By Jo Nova

Imagine we were spending $200 million to inject pregnant women and vaccinate babies against RSV, and the real cause of many of the life threatening cases was just low vitamin D?

RSV (Respiratory syncytial virus) is something nearly everyone catches by the time they are two years old. It’s like a bad cold. We’ll go on to catch it every few years for the rest of our lives, and it’s really only a problem for babies and the very old.

In the last week by some odd coincidence, the BBC, ABC and CBC all have stories promoting the idea of saving babies with RSV vaccines which often cost $300 dollars each (USD). The government rollouts are being promoted with free advertising on news programs that pretend to be journalists. But not a single journalist asked the obvious question — if most babies recover just fine, what is different about the babies that struggle. Could it be that low vitamin D puts them at risk?

Two studies suggest that babies with low vitamin D are, by golly, 5 to 10 times more likely to need intensive care.

Back in 2011, Belderbos et al looked at 158 babies and measured the levels of vitamin D in their cord blood and found those with low levels went on to have six times the risk of a severe lung infection compared to babies with normal levels. (Low was <50 nmol/L (20 ng/ml) and normal was 75 nmol/L (30 ng/ml). It was a small study but other studies at the time already showed vitamin D played a major role in stopping the inflammatory responses getting out of control.

By 2022, another study on 125 babies showed that the amount of virus each child had didn’t predict how severe their infection would be, but their vitamin D level when they arrived in hospital did. Those with the lowest vitamin D had a ghastly 11 fold increase in odds of suffering a life threatening illness. (Again low means <50nmol/L (20ng/ml)).

If 20% of babies are deficient in Vitamin D, and the 11 fold risk is not just an artefact, that means about two thirds of babies suffering a life threatening disease are struck down because of their deficiency. Maybe this is a gross overestimate, but where are the studies? Why aren’t our Ministers for Health launching big programs to figure it out? Even if the risk is only 50% more, these are actual babies we’re talking about.

And if we get the MAD misinformation laws, will anyone even be able to ask these questions?

You might think that if our Healthcare system was trying to save babies, rather than generate profits for Big Pharma (or Big Hospitals) the first thing they would do is study and fix the vitamin D deficiencies. It’s not like this is an endangered animal or an exotic disease. It’s not a stretch to say every winter babies are dying because our health departments have little interest in vitamins or saving lives cheaply. To give some idea of how many people this affects — in Ireland during winter about a third of all babies would be classified as deficient. But in sunny-country Australia, it’s hard to even find published numbers. Despite the blazing sun here, about a quarter of adults still have a deficiency, there’s probably plenty to go around in baby-world.

The long term side effects of injecting pregnant women with a new type of therapy are completely unknown. The side effects of higher Vitamin D levels though, correlate with lower rates of cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, asthma, heart disease, dental caries, preeclampsia, autoimmune disease, depression, anxiety, and sleep disorders.  Vitamin D influences over 200 genes — it is a chief meddler of molecules. Not only are deficient babies at risk of going down to RSV in a bad way, they’re at risk of autism spectrum disorder, behavioral disorders, schizophrenia, depression, and multiple sclerosis [Rogers et al].

Vitamin D deficiency may cause as many as 40% of respiratory deaths in older people and one in six dementia cases. People deficient in Vitamin D are 14 times more likely to get severe forms of Covid. Vitamin D reduced intensive care by 80%. Despite all this low-hanging fruit littering the floor of hospitals, and vaporising dollars out of our medicare pot, Ministers apparently don’t care?

In the UK, Ontario and Australia the vaccine is free (or will be by next winter) for pregnant women and people over 75, but you’ll have to pay to get vitamin D (which doesn’t cost much). But you’d think if we have “free $300 injections” we could have free bottles of vitamin D3 at every post office?  In Australia, the government is paying $174 million, they call it “investing”. They argue that otherwise about 12,000 babies will be hospitalized each winter. It only makes sense if we don’t “accidentally” make those babies healthier and keep them out of hospital in the first place.

