtering them as to what was applicable and not applicable. And [the complaints] just buried my nursing license to the point that we couldn’t even defend it,” Sirotek said.

Attacks Transition to Threats

Whenever Sirotek, or AFLN, tried to set up a community outreach webinar, hateful comments flooded their videos.

Julia McCabe, a registered nurse and the director of advocacy services for AFLN, told The Epoch Times that initially, they tried kicking the trolls out of the outreach videos. But they couldn’t keep up with the overwhelming numbers and had to shut the videos down, usually after only 10 minutes, she said.

To address the swarms, as McCabe labeled them, AFLN started charging an entrance fee for their webinars. But, McCabe said, they’d send out an email with a free access code to all of their subscribers before the webinar started. It helped, but not enough. The swarms kept coming. And the attacks escalated.

On June 5, 2022, @thatsassynp posted a video on TikTok calling for a “serious public uprising,” because the Nevada State Board of Nursing and other regulatory agencies weren’t disciplining nurses for spreading “disinformation.”

It became one of many such videos in the ensuing days. In the comments of one, he stated, “Also, stay tuned as [@jesss2019] will be addressing this as well. We are teaming up (as per usual) to raise awareness and demand action on this issue.” @jesss2019 responded, “Yes!!!! We will get this taken care of.”

Jess and Tyler Kuhk of @thatsassynp have “teamed up” on several occasions, targeting healthcare workers who question the COVID-19 narrative. Team Halo doesn’t officially list Kuhk on its site, but Kuhk posts with the #teamhalo.

In another video, he states, “If you’re new to this series, PLEASE watch the videos in my playlist ‘Nevada board of nursing.’ This started in Feb of this year.” His video has almost 35,000 “loves.”

On June 7, 2022, @jesss2019 posted a video on TikTok accusing Sirotek of spreading misinformation. It included a link to @thatsassynp, and his complaints about Sirotek to the Nevada State Board of Nursing and calls to remove her from the Practice Act Committee. She implored TikTok to boost the message. It, too, became one of many videos attacking Sirotek.

Specifically, @jesss2019 and @thatsassynp took issue with videos and posts from Sirotek, and AFLN, advocating for ivermectin and highlighting possible issues with remdesivir and the COVID-19 vaccines.

@jess2019 removed all of the above videos after The Epoch Times sought comment. The Epoch Times retains copies.

Sirotek says she received the first death threat against herself and her children around the same time, in June 2022.

“They cut off the pictures of my children’s faces from our family photos, where we take them every year on our front porch—we’ve got 11 years of those photos—and they cut them out and put them on the bodies of those little boys that have been sexually abused. And that’s what would get sent to my house. And I gave the police that,” Sirotek said.

In response to a request for comment from The Epoch Times, Sen. Johnson defended Sirotek.

“The COVID Cartel continues to frighten and silence those who tell the truth and challenge their failed response to COVID,” Johnson said. “It is simply wrong for Ms. Sirotek to be smeared and attacked like so many others who have had the courage and compassion to successfully treat COVID patients.”

As the threats continued and escalated, Sirotek also asked Perry to send a cease-and-desist letter to Tyler Kuhk on Aug. 1, 2022.

Kuhk, a nurse practitioner, is the person posting on TikTok under the pseudonym @thatsassynp.

The TikTok logo is pictured outside the company’s U.S. head office in Culver City, California, on Sept. 15, 2020. (Mike Blake/Reuters)

The letter sent to Kuhk alleges that on at least 10 different occasions, @thatsassynp encouraged a “public uprising” against Sirotek. It also details that his videos attacking Sirotek garnered over 400,000 views.

In response, McLetchie Law, a “boutique law firm serving prominent and emerging … media entities” responded to Perry by stating in a letter dated Aug. 16, 2022, “Both Nevada law and the First Amendment provide robust protections for our client’s (and others’) rights to criticize Ms. Sirotek’s dangerous views and practices—and to advocate for her removal from the Nursing Practice Advisory Committee of the Nevada State Board of Nursing.”

It also warned that any attempt to deter Kuhk from his chosen path would “backfire” and could result in a “negative financial impact.” Neither Kuhk nor McLetchie Law responded to The Epoch Times’ request for comment.

