Updates (Jul 26)
More hot air; CO2 & record harvests; Widdecombe update; pregnancies in men?; 77th whistleblower; driver licensing data; watch this space; Birmingham rape gangs; Andrea Shaw; vax updates; ivermectin...
Welcome to July’s Updates post. And, as ever, a warm welcome to new subscribers.
Many thanks to readers sharing articles — much appreciated. And thank you to everyone for reading.
More hot air
Further to this post…
…and “news” such as that featured here…
…I have learned that, in such articles, it is important to note certain key phrase: “may have died”… “estimates suggest”… “Imperial College”...
Where does the figure of 2,700 come from? Well, according to the article:
The study uses death records from previous years to model or estimate how many there might have been in May and June 2026.
Computer modelling.
As to real-world data and the actual numbers of people who have died, here is a chart c/o Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson at Trust the Evidence in a piece titled The Heatwave Deaths We Can’t See:
The two obvious outliers are:
2020 in light blue, when a lot of people died after the “covid restrictions” were imposed in week 13. (Prior to that, the number of people dying was at or below normal levels, even though covid was reportedly circulating.)
2021 in orange, when a lot of people died during lockdown in the period when most elderly people received their first covid injection.
But as to deaths from the recent heatwave, in the words of Heneghan and Jefferson:
…the 2026 line [see the red dots above] is remarkably ordinary. There is the expected week-to-week variation, but no dramatic spike that leaps off the page. The weeks covering the heatwaves sit comfortably within the range seen in recent years.
I wonder where the researchers at Imperial get their funding…
For context, according to the Office for National Statistics (emphasis added):
An estimated 51,670 deaths (95% confidence interval: 37,740 to 64,382) in England, and 2,186 deaths (95% confidence interval: 965 to 3,406) in Wales, were associated with the hottest days over the 35 years from 1988 to 2022.
An estimated 199,298 deaths (95% confidence interval: 179,111 to 221,233) in England and 16,474 deaths (95% confidence interval: 14,367 to 18,535) in Wales were associated with the coldest days over the 35 years from 1988 to 2022.
In short, a lot more people die when it’s unusually cold than when it’s unusually hot.
CO2 and record harvests
On the subject of climate, and further to this post…
…I was intrigued to see that cereal production has apparently risen rather faster than population over the past 60 years or so. And the trend has been particularly marked recently, despite the area of land being used for growing cereals remaining almost unchanged:
This is consistent with the notion of CO2 as plant food. And the steady rise in CO2 levels over the same period:
(NB the y-axis does not start at zero, and the draconian policies of the covid era seem to have had essentially no effect.)
As to the relationship between CO2 and temperature, here is an excerpt from an interview with US physicist William Happer of the CO2 Coalition:
[Interviewer] I have been shown another graph many times which shows a correlation between the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the temperature rise during the last, let’s say, 150-200 years.
[Happer] Yes, it’s a correlation, of course…
[Interviewer] But is there any causation as well? Because you pointed it out as well that… carbon dioxide has a warming effect in the atmosphere… but it’s not leading, as I understand it?
[Happer] Yes, that’s correct. You can estimate past CO2 levels by looking at bubbles in ice cores from Antarctica or from Greenland. And you can also estimate past temperatures by looking at the ratios of oxygen isotopes in the ice… and other proxies. So there are these proxy estimates of past CO2 levels and past temperature, and they are indeed tightly correlated. When the temperature is high, CO2 levels are high; and when the temperature is low, CO2 levels are low.
But if you look at the time dependence, in every case, first the temperature changes and then the CO2 changes. Temperature goes up… a little bit later CO2 goes up. Temperature goes down… a little bit later CO2 goes down. So they are indeed correlated. But the cause is not CO2. The cause is temperature. Something makes the temperature change, and the CO2 is forced to follow.
That’s easy to understand. It’s mostly due to CO2 dissolving in the ocean. The solubility of CO2 is very temperature dependent.