And since you are wondering, yes, there is a new mRNA vaccine for RSV (by Moderna). There are also a couple of protein based ones.

Where’s the informed choice? Imagine if pregnant women were also  given information on the risks of being low in Vitamin D? At the moment, we’re barely even studying those risks, possibly so Ministers can say “there’s no evidence there is a better alternative.”

REFERENCES

Belderbos ME, Houben ML, Wilbrink B, Lentjes E, Bloemen EM, Jan L et al. Low vitamin D levels linked with RSV infection. Pediatrics 2011;127: e1513–20. – PubMed , Pediatrics, 2011 Jun;127(6):e1513-20. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-3054.

A recent Dutch court decision has highlighted yet another chapter in the ongoing saga of climate litigation. These lawsuits, often celebrated by environmental groups as heroic stands against alleged corporate or governmental indifference, more frequently reveal themselves to be little more than vexatious attempts to impose ideological agendas through the legal system. The Dutch case fits squarely into this pattern, raising questions about the validity of such litigation and its broader consequences.

The Dutch Case: An Overview

In this latest instance, a court in the Netherlands dismissed a climate-related lawsuit brought by activists targeting Shell. The suit alleged that the company had not done enough to reduce carbon emissions and protect the environment. Despite the plaintiffs’ claims of moral urgency, the court found the case insufficiently grounded in legal merit.

This is far from the first instance of activists leveraging the courts to advance their goals, but the Dutch case is emblematic of a deeper trend: the increasing use of climate lawsuits as tools for coercion rather than justice.

The Rise of Vexatious Climate Litigation

The Dutch case is part of a growing global trend of lawsuits aimed at holding corporations or governments “accountable” for climate change. However, many of these cases bear the hallmarks of being frivolous, ideological, or outright manipulative.

• Strategic Exploitation of Legal Loopholes: Plaintiffs often target corporations in jurisdictions with loose standing rules or sympathetic judges. These cases frequently stretch or redefine legal principles, demanding courts take on the role of policymakers.
• Litigation for Show, Not Substance: Such cases often generate massive media coverage, regardless of their legal merits. For activists, winning in the court of public opinion can be more valuable than winning in an actual courtroom.
• Undermining Judicial Integrity: By attempting to insert speculative climate models and projections as evidence, these lawsuits place the judiciary in the precarious position of ruling on matters far outside its expertise.

In the Dutch case, as in others, the goal appears less about achieving meaningful outcomes and more about harassing companies into compliance with activist demands.

A History of Questionable Cases

To understand the Dutch ruling in context, it’s worth examining similar lawsuits that have failed to deliver meaningful results:

1. Juliana v. United States: Touted as a landmark case, a group of young activists sued the U.S. government, alleging constitutional violations for failing to address climate change. While the case garnered massive media attention, it was ultimately dismissed because the judiciary recognized it lacked authority to mandate sweeping policy changes.
2. ExxonMobil and the Rockefeller Funding Nexus: ExxonMobil has faced numerous lawsuits alleging it misled investors about the risks of climate change. However, investigations revealed these lawsuits were often coordinated by ideologically motivated groups, such as the Rockefeller Family Fund, raising questions about their legitimacy.
3. Australian Lawfare: In Australia, environmental groups have used legal challenges to delay mining and infrastructure projects. While framed as environmental justice, these lawsuits have cost billions in economic losses, without significantly advancing environmental goals.

Each of these cases reveals a troubling pattern: lawsuits designed to weaponize the legal system, not to solve problems, but to impose a particular worldview.

The Broader Consequences of Vexatious Lawsuits

These cases are not harmless. They impose significant costs—financial, social, and institutional:

• Economic Costs: Businesses targeted by these lawsuits face steep legal fees and reputational damage, even when cases are ultimately dismissed. These costs are inevitably passed on to consumers, raising prices and stifling innovation.
• Judicial Backlog: Vexatious lawsuits clog court systems, diverting resources from legitimate cases. Courts are not designed to function as substitute legislatures or scientific bodies, yet these cases demand precisely that.
• Chilling Effects on Business: The constant threat of litigation discourages investment and innovation, particularly in industries already grappling with tight margins and regulatory uncertainty.
• Erosion of Trust in the Legal System: When the courts are used as a political tool, public confidence in judicial impartiality declines.