Unable to confirm the real name behind the TikTok account @jesss2019, and thus, unable to send her a legal letter, Sirotek posted some of the threats she’d received on Facebook, pleading for @jesss2019 to cease targeting her, and recognize the possible real-world harm.

In desperation, Sirotek asked Perry to file a legal name change, which he did on Sep. 15, 2022, hoping that would thwart people’s ability to look up Sirotek’s information. Perry told The Epoch Times, “Usually, when you do a name change, it’s a public record. But under extenuating circumstances, you can have that sealed.”

In Sirotek’s case, the court recognized the threat to her and her family’s safety, waived the publication requirement, granted the change, and sealed her record on Oct. 4, 2022.

Sirotek, at the behest of Perry, filed a police report detailing the harassment on Oct. 17, 2022.

In December 2022, @jesss2019 posted a video to TikTok doxing Sirotek by revealing her name change. The Epoch Times sought comment from @jesss2019 but has not received a response. After the request for comment, the user removed the video.

Team Halo and Social Media

On Dec. 17, 2020, Theo Bertram, a director at TikTok; Iain Bundred, the head of public policy at YouTube; and Rebecca Stimson, the UK head of public policy for Facebook, appeared before the UK’s House of Commons to explain what their social media sites were doing to combat “anti-vaccination disinformation.”

All three stated their companies employed a “two-pronged approach.” Specifically, “tackle disinformation and promote trusted content.”

Bundred stated that from the beginning of the year to November 2020, YouTube had removed 750,000 videos that promoted “Covid disinformation.”

The logos of Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, and Snapchat on mobile devices in a combination of 2017–2022 photos. (AP Photo)

Stimson stated that between March and October 2020, “12 million pieces of content were removed from [Facebook],” and it had labeled 167 million pieces with a warning.

Bertram stated that for the first six months of 2020, TikTok removed 1,500 accounts for “Covid violation” and had recently increased that activity. “In the last two months, we took action against 1,380 accounts, so you can see the level of action is increasing,” Bertram said.

“In October, we began work with Team Halo,” Bertram added. “I do not know if you are familiar with Team Halo. It is run by the Vaccine Confidence Project at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and is about getting reliable, trusted scientists and doctors on to social media to spread trusted information.”

Team Halo’s Origins

On Sep. 20, 2022, Melissa Fleming, the under-secretary-general for global communications at the United Nations, appeared at the World Economic Forum to discuss how the United Nations was “Tackling Disinformation” regarding “health guidance” as well as the “safety and efficacy of the vaccine” for COVID-19.

A key strategy that we had was to deploy influencers,” Fleming stated. “Influencers who were really keen, who had huge followings, but really keen to help carry messages that were going to serve their communities.”

Fleming also explained that the United Nations knew its messaging wouldn’t resonate as well as influencers, so they developed Team Halo.

“We had another trusted messenger project, which was called Team Halo, where we trained scientists around the world, and some doctors, on TikTok. We had TikTok working with us,” Fleming said. “It was a layered deployment of ideas and tactics.”

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Wed, 02/01/2023 - 23:25

Read More

Continue Reading


Why Is There A COVID Vaccine Mandate For Students?

Why Is There A COVID Vaccine Mandate For Students?

Authored by Margaret Anna Alice via ‘Through The Looking Glass’ Substack,

Letter to the…



Why Is There A COVID Vaccine Mandate For Students?

Authored by Margaret Anna Alice via 'Through The Looking Glass' Substack,

Letter to the Stanford Daily: Why Is There a COVID Vaccine Mandate for Students?

“Not to know is bad. Not to wish to know is worse.”

—African proverb

I can’t figure out why Stanford is mandating the COVID vaccine for students.

  1. Is it to protect students from the virus, hospitalization, or death?

  2. Is it to protect them from other students?

  3. Is it to protect the Stanford community members from the students? 

If it’s to protect the students from catching COVID, that doesn’t make sense because the CDC says it “no longer differentiate[s] based on a person’s vaccination status because breakthrough infections occur.”

The CDC also acknowledges natural immunity, noting that “persons who have had COVID-19 but are not vaccinated have some degree of protection against severe illness from their previous infection.”

It appears Stanford didn’t get the memo because Maxwell Meyer—a double-jabbed, COVID-recovered alum who was nearly prohibited from graduating for choosing not to get boosted—was informed by an administrator that the booster mandate is “not predicated on history of infection or physical location.”