Wikipedia has this table (from Lange’s Handbook of Chemistry) giving the solubility of CO2 in water at various temperatures:
No scientific expertise is needed to see that, as the temperature rises, the amount of CO2 that can be dissolved in a given volume of water decreases.
[Happer] If the world oceans cool, they suck more CO2 out of the atmosphere. And if they warm, more CO2 can come back into the atmosphere. There’s nothing surprising about that. The only surprise is nobody really knows why the temperature changes. But it’s certainly not CO2 causing it to change, because the CO2 follows the change… it doesn’t precede it. [And] causes have to precede their effects.
Widdecombe update
In this post…
…I noted a BBC article that stated…
Devon and Cornwall Police added they are not looking for anyone else in connection with her death, following the arrest of the 28-year-old white British man in Rotherham, South Yorkshire.
…and asked why, in direct contravention of the recommendations of the 2012 Leveson report, have the police released identifying details such as the person’s age, race, sex and place of residence?
In any genuine murder investigation, surely the police — and the press — would be minimising what they reveal, lest they prejudice any investigation and potential subsequent trial?
But this recent article in the Daily Mail goes even further:
The suspect is named as Joshua Kerry, and the piece states:
The 28-year-old has lived alone in a council house in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, since the death of his father last year.
The family is well-known on the Kimberworth Park estate, with several members having served in the military.
His father Paul Yates, a ‘highly intelligent’ former steel industry research engineer, stopped work after losing a leg and was diagnosed with stomach. After leaving school, Kerry got an office job at a lift company, where he was pictured in 2022 holding up a jar of Easter eggs as part of a charity fundraiser for a local charity.
Neighbours this week described him as polite, ‘quiet and shy’, saying he would take the bins out for them or hold on to parcels on their behalf.
Make of that what you will.
But whatever we might make of recent events, or indeed Ann Widdecombe’s television appearances on the likes of Strictly Come Dancing and Celebrity Big Brother and even Doctor Who, she is on record as a strong defender of free speech.
This Academics for Academic Freedom post has the transcript and a link to the video of her powerful, unscripted 12-minute closing speech at the Oxford Union in July 2019 that helped win the debate against the proposition ‘We Should Support No Platforming’.
Some excerpts are below, but, as the AFAF post says, you have to listen/watch to get a proper sense of the energy, humour, and passion of her arguments.
Only two sorts of people oppose free speech, and they are at opposite ends of the scale: snowflakes and totalitarians…
Nobody has the right to live their lives being protected from offence, or from insult, or from hurt feelings. It is an occupational hazard of living in society…
Celeste said there’s nothing wrong with being a snowflake. No, you can be as snowflake-ish as you like, providing you don’t try to impose that on other people…
But… on the opposite end from the snowflakes… are the totalitarians. And that was how Hitler was so successful, because he did not allow any free speech whatever. And if you spoke out against that sickening regime, or indeed against the Soviet Union, you would end up in prison, if not worse.
Totalitarians like to curtail your right to disagree with state orthodoxy. Now, for state orthodoxy, substitute the words social orthodoxy, as exemplified by social media, Twitter, and other such places, where people decide what is and what is not acceptable…
You may feel virtuous today in what you will not hear, but tomorrow somebody may feel virtuous in not hearing what you have to say. Free speech is for all, not for the privileged few.
I can’t help wondering quite how Widdecombe might have reacted to this next section…
Pregnancies in men?