The Dutch case adds yet another log to this growing fire, illustrating how legal systems can be exploited for ideological gain rather than justice.

Climate Activism as Legal Harassment

The rise of these lawsuits reflects a broader trend in modern climate activism: the use of coercive tactics to impose compliance. Whether through public shaming, regulatory lobbying, or vexatious litigation, the goal is the same—to bypass democratic processes and enforce top-down mandates.

The courts, however, are ill-suited to play this role. Climate models, policy trade-offs, and societal priorities are matters for public debate and legislative decision-making, not judicial fiat.

Conclusion: Time to Push Back

The Dutch court’s decision to dismiss this latest climate case should be welcomed as a step in the right direction. It serves as a reminder that the courts cannot and should not be hijacked to serve ideological agendas. However, it is not enough to celebrate isolated victories. Broader reforms are needed to prevent the legal system from being used as a weapon against economic freedom, innovation, and rational governance.

Climate lawsuits like the Dutch case reveal the folly of allowing ideologues to dictate policy through legal harassment. If left unchecked, this trend will do far more harm than good—eroding institutions, stifling progress, and undermining trust in the very systems that activists claim to protect.

H/T charlie

In September 2024 Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, vowed to “take on the blockers, the delayers, the obstructionists” who have opposed the new government’s plans to speed up the UK’s progress towards a clean energy system by the end of the decade.” Those words were uttered at the Energy UK Annual Conference. The Guardian reported as follows:

Also speaking at the conference was Keith Anderson, chief executive of Scottish Power, one of UK’s largest grid operators alongside its business developing renewable energy. He said: “If we want more homes – they need electricity. If we want more low carbon heating and transport – it needs electricity. If we want more jobs, business and industry – they need electricity.”

“It’s not just renewables we need to build,” Anderson added. “We need to undertake the biggest rewiring this country has ever seen to facilitate the wider modernisation of our economy. Our grid needs a major overhaul to reconfigure the electricity motorways to better serve a modern, flexible, greener energy system.”

We can’t say that we weren’t warned. Nothing and nobody are to be allowed to get in the way. A few weeks later the next stage in the programme was revealed, at least so far as concerns renewables infrastructure in Scotland. The UK government has opened a consultation on “Electricity Infrastructure Consenting in Scotland”. But what’s this? Not only does it contain a foreword by Michael Shanks MP, Minister for Energy in the UK Labour Government, it also contains a foreword by Gillian Martin MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy in the SNP Scottish Government. Two parties that routinely slag each other off at Westminster and Holyrood, joined at the hip when it comes to accelerating the industrialisation of Scotland’s rural and wild locations. A truly co-operative effort to speed up the whole wretched and futile process.

Those forewords contain all the usual spin. This, apparently, is about reforming the planning system so that it can better “deliver the critical infrastructure that communities need” (per Mr Shanks). Also per Mr Shanks:

We have worked closely with the Scottish Government to develop these reform proposals, and this has been an exemplar of what can be achieved when two governments work together on an issue of shared interest.

According to Ms Martin: “We appreciate our counterparts in the UK Government for their engagement and collaborative approach throughout this process.” Lest there be any doubt as to what all this is about, she adds: “We are committed to partnering with those at the forefront of the net zero transition.”

As the Scotland Against Spin (SAS) website says:

It is claimed that “The reforms seek to consult communities at an early stage. This is not about making quick decisions, but instead making considered decisions as efficiently as possible. The energy transition is one that will be achieved by cooperation, not coercion, which is why I believe that local communities should be consulted on applications early, influencing them from the outset….These reforms are also not about pushing through inappropriate developments. Our goal is to process applications in a more efficient manner, ensuring they are accepted or declined based on a more streamlined and effective system. But it also says: “The current system is inefficient and unpredictable, providing no certainty on how long consent will take. For those desperate to bring new energy generating assets onto the grid, it presents a barrier to attracting investment and delivering yet more clean energy to homes and businesses.” Our suspicion is that this represents the real agenda underlying this important and potentially very worrying development.