Despite living 2,000 miles away from campus and not being enrolled in coursework for his final term, Maxwell was told Stanford was “uniformly enforc[ing]” the mandate “regardless of student location.” Does that sound like a rational policy?

Fortunately, a different administrator intervened and granted Maxwell an exemption, but few Stanford students are so lucky. Almost everyone else simply follows the rules without realizing they’ve volunteered for vaccine roulette.

Cleveland Clinic study of the bivalent vaccines involving 51,011 participants found the risk of getting COVID-19 increased “with the number of vaccine doses previously received”—much to the authors’ surprise.

They were stumped as to why “those who chose not to follow the CDC’s recommendations on remaining updated with COVID-19 vaccination” had a lower risk of catching COVID than “those who received a larger number of prior vaccine doses.”

So if the vaccines don’t keep you from getting COVID, maybe they at least protect you from hospitalization?

That doesn’t wash, either, because according to data from the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET)hospitalization rates for 18–64-year-olds have increased 11 percent since the vaccine rollout. Worse, kids under 18 have suffered a shocking 74 percent spike in hospitalizations.

An observational study conducted at Germany’s University Hospital Wuerzburg found:

“The rate of adverse reactions for the second booster dose was significantly higher among participants receiving the bivalent 84.6% (95% CI 70.3%–92.8%; 33/39) compared to the monovalent 51.4% (95% CI 35.9–66.6%; 19/37) vaccine (p=0.0028). Also, there was a trend towards an increased rate of inability to work and intake of PRN medication following bivalent vaccination.”

A new paper published in Science titled Class Switch Towards Non-Inflammatory, Spike-Specific IgG4 Antibodies after Repeated SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination even has Eric Topol concerned:

If you don’t know what that means, Dr. Syed Haider spells it out in this tweet. He explains that the shots “train your immune system to ignore the allergen by repeated exposure,” the end result being that “Your immune system is shifted to see the virus as a harmless allergen” and the “virus runs amok.”

Viral immunologist and computational virologist Dr. Jessica Rose breaks down the serious implications—including cancerfatal fibrosis, and organ destruction—of these findings.

Well, then does the vaccine at least prevent people from dying of COVID?

Nope. According to the Washington Post, “Vaccinated people now make up a majority of COVID deaths.”

At Senator Ron Johnson’s December 7, 2022, roundtable discussion on COVID-19 Vaccines, former number-one–ranked Wall Street insurance analyst Josh Stirling reported that, according to UK government data:

“The people in the UK who took the vaccine have a 26% higher mortality rate. The people who are under the age of 50 who took the vaccine now have a 49% higher mortality rate.”

Obtained by a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to KBV (the association representing physicians who receive insurance in Germany), “the most important dataset of the pandemic” shows fatalities starting to spike in 2021.

Data analyst Tom Lausen assessed the ICD-10 disease codes in this dataset, and the findings are startling. His presentation includes the following chart documenting fatalities per quarter from 2016 to 2022:

This parallels the skyrocketing fatality rates seen in VAERS:

The vaccinated are more likely to contract, become hospitalized from, and die of COVID. If the vaccine fails on all of those counts, does it at least prevent its transmission to other students and community members?

The obvious answer is no since we already know it doesn’t prevent you from getting COVID, but this CDC study drives the point home, showing that during a COVID outbreak in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, “three quarters (346; 74%) of cases occurred in fully vaccinated persons.”

Maybe Stanford can tell us why they feel the mandate is necessary. Their booster requirement reads:

Why does Stanford have a student booster shot requirement? Our booster requirement is intended to support sustained immunity against COVID-19 and is consistent with the advice of county and federal public health leaders. Booster shots enhance immunity, providing additional protection to individuals and reducing the possibility of being hospitalized for COVID. In addition, booster shots prevent infection in many individuals, thereby slowing the spread of the virus. A heavily boosted campus community reduces the possibility of widespread disruptions that could impact the student experience, especially in terms of in-person classes and activities and congregate housing.”

The claim that “booster shots enhance immunity” links to a January 2022 New York Times article. It seems Stanford has failed to keep up with the science because the very source they cite as authoritative is now reporting, “The newer variants, called BQ.1 and BQ.1.1, are spreading quickly, and boosters seem to do little to prevent infections with these viruses.”