Further to this post…
!["If they can’t become pregnant... how can [they] become potentially pregnant?"](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!dgO0!,w_140,h_140,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F88ce6532-0673-4ae0-9da9-98f70340e4f4_1148x848.png)
…here is the Chancellor of the University of California San Francisco Sam Hawgood, “a renowned researcher, professor, academic leader, and pediatrician”, answering the question, “Has a non-biological woman ever had a baby?”:
The vast majority of pregnancies are in women…
77th whistleblower
Further to this post…
…detailing some of the activities of the British army’s 77th Brigade during the covid era, I noted with interest this UK Covid Inquiry statement from Silkie Carlo, director of Big Brother Watch since 2018 (h/t Biologyphenom):
Some excerpts:
[1.1] Our interest in government “counter disinformation” work began after a Government press release dated 30th March 2020 and titled “Government cracks down on spread of false coronavirus information online”, revealed that a “Rapid Response Unit” (RRU) had been set up to operate from within the Cabinet Office and No. 10 to tackle “harmful narratives online”.
[1.5] We submitted an initial request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI Act) to DCMS in February 2021 asking for how many pieces of social media content the CDU [Counter Disinformation Unit] had flagged/recommended for removal, which was refused under section 36(2)(c) of the FOI Act including on appeal; and similarly, we submitted a FOI request to the Cabinet Office asking how many pieces of social media content the RRU had flagged/recommended for removal in 2020, and if the RRU had shared any such content with law enforcement, but this request was refused…
[1.7] Secrecy has been a constant obstacle to scrutinising the Government’s counter-disinformation work. Big Brother Watch submitted at least 20 FOI requests… about the CDU, 19 of which were rejected in full and one received a response containing heavily redacted minutes.
[2.3] Our investigation found that the CDU’s monitoring was widespread, frequently engaged accurate and lawful speech of democratic importance, and was in no way restricted to ‘disinformation’ as suggested by the Unit’s title.
[2.8] The reports we obtained raised questions about the CDU’s remit, legitimacy and efficacy. The routine monitoring of mainstream media outlets’ coverage and individuals’ opinions on the government’s pandemic response 1s a wholly distinct project from battling disinformation from hostile entities.
[3.3] The RRU spent £75,600 in November 2021 on a one-year license for Brandwatch, a social listening tool owned by public relations technology company Cision. [SC/41 - INQ000480909] The tool allows users to “tap into conversations” on social networks and review sites.
[3.9] Like the CDU, our investigation found that the RRU targeted scrutiny of lockdown modelling. The RRU flagged an article by Ross Clark published in print by the Daily Mail and online on MailOnline on 20th November 2020, which questioned some of the modelling used by the government when formulating coronavirus policy.
Our taxes at work.
[4.1] The 77th Brigade is part of the British Army and conducts information operations within the military, with its work spanning from audience analysis to disseminating counter-propaganda. The Brigade has conducted operations against both the Taliban and al-Qaeda. In April 2020 General Sir Nick Carter, the UK chief of defence staff, announced that the Brigade was working to counter Covid-19 related misinformation online. It was subsequently revealed in November 2020 by The Times newspaper that the 77th Brigade (“77x”) was supporting the RRU’s counter-disinformation work around vaccinations…
[4.2] After 77x’s controversial involvement in pandemic information operations was revealed, the Ministry of Defence claimed that soldiers were not deployed against UK citizens:
“Defence are supporting the Cabinet Office to tackle disinformation and hostile state narratives which seek to undermine the UK’s reputation. All work is internationally focused, and the military do not and have never conducted any
kind of action against British citizens.”[4.3] However, our investigation found that British citizens had indeed been caught up in 77x online monitoring. As such, the above true statement was arguably misinformation — it was not true. This was confirmed both by our FOI investigation and by a 77x whistleblower who I interviewed extensively…
[4.4] The whistleblower told us he was seconded to 77x on the basis that he would be helping to find foreign state misinformation on social media. However, when he joined 77x, he said he found the operation was unskilled and appeared to orientate around the day’s political news and public opinions of the government’s performance.
[4.9] The whistleblower gave a powerful testimony of how the political misdirection of 77x resources meant that genuine hostile foreign disinformation was not adequately dealt with by the unit. Due to the importance of what he said, I quote him here at length:
“As someone who has dedicated my career to serving and defending my country, I entered this role believing I would be surfacing foreign information warfare against our country. Instead, I found the banner of disinformation was a guise under which the British military was being deployed to monitor and flag our own concerned citizens to the government.”