It isn’t all bad, but mostly it is. The proposal that pre-application requirements should be introduced is to be welcomed, although in its current format, the proposal also generates concerns that it will be too much in the hands of developer applicants rather than controlled – as it should be – by the planning authority. As SAS point out:

…responses will be sent only to the applicant – in other words, responses/objections/concerns will not be published on any local authority/SG website and so may effectively be ignored or censured by the applicant. The applicant would be in complete control of the timing, content and administration of the pre application stage, like the fox in charge of the hen house.

Other concerns relate to the lack of a requirement that all such applications should be subject to the requirement to submit an Environmental Impact Assessment; the potential watering down of the process to reduce significantly the scope for public inquiries (currently they are automatically triggered by an objection from a local authority); and particularly a proposal to reduce the procedures (and associated timescales) for appeals. Inevitably, given the way the wind is blowing (no pun intended) under both the Westminster and Holyrood governments, appeals are most likely to be made by local objectors who have watched in dismay as yet another environmentally-damaging renewables project is rubber stamped. And so it is objectors who are most likely to be adversely affected by this proposal – they will have difficulty organising, raising funds, instructing lawyers etc within the proposed 6 weeks appeal period. Requests by campaign groups for a level playing field, with objectors being given assistance to argue their case, have also been ignored.

The final piece of evidence supporting the theory that this is all about steamrollering through the net zero project, making it easier for renewables companies to get what they want more quickly, and harder for objectors to succeed in their objections, is to be found in the absurdly short time period allowed for the consultation process. The UK Government Consultation Principles (which date back to 2013, replacing the Code of Practice on Consultation issued in July 2008) state that:

Timeframes for consultation should be proportionate and realistic to allow stakeholders sufficient time to provide a considered response and where the consultation spans all or part of a holiday period policy makers should consider what if any impact there may be and take appropriate mitigating action. The amount of time required will depend on the nature and impact of the proposal (for example, the diversity of interested parties or the complexity of the issue, or even external events), and might typically vary between two and 12 weeks. The timing and length of a consultation should be decided on a case-by-case basis; there is no set formula for establishing the right length. In some cases there will be no requirement for consultation, depending on the issue and whether interested groups have already been engaged in the policy making process. For a new and contentious policy, 12 weeks or more may still be appropriate. When deciding on the timescale for a given consultation the capacity of the groups being consulted to respond should be taken into consideration.

As SAS say: “This is arguably the most important planning consultation document for years”, certainly in Scotland. Its implications for residents in affected areas, and for UK energy policy generally, are profound. Those affected residents don’t have the resources of the multi-national energy companies, and may need assistance to offer a cogent response to a 37 page consultation document. And yet those in positions of authority have chosen to ignore the complex and contentious nature of the subject-matter – which would suggest a longer rather than a shorter consultation period is appropriate – and have insisted on receiving responses by 29^th November 2024, despite the fact that the consultation was issued only on 28^th October 2024. Not twelve weeks, not ten weeks, not eight weeks. Not even six weeks, but a little over five weeks has been allowed for responses.

We know that Mr Miliband is a man in a hurry, but just as his plans are not what energy security looks like, this consultation is not what democracy looks like. Mr Shanks, in his foreword, claims that “We look forward to hearing your views on these proposals and we hope that, with your input, we can deliver a reformed process that benefits everyone.” If that’s truly the case, then why the unseemly rush?

I urge anyone affected – or potentially affected – by these proposals to read the Consultation Document and to respond within the paltry time allowed. You can rest assured that the giant multi-national renewable companies will be doing so. Silence really isn’t an option.