Speaking of not keeping up, that same article says the new bivalent boosters target “the original version of the coronavirus and the Omicron variants circulating earlier this year, BA.4 and BA.5.”

It then goes on to quote Head of Beth Israel Deaconess’s Center for Virology & Vaccine Research Dan Barouch, who says, “It’s not likely that any of the vaccines or boosters, no matter how many you get, will provide substantial and sustained protection against acquisition of infection.”

In other words, Stanford’s rationale for requiring the boosters is obsolete according to the authority they cite in their justification.

If Stanford is genuinely concerned about “reduc[ing] the possibility of widespread disruptions that could impact the student experience,” then it should not only stop mandating the vaccine but advise against it.

Some nations have suspended or recommended against COVID shots for younger populations due to the considerable risks of adverse events such as pulmonary embolism and myocarditis—from Denmark (under 50) to Norway (under 45) to Australia (under 50) to the United Kingdom (seasonal boosters for under 50).

The Danish Health Authority explains why people under 50 are “not to be re-vaccinated”:

“People aged under 50 are generally not at particularly higher risk of becoming severely ill from covid-19. In addition, younger people aged under 50 are well protected against becoming severely ill from covid-19, as a very large number of them have already been vaccinated and have previously been infected with covid-19, and there is consequently good immunity among this part of the population.”

Here’s what a Norwegian physician and health official had to say:

“Especially the youngest should consider potential side effects against the benefits of taking this dose.”
—Ingrid Bjerring, Chief Doctor at Lier Municipality

“We did not find sufficient evidence to recommend that this part of the population [younger age bracket] should take a new dose now.… Each vaccine comes with the risk for side effects. Is it then responsible to offer this, when we know that the individual health benefit of a booster likely is low?”
—Are Stuwitz Berg, Department Director at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health

new Nordic cohort study of 8.9 million participants supports these concerns, finding a nearly nine-fold increase in myocarditis among males aged 12–39 within 28 days of receiving the Moderna COVID-19 booster over those who stopped after two doses.

This mirrors my own findings that myocarditis rates are up 10 times among the vaccinated according to a public healthcare worker survey.

Coauthored by MIT professor and risk management expert Retsef Levi, the Nature article Increased Emergency Cardiovascular Events Among Under-40 Population in Israel During Vaccine Rollout and Third COVID-19 Wave reveals a 25 percent increase in cardiac emergency calls for 16–39-year-olds from January to May 2021 as compared with the previous two years.

The paper cites a study by Israel’s Ministry of Health that “assesses the risk of myocarditis after receiving the 2nd vaccine dose to be between 1 in 3000 to 1 in 6000 in men of age 16–24 and 1 in 120,000 in men under 30.”

Thai study published in Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease found cardiovascular manifestations in 29.24 percent of the adolescent cohort—including myopericarditis and tachycardia.

Even Dr. Leana Wen, formerly an aggressive promoter of the COVID vaccine, admitted in a recent Washington Post op-ed:

“[W]e need to be upfront that nearly every intervention has some risk, and the coronavirus vaccine is no different. The most significant risk is myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle, which is most common in young men. The CDC cites a rate of 39 myocarditis cases per 1 million second doses given in males 18 to 24. Some studies found a much higher rate; a large Canadian database reported that among men ages 18 to 29 who received the second dose of the Moderna vaccine, the rate of myocarditis was 22 for every 100,000 doses.”

All over the world, prominent physicians, scientists, politicians, and professors are asking pointed questions about illogical mandates; the safety and efficacy of the vaccines; and the dangers posed by the mRNA technology, spike protein, and lipid nanoparticles—including in the UKJapanAustraliaEurope, and the US.

Formerly pro-vaxx cardiologists such as Dr. Aseem MalhotraDr. Dean Patterson, and Dr. Ross Walker are all saying the COVID vaccines should be immediately stopped due to the significant increase in cardiac diseasesadverse events, and excess mortality observed since their rollout, noting that, “until proven otherwise, these vaccines are not safe.”

President of the International Society for Vascular Surgery Serif Sultan and Consultant Surgeon Ahmad Malik are also demanding that we #StopTheShotsNow.