“Since my deployment in this unit, have become aware of evidence that there may have in fact been real social media campaigns from China, involving copy and paste pro-lockdown propaganda from newly created sock-puppet accounts, to promote lockdown policies to Europe and the world. However, because we were directed to monitor public sentiment towards government policies, such as the success of the lockdown policy, the unit supposedly formed to discover such foreign interference would have completely missed it if it were there. In fact, I developed the impression that the government were more interested in protecting the success of their Covid policies than uncovering any potential foreign interference that might have influenced what those policies were in the first place.”
“...During Covid, the role of the 77th Brigade was not to work for the country discovering foreign disinformation, but to work for the Conservative government monitoring the British public’s opinion of their controversial Covid response”
“I am concerned that the government was so interested In individual Twitter posts that they devoted an entire unit to monitoring what scared and otherwise powerless people had to say, and I regret that I was a part of it.”
The remainder of the statement is heavily redacted, apparently on the basis of “Parliamentary privilege”…
…but the following parts (among others) are visible:
[5.5] It is my belief, based on research spanning over two years, that the Government effectively established a system of de facto secret extrajudicial censorship carried out by foreign corporate partners, affecting lawful domestic speech with no oversight, in a similar manner to the way the Government deals with illegal terror content.
[5.12] According to Twitter/X, 58% of the speech flagged to the platform that the CDU claimed was disinformation that breached the platform’s terms of service did not in fact breach the platform’s terms of service, and did not contradict authoritative public health guidance. The government has refused to provide us with information about what content was flagged and why.
[5.15] There is no accountability mechanism to determine what content the government deems “harmful” or “inappropriate”, and the government has refused transparency as to how it defines these terms.
Driver licensing data
Further to posts such as these…
…the UK government has launched an open consultation titled Police and law enforcement access to DVLA driver licensing data consultation:
An excerpt (emphasis added):
This consultation seeks views on how broad the permitted purposes should be for using DVLA driver data beyond road traffic enforcement. The government is consulting on a graduated set of options, from maintaining the current purposes, through extending access for serious crime and national security, to access for all crime, and the broadest option, access for the full range of policing purposes (including safeguarding and other public protection activity) as set out in relevant policing frameworks.
The consultation period ends on 8th September.
On a related note, it appears from this recent written Parliamentary question that minutes of meetings of the government’s Digital ID Advisory Group — “set up to deliver digital ID” — will not be published:
Question
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, whether the minutes, recommendations and advice of the Digital ID Advisory Group will be published.
Answer
The running of the Digital ID Advisory Group will be supported by the Cabinet Office’s existing Digital ID Task Force. The Group is not a decision-making body and minutes will not be published.
So much for transparency…
I wonder what will happen to the Group in the context of Andy Burnham’s “pledge to scrap digital ID”.
Watch this space
Further to this post…
…and the Trust in news section of last month’s Updates post, in which I noted that the UK government has published a green paper (consultation document) titled Watch this space: a new strategic direction for UK media…
YouTube — part of The Trusted News Initiative headed by the BBC — has apparently sent out this message to its content creators:
The proposed new rules include a mandatory “prominence regime”. This could require digital platforms like YouTube to prioritise and give a “privileged position” to traditional broadcasters (like the BBC, ITV and Channel 4) in user interfaces and recommendation feeds, potentially pushing your content out of sight….
As if traditional broadcasters (like the BBC, ITV and Channel 4) do not already have a privileged position…
Consultations are underway on yet another media bill that looks to grant the power to meddle in how the internet operates.
Unlike the controversy around the Online Safety Bill — which told platforms what to hide — this new bill tells platforms what must be shown. The wording suggests that the government wants British public broadcasters to be prioritised and “prominently discoverable”, presumably by pushing videos from British broadcasters to the top of YouTube search results and recommendations.
The problems that could arise from this are endless — it’s an idea that sounds wise and forward-thinking in a room full of politicians, but little thought out as a practical policy.
A fixed percentage of space handed over to several massive institutional broadcasters will need to come from somewhere, and it will be independent and smaller users on the site that it will be stripped from…
Sure, the idea of the TV licence adapts and begrudgingly continues for another generation. But it’s not much consolation compared to the power being handed over that is just waiting to be abused in the future. It is quite the primed propaganda tool once the government is handed over the infrastructure to legally dictate what the algorithm promotes.
Currently the government might want to try to make Question Time more relevant, but who’s to say what could be done with it in the future when a government with different intentions is in power, at a time when there is political crisis or social unrest…?
The green paper on the proposal… notes the dwindling interest in public media: “Our domestic broadcasters, including our public service media, are fighting to be seen and heard in an increasingly competitive and fragmented market.” But if users don’t want to watch what the BBC has to offer, then that’s completely the failure of the BBC and programming directors failing to capture the wider public’s imagination.
And whatever we might think of the BBC, it can hardly be considered as under-resourced — its 2024/2025 income was £5.9 billion.
Birmingham rape gangs
Further to this post featuring rape gang survivor Sammy Woodhouse…
…I noted with interest this recent post from courageous campaigner Raja Miah (who I first featured here in Only Connect):
Jess Phillips has finally signed a letter asking the national inquiry into the Pakistani Rape Gang to come to Birmingham. Unfortunately, the inquiry Phillips is now welcoming cannot look at anything before 1 January 1996.
Why does this matter in Birmingham?
Because in 1990 Birmingham City Council commissioned research into the sexual exploitation of girls in its own care. It found twenty girls, by name, in the council’s own files, and traced the link to taxi drivers already cautioned for pimping.The council ordered the ethnic dimension stripped out, buried the report and destroyed the copies. To make matters worse, In December 1995, councillors voted down the enquiry into that destruction.
Phillips and her colleagues know exactly what their letter does not ask for. If they were serious, they would be demanding the inquiry reach back before 1996. They are betting you will never read my analysis.
Andrea Shaw
In the context of this post…
…I read with interest this article on the case of Andrea Shaw (23, of Payette, Idaho), who has been indicted on two counts of first-degree murder by suffocation in the deaths of her 18-month-old fraternal twins, Dallas and Tyson Shaw:
Shaw is in prison and faces a life sentence or possible death penalty for murder. The above article concludes:
The case of the jailed Andrea Shaw and her now-dead twins is a deeply troubling one. All evidence we have points to another probable case of death by vaccine. Whatever evidence there is that she killed them will be presented in trial, along with discovery of all communications and whether and to what extent the American Academy of Pediatrics is involved. It bears watching closely.
We will likely see the usual parade. All of the best experts at the best universities will protect pharma’s position because that is what they have been trained to do throughout their careers, while the most informed dissidents might not be admitted at all. The media have financial conflicts of interest in reporting on this. The politicians who comment on this have financial conflicts of interest. There is never a moment in which the judge and jury are outside the epistemic bubble created by the pharmaceutical industry.
The reason Pharma feels confident that it can make an example out of Andrea Shaw is because they control the entire knowledge production process, from soup to nuts, in connection with vaccines. They would rather spend millions to convict Andrea Shaw – as a lesson to others who might come forward – than risk losing a case of racketeering.
It may very well be that the suspicions of police and prosecutors have merit and that Shaw will be found guilty by a jury of her peers. However, given what we have come to know about the sheer dishonesty and vindictiveness of big Pharma, and its many pay-to-play allies in the mainstream media, it would be irresponsible to not raise the possibility of a corporate-designed miscarriage of justice.