And now, perhaps most notably, Dr. John Campbell has performed a 180-degree turn on his previous position and is saying it is time to pause the mass vaccination program “due to the risks associated with the vaccines”:

Rasmussen poll published on December 7, 2022, found 7 percent of vaccinated respondents have suffered major side effects—a percentage that echoes the 7.7 percent of V-Safe users who sought medical care as well as my own polling data.

Add the 34 percent who reported experiencing minor side effects, and you have nearly 72 million adults who’ve been hit with side effects from the vaccine.

Rasmussen Head Pollster Mark Mitchell explains:

“With 7% having a major side effect, that means over 12 million adults in the US have experienced a self-described major side effect that they attribute to the COVID-19 vaccine. That’s over 11 times the reported COVID death numbers. And also note that anyone who may have died from the vaccine obviously can’t tell us that in the poll.”

According to British Medical Journal Senior Editor Dr. Peter Doshi, Pfizer’s and Moderna’s own trial data found 1 in 800 vaccinated people experienced serious adverse events:

“The Pfizer and Moderna trials are both showing a clear signal of increased risk of serious adverse events among the vaccinated.…

“The trial data are indicating that we’re seeing about an elevated risk of these serious adverse events of around 1 in 800 people vaccinated.… That is much, much more common than what you see for other vaccines, where the reported rates are in the range of 1 or 2 per million vaccinees. In these trials, we’re seeing 1 in every 800. And this is a rate that in past years has had vaccines taken off the market.…

“We’re talking about randomized trials … which are widely considered the highest-quality evidence, and we’re talking about the trials that were submitted by Pfizer and Moderna that supported the regulators’ authorization.”

And this is the same Pfizer data the FDA tried to keep hidden from the public for 75 years.

Nothing to see here … except 1,223 deaths, 158,000 adverse events, and 1,291 side effects reported in the first 90 days according to the 5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports—and those numbers are likely underreported by a factor of at least 10 (my conservative calculations show an underreporting factor (URF) of 41 for VAERS).

Stanford is asking students to risk a 1 in 800 chance of serious adverse events—meaning the kind of events that can land you in the hospitaldisable you, and kill you. And for what?

Anyone who knows how to perform a cost-benefit analysis can see this is all cost and zero benefit.

Stanford’s own Dr. John Ioannidis—professor of medicine, epidemiology & population health, statistics, and biomedical data science—demonstrated that college students are at a near-zero risk of dying from COVID-19 in his “Age-Stratified Infection Fatality Rate of COVID-19 in the Non-Elderly Population.”

One of the six most-cited scientists in the world, Ioannidis found the median IFR was 0.0003 percent for those under 20 and 0.002 percent for twenty-somethings, concluding the fatalities “are lower than pre-pandemic years when only the younger age strata are considered” and that “the IFR in non-elderly individuals was much lower than previously thought.”

And yet Ioannidis’s employer is mandating an experimental product with extensively documented risks of severe harm.

What if a Stanford student dies and the coroner determines it was caused by the vaccine? That happened with George Watts Jr., a 24-year-old college student whose cause of death Chief Deputy Coroner Timothy Cahill Jr. attributed to “COVID-19 vaccine-related myocarditis.” Cahill says, “The vaccine caused the heart to go into failure.”

Notorious for mandating a booster not yet tested on humans (just like Stanford), Ontario’s Western University dropped its mandate on November 29, 2022, stating:

“We are revoking our vaccination policy and will no longer require students, employees, and visitors to be vaccinated to come to campus.”

That was the same day this article reported that 21-year-old Western University student and TikTok influencer Megha Thakur “suddenly and unexpectedly passed away” on November 24.

The timing is interesting, don’t you think? I’m sure it’s just a coincidence—even though this Clinical Research in Cardiology paper determined vaccine-induced myocardial inflammation was the cause of death in “five persons who have died unexpectedly within seven days following anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination.” In that analysis, the authors “establish the histological phenotype of lethal vaccination-associated myocarditis.”

Coincidences notwithstanding, Stanford may want to revoke the mandate before anything like that happens to one of its students … if it hasn’t already.

And if that’s not incentive enough, Stanford should consider the legal ramifications of mandating an experimental product. As this JAMA article warns:

“Mandating COVID-19 vaccines under an EUA is legally and ethically problematic. The act authorizing the FDA to issue EUAs requires the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to specify whether individuals may refuse the vaccine and the consequences for refusal. Vaccine mandates are unjustified because an EUA requires less safety and efficacy data than full Biologics License Application (BLA) approval.”