I am reminded of the cases of the likes of Sally Clark and Angela Cannings in the UK:
And, more recently, “Australia’s worst mother” Kathleen Folbigg:
And SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) reminds me of SADS (Sudden Adult Death Syndrome). GoogleTrends shows the latter peaking in June 2022:
Here is the chart for 2004-2026 for context:
Vax updates
Australian Senator Alex Antic
Further to these posts…
I noted with interest this recent statement from Australian Senator Alex Antic:
Imagine, if you can, a world in which there was an excess mortality rate hovering somewhere between 10 and 15% for a period of five years, and the most important building in the country wouldn’t want to know why that was happening.
That’s what we witnessed this morning when my order… seeking… documents which show why that may have been… from the Department of Health, was voted down by Labor and the Greens and some of the independent crossbench.
Quite incredible when you think that that excess mortality rate appears to have been consistently high over the five-year pre-covid baseline average. And when you ask the question “Why?” in this building, it gets shut down. Quite extraordinary, quite incredible; but that’s Canberra… that’s Australian Parliament House.
What it doesn’t mean though is that I’ll stop trying because there are plenty of questions… plenty of people that want answers to this, and plenty of people that are still suffering as a result the last five years. So I’m going to keep asking questions…
The UK Covid Inquiry “suppressed evidence on vaccines”
Further to this post…
…illustrating how The Telegraph works for pharma, I noted with interest this recent article…
The Covid Inquiry has been accused of suppressing evidence that called into question the ethics of the vaccine rollout during the pandemic.
Doctors and medical professionals who were asked to submit evidence have criticised the inquiry for failing to publish their witness statements on the jabs rollout during the virus crisis, claiming that their contributions simply disappeared into a “black hole” instead…
Among those mentioned are Dr Ros Jones, convenor of the Children’s Covid Vaccines Advisory Council, Dr Liz Evans, chief executive of the UK Medical Freedom Alliance, and Molly Kingsley, co-chairman of UsForThem.
This recent HART article has links to several statements ignored by the Inquiry:
Four dissenting groups, including HART, requested core participant status for the UK Covid-19 Inquiry Module 4 on vaccines and therapeutics. This was refused but each group was asked to submit a Witness Statement under Rule 9 which we all duly did. Each one of us was initially asked not to publish our statements, as the Inquiry team wished to publish statements contemporaneously as the hearing progressed. We were assured that our statements would be used to inform lines of questioning. However, when the inquiry hearings were postponed from July 2024 to January 2025, we set up the People’s Vaccine Inquiry and published our statements, as we were unwilling to further delay placing all this information in the public domain.
In the event, none of the authors of these statements were called to give oral evidence but even then it was suggested that they might be published at the end of the hearings or at the time of publication of the Module 4 Report.
The Module 4 Report was published in April 2026 and our witness statements have still not appeared on the Inquiry website. We enquired as to why they had not been published and were told, “The Inquiry only publishes witness statements and documents on its website if they are formally adduced during the hearings and/or when the Chair is preparing her report.” In response to further questions from Dr Ros Jones, the legal team graciously replied, “While CCVAC’s witness statement was not formally adduced, we are grateful to you for taking the time to provide it. The Inquiry does not object to CCVAC sharing its witness statement publicly, should it wish to do so.”
Hence we are reposting all four statements here on the HART website as a public record of those who spoke out to raise multiple concerns about the safety and efficacy of these products, and the regulatory and ethical failures. In addition, on the People’s Vaccine Inquiry website is a long and detailed multi-authored statement from Doctors for Patients UK. All the co-authors of this document are clinicians working in front line services throughout 2020-2025, with hugely concerning testimony about the changes they were seeing in their day-to-day work from 2021 onwards. Speaking out on this subject has been at great personal risk to their careers.
That HART article invites readers to judge whether their evidence is irrelevant, giving some example questions to consider:
Is it irrelevant that the vaccines rolled-out were different products to those tested in the clinical trials; or that southern hemisphere deaths started with vaccine roll-out not Covid; or that Covid infection rates and cardiovascular problems were higher in the vaccinated; or that the MHRA missed safety signals?
I was particularly struck by the opening words of Dr Clare Craig’s epic statement:
Not a single member of the British public who received a Covid-19 injection was able to give fully informed consent. The risks were censored, the benefits were falsified and it all occurred under state and corporate coercion. Every single dose administered was a breach of medical ethics and amounts to medical malpractice at a population level. This may seem like an extreme place to start, but it is the evident truth…
The human desire to leave trauma and unhappiness in the rearview mirror and ‘just get on with life’ is another challenge we face. Unless we are prepared to realise and accept the extent of what was enacted on an unsuspecting and trusting public, history is destined to repeat itself…
Say the line… “mRNA vaccines are safe and effective”
Further to these posts…
I was intrigued to see Dr Erica Schwartz (President Trump’s nominee to be Director of the Centers of Disease Control) answering a question from Senator Tammy Baldwin. From 1:40 here
[Senator Baldwin] Dr. Schwartz, do you believe that mRNA vaccines, including the covid-19 vaccine, are safe and effective?
[Dr Schwartz] …Yes, I do believe that mRNA technology is safe and effective.
I don’t know whether this reminds me more of The Simpsons…
…or of part of a vaccine equivalent of some sort of religious creed.
But in any case, in response to this from Senator Angela Alsobrooks…
Aaron Siri called you the queen of mandating vaccines during your time at the Coast Guard. So what is your response to Aaron Siri and other anti-vaccine advocates criticizing you for supporting vaccine mandates?
…Dr Schwartz replied:
…I would love to have a conversation with Aaron Siri. I would love to understand his concerns about vaccines. I would love to have an open and transparent debate.
Here is Siri’s response:
Bring it on… perhaps with some independent scientists too.
Ivermectin prescriptions soaring
Finally, and further to the discussion on ivermectin in various posts, not least in this section of this post…
I was intrigued to see that prescriptions for the “horse medicine” have soared:
In the words of Dr Tess Lawrie of the World Council for Health:
What averaged 33 prescriptions per month in 2020 became 372 prescriptions in 2023, 2,200 prescriptions in October 2024 and is now 11,000 prescriptions! This represents an over 300-fold increase!
The chart may be split into different phases to show how suppressed treatments break through institutional resistance. This is apparently a textbook case — a diffusion curve with a capacity plateau in the middle. The characteristics are:
Innovation (2021–2022): A handful of doctors and patients, operating against official guidance.
Early adoption (2023): The private prescriber network builds, word-of-mouth spreads.
Capacity ceiling (early 2025): The existing network reaches an intermediate capacity limit.
Late adoption (late 2025): Mainstream GPs enter, supported by a US policy shift and less perceived risk.
Normalisation (2026 onwards): Established as part of primary care prescribing.
I am reminded of the story of Australian doctor My Le Trinh:
I am an Australian doctor who has been suspended and harassed by health regulators for 2.5 years simply for prescribing ivermectin…
She tells her story here to Doc Malik:
It’s a long podcast, but one of the most memorable that I have heard. A computer-generated transcript is available here (via the Transcript button).
Previous Updates posts
June: Hot air; “I just couldn’t believe it”; trust in news; two vax updates; car analogy; AI-designed vaccine; Spanish flu again; AlterAI vs Grok
May: Google’s former CEO booed; digital ID developments; Poland, Sweden and the UK; fewer infant deaths in 2020; the tip of the iceberg; recurrent themes; climate change lies; the 1903 Nobel Prize
April: How the intelligence services operate; resilience to war propaganda; smart meters; cash; cardiac and cancer developments; mRNA demise; bring me (more) sunshine; Together rally
March: DBS as a censorship tool; more Wikipedia corruption; Talla context; “cop nights”; disability update; measles coincidence; assisted suicide; the “four olds”; digital ID by the back door; quotes again
Unexpected Turns homepage
The most-read articles can be found here