Dr. Naomi Wolf delivered an impassioned speech to her alma mater, Yale, in which she called their booster mandate “a serious crime. It is deeply illegal. Certainly, it violates Title IX.” She explains:

“Title IX commits the university to not discriminate on the basis of sex or gender in getting an equal education.… I oversee a project in which 3,500 experts review the Pfizer documents released under court order by a lawsuit. In that document, there is catastrophic harm to women! And especially to young women! And especially to their reproductive health.… 72% of those with adverse events in the Pfizer documents are women!”

Other universities are currently facing lawsuits for mandating the COVID vaccine in violation of state laws, including one against Ohio University, University of Cincinnati, Bowling Green State University, and Miami University of Ohio.

Let’s recap.

Abundant evidence proves the vaccines FAIL to:

  • stop transmission

  • prevent contraction of COVID

  • lower hospitalization rates

  • reduce mortality

By the same token, this evidence shows the vaccines are ASSOCIATED with:

  • heightened transmission levels

  • greater chances of catching COVID

  • increased hospitalization rates

  • higher excess mortality

  • disproportionate injuries to women

Why is Stanford mandating these unsafe and ineffective products, again?

If logic, peer-reviewed studies, and legal concerns such as the violation of Title IX don’t convince Stanford to rescind the mandate, then what about its stated ethical commitment to upholding its Code of Conduct?

BMJ’s Journal of Medical Ethics recently published COVID-19 Vaccine Boosters for Young Adults: A Risk Benefit Assessment and Ethical Analysis of Mandate Policies at Universities. In this paper, eminent researchers from Harvard, Oxford, Johns Hopkins, and UC San Francisco (among other institutions) present five reasons university mandates are unethical.

They argue that the vaccines:

“(1) are not based on an updated (Omicron era) stratified risk-benefit assessment for this age group; (2) may result in a net harm to healthy young adults; (3) are not proportionate: expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits given modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission; (4) violate the reciprocity principle because serious vaccine-related harms are not reliably compensated due to gaps in vaccine injury schemes; and (5) may result in wider social harms.” (emphases mine here and below)

They calculate that:

To prevent one COVID-19 hospitalisation over a 6-month period, we estimate that 31,207–42,836 young adults aged 18–29 years must receive a third mRNA vaccine.”

The authors conclude that:

“university COVID-19 vaccine mandates are likely to cause net expected harms to young healthy adults—for each hospitalisation averted we estimate approximately 18.5 SAEs and 1,430–4,626 disruptions of daily activities.… these severe infringements of individual liberty and human rights are ethically unjustifiable.”

This builds on a previously published BMJ Global Health article by some of the same authors titled, “The Unintended Consequences of COVID-19 Vaccine Policy: Why Mandates, Passports, and Restrictions May Cause More Harm Than Good.”

In this paper, the authors contend that COVID-19 vaccine mandates “have unintended harmful consequences and may not be ethical, scientifically justified, and effective” and “may prove to be both counterproductive and damaging to public health.”

Over the course of history, countless products once thought to be safe—from DDT to cigarettes to thalidomide for pregnant women to Vioxx—were eventually discovered to be dangerous and even lethal. Responsible governments, agencies, and companies pull those products from the market when the scientific data proves harm—and institutions that care about their community members certainly don’t mandate those products when evidence of risk becomes obvious, as is the case now for the experimental COVID vaccines.

Mahatma Gandhi once stated:

“An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it. Truth stands, even if there be no public support. It is self-sustained.”

The truth is clear to anyone who’s willing to look.

Will Stanford stop following the propaganda and start following the science—the real science and not the politicized science?

Will it stand up for the lives and health of its students—or will it wait until tragedy strikes another George Watts Jr. or Megha Thakur?

This is a historic opportunity for Stanford to prove its allegiance to people, scientific data, and critical thought over pharmaceutical donors, political pressures, and conformist thinking.

The stakes could not be higher.

*  *  *

For 16.4 cents/day (annual) or 19.7 cents/day (monthly), you can help Margaret fight tyranny while enjoying access to premium content like Memes by Themes“rolling” interviewspodcastsBehind the Scenes, and other bonus content:

Tyler Durden Wed, 02/01/2023 - 21:25

Read More

Continue Reading